Moir 2017

Mechanical Limitations to
Sprinting and
Biomechanical Solutions:
A Constraints-Led
Framework for the
Incorporation of
Resistance Training to
Develop Sprinting Speed
Gavin L. Moir, PhD,1 Scott M. Brimmer, MS,1 Brandon W. Snyder, MS,1 Chris Connaboy, PhD,2
and Hugh S. Lamont, PhD3
1
Exercise Science Department, East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania, East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania;
2
Neuromuscular Research Laboratory, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and 3Department of
Kinesiology, Recreation and Sport Studies, Coastal Carolina University, Conway, South Carolina
ABSTRACT VERTICAL IMPULSE DURING events in track and field (100, 200,
STANCE, CONSTRAINING MINIMAL 400 m), the execution of sprints is also
DESPITE STRONG THEORETICAL
STANCE DURATIONS. CONSIDER- required to optimize the strategic and
EVIDENCE, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
ING THE MECHANICAL LIMITATIONS tactical elements in many field sports.
RESISTANCE TRAINING METHODS For example, field hockey players per-
AND THE BIOMECHANICAL SOLU-
ON SPRINTING PERFORMANCE IS form approximately 11 sprints during
TIONS USED BY THE FASTEST
NOT ALWAYS DEMONSTRATED a game (99), rugby players have been
SPRINTERS FROM A CONSTRAINTS-
EXPERIMENTALLY. ACCELERATIVE shown to execute approximately 30
LED PERSPECTIVE PROVIDES A
SPRINTING IS LIMITED BY THE sprints during a game (31), and elite
FRAMEWORK FROM WHICH PRAC-
REQUIREMENT OF A FORWARD- soccer players up to 35 sprints during
TITIONERS CAN EXPLORE THE
DIRECTED GROUND REACTION a game (28). Straight-line sprints are the
INCORPORATION OF RESISTANCE
FORCE DURING PROGRESSIVELY most frequent action performed by both
AND SPRINT TRAINING IN THE
SHORTER STANCE PHASES THAT goal scorers and the assisting players
DEVELOPMENT OF LONG-TERM
ACCOMPANY HIGHER SPRINTING during soccer (34). Furthermore, there
TRAINING PROGRAMS.
SPEEDS, WHEREAS MAXIMAL
SPEED SPRINTING IS LIMITED BY
KEY WORDS:
THE APPLICATION OF SUFFICIENT INTRODUCTION
acceleration; maximal
printing is an important compo-
Address correspondence to Dr. Gavin L.
Moir, [email protected]. S nent in many sports. As well
as sprinting comprising specific
sprinting speed; power; stiffness;
constraints-led approach
Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association 47

Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Resistance Training for Sprinting
is evidence that the better players in SPRINTING AS A The 3 phases of acceleration, maximal
field sports are also faster sprinters MULTIDIMENSIONAL SKILL speed, and maintenance can be applied
(31,40), emphasizing the importance Figure 1 shows the speed-distance data to all athletes, although the duration of
of sprinting performance for these for a group of elite sprinters and stu- each phase differs. For example,
athletes. dents performing a 100-m sprint. The untrained sprinters achieve their max-
The importance of sprinting in many biexponential curve can be used to imal sprinting speed much sooner than
sports has resulted in the search for determine 3 distinct phases: well-trained sprinters and these speeds
Acceleration phase—denoted by the are much lower (1,24,57). Despite the
the most appropriate training methods
to improve sprinting performance. The positive slope of the curve longer acceleration phase of elite
Attainment of maximal speed phase sprinters, they attain approximately
reliance of sprinting on force produc-
—denoted by the peak of the curve 80% of their maximal speed within
tion by the athlete has led to the inves-
Maintenance of maximal speed the first 20 m of a 100-m sprint (50).
tigation of the efficacy of resistance
phase—denoted by the negative slope The length of the acceleration phase
training to improve sprinting perfor-
of the curve for field-sport athletes is likely to be
mance, with the authors of recent
The identification of the different constrained by the strategic and tacti-
reviews concluding that resistance
sprint phases is acknowledged by cal requirements of the game, and it has
training was an effective means to
both researchers and practitioners, been shown that rugby players only
improve sprinting performance, partic-
although there is currently no consen- attain their maximal speed during
ularly over distances #30 m (9,94).
sus on the number of phases that a small proportion of the sprints that
Others, however, have reported that
should be included to describe sprint they execute during a game (31).
resistance training was not as effective
running (24,48,107). The notion of The importance of the different sprint
as simply engaging in sprint training to
a “phase” associated with maximal phases for the strength and condition-
improve sprinting performance (88). An
sprinting speed is somewhat mislead- ing practitioner is highlighted by the
understanding of the biomechanics of
ing because maximal speeds are fact that the mechanical demands dif-
sprinting can aid the strength and con-
ditioning practitioner in developing transient during sprints, being unsus- fer in each of the phases. These differ-
effective training methods to improve tainable due to mechanical and phys- ences become apparent when the
the sprinting performance of their ath- iological constraints. This has led posture of track and field sprinters is
letes. Furthermore, the role of resistance some researchers simply to divide observed during a 100-m sprint: the
training methods in the development of a 100-m sprint into 2 phases: an accel- athlete adopts an accentuated forward
sprinting speed can be revealed when eration phase, culminating in the lean during the early acceleration
viewing sprinting performance from attainment of maximal speed, and phase, whereas they assume an
the constraints-led framework that a deceleration phase (97). upright posture when they attain their
was developed in the field of skill acqui-
sition. The constraints-led approach
posits that movements used to accom-
plish specific tasks emerge from the
confluence of constraints surrounding
the athlete and has been promoted
recently as a unifying theoretical frame-
work that can be adopted by sports
scientists to increase the explanatory
power of applied research work and
aid the development of applied sports
science support programs for athletes
(37). Therefore, the purpose of this
review is threefold: (a) to present and
review the mechanical limitations to
straight-line sprinting, (b) to detail
the biomechanical solutions to each of
these limitations, and (c) to use
the constraints-led framework to Figure 1. Speed-distance data for a group of elite sprinters and a group of students
develop recommendations for the performing a 100-m sprint. The values in parentheses of the legend
implementation of resistance training
denote the average times for the 100 m in each group. From Babic V, Coh
practices to improve straight-line sprint M, Dizdar D. Differences in kinematic parameters of athletes of different
performance. running quality. Biol Sport 28: 115–121, 2001.
48 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2018

distance is the horizontal distance trav-
elled by the CM during each stance
phase, whereas stance time is the dura-
tion of the stance phase. Sprinting speed
can then be determined from the ratio
of stance distance and stance time:
dstance
Speed 5 (1)
tstance
where dstance is the horizontal distance
Figure 2. The different postures attained during the early acceleration phase (A and B) travelled by the CM during the stance
and when sprinting at maximal speed (C and D). Contrast the forward lean phase and tstance is the time of the
adopted when accelerating with the upright posture attained at maximal stance phase. Stance distance is the
speed. Notice the high knee lift of the swing leg at takeoff during maximal sum of touchdown distance (the hori-
speed sprinting (D). zontal distance between the CM and
the stance foot when it is ahead of the
maximal speed (Figure 2). These pos- each stride and the swing leg when it CM at touchdown) and takeoff dis-
tural changes reflect the specific is repositioned during the flight phase tance (the horizontal distance between
requirements for the forces applied by of each stride. The mechanical charac- the stance foot and the CM at takeoff )
the athlete to the supporting surface. teristics of a sprinting stride during accel- (Figure 3).
The acceleration phase and the attain- erative and maximal speed sprinting are Although stance distance increases as an
ment of maximal speed will be the shown in Table 1. athlete accelerates up to maximal speed
focus of the present review because Sprinting speed can be calculated as (Table 1), there is very little difference in
they have the greatest application to a product of the distance between ipsi- stance distance between faster and slow-
most sports. Although the mechanical lateral stance phases (stride length er sprinters either during the acceleration
aspects of acceleration and maximal [SL]) and stride frequency ([SF] the or maximal speed phases of a sprint
speed are discussed separately, there (43,111). Conversely, the duration of
inverse of the sum of stance and flight
is great interdependence between the each stance phase decreases as an athlete
time). Recent evidence gathered from
2 (i.e., the attainment of high maximal accelerates up to maximal running speed
elite sprinters has revealed that very
sprinting speed is only possible after (Table 1), and faster sprinters produce
high SF is attained early during
a successful acceleration phase). much shorter stance durations when
a 100-m sprint (the first 10–20 m) to
accelerating and sprinting at maximal
THE SPRINT STRIDE produce their high speeds, whereas fur-
speed compared with their slower coun-
Sprinting speed is attained through alter- ther increases in speed during the race
terparts (3,13,43,53,110). Therefore, the
nating phases of stance and flight during result from increased SL (22,86). How-
greater sprinting speeds attained by faster
each stride, with a stride being defined ever, the relative importance of SL and
sprinters is largely due to their shorter
as the event between touchdown of the SF as limiting factors of sprinting speed
stance times, irrespective of the phase
stance leg to the next ipsilateral touch- has yet to be determined definitively.
of sprinting. This difference in the dura-
down (25). There are 2 stance phases For example, evidence supporting the
tion of stance is important because the
(when the athlete is in contact with importance of each variable can be stance phase represents the only time
the supporting surface) and 2 aerial found in the extant literature depending when the athlete is able to change their
phases (when the athlete is in flight) dur- on the phase of sprinting and the level sprinting speed through the action of the
ing a sprinting stride, with consecutive of athlete assessed (12,36,43,56,59,81). GRF; the fastest sprinters are able to
stance and aerial phases comprising Furthermore, the reliance on either SL apply sufficiently large forces to the
a sprinting step. The external forces of or SF to attain high sprinting speeds has ground during short stance phases.
gravity, drag, and the ground reaction been shown to be highly individual in
force (GRF) will act on the athlete’s cen- well-trained sprinters (89). Goodwin THE GROUND REACTION FORCE
ter of mass (CM) during each stance (38) noted that SL is a consequence The GRF is an external force pro-
phase, whereas only the retarding forces of sprinting speed rather than a cause vided by the supporting surface that
of gravity and drag will act on the CM of it, being largely determined by the the athlete is in contact with and rep-
during each aerial phase. The flight distance the CM travels during the resents the reaction of the support
phase represents a time when the leg is aerial phases of each sprinting step. surface to the actions of the athlete
repositioned in preparation for the sub- The variables of stance distance and (75). The resultant GRF can be
sequent stance phase. Throughout this stance time are more informative than resolved into 3 orthogonal compo-
review the leg will be referred to as the SL and SF when assessing the determi- nents: 2 horizontal (anteroposterior
stance leg during the stance phase of nants of sprinting speed (38). Stance and mediolateral frictional forces)
49
Table 1
The kinematic and kinetic variables during accelerative and maximal speed sprinting in trained sprinters
Sprint phase
Mechanical variable Early acceleration (first step) Mid-acceleration (16 m) Maximal speed
Horizontal velocity (m/s) 4.06 8.25 9.85

