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

net/publication/356538612

Association and Predictive Ability of Jump Performance with Sprint Profile of

Collegiate Track and Field Athletes

Article in Sports Biomechanics · November 2021

DOI: 10.1080/14763141.2021.2000022

CITATION READS

1 272

6 authors, including:

Martin Sterling Dietze-Hermosa Samuel Montalvo

Brigham Young University - Idaho Stanford University
31 PUBLICATIONS 51 CITATIONS 61 PUBLICATIONS 59 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Matthew Paul Gonzalez Sergio Rodriguez

University of Texas at San Antonio University of Texas at El Paso
35 PUBLICATIONS 38 CITATIONS 10 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Near Infrared Spectroscopy is not a Surrogate of Venous Occlusion Plethysmography to Assess Microvascular Resting Blood Flow and Functio View project

Eccentric Overload Bench Press View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Samuel Montalvo on 02 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Sports Biomechanics

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rspb20

Association and Predictive Ability of Jump

Performance with Sprint Profile of Collegiate Track
and Field Athletes

Martin Dietze-Hermosa, Samuel Montalvo, Matthew P. Gonzalez, Sergio

Rodriguez, Nicholas R. Cubillos & Sandor Dorgo

To cite this article: Martin Dietze-Hermosa, Samuel Montalvo, Matthew P. Gonzalez, Sergio
Rodriguez, Nicholas R. Cubillos & Sandor Dorgo (2021): Association and Predictive Ability of Jump
Performance with Sprint Profile of Collegiate Track and Field Athletes, Sports Biomechanics, DOI:
10.1080/14763141.2021.2000022

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2021.2000022

Published online: 25 Nov 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 23

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rspb20
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2021.2000022

Association and Predictive Ability of Jump Performance with

Sprint Profile of Collegiate Track and Field Athletes
Martin Dietze-Hermosaa,b, Samuel Montalvo a, Matthew P. Gonzalezc,
Sergio Rodrigueza, Nicholas R. Cubillosa and Sandor Dorgoc
a
Fitness Research Facility, Department of Kinesiology, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA;
b
Department of Human Performance and Recreation, Brigham Young University-Idaho, Rexburg, ID, USA;
c
Department of Kinesiology, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study examined the relationship between broad jump (BJ), Received 12 March 2021
countermovement jump (CMJ) and light load countermovement Accepted 25 October 2021
jump (LL-CMJ) performance and sprint performance and Sprint KEYWORDS
Profile measures in athletes. Additionally, this study aimed to deter­ Sprinting; jumping; speed;
mine the predictive ability of jump measures on Sprint Profile power; track and field
components. Twenty-five athletes performed BJ, CMJ, LL-CMJ, 30-
metre acceleration and 30-metre maximal speed fly-by sprints.
Results revealed moderate to very large correlations between BJ,
CMJ and LL-CMJ performance with acceleration sprint completion
times (r = −0.423 to −0.807; p < 0.05), fly-by sprint completion times
(r = −0.452 to −0.838; p < 0.05) and maximal sprint speed (r = 0.424
to 0.794; p < 0.05). Additionally, associations were observed with
multiple jumping measures and components of the Sprint Profile
(r = 0.431 to 0.777; p < 0.05) during acceleration sprints.
Furthermore, the BJ distance was the best predictor of Sprint
Profile components during acceleration sprints (R2 = 0.57–0.76;
p < 0.01) and maximal speed fly-by sprints (R2 = 0.775; p < 0.001).
The forces and the manner of force application during the BJ to
propel the athlete forwards and upwards are similar to those
necessary to exhibit superior sprint performance. This may be due
to the rapid generation of forces and orientation of force applica­
tion during both movements.

Introduction
Sprinting is a task that requires high levels of force production, rate of force production
and speed (O’Connor et al., 2007). Sport performance coaches routinely assess athletes,
utilising various proxy measures of muscular capacity, which include jumping and
sprinting over distances specific to their event (Loturco et al., 2015a; Raymond et al.,
2018). However, the inter-relationship of these necessitates further investigation.
Previous studies have explored the relationship between jumping and sprint completion
times or speed (Comfort et al., 2014; Davis et al., 2012; Furlong et al., 2019; Loturco et al.,
2015a; Shalfawi et al., 2011). Recently, Furlong et al. (2019) reported negative correlations
between the countermovement vertical jump (CMJ) height and the squat jump (SJ)

CONTACT Sandor Dorgo sdorgo@utep.edu

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. DIETZE-HERMOSA ET AL.

height with the 30-metre sprint completion time in rugby players at r = −0.66 and
r = −0.69 values, respectively. Similarly, research amongst professional soccer players
indicated that the CMJ height was positively correlated with 10-metre (r = 0.72) and 30-
metre (r = 0.60) sprint speed (Wisloff et al., 2004). Amongst elite sprinters, strong
associations were reported between the SJ height (r = 0.77), CMJ height (r = 0.84), low
load CMJ (LL-CMJ) height (r = 0.84) and broad jump (BJ) distance (r = 0.881), with 30-
metre sprint speed (Loturco et al., 2015a). However, the sprint completion time or the
derived sprint speed only provides one metric of the various elements critical for sprint
performance. The lack of pertinent assessments regarding the correlations of jump
performance with different sprint performance variables is a critical gap in the current
literature.
It is well understood that force generation, rate of force development and proper
application of forces are vital to sprinting (Haugen et al., 2019; Hicks et al., 2020; Morin
et al., 2011; Rabita et al., 2015). A recently developed macroscopic method has permitted
the calculation of biomechanical variables during sprinting (Morin et al., 2019; Samozino
et al., 2016). Such variables include maximal sprint speed, maximal theoretical horizontal
force (F0), maximal theoretical velocity (V0), maximal theoretical power (Pmax), maximal
ratio of force (RFmax), decrease in ratio of force (DRF) and force-velocity slope (SFV).
Collectively, these variables comprise the ‘Sprint Profile’ of the athlete and can be used to
monitor and guide the training programof sprint reliant athletes (Hicks et al., 2020).
A detailed description of the calculations used to obtain the Sprint Profile variables is
found elsewhere (Morin et al., 2019; Samozino et al., 2016). A brief description of the
Sprint Profile variables is provided in Table 1.
Like sprinting, rapid generation of forces is necessary during jumping for the athlete
to propel their centre of mass upwards or forwards during CMJ and BJ performance
(Furlong et al., 2019; Peterson et al., 2006). The jump type will determine the force
generation and orientation patterns, where the BJ exhibits greater horizontal forces
compared to the CMJ (Robertson & Fleming, 1987; Van Hooren & Zolotarjova, 2017).
The amount, orientation and ratio of vertical to horizontal forces are essential con­
siderations for sprint performance, with previous research indicating the importance
of horizontal force generation during the sprint acceleration phase with diminished

Table 1. Description and practical meaning of sprint profile components.

