A COMPARISON OF MAXIMAL SQUAT STRENGTH AND
5-, 10-, AND 20-METER SPRINT TIMES, IN ATHLETES
AND RECREATIONALLY TRAINED MEN
PAUL COMFORT,1 NATHAN BULLOCK,2 AND STEPHEN J. PEARSON1
1
Directorate of Sport, Exercise and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom; and
2
Manchester City Football Club (Academy), Platt Lane, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT
Comfort, P, Bullock, N, and Pearson, SJ. A comparison of
maximal squat strength and 5-, 10-, and 20-meter sprint times,
in athletes and recreationally trained men. J Strength Cond Res
26(4): 937–940, 2012—The purpose of this study was to
identify whether there was a relationship between relative
strength during a 1 repetition maximum (1RM) back squat and
5-, 10-, and 20-m sprint performances in both trained athletes
and recreationally trained individuals. Professional rugby league
players (n = 24) and recreationally trained individuals (n = 20)
participated in this investigation. Twenty-meter sprint time and
1RM back squat strength, using free weights, were assessed on
different days. There were no significant (p $ 0.05) differences
between the well-trained and recreationally trained groups for
5-m sprint times. In contrast, the well-trained group’s 10- and
20-m sprint times were significantly quicker (p = 0.004; p =
0.002) (1.78 + 0.06 seconds; 3.03 + 0.09 seconds) compared
with the recreationally trained group (1.84 + 0.07 seconds;
3.13 + 0.11 seconds). The athletes were significantly stronger
(170.63 + 21.43 kg) than the recreationally trained individuals
(135.45 + 30.07 kg) (p = 0.01); however, there were no
significant differences (p . 0.05) in relative strength between
groups (1.78 + 0.27 kg/kg; 1.78 + 0.33 kg/kg, respectively).
Significant negative correlations were found between 5-m sprint
time and relative squat strength (r = 20.613, power = 0.96,
p = 0.004) and between relative squat strength and 10- and 20-
m sprint times in the recreationally trained group (r = 20.621,
power = 0.51, p = 0.003; r = 20.604, power = 0.53, p = 0.005,
respectively). These results, indicating that relative strength, are
important for initial sprint acceleration in all athletes but more
Address correspondence to Paul Comfort, p.comfort@salford.ac.uk.
26(4)/937–940
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2012 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
strongly related to sprint performance over greater distances in
recreationally trained individuals.
KEY WORDS sprinting performance, acceleration, correlation
INTRODUCTION
S
print performance is of great importance in many
sports, with elite soccer players spending approx-
imately 11% of the game sprinting, which equates to
a 10- to 15-m sprint every 90 seconds (3,20), with
similar findings reported in rugby league (5,13), rugby union
(7–9), and field hockey (16). The outcome of the game tends
to be determined during these periods of sprinting.
Sprinting requires high levels of acceleration and as such
strength to overcome the inertia of the body mass (BM).
A number of studies have investigated the relationship
between strength and sprint performance, demonstrating
that, in general, stronger athletes perform better during sprint
performances (2,6,14,19). This may be explained by the fact
that peak ground reaction forces and impulse are strong
determinants of sprint performance (11,17,18,21).
Studies have used various methods to assess strength,
including isokinetics (2,4), machine squats (10), and free
weight squats (2,4,6,14,19), when investigating the relation-
ship between strength and sprint performance. The strongest
correlations were achieved with free weight squats (14,19).
Others have also looked at multiple tests, usually including
assessment of power, to develop a model to predict sprint
performance (4,15).
There appears to be a clear relationship between maximal
free weight squat strength and sprint performance (2,19) in
well-trained individuals. Wisloff et al. (19) found a strong
correlation (r = 20.94) between 1 repetition maximum (1RM)
squat performance and 10-m sprint time; however, in contrast,
Harris et al. (10) found a weak and nonsignificant correlation
between Smith machine squats and 10- and 40-m sprint times
in athletes. More recently, McBride et al. (14) demonstrated
a stronger relationship (r = 20.605, p = 0.01) between relative
strength and sprint performance (40 yd) in individuals with
a high relative strength ($2.1 kg/kg) compared to individuals
with a lower relative strength (,1.9 kg/kg). However, in
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2012 | 937
 Five-, Ten-, and Twenty-Meter Sprint Times

contrast, 5-yd sprint times and relative strength showed participant was squatting. A bungee was placed at the
a nonsignificant correlation (r = 0.45, p = 0.0698). Each of appropriate height so that the participants’ buttocks touched
these studies has used well-trained athletes, who tend to have the bungee once the squat depth was achieved (Figure 1); this
highly developed strength and sprint performance; however, was also reinforced with verbal commands. All participants
no investigation has been identified if these relationships achieved their 1RM within 5 attempts.
