Available at: http://www.nsca-cc.org/ceus/quizzes.
html
Strength and
Conditioning
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 06/16/2023
Considerations for
the 100-m Sprinter
John M. Cissik, MBA, MS, CSCS*D, NSCA-CPT*D
Texas Woman’s University, Denton, Texas
SUMMARY
THE 100-m SPRINT IS A FAST
EXPLOSIVE EVENT THAT PRO-
VIDES UNIQUE CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE STRENGTH AND CONDI-
TIONING COACH. THROUGH
UNDERSTANDING THE CHARAC-
TERISTICS OF THE EVENT AND
WHAT PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARAC-
TERISTICS LEAD TO IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE, ONE CAN DESIGN
AN EFFECTIVE STRENGTH AND
CONDITIONING PROGRAM.
INTRODUCTION
he 100-m sprint is an explosive
T fast event. This article will first
summarize the literature that
analyzes the 100-m sprint. Next, it will
describe the physical qualities that
make an athlete successful at the event.
Third, this article will provide recom-
mendations for a strength training
program based on the analysis of both
the event and the physical qualities that
make an athlete faster. Finally, a sample
program will be provided.
EVENT ANALYSIS
The 100-m sprint is an event that
requires an athlete to react quickly to
the starting gun, leave the starting
blocks explosively, accelerate maxi-
mally, and maintain velocity for as
long as possible until the end of the
race. As of the writing of this article,
Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association
the world record for the 100-m sprint is
9.58 seconds for men (Usain Bolt) and
10.49 seconds for women (Florence
Griffith-Joyner).
Gaffney (10) divides the 100-m sprint
into the following phases: reaction
time, block clearance, acceleration,
maintenance of maximum velocity,
and deceleration. Over the years,
a great deal of research has been done
on each of these phases of the sprint.
One of the foci of these papers is
whether any particular phase or tech-
nique will positively influence the out-
come of the event. This section of the
article will briefly review that research.
Reaction time refers to the time from
when the gun is fired until the rear leg is
lifted off the block (10). According to
Schmolinsky (22), reaction time should
range from 0.12 to 0.18 seconds. Theo-
retically, possessing a faster reaction to
the gun would give an athlete an
advantage in the race because they would
be able to start the race faster than his or
her competitors. Research suggests that
gender differences among elite sprinters
with regard to reaction time exist. When
studying the 2004 Olympics, Babic and
Delalija (2) found that elite men had
a faster reaction time (0.164 seconds)
than elite women (0.184 seconds). The
authors did not provide a rationale on
why this difference might exist.
Block clearance begins when the rear leg
is lifted off the block and ends when the
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
front leg has left the block (10). The
angle of the starting blocks may impact
the velocity with which the athlete is
leaving the blocks. In a small study
(9 sprinters, mean 100 m, time of 10.86
seconds), Mero et al. (20) examined the
effects of 2 different starting block angles
(40 and 65°) on block velocity. They
found that those athletes with a smaller
front starting block angle achieved
a higher velocity getting out of the
blocks, although this increase had dis-
appeared by the 20-m point in the
sprint. This difference disappeared early
in the sprint in the Mero et al. study, but
a different group or athletes (for exam-
ple, elite sprinters) might have been able
to take advantage of the higher velocity
and translated it into a faster race.
Another important observation for the
strength and conditioning coach is that
both legs do not exert an equal amount
of force to get out of the starting blocks.
When analyzing the first 2 steps of
a 100-m hurdle’s block start, Coh et al.
(6) found that the rear leg exerts 61% of
the force that the front leg exerts to get
out of the blocks. In this study, block
clearance was largely achieved through
recruitment of the erector spinae, vastus
lateralis, and gastrocnemius muscles (6).
KEY WORDS:
sprinter; program design; pennation
angle; fascicle length
89
 Considerations for the 100-m Sprinter
According to Letzelter (18), after
clearing the blocks, the 100-m sprint
is organized in a similar manner when
comparing elite to junior sprinters.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
There is a phase where velocity is
increased (i.e., acceleration phase),
velocity is maintained, and then veloc-
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 06/16/2023
ity decreases (18). The lengths of these
phases and the sprinting strategies vary
as a result of ability level, however.
