The Effects of Different Wearable Resistance.

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/329423431
The effects of different wearable resistance placements on sprint-running

performance: a review and practical applications
Article in Strength and conditioning journal · December 2018

DOI: 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000444
CITATIONS READS
0 455
4 authors:
Paul Macadam John Cronin

Auckland University of Technology Auckland University of Technology
31 PUBLICATIONS 78 CITATIONS 353 PUBLICATIONS 9,652 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Aaron Uthoff Erin Feser

Auckland University of Technology Auckland University of Technology
13 PUBLICATIONS 15 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 59 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Eccentric Strength training and application to sport performance View project
The effectiveness of resisted sled training on short distance sprint performance in young athletes View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Macadam on 06 December 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Strength and Conditioning Journal Publish Ahead of Print
DOI: 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000444
The effects of different wearable resistance placements on sprint-running
performance: a review and practical applications
D
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3EdJFbIWF++uf6EOZEL+ITOjKam4JFurzhhADiTh9b0A= on 12/06/2018
Paul Macadam, 1 John B. Cronin, 1,2 Aaron M. Uthoff, 1 Erin H. Feser 1,3
TE
Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ) at AUT Millennium, Auckland
University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.

EP
2
School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia.
3
Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Arizona State University, Phoenix, United States
C
Address correspondence to Paul Macadam
AUT Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland University of Technology,
Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1020, New Zealand

C
+64 99219999
+64 99219960 (Fax)

A
paul.macadam@gmail.com
Copyright Ó 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Paul Macadam is a PhD candidate at Auckland University of Technology
D
TE
EP
John B. Cronin is a professor of Strength and Conditioning at Auckland University of Technology and
holds an adjunct professorial position at Edith Cowan University

C
C
A
Aaron M. Uthoff is a PhD candidate at Auckland University of Technology
D
TE
Erin H. Feser is the Director of Education at Noraxon USA, Adjunct Faculty at Arizona State
EP
University, USA, and a PhD candidate at Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
C
C
A
1 Abstract
2 Wearable resistance (WR) provides the practitioner with the means to overload sprint-running in
3 a sprint specific manner. This article investigates the effects of WR on sprint-running
4 performance by discussing the mechanisms associated with WR, as well as those factors that
5 must be taken into consideration by the practitioner when implementing a program that utilizes
6 WR. In particular, the effects of different WR body placements (trunk, legs and arms), will be
D
7 discussed. Practical applications and conclusions from the analysis will be provided.
TE
9 Keywords: velocity, acceleration, external loading, overload, specificity
10
11 Introduction
12 Sprint-running, and in particular the ability to accelerate over short distance, is a key component
13 of performance for many sports. Understanding the specific mechanical determinants of sprint-
EP
14 running and finding methods to train these factors is pivotal for practitioners in designing
15 programs and optimizing adaptation. Though traditional gym-based resistance training is
16 frequently utilized to improve force production, questions remain whether this form of training is
17 optimum for transferring strength gains to sprint-running performance. Although, some literature
18 reviews have found that resistance training was an effective means to improve sprint
C
19 performance (3, 27), other reviews have indicated that it is less effective compared to simply
20 performing sprint training (7, 25).
C
21 The suspected lack of transferred of gym based resistance training to sprint-running performance
22 may be due to: 1) the bilateral exercises performed in the gym are unlike sprint-running which
principally involves unilateral propulsion; 2) exercises are vertically oriented while horizontal
A
23
24 and lateral force production are often under-trained, even though vital components of speed are
25 associated with these force directions; 3) exercises lack velocity and full range of motion
26 specificity to sprint-running; 4) exercises tend to be acyclic whereas field movement is cyclic;
27 and, 5) exercises are often uni-planar whereas field based movement is typically multi-planar.
28 Transference, at its essence, is the goal of the practitioner when developing a resistance training
29 program. Therefore, adapting methodologies that develop aspects of an athlete’s speed qualities
30 relative to the sport is critical. Though external loading using traditional gym resistance training
1
31 (free weights, machines, etc.) have progressed certain aspects of our movement knowledge and
32 ability, they present the practitioner with the formidable challenge of transferring non-specific
33 strength gains to improved sprint performance in the field.
34 As practitioners seek to find methods to optimize sprint-running performance, wearable

35 resistance (WR) is one modality that enables athletes to perform movement-specific resisted
36 training (14). This form of training aligns with the concept of specificity, which has been
D
37 promoted as an important factor when prescribing sprint training programs (6). This article
38 reviews the literature regarding the effects of WR on sprint-running performance and explores
39 how differences in WR placements may affect sprint-running performance. The potential
TE
40 benefits of WR will be presented, as well as the loading schemes that optimize adaptation. Peer-
41 reviewed journal articles and conference papers were retrieved from electronic searches of
42 Science Direct, Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar and SPORTDiscus databases, in
43 addition to relevant bibliographic hand searches with articles limited to English language. The
search strategy included the terms wearable resistance, weighted vest, limb loading, trunk
EP
44
45 loading, external loading, resisted sprinting, inertia loading, added mass, sprint, acceleration and
46 velocity. The month of the last search performed was September 2018. A total of twenty studies
47 met the inclusion criteria for this review.
48
C
49 Wearable resistance usage during sprint-running

50 To date, twenty studies have utilized WR during sprint-running (Table 1). The customizability of
C
51 WR has enabled multiple attachment positions on the body: ankle, shank, thigh, trunk, and arm.
52 These positions are summarized into Tables 2-4 representing arms (Table 2), trunk (Table 3) and
53 legs (Table 4). Moreover, three leg WR studies quantified the acute enhancement effects on
A
54 sprint-running which can be found in Table 5. A summary of the effects on sprint performance
55 with WR from all positions during the acceleration phase, can be found in Table 6, and during
56 the maximum velocity phase, in Table 7. A diverse subject pool has been used for WR studies,
57 ranging from sedentary subjects, to sport-based students to national rugby players and national
58 beach sprinters. Both acute and longitudinal studies have used WR, with the effects quantified
59 from over ground sprint distances ranging from 10 m to 50 m, and 6 seconds of sprint-running on
60 a non-motorized treadmill. The magnitude of WR has ranged from as little as 0.6% body mass
61 (BM) to 21.8% BM. Reasons for this loading range relate to differences in body surface areas,
62 enabling greater loads to be attached to the trunk (5-21.8% BM), while due to the smaller surface
63 areas, lighter loads have been utilized with arm (≤ 2.5% BM) and leg (≤ 5% BM) placements.
64
65 ##Insert Table 1 about here##
D
66
67 Through advances in technology, WR has evolved from cumbersome and bulky forms of loading
68 to technologies that are better fitting and allow a myriad of loading patterns. For example, earlier
TE
69 studies by Ropret, Kukolj, Ugarkovic, Matavulj and Jaric (24) used lead rods fixed around the
70 ankle or that were handheld, while Cronin, Hansen, Kawamori and McNair (5) used a weighted
71 vest that enabled small sand bags to be inserted into pocket-type compartments (Figure 1A).
72 Conversely, recent researchers (10, 12, 16, 17, 28-30) have used compression garment apparel
73 that enables WR to be attached (using Velcro), to different parts of the body (Figure 1B). The
EP
74 compression garment-based method enables the WR to be affixed tightly to the body. Therefore
75 mitigates load movement and slippage, which can happen with other forms of WR (for example
76 weighted vests) in dynamic and high velocity actions, thus potentially unduly affecting sprint
77 performance.
C
78
79 ##Insert Figure 1 about here##

