Scand J Med Sci Sports 2016: 26: 648–658 ª 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

doi: 10.1111/sms.12490 Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

A simple method for measuring power, force, velocity properties,

and mechanical effectiveness in sprint running
P. Samozino1, G. Rabita2, S. Dorel3, J. Slawinski4, N. Peyrot5, E. Saez de Villarreal6, J.-B. Morin7
1
Laboratory of Exercise Physiology (EA4338), University Savoie Mont Blanc, Le Bourget du Lac, France, 2Research Department,
Laboratory Sport, Expertise and Performance, French Institute of Sport (INSEP), Paris, France, 3Laboratory “Motricité, Interactions,
Performance” (EA 4334), University of Nantes, Nantes, France, 4CeSERM – EA 2931, UFRSTAPS, Université de Paris Ouest
Nanterre la Défense, Paris, France, 5Laboratory IRISSE (EA4075), University of La Réunion, Le Tampon, La Réunion, France,
6
Laboratory of Human Performance, Department of Sports, University Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain, 7Laboratory of Human
Motricity, Education Sport and Health (EA6312), University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France
Corresponding author: Pierre Samozino, PhD, Laboratoire de Physiologie de l’Exercice, Université de Savoie Mont-Blanc, UFR
CISM – Technolac, 73376 Le Bourget du Lac, France. Tel: +33 4 79 75 81 77, Fax: +33 4 79 75 81 48, E-mail:
[email protected]
Accepted for publication 7 April 2015

This study aimed to validate a simple field method for several consecutive trials to assess the inter-trial reliabil-
determining force– and power–velocity relationships and ity. The low bias (<5%) and narrow limits of agreement
mechanical effectiveness of force application during between both methods for maximal horizontal force
sprint running. The proposed method, based on an (638 ± 84 N), velocity (10.5 ± 0.74 m/s), and power output
inverse dynamic approach applied to the body center of (1680 ± 280 W); for the slope of the force–velocity rela-
mass, estimates the step-averaged ground reaction forces tionships; and for the mechanical effectiveness of force
in runner’s sagittal plane of motion during overground application showed high concurrent validity of the pro-
sprint acceleration from only anthropometric and spatio- posed method. The low standard errors of measurements
temporal data. Force– and power–velocity relationships, between trials (<5%) highlighted the high reliability of
the associated variables, and mechanical effectiveness the method. These findings support the validity of the
were determined (a) on nine sprinters using both the proposed simple method, convenient for field use, to
proposed method and force plate measurements and (b) determine power, force, velocity properties, and mechani-
on six other sprinters using the proposed method during cal effectiveness in sprint running.

Sprint running is a key factor of performance in many running movements (e.g., Yamauchi & Ishii, 2007; Dorel
sport activities, not only to reach the highest top velocity et al., 2010; Morin et al., 2010; Bobbert, 2012;
but also, and most importantly, to cover a given distance Samozino et al., 2012; Rabita et al., 2015). These rela-
in the shortest time possible, be it in track-and-field tionships characterize the external mechanical limits of
events or in team sports. This ability implies large the entire neuromuscular system during specific
forward acceleration, which has been related to the multijoint movements and are well summarized through
capacity to produce and apply high amounts of power the theoretical maximal force (F0) and velocity (v0) this
output in the horizontal direction onto the ground, i.e., system can develop, and the associated maximal power
high amounts of horizontal external force at various output (Pmax). Moreover, the slope of the F–v relationship
velocities over sprint acceleration (Jaskolska et al., determines the F–v mechanical profile (SFV), i.e., the
1999b; Morin et al., 2011a, 2012; Rabita et al., 2015). individual ratio between force and velocity qualities.
The overall mechanical capability to produce horizon- These mechanical properties obtained from multijoint
tal external force during sprint running is well described F–v and P–v relationships are a complex integration of
by the inverse linear force–velocity (F–v) and the para- different mechanisms involved in the total external force
bolic power–velocity (P–v) relationships (Jaskolska produced during one (for acyclic movements) or several
et al., 1999a, b; Morin et al., 2010, 2011a, 2012; Rabita consecutive (for cyclic movements) limb extensions.
et al., 2015). Indeed, although the F–v relationships They encompass individual muscle mechanical proper-
obtained on isolated muscles or mono-articular move- ties, morphological factors, neural mechanisms, and
ments are described by a hyperbolic equation (Hill, segmental dynamics (Cormie et al., 2010a, b, 2011;
1938; Thorstensson et al., 1976), linear relationships Bobbert, 2012). Furthermore, because sprint running is a
were consistently obtained for multijoint lower limb dynamic movement mainly requiring force production
movements such as pedaling, squat, leg press, or sprint in two dimensions (in contrast to squat or leg press

