Scand J Med Sci Sports 2015: 25: 583–594 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

doi: 10.1111/sms.12389 Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Sprint mechanics in world-class athletes: a new insight into the

limits of human locomotion
G. Rabita1, S. Dorel2, J. Slawinski3, E. Sàez-de-Villarreal4, A. Couturier1, P. Samozino5, J-B. Morin6
1
Research Department, National Institute of Sport, INSEP, Paris, France, 2Laboratory “Movement, Interactions, Performance”
(EA 4334), University of Nantes, Nantes, France, 3Research Center in Sport and Movement (EA 2931), University of Paris Ouest
Nanterre La Défense, Paris, France, 4Faculty of Sports, University Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain, 5Laboratory of Exercise
Physiology (EA 4338), University of Savoie, Le Bourget-du-Lac, France, 6Laboratory of Human Motricity, Education Sport and Health
(EA 6309), University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France
Corresponding author: Giuseppe Rabita, PhD, Research Department, National Institute of Sport, INSEP, 11 Avenue du Tremblay,
75012 Paris, France. Tel: +33 (0)1 41 74 44 71, Fax: +33 (0)1 41 74 43 35, E-mail: [email protected]
Accepted for publication 13 November 2014

The objective of this study was to characterize the tion of velocity (V). FY-V, RF-V, and PY-V relationships
mechanics of maximal running sprint acceleration in were well described by significant linear (mean R2 of
high-level athletes. Four elite (100-m best time 9.95– 0.892 ± 0.049 and 0.950 ± 0.023) and quadratic (mean
10.29 s) and five sub-elite (10.40–10.60 s) sprinters per- R2 = 0.732 ± 0.114) models, respectively. The current
formed seven sprints in overground conditions. A single study allows a better understanding of the mechanics
virtual 40-m sprint was reconstructed and kinetics of the sprint acceleration notably by modeling the
parameters were calculated for each step using a force relationships between the forward velocity and the main
platform system and video analyses. Anteroposterior mechanical key variables of the sprint. As these findings
force (FY), power (PY), and the ratio of the horizontal partly concern world-class sprinters tested in
force component to the resultant (total) force (RF, which overground conditions, they give new insights into
reflects the orientation of the resultant ground reaction some aspects of the biomechanical limits of human
force for each support phase) were computed as a func- locomotion.

Elite athletes specialized in the short sprint (60 or 100 m) When considering elite athletes, the lack of experi-
constitute a unique model to investigate some aspects of mental data still prevents us from thoroughly under-
human limits (Denny, 2008). Their specific muscular, standing the determinants of sprint performance (Morin
physiological, and biomechanical features have fre- et al., 2012). Recent experimental measures have been
quently been investigated as they are considered the previously reported, but analyses have generally focused
fastest human runners on Earth (Ben Sira et al., 2010; either around a single mark of the sprint distance during
Slawinski et al., 2010). Regarding world-class sprinters acceleration [e.g., starting phase (Slawinski et al., 2010;
in particular, their 100-m race characteristics have been Debaere et al., 2013a; Kawamori et al., 2014; Otsuka
systematically described in official events such as World et al., 2014), the 8-m mark (Kawamori et al., 2013), the
Championships or summer Olympic Games (Taylor & 16-m mark (Hunter et al., 2004), the 45-m mark
Beneke, 2012; Krzysztof & Mero, 2013). Such an (Bezodis et al., 2008)] or on the constant-maximal speed
approach has the obvious advantage of allowing the phase of the sprint (Weyand et al., 2000, 2010;
characterization of the best 100-m performance ever and Bergamini et al., 2012). Thus, it would be of great inter-
the few fastest men who present at the given time an est to have the opportunity to describe from a mechanical
extreme motivation and theoretically optimal technique standpoint the sprint acceleration phase: in particular,
and physical shape. In return, because of the constraints this would allow the characterization of (a) individual
inherent to such international events, these conditions force−velocity (F-V) and power–velocity (P-V) relation-
usually have the drawback of allowing the measurement ships and (b) key variables of the sprint technique.
or estimation of only a few basic variables [e.g., forward Numerous studies have investigated the F-V relation-
velocity, flight time, and contact time (Taylor & Beneke, ships in functional tasks (Rahmani et al., 2001;
2012) or step length and step frequency (Krzysztof & Samozino et al., 2010). Classically, the following theo-
Mero, 2013)] from video footage generally provided by retical parameters have been derived from the linear F-V
television stations. relationships: (a) the maximal velocity (V0) calculated

