Quantifying The Performance Benefits of Mental Training
We all believe mental training works, but what does the data say? This article provides a deep-dive into the research on how mental skills measurably improve running performance.
In sports, major performance innovations often follow a distinct pattern whereby they are trialed and adopted by elite athletes long before science validates their effectiveness. Carbon-plated super shoes, exogenous ketones and the Norwegian training method all gained widespread popularity first, with research later seeking to understand the mechanisms behind their success (or lack of). This is a natural consequence of motivation; coaches seek immediate improvements for their athletes, while science works to methodically understand and verify these effects across broader populations.
A classic example of this is the polarised training model. In his foundational paper, Dr. Stephen Seiler didn't invent the training model but rather reported on a trend observed among elite performers. He noted that “…nationally or internationally competitive endurance athletes training 10 to 13 times per week seem to converge on a typical intensity distribution in which about 80% of training sessions are performed at low intensity, with about 20% dominated by periods of high-intensity work…” This observation spurred years of further research that scrutinised and largely validated the approach [1, 2, 3], cementing its place in modern training theory.
However, one aspect which in my opinion has not been analysed and scrutinised enough is the performance benefit of mental training. While its importance is almost universally accepted in endurance circles, rarely do I encounter coaches or athletes quantifying the gains derived from this training intervention. It seems like we understand that a strong mind is essential, but the conversation rarely provides measurable outcomes of this. I myself have touted the importance of mental training without knowing its downstream benefits on the performance. [1, 2, 3, 4]
This lack of discussion raised a question which I felt the need to answer; what is the tangible, evidence-based impact of mental training?
This article delves into the scientific literature attempting to find the answers. Can we quantify the performance improvements, such as faster times or reduced perceived effort? Does mental training demonstrably lower DNF rates in ultra-endurance events? And does the research favour certain techniques over others? Let's explore what research says.
Performance Gains from Mental Training in Sports
To quantify the effects of any training intervention, sports science typically employs a controlled study design. Researchers establish a baseline for all participants with a standardised test and then divide them into two groups. One group, the "intervention" group, receives the new training protocol, while the "control" group continues with a standard routine. After a set period, both groups are re-tested to see if the new intervention led to a statistically significant difference in performance.
A number of studies have applied this exact methodology to mental training, providing measurable data on its impact. Some of these studies are reviewed below.
The Santa Barbaba/Hanover Studies
A compelling pair of studies from a research group in Santa Barbara and Hanover highlights the direct performance benefits of video-based mental training.
In their first study from 2020, 33 cyclists performed a time-to-exhaustion (TTE) test. For the following 21 days, 16 of the cyclists watched a daily 10-minute mental skills video, while the control group did not. After the 21 days, all 33 athletes performed another TTE test and the mental training group improved their performance by 8.8%, whereas the control group's performance declined by 6.6%. The intervention group also showed lower ventilation and respiratory rates, which researchers linked to video content on using controlled breathing to manage stress.
A follow-up study in 2023 focused on performance in a fatigued state. Participants completed a 90-minute run followed by a 1.5-mile time trial, both before and after the mental training intervention. The intervention group was asked to watch daily 5-minute videos on managing stress and anxiety. After the intervention, this group demonstrated:
Objective improvements: They ran the 90-minute segment at the same pace but with a lower heart rate.
Subjective improvements: They reported lower ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), leg fatigue, and pain.
Performance gains: They improved their 1.5-mile time trial by an average of 37 seconds while also recording a lower heart rate and higher VO2 values. In contrast, the control group saw a minimal 6.5-second improvement with no change in their physiological markers.
Yet another similar study performed by the same research group found similar results.
Evidence from Mindfulness Research
Moving beyond single interventions, a broad meta-analysis examined the effects of mindfulness across numerous sports including athletics, cyclists, throwers, hockey players, shooters and judo fighters amongst others. The study defined mindfulness as "a structured mindset to being aware of the present-moment experience in an accepting, non-judging, and non-avoiding way, which can be understood as a state or trait." Interventions ranged from breathing exercises and body scans to gentle movement and meditation.