648
 16000838, 2016, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sms.12490 by Springfield College, Wiley Online Library on [21/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Simple method to compute sprint mechanics
exercises), the F–v and P–v relationships during running forward horizontal velocity during an entire sprint accel-
propulsion also integrate the ability to apply the external eration (∼30–60 m). Sprint F–v and P–v relationships
force effectively (i.e., horizontally in the antero-posterior have hitherto been obtained using specific instrumented
direction) onto the ground (Morin et al., 2011a, b, 2012; treadmills on which subjects accelerate the belt them-
Rabita et al., 2015). This concept of mechanical effec- selves by the action of their lower limbs, while their
tiveness of force application has been previously pro- waist is tethered backward to a fixed point (e.g.,
posed in sprint pedaling considering tangential and Jaskolska et al., 1999a, b; Chelly & Denis, 2001; Morin
normal force components of the force applied onto the et al., 2010). Despite the high accuracy of these methods,
pedals (Dorel et al., 2010). The technical ability of force their main limitation is the treadmill condition that does
application (or mechanical effectiveness) during sprint not exactly reproduce natural overground sprint running
running has been quantified at each step by the ratio (RF) movement due to waist attachment, a belt narrower than
of the net horizontal and resultant ground reaction forces a typical track lane, the impossibility to use starting
(GRF), and over the entire acceleration phase by the rate block, and the need to set a default torque to, only partly,
(DRF) of linear decrease in RF as velocity increases. DRF, compensate for the friction of the treadmill belt bed
which is independent from the amount of total force (Morin et al., 2010; Morin & Seve, 2011). Because, to
applied (i.e., physical capabilities), describes the run- date, no 30- to 60-m long force plate systems exist,
ner’s ability to maintain a forward horizontal orientation GRFs over an entire sprint acceleration phase were very
of the resultant GRF vector despite increasing speed recently determined in elite sprinters using data from
(Morin et al., 2011a, b; Morin et al., 2012; Rabita et al., several sprints measured on a 6.60-m long force plate
2015; see Methods section). So, F–v and P–v relation- system, which allowed, for the first time, to provide
ships provide a macroscopic and integrative view of the the data to entirely characterize the mechanics of
P–F–v mechanical profile of an athlete in the specific overground sprint acceleration (Rabita et al., 2015).
sprint running task. Sport practitioners do not have easy access to such rare
Therefore, determining individual F–v and P–v rela- and expensive devices, and often do not have the tech-
tionships and mechanical effectiveness during sprint nical expertise to process the raw force data measured. In
propulsion is of great interest for coaches, sport practi- the best cases, this forces athletes to report to a labora-
tioners, or physiotherapists. Indeed, sprint performance tory, which explains that, although very accurate and
is highly correlated to Pmax, be it quantified during sprint potentially useful for training purposes, this kind of
running or other movements such as vertical jump or evaluation is almost never performed. In addition, sport
sprint cycling (e.g., Cronin & Sleivert, 2005; Morin scientists investigating sprint mechanics and perfor-
et al., 2012; Rabita et al., 2015). In addition to this power mance usually assess, at best, only very few steps of a
output capability, the F–v mechanical profile (character- sprint because of this technical limitation (e.g., Lockie
ized by the slope of the F–v relationship) has recently et al., 2013; Kawamori et al., 2014). A simple method for
been shown to influence maximal jumping perfor- determining F–v and P–v relationships and force appli-
mances, independently from the effect of Pmax, with the cation effectiveness during sprint running in overground
existence of an individual optimal F–v profile character- realistic conditions could therefore be very interesting to
izing the best balance, for a given subject, between force generalize such evaluations for training or scientific
and velocity qualities to maximize performances purposes.
(Samozino et al., 2012, 2014). These results suggest that Mechanics and energetics of sprint running have been
the F–v mechanical profile in sprint running, which approached by various kinds of mathematical models
shows high inter-individual differences (Jaskolska et al., that aimed at describing sprint performance from the
1999b; Morin et al., 2010), can also be interesting to balance between the mechanical energy demand of
consider and adjust by individualized training loads and sprint running acceleration and the energy release capac-
exercises. Finally, recent studies showed that sprint per- ity of the aerobic and anaerobic metabolism (e.g.,
formances (6-s sprints, 100-m events, repeated sprints) Furusawa et al., 1927; van Ingen Schenau et al., 1991;
are related more to the effectiveness of force application Arsac & Locatelli, 2002; Helene & Yamashita, 2010).
to the ground than to the total force developed by lower Based on the mechanical analyses used in these models,
limbs (Morin et al., 2011a, 2012; Rabita et al., 2015). So, an inverse dynamic approach applied to the runner body
quantifying individually the mechanical effectiveness center of mass (CM) could give valid estimation of GRF
can help distinguish the physical and technical origins of during sprint running acceleration from simple kine-
inter- or intra-individual differences in both P–F–v matic data, as recently proposed by di Prampero et al.
mechanical profiles and sprint performances, which can (2015), but never compared with force plate measure-
be useful to more appropriately orient the training ments. This could then be used to obtain the aforemen-
process toward the specific mechanical qualities to tioned sprint mechanical properties without force
develop. platform system in typical field conditions of practice.
To date, such evaluations require to measure horizon- The aim of this study was to propose and validate a
tal antero-posterior and vertical GRF components and simple field method based on an inverse dynamic

649
 16000838, 2016, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sms.12490 by Springfield College, Wiley Online Library on [21/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Samozino et al.
approach applied to the runner body CM during sprint FH (t ) = m ⋅ aH (t ) + Faero (t ) [6]
running acceleration for (a) estimating the GRFs in the
sagittal plane of motion from only anthropometric and where m is the runner’s body mass (in kg) and Faero(t) is
spatiotemporal data and (b) determining the associated the aerodynamic drag to overcome during sprint running
F–v and P–v relationships and effectiveness of force that is proportional to the square of the velocity of air
application. The concurrent validity of this method relative to the runner:
was tested by comparison to reference force plate
Faero (t ) = k ⋅ ( vH (t ) − vw )
2
measurements. [7]

where vw is the wind velocity (if any) and k is the run-

Biomechanical model used in the proposed method ner’s aerodynamic friction coefficient, which can be esti-
This section, devoted to present the biomechanical mated as proposed by Arsac and Locatelli (2002) from
model on which the proposed simple method is based, is values of air density (ρ, in kg/m3), frontal area of the
an analysis of kinematics and kinetics of the runner’s runner (Af, in m2), and drag coefficient (Cd = 0.9; van
body CM during sprint acceleration using a macroscopic Ingen Schenau et al., 1991):
inverse dynamic approach aiming to be the simplest
k = 0.5 ⋅ ρ ⋅ Af ⋅ Cd [8]
possible (Furusawa et al., 1927; Helene & Yamashita,
2010). All variables presented in this section are with
modeled over time, without considering intra-step
changes, and thus correspond to step-averaged values Pb 273
ρ = ρ0 ⋅ ⋅ [9]
(contact plus aerial times). 760 273 + T °
During a running maximal acceleration, horizontal
Af = (0.2025 ⋅ h 0.725 ⋅ m 0.425 ) ⋅ 0.266
velocity (vH)–time (t) curve has long been shown to
[10]
systematically follow a mono-exponential function for
recreational to highly trained sprinters (e.g., Furusawa where ρ0 = 1.293 kg/m is the ρ at 760 Torr and 273 °K,
et al., 1927; Chelly & Denis, 2001; di Prampero et al., Pb is the barometric pressure (in Torr), T° is the air
2005; Morin et al., 2006): temperature (in °C), and h is the runner’s stature
(in m). The mean net horizontal antero-posterior
vH (t ) = vHmax ⋅ (1 − e − t τ ) [1] power output applied to the body CM (PH in W) can
where vHmax is the maximal velocity reached at the end then be modeled at each instant as the product of FH
of the acceleration and τ is the acceleration time con- and vH.
stant. The horizontal position (xH) and acceleration In the vertical direction, the runner’s body CM during
(aH) of the body CM as a function of time during the the acceleration phase of a sprint goes up from the start-
acceleration phase can be expressed after integration ing crouched position (be it with or without using start-
and derivation of vH(t) over time, respectively, as ing blocks) to the standing running position, and then
follows: does not change from one complete step to another.
Because the initial upward movement of the CM is
⎛ − ⎞
t overall smoothed through a relative long time/distance
xH (t ) = ∫ vH (t ) dt = ∫ vHmax ⋅ ⎜ 1 − e τ ⎟ dt [2] (∼30–40 m; Cavagna et al., 1971; Slawinski et al.,
⎝ ⎠
2010), we can consider that it does not require any large
vertical acceleration, and so that the mean net vertical
⎛ − ⎞
t acceleration of the CM over each step is quasi-null
x (t ) = vHmax ⋅ ⎜ t + τ.e τ ⎟ − vHmax ⋅ τ [3] throughout the sprint acceleration phase. Consequently,
⎝ ⎠
applying the fundamental laws of dynamics in the verti-
cal direction, the mean net vertical GRF (FV) applied to
⎛ − ⎞
t
the body CM over each complete step can be modeled
vHmax ⋅ ⎜ 1 − e τ ⎟
dv (t ) ⎝ ⎠ [4] over time as equal to body weight (di Prampero et al.,
aH (t ) = H = 2015):
dt dt
FV (t ) = m ⋅ g [11]
t
aH (t ) = ⎛⎜ max ⎞⎟ ⋅ e τ
v −
[5] where g is the gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s2).
⎝ τ ⎠
Morin et al. (2011a) proposed that the mechanical
Applying the fundamental laws of dynamics in the effectiveness of force application during running could
horizontal direction, the net horizontal antero-posterior be quantified over each support phase or step by the
GRF (FH) applied to the body CM can be modeled over ratio (RF in %, eqn. [12]) of FH to the corresponding
time as: total resultant GRF (FRes, in N), and over the entire

