Direct measurement of power during one single sprint on treadmill

Morin, Jean-Benoı̂t; Samozino, Pierre; Bonnefoy, Régis; Édouard, Pascal; Belli, Alain

doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.03.012

Cited by 79 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, when the acceleration is of interest (as for example during gait transition studies for which the treadmill-overground difference was already demonstrated [4]), researchers/physiotherapists/ sports coaches should be aware of these differences when choosing the treadmill or overground environment. However, if a treadmill is needed for methodological reasons, refuge can be taken in torque treadmills, which provide just enough power to overcome belt friction, but the subjects have to accelerate the belt themselves [23,35], or by implementing inertial feedback on the treadmill [24].…”

Section: How To Accelerate On a Treadmill?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Joint kinematics and kinetics of overground accelerated running versus running on an accelerated treadmill

Caekenberghe

Segers

Aerts

et al. 2013

J. R. Soc. Interface.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Literature shows that running on an accelerated motorized treadmill is mechanically different from accelerated running overground. Overground, the subject has to enlarge the net anterior–posterior force impulse proportional to acceleration in order to overcome linear whole body inertia, whereas on a treadmill, this force impulse remains zero, regardless of belt acceleration. Therefore, it can be expected that changes in kinematics and joint kinetics of the human body also are proportional to acceleration overground, whereas no changes according to belt acceleration are expected on a treadmill. This study documents kinematics and joint kinetics of accelerated running overground and running on an accelerated motorized treadmill belt for 10 young healthy subjects. When accelerating overground, ground reaction forces are characterized by less braking and more propulsion, generating a more forward-oriented ground reaction force vector and a more forwardly inclined body compared with steady-state running. This change in body orientation as such is partly responsible for the changed force direction. Besides this, more pronounced hip and knee flexion at initial contact, a larger hip extension velocity, smaller knee flexion velocity and smaller initial plantarflexion velocity are associated with less braking. A larger knee extension and plantarflexion velocity result in larger propulsion. Altogether, during stance, joint moments are not significantly influenced by acceleration overground. Therefore, we suggest that the overall behaviour of the musculoskeletal system (in terms of kinematics and joint moments) during acceleration at a certain speed remains essentially identical to steady-state running at the same speed, yet acting in a different orientation. However, because acceleration implies extra mechanical work to increase the running speed, muscular effort done (in terms of power output) must be larger. This is confirmed by larger joint power generation at the level of the hip and lower power absorption at the knee as the result of subtle differences in joint velocity. On a treadmill, ground reaction forces are not influenced by acceleration and, compared with overground, virtually no kinesiological adaptations to an accelerating belt are observed. Consequently, adaptations to acceleration during running differ from treadmill to overground and should be studied in the condition of interest.

show abstract

Section: How To Accelerate On a Treadmill?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Joint kinematics and kinetics of overground accelerated running versus running on an accelerated treadmill

Caekenberghe

Segers

Aerts

et al. 2013

J. R. Soc. Interface.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The height of the horizontal force transducer was adjusted for each subject by measuring and reproducing the distance between the subject's anterior superior iliac spine and the belt of the treadmill, and maintained constant throughout the study. However, the imperfect horizontal position of the force transducer must be taken into consideration when interpreting results from the calculation of power (Morin et al 2010). The mean HR during the 4.5-min recovery period was defined as the recovery HR and was measured as described above.…”

Section: Rsementioning

confidence: 99%

Performance and physiological responses to repeated-sprint exercise: a novel multiple-set approach

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the acute and chronic responses to multiple sets of repeated-sprint exercise (RSE), focusing on changes in acceleration, intermittent running capacity and physiological responses. Ten healthy young adults (7 males, 3 females) performed an incremental test, a Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test level1 (Yo-Yo IR1), and one session of RSE. RSE comprised three sets of 5 × 4-s maximal sprints on a non-motorised treadmill, with 20 s of passive recovery between repetitions and 4.5 min of passive recovery between sets. After ten repeated-sprint training sessions, participants repeated all tests. During RSE, performance was determined by measuring acceleration, mean and peak power/velocity. Recovery heart rate (HR), HR variability, and finger-tip capillary lactate concentration ([Lac(-)]) were measured. Performance progressively decreased across the three sets of RSE, with the indices of repeated-sprint ability being impaired to a different extent before and after training. Training induced a significant increase (p < 0.05) in all indices of performance, particularly acceleration (21.9, 14.7 and 15.2% during sets 1, 2 and 3, respectively). Training significantly increased Yo-Yo IR1 performance by 8% and decreased Δ[Lac(-)]/work ratio (-15.2, -15.5, -9.4% during sets 1, 2 and 3, respectively) and recovery HR during RSE. There were strong correlations between Yo-Yo IR1 performance and indices of RSE performance, especially acceleration post-training (r = 0.88, p = 0.004). Repeated-sprint training, comprising only 10 min of exercise overall, effectively improved performance during multiple-set RSE. This exercise model better reflects team-sport activities than single-set RSE. The rapid training-induced improvement in acceleration, quantified here for the first time, has wide applications for professional and recreational sport activities.

