Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mauroy 2014 Athletes
Mauroy 2014 Athletes
net/publication/259588291
CITATIONS READS
4 1,308
3 authors:
Patrick A Willems
Université Catholique de Louvain - UCLouvain
87 PUBLICATIONS 3,065 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Control of Posture and Movement During Reaching in the Cat View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Patrick A Willems on 02 October 2014.
ISSN 1439-6319
Volume 114
Number 4
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer-
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.
1 23
Author's personal copy
Eur J Appl Physiol (2014) 114:773–784
DOI 10.1007/s00421-013-2805-6
Original Article
Received: 14 December 2012 / Accepted: 16 December 2013 / Published online: 5 January 2014
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
13
Author's personal copy
774 Eur J Appl Physiol (2014) 114:773–784
and Dapena (1991b) have evaluated the average velocity mass 73.8 ± 3.4 kg, height 1.85 ± 0.03 m, leg length
of the COM of athletes during a hurdle sprint, by means of 0.95 ± 0.03 m). These hurdlers have a Belgian national
cameras. At takeoff of the hurdle step, Vv is ~250 % greater level (110 m hurdle race in <15 s) and practise athletics
and Vf is ~5 % smaller than during normal running steps. As for at least 10 years. Written informed consent of the sub-
compared to recreational runners (RR), trained athletes (TA) jects was obtained. Experiments involved no discomfort,
are thus able to lessen the increase in Vv and the loss in Vf. were performed according the Declaration of Helsinki and
To jump over an obstacle, RR modify the bouncing mech- approved by the local ethics committee.
anism of running during the two steps preceding the obstacle All athletes wore running shoes. The length of the track
(Mauroy et al. 2012). At the second of the last contact before did not allow running at very high speeds and certainly not
the obstacle, the overall stiffness of the leg-spring system at the maximal speed that these athletes could reach. There-
is decreased, as compared to steady-state running. Conse- fore, they were asked to run at 18 km h−1 across a force
quently, the COM is lowered and accelerated forward. Since platform and to jump over a hurdle placed at three different
Vv at takeoff is close to zero, the following aerial phase is heights: 0.85 m (for comparison with recreational runners),
short and Vv at touchdown of the next step is small. During 0.91 m (height of the hurdles in the men’s 400 m race) and
the contact before the obstacle, the stiffness is increased and 1.07 m (height of the hurdles in the men’s 110 m sprint).
the velocity vector shifts to a more vertical direction. Con- They were also instructed to continue to run at the same
sequently, during this last contact, the COM is raised and pace after the obstacle (note that there was no control on
accelerated upwards, whereas its forward velocity is reduced. the speed after the obstacle). Four to five steps before the
In TA as in RR, Vv is reduced at the end of penultimate obstacle were recorded. Traces were analysed if the aver-
contact before the hurdle and the following airborne phase is age velocity of the first step(s) ranged between 17.5 and
shorter (McDonald and Dapena 1991a). Consequently, the 18.5 km h−1. Control experiments, i.e. runs without any
magnitude of Vv at the start of the support phase before the obstacle, were also recorded on the same subjects at the
hurdle is small. At the end of this last contact, Vv is increased same speed. For each hurdle height, two to six trials per
and Vf is reduced. However, the increase in Vv and the loss in subject were recorded in each condition.
Vf are smaller than in RR. To our knowledge, no study has yet The results of the TA were compared with those of seven
analysed the bouncing mechanism of TA on approaching and RR, not familiar with the hurdle technique who participated in
jumping over an obstacle, especially the change in the overall a previous study (Mauroy et al. 2012). In this set of “control
stiffness of the leg-spring system and the external work done data”, RR were running at the same speed as TA (18 km h−1)
during the steps preceding the crossing over the obstacle. and leaped 0.45-, 0.65- and 0.85-m-high obstacles.