occur in recreationally trained individuals. The aim of this
Sprint Times
study, therefore, was to compare maximal back squat
After a standardized warm-up, participants performed three
strength and 5-, 10-, and 20-m sprint performances and
20-m sprints on an indoor track (Mondo, SportsFlex, 10 mm;
their relationships in well-trained athletes and recreationally
Mondo America Inc., Mondo, Summit, NJ, USA), wearing
trained individuals. It was hypothesized that the relationships
standard training shoes. Sprints were interspersed with a
between maximal squat strength and sprint performance in
1-minute rest period in accordance with McBride et al. (14).
recreationally trained individuals would be weaker because of
Time to 5, 10, and 20 m was assessed using infrared timing
a lower level of conditioning.
gates (Brower, Speed Trap 2, Wireless Timing System,
Draper, UT, USA.). All subjects began with their front foot
METHODS positioned 0.5 m behind the start line and were instructed to
Experimental Approach to the Problem perform all sprints with a maximal effort.
This study was designed to describe the maximal back squat
Statistical Analyses
strength and sprint times (dependant variables) over 5, 10,
Intraclass correlation coefficients were performed to assess
and 20 m and then to determine the relationship between
repeatability between each of the 3 sprints. Independent
relative strength and sprint performance in well-trained
t-tests were performed to determine differences in strength
athletes and recreationally trained ($3 3 week for $2 years)
and sprint times between well-trained athletes and recrea-
individuals (independent variables). The sprint distances
tionally trained individuals. Pearson’s correlations were also
were selected because these are representative of sprint dis-
performed to determine relationships between measure-
tances covered during competition in multiple sprint sports
ments of strength and sprint times using SPSS software
(3,5,7–9,12,15,19).
(Version 16.0; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). An a priori level of
Subjects significance was set at p # 0.05. Where no significant
Twenty-four, professional, rugby league players (height = differences were found between well-trained and recreation-
1.83 6 0.06 m, BM = 96.5 6 11.14 kg, 1RM = 170.6 6 21.4 kg, ally trained individuals, the data were pooled for correlation
1RM/BM = 1.78 6 0.27) and 20 recreationally trained analysis. Power calculations, for correlations, were calculated
individuals (height = 1.75 6 0.07 m, BM = 78.72 6 10.68 kg, using G*Power (Version 3.1, University of Deusseldorf,
1RM = 138.6.6 6 27.9 kg, 1RM/BM = 1.77 6 0.33) Germany) (12).
participated in this investigation. The rugby league players
had just completed preseason training (including a 4-week RESULTS
strength mesocycle and a 4-week power mesocycle), and all Intraclass correlations demonstrated a high level of re-
recreationally trained subjects had just completed a power liability between each of the 3 trials for the 5-, 10-, and
mesocycle (4–8 weeks). All participants provided written
informed consent, which was approved by the University
Ethics Committee. All procedures conformed to the Dec-
laration of Helsinki.
Order of Testing
Participants attended the human performance laboratory on
2 separate occasions, at the same time of day, to undertake
the maximal strength testing and the sprint performances,
separated by 48–72 hours. Participants had abstained from
training on the day before testing and were asked to maintain
a consistent dietary intake on each day of testing.
Maximal Strength Testing
One repetition maximum back squat was assessed via
a standardized protocol (1), with warm-up loads approxi-
mated via individual training loads. During all attempts,
participants were required to squat to a depth where a 90°
knee angle was achieved. Before the start of the warm-up, Figure 1. Mean sprint times between groups (*p = 0.004; **p = 0.002).
this knee angle was assessed using a goniometer while the
the TM

938 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Figure 2. Absolute strength between groups (p = 0.01).
20-m sprints (r = 0.96, p , 0.001; r = 0.97, p # 0.001;
r = 0.97, p , 0.001, respectively).