650
 16000838, 2016, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sms.12490 by Springfield College, Wiley Online Library on [21/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Simple method to compute sprint mechanics
acceleration phase by the slope of the linear decrease in
RF when velocity increases (DRF, in %.s/m):

FH FH
RF = ⋅ 100 = ⋅ 100 [12]
FRes FH + FV 2
2

To date, RF values have been computed from the

second step (i.e., the first complete step) to the step at
maximal speed (Morin et al., 2011a, b, 2012; Rabita
et al., 2015). Because the starting block phase (push-off
and following aerial time) lasts between 0.5 and 0.6 s
(Slawinski et al., 2010; Rabita et al., 2015) and so occurs
at an averaged time of ∼0.3 s, RF and DRF can be rea-
sonably computed from FH and FV values modeled for
t > 0.3 s.
The above-described biomechanical model makes Fig. 1. Correlation between force values measured at each step
possible to estimate GRFs in the sagittal plane of motion using the force plate method and values computed by the pro-
during one single sprint running acceleration from posed method. Horizontal and vertical components and resultant
simple inputs: anthropometric (body mass and stature) ground reaction force values are represented for all subjects. The
identity line is represented by the continuous black line.
and spatiotemporal (split times or instantaneous running
velocity) data. This model can then be used as a simple
force plate was equipped with piezoelectric sensors (KI 9067;
method to determine the F–v and P–v relationships and Kistler, Winterthur, Switzerland). The force signals were digitized
the associated variables, as well as the mechanical effec- at a 1000-Hz sampling rate.
tiveness of force application parameters (see Methods The protocol was designed in order to virtually reconstruct for
section for details about the practical methodology asso- each athlete the GRF signal of an entire single 40-m sprint by
ciated to this computation method). Two different setting differently for each sprint the position of the starting blocks
relatively to the 6.60-m long force platform system. The starting
experimental protocols were conducted (a) to test the blocks were placed over the first platform for the 10-m sprints and
concurrent validity of the proposed computation method were placed remotely for the other trials (15–40 m) so that 17
by comparison to force plate measurements and (b) to different steps (18 foot contacts) from the block to the 40-m mark
test its inter-trial reliability. could be measured (cf. Fig. 1 in Rabita et al., 2015). Force plat-
form signal was low-pass filtered (200-Hz cutoff, third-order zero-
phase Butterworth) and instantaneous data of vertical (FV, in N)
Methods and horizontal antero-posterior (FH, in N) GRF components as
well as the resultant (FRes) were averaged for each step consisting
First protocol: concurrent validity compared with force of a contact and an aerial phase (determined using 10-N threshold
plate measurements on FV signal).
Subjects and protocol Over each measurement areas, the instantaneous horizontal
velocity of the CM (vH, in m/s) was computed as the first integra-
Nine elite or sub-elite sprinters (age: 23.9 ± 3.4 years; body mass: tion over time of the antero-posterior horizontal acceleration (aH,
76.4 ± 7.1 kg; height: 1.82 ± 0.69 m) gave their written informed in m/s2) obtained at each instant dividing FH by body mass, with
consent to participate in this study, which was approved by the initial vH values as integration constants obtained as follows. For
local ethical committee and in agreement with the Declaration the 10-m sprints, the initial vH was set to 0 as the starting blocks
of Helsinki. Their personal 100-m official best times were were placed over the force plate area. For the other sprints, the
10.37 ± 0.27 s (range: 9.95–10.63 s). After a standardized 45-min initial vH values were measured by high-speed video using a 300
warm-up, subjects performed seven maximal sprints in an indoor frames per second digital camera (Exilim EX-F1, Casio, Tokyo,
stadium (2 × 10, 2 × 15, 20, 30 and 40 m with 4-min rest between Japan) placed perpendicularly to the sagittal plane of motion of the
each trial) in order to collect GRF data over an entire 40-m athletes in a fixed position focusing on the entrance of the force
distance. From these sprints, antero-posterior and vertical GRF plate area (for more details, see Rabita et al., 2015). The instanta-
components; F–v, P–v, and RF–v relationships; and associated neous power output in the horizontal direction (PH) was computed
variables (F0, v0, Pmax, SFV, DRF) were obtained from both force as the product at each instant of FH and vH. Instantaneous data of
plate measurements and above-described computation method. vH and PH were averaged over each step. For the following analy-
ses, the data of the seven sprints were pooled to reconstruct a
complete 40-m dataset for each subject. For each step, RF was
Force plate method: materials and data processing obtained from averaged step values of FH and FRes using eqn. [12].
Individual DRF values were determined as the slope of the linear
The experimental protocol used here to determine F–v and P–v RF–v relationships.
relationships from force plate measurements has recently been
proposed and detailed by Rabita et al. (2015). Briefly, during seven
sprints, vertical and antero-posterior GRF components were mea- Proposed computation method: material and specific
sured by a 6.60-m long force platform system (natural fre- data processing
quency ≥500 Hz). This system consisted of six individual force
plates (1.2 × 0.6 m) connected in series, time synchronized, and Sprint times were measured with a pair of photocells (Microgate,
covered with a tartan mat leveled with the stadium track. Each Bolzano, Italy) located at the finish line of the seven sprints. For

