Performance and psychophysiological effects of light-guided pacing during a 5000-m run

Purpose. In world-class middle- and long-distance running races, a ‘Wavelight’ signal has recently been used as a pacing guide for setting records. The aim of the present study was to compare performance and psychophysiological effects between light-guided, drafting and non-assisted pacing conditions in distance runners.
Methods. Fifteen male middle- and long- distance runners of national and regional standard ran three 5000-m time trials in a counterbalanced order with the following pacing distribution: the first 4000-m and last 1000-m were covered at submaximal and maximal intensities, respectively. The three trials (conditions) were: a) self-paced, b)
guided by a light signal, and c) guided by a cyclist in front (drafting condition). Pace, heart rate (HR), Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE), and affective valence were
recorded every 500-m.
Results. No statistically significant differences were found between pacing light and self-paced conditions. Running time was shorter in the drafting vs. self-paced condition in the final 500-m section (p = 0.031; d = 0.76). No differences were found between drafting and light conditions. Similarly, whereas nine out of ten significant differences in terms of lower HR or RPE or higher affective valence responses were found in the drafting vs. self-paced condition (p = 0.004-0.041; d = 0.63-1.39), only four were found across the tests in the drafting vs. light condition (p = 0.005-0.016;
d = 0.66-0.84).
Conclusion. Light-guided pacing did not influence performance or psychophysiological responses in distance runners during a 5000-m test, but drafting produced a large effect.