Pacing and Body Weight Changes During a Mountain Ultramarathon: Sex Differences and Performance

Sex differences in factors affecting ultraendurance performance have become a matter of debate of a growing number of studies (Temesi et al., 2015; Vest et al., 2018). Although there is no clear consensus, it seems that the performance gap between males and females is reduced in ultramarathons compared to shorter endurance events (Hoffman, 2008; Knechtle et al., 2016; Speechly et al., 1996). One of the reasons to explain this fact is that females usually adopt a better pacing strategy in ultraendurance events than males (Sandbakk et al., 2018).

Pacing can be defined as the pattern of power output or speed fluctuation during a competition (Abbiss and Laursen, 2008; Knechtle et al., 2019). An even-pacing pattern, maintaining a much constant submaximal exercise intensity throughout the race (Abbiss and Laursen, 2008), has been associated with best performances in flat ultramarathons (Bossi et al., 2017; Lambert et al., 2004; Renfree et al., 2016; Takayama et al., 2016; Tan et al., 2016). Yet, sustaining a consistent pace in a mountain ultramarathon (MUM) is rather challenging due to wide variations in slope and terrain conditions (Vernillo et al., 2017). Hoffman (2014) analyzed pacing of most successful runners of a 161-km MUM from 1985 through 2013 and confirmed that lower coefficients of variation (CV) in speed were associated with better performances. Similarly, Balducci et al. (2016) expressed the average race speed of each athlete as a percentage of their speed on the first race segment (i.e., initial 19.7 km) and found that this index was inversely correlated with finishing time in a 75-km MUM. However, using GPS-derived data, Kerherve et al. (2016) found no correlations between overall performance and variables of pacing in a 173-km MUM. In fact, the same authors reported an inverse relationship between finishing time and speed loss magnitude in a 106-km MUM (Kerherve et al., 2015). Nevertheless, no previous studies have focused on possible sex differences in pacing adopted during a MUM.

On the other hand, a recent review has shown that ultradistance events (i.e., Ironman triathlons) lead to a moderate state of dehydration (Sousa et al., 2019). However, little is known about how body weight (BW) changes across intermediate sections of ultramarathons. The steepest decrease in BW during a 24-h ultramarathon has been described to occur in the first four hours of the race (Kao et al., 2008). Similarly, Hoffman and Stuempfle (2014) showed that a greater BW loss in a 161-km MUM occurred at the initial 48 km. Moreover, in those studies finishing time was either uncorrelated (Hoffman and Stuempfle, 2014) or inversely correlated with the final BW loss (Kao et al., 2008). Unfortunately, those authors did not report whether serial BW changes were related to speed at the corresponding race segments. Meanwhile, Landman et al. (2012) measured BW at mid-race of a 160-km MUM and reported no relationship between BW loss and speed in this initial 80 km. No other study has assessed intracompetition BW changes during an ultramarathon and its relationship with pacing.

In light of the rising popularity of MUMs and considering the paucity of studies assessing pacing patterns based on relative speed (i.e., percentage of threshold speed obtained in a maximal incremental exercise test) and the objective quantification of sedentary time during the race (i.e., by means of accelerometry), the purpose of our study was three-fold. First, to contribute to existing literature regarding the assessment of possible relationships between pacing-related variables and performance in a MUM; second, we aimed to compare pacing adopted by males and females in a 107-km MUM; and third, we wanted to assess whether pacing-related variables were associated with body weight changes during the race. Our hypotheses were as follows: (1) despite contradictory results in previous studies (Balducci et al., 2016; Hoffman, 2008; Kerherve et al., 2015, 2016), lower variability in race speed might be associated with better finishing times; (2) females would be able to maintain a higher average speed relative to their threshold speed (Speechly et al., 1996); (3) females may show a more stable speed during the race (Sandbakk et al., 2018); (4) body weight loss during the race could be related to speed (Hoffman et al., 2013; Martinez-Navarro et al., 2018).

From the initial sample of 47 participants, 4 participants did not start the race due to injury and 32 athletes successfully completed the race, i.e., 19 males (59%) and 13 females (41%). The finishers/starters ratio for the participants of the present study (i.e. 74.4%) was similar to the ratio when all race participants were considered (73.8%), whereas the average finish time (21 h 23 min ± 3 h 28 min) was somewhat faster when all race participants were considered (20 h 24 min ± 3 h 11 min). Values of the CPET and training-related variables of finishers are displayed in Table 1. Males exhibited a higher BMI (23.59 ± 1.61 vs. 21.75 ± 2.04 kg/m²; p = 0.008; d = 1.05) and largely higher values of VO_2peak (55.79 ± 4.47 vs. 51.53 ± 5.22 ml O₂/kg/min; p = 0.019; d = 0.91), VMAX (16.89 ± 1.48 vs. 14.44 ± 1.35 km/h; p < 0.001; d = 1.75), V_VT1 (11.77 ± 1.17 vs. 10.68 ± 0.97 km/h; p = 0.010; d = 1.01) and V_VT2 (13.78 ± 1.21 vs. 12.51 ± 1.3 km/h; p = 0.008; d = 1.04). Conversely, any significant sex differences were identified neither in age nor in training-related variables, although weekly training volume was nearly significantly greater among males (76.21 ± 25.38 vs. 61.46 ± 13.26 km; p = 0.065; d = 0.70).

