Very little is currently known about the effects of acute hamstring injury on over-ground sprinting mechanics. The aim of this research was to describe changes in power–force–velocity properties of sprinting in two injury case studies related to hamstring strain management: Case 1: during a repeated sprint task (10 sprints of 40 m) when an injury occurred (5th sprint) in a professional rugby player; and Case 2: prior to (8 days) and after (33 days) an acute hamstring injury in a professional soccer player. A sports radar system was used to measure instantaneous velocity–time data, from which individual mechanical profiles were derived using a recently validated method based on a macroscopic biomechanical model. Variables of interest included: maximum theoretical velocity (V₀) and horizontal force (F_H0), slope of the force–velocity (F–v) relationship, maximal power, and split times over 5 and 20 m. For Case 1, during the injury sprint (sprint 5), there was a clear change in the F–v profile with a 14% greater value of F_H0 (7.6–8.7 N/kg) and a 6% decrease in V₀ (10.1 to 9.5 m/s). For Case 2, at return to sport, the F–v profile clearly changed with a 20.5% lower value of F_H0 (8.3 vs. 6.6 N/kg) and no change in V_0. The results suggest that the capability to produce horizontal force at low speed (F_H0) (i.e. first metres of the acceleration phase) is altered both before and after return to sport from a hamstring injury in these two elite athletes with little or no change of maximal velocity capabilities (V₀), as evidenced in on-field conditions. Practitioners should consider regularly monitoring horizontal force production during sprint running both from a performance and injury prevention perspective.

Purpose: To ascertain whether force-velocity-power relationships could be compiled from a battery of sled-resisted overground sprints and to clarify and compare the optimal loading conditions for maximizing power production for different athlete cohorts.Methods: Recreational mixed-sport athletes (n = 12) and sprinters (n = 15) performed multiple trials of maximal sprints unloaded and towing a selection of sled masses (20–120% body mass [BM]). Velocity data were collected by sports radar, and kinetics at peak velocity were quantified using friction coefficients and aerodynamic drag. Individual force–velocity and power–velocity relationships were generated using linear and quadratic relationships, respectively. Mechanical and optimal loading variables were subsequently calculated and test–retest reliability assessed.Results: Individual force–velocity and power–velocity relationships were accurately fitted with regression models (R² > .977, P < .001) and were reliable (ES = 0.05–0.50, ICC = .73–.97, CV = 1.0–5.4%). The normal loading that maximized peak power was 78% ± 6% and 82% ± 8% of BM, representing a resistance of 3.37 and 3.62 N/kg at 4.19 ± 0.19 and 4.90 ± 0.18 m/s (recreational athletes and sprinters, respectively). Optimal force and normal load did not clearly differentiate between cohorts, although sprinters developed greater maximal power (17.2–26.5%, ES = 0.97–2.13, P < .02) at much greater velocities (16.9%, ES = 3.73, P < .001).Conclusions: Mechanical relationships can be accurately profiled using common sled-training equipment. Notably, the optimal loading conditions determined in this study (69–96% of BM, dependent on friction conditions) represent much greater resistance than current guidelines (~7–20% of BM). This method has potential value in quantifying individualized training parameters for optimized development of horizontal power.

Purpose: To compare mechanical properties of overground sprint running in elite rugby union and rugby league athletes. Methods: Thirty elite rugby code (15 rugby union and 15 rugby league) athletes participated in this cross-sectional analysis. Radar was used to measure maximal overground sprint performance over 20 or 30 m (forwards and backs, respectively). In addition to time at 2, 5, 10, 20, and 30 m, velocity-time signals were analyzed to derive external horizontal force–velocity relationships with a recently validated method. From this relationship, the maximal theoretical velocity, external relative and absolute horizontal force, horizontal power, and optimal horizontal force for peak power production were determined. Results: While differences in maximal velocity were unclear between codes, rugby union backs produced moderately faster split times, with the most substantial differences occurring at 2 and 5 m (ES 0.95 and 0.86, respectively). In addition, rugby union backs produced moderately larger relative horizontal force, optimal force, and peak power capabilities than rugby league backs (ES 0.73−0.77). Rugby union forwards had a higher absolute force (ES 0.77) despite having ~12% more body weight than rugby league forwards. Conclusions: In this elite sample, rugby union athletes typically displayed greater short-distance sprint performance, which may be linked to an ability to generate high levels of horizontal force and power. The acceleration characteristics presented in this study could be a result of the individual movement and positional demands of each code.

We tested the hypothesis that the degree of adaptation to highly focused sprint training at opposite ends of the sprint Force-Velocity (FV) spectrum would be associated with initial sprint FV profile in rugby athletes. Training-induced changes in sprint FV profiles were computed before and after an eight-week in-season resisted or assisted sprint training protocol, including a three-week taper. Professional male rugby players (age: 18.9 ± 1.0 years; body height: 1.9 ± 0.0 m; body mass: 88.3 ± 10.0 kg) were divided into two groups based on their initial sprint FV profiles: 1) Heavy sled training (RESISTED, N = 9, velocity loss 70–80%), and 2) assisted acceleration training (ASSISTED, N = 12, velocity increase 5–10%). A total of 16 athletes were able to finish all required measurements and sessions. According to the hypothesis, a significant correlation was found between initial sprint FV profile and relative change in sprint FV profile (RESISTED: r = −0.95, p < 0.01, ASSISTED: r = −0.79, p < 0.01). This study showed that initial FV properties influence the degree of mechanical response when training at different ends of the FV spectrum. Practitioners should consider utilizing the sprint FV profile to improve the individual effectiveness of resisted and assisted sprint training programs in high-level rugby athletes.

Purpose: To investigate differences between rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and percentage one-repetition maximum (1RM) load assignment in resistance-trained males (19–35 years) performing protocols with matched sets and repetitions differentiated by load-assignment. Methods: Participants performed squats then bench press 3x/weeks in a daily undulating format over 8-weeks. Participants were counterbalanced by pre-test 1RM then assigned to percentage 1RM (1RMG, n = 11); load-assignment via percentage 1RMs, or RPE groups (RPEG, n = 10); participant-selected loads to reach target RPE ranges. Ultrasonography determined pre and post-test pectoralis (PMT), and vastus lateralis muscle thickness at 50 (VLMT50) and 70% (VLMT70) femur-length. Results: Bench press (1RMG +9.64 ± 5.36; RPEG + 10.70 ± 3.30 kg), squat (1RMG + 13.91 ± 5.89; RPEG + 17.05 ± 5.44 kg) and their combined-total 1RMs (1RMG + 23.55 ± 10.38; RPEG + 27.75 ± 7.94 kg) increased (p < 0.05) in both groups as did PMT (1RMG + 1.59 ± 1.33; RPEG +1.90 ± 1.91 mm), VLMT50 (1RMG +2.13 ± 1.95; RPEG + 1.85 ± 1.97 mm) and VLMT70 (1RMG + 2.40 ± 2.22; RPEG + 2.31 ± 2.27 mm). Between-group differences were non-significant (p > 0.05). Magnitude-based inferences revealed 79, 57, and 72% chances of mean small effect size (ES) advantages for squat; ES 90% confidence limits (CL) = 0.50 ± 0.63, bench press; ES 90% CL = 0.28 ± 0.73, and combined-total; ES 90% CL = 0.48 ± 0.68 respectively, in RPEG. There were 4, 14, and 6% chances 1RMG had a strength advantage of the same magnitude, and 18, 29, and 22% chances, respectively of trivial differences between groups. Conclusions: Both loading-types are effective. However, RPE-based loading may provide a small 1RM strength advantage in a majority of individuals.