583
Rabita et al.
by extrapolation to zero force; (b) the maximal force et al., 2012), this limitation prevents real and definitive
(F0) calculated by extrapolation to zero velocity; and (c) insights into the human determinants of sprint accelera-
the maximal power output (Pmax), maximal value of the tion performance. Firstly, in treadmill conditions, sub-
product of F and V variables. Regarding the sprint jects started in a crouched position instead of using
running task in particular, experimental investigations starting blocks, which is a substantial issue considering
have been developed using instrumented treadmills to the importance of this phase in 60- and 100-m perfor-
perform measurements throughout the entire accelera- mance (Harland & Steele, 1997; Slawinski et al., 2010).
tion phase. The subject’s forward velocity was given by Secondly, the maximal velocities reached by the athletes
the speed of the belt and the anteroposterior force pro- on the treadmill were substantially lower than those
duction can be directly obtained by force sensors posi- recorded in overground conditions (Morin et al., 2012).
tioned under the motorized treadmill frame (Morin et al., For example, Chelly and Denis (2001) and Morin et al.
2010). Characterizing F-V relationships by means of (2012) measured maximal treadmill velocity around 6.5
such methodologies allows to assess the ability of the and 7.5 m/s, respectively, which is far from the maximal
neuromuscular system to generate maximal power. This speed reached by elite sprinters during field sprints (e.g.,
ability, influenced by interrelated factors [e.g., muscle 12.5 m/s for Usain Bolt’s 100-m World Record).
fiber composition, architectural characteristics, anatomi- In the present study, we had the unique opportunity to
cal joint configuration, levels of neural activation, and study the mechanical determinants of sprint performance
technical aspects (for review, see Cormie et al., 2011)], in nine high-level sprinters, including four world-class
was shown to be correlated with sprint performance athletes (among them was the 2013 60-m indoor Euro-
(Morin et al., 2012) as previously demonstrated in other pean champion in Göteborg, Sweden, see Materials and
sport activities (Dorel et al., 2005, 2010). Moreover, it methods section). The second main originality of this
helps determine the individual mechanical profile of the study was that the acceleration phase was studied for the
athlete in his specific sprint running task (Morin et al., first time in field conditions (starting blocks and tartan
2012). track equipped with force plates) during a quasi-standard
On the other hand, the measurement of the ground training session.
reaction force (GRF) for each step of the acceleration The aims of this study were (a) to describe the sprint
phase allows not only to quantify the horizontal compo- acceleration mechanics (i.e., spatiotemporal patterns,
nent of this GRF but also its contribution to the total kinetics, F-V, P-V, and RF-V relationships) in elite and
GRF. Indeed, previous investigations (Morin et al., 2011; sub-elite sprinters in order to give a new mechanical
2012), by transposing the concept of effectiveness used insight into the limits of human sprint acceleration; and
in pedaling mechanics, calculated the ratio of force (RF) (b) to analyze the correlations between these parameters
during treadmill sprint running. This RF parameter and sprint performance in order to further investigate the
reflects the orientation of the resultant GRF at each step determinants of sprint acceleration performance.
and then the athletes’ ability to apply force effectively We hypothesized that, as already reported on recent
onto the ground (i.e., in the forward direction). Interest- treadmill studies, the mechanical profile of elite and
ingly, these authors showed that the mean RF parameter sub-elite sprinters maximally accelerating on a track can
obtained on the treadmill was highly correlated to the be characterized (a) by the F-V relationship using a
track 100-m performance. They also proposed an index linear model and (b) by the P-V relationship using a
of force application technique (DRF) computed as the quadratic model. We also hypothesized that the higher
slope of the linear RF-horizontal velocity relationship acceleration of world-class sprinters compared with sub-
from sprint start until top speed. This DRF parameter elite athletes is related to a higher maximal power asso-
reflects the capability to limit the systematic decrease in ciated with a better (i.e., more forward) orientation of the
RF as speed increases. In other words, it reveals the force onto the ground.
athlete’s aptitude to maintain an efficient sprint tech-
nique despite increasing speed. DRF has also been shown
to be highly related to 100-m performance (Morin et al., Materials and methods
2011, 2012). Noticeably, these studies also highlighted Participants
that the resultant GRF produced over sprint acceleration
Nine elite or sub-elite sprinters (age: 23.9 ± 3.4 years; body mass:
was not correlated to sprint performance. 76.4 ± 7.1 kg; height: 1.82 ± 0.69 m) gave written informed
The above-mentioned literature shows that the use of consent to participate in this study, conducted according to the
F-V, P-V, and RF-V relationships because of the close declaration of Helsinki and in accordance with the local ethical
link between their associated variables and field perfor- committee. The elite group (E) was composed of four athletes who
mance have undoubtedly contributed to a better under- had been medalists in a sprint event during the (a) 2011 outdoor
World championships (Daegu, South Korea) and/or (b) 2012
standing of the mechanical determinants of sprint outdoor (Helsinki) and/or 2013 indoor (Göteborg, Sweden) Euro-
running; however, they have only been recorded and pean championships (including the 60-m champion) and/or final-
studied in sprint treadmill conditions. Consequently, ists in the 2012 Summer Olympics (London). Their personal
even if these data were collected in elite athletes (Morin 100-m best times ranged from 9.95 to 10.29 s. The sub-elite group

584
 Sprint mechanics in elite athletes
(SE, n = 5) was composed of French national-level sprinters AY = FY m
(100-m records range from 10.40 to 10.60 s).
with m as the body mass.
This expression was integrated once over time to provide
Material and experimental protocol instantaneous anteroposterior velocity of the COM (VY) at time t:
Participants were tested at the indoor stadium of the French Insti-
tute of Sport (INSEP) during a quasi-standard sprint training
session. After a 45-min warm-up managed by their personal coach,
VY = V0Y + ∫ AY dt
the athletes performed seven sprints: 2 × 10 m, 2 × 15 m, 20 m, t