Stride length (m) 1.02 1.92 2.12
Stride frequency (Hz) 3.98 4.31 4.65
Stance duration (ms) 193 119 96
Aerial duration (ms) 49 114 120
Stance distance (m) 0.78 0.89 0.95
Touchdown distance (m) 20.13 0.25 0.27
Takeoff distance (m) 0.65 0.64 0.68
Duration of braking (ms) 22 33 44
Duration of propulsion (ms) 171 86 52
Average vertical GRF (BW) 1.47 1.86 2.30
Average horizontal GRF—braking (BW) 20.21 20.29 20.49
Average horizontal GRF—propulsion (BW) 0.73 0.42 0.50
Vertical impulse of GRF (BW s) 0.28 0.22 0.22
Horizontal impulse of GRF—braking (BW$s) 20.005 20.010 20.047
Horizontal impulse of GRF—propulsion (BW$s) 0.124 0.036 0.048
CM horizontal velocity at touchdown (m/s) 3.46 8.11 9.84
CM horizontal velocity at takeoff (m/s) 4.65 8.36 9.86
CM vertical velocity at touchdown (m/s) — 20.49 20.62a
CM vertical velocity at takeoff (m/s) — 0.49 0.69a
Data for early acceleration from Mero (66), for mid-acceleration from Hunter et al. (43), and maximal speed from Mero et al. (69). The bodyweight
values used to normalize the GRF data were 722.9, 725.9, and 722.9 N, respectively. The italicized values are calculated from the data presented in
the respective studies as opposed to values reported by the authors of the respective studies.
a
These values are taken from Mero et al. (71) where the average horizontal velocity of the CM was 9.58 m/s.
BW 5 bodyweight; CM 5 center of mass; GRF 5 ground reaction force; Takeoff distance 5 horizontal distance between the stance foot and the
center of mass at takeoff; Touchdown distance 5 horizontal distance between the center of mass and stance foot at touchdown.
and 1 vertical (normal contact force). Figure 4 shows the average horizontal acceleration of the CM during the accel-
The 3 orthogonal components act to and vertical forces applied by an athlete eration phase of sprinting that requires
accelerate the athlete’s CM in the during each stance phase of a 100-m trial a forward-directed GRF (77,78,80,97)
direction of the reaction force and performed from a stationary start. Notice and the requirement to support body-
the athlete is only able to exert a force that the magnitude of the average hori- weight (a vertical force) and project the
to the supporting surface during the zontal force decreases as the athlete tra- CM into an aerial phase of sufficient
stance phases of each sprinting stride. verses the acceleration phase and attains duration to reposition the swing leg when
It has been shown that the most their maximal speed, whereas the average sprinting at maximal speed (110). The
important components of the GRF vertical force increases concomitantly. changes in the posture adopted when
for sprinters are the anteroposterior These changes in the magnitude of the accelerating compared with sprinting at
(henceforth referred to as horizontal) 2 GRF components are associated with maximal speed reflect the differing re-
and vertical components (70,86). the greater requirement for horizontal quirements for the GRF acting during

the motion of the CM. However, the
greater stance durations during accelera-
tion result in lower average vertical forces
being applied by the athlete (Table 1).
The requirement to generate sufficient
force during reduced stance times associ-
ated with faster sprinting speeds therefore
represents a biomechanical constraint
limiting sprinting performance.
An analysis of the instantaneous com-
ponents of the GRF applied during
stance reveals some important infor-
mation about the mechanics of sprint-
ing. Figure 5 shows the horizontal and
vertical components of the GRF dur-
ing the mid-acceleration and maximal
speed phases of a sprint. Notice that
the horizontal component of the
GRF has a negative region after touch-
down, with a positive region thereafter
Figure 3. The kinematic variables during a sprinting step. dstance is the horizontal until takeoff. The negative region is
distance travelled by the center of mass (CM) during each stance phase, known as the braking force and is
daerial is the distance travelled by the CM during each aerial phase, dtakeoff is caused by the forward velocity of the
the horizontal distance between the stance foot and CM at takeoff, stance foot relative to the ground at
dtouchdown is the horizontal distance between the center of mass and stance touchdown and/or the foot being
foot at touchdown, Step length is the horizontal distance between the placed ahead of the CM at touchdown,
touchdown of 1 foot and the next contralateral touchdown. Adapted with and this force can be considered as
permission from Hunter JP, Marshall RN, and McNair PJ. Reliability of biome- acting to retard the CM during stance.
chanical variables of sprint running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 850–861, 2004.
The positive region of the horizontal
GRF is known as the propulsive force,
the stance phases; the athlete adopts a for- athlete is still required to generate suffi- acting to propel the CM horizontally.
ward lean during acceleration and an cient vertical force during the stance The vertical component of the GRF
upright posture when sprinting at maxi- phases associated with the acceleration acts to support bodyweight during
mal speed (Figure 2). Notice that the phase to support bodyweight and change stance, thereby preventing the athlete
Figure 4. The average horizontal (A) and vertical (B) forces applied during each stance phase as an athlete sprints 100 m. Each data
point represents the magnitude of the average force applied by the athlete during each stance phase as they traverse
the 100 m distance. Adapted with permission from Morin JB, Sève P. Sprint running performance: Comparison between
treadmill and field conditions. Eur J Appl Physiol 111: 1695–1703, 2011.
51
Figure 5. The horizontal and vertical components of the ground reaction force (GRF) during the acceleration phase (A and C) and
when sprinting at maximal speed (B and D). The forces have been normalized to bodyweight and the impulse of the GRF
has been calculated to allow comparison. Notice the shorter duration of stance when sprinting at maximal speed
compared with accelerative sprinting. Notice also the asymmetrical application of vertical force and the high rate of
force development when sprinting at maximal speed (5D). BW 5 bodyweight. Adapted with permission from Bezodis IN,
Kerwin DG, Salo AIT. Lower-limb mechanics during the support phase of maximum-velocity sprint running. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 40: 707–715, 2008; Hunter JP, Marshall RN, McNair PJ. Reliability of biomechanical variables of sprint running. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 36: 850–861, 2004.
from collapsing into the ground. In product of mass and velocity and that a net propulsive horizontal impulse
addition, this component also changes the mass of the athlete remains con- during stance and therefore the hori-
the vertical velocity of the CM during stant during each stance phase. The zontal velocity of the CM will increase.
the stance phases of both acceleration braking impulse experienced early dur- Although the magnitude of the braking
and maximal speed sprinting. ing the stance phase of accelerative impulse is not considered a limitation
The areas under the force-time traces sprinting (the negative area in to early acceleration (98), it may
shown in Figure 5 represent the Figure 5A) will therefore act to reduce become more of a limitation as the
impulse of the components of the the horizontal velocity of the CM, athlete approaches maximal speed
GRF. The change in the momentum whereas the propulsive impulse (the (43,80,113). However, the propulsive
of a body is equal to the impulse of positive area in Figure 5A) will act to impulse presents a significant limitation
the force acting on the body (75). It increase the horizontal velocity of the to accelerative sprinting, with faster
can be determined that the impulse CM. Notice that the sum of the braking athletes generating greater propulsive
of the GRF acts to change the velocity and propulsive impulses during the impulses than their slower counter-
of the CM given that momentum is the acceleration phase would result in parts (44,66,98).