The main question raised in this study is: How do trained
athletes modify the mechanism used by untrained runners to Experimental setup
reduce the vertical excursion of the COM and the loss in the
horizontal velocity? Here, we have analysed the bouncing The experimental setup and the data analysis are explained
mechanism of running of athletes trained in hurdling while in detail in Mauroy et al. (2012) and only described
approaching and jumping over an obstacle at sub-maximal briefly here. The three components of the ground reaction
speed. We have measured the forces exerted by the feet on force under the feet were measured each 1 ms by means
the ground and the orientation of the lower-limb segments of a 13-m-long force platform placed in the middle of a
during the steps preceding the leap over an obstacle. From 33-m-long running track. The platform was composed of
these data, we have evaluated the movements of the COM, by 13 plates (1 m× 1 m) described in detail by Genin et al.
time integration of the forces, the external work done to move (2010). A hurdle was mounted 3 m before the end of the
the COM relative to the surroundings and the stiffness of the force platform. The distance between the start of the track
bouncing system, by computer simulation. The bouncing and the hurdle was 23 m. Two pairs of photocells were
mechanism of athletes using the hurdle technique was com- placed at each end of the plates at the level of the neck of
pared to recreational runners jumping over an obstacle of the the subject. A vertical mattress helped the subject to decel-
same height while running at the same approaching speed. erate at the end of the running track.
The orientation of the lower limbs in the sagittal plane
at touchdown and at takeoff was measured by means of a
Methods high-speed video camera (BASLER A501k, resolution
1,280 × 1,024 pixels, aperture time 3 ms). Images were
Subjects and experimental procedure sampled at a rate of 100 frames s−1. Camera images were
synchronized with the force traces by means of a lead that
Experiments were carried out on six male athletes, switched on, when the subject passed in front of the first
specialists in hurdle sprint (age 21.6 ± 2.8 years, pair of photocells. Reflective markers were attached with
13
Author's personal copy
Eur J Appl Physiol (2014) 114:773–784 775
Fig. 1 Typical traces from a runner during the five steps preceding a energy due to its vertical velocity (Ekv). The Ecom-curve is the exter-
jump over a 0.85-m-high obstacle at 18 km h−1. The right traces are nal mechanical energy of the COM, i.e. the sum Ekf + Ep + Ekv. Each
experimental data from one trained athlete (71 kg, 1.87 m, 25-year- step is delimited by heel strike (vertical dotted line) and begins with a
old) and the left traces from one recreational runner (64 kg, 1.83 m, contact phase followed by an aerial phase. Step 0 contains the contact
27-year-old). The Ekf-curve represents the kinetic energy due to the phase of the impulse before the obstacle and the aerial phase over the
forward velocity of the COM; the Ep + Ekv-curve (continuous line) obstacle, step −1 is the step before step 0, step−2 is the step before
is the energy due to the vertical movement of the COM: it is the sum step −1, etc
of its gravitational potential energy (Ep, dashed line) plus its kinetic
self-adhesive tape on each limb, as described in Mauroy total energy of COM is given by Ecom = Ekf + Ep + Ekv.
et al. (2012). The angle made by the lower limbs with the The increments in the Ekf-curve, the Ep + Ekv-curve and the
vertical axis was measured on each frame from the coordi- Ecom-curve represent, respectively, the muscular positive
nates of the reflectors, using the Lynxzone software (Arsa- work done to accelerate the COM forward (W + f ), to elevate
lis, Belgium). and accelerate the COM vertically (W + v ) and to sustain the
movements relative to the surroundings (external work,
Data analysis +
Wext ). Similarly, the decrements of the Ekf-curve, Ep + Ekv-
curve and Ecom-curve represent the negative work done to
Steps were numbered as follows: step 0 corresponds to decelerate the COM forward (W − f ), to lower and decelerate
the last contact before the obstacle followed by the aerial the COM vertically (W − v ) and the negative external work
phase over the obstacle, step −1 is the step before step 0, (W ext). The net muscular work (Wnet) done during the step
−
etc. (Fig. 1). Step −4 includes the average values of all the was calculated as the difference between the positive and
steps prior to step −3. The control step includes the aver- the negative external work done to move the COM during
age value of all the steps obtained during running without the contact phase, i.e. as the difference between Ecom at the
obstacle. end and at the beginning of the contact period.
