Even Pacing Is Associated with Faster Finishing Times in Ultramarathon Distance Trail Running—The “Ultra-Trail du Mont Blanc” 2008–2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, there has been an increasing number of investigations analyzing the effects of sex, performance level, and age on pacing in various running disciplines. However, little is known about the impact of those factors on pacing strategies in ultramarathon trail running. This study investigated the effects of age, sex, and performance level on pacing in the UTMB® (Ultra-trail du Mont Blanc) and aimed to verify previous findings obtained in the research on other running disciplines and other ultramarathon races. Data from the UTMB® from 2008 to 2019 for 13,829 race results (12,681 men and 1148 women) were analyzed. A general linear model (two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)) was applied to identify a sex, age group, and interaction effect in pace average and pace variation. A univariate model (one-way ANOVA) was used to identify a sex effect for age, pace average, and pace variation for the fastest men and women. In our study, pace average and a steadier pace were positively correlated. Even pacing throughout the UTMB® correlated with faster finishing times. The average pace depended significantly on sex and age group. When considering the top five athletes in each age group, sex and age group also had significant effects on pace variation. The fastest women were older than the fastest men, and the fastest men were faster than the fastest women. Women had a higher pace variation than men. In male competitors, younger age may be advantageous for a successful finish of the UTMB®. Faster male runners seemed to be younger in ultramarathon trail running with large changes in altitude when compared to other distances and terrains.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".