4.6 Article

Relationships between anthropometric characteristics, block settings, and block clearance technique during the sprint start

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
Volume 40, Issue 10, Pages 1097-1109

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2022.2049082

Keywords

Sprint running; set position; biomechanics; anthropometrics; sex; ability level

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the interaction between body dimensions and anteroposterior block distances on lower limb joint angles. It finds that lower limb length is associated with the front block-starting line distance, which in turn affects the front hip angle and kinetic variables during block clearance.
This study aimed to identify how body dimensions interact with anteroposterior block distances to influence lower limb joint angles in the set position, how these angles relate to block clearance kinetic and kinematic parameters, and how these biomechanical parameters influence sprint start performance in sprinters of both sexes and of different ability levels. Seventy-eight sprinters performed six maximal-effort 10 m sprints. Joint angles in the set position were quantified through 2D video analysis, and the forces generated during block exit were measured by dynamometric starting blocks. Lower limb length was associated with the front block-starting line distance ([FB/SL], partial correlation [r(PC)] = 0.48) and was a significant predictor of FB/SL (R-2 = 0.39). The FB/SL was associated with front hip angle (r(PC) = 0.38), which was consequently associated with numerous kinetic variables during block clearance (r(PC) from -0.41 to -0.61). Coaches should be encouraged to explore the interactions between individual lower limb lengths and the FB/SL distance in both male and female sprinters to manipulate the front hip angle in the set position in an attempt to achieve more favourable block clearance kinetics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available