Journal of Biomechanics 43 (2010) 343–348

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Biomechanics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbiomech
www.JBiomech.com

Body position determines propulsive forces in accelerated running

F. Kugler a,×, L. Janshen b
a
Department of Training and Movement Sciences, Humboldt-University Berlin, Philippstr. 13, Haus 11, DE-10115 Berlin, Germany
b
Center for Sports Science and Sports Medicine Berlin, Philippstr. 13, Haus 11, DE-10115 Berlin, Germany

article info abstract

Article history: Rapid accelerations during running are crucial for the performance in a lot of sports. While high
Accepted 21 July 2009 propulsive forces are beneficial to forward acceleration, vertical forces have to be small to attain high
stride frequencies. However, propulsive and vertical force components cannot be altered independently,
Keywords: because the resultant force vector affects the angular momentum of the body. Therefore we
Sprinting hypothesized that propulsive forces in accelerated running mainly depend on body position regardless
Running of performance level. In our cross-sectional study 28 male and 13 female physical education students
Acceleration performed submaximal and maximal accelerations. Ground reaction forces and whole body kinematics
Ground reaction forces were recorded. Higher accelerations were generated by lower, but more forward oriented forces. The
Body position
orientation of the maximum force vector strongly correlated with the forward lean of the body at toe-off
Angular momentum
ðr ¼ 0:93; p r 0:001Þ. All subjects demonstrated similar propulsive forces at equal body positions. This
indicates an external constraint of propulsive force application by the mechanical requirement of
running to maintain a stable body posture. Faster subjects utilized a more posterior foot plant or a
longer ground contact time. Both strategies facilitated greater forward leans of the body which finally
resulted in greater propulsive forces. Consequently, maximizing forward propulsion requires optimal,
not maximal force application.
& 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction force (GRF) vector is favorable for forward propulsion. However,

Accelerated running is crucial to most running events and
many other sports. During a soccer match a player executes 40–60
sprints which can decide on ball possession or turnover (Bangsbo
et al., 1991). In the 100 m dash the ability to accelerate has an
immediate effect on the outcome of the race. Even in long distance
running lots of races are decided in a sprint finish. Therefore a
better understanding of accelerated running mechanics could
help to improve an athlete’s performance. To the authors’
knowledge only few literature exists on accelerated running
compared to the large number of publications regarding constant
speed running.
Kinetic data of the early acceleration phase in sprint running
showed lower maximum vertical forces (1:86 ~ bodyweight (BW),
Schot and Knutzen, 1992) compared to constant running with
corresponding velocity (2:62 ~ BW, Munro et al., 1987). Higher
vertical forces during acceleration would result in either shor-
tened support phases or longer flight phases. The first would
reduce the time during which propulsive forces could be applied
to the ground, the second would delay the consecutive steps and
therefore further acceleration (Hunter et al., 2005; Margaria and
Cavagna, 1964). Consequently a forward oriented ground reaction
× Corresponding author. Tel.: + 49 15114977567.
E-mail address: mail@floriankugler.de (F. Kugler).
changing force orientation at a certain body position can only
be achieved by asymmetrical angular acceleration of body
segments (Jacobs and Schenau, 1992) and therefore comes along
with a change in whole body angular momentum (Fig. 1, Hay et al.,
1977).
The tight control of angular momentum during locomotion
was recently demonstrated by Herr and Popovic (2008) for
walking. It can be argued that during accelerated running angular
momentum of the body has to be kept in strict limits as well to
assure postural stability. In contrast, common biomechanical
concepts of running in theory and practice (Wiemann, 1991;
Wiemann and Tidow, 1995; Bosch and Klomp, 2001) aim at
generating more anteriorly oriented forces. As argued before this
end could only be achieved by the means of inducing backward
rotation about the center of mass (CM).
If whole body angular momentum should be maintained, GRF
orientation has to be tightly coupled to body position, i.e. angular
displacement of the CM relative to the vertical axis through the
point of support. This would be an external constraint to
propulsive force application. Therefore we hypothesized that
athletes with different acceleration performance (horizontal
impulse during ground contact) generate equal propulsive ground
reaction forces in equivalent body positions. In addition
we assumed that athletes who generate higher propulsive
impulses will demonstrate a greater forward lean of the body
prior to toe-off.

