Maximum Speed:
Misconceptions of
Sprinting
Todd D. Brown, BS1 and Jason D. Vescovi, PhD2
1
Extra Innings Baseball, Sarasota, Florida; and 2School of Kinesiology and Health Science, York University,
Toronto, Ontario
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 05/03/2022
SUMMARY
DESPITE THE RESEARCH AVAIL-
ABLE TO COACHES AND PERFOR-
MANCE PROFESSIONALS,
TRAINING METHODOLOGY FOR
SPRINTING AT MAXIMUM SPEED IS
OFTEN MUDDLED BY ANECDOTAL
EVIDENCE. THESE APPROACHES
DEVIATE FROM SCIENTIFIC SUP-
PORT RESULTING IN MISDIRECTED
ATTEMPTS TO IMPROVE PERFOR-
MANCE. THIS ARTICLE PROVIDES
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON 3 PROM-
INENT CONSTRUCTS IN THIS AREA:
(A) ACHIEVING MAXIMUM SPEED
OVER SHORT DISTANCES (,30 M),
(B) ROLE OF THE GASTROCNE-
MIUS-SOLEUS-ACHILLES COMPLEX
IN SPRINT PERFORMANCE, AND (C)
THE PHASE OF THE SPRINT CYCLE
THAT LIKELY PLAYS A DOMINANT
ROLE IN ACHIEVING MAXIMUM
SPEED. THE DATA PRESENTED
UNDERPINS AN EVIDENCE-BASED
APPROACH FOR SPEED TRAINING.
INTRODUCTION
n 1941, Jacob Bronowski former
I director of the Salk Institute of
Biological Studies said, ‘‘It is impor-
tant that students bring a certain raga-
muffin, barefoot irreverence to their
studies; for they are not here to worship
what is known, but to question it.’’
Bronowski’s quote highlights the impor-
tance of continually searching for the
latest available scientific findings (possi-
bly coming from outside the traditional
Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association
scope of the strength and condition-
ing field), which will serve to support
current theories or raise questions about
constructs that might otherwise have
been blindly accepted in the past.
Acknowledging there is an inevitable
time lag between conducting research
and its availability to the public, practi-
tioners must continually strive to make
best efforts to ensure that theories
suit the available evidence rather than
twisting facts to fit within previous
theories, thus allowing anecdotal
notions to become adopted as a fact
without verification. Although it may be
accurate to refer to training principles as
a delicate balance between science and
art, when published reports provide
consistent evidence that conflict with
commonly held beliefs or theories, then
the dogma requires an upgrade.
Maximal sprint speed is an area
important to most sports, yet there
is an abundance of evidence in the
literature that has seemingly been
overlooked and would serve the
strength and conditioning community
well. The aim of this article is to
present evidence that can build upon
anecdotal constructs with existing
scientific data to enhance athletic
development. There are 3 areas
addressed below: (a) maximal sprint
speed in field sport athletes, (b) joint
and muscle dominance providing
horizontal propulsion, and (c) the
phase of the leg cycle in sprinting
(swing or support) that is considered
more important for maximum speed.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
MISCONCEPTION 1: MAXIMUM
SPEED IS NOT IMPORTANT IN
FIELD SPORTS
A popular view is that maximal speed
development for field sport (e.g., soc-
cer, lacrosse, field hockey) athletes is
unimportant. The argument against
maximal speed development for these
athletes stems from the knowledge that
100-m track and field sprinters do not
achieve maximal speed until 50–60 m.
Field sport athletes typically sprint
10–30 meters (;2–3 seconds) (17,22,
28,29); therefore, the conclusion is that
the distance necessary to attain max-
imal speed is not reached. It would
seem logical that maximal speed de-
velopment is irrelevant if the discussion
is stopped here. However, there are
2 vital concepts that have been com-
monly overlooked: the duration or
distance needed to reach top speed
for field sport athletes and its relation
to the supposed inability to reach top
speed over short distances, and static
versus flying starts.