30 m, and 40 m with 5 min of rest between each trial. During these

with initial velocity conditions V0Y taken as an integration
sprints, vertical, anteroposterior, and lateral components of the
constant.
GRF were measured by a 6.60-m long force platform system
Apart from the 10-m tests, for which V0Y10 = 0 m/s as the start-
(natural frequency ≥500 Hz). This system consisted of six indi-
ing blocks were placed over the force platform area, V0Y15, V0Y20,
vidual force plates (1.2 × 0.6 m) connected in series and covered
V0Y30, and V0Y40 were evaluated by high-speed video. A digital
with a tartan mat that was level with the stadium track. The second
camera was placed in a fixed position perpendicularly to the sag-
force plate is turned by 90 degrees to allow the athletes’ hands
ittal plane. Focus and zoom were adapted in order to be able to
positioning during the start. Each force plate was equipped with
follow an entire step cycle of the subject before the entrance in the
piezoelectric sensors (KI 9067; Kistler, Winterthur, Switzerland).
force platform area. The motion in the sagittal plane of three
The force signals were digitized at a sampling rate of 1000 Hz.
retroreflective markers placed on the anterior superior iliac spine,
Based on the original work of Cavagna et al. (1971), the pro-
posterior superior iliac spine, and the great trochanter was
tocol was designed in order to reconstruct the characteristics of a
recorded at 300 Hz (resolution: 512 × 384). Anteroposterior posi-
single virtual 40-m sprint for each athlete. This distance corre-
tion of the markers was determined by digitizing them with a video
sponds to the sprint acceleration. For example, it was shown in
analyzing system (Dartfish, Fribourg, Switzerland). Then, after
world-class athletes that the velocity measured between 30 and
classically calibrating the camera view (3.80 m, ratio length/pixel:
40 m is greater than 95% of the maximal velocity reached during
0.0073 m/pixel), the horizontal distance covered by each marker
the 100-m sprint (Krzysztof & Mero, 2013). To this end, the
was measured between two key positions: the beginning and the
starting blocks, initially placed over the first platform for the 10-m
end of the last entire step cycle (i.e., contact + aerial phases) pre-
sprints, were progressively installed remotely for the subsequent
ceding the first foot contact on the force platform. The coordinates
trials (15 to 40 m) so that 18 foot contacts from the block to the
between the beginning and the end of this cycle, as they were
40-m mark could be evaluated. Indeed, the measurement area
measured in the same body position, were used to calculate a mean
made it possible to record the force of five foot contacts (four
horizontal velocity of the subject. As V0Y corresponds to the veloc-
steps) for the 10-m trials (including the pushing block phase), four
ity during the aerial part of this phase, the mean velocity over the
contacts (three steps) for the 15-m trials, and three contacts (two
step was corrected taking into account the variation that occurred
steps) for the three other trials (20-, 30-, and 40-m). In addition,
during the preceding contact on the basis of the measurement of
an optical measurement system (Optojump Next, Microgate,
instantaneous variation of the horizontal velocity in the subsequent
Bolzano, Italy) measured the spatiotemporal characteristics of the
two or three steps performed on the force plate.
first steps of all seven sprints in order to assess the consistency of
VYmean was calculated for each recorded step and corresponds to
the first seven steps pattern (see Statistical analysis section).
the averaged anteroposterior velocity during the contact phase of
Running velocity was measured with both the force platform
the best 10- and 15-m trials and during the 20-, 30-, and 40-m
system and a digital camera (Exilim EX-F1, Casio, Tokyo, Japan)
trials. Instantaneous PY was obtained by the product of instanta-
that filmed the athletes in the sagittal plane as they entered the
neous FY and VY. The net power output in the anteroposterior
force platform area (see Data processing section).
direction (PYmean in W and W/kg) was calculated for each contact
phase by averaging the instantaneous PY values during the contact.
In order to quantify the contribution of the anteroposterior com-
Data processing ponent of the GRF to the total force, a RF was calculated as the
Sprint mechanics ratio of FY to FTOT for each contact period (Morin et al., 2011;
2012). For this purpose, the ratio was done instantaneously and
For all measured variables, unless otherwise specified, the then averaged for each contact phase. Furthermore, to our best
mechanical parameters described in the succeeding text represent knowledge, RF parameter has only been assessed in two dimen-
the average of instantaneous data recorded during each contact. sions yet (i.e., vertical and horizontal anteroposterior axes). Then,
Regarding the parameters recorded twice (i.e., for the 10-m and in order to assess the part of the lateral force produced by the
15-m runs), only the values of the trial corresponding to the best sprinters with respect to the resultant total force, we quantified the
performance (best time over the distance) were selected. More- difference between RF variables expressed with respect to FTOT,
over, for several mechanical variables, all the values measured the sum of the force vectors measured on x, y, and z axes, and to
during all the contacts over the 40 m were averaged (see Table 1, FTOTyz, the sum of the forces measured in the sagittal plan only (y
averaged FZ, averaged FY, averaged PY and averaged RF). and z axes).
Force platform signal was low-pass filtered (200 Hz cutoff, Before pooling the data to reconstruct a complete 40-m dataset
third order Butterworth applied forward and backward for zero for each subject, running pattern repeatability was quantified on
phase shifting) and instantaneous data of vertical [FZ, Fig. 1(a)] the sixth step (around 8-m distance), which was the last step
and horizontal [anteroposterior, FY, Fig. 2(b); mediolateral, FX, common to all subjects before the end of the shorter sprint
Fig. 1(c)] components of ground reaction forces as well as the (10-m distance). High repeatability was observed for all variables
resultant GRF (FTOT) were averaged for each contact phase (FZ – time performance at the end of the sixth step [mean = 1.309 s,
above 10 N) during the best 10-m and 15-m trials and during the coefficient of variation (CV) = 1.84%, intraclass correlation
20-, 30-, and 40-m trials and expressed in N and body weight coefficient (ICC) = 0.921], total distance at the end of the sixth
(BW). They are noted as FZmean, FYmean, FXmean, and FTOTmean, respec- step (mean = 7.88 m, CV = 1.88%, ICC = 0.958), step length
tively. The anteroposterior acceleration of the center of mass (mean = 1.60 m, CV = 2.15%, ICC = 0.946), contact time
(COM) (AY) was calculated as follows (mean = 0.136 s, CV = 3.76%, ICC = 0.686) – showing that all

585
Rabita et al.
Table 1. Mean values (SD) of the main sprint performance and spatiotemporal parameters, force-, power-, and RF-velocity relationships for the whole
group (n = 9) and for both subgroups (elite, E: n = 4; sub-elite, SE: n = 5)

Variable Mean all (SD) Mean E (SD) Mean SE (SD) Difference ES (Cohen’s d)
(n = 9) (n = 4) (n = 5) (%E)

