Knee and ankle joint stiffness in

sprint running
SAMI KUITUNEN, PAAVO V. KOMI, and HEIKKI KYRÖLÄINEN
Neuromuscular Research Center, Department of Biology of Physical Activity, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä,
FINLAND

ABSTRACT
KUITUNEN, S., P. V. KOMI, and H. KYRÖLÄINEN. Knee and ankle joint stiffness in sprint running. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol.
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/06/2020

34, No. 1, 2002, pp. 166 –173. Introduction: Stiffness has often been considered as a regulated property of the neuromuscular system.
The purpose of this study was to examine the ankle and knee joint stiffness regulation during sprint running. Methods: Ten male
sprinters ran at the constant relative speeds of 70, 80, 90, and 100% over a force platform, and ground reaction forces, kinematic, and
EMG parameters were collected. Results: The results indicated that with increasing running speed the average joint stiffness (change
in joint moment divided by change in joint angle) was constant (7 N·m·deg⫺1) in the ankle joint and increased from 17 to 24 N·m·deg⫺1
(P ⬍ 0.01) in the knee joint. Conclusion: The observed constant ankle joint stiffness may depend on (constant) tendon stiffness because
of its dominating role in triceps surae muscle-tendon unit. Thus, we conclude that in sprint running the spring-like behavior of the leg
might be adjusted by changing the stiffness of the knee joint. However, in complicated motor task, such as sprint running, ankle and
knee joint stiffness might be controlled by the individual mechanical and neural properties. Key Words: JOINT MOMENT,
STIFFNESS, RUNNING, REGULATION MECHANISMS, EMG

D
uring running the muscles of the lower extremity
are alternately stretching and shortening using the
elastic potential of the muscles and tendons (4).
This phenomenon refers to the well-documented muscle
function, called stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) (20). The
advantage of this spring-like behavior of muscles in natural
locomotion has been known since the end of the 19th
century and has been intensively studied by several re-
searchers during the last decades (3,4,20). The mechanics of
muscle function have often been described by the property
of the system to resist the applied stretch. This so-called
stiffness (k) is calculated by dividing the change in force by
the change in length (⌬F/⌬1) (15). Different methods have
been used to study the stiffness of the lower leg, including
different spring-mass models (24,25). The stiffness calcu-
lations have also been extended to single joints (2,13,30) or
even to single muscles (e.g., 32).
In some studies, the stiffness of the leg (the force acting
on the leg spring divided by the change in leg length) has
been reported to remain quite constant during running at
different speeds both in animals and in humans (6,12). It has
also been shown that it is possible in humans to adjust the
leg stiffness to meet changes in demands of the task (7,8).
Contradictory to the previous studies (6,12), leg stiffness
has been reported to increase in running when the speed
increased (2,24). These differences in leg stiffness patterns
can be partly explained by different calculation methods (2).
0195-9131/02/3401-0166/$3.00/0
MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE®
Copyright © 2002 by the American College of Sports Medicine
Submitted for publication October 2000.
Accepted for publication April 2001.
166
Torsional stiffness of the ankle joint was found to be higher
in sprinting compared with running (30). However, in the
study of Arampatzis et al. (2), the authors observed larger
changes in the stiffness of the knee joint than in the ankle
joint with increasing running speed.
The advantage of the spring-mass model is its simplicity
in studying the mechanical behavior of the musculoskeletal
system by using just one spring. However, it ignores the
mechanisms of this multi-spring system with different elas-
tic and viscous properties. The regulation of this complex
system is thought to be controlled by central nervous system
(CNS) through the feedback information from the periphery
via proprioceptors. This servo-regulation hypothesis (16)
suggests that the motor servo regulates and maintains the
ratio of force change to length change (stiffness) of the
muscle rather than controlling either of them separately. The
situation is somewhat different around the joint where sev-
eral muscles and other passive structures are influencing the
behavior of the joint. The stiffness of a single joint depends
on several variables, including muscle activation level (33),
joint angle (11), range of motion, and angular velocity (19).
However, the mechanisms controlling joint stiffness are not
very well understood especially during multi-joint move-
ments. Perhaps the most frequently used mechanism of
stiffness control of joint is co-contraction of agonist and
antagonist muscles (14,27). The function of multi-joint mus-
cles have also been speculated to play a role in stabilizing
the leg (27) as well as contributing to the work of muscles
to optimize the velocity of center of mass (31). Farley and
Morgenroth (8) have suggested that during hopping leg
stiffness is adjusted primarily by modulating ankle joint
stiffness because the moment arm of the ground reaction
force is largest in the ankle. The results of Arampatzis et al.