When the athlete attains maximal As we show, the production of an asym- stance (the combination of the aver-
speed, the braking impulse increases metrical vertical GRF presents a limita- age horizontal and vertical compo-
(Figure 5B), yet it is almost matched tion to maximal sprinting speeds. nents of the GRF). It has been
by the propulsive impulse, resulting in The GRF can be considered the reac- shown that the acceleration of the
a net horizontal impulse of approxi- tion to the bodyweight of the athlete athlete is influenced by the direction
mately zero (there will be a small net and any accelerations of the body seg- of force application rather than the
propulsive impulse to offset the loss of mental masses when the athlete is in magnitude of the resultant force gen-
momentum experienced during the contact with the supporting surface. erated during each stance phase
aerial phase of each step caused by drag For example, if an athlete pushes back- (51,80). Furthermore, faster athletes
forces). The magnitude of the braking ward against the ground during the are able to continue to generate a for-
impulse when sprinting at maximal acceleration phase of sprinting, they ward-directed net GRF at higher
speed has been linked to the active will establish a horizontal reaction speeds compared with slower athletes
touchdown of the swing leg whereby force acting to accelerate their CM for- (76,97), explaining the longer distance
the leg is pulled backward before touch- ward (a reaction to the bodyweight associated with the acceleration phase
down, reducing both the touchdown force is required to induce the fric- in well-trained sprinters compared
distance and the forward velocity of tional force in this example). The inter- with nonspecialist sprinters
the foot relative to the ground (113). nal muscular forces exerted by the (1,24,57,97). The requirement for a for-
The biarticular hamstrings have been athlete produce joint moments that ward-directed net GRF requires the
implicated in the active motion of the accelerate the segment masses during athlete to adopt a forward lean during
swing leg when sprinting (29,92,112), movements. Although there are many stance because a forward-directed
and the eccentric contractions of these variables that influence the magnitude GRF generated with an upright pos-
muscles before touchdown has been of a joint moment (e.g., forces associ- ture would tend to rotate the body
proposed to explain the high incidence ated with ligamentous, joint capsule, backward and slow the athlete down.
of strain injuries to the hamstrings, par- and neurovascular structures), the Greater sprint speeds have been asso-
ticularly the biceps femoris, when main contributor can be considered ciated with greater forward lean dur-
sprinting at maximal speed (16,93,103). to be forces exerted by the active ing the early acceleration phase of
muscles crossing the joint (114). No sprinting (51), and there is some evi-
The vertical component of GRF is typ-
acceleration of the CM would be pos- dence that faster sprinters continue
ically larger than the horizontal compo-
sible without the external GRF acting the forward lean for a greater distance
nent when accelerating or sprinting at
on the athlete; however, the causes of during a 100-m sprint compared with
maximal speed largely due to the reac-
the GRF are bodyweight and the joint their slower counterparts (53).
tion to the bodyweight force. However,
the peak vertical GRF is much greater moments which are transformed to the The forward-directed net GRF required
during maximal speed sprinting com- GRF when the athlete is in contact during the acceleration phase of sprint-
pared with accelerative sprinting, with a supporting surface (75). The ing is achieved by a rotation-extension
although the impulse of the vertical resultant GRF acting on the athlete strategy adopted during stance ((46);
force in both cases are nearly identical during the stance phase of each sprint- Figure 6). Specifically, early during
(Figure 5C and 5D). The magnitude of ing stride is largely determined by the stance, the CM is translated horizon-
vertical force has been correlated with extensor and flexor moments gener- tally by the forward rotation of the
maximal sprinting speed (77), and it has ated at the hip, knee, and ankle joints stance leg about the stance foot (the
been demonstrated that faster sprinters of the stance leg, although the contri- CM possesses momentum at touch-
bution of the swing leg should also be down that contributes to this rotation
are able to generate a very large vertical
considered. Furthermore, the distribu- about the stance leg). At this time,
impulse of the GRF when sprinting at
tion of net joint moments will deter- a large hip extensor moment is
maximal speed despite their shorter
mine not only the magnitude of the generated by the activation of the
stance durations (17,110). Notice that
resultant GRF but also the direction monoarticular gluteus maximus and
the vertical GRF is asymmetrical when
of the resultant GRF (75), and the the biarticular hamstrings (Figure 7A).
sprinting at maximal speed, reaching
direction of the resultant GRF repre- This activation of the hamstrings pre-
a peak value early during the stance
sents a key mechanical limitation to vents the extension of the knee joint
phase (Figure 5D). It has recently been
sprinting performance. early during stance and allows the
demonstrated that the vertical GRF is
actually more asymmetrical in faster CM to pass ahead of the resultant
MECHANICAL LIMITATIONS TO
sprinters compared with their slower ACCELERATION AND GRF (Figure 6B and 6C); once this
counterparts (17). This asymmetrical BIOMECHANICAL SOLUTIONS has been achieved, the activity of the
application of the vertical force allows The acceleration phase ends when the hamstrings is reduced and that of rectus
the faster sprinters to generate a greater athlete is no longer able to generate femoris is increased with a concomitant
vertical impulse early during stance (17). a forward-directed net GRF during increase in the activity of the vastii
53
group. This change in muscle activation Although the rotation-extension strat- positive work represents the joint
results in a decrease in the hip extensor egy was originally identified during the moment generating energy (largely
moment and a rapid increase in the net early acceleration phase of sprinting through concentric muscle actions).
extensor moment at the knee joint (46), there is evidence that the forceful Summing the work of each individual
which, along with an increase in the extension of the knee joint is also de- joint moment during stance associated
ankle extensor moment, further in- layed until the CM has been projected with the acceleration phase of sprinting
creases the horizontal velocity of the ahead of the resultant GRF during the reveals that the hip, knee, and ankle
CM (observe Figure 7A, 7C, and 7E mid-acceleration phase (16 m) in joint moments all produce net positive
between 0.06 and 0.08 seconds). There- trained sprinters (47). Therefore, the work (7,100). This net energy genera-
fore, the rotation-extension strategy rotation-extension strategy allows the tion of the moments of the stance leg
represents a biomechanical solution to athlete to generate a forward-directed results in an increase in the energy of
the forward-directed net GRF required net GRF and represents a constraint the CM during stance realized as an
during acceleration whereby the force- limiting successful acceleration during increase in the height (gravitational
ful extension of the knee and ankle a sprinting task. Notice that the potential energy) and the horizontal
joints is delayed while the CM is rotated requirement for the rotation- velocity (kinetic energy) of the CM
ahead of the resultant GRF. This extension strategy during stance to (66,70). The net energy generation of
rotation-extension strategy requires the accelerate the CM is more complicated the stance leg during the short stance
reciprocal activation of the biarticular than the notion of the “triple exten- durations associated with faster running
hamstrings and rectus femoris muscles sion” of the hip, knee, and ankle joints speeds is likely to explain the impor-
to delay the extension of the knee joint promoted in the extant literature (104); tance of high power outputs observed
(46). Allowing the forceful extension of this extension must be delayed until the in accelerative sprinting (86).
the knee joint early during stance would CM has been projected ahead of the As well as the mechanical output of
preclude the increase in forward veloc- resultant GRF (Figure 6). the stance leg influencing the direction
ity of the CM because the resultant The power output of the joint moments of the GRF when accelerating, the
GRF acts ahead of the CM at this time at the hip, knee, and ankle during the swing leg also contributes through
(Figure 6B). Recent evidence has stance phase of acceleration is shown in the generation of angular momentum.
revealed the importance of the ham- Figure 7. The area under each of the Specifically, the forward rotation of the
strings’ activity in generating a for- joint power graphs represents the work swing leg as it is repositioned during its
ward-directed GRF when sprinting done by the joint moment. Negative aerial phase will result in a more
with an interference in a forward- work represents the joint moment forward-directed GRF because of
directed GRF reported after a hamstring absorbing energy (largely through a greater horizontal component ex-
strain injury (64,65). eccentric muscle contractions), whereas erted via the stance leg, as has been
Figure 6. The rotation-extension strategy used to generate a forward-directed ground reaction force (GRF) during the acceleration phase
of sprinting. The strategy requires that the center of mass (CM) is first rotated about the stance leg before the leg is forcefully
extended to accelerate the CM effectively. Forceful extension of the knee joint is prevented early during stance through the
activation of the hamstrings and gluteus maximus, thereby preventing the resultant GRF from increasing at a time when it
acts ahead of the center of mass (6B). As the CM is rotated ahead of the resultant GRF, the activation of the hamstrings is
reduced while that of the rectus femoris increases. This reciprocal activation of the biarticular hamstrings and rectus femoris
increases the magnitude of the extensor moment at the knee, increasing the angular velocity of the joint and also increasing
the magnitude of the resultant GRF, thereby accelerating the center of mass (6C and 6D). Note: the resultant GRF is shown as
the red vector; the time of the stance phase is shown at the bottom of the figure. From Jacobs R, Ingen Schenau GJ.
Intermuscular coordination in a sprint push-off. J Biomech 25: 953–965, 1992.

Figure 7. Joint moments and powers at the hip (A and B), knee (C and D), and ankle (E and F) during the stance phase of early
acceleration. The energy generated and absorbed by the joint moments has been calculated for comparison. Combining
the work done by the joint moments reveals that the leg generates net energy of 1.951 J/kg that is associated with
increasing the height of the center of mass (gravitational potential energy) and the speed of the center of mass (kinetic
energy) from touchdown to takeoff when accelerating. Compare these values to those in Figure 8. From Jacobs R, Ingen
Schenau GJ. Intermuscular coordination in a sprint push-off. J Biomech 25: 953–965, 1992.
demonstrated during other forms of appear to lean forward further into before touchdown, given the reduced
gait (41). Although this has yet to be a sprint (53) but it may be that the stance durations as the athlete contin-
tested experimentally, it is possible faster sprinters have a greater capacity ues to accelerate (78).
that faster sprinters are able to gen- to use the rotation-extension strategy To summarize, the preceding biome-
erate a forward-directed net GRF during stance and continue to gener- chanical analysis of accelerative sprint-
during acceleration in part due to ate forces during the progressively ing allows us to establish mechanisms
the large amount of angular momen- decreasing durations of propulsion that allow faster athletes to attain
tum generated through the rapid that occur as the athlete traverses greater acceleration:
rotation of the contralateral swing through the acceleration phase Faster sprinters are able to generate
leg during ipsilateral stance. It is (Table 1). It has recently been noted large amounts of work at the lower-
interesting to note that the fastest that faster sprinters have both greater body joints during short stance du-
sprinters have lower swing times than force and velocity characteristics dur- rations that are associated with their
their slower counterparts during the ing explosive tasks such as sprinting higher sprinting speeds.
acceleration phase of sprinting (76), when compared with slower sprinters Faster sprinters are able to continue
indicating a greater angular velocity (76,86). These muscular characteris- to generate a forward-directed net
of the swing leg. Furthermore, elite tics would allow the generation of GRF during stance when sprinting
sprinters have been shown to have large forces that would support the at high speeds through the applica-
very high angular velocities of the continued increase in velocity of the tion of the rotation-extension strat-
swing leg when sprinting at maximal CM during shorter stance phases. Fur- egy (activating the hamstrings early
speed (53,71). thermore, the activation of the biartic- during stance to delay the forceful
It is currently unclear why trained ular hamstrings that is required early extension of the knee joint).
sprinters are able to continue to gen- during stance (preventing the forceful The rapid rotation of the swing leg as
erate a forward-directed net GRF at extension of the knee as part of the it is repositioned also contributes to
greater sprinting speeds compared rotation-extension strategy) must be the forward-directed GRF during
with their slower counterparts. They initiated during the late flight phase stance.
55
MECHANICAL LIMITATIONS TO of each step. The vertical forces that The high vertical velocity of the stance
MAXIMAL SPEED SPRINTING AND can be applied to the ground during leg at touchdown as part of the
BIOMECHANICAL SOLUTIONS short stance phases to provide impact-limb deceleration mechanism
Maximal speed is attained when the the minimum aerial time to reposition would be enhanced by a high knee lift
athlete can no longer accelerate. As the swing leg for the subsequent ipsi- of the swing leg as it is repositioned
previously stated, this occurs when lateral stance impose a biomechanical during the flight phase. This high knee
the athlete is no longer able to gener- limitation to maximal running speed, lift is a characteristic of elite sprinters
ate a forward-directed net GRF during referred to as “front-side” mechanics
and it has been shown that faster
stance, which highlights the impor- (1,58) and requires an upright posture
sprinters exert greater vertical impulses
tance of the acceleration phase on that is attained when sprinting at max-
during stance compared with their
the attainment of maximal sprinting imal speed to enhance the reposition-
slower counterparts (109–111).
speed. The duration of the braking ing of the swing leg (108) (Figure 2D).
phase during stance as well as the Recent experimental results have re- The high knee lift would require the
magnitude of the braking forces vealed that the greater vertical impulses swing leg to be recovered very rapidly,
increase as the athlete traverses generated by the faster sprinters are necessitating very high angular veloci-
through the acceleration phase ((79); actually applied during the first half of ties, given the similar aerial times re-
Table 1). This has led to the suggestion stance, with no difference in the mag- ported for faster and slower sprinters
of braking impulse imposing a biome- nitude of the vertical impulse generated (111). Indeed, there is evidence that the
chanical limitation to maximal sprint- during the second half of stance ((17); angular velocity of the swing leg is
ing speed (14,113). This suggestion Figure 5D). The asymmetric application greater in faster sprinters than their
holds some merit from a mechanical of the vertical GRF is achieved by an slower counterparts (53,71). These
standpoint. However, the braking force initial impact-limb deceleration mecha- high angular velocities are achieved
will likely induce the stretch- nism whereby the swing leg is by the actions of the hip flexors (rectus
shortening cycle, potentiating the work “punched” into the ground at touch- femoris and iliopsoas) (29,92) and
done by the joint moments during the down (17). The attainment of large ver- energy that is transported across the
propulsive phase of stance (52). Fur- tical forces via the impact-limb pelvis from the contralateral leg
thermore, the braking force exerted deceleration mechanism seems to be (2,14). Furthermore, the rapid recovery
by the stance leg may aid the recovery a biomechanical solution to overcome of the swing leg is important when
of the contralateral swing leg. For these the limitation associated with the inabil- sprinting at maximal speed because
reasons, a substantial reduction in the ity of the stance leg extensor muscles to the thigh of the swing leg is the only
braking forces may actually be counter- generate sufficient force during the brief segment that has been shown to pro-
productive to the attainment of high stance phases associated with maximal duce a forward-directed impulse dur-
sprinting speeds. sprinting speeds (110). ing the braking phase of contralateral
stance (71). Finally, the active motion
Recall from Equation 1 that the maxi- The impact-limb deceleration mecha-
of the swing leg discussed earlier would
mal speed attained by an athlete will be nism can be revealed by comparing the
be required before touchdown to
determined by stance distance and vertical velocities of the CM and
achieve the high vertical velocities of
stance time and that the duration of stance leg at touchdown during maxi-
the stance leg at touchdown as part of
stance decreases as the athlete acceler- mal speed sprinting: the vertical veloc-
the impact-limb deceleration mecha-
ates (Table 1). The short stance dura- ity of the stance leg can be as high
nism. The ability of faster sprinters to
tions associated with higher sprinting as 23.00 m/s (17,87), whereas the
rapidly recover the swinging leg and
speeds require the angle swept through vertical velocity of the CM is much use an active motion of the swing leg
by the stance leg to be increased to lower, being approximately 20.50 to before touchdown is highlighted by the
maintain or even increase stance dis- 20.70 m/s (62,67). Furthermore, there reduced horizontal distance between
tance and therefore sprinting speed is some evidence that the vertical the ipsilateral and contralateral knees
(62). This explains why touchdown velocity of the CM at touchdown de- at touchdown in trained compared
distance and therefore braking forces creases with increasing sprinting speed with untrained sprinters (13). There-
increase with sprinting speed; braking (62), whereas the vertical velocity of fore, rather than the active motion of
forces are a necessary consequence of the stance leg at touchdown increases the swing leg contributing to a reduced
increased sprinting speeds. During the at greater sprinting speeds (69,87). The touchdown distance and braking force
short stance phases associated with impact-limb deceleration mechanism that has been questioned by some re-
high sprinting speeds, there is still therefore represents a biomechanical searchers recently (78), the purpose of
a requirement to exert a vertical force solution to overcome the mechanical the active motion of the swing leg may
to support bodyweight and also to limitation to maximal sprinting speed be to initiate a successful impact-limb
change the vertical velocity of the imposed by the requirement of the deceleration mechanism to support
CM and project it into the aerial phase short stance durations. faster maximal running speeds. The