0021-9290/$ - see front matter & 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.07.041
344 F. Kugler, L. Janshen / Journal of Biomechanics 43 (2010) 343–348
2. Methods
Subjects: In this study 28 male and 13 female physical
education students volunteered as subjects. All gave their
informed written consent before participating. The mean age,
height and weight of the subjects was 27 7 4 years, 1:82 70:05 m,
74 78 kg (male) and 25 75 years, 1:70 70:05 m, 63 7 6 kg
(female).
Experimental setup: A three-dimensional force plate (BP400600-
2000, AMTI) was placed halfway in a 25 m running track.
Running speed was monitored by two pairs of infra-red
photoelectric cells (FES, Berlin), equally positioned 2.5 m in front
of and behind the force plate center. Six infrared cameras (MX F20,
Vicon Motion System) captured a volume of 3 m ~ 1m ~ 2m
ðlength ~ width ~ heightÞ with the force plate in its center.
Kinematic and kinetic data were collected at 500 and 1000 Hz,
respectively, using Nexus (v1.3.106, Vicon Motion Systems).
Testing protocol: Anthropometric measurements and marker
placement were conducted according to the Plugin-Gait full body
model specifications (v1.7, Vicon Motion Systems). After the initial
weight calibration on the force plate the subjects completed
submaximal (sFLY) and maximal fly accelerations (mFLY) as well
as maximal accelerations from a standing start (mSS) (Table 1).
The subjects were instructed to adjust their run-up speed to
3 70:3m s—1 and were corrected after each trial if necessary.
During mSS the first step was recorded on the force plate. For sFLY
and mFLY the subjects were allowed to accelerate after passing a
line on the ground which was placed 2.5 m in front of the force
plate, so that the second or third step of the acceleration phase
was recorded. Each testing condition was repeated until three
valid trials had been recorded. The approach to the force plate was
Fig. 1. Changing the orientation of the ground reaction force vector Fgr requires
asymmetrical accelerations of body segments, demonstrated utilizing a simplified
three-segment model. (A) shows the system at rest, where F and Fgr are pointing
vertically downward and upward. (B) shows the cancelation of opposite moments
ðM1 ¼ — M2Þ maintaining the vertical orientation of the forces. Asymmetrical
acceleration of a single segment (C) causes the force vector to deviate from the
vertical. Consequently, the total angular momentum of the system changes.
Table 1
Testing conditions.
Shortcut Description
sFLY Submaximal acceleration from v ¼ 3m s—1 to v ¼ 5m s—1
mFLY Maximal acceleration from a constant approach at v ¼ 3m s—1
mSS Maximal acceleration from a standing start, the first step was
recorded
visually controlled. Trials with incorrect run-up speeds, an
unnatural running pattern or an incomplete foot plant on the
force plate were excluded.
Data reduction: The raw data were processed using Plugin-Gait
(v1.7, Vicon Motion Systems), the marker trajectories were
smoothed using a Woltring-Filter (MSE ¼ 10 mm2, Stokes et al.,
1995, S. 93). All valid trials were processed according to the
following steps by a customized MATLAB program (Version
R2009a, The MathWorks):
1. All vectors were projected onto the sagittal plane (vertical
plane in movement direction).
2. The subjects’ body weights were calculated from the static
weight calibration trial. Systematic errors of the CM position in
anterio-posterior direction were corrected using the offset
between the center of pressure and the CM from the static
weight calibration trial.
3. A threshold of 2% BW was applied to identify the ground
contact interval on the force plate of each trial. These intervals
were time normalized using cubic spline interpolation.
4. The vector pointing from the center of pressure to the CM was
calculated and the ground reaction force vector was normal-
ized to the subjects’ body weight. The orientation of both
vectors was calculated as angle relative to the vertical axis.
5. The kinematic and dynamic parameters (Table 3) were
extracted from each trial. Values from multiple valid trials of
one subject for the same testing condition were averaged.
Statistical analysis: The kinematic and dynamic variables
(Table 3) were tested for mean differences between the testing
conditions (Table 1) and the performance related subgroups
mFLY — =mFLY þ (maximum acceleration on the fly) and
mSS — =mSS þ (maximum acceleration from a standing start).
These subgroups were formed by dividing the subjects into two
groups of equal size depending on total propulsive impulse
ð— ¼ inferior; þ ¼ superiorÞ. Prior to testing for mean differences
the samples were tested for normal distribution using the
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and for equal variances using the
Levene test. In case of normally distributed samples paired/
unpaired T-tests were applied. Otherwise the Mann–Whitney U-
test was used for unpaired samples and the Wilcoxon test for
paired samples. Additionally the propulsive impulse and the
takeoff angle were correlated to the GRF angle at maximum force
application (see explanation of terms, Table 2). If not stated
differently, the level of significance was set to p o 0:05.
Table 2
Explanation of terms.
Term Description
Sagittal GRF Ground reaction force vector
projected to the sagittal plane
CM vector Vector pointing from point of
support to center of mass
projected to the sagittal plane
GRF angle Angle of the sagittal GRF to the
vertical axis, positive angles
represent a forward pointing force
vector
CM angle Angle of the sagittal CM to the
vertical axis, positive angles
represent an anterior position of
the CM relative to the point of
support
Angle of attack CM angle at initial contact
Takeoff angle CM angle at toe-off
 F. Kugler, L. Janshen / Journal of Biomechanics 43 (2010) 343–348 345

