Gait & Posture
Volume 31, Issue 2 , Pages 209-212, February 2010

Kinematic analysis of the braking and propulsion phases during the support time in sprint running

  • Simone Ciacci

      Affiliations

    • Dept. of Histology, Embryology and Applied Biology, University of Bologna, c/o Record, Via del Pilastro 8, 40127 Bologna, Italy
    • Faculty of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Bologna, Italy
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: Dept. of Histology, Embryology and Applied Biology, University of Bologna, c/o Record, Via del Pilastro 8, 40127 Bologna, Italy. Tel.: +39 51 502712; fax: +39 51 6334473.
  • ,
  • Rocco Di Michele

      Affiliations

    • Dept. of Histology, Embryology and Applied Biology, University of Bologna, c/o Record, Via del Pilastro 8, 40127 Bologna, Italy
    • Faculty of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Bologna, Italy
  • ,
  • Franco Merni

      Affiliations

    • Dept. of Histology, Embryology and Applied Biology, University of Bologna, c/o Record, Via del Pilastro 8, 40127 Bologna, Italy
    • Faculty of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Bologna, Italy

Received 6 February 2009; received in revised form 15 September 2009; accepted 16 October 2009. published online 19 November 2009.

Abstract 

The contact time (CT) and the ratio between the duration of braking (BP) and propulsion phase (PP) during the support are two mechanical parameters that are relevant for the performance in sprinting. Several different kinematic methods have been used to estimate the BP–PP transition point, with some disagreements among studies. The purpose of this study was to compare three criteria to individuate that point: the maximum knee flexion (KNEEFLEX), the maximum fall of the COM (COMVERT) and the horizontal COM acceleration (COMHORIZ). It was hypothesized that these three events would take place in different instants, representing different moments of the step cycle. The kinematic analysis was performed through stereophotogrammetry on seven male middle-level sprinters (mean±SD height: 180±5 cm; body mass: 75±11 kg; personal best on 100m: 10.96±0.45s).

The COMVERT expressed as percentage of CT (mean±SD 31.73±8.29%) was on average strongly anticipated compared to both KNEEFLEX (45.07±3.60%, p<0.01) and COMHORIZ (56.86±8.56%, p<0.01). The ∼12% difference between KNEEFLEX and COMHORIZ was also statistically significant (p<0.01). The 40–60% relative proportion of BP and PP considered to be optimal in the literature, was reflected in this study only by the KNEEFLEX criterion. Given the importance of BP time as a reference parameter to assess the training status and efficacy of training interventions, it looks necessary both from a scientific and applied perspective to consider a standardized criterion to identify the BP–PP transition point.

Keywords: Running, Kinematics, Braking phase, Center of Mass, Support phase

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0966-6362(09)00642-0

doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2009.10.007

Gait & Posture
Volume 31, Issue 2 , Pages 209-212, February 2010