651
 16000838, 2016, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sms.12490 by Springfield College, Wiley Online Library on [21/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Samozino et al.
each sprint, the timer was triggered when subjects’ right thumb left all statistical analyses, a P-value of 0.05 was accepted as the level
the ground. To remove all possible bias due to this kind of trig- of significance.
gering procedure on variables obtained with this computation
method, the time between the beginning of the force production on
the starting blocks (which represents the actual start of the sprint) Second experimental protocol: inter-trial reliability
and the trigger of the timer was determined and added to photocell
Six high-level sprinters (age: 22.5 ± 3.9 years; body mass:
times using sagittal high-speed video recording of sprint starts
81.8 ± 5.1 kg; height: 1.86 ± 0.04 m) performed three maximal
(Exilim EX-F1, Casio, Tokyo, Japan) synchronized with force
50-m sprints using starting blocks with 10 min of rest between
plate data.
each trial. Instantaneous vH was measured at a sampling rate of
For the two 10- and 15-m trials, only the best times were
46.875 Hz with a radar system (Stalker ATS System, Radar Sales,
considered at each distance for data analysis. For each subject, the
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA) placed on a tripod 10 m behind the
five split times at 10, 15, 20, 30, and 40 m were then used to
subjects at a height of 1 m corresponding approximately to the
determine vHmax and τ using eqn. [3] and least-square regression
height of subjects’ CM (di Prampero et al., 2005; Morin et al.,
method. From these two parameters, vH(t) and aH(t) were modeled
2012). F0, v0, SFV, Pmax, and DRF values were obtained with the
over time using eqns. [1] and [5], respectively. From aH(t), FH(t)
same data processing as presented before for the proposed com-
was modeled over time using eqn. [6] and estimation of Faero(t)
putation method, except that vHmax and τ were determined from
from eqns. [7] to [10]. For individual computations of k, both the
vH(t) using eqn. [1] and least-square regression method. Because
subject’s body mass and stature were measured before tests, Pb
only the best of several trials is commonly used to be considered
was 760 Torr, and T° was 20 °C. No wind was present during this
during explosive performance testing, the inter-trial reliability of
indoor testing session and the very limited effect of air humidity
each variable was quantified by the coefficient of variation (CV in
on ρ was not considered. PH can then be modeled at each instant as
%), the change in the mean, and the standard error of measurement
the product of FH and vH. FV(t) and RF(t) were obtained using
(SEM, expressed in percentage of mean values) between the two
eqns. [11] and [12], respectively, and individual DRF values were
best trials (Hopkins, 2000). These data were used to determine the
determined as described in the theoretical background section. All
smallest worthwhile change (SWC) for intra-individual (SWCintra)
these variables were computed every 0.1 s (from eqns. [1], [6],
and for inter-individual (SWCinter) comparisons for each variable as
[11], and [12]) over each individual acceleration phase.
0.3 of the SEM (expressed in the variable unity) and 0.2 of the
between-subject SDs, respectively (Hopkins, 2004).

Common data analysis for both methods

Results
Individual F–v and P–v relationships were determined for both
methods from step averaged (for force plate method) and modeled For the validation protocol, the split times at 10, 15, 20,
(for proposed method) FH, PH, and vH values using least-square
linear and second-order polynomial regressions, respectively
30, and 40 m were 1.84 ± 0.10, 2.49 ± 0.11, 3.05 ± 0.13,
(Jaskolska et al., 1999b; Morin et al., 2010, 2012; Rabita et al., 4.08 ± 0.18, and 5.10 ± 0.25 s, respectively. For each
2015). F–v relationships were extrapolated to obtain F0 and v0 as subject, the change in horizontal position with time
the intercepts of the F–v curve with the force and velocity axis, given by these split times was well fitted by the expo-
respectively. SFV value was determined for each subject as the nential model described by eqn. [3] (r2 > 0.999;
slope of the F–v relationship, and Pmax was determined as the apex
of the P–v relationship using the first mathematical derivation of
P < 0.0001). The associated vHmax and τ were
the associated quadratic equation. Pmax values were also computed 10.05 ± 0.66 m/s and 1.24 ± 0.14 s, respectively. The
as previously proposed and validated (Vandewalle et al., 1987; modeled values of FH, FV, FRes, and PH well fitted the
Samozino et al., 2012, 2014) as follows: experimental values measured at each step using force
plates, which is shown by SEE of 39.8 ± 13.3 N,
F0 ⋅ v0
Pmax = [13] 49.5 ± 17.0 N, 52.8 ± 16.5 N, and 234.4 ± 69.9 W,
4
respectively. Force values measured by force plate
method at each step and force values computed for the
corresponding step using the proposed method were
Statistical analysis highly correlated (P < 0.001; Fig. 1). Figure 2 shows the
All data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). For each changes in step-averaged (force plate method) and
subject, the standard errors of estimate (SEE) of FH, FV, FRes, and modeled (computation method) values of force, power
RF were computed between values obtained from force plate data output, velocity, and RF over the acceleration phase
at each step and values estimated from model computations for obtained for a typical subject (subject #5). The SEE of
corresponding vH values:
RF over the acceleration phase was 3.72% ± 0.76%.
For all subjects and considering both methods, F–v
∑ (F − FModel )
2
Force Plate
SEE = [14] relationships were well fitted by linear regressions
N steps − 2
(median r2 = 0.953 from 0.920 to 0.987 for the force
The correlation between force values (FH, FV, FRes) obtained by plate method and r2 > 0.999 for the proposed simple
both methods was analyzed. F–v relationships, power output capa- method, P < 0.001), P–v relationships were well fitted
bilities, and mechanical effectiveness obtained with both methods by second-order polynomial regressions (median
were compared through F0, v0, SFV, Pmax, and DRF values using bias r2 = 0.886 from 0.857 to 0.961 for the force plate method
and limits of agreements (Bland & Altman, 1986). To complete
this quantification of inter-method differences, absolute bias was and r2 = 1.000 for the proposed simple method,
also calculated for each subject as follows: absolute bias = |(com- P < 0.001), and RF–v relationships were well fitted by
putation method–force plate method)/force plate method|.100. For linear regressions (median r2 = 0.965 from 0.955 to

652
 16000838, 2016, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sms.12490 by Springfield College, Wiley Online Library on [21/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Simple method to compute sprint mechanics

Fig. 2. Changes over the acceleration phase in horizontal veloc-

ity (vH, black diamonds), horizontal antero-posterior (FH, black
filled circles) and vertical (FV, open triangles) force components,
horizontal antero-posterior power output (PH, open circles), and
ratio of force (RF, open diamonds) for a typical subject (subject
#5). Points represent averaged values over each step obtained
from force plate method (from five sprints) and lines represent
modeled values computed by the proposed simple method.

