sports
Article
Physiological and Race Pace Characteristics of
Medium and Low-Level Athens Marathon Runners
Aristides Myrkos 1, Ilias Smilios 1,*
, Eleni Maria Kokkinou 1, Evangelos Rousopoulos 2*
and
Helen Douda 1
1
School of Physical Education and Sport Science, Democritus University of Thrace, 69100 Komotini, Greece;
aris7tefaa@gmail.com (A.M.); ekokkino@phyed.duth.gr (E.M.K.); edouda@phyed.duth.gr (H.D.)
2
Ergoscan Physical Performance Evaluation Center, Ionias 110, 17456 Alimos, Greece; vrousso@gmail.com
*
Correspondence: ismilios@phyed.duth.gr; Tel.: +30-2531039723
Received: 6 July 2020; Accepted: 19 August 2020; Published: 21 August 2020


Abstract: This study examined physiological and race pace characteristics of medium- (ﬁnish
time < 240 min) and low-level (ﬁnish time > 240 min) recreational runners who participated in a
challenging marathon route with rolling hills, the Athens Authentic Marathon. Fifteen athletes (age:
42 ± 7 years) performed an incremental test, three to nine days before the 2018 Athens Marathon,
to determine maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max), maximal aerobic velocity (MAV), energy cost of
running (ECr) and lactate threshold velocity (vLTh), and were analyzed for their pacing during the
race. Moderate- (n = 8) compared with low-level (n = 7) runners had higher (p < 0.05) VO2 max
(55.6 ± 3.6 vs. 48.9 ± 4.8 mL·kg−1·min−1), MAV (16.5 ± 0.7 vs. 14.4 ± 1.2 km·h−1) and vLTh (11.6 ± 0.8
vs. 9.2 ± 0.7 km·h−1) and lower ECr at 10 km/h (1.137 ± 0.096 vs. 1.232 ± 0.068 kcal·kg−1·km−1).
Medium-level runners ran the marathon at a higher percentage of vLTh (105.1 ± 4.7 vs. 93.8 ± 6.2%)
and VO2 max (79.7 ± 7.7 vs. 68.8 ± 5.7%). Low-level runners ran at a lower percentage (p < 0.05) of
their vLTh in the 21.1–30 km (total ascent/decent: 122 m/5 m) and the 30–42.195 km (total ascent/decent:
32 m/155 m) splits. Moderate-level runners are less aﬀected in their pacing than low-level runners
during a marathon route with rolling hills. This could be due to superior physiological characteristics
such as VO2 max, ECr, vLTh and fractional utilization of VO2 max. A marathon race pace strategy
should be selected individually according to each athlete’s level.
Keywords: endurance; aerobic performance; lactate threshold; running economy; maximal oxygen
consumption; oxygen fractional utilization; running
1. Introduction
Marathon running is one of the most demanding races which requires well-organized mental and
physical preparation [1]. Today, marathon races have turned into very large events where thousands
of elite, high-level and recreational athletes participate in this 42.195 m race [2–4]. For many years,
the physiological demands of a marathon as well as the physiological characteristics of top-class athletes
were examined by researchers [5–11]. It is known that the most important parameters to sustain the
highest possible running velocity over a marathon are the maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max), a high
fractional utilization of VO2 max and the energy cost of running (ECr) [7,12,13]. These parameters
explain 70% of the variance of the average running speed sustained during a marathon race [6,7]
and are good indicators of the endurance performance of individuals of diﬀerent ages, genders and
disciplines [1]. A typical VO2 max value for male top-class marathoners is about 70–85 mL/kg/min,
for low-level athletes around 65 mL/kg/min and for recreational runners about 51–58 mL/kg/min [14–16].
Additionally, oxygen fractional utilization at lactate threshold (LTh) intensity, the point where blood
lactate concentrations increase from baseline, is higher for top-class marathoners compared with
Sports 2020, 8, 116; doi:10.3390/sports8090116
www.mdpi.com/journal/sports
Sports 2020, 8, 116
2 of 10
low-level athletes (65–80% vs. 50–80% of VO2 max, respectively) and is also higher at the lactate
turn-point (LTP), the point where an abrupt increase in blood lactate is observed (85–90% vs. 80–85%
of VO2 max, respectively) [6,11,12,17,18].
Few studies have examined in more detail the physiological characteristics of recreational marathon
runners, with ﬁnishing times >3 h, and how these characteristics aﬀect performance in this group of
runners. It was shown that the better the level of recreational marathoners, the higher the VO2 max as
well as the velocity and the VO2 at LTh [2,19]. No diﬀerences were observed between the diﬀerent
level of runners in the LTh expressed as a percentage of VO2 max and the oxygen cost of running at
LTh [2]. Regarding medium- and low-level recreational runners, however, no data exist about the
correspondence of race pace on the blood lactate curve, the fractional utilization of VO2 max at race
pace and if these diﬀer according to the performance ability of the runners.