C
80 Arm wearable resistance during sprint-running
81 Four studies (15, 19, 21, 24) have examined the effects of arm WR (Table 2). The purposes of
A
82 these studies were to assess acute kinematic and kinetic changes, and longitudinal kinematic
83 changes. The magnitude of loads ranged from 0.6% to 2% BM in acute studies, with one
84 longitudinal study using a 2.5% BM load. The distances measured ranged between 20-50 m, and
85 subjects ranged from physical education students to semi-professional rugby players.
86 In terms of the acute trends, it appears that loads ≥ 1.8% BM provide enough of an overload to
87 significantly increase sprint times from 10 m to 30 m. Though it appears that a greater overload
88 is needed for the start and initial acceleration phase (0 m to 10 m) to affect sprint times. With
89 regards to kinematics, loads of ≥ 2% BM have resulted in significant increases in step length
90 (2.1%) and contact time (6.5%), while significant decreases were found in step frequency (-
91 4.1%) and flight time (-5.3%) (17). The only significant kinetic change was maximal horizontal
92 power (Pmax) (-5.5%) which significantly decreased over a 20 m sprint.
93 Pajić et al. (21), in the only training study, measured the effects of a six week training program
94 with 2.5% BM arm WR over 25-50 m of sprint-running and reported there was a significant
D
95 increase in stride length (3.8%), and a significant decrease in stride frequency (-3.7%). However,
96 there was no change to maximum velocity. It would seem that the adaptations to the two key
97 determinants of speed, stride length and frequency, counteracted each other, resulting in
TE
98 negligible changes in velocity.
99 A limitation of the research to date relates to the small number of studies completed, differences
100 between subject characteristics, and a paucity of kinematic and kinetic analyses. Though all
101 studies measured velocity, limited kinematics were collected, with only one study reporting
EP
102 contact and flight times. Moreover, only one study has quantified any acute kinetic measures,
103 which were measured from 0-20 m. As only one longitudinal study has been completed,
104 understanding adaptations from arm WR are unclear. It needs to be noted that subjects in this
105 longitudinal study were physical education students, with only six subjects in both the control
106 and intervention groups. Moreover, only one stride was analyzed with a high-speed camera,
C
107 during the maximum velocity phase, thus limitations from sample size, rudimentary analysis and
108 no acceleration phase analyses provides little information of high methodological quality. More
109 research is needed to fully understand the effects of loading the arm on kinematic and kinetic
C
110 determinants of speed.
111
A
113 Although the importance of arm action during sprint-running has received little attention in the
114 literature, a recent review highlighted that the arms may play an important role in sprint
115 performance, particularly during the start and acceleration phase (15). Given the available
116 information regarding arm WR, it would seem that for the sprint start and early acceleration
117 phases at the very least, that when WR is attached to the arms, this form of loading appears to
118 increase step and stride length which mitigates the overload to step and stride frequency resulting
119 in comparable sprint times up to 10 m. It could be assumed that the acute and longitudinal
120 increases in step and stride length from arm loading were due to similar ground reaction force
121 magnitudes applied over a longer contact time, that is greater horizontal impulse. However,
122 whether such assumptions are accurate would need force plates to quantify the vertical and
123 horizontal ground reaction forces used in tandem with motion capture to capture changes in joint
angle positions. Though arm WR also decreased step and stride frequency, thus moderating any
D
124
125 potential increases in velocity, further longitudinal studies are required to assess the potential
126 benefits to sprint-running performance. Given that step frequency is overloaded, this may
TE
127 provide a training method to enhance arm-leg frequency, especially during maximum velocity.
128 Moreover, during treadmill running, arm swing was found to increase the vertical displacement
129 of the body’s center of mass (5-10%) through the upward acceleration of the arms, relative to the
130 trunk (11). Therefore, given the upright position of treadmill running, future research into the
131 role of the arms with WR during the maximum velocity phase is required. From the small body
EP
132 of literature examining arm WR, this form of loading may provide a sprint specific overload of
133 the arm action during sprint-running that could serve as a suitable method for cueing and
134 improving arm drive mechanics. Figure 2 depicts this form of loading during a crouched start
135 position, the arm loading potentially a suitable method for cueing and improving arm drive
136 mechanics, and therefore developing a great propulsive emphasis during early acceleration.
C
137

C
139 Trunk wearable resistance during sprint-running

140 Nine trunk positioned WR studies (1, 4, 5, 9, 13, 22, 23, 26, 28) are summarized in Table 3. Four
A
141 acute studies used loads ranging 5-21.8% BM, while five longitudinal studies used loads ranging
142 5.6-18.9% BM. Over ground distances measured ranged from 10-50 m, while non-motorized
143 treadmill sprint-running was measured over a duration of 6 seconds, and subjects ranged from
144 sedentary to national level rugby players.
145 Acute over ground sprint times were increased (that is sprints were slower) with ≥ 5% BM over
146 distances between 10 m and 50 m, with greater changes found during the maximum velocity
147 phase as compared to the the acceleration phase. No measures of velocity during over ground
148 sprint-running were reported, though velocity was measured during non-motorized treadmill
149 sprints, which only significantly decreased with WR loads of ≥ 10.9% BM. With regards to step
150 kinematics, 5% BM significantly increased contact time (4.7%) but only during the maximum
151 velocity phase of treadmill sprinting, though no other kinematic changes occurred with this
152 magnitude of loading. During over ground sprinting, contact times (12.8-24.5%) and flight times
153 (-12.8% to -24.5%) were found to be more sensistive than stride variables (~ 2.6-6.1%) with
loads of ≥ 15% BM, with comparable findings in treadmill sprints. For kinetics, only
D
154
155 measurements from non-motorized treadmill studies have been reported. When a relatively
156 heavy load (> 20% BM) was used, trunk WR significantly increased (~8%) vertical ground
TE
157 reaction force (VGRF) during the maximum velocity phase, most likely due to the smaller rise in
158 center of gravity. While with 5% BM, VGRF was significantly decreased (~-6%), during the
159 maximum velocity phase. No other significant changes to kinetics were found with any loading.
160 Mixed results were found in longitudinal studies which may be due to methodological
differences between studies. Significant and non-significant improvements in velocity (1.2-1.3%)
EP
161
162 and sprint times (10 m = 9.4%, 30-50 m = 1.2-6.1%) were found in four longitudinal studies (3-7
163 weeks), while an 8-day study found no change in sprint times. No kinetic measures were
164 reported from any study, while only two studies assessed kinematics.
165 Several limitations exist from the current research investigating trunk WR. Firstly, no kinetic
C
166 measures during either acute or longitudinal over ground studies have been collected limiting the
167 understanding of kinetic determinants of speed with trunk WR. Secondly, loads of <15% BM
168 have not measured step kinematics during over ground sprint-running, while loads between 11%
C
169 and 22% BM, and over have yet to be investigated in non-motorized treadmill sprints. In terms
170 of longitudinal studies, the differences in methodologies: subjects (sedentary to national level),
A
171 training durations (8 days to 7 weeks), sprint distances (10-55 m) and magnitudes of WR (~5-
172 19% BM), mean that a clear understanding of adaptation is uncertain.
173
175
176
177 Sprint-running with trunk WR enables the WR to be evenly distributed near an individual’s
178 center of mass potentially increasing the ability to produce greater ground reaction forces and
179 power production to overcome this form of overload. While trunk positioned WR seem to have
180 less effect in the acceleration phase than maximum velocity phase, they do offer the advantage of
181 no direct overload to the limbs resulting in less changes in step length and step frequency. Trunk
182 WR may be a suitable form of WR for the maximum velocity phase due to the greater magnitude
of WR that can be attached to the larger suface area (Figure 3). Subsequently, WR may be
D
183
184 appropriate to overload vertical stiffness, and specifically target reactive strength development
185 for maximum velocity sprinting possibly due to the greater magnitude from the vertical load
TE
186 imposed. Moreover, though VGRF did not acutely increase, mostly likely due to a decrease in
187 center of gravity height change, vertical impulse may be increased due to the greater overall
188 vertical load imposed and increases in contact time. Due to vertical loading, this WR placement
189 appears to affect acceleration less as compared to the maximum velocity phase as propulsion is
190 directed more horizontally while accelerating with WR.
EP
191 Due to a lack of comparable methodologies and a dearth of research into the kinematics and
192 kinetics during training studies, the underlying mechanisms for sprint improvements remains
193 unknown. Future studies should consider the type of trunk WR apparel which is used, with loose
194 fitting weighted vests considered sub-optimal for sprinting due to the unwanted movement
C
195 around the trunk, in comparison to compression garment apparel which enables a skin-tight
196 fitting (Figure 3).

