Comparison of anthropometric characteristics and sprint start performance between elite adolescent and adult sprint athletes

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the physical characteristics and somatotype of junior and senior athletes in relation to sprint start and acceleration performance. Nineteen female junior, 23 male junior, 9 female senior, and 16 male senior sprint athletes performed three maximal 20-m sprints. The starting blocks were instrumented to measure forward propulsion forces. Running velocity was measured by a laser positioned behind the athlete at 1 m height. Anthropometric measures were used to calculate somatotype and skeletal muscle mass. Body composition was estimated by underwater weighing densitometry. Junior and senior athletes were of similar height in both sexes. Male seniors were heavier, had larger limb circumferences, and a higher skeletal muscle mass than male juniors. Only the limb circumferences of the female seniors were larger than those of the female juniors. Female juniors were balanced ectomorphs, while female seniors were situated centrally on the somatochart (2.7Á2.2Á3.9 vs. 2.6Á3.1Á3.1; P 00.772, 0.047, and 0.066 respectively). Male juniors were mesomorphic ectomorphs, while male seniors were ectomorphic mesomorphs (1.8Á3.3Á3.6 vs. 1.6Á4.2Á2.8; P 00.148, 0.002, and 0.002 respectively). All sprint starts were similar for the junior and senior athletes of both sexes. Senior athletes accelerated more than the junior athletes, which resulted in higher running velocities after 5 m (senior vs. junior: females, 5.5190.32 vs. 6.0190.27 m × s Á1 , P 00.001; males, 5.8590.38 vs. 6.1390.44 m × s Á1 , P 00.043). The greater muscularity of senior compared with junior athletes did not result in better sprint start dynamics, but they did accelerate more and ran faster. These results show that late-adolescent boys in particular are still developing their muscularity. The technical complexity of the sprint start and the negative influence of a higher body mass may partly explain the comparable sprint start dynamics of the junior and senior athletes. We suggest that strength training should be combined with sufficient attention to technical skills to allow a positive transfer.

Kinematic analysis of the block start and 20-metre acceleration phase in two highly-trained sprinters: A case report

“…According to Debaere et al [13], the control of propulsion is heavily connected with those two abovementioned joints. Aerenhouts et al [24] also support the view that an appropriate technique applied in this phase determines the performance. Furthermore, according to Debaere et al [12], during the transition phase, the sprinter actively prepares for a more forward leaning position, which corresponds with the above mentioned values in specific joints.…”

SPRINTING. . . Dietary Approaches to Optimize Training Adaptation and Performance

“…Greater muscle strength and power are usually accompanied by an increase in muscle crosssectional area but the ability to generate force also requires improved neuromuscular recruitment. In a study comparing heavier, more muscular adults to adolescent sprinters, higher muscularity and mass were reported to explain slower sprint start dynamics in the adults (Aerenhouts et al, 2012). Although optimizing muscle mass is important for the development of explosive power, especially at the sprint start, training should advance technical skills to facilitate effective transfer of strength benefits.…”

Functional Movement Screen Score by Somatotype Category

“…In a recent study involving volleyball players, on average, centers and hitters were characterized as belonging to the central category, setters and hitters where characterized as mesomorphs. 80 In another study on elite sprinters, females were classified as belonging to the central or ectomorph categories and males were classified as belonging to the mesomorph or ectomorph categories 81 somatotyping methods due to the ease of carrying out traditional methods. It is likely for this reason exactly that somatotyping is still commonly used; somatotyping requires substantially less equipment than the previously mentioned methods and it can be performed anywhere.…”