Lower-limb wearable resistance overloads joint angular velocity during early acceleration sprint running.

Lower-limb wearable resistance (WR) facilitates targeted resistance-based training during sports-specific movement tasks. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of two different WR placements (thigh and shank) on joint kinematics during the acceleration phase of sprint running. Eighteen participants completed maximal effort sprints while unloaded and with 2% body mass thigh- or shank-placed WR. The main findings were as follows: 1) the increase to 10 m sprint time was small with thigh WR (effect size [ES] = 0.24), and with shank WR, the increase was also small but significant (ES = 0.33); 2) significant differences in peak joint angles between the unloaded and WR conditions were small (ES = 0.23-0.38), limited to the hip and knee joints, and <2° on average; 3) aside from peak hip flexion angles, no clear trends were observed in individual difference scores; and, 4) thigh and shank WR produced similar reductions in average hip flexion and extension angular velocities. The significant overload to hip flexion and extension velocity with both thigh- and shank-placed WR may be beneficial to target the flexion and extension actions associated with fast sprint running.

Acute and longitudinal effects of weighted vest training on sprint-running performance: a systematic review.

This systematic review aimed to quantify the acute and longitudinal effects that occur with weighted vests during sprint-running. PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science were searched using the Boolean phrases (vest OR trunk) AND (sprint*) AND (resist* OR weight OR load*). From 170 articles retrieved, 11 studies (6 acute, 5 longitudinal) met the inclusion criteria. Vest loads (5-40% body mass) were found to significantly increase acute over-ground times (10-50 m 4.1-16.9%, effect sizes [ES] = 0.93-3.11) through significantly decreased velocity (-2.2% to -17.3%, ES = -0.41 to -3.19), horizontal force (-5.9% to -22.1%, ES = -0.85 to -3.30), maximal power (-4.3% to -35.6%, ES = -0.32 to -3.44), and flight times (-8.3% to -14.6%, ES = -0.88 to -1.03), while increasing contact times (14.7-19.6%, ES = 1.80-3.17). Treadmill sprints were less effected until loads >11% body mass were used. Improvements in velocity (1.2-1.3%, ES = 0.24-0.37) and times (10-50 m 1.2-9.4%, ES = 0.25-3.30) were found in longitudinal studies (5.6-18.9% body mass, 3-7 weeks). Future studies should focus on determining the optimum load and volume to clearly establish the training benefits of this form of resisted sprinting.

Rotational shot put: a phase analysis of current kinematic knowledge.

The biomechanics of the rotational shot put is used to direct coaching to enhance throwing performance. Maximising shot put distance and velocity at the point of release through increasing momentum is of interest to coaches. This narrative review aimed to examine and summarise the critical kinematic variables within each of the six phases of rotational shot put associated with performance and release velocity. Databases were searched using 'shot put', 'biomechanics' and 'track and field throwing', from which 20 articles based on the inclusion criteria were reviewed. The results indicate that the magnitude of transverse thrower-shot angular momentum and thrower-shots path of translation are crucial to performance. In achieving high angular momentum, sweep leg and arm actions need to be well-timed, and their timings and movement likely determine key biomechanical events such as hip to shoulder separations. Generating high release velocities stems from the development and transference of momentum through each phase. Kinematics and kinetics within each phase are co-dependent within and across each phase; therefore, coaches should consider the biomechanics of an athlete through preceding phases when seeking biomechanical change within a given phase. Further research and consideration of kinetics and energy transfer would add value to kinematic observations.

Acute changes in acceleration phase sprint biomechanics with lower body wearable resistance.

