» Articles » PMID: 22233797

The Difference is in the Start: Impact of Timing and Start Procedure on Sprint Running Performance

Overview
Specialty Physiology
Date 2012 Jan 12
PMID 22233797
Citations 29
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The difference is in the start: impact of timing and start procedure on sprint running performance. The purpose of this study was to compare different sprint start positions and to generate correction factors between popular timing triggering methods on 40-m/40-yd sprint time. Fourteen female athletes (17 ± 1 years), personal best 100 m: 13.26 (±0.68) seconds and 11 male athletes (20 ± 5 years), personal best 100 m: 11.58 (±0.74) seconds participated. They performed 2 series of 3 40-m sprints in randomized order: (a) start from the block, measured by means of Brower audio sensor (BAS) and Dartfish video timing (DVT), (b) 3-point start, measured by using hand release pod (HR) and DVT, and (c) standing start, triggered by both photocell across starting line (SFC), and foot release (FR) plus DVT. Video analysis was performed by 2 independent observers and averaged. Simultaneous measurements at national athletics competitions demonstrated that DVT and BAS were equivalent to Omega Timing within the limits of precision of video timing (±0.01 seconds). Hand and floor timer triggering showed small but significant biases compared with movement captured from video (0.02-0.04 seconds), presumably because of sensitivity of pressure thresholds. Coefficient of variation for test-retest timing using different starting positions ranged from 0.7 to 1.0%. Compared with block starts reacting to gunfire, HR, SFC, and FR starts yielded 0.17 ± 0.09, 0.27 ± 0.12, and 0.69 ± 0.11 second faster times, respectively, over 40 m (all p < 0.001) because of inclusion or exclusion of reaction time, plus momentum, and body position differences at trigger moment. Correction factors for the conversion of 40 m/40 yd and 40 yd/40 m were 0.92 and 1.08, respectively. The correction factors obtained from this study may facilitate more meaningful comparisons of published sprint performances.

Citing Articles

Effects of linear versus curvilinear sprint training on multidirectional speed in young soccer players: a randomized parallel-group trial.

Solleiro-Duran D, Cidre-Fuentes P, Rey E, Baena-Raya A, Filter A, Padron-Cabo A Biol Sport. 2025; 42(1):89-97.

PMID: 39758166 PMC: 11694198. DOI: 10.5114/biolsport.2025.139084.


Computer vision-based instantaneous speed tracking system for measuring the subtask speed in the 100-meter sprinter: Development and concurrent validity study.

Kamnardsiri T, Boripuntakul S, Kaiket C Heliyon. 2024; 10(2):e24086.

PMID: 39734471 PMC: 11681224. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24086.


Impact of Hydraulic Resistance on Spatiotemporal Characteristics of Initial Six Steps When Sprinting Under Varying Loads.

Sasek M, Leban Z, Kranjc S, Sarabon N J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2024; 9(4).

PMID: 39728247 PMC: 11676415. DOI: 10.3390/jfmk9040263.


Evaluating the relationship between negative foot speed and sprint performance using shoe-mounted inertial sensors.

Pla G, Martini D, Potter M, Hoogkamer W, Cain S PLoS One. 2024; 19(12):e0303920.

PMID: 39705282 PMC: 11661630. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303920.


Analysis of the Validity and Reliability of the Photo Finish Smartphone App to Measure Sprint Time.

Marco-Contreras L, Bataller-Cervero A, Gutierrez H, Sanchez-Sabate J, Berzosa C Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(20).

PMID: 39460199 PMC: 11511534. DOI: 10.3390/s24206719.