0 sFLY mFLY

mSS

* +15
20 mSS+
mSS-
mFLY+

$f []
mFLY-

0
* 50 100
Stance time [%]

−15
-20

Fig. 3. Orientation of the ground reaction force vector during maximal accelera-
+30 tion from a slow approach (mFLY, 3 m s—1) and from a standing start (mSS, first
step). The subgroups mFLY þ=mSS þ include the subjects with superior accelera-
tion performance in terms of propulsive impulse. ff is the angle of the force vector
relative to the vertical axis. x¼ significant difference between mFLY — =mFLY þ or
mSS — =mSS þ .

3. Results
2 BW
1 BW The maximum GRF vector was tilted more anteriorly with
increasing acceleration (Fig. 2). The GRF angle at maximum force
application correlated positively with the propulsive impulse ðr ¼
RUNNING DIRECTION
0:96; p o 0:001Þ whereas the maximum vertical GRF dropped with
Fig. 2. Ground reaction forces illustrated as polar plot. The angle represents the
increasing acceleration ðr ¼ — 0:5; p o 0:001Þ, demonstrating the
orientation of the force vector, the radius represents the magnitude of the force dominating role of force orientation for forward propulsion. Despite
normalized to body weight (BW). Increasing line thickness represents higher this decrease in GRF the propulsive impulse increased
acceleration (sFLY: moderate acceleration from 3 to 5 m s—1, mFLY: maximal fly significantly between the testing conditions sFLY, mFLY and mSS
acceleration from 3 m s—1, mSS: maximal acceleration from standing start). The T-
(Table 3).
lines on top of the curves illustrate the standard deviation of the magnitude and
orientation of the maximum force. x¼ significant difference in maximum force The comparison of the subgroups mFLY — =mFLY þ and mSS —
orientation between testing conditions. =mSS þ also reveals the force orientation as distinguishing factor for
performance. The subjects with superior performance (mFLY þ and
mSS þ ) demonstrated further forward oriented GRF angles than the
subjects of mFLY— and mSS— during almost the whole stance phase
(Fig. 3). The maximum resultant GRF was not significantly different
between the subgroups. mFLY þ and mSS þ even showed a trend
Table 3 towards lower GRF, especially during the first half of the stance phase
Kinetic and kinematic parameters of accelerated running (sFLY: moderate (Fig. 4).
acceleration from 3 to 5 m s—1, mFLY: maximal fly acceleration from 3 m s—1, The GRF angle at maximum force application was strongly related
mSS: maximal acceleration from standing start).
to the takeoff angle ðr ¼ 0:93; p o 0:001Þ. At higher accelerations the
angle of attack decreased significantly and the takeoff angle increased
Variable sFLY mFLY mSS
significantly, thus shifting the sector covered by the CM vector during
x SD x SD x SD stance forward (Fig. 5). Comparing mFLY þ to mFLY— and mSS þ to
wsSSt—
m heshsaome effect. Again more forward oriented GRF
pp ðBM m s—1Þ 0.34 0.11 0.51a 0.08 0.97a,b 0.11 angles were associated with greater CM angles (Fig. 6).
a a,b
pb ðBM m s—1Þ — 0.15 0.08 — 0.07 0.05 — 0.04 0.03
Both superior subgroups mFLY þ and mSS þ demonstrated similar
pvðBM m s—1Þ 3.20 0.25 2.53a 0.19 2.46a 0.25
propulsive GRF as the inferior subgroups mFLY— and mSS— during
Fmax (BW) 2.72 0.29 2.42a 0.24 2.11a,b 0.22
Fmax;p (BW) 0.56 0.10 0.72a 0.08 0.86a,b 0.08 most of the stance phase of the maximum accelerations (Fig. 7).
Fmax;v (BW) 2.71 0.30 2.38a 0.24 1.96a,b 0.23 Differences in propulsive impulse originated mainly from the latter
ff ;max (deg) 4 3 10a 6 22a,b 3 stance phase, where superior subjects reached greater CM angles than
a
ycm;ic (deg) — 11 2 —8 3 2a,b 4 inferior subjects. This was facilitated by either further forward
ycm;to (deg) 28 3 34a 3 40a,b 3 oriented angles of attack (mFLY þ , Fig. 6) or longer ground contact
Tgct (ms) 205 16 167a 15 199b 23
times (mSS þ, Table 4). The latter are expressed by greater takeoff
The total propulsive ðppÞ, horizontal breaking ðpbÞ and the vertical impulse ðpvÞ are angles in Fig. 7B, because the CM moves further forward during
normalized to body mass (BM). The maximum resultant ðFmaxÞ, propulsive ðFmax;pÞ ground contact.
and vertical ðFmax;vÞ ground reaction forces are normalized to body weight (BW).
The orientation of the maximum ground reaction force ðff ;max Þ is specified as angle
relative to the vertical axis. Body position at initial contact ðycm;icÞ and toe off
ðycm;toÞ is measured as angular deviation of the center of mass to the vertical axis. 4. Discussion
Tgct is the ground contact time.
a
Significant difference to sFLY ðp o 0:05Þ. The aim of this study was to investigate ground reaction forces
b
Significant difference to mFLY ðp o 0:05Þ. related to body position during accelerated running in subjects
346 F. Kugler, L. Janshen / Journal of Biomechanics 43 (2010) 343–348

