Exercise intensity during ultramarathons (UM) is expected to be regulated as a result of the development of psycho-physiological strain and in anticipation of perceived difficulties (duration, topography). The aim of this study was to investigate the dynamics of speed, heart rate and perceived exertion during a long trail UM in a mountainous setting.
Fifteen participants were recruited from competitors in a 106 km trail mountain UM with a total elevation gain and loss of 5870 m. Speed and gradient, heart rate (HR) and ratings of perceived exertion (dissociated between the general [RPEGEN] and knee extensor fatigue [RPEKE] and collected using a voice recorder) were measured during the UM. Self-selected speed at three gradients (level, negative, positive), HR, RPEGEN and RPEKE were determined for each 10% section of total event duration (TED).
The participants completed the event in 18.3 ± 3.0 h, for a total calculated distance of 105.6 ± 1.8 km. Speed at all gradients decreased, and HR at all gradients significantly decreased from 10% to 70%, 80% and 90%, but not 100% of TED. RPEGEN and RPEKE increased throughout the event. Speed increased from 90% to 100% of TED at all gradients. Average speed was significantly correlated with total time stopped (r = -.772; p = .001; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.15, -0.39) and the magnitude of speed loss (r = .540; p = .038; 95% CI = -1.04, -0.03), but not with the variability of speed (r = -.475; p = .073; 95% CI = -1.00, 0.05).
Participants in a mountain UM event combined positive pacing strategies (speed decreased until 70-90% of TED), an increased speed in the last 10% of the event, a decrease in HR at 70-90% of TED, and an increase in RPEGEN and RPEKE in the last 30% of the event. A greater speed loss and less total time stopped were the factors associated with increased total performance. These results could be explained by theoretical perspectives of a complex regulatory system modulating motor drive in anticipation of perceived difficulties such as elevation changes.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 December 2015.
All research outputs
#13,758,856
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#111,576
of 194,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,472
of 389,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,473
of 4,936 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,874 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 389,451 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,936 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