Acceleration is the time from when the
front leg has left the block until the
athlete has reached his or her maxi-
mum velocity (10). According to Coh
et al. (8), this is the phase where the
kinematic parameters change the most
dramatically, including stride fre-
quency, stride length, duration of
the flight and braking phases, and the
body’s center of gravity (8). According
to Coh et al. (6), much of this is because
of the activity of the gluteus maximus,
rectus femoris, vastus lateralis, vastus
medialis, biceps femoris, and gastroc-
nemius. In the Coh et al. (6) study, the
electromyographic data demonstrated
that during acceleration, the gluteus
maximus and vastus medialis are most
active while the foot is on the ground,
whereas the biceps femoris, rectus
femoris, and vastus lateralis are most
active when the foot is in the air.
Faster athletes have a longer accelera-
tion phase than slower athletes (18,19).
For example, Letzelter (18) compared
junior sprinters (mean 100 m; time 12.78
seconds) versus elite sprinters (mean
100 m; time 11.03 seconds) and found
that junior sprinters achieved their peak
velocity at 28 m into the race, compared
with 52 m for the elite sprinters. Mackala
(19) also examined this, comparing male
sprinters (mean 100 m; time 11.18
seconds) with participants in the 1991
World Championships (mean 100 m;
time 9.97 seconds). The slower sprinters
achieved peak velocity at 60 m, com-
pared with 80 m for the elite sprinters.
Faster sprinters have a higher velocity at
all points during the acceleration phase
(see Coh et al. (7) and Mackala (19) for
examples).
Why are these differences occurring?
Maximum velocity is traditionally
90 VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2010
considered to be the product of stride
length 3 stride frequency (4). In other
words, if one or both can be increased
through training, technique, or both,
then maximum velocity will be in-
creased. Analysis of the 100-m finals in
the 1991 International Association of
Athletic Federations World Champion-
ships showed that elite sprinters may
increase their stride length until they are
80 m into the race and their stride
frequency until they are 60 m into the
race (19). When comparing faster
sprinters to slower sprinters, stride length
is greater for faster sprinters (7,19). For
some athletes, stride frequency is greater
for the faster athletes (19) but not in all
studies (7). It is unclear if this result is
because of the level of ability used in the
research, for example, Mackala (19)
compared elite sprinters like Carl Lewis
with average level sprinters. However,
Coh et al. (7) compared 2 groups of
national-caliber sprinters.
Interestingly, male and female sprinters
may have different running mechanics.
Analyzing the 2003 World Champion-
ships, Paruzel-Dyja et al. (21) found
a statistically significant correlation
(r = 20.39) between stride frequency
and 100 m time for female sprinters.
This correlation did not exist for male
sprinters. Rather, there was a statisti-
cally significant correlation between
stride length and 100 m time for male
sprinters (r = 20.43), which did not
exist for female sprinters. To reinforce
this, analysis of the 2000 Olympic
games found that the male athletes
tended to run by striking the ground
with their mid foot, whereas the female
athletes ran by striking the ground with
their forefoot (16).
Maintenance of maximum velocity
refers to the period of time that the
athlete can maintain his or her maxi-
mum velocity. This phase of the race
tends to be shorter for faster sprinters
because of the fact that they are
spending a longer time accelerating.
Success in this phase is influenced by
the ability of the athlete to maintain his
or her speed, which is a quality called
speed endurance. Typically, track and
field coaches train this quality with 30-
to 300-m sprints with full recovery (24).
Deceleration is the period of time
during which velocity decreases to-
ward the end of the sprint. All sprinters
reach this phase in the 100-m sprint.
Possessing speed endurance will help
to minimize the amount of decelera-
tion, but it will still occur. When
comparing the finalists of the men’s
100-m sprint in the 1991 World
Championships with 8 slower sprint-
ers, Mackala (19) noted that the elite
sprinters peaked at 11.70 m/s around
the 80th meter of the race. But by the
end of the race, they were running at
11.22 m/s. This trend occurred with
the slower sprinters but at the 60th
meter in the race.
ATHLETE ANALYSIS
Understanding why athletes are suc-
cessful at the 100-m sprint can help to
direct strength and conditioning pro-
grams. This section of the article will
review the research on physiological
characteristics of athletes that make
them successful at the event. Many
athletes use sprinting in their training
or as part of their sport, but as this
article is geared toward the 100-m
sprinter, the analysis below is going to
limit itself to sprinters.