show abstract

“…Morin et al (11) found the average vertical force as 723±59N in the sprint studies that they applied during 6second and said these values are close the participators' body weight (726±54N). Our study has parallels with this situation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…While the participators who are tied to a point from their waists are circling the nonmotorized treadmills based on their own pace, horizontal force appears and this is measured by strain gauge mechanism that the participators tied to from their waists. The vertical force is measured by pressure gauge, piezo, in force platform placed under the treadmills (11). Hence, it will become observable both kinetically and kinematically that the part which Luhtanen & Komi (7) categorized the first step of sprint as propulsion and braking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does the ground reaction force affect the 6 second sprint performance?

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to determine kinetics and kinematics of various 6 second sprinting load with %0GRF, %10GRF and %15GRF. Different loads of GRF have been analysed for seeing effect of the increasing ground reaction force. 8 female sportswomen (age=24.7±6.2year; body weight=61.27±8.79kg; height=172.4±11.37m) of Anadolu University Youth and Sport Club that competes in the second division of Turkey Women's Basketball participated in this study. 6s. sprint kinematical analysis of the participants was made with two fast filming cameras (A602f, Basler, Germany) that are able to record up to 500 Hz and a software program (SIMI 7.3, Germany) that is able to record the scenes simultaneously into computer in 60 Hz. The sprints that is with %0, %10 and %15 loads were applied on non-motorised treadmills during 6s., it was recorded with avi. format and the scenes which are in equal length and simultaneous were analysed. The difference among three different measurements (0%, 10%, 15% ground reaction force) that belongs to one group was tested with One Way Anova after homogeneity of variances and significance level was taken as p<0.05. In the 6second sprint tests that were done with %0, %10, %15 ground reaction force, a statistically, on highest degree significant result was found among the distance that was passed, average velocity, average horizontal force, the top velocity and the top horizontal force (p≤0.01). A statistically significant relationship was not found between average vertical force and vertical force on the peak velocity (p>0.05). In the 6second sprint tests which was done with 0%, 10%, 15% GRF of knee and elbow joints, statistically significant relation was not able to be found among angle, angular velocity, vertical velocity, horizontal velocity and resultant velocity (p>0.05). Based on Bonferroni correction post test results there were statistically significant differences have been found between ground reaction forces (GRF0 -GRF10; p<0.05 & GRF0 -GRF15; p<0.001) and there were no statistically significant differences have been found between ground reaction forces (p>0.05). During the 6second sprints that were done with 0%, 10%, 15% of the participants' body weights, it has been seen that vertical ground reaction force did not increase. This also shows that the participants could apply more force to the ground to accelerate and accordingly they carried out the sprint performance in a longer time. Not to be found a significant relationship among angle, angular velocity, horizontal velocity, vertical velocity and resultant velocity arises from reacting to ground reaction force in the same way with the sprint that is done with body weight. The participants could not increase their velocity in the face of increasing ground reaction force and therefore realized the 6second sprint performance in a longer time. Consequently, it has been deduced that they could not adapt acutely to ground reaction force and change their sprint styles to accelerate. To overcome the braking components of ground r...

show abstract

Direct measurement of power during one single sprint on treadmill

Cited by 79 publications

References 28 publications

Joint kinematics and kinetics of overground accelerated running versus running on an accelerated treadmill

Joint kinematics and kinetics of overground accelerated running versus running on an accelerated treadmill

Performance and physiological responses to repeated-sprint exercise: a novel multiple-set approach

How does the ground reaction force affect the 6 second sprint performance?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About