See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/50250399

Technical Ability of Force Application as a Determinant Factor of Sprint

Performance

Article in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise · February 2011

DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318216ea37 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

497 13,973

3 authors:

Jean-Benoît Morin Pascal Edouard

Jean Monnet University Jean Monnet University
365 PUBLICATIONS 14,520 CITATIONS 422 PUBLICATIONS 8,152 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pierre Samozino
Université Savoie Mont Blanc
276 PUBLICATIONS 10,848 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jean-Benoît Morin on 05 September 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

APPLIED SCIENCES

Technical Ability of Force Application as a

Determinant Factor of Sprint Performance
JEAN-BENOÎT MORIN, PASCAL EDOUARD, and PIERRE SAMOZINO
Université de Lyon; and Laboratory of Exercise Physiology, Saint-Etienne, FRANCE

ABSTRACT
MORIN, J-B., P. EDOUARD, and P. SAMOZINO. Technical Ability of Force Application as a Determinant Factor of Sprint Perfor-
mance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 43, No. 9, pp. 1680–1688, 2011. Purpose: We transposed the concept of effectiveness of force
application used in pedaling mechanics to calculate the ratio of forces (RF) during sprint running and tested the hypothesis that field
sprint performance was related to the technical ability to produce high amounts of net positive horizontal force. This ability represents
how effectively the total force developed by the lower limbs is applied onto the ground, despite increasing speed during the acceleration
phase. Methods: Twelve physically active male subjects (including two sprinters) performed 8-s sprints on a recently validated instru-
mented treadmill, and a 100-m sprint on an athletics track. Mean vertical (FV), net horizontal (FH), and total (FTot) ground reaction forces
measured at each step during the acceleration allowed computation of the RF as FH/FTot and an index of force application technique
(DRF) as the slope of the RF–speed linear relationship from the start until top speed. Correlations were tested between these mechanical
variables and field sprint performance variables measured by radar: mean and top 100-m speeds and 4-s distance. Results: Significant
(r 9 0.731; P G 0.01) correlations were obtained between DRF and 100-m performance (mean and top speeds; 4-s distance). Further, FH
was significantly correlated (P G 0.05) to field sprint performance, but FTot and FV were not. Conclusions: Force application technique
is a determinant factor of field 100-m sprint performance, which is not the case for the amount of total force subjects are able to apply
onto the ground. It seems that the orientation of the total force applied onto the supporting ground during sprint acceleration is more
important to performance than its amount. Key Words: TOP SPEED, 100-M, POWER, RUNNING, LOCOMOTION MECHANICS

W
hether it is a direct (track and field events) or itive horizontal GRF) (e.g., Hunter et al. [13] and Roberts
indirect (e.g., team sports) factor of performance, and Scales [29]). Thus, a positive acceleration in the forward
the ability to sprint is a key parameter in many direction will result from a positive value of this net (i.e.,
sports and the focus of many training programs. This ability stance-averaged) horizontal force (FH), and the higher FH,
mechanically corresponds to the capability to produce high- the higher the acceleration. Further, it has been shown that
to-top speeds and cover given distances in the shortest times high accelerations in running and bouncing bipeds were
possible or conversely to cover the largest distances in a achieved by increasing the amount of positive horizontal
given span. Contrary to cutting movements that are used in GRF (18,29) and concomitantly decreasing the amount of
some disciplines (e.g., basketball), sprinting predominantly negative horizontal GRF (29). From this basic standpoint,
implies accelerating forward on a level ground. it seems logical to expect forward acceleration (hence, high
During accelerated runs, a typical support phase is char- FH application onto the ground) to be a major determinant
acterized by a braking phase (negative horizontal ground of field sprint performance. For instance, Hunter et al. (13)
reaction force (GRF)) followed by a propulsive phase (pos- showed that the strongest predictor of the sprint velocity
measured at the 16-m mark during acceleration (61% of the
variance explained) was the relative horizontal impulse.
On the other hand, studies report relationships between
Address for correspondence: Jean-Benoı̂t Morin, Ph.D., Laboratoire de the top speed reached during treadmill sprint and mechanical
Physiologie de l’Exercice (EA4338), Médecine du Sport – Myologie, CHU
Bellevue, 42055 Saint-Etienne cedex 2, France; E-mail: [Link]@
variables, but only at top speed. These protocol designs
[Link]. required subjects to lower themselves onto the running
Submitted for publication September 2010. treadmill belt and perform about eight complete steps at in-
Accepted for publication February 2011. creasing steady speeds, until top speed was reached (e.g.,
0195-9131/11/4309-1680/0 Bundle et al. [4] and Weyand et al. [33–35]). Thus, in such
MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISEÒ protocols, only the flying top speed that could be maintained
Copyright Ó 2011 by the American College of Sports Medicine for a few steps was considered, irrespective of the typically
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318216ea37 preceding acceleration phase. That said, the authors showed