Sprint
Profile
Variable Description Practical Meaning
F0 Maximal theoretical horizontal force (N) Horizontal force production capacity at low
velocities
V0 Maximal theoretical horizontal velocity (m·s−1) Horizontal force capacity at high velocities
Pmax Maximal theoretical horizontal power (W) Capacity to produce power output in
a horizontal direction
RFmax Maximal ratio of the horizontal component of the ground- Maximal mechanical effectiveness of force
reaction force to the corresponding resultant force (%) application
DRF Rate of decrease in RF when running velocity increases (% Capacity to maintain mechanical
*s/m) effectiveness despite increasing running
velocity
SFV Slope of the force-velocity relationship applied to the Orientation of horizontal force production
centre of mass (N·m·s−1) capacity towards force or velocity
capabilities
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 3

importance during the maximal velocity phase as the importance shifts towards
vertical force generation (Hicks et al., 2020; Morin et al., 2015b, 2015a). Yet, the
current literature is lacking the exploration of the associations between the compo­
nents of the Sprint Profile with kinetics, kinematics and jump distance or height
attained during various jumps in athletes. Moreover, the majority of literature has
explored performance associations with the first 30–40 metres of sprinting (sprint
acceleration). Hence, a major gap exists exploring how maximum effort fly-by sprint
completion times and sprint speed are related to CMJ, BJ and LL-CMJ performance.
Therefore, the purposes of this study were 1) to explore the relationship between
components of the Sprint Profile during acceleration and fly-by sprints with various
kinematic and kinetic measures of the CMJ, BJ and LL-CMJ and 2) to determine the
predictive ability of the jump performance measures on components of the Sprint
Profile during acceleration and fly-by sprints. The authors hypothesised that strong
correlations would be found between jump performance measures and sprint comple­
tion times, as well as Sprint Profile components for both the sprint acceleration and the
fly-by sprint assessments.

Materials and methods

Participants
A convenience sample of 25 Division I track and field athletes (height = 172 ± 9 cm; body
mass = 69.88 ± 9.77 kg and 16 = sprinters, 6 = long/triple jumpers and 3 = pole vaulters)
participated in this study. Informed written consent was obtained from all participants.
The protocol was approved by the appropriate institutional review board and conformed
to the standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants were free from any lower
limb musculoskeletal injury during the three months preceding data collection and were
instructed to avoid any strenuous exercise for 24 hours before testing. A Power analysis
using G*Power (version 3.1, Universität Kiel, Germany) revealed that with 25 partici­
pants, a moderate correlation (r = 0.68) and α = 0.05 resulted in a power (1- β) of 0.99.
The assessed moderate correlation was obtained from recent literature that explored the
association between the jump height and the sprint completion time (Furlong et al.,
2019).

Testing procedures
All procedures were conducted on a synthetic outdoor track. First, anthropometrics were
obtained; height was measured using a stadiometer to the nearest centimetre (cm) and
mass was measured using a scale to the nearest hundredth of a kilogram. During both
height and mass measurements, participants were instructed to remove their shoes and
stand with a straight back and their head in a neutral position. Following anthropometric
measures, participants completed a warm-up consisting of a self-paced jog around the
track for 5 minutes and dynamic stretches targeting musculature used during jumping
and sprinting such as knee hugs, quad-stretches, stretch kicks, lunges and body weight
squats. Participants also completed two sets of warm-up sprints and three to four
repetitions of warm-up CMJ, BJ and LL-CMJ attempts. Participants then completed
4 M. DIETZE-HERMOSA ET AL.

two 30-metre acceleration sprints, two 30-metre maximal speed fly-by sprints and
maximum effort CMJ, BJ and LL-CMJ in a randomised order. A minimum 3-minute
rest was applied when transitioning participants between the listed assessments.

30-metre acceleration sprints

Participants performed two 30-metre sprints initiated from a standing start with three
to five minutes of rest between trials. Sprint completion times were obtained using an
Apple iPad (Apple, Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) through the MySprint mobile applica­
tion, resulting in a 4 ms measurement accuracy (Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe et al., 2020;
Romero-Franco et al., 2017). The iPad was placed on a fixed tripod at a height of 1.5
metres at a perpendicular distance of 10 metres from the 15-metre mark as outlined in
the application and corresponding literature (Romero-Franco et al., 2017). Participants
started in a two-point stance with their front foot on the start line. The start and finish
lines were clearly marked with participants instructed to sprint the entire 30-metre
distance with maximal effort. The MySprint mobile application was used to determine
split times of each five metres (5 m, 10 m, 15 m, 20 m and 25 m) as well as overall (30
metre) completion time. The trial with the fastest completion time was used for
analysis.
Components of the Sprint Profile (Speed, F0, V0, Pmax, RFmax, DRF and SFV) were obtained
through the MySprint mobile application following the set-up and protocols used by Romero-
Franco et al. (2017). Briefly, in this computation method, basic laws of motion are applied to
the centre of mass motion (Morin et al., 2019; Samozino et al., 2016). Split-time data were
fitted by an exponential function. Velocity data were then combined with body mass and
estimated aerodynamic friction to compute the net anteroposterior (horizontal) ground
reaction force. Then, the MySprint mobile application can calculate Speed, F0, V0, Pmax,
RFmax, DRF and SFV. Pmax is an approximate measurement of maximal power, derived from
the product of running velocity and the horizontal force (Lahti et al., 2020).

Maximal speed 30-metre fly-by sprints

The maximal speed fly-by sprint consisted of a 30-metre untimed acceleration zone and the
30-metre maximal speed sprint measurement zone (total of 60 metres). The untimed 30
metres was provided to ensure that participants attained their maximal sprint speed before
entering the timed 30-metre zone, similar to recent literature (Dorgo et al., 2020; Kakehata
et al., 2021). Participants assumed their preferred starting position at a start line of the
acceleration zone. Upon an auditory signal, participants were instructed to build up speed
and attain maximal sprint speed upon arriving at the first marker of the measurement zone.
Participants then sought to maintain their maximal speed throughout the 30-metre measure­
ment zone. Split times of each five metres (5 m, 10 m, 15 m, 20 m and 25 m) were obtained
using an Apple iPad and the MySprint mobile application, adopting an identical set-up as for
the acceleration assessments. Two trials with three to five minutes rest in between attempts
were provided. The trial with the shortest completion time was used for analysis.

Countermovement vertical jump

Participants performed two trials of the CMJ with hands akimbo and one-minute rest
was provided between trials. Jumps were performed on two PASPORT 2-Axis Force
Platforms (1000 Hz, Pasco Scientific, Inc., Roseville, CA, USA) with force data recorded
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 5

using the Pasco Capstone Software (v.2.2.0) (Lake et al., 2018; Sands et al., 2020).
Participants began each trial with a one-second quiet stance (motionless), after which
the researcher provided an audible ‘go’ command to signal the execution of the CMJ
following previous research protocols (Montalvo & Dorgo, 2019; Montalvo et al., 2021).
The trial with the highest CMJ height was used for analysis.

Broad jump
Participants performed two trials of the BJ with hands akimbo, with two-minute rest
provided between trials. The BJs were executed starting on two PASPORT 2-Axis Force
Platforms with force data recorded using the Pasco Capstone Software (v.2.2.0). Similar
to the CMJ, participants began each trial with a one-second quiet stance (motionless)
after which the researcher provided an audible ‘go’ command to signal the execution of
the BJ into an adjacent sandbox. The distance of the BJ was measured to the nearest
centimetre using measuring tape. Following previous recommendations, the distance
was measured as the distance from the takeoff to the back of the athlete’s heel (Lockie
et al., 2014; Peterson et al., 2006). Trials were rejected if the participants took additional
steps on completion of the BJ. The trial with the longest jump distance was used for
analysis.