Most of the studies examined runners who participated in a marathon ran on a ﬂat terrain
where they could sustain a relatively stable pace till the end of the race, although the lower the
level of the runners, the higher the variability in race pace [20]. The peculiarity of the terrain could
be an external factor that may aﬀect the physiological and race pace characteristics of a marathon
race. The terrain at one of the most famous and challenging marathons in the world, the Athens
Authentic Marathon, is characterized by rolling hills and includes the toughest uphill climb of any
major marathon. The total ascent is 317 m (51.2% of the route is uphill), the total descent is 262 m
(40.5% of the route is downhill) and the steepest grading ranges from −6.2 to 3.8% [21,22]. It is possible
that the diﬃculty of the route may aﬀect diﬀerently the race pace characteristics of medium- and
low-level recreational runners. A runner with a faster pace will cross the hill segments in a shorter
amount of time compared with a slower runner, altering probably the physiological requirements of
the run. Therefore, recreational runners of diﬀerent levels may run the Athens Marathon at a rate
corresponding to diﬀerent percentages of aerobic performance parameters. This may lead athletes
and coaches to over- or underestimate the potential performance and to the determination of a false
race pace strategy. Therefore, it would be useful to examine which are the physiological and race pace
characteristics of medium- and low-level recreational athletes participating in the Athens Marathon
and if they adopt diﬀerent pace characteristics in relation to their physiological proﬁle. Based on the
above, the aim of the present study was to compare the physiological and race pace characteristics
of medium- (ﬁnish time < 240 min) and low-level (ﬁnish time > 240 min) recreational runners who
participated in the Athens Marathon.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
Fifteen recreational marathon runners (age: 42 ± 7 years, height: 174.9 ± 6.5 cm and body
mass: 72.8 ± 6.9 kg) volunteered to take part in the study. All participants were healthy and ran
approximately 1–2 years on a systematic basis with a structured program with an average weekly load
of 50–60 km. Based on their ﬁnishing time at the Athens Marathon 2018, athletes were divided into a
moderate-level group, with ﬁnishing times < 240 min (n = 8), and a low-level group with ﬁnishing
times > 240 min (n = 7). Before the start of the study, the institutional review board committee approved
the experimental protocol in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration.
2.2. Maximal Incremental Test
Three to nine days before participation in the Athens Marathon 2018 race, participants performed
a maximal incremental test on a treadmill (Technogym run race 1200, Italy) for the determination of
VO2 max, maximum aerobic velocity (MAV), maximum heart rate (HRmax), the relationship between
blood lactate concentration and running velocity, oxygen consumption and running velocity, heart rate
and running velocity, and the energy cost of running.
Sports 2020, 8, 116
3 of 10
The protocol started at 7 km·h−1 and was increased by 1.5 km·h−1 every 3 min until volitional
exhaustion. Treadmill grade was set at 1% throughout the protocol. Gas exchange was measured by
the open circuit Douglas bag method as described by Cooke (2009). The subject breathed through a
low-resistance 2-way Hans-Rudolph 2700 B valve (Shawnee, OK, USA). The concentrations of CO2
and O2 in the expired air were measured by using the Hi-tech (GIR 250) combined Oxygen and
Carbon Dioxide Analyzer. The gas analyzers were calibrated continuously against standardized gases
(15.35% O2, 5.08% CO2 and 100% N2). Expired volume was measured by means of a dry gas meter
(Harvard) previously calibrated against standard air ﬂow with a 3 L syringe. Barometric pressure
and gas temperature were recorded and respiratory gas exchange data for each work load (i.e., VO2,
VCO2 and VE) were determined based on the computations described by Cooke [23] when VEatps,
FECO2 and FEO2 are known. The highest VO2 value obtained during a 30-sec time period during
the incremental exercise test was recorded as the subject’s
.
VO2max. HR was continuously measured
telemetrically (Polar RS400) and the highest 10 sec value was regarded as maximal. The test was
considered as maximal when at least 3 of the following criteria were achieved: (a) visual exhaustion
of the participants, (b) a plateau in oxygen consumption (<2 mL kg−1·min−1) despite an increase
in running velocity, (c) maximal HR higher than 90% of the predicted maximum (220-age) and (d)
maximum respiratory exchange ratio > 1.1. MAV was calculated using the following formula: MAV
(km·h−1) = Velocity of the last completed stage + (seconds run at last stage/180).
2.3. LTh and LTP Determination
At the end of each stage during the incremental test, approximately 0.3 µL of whole blood was
collected from the ﬁngertip and immediately analyzed for lactate concentration with a portable analyzer
(Lactate Pro 2, Arkray Factory Inc., Koka-Shi, Japan) using an enzymatic-amperometric method. The
individual relationships between blood lactate concentrations and running velocities were determined
using an exponential model: y = a + b × exp(x/c), where y = lactate concentration, x = running
velocity and a, b and c are constants. The LTh and the LTP were identiﬁed as the velocities (km·h−1)
at which blood lactate concentrations were increased by 0.3 and 1.5 mmol·L−1 from baseline values,
respectively. Furthermore, LTh and LTP were expressed relative to MAV (%MAV) units, and based on
the relationship between VO2 and running velocity were also expressed in absolute (mL·kg−1·min−1)
and relative (%VO2 max) VO2 max values.
2.4. Energy Cost of Running
The gas exchange data (VO2, VCO2) collected during the ﬁnal 30 s of every 3-min stage up to the
previous stage from the LTP were used for the calculations of the caloric cost of running. Substrate
oxidation rate (g·min−1) was estimated using nonprotein respiratory quotient equations [24]:
Fat oxidation (g·min−1) = 1.6947 × VO2 (L·min−1) − 1.7012 × VCO2 (L·min−1)
Carbohydrate oxidation (g·min−1) = 4.5851 × VCO2 (L·min−1) − 3.22259 × VO2 (L·min−1)
The energy produced from each substrate was calculated by assuming an energy equivalent for
1 g of fat and carbohydrate of 9.75 and 4.07 kcal, respectively [25]. Total ECr was quantiﬁed from the
sum of these values and was expressed in kcal·kg−1·km−1. The energy cost of running at 10 km/h and
at the velocities corresponding to LTh and marathon race pace were estimated from the relationship
between exergy cost and running velocity derived from the incremental test.