1680

Copyright © 2011 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
that it was very close to the top speed reached in field sprint force application in pedaling has been defined as the ratio
(5). Using this kind of design, Weyand et al. (35) showed of this effective force to the total force applied onto the pedal
that the support vertical force produced onto the ground per (7,11,28,30). Since then, effectiveness has been related to
unit body weight (BW) at top speed was a key determinant subjects’ pedaling technique (e.g., Dorel et al. [10]) and
of this speed. Knowing the determinants of human top speed cycling mechanical efficiency (e.g., Zameziati et al. [36]).
and its biological limits is of interest. However, in many Applying this to sprint running for a given support phase,
sports, if not all, athletes almost never reach their actual in- the mean ratio of forces applied onto the ground (RF) could
dividual top speed, yet their forward acceleration capabilities objectively represent runners’ force application technique.
are often necessary for successful performance (e.g., in This could also be independent from the amount of total
soccer or rugby). force applied, i.e., their physical capabilities. Therefore, we
Accelerating body mass and producing forward speed hereby propose to study RF in sprint running, which we
logically requires production of high amounts of FH. How- define as the ratio of FH to the corresponding total GRF
ever, during forward acceleration, the human body is in a averaged over the support phase (FTot). Thus, theoretically,
mechanical situation in which gravitational constraints are for the same FTot applied onto the ground over a given
such that the total force is predominantly produced in a di- stance phase, different strategies of force application (hence,
rection that is not that of their displacement. Therefore, only different RF values) may be used and result in different
the horizontal component of the total force is directed for- amounts of FH and, in turn, different net forward accel-
ward, and the other component (vertical) can be considered erations (Fig. 1).
as ineffective in producing forward acceleration, although However, contrary to cycling where the aim of a good
necessary to keep moving forward (Fig. 1). In pedaling pedaling technique is to reach maximal RF (i.e., effective-
mechanics, where the total force applied onto the pedal has ness of 100%), the necessary vertical component of the total
also been analyzed through its components (e.g., Davis and force in running makes it mechanically counterproductive to
Hull [7]), only one component of the total force (that ori- maximize RF. Indeed, an RF of 100% would mean that the
ented perpendicular to the crank arm) is propulsive and total force is applied horizontally, with no vertical compo-
necessary to the rotation of the drive. Thus, effectiveness of nent, making the running motion impossible. Between this
implausible maximal RF and RF equal to zero (which the-
oretically means no net forward acceleration is produced and
the total force over the stance is applied vertically), it is not
known whether or how RF could be optimized or whether
it is related to field sprint performance. Thus, we thought it
would be interesting and novel to analyze RF values during
sprint acceleration.
To our knowledge, no such approach has been undertaken
that would allow calculation of RF over a sprint acceleration
phase (and consequently test its potential relationship to field
sprint performance). This could be explained by the fact that
computing RF requires measurements of the total GRF and
both its vertical and horizontal components. To date, some
studies performed these measurements using force plates
(2,13,16,20,22,23,27), but none reported RF values. That
said, some studies reported incline angles of the total GRF
vector relative to vertical (16,20), which is mathematically
close to the expression of RF proposed here (Fig. 1). These
studies suggest that the forward incline angle of the total force
vector relative to vertical (and thus RF; Fig. 1) decreases with
APPLIED SCIENCES
increasing running speed over a typical sprint acceleration.
The characteristics of this decrease in RF and whether
limiting it may enhance field sprint performance are un-
known. We hypothesized that the technical ability to limit
the decrease in RF with increasing speed would be of in-
terest to sprint performance and used a practical index to
characterize subjects’ technique of force application mea-
sured during maximally accelerated runs. Computing such
FIGURE 1—Schematic representation of the ratio of forces (RF) and an index requires GRF measurements during the entire ac-
mathematical expression as a function of the total (FTot) and net positive
horizontal (FH) (i.e., contact-averaged) ground reaction forces. The for- celeration phase of a sprint, which has never been done to
ward orientation of the total GRF vector is represented by the angle >. our knowledge, for obvious technical and material reasons.

FORCE APPLICATION TECHNIQUE IN SPRINT RUNNING Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised 1681