As expected, athletes reported higher levels of mindfulness post-intervention however, and probably more importantly, this translated into tangible psychological and physiological benefits, including an increased sense of "flow" (being in the zone), reduced anxiety, lower resting heart rates and even lower post-exercise lactate levels. In one notable performance outcome, shooters using mindfulness techniques improved their scores by 2.6%, while the control group's scores dropped by 0.9%. The researchers noted, however, that these benefits could fade without consistent practice, highlighting that mental fitness, much like physical fitness, requires maintenance.
Earlier Research
Even earlier research dating back to the late 90s pointed toward the effectiveness of combining different mental strategies.
A 2003 study provided competitive gymnasium triathlon athletes with a package of goal-setting, relaxation, imagery and self-talk. Participants saw their competitive triathlon times decrease by 40 to 129 seconds (2.2 to 6.7%).
A 1998 study used a similar package (imagery, relaxation, self-talk, goal-setting) for runners. All participants in the mental training group improved their 1600m time trial performance by 3% to 7.5%. The control group showed no significant change.
While the testing methodology for these studies is considered to be sub par in comparison to modern standards (only 4 participant, with a 1 person control in the former), their findings are consistent with the larger, more recent studies, building a cohesive picture of the measurable power of mental training.
A Note on the Placebo Effect
A critical consideration when evaluating mental training research is the inherent challenge of creating a true placebo (when an individual experiences a real, measurable improvement simply from their belief that an intervention will work, regardless of its intrinsic efficacy). Unlike a nutritional study where a participant can be blinded to the contents of what is being ingested, it is impossible to hide the nature of a mental skills intervention from an athlete. This makes it difficult for researchers to definitively separate the direct effects of a specific mental technique from the influence of an athlete's belief that the intervention will work.
Future research, as outlined by McCormick et al., can address this limitation through more sophisticated study designs. One approach is to use an "active control group", which receives an alternative treatment that is equally credible and similar in duration but targets unrelated outcomes. Additionally, researchers could measure each participant’s expectation of performance improvement before the study begins. This would allow them to statistically analyze and account for the influence of an individual's belief on the final results, providing a clearer picture of the intervention's true efficacy.
Mental Training in Ultra Running
The evidence from general sports science points towards a clear performance benefit from mental training, but does this translate directly to an ultra marathon, where mental fortitude is already considered a prerequisite for entry? Research specific to ultra running reveals a more complex and nuanced picture.
"Mental Toughness Threshold" amongst Elites
A 2020 study of 56 elite athletes competing in the HURT 100, a grueling 100-mile race with over 7,500m of climbing, investigated the link between psychological traits and race outcomes. Researchers collected pre-race survey data on mental toughness and self-efficacy (an athlete's belief in their ability to succeed) and compared it with finishing times, placing, and DNF rates.
The study found while mental toughness and self-efficacy are highly associated, no significant correlation between an athlete's mental toughness or self-efficacy scores and their Ultra-Trail World Tour ranking, their finishing time for this race, or even whether they finished the race at all. In simple terms, the "mentally tougher" athletes didn't necessarily perform better on race day.
However, the study uncovered a critical piece of context: when compared to athletes in other sports like hockey, soccer, MMA and tennis, ultra runners displayed significantly higher levels of mental toughness. This led the researchers to propose a "threshold theory", whereby a high degree of mental toughness is likely required just to prepare for and start an elite ultra marathon. Once this baseline is met, other factors, such as nutrition, physical preparation, or specific race-day strategies, may become more influential in determining the final outcome.
Mental Toughness in Non-Elites
While a general trait like "mental toughness" may not predict finishing, a separate 2018 study suggests that specific, actionable mental strategies do. Researchers followed 221 runners at the 140km Mercantour Ultra-Trail and identified key factors that correlated with a lower risk of dropping out.