On the other hand, no significant sex differences were found in SPEED_ABS (8.17 ± 1.66 vs. 7.38 ± 0.78 km/h; p = 0.122; d = 0.59) and SPEED_VT2 (59.01 ± 8.78 vs. 59.08 ± 4.25 %; p = 0.977; d = 0.01). Conversely, males developed a higher SPEED_NONSED (8.62 ± 1.51 vs. 7.57 ± 0.74 km/h; p = 0.028; d = 0.86) and their BW loss was greater (4.37 ± 1.77 vs. -3.01 ± 1.96%; p = 0.048; d = 0.77). The difference in SedTimeABS approached statistical significance (64.44 ± 48.20 vs. 36.38 ± 33.72 min; p = 0.082; d = 0.67) and the difference in SedTimeREL was indeed significant (4.72 ± 2.91 vs. 2.62 ± 2.14 %; p = 0.035; d = 0.83). On the contrary, no sex differences were observed in the IP (0.86 ± 0.09 vs. 0.87 ± 0.05; p = 0.765; d = 0.11) and CV (19.53 ± 5.50 vs. 19.69 ± 4.68; p = 0.930; d = 0.03).

Univariate contrast analysis showed a significant effect for 'Race segment' on SpeedABS [F = 223.329; p < 0.01; η2 partial = 0.88], SpeedNONSED [F = 220.558; p < 0.01; η2 partial = 0.88], Speed_VT2 [F = 220.858; p < 0.01; η2 partial = 0.88], SedTimeABS [F = 15.443; p < 0.01; η2 partial = 0.35] and BW [F = 87.974; p < 0.01; η2 partial = 0.76]. On the other hand, ‘Sex’ factor significantly affected SpeedNONSED [F = 5.361; p = 0.028; η2 partial = 0.16] and their effect approached statistical significance on SedTimeABS [F = 3.243; p = 0.082; η2 partial = 0.10]. Meanwhile, 'Race segment x Sex’ interaction only significantly affected SedTimeABS [F = 2.901; p = 0.039; η2 partial = 0.09]. Bonferroni adjusted pairwise comparisons showed that males spent more SedTimeABS than females in the first (4.56 ± 2.97 vs. 1.46 ± 1.45 min; p = 0.002; d=1.29), second (31.67 ± 27.28 vs. 11.84 ± 10.71 min; p = 0.019; d = 0.92) and third segment (7.22 ± 6.07 vs. 2.31 ± 2.02; p = 0.009; d = 1.04) of the race (Figure 1). At the same time, males ran at a higher SpeedNONSED in the first (10.44 ± 1.62 vs. 9.27 ± 1.16 km/h; p = 0.034; d = 0.83), second (8.67 ± 1.48 vs. 7.63 ± 0.94 km/h; p = 0.034; d = 0.83), third (8.59 ± 1.62 vs. 7.54 ± 0.75 km/h; p = 0.040; d = 0.80), and fourth segment of the race (6.96 ± 1.51 vs. 6.01 ± 0.60 km/h; p = 0.039; d = 0.80) (Figure 2). Regarding SpeedABS, the difference between males and females only approached statistical significance in the first (10.22 ± 1.64 vs. 9.23 ± 1.15 km/h; p = 0.069; d = 0.70) and fourth segment of the race (6.54 ± 1.60 vs. 5.71 ± 0.75 km/h; p = 0.095; d = 0.64); whereas no sex differences were identified at any race section in Speed_VT2 (Figure 3) and BW (Figure 4).

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Results from the first subset of correlational analyses are presented in Table 2. BW significantly and moderately correlated in the first race segment with SPEED_ABS (r = -0.43; p = 0.021), SPEED_VT2 (r = -0.46; p = 0.012) and SPEED_NONSED (r = -0.43; p = 0.020). Similarly, BW was significantly and moderately associated with SPEED_ABS (r = - 0.46; p = 0.009), SPEED_VT2 (r = -0.50; p = 0.003) and SPEED_NONSED (r = -0.45; p = 0.010) in the fourth race section. However, no significant relationships were identified between BW and pacing-related variables in the second and third race segments. Considering the whole race, BW again correlated with SPEED_ABS (r = -0.37; p = 0.034), SPEED_VT2 (r = - 0.35; p = 0.049) and SPEED_NONSED (r = -0.38; p = 0.034). Meanwhile, finishing time was associated with the CV (r = 0.45; p = 0.010), IP (r = -0.63; p < 0.001) and SedTimeABS (r = 0.64; p < 0.001).