Copyright © 2011 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Indeed, to date, such relationships between force METHODS
production/application and acceleration/sprint performance
Subjects and experimental protocol. Twelve male
have been mainly approached through comparisons between
subjects (body mass (mean T SD) = 72.4 T 8.6 kg, height =
steady-speed (i.e., not accelerated) runs including top speed
1.76 T 0.08 m, age = 26.2 T 3.6 yr) volunteered to participate
(e.g., Brughelli et al. [3], Mero and Komi [21], Nummela
in this study. All subjects were free of musculoskeletal pain
et al. [27], Weyand et al. [35]). Furthermore, field sprint
or injuries, as confirmed by medical and physical exam-
kinetics have most often been analyzed for three steps or
inations. They were all physical education students and
fewer during the starting blocks push-off and/or the first step
physically active and had all practiced physical activities in-
of the sprint (e.g., Kugler and Janshen [16], Mero [20], Mero
cluding sprints (e.g., soccer, basketball) in the 6 months pre-
et al. [23]), constant-speed runs [21,27], or, more recently,
ceding the study. Two subjects were national-level long jump
the acceleration phase (È16 m [13]) and around top speed
competitors (100-m personal bests of 10.90 and 11.04 s).
(È45 m [2]). Finally, detailed kinetics of acceleration runs
Written informed consent was obtained from the subjects,
have been studied, and comparisons between different ac-
and the study was approved by the institutional ethics review
celerations have been reported in comprehensive animal
board of the Faculty of Sport Sciences and was conducted
studies of turkeys (29) and dogs (32).
according to the Declaration of Helsinki II.
Thus, to the best of our knowledge, no GRF data are
The protocol consisted in performing one 8-s treadmill
available for the entire sprint acceleration phase of humans.
sprint and one 100 m on a standard synthetic track. The
The recent validation of an instrumented treadmill allow-
ing continuous GRF measurements during sprint running two sprints, which were performed in a randomized and
(including the typical acceleration phase) from a typical counterbalanced order, were separated by 30 min of passive
crouched sprint start (25,26) makes it possible to measure rest and performed in similar ambient conditions. Subjects
both instantaneous horizontal and vertical components of the wore the same outfit and shoes in both conditions (no ath-
total GRF and thus calculate RF for each step of a sprint. letics spikes used). About 1 wk before the testing session,
Indeed, this treadmill allows high-rate samplings of both subjects undertook a familiarization session during which
GRF and belt velocity (25), allowing computation of in- they repeated treadmill sprints until being comfortable with
stantaneous and step-averaged propulsive power and RF. It the running technique required (this took between 10 and
also allows subjects to adopt a standard sprint-start position 20 short sprints). For the testing session, the warm-up con-
and to begin their sprints in a balanced position before their sisted of 5 min of 10 kmIhj1 running, followed by 5 min of
first push-off. Afterward, subjects can sprint ‘‘freely’’ be- sprint-specific muscular warm-up exercises, and three pro-
cause the belt velocity is not preset and depends on subjects’ gressive 6-s sprints separated by 2 min of passive rest.
actions, especially their horizontal force production (see Subjects were then allowed È5 min of free cool-down be-
‘‘Methods’’ section). fore the treadmill sprint. The warm-up preceding the 100 m
Our aim was therefore to use this recently validated consisted of repeating the last part of the warm-up (from the
instrumented treadmill to (i) quantify RF and its changes three 6-s sprints on).
with increasing speed over an entire sprint acceleration Mechanical variables. The motorized instrumented tread-
phase (from null to top speed) and (ii) investigate the rela- mill (ADAL3D-WR; Medical Development, HEF Tecmachine,
tionships between these technical characteristics of sprint Andrézieux-Bouthéon, France) used has been recently vali-
motion and field sprint performance during a 100-m maxi- dated for sprint use (for full details, see Morin et al. [25]).
mal sprint (thereafter named 100 m). It is mounted on a highly rigid metal frame fixed to the
Given the expected importance of the horizontal compo- ground through four piezoelectric force transducers (KI 9077b;
nent of the total force runners apply onto the ground, our Kistler, Winterthur, Switzerland) and installed on a specially
main hypothesis was that RF is a key factor of sprint per- engineered concrete slab to ensure maximal rigidity of the
formance. This would represent the technical ability to ori- supporting ground.
ent the total GRF vector forward compared with the absolute The constant motor torque was set to 160% of the default
value of total GRF, which corresponds to the physical ca- torque, i.e., the motor torque necessary to overcome the
APPLIED SCIENCES

pabilities of athletes. This point has recently been suggested friction on the belt due to the subject’s BW. The default
by Kugler and Janshen (16), who showed that faster runners torque was measured by requiring the subject to stand still
were applying more forward-oriented, but not greater, forces and by increasing the driving torque value until observing a
against the ground, although the authors analyzed only one movement of the belt 92 cm during 5 s. This default torque
running step for each of their subjects’ runs. In terms of RF, setting as a function of belt friction is in line with previous
this would mean that better sprinters have a higher RF over motorized treadmill studies (6,12,14,15) and with the detailed
the acceleration phase for a similar amount of total force. discussion by McKenna and Riches (19) in their recent study
This hypothesis, on the basis of mechanical reasoning about comparing ‘‘torque treadmill’’ sprint to overground sprint.
forward speed production, is already known and used in Motor torque of 160% of the default value was selected after
practice by many sprint coaches but has hitherto not been several preliminary measurements (data not shown) compar-
supported by experimental data. ing various torques because (i) it allowed subjects to sprint

1682 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine [Link]

Copyright © 2011 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
in a comfortable manner and produce maximal effort with-
out risking loss of balance and (ii) higher torques (180%
and 200%) caused loss of balance in some subjects. The
latter phenomenon prevented them, even after familiariza-
tion, to sprint with the same technique as on the track.
Subjects were tethered using a leather weightlifting belt
and thin stiff rope (0.6 cm in diameter) rigidly anchored to
the wall behind the subjects by a 0.4-m vertical metal rail.
When correctly attached, subjects were required to lean
forward in a typical crouched sprint-start position (stan-
dardized for all subjects and close to that in the field) with
their preferred foot forward. After a 3-s countdown, the
treadmill was released, and the belt began to accelerate
as subjects applied a positive horizontal force. On both the
track and the treadmill, subjects were encouraged through-
out the sprint.
Mechanical data were sampled at 1000 Hz throughout the
sprint, allowing determination of the beginning of the sprint,
defined as the moment the belt speed exceeded 0.2 mIsj1.
After appropriate filtering (Butterworth-type 30-Hz low-
pass filter), instantaneous values of GRF and belt speed were
averaged for each contact period (vertical force 930 N),
which corresponds to the biomechanical/muscular specific
event of one leg push (1,17).
Instantaneous data of vertical, horizontal, and total GRF
were averaged for each support phase (FV, FH, and FTot,
respectively), expressed in newtons and BW and used with
the corresponding average belt speed (S, mIsj1) to compute
net horizontal power (PP = FH S, WIkgj1). These running
kinetics were completed by measurements of the main step
kinematic variables: contact time (tc, s), aerial time (ta, s),
FIGURE 2—A, Typical traces of vertical (black line) and horizontal
step frequency ( f, Hz), and swing time at top speed (tswing), (gray line) GRF and of RF (dotted black line) during the support phase
i.e., the time to reposition the limb, from take-off to touch- of a sprint step. This typical example (subject 11, body mass = 68.1 kg)
down of the same foot. Finally, FV was specifically averaged corresponds to the 10th step of the sprint, for which top speed was
reached after 17 steps. Mean values of FH, FV, and RF for this step were
for the five steps around top speed on the treadmill and 195 N, 1348 N, and 19.6%, respectively. This value of mean RF corre-
reported as FV–Smax. sponds to a forward inclination angle of > = 11.3-. B, Linear relation-
Ratio of forces and index of force application ship between RF and speed during the acceleration phase of the
treadmill sprint (from the second step and the step at top speed) for
technique. For each step, RF (%) was calculated as the subjects 2 (black circles) and 11 (white circles). Each point corresponds
mean ratio of FH to FTot for one contact period. The angle of to values of RF and running speed averaged for one contact phase.
orientation of the FTot vector with respect to vertical could Despite similar initial maximal values of RF, their DRF (i.e., the slopes
of their respective RF–speed relationships) differed strongly: j0.051
therefore be calculated as > = sinj1RF (Fig. 1). Further- for subject 11 and j0.083 for subject 2.
more, RF for the very first step (i.e., at very low forward
speeds) was expected to be high (crouched position when
attached backward to a fixed point) and then to decrease (i.e., a steep RF–speed relationship) were those who had the
with acceleration. Indeed, at the end of the acceleration (i.e., highest decreases in RF with increasing speed. To summa-
APPLIED SCIENCES
at top speed), RF was expected to be close to zero (no net rize these two concepts, RF represents the part of FTot that is
forward acceleration). Therefore, we calculated an index of directed forward, and DRF indicates how runners limit the
force application technique (DRF) representing the decre- decrease in RF with increasing speed during an acceleration
ment in RF with increasing speed. Because with increasing run (or conversely how they maintain RF to produce high
speed, the overall inclination of the body was expected to amounts of FH during their acceleration).
approach vertical (9), DRF was computed as the slope of the Field sprint performance. The 100-m sprints were
linear RF–speed relationship calculated from step-averaged performed from a standing start (crouched position similar to
values between the second step and the step at top speed that on the treadmill), and performance was measured using
(Fig. 2B). Therefore, the higher the DRF value (i.e., a flat a radar Stalker ATS Systemi (Radar Sales, Minneapolis,
RF–speed relationship), the more RF is maintained despite MN), which has been validated and used in previous human
increasing velocity. Conversely, subjects with a low DRF sprint running experiments (6,9,24,26), to measure the