Sprint performance
10 m time (s) 1.85 (0.10) 1.79 (0.02) 1.90 (0.12) −6.1 1.10
15 m time (s) 2.50 (0.10) 2.40 (0.02) 2.58 (0.09) −7.5 1.80
20 m time (s) 3.05 (0.13) 2.94 (0.02) 3.13 (0.13) −6.5 1.46
30 m time (s) 4.08 (0.18) 3.93 (0.03) 4.20 (0.15) −6.9 1.50
40 m time (s) 5.10 (0.25) 4.90 (0.07) 5.27 (0.21) −7.6 1.48
40 m maximal velocity (m/s) 9.78 (0.52) 10.24 (0.19) 9.33 (0.31) 8.9 3.64
Spatiotemporal parameters
Contact time
tc blocks (ms) 396 (33) 376 (13) 412 (36) −9.6 1.09
Maximal contact time (ms) 193 (28) 191 (18) 193 (30) −1.0 0.07
Minimal contact time (ms) 94 (4) 94 (5) 94 (4) 0.0 0.0
Aerial time
ta blocks (ms) 75 (20) 81 (13) 70 (25) 13.6 0.55
Maximal aerial time (ms) 124 (7) 120 (6) 128 (5) −6.7 1.14
Minimal aerial time (ms) 50 (13) 42 (13) 56 (10) −33.3 1.04
Step frequency
Sf blocks (Hz) 2.14 (0.17) 2.20 (0.12) 2.09 (0.21) 5.0 0.64
Minimal frequency (Hz) 3.92 (0.34) 3.94 (0.44) 3.90 (0.44) 1.0 0.11
Maximal frequency (Hz) 4.87 (0.23) 4.95 (0.12) 4.80 (0.30) 3.0 0.65
Step length
Sl blocks (m) 0.99 (0.11) 0.96 (0.16) 1.01 (0.06) −5.2 0.45
Minimal step length (m) 1.11 (0.12) 1.18 (0.07) 1.06 (0.14) 10.2 1.00
Maximal step length (m) 2.19 (0.11) 2.22 (0.10) 2.17 (0.12) 2.3 0.45
Force- and power-velocity parameters
Averaged FZ (N/kg) 17.3 (0.5) 17.2 (0.4) 17.5 (0.5) −2.0 0.59
Averaged FY (N/kg) 3.3 (0.3) 3.5 (0.6) 3.1 (0.2) 9.7 1.75
Averaged PY (W/kg) 20.8 (2.2) 22.5 (1.1) 19.4 (1.9) 13.9 1.99
Averaged RF (% FTOT) 19.2 (1.3) 20.3 (0.7) 18.3 (1.0) 9.7 2.31
V0 (m/s) 11.38 (0.84) 11.90 (0.23) 10.99 (0.97) 7.6 0.12
FY0 (N) 776 (93) 855 (60) 744 (90) 13.0 1.19
Relative FY0 (N/kg) 9.77 (0.84) 9.95 (0.67) 9.62 (1.06) 3.3 0.39
Theoretical PYmax (W) 2328 (295) 2550 (283) 2150 (158) 15.7 1.35
Measured PYpeak (W) 2421 (321) 2695 (244) 2201 (158) 18.3 1.53
Relative PYmax (W/kg) 29.3 (2.3) 31.1 (0.8) 27.8 (2.2) 10.6 1.43
Relative PYpeak (W/kg) 30.5 (2.9) 32.9 (1.2) 28.5 (2.1) 13.4 1.51
RF0 (%) 70.6 (5.4) 71.6 (2.6) 70.1 (7.3) 2.1 0.02
DRF −0.067 (0.007) −0.064 (0.003) −0.069 (0.009) −7.8 0.71
Mean difference RFxyz − RFxy (% RFxyz) 0.25 (0.06) 0.29 (0.03) 0.21 (0.03) 27.6 1.33
Measured block parameters
Block clearing anteroposterior velocity (m/s) 3.37 (0.27) 3.61 (0.08) 3.17 (0.19) 12.1 1.60
FYblocks (N) 679 (110) 783 (59) 596 (46.9) 23.9 1.70
Relative FYblocks (N/kg) 8.56 (1.18) 9.59 (0.53) 7.74 (0.82) 19.2 1.56
PYblocks (W) 1156 (270) 1415 (118) 949 (124) 32.9 1.72
Relative PYblocks (W/kg) 14.5 (3.0) 17.3 (1.3) 12.3 (1.9) 28.8 1.64
RFblocks (%) 58.9 (5.4) 63.0 (2.6) 54.9 (4.3) 12.8 1.46

Minimal and maximal parameters referred to the values recorded on the whole acceleration phase (0–40 m) excluding the block phase. ES, effect size;
RF, ratio of force.

bouts were performed with the same maximal involvement regard- phase at null velocity. An index of force application technique
less of the total distance (10- to 40-m). After computation, all data (DRF) was computed for each participant as the slope of the linear
were then pooled from the seven sprints and used to draw overall RF-V relationship. For details, see Morin et al. (2011, 2012),
F-V, P-V, and RF-V relationships. EJAP.
Using linear and second-order polynomial regressions from Given the bilateral nature of the start phase, F-, P-, and RF-V
these individual relationships, theoretical parameters were quanti- regressions were quantified excluding the values measured in the
fied: (a) FY0, maximal anteroposterior force theoretically pro- blocks. The maximal theoretical values must be differentiated
duced over one contact phase at null velocity; (b) V0, maximal from the maximal values measured from the 18 recorded contact
anteroposterior velocity reached when the anteroposterior force is phases and noted as FYpeak, VYpeak, and PYpeak. The start was specifi-
equal to zero; and (c) PYmax, maximal anteroposterior power iden- cally analyzed and the parameters measured in the block phase
tified as the apex of the P-V relationship. Regarding RF-V rela- were noted as FYblocks, PYblocks, and RFblocks.
tionships, RF0 represents the theoretical maximal contribution of The following step spatiotemporal variables were measured
anteroposterior force to the total force produced over one contact using the force platform system: contact time (tc, in s), aerial time

586
 Sprint mechanics in elite athletes

Fig. 1. Typical signals of instantaneous vertical (FZ), anteroposterior (FY), and lateral (FX) component of the ground reaction force (in
N) obtained during the 10-, 15-, 20-, 30-, and 40-m trials that correspond to the following location of the force-plate area: (a) 10-m
trials: Zone 1 (−1.4 to 5.2 m; 0 corresponding to the starting line); (b) 15-m trials: Zone 2 (4.6–11.2 m); (c) 20-m trial: Zone 3
(12.4–19.0 m); (d) 20-m trial: Zone 4 (22.4–29.0 m); (e) 20 m trial: Zone 5 (32.4–39.0 m).

