## 4 Discussion
### Pacing and Performance Based on Real-Time  
Although the OT analysis did not find differences between conditions, in the first periods of the RT analysis (RT1 and RT2), we identified differences between NC and the other two conditions. This may be an indication that the adjustments of the trials were made not just taking into consideration some factors previously described, such as knowledge of the endpoint and previous experience, but also the time observed during the trial. Further, in the final period of the RT analysis (RT6), there was a greater speed in FC than in both NC and SC. In RT6, the participants in the FC condition were closer to the finish than in the other two conditions, so to achieve the best possible performance, they had higher speed values in a shorter time and were closer to their final sprint (endspurt). At the beginning of RT6 in FC, participants had been exercising for less time and would have felt less fatigued and this may have encouraged them to complete a faster final burst. Furthermore, this faster endspurt may also be related with the participant's unconscious perception that the endpoint of the FC trial was closer than to what they had anticipated based on the information provided, altering their preprogrammed template. Since pacing strategy has been proposed to be regulated by muscle activation based on afferent feedback from the various physiological systems, this increase in intensity may indicate that the fatigue of the peripheral muscles was less than expected, allowing them to increase their final speed [35; 36]. The possible mechanism behind this is that during the exercise, the intensity may be regulated by a complex algorithm in the brain involving peripheral sensory feedback and the remaining exercise to achieve the best performance [6]. In RT6, there was also a greater distance in SC than in both NC and FC, and a greater distance in NC than in FC. These results are predominantly due to different endpoint times in each condition (4, 10, and 16 min of running in the final period, respectively).  
In order to minimize the effect of the different RT6 times between conditions, the L10 analysis was made. In this analysis, distance in the final 10 min was 90 m greater in FC than in SC, and speed proved to be significantly faster during the FC when comparing to SC (4% between FC and SC, 2.4% between FC and SC, and 1.7% between NC and SC--see Table 1), while the physiological responses remain similar. Those differences were unable to influence HR, VO2, and RPE, as described previously in other studies [13; 33]. This may be an indication that during a self-paced exercise, the performance may be not just linked with physiological systems but also with other aspects (e.g., pre-programmed template, information given). In addition, the participants in SC ran 2.13 km (12 min) more than in FC before the final 10 min began. These results support the hypothesis that participants were less fatigued at the start of the final 10 min in the FC compared with the other two conditions. It has previously been suggested that the pacing strategy would be adjusted according to a continuously calculation by the brain's teleoantecipation center using the algorithm pre-exercise, the current metabolic variables, and the ones required to finish the exercise with the aim to achieve the best performance and maintain metabolic reserves necessary to preserve the system homeostasis [6]. Nonetheless, possibly due to a pre-programmed template, the continuous time information (time manipulation) did have some influence on earlier time points, and it also seems that the observed time had a greater impact on exercise intensity not just in the RT6 analysis but also in the L10 analysis, adding new findings to our study.