If you have opened this article, there is a fair chance you were as captivated as I was by Cameron Myers’ bold front running in the 1500 m at the 2026 Australian Athletics Championships. It also raised a question that many coaches and runners have likely wondered about: what is the physiological cost of leading for almost the entire race, rather than sitting in behind the pack?

From the relevant research on Google Scholar, here’s what I could find:

Evidence summary for coaches

Following versus leading

Research summary on drafting in races from 800 m to marathon. Use the event tabs to view estimated energy savings, possible time value, likely male and female differences, and the coaching details that matter most. Per lap figures are practical estimates derived from published data, not direct lap by lap measurements.

Direct physiology ≈2.8% to 6.5% Typical energetic saving in the main direct studies when runners were sheltered rather than fully exposed.

Elite 3000 m result 8.85 s faster One elite study found a faster 3000 m after drafting for the first 2000 m, with lower lactate and lower perceived effort.

Marathon modelling 3:42 to 5:29 Potential whole race saving in highly favourable marathon drafting scenarios.

Main moderators Wind, formation, positioning The benefit grows when shelter is clean and pace is stable, and shrinks when athletes surge, brake, or cover extra distance.

Choose an event

800 m summary

Evidence based range

Event estimate

≈3.8% to 6.5%

Likely meaningful, but not directly tested in elite 800 m race conditions.

Estimated energy saved per lap*

≈4.5 to 5.0 kJ

Illustrative 400 m value based on the published range and elite style pacing assumptions.

Possible time value

≈1.5 to 2.0 s

Potential race level value if the energetic saving is converted efficiently into performance.

Male and female context

At the same event, men often face slightly larger absolute drag costs because race speed is usually faster. No direct matched elite male and female 800 m drafting trial was found.

For coaches, race speed, wind, and pack position probably matter more than sex category on their own.

Key coaching takeaways

Why following can help

What reduces the benefit

Practical coaching focus

Important: the per lap kilojoule and time values are practical coaching estimates built from the research summary, not direct lap by lap measures from a single experiment.

For 1500 m, the worked example follows the conservative assumptions used in the research summary to convert a percentage saving into a per lap figure.
For 800 m, 3000 m, and 5000 m, the lap values are event specific estimates anchored to the published energetic ranges, classic aerodynamic work, and the pace to performance logic used in the summary.
For the marathon view, the whole race time range comes from published modelling. The 400 m equivalent value is shown only to make the scale easier to visualise.
The strongest direct anchors behind this summary are Pugh 1970 and 1971, Zouhal et al 2015, da Silva et al 2022, Casado et al 2021, the 2025 female mile drafting paper, and recent treadmill and formation studies from 2021 to 2025.
Use the time values as planning guides rather than guaranteed race day outcomes. Tactical races can erase or magnify the benefit very quickly.

So the short answer is yes, following usually helps, but the size of the benefit depends on context far more than most coaches assume. The best peer reviewed evidence suggests that the gain from sitting behind another runner is shaped by speed, wind, pack position, formation quality, race duration, and the psychological cost of having to set the pace yourself, which will be different for each runner (clearly not a signficant factor for Cam!). The principle is well supported. The exact time or energy for any given race is much less certain, especially in 800 m and 1500 m racing where direct event specific data are still limited.

Speed

The first factor is speed, because speed sets the size of the aerodynamic problem. In Pugh’s work, overcoming air resistance was estimated to cost about 7.5% of total energy at middle distance speed and 13% at sprint speed. More recent work from da Silva and colleagues estimated that for a solo runner at two hour marathon pace, aerodynamic drag accounted for about 7.8% of gross metabolic power. That helps explain the basic coaching logic: in faster events the ceiling for drafting benefit is higher, while in longer races even smaller savings can still matter because they accumulate for longer.

Wind

The second factor is exposure to the air, especially headwind. Pugh showed that oxygen cost rises sharply as wind speed increases, and more recent modelling work has reinforced that wind speed and wind direction materially change aerodynamic and metabolic demands. In plain terms, leading on an exposed bend or into a headwind costs more than leading in sheltered conditions, so the value of sitting in rises as the race becomes more exposed. For coaches, that means the same tactical position can be worth very different amounts depending on the weather and the shape of the track or course.

Formation

The third factor is how good the shelter actually is. Pugh reported that running 1 m behind another runner virtually eliminated air resistance and reduced VO2 by 6.5% at middle distance speed under those test conditions. Modern aerodynamic modelling shows the same principle, but also shows that formation matters enormously. In a female runner model, Schickhofer and Hanson found aerodynamic power fractions of 2.6% to 8.5% of total energy expenditure, with the best formation producing up to 75.6% drag reduction and up to 3.5% improvement in running economy. So, for coaches, being “in the pack” is not the same as being sheltered. Sitting directly behind or slightly tucked in behind a stable runner is very different from sitting half exposed, wide, or repeatedly moving out into the wind.

The Event

The fourth factor is the duration and tactical structure of the event. In the best direct track study, Zouhal and colleagues found that elite middle and long distance runners were about 8.9 seconds faster in a 3000 m trial when they drafted for the first 2000 m, while also finishing with lower lactate and much lower perceived exertion. Interestingly, cardiorespiratory variables were not clearly different, which suggests the advantage is not just about oxygen saved in a neat laboratory sense. It is probably a combination of small mechanical savings, lower accumulated strain, and a simpler pacing task. For 800 m coaches, the key point is that the aerodynamic principle should still matter because speeds are high, but the race is so short and tactical that the cost of being boxed, checked, or forced wide can quickly outweigh the shelter.

Gender

Sex differences are probably best understood through speed and body size rather than through sex alone. The literature is not built around clean male versus female comparisons in identical race situations, so there is not a strong direct answer saying women inherently gain more or less. What we can say is that women generally show similar running economy to men of similar body mass, and that female specific aerodynamic modelling still finds meaningful drafting benefits at high speeds. In fact, the 2025 mile modelling paper suggested that Faith Kipyegon could run about 3.19% faster under an ideal drafting set up, which shows that elite female athletes can also gain meaningfully when speed is high enough and the formation is effective.

Psychology

The final piece is psychology. Leading is not only a physical job, it is also a decision making job. The pacing literature shows that opponents shape effort regulation, tactical choices, and willingness to respond. In Zouhal’s 3000 m study, the nondrafting condition felt substantially harder, with RPE around 16.1 versus 13.1 in the drafting condition. That matters for coaches because following can reduce both aerodynamic load and cognitive load. An athlete sitting in behind the pace is often conserving more than physiology. They are also saving attentional bandwidth, avoiding the urge to overcook the early pace, and delaying the moment they have to commit. Of course, that cuts both ways, because following too passively can turn into being trapped, boxed, or reacting too late.

So the coaching answer is this: the benefit of following is biggest when the athlete is moving fast, exposed to the air, close enough to get real shelter, and disciplined enough to hold position without extra surging. The cost of leading rises when wind is a factor, when the athlete has to make repeated pacing decisions, and when they are effectively doing free work for the field. For middle and long distance coaches, the practical question is rarely “is drafting useful?” It usually is. The better question is “when is the shelter worth more than the track position?” In a windy 1500 m, or in the early stages of a 5000 m, that can be a race deciding trade.

How Much Energy/Time Do You Save By Following Another Runner?