All the physiological data were analyzed after the completion of the marathon race to avoid any
pacing strategies from the participants and their coaches based on the results of testing.
2.5. Route Characteristics and Race Pace Analysis
The proﬁle of the Athens Marathon route includes rolling uphills and downhills. More speciﬁcally,
when calculated in 450 m intervals, the total ascent, total descent, the percent of uphill distance,
the percent of downhill distance and the steepest uphill and downhill, respectively, are for: (a) the total
route: 317 m, 262 m, 51.2%, 40.5%, 3.8% and −6.2%, (b) the 0–10 km split: 19 m, 36 m, 36.4%, 50%, 1.3%
Sports 2020, 8, 116
4 of 10
and −2.0%, (c) the 10–21.1 km split: 143 m, 66 m, 66.7%, 25%, 3.6% and −6.2%, (d) the 21.1–30 km split:
122 m, 5 m, 95%, 5%, 3.3% and −1.1% and (e) the 30–42.195 km split: 32 m, 155 m, 15.4%, 76.9%, 3.8%
and −5.1% [22].
Finishing time and split times for each participant were exported from the oﬃcial results posted
on the site of the organization [21]. The average running velocity of each runner was calculated by
dividing marathon distance to the time needed to complete the race. Race pace was expressed as a
percentage of VO2 max (index of fractional utilization of VO2 max), MAV and the velocities at LTh
(vLTh) and LTP (vLTP).
To determine the diﬀerences between the two groups in pacing during the race, average running
velocities for the distances of 0–10, 10–21.1, 21.1–30 and 30–42.195 km were calculated by dividing the
distance of the split to the time to complete the split. For the analysis of the data, mean velocity of each
split was expressed as a percentage of the vLTh. The velocity at LTh was selected as a reference point
because for the whole sample, average marathon running velocity was equal to vLTh.
2.6. Statistical Analysis
All data are presented as means ± SD. Normality of the distribution of the data was examined
with the Shapiro–Wilk’s W test. A t-test was used to examine the diﬀerences among the medium-level
and the low-level runners in the physiological parameters and race pace characteristics measured.
A two-way analysis of variance with repeated measures in the second factor was used to examine the
diﬀerences between the two groups in the mean velocity of each running split (0–10, 10–21.1, 21.1–30
and 30–42.195 km). Signiﬁcant diﬀerences between means were located with the Newman–Keuls
post hoc test. Pearson product moment correlations were used to determine the association between
marathon time and the measured parameters. The statistical signiﬁcance level was set for all tests at
p < 0.05.
3. Results
3.1. Physiological Characteristics
Medium-level runners had higher (p < 0.05) VO2 max, MAV, LTh (km·h−1), LTh (%MAV), LTh
(mL·kg−1·min−1), LTP (km·h−1), LTP (%MAV) and LTP (mL·kg−1·min−1) than the low-level group.
There were no signiﬁcant diﬀerences (p > 0.05) between groups at HRmax, LTh (%VO2 max) and LTP
(%VO2 max) (Table 1). Medium-level runners had lower ECr at 10 km·h−1 (p = 0.05), at vLTh (p = 0.07)
and at marathon race pace (p = 0.09) (Table 1).
Table 1. Physiological and race pace characteristics of the medium-level, the low-level and of all runners.
Medium-Level
Runners
Low-Level
Runners
All Runners
p Value between
Groups
Age (years)
41.00 ± 7.69
42.14 ± 7.20
41.53 ± 7.22
0.36
Body height (m)
175.00 ± 6.44
174.71 ± 7.06
174.87 ± 6.49
0.94
Body mass (kg)
72.50 ± 6.58
73.17 ± 7.91
72.81 ± 6.97
0.86
VO2 max
(mL·kg−1·min−1)
55.56 ± 3.62
48.85 ± 4.77
52.43 ± 5.32
0.01
MAV (km·h−1)
16.45 ± 0.74
14.39 ± 1.24
15.49 ± 1.44
0.01
HRmax (b·min−1)
178.25 ± 9.54
183.71 ± 9.25
180.80 ± 9.5
0.28
vLTh (km·h−1)
11.58 ± 0.81
9.22 ± 0.72
10.48 ± 1.42
0.01
vLTP (km·h−1)
13.6 ± 0.87
11.1 ± 0.8
12.43 ± 1.52
0.01
vLT1% (%MAV)
70.37 ± 3.9
64.25 ± 4.15
67.51 ± 5.00
0.01
vLT2% (%MAV)
82.7 ± 4.83
77.37 ± 4.52
80.21 ± 5.29
0.05
Sports 2020, 8, 116
5 of 10
Table 1. Cont.