0.976 for the force plate method and r2 > 0.996 for the
proposed simple method, P < 0.001). Typical examples
of these relationships obtained by both methods are
shown in Fig. 3 for subject #5. Values of F0, v0, Pmax (both
computed as the apex of the P–v relationship and using
eqn. [13]), SFV, and DRF are presented in Table 1, as well
as the associated bias, 95% limits of agreement, and
absolute bias between both methods. Table 2 presents
the inter-trial reliability of different mechanical variables
through CV, change in the mean and SEM between the
two best trials of the reliability protocol, as well as
values of SWCintra and SWCinter. Fig. 3. Force–velocity (a), power–velocity (b), and RF–velocity
(c) relationships obtained by both methods for a typical subject
(subject #5). Open circles represent averaged values over each
Discussion step obtained from force plate method, dashed lines the associ-
ated regressions, and thin lines the modeled values computed by
Although running mechanics over the entire sprint accel- the proposed simple method confounded with the associated
eration phase have very recently been described for the regressions (dotted lines).
first time in overground conditions using in-serie force
plates (Rabita et al., 2015), the present study showed makes possible to determine force– and power–velocity
valid estimates of the main sprinting mechanical relationships and effectiveness of force application
variables from only basic anthropometric and spatiotem- during sprint running acceleration in real-practice con-
poral data (i.e., distance–time or speed–time measure- ditions. This new method shows very strong agreement
ments). The proposed simple computation method with the gold standard force plate measurements and a

653
 16000838, 2016, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sms.12490 by Springfield College, Wiley Online Library on [21/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Samozino et al.
Table 1. Mean ± SD values of variables attesting the concurrent validity of the proposed method

Reference Proposed Bias 95% agreement Absolute

method method limits bias (%)

F0 (N) 654 ± 80 638 ± 84 −15.9 ± 25.7 (−66.3; 34.5) 3.74 ± 2.69

v0 (m/s) 10.20 ± 0.36 10.51 ± 0.74 0.32 ± 0.52 (−0.7; 1.3) 4.77 ± 3.26
Pmax (W)apex of the P–v relationship 1546 ± 195 1661 ± 277 115 ± 107 (−94.7; 324.7) 8.04 ± 5.01
Pmax (W)from F0 and v0 (eqn. [13]) 1669 ± 253 1680 ± 280 10.56 ± 45.01 (−77.7; 98.8) 1.88 ± 1.88
SFV (N/s/m) −64.06 ± 6.30 −60.8 ± 7.71 3.26 ± 5.22 (−6.97; 13.49) 7.93 ± 5.32
DRF (%/s/m) −6.80 ± 0.28 −6.80 ± 0.74 −0.002 ± 0.58 (−1.139; 1.135) 6.04 ± 5.70

SD, standard deviation.

Table 2. Mean ± SD of the main variables attesting the reliability of the proposed method

CV (%) Change in Standard error of SWCintra SWCinter

the mean measurement (%)

F0 (N) 2.93 ± 2.00 −1.53 ± 32.2 3.57 6.76 12.06

v0 (m/s) 1.11 ± 0.86 −0.171 ± 0.776 1.40 0.166 0.268
Pmax (W)apex of the P–v relationship 1.90 ± 1.40 −0.164 ± 0.669 2.37 0.147 0.441
Pmax (W)from F0 and v0 (eqn. [13]) 1.87 ± 1.36 −0.167 ± 0.66 2.33 0.144 0.446
1.87 ± 1.36
SFV (N/s/m) 4.04 ± 2.72 −0.20 ± 4.18 4.94 0.888 0.963
DRF (%/s/m) 3.99 ± 2.80 −0.110 ± 0.45 4.86 0.096 0.080

SD, standard deviation; SWC, smallest worthwhile change.

high test–retest reliability, which supports its interest for averaging period than support phase-averaged values:
practitioners in numerous sports that involve sprint step-averaged variables characterize more the mechanics
running accelerations. of the overall sprint running propulsion than specifically
the mechanical capabilities of lower limb neuromuscular
system during each contact phase. This does not affect
Modeled GRFs during sprint acceleration RF (and in turn DRF) values as it is a ratio between two
The proposed method is based on a macroscopic biome- force components averaged over the same duration.
chanical model using an inverse dynamic approach Despite the above-described simplifying assumptions,
applied to the runner body CM during sprint running present results showed that the modeled force values (FH,
acceleration. This approach models the horizontal FV, FRes) were very close to values measured by force
antero-posterior and vertical GRF components applied plates at each step with low SEE values of ∼30–50 N.
to the runner’s CM, and in turn the force developed Furthermore, the values obtained by both methods were
by the runner onto the ground in the sagittal plane, highly correlated and closely distributed around the
during the entire acceleration phase of maximal intensity identity line, even if the correlation was slightly lower
sprint. The main simplifying assumptions admitted in for FV than for FH denoting a better accuracy of estima-
this model are those inherent to the application of fun- tion in the horizontal than in the vertical direction. It is
damental laws of dynamics to the whole human body worth noting that the SEE quantified here are mainly due
considered as a system represented by its CM (e.g., to the relatively high inter-step variability measured by
Cavagna et al., 1971; van Ingen Schenau et al., 1991; force plates rather than an inaccuracy of the proposed
Samozino et al., 2008; Helene & Yamashita, 2010; method. Indeed, as shown in Fig. 2 for a typical subject,
Samozino et al., 2010; Samozino et al., 2012; Rabita force-modeled values well fitted the force plate data with
et al., 2015), the estimation of the horizontal aerody- a scattering of the latter due to a possible asymmetry
namic drag from only stature, body mass and a fixed between right and left legs, an inter-step variability
drag coefficient (Arsac & Locatelli, 2002), and the inherent to the complexity of this multijoint free move-
assumption of a quasi-null CM vertical acceleration over ment characterized by a great muscle coordination com-
the acceleration phase of the sprint. Note that our com- plexity, and the fact that force plate data were obtained
putations lead to modeled values over complete steps, from five different sprints. The inter-step variability is
i.e., contact plus aerial times, in contrast with previous not detectable by the proposed method as the model
kinetic measurements during sprint running that aver- gives the average tendency of change in GRF compo-
aged mechanical variables over each support phase nents with time. The inter-step variability in force plate
(Morin et al., 2010, 2011a, 2012; Lockie et al., 2013; data is more obvious in power output values combining
Kawamori et al., 2014; Rabita et al., 2015). This induces the variability of both force and velocity values, which
lower values of force or power output and a different lead to a relatively higher, but still very acceptable,