C
198
199 Leg wearable resistance during sprint-running

A
200 Nine leg WR studies (2, 10, 12, 16, 21, 24, 28, 30, 31) have been completed to date (Table 4).
201 The magnitude of loads ranged from 0.6% to 5% BM in acute studies, with one longitudinal
202 study using 2.5% BM. Sprint distances measured ranged from 2-50 m, while non-motorized
203 treadmill sprinting was measured over durations up to 6 seconds, and subjects ranged from
204 physical education students to professional beach sprinters.
205 In terms of the acute sprint times, it appears that whole leg loads ≥ 5% BM are required to
206 provide enough of an overload to significantly increase sprint times, but only for sprint distances
207 of ≥ 15 m during treadmill sprints and ≥ 20 m during over ground sprints. However, whole leg
208 loads of ≤ 3% BM, thigh or shank loads of ≤ 2% BM, and ankle loads ≤ 1.6 % BM, all
209 significantly decreased velocity. Moreover, greater decreases in velocity were found during the
210 maximum velocity phase compared to the acceleration phase.
D
211 In terms of kinematics, all WR placements (loads < 5% BM) significantly decreased (-2.9% to -
212 11.9%) step and stride frequency. However, step and stride length were minimally changed, with
213 no significant differences found with any WR loads and positions (-1.7% to 6.0%). When the
TE
214 WR was attached in a more distal position (shank or ankle), greater kinematic changes were
215 found compared to the studies which used thigh, or whole leg loading. Zhang et al. (31) assessed
216 joint kinematics and found that shank WR significantly decreased (-5.1%) knee joint angle at
217 landing, however, this was the only study to report joint kinematics. From acute over ground
kinetic findings with whole leg WR of 3% and 5% BM, WR resulted in a more force-oriented
EP
218
219 force-velocity (F–v) curve, but only 3% BM produced a significant increase (~10%) from the
220 unloaded condition, with 5% BM producing a non-significant 6.1% increase. During treadmill
221 sprints, the 5% BM whole leg condition significantly increased VGRF (~4%) but did not
222 significatly overload any other kinetic measures.
C
223 From the only longitudinal study (six week training utilising 2.5% BM ankle WR) that measured
224 kinematic changes between 25-50 m, Pajić et al. (21) reported a significant increase in stride
225 length (5.3%) and decrease in stride frequency (-5.6%), though no significant changes to
C
226 maximal velocity. It appears that, similar to findings with the arm loading by the same authors,
227 adaptations to the determinants of speed counteracted each other, resulting in negligible changes
A
228 in velocity. Moreover, as previously mentioned in the arm section, this paper has several
229 methodological limitations, thus is lacking in high methodological quality.
230 A limitation of the current body of research relates to no quantified kinetic measures beyond 20
231 m, therefore, how leg WR affects kinetics in the maximum velocity phase is unknown.
232 Moreover, though several acute studies have measured a range of loads and placements, only one
233 longitudinal study has been completed with leg WR. Therefore, further research is required to
234 ascertain how this form of loading may affect sprint performance adaptation.
236
237 Due to the significant changes in step frequency, leg WR may enable a specific method to
238 overload and improve leg drive mechanics. This form of WR during sprint-running can be used
239 to provide a rotational overload to the hip and knee joints. However, attaching a load directly to
240 the limb will change the inertia properties of the limb, potentially resulting in changes to
D
241 movement mechanics (18). Therefore, it is important to understand how leg WR placement may
242 change sprint running movement mechanics prior to further investigating its use as a training
TE
243 tool. Practitioners may be interested in understanding the effect of placing the WR more distal to
244 the hip joint, for example shank (Figure 4) vs. thigh (Figure 5) which introduces an additional
245 inertial manipulation to the knee joint. Furthermore, there has been no clarification in the
246 research as to the placement of load on the respective limbs, such as proximal thigh vs. distal
247 thigh, which likely provides a different overload. Figure 6 shows the same magnitude of WR
EP
248 positioned on different areas of the thigh segment, which results in differences in inertial
249 manipulation. More research about load placement is needed.
250