The present study was aimed at comparing pacing adopted by males and females in a 107-km MUM and assessing whether pacing-related variables were associated with intracompetition BW changes and performance. Our results showed that lower variability in race speed and less sedentary time were related with better finishing times, and BW loss in the initial and final sections of the race was correlated with absolute and relative speed, thus confirming our first and fourth hypothesis. However, contrary to our expectations, females were not able to complete the MUM at a higher average speed relative to their threshold speed and no sex differences were found either in the pacing pattern adopted or among the speed variability indexes (IP and CV). Nevertheless, females took advantage of spending less sedentary time during the race than males.

Previous studies have displayed contrasting results regarding a possible relationship between speed variability and performance in the MUM, with some investigations demonstrating a positive association (Balducci et al., 2016; Hoffman, 2014), while others showing no correlation or even an inverse relationship (Kerherve et al., 2015, 2016). The correlation we found between the CV and IP with finishing time thus contribute to the existing literature and adds further evidence supporting the thesis that a more regular pacing pattern with a lesser difference in speed between the initial and the final stage of the race is related to better performance in MUMs, as it has been largely proved for flat ultramarathons (Bossi et al., 2017; Lambert et al., 2004; Renfree et al., 2016; Takayama et al., 2016; Tan et al., 2016).

On the other hand, the positive relationship between average SPEED_ABS and SPEED_VT2 with BW loss confirmed the results of several previous studies on flat ultramarathons and MUMs (Hoffman et al., 2013; Kao et al., 2008; Martinez-Navarro et al., 2018). Indeed, it has been recently argued that BW losses between 1.9-5% seem advisable to sustain body water balance and maintain euhydration during ultramarathons lasting for approximately 25-30 h (Hoffman et al., 2018). In that line, Mueller et al. (2013) demonstrated that BW loss following an Ironman was due to a 28% loss in fat mass and a 72% loss in lean body mass, the latter being attributable to a loss of glycogen, as fuel for energy production, and the corresponding loss of body water. Therefore, considering the results from Mueller et al. (2013) and the positive correlations found between SPEED_ABS and SPEED_VT2 with relative BW at those race segments where BW loss was greater (i.e., the first and the last section of the race, Figure 4), it seems that intracompetition BW loss during MUMs mainly reflect energy expenditure and it is indicative of superior performance (Landman et al., 2012; Martinez-Navarro et al., 2018; Mueller et al., 2013).

The absence of sex differences in the IP and CV, along with the similar pacing pattern adopted by males and females (Figure 2 and 3), suggest that females did not take advantage of performing a more even pacing strategy during the race. Neither females ran at a higher Speed_VT2 than males. This disagrees with the study of Speechly et al. (1996), in which female runners were able to sustain a greater fraction of their VO_2max during a marathon and a 90-km race compared to their male counterparts. Further studies are warranted to ascertain why the performance gap between males and females is reduced in MUMs compared to shorter endurance events. Regarding sex differences in pacing, Renfree et al. (2016) reported that females showed less speed variability than males during a 100-km race. Likewise, it was consistently demonstrated that females maintained a more regular pace in road marathons, even when controlling for training experience and the performance level (Deaner et al., 2015). Conversely, Bossi et al. (2017) revealed no sex differences in the pacing pattern adopted in a 24-h running race. Therefore, it could be that the longer and the more uneven the race is (i.e., 24-h vs. 100-km and MUMs vs. flat ultramarathons), the lesser the sex differences in the pacing pattern adopted.

Our results also showed that females spent less sedentary time during the MUM than males (Figure 1). At the same time, the amount of sedentary time correlated with finishing time. Hence, despite the absence of sex differences in classic pacing-related variables, our results suggest that females probably benefited from stopping less time at aid stations, and this could be also considered to constitute a better pacing strategy. In fact, SpeedABS was not significantly different between male and female runners, whereas SpeedNONSED was. Besides, males reached significantly larger values of VO_2peak, V_MAX, V_VT1 and V_VT2 at the CPET, while the difference in finishing times was not significant. In former studies, total time stopped (measured with a GPS) was found to be inversely correlated with performance in a 106-km MUM (Kerherve et al., 2015), although not in a 173-km MUM (Kerherve et al., 2016). Then, we could assume that reducing time at aid stations is of greater importance in MUMs of about 100-km length, but not so much in longer races. Meanwhile, Knechtle et al. (2019) reported that females spent less time than males on Ironman transitions. Nonetheless, transition times in Ironman events usually represent about 1% of the total race time (Knechtle et al., 2019), whereas in our race sedentary time was 3.85 ± 2.85% of the total race time.

In summary, spending less time at aid stations seems to constitute a good pacing strategy in MUMs of about 100-km length. At the same time, we reinforced the notion that smaller speed variability in MUMs was associated with better performance, as this has been largely proved for flat ultramarathons. Lastly, our results suggest that BW changes during ultraendurance events should be analyzed in conjunction with running speed fluctuations. Thus, greater BW losses could be expected among faster runners and during the faster sections of those races. Notwithstanding, there are some limitations in our study which should be acknowledged. We failed to record fluid and food ingested by runners at the aid stations and during the race. In addition, we could only collect HR data from a reduced number of participants so HR-based energy expenditure estimations could not be performed. Therefore, further studies overcoming these limitations are necessary to confirm our findings.