Calculations and data processing were performed using To estimate the overall stiffness (kleg) generated by the
custom software (LABVIEW 8.2, National Instruments, muscle–tendon units, the lower limb was modelled as a
Austin, TX, USA). The acceleration, velocity and displace- simple linear spring that swept on an arc during the con-
ment of the COM were measured from the vertical and tact (Mauroy et al. 2012). In this model, initial and final
fore–aft components of the ground reaction force using the conditions were determined from the experimental traces:
method of Cavagna (1975) and Schepens et al. (1998). The orientation (θtd) and length (ltd) of the leg spring at touch-
lateral component of this force was neglected. From these down, the instantaneous forward and vertical veloci-
variables, the kinetic energy due to the horizontal velocity ties of the COM at touchdown and the orientation (θto) of
of the COM (Ekf), to its vertical velocity (Ekv) and to its the leg spring at takeoff. The trajectory of the COM dur-
gravitational potential energy (Ep) was then calculated. The ing the contact time was then calculated using computer
13
Author's personal copy
776 Eur J Appl Physiol (2014) 114:773–784
simulation: during the first half of the contact, the leg under the foot during the contact phase. Furthermore, the
spring shortened (loading phase), and during the second model supposes a totally passive spring–mass system, which
half of the contact, the leg spring lengthened (unloading stores and releases mechanical energy during contact. In real-
phase). The simulation was stopped when the leg reached ity, as shown in “Results”, additional muscular work is done
its initial length, ltd. The stiffness kleg was estimated by during the last contact to increase the energy at takeoff before
successive approximations. At the end of the simulation, the obstacle.
the angle between the leg spring and the vertical should A sensitivity analysis was realized to test the robust-
reach a value of θto (± 0.002°) as measured experimen- ness of the results of the simulation. This analysis was
tally. If the value of θto was not reached, the simulation was performed on both groups on the control steps, on step −1
redone with a new value of kleg, and so on until a proper and step 0 while jumping over a 0.85-m-high barrier. We
value of θto was reached. This model was validated in Mau- used the OFAT (one-factor-at-a-time) method: assuming a
roy et al. (2012): we showed that the values of leg stiffness typical error of ±10 % in the measurements. The following
kleg obtained during the control steps of RR were in good factors were changed one at a time by ±10 % of their aver-
agreement with those of Farley and Gonzalez (1996), He age value: orientation (θtd) and length (ltd) of the leg spring
et al. (1991), McMahon and Cheng (1990) and Morin et al. at touchdown, the instantaneous forward (Vf,td) and vertical
(2005). Furthermore, the numerical analysis reproduced (Vv,td) velocities of the COM at touchdown and the orienta-
accurately the trajectory of the COM during contact when tion (θto) of the leg spring at takeoff. When changing one
running in a steady state and when approaching the obsta- variable at a time, the average change in kleg is ~7 % of the
cle (see upper panels of Fig. 2 in Mauroy et al. 2012). experimental value and the maximal change is in the order
To validate the model during control steps, step −1 and of ±1 SD in each group and for each type of step.
step 0, the experimental values were compared with those
obtained by simulation. For most of the variables tested, there Statistics
was a good agreement between simulation and experiment
(see electronic supplementary material). For control steps, the The analysed steps were classified according to the step
maximal ground reaction force obtained in the model differed number (control step, step 0 and step −1). For each subject,
from the experimental value by −4.1 ± 12.8 % (mean ± SD, the trials obtained on the same step number in each height
n = 62) and the time of contact (tc) by −7.5 ± 4.4 %. The class were averaged. The results of all subjects obtained
horizontal and vertical velocities of the COM at takeoff were, in the same class were then averaged. The results are pre-
respectively, 1.4 ± 2.0 % greater and 12.7 ± 5.18 % smaller sented in classes according to the step number and the
than the experimental value. When approaching an obstacle, obstacle height. Statistics were realized with the program
the maximal ground reaction force obtained by the simula- IBM SPSS Statistics 21. All variables tested were distrib-
tion differed from the experimental value by −4.6 ± 18.4 % uted normally (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test). Depending on
(n = 82) for step −1 and by 0.5 ± 17.6 % (n = 82) for step 0; the case, a Student’s t test, a one-way ANOVA (Bonferroni
tc presented a difference of −6.9 ± 3.7 % for step −1 and of post hoc) or a two-way repeated measures ANOVA was
15.3 ± 4.1 % for step 0. The horizontal velocity of the COM performed to evaluate the effect of the step number or of
at takeoff presented a difference of −0.2 ± 5.9 % for step −1 the obstacle height on the variables studied.