C

C
254
255 Lower body WR may provide a non-verbal training cue for improved sprint-running mechanics.
A
256 The additional load positioned on the legs lowers the subject’s center of gravity and may
257 reinforce the ideal piston like mechanical action of the legs (providing strong negative feedback
258 for letting the lower shank swing through), and perhaps encouraging a more horizontal ground
259 reaction force application. Future research is needed to investigate such a contention. To
260 summarize, it seems that leg WR of as little as of 2% BM and as much as 5% BM can be used to
261 overload contact time and step frequency during sprint-running. It is possible that leg WR results
262 in the athletes responding by increasing their force production, which mitigates decreases in step
263 frequency, contributing to the similar sprint times to unloaded sprinting up to 10 m. This was
264 certainly the case in two studies that used WR of 3% BM, suggesting that this magnitude of WR
265 may provide a stimulus to increase horizontal force output. Therefore, it may be concluded that
266 leg WR has the potential to elicit improved sprinting performance over time through greater
267 horizontal force production.
268
D
269 Acute enhancement during sprint-running from wearable resistance
270 Three studies (2, 28, 29) have assessed the effects of WR on acute enhancement of sprint times
TE
271 with loads of 1-5% BM attached to the leg or trunk. During a single-subject study design it was
272 found that the start and acceleration phase kinematics were substantially changed (greater than
273 two standard deviations from baseline) following a series of 40 m sprints with incremental WR
274 (1%, 3%, 5% BM) (29). Contact time was substantially increased by 2.9% (start phase) and 2.1%
275 (acceleration phase) with a substantial decrease in 10 m sprint time by 3.3%, while during the
EP
276 maximal velocity phase, substantial changes to both flight time (3.2%) and step frequency (-
277 2.5%) were reported with only a slight increase to the 30-40 m split time (1.8%) (29). No change
278 in time to 40 m was reported by Simperingham, Cronin, Pearson and Ross (29), while Bennett,
279 Sayers and Burkett (2) reported no significant changes (0.3%) to 40 m sprint times following a
280 2.4% BM WR protocol. With a greater magnitude of WR (5% BM) protocol, no significant
C
281 changes to performance were found aside from a 1.3% increase in VGRF production during non-
282 motorized treadmill sprinting with leg WR (28).
C
283 Further studies with greater loads (≥ 5% BM) are required to explore possible acute enhancement
284 effects from WR. Moreover, the effects of WR loading of the arms have yet to be investigated in
285 over ground sprint-running, which may result in different kinematic and kinetic changes, given
A
286 the prior discussed changes from different WR positions in the earlier sections of this review.
287 Future studies wishing to use a greater magnitude of WR may wish to load multiple areas of the
288 body together (trunk and legs), though further investigation is required to ascertain the optimum
289 WR position and magnitude.
290
10
292 Limitations and future research
293 A limitation of the studies to date relates to the small number of longitudinal studies, differences
294 between subject characteristics, and a lack of kinematic and kinetic analyses in different phases
295 of a sprint. From the majority of the research, the subjects tested have been males with the
296 exception of one study that contained male and female subjects, therefore, future research is
297 required to ascertain how WR affects female sprint-running performance. Further research is
D
298 required to test the acute and longitudinal efficacy of this training method with a different group
299 of athletes. Quantifying the changes in sprint kinetics, as well as sprint kinematics, and
300 considering the impact of subject strength and sprint level will also enhance the understanding of
TE
301 this topic. Moreover, there is currently an inability in the literature to explain rotational workload
302 when WR is attached to the limbs, therefore future research should explore this area.
303
304 Conclusions
EP
305 The principle of specificity provides insights into how loading and training stimuli can be
306 applied to optimize transference to the activity or sport of interest. In this regard, it is desirable
307 that the contraction forces, movement velocities, and technical demands simulate the activity of
308 interest. WR may provide such a stimulus in terms a sprint specific overload, with different
309 magnitudes and placement positions enabling the practitioner to target different mechanical
C
310 determinants of sprint-running.
311 The start and acceleration phase of sprint-running are typified by a longer stance phase resulting
C
312 in greater propulsion and horizontal force production compared with the maximum velocity
313 phase. During the start and early sprint acceleration, the orientation of forces has been found to
314 be a greater indicator of sprint performance than the overall magnitude (20). Therefore, athletes
A
315 that train with differing body orientations, and thus force application techniques, may exhibit
316 different acceleration capabilities (8). A summary of WR changes during the acceleration phase
317 can be found in Table 6. Irrespective of the WR position, start and early acceleration is less
318 affected by WR with no significant changes in acute sprint times up to 10 m. However, beyond
319 this distance sprint times have been found to be significantly increased (that is slower) compared
320 to unloaded sprint-running when loads ≥ 2% BM are used for arm loading, or ≥ 5% BM for leg
321 and trunk loading. Though small magnitudes of WR (~2% BM) provide a sufficient overload to
11
322 kinematic and kinetic variables during limb loading, it would seem greater magnitudes are
323 required (> 10% BM) during trunk loading.
324
326 During the maximum velocity phase, kinematic differences in body position (more upright trunk)
D
327 and kinetic difference (horizontal force decreases, vertical force nominal changes) exist
328 compared to earlier phases of sprint-running. A summary of WR changes during the maximum
329 velocity phase can be found in Table 7. Though differences between individuals and cohorts
TE
330 mean maximum velocity is achieived at different distances, a consensus exists that for sub elite
331 athletes and team sport athletes, maximum velocity may be attained during 20-30 m of a sprint.
332 As the majority of subjects in the studies reviewed fall within this grouping, and several studies
333 identified maximum velocity within the 20-30 m range, acute sprint times ≥ 20 m were
334 significantly increased with all WR positions when magnitudes of > 2% BM were used. Leg
EP
335 loading of < 1% BM was sufficient to overload kinematics during this phase, while loading of ≥
336 2% BM was required with arm WR, and ≥ 5% BM with trunk WR. From the small body of
337 longitudinal studies, no change to sprint times has been found with limb WR. Longitudinal use
338 of trunk WR was found to improve sprint times during the maximum velocity phase of some
339 studies, whereas other researchers reported no change.
C
340
##Insert Table 7 about here##

