See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315348282

Biomechanical Differences in the Sprint Start Between Faster and Slower

High-Level Sprinters

Article  in  Journal of Human Kinetics · January 2017

DOI: 10.1515/hukin-2017-0020

CITATIONS READS

26 3,713

4 authors:

Milan Čoh Staniaslav Peharec

University of Ljubljana University of Rijeka
88 PUBLICATIONS   1,135 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   269 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Petar Bačić Maćkała Krzysztof

14 PUBLICATIONS   136 CITATIONS   
University of Health and Sport Sciences in Wrocław Poland
52 PUBLICATIONS   816 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

An evaluation of the change of direction speed performance and its relationship with maximum speed and power View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Milan Čoh on 05 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Human Kinetics volume 56/2017, 29-38 DOI: 10.1515/hukin-2017-0020 29
Section I – Kinesiology

Biomechanical Differences in the Sprint Start Between

Faster and Slower High-Level Sprinters

by
Milan Čoh1, Stanislav Peharec2, Petar Bačić2, Krzyszfof Mackala3

The purpose of this study was to examine the kinematic and kinetic differences of the sprint start and first two
steps between faster and slower high-level sprinters. Twelve male sprinters were dichotomized according to personal
best 60- and 100-m times. Each participant performed five starts under constant conditions. An eight-camera system
was used for 3-D kinematic analysis. Dynamic forces at the start were determined with starting blocks mounted on
bipedal force plates. Measures of front and rear block total force, front and rear block maximal force, time to front and
rear block peak force, total force impulse, total horizontal and vertical impulse, front and rear block force impulse, time
of block clearance, block leaving velocity and block leaving acceleration were collected. Between-group comparisons were
made using independent samples t tests (p < 0.05) and by calculating effect sizes (Cohen’s d). Spearman’s correlation
coefficients were used to examine the relationships between sprint start kinematics, kinetic measures and sprint
performance. Significant between-group differences were observed in rear block total force (p = 0.0059), rear block
maximal vertical force (p = 0.0037) and total force impulse (p = 0.0493). Only front block total force significantly
correlated with 100 m sprint performance in both the slower and faster groups (r = 0.94 and 0.54, respectively; p =
0.05). Our findings suggest that faster sprinters show enhanced sprint start motor performance with greater force
development than slower sprinters.
Key words: sprinters, block start, biomechanics, kinematics, dynamics.

Introduction
A well-executed sprint start, where the al., 2006). Among these variables, Tellez and
sprinter must rapidly accelerate from a stationary Doolittle (1984) documented that take-off
set position, is one of the determining factors of acceleration accounted for 64% of the total time in
high performance in sprinting (Atwater, 1982; a 100 m sprint. However, determining the optimal
Bowman, 1975; Mackala et al., 2010). According to relationship between the body position and initial
the literature, an effective sprint start acceleration in the first two to five steps
predominantly depends on start block positioning represents a specific biomechanical paradigm,
and the body centre of gravity (BCG) in the set where a sprinter has to integrate temporal and
position (Coppenolle et al., 1990; Korchemny, spatial acyclic movements into a cyclic action
1992; Schot and Knutzen, 1992), block clearance (Harald and Steel, 1997; Mackala et al., 2010).
time and force impulse on the front and rear Atwater (1982) analyzed several variations
starting blocks as well as take-off velocity and of the set position among different performance
acceleration (Fortier et al., 2010; Guissard and levels of sprinters and found no single, optimum
Hainaut, 1992; Harland and Steele, 1997; Mero et solution appropriate for all sprinters. However,

1 - University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Sport, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

2 - Polyclinic for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation “PEHAREC”, Pula, Croatia.
3 - University of School of Physical Education, Department of Track and Field, Wroclaw, Poland.

