Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Journal of Applied Physiology 3/2018

01-03-2018 | Original Article

A comparison between the force–velocity relationships of unloaded and sled-resisted sprinting: single vs. multiple trial methods

Authors: Matt R. Cross, Pierre Samozino, Scott R. Brown, Jean-Benoît Morin

Published in: European Journal of Applied Physiology | Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

We sought to compare force–velocity relationships developed from unloaded sprinting acceleration to that compiled from multiple sled-resisted sprints.

Methods

Twenty-seven mixed-code athletes performed six to seven maximal sprints, unloaded and towing a sled (20–120% of body-mass), while measured using a sports radar. Two methods were used to draw force–velocity relationships for each athlete: A multiple trial method compiling kinetic data using pre-determined friction coefficients and aerodynamic drag at maximum velocity from each sprint; and a validated single trial method plotting external force due to acceleration and aerodynamic drag and velocity throughout an acceleration phase of an unloaded sprint (only). Maximal theoretical force, velocity and power were determined from each force–velocity relationship and compared using regression analysis and absolute bias (± 90% confidence intervals), Pearson correlations and typical error of the estimate (TEE).

Results

The average bias between the methods was between − 6.4 and − 0.4%. Power and maximal force showed strong correlations (r = 0.71 to 0.86), but large error (TEE = 0.53 to 0.71). Theoretical maximal velocity was nearly identical between the methods (r = 0.99), with little bias (− 0.04 to 0.00 m s−1) and error (TEE = 0.12).

Conclusions

When horizontal force or power output is considered for a given speed, resisted sprinting is similar to its associated phase during an unloaded sprint acceleration [e.g. first steps (~ 3 m s−1) = heavy resistance]. Error associated with increasing loading could be resultant of error, fatigue, or technique, and more research is needed. This research provides a basis for simplified assessment of optimal loading from a single unloaded sprint.
Literature
go back to reference Kawamori N, Haff GG (2004) The optimal training load for the development of muscular power. J Strength Cond Res 18:675–684. https://doi.org/10.1519/1533-4287(2004)18<675:TOTLFT>2.0.CO;2PubMed Kawamori N, Haff GG (2004) The optimal training load for the development of muscular power. J Strength Cond Res 18:675–684. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1519/​1533-4287(2004)18<675:TOTLFT>2.0.CO;2PubMed
go back to reference Rabita G, Dorel S, Slawinski J, Sàez-de-Villarreal E, Couturier A, Samozino P, Morin JB (2015) Sprint mechanics in world-class athletes: a new insight into the limits of human locomotion. Scand J Med Sci Sports Rabita G, Dorel S, Slawinski J, Sàez-de-Villarreal E, Couturier A, Samozino P, Morin JB (2015) Sprint mechanics in world-class athletes: a new insight into the limits of human locomotion. Scand J Med Sci Sports
go back to reference Wilson GJ, Newton RU, Murphy AJ, Humphries BJ (1993) The optimal training load for the development of dynamic athletic performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25:1279–1286CrossRefPubMed Wilson GJ, Newton RU, Murphy AJ, Humphries BJ (1993) The optimal training load for the development of dynamic athletic performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25:1279–1286CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A comparison between the force–velocity relationships of unloaded and sled-resisted sprinting: single vs. multiple trial methods
Authors
Matt R. Cross
Pierre Samozino
Scott R. Brown
Jean-Benoît Morin
Publication date
01-03-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Journal of Applied Physiology / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1439-6319
Electronic ISSN: 1439-6327
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-017-3796-5

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

European Journal of Applied Physiology 3/2018 Go to the issue