C
341
342
A
343 WR attached to the arms during the sprint action may be a suitable method for cueing and
344 improving arm drive mechanics. The increase in step length found during the initial take-off
345 requires further acute research to verify this finding and long-term research to determine
346 adaptations. Trunk positioned WR offers the greater magnitude of WR to be attached to the
347 athlete resulting in a greater VGRF to be overcome. Moreover, this placement seemingly alters
348 step variables to a lesser extent compared to other WR placements with comparable loads, as the
349 limbs are not directly loaded. As the orientation of force demands shift from horizontal during
12
350 the acceleration phase to vertical during the maximum velocity phase, greater VGRF with trunk
351 WR seemingly overloads the maximum velocity phase of the sprint more than the acceleration
352 phase. Leg WR overloads the frequency of the leg action while seemingly having minimal
353 impact on step length. Furthermore, WR at the shank or ankle would also place a greater
354 eccentric demand on the hamstrings during mid to late swing phase, providing a high-velocity
355 training stimulus to potentially strengthen the hamstrings. WR attached to the legs provides an
overload during the stance phase resulting in the athlete having to produce a greater amount of
D
356
357 force to overcome the additional loading. For athletes requiring a more force dominant F–
358 v profile, and for relatively velocity dominant athletes, sprint running with leg WR may enable
TE
359 the athlete to improve their external horizontal force production.
360 Though different WR positions seemingly offer differential overload and potential training
361 benefits, longitudinal sprint studies are required to verify the findings of this review. It is
362 suggested that sprint-running with WR can be used as an adjunct training tool to other forms of
resistance training programs by promoting intermuscular co-ordination through the strategic
EP
363
364 placement of light variable resistance.
365
366 References
367 1. Barr MJ, Gabbett TJ, Newton RU, and Sheppard JM. Effect of 8 days of a hypergravity
C
368 condition on the sprinting speed and lower-body power of elite rugby players. J Strength
369 Cond Res 29: 722-729, 2015.
370 2. Bennett JP, Sayers MG, and Burkett BJ. The impact of lower extremity mass and inertia
371 manipulation on sprint kinematics. J Strength Cond Res 23: 2542-2547, 2009.
C
372 3. Bolger R, Lyons M, Harrison AJ, and Kenny IC. Sprinting performance and resistance-
373 based training interventions: A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 29: 1146-1156,
374 2015.
375 4. Clark KP, Stearne DJ, Walts CT, and Miller AD. The longitudinal effects of resisted
A
376 sprint training using weighted sleds vs. weighted vests. J Strength Cond Res 24: 3287-
377 3295, 2010.
378 5. Cronin J, Hansen K, Kawamori N, and McNair P. Effects of weighted vests and sled
379 towing on sprint kinematics. Sports Biomech 7: 160-172, 2008.
380 6. Cronin J and Hansen KT. Resisted sprint training for the acceleration phase of sprinting.
381 J Strength Cond Res 28: 42-51, 2006.
382 7. Cronin J, Ogden T, Lawton T, and Brughelli M. Does increasing maximal strength
383 improve sprint running performance? Strength Cond J 29: 86, 2007.
13
384 8. Cross MR, Brughelli ME, Brown S, Samozino P, Gill N, Cronin J, and Morin J.
385 Mechanical properties of sprinting in elite rugby union and rugby league. Int J Sports
386 Physiol Perf 10: 695-702, 2014.
387 9. Cross MR, Brughelli ME, and Cronin JB. Effects of vest loading on sprint kinetics and
388 kinematics. J Strength Cond Res 28: 1867-1874, 2014.
389 10. Feser E, Macadam P, Nagahara R, and Cronin JB. The effects of lower limb wearable
390 resistance on step kinematics during sprint running. In: Proceedings of the 36th
391 International Conference of Biomechanics in Sports. Auckland, New Zealand, 10-14
392 September, 2018. [e-pub ahead of print].
11. Hinrichs RN, Cavanagh PR, and Williams KR. Upper extremity function in running. I:
D
393
394 center of mass and propulsion considerations. Int J Sport Biomech 3: 222-241, 1987.
395 12. Hurst O, Kilduff L, Johnston M, Cronin JB, Bezodis N. Acute spationtemporal and
396 muscle excitation responses to wearable lower limb loading during maximal velocity
sprinting. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference of Biomechanics in
TE
397
398 Sports. Auckland, New Zealand, 10-14 September, 2018. [e-pub ahead of print].
399 13. Konstantinos Z, Athanasia, S., Polyxeni, A, Georgios, P, Ellias, Z, and Charilaos, T.
400 Acute effects of loading using a weighted vest on running performance. Biol Exerc 10:
401 53-65, 2014.
402 14. Macadam P, Cronin JB, and Simperingham KD. The effects of wearable resistance
403 training on metabolic, kinematic and kinetic variables during walking, running, sprint
404 running and jumping: A systematic review. Sports Med 47: 887–906, 2017.
EP
405 15. Macadam P, Cronin JB, Uthoff AM, Johnston M, and Knicker AJ. The role of arm
406 mechanics during sprint-running: a review of the literature and practical applications.
407 Strength Cond J 40: 14-23, 2018.
408 16. Macadam P, Simperingham K, and Cronin J. Acute kinematic and kinetic adaptations to
409 wearable resistance during sprint acceleration. J Strength Cond Res h 31: 1297-1304,
410 2017.
411 17. Macadam P, Simperingham KD, and Cronin JB. Forearm wearable resistance effects on
C
412 sprint kinematics and kinetics. J Sci Med Sport, 2018. [e-pub ahead of print].
413 18. Martin PE and Cavanagh PR. Segment interactions within the swing leg during unloaded
414 and loaded running. J Biomechs 23: 529-536, 1990.
415 19. McNaughton JM and Kelly VG. The effect of weighted sleeves on sprint performance. J
C
416 Australian Strength Cond 18: 14-19, 2010.

417 20. Morin J-B, Bourdin M, Edouard P, Peyrot N, Samozino P, and Lacour J-R. Mechanical
418 determinants of 100-m sprint running performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 112: 3921-3930,
419 2012.
A
420 21. Pajić Z, Kostovski Ž, Ilić J, Jakovljević S, and Preljević A. The influence of inertial load
421 application on kinematic and dynamic performances of running at maximum speed
422 phase. Sport Sci 4: 107-112, 2011.
423 22. Rantalainen T, Ruotsalainen I, and Virmavirta M. Effect of weighted vest suit worn
424 during daily activities on running speed, jumping power, and agility in young men. J
425 Strength Cond Res 26: 3030-3035, 2012.
426 23. Rey E, Padrón-Cabo A, and Fernández-Penedo D. Effects of Sprint Training With and
427 Without Weighted Vest on Speed and Repeated Sprint Ability in Male Soccer Players. J
428 Strength Cond Res 31: 2659-2666, 2017.
14
429 24. Ropret R, Kukolj M, Ugarkovic D, Matavulj D, and Jaric S. Effects of arm and leg
430 loading on sprint performance. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 77: 547-550, 1998.
431 25. Rumpf MC, Lockie RG, Cronin JB, and Jalilvand F. Effect of different sprint training
432 methods on sprint performance over various distances: A brief review. J Strength Cond
433 Res 30: 1767-1785, 2016.
434 26. Scudamore EM, Lowe JB, Přibyslavská V, Johnson SL, Stevenson MC, Langford TW,
435 Green JM, and O'Neal EK. Three Week Hypergravity Training Intervention Decreases
436 Ground Contact Time During Repeated Jumping and Improves Sprinting and Shuttle
437 Running Performance. Int J Exerc Sci 9: 4, 2016.
27. Seitz LB, Reyes A, Tran TT, de Villarreal ES, and Haff GG. Increases in lower-body
D
438
439 strength transfer positively to sprint performance: a systematic review with meta-
440 analysis. Sports Med 44: 1693-1702, 2014.
441 28. Simperingham K and Cronin J. Changes in sprint kinematics and kinetics with upper
body loading and lower body loading using exogen exoskeletons: A pilot study. J
TE
442
443 Australian Strength Cond 22: 69-72, 2014.
444 29. Simperingham K, Cronin J, Pearson S, and Ross A. Acute changes in sprint running
445 performance following ballistic exercise with added lower body loading. J Australian
446 Strength Cond 23: 86-89, 2015.
447 30. Simperingham K, Cronin J, Pearson S, and Ross A. Changes in acceleration phase sprint
448 biomechanics with lower body wearable resistance. In: Proceedings of the 34th
449 International Conference of Biomechanics in Sports. (pp. 945-948). Tsukuba, Japan, 18-
EP
450 22 July, 2016.
451 31. Zhang C, Yu B, Liu Y. Effects of shank mass manipulation on landing and take off
452 techniques in sprinting. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference of
453 Biomechanics in Sports. Auckland, New Zealand, 10-14 September, 2018. [e-pub ahead
454 of print].
455
C
456 Figure 1. Weighted vest with sand bag loads (A), compression garments with Velcro attached
457 loads (B).
458 Figure 2. Wearable resistance attached to the forearms during crouched sprint start take-off.
C
459 Figure 3. Example of trunk loaded wearable resistance.