Medium-Level
Runners
Low-Level
Runners
All Runners
p Value between
Groups
VO2 LTh
(mL·kg−1·min−1)
41.76 ± 1.81
35.11 ± 2.80
38.65 ± 4.10
0.01
VO2 LTP
(mL·kg−1·min−1)
48.04 ± 2.41
40.80 ± 3.78
44.66 ± 4.80
0.01
%VO2 LTh (%VO2 max)
75.31 ± 3.64
72.14 ± 5.87
73.83 ± 4.91
0.22
%VO2 LTP (%VO2 max)
86.59 ± 3.90
83.63 ± 4.08
85.21 ± 4.13
0.17
ECr 10 km·h−1
(kcal·kg−1·km−1)
1.137 ± 0.096
1.232 ± 0.068
1.181 ± 0.096
0.05
ECr vLTh
(kcal·kg−1·km−1)
1.157 ± 0.079
1.232 ± 0.066
1.192 ± 0.081
0.07
ECr Race Pace
(kcal·kg−1·km−1)
1.160 ± 0.083
1.232 ± 0.068
1.194 ± 0.082
0.09
Race pace (km·h−1)
12.14 ± 0.60
8.63 ± 0.64
10.50 ± 1.91
0.01
Race Pace (%MAV)
73.82 ± 2.60
60.11 ± 3.13
67.42 ± 7.59
0.01
Race Pace (%vLTh)
105.08 ± 4.71
93.80 ± 6.20
99.82 ± 7.84
0.01
Race Pace (%vLTP)
89.45 ± 4.47
77.92 ± 6.14
84.07 ± 7.85
0.01
Race Pace (%HRmax)
83.91 ± 5.8
77.41 ± 5.40
80.87 ± 6.37
0.04
Race Pace (%VO2 max)
79.74 ± 7.65
68.80 ± 5.73
74.63 ± 8.68
0.01
HRmax: maximum heart rate, MAV: maximal aerobic velocity, vLTh: velocity (km·h−1) at lactate threshold, vLTP:
velocity (km·h−1) at lactate turn-point, ECr: energy cost of running.
3.2. Race Pace Characteristics
Medium-level runners had, by design, a lower (p < 0.05) marathon time (209.0 ± 10.4 min, range:
194–225 min) than the low-level runners (289.7 ± 25.1 min, range: 260–328 min). Marathon ﬁnishing
time was not related to the number of days between the maximal incremental test and the race day
(Figure 1). Medium-level runners had a higher (p < 0.05) race pace expressed as %MAV, %vLTh, %vLTP,
%VO2 max and %HRmax (Table 1). Medium- and low-level runners had a similar (p > 0.05) race
pace (expressed as %vLTh) at the ﬁrst two running splits (0–10 and 10–21.1 km). However, low-level
runners had a lower (p < 0.05) race pace at the last two splits (21.1–30 and 30–42.195 km) compared to
the medium-level runners (Figure 2).
Sports 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 
5 of 10 
%VO2 LTP (%VO2 
max) 
86.59 ± 3.90 
83.63 ± 4.08 
85.21 ± 4.13 
0.17 
ECr 10 km·h−1  
(kcal·kg−1·km−1) 
1.137 ± 0.096 
1.232 ± 0.068 
1.181 ± 
0.096 
0.05 
ECr vLTh  
(kcal·kg−1·km−1) 
1.157 ± 0.079 
1.232 ± 0.066 
1.192 ± 
0.081 
0.07 
ECr Race Pace  
(kcal·kg−1·km−1) 
1.160 ± 0.083 
1.232 ± 0.068 
1.194 ± 
0.082 
0.09 
Race pace (km·h−1) 
12.14 ± 0.60 
8.63 ± 0.64 
10.50 ± 1.91 
0.01 
Race Pace (%MAV) 
73.82 ± 2.60 
60.11 ± 3.13 
67.42 ± 7.59 
0.01 
Race Pace (%vLTh) 
105.08 ± 4.71 
93.80 ± 6.20 
99.82 ± 7.84 
0.01 
Race Pace (%vLTP) 
89.45 ± 4.47 
77.92 ± 6.14 
84.07 ± 7.85 
0.01 
Race Pace (%HRmax) 
83.91 ± 5.8 
77.41 ± 5.40 
80.87 ± 6.37 
0.04 
Race Pace (%VO2 max) 
79.74 ± 7.65 
68.80 ± 5.73 
74.63 ± 8.68 
0.01 
HRmax: maximum heart rate, MAV: maximal aerobic velocity, vLTh: velocity (km·h−1) at lactate 
threshold, vLTP: velocity (km·h−1) at lactate turn-point, ECr: energy cost of running. 
3.2. Race Pace Characteristics 
Medium-level runners had, by design, a lower (p < 0.05) marathon time (209.0 ± 10.4 min, range: 
194–225 min) than the low-level runners (289.7 ± 25.1 min, range: 260–328 min). Marathon finishing 
time was not related to the number of days between the maximal incremental test and the race day 
(Figure 1). Medium-level runners had a higher (p < 0.05) race pace expressed as %MAV, %vLTh, 
%vLTP, %VO2 max and %HRmax (Table 1). Medium- and low-level runners had a similar (p > 0.05) 
race pace (expressed as %vLTh) at the first two running splits (0–10 and 10–21.1 km). However, low-
level runners had a lower (p < 0.05) race pace at the last two splits (21.1–30 and 30–42.195 km) 
compared to the medium-level runners (Figure 2). 
 
Figure 1. Plot of marathon finishing time vs. number of days between maximal incremental test and 
race day for the low-(squares) and the medium-level runners (triangles). 
Figure 1. Plot of marathon ﬁnishing time vs. number of days between maximal incremental test and
race day for the low-(squares) and the medium-level runners (triangles).
Sports 2020, 8, 116
6 of 10
Sports 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 
6 of 10 
 
 
Figure 2. Race pace, expressed as a percentage of the velocity at lactate threshold (%vLTh), at the 
running splits of 0–10, 10–21.1, 21.1–30 and 30–42.195 km (total ascent in meters/total decent in meters) 
of the Athens Marathon, for the low-level, the medium-level and all runners. a: p < 0.05 significant 
difference between low- and medium-level runners, b: p < 0.05 significantly different from the 0–10 
and 10–21.1 km splits for the low-level runners. 
