My BA Sports Studies Dissertation – the Abridged Versionl

Below is an abridged version of my BA Sports Studies dissertation.  In an effort to expand my readership (I imagined 99% of all dissertations has had just two readers: the reader and their dissertation supervisor), I have compressed 11,809 words into just 802 words for your enjoyment. 

The Effect of Perceived Finishing Distance as Opposed to Actual Finishing Distance on Pacing Strategies in Self-Paced Simulated Treadmill Trials – the ABRIDGED Version

1Introduction/ Literature Review

Ulmer (1986, 1996) talks about a pacing model known as .  An important aspect in this pacing model when judging an appropriate pace is the finishing distance (or duration), i.e. how far there is to go (or how long there is to go).  From everyday observation and experience, an athlete would probably run a little quicker in a 1km run than in a 10km run, just because the athlete knows there is longer to go and thus need to run at a slower pace.  So the question which this dissertation tries to answer is whether perceived finishing distance determines pacing strategies rather than actual finishing distance.  That is, if you feel you are running 5km, will you pace yourself according to 5km despite the fact it may be 4km or 6km?

2Methodology

Pacing strategies and performance responses of 8 runners are determined during 6 simulated trials conducted on a motor-driven treadmill.  All subjects are told the purpose of the dissertation is how distances affect pacing strategies.  After a familiarisation trial (TT1) of 5km, subjects performed 3 randomly ordered trials of 4km (TT2), 5km (TT3) and 6km (TT4) perceived to be5km.  The next two trials were randomly ordered distances of 4km (TT5) and 6km (TT6), which were known to the subjects.  The only feedback given to the subjects was the percentage of course completed.

3Results and Discussion  

Although there was a significant difference in performance times between the trials perceived to be 5km (TT2-4) (

Figure 3‑1

), there was no difference in average course speed (

Figure 3‑2

), HR or RPE.  This is remarkable since the difference between the shortest and longest trials is 2km (33% difference in distance).  Put another way, the unknown 6km trial is 150% of the unknown 4km trial, but subjects are still running at a similar pace in both trials.  This suggests that perceived finishing distance is more pertinent in determining pacing strategies than actual finishing distance, which supports the hypothesis.  However, it is not known whether subjects do actually run faster or slower when the shorter or longer distances is known.  

This is upon the assumption that subjects will pace faster in the known shorter course to arrange their resources more effectively according to the shorter finishing distance.  Similarly, it is assumed that subjects will pace slower in the known longer course to arrange their resources more effectively for optimal performance.  So comparing the unknown and known 4km trials (TT2 vs. TT5), there was no significant difference in performance times, average course speed, HR or RPE.  There was also no difference in performance times, average course speed and RPE between the unknown and known 6k trials (TT4 vs. TT6), although there was a significant difference in HR.  T

his suggests that perceived finishing distance does not determine pacing strategies.

The two sets of comparisons contradict each other so an alternative explanation is needed.  This dissertation does support the hypothesis that the perceived finishing distance is more pertinent than actual finishing distance vis-à-vis pacing strategies.  The results show that observational differences between the unknown and known 4km and 6km trials are emerging in addition to the significant difference in HR during the 6km trials.  Subjects are running slightly faster when the shorter distance was known as compared to the same distance perceived to be longer (

Figure 3‑3

).  Conversely, subjects run slower when the longer distance was known as compared to the same distance perceived to be shorter (

Figure 3‑4

).  The results were also affected by a number of limitations which may have prevented the significant difference to actualise.  The non-significance of the result may also be due to the fact that the body cannot discriminate between the range of distances or duration used in the study (4-6km or 17-27 min).  An increased range of distance may be needed to elicit a significant response, perhaps a 5±1.5km range.  Despite constructing a case for perceived finishing distance, it is acknowledge that the observational differences may not be reproducible with further studies and observational differences are not significant differences. 

4Conclusion

From the results in the first comparison of the study and the observational differences in the second comparison of the study, the dissertation supports the hypothesis that perceived finishing distance determines pacing strategies rather than actual finishing distance on the treadmill in trials lasting 17-27 min.  This is despite the fact that the second comparisons did not show this in this dissertation but attributions for this is given.