FORCE APPLICATION TECHNIQUE IN SPRINT RUNNING Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised 1683

Copyright © 2011 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 TABLE 1. Ratio of forces, index of force application technique, and main mechanical RESULTS
variables averaged over the acceleration phase of the sprint on the instrumented
treadmill (from the second step until top speed).
The RF–speed relationships were linear for all subjects (r2
Variable Mean T SD Range ranging from 0.707 to 0.975; P G 0.05). The maximal and
Maximal value of RF (%) 37.6 T 4.22 28.9 to 42.4 mean values of RF for the acceleration phase of the treadmill
Mean value of RF (%) 19.9 T 2.98 13.9 to 23.7
Mean 4-s RF (%) 21.8 T 2.78 16.6 to 25.0 sprints are shown in Table 1, along with values of DRF and
Index of force application technique (DRF) j0.071 T 0.01 j0.083 to j0.051 mechanical variables of the sprints.
Ground reaction forces
FH (BW) 0.322 T 0.056 0.224 to 0.411 On the track, subjects ran the 100 m in 13.40 T 0.85 s
FH (N) 225 T 27 184 to 275 (range = 11.90–15.01 s), which corresponded to S100 =
FV (BW)
FV (N)
1.62 T 0.14
1144 T 150
1.45
915
to
to
1.85
1465
7.48 T 0.48 mIsj1, for a top speed of 8.79 T 0.59 mIsj1
FTot (BW) 1.65 T 0.14 1.49 to 1.89 (range = 7.80–9.96 mIsj1). The 4-s distance was 23.6 T 1.9 m
FTot (N) 1170 T 151 937 to 1484 (range = 20.9–26.3 m). Table 2 and Figure 3 show the
FV at top speed (BW) 1.79 T 0.16 1.59 to 2.10
FV at top speed (N) 1267 T 153 1001 to 1554 main relationships between mechanical variables and field
j1
PP (WIkg ) 16.5 T 3.18 11.1 to 22.4 sprint performance over the 100 m. The index of force ap-
Smax (mIsj1) 6.61 T 0.45 6.75 to 7.34
Contact time (s) 0.153 T 0.016 0.127 to 0.181
plication technique, DRF, was significantly related to the
Aerial time (s) 0.094 T 0.013 0.077 to 0.121 three main 100-m performance parameters: Smax, S100, and
Step frequency (Hz) 4.11 T 0.27 3.80 to 4.69 d4 (r 9 0.735, P G 0.01), as were the mean 4-s RF (r 9 0.689,
Swing time (s) 0.350 T 0.025 0.312 to 0.383
P G 0.05) and the mean value of FH over the acceleration
(r 9 0.621, P G 0.05). Contrastingly, neither FV nor FTot
forward speed of the runner at a sampling rate of 35 Hz. It averaged over the acceleration phase was related to these
was placed on a tripod 10 m behind the subjects at a height performance parameters. An exception to this result was
of 1 m (corresponding approximately to the height of sub- when FV was computed specifically at top speed on the
jects’ CM). treadmill: FV–Smax was significantly correlated (r = 0.612,
From these measurements, speed–time curves were plot- P G 0.05) to the top speed reached on the track.
ted (6,9,24,26), and maximal running speed (Smax, mIsj1) Finally, subjects’ capabilities to apply high amounts of
was obtained, as well as the 100-m time (t100, s) and the total force onto the ground, as quantified by FTot per unit
corresponding 100-m mean velocity (S100, mIsj1). To de- BW, was not significantly correlated to any calculated in-
scribe the acceleration performance in relation to sports dices of force application technique: mean RF (P = 0.68),
other than track and field, and with a practical and simple DRF (P = 0.25), or mean 4-s RF (P = 0.26).
index, the 4-s distance (d4, m) was measured as the distance
DISCUSSION
covered during the first 4 s of the 100 m.
Data analysis and statistics. Descriptive statistics are The main result of this study is that the force application
presented as mean values T SD. Normal distribution of the technique, and more precisely the ability to limit the de-
data was checked by the Shapiro–Wilk normality test. Our crease in RF during accelerated runs on a sprint treadmill
hypothesis was tested using Pearson correlation computed despite the increasing speed, was highly (P G 0.05) corre-
between experimental variables measured on the treadmill lated to field 100-m performance (4-s distance, 100-m top,
and field performance variables measured during the 100 m. and mean speeds). This was not the case for total force pro-
Individual RF–speed relationships were described by linear duced. Thus, the way runners apply force onto the ground
regression calculated from step-averaged values, from the (technical ability) seems to be more important to field sprint
second step (we did not take the very first push-off into ac- performance than the amount of total force they are able to
count because it was not a complete push-off ) to the step produce (physical capability), confirming our hypothesis (at
at top speed. Further, a mean RF value was calculated for least for the population tested). Net positive horizontal force
the first 4 s of the treadmill sprint to correspond to the per- and power as measured on the instrumented sprint treadmill
formance variable d4 and describe the early phase of the were also significantly (P G 0.05) correlated with the field
sprints. The significance level was set at P G 0.05. sprint performance variables Smax, S100, and d4. Further, Smax
APPLIED SCIENCES