To the extent that it has been studied,
the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the
type II muscle fibers seems to have
a relationship with 100-m sprint perfor-
mance (14,15). In a series of studies,
authors have noted the decline in
performance of sprinters from the age
of 18 through the age of 84. Interest-
ingly, fiber type percentage (i.e., type I
versus type IIa, IIb, etc) does not
change, but the CSA of those fibers
changes (by between 6 and 11% per
decade depending upon the type of
fiber). Along with this, there are marked
changes in sprint performance (6% per
decade), vertical jump performance
(11% per decade), rate of force de-
velopment (9% per decade), maximal
force (8% per decade), stride length (4%
per decade), stride frequency (1% per
decade), and even 1 repetition maxi-
mum (RM) half squat (9% per decade)
 (14,15). Implementing a 20-week perio-
dized strength training with these
master sprinters, however, increased
the CSA of the type II fibers by as
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
much as 40%. This lead to an increase in
1RM half squat, squat jump perfor-
mance, triple jump performance, pro-
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 06/16/2023
pulsive ground reaction forces, rate of
force development, stride length, and
a decrease in ground contact time (9). In
other words, increasing the CSA of
particularly the type II muscle fibers
would seem to increase a 100-m sprint-
er’s performance, although this would be
limited by one’s genetic potential to
develop type II muscle fibers.
A coach should be careful with in-
creasing the CSA area of the muscle
fibers too much. There seems to be
a relationship between the CSA of the
muscle fibers and the pennation angles of
those fibers (the angle of the fibers
relative to the tendon), although it is
unclear how trainable this is. Muscles
with a larger CSA have a greater
pennation angle of those muscle fibers
(13). Muscle fibers with a greater pen-
nation angle generate more force (13).
Theoretically, it would be advantageous
for a sprinter to have muscle fibers with
a lower pennation angle as the nature of
their orientation would result in a faster
velocity of shortening (17). Studies have
noted a relationship between pennation
angle and speed. Abe et al. (1) compared
100-m sprinters with distance runners
and noted that the distance runners had
a larger pennation angle of their muscle
fibers. Kumagai et al. (17) compared
faster sprinters (mean 100 m; time 10.58
seconds) with slower sprinters (mean 100
m; time 11.37 seconds). They found that
the faster sprinters had a lower pennation
angle at the vastus lateralis (19 versus
21.2°), medial part of the gastrocnemius
(21.4 versus 23.5°), and lateral part of the
gastrocnemius (14 versus 15.2°) than the
slower ones and that there was a statis-
tically significant correlation between
pennation angle and performance on
the 100-m sprint. Not all studies, how-
ever, have found this relationship be-
tween pennation angle and 100-m
performance. Stafilidis and Arampatzis
(23) compared faster male sprinters
(mean 100 m; time 11.04 seconds) and
slower male sprinters (mean 100 m; time
11.64 seconds) and found no difference
in pennation angle. Theoretically, if
muscle CSA is increased too much and
if this increases pennation angle too
much, then this could ultimately reduce
the sprinter’s performance.
Another debatable variable for perfor-
mance is the length of the muscle
fascicles (i.e., bundles of muscle fibers).
Theoretically, longer fascicles would
have a greater velocity of shortening,
potentially resulting in better perfor-
mance in the sprint (17). The studies by
Abe et al. (1) and Kumagai et al. (17)
that have been described earlier found
that faster sprinters had longer muscle
fascicles, and they also found that there
was a statistically significant correla-
tion between the length of the fascicles
and performance on the 100-m sprint.
Stafilidis and Arampatzis (23) did not
find this relationship. It is unclear if this
quality is trainable of inherited.
Muscle stiffness, that is, resistance to a
change in length, is believed to have an
impact on sprinting (3). Theoretically,
muscle stiffness would influence rate of
force development, elastic energy stor-
age and utilization, stride length, and
stride frequency (3). This seems prom-
ising. For example, Harrison et al. (11)
compared sprinters with endurance
athletes and noted that the sprinters
demonstrated greater leg stiffness than
the endurance athletes. Hypothetically,
strength training and eccentric training
would increase stiffness (3).
CONSIDERATIONS
Analyzing both the event and the
athletes that are successful at this event
lead to several important considera-
tions that should be kept in mind when
developing a strength and conditioning
program for the 100-m sprinter. These
are as follows:
1. The 100-m sprint takes 10–13 seconds
2. Given the fast explosive nature of
the event, sprinters need to develop
their type II muscle fibers
3. Sprinters exert force against the ground
4. Only 1 leg is in contact with the
ground at a time
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
5. Sprinters use multiple training
modes beyond strength training
Because the event only lasts 10–13
seconds, its primary fuel source is going
to be from adenosine triphosphate and
creatine phosphate stored in the muscles
and glycogen via anaerobic glycolysis.