654
 16000838, 2016, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sms.12490 by Springfield College, Wiley Online Library on [21/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Simple method to compute sprint mechanics
power output SEE (∼234 W). For all subjects, FV values number of steps in the ascending part of the P–v rela-
measured with force plates over the first 20–30 m were tionship inherent to maximal power production occur-
not particularly higher than body weight (as shown for a ring after only approximately five to six steps (Rabita
typical subject in Fig. 2) and were very close to body et al., 2015). The lower adjustment quality of the qua-
weight when averaged over the entire 40 m (grand aver- dratic model obtained from force plate data induced
aged difference between mean FV and body weight of noise in the determination of Pmax from the apex of P–v
∼2.40%). This supports the assumption of a quasi-null relationships, which explains the higher, but still very
vertical acceleration of the CM over this phase due to a acceptable, bias and absolute bias (∼8%) observed here
very smoothed upward movement, and in turn supports between both methods for this variable compared with
the validity of step averaged FV modeled values as equal bias observed for F0 and v0. Consequently, differences in
to body weight. Collectively, these results support a very Pmax are mainly due to the inter-step variability detected
good agreement in the model determination of GRF in by force plates, which was supported by the very similar
the sagittal plane of motion (horizontal, vertical, and Pmax values obtained using the proposed method from the
resultant) during sprint running acceleration. apex of the P–v relationships and using eqn. [13] (∼1%),
while they were quite different for the reference method
(∼8%). From a purely mathematical point of view, if the
Validity of force– and power–velocity F–v relationship is perfectly linear, the apex of the P–v
relationships determination relationships should be equal to Pmax given by eqn. [13]
Both methods presented individual F–v relationships (Vandewalle et al., 1987; Samozino et al., 2012). More-
strongly described by linear regression (r2 > 0.920) as over, when computed from eqn. [13], Pmax values
reported in our recent paper (Rabita et al., 2015), during obtained by both methods were very close with very low
treadmill sprint running protocols (Jaskolska et al., bias values (absolute bias <2%) and narrowed limits of
1999b; Morin et al., 2010, 2012) or more generally agreement. These findings support the validity of the
during multijoint lower limb movements such as pedal- proposed method in determining F–v and P–v relation-
ing, squat, or leg press movements (e.g., Yamauchi & ships and their associated mechanical variables (Pmax, F0,
Ishii, 2007; Dorel et al., 2010; Bobbert, 2012; Samozino v0, SFV) in sprint running.
et al., 2012). The adjustment quality of the linear regres-
sions was logically better for the proposed method
(mean r2 = 1.00) based on modeled values than for the
reference method (mean r2 = 0.956) using experimental Validity of the effectiveness of force
force plate data that were inevitably associated to a application determination
higher measurement and inter-step variability. The low The very good agreement between both methods in GRF
bias associated to narrow 95% agreement limits crossing components resulted in modeled RF values similar to
0 in the determination of F0, v0, and SFV showed that the those computed at each step from force plate measure-
difference between both methods is very low (−2.43%, ments, as shown by the low SEE. RF values measured
3.14%, and 5.09% when expressed relatively to refer- here from both methods (RF values between 0% and
ence values, respectively) and can be attributed to mea- 60%) were in line with values previously reported from
surements variability. The very low absolute bias dynamometric treadmill measurements (between 10%
(< 5%), representing exactly the mean absolute error and 40%; Morin et al., 2011a, b; Morin et al., 2012), but
value between both methods at each F–v variable deter- through a larger range of values as treadmill running
mination, clearly supports the validity of the proposed made impossible to measure RF for the first step (due to
method to determine F–v relationship in sprint running. the starting crouch position) and forced subjects to over-
Note that the absolute bias for SFV was slightly higher come treadmill belt bed horizontal friction force at peak
than for F0 and v0 as it represents a regression slope running velocity, the latter being ∼20% lower than the
(often associated to higher variability than other vari- overground one (Morin & Seve, 2011). Individual
ables) computed from F0 and v0, thus including twice RF–velocity relationships determined by both methods
variability. were well fitted by inverse linear regressions (r2 > 0.95),
Individual P–v relationships presented well-fitted qua- as originally shown on treadmill (Morin et al., 2011a,
dratic regressions for both methods, as expected from 2012) and more recently during overground sprint
previous sprint running protocols (Jaskolska et al., running (Rabita et al., 2015). Moreover, present results
1999b; Morin et al., 2010, 2012; Rabita et al., 2015). show that the rate of decrease of these regressions (DRF)
However, for force plate method, the adjustment quality were very similar between both methods (absolute
of P–v regressions was lower (mean r2 = 0.894) than that bias ∼6%). This supports the accuracy of the proposed
of F–v relationships, and lower than for the proposed method to determine the effectiveness of force applica-
method (mean r2 = 1.00). This can be explained by the tion throughout the acceleration phase of a sprint and,
above-discussed higher inter-step and inter-sprint vari- in turn, its rate of decrease when running velocity
ability measured by force plate and by the very few increases.