3.3. Correlation between Marathon Time and Measured Variables 
Marathon finish time correlated significantly (p < 0.05) with VO2 max (r = −0,76), MAV (r = −0.88), 
vLTh (km·h−1; r = −0.91), vLTP (km·h−1; r = −0.88), LTh (%MAV; r = −0.58), LTh (mL·kg−1·min−1; r = 
−0.86), LTP (mL·kg−1·min−1; r = −0.80), ECr 10 km·h−1 (r = 0.62), ECr vLTh (r = 0.59), ECr race pace (r = 
0.55), race pace (%VO2 max; r = −0.62), race pace (%vLTh; r = −0.75), race pace (%vLTP; r = −0.81) and 
race pace (%MAV; r = −0.90). Marathon finish time did not correlate significantly (p > 0.05) with LTP 
(%MAV; r = −0.38), LTh (%VO2 max; r = −0.22) and LTP (%VO2 max; r = −0.21). 
4. Discussion 
The purpose of this study was to provide further insight into the physiological and race pace 
characteristics of medium- and low-level marathon runners with a completion time < 240 min and > 
240 min, respectively, of the Athens Authentic Marathon. This marathon race is famous, not only for 
historical reasons but also for its level of difficulty due to the peculiarity of the terrain. The results of 
the present study show that recreational medium-level runners compared to lower-level runners 
have: (a) higher VO2 max, MAV and lactate threshold values in absolute velocity (km·h−1) and VO2 
(mL·kg−1·min−1) units, (b) higher lactate threshold in relative velocity units (%MAV), (c) lower energy 
cost of running at 10 km/h and (d) adopt a race pace corresponding to a higher percentage of their 
lactate threshold velocity and fractional utilization of VO2 max and show no significant alterations in 
their pace due to terrain alterations in contrast to the low-level runners to whom the uphill part of 
the race leads to great reductions in race pace. 
Previous studies have examined the importance of physiological parameters and race pace 
characteristics of elite marathoners, but few studies provide data for recreational runners [2,19,20]. 
Maximal oxygen consumption, a high fractional utilization of VO2 max and the energy cost of running 
are considered the determinants of endurance performance [26]. Indeed, in the present study the 
medium-level runners had higher VO2 max than the low-level runners. This agrees with previous 
reports where the better level marathoners had higher VO2 max than the lower level [2,7,18,19]. The 
VO2 max values of the medium-level marathoners (55.56 ± 3.62 mL/kg/min) measured in the present 
Figure 2. Race pace, expressed as a percentage of the velocity at lactate threshold (%vLTh), at the
running splits of 0–10, 10–21.1, 21.1–30 and 30–42.195 km (total ascent in meters/total decent in meters)
of the Athens Marathon, for the low-level, the medium-level and all runners. a: p < 0.05 signiﬁcant
diﬀerence between low- and medium-level runners, b: p < 0.05 signiﬁcantly diﬀerent from the 0–10
and 10–21.1 km splits for the low-level runners.
3.3. Correlation between Marathon Time and Measured Variables
Marathon ﬁnish time correlated signiﬁcantly (p < 0.05) with VO2 max (r = −0,76), MAV (r = −0.88),
vLTh (km·h−1; r = −0.91), vLTP (km·h−1; r = −0.88), LTh (%MAV; r = −0.58), LTh (mL·kg−1·min−1;
r = −0.86), LTP (mL·kg−1·min−1; r = −0.80), ECr 10 km·h−1 (r = 0.62), ECr vLTh (r = 0.59), ECr race pace
(r = 0.55), race pace (%VO2 max; r = −0.62), race pace (%vLTh; r = −0.75), race pace (%vLTP; r = −0.81)
and race pace (%MAV; r = −0.90). Marathon ﬁnish time did not correlate signiﬁcantly (p > 0.05) with
LTP (%MAV; r = −0.38), LTh (%VO2 max; r = −0.22) and LTP (%VO2 max; r = −0.21).
4. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to provide further insight into the physiological and race pace
characteristics of medium- and low-level marathon runners with a completion time < 240 min and
> 240 min, respectively, of the Athens Authentic Marathon. This marathon race is famous, not only for
historical reasons but also for its level of diﬃculty due to the peculiarity of the terrain. The results
of the present study show that recreational medium-level runners compared to lower-level runners
have: (a) higher VO2 max, MAV and lactate threshold values in absolute velocity (km·h−1) and VO2
(mL·kg−1·min−1) units, (b) higher lactate threshold in relative velocity units (%MAV), (c) lower energy
cost of running at 10 km/h and (d) adopt a race pace corresponding to a higher percentage of their
lactate threshold velocity and fractional utilization of VO2 max and show no signiﬁcant alterations in
their pace due to terrain alterations in contrast to the low-level runners to whom the uphill part of the
race leads to great reductions in race pace.
Previous studies have examined the importance of physiological parameters and race pace
characteristics of elite marathoners, but few studies provide data for recreational runners [2,19,20].
Maximal oxygen consumption, a high fractional utilization of VO2 max and the energy cost of running
are considered the determinants of endurance performance [26]. Indeed, in the present study the
medium-level runners had higher VO2 max than the low-level runners. This agrees with previous
reports where the better level marathoners had higher VO2 max than the lower level [2,7,18,19].