The aim of this acute cross-sectional study was to quantify the kinematic and kinetic changes that occur during sprint acceleration when lower body WR is worn. Fifteen male rugby athletes (19 years; 181 cm; 91 kg) were assessed during maximal effort over-ground and treadmill sprinting over 20 m under three different loading conditions: 0%, 3% and 5% body mass (BM) added weight attached to the lower body. Treadmill data provided a convenient estimate of kinetic changes in the absence of in-ground force plates. The loaded conditions resulted in significantly increased ground contact time (5 to 6%) and decreased step frequency (-2 to -3%) during sprint accelerations (effect size = 0.32-0.72). Moderate WR loading (3% BM) resulted in increased (9%; effect size = 0.66) theoretical maximum horizontal force (relative to BM) and unchanged 20 m sprint times (p > 0.05). Heavier WR loading (5% BM) resulted in a significant decrease (-4%) in vertical ground reaction forces (relative to total system mass) and slower (1 to 2%) 20 m sprint times (effect size = 0.38-0.70). Lower body WR loading up to 5% BM can provide specific sprint training overload, while affecting sprint acceleration biomechanics by ≤ 6%.

Thigh loaded wearable resistance increases sagittal plane rotational work of the thigh resulting in slower 50-m sprint times.

This study determined the acute changes in rotational work with thigh attached wearable resistance (WR) of 2% body mass during 50-m sprint-running. Fourteen athletes completed sprints with, and without, WR in a randomised order. Sprint times were measured via timing gates at 10-m and 50-m. Rotational kinematics were obtained over three phases (steps 1-2, 3-6 and 7-10) via inertial measurement unit attached to the left thigh. Quantification of thigh angular displacement and peak thigh angular velocity was subsequently derived to measure rotational work. The WR condition was found to increase sprint times at 10-m (1.4%, effect size [ES] 0.38, p 0.06) and 50-m (1.9%, ES 0.55, p 0.04). The WR condition resulted in trivial to small increases in angular displacement of the thigh during all phases (0.6-3.4%, ES 0.04-0.26, p 0.09-0.91). A significant decrease in angular velocity of the thigh was found in all step phases (-2.5% to -8.0%, ES 0.17-0.51, p < 0.001-0.04), except extension in step phase 1 with the WR. Rotational work was increased (9.8-18.8%, ES 0.35-0.53, p < 0.001) with WR in all phases of the sprint. Thigh attached WR provides a means to significantly increase rotational work specific to sprinting.

Effects of forearm wearable resistance during accelerated sprints: From a standing start position.

Fusiform weighted garments enable specific loading strategies during sport-specific movements. Loading the arms over during accelerated sprinting from a 2-point start position is pertinent to a variety of sporting performances. Fourteen sprint-trained individuals (age = 20.61 ± 1.16 years; height = 1.73 m ± 3.85 cm; body mass 65.33 ± 4.86 kg; personal best 100-m race time 11.40 ± 0.39 s) performed unloaded/loaded wearable resistance (WR) sprints. Between-condition step kinematics and kinetics were compared over four acceleration phases: steps 1-4, 5-8, 9-12 and 13-16. Sprint performance did not differ between unloaded and loaded WR at 10-m (-1.41%; ES = -0.32), or 30-m (-0.76%; ES = -0.24). Sprinting with forearm WR significantly decreased step frequency during phase two (p < 0.05, -3.42%; ES = -0.81) and three (-3.60%; ES = -0.86) and step velocity during phase four of the 30 m sprinting task (p < 0.05, -3.61%; ES: 0.91) only. There were no significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) between step kinetics amongst the two conditions. Findings indicate that arm-loaded WR may provide specific sprinting overload for 2-point starting positions. This may be relevant to a wider sporting context such as field and team sport performances.

Waveform analysis of shank loaded wearable resistance during sprint running acceleration.

Lower-limb wearable resistance (WR) provides a specific and targeted overload to the musculature involved in sprint running, however, it is unknown if greater impact forces occur with the additional limb mass. This study compared the contact times and ground reaction force waveforms between sprint running with no load and 2% body mass (BM) shank-positioned WR over 30 m. Fifteen male university-level sprint specialists completed two maximum effort sprints with each condition in a randomized order. Sprint running with shank WR resulted in trivial changes to contact times at 5 m, 10 m, and 20 m (effect size [ES] = <0.20, p > 0.05) and a small, significant increase to contact time at 30 m by 1.94% (ES = 0.25, p = 0.03). Significant differences in ground reaction force between unloaded and shank loaded sprint running were limited to the anterior-posterior direction and occurred between 20% and 30% of ground contact at 10 m, 20 m, and 30 m. Shank WR did not result in greater magnitudes of horizontal or vertical forces during the initial impact portion of ground contact. Practitioners can prescribe shank WR training with loads ≤2% BM without concern for increased risk of injurious impact forces.

