Despite a voluminous body of research devoted to sprint training, our understanding of the training process leading to a world-class sprint performance is limited. The objective of this review is to integrate scientific and best practice literature regarding the training and development of elite sprint performance. Sprint performance is heavily dependent upon genetic traits, and the annual within-athlete performance differences are lower than the typical variation, the smallest worthwhile change, and the influence of external conditions such as wind, monitoring methodologies, etc. Still, key underlying determinants (e.g., power, technique, and sprint-specific endurance) are trainable. In this review, we describe how well-known training principles (progression, specificity, variation/periodization, and individualization) and varying training methods (e.g., sprinting/running, technical training, strength/power, plyometric training) are used in a sprint training context. Indeed, there is a considerable gap between science and best practice in how training principles and methods are applied. While the vast majority of sprint-related studies are performed on young team sport athletes and focus on brief sprints with maximal intensity and short recoveries, elite sprinters perform sprinting/running over a broad range of distances and with varying intensity and recovery periods. Within best practice, there is a stronger link between choice of training component (i.e., modality, duration, intensity, recovery, session rate) and the intended purpose of the training session compared with the “one-size-fits-all” approach in scientific literature. This review provides a point of departure for scientists and practitioners regarding the training and development of elite sprint performance and can serve as a position statement for outlining state-of-the-art sprint training recommendations and for generation of new hypotheses to be tested in future research.

In this review we integrate the scientific literature and results-proven practice and outline a novel framework for understanding the training and development of elite long-distance performance. Herein, we describe how fundamental training characteristics and well-known training principles are applied. World-leading track runners (i.e., 5000 and 10,000 m) and marathon specialists participate in 9 ± 3 and 6 ± 2 (mean ± SD) annual competitions, respectively. The weekly running distance in the mid-preparation period is in the range 160–220 km for marathoners and 130–190 km for track runners. These differences are mainly explained by more running kilometers on each session for marathon runners. Both groups perform 11–14 sessions per week, and ≥ 80% of the total running volume is performed at low intensity throughout the training year. The training intensity distribution vary across mesocycles and differ between marathon and track runners, but common for both groups is that volume of race-pace running increases as the main competition approaches. The tapering process starts 7–10 days prior to the main competition. While the African runners live and train at high altitude (2000–2500 m above sea level) most of the year, most lowland athletes apply relatively long altitude camps during the preparation period. Overall, this review offers unique insights into the training characteristics of world-class distance runners by integrating scientific literature and results-proven practice, providing a point of departure for future studies related to the training and development in the Olympic long-distance events.

The main aim of this investigation was to quantify differences in sprint mechanical variables across sports and within each sport. Secondary aims were to quantify sex differences and relationships among the variables. In this cross-sectional study of elite athletes, 235 women (23 ± 5 y and 65 ± 7 kg) and 431 men (23 ± 4 y and 80 ± 12 kg) from 23 different sports (including 128 medalists from World Championships and/or Olympic Games) were tested in a 40-m sprint at the Norwegian Olympic Training Center between 1995 and 2018. These were pre-existing data from quarterly or semi-annual testing that the athletes performed for training purposes. Anthropometric and speed-time sprint data were used to calculate the theoretical maximal velocity, horizontal force, horizontal power, slope of the force-velocity relationship, maximal ratio of force, and index of force application technique. Substantial differences in mechanical profiles were observed across sports. Athletes in sports in which sprinting ability is an important predictor of success (e.g., athletics sprinting, jumping and bobsleigh) produced the highest values for most variables, whereas athletes in sports in which sprinting ability is not as important tended to produce substantially lower values. The sex differences ranged from small to large, depending on variable of interest. Although most of the variables were strongly associated with 10- and 40-m sprint time, considerable individual differences in sprint mechanical variables were observed among equally performing athletes. Our data from a large sample of elite athletes tested under identical conditions provides a holistic picture of the force-velocity-power profile continuum in athletes. The data indicate that sprint mechanical variables are more individual than sport specific. The values presented in this study could be used by coaches to develop interventions that optimize the training stimulus to the individual athlete.

The aim of this study was to quantify peak age and improvements over the preceding years to peak age in elite athletic contestants according to athlete performance level, sex, and discipline. Individual season bests for world-ranked top 100 athletes from 2002 to 2016 (14,937 athletes and 57,049 individual results) were downloaded from the International Association of Athletics Federations’ website. Individual performance trends were generated by fitting a quadratic curve separately to each athlete’s performance and age data using a linear modeling procedure. Mean peak age was typically 25–27 y, but somewhat higher for marathon and male throwers (∼28–29 y). Women reached greater peak age than men in the hurdles and middle- and long-distance running events (mean difference, ±90% CL: 0.6, ±0.3 to 1.9, ±0.3 y: small to moderate). Male throwers had greater peak age than corresponding women (1.3, ±0.3 y: small). Throwers displayed the greatest performance improvements over the 5 y prior to peak age (mean [SD]: 7.0% [2.9%]), clearly ahead of jumpers, long-distance runners, hurdlers, middle-distance runners, and sprinters (3.4, ±0.2% to 5.2, ±0.2%; moderate to large). Similarly, top 10 athletes showed greater improvements than top 11–100 athletes in all events (1.0, ±0.9% to 1.8, ±1.1%; small) except throws. Women improved more than men in all events (0.4, ±0.2% to 2.9, ±0.4%) except sprints. This study provides novel insight on performance development in athletic contestants that are useful for practitioners when setting goals and evaluating strategies for achieving success.