(2) suggest that in running the knee joint stiffness plays
more important role (compared with the ankle joint stiff-
ness) in controlling the leg stiffness. The purpose of this
study is to investigate the stiffness regulation in the ankle
and knee joint in sprinters at high running speeds.

METHODS
Ten male sprinters (age 23 ⫾ 4 yr, height 1.76 ⫾ 0.04 m,
weight 71.8 ⫾ 4.6 kg, and 100-m record 10.91 ⫾ 0.39 s;
mean ⫾ SD) participated in this study. Written informed
consent was given by the all subjects. The study was con-
ducted according to the declaration of Helsinki and was
approved by the ethical committee of the University of
Jyväskylä. After the warm-up, the subjects performed a
sprint run with maximal effort. This was followed by sub-
maximal speeds of 70%, 80%, and 90% of maximum run
performed in a randomized order. The corresponding abso-
lute running speeds were 7.00 (ranged from 6.66 to 7.31),
7.83 (7.40 – 8.22), 8.84 (8.33–9.36), and 9.73 (9.23–10.26)
m·s⫺1. The subjects accelerated their preferred distance, and
they were asked to maintain constant running speed between
two photocells set 10 m apart. Only those trials that were
within ⫾ 2% of the target speed were accepted. The contact
and flight times as well as stride frequency were determined
from the ground reaction force (GRF) records. The average
stride length was calculated by dividing the running speed
by stride frequency.
Vertical (Fz) and horizontal (Fy) GRFs were measured
with a totally 10-m-long series of force platforms (Raute
Precision Oy [Lahti, Finland], natural frequencies 180 ⫾ 10
Hz for Fz and 130 ⫾ 10 Hz for Fy). Electromyographic
activity was recorded telemetrically (Glonner Biomes 2000
[Munich, Germany], cut-off frequency 360 Hz/3 dB). The
bipolar Beckman-type surface electrodes (interelectrode dis-
tance 20 mm) were placed on the gluteus maximus (GLUT),
biceps femoris (BF), rectus femoris (RF), vastus medialis
(VM), gastrocnemius medialis (GA), soleus (SOL), and
tibialis anterior (TA) muscles. GRFs and EMGs were col-
lected with a sampling frequency of 833 Hz, and trials were
also videotaped at 200 frames·s⫺1 from the right side of the
body. Joint markers were placed on the distal head of the
fifth metatarsal bone, heel, lateral malleolus, lateral epicon-
dyle of the femur, greater trochanter, and shoulder. Before
measurements, calibration was done by a cube (length 5 m,
height 2 m, and width 1 m) placed in the middle of the force
plates. One contact of the right leg from the middle of the
force plates was taken to the analysis. Kinetic and kinematic
data were synchronized using a circuit to introduce a trigger
signal to the computer.
The body segment coordinates were digitized (Motus
workplace, Peak Performance Technologies, Inc., Denver,
CO), filtered (Butterworth filter, cut-off frequency 20 Hz),
and transferred to the computer system (SGI O2 R5000,
Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA) for further
analysis. Fy signal was filtered with least-squares method by
polynomials of the second power. The scaled coordinates
and GRFs were synchronized, and joint moments were
JOINT STIFFNESS IN SPRINT RUNNING
FIGURE 1—Directions for positive joint moments (M) and joint angles
(␪) at the ankle (A), knee (K), and hip (H).
calculated at 200 Hz. Anthropometric data provided by the
standards of Demster (5) were used to determine inertia and
mass of the segments. The average joint stiffness was cal-
culated as a change in the joint moment (⌬M) divided by the
change in joint angle (⌬␪) in the braking phase. The direc-
tions for the positive joint moments and the joint angles
have been defined in Figure 1. The vertical stiffness was
calculated from the ratio of the peak vertical GRF to the
vertical displacement of the center of the mass (COM).
EMG signals from two or three right leg contacts on the
force plates were high-pass filtered (cut-off frequency 20
Hz), rectified, and averaged within every trial. EMG anal-
ysis included a time period extending from a 100-ms pre-
contact phase (preactivation) to the end of the ground con-
tact phase. Seven subjects could be used reliably in EMG
analysis. Other three subjects had noisy EMG signals, and
their EMG data could not be utilized. In the statistical
analysis, means and standard deviations were calculated.