mFLY- 40
mFLY+
2 mSS-
mSS+

20 mSS+

8cm []
F [BW]

mSS-
mFLY+
1 mFLY-

0
50 100
Stance time [%]

0 Fig. 6. Body position relative to the point of support during maximal acceleration
50 100 from a slow approach (mFLY, 3 m s—1) and from a standing start (mSS, first step).
Stance time [%] ycm is the angular deviation of the center of mass relative to the vertical axis
through the point of support. The subgroups mFLY þ=mSS þ include the subjects
Fig. 4. Resulting ground reaction force (normalized to body weight BW) during with superior acceleration performance in terms of propulsive impulse.
maximal accelerations from a slow approach (mFLY, 3 m s—1) and from a standing x ¼ significant difference between mFLY — =mFLY þ or mSS — =mSS þ.
start (mSS, first step). The subgroups mFLY þ=mSS þ include the subjects with
superior acceleration performance in terms of propulsive impulse. For both
running conditions no significant differences were found between the groups.

0.8

0.4
Fh [BW]

mFLY+
mFLY-
-0.4 mSS+
mSS-

0.8
Fh [BW]

0.4

RUNNING DIRECTION

Fig. 5. Greater propulsive impulses resulted from an anterior shift of the angle of
attack and the take-off angle. The gray areas represent the sectors covered by the -10 10 20 30
vector from the point of support to the center of mass during the recorded stance
8cm []
phase of the accelerated runs (sFLY: moderate acceleration from 3 to 5 m s—1, mFLY:
maximal fly acceleration from 3 m s—1, mSS: maximal acceleration from standing
start). The T-lines to the left and right of the sectors illustrate the standard -0.4
deviations of the angles. x¼ significant difference in angle of attack or take-off
angle between testing conditions. Fig. 7. Horizontal ground reaction forces as function of body position during
maximal accelerations from a slow approach (A, 3 m s—1) and from a standing start
(B, first step). ycm is the angular deviation of the center of mass relative to the
with different acceleration performance. Forty-one subjects vertical axis, Fh the propulsive ground reaction force normalized to body weight
completed submaximal and maximal accelerations. Ground (BW). The subgroups mFLY þ=mSS þ include the subjects with superior accelera-
tion performance in terms of propulsive impulse. The shaded areas illustrate the
reaction forces and whole body kinematics were analyzed.
standard deviations. x¼ significant difference between mFLY — =mFLY þ or
mSS — =mSS þ .