(ta, in s), step frequency (Sf ) and step length (Sl). Regarding the differences (expressed in percentage of elite group values) and the
block phase, the following spatiotemporal parameters were com- effect size (ES, Cohen’s d) were calculated. For this effect size
puted: calculation, the results were interpreted as negligible, small,
tc blocks, contact time in the blocks, measured during the stabili- medium, or large for ES lower than 0.2, between 0.2 and 0.5,
zation phase just before the start (where FZ = body weight), rep- between 0.5 and 0.8, or higher than 0.8, respectively. When they
resents the period from the time corresponding to a change higher were suitable (P < 0.05, least chi-square method), linear and
than 10 N of FZ to the block clearance (defined as the moment the quadratic regression models were used to fit the relationship
forward foot takes off from the block and where FZ = 0). between the different mechanical variables and the running veloc-
ta blocks, aerial time from the blocks, period between the block ity. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used to examine the
clearance and the beginning of the following foot contact. relationships between spatiotemporal or mechanical variables and
Sf blocks, step frequency from the blocks, calculated as follow: the performance. The critical level of significance was set at
P < 0.05.
S f blocks = 1 ( t c blocks + t a blocks )
Sl blocks, step length from the forward block to the contralateral
foot landing position. Results
Forty-meter performance and
spatiotemporal parameters
Statistical analysis Table 1 summarizes the mean values (SD) of the track
Results were expressed as mean (± SD). To assess whether the performances recorded during each sprint trial (from 10-
running pattern was similar for each of the seven sprints, the to 40-m). The 40-m was run in 5.10 ± 0.25 s, with a top
repeatability of the sixth step (for details, see Data processing speed of 9.78 ± 0.52 m/s. Table 1 also presents the
section) was quantified for time performance, total distance, step
length, and contact time using the ICC and CV (Hopkins, 2000). In values during or immediately after the first propulsion
order to compare elite and sub-elite athletes, considering the small from the starting blocks together with the minimal and
population inherent to the selection of high-level athletes, only the maximal values recorded during different sprints. The

587
Rabita et al.

Fig. 2. Spatiotemporal characteristics of the step (a) during (contact time, in ms) or immediately after [aerial time (ms), step frequency
(Hz), step length (m)] the first propulsion in the starting blocks and (b) during the acceleration phase (second to last steps) depicted
against the forward velocity (m/s).

changes in the main spatiotemporal characteristics of the R2 = 0.950 ± 0.023). Table 1 also presents the theoretical
step when velocity increases are presented in Fig. 2 for maximal values calculated from these relationships (FY0,
all subjects. The contact time decreased on average by V0, Pymax, RF0) and the slope of the RF-V relationship
about 50% between the first (blocks) and second steps (DRF index). On average, the athletes reached PYmax at
and the same relative decrease occurred between the around the sixth step (6.22 ± 1.2 steps).
second step and the 40-m minimal contact time (last In order to assess the part of the lateral force produced
step) (Table 1). Mean values of aerial time just after by the sprinters, we quantified the difference between RF
the start (between the blocks clearing and the contact of variables expressed with respect to (a) FTOT, the resultant
the second step) were about five times lower than the force measured on x, y, and z axes, and (b) FTOTyz, the
propulsion time in the starting blocks. This aerial time resultant force measured in the sagittal plan only (y and
decreased by around one-third on average after the z axes). The mean difference, expressed in percentage of
second step and increased linearly with the velocity to FTOT was 0.25 (± 0.03) %.
reach the same values as contact time. While step fre-
quency was smaller by half at the first step compared
with the second step, step length did not change. Correlations between mechanical and
Between the second and last steps, step frequency performance variables
and step length increased by about 20% and 50%, The correlation analyses of spatiotemporal parameters,
respectively. force, and power are presented in Table 2.

F-V, P-V, and RF-V relationships Discussion

The parameters FYmean and PYmean as a function of the The aims of this study were, first, to characterize the
horizontal velocity were well described by significant sprint acceleration mechanics (i.e., spatiotemporal pat-
linear (mean R2 = 0.892 ± 0.049) and quadratic relation- terns, kinetics, F-V, P-V, and RF-V relationships) in elite
ships (mean R2 = 0.732 ± 0.114), respectively (Fig. 3). and sub-elite sprinters and, second, to analyze the corre-
The parameter FTOT showed an increase in velocity that lations between these parameters and sprint performance
was best described by a linear model (mean in order to further investigate the determinants of sprint
R2 = 0.815 ± 0.023). Regarding the orientation of force acceleration performance. The reconstruction of a virtual
onto the ground, the RF decreased with velocity and this 40-m sprint allowed us to describe for the first time the
relationship was linear for all subjects (mean mechanical characteristics of the acceleration phase in

588
 Sprint mechanics in elite athletes

Fig. 3. (a) Anteroposterior component of the ground reaction force (FYmean, in % theoretical anteroposterior maximal force, FY0); (b)
anteroposterior power output (PYmean, in percentage of theoretical maximal power, PYmax); (c) ratio of force (RF, in % of the total force)
and (d) total force (in N/kg) in relation to the anteroposterior velocity (in % V0, theoretical maximal velocity). For each relationship,
the mean R2 are presented on graphs. Thin (individual models) and thick lines (mean trend curves) are shown for information and clarity
purposes.

world-class and sub-elite sprinters. The main findings of the recent study by Debaere et al. (2013b) who
this study show that (a) while step length increases regu- reported that high-level sprinters are capable of devel-
larly during the acceleration phase, step frequency is oping in the starting phase (0–10 m) a step frequency
almost instantaneously leveled at the maximal possibil- higher than 95% of the step frequency reached at
ity of elite athletes; (b) F- and P-V relationships during maximal speed during a 60-m sprint. The acceleration
sprints performed in realistic field conditions were well of high-level athletes is afterwards quasi-exclusively
described by linear and quadratic models, respectively; related with the increase in step length (Debaere et al.,
and (c) the effectiveness of force application greatly 2013b). The mechanical mechanisms leading to such
accounts for the difference in the performance between spatiotemporal patterns are partly described by kinetics
highly trained athletes. data.
Spatiotemporal parameters have shown that the step The individual F-V relationships are aptly described
frequency very quickly reached the maximal values by linear models (Fig. 3; mean R2 = 0.89). These results
(80% at the first step and about 90% after the third were expected from previous treadmill findings
step) and then remained constant throughout the accel- (Jaskolska et al., 1999; Morin et al., 2011, 2012) despite
eration phase (Fig. 2). These results are consistent with the fact that some of the sprint mechanics variables

589
Rabita et al.
Table 2. Pearson’s correlation coefficient between performance and spatiotemporal or mechanical variables

Block clearing speed (m/s) Measured 40-m maximal speed (m/s) 40-m performance (m/s)