Changes to horizontal force-velocity and impulse measures during sprint running acceleration with thigh and shank wearable resistance.

This study determined the effects of two wearable resistance (WR) placements (i.e. thigh and shank) on horizontal force-velocity and impulse measures during sprint running acceleration. Eleven male athletes performed 50 m sprints either unloaded or with WR of 2% body mass attached to the thigh or shank. In-ground force platforms were used to measure ground reaction forces and determine dependent variables of interest. The main findings were: 1) increases in sprint times and reductions in maximum velocity were trivial to small when using thigh WR (0.00-1.93%) and small to moderate with shank WR (1.56-3.33%); 2) athletes maintained or significantly increased horizontal force-velocity mechanical variables with WR (effect size = 0.32-1.23), except for theoretical maximal velocity with thigh WR, and peak power, theoretical maximal velocity and maximal ratio of force with shank WR; 3) greater increases to braking and vertical impulses were observed with shank WR (2.72-26.3% compared to unloaded) than with thigh WR (2.17-12.1% compared to unloaded) when considering the entire acceleration phase; and, 4) no clear trends were observed in many of the individual responses. These findings highlight the velocity-specific nature of this resistance training method and provide insight into what mechanical components are overloaded by lower-limb WR.

Hamstring Muscle Volume as an Indicator of Sprint Performance.

ABSTRACT: Nuell, S, Illera-Domínguez, V, Carmona, G, Macadam, P, Lloret, M, Padullés, JM, Alomar, X, and Cadefau, JA. Hamstring muscle volume as an indicator of sprint performance. J Strength Cond Res 35(4): 902-909, 2021-This study aimed to compare mechanical properties and performance during sprinting, as well as thigh muscle volumes (MVs), between national-level sprinters and physically active males. In addition, the relationships between thigh MVs and sprint mechanical properties and performance were investigated. Seven male sprinters and 9 actives performed maximal-effort 40-m sprints. Instantaneous velocity was measured by radar to obtain theoretical maximum force (F0), the theoretical maximum velocity (V0), and the maximum power (Pmax). For MV assessment, series of cross-sectional images of each subject's thigh were obtained by magnetic resonance imaging for each of the quadriceps and hamstring muscles and the adductor muscle group. Sprinters were faster over 10 m (7%, effect size [ES] = 2.12, p < 0.01) and 40 m (11%, ES = 3.68, p < 0.01), with significantly higher V0 (20%, ES = 4.53, p < 0.01) and Pmax (28%, ES = 3.04, p < 0.01). Sprinters had larger quadriceps (14%, ES = 1.12, p < 0.05), adductors (23%, ES = 1.33, p < 0.05), and hamstrings (32%, ES = 2.11, p < 0.01) MVs than actives. Hamstrings MV correlated strongly with 40-m sprint time (r = -0.670, p < 0.01) and V0 (r = 0.757, p < 0.01), and moderately with Pmax (r = 0.559, p < 0.05). Sprinters were significantly faster and had greater V0 and Pmax than active males. Larger MVs were found in sprinters' thighs, especially in the hamstring musculature, and strong correlations were found between hamstring MV and sprint mechanical properties and sprint performance.

Reliability of cable downswing load-velocity performance in golf swings.