TABLE 2. Correlations between mechanical variables (rows) and 100-m performance variables (columns).
Maximal Speed (mIsj1) Mean 100-m Speed (mIsj1) 4-s Distance (m)
Maximal value of RF (%) 0.013 (0.97) j0.018 (0.96) j0.217 (0.96)
Mean 4-s RF (%) 0.695 (G0.01) 0.773 (G0.01) 0.689 (G0.05)
Index of force application technique (DRF) 0.735 (G0.01) 0.779 (G0.01) 0.745 (G0.01)
FH (BW) 0.775 (G0.01) 0.736 (G0.01) 0.621 (G0.05)
FV (BW) 0.501 (0.10) 0.390 (0.22) 0.466 (0.13)
FTot (BW) 0.520 (0.08) 0.411 (0.19) 0.471 (0.13)
FV at top speed (BW) 0.612 (G0.05) 0.507 (0.09) 0.498 (0.10)
PP (WIkgj1) 0.891 (G0.001) 0.862 (G0.001) 0.715 (G0.01)
FH, FV, FTot, and PP are mean values for the acceleration phase. Values are presented as Pearson correlation coefficient (P values).
Significant correlations are reported in bold.

1684 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine [Link]

Copyright © 2011 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 APPLIED SCIENCES

FIGURE 3—Linear regressions between field and treadmill performance parameters of index of force application technique, DRF (left panels) and
horizontal, vertical, and total GRF (right panels). The linear regressions between FV and Smax and between FTot and Smax were not significant.

was only significantly (P G 0.05) related to the vertical force present such data. That said, the values of RF reported here
per unit BW applied onto the ground when the latter was are consistent with those that could be estimated from total
measured specifically at Smax on the treadmill and not when GRF vector angle and horizontal and vertical components of
averaged during the entire acceleration phase (P = 0.100). GRF reported in previous studies (because RF equals the
The comparison of RF and DRF data with previous studies sine of this angle). For instance, at the first step of a maximal
is limited because, to our knowledge, this study is the first to acceleration from a standing start, Kugler and Janshen (16)

FORCE APPLICATION TECHNIQUE IN SPRINT RUNNING Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised 1685