Nonparametric Kendall’s W-test was used to test the effects
of running speed on selected variables.
RESULTS
The running speed was increased almost entirely by in-
creasing the stride frequency (from 3.30 to 4.50 Hz, P ⬍
0.001) with only minor change in stride length (from 2.12 to
2.16 m) from 70% to the maximum running speed. The
contact times decreased from 0.131 to 0.094 s (P ⬍ 0.001)
and flight times from 0.172 to 0.129 s (P ⬍ 0.001), respec-
tively. The peak Fz was constant but the peak Fy increased
both in braking (P ⬍ 0.001) and in propulsion phase (P ⬍
0.01) with increasing speed (Fig. 2).
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise姞 167
FIGURE 2—GRFs, joint moments, and angles and rectified and smoothed EMG (15 point moving average) activities of leg muscles in sprint running
at 70, 80, 90, and 100% speeds. Curves represents the mean data of 10 subjects (except in the EMG, where N ⴝ 7). The beginning of the ground
contact is marked by a vertical line and the curves are continued till the end of the contact phase.

168 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www.acsm-msse.org


The peak joint moments remained constant in the ankle
joint, decreased 21.8% (from 275 to 215 N·m, P ⬍ 0.05) in
the knee joint and increased 44.1% (from 145 to 209 N·m,
P ⬍ 0.05) in the hip joint when the speed increased (Fig. 2).
Correspondingly, the angular displacements decreased dur-
ing the braking phase both in the ankle (31° at the 70%
running speed vs 27° at the 100% running speed, NS) and in
the knee joint (19° vs 13°, P ⬍ 0.05). At the beginning of
the contact the hip angle was more extended at lower speeds
(144° vs 138°, P ⬍ 0.01). The vertical downward displace-
ment of center of mass (COM) during the ground contact
decreased from 0.029 to 0.018 m (P ⬍ 0.01) when the
running speed was increased from 70% to 100%.
The joint moment angle curves demonstrate that stretch-
shortening cycle occurs both in the plantarflexor muscles
(Fig. 3) and in the knee extensor muscles (Fig. 4).
JOINT STIFFNESS IN SPRINT RUNNING
FIGURE 3—Time-normalized moment-angle
curves of the ankle joint during the ground
contact in sprint running at speeds 70, 80, 90,
and 100%. Arrowheads express the direction
of the curve. Determinations of joint angle (␪)
and direction of positive joint moment (arrow)
are shown in the inset figure. Curves are
means of 10 subjects.
The average ankle joint stiffness (see Figs. 3 and 5) was
constant, and average knee joint stiffness increased from 17
to 24 N·m·deg⫺1 (P ⬍ 0.01) with increasing speed (Fig. 5).
The vertical stiffness increased from 103 to 171 kN·m⫺1 (P
⬍ 0.01) with increasing speed (Fig. 5).
Average EMG of SOL muscle increased both in preacti-
vation (P ⬍ 0.01) and during the contact phase (P ⬍ 0.05)
with increasing speed (Fig. 2). The peak activation of SOL
occurs about 50 ms after the beginning of contact. In GA
muscle, EMG activation was maintained high throughout
the preactivation phase and first half of the contact phase.
Thereafter, it declined steeply toward the end of contact
(Fig. 2). EMG of TA shows two activation peaks, one in the
preactivation phase and other during the contact (Fig. 2).
EMG activity of the VM and RF muscles increased with
increasing speed (P ⬍ 0.01) in preactivation phase and the
FIGURE 4 —Time-normalized moment-angle
curves of the knee joint during the ground
contact in sprint running at speeds 70, 80, 90,
and 100%. For definitions see Figure 3.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise姞 169
FIGURE 5—Vertical stiffness (left x-axis) and
average knee and ankle joint stiffness (right
x-axis) from the braking phase of the ground
contact in sprint running at speeds 70, 80, 90,
and 100%. Values are means (ⴙ SD) of 10
subjects. ** P < 0.01 (significantly different
from the 70% running speed).
peak activity also occurred earlier at higher speeds in VM
(Fig. 2). BF muscle showed highest activity in the preacti-
vation phase, and it decreased toward the end of the contact
phase (Fig. 2). The activation of BF increased also with
running speed, but the increase was statistically significant
only in the contact phase (P ⬍ 0.05). The preactivation of
GM muscle increased with running speed (P ⬍ 0.05) and
then decreased during the first half of the contact (Fig. 2).