First, achieving top speed at 50–60 m
can only be applied to 100-m track
and field sprinters. There are obvious
differences between a track and field
sprinter and a soccer or lacrosse
player regarding the characteristics
of their respective sports that are
rarely acknowledged. For instance,
KEY WORDS:
maximal sprint speed; construct;
gastrocnemius-soleus-achilles
complex; swing phase; support phase
37
Maximum Speed: Training With Science
elite track and field athletes train
specifically to reach top speed during
the later portion of a race. This is
not to say that a 100-m sprinter is
consciously moving at submaximal
speeds during the acceleration phase
(i.e., 0–30 m), but by examining when
maximal speed occurs during various
racing distances, it is clear that highly
successful individuals such as World
and Olympic Champions, Maurice
Greene and Asafa Powell, have com-
pleted 50- to 60-m races faster than
the 50- to 60-m splits in their
respective 100-m world record races
(World Open Indoor Track & Field
Records, www.usatf.org/statistics/
records/view.asp?division=world &;
location=indoor%20track%20%26%
20field&age=open&sport=TF). Ad-
ditionally, athletes reaching top speed
sooner, in a 100-m race, are less
successful in competition as a result of
an inability to maintain those speeds
over longer distances. Therefore, it is
important for track and field sprinters to
build toward maximum sprint speed
later in the race (12).
On the other hand, field sport athletes
sprint shorter distances (e.g., 10–30 m)
during practice and in competition, so
training specificity is drastically differ-
ent compared with track and field
athletes and may alter the ability of
reaching higher speeds more quickly.
Indeed, it is often stated that field sport
athletes must rely more heavily on
acceleration compared with top speed.
To the authors’ knowledge, no study
has examined or compared the ability
to accelerate between track and field
athletes and field sport athletes. In light
of the lack of evidence, caution is
warranted with the conclusion that
acceleration supersedes maximum
speed training for field sport athletes
when no data are available to either
support or refute this claim.
The second misconception is that
participation in a field sport requires
performing only short sprints, and
therefore, top speed cannot be attained
because an athlete needs greater dis-
tances (i.e., 50–60 m) to reach maxi-
mum speed (24). Vescovi et al. (31)
38 VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2012
demonstrated that female soccer and
lacrosse players do indeed reach top
speed somewhere between 20 and
30 m, as evidenced by a lack of change
in individual 9.1 m times after 27 m.
This is supportive of data that maximal
sprint speed occurred at 36 m in a group
of college physical education students
(11). In addition, Coleman and Dupler
(10) illustrated that half of the sprints
from home plate to first base over the
course of a baseball season (approxi-
mately 1,300 sprints/season) were per-
formed at greater than 90% of maximal
sprint speed, highlighting the ability to
reach near-maximum speed over 27 m.
Remarkably, even with this evidence,
the authors concluded that baseball
players should not apply common
principles of speed development be-
cause players do not sprint 50–60 m in
games, and therefore, top speed is rarely
achieved (10).
Another distinction between athletics
and field sports is that sprinters begin
races from a static 4-point stance in the
blocks. In contrast, field sport athletes
often initiate a sprint from a moving
start (e.g., walking or jogging). For
instance, nearly 85% of sprints in high
school and college-age soccer begin
while already moving, and the average
distance covered is approximately
18–20 m (2). Delecluse et al. (11,12)
reported that maximal speed from
a static start was reached at 36 m. It
would therefore be logical to conclude
that if the same individual was evalu-
ated over the same distance, then
he/she would cover that distance in
a shorter period through the achieve-
ment of a higher speed sooner when
beginning the sprint with a flying start.
Indeed, data from male rugby players
and female soccer players illustrate that
top speeds are achieved sooner (13)
and speeds from consecutive 9.1-m
splits over 36.6 m increase by approx-
imately 30% when using a flying start
compared with a static start (31).
Taken together, these findings indicate
that applying the dynamics of acceler-
ation and achievement of maximal
sprint speed from track and field
sprinters to develop a training regimen
for field sport athletes is at best mis-
guided. Characteristics of linear sprint
speed between these sports do indeed
differ, and it is these differences that
must guide program prescription. This
is not to say that fundamental mechan-
ics of sprinting should be ignored, but
rather they should be included and can
be adapted to other sports as part of
proper motor development involving
acceleration, maximum speed, and
multidirectional movement skills. For
example, strength and conditioning
coaches working with field sport ath-
letes should include sprints of varying
distances ranging between 15 and 35 m
that mimic typical distances covered in
games and allow for the attainment of
near-maximum or maximum speed,
thereby providing a sufficient stimulus
to improve linear sprint ability.
