Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30963240›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of applied physiology2019

Sprint running: from fundamental mechanics to practice-a review.

Thomas Haugen, David McGhie, Gertjan Ettema

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of applied physiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07329465 (Comparative Effects of Tabata Training and Periodized Resistance Training on Power, Speed and Agility in Sprinters.), which is not on this map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07329465 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Comparative Effects of Tabata Training and Periodized Resistance Training on Power, Speed and Agility in Sprinters.

TypeinterventionalSponsorRiphah International UniversityRan2024 to 2025Enrolled38ConditionsSports Physical TherapyArmsPeriodized Resistance Training, Tabata Training
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A mini-review of mathematical methods in sprint performance.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Thomas HaugenNorwegian Olympic Federation, Sognsveien 228, 0840, Oslo, Norway. thomas.haugen@olympiatoppen.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5929-0389
David McGhieDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Centre for Elite Sports Research, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Gertjan EttemaDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Centre for Elite Sports Research, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this review, we examine the literature in light of the mechanical principles that govern linear accelerated running. While the scientific literature concerning sprint mechanics is comprehensive, these principles of fundamental mechanics present some pitfalls which can (and does) lead to misinterpretations of findings. Various models of sprint mechanics, most of which build on the spring-mass paradigm, are discussed with reference to both the insight they provide and their limitations. Although much research confirms that sprinters to some extent behave like a spring-mass system with regard to gross kinematics (step length, step rate, ground contact time, and lower limb deformation), the laws of motion, supported by empirical evidence, show that applying the spring-mass model for accelerated running has flaws. It is essential to appreciate that models are pre-set interpretations of reality; finding that a model describes the motor behaviour well is not proof of the mechanism behind the model. Recent efforts to relate sprinting mechanics to metabolic demands are promising, but have the same limitation of being model based. Furthermore, a large proportion of recent literature focuses on the interaction between total and horizontal (end-goal) force. We argue that this approach has limitations concerning fundamental sprinting mechanics. Moreover, power analysis based on isolated end-goal force is flawed. In closing, some prominent practical concepts and didactics in sprint running are discussed in light of the mechanical principles presented. Ultimately, whereas the basic principles of sprinting are relatively simple, the way an athlete manages the mechanical constraints and opportunities is far more complex.

Indexed as

Athletic PerformanceBiomechanical PhenomenaHigh-Intensity Interval TrainingHumansMuscle, SkeletalRunningBrakingKineticsPowerPropulsionRunning techniqueStiffness

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.