ReviewFrontiers in physiology2025
The physiology and psychology of negative splits: insights into optimal marathon pacing strategies.
Review in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pacing Profiles in Half-Marathon and Marathon Running Based on Performance Level, Sex, and Age: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Hitting the Wall in Marathon Running: An Integrative Psychophysiological and Durability-Based Review.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Review
- Why now? A physiological perspective on the first official sub-2-hour marathon.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Review
- The New York City Marathon: A systematic review of performance, participation, pacing, and health-related outcomes.EXCLI journal · 2026Review
- Developing negative split pacing in endurance athletes: practical guidelines and training models.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Toward a record-eligible sub-2-hour marathon: an updated integrative framework of Physiological, technological, and cognitive determinants.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pacing strategy plays a critical role in marathon performance, influencing both physiological stress and race outcomes. Among the available pacing approaches, the negative split running the second half faster than the first has emerged as a potentially optimal strategy for endurance athletes. This mini-review explores the physiological mechanisms and psychological factors underpinning the effectiveness of negative splits in marathon running. Key advantages include improved energy conservation and glycogen sparing, enhanced thermoregulation, and reduced cardiovascular drift. These benefits contribute to delayed fatigue and greater efficiency in the latter stages of the race. Training modalities such as progressive long runs and fast-finish workouts, along with psychological techniques like goal setting and visualization, are discussed as tools to help runners implement negative split strategies. The article also examines the limitations and applicability of negative splits among elite and recreational runners, highlighting the need for individualized approaches based on fitness level, environmental conditions, and race profile. In conclusion, while not universally applicable, negative splits represent a scientifically grounded pacing method that may optimize performance in marathon running across a range of athlete populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.