.
Authors submitted their contribution to the article to the editorial board.
Accepted for printing in the Journal of Human Kinetics vol. 56/2017 in March 2017.
30 Sprint start kinematic and dynamic variables

the literature has recommended that the most understanding of block start technique and
ideal position involves the hips raised above the knowledge on how the block clearance phase can
shoulders, shoulders directly above the start line lead to mechanically-enhanced sprint start
and body weight distributed on the front foot, performance.
with the leading knee forming an angle of 90–110°
and the rear knee 120–135° (Hay, 1993).
Material and Methods
Subsequent investigations of start performance Participants
have concentrated not only on discrete body Twelve high-level Slovenian male
positioning and associated start block settings, but sprinters were recruited (age: 22.4 ± 3.4 years;
also on the development of angular velocity and body height: 177.6 ± 6.9 cm; body mass: 74.9 ± 5.2
maximal force by the sprinter during the start kg). The inclusion criterion required at least 6
(Coh et al., 2007; Harland and Steele, 1997; Mero years of training experience in the 60, 100 or 200
et al., 1992). The latter aspect is particularly m sprint events. According to the aims of the
important as Mero et al. (1983) found that the study, the “faster” group included members of
horizontal and vertical force exerted on the front the Slovenian national team competing at the
and rear starting blocks strongly correlated (r = international level (n = 6) and the “slower” group
0.74) with block velocity. consisted of sprinters from regional clubs
While research on the block start in competing at the national level (n = 6). Differences
sprinting has investigated a number of between the groups were confirmed by
biomechanical variables (Ferro et al., 2001; Mero comparing mean personal best times in official 60
et al., 1992) and their interdependencies with m (faster: 6.87 ± 0.13 s; slower: 6.98 ± 0.05 s) and
specific motor abilities, energy processes, 100 m (faster: 10.66 ± 0.18 s; slower: 11.00 ± 0.06 s)
anthropometric characteristics and central runs. All participants were informed about the
processes of motor regulation (Gutierrez-Davila, purpose of the study and its procedures. Written
2006; Locatelli and Arsac, 1995; Mero et al., 2006; consent was obtained and the athletes, as
Prampero et al., 2005), little has been reported on voluntary participants, could withdraw at any
inter-individual variability across different time of the research. The study was approved by
performance levels. Despite repeatedly the Human Ethics Committee of the University
performing a predetermined set position (in line School of Physical Education in Wroclaw, Poland,
with the aforementioned recommendations), and conducted in accordance with the Declaration
variation in distinct kinetics and kinematics of Helsinki.
associated with the take-off can biomechanically Procedures
differentiate the starting ability of sprinters. Testing was conducted at the beginning
of May, before the competitive season, several
Therefore, the purpose of the study was to months after the participants’ individual sprint
determine the differences in the kinematic and training regime began. This time period was
dynamic characteristics quantifying the sprint selected as it ensured that the participants would
start between faster (elite / international level) and be physically fit and present correct starting
slower (sub-elite / national level) sprinters. technique. The sprinters were tested during a
Analysis of force–time data could determine if quasi-standard sprint training session in a
force production during the start had a significant biomechanical laboratory. The participants were
impact on velocity kinematics during block asked to maintain their normal intake of food and
clearance and thus, differentiate faster sprinters fluids, but to avoid any physical activity 24 hours
from slower ones. Based on earlier biomechanical and food 3 hours before testing. The testing
research concerning the sprint block start protocol required each participant to perform five
(Harland and Steele, 1997; Mero at al., 1983; Schot maximal-effort 4 m block start sprints
and Knutzen, 1992), it was hypothesized that start interspersed with 5 min rest. Test–retest reliability
kinetics (e.g. force production) would show of the block start position was assessed by
greater differences between sprinters than start interclass correlation coefficients calculated from
kinematics (e.g. time of block clearance). Further three consecutive block starts. High reliability was
insight into this issue may provide a greater found (r = 0.93), which indicated that the applied

Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 56/2017 http://www.johk.pl

by Milan Čoh et al. 31

protocol (block start plus 4 m run-out) was software was used to digitize the anatomical
uniform across the sprinters. A standardized 20 markers in 3-D in the set position, at the start of
min warm-up consisting of jogging, stretching the take-off, and during the first two steps.
exercises, skipping drills and short accelerations Discrete kinematic measures included reaction
was performed before the sprints. Sprinters were time (ms), total block reaction time (ms), front and
allowed to individually position the starting rear block reaction times (ms), block velocity (m·s-
blocks. It was found that all participants utilized a 1), block acceleration (m·s-2) and the length (cm)

bullet-type start where the distance between the and contact time (ms) of the first and second step
front foot toe and rear foot toe was between 25 out of the block.
and 30 cm in the on your marks position (Hay, Statistical analysis
1993). The starting pistol was directly connected Descriptive statistics (mean ± SD) were
to a photocell (AMES) timing system (Microgate, calculated for all variables. The Shapiro–Wilk test
Bolzano, Italy) to measure reaction time in order indicated a normal distribution for all variables.
to determine if maximum effort was applied. Each Comparisons between the faster and slower
start was performed according to international sprinters were examined by unpaired Student’s t
athletic rules. tests and by calculating the effect size using
Measurements Cohen’s d (Thalheimer and Cook, 2002). Effect
Standing body height was measured with sizes were interpreted as negligible (d ≥ 0.2), small
the head positioned in the Frankfurt plane using a (0.2 ≤ d ≤ 0.5), medium (0.5 ≤ d ≤ 0.8) or large (0.8 ≤
fixed wall-mounted stadiometer (Seca Z05-PF321, d). Spearman’s correlation coefficients were used
Liverpool, England) and recorded to the nearest to examine the relationships between the
0.1 cm. Body mass was measured on a calibrated kinematic and kinetic variables of the sprint block
digital scale (Seca 862, Liverpool, England) with start and sprint performance. Spearman’s
accuracy of 0.1 kg. All anthropometric correlation coefficients were interpreted as small
measurements were taken twice by a trained (0.1 - 0.3), medium (0.3 - 0.5) and large (0.5 - 1.0)
nurse in the morning 1 day before testing in a (Mukaka, 2012). The level of significance was set
biomechanical laboratory at the Peharec Polyclinic at p ≤ 0.05 or p ≤ 0.01. Data processing was
for Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation in Pula, performed with SPSS for Windows 15.0 (Chicago,
Croatia. Two independent force plates (Kistler IL, USA).
Type 9286A, Winterthur, Switzerland) operating
at 800 Hz were placed on an indoor gym surface,
Results
on which two starting block pads were installed Table 1 provides the anthropometric and
(Figure 1). The development of force in the sprint block start performance data for the faster
horizontal/vertical direction (Fxy), vertical and slower sprinters. Age, body height and mass
direction (Fy) and horizontal anterior-posterior were similar between the groups. When we
direction (Fx) was recorded (Figures 2, 3). compared the personal best 100 m times, the
Measures selected for analysis were as follows: difference was statistically significant between the
front and rear block total force (N), front and rear faster and slower group (p < 0.05).
block maximal force in both the horizontal and Few differences were observed among the
vertical directions (N), time to front and rear block kinematic measures between the faster and slower
peak force (ms), total force impulse (N·s), total sprinters (Table 2). Significant between-group
horizontal and vertical impulse (N·s) and front differences were found for block velocity (d = 1.57,
and rear block force impulse (N·s). Start p = 0.0294) and rear block reaction time (d = 1.29, p
kinematics were assessed by an eight CCD camera = 0.0493). Differences between the groups for front
system (SMART-e 600, BTS Bioengineering, block reaction time (d = 1.11) and total reaction
Padua, Italy) recording at 200 Hz and 768 × 576 time (d = 0.85) were also observed, although they
pixel resolution. A segment coordinate system were not significant. No differences in the block
(SCS) was defined based on 16 retroreflective distance from the starting line were found,
markers placed on the head, shoulders, upper confirming that the sprinters adopted a similar
arm, lower arm, trunk, thigh, shank and foot of position.
each participant (Figure 1). SMART Analyser Conversely, six measures of force during

© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics

32 Sprint start kinematic and dynamic variables

the block start were significantly (p < 0.05) impulse and it was of greater magnitude in the
different between the faster and slower sprinters faster sprinters than slower ones.
(Table 3). These included rear block total force, Spearman’s correlations between sprint
rear block maximal vertical force and total force performance, kinematics and kinetic variables are
impulse. No differences in front and rear maximal presented in Table 4. This analysis revealed that
horizontal forces and front block maximal vertical only front block total force was strongly
force were observed. There was a significant associated with 100 m sprint performance and this
difference in total horizontal and vertical force was observed in both the slower and faster groups
(r = 0.94 and 0.54, respectively).

Table 1
Anthropometric and performance data of the groups
Faster sprinters Slower sprinters
Student’s t test
Variable
Mean SD Mean SD t p
Age (years) 23.67 3.26 22.67 3.55 0.51 0.6191
Body height (cm) 179.17 7.65 176.17 6.58 0.73 0.4840
Body mass (kg) 77.50 5.32 72.33 3.98 1.91 0.0866
100-m time (s) 10.66 0.18 11.00 0.06 −4.39 0.0022
60-m time (s) 6.87 0.13 6.98 0.05 −1.93 0.0845
4-m time (s) 1.00 0.03 0.98 0.03 1.21 0.2540
Bold denotes significant difference at p ≤ 0.05

Table 2
Kinematic characteristics of the sprint block start and first two steps
Variables Faster Slower
sprinters sprinters Student’s t test d

Mean SD Mean SD t p d
Horizontal distance from the front block 0.54 0.05 0.51 0.04 0.2775 0.75
to starting line (cm) 1.15
Horizontal distance from the rear block 0.84 0.09 0.79 0.07 0.3117 0.71
to starting line (cm) 1.07
Reaction time – premotor time (ms) 121 11.33 131 16.53 −1.22 0.2508 −0.77
Block velocity (m.s-1) 3.38 0.10 3.16 0.19 2.54 0.0294 1.57
Total block reaction time (ms) 453 24.62 436 18.83 1.34 0.2073 0.85
Reaction time - front block (ms) 332 28.73 305 24.35 1.76 0.1113 1.11
Reaction time – rear block (ms) 162 9.47 149 12.40 2.24 0.0493 1.29
Block acceleration (m·s-2) 7.47 1.34 7.35 0.90 0.18 0.8596 0.12
Step one /acceleration (m·s-2) 6.07 1.22 5.07 1.77 1.14 0.2807 0.72
Step one / length (m) 1.30 0.51 1.06 0.60 0.75 0.4781 0.47
Step two / length (m) 1.03 0.12 0.98 0.33 0.35 0.7325 0.22
Step one / contact time (ms) 170 18.17 174 16.94 −0.39 0.7060 −0.25
Step two / contact time (ms) 157 15.42 149 18.87 0.80 0.4475 0.47
Bold and italics denote significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 and p ≤ 0.01, respectively

Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 56/2017 http://www.johk.pl

by Milan Čoh et al. 33

Table 3
Kinetic characteristics of sprint block start
Variables Faster sprinters Slower sprinters
Student’s t test

Mean SD Mean SD t p d
Total force / front block (N) 1104 82.53 1073 56.21 0.76 0.4781 0.48
Total force / rear block (N) 913 89.23 771 55.09 3.32 0.0059 2.10
Maximal force / front block 461 51.05 398 56.73 0.0669 1.28
horizontal (N) 2.02
Maximal force / rear block 460 58.12 423 45.50 0.2453 0.78
horizontal (N) 1.23
Maximal force / front block 1019 69.99 978 43.12 0.2508 0.80
vertical (N) 1.22
Maximal force / rear block 795 91.29 645 41.55 0.0037 2.32
vertical (N) 3.66
Time to peak force / front block 262 22.11 242 15.22 0.0924 1.15
(ms) 1.83
Time to peak force / rear block 72 12.81 70 8.06 0.7560 0.20
(ms) 0.32
Force impulse of front block 221.3 15.8 178.3 13.1 0.0004 3.24
(N·s) 5.13
Force impulse of rear block 76.7 8.8 71.1 6.7 0.2435 0.78
(N·s) 1.24
Force impulse – total (N·s) 294.3 21.1 269.5 17.9 2.20 0.0493 1.39
Horizontal impulse – total (N·s) 140.7 11.5 112.8 10.4 4.41 0.0018 2.79
Vertical impulse – total (N·s) 256.1 9.7 209.8 8.9 8.62 0.0001 5.45
Bold and italics denote significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 and p ≤ 0.01, respectively