eccentric strength of the knee flexors because this posture prepares the ath- sprinting is actually made possible by
has been implicated as limiting this lete for the large impact forces during the actions of the swing leg during the
active leg motion (14). the early stance phase, which are nec- flight phase of the sprinting stride (i.e.,
essary to exert sufficient vertical force high knee lift as it is repositioned and the
After touchdown, the limb-
during the short stance durations asso- active leg motion before touchdown).
deceleration mechanism requires the
ciated with maximal sprinting speed.
stance leg to remain stiff, otherwise Aligned with this proposal is the find- An analysis of the joint kinetics during
the vertical GRF would not rise ing that the stiffness of the knee and the stance phases of maximal speed
rapidly and the CM would fall during ankle joints has been shown to be sprinting (Figure 8) reveals that the
stance (the CM falls as little as 0.05 m important when sprinting at maximal hip joint moment generates energy,
during the stance phases of maximal speed (15,52). Indeed, increased ankle whereas the joint moment at the ankle
speed sprinting (71) and falls less in stiffness has been shown to accompany dissipates energy (6,60). The moment
faster sprinters compared with their increased sprinting speeds during a 6- at the knee joint is more variable
slower counterparts (67)). The month training period in elite sprinters between athletes but it typically dissi-
increased stiffness of the leg increases pates energy and the knee joint has
(82). From this biomechanical analysis,
its effective mass, which is a measure of we can determine that the high rates of been suggested as being responsible
the transfer of momentum between force development observed during the for maintaining the height of the CM
bodies involved in a collision (75); during stance and compensating for
initial stance phases of maximal speed
the greater the effective mass, the variations in the output of the hip
sprinting (Figure 5D) are the result of
greater the transfer of momentum the ability of the athlete to resist the and ankle joints (6). The combined ac-
between the leg and the supporting collapse of the stance leg as it is tions of the hip, knee, and ankle joint
surface and the more rapid the rise in “punched” into the ground. What also moments results in an approximate
the GRF. This is another reason why becomes apparent is that the impact- balance between energy generation
the athlete’s posture changes from limb deceleration mechanism that is so and energy dissipation during the
a forward lean during acceleration to important in overcoming the biome- stance phase of maximal speed sprint-
an upright posture at maximal speed chanical limitation to maximal speed ing, reflecting the absence of change in
Figure 8. Joint moments and powers at the hip (A and B), knee (C and D), and ankle (E and F) during maximal speed sprinting. The
energy generated and absorbed by the joint moments has been calculated for comparison. Combining the work done
by the joint moments reveals that the leg generates net energy of only 0.040 J/kg, reflecting the absence of change in
height of the center of mass (CM) (gravitational potential energy) or speed of the CM (kinetic energy) from touchdown
to takeoff. Compare these values to those in Figure 7. From Bezodis IN, Kerwin DG, Salo AIT. Lower-limb mechanics during
the support phase of maximum-velocity sprint running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40: 707–715, 2008.
57
mechanical energy of the CM from The impact-limb deceleration mech- leads to the obvious proposal of resis-
touchdown to takeoff, with neither anism relies on the rapid recovery of tance training as an effective training
the height nor the horizontal velocity the swing leg to produce a high knee mode to improve sprinting perfor-
of the CM changing appreciably dur- lift (requiring work generated by the mance. Despite favorable evidence
ing stance (69,71). hip flexors and energy from contra- supporting the inclusion of resistance
lateral leg), an active leg motion to training in the overall training program
The preceding biomechanical analysis of
“punch” the swing leg into the of sprinters (9,23,88,94), there is still
maximal speed sprinting allows us to
ground (requiring the hamstrings to opposition in some expert sprint
establish mechanisms that allow faster
absorb energy), and the stiffness of coaches (10). The objection seems to
athletes to attain greater sprinting speeds:
Faster sprinters are able to continue the stance leg (influenced largely by be based largely on issues surrounding
the knee and ankle joints) early dur- the mechanical specificity of resistance
to generate net forward-directed
ing stance to prevent its collapse and training exercises relative to the sprint-
GRF at higher speeds. This ability
ensure the generation of a very high ing stride (10). Some potential objec-
likely arises from the incorporation
rate of force development. tions to the inclusion of resistance
of the rotation-extension strategy
during short stance durations associ- training for sprinters based on mechan-
ated with higher sprinting speeds ical specificity are shown in Table 2.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESISTANCE
(requiring the involvement of ham- TRAINING: THE CONSTRAINTS-LED The biomechanical aspects of sprint-
strings early during stance), as well as APPROACH ing are complex, rendering the selec-
the rapid rotation of the contralateral The preceding discussion of both tion of an appropriate resistance
swing leg during stance. accelerative and maximal speed sprint- training exercise based purely on the
Faster sprinters are able to generate ing reveals that success is predicated principle of mechanical specificity very
large forces during short stance du- on the ability of the athlete to generate difficult. As was concluded in a recent
rations, with an approximate balance large forces during stance phases that review, the most specific form of train-
between the absorption and genera- become progressively shorter as speed ing to improve straight-line sprinting
tion of energy by the lower-body increases. The joint moments of the will be to engage in sprinting (88).
joint moments. stance leg combine to generate energy However, although exercise specificity
Faster sprinters are able to use the during the acceleration phase but is certainly an important principle
impact-limb deceleration mecha- increase the absorption of energy when developing a training program,
nism to generate an asymmetrical when the athlete is sprinting at maxi- it is only one of a number of principles
vertical GRF, allowing for reduced mal speed. The reliance of sprinting on that will influence the effectiveness of
stance durations and therefore force production and energy absorp- the program, the others being over-
greater maximal sprinting speeds. tion/generation by the joint moments load, variation, and reversibility (26).
Table 2
Possible objections to the inclusion of resistance training in a program to develop sprinting speed based on mechanical
specificity
Objection Explanation
High sprinting speeds require short stance durations Many resistance training exercises require the application of
force for durations in excess of those associated with
sprinting.
Accelerative sprinting is limited by the energy generated by the Although some resistance training exercises will promote net
joint moments of the stance leg via the rotation-extension positive work to be generated by the hip, knee, and ankle
strategy joint moments during force application (e.g., jumping
exercises (73)), they do not require the rotation-extension
strategy that is associated with accelerative sprinting.
Maximal speed sprinting is limited by the impact-limb Typical resistance training exercises promote the application of
deceleration mechanism large vertical forces through the acceleration of large external
masses (e.g., back squat) and do not involve a mechanism
whereby the leg is “punched” into the ground (even during
the execution of a drop jump, the leg and the center of mass
have largely the same vertical velocity at touchdown in
contrast to the different velocities observed as part of the
impact-limb deceleration mechanism when sprinting).