MISCONCEPTION 2: ANKLE
ACTIVITY CAUSES HORIZONTAL
PROPULSION IN SPRINTING
Sprinting requires coordination, stabil-
ity, and muscular power to successfully
accomplish the cyclic motion of the
legs to achieve maximum horizontal
speed. The muscles responsible for hip,
knee, and ankle movements play
a specific role during the support phase
to efficiently propel the body forward.
Unfortunately, key concepts have been
mistakenly reported to be involved
with aiding in horizontal propulsion
and thus maximal sprint speed. For
example, the gastrocnemius-soleus-
achilles complex (GSAC) is considered
to be a prime player in horizontal
propulsion by storing elastic energy to
help project the body forward more
quickly while sprinting (25). It has also
often been recommended that athletes
actively dorsiflex (i.e., ‘‘toe up’’ posi-
tion) before ground contact and ac-
tively plantarflex later in the support
phase to help maximize horizontal
propulsion (7,8). These statements
may lead to erroneous conclusions
that the stretch shortening cycle of
the ankle joint during the early support
phase, in addition to active plantar-
flexion during the late support phase,
contributes considerably to horizontal
propulsion during linear sprinting.
Several studies (19–21) provide sub-
stantial evidence to the contrary and
should help coaches and strength and
conditioning professionals understand
the contribution of the GSAC during
sprinting; which is to help minimize
vertical displacement of the center of
mass and provide joint stiffness, which
assists in power transfer from hip
extension into the ground.
Mann and Sprague (19) examined the
muscle actions of the hip, knee, and
ankle joints of highly skilled sprinters.
They observed that posterior muscle
dominance of the ankle joint was
highlighted by eccentric action early
and fading concentric action late
during the support phase. Corrobora-
tion for these findings has been pro-
vided by several other groups of
researchers who reported that as the
support phase progresses, the muscle
activity of the gastrocnemius begins to
subside and may even cease before
toe-off (9,17). It has also been revealed
that hip extensor (gluteus and ham-
strings) dominance continues through
initial ground contact and into the mid
support phase to minimize braking
but acts primarily to pull the body
forward—findings that were subse-
quently supported (35).
Ensuing work by Mann et al. (21)
compared muscle activation patterns
among jogging, running, and sprint-
ing. Again, there was a rapid eccentric
action of the posterior muscles of the
ankle followed by plantarflexion dur-
ing the support phase; however,
the amount of plantarflexion that
occurred during the time of gastroc-
nemius activity was only 6° out of 33°
of motion. Considering that the push-
off during ground support lasts only
0.06 seconds (4,18), there is little time
for such a small amount of muscle
activity over such a small range of
motion to contribute substantially to
horizontal propulsion during linear
sprinting. On the other hand, the
hamstrings are well suited, because of
the favorable lever arm with regard to
the hip joint, to generate high levels of
force during this phase of the sprint
cycle (5).
These findings indicate several impor-
tant characteristics of the GSAC dur-
ing the support phase of sprinting.
First, the large eccentric action during
the early support phase is primarily
responsible for preventing negative
vertical displacement of the center of
mass. A sprinter with greater negative
vertical displacement will remain on
the ground longer and require more
effort to reverse the position, thus
resulting in a decrement in perfor-
mance. Second, and more importantly,
concentric activity of the GSAC is
balanced, negligible, or nonexistent
during the later portion of the support
phase (9,18,19), and if GSAC activity
was increased, it would be safe to
conclude that greater vertical displace-
ment, not horizontal propulsion, would
be elicited. Greater vertical displace-
ment would in turn negatively alter the
sinusoidal path of the body or poten-
tially initiate a longer flight phase. The
additional elapsed time would appear
to be disadvantageous for maximal
sprinting speed (35). Therefore, Mann
(21) has repeatedly concluded that
horizontal propulsion from the GSAC
does not truly exist and has been
overstated in the literature (20).
It is important to keep in mind that the
fundamental objective of sprint training
is to achieve reflexive ground contact,
with a period of brief force application
early during the ground support while
limiting the range of motion at the ankle.
There does not seem to be conflicting
views in the scientific data regarding the
contribution of the GSAC to sprinting,
but the available evidence often contrasts
with what has become popularized in
some speed development programs,
such as the emphasis on active plantar-
flexion as the hips pass over the foot to
push the body forward (8). Instead,
strength and conditioning coaches
teaching sprint technique should not
overemphasize the ankle activity for
horizontal propulsion but direct the
focus on the ability of the ankle to
quickly absorb vertical forces. This can
be accomplished by including vertical
jumping exercises that require rapid
ground contact (e.g., skipping rope).
