Skip to main content
2024 NSCA National Conference Main banner
Icon Legend
This session is not in your schedule.
This session is in your schedule. Click again to remove it.
Back
Rate ePoster

Speed/Power Development

(36) A COMPARISON OF SPRINT PROFILE MEASURES BETWEEN COLLEGIATE MALE FOOTBALL, BASKETBALL, AND TRACK ATHLETES

Friday, July 12, 2024
12:30 PM – 2:00 PM East Coast USA Time
Location: Exhibit Hall
Abstract Details: Horizontal force-velocity (F-v) profiling, or sprint profiling, is a tool that provides insight to the mechanical components related to sprint acceleration. Sprint F-v profiling highlights variables like relative force (N/kg), relative peak power (Pmax) (W/kg), velocity (m/s), and the ability to orient force in a horizontal direction (RFpeak), which can be utilized to design training programs. Sprint acceleration is a key skill for success in various sports such as basketball (BB), football (FB), and track (TR). PURPOSE: To compare measurements obtained through sprint F-v profiling between collegiate male BB, FB, and TR athletes. METHODS: Fifty-one NCAA Division I collegiate male athletes (n=31 football, n=10 basketball, n=10 track) participated in this study. Each athlete performed two trials of a 30-meter sprint acceleration with the best trial used for analysis. Sprint F-v profiling measures were calculated using the MySprint mobile application. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to compare sprint profile variables between sports. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted as needed using a Tukey correction, and Cohen’s d as a standardized effect size. Significance was set at p< 0.05. RESULTS: There were no differences in RFpeak between BB (0.66±0.02), FB (0.66±0.02), and TR (0.67±0.02) (p=0.82, eta2=0.008). There was a significant difference in relative force (p< 0.001, eta2=0.54) with post-hoc pairwise comparisons indicating that BB (20.99±4.86 N/kg) had higher relative force than FB (14.77±1.42 N/kg, mean difference=6.22, p< 0.001, d =2.56) and TR (13.88±0.99 N/kg, mean difference=7.11, p< 0.001, d=2.92). Similarly, there was a significant difference in relative Pmax (p< 0.001, eta2=0.29) with post-hoc pairwise comparisons indicating that BB (38.71±7.88 W/kg) had higher relative Pmax than FB (31.18±3.74 W/kg, mean difference=7.53, p< 0.001, d=1.59) and TR (31.49±3.38 W/kg, mean difference=7.22, p< 0.004, d=1.52). For velocity (p=<0.001, eta2=0.563), both FB (8.46±0.40 m/s, mean difference=-1.04, d=-2.18) and TR (9.07±0.69 m/s, mean difference=-1.65, d=-3.44) had significantly higher values than BB (7.42±0.47 m/s). CONCLUSION: BB, FB and TR athletes exhibit a strong ability to orient force in a horizontal direction, showing that they perform sprint acceleration with high mechanical effectiveness. However, BB displayed a significantly higher Pmax and relative force than both FB and TR. BB athletes have a more force-oriented profile, whereas FB and TR athletes lean towards a velocity-oriented profile. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: As the technical and biomechanical demands of each sport vary, the difference in sprint profile measures among collegiate male athletes suggest that FB and TR athletes may need to improve in relative force and relative peak power through optimized training. Likewise, BB athletes may benefit from improved velocity training.  

Acknowledgements: None