The cable-pulley downswing is a movement similar to the golf downswing, and therefore may offer a valuable golf specific rotational diagnostic and training tool. However, to be of value, measurements need to be stable across testing occasions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to quantify the test-retest reliability of the cable downswing across a spectrum of load-velocities. Ten male participants (21.7 ± 3.0 years, 84.6 ± 9.8 kg, 1.80 ± 0.05 m) volunteered to participate over 3 testing sessions' separated by a minimum of 3 days. Participants performed maximal velocity cable downswings across eight loads (1.25-18.75 kg), which were incrementally increased by 2.5 kg. Vertical cable stack velocity was collected at 50 Hz via a GymAware linear position transducer. Downswing velocity across all eight loads was observed to be extremely reliable (change in mean = -5.1% to 2.9%, coefficient of variation = 1.5-6.4% and intra-class correlation = 0.70-0.98), with reliability increasing with increasing trials. In conclusion, the cable downswing is a reliable method of tracking rotational ability similar to the golf downswing. Practitioners should establish an upper load relative to the apparatus and participant. Future research should determine the utility and sensitivity of this measure.

Load effects of thigh wearable resistance on angular and linear kinematics and kinetics during non-motorised treadmill sprint-running.

The aim of this study was to investigate the load effects of thigh attached wearable resistance (WR) on linear and angular kinematics and linear kinetics during sprint-running. Fourteen recreational active subjects performed a series of maximal sprints with and without WR of 1%, 2%, and 3% body mass (BM) in a randomised order. Sprints were performed on a non-motorised treadmill that collected velocity, and linear step kinematics and kinetics. Angular kinematics of the thigh were collected from an inertial measurement unit attached to the left thigh. Trivial decreases were found in peak velocity with all WR loads (-0.9 to -.2.4%, effect size [ES] 0.09-0.17, p > .05). The WR conditions resulted in significantly decreased average step frequency (-2.0% to -3.0%, ES = 0.35-0.44, p < .05) with loads of ≥2% BM, whereas average step length was statistically unchanged (1.9-2.8%, ES = 0.20-0.33). Average angular displacement was significantly decreased (-7.0% to -10.3%, ES = 0.88-1.10, p = 0.00-0.03) with loads of ≥2% BM. Average angular flexion velocity (-10.2%, ES = 1.07, p = .02) and extension velocity (-12.0%, ES = 0.85, p = .01) were significantly decreased with 3% BM. Trivial to small ES changes (p > .05) were found in the linear kinetic measures of interest. Thigh WR provides a sprint-specific rotational form of resistance resulting in greater changes to angular kinematics than linear properties of sprint-running. For practitioners who wish to target thigh angular kinematics and step frequency without decreasing step length, thigh WR of ≥2% BM offers a sprint-specific resistance training tool.

Effects of forearm wearable resistance on acceleration mechanics in collegiate track sprinters.

Arm action is critical for optimising sprinting performance. This study aimed to examine overground sprinting performance and step characteristics during unloaded and 2% body mass (BM) forearm wearable resistance loaded sprinting. Fourteen collegiate male track sprinters performed unloaded and forearm loaded sprints over thirty metres of in-ground force plates. Step kinematics and relative kinetics were compared between the unloaded and forearm loaded conditions over four acceleration phases (i.e. steps 1-4, 5-8, 9-12 and 13-16). Affixing 2% BM loads to the forearms did not significantly alter 0-30-m sprint times (p > 0.05; -1.38 to -1.75%; ES = -0.38 to -0.54). Sprinting with forearm loads resulted in significant (p ≤ 0.05) increases in relative propulsive impulse (5.48%; ES = 1.09) and step length (4.01%; ES = 1.04) over the 1st acceleration phase. Relative vertical impulse was the only variable to change over the middle two acceleration phases (3.94-4.18%; ES = 0.77-1.00). Over the last acceleration phase stride frequency was lower (-4.86%, ES = -0.92), yet both flight time (7.70%; ES = 0.79) and vertical impulse (4.12%; ES = 0.89) increased. These findings provide interesting programming implications for coaches who wish to improve the determinants of sprinting via dedicated and specific arm loaded training. Sprinting with forearm loads may be used to develop longer stride lengths by generating greater horizontal propulsion during early acceleration and promote alterations to step frequency and flight time imposed through greater vertical loading demands over the later phases of accelerated sprinting.

Effects of upper and lower body wearable resistance on spatio-temporal and kinetic parameters during running.