4.1. Magnitude and orientation of the ground reaction force

In running high GRF are counterproductive for forward
acceleration because of the predominant vertical orientation of
the force vector. During the first step after the standing start the
vector of the maximum GRF was tilted forward by 22 3. At this
instant the vertical force was 2.5-fold the propulsive force and
vertical acceleration exceeded forward propulsion (Fig. 8).
Therefore the application of greater forces would decrease
ground contact time or increase flight time. Neither of which is
an effective strategy to increase forward propulsion (Hunter et al.,
2005; Margaria and Cavagna, 1964).
 F. Kugler, L. Janshen / Journal of Biomechanics 43 (2010) 343–348 347

Table 4 seem not to be the cause but the effect of higher running
Kinetic and kinematic parameters of maximal accelerations from a slow approach speeds.
—1
(mFLY, 3 m s ) and from a standing start (mSS, first step).

Variable mFLY— mFLY þ mSS— mSS þ 4.2. Ground reaction force vs. body position

x SD x SD x SD x SD
Our results show, that the further forward oriented ground
pp 0.44 0.06 0.58a 0.04 0.88 0.05 1.05b 0.07 reaction forces at higher accelerations (Figs. 2 and 3) come
ðBM m s—1Þ together with further forward oriented body positions (Figs. 5 and
b
pb — 0.09 0.06 — 0.06 0.04 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.05 0.04 6). This is also confirmed by the strong correlation between the
ðBM m s—1Þ GRF angle at maximum force application and the takeoff angle
pvðBM m s—1Þ 2.53 0.14 2.52 0.23 2.38 0.26 2.53 0.23
ðr ¼ 0:93; p o 0:001Þ. The comparison of the propulsive force
Fmax (BW) 2.48 0.26 2.42 0.23 2.14 0.11 2.08 0.23
Fmax;p (BW) 0.68 0.08 0.75a 0.08 0.83 0.08 0.89b 0.05 component as a function of CM angle between the groups
Fmax;v (BW) 2.44 0.24 2.37 0.24 2.01 0.21 1.91 0.24 mFLY þ=mFLY— and mSS þ=mSS— demonstrates the tight cou-
ff ;max (deg) 7 2 12a 2 21 3 24b 3 pling of force orientation to CM angle (Fig. 7). It has to be noted
ycm;ic (deg) —9 2 —8 3 2 4 2 4 that the propulsive force component itself is not necessarily
ycm;to (deg) 33 2 36a 2 38 2 41b 3
representative for the GRF orientation. Nevertheless it is a valid
Tgct (ms) 165 14 169 16 189 21 208b 22
approximation in this context, because all subjects applied similar
The subgroups mFLY þ=mSS þ are formed by the better performers in terms of resultant forces to the ground (Fig. 4).
propulsive impulse, mFLY — =mSS— by the poorer performers. The total propulsive The similarity of the propulsive force component at a certain
ðppÞ, horizontal breaking ðpbÞ and the vertical impulse ðpvÞ are normalized to body CM angle of all subjects (Fig. 7) shows that the subjects with
mass (BM). The maximum resultant ðFmaxÞ, propulsive ðFmax;pÞ and vertical ðFmax;vÞ
superior acceleration performance were not able to exert greater
ground reaction force are normalized to body weight (BW). The orientation of the
maximum ground reaction force ðff ;max Þ is specified as angle relative to the vertical
propulsive forces to the ground than their inferior counterparts at
axis. Body position at initial contact ðycm;icÞ and toe off ðycm;toÞ is measured as equal CM angles. Since acceleration performance is commonly
angular deviation of the center of mass to the vertical axis. Tgct is the ground related to leg extensor strength capacities (Bret et al., 2002;
contact time.
Maulder et al., 2006; Sleivert and Taingahue, 2004), this result
a

b
Significant difference to mFLY— ðp o 0:05Þ. suggests the existence of an external constraint, which prevents
Significant difference to mSS— ðp o 0:05Þ.
the superior subjects from applying greater forces. This external
constraint can be explained by the requirement to maintain a
stable body posture. All other things being equal, changing the
GRF angle at a certain body position also changes the moment
∆vy /∆vz = 1
mFLY- mFLY+ acting about the CM and consequently the whole body angular
momentum (Hay et al., 1977). Therefore postural stability would
mSS- mSS+ be directly affected by actions which alter GRF orientation. If
whole body angular momentum should stay constant, the
F [BW ]