Assessing the contribution of resistance should recognize that the inclusion of those associated with the goal of the
training to the development of sprint- resistance training in the overall pro- task (task constraints), those associated
ing speed on the basis of mechanical gram of sprint athletes can be beneficial with the physical properties of the
specificity alone devalues the potential in a number of ways (Table 3). environment in which the motor skills
role of resistance training in developing Viewing sprint running from the are executed (environmental con-
sprinting performance in the long term. constraints-led approach used in skill straints), and those associated with
The practitioner will be better served acquisition can provide insight into the performer (organismic constraints).
by acknowledging the mechanical lim- the value of resistance training as an With reference to the motor skill of
itations to sprinting (short stance dura- effective training mode in the develop- straight-line sprinting, the goal of
tions, forward-directed net GRF, and ment of sprinting speed. The which is to attain the greatest running
the rapid application of vertical forces) constraints-led approach posits that speed, we can view the mechanical
and using resistance training as an movements used to accomplish spe- limitations of a forward-directed GRF
adjunct to sprint training that allows cific tasks, such as straight-line sprint- and the application of large vertical
higher sprinting speeds to be attained ing, emerge from the confluence of forces during stance as task constraints
before these limitations impose their constraints surrounding the athlete specific to accelerative and maximal
restrictions. Indeed, the combination (21,37,75). Constraints are boundaries speed sprinting, respectively. The
of resistance training and sprint train- that limit the configuration of the rotation-extension strategy and the ini-
ing has been shown to be a successful motor system, allowing certain move- tial impact-limb deceleration mecha-
means of improving straight-line ments to emerge while precluding nism are the biomechanical solutions
sprinting, particularly during the accel- others as an athlete executes a motor that the fastest sprinters implement to
eration phase (88). The practitioner skill. Constraints can be categorized as satisfy these task constraints and can be
Table 3
The benefits provided by resistance training methods to sprint athletes
Benefit Explanation
Improvements in various indices of Resistance training can increase various indices of muscular strength through neurogenic
muscular strength (e.g., motor unit recruitment and rate coding) and phenotypic (e.g., hypertrophy,
myosin heavy chain isoform transformation, and muscle architecture) adaptations (75).
Such adaptations would provide a foundation for the increased ability to absorb and
generate work by joint moments to support the application of GRF during stance and
the rapid recovery of the swing leg. Indeed, faster sprinters are typically stronger than
their slower counterparts (75) and have been shown to have hypertrophy of the
musculature crossing the hip and knee joints compared with nonsprinters (39).
Altered force-velocity characteristics Resistance training can alter the force-velocity spectrum during multijoint movements
(18). The ability to produce high forces at high velocities would allow the athlete to
reduce the duration of their stance phases, thereby allowing the attainment of greater
sprinting speeds. The force-velocity characteristics have been shown to be the most
important muscular property limiting sprinting speeds (72), and faster sprinters have
both greater force and greater velocity characteristics than their slower counterparts
(76,97).
Improved SSC performance during Resistance training can improve the SSC performance during rapid movements through
rapid movements an enhanced ability to use the kinetics during the initial eccentric phase of the SSC (20)
and as the result of increased neural drive (5). Such an adaptation would likely enhance
the absorption and subsequent generation of work by joint moments to support
greater sprinting speeds.
Increased leg stiffness Resistance training can increase leg stiffness (63). Such an adaptation would allow the
sprinter to use the impact-limb deceleration mechanism to support greater maximal
sprinting speeds through the rapid application of large vertical forces during stance.
Increased connective tissue strength Resistance training has been shown to be effective at increasing the strength of
connective tissue (ligaments and tendons) and bone (8,101). Such adaptations would
allow these biological tissues to accommodate the large forces experienced when
sprinting at high speeds.
GRF 5 ground reaction force; SSC 5 stretch-shortening cycle.
59
regarded as coordinative structures. A to demonstrate how the constraints- mechanical limitations to sprinting
coordinative structure can be defined led framework can guide the develop- (task constraints) and the biomechani-
as a temporary organization of body ment of training programs by address- cal solutions to these (coordinative
and limb motions that emerges from ing these 3 areas. structures) to guide the selection of
the interaction of the different con- the resistance training exercises. Both
straints imposed on an athlete during APPROPRIATE TESTING FOR the rotation-extension strategy used to
a motor skill, existing only until the SPRINTERS satisfy the task constraint of a forward-
goal of the motor skill is achieved Any analysis of sprinting performance directed GRF during the acceleration
(21,37). The coordinative structures must acknowledge the different phases phase and the initial impact-limb
associated with sprint running, and so deceleration mechanism used to gen-
adopted during sprinting (rotation-
the measurement of sprint times erate large vertical forces rapidly when
extension strategy and initial impact-
should include multiple distances to sprinting at maximal speed are predi-
limb deceleration mechanism) require
allow the determination of the differ- cated on high levels of muscular
sufficient muscular power and leg stiff- ent phases (e.g., the use of time over strength and power and both share
ness, both organismic constraints. For 10 m intervals during a 100-m sprint). the following commonalities:
example, insufficient muscular power The assessment of performance during The requirement of the extensor mo-
would prohibit the execution of the the different sprint phases is supported ments about the hip, knee, and ankle
rotation-extension strategy during by reports of different training meth- joints to generate (acceleration
short stance times, reducing the length ods, eliciting different responses in phase) and absorb (maximal speed
of the acceleration phase during the sprinting phases (23,74). Further- phase) energy during short stance
a sprint. Furthermore, insufficient mus- more, the importance of power in phases.
cular power would limit the velocity of sprinting performance requires an The requirement of the hip flexors to
the swing leg at touchdown, prevent- assessment of the force-velocity char- recover the swing leg rapidly when
ing the application of an asymmetric acteristics of each athlete to allow the accelerating to contribute to the
vertical GRF that also requires suffi- development of appropriate training forward-directed force and to
cient leg stiffness during stance. This methods to improve each of these produce a high knee lift when sprint-
would require a longer stance duration organismic constraints. Loaded jump ing at maximal speed as part of the
to apply sufficient vertical force, tests have been proposed as effective initial impact-limb deceleration
thereby reducing the maximal speed methods of assessing the force and mechanism.
attained by the athlete. Muscle power velocity capabilities of athletes (91), The importance of the hamstrings
and leg stiffness can therefore be re- although a simple method of assessing muscle group to delay knee exten-
garded as rate limiters that preclude force, velocity, and power output dur- sion as part of the rotation-
the attainment of very high sprinting ing sprint trials has recently been devel- extension strategy during the accel-
speeds by preventing the emergence oped (90). These assessments would eration phase and the eccentric
of the sprint-specific coordinative allow the practitioner to identify areas action required to “punch” the leg
structures. As both muscular power of weakness for the athletes, which can into the ground as part of the initial
output and leg stiffness are best be remedied through the implementa- impact-limb deceleration mecha-
enhanced through resistance training tion of specific resistance training nism when sprinting at maxi-
methods, an effective training program exercises. mal speed.
would integrate resistance training Unilateral force production during
methods with sprint training methods each stance phase.
APPROPRIATE TRAINING
to allow higher sprinting speeds to be EXERCISE SELECTION The acceleration phase of sprinting re-
attained before the mechanical limita- The selection of resistance training ex- quires the joint moments of the stance
tions impose their restrictions. ercises by the practitioner is typically leg to generate energy during progres-
We propose that a constraints-led based on the principle of specificity, sively shorter stance phases. General
framework holds significant implica- with an increased correspondence resistance exercises emphasizing the
tions for sport scientists in allowing between the mechanical and physio- development of strength about the
them to design and evaluate effective logical characteristics of the resistance hip, knee, and ankle joints (e.g., squats
training programs to develop sprinting training exercises and those of the per- and deadlifts) should therefore be
speed. Specifically, we contend that formance movements enhancing the included in a training program to
the constraints-led framework holds transfer of adaptations (95). The spec- improve sprinting. Weightlifting pulling
implications in the following areas: ificity of the exercises generally in- derivatives can prove beneficial for the
appropriate testing for sprinters; creases as the athlete progresses sprinter because they remove the catch
appropriate training exercise selection; through a training program toward phase of the lifts while emphasizing the
and the use of periodized training the competitive phase. The practi- rapid generation of large forces during
models. What follows is an attempt tioner can use the knowledge of the the second pull phase of weightlifting