DISCUSSION
The major finding of the present study was that the ankle
joint stiffness remained the same, whereas the knee joint
stiffness increased with the running speed. Stefanyshyn and
Nigg (30) reported ankle joint stiffness values of 5.68
N·m·deg⫺1 in running (4 m·s⫺1) and 7.38 N·m·deg⫺1 in
sprinting (7.1– 8.4 m·s⫺1), respectively. The present ankle
joint stiffness values are very much in line with the results
of sprinters in the study of Stefanyshyn and Nigg. However,
in that study the sprinters were still accelerating their speed
during the measurements, whereas the runners maintained
constant speed. The mechanics of running during accelera-
tion is different from the constant speed phase (18), but the
actual influence of acceleration on the ankle joint stiffness is
unknown. In the present study the knee joint stiffness in-
creased from 17 to 24 N·m·deg⫺1, and this increase was
most marked from 90% to maximal speed. This change was
accompanied by decreased flexion of the knee joint (19° at
70% vs 13° at maximum running speed, NS). The joint
stiffness patterns of this study (constant ankle joint stiffness
and increase in knee joint stiffness with increasing running
speed) followed well the tendency observed by Arampatzis
et al. (2) at low running velocities. As the purpose of the
study was to examine the joint stiffness regulation (via
neural control of muscles), the relative running speeds
(same effort/input levels) were chosen instead of absolute
running speeds (same output level) because the neuromus-
cular requirements of each individual to reach or to maintain
170 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine
certain absolute running speed are closely related to effort
level which can be totally different between the subjects.
Contradictory to the previous studies (2), the knee joint
moment decreased with increasing running speed. This
might be explained by the changes in running mechanics. At
low running speeds, runners hit the ground very often with
the heel (heel strikers), whereas at higher running speeds
(sprinting), the foot strike is usually performed with the
forefoot. As has been presented by Krabbe and Baumann
(22), the heel strikers showed higher knee joint moments
compared with the forefoot strikers (at 5 m·s⫺1 running
speed). However, no real “heel strike” running patterns were
observed in the present study at lower running velocities. It
must be noted that the subjects of the present study were
very homogenous, and the speeds used were all above those
applied by, e.g., Arampatzis et al. (2). Thus, it is very
difficult to generalize the speed dependence of the knee joint
moment on the basis of the previous or present results.
Alexander (1) proposed that in muscles with long tendon
and relatively short muscle fibers in series, the stiffness of
the muscle-tendon unit is determined mainly by the stiffness
of the tendon, which is known to be constant above ‘toe’
region throughout the range of force levels (29). It has also
been shown that increased muscle activation would lead to
increased stiffness of muscle fibers, which could be higher
than the stiffness of the tendon (9,26). This means that the
rate-limiting factor in the triceps surae muscle-tendon stiff-
ness could be the stiffness of the tendon, not the dynamics
of muscle activation (35). Thus, it could also be one possible
theory in explaining the unchanged ankle joint stiffness
observed in the present study.
The anatomical structure of the quadriceps femoris muscle
group is clearly different from the triceps surae muscle group
with shorter tendinous part and larger amount of muscle tissue
(e.g., 34). These anatomical differences make the quadriceps
muscle group able to control the musculotendinous stiffness
better via the muscular activation. Large standard deviations in
the knee joint stiffness reveal the large interindividual variation
http://www.acsm-msse.org

that is most remarkable at higher speeds. In fact, in some
subjects the stiffness of the knee joint was almost constant
throughout increasing speeds. Whether this is because of real
individual differences in joint stiffness patterns/regulation or
just intra-individual variation between contacts remains to be
explored further.
In the present study, the vertical stiffness increased linearly
with the running speed. It is consistent with the previous results
in slow running (2,12). Increase in the vertical stiffness was
accompanied by decreased vertical displacement of the COM
during the eccentric phase (⫺37.9%, P ⬍ 0.01). The absolute
values of the present study for vertical stiffness as well as for
vertical displacement of the COM shows a linear continuum to
the results of Arampatzis et al. (2) measured at lower running
speeds (ranged from 2.5 to 6.5 m·s⫺1).