Spatiotemporal parameters
Mean step frequency 0.120 0.424 0.236
Maximal step frequency 0.070 0.236 0.176
Mean step length 0.631 0.518 0.544
Maximal step length 0.394 0.467 0.444
Force components
Averaged FZ (N/kg) −0.241 −0.216 −0.388
Averaged FY (N/kg) 0.775* 0.904*** 0.816**
Averaged FTOT (N/kg) −0.021 −0.137 −0.228
Force- and power-velocity relationship variables
Theoretical FY0 (N/kg) −0.129 0.108 0.079
Theoretical V0 (m/s) 0.878*** 0.819** 0.803**
Theoretical PYmax (W/kg) 0.868** 0.932*** 0.932***
Averaged PY (W/kg) 0.919*** 0.958*** 0.903***
RF-velocity relationship variables
RF0 0.135 0.071 0.149
Averaged RF 0.821** 0.899*** 0.933***
DRF 0.634 0.470 0.408
Block parameters
FY blocks (N/kg) 0.873** 0.836** 0.850**
PY blocks (W/kg) 0.964*** 0.909*** 0.902***
RF blocks (%) 0.858*** 0.741** 0.829***

*, **, and *** denote a significant correlation at P < 0.05, P < 0.01 and P < 0.001, respectively. RF, ratio of force.

differ between treadmill and overground running velocity expressed relatively to the theoretical maximal
(McKenna & Riches, 2007). Regarding the individual speed, i.e., independently of the athlete’s performance.
P-V relationships, the quadratic models present lower In this context, the use of current motorized pulling
coefficients of determination (Fig. 3; mean R2 = 0.73). devices (e.g., Kawamori et al., 2014) adequately leveled
This could be explained by (a) the very few number of should be very useful in order to specifically calibrate the
steps in the ascending part of the relationship inherent in training sessions.
the high acceleration capability of the sprinters who Regarding the correlations between sprint perfor-
produce their maximal power after about six steps; (b) mance and the measured mechanical variables, the
possible asymmetry between right and left legs consid- analyses strengthen the previous findings of Morin et al.
ering that the actions of both lower limbs were taken into (2011, 2012). Firstly, performance parameters of the
account in the models; and (c) interstep variability acceleration phase were highly related to theoretical
because of the great muscle coordination complexity of maximal and averaged velocity and power measured in
the sprint start phase. Nevertheless, the quadratic model the forward direction and obtained from F-V and P-V
is still acceptable (mean R2 = 0.73), as shown by the relationships. Secondly, theoretical maximal anteropos-
strong correlation between the predicted theoretical terior ground reaction force (FY0) was not significantly
maximal power (Pmax) and the maximal measured power correlated with these performance parameters, whereas
(Ppeak) (R = 0.91; P < 0.001). To our knowledge, the the averaged anteroposterior force was. These results
present study is the first to describe these biomechanical suggest that the ability of the athletes to generate high
relationships in elite athletes from sprint exercises per- net anteroposterior (horizontal) GRF, especially at high
formed in the field and almost similar to competition velocity, seems more essential to improve sprint accel-
conditions. This novelty offers new insight into sprint eration and thus overall performance than their capabil-
mechanics in humans as it allows for the first time ity to produce very high levels of resultant GRF. The
linking the horizontal force or power output to the asso- latter represents the total resulting force output from all
ciated realistic velocity. The fact that the population was lower limbs muscle actions (i.e., how much total force is
partially composed of world-class athletes, including the produced), whereas the former represents the horizon-
2013 60-m indoor European Champion, strongly sug- tally oriented component of this resultant GRF (i.e.,
gests that the modeled F-V and P-V relationships what part of this total force production is oriented in the
mechanically characterize the current human limits of forward direction). Thirdly, neither the resultant GRF,
the sprint acceleration. From a practical viewpoint, the nor its vertical component was significantly related to
use of these relationships should be very useful for train- any of the sprint acceleration performance parameters.
ing as it allows the specific and individual determination The present findings, in conjunction with previous
of a range of power by means of a simple variable: the studies (Kyröläinen et al., 2001; Nummela et al., 2007;