Sports 2020, 8, 116
7 of 10
The VO2 max values of the medium-level marathoners (55.56 ± 3.62 mL/kg/min) measured in the
present study are approximately the same (55.7 ± 4.8) as those reported by Gordon et al. [2] for
athletes who ran the marathon between 3:00 and 3:30 h as in the present study. The same holds
even for the low-level runners (VO2 max: 48.85 ± 4.77 mL/kg/min; ﬁnish time: 4:00–5:30 h) of the
present study and runners with approximately similar ﬁnishing times in Gordon et al.’s [2] (VO2 max:
46.5 ± 5.2 mL/kg/min; ﬁnish time: >4:30 h) and Chmura et al.’s [14] (VO2 max: 51 ± 2 mL/kg/min;
ﬁnish time: 4:17 ± 10.51 min) studies. It appears that certain levels of VO2 max are necessary to achieve
certain marathon times regardless of the level of the runner since VO2 max determines the upper limit
of aerobic performance. The high correlation between VO2 max and marathon performance which
has been previously reported for high-level to elite athletes [7,18,27,28] supports this notion. A large
correlation (r = −0.76) between VO2 max and marathon performance was observed as well in the
present study for medium- to low-level marathon runners, enriching the limited information available
for recreational athletes [2,19].
For most sports scientists, running economy or energy cost of running is a key factor for
performance in long distance events and becomes more important as running distance increases [29–32]).
In the present study, we examined ECr at a speciﬁc speed (10 km/h) and at the vLTh and we found
that medium-level runners had lower ECr than the lower-level runners. This was probably another
factor that allowed them to run the marathon at a faster pace. It should be noted that the ECr in the
medium-level runners tended to be lower in the race pace as well. This is of importance considering
that the medium-level runners sustained a faster running pace. Furthermore, ECr at 10 km/h and at
vLTh had large correlations with marathon time (r = 0.62 and r = 0.59, respectively). The results of
the current study reveal that running economy is a determinant of performance even for recreational
runners with limited training experience and supports the suggestion in the literature that athletes
should focus their training on the optimization of this parameter as well [32–34].
Besides the importance of VO2 max and energy cost of running for marathon performance,
stronger associations are observed between maximal aerobic velocity and the velocities at the lactate
threshold or any point on the blood lactate curve, and endurance performance [35–37]. Similarly, very
large correlations were observed in this study between marathon time and velocities at LTh and LTP
(r = −0.91 and −0.88) and MAV (r = −0.88) of recreational runners. The velocity at LTh was the stronger
single predictor of marathon ﬁnish time. This is not surprising considering that these indexes, when
expressed in velocity units, encompass both VO2 max and running economy [37]. When LTh and LTP
values were normalized to MAV and VO2 max, the relationship of these parameters with running
performance became lower (r = −0.22 to −0.58). This is because the eﬀect of VO2 max and/or running
economy was diminished [37]. Medium-level runners had higher LTh values, expressed either in
velocity or VO2 units, than the lower-level runners. Even when LTh velocity was normalized to MAV,
medium-level runners had a higher LTh, indicating a higher ability of the fat oxidation rate to meet
ATP demands and the occurrence of a later increased stimulation of glycolysis and glycogenolysis
relative to their maximum performance. This probably reﬂects a greater aerobic capacity and increased
buﬀering capacity promoting the ability to achieve higher running velocities due to metabolic and/or
locomotor reasons.
Many studies declare that the fractional utilization of VO2 max at LTh, LTP and at race pace
is one of the most crucial parameters of aerobic performance along with VO2 max and running
economy [6,7,31]. Fractional utilization of VO2 max at LTh and LTP did not diﬀer between the two
groups in the present study. Similarly, Gordon et al. [2] did not ﬁnd any diﬀerences in fractional
utilization of VO2 max at LTh and LTP between recreational runners with diﬀerent marathon ﬁnish
times. It could be that adaptations in the utilization of oxygen from working muscles may require
a signiﬁcant amount of training load which was not achieved by our runners. In the present study,
however, we found that medium-level runners had a higher fractional utilization of VO2 max at
marathon race pace. This agrees with previous ﬁndings that in high-level athletes, increased levels of
fractional utilization of VO2 max at marathon race pace were associated with faster performance [1,2,7].
Sports 2020, 8, 116
8 of 10
In addition, a positive correlation of fractional utilization at race pace and marathon time was found (r
= −0.62), Therefore, our data reveal that even in recreational runners, fractional utilization of VO2 max
at marathon race pace appears to be a contributing factor to performance.
A main ﬁnding of the present study is that medium-level marathoners ran the marathon distance
with an average speed corresponding to higher percentages of vLTh and MAV. The better running
economy may allow them to adopt a higher running velocity. Furthermore, the higher LTh and LTP
velocities mean that the medium-level runners will cover a given distance at a shorter time. This may
allow them to run at a higher point on the blood lactate curve because they can sustain this pace
for the time needed to complete the race. On the contrary, the slower LTh and LTP velocities of the
low-level runners mean that they need to run for a longer time to complete the race having a lower
fractional oxygen utilization. It has been shown that as the duration of an endurance event increases,
fractional oxygen utilization decreases [38,39]. The lower running velocity of the low-level runners
made them spend more time running the uphill part of the Athens Marathon course. The total ascent
from the 21.1st km to the 30th km is about 122 m and almost all this split is uphill. This forced the
low-level runners to adopt an even lower velocity during this part of the route. Indeed, the split
analysis revealed that the low-level runners were more inﬂuenced by this uphill part than the medium
level. It appears that this speciﬁc segment has the greatest impact in the ﬁnish time between diﬀerent
levels of athletes and makes the Athens Marathon a totally diﬀerent terrain from other marathons. It is
worth noting that even at the last part of the route, which is mostly downhill, low-level runners were
not able to increase their speed. Probably, the accumulated fatigue after hours of running may increase
even more the stress placed on the musculoskeletal system, besides that induced by the increased
eccentric load during downhill running, which prevents an increase in running speed compared to the
previous uphill part. Therefore, the peculiarity of the terrain may aﬀect diﬀerently the performance of
a marathon runner depending on his/her ability level. This is of importance for coaches and athletes
for the determination of the pace strategy to follow when running on a rolling hill terrain.