Compared to athletes who did not finish, finishers were more likely to exhibit:
High Self-Efficacy: A strong belief in their ability to execute the skills needed to complete the race.
Strong Intention: A clearly defined and powerful commitment to finishing.
Mastery-Approach Goals: A focus on personal competence and mastering the challenge.
Social Support as a Coping Strategy: Actively seeking social support from crew, pacers, or other runners.
In contrast, the use of "avoidance coping strategies", disengaging from or denying the stress of the situation, was associated with a higher risk of not finishing.
Reconciling the Evidence
At first glance, these findings might seem contradictory. One study says self-efficacy doesn't predict finishing, while the other says it does. The key distinction, however, lies in the difference between a general psychological trait and an applied, in-the-moment strategy.
The HURT 100 study suggests that elite ultra runners are, by default, a mentally tough group. Within this high-performing cohort, simply being tough isn't enough to create separation. The Mercantour study builds on this, indicating that it's the application of specific mental skills that actively contributes to success on race day. It’s not just about having mental fortitude, but how you use it.
Takeaways and Unanswered Questions
This dive into the scientific literature reveals that mental training is not just a vague concept but a tool that can produce measurable performance gains. Across various sports, interventions like imagery and mindfulness have been shown to improve time to exhaustion, reduce time trial results, and lower perceived exertion.
The research also highlights a crucial layer of nuance for the ultra running community. The finding that elite ultra runners possess a uniformly high level of mental toughness suggests that for this group, success may be less about a general trait and more about the targeted application of specific strategies during training and racing. This doesn't invalidate the benefits of mental training, but rather it gives us a deeper understanding of its application
While the investigation provided me with a solid, evidence-based foundation, it also raised several new and important questions that I haven’t been able to answer yet.
Specificity: Many successful interventions bundle multiple techniques together (e.g., imagery, goal setting, self-talk). This makes it difficult to isolate which specific mental skill produces the most consistent or substantial results.
Dosage: The studies vary widely in the duration and frequency of the intervention. This raises a practical question for every athlete: what is the ideal "dose-response" for mental training? Is there a minimum effective dose to see benefits, and can a training "sweet spot" be identified?
Progression: In physical training, the principle of progressive overload is fundamental. Does a similar principle apply to mental training? If so, how can athletes and coaches structure a mental training plan that systematically increases in difficulty to foster continued adaptation and growth? What would that overload even look like?
My search to answer these questions, along with other thought-provoking questions in trail and ultra running continues! I already have another article in the works presenting scientific evidence on which mental techniques are more efficacious and how to design and implement mental training strategies. If you would like to be notified when the next article drops, or if you want to get insights into other aspects of trail and ultra training, I invite you to subscribe for free by entering your email in the box below.
Author’s Note: I have published the subsequent article as a guest post on renowned coach and author ’s publication . Read the article by clicking on the preview below.
Franz Stampfl, coach of Roger Bannister said-The great barrier is the mental hurdle.
If Roger Bannister's coach knew it 70 years ago, then there is for sure people need to know that yeah mental component is a huge chunk of whether one succeeds or not.
There is one thing told that work harder than everybody else in the room but one doesn't tell it all boils down to mental component a lot, what kind of internal monologue goes b/w our ears which either limits or propels our progression, the amount of improvement we can do in any domain/walk of life.
There is a lot of unraveling that can be done in terms of one's psychology. No one lays much emphasis on this thing b/w our ears. Iga Swiatek might me the first lawn Tennis player to have full time sports psychologist travelling with her. When Madison Keys won Australian Open this year, she was asked what lead her to win her first grand slam, her straight away answer was Lots of Therapy. Francesco Puppi has talked about therapy & Jennifer Lichter also.
Excellent analysis into some of the quantifiable aspects of mental training. I love writing about the impact of mindset skills (positive and instructional self-talk, avoiding what-if thinking, focus, process over outcome, and resilience) and I find I’m always trying to “convince” people that these things not only work, but can have a huge impact!