movements (102). Exercises such as propulsive GRF during stance and sprinting (68) while promoting ankle
clean and snatch pulls from the floor has been shown to result in large im- stiffness (33) and are therefore included
and midthigh pulls can be used for provements in accelerative sprinting in the power training block where the
the development of force, whereas ex- performance (85). Sled towing with development of maximal sprinting
ercises including the power clean, hang these heavy loads is recommended speed is emphasized.
high pull, and jump shrug can be used during the program where the focus
Assisted-sprint methods are likely to
to develop movement velocity. Plyo- is on the development of high forces,
prove useful in the development of
metric exercises are an effective training whereas sled towing with lighter
method in the development of muscu- maximal sprinting speed. Such meth-
loads (resulting in an approximate
lar power output through the develop- ods include towing the athlete with
15% decrease in sprinting speed) is
ment of rate of force development and an elastic cord or a mechanical winch.
recommended during the power
movement velocity (61). Exercises such block where the training focus shifts Towing has been shown to increase
as unloaded and loaded vertical and to movement velocity. Methods of the vertical and braking forces during
horizontal jumps maximize the gener- determining the specific loads early stance (69). This change would
ation of energy by the extensor mo- required to reduce sprinting speed likely promote increased stiffness of
ments about the hip, knee, and ankle have been developed (55). Uphill the stance leg in a unilateral move-
joints (54,73,100). Furthermore, hori- sprints have been studied as a resisted ment, promoting the development of
zontal jumps incorporate the same sprint method to develop accelera- the initial impact-limb deceleration
reciprocal activation of the biarticular tion (88). However, despite the favor- mechanism that would support greater
hamstrings and rectus femoris as able acute mechanical alterations maximal sprinting speeds. Further-
observed as part of the rotation- observed during uphill running, more, there is evidence that the veloc-
extension strategy during accelerative including energy generation by the ity of the swing leg is also increased at
sprinting (35,49) while also requiring hip, knee, and ankle joint moments the supramaximal velocities achieved
energy generation by hip, knee, and during stance (106) and an increased during assisted sprinting methods
ankle joint moments (35,42,49). These takeoff distance that may reflect a for- (71), aiding the development of the
biomechanical elements make horizon- ward-directed GRF during stance high knee required as part of the
tal jumps important exercises to sup- (83), uphill sprinting has not been impact-limb deceleration mechanism.
port the development of accelerative shown to improve sprinting perfor- Although assisted sprinting by means
sprinting. Bounding exercises can be mance (84). Furthermore, uphill of an elastic cord is a more practical
included as a unilateral exercise that sprints have been reported to result method available to practitioners, there
promotes the generation of energy by in lower activation of the hamstrings is currently limited information avail-
the leg extensor moments. Strengthen- (96), an important muscle group for able regarding the optimal assistance to
ing the hamstring muscle group can be accelerative and maximal speed provide during such sprints (4,105).
achieved by including exercises such as sprinting. Therefore, uphill sprints
Nordic hamstring exercise, good morn- are not included in the periodized Another sprint-specific method of
ings, and stiff leg deadlifts. model presented here. resistance training that the practitioner
can include in the training program to
Sprint-specific resistance training The role of the joint moments of the develop maximal sprinting speed is
methods can be used to enhance stance leg changes from energy gener-
downhill sprinting. It has been shown
the transfer of the gains in muscular ation during accelerative sprinting to
that downhill running requires largely
strength and power to the sprinting a greater amount of energy absorption,
energy absorption by the joint mo-
movement during the acceleration particularly at the knee and ankle
ments (106). Although these joint
phase. For example, resisted-sprint joints, when sprinting at maximal
methods such as sled towing can be kinetics have not been demonstrated
speed. These joint kinetics can be sup-
beneficial. Sled towing methods ported by the incorporation of meth- while running downhill at sprinting
require unilateral force production ods to develop eccentric strength and speeds, previous researchers have
during stance, and the reduced aerial power, including both supramaximal shown greater improvements in sprint-
times when sprinting while towing and accentuated eccentric methods ing speed following a program incor-
a sled (55) may promote a more rapid (30,75). The inclusion of drop jumps porating downhill sprints when
repositioning of the swing leg, which would also promote leg stiffness (63), compared with sprinting on a level sur-
would support the development of which would support the development face (84). Slopes between 38 and 5.88
a forward-directed GRF during of the initial impact-limb deceleration are recommended for downhill sprints
accelerative sprinting. Sled towing mechanism. Stepping and hopping (32,84); however, it is currently unclear
using heavy loads (resulting in drills are unilateral exercises that have what gradients of slope would maxi-
.30% decrease in sprinting speed) been reported to replicate the GRF mize the adaptations to downhill
has been shown to result in greater associated with maximal speed running.
61
Free sprinting exercises are recom- of muscular strength and power gained rotation-extension strategy and the
mended throughout the training pro- from the resistance training methods is initial impact-limb deceleration mech-
gram to ensure that the development transferred to the development of the anism. The emphasis in the free
Table 4
A block periodized framework for the implementation of resistance training to support the development of straight-line
sprinting speed
Block Strength endurance Maximal dynamic strength Power
Expected Increased work capacity, increased Increased maximal force Increased rate of force development
adaptations muscle cross-sectional area production and movement velocity
Volume (sets 3 High volume (e.g., 3 3 10) Moderate volume (e.g., 3 3 5) Moderate to low volume (e.g., 3 3 5,
repetitions) 3 3 3, 3 3 2)
Intensity Moderate intensity (e.g., 60% 1-RM) High intensity (e.g., .85% Range of intensities using a mixed-
1-RM) methods approach (e.g., 0–100%
1 RM)
Exercise Back squats Half back squats Quarter back squats
selection
Overhead squats Unilateral squats Loaded squat jumps
Nordic hamstring exercise Stiff leg deadlifts Bench press
Good mornings Overhead press Bench throws
Bench press
Bent-over rows
WL derivatives WL derivatives WL derivatives
Clean-grip shoulder shrugs Midthigh pull Power clean
Clean pull Hang high pull
Snatch pull Jump shrug
Plyometrics Plyometrics Plyometrics
Tuck jumps in place Countermovement vertical Drop jumps
and horizontal jumps
A-drills Bounds Stepping drills
Hopping drills
Potentiating complexes
Resisted-sprint exercises Resisted-sprint exercises
Heavy sled towing Moderate sled towing (15%vdec)
(.30%vdec)
Assisted-sprint exercises
Towed & downhill sprints
Free sprint exercises Free sprint exercises Free sprint exercises
Conditioning (long distances or Short distances for Longer distances for maximal
short distances with high acceleration speed
repetitions)
%vdec 5 percent decrement in sprinting velocity calculated using the methods proposed by Lockie et al. (55); 1-RM 5 1-repetition maximum; WL
5 weightlifting.

sprinting workouts shifts from condi- (45). However, these abilities cannot cross-sectional area), maximal
tioning (high volumes can be achieved be maintained indefinitely after a reduc- dynamic strength (increased maximal
either by long distance sprints or tion in the specific training stimulus, force production), and power
through higher repetitions of shorter yet each ability has a different rate of (increased rate of force development
distance sprints) to acceleration early decay (the time taken to lose the pos- and movement velocity). Table 4 rep-
in the program (short sprint distances), itive adaptations to a specific training resents a framework for the integration
with an emphasis on maximal speed stimulus after its cessation, also known of resistance training exercises into
sprints during later training phases as the residual training effect or invo- a training program to develop sprinting
where longer sprints are performed. lution). For example, strength and aer- speed. Notice that the development of
obic endurance have been proposed to accelerative sprinting is emphasized
THE USE OF PERIODIZED have longer rates of decay than maxi- before the development of maximal
TRAINING MODELS mal sprinting speed (45). The different sprinting speed because maximal speed
The potential benefits associated with physical abilities can be emphasized is dependent on the completion of
resistance training and their transfer- during different training blocks a successful acceleration phase. Using
ence to sprinting performance are through the manipulation of the train- this basic framework, the practitioner
likely to be best realized using a long- ing variables (e.g., volume, intensity, can then manipulate the programming
term, periodized training program that and exercise selection), with the adap- variables of volume, intensity, and exer-
includes the integration of resistance tations gained from 1 training block cise selection to attain the adaptations
training and sprint training modes. It being maintained in subsequent blocks to support the goal of each block of
is worth noting that researchers inves- through the implementation of a small training.
tigating the effects of different training volume of specific training in the next
methods on sprinting performance block (11). Another pertinent aspect of
have rarely extended their studies CONCLUSION
block periodization is the concept
beyond a period of 8 weeks (9,88). Sprinting speed is limited by the
of phase potentiation whereby blocks
Periodization involves the phasic application of appropriate forces dur-
of training are sequenced specifically to ing stance, with a forward-directed
manipulation of training variables
allow the adaptations accrued from 1 GRF required during acceleration
(e.g., volume, intensity, and exercise
block to enhance the adaptations to and large vertical forces required
selection) to elicit the neurogenic and
the training stimulus presented in a sub- when sprinting at maximal speed.
phenotypic adaptations that support
sequent block (11,27). For example, These requirements are regarded as
improved athletic abilities while also
a block of training to develop maximal task constraints specific to the accel-
managing fatigue through the incorpo-
muscular strength preceding a training eration and maximal speed phases of
ration of planned recovery periods
block to develop muscular power out- sprinting. The biomechanical solu-
(11,26). Although there are various
models of periodization, block perio- put is likely to enhance the gains in tions to these task constraints used
dized models hold significant implica- power attained, a suggestion that has by the fastest sprinters include the
tions for the application of resistance both theoretical and experimental sup- rotation-extension strategy and the
training methods to the development port (19,115). impact-limb deceleration mechanism.
of straight-line sprinting speed. Block We contend that the development of Both of these solutions are considered
periodization models incorporate sprinting speed is founded on high coordinative structures that are pred-
a number of training “blocks” of levels of muscular strength and power icated on sufficient muscular power
approximately 2–6 weeks, which focus (i.e., organismic constraints) and that and leg stiffness, representing organis-
on a minimal number of physical the incorporation of resistance training mic constraints that limit sprinting
capacities (e.g., endurance, maximal modes into the wider training program performance. Resistance training rep-
strength, speed, etc.) (45). The of the sprinter is required to maximize resents a very effective training
approach acknowledges that athletic the long-term improvements in sprint- method to develop muscular power
success is founded on a variety of phys- ing performance (i.e., allowing the and leg stiffness, and therefore, im-
ical capacities ranging from “basic” athlete to adopt sprint-specific coordi- provements in sprinting performance
abilities (e.g., general work capacity) native structures to support high are best realized through long-term
to “sport-specific” abilities (e.g., maxi- sprinting speeds). Given the principle training programs that integrate resis-
mal sprinting speed). A block perio- tenets associated with block periodiza- tance and sprint training methods.
dized program allows an athlete to tion (residual training effect, phase The constraints-led approach to skill
develop and maintain both basic and potentiation), the logical sequencing acquisition provides a framework
sport-specific abilities during competi- of resistance training blocks to support from which practitioners can explore
tion phases of the training year through the development of sprinting speed the incorporation of resistance and
long-term planning and regulation of would be strength endurance sprint training in effective training
the aforementioned training variables (increased work capacity and muscle programs.
63
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: mechanical loading: A systematic review