460 Figure 4. Example wearable resistance loading for shank.
461 Figure 5. Example wearable resistance loading for thigh.
A
462 Figure 6. Wearable resistance placed mid femur and distal femur from hip joint.
15
Table 1. Summary of all wearable resistance sprint-running studies (n = 20)
Study Subjects WR placement WR magnitude Sprint protocol Study duration

(% body mass)
Ropret et al. (24) 24 males, 20.1 ± 0.9 years, 179.6 ± 8.4 Hand 0.6, 1.2, 1.8 30 m Acute
cm, 74.5 ± 9.8 kg Ankle 1.6, 3.2, 4.8
D
Physical education students
Cronin et al. (5) 16 males, 4 females, 19.9 ± 2.2 years, Trunk 15 30 m Acute
176 ± 8 cm, 76.5 ± 10.7 kg 20
TE
Competitive athletes from mixed sports
McNaughton & Kelly 10 males, 26.3 ± 5.1 years Forearm 1 kg 40 m Acute
(18) Team sport athletes
Bennett el al. (2) 8 males, 26.0 ± 7.3 years, 177.3 ± 3.4 Whole leg 2.4 40 m Acute
cm, 77.3 ± 3.9 kg and
National level beach sprinters Acute enhancement
EP
Clark et al. (4) 6 males, 19.7 ± 0.1 years, 182 ± 8 cm, Trunk 18.5 55 m 7 weeks
79.1 ± 5.3 kg
NCAA Division 3 lacrosse players
Pajić et al. (21) 6 individuals per group, gender not Arms 2.5 50 m 6 weeks
specified, 20.4 ± 1.7 years, 178.4 ± Ankle
8.12 cm, 71.4 ± 8.5 kg
Physical education students
Rantalainen et al.
(22) 81.8 ± 8 kg
Sedentary subjects
C
8 males, 32.2 ± 6.4 years, 178 ± 5 cm, Trunk 5.6 10 m 3 weeks
C
Cross et al. (9) 13 males, 22.9 ± 3.3 years; 179 ± 6 cm, Trunk 10.9 6 s sprint, non- Acute
82.5 ± 8.4 kg 21.8 motorised treadmill
Sport active university level athletes
A
Konstantinos et al. 24 males, 18–23 years, 178 ± 5 cm, Trunk 5 50 m Acute
(13) 74.2 ± 8.9 kg 10
Sport science students 15
Simperingham & 8 males, 29.2 ± 3.8 years, 177.1 ± 7.5 Whole leg 5 6 s sprint, non- Acute
Cronin (28) cm, 81.8 ± 9.7 kg Trunk motorised treadmill and
Athletic team sports based Acute enhancement
Barr et al. (1) 8 males, 22.4 ± 2.7 years 182 ± 6 cm, Trunk 12 40 m 8 days
95.3 ± 7.1 kg
National rugby players
Simperingham et al. 1 male, 29.2 years, 180.8 cm, 87.2 kg Whole leg 1, 3, 5 40 m Acute enhancement
(29) Rugby union athlete
Scudamore et al. (26) 9 males, 21 ± 2 years, 181 ± 1 cm, 91.1 Trunk Week 1 - 11.2 36.6 m 3 weeks
± 4.4 kg Week 2 - 13.2
Fitness active subjects Week 3 - 16.1
Simperingham et al. 15 males, 19.0 ± 0.5 years 181.2 ± 7.3 Whole leg 3 20 m Acute
D
(30) cm, 91.0 ± 17.4 kg 5
Rugby union athletes
Macadam et al. (16) 19 males, 19.7 ± 2.3 years, 181 ± 6.5 Whole leg 3 20 m Acute
cm, 96.1 ± 16.5 kg (Anterior or
TE
Amateur to semi-pro rugby posterior surface)
Rey et al. (23) 10 males, 23.6 ± 2.7 years, 178.5 ± 4.9 Trunk 18.9 ± 2.1 30 m 6 weeks
cm, 72.9 ± 5.2 kg
Amateur soccer players
Macadam et al. (17) 22 males, 19.4 ± 0.5 years; 180.4 ± 7.2 Forearm 2 20 m Acute
cm, 97.0 ± 4.8 kg
EP
Amateur to semi-professional rugby
Feser (10) 11 males, 21.2 ± 2.56 years, 175.3 ± Thigh 2 50 m Acute
5.46 cm, 68.7 ± 4.30 kg Shank
Track and field amateur athletes
Hurst et al. (12) 6 males, 2 females, 21 ± 1 years, 172 ± Thigh 1.7 40 m Acute
9 cm; 70.4 ± 6.4 kg Shank 0.6
Zhang et al. (31)

University-level sprinters
± 5.7 kg
Sub-elite sprinters
C
16 male, 21 ± 2 years, 176 ± 4 cm; 67.4 Shank 15% shank mass 40 m Acute
C
WR = wearable resistance
A
Table 2. Arm wearable resistance changes to sprint performance, kinematics and kinetics (n=4)
Study WR magnitude Sprint performance and Kinematics Kinetics

and placement velocity
(% body mass)
Acute
D
Ropret al al. (24) 0.6, 1.2, 1.8 AP: AP:
Hand-held Maximum Velocity 0.9% SF 0%, SL -1.3% (1.2% BM)
(1.8% BM) MVP:
TE
MVP: SF -1.2% (0.6% BM)
Maximum Velocity -1%* SL 1.1%, -0.6%, -1.1%
(1.8% BM)
McNaughton & Kelly 1 kg 10 m time -1%
(18) Forearm 40 m time 0.2%
Maximum Velocity -0.6%
EP
Macadam et al. (17) 2 2m 2.7%, 5 m 2.4% AP: Rel FO -4.2%
Forearm 10 m 2.1%*, 20 m 2.0%* SPL 2.1%*, SPF -4.1%*, FT -5.3%*, Rel Pmax -5.5%*
10-20 m 2.0%* CT 6.5%* Rel Fv profile -3.0%
Vo -1.4%*
Longitudinal
Pajić et al. (21) 2.5 Maximum Velocity 0% MVP:
Arms SL 3.8*, SF -3.7**
C
CT = contact time; SF = stride frequency; SPF = step frequency; SL = step length; SP = start phase; AP = acceleration phase; MVP = maximal velocity phase; Pmax =
maximal horizontal power; v0 = theoretical maximal velocity; F0 = theoretical maximal horizontal force; rel = relative to system mass; WR = wearable resistance
* = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01
C
A
Table 3. Trunk wearable resistance changes to sprint performance, kinematics and kinetics (n=9)
Study WR magnitude Sprint performance and velocity Kinematics Kinetics