Table 4
Spearman correlation between the kinematics and kinetic
ariables of sprint block start and sprint performance
Faster sprinters
Variable
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
[1] 100 m - 0.77 −0.49 −0.77 0.14 0.54 0.31
[2] 4 m 0.77 - −0.03 −0.60 0.26 −0.26 0.49
[3] Block velocity −0.49 −0.03 - 0.43 0.54 0.31 0.03
[4] Velocity/acceleration −0.77 −0.60 0.43 - −0.26 0.66 −0.09
[5] Block acceleration 0.14 0.26 0.54 −0.26 - 0.14 0.49
[6] Total force / front block 0.54 0.26 0.31 0.66 0.14 - 0.60
[7]Total force / rear block 0.31 0.49 0.03 −0.09 0.49 0.60 -
Bold denotes significant difference at p ≤ 0.05

Slower sprinters
Variable
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
[1] 100 m - 0.14 0.03 −0.37 −0.43 −0.94 0.66
[2] 4 m 0.14 - 0.47 0.06 −0.46 -0.29 −0.12
[3] Block velocity 0.03 0.47 - 0.58 0.41 0.06 0.17
[4] Velocity/acceleration −0.37 0.06 0.58 - 0.77 0.60 −0.37
[5] Block acceleration −0.43 −0.46 0.41 0.77 - 0.66 −0.26
[6] Total force / front block 0.94 −0.29 0.06 0.60 0.66 - −0.60
[7]Total force / rear block 0.66 −0.12 0.17 −0.37 −0.26 −0.60 -
Bold denotes significant difference at p≤0.05

© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics

34 Sprint start kinematic and dynamic variables

Figure 1
Depiction of block start showing the 16 retroreflective markers placed
on a participant and the extracted 3-D model

Figure 2
Start velocity and start acceleration characteristics of sprint block start including
the first two steps (read – step from right, blue – step from left)

Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 56/2017 http://www.johk.pl

by Milan Čoh et al. 35

Figure 3
Front and rear sprint block start force characteristics (total force development
in the vertical and horizontal directions)
(read – right leg double push-of, blue - left leg double push-of )

Discussion faster and slower sprinters were also observed

with regard to rear block total force (913 N vs.
We identified a number of kinematic and 771N, p = 0.0059, respectively) and rear block
kinetic variables associated with start block vertical maximal force (795 N vs. 645 N, p =
performance that differentiated faster sprinters 0.0037, respectively). It is likely that the greater
from slower ones. However, no between-group force generated by the rear foot allowed the faster
differences were found in the 4 m sprint executed sprinters to achieve significantly greater take-off
after the block start, which may have been due the velocity compared to the slower sprinters (3.38
relatively short running distance. Other studies m•s-1 vs. 3.16 m•s-1; p = 0.0294).
have also reported a lack of differences in run These results suggest that faster sprinters
times of 4–5 m sprints (Coh et al., 1998; Fortier et can better optimize force distribution as well as
al., 2005). In spite of the small sample size, produce more force on both starting blocks. This
between-group differences were pronounced due finding confirms Harland and Steele’s (1997) and
to the large effect sizes for most of the selected Fortier’s (2005) reports where faster sprinters
variables (d ≥ 0.8). The faster sprinters exhibited a displayed higher rear maximum force than slower
reduced total force difference between the front athletes. This finding is also congruent with the
and rear block compared with the slower front block peak forces registered by other
sprinters (17.3% vs. 28.2%, respectively). researchers (Guissard and Duchateau, 1990;
Statistically significant differences between the

© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics

36 Sprint start kinematic and dynamic variables

Harland et al., 1995; McClements et al., 1996; start velocity.