Low-load countermovement vertical jump

Participants completed two LL-CMJ trials with two-minute rest between trials. A linear
encoder (Chronojump-Boscosystem, Spain; 1000 Hz) was attached to a 20 kg unloaded
barbell, which was placed on the athlete’s upper back. Each trial began with a one-second
quiet stance (motionless) after which the researcher provided an audible ‘go’ command
to signal the execution of the LL-CMJ. The LL-CMJ was executed starting from a parallel
foot alignment. Participants were instructed to rapidly descend until thighs were parallel
to the ground and then maximal jump whilst maintaining contact with the bar, following
a previously established protocol (Loturco et al., 2015b). Data collected by the linear
encoder during the concentric phase of the LL-CMJ following recommendations of
Busca and Font (2011) included the jump height (m), maximum vertical force (N),
maximum velocity (m/s), maximum power (W) and rate of force development (N/s).
The trial with the highest LL-CMJ height was used for analysis.

Data processing
For both the CMJ and BJ, left and right force platform data were summed and exported to
MATLAB (v.R2020b, MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA) and filtered using a digital fourth-
order low pass Butterworth filter with a cut-off at 50 Hz (Harry et al., 2020). For the CMJ,
force data were then used to calculate the jump height using take-off velocity (takeoff
velocity2/2*9.81) (Moir, 2008). A custom spreadsheet was also utilised to calculate maximal
force, power and modified reactive strength index (RSImod) during the CMJ. RSImod was
calculated as the jump height divided by time to take off as indicated in previous research
(Chavda et al., 2018; Dietze-Hermosa et al., 2020; Montalvo et al., 2021; Vieira & Tufano,
2021). For the BJ, maximal horizontal and vertical forces were calculated as the highest force
(N) attained during the concentric phase of the BJ (Loturco et al., 2015a). For the LL-CMJ, the
linear encoder equipment proprietary software was used to calculate the measures of interest
6 M. DIETZE-HERMOSA ET AL.

similar to previouse research (Busca & Font, 2011; Loturco et al., 2015b; Pérez-Castilla et al.,
2019). In brief, displacement (jump height) was obtained by integration of velocity data with
respect to time, acceleration was obtained from the differentiation of velocity with respect to
time, force was calculated as F = m · a, where m is the moving mass (kg) and a is the
acceleration due to gravity, and power was calculated as the product of force and velocity
(Garnacho-Castano et al., 2015; Pérez-Castilla et al., 2019). Forces and power obtained during
the BJ, CMJ and LL-CMJ were then expressed relative to the body mass (N/kg and W/kg,
respectively).

Statistical analysis
Data were exported from each respective software into a comprehensive spreadsheet
(Microsoft Excel, Microsoft, Redmond, WA). Data were then imported into SPSS 26
(SPSS, Inc., IBM, Armonk, NY) and expressed as mean ± standard deviation and range.
The Shapiro-Wilk test and visual assessment of distribution through histogram were used
to determine data normality. Pearson r correlations were then used to determine the
relationships between measures of interest during the CMJ, BJ and LL-CMJ with 30-
metre acceleration and maximal speed fly-by sprint completion times and the components
of the Sprint Profile (Speed, F0, V0, Pmax, RFmax, DRF and SFV). In the case of non-normally
distributed variables, Spearman rank-order correlations were used for these variables.
Spearman rank-order correlations are denoted as rs. The magnitude of the correlation
coefficients (r or rs) was considered as trivial (r < 0.10), small (r = 0.10–0.29), moderate
(r = 0.30–0.49), large (r = 0.50–0.69), very large (r = 0.70–0.89), nearly perfect (r = 0.90–
0.99) and perfect (r = 1.0) (Hopkins, 2009). To evaluate the variance explained by jump
performance measures on Sprint Profile components (speed, F0, V0, Pmax, RFmax,
DRF and SFV) during the acceleration sprint and maximal speed during the fly-by sprint,
individual linear stepwise regression analyses were conducted. Independent variables
included in the regression were the CMJ height, CMJ maximum force, LL-CMJ height, LL-
CMJ maximum force, LL-CMJ maximum velocity, BJ distance, BJ maximum vertical force
and BJ maximum horizontal force. Other variables (CMJ maximum power, RSImod, LL-
CMJ maximum power and LL-CMJ RFD) were excluded because they were not indepen­
dent of variables included in the model and therefore would not allow for singularity of the
variables. The presence of multicollinearity was verified with the variance of inflation factor
collinearity diagnostics. When the variance of the inflation factor was greater than 10, the
variable was not included (Field, 2013). Thus, CMJ maximum power, RSImod, LL-CMJ
maximum power and LL-CMJ RFD were excluded from the model. The impact of each
independent variable was determined by assessing the variance explained (R2), with higher
R2 indicating greater importance in predicting the outcome variable. Significance was set at
an alpha level of 0.05 for all analyses.

Results
Participant’s performance on the CMJ, RSImod, BJ, LL-CMJ and Sprint Profile variables,
as well as the acceleration and fly-by sprint split times, are displayed in Table 2.
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 7

Table 2. Mean, standard deviation and range of all measures of interest (n = 25).
Measure Mean Standard Deviation Range
†CMJ height (m) 0.37 0.13 0.49
†CMJ max vertical force (N/kg) 14.63 5.61 23.95
CMJ max vertical power (W/kg) 55.17 18.69 78.61
RSImod 0.55 0.16 0.71
BJ Distance (m) 2.58 0.32 1.15
BJ max vertical force (N/kg) 20.33 2.96 8.73
BJ max horizontal force (N/kg) 7.47 1.06 3.59
LL-CMJ height (m) 0.33 0.11 0.42
†LL-CMJ max velocity (m/s) 2.05 0.44 2.00
LL-CMJ max power (W/kg) 66.92 15.50 72.40
LL-CMJ max force (N/kg) 55.94 12.09 38.11
LL-CMJ RFD (N/kg/s) 1709.28 893.55 2985.57
†F0 (N/kg) 12.46 0.95 3.74
V0 (m/s) 8.75 0.63 2.09
Pmax (W/kg) 27.31 3.39 12.81
SFV −1.43 0.12 0.51
†RFmax (%) 52.17 2.53 9.00
DRF (%) −12.99 1.18 5.34
†Accel max speed (m/s) 8.48 0.58 1.97
†Accel 5-m Time (s) 1.07 0.05 0.20
†Accel 10-m time (s) 1.81 0.08 0.30
†Accel 15-m time (s) 2.46 0.12 0.42
†Accel 20-m time (s) 3.06 0.16 0.54
†Accel 25-m time (s) 3.63 0.20 0.67
†Accel 30-m time (s) 4.19 0.23 0.78
Fly-by max speed (m/s) 10.61 1.13 3.82
†Fly-by 5-m time (s) 0.57 0.04 0.15
†Fly-by 10-m time (s) 1.13 0.08 0.29
†Fly-by 15-m time (s) 1.69 0.12 0.45
†Fly-by 20-m time (s) 2.25 0.16 0.63
†Fly-by 25-m time (s) 2.80 0.20 0.78
†Fly-by 30-m time (s) 3.36 0.26 0.93
† indicates the non-normally distributed variable
CMJ = Vertical Countermovement Jump; RSImod = Reactive Strength Index Modified; BJ = Broad Jump;
LL-CMJ = Low-Load Vertical Jump; RFD = Rate of Force Development; F0 = Maximal Theoretical Force;
V0 = Maximal Theoretical Velocity; Pmax = Maximal Theoretical Power; RFmax = Maximal Ratio of Force;
DRF = decrease in ratio of force; SFV = Force-Velocity Slope; Accel = Acceleration.