This means that the majority of training
needs to focus on shorter duration and
higher intensities allowing for full recovery.
Because of the importance of the type II
muscle fibers for sprinting performance,
training needs to focus on both maximal
strength and exercises that develop
explosiveness (plyometrics, weightlifting
variations, etc).
Sprinters exert force against the starting
blocks and the ground. As a result, the
focus of any program needs to be on
training the athletes to exert force against
the ground. Squats, deadlifts, Romanian
deadlifts, cleans, pulls, snatches, jerks,
and so on should be prioritized ahead of
exercises that do not train the athlete to
exert force against the ground.
Analyzing block clearance and running
technique shows that there are periods
where either 1 leg is in contact with the
ground (during running) or when 1 leg is
exerting greater amounts of force than
the other (block clearance). Some time
should be devoted to exercises that
emphasize 1 leg over the other (e.g., split
squats, lunges, split cleans/snatches, etc).
Finally, sprinters do more than just lift
weights, and all this training has
a cumulative effect on the athlete. An
approach for linking track training to
strength/conditioning is to synchro-
nize the training together by energy
system and/or biomotor ability
(see Cissik (5) and Hoey (12) for more
information). This allows the athlete to
recover fully, rather than overstressing
the same energy systems and abilities.
The final part of this article will apply
the above considerations to a sample
strength and conditioning program for
a freshman collegiate 100-m sprinter.
PROGRAM
Figures 1–4 show a hypothetical pro-
gram for this sprinter based on the
preceding analysis and considerations.
91
 Considerations for the 100-m Sprinter
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 06/16/2023

Figure 1. Early off-season training (September and October).

The year is broken up into early off-
season (September and October), late
off-season (November to mid-
December), preseason (mid-December
through January), and in-season (Feb-
ruary through July). Only an overview
of the workouts is presented. In reality,
volume, intensity, and exercises would
be modified from week to week and
month to month, and this is not
reflected Figures 1–4.
In the early off-season, the focus on the
track is on developing the foundation
for the sprinter to be successful.
Acceleration, maximum velocity
sprinting, and speed endurance are all
emphasized equally. Ample recovery
days are included to get the athlete
used to the demands of training. The
strength training seeks to compliment
this with Monday being a heavy day

Figure 2. Late off-season training (November through mid-December).

92 VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2010

 93
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
Figure 3. Preseason training (mid-December through January).

Figure 4. In-season training (February through July).

Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 06/16/2023
 Considerations for the 100-m Sprinter
focusing on fundamental lifts, Wednes-
day is the explosive day focusing on the
variations of the Olympic lifts, and
Friday (endurance) focuses on higher
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
volume training. Note also that the
intent is to begin to familiarize the
athlete with the fundamentals in terms
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 06/16/2023
of technique.
The late off-season prioritizes accelera-
tion work on the track. Only 3 days are
being spent in the weight room. The
focus of this phase is to continue
improving strength (note the wave
loading on the back squats), continued
mastery of technique (the power snatch
is introduced), and the introduction of
single-leg exercises (primarily on Friday).
The preseason training runs through
the part of the indoor season as it runs
through January. The priority on the
track is on maximum velocity, al-
though a second speed endurance
workout has been added to assist with
the recovery. With regard to strength
training, eccentric training has been
introduced on Monday. Wednesday
continues to focus on the variations
of the Olympic-style lifts. Friday con-
tinues to emphasize 1-legged training.
During in-season training, weight
room work is cut back to twice a week.
The demands of travel and competi-
tion do not realistically allow for more
time to be spent on this aspect of
training. With that in mind, much of
the training is devoted to maintain the
gains in the weight room. Monday
primarily focuses on strength—using
both eccentric and 1-legged exercises.
Wednesday focuses on explosiveness.
The 100-m sprint has a number of
distinct phases that may be run
differently based on an athlete’s level
of ability or gender. In addition to the
race, there are a number of physical
characteristics (including muscle fiber
CSA, pennation angle, fascicle length,
and stiffness) that can influence per-
formance. Understanding these can
help a strength and conditioning coach
to design a program to address an
athlete’s specific needs.
94 VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2010
John M. Cissik
is the director
of Fitness and
Recreation at
Texas Woman’s
University.
REFERENCES
1. Abe T, Kumagai K, and Brechue WF.
Fascicle length of leg muscles is greater
in sprinters than distance runners. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 32: 1126–1129, 2000.