Natta and Brenier, 1998) and supports the Nonetheless, according to Hay (1993), the
observation that performance in sprinting main difference in the set position among
demands a high rate of force application (Coh et sprinters lies in the longitudinal distance between
al., 2007; Harald and Steel 1997; Mero et al., 1993). the front foot and rear foot, in which three
The generation of high force underlies other modalities are commonly used: the bunch or
important factors of block start performance such bullet (25–30 cm), a medium (30–55 cm) or
as minimizing block clearance time as well as elongated (60–70 cm) start. There was a negligible
increasing block velocity and acceleration (Fortier difference in block spacing between the faster (30
et al., 2005; Harald and Steel, 1997). However, our cm) and slower sprinters (28 cm), classifying both
correlation analysis did not support this groups as using the bunch start. From a
assumption. During the block clearance phase, the biomechanical perspective, this position has been
faster sprinters were found to produce described the least efficient as lower force is
significantly greater total impulse (294.3 ± 21.1 exerted on the starting blocks at a consequently
N•s¬¹) than their slower counterparts (269.5 ± 17.9 reduced block velocity (Harald and Steel, 1997).
N•s¬¹). As force impulse is determined by (1) This view was confirmed by our correlation
duration of the applied force (which did not analysis, where kinematic variables, block
differentiate between the two groups), (2) force velocity and block acceleration were not
magnitude (with differences registered in rear significantly associated with the best 60 m and 100
block total force and vertical rear block maximal m sprint times of the participants. No correlations
force) and (3) the rate of force development with the aforementioned variables were also
(greater in faster sprinters), it can be assumed that observed in regard to the 4 m sprint performed
the higher values of the latter two variables during the experiment, but this is likely due to the
corresponded to the ability of faster sprinters to minimal running distance as previously
leave the blocks during the push phase at a higher mentioned. However, this does not imply that this
velocity (Slawinski et al., 2010). start technique is either fundamentally incorrect
Several authors have reported starting or inefficient. The usage of this technique is more
block velocity to vary between 3.40 and 3.90 m•s- a matter of personal preference or due to stronger
1 (Coh, 2008; Harisson and Comyns, 2006; Hunter familiarization with the associated block setting.
et al., 2004; Ozsu, 2014). As previously mentioned, The bunch start has some benefits for a sprinter,
block velocity in the group of faster sprinters was as it allows for faster block clearance due to a
3.38 ± 0.10 m•s-1, while in the slower group block decrease in contact time with the starting blocks
it equalled 3.16 ± 0.19 m•s-1 (p = 0.0294). (Henry, 1952).
Although this was not measured in the present It is clearly documented within the
study, the difference between the faster and literature that ground contact time is an important
slower sprinters may also be related to predictor of sprinting performance (Hunter et al.,
positioning of the centre of mass (CM) closer to 2004; Mero et al., 1992, 2006; Slawinski et al.,
the starting line during the push phase (Harald 2010), where times between 160 and 184 ms were
and Steel, 1997; Slawinski et al., 2010). By reported in elite athletes (Hunter et al., 2004; Mero
reducing CM displacement (keeping the CM as and Komi, 1990; Mero et al., 1992). Interestingly,
close as possible to the starting line), a sprinter is we recorded contact times of 170 ± 18.2 ms (first
able to generate a greater start velocity and faster step) and 157 ± 15.4 ms (second step) in the faster
block clearance (Slawinski et al., 2010), which was sprinters and 174 ± 16.94 ms (first step) and 149 ±
the case in our faster sprinters. The literature has 18.87 ms (second step) in the slower sprinters. The
found that while elite sprinters present a lack of significant differences may suggest that
horizontal CM between 16 and 23 cm from the both groups of sprinters were able to generate
starting line, lower-level sprinters apply distances similar force in the first two steps of initial
between 25 and 28 cm (Bauman, 1976; Harald and acceleration. This may also indicate that both
Steel, 1997; Slawinski et al., 2010). Future research groups shared a similar skill set in transferring
examining sprint start performance should acyclic body movements (block clearance
include this variable to clarify its influence on technique) into a cyclic movement (first steps of

Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 56/2017 http://www.johk.pl

by Milan Čoh et al. 37

acceleration). Furthermore, this may be a the relationships between block start kinematics
consequence of a short contact time with the block and kinetics and thus, aid in identifying the
during start, which was continued in the variables that characterize elite sprint start
following steps. However, we noted a relatively performance.
large albeit non-significant difference in the
length of the first step (24 cm) in favour of the
Conclusion
faster sprinters. In turn, the second step was of The present study found that faster
almost identical length as a difference of only 5 sprinters showed significantly enhanced block
cm was observed. Moreover, when considering start performance in some kinematic and kinetic
the 4-m sprint times (involving two additional variables compared to slower sprinters. Our
steps), nearly equivalent times were achieved by findings suggest that faster sprinters show motor
the both groups (faster sprinters = 1.0 s and slower patterns of greater force development (rear block
sprinters = 0.98 s). total force, rear block vertical maximal force and
The study has certain limitations that the rate of force development) than their slower
should be acknowledged. A larger sample size counterparts despite the collective employment of
would have afforded greater statistical power. the bullet-type start. While the ability to generate
Additionally, the inclusion of sprinters of a higher force should underlie other important indicators
performance level (particularly in regard to of block start performance such as block clearance
personal best 100 m times) would have allowed a time, block velocity and block acceleration, this
better differentiation between “faster” and was not confirmed in our correlation analysis.
“slower” sprinters in our analysis. Measurement From a practical standpoint, the results of this
of lower extremity strength could have also study should encourage coaches and sprinters to
bolstered our analysis, as muscle strength is search for a more effective block start position
associated with the rate of force development such as by modifying current block settings.
during the block start. Future research should
include strength testing as it may better elucidate

Acknowledgements
The authors have no professional relationships with companies or manufacturers that might benefit
from this study. The results do not constitute endorsement of any product. We would like to thank a
dedicated group of sprinters for their outstanding performance in the present study.

References
Atwater A. Kinematic analyses of sprinting. Track and Field Quarterly Review, 1982; 82: 12-16
Baumann W. Kinematic and dynamic characteristics of the sprint start. In P.V. Komi (eds.), Biomechanics VB.
University Park Press, Baltimore, 1975; 194-199
Coppenolle H, Delecluse C, Goris M, Diels R, Kraayenhof, H. An evaluation of the starting action of world
class female sprinters. Track Tech., 1990; 90: 3581-3582
Čoh M. Biomechanical diagnostic methods in athletic training. Faculty of Sport. University of Ljubljana; 2008
Čoh M, Peharec S, Bačić P. The sprint start: Biomechanical analysis of kinematic, dynamic and
electromyographic parameters. New Stud Athl., 2007; 22(3): 29-38
Coh M, Jost B, Skof B, Tamazin K, Dolenec A. Kinematic and kinetic parameters of the sprint start and start
acceleration model of top sprinters. Gymnica, 1998; 28: 33-42
Ferro A, Rivera A, Pagola I. Biomechanical analysis of the 7th World Championship in Athletics Seville 1999.
New Stud Athl., 2001; 16(1-2): 25-60
Fortier S, Basset F, Mbourou A, Faverial J, Teasdale N. Starting block performance in sprinters: a statistical
method for identifying discriminant parameters of performance and an analysis of the effect of
providing feedback over a 6 – week period. J Sports Sci Med., 2010; 4: 134-143

© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics

 38 Sprint start kinematic and dynamic variables

Guissard N, Duchateau J. Electromyography of the sprint start. J Hum Mov Stud, 1990; 18: 97-106
Guissard N, Hainaut K. EMG and mechanical changes during sprint start at different front block obliquities.
Med Sci Sports Exerc., 1992; 24(11): 1257-1263
Gutierrez-Davila M, Dapena J, Campos J. The Effect Muscular Pre-Tensing on the Sprint Start. J Appl
Biomech., 2006; 22: 194-201
Harland MJ, Andrews MH, Steele, JR. Instrumented start blocks: A quantitative coaching aid. In: XIII
International Symposium for Biomechanics in Sport. Ed: Bauer T. Ontario, 367- 370; 1995
Harland M, Steele J. Biomechanics of the Sprint Start. Sports Med., 1997; 23(1): 11-20
Harrison D, Comyns T. Biomechanics of the Sprint Start. Available at:
http://cis.squirming.net/category/athletics/219/. Accessed on 26.07.2006
Hay JG. The biomechanics of sport technique. 4th ed. PrenticeHall; 1993
Henry FM. Force-time characteristics of sprint start. Res Q., 1952; 23(10): 301-318
Hunter J, Marshall R, McNair P. Interaction of Step Length and Step Rate during Sprint Running. Med Sci
Sports Exerc., 2004; 36(2): 261-271
Korchemny R. A new concept for sprint start and acceleration training. New Stud Athl., 1992; 7(4): 65-72
Locatelli E, Arsac L. The mechanics and energetics of the 100m sprint. New Stud Athl., 1995; 10(1): 81-87
McClements J, Sanders L, Gander B. Kinetic and kinematic factors related to sprint starting as measured by
Saskatchewan Sprint Start Team. New Stud Athl., 1996; 11(2-3): 133-135
Mero A, Komi P. Reaction time and electromyographic activity during a sprint start. Eur J Appl Physiol., 1990;
61: 73-80
Mero A, Luhtanen P, Komi P. A biomechanical study of the sprint start. Scand J Sports Sci., 1983; 5(1): 20-28
Mero A, Komi P, Gregor R. Biomechanics of Sprint Running. Sport Med., 1992; 13(6): 376-392
Mero A, Kuitunen S, Harland M, Kyrolainen H, Komi P. Effects of muscle – tendon length on joint moment
and power during sprint starts. J Sports Sci., 2006; 24(2): 165-173
Mukaka MM. A guide to appropriate use of Correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J., 2012;
24(3): 69–71
Natta F, Breniere Y. Influence of the initial posture on the dynamics of sprint start from starting blocks.
Science et Motricité, 1998; 34: 44-51
Ozsu I. Biomechanical structure of sprint start and effect of biological feedback methods on sprint start
performance. Turk J Sport Exe., 2014; 16(1): 72-79
Prampero P, Fusi S, Morin B, Antonutto C. Sprint running: a new energetic approach. J Exp Biol., 2005; 208:
2809-2816
Schot P, Knutzen K. A Biomechanical Analysis of Four Sprint Start Positions. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport., 1992; 63(2):
137-147
Slawinski J, Bonnefoy A, Leveque M, Ontanon G, Cheze L. Kinematic and Kinetic Comparison of Elite and
Well-Trained Sprinters During Sprint Start. J Strength Cond Res., 2010; 24(4): 896-905
Tellez T, Doolittle D. Sprinting from start to finish. Track Tech., 1984; 88: 2802-2805
Thalheimer W, Cook S. How to calculate effect sizes from published research articles: A simplified
methodology. Available at: http://work learning.com/effect_sizes.htm. Accessed on 11.01.2016

Corresponding author:

Krzysztof Mackala
University School of Physical Education in Wroclaw (AWF Wrocław),
Department of Track and Field,Ul. Paderewskiego 35, 51-612 Wrocław, Poland
Phone: +48 71 347 3140; Fax: +48 71 347 3149; Mobile phone: +48 605 272 433
Email: [email protected]

Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 56/2017 http://www.johk.pl

View publication stats