30-metre acceleration sprint correlations

The CMJ height showed a significant negative correlation (rs = −0.746; p < 0.001) with the
30-metre completion time and with each of the sprint split times as shown in Table 3.
Amongst other Sprint Profile measures, the CMJ height was positively correlated with sprint
maximal speed (rs = 0.701; p < 0.001), maximal theoretical power (rs = 0.674; p < 0.001) and
maximal theoretical horizontal force (rs = 0.592; p = 0.002). RSImod displayed moderate to
large relationships with the following Sprint Profile components: maximal theoretical
velocity, force-velocity slope, maximal ratio of force and decrease in ratio of force (Table 3).
The BJ distance displayed a significant negative correlation (rs = −0.791; p < 0.001)
with the 30-metre completion times and all sprint split times (Table 4). There were strong
positive correlations between the BJ distance and sprint maximal power (r = 0.724;
p < 0.001), maximal theoretical velocity (r = 0.748; p < 0.001), maximal theoretical
horizontal force (rs = 0.589; p < 0.001), maximal speed (r = 0.774; p < 0.001) and maximal
ratio of force (rs = 0.777; p < 0.001). BJ maximum horizontal force displayed small and
non-significant associations with Sprint Profile components (r = −0.080 to 0.292;
p > 0.05) (Table 4).
 8
M. DIETZE-HERMOSA ET AL.

Table 3. Association between CMJ measures and sprint profile components and sprint completion times during 30-metre acceleration sprints.
Sprint Profile Components
F0 (N/ V0 (m/ Pmax (W/ RFmax DRF Max Speed (m/ 5-m Time 10-m Time 15-m Time 20-m Time 25-m Time 30-m Time
kg) s) kg) SFV (%) (%) s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s)
CMJ height (m) 0.592** 0.680** 0.674** 0.071 0.763** 0.239 0.701** −0.648** −0.759** −0.705** −0.739** −0.738** −0.746**
CMJ VForce (N/kg) 0.063 0.232 0.188 0.107 0.177 0.082 0.198 0.056 0.169 0.281 0.230 0.180 0.186
CMJ VPower (W/ 0.087 0.349 0.131 0.486* 0.144 0.503* 0.108 0.150 0.050 0.146 0.115 0.075 0.075
kg)
RSImod 0.260 0.433* 0.292 0.427* 0.444* 0.500* 0.477* −0.479* −0.451* −0.388 −0.431* −0.453* −0.455*
* indicates the significance level of p < 0.05; **indicates the significance level of p < 0.01
CMJ = Vertical Countermovement Jump; VForce = Maximal Vertical Force; VPower = Maximal Vertical Power; RSImod = Reactive Strength Index Modified; F0 = Maximal Theoretical Force; V0
= Maximal Theoretical Velocity; Pmax = Maximal Theoretical Power; RFmax = Maximal Ratio of Force; DRF = decrease in ratio of force; SFV = Force-Velocity Slope.
Table 4. Association between BJ measures and sprint profile components and sprint completion times during 30-metre acceleration sprints.
Sprint Profile Components
F0 (N/ V0 (m/ Pmax (W/ RFmax DRF Max Speed (m/ 5-m Time 10-m Time 15-m Time 20-m Time 25-m Time 30-m Time
kg) s) kg) SFV (%) (%) s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s)
BJ distance (m) 0.589** 0.748** 0.724** 0.177 0.777** −0.321 0.774** −0.720** −0.798** −0.779** −0.807** −0.786** −0.791**
BJ VForce (N/ 0.081 0.174 0.153 −0.030 0.227 −0.124 0.246 −0.232 −0.238 −0.204 −0.225 −0.242 −0.216
kg)
BJ HForce (N/ 0.244 0.147 0.226 −0.081 0.292 0.053 0.161 −0.327 −0.251 −0.186 −0.223 −0.246 −0.206
kg)
* indicates the significance level of p < 0.05; **indicates the significance level of p < 0.01
BJ = Broad Jump; VForce = Maximal Vertical Force; HForce = Maximal Horizontal Force; F0 = Maximal Theoretical Force; V0 = Maximal Theoretical Velocity; Pmax = Maximal Theoretical Power;
RFmax = Maximal Ratio of Force; DRF = decrease in ratio of force; SFV = Force-Velocity Slope.
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
9
10 M. DIETZE-HERMOSA ET AL.

There was a significant positive correlation between the LL-CMJ height and sprint
maximal speed (r = 0.450; p = 0.031). Maximal velocity during the LL-CMJ was
correlated with sprint maximal speed (rs = 0.516; p < 0.001), maximal theoretical velocity
(rs = 0.534; p < 0.001), maximal theoretical power (rs = 0.631; p < 0.001) and maximal
theoretical force (rs = 0.479; p = 0.015). Maximal power during the LL-CMJ was
positively correlated with sprint maximal speed (r = 0.554; p = 0.011), maximal theore­
tical power (r = 0.603; p = 0.007), maximal theoretical velocity (r = 0.595; p = 0.007),
maximal theoretical horizontal force (rs = 0.583; p = 0.009) and maximal ratio of force
(rs = 0.572; p = 0.006). LL-CMJ maximal velocity (rs = −0.550; p < 0.001) and maximal
power (r = −0.629; p = 0.003) were negatively correlated with the 30-metre sprint
completion time. LL-CMJ maximal velocity and power measures were significantly
associated with additional sprint split times as displayed in Table 5.

30-metre acceleration sprint regression

Inclusion of multiple variables beyond the BJ distance did not improve the model’s
predictive ability. Using stepwise regression, no other predictor explained more variance
in each of the listed Sprint Profile components than the BJ distance. The BJ distance was
the best predictor of sprint speed with a R2 = 0.67, F(1,22) = 26.78, p < 0.001; sprint
maximal theoretical horizontal force with a R2 = 0.61, F(1,22) = 26.73, p < 0.001; sprint
maximal theoretical velocity with a R2 = 0.67, F(1,22) = 26.40, p < 0.001; sprint maximal
theoretical power with a R2 = 0.57, F(1,22) = 16.99, p = 0.001 and maximal ratio of force
with a R2 = 0.76, F(1,22) = 39.97, p < 0.001 (Table 6).

Maximal speed 30-metre fly-by sprint correlations

There were significant negative correlations between multiple split completion times
and the CMJ height (rs = −0.730 to −0.786; p < 0.001) and BJ distance (rs = −0.794 to
−0.838; p < 0.001). Various split times also displayed correlations with the LL CMJ
height (rs = −0.452 to −0.501; p = 0.011 to 0.023), LL CMJ maximal velocity (rs = −0.525
to −0.599; p = 0.007 to 0.002) and LL CMJ maximal power (rs = −0.467 to −0.602;
p = 0.03 to 0.009). Finally, maximal speed was significantly associated with the BJ
distance (rs = 0.794; p < 0.001), CMJ height (rs = 0.736; p < 0.001), RSImod (rs = 0.451;
p = 0.027) and LL-CMJ maximal power (rs = 0.532; p = 0.016) (Table 7).

Maximal speed 30-metre fly-by sprint regression

The BJ distance was the best predictor of sprint maximal speed during the fly-by sprints
accounting for nearly 78% of the variance (R2 = 0.775; F(1,22) = 44.76; p < 0.001). Inclusion
of additional variables did not substantially improve the variance explained (Table 6).