Copyright © 2011 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 reported a forward orientation of the maximal ground re- can reasonably hypothesize that training this ability to limit
action force vector of 22- from the vertical. This angle the loss of RF during an acceleration phase could be useful to
would correspond to a RF value of È37.5%. This is very improve sprinting skills.
close to the maximal RF values reported in the present study Indeed, as expected, our results show that net horizontal
(Table 1). Further, RF as computed in the present study (i.e., power output is a mechanical variable strongly related to
from net forces) can be compared with RF estimated from field 100-m sprint performance (be it quantified through
corresponding data in the literature. For instance, from the Smax, S100, or d4). However, the total force, FTot, was not
average values of horizontal and vertical forces and impulses significantly related to these performances (Table 2),
during braking and pushing phases measured for the first whereas the force application technique (be it represented
contact after the blocks in eight sprinters (Table 3 in Mero by the mean 4-s RF or DRF) and the horizontal force were
[20]), the calculated net horizontal and vertical forces were (P G 0.05; Table 2). It must be noted that the maximal pos-
È325 and 288 N, respectively. This corresponds to an esti- sible value of RF (i.e., È100%) is not ideal because it pre-
mated total force of È434 N and an RF of È74.9%. Our cludes the running motion, which requires a certain amount
maximal values of RF are well in line with those of Kugler of vertical force to be applied onto the ground. Further, the
and Janshen (16) but far below those of Mero (20). This maximal reported values of RF (i.e., È38% at the first or
could be explained by the fact that, contrary to our study and second steps) were not correlated with performance. Be-
that of Kugler and Janshen (16), subjects did not take a cause it is not feasible to maximize initial RF values, further
standing start in a crouched position. Instead, subjects used studies could investigate individual optimum values of RF,
starting blocks, which likely allowed them to apply a more if an optimum exists.
forward-oriented force onto the ground at their first step, Contrary to FV (which is an average value for the entire
hence the much higher estimated RF. Finally, our values of acceleration phase), the amount of vertical force per unit
FV, FH, and FTot (maximal, mean for the acceleration phase, BW applied onto the supporting ground specifically mea-
or at top speed) are in line with previous human sprinting sured at top speed on the treadmill (FV–Smax) was signifi-
studies (16,20,25,34,35). cantly linked to track Smax (P G 0.05; Table 2). This confirms
The main originality of our approach is that, contrary to results of Weyand et al. (35) who showed a similar sig-
previous studies in which RF could be estimated for only nificant relationship between FV–Smax and Smax (r2 = 0.39,
a very limited number of steps during a sprint (most of P = 0.02, n = 33 vs r2 = 0.38, P = 0.03, n = 12 in the present
the time one or two), the instrumented treadmill used here study), yet for a much wider range of top speeds (6.2–
allowed calculation of RF for each step and, consequently, 11.1 vs 7.80–9.96 mIsj1). Further, as also reported by
accurate study of its continuous changes with increasing Weyand et al. (35), we did not observe a significant corre-
running speed. This is, in our opinion, a novel and direct lation between tswing and Smax (r2 = 0.04, P = 0.56), con-
way to approach acceleration capabilities compared with firming their hypothesis that vertical force per unit BW
previous protocol designs (see introduction). Further, it al- produced at top speed is a determining factor of top speed
lowed proposal and computation of DRF, which represents (here on the track during the 100 m) rather than the ability to
the ability of runners to produce and maintain optimal values quickly reposition the lower limbs at each step. Our results
of RF over the entire acceleration, despite the overall confirm those of Weyand et al. (35) that applying a high
straightening up of their body with increasing speed. amount of vertical force per unit BW at the moment top
This decrease in RF with increasing speed has also been speed is reached is necessary to run at a high Smax. However,
observed in cycling, where subjects could not maintain high this may be mechanically counterproductive when trying to
values of force effectiveness when pedaling frequency in- increase forward speed during the overall acceleration phase
creases (10,30). Therefore, we think that DRF (the slope of the of a sprint. Indeed, during the acceleration phase, our results
RF–speed relationship) is a better index of the technical show that FH is a key variable but not FV.
ability of runners to apply force effectively onto the ground The 100 m has often been described as a three-component
over the entire acceleration phase than mean or maximal RF. race: acceleration phase, approximately constant top speed
Indeed, maximal RF is measured at the first or second step of phase, and deceleration phase (8,22,31). Our results support
APPLIED SCIENCES

the sprint and is less representative of the entire acceleration the fact that net horizontal force and power, partly influenced
than DRF. Maximal RF may also be related to/caused by the by subjects’ force application technique, are significantly re-
overall geometric configuration of the standing start on the lated to performance in the acceleration phase. Further, they
treadmill: subjects are attached at the same location (their confirm that top speed is significantly related to the ability of
waist and the wall anchor, 2 m behind them), and the maxi- subjects to apply high amounts of vertical GRF onto the
mal angle they can achieve in a crouched position (and thus supporting ground when running at top speed. Factors asso-
their maximal RF) may not be totally independent of the ciated with performance during the deceleration phase remain
geometric constraints this method. However, DRF depends on to be thoroughly investigated. In a previous study (24), we
the ability to orient total force at each step and is closely proposed the hypothesis that the capability to maintain overall
linked to overall sprint training background (the sprint-trained lower limb stiffness despite fatigue in sprint running was re-
subjects demonstrated the best DRF values). Therefore, we lated to sprint performance in fatigue conditions based on

1686 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine [Link]

