Sprint Running Performance Monitoring: Methodological and Practical Considerations

Abstract

The aim of this review is to investigate methodological concerns associated with sprint performance monitoring, more specifically the influence and magnitude of varying external conditions, technology and monitoring methodologies not directly related to human physiology. The combination of different starting procedures and triggering devices can cause up to very large time differences, which may be many times greater than performance changes caused by years of conditioning. Wind, altitude, temperature, barometric pressure and humidity can all combine to yield moderate time differences over short sprints. Sprint performance can also be affected by the athlete's clothing, principally by its weight rather than its aerodynamic properties. On level surfaces, the track compliance must change dramatically before performance changes larger than typical variation can be detected. An optimal shoe bending stiffness can enhance performance by a small margin. Fully automatic timing systems, dual-beamed photocells, laser guns and high-speed video are the most accurate tools for sprint performance monitoring. Manual timing and single-beamed photocells should be avoided over short sprint distances (10-20 m) because of large absolute errors. The validity of today's global positioning systems (GPS) technology is satisfactory for long distances (>30 m) and maximal velocity in team sports, but multiple observations are still needed as reliability is questionable. Based on different approaches used to estimate the smallest worthwhile performance change and the typical error of sprint measures, we have provided an assessment of the usefulness of speed evaluation from 5 to 40 m. Finally, we provide statistical guidelines to accurately assess changes in individual performance; i.e. considering both the smallest worthwhile change in performance and the typical error of measurement, which can be reduced while repeating the number of trials.

The Influence of Resistance Training Experience on the Between-Day Reliability of Commonly Used Strength Measures in Male Youth Athletes

“…This suggests the test has poor sensitivity and that coaches of individuals who have prudence when assessing whether an actual improvement has occurred. Despite this, real change can still be identified with 75% certainty when change exceeds the sum of CV% and (6,13,26). …”

Player-Tracking Technology: Half-Full or Half-Empty Glass?

“…12 Unfortunately, however, practitioners are left with a difficult dilemma when selecting their variables, since their validity and reliability is likely inversely related to their importance in terms of load monitoring, that is, high-speed running, acceleration/deceleration work, and metabolic power being the least valid and reliable variables. 1,13 In other words, the variables that are believed to be best are likely the least useful. 2 This does not mean that those variables should not be monitored but, rather, suggests that greater care should be taken when interpreting their differences or changes (ie, defining a larger, more conservative smallest worthwhile difference/change).…”

“…13 There is unfortunately no consensus on the optimal time window and filter to use. A simple and relevant alternative to the use of arbitrary time windows could be to report acceleration over a meter (ie, the base unit of length in the International System of Units).…”

Differences in Anthropometric Characteristics and Physical Capacities Between Junior and Adult Top-Level Handball Players

“…For our adults, the mean measured body height (1.90 cm) and mass (92.0 kg) as well as 30 (8,10,11,14,17,18,22,(31)(32)(33). All further data of our adults were not comparable due to discrepancies in testing procedures (i.e., our COD and endurance tests were firstly conducted in handball) and methodologies (e.g., bioelectric impedance vs. skinfold calipers for body composition analyses (34), single vs. double timing gates and different procedures to trigger the start for sprint analyses (35), or impulse-momentum vs. flight-time Asian J Sports Med. 2017; 8(4):e60663.…”