Discussion and implications

The aim of the present study was to explore the relationship between components of the
Sprint Profile, speed and sprint completion times during 30-metre acceleration sprints
with various measures of performance during the CMJ, BJ and LL-CMJ in collegiate track
Table 5. Association between LL-CMJ measures and sprint profile components and sprint completion times during 30-metre acceleration sprints.
Sprint Profile Components
F0 (N/ V0 (m/ Pmax (W/ RFmax DRF Max Speed (m/ 5-m Time 10-m Time 15-m Time 20-m Time 25-m Time 30-m Time
kg) s) kg) SFV (%) (%) s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s)
LL-CMJ height (m) 0.370 0.431* 0.497* −0.157 0.401 0.041 0.450* −0.445* −0.423* −0.382 −0.438* −0.459* −0.463*
LL-CMJ velocity (m/ 0.479* 0.534** 0.631* −0.133 0.407 0.026 0.516** −0.519** −0.548** −0.508** −0.553** −0.550** −0.550*
s)
LL-CMJ power (W/ 0.583** 0.595** 0.603** −0.461* 0.572** 0.286 0.554* −0.513** −0.627** −0.619** −0.625** −0.588** −0.574**
kg)
LL-CMJ force (N/kg) 0.288 0.144 0.223 −0.391 0.334 0.304 0.194 −0.293 −0.253 −0.195 −0.249 −0.240 −0.222
LL-CMJ RFD (N/kg/s) 0.054 0.125 0.099 0.389 0.022 0.385 0.187 −0.061 −0.065 −0.077 −0.050 −0.056 −0.060
* indicates the significance level of p < 0.05; ** indicates the significance level of p < 0.01
LL-CMJ = Low-Load Vertical Jump; RFD = Rate of Force Development; F0 = Maximal Theoretical Force; V0 = Maximal Theoretical Velocity; Pmax = Maximal Theoretical Power; RFmax = Maximal
Ratio of Force; DRF = decrease in ratio of force; SFV = Force-Velocity Slope.
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
11
 12

Table 6. Step-wise regression analyses of the best predictor of sprint profile components during 30-metre Acceleration Sprint and maximum speed during 30-
metre fly-by sprint.
Acceleration Sprint Profile Components
Maximal Speed
ß SE ß B T p-value R2
Constant 4.501 0.755 5.965 <0.001
BJ distance 0.015 0.003 0.821 5.175 <0.001 0.673**
M. DIETZE-HERMOSA ET AL.

Maximal Theoretical Horizontal Force (F0)

ß SE ß B T p-value R2
Constant 3.485 1.452 2.4 0.025
BJ distance 0.032 0.006 0.781 5.859 <0.001 0.609**
Maximal Theoretical Velocity (V0)
ß SE ß B T p-value R2
Constant 4.48 0.813 5.516 <0.001
BJ distance 0.016 0.003 0.819 5.138 <0.001 0.670**
Maximal Theoretical Power (Pmax)
ß SE ß B T p-value R2
Constant 6.036 5.067 1.191 0.255
BJ Distance 0.080 0.019 0.753 4.122 <0.001 0.567**
Maximal Ratio of Force (RFmax)
ß SE ß B T p-value R2
Constant 33.714 2.875 11.725 <0.001
BJ distance 0.069 0.011 0.869 6.322 <0.001 0.755**
Fly-By Sprint
Maximal Speed
ß SE ß B T p-value R2
Constant 7.863 0.432 18.199 <0.001
BJ distance 0.076 0.011 0.880 6.690 <0.001 0.775**
** indicates the significance level of p < 0.01
ß = unstandardised beta coefficient; SE ß = standard error of unstandardised beta coefficient; B = standardised beta coefficient; T = t-statistic; R2 = variance explained.
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 13

Table 7. Association between all measures of interest and maximum 30-metre fly-by sprint comple­
tion times and maximum speed.
5-m Time 10-m Time 15-m Time 20-m Time 25-m Time 30-m Time Max Speed
(s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (m/s)
CMJ height (m) −0.786** −0.777** −0.771** −0.730** −0.748** −0.749** 0.736**
CMJ VForce (N/kg) −0.098 −0.204 −0.217 −0.255 −0.247 −0.262 0.280
CMJ VPower (W/kg) −0.002 −0.098 −0.101 −0.137 −0.138 −0.153 0.280
RSImod −0.417 −0.404 −0.447* −0.428* −0.438* −0.436* 0.424*
BJ distance (m) −0.838** −0.830** −0.822** −0.798** −0.809** −0.807** 0.794**
BJ VForce (N/kg) −0.260 −0.246 −0.247 −0.230 −0.235 −0.254 0.261
BJ HForce (N/kg) −0.300 −0.247 −0.258 −0.219 −0.240 −0.267 0.175
LL-CMJ height (m) −0.501* −0.496* −0.470* −0.454* −0.455* −0.452* 0.285
LL-CMJ velocity (m/s) −0.599** −0.575** −0.556** −0.525** −0.544** −0.525** 0.382
LL-CMJ power (W/kg) −0.467* −0.597** −0.602** −0.588** −0.565** −0.563** 0.532**
LL-CMJ force (N/kg) −0.240 −0.286 −0.251 −0.265 0.251 −0.272 0.146
LL-CMJ RFD (N/kg/s) −0.037 −0.016 −0.018 −0.010 −0.035 −0.010 0.100
* indicates the significance level of p < 0.05; ** indicates the significance level of p < 0.01
CMJ = Vertical Countermovement Jump; VForce = Maximal Vertical Force; VPower = Maximal Vertical Power;
RSImod = Reactive Strength Index Modified; BJ = Broad Jump; VForce = Maximal Vertical Force; HForce = Maximal
Horizontal Force.

and field athletes. Another aim was to determine the predictive ability that jump perfor­
mance measures have on components of the Sprint Profile during 30-metre acceleration
sprints and maximal speed during fly-by sprinting. The results of the study partially
supported the study hypothesis. The findings reveal that certain components of the
CMJ, BJ and LL-CMJ were associated with 30-metre acceleration sprint completion
times and measures of the Sprint Profile. Additionally, that BJ distance was a strong
predictor of various Sprint Profile components during acceleration sprints and maximal
speed fly-by sprints. Moreover, fly-by sprint completion times and calculated maximal
speed demonstrated associations with certain components of the CMJ, BJ and LL-CMJ.
The CMJ height, BJ distance, LL-CMJ height, LL-CMJ velocity and LL-CMJ power
were all associated with the 30-metre acceleration sprint completion time. Previously, in
male amateur rugby players, the 30-metre acceleration sprint completion time was
significantly associated with both the CMJ height (r = −0.73) and the SJ height
(r = −0.78) (Zabaloy et al., 2020). Similarly, Furlong et al. (2019) recently reported strong
associations between the 30-metre acceleration sprint completion time and CMJ height
(r = −0.66) and RSI (r = −0.68) in rugby union players. Associations between the CMJ
height (r = 0.84), LL-CMJ height (r = 0.84) and BJ distance (r = 0.88) with 30-metre sprint
speed have also been reported in elite sprinters (Loturco et al., 2015a). Thus, the
magnitude of associations observed in the present study between the CMJ height, BJ
distance and LL-CMJ measures and 30-metre acceleration sprint completion time sup­
port findings of previous studies. Moreover, in collegiate soccer players, increases in
correlation strength were reported between the CMJ height and sprint completion split
times (r = −0.55; 0–5 metres), (r = −0.74; 0–10 metres), (r = −0.77; 0–30 metres) (Lockie
et al., 2016). Previous research indicates that vertical oriented force application appears to
become more important as athletes approach the maximal velocity phase of sprinting,
which occurs closer to the 30-metre distance (Loturco et al., 2018; Morin et al., 2012). For
early acceleration in sprinting, horizontal force application appears to be critical. This
notion is supported by the current findings showing stronger associations between all
14 M. DIETZE-HERMOSA ET AL.