There were no significant differences (p . 0.05) in 5-m sprint
times between the well-trained group (1.05 6 0.06 seconds)
and recreationally trained group (1.08 6 0.06 seconds),
although the well-trained group demonstrated the lowest
mean 5-m sprint times. In contrast, the well-trained group
generated significantly (p = 0.004; p = 0.002) lower 10- and
20-m (1.78 6 0.06 seconds; 3.03 6 0.09 seconds) sprint
times compared with the recreationally trained group (1.84 6
0.07 seconds; 3.13 6 0.11 seconds) (Figure 1).
In terms of absolute strength, well-trained individuals
(170.63 6 21.43 kg) were significantly stronger (p = 0.01) than
the recreationally trained individuals (135.45 6 30.07 kg)
(Figure 2); however, in contrast, there were no significant
differences (p . 0.05) in relative strength between groups
(1.78 6 0.27 kg/kg; 1.78 6 0.33 kg/kg, respectively).
Figure 3. Relationship between relative strength and 10-m sprint times in
recreationally trained individuals (r = 20.621, power = 0.51, p = 0.003).
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
Figure 4. Relationship between relative strength and 20-m sprint times in
recreationally trained individuals (r = 20.604, power = 0.53, p = 0.005).
Statistically significant correlations were found between
5-m sprint time and relative squat strength (r = 20.613,
power = 0.96, p = 0.004) for the combined data.
Relative squat strength and both 10- and 20-m sprint
times showed significant correlations in the recreationally
trained group (r = 20.621, power = 0.51, p = 0.003; r =
20.604, power = 0.53, p = 0.005, respectively) (Figures 3
and 4) but nonsignificant correlations for the well-trained
group (r = 20.336, power = 0.52, p = 0.109; r = 20.360,
power = 0.52, p = 0.084, respectively).
DISCUSSION
This investigation found no significant differences (p = 0.068)
between well-trained (1.05 6 0.06 seconds) and recreation-
ally trained (1.08 6 0.06 seconds) groups for 5-m sprint times,
although the well-trained groups were slightly (0.03 seconds)
quicker. This may be because of the fact that even though
well-trained individuals (170.63 6 21.43 kg) were signifi-
cantly stronger (p = 0.01), in terms of absolute strength, when
compared with recreationally trained individuals (135.45 6
30.07 kg), there were no significant differences (p . 0.05) in
relative strength between groups (1.78 6 0.27 kg/kg; 1.78 6
0.33 kg/kg, respectively). The initial start (0–5 m) during
a sprint is likely to be affected more by relative strength than
absolute strength because of the requirement of accelerating
the individuals’ BM. There may also be an upper threshold
for strength, beyond which further increases in strength have
less effect on sprint performance and acceleration.
In contrast, the well-trained group performed significantly
(p = 0.004; p = 0.002) quicker 10- and 20-m (1.78 6
0.06 seconds; 3.03 6 0.09 seconds) sprints compared with
the recreationally trained group (1.84 6 0.07 seconds;
3.13 6 0.11 seconds). This may be partly explained by Baker
and Nance (2) who postulated that performance over
greater sprint distances may be affected by the stretch
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2012 | 939
 Five-, Ten-, and Twenty-Meter Sprint Times
shorten cycle, therefore possibly reducing the relationship
between maximal strength and sprint performance over
longer distances, as can be seen in the results of this
investigation. Further possible explanation for the quicker
10- and 20-m sprint performances by the athletes may be
explained by better technique and the ability to generate
high forces at high velocities possibly because of a higher
percentage of type II muscle fibers, although this was not
assessed within the study.
Statistically significant correlations were found between
5-m sprint time and relative squat strength (r = 20.613,
power = 0.96, p = 0.004) for the combined data, which is
stronger than the relationships previously reported by
McBride et al. (14), who found a moderate (r = 20.45,
power = 0.44, p = 0.0698) although nonsignificant relation-
ship between relative squat strength and 5-yd sprint times.
Relative squat strength and both 10- and 20-m sprint times
showed significant correlations in the recreationally trained
group (r = 20.621, power = 0.51, p = 0.003; r = 20.604,
power = 0.53, p = 0.005, respectively). However, this was
not as strong as the relationship previously reported by
Wisloff et al. (19) (r = 20.94, p , 0.05) between absolute
1RM squat performance and 10-m sprint time; in contrast,
these findings are similar to those previously reported by
McBride et al. (14) who found a strong relationship (r =
20.605, p = 0.01) between relative strength and sprint
performances (10 and 40 yd). As aforementioned, Baker and
Nance (2) explain that differences in the relationships
between strength and sprint performance may be partly
explained by a greater involvement of the stretch-shorten
cycle over greater distances or other factors such as reduced
muscle cocontraction, with increased sprint skill. The
assessment, therefore, of peak force or peak power during
squat jumps or countermovement jumps may be a better
predictor of sprint performances over distances of .10 m
in well-trained athletes.