2 ∆vy /∆vz<1
∆vy /∆vz>1
1 the force direction created by leg extension is not favorable for
10 20
$f []
Fig. 8. The ratio of horizontal to vertical velocity gain Dvy=Dvz depends on the
magnitude F of the ground reaction force and its orientation ff expressed as
angle to the vertical axis. The solid line represents a ratio of Dvy=Dvz ¼ 1. Below
the curve horizontal acceleration is greater than vertical acceleration and vice
versa
above the curve. The marked maximum forces of the maximum fly acceleration
ðmFLY — =mFLY þÞ and the maximum acceleration from a standing start ðmSS —
=mSS þÞ shows the dominating role of vertical acceleration.
The maximum GRF, which is effective for forward acceleration,
depends on the orientation of the GRF vector. If the force vector
points further forward, the ratio of vertical to propulsive force will
be biased towards forward propulsion. In this case greater forces
can be applied without the negative effects of increased vertical
acceleration. Similarly Jacobs and Schenau (1992) found during
the second step of maximal accelerations that athletes are
delaying explosive leg extension until the second half of the
stance phase when GRF are oriented further forward.
In the present study the faster subjects attained higher running
speeds by applying more forward oriented (Fig. 3), but not greater
forces to the ground (Fig. 4). From this finding it can be argued
that while it is necessary to apply greater forces to the ground
to maintain higher speeds (Weyand et al., 2000), greater GRF
external moments acting on the body (induced by gravity and
GRF) have to cancel each other (Fig. 9).
The current results contradict the theory of hip extension to create
propulsion in sprint running (Ae et al., 1992; Bosch and Klomp, 2001;
Wiemann and Tidow, 1995). Wiemann and Tidow pointed out that
forward propulsion because of the dominant vertical component.
This led to the assumption that further forward oriented forces could
be generated by a backward pulling action of the stance leg. However,
the present results show that subjects of different performance level
did not apply different propulsive GRF at equal CM angles.
The subjects of the present study used two strategies to
optimize their CM angle for effective forward propulsion: Placing
the foot more posterior relative to the CM and prolonging ground
contact time. Landing further posterior increases the CM angle at
toe-off, when ground contact time is constant. Prolonging ground
contact time on the other hand also increases the CM angle at toe-
off, because the CM moves further forward before toe-off occurs.
The strategy of landing further posterior was used primarily
during the fly acceleration (Fig. 7A). In contrast all subjects landed
at similar positions behind the CM during the first step of the
standing start acceleration (Fig. 7B), which is a commonly
observed pattern in early acceleration (Mero et al., 1983). The
faster subjects gained an advantage from longer ground contact
times, which resulted in greater CM angles and finally greater
propulsive forces during latter stance.
4.3. Limitations of this study
The present study did not include elite athletes specifically
trained in maximum accelerations. Highly skilled athletes may
348 F. Kugler, L. Janshen / Journal of Biomechanics 43 (2010) 343–348
Mgr f
rgr f
$f Fgrf
8cm
Fg
Mg
rg
Fig. 9. Total angular momentum of the body is influenced by gravity and ground
reaction force. If the body’s center of mass (CM) deviates from the vertical position
above support by an angle ycm, gravity induces a moment about the point of
support ðMg ¼ rgFgÞ. A deviation of the ground reaction force vector from the CM
vector ðff — ycm a 0Þ induces a moment about the CM ðMgrf ¼ rgrf Fgrf Þ.
reach greater CM angles and therefore apply slightly higher forces
to the ground, because the ratio of vertical to propulsive force
shifts towards the latter (Fig. 8). On the other hand the trajectory
of the CM has to contain very little upward displacement, if
greater forward leans should be reached at toe-off. This again
constrains force application. Therefore a significant higher max-
imum GRF in elite athletes seems unlikely.
Acceleration performance cannot be assessed solely by
examining the propulsive impulse generated during the first