acceleration sprint completion times and BJ distance compared to both the CMJ and LL-
CMJ height. However, a unique finding of our study is the strong associations between
both the CMJ height and the BJ distance and maximal sprint split completion times and
maximal sprint speed during the fly-by sprint trials. These findings suggest that hor­
izontal force application remains to be critical in the maximal speed sprint phase as well.
Similarly, recent literature suggests that horizontal force application is a key determinant
of sprint speed in high-level sprinters (Hicks et al., 2020; Rabita et al., 2015).
When considering the Sprint Profile, multiple jump measures displayed significant asso­
ciations. These included the CMJ height, RSImod, BJ distance, LL-CMJ velocity and LL-CMJ
power and were primarily associated with the F0, V0, Pmax and RFmax components of the Sp
rint Profile. In order to attain longer BJ distances, increased forces are needed, particularly in
the horizontal direction (Peterson et al., 2006). Hence, this may explain the significant
association observed with Sprint Profile components. For instance, higher horizontal forces
compared to resultant forces will generate a higher RFmax. Moreover, greater F0 contributes to
higher maximal sprint velocities (V0) and ultimately a greater Pmax (Hicks et al., 2020; Rabita
et al., 2015; Samozino et al., 2016). Thus, track and field athletes attaining longer distances
during the BJ through horizontal force application may be able to apply forces in a more
horizontal manner during sprints. This is particularly beneficial during the acceleration phase
of sprinting, as sprinters with better acceleration ability have been shown to produce higher
horizontal net impulse per body mass when compared to slower runners (Morin et al., 2015a).
The CMJ height and RSImod also displayed association with components of the Sprint
Profile. As stated earlier, vertical forces appear more important as the athletes reach the
maximal speed phase of sprinting (Hicks et al., 2020). The ability to absorb, store and
release energy, as displayed during the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) in the extensor
muscles (gluteus maximus, vastus lateralis, rectus femoris and the plantar flexors-
Achilles complex), is critical to achieve faster cadence and top speed during sprinting
(Washif & Kok, 2020). Reduced braking forces and the application of large vertical forces
during the maximal speed phase influence kinematic variables such as the step length,
thus influencing the sprint performance of the athlete (Washif & Kok, 2020). With
ground contact times during the maximal speed sprint phase being shorter than those
during the acceleration phase, a goal during maximal speed sprinting is to reduce the
amortisation phase duration of the SSC, thereby optimising the physiological and
biomechanical components of the SSC and resulting in improved force generation and
transmission (Wild et al., 2011). Research indicates the importance of the SSC in
sprinting, with RSImod being commonly used to assess an athlete’s SSC function
(Cronin & Hansen, 2005; Lloyd et al., 2009). Hence, given that both CMJ and RSImod
are impacted by the SSC, this may explain the significant association seen between CMJ
and RSImod with Sprint Profile components.
Findings from the current study agree with those of Loturco et al. (2018) who reported
significant associations between mean propulsive power during a loaded CMJ and 10-
metre (r = 0.75) and 20-metre (r = 0.90) sprint velocities when examining elite sprinters
and jumpers. In the present study, relative maximal power during the LL-CMJ displayed
associations ranging between −0.513 and −0.627 with sprint acceleration completion
times (Table 5). Moreover, literature indicates that amongst sprinters, a strong associa­
tion exists between 20-metre sprint speeds and both squat jump maximal relative power
and squat jump velocity (r = 0.66 and r = 0.55, respectively) (Jiménez-Reyes et al., 2018).
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 15

These values closely coincide with the magnitude of correlations between LL-CMJ power
and velocity with 30-metre completion time presented in the present study. Track and
field athletes, including sprinters, may necessitate production of high levels of force
output to effectively overcome the inertia during the sprint acceleration phase, thereby
accelerating their bodies forward in an efficient manner (Morin et al., 2012, 2011).
Interestingly, in the present study, there was a lack of association between certain
jump measures with sprint completion times and the Sprint Profile. For instance, CMJ
vertical maximum force and power did not display significant associations with sprint
completion time or the majority of Sprint Profile components. Likewise, LL-CMJ vertical
force did not demonstrate significant associations with any of the Sprint Profile compo­
nents. Similar to the present study, recent research observed a lack of association between
maximal vertical force during the squat jump and maximal theoretical horizontal force
during a 20-metre sprint (r = −0.14) (Marcote-Pequeño et al., 2019). This lack of
association may be credited to the nature of the acceleration sprint and its reliance on
horizontal over vertical force generation and application (Morin et al., 2011). BJ relative
horizontal force displayed small associations with Sprint Profile components and sprint
completion times; yet, these did not reach statistical significance. This was unexpected
since previous literature indicates the importance of horizontal force for sprint accelera­
tion (Hicks et al., 2020; Rabita et al., 2015). However, it should be noted that the
associations between BJ horizontal force and sprint completion times trended in the
expected direction. Therefore, statistical significance might have been reached with
a larger sample size or a more homogenous sample.
Although this is the first study to explore the predictive ability of jump measures on
components of the Sprint Profile, previous research has indicated the importance of
multiple jumping measures to predict sprint completion times. For instance, a model that
included CMJ and SJ height accounted for 75% of the variance in 30-metre acceleration
sprint completion times in rugby union players (Furlong et al., 2019). Similarly, in young
male sprinters, it was suggested that both SJ and CMJ heights were the strongest
predictors of the 100-metre sprint completion time (Smirniotou et al., 2008). Lockie
et al. (2016) reported that the CMJ height accounted for 84% of the variance and the BJ
distance accounted for 49% of the variance in 30-metre acceleration sprint completion
time in collegiate soccer players. Despite strong associations of both CMJ and LL-CMJ
measures with sprint completion times and Sprint Profile measures, stepwise regression
results in the present study indicate that the BJ distance is the best predictor of various
Sprint profile components. This finding supports the imperative role that horizontal
force application plays in sprint performance (Hicks et al., 2020).
Multiple jumping performance measures were associated with maximal speed 30-
metre fly-by sprint completion times and calculated speed. For instance, both the CMJ
height and the RSImod were significantly related to fly-by sprint speed. Moreover, the
LL-CMJ height, velocity and power were associated with multiple fly-by sprint split
times. This finding further supports that vertical forces and short contact times resulting
from optimal SSC mechanics are vital during the maximal speed phase of sprinting.
Whilst sprinting at maximal speed and in an upright position, a greater reliance is placed
on high forces with a vertical orientation to reduce the ground contact time (Clark &
Weyand, 2014; Weyand et al., 2000).
16 M. DIETZE-HERMOSA ET AL.

Overall, this was the first study to demonstrate the strong relationship between various
jump performance measures and components of the Sprint Profile in collegiate track and
field athletes. However, correlations do not necessarily imply causation. Consequently,
study findings cannot ascertain that improved CMJ, BJ or LL-CMJ measures would result
in an improved Sprint Profile or sprint acceleration or fly-by completion times.
Therefore, a longitudinal study would be best suited to provide a comprehensive under­
standing of this issue. Additionally, the correlations presented in the present study are
specific to the sample used and therefore cannot be generalised to other sports or
populations. Furthermore, whilst previous research supports the validity of linear enco­
der compared to force platforms during jumping movements (Weakley et al., 2021), it is
recognised that force platforms were used during CMJ, whilst a linear encoder was used
for LL-CMJ, introducing potential confounding effects. This reflects some of the logis­
tical constraints of the present study.