and −1.6 ± 4.9 % for step 0. During step −1, the difference
in the vertical velocity of the COM at takeoff was less than
−0.17 ± 0.42 m s−1 (since the velocity at takeoff is close to Results
zero, the difference cannot be expressed in %). During step 0,
this difference was −3.7 ± 25.2 %. The discrepancy observed Figure 1 presents a typical trace of the energy–time
in tc, especially during step 0, arises mainly from the absence curves of the COM when approaching a 0.85-m obstacle
of an ankle joint in the model, which implies that the leg- at 18 km h−1 and leaping over it: the experimental traces
spring length at the end of the contact phase cannot exceed obtained on one TA familiar with the hurdling technique
its initial length at touchdown. In reality, our experimental are presented in the right panel and on one RR who never
results show that the leg extends beyond the initial length; learned hurdling in the left panel.
for all the steps analysed, the distance measured at takeoff In TA, before step −1, the Ekf, Ep + Ekv and Ecom-curves
between the great trochanter and the head of the fifth meta- are in phase and are comparable to the energy-time curves
tarsal joint was 2.7 ± 4.6 % (n = 226) greater than the initial of a spring–mass system bouncing on the ground (Cavagna
length. As a consequence, the simulation underestimated the et al. 1976). The phases during which the Ekf, Ep + Ekv and
duration of the push and in turn the time of contact. Another Ecom-curves are constant represent the aerial phase of the
reason for the inaccuracies of the model is that it does not step. During the contact period of step −1, the muscle–
take into account the movement of the centre of pressure tendon units perform negative work when the Ecom-curve
13
Author's personal copy
Eur J Appl Physiol (2014) 114:773–784 777
is reduced (i.e. the Ekf-curve decreases). The energy-time both groups, Vv,to and ta increase with the obstacle height
curves of TA are similar to those of RR (Fig. 1, left), as (two-way ANOVA P < 0.001). However, the increase is
observed by Mauroy et al. (2012). However, some differ- smaller in TA than in RR.
ences exist between the two groups. The fourth difference concerns the angle swept by the
First, when approaching the obstacle, TA increase their lower limb during contact (i.e. θto -θtd in Fig. 5). What-
speed of progression from step −3 to step −1 (see Ekf in ever the obstacle height, the angle swept during step −1
Fig. 1), then lose speed during the contact of step 0 and is smaller in TA than in RR (two-way ANOVA P < 0.001).
leap the obstacle at a speed close to the set-point speed This is because the orientation of lower limb of the ath-
(one-way ANOVA P > 0.952) (Fig. 2). On the contrary, letes at touchdown (θtd) and takeoff (θto) is more vertical.
the RR group accelerates barely from step −3 to step −1 At touchdown of step 0, θtd is also more vertical in TA,
and lose speed during the contact of step 0. Consequently, whereas at takeoff, θto is more horizontal. In front of a
the horizontal velocity over the obstacle is less than the 0.85-m-high obstacle, the angle swept during the contact of
set-point speed (one-way ANOVA P < 0.001). Note that in step 0 is not statistically different in TA and in RR (Stu-
both groups, the higher the obstacle, the greater is the loss dent’s t test P > 0.562); however on average, the leg spring
in speed during the contact of step 0; however, this loss is is oriented more horizontally in athletes. In both groups
less important in the TA than in the RR group. when the obstacle height increases, θtd increases (i.e. the
A second major difference is the external work done dur- lower limb is more horizontal) whereas θto decreases (i.e.
ing the negative and positive work phases of the contact of the lower limb is more vertical).