655
 16000838, 2016, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sms.12490 by Springfield College, Wiley Online Library on [21/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Samozino et al.
Validation protocol Practical applications
The validation of the proposed method was performed
using a recent validated multiple sprint protocol (Rabita In light of the above-discussed points, the present study
et al., 2015) as the reference method. The input variables proposed an accurate, reliable, valid, and simple method
of the present model are basic anthropometric (body to determine F–v, P–v, and RF–v relationships during
mass and stature) and spatiotemporal data: split times (as overground sprint running from variables easily obtained
used here) or running velocity measurements (as could in field conditions and with a precision similar to that
be obtained from radar guns, e.g., di Prampero et al., obtained with specific laboratory devices (force plates;
2005; Morin et al., 2006, or laser beams, e.g., Bezodis Rabita et al., 2015). This new field method is based on
et al., 2012) during one single sprint. Because the aim of the previously validated simple method focusing on the
the present study was to validate the whole approach and same kind of mechanical properties during jumping
the proposed equations, using split times from several movements and based on a similar biomechanical mac-
sprints allowed us to compare exactly the same exercises roscopic approach (Samozino et al., 2008, 2014). The
between the two methods. Using radar data would have present proposed method only requires individual basic
forced us to compare mechanical variables obtained anthropometric data (body mass and stature) and ~5 split
from one single sprint using the proposed method to data times or instantaneous velocity measurements obtained
obtained from five sprints with the reference method, during one single sprint acceleration until maximal
which could have added a bias that would have only been velocity. Note that split times or instantaneous velocity
associated to the validation protocol itself. However, the have become more accessible with new technologies
proposed method was also tested in the present protocol such as position trackers, GPS, or accelerometer-based
from data measured using a radar (Stalker ATS System, systems. Anthropometric and split times or instanta-
Radar Sales, 46.875 Hz) during the best sprints of the 30 neous velocity data can then be used as inputs in the
and 40-m trials. Results were very similar to those basic data processing to determine vHmax and τ using
obtained from split times, with slightly higher bias least-square regression method from eqns. [1] or [2] and
values (absolute bias from 3% to 7%) due to the above- then to compute different mechanical variables (details
discussed point, which supports the validity of the in the Methods section “Proposed computation method:
proposed method from running velocity measurements. material and specific data processing” and “Common
As partly noticed by Furusawa et al. (1927), the present data analysis for both methods”). This will contribute
macroscopic biomechanical model shows that, whatever to generalize such evaluations for both scientific and
the kind of locomotion, when displacement velocity training purposes as it has the potential to be easily
changes with time follow an exponential function reproduced by coaches, sport practitioners, or physio-
(as described by eqn. [1] and previously reported during therapists in their daily practice. Such a testing session
maximal sprint acceleration from recreational to could take only 15–20 min after a regular warm-up with
highly trained sprinters; di Prampero et al., 2005; Morin two or three sprints by athlete, only the best one being
& Seve, 2011; Morin et al., 2012), the relationship analyzed using the method proposed here.
between horizontal GRF component and velocity is The variables obtained from F–v, P–v, and RF–v rela-
quasi-linear. tionships give key information about force, velocity, and
power output capabilities, and about the effectiveness of
force application, which are of great interest to optimize
sprint running acceleration performance by comparing
Reliability P–F–v qualities of different athletes, orienting and indi-
The reliability of the proposed method was tested here in vidualizing training loads exercises, and monitoring
a second protocol as the first mentioned protocol already training or rehabilitation in sports using sprint accelera-
required seven maximal sprints to compare the proposed tions (e.g., track-and-field events, team sports). Indeed,
to the reference method. For all the mechanical vari- as previously mentioned, sprint performance has been
ables, low CV and SEM values (<5%) associated to shown to be related to these mechanical variables,
change in the mean close to 0 showed the high Test-retest notably Pmax, v0, and DRF (Morin et al., 2011a, 2012;
reliability of the proposed method. The present level of Rabita et al., 2015). Furthermore, these mechanical vari-
reliability is in accordance with reliability previously ables seem to be sensitive to training modalities (notably
reported during isoinertial all out tests (e.g., Hopkins through in-season variations, unpublished personal
et al., 2001; Samozino et al., 2008). This high reliability data). For instance, using weighted sled towing improves
led to low SWC values for both intra- and inter- horizontal force production and force application effec-
individual comparisons for each variable and strongly tiveness in sprint running (Cronin et al., 2008;
that this simple method is of great interest for sport Kawamori et al., 2014). Note that methods using force
practitioners and clinicians to detect training or rehabili- plate system with several sprints or instrumented sprint
tation effects, or for scientists when using progressive treadmill would give the same kind of information, but
magnitude statistics. are currently impossible to set in training practice for

656
 16000838, 2016, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sms.12490 by Springfield College, Wiley Online Library on [21/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Simple method to compute sprint mechanics
most sport practitioners. That said, they are still very ing in the mechanical determinants of sprint acceleration
interesting for studying inter-step variability or for intra- performance in many sports, to study the adaptations of
step analyses, contact and aerial times, step length/ the mechanical properties of lower limb neuromuscular
frequency and force impulse, and rate of development system in a variety of sprint running propulsion, and to
during sprint running, or for other analyses requiring optimize sprint performance by individualizing and ori-
additional and synchronized laboratory measurements. enting training or rehabilitation programs.

Perspectives Key words: Acceleration, maximal performance, evalu-

ation, sprint mechanics, lower limb explosive capabilities,
This study proposed an accurate, reliable, and valid ratio of force application.
simple method to evaluate mechanical properties of
overground sprint running propulsion and validated it
through a very good agreement with gold standard force Acknowledgements
plate measurements. The proposed method is based on a
We are grateful to Dr Pascal Edouard and Philippe Gimenez (Uni-
macroscopic biomechanical model using an inverse versity of Saint-Etienne, France), Pedro Jiménez-Reyes (UCAM,
dynamic approach applied to the runner’s CM. This Murcia, Spain), Matt Brughelli (AUT, Auckland, New Zealand),
method is convenient for field use by sport practitioners Antoine Couturier, Gaël Guilhem, Caroline Giroux, Stevy Farcy,
and clinicians as it requires only anthropometric (body and Virha Despotova (INSEP, France) for their valuable participa-
mass and stature) and spatiotemporal (split times or tion to this project and their enthusiastic and friendly collabora-
tion. We would like to thank Guy Ontanon, Dimitri Demonière,
instantaneous velocity) variables easy to obtain out of a Michel Gilot, Pierre Carraz, and the athletes of both the French
laboratory during sprint running acceleration. This Institute of Sport (INSEP) and the Athletic Sport Aixois who
method could be further used to increase the understand- voluntarily gave their best performance for this protocol.