ground contact. I.e. subjects with a very high propulsive impulse
during the first step may not be among the best when being timed
at, e.g. 10 m behind the starting line. Total acceleration perfor-
mance is determined by the complex relation of propulsion and
flight phases during the subsequent steps. Therefore the present
results can only contribute to the understanding of the mechanics
and restrictions of propulsive force generation during a single
ground contact.
5. Conclusion
Higher acceleration during running is mainly attained by
applying similar forces to the ground at greater forward leans and
not by simply applying greater forces. The reason for the low
resultant ground reaction forces during acceleration is the
dominant vertical force component, which will become detri-
mental to acceleration performance when greater forces are
applied. All subjects applied equal propulsive forces to the ground
at equal body positions independent of performance level,
possibly because external moments acting on the body had to
be controlled. Subjects with superior acceleration performance
placed the foot further posterior at initial contact or prolonged
ground contact time. Both strategies resulted in a greater forward
lean at toe-off and therefore in greater propulsive forces during
latter stance.
Conflict of interest statement
None of the authors have commercial or other interests that
may conflict with the integrity of this scientific work.
References
Ae, M., Ito, A., Suzuki, M., 1992. The men’s 100 meters. New Studies in Athletics 7
(1), 47–52.
Bangsbo, J., Nørregaard, L., Thorsø, F., 1991. Activity profile of competition soccer.
Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences 16 (2), 110–116.
Bosch, F., Klomp, R., 2001. Running—Biomechanics and Exercise Physiology
Applied in Practice. Elsevier Churchill Livingston, Maarssen, The Netherlands.
Bret, C., Rahmani, A., Dufour, A.B., Messonnier, L., Lacour, J.R., 2002. Leg strength
and stiffness as ability factors in 100 m sprint running. Journal of Sports
Medicine and Physical Fitness 42 (3), 274–281.
Hay, J.G., Wilson, B.D., Dapena, J., Woodworth, G.G., 1977. A computational
technique to determine the angular momentum of a human body. Journal of
Biomechanics 10 (4), 269–277.
Herr, H., Popovic, M., 2008. Angular momentum in human walking. Journal of
Experimental Biology 211 (4), 467–481.
Hunter, J.P., Marshall, R.N., McNair, P., 2005. Relationships between ground
reaction force impulse and kinematics of sprint-running acceleration. Journal
of Applied Biomechanics 21 (1), 31–43.
Jacobs, R., Schenau, G.J.V., 1992. Intermuscular coordination in a sprint push-off.
Journal of Biomechanics 25 (9), 953–965.
Margaria, R., Cavagna, G.A., 1964. Human locomotion in subgravity. Aerospace
Medicine 35 (12), 1140–1146.
Maulder, P.S., Bradshaw, E.J., Keogh, J., 2006. Jump kinetic determinants of sprint
acceleration performance from starting blocks in male sprinters. Journal of
Sports Science and Medicine 5 (2), 359–366.
Mero, A., Luhtanen, P., Komi, P.V., 1983. A biomechanical study of the sprint start.
Scandinavian Journal of Sports Sciences 5 (1), 20–28.
Munro, C.F., Miller, D.I., Fuglevand, A.J., 1987. Ground reaction forces in running—a
reexamination. Journal of Biomechanics 20 (2), 147–155.
Schot, P.K., Knutzen, K.M., 1992. A biomechanical analysis of 4 sprint start
positions. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 63 (2), 137–147.
Sleivert, G., Taingahue, M., 2004. The relationship between maximal jump-squat
power and sprint acceleration in athletes. European Journal of Applied
Physiology 91 (1), 46–52.
Stokes, I.A.F., Blanchi, J.-P., Allard, P., 1995. Three-Dimensional Analysis of Human
Movement. Human Kinetics Europe Ltd.
Weyand, P.G., Sternlight, D.B., Bellizzi, M.J., Wright, S., 2000. Faster top running
speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements.
Journal of Applied Physiology 89 (5), 1991–1999.
Wiemann, K., 1991. Prä zisierung des LOMBARDschen Paradoxons in der Funktion
der ischiocruralen Muskeln beim Sprint. Sportwissenschaft 21 (4), 413–428.
Wiemann, K., Tidow, G., 1995. Relative activity of hip and knee extensors in
sprinting—implications for training. New Studies in Athletics 10 (1), 29–49.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.