Hugh S. and meta-analysis of exercise intervention
The authors report no conflicts of interest
Lamont is an studies on healthy adults. Sports Med
and no source of funding.
assistant profes- Open 1: 7, 2015.
sor in the 9. Bolger R, Lyons M, Harrison AJ, and
Department of Kenny IC. Sprinting performance and
Gavin L. Moir is Kinesiology, Rec- resistance-based training interventions: A
a professor in the reation and Sport systematic review. J Strength Cond Res
Exercise Science Studies at 29: 1146–1156, 2015.
Department at Coastal Carolina 10. Bolger R, Lyons M, Harrison AJ, and
East Stroudsburg University. Kenny IC. Coaching sprinting: Expert
University. coaches’ perception of resistance based
training. Int J Sports Sci Coach 11:
746–754, 2016.
11. Bompa TO and Haff GG. Periodization.
Theory and Methodology of Training.
REFERENCES Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
1. Ae M, Ito A, and Suzuki M. The men’s 100 Publishers, 2009.
Scott M. meters. Scientific research project at the 12. Brechue WF. Structure-function
III World Championship in Athletics, relationships that determine sprint
Brimmer is cur-
Tokyo 1991. New Stud Athlet 7: 47–52, performance and running speed in sport.
rently working in 1992. Int J Appl Sports Sci 23: 313–350, 2011.
the private sector
2. Ae M, Miyashita K, and Yokoi T. 13. Bushnell T and Hunter I. Differences in
as a strength and
Mechanical energy flows in lower limb technique between sprinters and
conditioning segments during sprinting. In: distance runners at equal and maximal
coach in the Biomechanics XI-B. de Groot G, speeds. Sports Biomech 6: 261–268,
Stroudsburg area. Hollander AP, Huijing PA and van Ingen 2007.
Schenau GJ, eds. Amsterdam, the
14. Chapman AE and Caldwell GE. Factors
Netherlands: Free University Press, 1988.
determining changes in lower limb energy
pp. 617–618.
during swing in treadmill running.
3. Babi
c V, Coh M, and Dizdar D. J Biomech 16: 69–77, 1983.
Brandon W. Differences in kinematic parameters of
athletes of different running quality. Biol 15. Chelly SM and Denis C. Leg power and
Snyder is an hopping stiffness: Relationship with sprint
Sport 28: 115–121, 2001.
adjunct professor running performance. Med Sci Sports
4. Bartolini JA, Brown LE, Coburn JW,
in the Exercise Exerc 33: 326–333, 2001.
Judelson DA, Spiering BA, Aguirre NW,
Science Depart- Carney KR, and Harris KB. Optimal elastic 16. Chumanov ES, Heiderscheit BC, and
ment at East cord assistance for sprinting in collegiate Thelen DG. Hamstring musculotendon
Stroudsburg women soccer players. J Strength Cond dynamics during stance and swing
University. Res 25: 1263–1270, 2011. phases of high-speed running. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 43: 525–532, 2011.
5. Beherens M, Mau-Moeller A, and Bruhn S.
Effect of plyometric training on neural and 17. Clark KP and Weyand PG. Are running
mechanical properties of the knee speeds maximized with simple-spring
extensor muscles. Int J Sports Med 35: stance mechanics? J Appl Physiol 117:
101–109, 2014. 604–615, 2014.
Chris
Connaboy is an 6. Bezodis IN, Kerwin DG, and Salo AIT. 18. Cormie P, McCauley GO, and McBride
Lower-limb mechanics during the support JM. Power versus strength-power jump
assistant profes-
phase of maximum-velocity sprint running. squat training: Influence on the load-
sor in the
Med Sci Sports Exerc 40: 707–715, power relationship. Med Sci Sports Exerc
Department of 39: 996–1003, 2007.
2008.
Sport Medicine
7. Bezodis NE, Salo AIT, and Trewartha G. 19. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, and Newton
and Nutrition at RU. Influence of strength on magnitude
Modelling the stance leg in two-
the University of dimensional analyses of sprinting: and mechanisms of adaptation to power
Pittsburgh, Inclusion of the MTP joint affects joint training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1566–
working within kinetics. J Appl Biomech 28: 222–227, 1581, 2010.
the Neuromuscu- 2012. 20. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, and Newton
lar Research Laboratory and Warrior 8. Bohm S, Mersmann F, and Arampatzis A. RU. Changes in the eccentric phase
Human Performance Research Center. Human tendon adaptation in response to contribution to improved stretch-

shortening cycle performance after stiffness during human hopping. 47. Johnson MD and Buckley JG. Muscle
training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1731– J Biomech 32: 267–273, 1999. power patterns in the mid-acceleration
1744, 2010. 34. Faude O, Koch T, and Meyer T. Straight phase of sprinting. J Sports Sci 19:
21. Davids K, Button C, and Bennett S. sprinting is the most frequent action in 263–272, 2001.
Dynamics of Skills Acquisition: A goal situations in professional football. 48. Jones R, Bezodis I, and Thompson A.
Constraints-Led Approach. Champaign, J Sports Sci 30: 625–631, 2012. Coaching sprinting: Expert coaches’
IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 2008. perception of race phases and technical
35. Fukashiro S, Besier TF, Barrett R,
constructs. Int J Sports Sci Coach 4:
22. Debaere S, Jonkers I, and Delecluse C. Cochrane J, Nagano A, and Lloyd DG.
385–396, 2009.
The contribution of step characteristics to Direction control in standing horizontal
sprint running performance in high-level and vertical jumps. Int J Sport Health Sci 49. Jones SL and Caldwell GE. Mono- and bi-
male and female athletes. J Strength 3: 272–279, 2005. articular muscle activity during jumping in
Cond Res 27: 116–124, 2013. different directions. J Appl Biomech 19:
36. Gajer B, Thépaut-Mathieu C, and
205–222, 2003.
23. Delecluse CH. Influence of strength Lehénaff D. Evolution of stride and
training on sprint running performance: amplitude during course of the 100 m 50. Krzysztof M and Mero A. A kinematic
Current findings and implications for event in athletics. New Stud Athlet 14: analysis of three best 100 m
training. Sports Med 24: 147–156, 1997. 43–50, 1999. performances ever. J Hum Kinet 36:
149–161, 2013.
24. Delecluse CH, van Coppenolle H, 37. Glazier PS. Towards a grand unifying
Willems E, Diles R, Goris M, van theory of sports performance. Hum Mov 51. Kugler F and Janshen L. Body position
Leemputte M, and Vuylsteke M. Analysis Sci 56: 139–156, 2016. determines propulsive forces in
of 100 m sprint performance as a multi- accelerated running. J Biomech 43:
38. Goodwin J. Maximum velocity is when we
dimensional skill. J Hum Mov Stud 28: 343–348, 2010.
can no longer accelerate. Using
87–101, 1995. biomechanics to inform speed 52. Kuitunen S, Komi PV, and Kyröläinen H.
25. DeVita P. The selection of a standard development. Prof Strength Cond 21: Knee and ankle joint stiffness in sprint
convention for analyzing gait data based 3–9, 2011. running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34:
on the analysis of relevant biomechanical 166–173, 2002.
39. Handsfield GG, Knaus KR, Fiorentino NM,
factors. J Biomech 27: 501–508, 1994. Meyer CH, Hart JM, and Blemker SS. 53. Kunz H and Kaufmann DA. Biomechanical
26. DeWeese BH, Hornsby G, Stone M, and Adding muscle where you need it: Non- analysis of sprinting: Decathletes versus
Stone MH. The training process: Planning uniform hypertrophy patterns in elite champions. Br J Sports Med 15:
for strength-power training in track and sprinters. Scand J Med Sci Sports 27: 177–181, 1981.
field. Part 1: Theoretical aspects. J Sport 1050–1060, 2017. 54. Lees A, Vanrenterghem J, and De Clercq
Health Sci 4: 308–317, 2015. 40. Haugen TA, Tønnessen E, and Seiler S. D. The maximal and submaximal vertical
27. DeWeese BH, Hornsby G, Stone M, and Anaerobic performance testing of jump: Implications for strength and
Stone MH. The training process: Planning professional soccer players 1995–2010. conditioning. J Strength Cond Res 18:
for strength-power training in track and Int J Sports Physiol Perf 8: 148–156, 787–791, 2004.
field. Part 2: Practical and applied aspects. 2013. 55. Lockie RG, Murphy AJ, and Spinks CD.
J Sport Health Sci 4: 318–324, 2015. 41. Herr H and Popovic M. Angular Effects of resisted sled towing on sprint
28. DiSalvo V, Baron R, González-Haro C, momentum in human walking. J Exp Biol kinematics in field-sport athletes.
Gormasz C, Pigozzi F, and Bachl N. 211: 467–481, 2008. J Strength Cond Res 17: 760–767, 2003.
Sprinting analysis of elite soccer players 42. Horita T, Kitamura K, and Kohno N. Body 56. Luhtanen P and Komi PV. Mechanical
during European Champions League and configuration and joint moment analysis energy states during running. Eur J Appl
UEFA Cup matches. J Sports Sci 28: during standing long jump in 6-yr-old Physiol 38: 41–48, 1978.
1489–1494, 2010. children and adult males. Med Sci Sports 57. Majumdar AS and Robergs RA. The
29. Dorn TW, Schache AG, and Pandy MG. Exerc 23: 1068–1077, 1991. science of speed: Determinants of
Muscular strategy shift in human running: 43. Hunter JP, Marshall RN, and McNair PJ. performance in the 100 m sprint. Int J
Dependence of running speed on hip and Reliability of biomechanical variables of Sports Sci Coach 6: 479–493, 2011.
ankle muscle performance. J Exp Biol sprint running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 58. Mann RV. Biomechanical analysis of the
215: 1944–1956, 2012. 850–861, 2004. elite sprinter and hurdler. In: The Elite
30. Douglas J, Pearson S, Ross A, and 44. Hunter JP, Marshall RN, and McNair PJ. Athlete. Butts NK, Gushiken TT, and
McGuigan M. Chronic adaptations to Relationships between ground reaction Zarins B, eds. Jamaica, NY: Spectrum,
eccentric training: A systematic review. force impulse and kinematics of sprint 1985. pp. 43–80.
Sports Med 47: 917–941, 2017. running acceleration. J Appl Biomech 21: 59. Mann R and Hermann J. Kinematic
31. Duthie G, Pyne D, and Hooper S. Applied 31–43, 2005. analysis of Olympic sprint performance:
physiology and game analysis of rugby 45. Issurin VB. New horizons for the Men’s 200 meters. Int J Sport Biomech 1:
union. Sports Med 33: 973–991, 2003. methodology and physiology of training 240–252, 1985.
32. Ebben WP. The optimal downhill slope for periodization. Sports Med 40: 189–206, 60. Mann R and Sprague P. A kinetic analysis
acute overspeed running. Int J Sports 2010. of the ground leg during sprint running.
Physiol Perf 3: 88–93, 2008. 46. Jacobs R and Ingen Schenau GJ. Res Q Exerc Sport 51: 334–348, 1980.
33. Farley CT and Morgenroth DC. Leg Intermuscular coordination in a sprint 61. Markovic G and Mikulic P. Neuro-
stiffness primarily depends on ankle push-off. J Biomech 25: 953–965, 1992. musculoskeletal and performance
65
adaptations to lower-extremity plyometric 74. Moir G, Sanders RH, Button C, and of human locomotion. Scand J Med Sci
training. Sports Med 40: 859–895, 2010. Glaister M. The effect of periodized Sports 25: 583–594, 2015.
62. McGowan CP, Grabowski AM, resistance training on accelerative sprint 87. Roberts EM, Cheung TK, Abdel Hafez
McDermott WJ, Her HM, and Kram R. Leg performance. Sports Biomech 6: 285– AM, and Hong DA. Swing limb
stiffness of sprinters using running- 300, 2007. biomechanics of 60- to 65-year-old male
specific prostheses. J R Soc Interface 9: 75. Moir GL. Strength and Conditioning. A runners. Gait Posture 5: 42–53, 1997.
1975–1982, 2012. Biomechanical Approach. Burlington, 88. Rumpf MC, Lockie RG, Cronin JB, and
63. McMahon JJ, Comfort P, and Pearson S. MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2015. Jalivand F. The effect of different sprint
Lower limb stiffness: Effect on 76. Morin JB, Bourdin M, Edouard P, Peyrot training methods on sprint performance
performance and training considerations. N, and Samozino P. Mechanical over various distances. J Strength Cond
Strength Cond J 34: 94–101, 2012. determinants of 100-m sprint running Res 30: 1767–1785, 2016.
64. Mendiguchia J, Edouard P, Samozino P, performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 112: 89. Salo AIT, Bezodis IN, Batterham AM, and
Brughelli M, Cross M, Ross A, Gill N, and 3921–3930, 2012. Kerwin DG. Elite sprinting: Are athletes
Morin JB. Field monitoring of sprinting 77. Morin JB, Edouard P, and Samozino P. individually step-frequency of step-length
power-force-velocity profile before, during Technical ability of force application as reliant? Med Sci Sports Exerc 43: 1055–
and after hamstring injury: Two case a determinant factor of sprint 1062, 2011.
reports. J Sports Sci 34: 535–541, 2016. performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43: 90. Samozino P, Rabita G, Dorel S, Slawinski
65. Mendiguchia J, Samozino P, Martinez- 1680–1688, 2011. J, Peyrot N, Saez de Villarreal E, and Morin
Ruiz E, Brughelli M, Schmikli S, Morin JB, 78. Morin JB, Gimenez G, Edouard P, Arnal P, JB. A simple method for measuring power,
and Mendez-Villanueva A. Progression of Jiménez-Reyes P, Samozino P, Brughelli force, velocity properties, and mechanical
mechanical properties during on-field M, and Mendiguchia J. Sprint acceleration effectiveness in sprint running. Scand J
sprint running after returning to sports mechanics: The major role of hamstrings Med Sci Sports 26: 648–658, 2016.
from a hamstring muscle injury in soccer in horizontal force production. Front 91. Samozino P, Rejc E, Di Prampero PE, Belli
players. Int J Sports Med 35: 690–695, Physiol 6: 404, 2015. A, and Morin JB. Optimal force-velocity
2014. 79. Morin JB and Séve P. Sprint running profile in ballistic movements—altius:
66. Mero A. Force-time characteristics and performance: Comparison between Citius or fortius? Med Sci Sports Exerc
running velocity of male sprinters during treadmill and field conditions. Eur J Appl 44: 313–322, 2012.
the acceleration phase of sprinting. Res Q Physiol 111: 1695–1703, 2011. 92. Schache AG, Blanch PD, Dorn TW,
Exerc Sport 59: 94–98, 1988. 80. Morin JB, Slawinski J, Dorel S, de- Brown NAT, Rosemond D, and Pandy
67. Mero A and Komi PV. Force- EMG-, and Villarreal ES, Couturier A, Samozino P, MG. Effect of running speed on lower limb
elasticity-velocity relationships at Brughelli M, and Rabita G. joint kinetics. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43:
submaximal, maximal and supramaximal Acceleration capability in elite sprinters 1260–1271, 2011.
running speeds in sprinters. Eur J Appl and ground impulse: Push more, brake 93. Schache AG, Dorn TW, Blanch PD,
Physiol 55: 553–561, 1986. less? J Biomech 48: 3149–3154, Brown NAT, and Pandy MG. Mechanics
68. Mero A and Komi PV. EMG, force, and 2015. of the human hamstring muscles during
power analysis of sprint-specific strength 81. Murphy AJ, Lockie RG, and Coutts AJ. sprinting. Med Sci Sports Exerc 44:
exercises. J Appl Biomech 10: 1–13, Kinematic determinants of early 647–658, 2012.
1994. acceleration in field sport athletes. 94. Seitz LB, Reyes A, Tran TT, Saez de
69. Mero A, Komi PV, Rusko H, and Hirvonen J Sports Sci Med 2: 144–150, 2003. Villarreal E, and Haff GG. Increases in
J. Neuromuscular and anaerobic 82. Nagahara R and Zushi K. Development of lower-body strength transfer positively to
performance of sprinters at maximal and maximal speed sprinting performance sprint performance: A systematic review
supramaximal speed. Int J Sports Med 8: with changes in vertical, leg and joint with meta-analysis. Sports Med 44:
55–60, 1987. stiffness. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 57: 1693–1702, 2014.
70. Mero A, Luhtanen P, and Komi PV. A 1572–1578, 2017. 95. Siff M. Supertraining. Denver, CO:
biomechanical study of the sprint start. 83. Paradisis GP and Cooke CB. Kinematic Supertraining Institute, 2000.
Scand J Med Sports Sci 5: 20–28, 1983. and postural characteristics of sprint 96. Slawinski J, Dorel S, Hug F, Couturier A,
71. Mero A, Luhtanen P, and Komi P. running on sloping surfaces. J Sports Sci Fournel V, Morin JB, and Hanon C. Elite
Segmental contribution to velocity of 19: 149–159, 2001. long sprint running: A comparison between
center of gravity during contact at different 84. Paradisis GP and Cooke CB. The effects incline and level training sessions. Med Sci
speeds in male and female sprinters. of sprint running training on sloping Sports Exerc 40: 1155–1162, 2008.
J Hum Mov Stud 12: 215–235, 1986. surfaces. J Strength Cond Res 20: 767– 97. Slawinski J, Termoz N, Rabita G, Guilhem
72. Miller RH, Umberger BR, and Caldwell GE. 777, 2006. G, Dorel S, Morin JB, and Samozino P.
Limitations to maximum sprinting speed 85. Petrakos G, Morin JB, and Egan B. How 100-m event analyses improve our
imposed by muscle mechanical properties. Resisted sled sprint training to improve understanding of world-class men’s and
J Biomech 45: 1092–1097, 2012. sprint performance: A systematic review. women’s sprint performance. Scand J
73. Moir GL, Gollie JM, Davis SE, Guers JJ, Sports Med 46: 381–400, 2016. Med Sci Sports 27: 45–54, 2017.
and Witmer CA. The effects of load on 86. Rabita G, Dorel S, Slawinski J, de- 98. Sleivert G and Taingahue M. The
system and lower-body joint kinetics Villarreal ES, Courturier A, Samozino P, relationship between maximal jump-squat
during jump squats. Sports Biomech 11: and Morin JB. Sprint mechanics in world- power and sprint acceleration in athletes.
492–506, 2012. class athletes: A new insight into the limits Eur J Appl Physiol 91: 46–52, 2004.