Copyright © 2011 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
results obtained over repeated 100 m. This hypothesis could 100 m were significantly correlated with corresponding
be transposed to a single 100 m during which the systemati- values of mean FV per unit BW (r = 0.69, P = 0.023) and not
cally observed decrease in speed could be explained by with subjects’ body mass or treadmill FH, Smax, contact time,
changes in the overall capability of athletes to run with high aerial time, or step frequency. These data clearly support the
values of lower limb stiffness or at least to maintain this hypothesis that the differences in force production between
stiffness over the last two phases of the 100 m. It is interest- treadmill and track are linked to mechanical variables re-
ing to note that RF, DRF and PP measured during treadmill presenting the intensity of subjects’ vertical actions against
acceleration were significantly related not only to field Smax the belt rather than to the amounts of FH produced.
and d4 but also to overall field 100-m performance (Table 2). This limit may not fundamentally challenge the proposed
This study shows that the technical ability of sprinters, calculation of DRF. As may be observed in Figure 2B, and
represented by RF and DRF, rather than their capability to as mentioned above, the right parts of RF–speed linear
produce total force (FTot), is related to acceleration (d4) and regressions do not reach null values of RF (y axis) or top
overall field 100-m (S100 and Smax) performance. These two speeds similar to those observed in the field (x axis), i.e.,
parameters correspond to different and independent capa- 8.79 T 0.59 mIsj1. Given that (i) DRF is computed as the
bilities and should therefore be the focus of specific training slope of this linear relationship and (ii) this linearity is sig-
programs and exercises. The fact that these parameters are nificant and clear for all subjects for the range of RF and
distinct is supported by the absence of significant correlation speeds tested on the treadmill (i.e., up to 6.61 T 0.45 mIsj1
between FTot and calculated indexes of force application on average), it is very likely that if the treadmill had allowed
technique (mean or maximal RF, 4-s RF, or DRF). subjects to reach top speeds equivalent to those on the track
A good example of the distinction between the technical (through reduced resistance), DRF values would have been
and physical capabilities put forward in this study is that of the very close to those reported. To support this assumption,
two typical subjects presented in Figure 2B. Subject 11 is a we compared theoretical treadmill top speed values (x axis
national-level long jumper, has been training for sprint and intercept obtained by extrapolation of the linear RF–speed
long jump for about 10 yr, and has a personal best of 10.90 s relationship; Fig. 2B) to field Smax for each individual. The
in the 100 m. Subject 2 is a basketball and mountain bike values were very close (8.53 T 0.84 mIsj1 on the treadmill
competitor and not specialized in sprint. These two subjects vs 8.79 T 0.59 mIsj1) and highly correlated (r = 0.899,
have about the same body mass (68.1 vs 69.9 kg) and similar P G 0.001). Consequently, it is likely that the RF–speed re-
values of maximal RF (Fig. 2B). Further, their capabilities of lationship in the incomplete bottom right part of Fig. 2B
total force production over the acceleration phase were very would follow the observed linearity of the data measured,
close: FTot = 1.87BW for subject 11 and 1.89BW for subject and thus that the slope (i.e., DRF) would be similar.
2. However, their DRF (j0.051 vs j0.083) were the two That said, the treadmill measurements aimed at quantifying
extreme values for the population tested. This means that subjects’ ability to apply/orient force onto the ground while
subject 11 was able to maintain much higher values of RF sprinting at their maximum, as opposed to reproducing exact
when accelerating compared with subject 2, despite similar field sprint conditions. Consequently, despite a lower running
RF at the first step. What is interesting and clearly illustrates speed on the treadmill, we can reasonably hypothesize that the
the superior 100 m of subject 11 (Smax of 9.96 vs 8.80 mIsj1, interindividual differences observed in physical and technical
t100 of 11.90 vs 13.66 s, and d4 of 26.3 vs 23.3 m) is that capabilities did not fundamentally differ between treadmill
despite similar total force production capabilities, he had a and track conditions. Data obtained on 11 of the present 12
better DRF during treadmill accelerated runs. subjects showed that the performance parameters studied
A limit of the present study is that we did not observe RF (100-m times and top speeds included) were significantly
values reaching zero as subjects reached their top speed on correlated between the two conditions (n = 11, r 9 0.63, P G
the treadmill (Fig. 2B), which should have theoretically 0.05) (26). Finally, the main step kinematics (tc, ta, tswing, and
been the case. Further, top speeds reached on the treadmill f ) observed in the present study were in accordance with
were lower than those on the track (6.61 T 0.45 vs 8.79 T those reported at similar speeds during maximal-speed
0.59 mIsj1). This is because friction forces and overall in- treadmill sprinting (e.g., Weyand et al. [33–35]). Therefore,
APPLIED SCIENCES
ertia of the treadmill system require subjects to produce a we think that, despite the lower performance observed on the
low but not null amount of net horizontal force at each step treadmill, the overall sprint mechanical pattern was not fun-
to maintain a nearly constant top speed. Indeed, we esti- damentally altered. Thus, we think that the advantage and
mated the net horizontal force production during the field novelty of being able to continuously measure GRF and RF
100 m from speed–time curves, forward acceleration as a and compute DRF over the entire acceleration phase of a
function of time, and basic laws of dynamics (26). The maximal sprint outweighs the issue of lower top speed values.
results show that the difference between measured (tread- In conclusion, ground reaction force measurements during
mill) and estimated (field) FH was 69.9 T 8.5 N on average treadmill sprinting allowed calculation of an index of force
for the group over the acceleration phase of the 100 m (i.e., application technique and to show that it was significantly
from start to Smax). Further, individual differences in FH correlated to field 100-m performance. This was not the case
between field and treadmill conditions computed over the for the amount of total force per unit BW the subjects were

FORCE APPLICATION TECHNIQUE IN SPRINT RUNNING Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised 1687

Copyright © 2011 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 able to produce. In other words, it seems that the importance No funds were received for this study from National Institutes
of Health, Wellcome Trust, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, or
is not so much the amount of total force produced, but the others.
way it is oriented onto the supporting ground during the ac- The authors sincerely thank Dr. Peter G Weyand, from Southern
celeration phase of the sprint. Because this may be considered Methodist University, Dallas, TX, for his helpful and stimulating
comments on their work and on the present article. The authors are
a technical ability, further studies should investigate whether also grateful to John ‘‘indeed’’ Temesi, from the Laboratory of Exer-
it could be trained/improved, by what practical means, and cise Physiology, University of Saint-Etienne, France, for English-
whether the training exercises typically used by coaches to language assistance.
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
train athletes to ‘‘push forward for a greater distance’’ actu- The results of the present study do not constitute endorsement
ally and efficiently do so. by the American College of Sports Medicine.