Wearable resistance training involves added load attached directly to the body during sporting movements. The effects of load position during running are not yet fully established. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to determine spatio-temporal and kinetic characteristics during submaximal running using upper, lower and whole-body wearable resistance (1-10% body mass (BM)). Twelve trained male runners completed eight 2-min treadmill running bouts at 3.9 m/s with and without wearable resistance. The first and last bouts were unloaded, while the middle 6 were randomised wearable resistance conditions: upper body (UB) 5% BM, lower body (LB) 1%, 3%, 5% BM and whole body (WB) 5%, 10% BM. Wearable resistance of 1-10% BM resulted in a significant increase in heart rate (5.40-8.84%), but minimal impact on spatio-temporal variables. Loads of 5% BM and greater caused changes in vertical stiffness, vertical and horizontal force, and impulse. Functional and effective propulsive force (2.95%, 2.88%) and impulse (3.40%, 3.38%) were significantly (p < 0.05) greater with LB5% than UB5%. Wearable resistance may be used to increase muscular kinetics during running without negatively impacting spatio-temporal variables. The application of these findings will vary depending on athlete goals. Future longitudinal studies are required to validate training contentions.

Thigh positioned wearable resistance affects step frequency not step length during 50†m sprint-running.

This study determined the acute changes in spatio-temporal and impulse variables when wearable resistance (WR) of 2% body mass was attached distally to the thighs during 50 m maximal sprint-running. Fifteen sub-elite male sprinters performed sprints with and without WR over 50 m of in-ground force platforms in a randomised order. A paired t-test was used to determine statistical differences (p < .05), with effect sizes (ES) calculated between conditions over steps: 1-4, 5-14, and 15-23. WR resulted in small increased 10 and 50 m sprint times (1.0%, ES = 0.31, 0.9%, ES = 0.44, respectively, p > .05) compared to the unloaded sprint condition. For spatio-temporal variables, the WR condition resulted in moderate ES changes in step frequency (-2.8%, ES = -0.53, steps 5-14, p > .05), and contact time (2.5%, ES = 0.57, steps 5-14, and 3.2%, ES = 0.51, average of 23 steps, p > .05), while step length was unaffected during all step phases of the sprint (ES = 0.02-0.07, p > .05). Regarding kinetics, during steps 5-14, WR resulted in a moderate decrease (-4.8%, ES = -0.73, p < .05) in net anterior-posterior impulses and a moderate decrease in vertical stiffness (-5.7%, ES = -0.57, p > .05). For athletes seeking to overload step frequency and develop anterior-posterior impulse during mid to late accelerated sprinting, WR enables the application of a sprint-specific form of resistance training to be completed without decreasing step length.

The effects of lower limb wearable resistance on sprint running performance: A systematic review.

The aim of this review was to examine the literature that has used lower limb wearable resistance (WR) during sprint running. A systematic search was completed to identify acute and longitudinal studies assessing the effects of lower limb WR on sprint running performance from international peer-reviewed journals. The Boolean phrases (limb OR leg OR lower extremity) AND (sprint*) AND (resist* OR weight OR load*) were used to search PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science electronic databases. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria and were retained for analysis that reported the acute kinematic and kinetic effects (n = 8), acute performance effects (n = 3), and longitudinal effects (n = 1). Results showed that the WR micro-loading (0.6-5% body mass) significantly increased contact time (2.9-8.9%), decreased step frequency (-1.4 to -3.7%), and slowed total sprint times (0.6-7.4%). Unloaded sprinting immediately following sprints with lower limb WR resulted in no significant  change to total sprinting times. One longitudinal training study did not find a significant effect on maximal sprinting speed for non-trained participants. It can be concluded that not all step kinematic variables are affected during sprinting with an added load up to 5% body mass. Therefore, coaches can use lower limb WR to selectively overload certain aspects of sprint running, in particular stride frequency. It also appears that lower limb WR overloads sprint movement velocity and may provide a stimulus to increase horizontal force output, therefore, it may be inferred that lower limb WR has the potential to elicit improved sprinting performance.