Conclusion
Findings demonstrate the relevance of the CMJ height and BJ distance to performance of
30-metre acceleration and fly-by sprints amongst high-level track and field athletes. The
LL-CMJ height, maximal velocity and power were also correlated with both sprint
acceleration and fly-by completion times. Moreover, the CMJ height, BJ distance and LL-
CMJ maximal velocity and power displayed the strongest association with F0,
V0 and Pmax compared to other Sprint Profile components during 30-metre acceleration
sprints. Finally, the BJ distance was the strongest predictor of multiple Sprint Profile
components during 30-metre acceleration and the fly-by sprints.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
The author(s) reported that there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.

ORCID
Samuel Montalvo http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3104-3428

References
Busca, B., & Font, A. (2011). A low-cost contact system to assess load displacement velocity in
a resistance training machine. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 10(3), 472–477.
Chavda, S., Bromley, T., Jarvis, P., Williams, S., Bishop, C., Turner, A. N., Lake, J. P., &
Mundy, P. D. (2018). Force-time characteristics of the countermovement jump: Analyzing the
curve in Excel. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 40(2), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1519/ssc.
0000000000000353
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 17

Clark, K. P., & Weyand, P. G. (2014). Are running speeds maximized with simple-spring stance
mechanics? Journal of Applied Physiology (1985), 117(6), 604–615. https://doi.org/10.1152/
japplphysiol.00174.2014
Comfort, P., Stewart, A., Bloom, L., & Clarkson, B. (2014). Relationships between strength, sprint,
and jump performance in well-trained youth soccer players. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 28(1), 173–177. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e318291b8c7
Cronin, J. B., & Hansen, K. T. (2005). Strength and power predictors of sports speed. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(2), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1519/14323.1
Davis, K., Rossi, S., Langdon, J., & McMillan, J. (2012). The relationship between jumping and
sprinting performance in collegiate ultimate athletes. Journal of Coaching Education, 5(2),
24–37. https://doi.org/10.1123/jce.5.2.24
Dietze-Hermosa, M. S., Montalvo, S., Cubillos, N. R., Gonzalez, M. P., & Dorgo, S. (2020).
Association and predictive abilityof vertical countermovement jump performance on unilateral
agility in recreationally trained individuals. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 20(3),
2076–2085. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2020.s3280
Dorgo, S., Perales, J. J., Boyle, J. B., Hausselle, J., & Montalvo, S. (2020). Sprint training on
a treadmill vs. Overground results in modality-specific impact on sprint performance but
similar positive improvement in body composition in young adults. The Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 34(2), 463–472. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000003024
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. sage.
Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe, A., Bishop, C., Busca, B., Aguilera-Castells, J., Vicens-Bordas, J., & Gonzalo-
Skok, O. (2020). Inter-limb asymmetries are associated with decrements in physical perfor­
mance in youth elite team sports athletes. PLOS ONE, 15(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0229440
Furlong, L. A. M., Harrison, A. J., & Jensen, R. L. (2019). Measures of strength and jump
performance can predict 30-m sprint time in rugby union players. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 35(9), 2579–2583 . https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003170
Garnacho-Castano, M. V., Lopez-Lastra, S., & Mate-Munoz, J. L. (2015). Reliability and validity
assessment of a linear position transducer. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 14(1), 128–
136.
Harry, J. R., Blinch, J., Barker, L. A., Krzyszkowski, J., & Chowning, L. (2020). Low-pass filter
effects on metrics of countermovement vertical jump performance. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003611
Haugen, T., McGhie, D., & Ettema, G. (2019). Sprint running: From fundamental mechanics to
practice-a review. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 119(6), 1273–1287. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00421-019-04139-0
Hicks, D. S., Schuster, J. G., Samozino, P., & Morin, J. B. (2020). Improving mechanical effective­
ness during sprint acceleration: Practical recommendations and guidelines. Strength &
Conditioning Journal, 42(2), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0000000000000519 .
Hopkins, W. (2009, January 24). A scale of magnitude for effect statistics.
Jiménez-Reyes, P., Samozino, P., García-Ramos, A., Cuadrado-Peñafiel, V., Brughelli, M., &
Morin, J.-B. (2018). Relationship between vertical and horizontal force-velocity-power profiles
in various sports and levels of practice. PeerJ, 6, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5937
Kakehata, G., Goto, Y., Iso, S., & Kanosue, K. (2021). Timing of rectus femoris and biceps femoris
muscle activities in both legs at maximal running speed. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 53(3), 643–652. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000002497
Lahti, J., Jimenez-Reyes, P., Cross, M., Samozino, P., Chassaing, P., Ahtiainen, J., & Morin, J.-B.
(2020). Individual sprint force-velocity profile adaptations to in-season assisted and resisted
velocity-based training in professional rugby. Sports, 8(5), 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/
sports8050074
Lake, J., Mundy, P., Comfort, P., McMahon, J. J., Suchomel, T. J., & Carden, P. (2018). Concurrent
validity of a portable force plate using vertical jump force-time characteristics. Journal of
Applied Biomechanics, 34(5), 410–413. https://doi.org/10.1123/jab.2017-0371
18 M. DIETZE-HERMOSA ET AL.