13
Author's personal copy
778 Eur J Appl Physiol (2014) 114:773–784
Fig. 3 Mass-specific mechanical work done to move the COM dur- obtained on trained athletes during steady-state running at 18 km h−1
ing step −1 and step 0 as a function of the obstacle height. From and while approaching a 0.85-, 0.91- and 1.07-m-high obstacle at the
top to bottom W − f and W f are, respectively, the negative and posi-
+
same speed. Similarly, empty circles and dotted lines are from the
tive work done to decelerate and accelerate the COM forward; W − v data obtained by Mauroy et al. (2012) on recreational runners running
and W +v are, respectively, the negative and positive work done to at the same speed and approaching a 0.45-, 0.65-, and 0.85-m-high
lower and lift the COM; W ext and Wext are, respectively, the negative
− +
obstacle. Vertical bars indicating SD are drawn when they exceed the
and positive external work done by the muscle–tendon units to sus- size of the symbol. Stars are placed above the symbols if the results
tain the movements of the COM relative to the surroundings. On the obtained in TA are significantly different from the ones obtained in
abscissa, “C” represents the control steps when running on the level RR (Student’s t test, *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.001)
without obstacles. Filled circles represent the mean value of the data
13
Author's personal copy
Eur J Appl Physiol (2014) 114:773–784 779
hurdle. They found that an effective hurdle technique is leg-spring system and compared these results with those
characterized by an optimal ratio between brake and pro- obtained on RR by Mauroy et al. (2012).
pulsion at takeoff, a short aerial period and a short brak- The overall stiffness kleg generated by the muscle–ten-
ing phase at landing. don units was estimated using the model of a mass mounted
In the present study, we compare the bouncing mecha- on a linear spring that swept on an arc during the contact
nism of running while approaching and leaping over an (McMahon and Cheng 1990). This model was adapted to
obstacle in TA familiar with the hurdling technique and in take into account the difference in orientation of the leg at
RR unfamiliar with this technique.The aim is to analyse touchdown and takeoff (Mauroy et al. 2012). Even if inac-
how athletes trained to hurdling limit the loss in the for- curacies were found between the parameters evaluated by
ward velocity while crossing over the obstacle. Therefore, the simulation and the experimental values (see the end of
we analysed the movements of the COM of TA during the “Methods”), we think that the model gives a general idea of
four running steps preceding the jump over an obstacle of how the central nervous system (CNS) controls the move-
different heights, estimated the overall stiffness kleg of the ment of the COM during the two steps before the obstacle.
13
Author's personal copy
780 Eur J Appl Physiol (2014) 114:773–784
Fig. 5 Orientation of the leg spring and vertical velocity of the COM takeoff (subscript to). Bottom panels θ is the angle made by the leg
at the beginning and end of the contact phase during step −1 and step spring and the vertical at touchdown (subscript td) and takeoff (sub-
0 as a function of the obstacle height. Top panels Vv is the instantane- script to). Other indications are as in Fig. 3
ous vertical velocity of the COM at touchdown (subscript td) and at
As pointed out by Lacquaniti et al. (2012), if the CNS In recreational runners, the trajectory of the COM is
controlled independently each individual muscle, as well modified during the two steps preceding the obstacle by
as the motion and the stiffness of each articular degree of modulating the overall stiffness of the leg-spring system
freedom, motor control would be extremely fractionated (Mauroy et al. 2012): the lowering and forward accelera-
and difficult to implement. Even if the spring–mass model tion of the COM during step −1 is obtained by reducing
is not able to predict accurately all the mechanical variables the overall stiffness of the lower limb muscles, whereas
during running (Bullimore and Burn 2007), this model sug- during step 0 the COM is lifted and decelerated forward
gests that the CNS controls the different lower limb mus- due to a stiffening of the lower limb muscles.
cles in a global way to generate an overall leg-spring stiff- The results of the present paper show that, even if
ness that imitates a linear spring–mass system bouncing the kinematics of the lower limb movement is different
and sweeping forward during ground contact. between TA and RR, the basic mechanisms used by hur-
In 1990, McMahon and Cheng showed that during dlers and non-specialists crossing an obstacle are compa-
steady-state running, the stiffness is modulated so that the rable. The effect of the obstacle height on the variables
orientation of the leg spring at takeoff and at touchdown studied is also similar in the two groups, although less pro-
is symmetric relative to the vertical, and that the maximal nounced in TA than in RR.
compression of the system is reached when the leg spring is Note that our experiments do not reproduce the hur-
vertical. These authors predicted that if the stiffness is too dle race situation: here, TA approach the hurdle at a sub-
low, the leg is oriented more horizontally at takeoff than maximal speed (i.e. 18 km h−1) and cross only one hurdle.