Force-velocity profile changes with forearm wearable resistance during standing start sprinting.

Abstract Horizontal force-velocity (F-V) profiling is a strategy to assess athletes' individual performance capabilities during sprinting. This study investigated the acute changes in F-V profiles during sprinting of fourteen collegiate male sprinters with a mean 100-m sprint time of 11.40 ± 0.39 s, from a split-stance starting position. The subjects sprinted 30-m with, and without, wearable resistance (WR) equivalent to 2% body mass, attached to their forearms. Sprinting time at 5, 10, 20, and 30-m was assessed using laser technology. External horizontal F-V relationships were calculated via velocity-time signals. Maximal theoretical velocity (V 0), theoretical relative and absolute horizontal force (F 0), and horizontal power (P max) were determined from the F-V relationship. Paired t-tests were used to determine statistical differences (p ≤ 0.05) in variables across conditions with Cohen's d as effect sizes (ES) calculated to assess practical changes. Sprint times at 10-m and beyond were significantly increased (1.9-3.3%, p 0.01-0.03, ES 0.46-0.60) with WR compared to unloaded sprinting. The only significant change in F-V with the WR condition was found in relative P max system (-6.1%, p 0.01, ES 0.66). A small decrease was reported in V 0 (-1.0%, p 0.11, ES 0.27), with small to medium ES decreases reported in F 0 (-4.8% to -6.1%, p 0.07-0.21, ES 0.25-0.51) and P max (-4.3% to -4.6%, p 0.06-0.08, ES 0.32-0.45). The greater changes to F 0 and P max suggest that forearm WR may be a possible training tool for athletes who wish to focus on force and power adaptation during sprint acceleration from a standing start.

Acute Metabolic Changes with Thigh-Positioned Wearable Resistances during Submaximal Running in Endurance-Trained Runners.

The aim of this study was to determine the acute metabolic effects of different magnitudes of wearable resistance (WR) attached to the thigh during submaximal running. Twenty endurance-trained runners (40.8 ± 8.2 years, 1.77 ± 0.7 m, 75.4 ± 9.2 kg) completed six submaximal eight-minute running trials unloaded and with WRs of 1%, 2%, 3%, 4% and 5% body mass (BM), in a random order. The use of a WR resulted in a 1.6 ± 0.6% increase in oxygen consumption (VO2) for every 1% BM of additional load. Inferential based analysis found that the loading of ≥3% BM was needed to elicit any substantial responses in VO2, with an increase that was likely to be moderate in scale (effect size (ES) ± 90% confidential interval (CI): 0.24 ± 0.07). Using heart rate data, a training load score was extrapolated to quantify the amount of internal stress. For every 1% BM of WR, there is an extra 0.17 ± 0.06 estimated increase in training load. A WR ≥3% of BM was needed to elicit substantial responses in lactate production, with an increase which was very likely to be large in scale (ES ± 90% CI: 0.41 ± 0.18). A thigh-positioned WR provides a running-specific overload with loads ≥3% BM, resulting in substantial changes in metabolic responses.

Quantification of the validity and reliability of sprint performance metrics computed using inertial sensors: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Wearable inertial sensors enable sprinting to be biomechanically evaluated in a simple and time efficient manner outside of a laboratory setting. RESEARCH QUESTION: Are wearable inertial sensors a valid and reliable method for collecting and measuring sprint performance variables compared to referenced systems? METHODS: PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science were searched using the Boolean phrases: ((run* OR sprinting OR sprint*) AND (IMU OR inertial sensor OR wearable sensor OR accelerometer OR gyroscope) AND (valid* OR reliabil*)). Articles with injury-free subjects of any age, sex or activity level were included. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were retained for analysis. In summary, higher Intra-class correlation [ICC] or Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were observed for contact time (ICC ≥ 0.80, r ≥ 0.99), trunk angular displacement (r ≥ 0.99), vertical and horizontal force (ICC ≥ 0.88), and theoretical measures of force, velocity and power (r ≥ 0.81). Low coefficient of variation (CV) were found in peak velocity (≤ 1%), average velocity (≤ 3%), and contact time (≤ 3%,). Average and peak velocity, and resultant forces, were found to have a wide range of r (0.32-0.92) and CVs (0.78-20.2%). The lowest r (-0.24 to 0.49) and highest CVs (15-22.4%) were noted for average acceleration, crania-caudal force, instantaneous forces, medio-lateral ground reaction forces, and rate of decrease in ratio of forces. SIGNIFICANCE: Due to a wide range of methodological differences, a clear understanding of the validity and reliability of different inertial sensors for the analysis of sprinting has yet to be established. Future research into the sensor's placement, attachment method and sampling frequency are among several factors that need further investigation.