Lloyd, R. S., Oliver, J. L., Hughes, M. G., & Williams, C. A. (2009). Reliability and validity of
field-based measures of leg stiffness and reactive strength index in youths. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 27(14), 1565–1573. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410903311572
Lockie, R. G., Callaghan, S. J., Berry, S. P., Cooke, E. R., Jordan, C. A., Luczo, T. M., &
Jeffriess, M. D. (2014). Relationship between unilateral jumping ability and asymmetry on
multidirectional speed in team-sport athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
28(12), 3557–3566. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000588
Lockie, R. G., Stage, A. A., Stokes, J. J., Orjalo, A. J., Davis, D. L., Giuliano, D. V., Moreno, M.,
Risso, F., Lazar, A., Birmingham-Babauta, S., & Tomita, T. M. (2016). Relationships and
predictive capabilities of jump assessments to soccer-specific field test performance in division
I collegiate players. Sports (Basel), 4(4), 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports4040056
Loturco, I., Contreras, B., Kobal, R., Fernandes, V., Moura, N., Siqueira, F., Pereira, L. A.,
Pereira, L. A., & Winckler, C. (2018). Vertically and horizontally directed muscle power
exercises: Relationships with top-level sprint performance. PLOS ONE, 13(7), 1–13. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201475
Loturco, I., D’Angelo, R. A., Fernandes, V., Gil, S., Kobal, R., Cal Abad, C. C., Kitamura, K., &
Nakamura, F. Y. (2015a). Relationship between sprint ability and loaded/unloaded jump tests in
elite sprinters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(3), 758–764. https://doi.org/10.
1519/JSC.0000000000000660
Loturco, I., Nakamura, F. Y., Tricoli, V., Kobal, R., Cal Abad, C. C., Kitamura, K., Gonzalez-
Badillo, J. J., Pereira, L. A., González-Badillo, J. J., & Ugrinowitsch, C. (2015b). Determining the
optimum power load in jump squat using the mean propulsive velocity. PLOS ONE, 10(10), 1–
13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140102
Marcote-Pequeño, R., García-Ramos, A., Cuadrado-Peñafiel, V., González-Hernández, J. M.,
Gómez, M., & Jiménez-Reyes, P. (2019). Association between the force-velocity profile and
performance variables obtained in jumping and sprinting in Elite Female Soccer players.
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 14(2), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.
1123/ijspp.2018-0233
Moir, G. L. (2008). Three different methods of calculating vertical jump height from force platform
data in men and women. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 12(4),
207–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/10913670802349766
Montalvo, S., & Dorgo, S. (2019). The effect of different stretching protocols on vertical jump
measures in college age gymnasts. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 59(12),
1956–1962. https://doi.org/10.23736/s0022-4707.19.09561-6
Montalvo, S., Gonzalez, M. P., Dietze-Hermosa, M. S., Eggleston, J. D., & Dorgo, S. (2021).
Common vertical jump and reactive strength index measuring devices: A validity and reliability
analysis. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 35(5), 1234–1243. https://doi.org/10.
1519/jsc.0000000000003988
Morin, J.-B., Bourdin, M., Edouard, P., Peyrot, N., Samozino, P., & Lacour, J.-R. (2012).
Mechanical determinants of 100-m sprint running performance. European Journal of Applied
Physiology, 112(11), 3921–3930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-012-2379-8
Morin, J.-B., Edouard, P., & Samozino, P. (2011). Technical ability of force application as
a determinant factor of sprint performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 43
(9), 1680–1688. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e318216ea37
Morin, J.-B., Gimenez, P., Edouard, P., Arnal, P., Jiménez-Reyes, P., Samozino, P., Brughelli, M., &
Mendiguchia, J. (2015b). Sprint acceleration mechanics: The major role of hamstrings in hor­
izontal force production. Frontiers in Physiology, 6, 404. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2015.00404
Morin, J.-B., Samozino, P., Murata, M., Cross, M., & Nagahara, R. (2019). A simple method for
computing sprint acceleration kinetics from running velocity data: Replication study with improved
design. Journal of Biomechanics, 94, 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.07.020
Morin, J.-B., Slawinski, J., Dorel, S., de Villareal, E. S., Couturier, A., Samozino, P., Brughelli, M., &
Rabita, G. (2015a). Acceleration capability in elite sprinters and ground impulse: Push more,
brake less? Journal of Biomechanics, 48(12), 3149–3154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.
2015.07.009
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 19

O’Connor, H., Olds, T., & Maughan, R. J., & International Association of Athletics, F. (2007).
Physique and performance for track and field events. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(sup1), S49–
60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410701607296 .
Pérez-Castilla, A., Piepoli, A., Garrido-Blanca, G., Delgado-García, G., Balsalobre-Fernández, C.,
& García-Ramos, A. (2019). Precision of 7 commercially available devices for predicting the
bench press 1-repetition maximum from the individual load-velocity relationship.
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 14(10) , 1442–1446. https://doi.
org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0801
Peterson, M. D., Alvar, B. A., & Rhea, M. R. (2006). The contribution of maximal force production
to explosive movement among young collegiate athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 20(4), 867–873. https://doi.org/10.1519/R-18695.1 .
Rabita, G., Dorel, S., Slawinski, J., Saez-de-villarreal, E., Couturier, A., Samozino, P., & Morin, J. B.
(2015). Sprint mechanics in world-class athletes: A new insight into the limits of human
locomotion. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 25(5), 583–594. https://
doi.org/10.1111/sms.12389
Raymond, F., Lussier, B., Dugas, F., Charbonneau, M., Croteau, F., Kennedy, C., & Berryman, N.
(2018). using portable force plates to assess vertical jump performance: A metrological
appraisal. Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 6(4), 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports6040149
Robertson, D. G., & Fleming, D. (1987). Kinetics of standing broad and vertical jumping.
Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences, 12(1), 19–23.
Romero-Franco, N., Jimenez-Reyes, P., Castano-Zambudio, A., Capelo-Ramirez, F., Rodriguez-
Juan, J. J., Gonzalez-Hernandez, J., Balsalobre-Fernandez, C., Balsalobre-Fernández, C., &
Toscano-Bendala, F. J. (2017). Sprint performance and mechanical outputs computed with an
iPhone app: Comparison with existing reference methods. European Journal of Sport Science, 17
(4), 386–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2016.1249031
Samozino, P., Rabita, G., Dorel, S., Slawinski, J., Peyrot, N., Saez de Villarreal, E., & Morin, J. B.
(2016). A simple method for measuring power, force, velocity properties, and mechanical
effectiveness in sprint running. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 26(6),
648–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12490
Sands, W. A., Bogdanis, G. C., Penitente, G., Donti, O., McNeal, J. R., Butterfield, C. C.,
Poehling, R. A., & Barker, L. A. (2020). Reliability and validity of a low-cost portable force
platform. Isokinetics and Exercise Science, 28(3), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.3233/ies-
202106
Shalfawi, S. A., Sabbah, A., Kailani, G., Tonnessen, E., & Enoksen, E. (2011). The relationship
between running speed and measures of vertical jump in professional basketball players: A
field-test approach. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(11), 3088–3092. https://
doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e318212db0e
Smirniotou, A., Katsikas, C., Paradisis, G., Argeitaki, P., Zacharogiannis, E., & Tziortzis, S. (2008).
Strength-power parameters as predictors of sprinting performance. Journal of Sports Medicine
and Physical Fitness, 48(4), 447–454.
Van Hooren, B., & Zolotarjova, J. (2017). The difference between countermovement and squat
jump performances: A review of underlying mechanisms with practical applications. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(7), 2011–2020. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.
0000000000001913
Vieira, A., & Tufano, J. J. (2021). Reactive strength index-modified: Reliability, between group
comparison, and relationship between its associated variables. Biology of Sport, 38(3) , 451–457.
https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2021.100363
Washif, J. A., & Kok, L.-Y. (2020). The reactive bounding coefficient as a measure of horizontal
reactive strength to evaluate stretch-shortening cycle performance in sprinters. Journal of
Human Kinetics, 73(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2020-0003
Weakley, J., Morrison, M., García-Ramos, A., Johnston, R., James, L., & Cole, M. H. (2021). The
validity and reliability of commercially available resistance training monitoring devices:
A systematic review. Sports Medicine, 51(3), 443–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-020-
01382-w
 20 M. DIETZE-HERMOSA ET AL.

Weyand, P. G., Sternlight, D. B., Bellizzi, M. J., & Wright, S. (2000). Faster top running speeds are
achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements. Journal of Applied
Physiology (1985), 89(5), 1991–1999. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.5.1991
Wild, J., Bezodis, N. E., Blagrove, R. C., & Bezodis, I. N. (2011). A biomechanical comparison of
accelerative and maximum velocity sprinting: Specific strength training considerations.
Professional Strength and Conditioning, 21, 23–37.
Wisloff, U., Castagna, C., Helgerud, J., Jones, R., & Hoff, J. (2004). Strong correlation of maximal
squat strength with sprint performance and vertical jump height in elite soccer players. British
Journal of Sports Medicine, 38(3), 285–288. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2002.002071
Zabaloy, S., Carlos-Vivas, J., Freitas, T. T., Pareja-Blanco, F., Pereira, L., Loturco, I., Comyns, T.,
Gálvez-González, J., & Alcaraz, P. E. (2020). Relationships between resisted sprint performance
and different strength and power measures in rugby players. Sports (Basel), 8(3), 34. https://doi.
org/10.3390/sports8030034

View publication stats