REFERENCES
1. Andrews JG. Biomechanical measures of muscular effort. Med Sci 19. McKenna MJ, Riches PE. A comparison of sprinting kinematics
Sports Exerc. 1983;15(3):199–207. on two types of treadmill and over-ground. Scand J Med Sci
2. Bezodis IN, Kerwin DG, Salo AI. Lower-limb mechanics during Sports. 2007;17(6):649–55.
the support phase of maximum-velocity sprint running. Med Sci 20. Mero A. Force–time characteristics and running velocity of male
Sports Exerc. 2008;40(4):707–15. sprinters during the acceleration phase of sprinting. Res Q Exerc
3. Brughelli MJ, Cronin J, Chaouachi A. Effects of running velocity Sport. 1988;59(2):94–8.
on running kinetics and kinematics. J Strength Cond Res. 2011; 21. Mero A, Komi PV. Force–, EMG–, and elasticity–velocity rela-
25(4):933–9. tionships at submaximal, maximal and supramaximal running
4. Bundle MW, Ernst CL, Bellizzi MJ, Wright S, Weyand PG. A speeds in sprinters. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1986;55(5):
metabolic basis for impaired force production and neuromuscular 553–61.
compensation during sprint cycling. Am J Physiol Regul Integr 22. Mero A, Komi PV, Gregor RJ. Biomechanics of sprint running:
Comp Physiol. 2006;291(5):1457–64. a review. Sports Med. 1992;13(6):376–92.
5. Bundle MW, Hoyt RW, Weyand PG. High-speed running perfor- 23. Mero A, Luhtanen P, Komi PV. A biomechanical study of the
mance: a new approach to assessment and prediction. J Appl sprint start. Scand J Sports Sci. 1983;5(1):20–8.
Physiol. 2003;95(5):1955–62. 24. Morin JB, Jeannin T, Chevallier B, Belli A. Spring–mass model
6. Chelly SM, Denis C. Leg power and hopping stiffness: relation- characteristics during sprint running: correlation with perfor-
ship with sprint running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. mance and fatigue-induced changes. Int J Sports Med. 2006;
2001;33(2):326–33. 27(2):158–65.
7. Davis RR, Hull ML. Measurement of pedal loading in bicycling: 25. Morin JB, Samozino P, Bonnefoy R, Edouard P, Belli A. Direct
II. Analysis and results. J Biomech. 1981;14(12):857–72. measurement of power during one single sprint on treadmill.
8. Delecluse C, Van Coppenolle H, Willems E, et al. Analysis of J Biomech. 2010;43(10):1970–5.
100 meter sprint performance as a multidimensional skill. J Hum 26. Morin JB, Seve P. Sprint running performance: comparison be-
Movement Stud. 1995;28:87–101. tween treadmill and field conditions. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011
9. Di Prampero PE, Fusi S, Sepulcri L, Morin JB, Belli A, Antonutto Jan 6. [Epub ahead of print].
G. Sprint running: a new energetic approach. J Exp Biol. 2005; 27. Nummela A, Keranen T, Mikkelsson LO. Factors related to top
208(14):2809–16. running speed and economy. Int J Sports Med. 2007;28(8):655–61.
10. Dorel S, Couturier A, Lacour JR, Vandewalle H, Hautier C, Hug F. 28. Patterson RP, Moreno MI. Bicycle pedalling forces as a function of
Force–velocity relationship in cycling revisited: benefit of two- pedalling rate and power output. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1990;
dimensional pedal forces analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010; 22(4):512–6.
42(6):1174–83. 29. Roberts TJ, Scales JA. Mechanical power output during
11. Ericson MO, Nisell R. Efficiency of pedal forces during ergometer running accelerations in wild turkeys. J Exp Biol. 2002;205(10):
cycling. Int J Sports Med. 1988;9(2):118–22. 1485–94.
12. Falk B, Weinstein Y, Dotan R, Abramson DA, Mann-Segal D, 30. Sanderson DJ. The influence of cadence and power output on
Hoffman JR. A treadmill test of sprint sunning. Scand J Med Sci the biomechanics of force application during steady rate cycling in
Sports. 1996;6(5):259–64. competitive and recreational cyclists. J Sports Sci. 1991;9:191–203.
13. Hunter JP, Marshall RN, McNair PJ. Relationships between 31. Volkov NI, Lapin VI. Analysis of the velocity curve in sprint
ground reaction force impulse and kinematics of sprint–running running. Med Sci Sports. 1979;11(4):332–7.
acceleration. J Appl Biomech. 2005;21(1):31–43. 32. Walter RM, Carrier DR. Rapid acceleration in dogs: ground
14. Jaskolska A, Goossens P, Veenstra B, Jaskolski A, Skinner JS. forces and body posture dynamics. J Exp Biol. 2009;212(12):
APPLIED SCIENCES

Treadmill measurement of the force–velocity relationship and 1930–9.

power output in subjects with different maximal running velocities. 33. Weyand PG, Bundle MW, McGowan CP, et al. The fastest runner
Sports Med Train Rehab. 1999;8(4):347–58. on artificial legs: different limbs, similar function? J Appl Physiol.
15. Jaskolski A, Veenstra B, Goossens P, Jaskolska A. Optimal re- 2009;107(3):903–11.
sistance for maximal power during treadmill running. Sports Med 34. Weyand PG, Sandell RF, Prime DNL, Bundle MW. The biological
Train Rehab. 1996;7:17–30. limits to running speed are imposed from the ground up. J Appl
16. Kugler F, Janshen L. Body position determines propulsive forces Physiol. 2010;108(4):950–61.
in accelerated running. J Biomech. 2010;43(2):343–8. 35. Weyand PG, Sternlight DB, Bellizzi MJ, Wright S. Faster top
17. Martin JC, Wagner BM, Coyle EF. Inertial-load method deter- running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more
mines maximal cycling power in a single exercise bout. Med Sci rapid leg movements. J Appl Physiol. 2000;89(5):1991–9.
Sports Exerc. 1997;29(11):1505–12. 36. Zameziati K, Mornieux G, Rouffet D, Belli A. Relationship be-
18. McGowan CP, Baudinette R, Biewener A. Joint work and power tween the increase of effectiveness indexes and the increase of
associated with acceleration and deceleration in tammar wallabies muscular efficiency with cycling power. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006;
(Macropus eugenii). J Exp Biol. 2005;208(1):41–53. 96(3):274–81.

1688 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine [Link]

View publication stats Copyright © 2011 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.