at touchdown. On the contrary, if the stiffness is too high, This experimental protocol was chosen: (1) for a practical
the orientation of the leg is more vertical at takeoff than at reason—our track is too short to run at speeds higher than
touchdown. ~20 km h−1 and to cross more than one hurdle—and (2) to
13
Author's personal copy
Eur J Appl Physiol (2014) 114:773–784 781
Fig. 7 Leg-spring stiffness
(kleg) during step −1 and step 0
as a function of the height of the
obstacle. The schema illus-
trates the spring–mass model at
touchdown, maximal compres-
sion and takeoff. At maximal
compression, the leg-spring
system is vertical during steady-
state running, oriented forward
during step −1 and backward
during step 0. Other indications
are as in Fig. 3
13
Author's personal copy
782 Eur J Appl Physiol (2014) 114:773–784
13
Author's personal copy
Eur J Appl Physiol (2014) 114:773–784 783
authors have observed that in hopping, kleg is regulated by a the velocity vector of the COM at takeoff by minimizing
change in centrally programmed muscle pre-activation and the modifications of the leg-spring stiffness during the
by a concomitant change in the short-latency stretch reflex two last steps preceding the hurdle. In this way, athletes
response of the triceps surae muscles. barely brush the hurdle so that their front leg comes rap-
In a recent study, Morin et al. (2012) have shown that idly in contact with the ground to reaccelerate the COM.
the 100-m sprint running performances present a higher Our results also suggest that, most probably due to training,
correlation with the variables associated with the capacities athletes modify their force–velocity relationship to develop
of the muscles to develop velocity than to develop force. higher forces at high velocity of contraction. Further stud-
When comparing the force–velocity curves of world-class ies during a 110-m hurdle sprint at maximal speed should
sprinters with those of non-specialists, these authors show confirm these observations.
that the maximal forces during contact are ~40 % greater
in athletes and that the maximal velocities at which this Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to the athletes who
accepted to spend some of their precious time to participate in our
force is developed are more than 100 % higher; so, the experiments. This study was funded by the Université catholique de
maximal power developed by sprinters during the contact Louvain, Belgium.
phase is ~220 % greater and occurs at a velocity ~60 %
higher than non-specialists. Our results suggest that hur-
dlers also shifted their force–velocity curves to higher
References
velocities. At 18 km h−1, TA are still able to accelerate sig-
nificantly during the steps preceding the jump, whereas RR Brughelli M, Cronin J (2008) Influence of running velocity on verti-
barely increase their speed (Fig. 2). Note that RR running cal, leg and joint stiffness: modelling and recommendations for
at 9 km h−1 have the same behaviour as TA at 18 km h−1. future research. Sports Med 38(8):647–657
This observation suggests that, due to the force–velocity Bullimore SR, Burn JF (2007) Ability of the planar spring–mass
model to predict mechanical parameters in running humans. J
relation of the muscles, RR may not be able to accelerate Theor Biol 248(4):686–695. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.06.004
when approaching the obstacle at high speeds, whereas, Butler RJ, Crowell Iii HP, Davis IM (2003) Lower extremity stiff-
due to training, TA are able to develop greater forces and ness: implications for performance and injury. Clin Biomech
accelerations. 18(6):511–517
Cavagna GA (1975) Force platforms as ergometers. J Appl Physiol
The effect of training on the muscle power is also evi- 39(1):174–179
denced in Fig. 4: at 18 km h−1, TA are still able to develop Cavagna GA, Thys H, Zamboni A (1976) The sources of external
a net positive muscular work (Wext,net) both during the con- work in level walking and running. J Physiol 262(3):639–657