Farley and Gonzáles (7) found that it is possible for humans
to increase the leg stiffness by increasing the stride frequency.
The increase in stride frequency leads to decreased vertical
displacement of the spring-mass system during the ground
contact phase, and it enables the system to bounce off the
ground in less time. Our data demonstrated a similar phenom-
ena in the ankle joint where the joint stiffness showed negative
correlation (r ⫽ 0.81– 0.92, P ⬍ 0.01– 0.001) with the contact
time at all running speeds (Fig. 6). In other words, the subjects
who had the highest stiffness in the ankle joint had also the
shortest contact times. However, the ankle joint stiffness did
not change with increasing running speed although the contact
time decreased 28.2% when the speed changed from 70% to
100%. Different patterns (increasing/decreasing ankle joint
stiffness) were also detected by some subjects. Probably the
stiffness of the ankle joint in sprint running is determined by
inherent mechanical properties of muscle-tendon units and
neural activation patterns of each individual rather than by the
task itself.
The observed co-contraction between the plantarflexor and
dorsiflexor muscles, as well as between the knee extensors and
knee flexor muscles, will stiffen the joints and the whole leg for
JOINT STIFFNESS IN SPRINT RUNNING
FIGURE 6 —Individual ankle joint stiffness
values at running speeds 70% (diamonds),
80% (squares), 90% (triangles), and 100%
(circles) plotted against contact time. Re-
gression lines represent the data for each
running speed. Regression values (r; in the
text box) show high correlation between
these variables at all running speeds. How-
ever, as can be seen from the values of the
subject TK (points attached with dotted lines)
the stiffness of the ankle joint remains con-
stant (as in most subjects) despite the
shorter contact times at higher running
speeds.
the forthcoming impact to the ground (14). Muscle activation
of plantarflexors and knee extensors increased during the pre-
activation phase (Fig. 2) as speed increases. The preactivation
of these muscles will increase the stiffness of those muscle-
tendon units to tolerate and absorb high impact loads at the
beginning of the ground contact (10,23). Additionally, the
preactivation of the triceps surae muscle together with stretch
reflex activity will ensure the high muscular (and ankle joint)
stiffness to support and push the body off the ground as has
been pointed out by Komi and Gollhofer (21). This enhanced
activation by the stretch reflex is also evident in the present
study in the SOL muscle where the activation peaks at 50 ms
after the beginning of the contact phase (Fig. 2). Taking into
account the electromechanical delay of 13–15 ms reported by
Nicol and Komi (28), the mechanical response of stretch reflex
would then occur about 60–70 ms after the beginning of the
contact. The average contact times in our study were 130 ms at
70% and 94 ms at maximal running speed. Hence, the me-
chanical effect of stretch reflex response appears at the end of
the braking phase or early push-off phase of sprint running.
According to the results of the present study, it seems that
in sprint running the spring-like behavior of the leg is
adjusted by changing the knee joint stiffness while the
stiffness of the ankle joint remains constant. This theory is
further reinforced by the joint moment-angle relationships
presented in Figures 3 and 4. The ankle joint moments were
lower in the concentric phase, which implies that the sub-
jects were not able to tolerate the applied load and utilize the
stored elastic energy as efficiently as in the knee joint where
the joint moment-angle curves followed the same path in the
eccentric and concentric phases. However, we have to be
cautious in concluding the role of the knee joint stiffness in
sprint running because of the large variation in knee joint
stiffness values especially at higher running speeds (Fig. 5).
In the present study, both the ankle joint stiffness and
joint moment were constant at different running speeds.
Arampatzis et al. (2) reported an increase in the ankle joint
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise姞 171
moment while the stiffness of the ankle joint showed a curvi-
linear pattern (without any significant difference) with the
increasing running speed from 2.5 to 6.5 m·s⫺1. In the studies
of Stefanyshyn and Nigg (30) and Farley and Morgenroth (8),
the ankle joint stiffness increased with the running speed and
hopping height. However, contrary to the present study, the
ankle joint moment was also increased correspondingly. It is
possible that the different results are simply due to task differ-
ences. The submaximal levels of tasks in the other studies were
probably not high enough to fully load the triceps surae mus-
cle-tendon unit, as subjects were still able to increase their
ankle joint stiffness. Furthermore, the different nature of the
tasks will make the comparison difficult between sprinting and
hopping in place (8) as well as between constant speed sprint-
ing and acceleration (30). However, we believe that the con-
stant ankle joint stiffness observed in this study might be due
to dominating role of the (constant) tendon stiffness already
discussed earlier.