An advantage of the present study is that all recreational runners participated in the same
marathon race and not in diﬀerent ones. This makes comparisons between diﬀerent levels of runners
more reliable since all of them competed in the same route, on the same day and under the same
environmental conditions. In addition, physiological testing was performed at a time point very close
to the race day (three–nine days before) providing valid data about the relationship of physiological
determinants of endurance performance and actual marathon running performance. Limitations of the
present study, though, should also be acknowledged. A larger sample size would have given more
valid data about the diﬀerent levels of marathon runners. It was diﬃcult, however, to measure many
runners at a time close to the actual race. Furthermore, the energy cost of running at 10 km/h and at the
velocity corresponding to LTh was estimated from the relationship between exergy cost and running
velocity derived from the incremental test. Measurements at the exact velocities would have given
more precise values of the energy cost. Again, the execution of these submaximal measurements would
have increased the time of testing and it would not be possible to perform them near the race date.
5. Conclusions
The results of the present study enrich the existing literature regarding the physiological proﬁle
and the race pace characteristics of recreational marathon runners competing in a diﬃcult route,
the Athens Marathon. Medium-level runners (ﬁnish time range: 194–225 min) have higher VO2 max,
lactate threshold values, better running economy, greater oxygen fractional utilization at race pace and
adopt a faster race pace in relation to their lactate threshold velocity than low-level runners (ﬁnish
time range: 260–328 min). Furthermore, medium-level runners show no signiﬁcant alterations in
their pace due to terrain alterations in contrast to the low-level runners to whom the uphill part of
the race leads to great reductions in race pace. Therefore, slower runners are more inﬂuenced by a
hilly terrain and they decrease more their running velocity to complete this part of the race. Thus,
careful planning of race pace should be considered so that pacing of the parts before the uphill would
Sports 2020, 8, 116
9 of 10
be of such an intensity to avoid a large decrease in running velocity at uphill. Therefore, besides the
focus on training for the improvement of important physiological parameters related to endurance
performance, it is recommended that the selected race pace strategy be applied individually according
to each athlete’s level.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.M. and I.S.; methodology, A.M., I.S., E.M.K., E.R. and H.D.;
investigation, E.M.K. and E.R.; data analysis, A.M., I.S., E.M.K. and E.R.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M.,
I.S. and H.D.; writing—review and editing, A.M., I.S. and H.D.; supervision, I.S. and H.D. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank the recreational runners who participated in the study.
Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.
References
1.
Zinner, C.; Sperlich, B. Marathon Running: Physiology, Psychology, Nutrition and Training Aspects; Springer
International Publishing: Berlin, Germany, 2016.
2.
Gordon, D.; Wightman, S.; Basevitch, I.; Johnstone, J.; Espejo-Sanchez, C.; Beckford, C.; Boal, M.; Scruton, A.;
Ferrandino, M.; Merzbach, V.; et al. Physiological and training characteristics of recreational marathon
runners. Open Access J. Sports Med. 2007, 8, 231–241. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Berndsen, J.; Smyth, B.; Lawlor, A. Pace my race: Recommendations for marathon running. In Proceedings
of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, Copenhagen, Denmark, 16–20 September 2019.
4.
Fokkema, T.; van Damme, A.; Fornerod, M.; de Vos, R.J.; Bierma-Zeinstra, S.; van Middelkoop, M. Training
for a (half-)marathon: Training volume and longest endurance run related to performance and running
injuries. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports in press. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5.
Foster, C.; Daniels, J.; Yarbrough, R. Physiological and training correlates of marathon running performance.
Aust. J. Sports Med. 1977, 9, 58–61.
6.
Di Prampero, P.E.; Atchou, G.; Brückner, J.-C.; Moia, C. The energetics of endurance running. Eur. J. Appl.
Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 1986, 55, 259–266. [CrossRef]
7.
Billat, V.; Demarle, A.; Slawinski, J.; Paiva, M.; Koralsztein, J.-P. Physical and training characteristics of
top-class marathon runners. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2001, 33, 2089–2097. [CrossRef]
8.
Billat, V.; Demarle, A.; Paiva, M.; Koralsztein, J.P. Eﬀect of Training on the Physiological Factors of Performance
in Elite Marathon Runners (Males and Females). Int. J. Sports Med. 2002, 23, 336–341. [CrossRef]
9.
Billat, V.; Petot, H.; Landrain, M.; Meilland, R.; Koralsztein, J.P.; Mille-Hamard, L. Cardiac Output and
Performance during a Marathon Race in Middle-Aged Recreational Runners. Sci. World J. 2012, 2012, 1–9.
[CrossRef]
10.
Schmid, W.; Knechtle, B.; Knechtle, P.; Barandun, U.; Rüst, C.A.; Rosemann, T.; Lepers, R. Predictor Variables
for Marathon Race Time in Recreational Female Runners. Asian J. Sports Med. 2012, 3, 90–98. [CrossRef]
11.
Vernillo, G.; Schena, F.; Galvani, C.; Maggioni, M.A. A thropometric characteristics of top class Kenyan
marathon runners. J. Sports Med. Physic. Fit. 2013, 53, 403–408.
12.
Joyner, M.J.; Coyle, E.F. Endurance exercise performance: The physiology of champions. J. Physiol. 2008, 586,
35–44. [CrossRef]
13.
Jones, A.M. The Physiology of the World Record Holder for the Women’s Marathon. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach.
