Optimal starting block configuration in sprint running; a comparison of biological and prosthetic legs.

In the 2012 Paralympic 100 m and 200 m finals, 86% of athletes with a unilateral amputation placed their unaffected leg on the front starting block. Can this preference be explained biomechanically? We measured the biomechanical effects of starting block configuration for seven nonamputee sprinters and nine athletes with a unilateral amputation. Each subject performed six starts, alternating between their usual and unusual starting block configurations. When sprinters with an amputation placed their unaffected leg on the front block, they developed 6% greater mean resultant combined force compared with the opposite configuration (1.38 ± 0.06 vs 1.30 ± 0.11 BW, P = .015). However, because of a more vertical push angle, horizontal acceleration performance was equivalent between starting block configurations. We then used force data from each sprinter with an amputation to calculate the hypothetical starting mechanics for a virtual nonamputee (two unaffected legs) and a virtual bilateral amputee (two affected legs). Accelerations of virtual bilateral amputees were 15% slower compared with athletes with a unilateral amputation, which in turn were 11% slower than virtual nonamputees. Our biomechanical data do not explain the starting block configuration preference but they do explain the starting performance differences observed between nonamputee athletes and those with leg amputations.

[1]  Marcos Gutiérrez-Dávila,et al.  The Effect of Muscular Pre-Tensing on the Sprint Start , 2006 .

[2]  Hugh M Herr,et al.  Running-specific prostheses limit ground-force during sprinting , 2010, Biology Letters.

[3]  Raphaël Dumas,et al.  Effect of postural changes on 3D joint angular velocity during starting block phase , 2013, Journal of sports sciences.

[4]  Julie R. Steele,et al.  Biomechanics of the Sprint Start , 1997, Sports medicine.

[5]  X. Martin,et al.  Bilateral and Gender Differences During Single-Legged Vertical Jump Performance in Healthy Teenagers , 2012, Journal of strength and conditioning research.

[6]  G. Trewartha,et al.  Choice of sprint start performance measure affects the performance-based ranking within a group of sprinters: which is the most appropriate measure? , 2010, Sports biomechanics.

[7]  W. T. Dempster,et al.  SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SEATED OPERATOR, GEOMETRICAL, KINEMATIC, AND MECHANICAL ASPECTS OF THE BODY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE LIMBS , 1955 .

[8]  Ilse Jonkers,et al.  From block clearance to sprint running: Characteristics underlying an effective transition , 2013, Journal of sports sciences.

[9]  T. Welsh,et al.  Starting with the "right" foot minimizes sprint start time. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[10]  M. Bourdin,et al.  Mechanical determinants of 100-m sprint running performance , 2012, European Journal of Applied Physiology.

[11]  A. Mero Force-Time Characteristics and Running Velocity of Male Sprinters during the Acceleration Phase of Sprinting , 1988 .

[12]  Normand Teasdale,et al.  Starting Block Performance in Sprinters: A Statistical Method for Identifying Discriminative Parameters of the Performance and an Analysis of the Effect of Providing Feedback over a 6-Week Period. , 2005, Journal of sports science & medicine.

[13]  P. D. di Prampero,et al.  Sprint running: a new energetic approach , 2005, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[14]  Rodger Kram,et al.  Simultaneous positive and negative external mechanical work in human walking. , 2002, Journal of biomechanics.

[15]  Jesús Dapena,et al.  The effect of muscular pre-tensing on the sprint start. , 2006, Journal of applied biomechanics.

[16]  Sophia Nimphius,et al.  DETERMINATION OF FUNCTIONAL STRENGTH IMBALANCE OF THE LOWER EXTREMITIES , 2006, Journal of strength and conditioning research.