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
MISCONCEPTION 3: RECOVERY OF
THE LEG DURING THE FLIGHT
PHASE IS CRUCIAL FOR SPEED
The stride cycle can be divided into
2 segments: the flight phase and the
support phase. The support phase is
when the foot is in contact with the
ground, whereas the flight phase
occurs from toe off to the beginning
of the following support phase of the
contralateral leg. It is important to
generate substantial horizontal power
during the support phase and recover
the leg quickly during the flight phase;
thus, both phases are important for
maximal linear sprint speed. It is
beyond the scope of this article to
provide a detailed discussion of sprint
mechanics and the influence on sprint
speed. Instead the intent of this section
is to focus on describing the evidence
surrounding what makes one individ-
ual sprint faster than another when
specifically concerned with the contri-
bution of the 2 cycle phases.
One side of the debate favors leg
recovery as the essential element to
faster sprinting ability. This concept is
believed to allow an individual to
position himself/herself more quickly
for the next stride. In other words, by
increasing the speed of the leg move-
ment during the flight phase, the rate of
overall horizontal displacement is
improved because the next ground
contact can occur sooner. Although
this hypothesis has been developed
over many years by accumulating
anecdotal coaching experience with
elite sprinters, studies providing sup-
portive evidence that an increase in
stride frequency results in greater
sprinting ability have been limited to
animal models (14–16). It has also been
shown that the duration of the flight
phase in humans remains consistent
across a wide range of speeds (20,33,36)
and is reliant upon the duration of
vertical displacement of the center of
mass. Indeed, repositioning the limbs
more quickly results in the reduction of
the impulse during the support phase,
which is required to maximize sprint
speeds, ultimately having an adverse
effect on the overall performance (32).
39
Maximum Speed: Training With Science
Hence, the authors are not aware of any
evidence supporting the notion that
a quick swing phase will result in faster
sprint time or that the swing phase can
be improved with training.
Another concept thought to aid in
faster leg recovery is the triple flexion
mechanism. This mechanism is a spinal
reflex consisting of flexion at the hip,
knee, and ankle in response to a painful
stimulation of the sole of the foot (i.e.,
an individual stepping on a nail) and is
a necessary component for gait reed-
ucation in patients who experience
severe neurological damage such as
spinal trauma or cerebral palsy
(3,23,30,34). Thus, its role in sprinting
appears questionable. In fact, in a search
of the literature, the authors found no
published research that links the triple
flexion mechanism to maximal linear
sprinting, nor that it plays any role in
athletics, suggesting that extreme skep-
ticism is warranted about its applica-
bility to sport. In addition, the
considerable latency (tenths of a sec-
ond) in conjunction with the habitua-
tion of the reflex, if repeated more than
once every 10 seconds (26,27), indi-
cates the unlikelihood of this reflex
being able to enhance sprinting ability,
nevertheless function as a trainable
phenomenon.
Several studies have illustrated that
faster individuals take considerably
longer strides compared with slower
individuals (1,6). Similarly, the same
individual running at increasingly faster
speeds will show increasingly greater
stride lengths (36), yet in both circum-
stances, the duration of the support
phase is drastically reduced (;45–
50%) (20). Therefore, propelling the
body over a greater distance while
spending less time on the ground
would suggest that greater horizontal
force/power is generated during the
120–200 milliseconds of the support
phase. In contrast, stride rate is
increased only slightly when running
between 4 and 8 m/s with no change in
the duration of the flight phase. This
suggests that the alteration in stride
rate is mostly attributable to the
change in support phase duration.
40 VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2012
In a study by Weyand et al. (33), the
swing time (duration of time between
toe-off and touch-down of the same
foot) and ground reaction forces were
measured while sprinting at maximal
speed on a level treadmill. Maximal
sprint speed for the participants ranged
between 6.2 to 11.1 m/s. It was
reported that the faster individuals
were able to apply greater forces
during a shorter support phase,
whereas the slower individuals applied
smaller ground forces with a longer
support phase (33). Interestingly, the
slowest subject in that study (top speed
of 6.2 m/s) was able to reposition her
leg as rapidly as the fastest 100-m male
sprinter in the world, although sprint-
ing at only half the speed. So although
faster sprinters should possess a greater
ability to reposition their limbs more
quickly compared with an average
sprinter, this notion is currently not
supported in the scientific literature
and should be viewed with caution.