In the whole subject group, the ankle joint stiffness
showed higher values with shorter contact times at all mea-
sured relative running speeds (Fig. 6). Unfortunately, no
REFERENCES
1. ALEXANDER, R. M. The spring in your step: the role of elastic
mechanism in human running. In: Biomechanics XI A, G. de
Groot, A. P. Hollander, P. A. Huijing, and G. J. van Ingen Schenau
(Eds.). Amsterdam: Free University Press, 1988, pp. 17–25.
2. ARAMPATZIS, A., G.-P. BRÜGGEMANN, and V. METZLER. The effect
of speed on leg stiffness and joint kinetics in human running.
J. Biomech. 32:1349 –1353, 1999.
3. ASMUSSEN, E., and F. BONDE-PETERSEN. Storage of elastic energy in
skeletal muscles in man. Acta Physiol. Scand. 91:385–392, 1974.
4. CAVAGNA, G. A. Storage and utilization of elastic energy in skel-
etal muscle. Exerc. Sports Sci. Rev. 5:89 –129, 1977.
5. DEMSTER, W. T. Space requirements of the seated operator. In:
WADC TR-55–159, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Aero-
space Medical Research Laboratory (NTIS No. AD-87892), 1955.
6. FARLEY, C. T., J. GLASHEEN, and T. A. MCMAHON. Running springs:
speed and animal size. J. Exp. Biol. 185:71– 86, 1993.
7. FARLEY, C. T., and O. GONZALES. Leg stiffness and stride frequency
in human running. J. Biomech. 29:181–186, 1996.
8. FARLEY, C. T., and D. C. MORGENROTH. Leg stiffness primarily
depends on ankle stiffness during human hopping. J. Biomech.
32:267–273, 1999.
9. FUKASHIRO, S. Behavior of muscle-tendon complex in triceps surae
during human jumping. In: Limiting Factors of Human Neuro-
muscular Performance. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväs-
kylä, pp. 49 –50, 1999.
10. GOLLHOFER, A., D. SCHMIDTBLEICHER, and V. DIETZ. Regulation of
muscle stiffness in human locomotion. Int. J. Sports Med. 5:19 –
22, 1984.
11. GOTTLIEB, G. L., and G. C. AGARWAL. Dependence of human ankle
compliance on joint angle. J. Biomech. 11:177–181, 1978.
12. HE, J., R. KRAM, and T. A. MCMAHON. Mechanics of running under
simulated low gravity. J. Appl. Physiol. 71:863– 870, 1991.
13. HORITA, T., P. V. KOMI, C. NICOL, and H. KYRÖLÄINEN. Stretch
shortening cycle fatigue: interactions among joint stiffness, reflex,
and muscle mechanical performance in the drop jump. Eur.
J. Appl. Physiol. 73:393– 403, 1996.
14. HORTOBÁGYI, T., and P. DEVITA. Muscle pre- and coactivity during
downward stepping are associated with leg stiffness in aging.
J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 10:117–126, 2000.
15. HOUK, J. C. Feedback control of muscle: a synthesis of the pe-
ripheral mechanisms. In: Medical Physiology. V. B. Mountcastle
(Ed.). St. Louis: Mosby, 1974, pp. 668 – 677.
172 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine
correlation was found between ankle or knee joint stiffness
and running speed. It could be explained by increased output
of hip extensor muscles because the increase in running
speed is achieved by increasing the work and power pro-
duced by the hip extensors (23). Still one would assume that
stiffer ankle and knee joint will transmit the work done by
hip extensors better and thus propelling the body forward
more effectively as in world-class level sprinters (17). Ac-
cording to the results of this study, it seems that ankle or
knee joint stiffness may not be a limiting factor in increasing
the running speed. However, high ankle joint stiffness may
shorten the ground contact time and thus enhance the me-
chanical efficiency of locomotion.
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Mr.
Markku Ruuskanen and Ms. Sirpa Roivas (technical preparations) as
well as Ms. Pirkko Puttonen and Ms. Marja-Liisa Romppanen (data
analysis). This study was supported in part by a grant (119/722/99)
from the Ministry of Education (Finland).
