Estimating the cost of training disruptions on marathon performance

Abstract

Completing a marathon usually requires at least 12–16 weeks of consistent training, but busy lifestyles, illness or injury, and motivational issues can all conspire to disrupt training. This study aims to investigate the frequency and performance cost of training disruptions, especially among recreational runners. Using more than 15 million activities, from 300,000 recreational runners who completed marathons during 2014–2017, we identified periods of varying durations up to 16 weeks before the marathon where runners experienced a complete cessation of training (so-called training disruptions). We identified runners who had completed multiple marathons including: (i) at least one disrupted marathon with a long training disruption of ≥7 days; and (ii) at least one undisrupted marathon with no training disruptions. Next, we calculated the performance cost of long training disruptions as the percentage difference between these disrupted and undisrupted marathon times, comparing the frequency and cost of training disruptions according to the sex, age, and ability of runner, and whether the disruptions occurred early or late in training. Over 50% of runners experienced short training disruptions up to and including 6 days, but longer disruptions were found to be increasingly less frequent among those who made it to race-day. Runners who experience longer training disruptions (≥7 days) suffer a finish-time cost of 5–8% compared to when the same runners experienced only short training disruptions (<7 days). While we found little difference (<5%) in the likelihood of disruptions—when comparing runners based on sex, age, ability, and the timing of a disruption—we did find significant differences in the the cost of disruptions (10–15%) among these groups. Two sample t-tests indicate that long training disruptions lead to a greater finish-time cost for males (5%) than females (3.5%). Faster runners also experience a greater finish-time cost (5.4%) than slower runners (2.6%). And, when disruptions occur late in training (close to race-day), they are associated with a greater finish-time cost (5.2%) than similar disruptions occurring earlier in training (4.4%). By parameterising and quantifying the cost of training disruptions, this work can help runners and coaches to better understand the relationship between training consistency and marathon performance. This has the potential to help them to better evaluate disruption risk during training and to plan for race-day more appropriately when disruptions do occur.

The Effect of Wearable-Based Real-Time Feedback on Running Injuries and Running Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…For example, discomforts or pain that do not require longer-term stoppage may still lead to reductions in training intensity or volume by forcing runners to complete shorter or fewer runs, decreasing the health benefits of running and running performance. 23,32 Furthermore, such shorter-duration injuries may also lead to psychological distress. 39,41 Moreover, the severity of the first injury (ie, of all injuries regardless of duration) was significantly lower in the group that received real-time feedback (–0.43; 1-sided P = .042).…”

Brain drain in Pakistan's pharmaceutical industry: factors and solutions

“…Various organizational approaches and human resource management practices are being applied in pharmaceutical industry, such as employee training and development (Sekar et al, 2021b) and compensation and rewards to retain the employees (Khatun et al, 2023) (Wilkinson et al, 2018) and to enhance their job performance and level of job satisfaction, but stakeholders are still perceiving it as a cost (Aman‐Ullah et al, 2020; Feely et al, 2023). On the other hand, the empirical evidence presented by Alajlani and Yesufu (2022) demonstrates that training and development, job performance, and job satisfaction directly contribute to the retention of employees and same are coded by Sugiarti (2023) and Soliman et al (2023); Le et al (2023) have argued that these factors are also act as mediating factors for employee retention.…”