(% body mass)
D
Acute
Simperingham 5 2 m -0.9%, 5 m -0.6% CT 3.8% AP, 4.7 % MVP* Fv -1.7% AP, -0.6 % MVP
& Cronin (28) 10 m -0.8%, 15 m -0.3% FT -15% AP* -7.9% MVP Rel Fv −5.4% AP, −6.4%, MVP*
TE
20 m 0.0%, 25 m 0.4% SPL 0.0% AP, 2.5% MVP Rel Fv mean −3.8% AP, −4.0% MVP*
Peak velocity 0.4% AP, 1.2% MVP SPF -0.7% AP, -3.8% MVP Pmax -1.4% AP, -4.3% MVP
Fh -1.0% AP, -2.7% MVP
Konstantinos et 5 10 m 4.1%*, 20 m 4.7%*, 30 m 4.6%*,
al. (13) 40 m 5.1%*, 50 m 4.6%*
10 10 m 6.9%*, 20 m 7.4%*, 30 m 6.9%*,
40 m 7.5%*, 50 m 7.3%*
EP
15 10 m 9.9%*, 20 m 9.3%*, 30 m 9.2%*,
40 m 9.9%*, 50 m 8.2%*
Cross et al. (9) 10.9 Peak velocity -3.6%* CT -4.1% AP, 5.6% MVP* Fv -4.1% AP, 3.1% MVP
FT -20% AP, -17.4% MVP* Fv mean 3.4% AP and MVP
SPL -4.4% MVP* Pmax 0% AP, -3.7% MVP
SPF 0.8% MVP Fh -6.1% AP, 0.8% MVP
21.8
C
Peak velocity -5.7%* CT 1.4% AP, 9.2% MVP*
FT -26.7%* AP, -18.9%* MVP
SPL -4.4% MVP*
Fv 3.7% AP, 8.2%* MVP
Fv mean 10.6%* AP, 11.1%* MVP
Pmax 7.9% AP, -14.3%* MVP
C
SPF -1.5% MVP Fh -6.2% AP, -6.3% MVP
Cronin et al. (5) 15 10 m (% unknown) CT 12.8%*
30 m (% unknown) FT – 8.4%*
20 10 m 9.3% * CT 24.5%*
A
30 m 11.7% * FT – 14.4%*
Longitudinal
Rantalainen et 5.6 Velocity 1.3%
al. (22)
Scudamore et 11.6 36.6 m -1.5% **
al. (26)
Barr et al. (1) 12 10 m 0.0% CT 0.0% AP, 8.9%* MVP
30 m 0.0% FT 0.0% AP, 8.4% MVP
40 m 0.0% SL 0.8% AP, 2.5% MVP
Clark et al. (4) 18.5 55 m −1.2% SPL -2.2%
Maximum Velocity 1.2% SPF 3.4%
CT -1.5%
FT - 5.4%
Rey et al. (23) 18.9 10 m -9.4% **
D
30 m -6.1%**
CT = contact time; SF = stride frequency; SPF = step frequency; SL = stride length; SPL = step length; SP = start phase; AP = acceleration phase; MVP = maximal velocity
phase; Fh = horizontal ground reaction force; Fv = vertical ground reaction force; Pmax = maximal horizontal power; rel = relative to system mass; WR = wearable
resistance;
TE
* = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01
EP
C
C
A
Table 4. Leg wearable resistance changes to sprint performance, kinematics and kinetics (n=9)
Study WR magnitude Sprint performance and velocity Kinematics Kinetics

and placement
(% body mass)
Acute
D
Ropret al al. 1.6, 3.2, 4.8 AP: AP: SF -2.9%**, -6.7%**, -8.7%**
(24) Ankle Velocity -3.6%**, -4.6%**-7.8%** SL -0.8%, -1.7%, -1.4%
MVP: MVP: SF -5.9%**, -9.55**, -11.9%**
TE
Velocity -4.2%**, -8.5%**,-12.8%** SL 0.5%, 1.9%, 1.9%
Bennett et al. 2.4 0-10 m -0.6%, 10-20 m 4.2%** MVP:
(2) Whole leg 20-30 m 3.7%, 30-40 m 7.4%** Stride velocity -4.7%**
40 m 3.1% CT 8.9%, FT 0.8% , SF -2.2%,
Simperingham 5 2 m-1.8%, 5 m 0.0% CT 4.3%* AP, 4.7%* MVP Fv 4.0%* AP, 4.5%* MVP
& Cronin (28) Whole leg 10 m 1.1%, 15 m 2.1%* FT 0.0% AP, 0.0% MVP Fv mean 4.1%* AP, 4.0% MVP
EP
20 m 2.5%*, 25 m 3.3%* SPF -3.7%* AP, -3.5%* MVP Fh 0.6% AP, 1.9% MVP
Peak velocity -2.3%* AP, -5.3%* SPL 6.0% AP, -1.7% MVP Pmax -0.8% AP, -3.1% MVP
MVP Rel Fv -0.9% AP, -0.8% MVP
Simperingham 3 5 m -1.5% CT 5.0%* SP, 5.0%* AP Rel F0 6.25%
et al. (30) Whole leg 10 m-0.5% FT-19.4% SP, -3.8% AP Rel Pmax 1.2%
20 m 0.6% SPF -1.5% SP, -2.0%* AP Rel SFv 10.0%*
Vo -3.6%* SPL 0.8% SP, 0.0% AP
5
Whole leg
5 m 0.7%
10 m 0.9%
20 m 2.0%*
C CT 5.0%* SP, 6.0%* AP
FT -17.7% SP, -3.8% AP
SPF -2.0% SP, -3.0%* AP
Rel F0 3%
Rel Pmax -4.2%
Rel SFv . 6.1%
C
Vo -6%* SPL 0.0% SP, -0.6% AP
Macadam et al. 3 2 m -1.2%, 5 m 0.0% CT 3.4%* SP, 3.0%* AP F0 5.4%, Rel F0 5.5%
(16) Whole leg, 10 m 0.0%, 20 m 0.8% FT -7.3% SP, 1.3% AP SFv 12.2%*, Rel SFv -9.9% *
anterior 10-20m 2.2%* SPF-1.3% SP, -3.4%* AP Pmax 1.5%, Rel Pmax 0.0%
A
V0 -5.4%* SPL 0.0% AP and SP
VS -6.4%* AP, -5.8% SP
3 2 m -1.2%, 5m 0.0% CT 4.4%* SP, 3.0%* AP F0 4.7%, Rel F0 5.1%
Whole leg, 10 m 0.5%, 20 m 1.4% FT -7.3% SP, 2.5% AP SFv 11.7%*, Rel SFv -9.9%*
posterior 10-20 m 2.9%* SPF -1.3% SP, -3.6%* AP Pmax 0.6%, Rel Pmax-1.3%
V0 -6.5%* SPL 0.8% SP, 0.0% AP
VS -8.3%* SP, -6.2%* AP
Feser et al. 2 10 m 0.5% CT 2.6% AP, 2.9%* MVP
(10) Thigh 50 m 0.3% FT 0% AP and MVP
Maximum Velocity -1.8% * SPL 0% AP, -0.5% MVP
SPF -1.4% AP, -1.4%* MVP
2 10 m -0.5% SPW 0% AP, 10% MVP
Shank 50 m -0.1% CT 1.9% AP, 2.1%* MVP
Maximum Velocity -2% * FT 2% AP, 3.3%* MVP
SPL 0% AP, -0.5% MVP
SPF -2.1%* AP, -2.5%% MVP
D
SPW 0% AP and MVP
Hurst et al. 1.7 Maximum Velocity -1.8% †† CT 2.5% MVP †††, FT 4.5% MVP
(12) Thigh SPL 1.5% MVP, SPF -3.7% MVP †††
TE
0.6 Maximum Velocity -1.4% †† CT 1.2% MVP ††, FT 2.8% MVP ††
Shank SPL 1% MVP †, SPF -2.3% MVP †††
Zhang et al. 15% Maximum Velocity -2.3% ** Hip joint angle at landing 1.9%
(31) of shank mass Knee joint angle at landing – 5.1% *
Ankle joint angle at landing 5.3%
Hip joint angle at take-off -14.2%
EP
Knee joint angle at take-off – 1.9%
Ankle joint angle at take-off -12.7%
Longitudinal
Pajić et al.(21) 2.5 MVP: MVP:
Ankle Maximum Velocity 0.5% SL 5.3% **, SF -5.6%**
CT = contact time; SF = stride frequency; SPF = step frequency; SL = step length; VS = vertical stiffness; SP = start phase; AP = acceleration phase; MVP = maximal
C
velocity phase; Fv = vertical ground reaction force; Fh = horizontal ground reaction force; Pmax = maximal horizontal power; rel = relative to system mass; v0 = theoretical
maximal velocity; F0 = theoretical maximal horizontal force; SFv = slope of the force-velocity curve; WR = wearable resistance;
* = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01, † = possible trivial difference; †† = possible clear difference; ††† = likely clear difference
C
A
Table 5. Acute enhancement effects from wearable resistance on sprint-running performance (n=3)
Study WR magnitude Training protocol Sprint performance and Kinematics Kinetics