2006, 1, 101–116. [CrossRef]
14.
Chmura, J.; Chmura, P.; Konefat, M.; Batra, A.; Mroczek, D.; Kosowski, M.; Mlynarska, K.; Andrzejewski, D.;
Rokita, A.; Ponikowski, P. The eﬀects of a marathon eﬀort on psychomotor performance ad catecholamine
concentration in runners over 50 years of age. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2067. [CrossRef]
15.
Hernando, C.; Hernando, C.; Collado, E.J.; Panizo, N.; Martinez-Navarro, I.; Hernando, B. Establishing
cut-points for physical activity classiﬁcation using triaxial accelerometer in middle-aged recreational
marathoners. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0202815. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Hernando, C.; Hernando, C.; Martinez-Navaro, I.; Collado-Boira, E.; Panizo, N.; Hrenando, B.; Hernando, B.
Estimation of energy consumed by midlle aged recreational marathoners during a marathon using
accelerometry-based devices. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1523. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sports 2020, 8, 116
10 of 10
17.
Beneke, R.; Leithäuser, R.M.; Ochentel, O. Blood Lactate Diagnostics in Exercise Testing and Training. Int. J.
Sports Physiol. Perform. 2011, 6, 8–24. [CrossRef]
18.
Sjödin, B.; Svedenhag, J. Applied Physiology of Marathon Running. Sports Med. 1985, 2, 83–99. [CrossRef]
19.
Christensen, C.L.; Ruhling, R.O. Physical characteristics of novice and experienced women marathon runners.
Br. J. Sports Med. 1983, 17, 166–171. [CrossRef]
20.
Haney, T.A.; Mercer, J. A Description of Variability of Pacing in Marathon Distance Running. Int. J. Exerc. Sci.
2011, 4, 133–140.
21.
Available online: www.athensauthenticmarathon.gr (accessed on 2 August 2020).
22.
Available online: www.plotaroute.com/routeproﬁle/20092 (accessed on 2 August 2020).
23.
Cooke, C. Maximal oxygen uptake, economy and eﬃciency. In Kinanthropometry and Exercise Physiology
Laboratory Manual, 3rd ed.; Eston, R., Reilly, T., Eds.; Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2009; pp. 145–184.
24.
Péronnet, F.; Massicotte, D. Table of nonprotein respiratory quotient: An update. Can. J. Sport Sci. 1991, 16,
23–29.
25.
Jeukendrup, A.E.; Wallis, G.A. Measurement of Substrate Oxidation during Exercise by Means of Gas
Exchange Measurements. Int. J. Sports Med. 2005, 26, S28–S37. [CrossRef]
26.
Joyner, M.J.; Hunter, S.K.; Lucia, A.; Jones, A.M. Last Word on Viewpoint: Physiology and fast marathons.
J. Appl. Physiol. 2020, 128, 1086–1087. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27.
Joyner, M.J. Modeling: Optimal marathon performance on the basis of physiological factors. J. Appl. Physiol.
1991, 70, 683–687. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28.
Lucia, A.; Esteve, J.; Olivan, J.; Gallego-Gomez, F. Physiological characteristics of the best Eritrean
runners—Exceptional economy. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Met. 2006, 31, 1–11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29.
Foster, C.; Lucia, A. Running economy: The forgotten factor in elite performance. Sports Med. 2007, 37,
316–319. [CrossRef]
30.
Saunders, P.; Pyne, D.; Telford, R.; Hawley, J. Factors aﬀecting running economy in trained distance runners.
Sports Med. 2004, 34, 465–485. [CrossRef]
31.
Barnes, K.; Kilding, A. Running economy: Measurement, norms, and determining factors. Sports Med. Open
2015, 1, 8. [CrossRef]
32.
Hoogkamer, W.; Kram, R.; Arellano, C.J. How Biomechanical Improvements in Running Economy Could
Break the 2-h Marathon Barrier. Sports Med. 2017, 47, 1739–1750. [CrossRef]
33.
Lee, E.; Snyder, E.; Lundstrom, C. Eﬀects of marathon training in maximal aerobic capacity and running
economy in experienced marathon runners. J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 2020, 15, 79–93.
34.
Barnes, K.R.; Hopkins, W.G.; McGuigan, M.R.; Northuis, M.E.; Kilding, A.E. Eﬀects of Resistance Training on
Running Economy and Cross-country Performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2013, 45, 2322–2331. [CrossRef]
35.
Kolbe, T.; Dennis, S.; Selley, E.; Noakes, T.; Lambert, M. The relationship between critical power and running
performance. J. Sports Sci. 1995, 13, 265–269. [CrossRef]
36.
Noakes, T.D.; Myburgh, K.H.; Schall, R. Peak treadmill running velocity during theVO2max test predicts
running performance. J. Sports Sci. 1990, 8, 35–45. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37.
Tokmakidis, S.P.; Léger, L.A.; Pilianidis, T.C. Failure to obtain a unique threshold on the blood lactate
concentration curve during exercise. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 1998, 77, 333–342. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
38.
Davies, C.T.M.; Thompson, M.W. Aerobic performance of female marathon and male ultramarathon athletes.
Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 1979, 41, 233–245. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39.
Maughan, R.J.; Leiper, J.B. Aerobic capacity and fractional utilization of aerobic capacity in elite and non-elite
male and female marathon runners. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 1983, 52, 80–87. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Physiological and Race Pace Characteristics of Medium and Low-Level Athens Marathon Runners.
Myrkos, Aristides,Smilios, Ilias,Kokkinou, Eleni Maria,Rousopoulos, Evangelos,Douda, Helen