Comparison of vitality states of finishers and withdrawers in trail running: An enactive and phenomenological perspective

Abstract

Studies on ultra-endurance suggest that during the races, athletes typically experience three vitality states (i.e., preservation, loss, and revival) at the phenomenological level. Nevertheless, how these states contribute to the management and outcome of performance remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine whether and how the vitality states experienced by runners and their evolution during a trail race can be used to distinguish finishers from withdrawers. From an enactive and phenomenological framework, we processed enactive interviews and blog posts of race narratives. We distinguished units of meaning, which were grouped into sequences of experience; each sequence was then categorized as one of the three vitality states: state of vitality preservation (SVP), state of vitality loss (SVL) or state of vitality revival (SVR). We analyzed the distribution of these vitality states and their temporal organization at the beginning, in the second and third quarters, and at the end of the races, and we qualitatively characterized runners’ adaptations to SVL. Results showed that finishers completed the race in SVP, with overall significantly more sequences in SVP and significantly fewer sequences in SVL than withdrawers. SVR did not discriminate finishers from withdrawers. The temporal organization of the vitality states showed a significant difference in the emergence of SVP from the second quarter of the race, as well as a significant difference in the emergence of SVL from the third quarter of the race. The analysis of adaptations to SVL confirmed that finishers were more capable of exiting SVL by enacting a preservation world when they felt physical or psychological alerts, whereas withdrawers remained in SVL. Our results showed that finishers and withdrawers did not enact the same phenomenological worlds in the race situation, especially in the organization of vitality adaptations and their relationships to difficulties; the cumulative effect of the succession of experienced vitality states differed, as well.

The Relationship between Trail Running Withdrawals and Race Topography

“…The trail runners’ courses of experience were made up of seven typical sequences (i.e., feeling pain; putting meaning to those feelings; adjusting running style; attempting to overcome the problem; the influence of other runners; assessing the situation; and deciding to stop) that lead to withdrawal [6]. The last typical sequence—deciding to stop—will not be considered in the present study because the race rules stipulate that this can only occur when a runner is at a resupply point.…”

“…This situation can also be related to the trail runner’s type of activity at the resupply point, i.e., rest and recuperation. Runners now have a little time and space to think, to carry out a cognitive evaluation of their overall management of their physical efforts in the race [6,8]. Hence, each sequence was related to the runner’s particular capacities for acting, feeling and thinking which were embedded in specific places along the trail-in its topography, forming a whole.…”

“…A growing amount of recent research in sport psychology has focused on trying to understand withdrawals from such ultra-races [3,4,5,6,7]. Two distinct bodies of research can be identified.…”

“…Rochat et al [6] characterized ultra-trail running athletes’ experiences as constituted by the dynamics of the emergence of different vitality states, such as a state of vitalty preservation (SVP), a state of vitality loss (SVL), and a state of vitality revival (SVR). They then compared the distribution and dynamics of the vitality states experienced by both finishers and withdrawers during their race.…”

“…Most of these recent studies used the theoretical framework and methodology of course of experience theory [10]. This is part of the well-known Four E approach to activity (embodied, embedded, experienced, and enacted) that has been labeled as a new wave in cognitive science [11,12,13,14] and has recently been explicitely displayed in sport psychology [6,15]. The Four E approach conceives human activity as being (a) embedded in the dynamics of the changing situation [12]; (b) extended by tools or cultural artifacts [16]; (c) embodied as recurrent perception-action patterns [17,18]; and (d) enacted, meaning that a person brings forth his/her own world through his/her specific asymmetrical relationships with his/her environment [11,14].…”