and position velocity
(% body mass)
Bennett et al. 2.4 7 repetitions of 40 m sprints: 0-10 m 0.0% MVP:
D
(2) Whole leg 2 x unloaded (pre-test), 2 x WR, 10-20 m 2.6% stride velocity -0.8%
3 x unloaded (post-test) 20-30 m -1.8% CT 2.2%
30-40 m 1.8% FT -0.8%
TE
Rest time unknown 40 m 0.3% SF 0.4%
Simperingham 5 4 sets of 2 max effort 6 s sprints MVP
& Cronin (28) Whole leg on a non-motorised treadmill: Fv 1.3%*
Sets 1 and 4 unloaded, sets 2
5 and 3 trunk or leg loading
Trunk randomised.
EP
3-5 mins of rest
Simperingham 1, 3, 5 3 x 40 m sprints: 10 m -3.3%^ CT 2.9%^ SP, 2.1%^ AP, 1.9% MVP
et al. (29) Whole leg 1 x 1% BM, 1 x 3% BM, 1x 5% 30 m-0.7% FT -1.8% SP, 1.2% AP, 3.2%^ MVP
BM. 40 m 0.0% SPF -1.4% SP, -1.8%^ AP, -2.5%^ MVP
5 mins of rest 30-40 m 1.8% SPL 1.8% SP, 1.3% AP, 0.5% MVP
VS -5.0% SP, -6.1% AP, 1.5% MVP
CT = contact time; SF = stride frequency; SPF = step frequency; SL = step length; SP = start phase; AP = acceleration phase; MVP = maximal velocity phase; Fv = vertical
ground reaction force; WR = wearable resistance
C
* = p < 0.05 with whole leg WR; ^ = more than 2 standard deviations from baseline mean
C
A
Table 6. Summary of acute and longitudinal changes to kinematic and kinetic variables with different wearable resistance placement and magnitudes during
the acceleration phase of sprint-running
% body Sprint times SL SF CT FT Vo Fo Pmax F-v vGRF hGRF
mass (<20 m)
D
Arm
≤1% = = =
>1-2% = = =
TE
≥2% ≥10m = =
Trunk
≤5% = treadmill, = = = = = = =
overground
>5-10% ==
EP
≥10- = = =
15%
== == == == ==
≥15-
20%
≥20%
==
C Leg
= mean =
C
>1-2% = = =
≥2-3% = = = =
A
==
≥3-4% = = = = =
≥4% ≥15m = = = = = =
: acute study, : longitudinal study, = : no significant acute change, == : no significant longitudinal change
SL : step and stride length; SF : step and stride frequency; CT : contact time; FT : flight time; Vo : maximum velocity; Fo : maximum horizontal force; Pmax : maximum
horizontal power; F-v : force-velocity slope; rel : relative to system mass; hGRF : horizontal ground reaction force; vGRF : vertical ground reaction force
D
TE
EP
C
C
A
Table 7. Summary of acute and longitudinal changes to kinematic and kinetic variables with different wearable resistance placement and magnitudes during
the maximum velocity phase of sprint-running
% body Sprint times SL SF CT FT Vo Fo Pmax F-v vGRF hGRF
mass ( ≥ 20 m)
Arm
≤1% = = =
D
>1-2% = =
≥2% = =
TE
==
Trunk
≤5% = treadmill, = = = = = = rel =
overground
EP
>5-10%
≥10- = = = =
15%
== == ==
≥15-
20%
30 m
== > 30 m
== == C == == ==
C
≥20% =
mean
Leg
A
≤1%
>1-2% = =
≥2-3% whole leg = thigh thigh shank

shank
= thigh = whole = whole
= shank leg = whole leg
= shank leg = thigh
≥3-4% = =
≥4% = = = =
D
: acute study, : longitudinal study, = : no significant acute change, == : no significant longitudinal change
SL : step and stride length; SF : step and stride frequency; CT : contact time, FT : flight time, Vo : maximum velocity; Fo : maximum horizontal force; Pmax : maximum
TE
horizontal power; F-v : force-velocity slope; rel : relative to system mass; hGRF : horizontal ground reaction force; vGRF : vertical ground reaction force
EP
C
C
A
D
TE
EP
C
C
A
D
TE
EP
C
C
A
D
TE
EP
C
C
A
D
TE
EP
C
C
A
D
TE
EP
C
C
A
D
TE
EP
C
C
A
View publication stats

The Effects of Different Wearable Resistance.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Effects of Different Wearable Resistance.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The effects of different wearable resistance placements on sprint-running

Article in Strength and conditioning journal · December 2018

Paul Macadam John Cronin

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Aaron Uthoff Erin Feser

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Eccentric Strength training and application to sport performance View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The effects of different wearable resistance placements on sprint-running

performance: a review and practical applications

University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.

Address correspondence to Paul Macadam

Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1020, New Zealand

+64 99219960 (Fax)

holds an adjunct professorial position at Edith Cowan University

34 As practitioners seek to find methods to optimize sprint-running performance, wearable

49 Wearable resistance usage during sprint-running

65 ##Insert Table 1 about here##

79 ##Insert Figure 1 about here##

80 Arm wearable resistance during sprint-running

110 determinants of speed.

112 ##Insert Table 2 about here##

138 ##Insert Figure 2 about here##

139 Trunk wearable resistance during sprint-running

174 ##Insert Table 3 about here##

197 ##Insert Figure 3 about here##

199 Leg wearable resistance during sprint-running

251 ##Insert Figure 4 about here##

252 ##Insert Figure 5 about here##

253 ##Insert Figure 6 about here##

291 ##Insert Table 5 about here##

310 determinants of sprint-running.

325 ##Insert Table 6 about here##

##Insert Table 7 about here##

416 Australian Strength Cond 18: 14-19, 2010.

459 Figure 3. Example of trunk loaded wearable resistance.

Study Subjects WR placement WR magnitude Sprint protocol Study duration

Zhang et al. (31)

Study WR magnitude Sprint performance and Kinematics Kinetics

Study WR magnitude Sprint performance and velocity Kinematics Kinetics

Study WR magnitude Sprint performance and velocity Kinematics Kinetics

Study WR magnitude Training protocol Sprint performance and Kinematics Kinetics

≥2-3% whole leg = thigh thigh shank

View publication stats

You might also like