It is suggested that future research should determine if
increasing squat strength results in a concomitant increase in
sprint performances and also determine if muscle tissue
distribution rather than relative strength explains the differ-
ences in sprint performances more clearly.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Because of the relationship between squat strength and sprint
performance, it is suggested that increasing squat strength
is likely to improve sprint performance at short distances
(;5 m). Moreover, increasing squat strength may improve
sprint performance (decrease sprint time) in recreationally
trained individuals to a greater extent than in well-trained
athletes, especially at distances up to 20 m. These results,
indicating that relative strength, are important for initial sprint
acceleration (0–5 m) in all athletes but more strongly related
to sprint performance over greater distances (10 and 20 m) in
recreationally trained individuals.
the TM
940 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
REFERENCES
1. Baechle, TR, Earle, RW, and Wathen, D. Resistance Training.
Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. National Strength and
Conditioning Association (3rd ed.). In: T.R. Baechle, and R.W. Earle,
eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008. pp. 381–412.
2. Baker, D and Nance, S. The relationship between running speed and
measures of strength and power in professional rugby league players.
J Strength Cond Res 13: 230–235, 1999.
3. Bangsbo, J, Mohr, M, and Krustrup, P. Physical and metabolic
demands of training and match-play in the elite football player.
J Sports Sci 24: 665–674, 2006.
4. Blazevich, AJ and Jenkins, DG. Predicting sprint running times from
isokinetic and squat lift tests: A regression analysis. J Strength Cond
Res 12: 101–103, 1998.
5. Brewer, J and Davis, J. Applied physiology of rugby league. Sports
Med 20: 129–135, 1995.
6. Cronin, JB and Hansen, KT. Strength and power predictors of sports
speed. J Strength Cond Res 19: 349–357, 2005.
7. Cunniffe, B, Proctor, W, Baker, JS, and Davies, B. An evaluation of the
physiological demands of elite rugby union using global positioning
system tracking software. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1195–1203, 2009.
8. Duthie, GM, Pyne, DB, and Hooper, S. Time motion analysis of
2001 and 2002 super 12 rugby. J Sports Sci 23: 523–530, 2005.
9. 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.
10. Harris, NK, Cronin, JB, Hopkins, WG, and Hansen, KT. Relationship
between sprint times and strength/power outputs of a machine
squat jump. J Strength Cond Res 22: 691–698, 2008.
11. Hunter, JP, Marshall, RN, and McNair, PJ. Relationships between
ground reaction force impulse and kinematics of sprint-running
acceleration. J Appl Biomech 21: 31–43, 2005.
12. Faul, F, Erdfelder, E, Buchner, A, and Lang, A. Statistical power
analysis using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation regression analysis.
Behav Res Methods 41: 1149–1160, 2009.
13. Meir, R, Newton, R, Curtis, E, Fardell, M, and Butler, B. Physical fitness
qualities of professional rugby league football players: Determination
of positional differences. J Strength Cond Res 15: 450–458, 2001.
14. McBride, JM, Blow, D, Kirby, TJ, Haines, TL, Dayne, AM, and
Triplett, NT. Relationship between maximal squat strength and
five, ten, and forty yard sprint times. J Strength Cond Res 23:
1633–1636, 2009.
15. Nesser, TW, Latin, RW, Berg, K, and Prentice, E. Physiological
determinants of 40-metre sprint performance in young male athletes.
J Strength Cond Res 10: 263–267, 1996.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Weyand, PG, Lin, JE, and Bundle, MW. Sprint performance
duration relationships are set by the fractional duration of external
force application. Am J Physiol 290: R758–R765, 2006.
19. Wisloff, U, Castagna, C, Helgerud, J, Jones, R, and Hoff, J. Strong
correlation of maximal squat strength with sprint performance and
vertical jump height in elite soccer players. Br J Sport Med 38: 285–
288, 2004.
20. Withers, RT, Maricic, Z, Wasilewski, S, and Kelly, L. Match
analysis of Australian professional soccer players. J Hum Mov Stud
8: 159–176, 1982.
21. Wright, S and Weyand, PG. The application of ground force explains
the energetic cost of running backward and forward. J Exp Biol
204: 1805–1815, 2001.