2. Babic V and Delalija A. Reaction time
trends in the sprint and hurdle events at the
2004 Olympic games: Differences
between male and female athletes. New
Stud Athletics 24: 59–68, 2009.
3. Brughelli M and Cronin J. A review of research
on the mechanical stiffness in running and
jumping: Methodology and implications.
Scand J Med Sci Sports 18: 417–426, 2008.
4. Cissik JM. Means and methods of speed
training, part I. Strength Cond J 26: 24–29,
2004.
5. Cissik JM. Program design: Linking it all
together. Track Coach 178: 5688–5692,
2007.
6. Coh M, Peharec S, Bacic P, and
Kampmiller T. Dynamic factors and
electromyographic activity in a sprint start.
Biol Sport 26: 137–147, 2009.
7. Coh M, Tomazin K, and Rausavljevic N.
Differences in morphological and biodynamic
characteristics of maximum speed and
acceleration between two groups of female
sprinters. Biol Sport 24: 115–128, 2007.
8. Coh M, Tomazin K, and Stuhec S. The
biomechanical model of the sprint start and
block acceleration. Facta Univ Ser Phys
Educ Sport 4: 103–114, 2006.
9. Cristea A, Korhonen MT, Hakkinen K, Mero A,
Sipila S, Viitasalo JT, Koljonen MJ, Suominen
H, and Larsson L. Effects of combined
strength and sprint training on regulation of
muscle contraction at the whole-muscle and
single-fibre levels in elite master sprinters.
Acta Physiol 193: 275–289, 2008.
10. Gaffney S. Acceleration phase of the 100m
sprint. In: Sprints and Relays (4th ed).
Jarver J, ed. Mountain View, CA:
TAFNEWS Press, 1995. pp. 23–26.
11. Harrison AJ, Keane SP, and Coglan J. Force-
velocity relationship and stretch-shortening
cycle function in sprint and endurance athletes.
J Strength Cond Res 18: 473–479, 2004.
12. Hoey N. A periodized training plan for multi-
purpose athletes. Tech Track Field Cross
Country 3: 14–19, 2009.
13. Ikegawa S, Funato K, Tsunoda N, Kanehisa
H, Fukunaga T, and Kawakami Y. Muscle
force per cross-sectional area is inversely
related with pennation angle in strength
trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 22:
128–131, 2008.
14. Korhonen MT, Cristea A, Alen M, Hakkinen K,
Sipila S, Mero A, Viitasalo JT, Larsson L, and
Suominen H. Aging, muscle fiber type, and
contractile function in sprint-trained athletes.
J Appl Physiol 101: 906–917, 2006.
15. Korhonen MT, Mero AA, Alen M, Sipila S,
Hakkinen K, Liikavainio T, Viitasalo JT,
Haverinen MT, and Suominen H.
Biomechanical and skeletal muscle
determinants of maximum running speed
with aging. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41:
844–856, 2009.
16. Krell JB and Stefanyshyn DJ. The
relationship between extension of the
metatarsophalangeal joint and sprint time
for 100 m Olympic athletes. J Sports Sci
24: 175–180, 2006.
17. Kumagai K, Abe T, Brechue WF, Ryushi T,
Takano S, and Mizuno M. Sprint
performance is related to muscle fascicle
length in male 100-m sprinters. J Appl
Physiol 88: 811–816, 2000.
18. Letzelter S. The development of velocity
and acceleration in sprints: A comparison
of elite and juvenile female sprinters. New
Stud Athletics 21: 15–22, 2006.
19. Mackala K. Optimisation of performance
through kinematic analysis of the different
phases of the 100 metres. New Stud
Athletics 22: 7–16, 2007.
20. Mero A, Kuitunen S, Harland M, Kyrolainen H,
and Komi PV. Effects of muscle-tendon length
on joint moment and power during sprint
starts. J Sports Sci 24: 165–173, 2006.
21. Paruzel-Dyja M, Walaszczyk A, and Iskra J.
Elite male and female sprinters’ body build,
stride length, and stride frequency. Stud
Phys Cult Tour 13: 33–37, 2006.
22. Schmolinsky G. Track and Field: The East
German Textbook of Athletics. Toronto,
Ontario: Sports Books Publisher, 1996.
pp. 136–141.
23. Stafilidis S and Arampatzis A. Muscle-
tendon unit mechanical and morphological
properties and sprint performance.
J Sports Sci 25: 1035–1046, 2007.
24. USA Track and Field. Coaching Education
Program Level II Course: Sprints, Hurdles,
Relays. USATrack Field 39: 2001.