590
 Sprint mechanics in elite athletes
Brughelli et al., 2011), both confirm the mechanical ships clearly show that elite sprinters are able to
logic that horizontal net GRF is paramount to accelerate produce higher horizontal force at any given velocity
the body forward. It seems important to notice that than sub-elite sprinters; (b) the RF-V relationships show
the vertical GRF has a major influence on the sprint that this higher horizontal force production was caused
mechanics as the athletes have to produce the vertical by a better (i.e., more forward) orientation of the force
force needed to overcome the negative vertical accelera- onto the ground given that (c) the sub-elite sprinters did
tion because of gravity. However, our results support the not show lower resultant force production but on the
argument that the vertical component of the GRF is not contrary, a tendency to produce higher FTOT than elite,
by itself a determinant of performance in high-level ath- especially at high velocities. The fact that elite athletes
letes during the sprint acceleration phase. These results are able to orient their GRF vector more effectively than
also clearly confirm that the biomechanical determinants sub-elite athletes explained part of the difference
of the sprint acceleration phase differ from those related between these two groups in terms of anteroposterior
to the final top-speed phase. Indeed, the study by power production (Fig. 4). Moreover, this increased
Weyand et al. (2000), who analyzed a heterogeneous effectiveness in elite sprinters is due to specific neuro-
population of subjects (overground maximal 100-m muscular properties (coordination, muscle-tendon
speed ranged from 6.2 to 11.1 m/s) during a treadmill mechanical properties, joint moment-angle relation-
top-speed test, concluded that human runners reached ships, etc.) that lead in fine to their better technical
faster top speeds by applying greater support forces to ability of force application. Indeed, more powerful spe-
the ground. More recently, using a subtle one-legged and cific muscle groups (e.g., hip extensors) and muscle
backward moving protocol, the same research group groups involved in the foot–ground interaction (e.g.,
(2010) brought the specification that the mechanical ankle joint stabilizers) could also be involved in an
limit for top speed was in the maximal vertical GRF appropriate coordination and high joint moments that
possibly produced within the stance phase duration, not finally result in a better orientation of the resultant force
in the absolute maximal level of vertical GRF subjects produced. Further research focusing on the determi-
could produce, should movement conditions allow it. nants of a high RF is therefore requested.
This importance of vertical GRF production in top-speed The DRF variable reflects the ability of runners to
performance is in line with some results of Morin et al. produce and maintain high levels of RF over the entire
(2011, 2012) who also found during treadmill tests in a acceleration despite the overall straightening up of their
population with different sprint levels – including body with increasing speed (Morin et al., 2011, 2012).
moderate-level physical education students together with As such, this index of force application technique is
national-level sprinters and one world-class sprinter closely linked to the sprinter’s training background.
(maximal speed ranging from 7.8 to 11.2 m/s) – that the These authors demonstrated that this parameter was
only sprint performance parameter significantly related highly related to performance in a heterogeneous popu-
to the vertical GRF production was the field 100-m top lation; however, this was not the case in the present
speed. study, which could be explained by the fact that the
As mentioned earlier, in optimal motivation and present population was exclusively composed of highly
physical shape conditions, the capability of an athlete to trained athletes. Briefly, the fact that the mean RF param-
generate maximal power during a sprint acceleration eter was significantly related to performance and not the
mainly depends on (a) his neuromuscular characteristics DRF variable simply reflects that the slowest well-trained
and musculoskeletal mechanical properties and (b) his sprinters, who orient their ground reaction forces less
sprint technical ability to move his body mass forward. effectively than the speediest athletes, do not, however,
This technical ability could be reflected overall by the deteriorate this ability more than them with increasing
way an athlete orients horizontally the ground reaction speed.
force vector (e.g., Hunter et al., 2005; Morin et al., Finally, our results show that all the variables signifi-
2011, 2012). Firstly, our results revealed the negligible cantly related to the mean and maximal 40-m speed were
part of mediolateral forces confirming, for the entire also highly related with the block clearing speed
acceleration phase, similar findings related to the start- (Table 2). These results are in agreement with previous
ing phase in well-trained athletes (Debaere et al., studies that showed the essential contribution of the
2013a). Secondly, the fact that averaged RF is one of starting phase in the sprint performance (Harland &
the mechanical variables most highly correlated with Steele, 1997; Slawinski et al., 2010; Debaere et al.,
the 40-m performance (R2 = 0.93; P < 0.001) strength- 2013a). However, despite the very good linear adjust-
ens the hypothesis that the orientation of the total force ment of the F- and RF-V relationships, theoretical values
that high-level sprinters applied to the ground during extrapolated to zero velocity axis (FY0 and RF0) showed
sprint acceleration is more important to performance no significant correlation with sprint performance. In
than its magnitude (Morin et al., 2011, 2012). These contrast, both the anteroposterior force and the ratio of
findings were well summarized in Fig. 4, which differ- force measured or computed from the starting block
entiates elite from sub-elite athletes: (a) F-V relation- phase did. These results suggest that (a) FYblocks and

591
Rabita et al.

Fig. 4. (a) Anteroposterior component of the ground reaction force (FYmean, in N/kg; (b) anteroposterior power output (PYmean, in W/kg);
(c) ratio of force (RF, in %) and (d) total force (in N/kg) were presented against the anteroposterior velocity (in m/s) for the elite
(E; dark gray) and sub-elite (SE; light gray) groups. For each group, the linear or polynomial adjustments were computed excluding
the block values (presented for information).

RFblocks represent specific muscular and technical abili- Perspectives

ties that give complementary information with respect to
F- and RF-V relationships (adjusted without taking into The methods used here might not be easily reproduced
account the block phase) and that (b) the start specificity by coaches in their typical training practice. This could
cannot be characterized either by the extrapolated data of limit the use of F-V and P-V relationships as done
F-V or those of RF-V relationships. here, when seeking to analyze and improve sprint
An obvious limitation of the present study is that mechanics on an individual basis. One of the practical
mechanical data for virtual 40-m sprint acceleration perspectives of this work is to validate a simple method-
were reconstructed from several sprints. Beyond the ology to quantify these variables. Indeed, very recently,
fact that no force-plate system allowing such long- Samozino et al. (2013) proposed a simple field method
distance measurements currently exists to the authors’ to compute force, velocity, and power in field conditions
knowledge, the high reproducibility shown between from only split times or running velocity measurements
sprints (see Materials and methods section) supports by radar (e.g., Mendiguchia et al., 2014).
the realistic feature of our virtual reconstruction The findings of the present study allowed us to char-
approach. acterize the mechanics of the sprint acceleration phase

592
 Sprint mechanics in elite athletes
in world-class and sub-elite sprinters. As such, they and would complement the F-, P-, and RF-V models to
yielded new insights into some aspects of biomechanical characterize the mechanics of the sprint acceleration.
limits in human locomotion, notably by modeling the From a practical viewpoint, the results of the present
relationships between the realistic velocity reached by study should be useful for coaches to determine the
athletes on overground conditions and three key strengths and weaknesses of their elite sprinters.
variables of the sprint: the anteroposterior force, the ratio
of force, and the anteroposterior power output. The Key words: Force orientation, performance, power
opportunity to tests such sprinters allowed further output, running, elite sprinters.
insights into the mechanical determinants of high-level
sprint performance. Beyond the expected ability to
produce high-power output or forward force component,
the effectiveness of force application during the accel- Acknowledgements
eration phase, represented by the averaged ratio of force, We are very grateful to Guy Ontanon and the elite athletes of the
is one of the abilities most closely linked to performance. National Institute of Sport (INSEP) for their involvement in the
This was not the case for the total amount of force that a experimentations. We also thank Dimitri Demonière and Michel
sprinter can produce. Furthermore, the muscular and Gilot and their athletes for participating in this study. Authors
want to thank Dr. Gaël Guilhem for his general comments on
technical athletes’ capability during the starting phase, this investigation. We are grateful to Dr Caroline Giroux, Stevy
represented by anteroposterior force and the ratio of Farcy, and Virha Despotova for their collaboration during the
force recorded in the blocks, is essential for performance experimentations.