Because of the constraints of swing
duration and support duration, Weyand
et al. (33) concluded that sprint speed is
principally governed by the ability to
create greater muscular force to the
ground and to minimize ground contact
time, better using the stretch shortening
cycle during the transference of power
down and back up the kinetic chain.
Therefore, to improve speed, athletes
should focus on training the ability to
produce a high power output during
a short ground contact phase rather
than emphasizing a fast leg recovery
during the flight phase. Strength and
conditioning coaches could include
depth jumps (during appropriate peri-
ods of the training cycle) and use
a contact mat to ensure that ground
time is minimized (e.g., 0.1–0.2 seconds)
while directing athletes to maximize
jump height.
CONCLUSION
Training athletes at any level is a del-
icate balance between science and art.
Coaches and training professionals
alike continually seek best practices
to help them improve the performance
of their athletes. Over time, sufficient
proof allows for prevailing dogma to be
revisited and revised, reflecting what is
scientifically proven rather than anec-
dotally presented as absolute truth.
Current concepts regarding maximum
speed and subsequent methods for
training now require an altered view
of prevailing practices and should
strive to reflect available evidence
that demonstrate that (a) field sport
athletes can achieve maximum sprint
speed between 20 and 30 m, (b) the
GSAC provides a way to minimize the
vertical displacement rather than con-
tribute substantially to horizontal pro-
pulsion, and (c) increased forces
generated during the support phase,
not quicker swing phase, is the un-
derlying mechanism for faster sprint
ability. We encourage others to con-
tinue searching the literature for addi-
tional knowledge on this topic because
the views expressed here might also
need to be revised one day.
Todd D. Brown
is the director of
Sports Science,
Extra Innings.
Jason D.
Vescovi is
a research asso-
ciate in the
School of Kinesi-
ology and Health
Science at the
York University, an applied sport scientist
at the Canadian Sport Centre Ontario,
and the physiologist for the Canadian
Women’s National Field Hockey team.
REFERENCES
1. Armstrong L and Cooksey SM.
Biomechanical changes in selected
collegiate sprinters due to increased
velocity. Track Field Q Rev 3: 10–12, 1983.
2. Balsom P. Evaluation of Physical
Performance in Football (Soccer). London,
United Kingdom: Blackwell Scientific,
44–49, 1994.
 3. Beals RK. Treatment of knee contracture in
cerebral palsy by hamstring lengthening,
posterior capsulotomy, and quadriceps
mechanism shortening. Dev Med Child
Neurol 43: 802–805, 2001.
4. Belli A, Kyrolainen H, and Komi PV. Moment
and power of lower limb joints in running.
Int J Sports Med 23: 136–141, 2002.
5. Bosch F and Klomp R. Running:
Biomechanics and Exercise Physiology
Applied in Practice. London, United
Kingdom: Churchill Livingstone, 2005.
pp. 58.
6. Cavagna GA and Kaneko M. Mechanical
work and efficiency in level walking and
running. J Physiol 268: 467–481, 1977.
7. Cissik JM. Technique and speed
development for running. Perform Train J 1:
18–21, 2002.
8. Cissik JM. Means and methods of speed
training, Part I. Strength Cond J 26:
24–29, 2004.
9. Coh M, Dolenec A, and Jost B. Kinematic,
Kinetic and Electromyographic
Characteristics of the Sprinting Stride of
Top Female Sprinters. Perth, Australia,
1999. Available at: http://www.coachesinfo.
com/index.php?option=com_content&
view=article&id=357:kinematic-article&
catid=99:track-athletics&Itemid=184.
Accessed: December 1, 2008.
10. Coleman E and Dupler T. Changes in
running speed in game situations during
a season of major league baseball. J Exerc
Phys Online 7: 89–93, 2004.
11. Delecluse C, Van Coppenolle H, Willems E,
Van Leemputte M, Diels R, and Goris M.
Influence of high-resistance and high-velocity
training on sprint performance. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 27: 1203–1209, 1995.