EXAMINATION OF GLUTEUS MAXIMUS ELECTROMYOGRAPHIC EXCITATION ASSOCIATED WITH DYNAMIC HIP EXTENSION DURING BODY WEIGHT EXERCISE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW.

BACKGROUND: Hip extension is an important action in daily activities (standing, stepping and walking) and sporting actions (running, sprint-running and jumping). Though several different exercises exist, a comprehensive understanding of which exercises best target the gluteus maximus (Gmax) and the magnitude of muscular excitation associated with each exercise is yet to be established. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to describe the electromyographic (EMG) excitation of the Gmax during body weight exercises that utilize hip extension. METHODS: A systematic approach was used to search Pubmed, Sports Discuss, Web of Science and Science Direct using the Boolean phrases (gluteal OR gluteus maximus) AND (activity OR excitation OR activation) AND (electromyography OR EMG) AND (hip extension). Articles that examined injury-free participants of any age, gender or excitation level were included. Articles were excluded when not available in English, where studies did not normalize EMG excitation to maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), where a load or resistance was added to the exercise, or where no hip extension occurred. Exercises were grouped into vertical and horizontal (anteroposterior or posteroanterior) force vectors. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies of high methodological quality were retained for analysis. Twenty-five exercises were performed in the vertical vector (average: 33.4% MVIC, highest: single leg wall squat 86% MVIC), fourteen exercises were performed in the horizontal (anteroposterior) force vector (average: 32.8% MVIC, highest: single leg bridge 54.2% MVIC, while thirty-eight exercises were included in the horizontal (posteroanterior) vector (average: 30.4% MVIC, highest: plank with bent leg hip extension 106.2% MVIC).Limitations: The differences in subject's backgrounds, exercise technique and the methodological approaches varied between studies, most notably in the different positions used for obtaining MVIC, which could have dramatically impacted normalized levels of gluteal activation. CONCLUSION: The findings from this review provide an indication of Gmax muscle excitation generated by a variety of hip extension body weight exercises, which may assist practitioners in making exercise selection decisions for programming.

Kinematic and kinetic differences in block and split-stance standing starts during 30 m sprint-running.

This study aimed to understand the kinematic and kinetic differences between two sprint starts: block and split-stance standing. Fourteen sub-elite male sprinters (100 m time: 11.40 ± 0.39 s) performed block and split-stance standing starts sprints over 30 m of in-ground force platforms in a randomised order. Independent t-tests and repeated measures mixed model analysis of variance were used to analyse the between-condition variables across conditions, and over four step phases. Block start sprints resulted in significantly (p < .05) faster 5 m (5.0%, effect size [ES] = 0.89) and 10 m (3.5%, ES = 0.82) times, but no significant differences were found at 20 and 30 m. No significant differences were found in any kinematic measure between starting positions. However, block starts resulted in significantly (p < .001) greater propulsive impulses (6.8%, ES = 1.35) and net anterior-posterior impulses (6.5%, ES = 1.12) during steps 1-4, compared to the standing start. Block starts enable athletes to produce a greater amount of net anterior-posterior impulse during early accelerated sprinting, resulting in faster times up to 10 m. When seeking to improve initial acceleration performance, practitioners may wish to train athletes from a block start to improve horizontal force production.