References
Ben Sira D, Amir R, Amir O, Yamin C, Debaere S, Jonkers I, Delecluse C. The relationship and power output in
Eynon N, Meckel Y, Sagiv M, Sagiv contribution of step characteristics to subjects with different maximal running
M. Effect of different sprint training sprint running performance in velocities. Sports Med Train Rehab
regimes on the oxygen high-level male and female athletes. 1999: 8: 347–358.
delivery-extraction in elite sprinters. J Strength Cond Res 2013b: 27: Kawamori N, Newton RU, Hori N,
J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2010: 50: 116–124. Nosaka K. Effects of weighted sled
121–125. Denny MW. Limits to running speed in towing with heavy versus light
Bergamini E, Picerno P, Pillet H, Natta F, dogs, horses and humans. J Exp Biol load on sprint acceleration ability.
Thoreux P, Camomilla V. Estimation 2008: 211: 3836–3849. J Strength Cond Res 2014: 28:
of temporal parameters during sprint Dorel S, Couturier A, Lacour JR, 2738–2745.
running using a trunk-mounted inertial Vandewalle H, Hautier C, Hug F. Kawamori N, Nosaka K, Newton RU.
measurement unit. J Biomech 2012: 45: Force-velocity relationship in cycling Relationships between ground reaction
1123–1126. revisited: benefit of two-dimensional impulse and sprint acceleration
Bezodis IN, Kerwin DG, Salo AI. pedal forces analysis. Med Sci Sports performance in team sport athletes.
Lower-limb mechanics during the Exerc 2010: 42: 1174–1183. J Strength Cond Res 2013: 27:
support phase of maximum-velocity Dorel S, Hautier CA, Rambaud O, 568–573.
sprint running. Med Sci Sports Exerc Rouffet D, Van Praagh E, Lacour JR, Krzysztof M, Mero A. A kinematics
2008: 40: 707–715. Bourdin M. Torque and power-velocity analysis of three best 100 m
Brughelli M, Cronin J, Chaouachi A. relationships in cycling: relevance to performances ever. J Hum Kinet 2013:
Effects of running velocity on running track sprint performance in world-class 36: 149–160.
kinetics and kinematics. J Strength cyclists. Int J Sports Med 2005: 26: Kyröläinen H, Belli A, Komi PV.
Cond Res 2011: 25: 933–939. 739–746. Biomechanical factors affecting running
Cavagna GA, Komarek L, Mazzoleni S. Harland MJ, Steele JR. Biomechanics of economy. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001:
The mechanics of sprint running. the sprint start. Sports Med 1997: 23 33: 1330–1337.
J Physiol 1971: 217: 709–721. (1): 11–20. McKenna M, Riches PE. A comparison of
Chelly SM, Denis C. Leg power and Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sprinting kinematics on two types of
hopping stiffness: relationship with sports medicine and science. Sports treadmill and over-ground. Scand J
sprint running performance. Med Sci Med 2000: 30: 1–15. Med Sci Sports 2007: 17: 649–655.
Sports Exerc 2001: 33: 326–333. Hunter JP, Marshall RN, McNair PJ. Mendiguchia J, Samozino P,
Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Interaction of step length and step rate Martinez-Ruiz E, Brughelli M,
Developing maximal neuromuscular during sprint running. Med Sci Sports Schmikli S, Morin JB,
power: Part 1-biological basis of Exerc 2004: 36: 261–271. Mendez-Villanueva A. Progression of
maximal power production. Sports Med Hunter JP, Marshall RN, McNair PJ. mechanical properties during on-field
2011: 41: 17–38. Relationships between ground reaction sprint running after returning to sports
Debaere S, Delecluse C, Aerenhouts D, force impulse and kinematics of from a hamstring muscle injury in
Hagman F, Jonkers I. From block sprint-running acceleration. J Appl soccer players. Int J Sports Med 2014:
clearance to sprint running: Biomech 2005: 21: 31–43. 35: 690–695.
characteristics underlying an effective Jaskolska A, Goossens P, Veenstra B, Morin JB, Bourdin M, Edouard P, Peyrot
transition. J Sports Sci 2013a: 31: Jaskolski A, Skinner JS. Treadmill N, Samozino P, Lacour JR. Mechanical
137–149. measurement of the force–velocity determinants of 100 m sprint running

593
Rabita et al.
performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 2012: running. J Appl Biomech 2014: 30: Chèze L, Dumas R. Segment-
112: 3921–3930. 390–400. interaction in sprint start: analysis of
Morin JB, Edouard P, Samozino P. Rahmani A, Viale F, Dalleau G, Lacour 3D angular velocity and kinetic energy
Technical ability of force application as JR. Force/velocity and power/velocity in elite sprinters. J Biomech 2010: 43:
a determinant factor of sprint relationships in squat exercise. 1494–1502.
performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc Eur J Appl Physiol 2001: 4: Taylor MJ, Beneke R. Spring mass
2011: 43: 1680–1688. 227–232. characteristics of the fastest men on
Morin JB, Samozino P, Bonnefoy R, Samozino P, Morin JB, Dorel S, Earth. Int J Sports Med 2012: 33:
Edouard P, Belli A. Direct Slawinski J, Peyrot N, Saez-de- 667–670.
measurement of power during one Villareal E, Rabita G A simple method Weyand PG, Sandell RF, Prime DN,
single sprint on treadmill. J Biomech for measuring power, force and Bundle MW. The biological limits to
2010: 43: 1970–1975. velocity properties of sprint running. running speed are imposed from the
Nummela A, Keränen T, Mikkelsson LO. International Society of Biomechanics ground up. J Appl Physiol 2010: 108:
Factors related to top running speed Congress, 2013. Convention Center, 950–961.
and economy. Int J Sports Med 2007: Natal, Brazil. Weyand PG, Sternlight DB, Bellizzi MJ,
28: 655–661. Samozino P, Morin JB, Hintzy F, Belli A. Wright S. Faster top running speeds
Otsuka M, Shim JK, Kurihara T, Jumping ability: a theoretical are achieved with greater ground
Yoshioka S, Nokata M, Isaka T. integrative approach. J Theor Biol forces not more rapid leg movements.
Effect of expertise on 3D force 2010: 264: 11–18. J Appl Physiol 2000: 89: 1991–1999.
application during the starting block Slawinski J, Bonnefoy A, Ontanon G,
phase and subsequent steps in sprint Leveque JM, Miller C, Riquet A,

594