12. Delecluse CH, Coppenolle H, and
Willems E. Analysis of 100 meter sprint
performance as a multidimensional skill.
J Human Mov Studies 28: 87–101, 1995.
13. Duthie GM, Pyne DB, Marsh DJ, and
Hooper SL. Sprint patterns in rugby union
players during competition. J Strength
Cond Res 20: 208–214, 2006.
14. Gray J. How Animals Move. Edinburgh,
United Kingdom: Pelican Books, 1959.
15. Hildenbrand M. How animals run?
Scientific American 5: 148–157, 1960.
16. Hill AV. The dimensions of animals and
their muscular dynamics. Sci Progress 38:
209–230, 1950.
17. Krustrup P, Mohr M, Ellingsgaard H, and
Bangsbo J. Physical demands during an
elite female soccer game: Importance of
training status. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37:
1242–1248, 2005.
18. Kyrolainen H, Komi PV, and Belli A.
Changes in muscle activity patterns and
kinetics with increasing running speed.
J Strength Cond Res 13: 400–406, 1999.
19. Mann R and Sprague P. A kinetic analysis
of the ground leg during sprint running. Res
Q Exerc Sport 51: 334–348, 1980.
20. Mann RA, Moran GT, and Dougherty SE.
Comparative electromyography of the
lower extremity in jogging, running, and
sprinting. Am J Sports Med 14: 501–510,
1986.
21. Mann RV. A kinetic analysis of sprinting.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 13: 325–328, 1981.
22. Mohr M, Krustrup P, and Bangsbo J. Match
performance of high-standard soccer
players with special reference to
development of fatigue. J Sports Sci 21:
519–528, 2003.
23. Normand X and Dubousset J.
Reinforcement of the tension of the knee
extensor apparatus in triple-flexion gait in
children with motor disorders. Rev Chir
Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 71: 301–
310, 1985.
24. Santana C. Maximum running speed: Great
marketing, limited application. Strength
Cond J 22: 31–32, 2000.
25. Seagrave L. Neuro-biomechanics of
maximum velocity. Presented at:
NACACTFCA Congress Symposium;
February, 1998; San Jose, Costa Rica.
26. Sherrington CS. On the proprio-ceptive
system, especially in its reflex aspect. Brain
29: 467–482, 1906.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
27. Sherrington CS. Reflex inhibition as a factor
in the co-ordination of movements and
postures. Q J Exper Phys 6: 251–310, 1913.
28. Spencer M, Lawrence S, Rechichi C,
Bishop D, Dawson B, and Goodman C.
Time-motion analysis of elite field hockey,
with special reference to repeated-sprint
activity. J Sports Sci 22: 843–850, 2004.
29. Spencer M, Rechichi C, Lawrence S,
Dawson B, Bishop D, and Goodman C.
Time-motion analysis of elite field hockey
during several games in succession:
a tournament scenario. J Sci Med Sport 8:
382–391, 2005.
30. Thometz J, Simon S, and Rosenthal R. The
effect on gait of lengthening of the medial
hamstrings in cerebral palsy. J Bone Joint
Surg Am 71: 345–353, 1989.
31. Vescovi JD, Rupf R, Brown TD, and
Marques MC. Physical performance
characteristics of high-level female soccer
players 12-21 years of age. Scand J Med
Sci Sports 11: 11, 2010.
32. Weyand PG, Sandell RF, Prime DN, and
Bundle MW. The biological limits to
running speed are imposed from the
ground up. J Appl Physiol 108: 950–961,
2010.
33. Weyand PG, Sternlight DB, Bellizzi MJ, and
Wright S. Faster top running speeds are
achieved with greater ground forces not
more rapid leg movements. J Appl Physiol
89: 1991–1999, 2000.
34. Whitakker M. Early FES intervention for the
restoration of ambulatory function in
persons with incomplete spinal cord injury.
Presented at: 10th Annual Conference of
the FES Society; May, 2005; Montreal,
Canada.
35. Wiemann K and Tidow G. Relative activity
of hip and knee extensors in sprinting -
implications for training. New Studies
Athletics 10: 29–49, 1995.
36 Williams KR. The dynamics of running. In:
Biomechanics in Sport: Performance
Enhancement and Injury Prevention.
Zatsiorsky VM, ed. Oxford, United Kingdom:
Blackwell Science, 2000. pp 161–183.
41