tact of step −1 and step 0. Due to training, hurdlers are Coh M, Iskra J (2012) Biomechanical studies of 110 m hurdle clear-
ance technique. Sport Sci 5(1):10–14
thus able to develop higher muscular power at high veloci- Farley CT, Gonzalez O (1996) Leg stiffness and stride frequency in
ties than untrained subjects, both during step −1 and step human running. J Biomech 29(2):181–186
0. Consequently in TA, the magnitude of velocity vector Genin JJ, Willems PA, Cavagna GA, Lair R, Heglund NC (2010)
at takeoff of step 0 is increased (Fig. 8), as compared to Biomechanics of locomotion in Asian elephants. J Exp Biol
213(5):694–706. doi:10.1242/jeb.035436
steady-state running, whereas in RR, the magnitude of this Grimmer S, Ernst M, Gunther M, Blickhan R (2008) Running on une-
vector is decreased. ven ground: leg adjustment to vertical steps and self-stability. J
Exp Biol 211(Pt 18):2989–3000. doi:10.1242/jeb.014357
He JP, Kram R, McMahon TA (1991) Mechanics of running under
simulated low gravity. J Appl Physiol 71(3):863–870
Conclusion Hobara H, Kanosue K, Suzuki S (2007) Changes in muscle activ-
ity with increase in leg stiffness during hopping. Neurosci Lett
The results of the present study evidence what trainers 418(1):55–59
intuitively know: the hurdler technique adjusts the trajec- Hobara H, Kimura K, Omuro K, Gomi K, Muraoka T, Sakamoto
M, Kanosue K (2010) Differences in lower extremity stiffness
tory of the COM to keep the velocity of progression as high between endurance-trained athletes and untrained subjects. J Sci
as possible, while leaping the obstacle. To increase the ver- Med Sport 13(1):106–111
tical velocity of the COM at takeoff, runners change the Komi PV (1986) Training of muscle strength and power: interaction
orientation of the velocity vector of the COM during the of neuromotoric, hypertrophic, and mechanical factors. Int J
Sports Med 7(SUPPL. 1):10–15
contact preceding the jump. As a consequence, the forward Lacquaniti F, Ivanenko YP, Zago M (2012) Patterned control of
velocity over the obstacle is lower than during the preced- human locomotion. J Physiol 590(Pt 10):2189–2199. doi:10.111
ing contact. To maintain the speed of progression as high 3/jphysiol.2011.215137
as possible, hurdlers minimize the duration and excursion Mann R, Herman J (1985) Kinematic analysis of Olympic hurdle per-
formance: women’s 100 meters. Int J Sport Biomech 1:163–173
of the COM over the obstacle by maintaining the bounc- Mauroy G, Schepens B, Willems PA (2012) The mechanics of run-
ing mechanism as close as possible to the normal running ning while approaching and jumping over an obstacle. Eur J Appl
pattern. Therefore, they limit the change in orientation of Physiol 113(4):1043–1057. doi:10.1007/s00421-012-2519-1
13
Author's personal copy
784 Eur J Appl Physiol (2014) 114:773–784
McDonald C, Dapena J (1991a) Angular momentum in the men’s Morin JB, Bourdin M, Edouard P, Peyrot N, Samozino P, Lacour JR
110-m and women’s 100-m hurdles races. Med Sci Sports Exerc (2012) Mechanical determinants of 100-m sprint running perfor-
23(12):1392–1402 mance. Eur J Appl Physiol. doi:10.1007/s00421-012-2379-8
McDonald C, Dapena J (1991b) Linear kinematics of the men’s Salo A, Grimshaw PN, Marar L (1997) 3-D biomechanical analysis
110-m and women’s 100-m hurdles races. Med Sci Sports Exerc of sprint hurdles at different competitive levels. Med Sci Sports
23(12):1382–1391 Exerc 29(2):231–237
McMahon TA, Cheng GC (1990) The mechanics of running: how Schepens B, Willems PA, Cavagna GA (1998) The mechanics of run-
does stiffness couple with speed? J Biomech 23(Suppl 1):65–78 ning in children. J Physiol 509(Pt 3):927–940
Mero A, Komi PV, Gregor RJ (1992) Biomechanics of sprint running. Seyfarth A, Geyer H, Gunther M, Blickhan R (2002) A movement cri-
A review. Sports Med 13(6):376–392 terion for running. J Biomech 35(5):649–655
Morin JB, Dalleau G, Kyrolainen H, Jeannin T, Belli A (2005) A sim-
ple method for measuring stiffness during running. J Appl Bio-
mech 21(2):167–180
13