99. Spencer M, Lawrence S, Rechichi C, 104. Triplett NT, Erickson TM, and McBride J. 110. Weyand PG, Sandell RF, Prime DNL, and
Bishop D, Dawson B, and Goodman C. Power associations with running speed. Bundle MW. The biological limits to running
Time-motion analysis of elite field hockey, Strength Cond J 34: 29–33, 2012. speed are imposed from the ground up.
with special reference to repeated-sprint 105. Upton DE. The effect of assisted and J Appl Physiol 108: 950–961, 2010.
activity. J Sports Sci 22: 843–850, 2004. resisted sprint training on acceleration 111. Weyand PG, Sternlight DB, Bellizzi MJ,
100. Stefanyshyn D and Nigg B. Mechanical and velocity in Division IA female soccer and Wright S. Faster top running speeds
energy contribution of the athletes. J Strength Cond Res 25: are achieved with greater ground forces
metatarsophalangeal joint to running and 2645–2652, 2011. not more rapid leg movements. J Appl
sprinting. J Biomech 30: 11–12, 1997. 106. Vernillo G, Giandolini M, Edwards WB, Physiol 81: 1991–1999, 2000.
101. Stone MH and Karatzaferi C. Connective Morin JB, Samozino P, Horvais N, and 112. Wiemann K and Tidow G. Relative activity
tissue and bone response to strength Millet GY. Biomechanics and physiology of hip and knee extensors in sprinting.
training. In: Strength and Power in Sport. of uphill and downhill running. Sports Med Implications for training. New Stud Athlet
Komi PV, ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell 47: 615–629, 2017. 10: 29–49, 1995.
Publishing, 2003. pp. 343–360. 107. Volkov NI and Lapin VI. Analysis of the 113. Wood GA. Biomechanical limitations to
102. Suchomel TJ, Comfort P, and Stone MH. velocity curve in sprint running. Med Sci sprint running. Med Sports Sci 25:
Weightlifting pulling derivatives: Rationale Sports Exerc 11: 332–337, 1979. 58–71, 1987.
for implementation and application. Sports 108. Vonstein W. Some reflections on 114. Winter DA. Biomechanics and Motor
Med 45: 823–839, 2015. maximum speed sprinting technique. New Control of Human Movement. Hoboken,
103. Thelen DG, Chumanov ES, Hoerth DM, Stud Athlet 11: 161–165, 1996. NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc, 2009.
Best TM, Swanson SC, Li L, Young M, 109. Weyand PG, Bundle MW, McGowan CP, 115. Zamparo P, Minetti AE, and di Prampero
and Heiderscheit BC. Hamstring muscle Grabowski A, Brown MB, Kram R, and PE. Interplay among changes of muscle
kinematics during treadmill sprinting. Herr H. The fastest runner on artificial strength, cross-sectional area and maximal
Med Sci Sports Exerc 37: 108–114, legs: Different limbs, similar function? explosive power: Theory and facts. Eur J
2005. J Appl Physiol 107: 903–911, 2009. Appl Physiol 88: 193–202, 2002.
67

Moir 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moir 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moir 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mechanical Limitations to

Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association 47

48 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2018

Horizontal velocity (m/s) 4.06 8.25 9.85

50 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2018

52 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2018

54 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2018

56 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2018

58 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2018

60 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2018

62 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2018

Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: mechanical loading: A systematic review

64 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2018

66 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2018

You might also like