References
Arsac LM, Locatelli E. Modeling the power: part 1 – biological basis of Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in
energetics of 100-m running by using maximal power production. Sports Med sports medicine and science. Sports
speed curves of world champions. 2011: 41: 17–38. Med 2000: 30: 1–15.
J Appl Physiol 2002: 92: 1781–1788. Cronin J, Sleivert G. Challenges in Hopkins WG. How to interpret changes in
Bezodis NE, Salo AI, Trewartha G. understanding the influence of maximal an athletic performance test.
Measurement error in estimates of power training on improving athletic Sportscience 2004: 8: 1–7.
sprint velocity from a laser performance. Sports Med 2005: 35: Hopkins WG, Schabort EJ, Hawley JA.
displacement measurement device. Int J 213–234. Reliability of power in physical
Sports Med 2012: 33: 439–444. Cronin J, Hansen K, Kawamori N, performance tests. Sports Med 2001:
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical McNair P. Effects of weighted vests 31: 211–234.
methods for assessing agreement and sled towing on sprint kinematics. Jaskolska A, Goossens P, Veenstra B,
between two methods of clinical Sports Biomech 2008: 7: 160–172. Jaskolski A, Skinner JS. Comparison of
measurement. Lancet 1986: 1: di Prampero PE, Fusi S, Sepulcri L, treadmill and cycle ergometer
307–310. Morin JB, Belli A, Antonutto G. Sprint measurements of force-velocity
Bobbert MF. Why is the force-velocity running: a new energetic approach. relationships and power output.
relationship in leg press tasks J Exp Biol 2005: 208: 2809–2816. Int J Sports Med 1999a: 20:
quasi-linear rather than hyperbolic? di Prampero PE, Botter A, Osgnach C. 192–197.
J Appl Physiol 2012: 112: 1975–1983. The energy cost of sprint running and Jaskolska A, Goossens P, Veenstra B,
Cavagna GA, Komarek L, Mazzoleni S. the role of metabolic power in setting Jaskolski A, Skinner JS. Treadmill
The mechanics of sprint running. top performances. Eur J Appl Physiol measurement of the force-velocity
J Physiol 1971: 217: 709–721. 2015: 115: 451–469. relationship and power output in
Chelly SM, Denis C. Leg power and Dorel S, Couturier A, Lacour JR, subjects with different maximal running
hopping stiffness: relationship with Vandewalle H, Hautier C, Hug F. velocities. Sports Med Train Rehab
sprint running performance. Med Sci Force-velocity relationship in cycling 1999b: 8: 347–358.
Sports Exerc 2001: 33: 326–333. revisited: benefit of two-dimensional Kawamori N, Newton R, Nosaka K.
Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. pedal forces analysis. Med Sci Sports Effects of weighted sled towing on
Adaptations in athletic performance Exerc 2010: 42: 1174–1183. ground reaction force during the
after ballistic power vs strength Furusawa K, Hill AV, Parkinson JL. The acceleration phase of sprint running.
training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010a: dynamics of “sprint” running. Proc R J Sports Sci 2014: 32: 1139–1145.
42: 1582–1598. Soc Lond B 1927: 102: 29–42. Lockie RG, Murphy AJ, Schultz AB,
Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Helene O, Yamashita MT. The force, Jeffriess MD, Callaghan SJ. Influence
Influence of strength on magnitude and power and energy of the 100 meter of sprint acceleration stance kinetics on
mechanisms of adaptation to power sprint. Am J Phys 2010: 78: 307–309. velocity and step kinematics in field
training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010b: Hill AV. The heat of shortening and the sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res
42: 1566–1581. dynamic constants of muscle. Proc R 2013: 27: 2494–2503.
Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1938: 126B: Morin JB, Seve P. Sprint running
Developing maximal neuromuscular 136–195. performance: comparison between

657
 16000838, 2016, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sms.12490 by Springfield College, Wiley Online Library on [21/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Samozino et al.
treadmill and field conditions. Eur J Rabita G, Dorel S, Slawinski J, Slawinski J, Bonnefoy A, Ontanon G,
Appl Physiol 2011: 111: 1695–1703. Saez de Villarreal E, Couturier A, Leveque JM, Miller C, Riquet A,
Morin JB, Jeannin T, Chevallier B, Belli Samozino P, Morin JB. Sprint Cheze L, Dumas R.
A. Spring-mass model characteristics mechanics in world-class athletes: a Segment-interaction in sprint start:
during sprint running: correlation with new insight into the limits of human analysis of 3D angular velocity and
performance and fatigue-induced locomotion. Scand J Med Sci Sports kinetic energy in elite sprinters.
changes. Int J Sports Med 2006: 27: 2015: DOI: 10.1111/sms.12389. J Biomech 2010: 43: 1494–1502.
158–165. Samozino P, Morin JB, Hintzy F, Belli A. Thorstensson A, Grimby G, Karlsson J.
Morin JB, Samozino P, Bonnefoy R, A simple method for measuring force, Force-velocity relations and fiber
Edouard P, Belli A. Direct velocity and power output during composition in human knee extensor
measurement of power during one squat jump. J Biomech 2008: 41: muscles. J Appl Physiol 1976: 40:
single sprint on treadmill. J Biomech 2940–2945. 12–16.
2010: 43: 1970–1975. Samozino P, Morin JB, Hintzy F, Belli A. van Ingen Schenau GJ, Jacobs R, de
Morin JB, Edouard P, Samozino P. Jumping ability: a theoretical Koning JJ. Can cycle power predict
Technical ability of force application as integrative approach. J Theor Biol sprint running performance? Eur J Appl
a determinant factor of sprint 2010: 264: 11–18. Physiol Occup Physiol 1991: 63:
performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc Samozino P, Rejc E, Di Prampero PE, 255–260.
2011a: 43: 1680–1688. Belli A, Morin JB. Optimal Vandewalle H, Peres G, Monod H.
Morin JB, Samozino P, Edouard P, force-velocity profile in ballistic Standard anaerobic exercise tests.
Tomazin K. Effect of fatigue on force movements. Altius: citius or fortius? Sports Med 1987: 4: 268–289.
production and force application Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012: 44: Yamauchi J, Ishii N. Relations between
technique during repeated sprints. 313–322. force-velocity characteristics of the
J Biomech 2011b: 44: 2719–2723. Samozino P, Edouard P, Sangnier S, knee-hip extension movement and
Morin JB, Bourdin M, Edouard P, Peyrot Brughelli M, Gimenez P, Morin JB. vertical jump performance. J Strength
N, Samozino P, Lacour JR. Mechanical Force-velocity profile: imbalance Cond Res 2007: 21: 703–709.
determinants of 100-m sprint running determination and effect on lower limb
performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 2012: ballistic performance. Int J Sports Med
112: 3921–3930. 2014: 35: 505–510.

658