Address for correspondence: Sami Kuitunen, Neuromuscular Re-
search Center, Department of Biology of Physical Activity, University
of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, FIN-40351 Jyväskylä, Finland; E-mail:
kuitunen@maila.jyu.fi.
16. HOUK, J. C. Regulation of stiffness by skeletomotor reflexes. Ann.
Rev. Physiol. 41:99 –114, 1979.
17. ITO, A., M. SAITO, K. SAGAWA, K. KATO, M. AE, and K. KOBA-
YASHI. Leg movement analysis of gold and silver meda-
lists in men’s 100m at the III world championships in ath-
letics. In: Abstracts I, XIVth ISB Congress. Paris, 1993, pp.
624 – 625.
18. JACOBS, R., and G. VAN INGEN SCHENAU. Intermuscular coordination
in a sprint push-off. J. Biomech. 25:933–965, 1992.
19. KEARNEY, R. E., and I. W. HUNTER. Dynamics of human ankle
stiffness: variation with displacement amplitude. J. Biomech. 15:
753–756, 1982.
20. KOMI, P. V. Physiological and biomechanical correlates of
muscle function: effects of muscle structure and stretch-short-
ening cycle on force and speed. In: Exercise Sports Science
Reviews 12. Lexington, MA: Collamore Press, 1984, pp. 81–
121.
21. KOMI, P. V., and A. GOLLHOFER. Stretch reflexes can have an
important role in force enhancement during SSC exercise. J. Appl.
Biomech. 13:451– 460, 1997.
22. KRABBE, B., and W. BAUMANN. Influence of running style on loads
acting to the lower extremity. In Book of Abstracts, XVth Congress
of the International Society of Biomechanics. Jyväskylä, Finland,
1995, pp. 506 –507.
23. KYRÖLÄINEN, H., P. V. KOMI, and A. BELLI. Changes in muscle
activity patterns and kinetics with increasing running speed.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 13:400 – 406, 1999.
24. LUHTANEN, P., and P. V. KOMI. Force-, power-, and elasticity-
velocity relationships in walking, running and jumping. Eur.
J. Appl. Physiol. 44:279 –289, 1980.
25. MCMAHON, T. A., and G. C. CHENG. The mechanics of running:
how does stiffness couple with speed? J. Biomech. 23(Suppl.
1):65–78, 1990.
26. MORGAN, D. L. Separation of active and passive components of
short-range stiffness of muscle. Am. J. Physiol. 232:C45–C49,
1977.
27. NICHOLS, T. R. The regulation of muscle stiffness. Med. Sport Sci.
26:36 – 47, 1987.
28. NICOL, C., and P. V. KOMI. Quantification of Achilles tendon force
enhancement by passively induced dorsiflexion stretches. J. Appl.
Biomech. 15:221–232, 1999.
http://www.acsm-msse.org
29. PROSKE, U., and D. L. MORGAN. Tendon stiffness: methods of
measurement and significance for the control of movement. Rev.
J. Biomech. 20:75– 82, 1987.
30. STEFANYSHYN, D. J., and B. M. NIGG. Dynamic angular stiffness of
the ankle joint during running and sprinting. J. Appl. Biomech.
14:292–299, 1998.
31. VAN INGEN SCHENAU, G. J., M. F. BOBBERT, and R. H. ROZENDAL.
The unique action of bi-articular muscles in complex movements.
J. Anat. 155:1–5, 1987.
32. VOIGT, M., P. DYHRE-POULSEN, and E. B. SIMONSEN. Modulation of
short latency stretch reflexes during human hopping. Acta Physiol.
Scand. 163:181–194, 1998.
JOINT STIFFNESS IN SPRINT RUNNING
33. WEISS P. L., I. W. HUNTER, and R. E. KEARNEY. Human ankle joint
stiffness over the full range of muscle activation levels. J. Bio-
mech. 21:539 –544, 1988.
34. YAMAGUCHI, G. T., A. G. U. SAWA, D. W. MORAN, M. J. FESSLER,
and J. M. WINTERS. A survey of human musculotendon act-
uator parameters. In: Multiple Muscle Systems: Bio-
mechanics and Movement Organization, J. M. Winters and
S. L. Y. Woo (Eds.). New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp.
717–774.
35. ZAJAC, F. E. Muscle and tendon: properties, models, scaling, and
application to biomechanics and motor control. CRC Crit. Rev.
Biomed. Eng. 17:359 – 411, 1989.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise姞 173