Share this article on:

A Comparison of Maximal Squat Strength and 5-, 10-, and 20-Meter Sprint Times, in Athletes and Recreationally Trained Men

Comfort, Paul; Bullock, Nathan; Pearson, Stephen J.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: April 2012 - Volume 26 - Issue 4 - p 937–940
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31822e5889
Original Research

Comfort, P, Bullock, N, and Pearson, SJ. A comparison of maximal squat strength and 5-, 10-, and 20-meter sprint times, in athletes and recreationally trained men. J Strength Cond Res 26(4): 937–940, 2012—The purpose of this study was to identify whether there was a relationship between relative strength during a 1 repetition maximum (1RM) back squat and 5-, 10-, and 20-m sprint performances in both trained athletes and recreationally trained individuals. Professional rugby league players (n = 24) and recreationally trained individuals (n = 20) participated in this investigation. Twenty-meter sprint time and 1RM back squat strength, using free weights, were assessed on different days. There were no significant (p ≥ 0.05) differences between the well-trained and recreationally trained groups for 5-m sprint times. In contrast, the well-trained group's 10- and 20-m sprint times were significantly quicker (p = 0.004; p = 0.002) (1.78 + 0.06 seconds; 3.03 + 0.09 seconds) compared with the recreationally trained group (1.84 + 0.07 seconds; 3.13 + 0.11 seconds). The athletes were significantly stronger (170.63 + 21.43 kg) than the recreationally trained individuals (135.45 + 30.07 kg) (p = 0.01); however, there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in relative strength between groups (1.78 + 0.27 kg/kg; 1.78 + 0.33 kg/kg, respectively). Significant negative correlations were found between 5-m sprint time and relative squat strength (r = −0.613, power = 0.96, p = 0.004) and between relative squat strength and 10- and 20-m sprint times in the recreationally trained group (r = −0.621, power = 0.51, p = 0.003; r = −0.604, power = 0.53, p = 0.005, respectively). These results, indicating that relative strength, are important for initial sprint acceleration in all athletes but more strongly related to sprint performance over greater distances in recreationally trained individuals.

1Directorate of Sport, Exercise and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom

2Manchester City Football Club (Academy), Platt Lane, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom

Address correspondence to Paul Comfort, p.comfort@salford.ac.uk.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Introduction

Sprint performance is of great importance in many sports, with elite soccer players spending approximately 11% of the game sprinting, which equates to a 10- to 15-m sprint every 90 seconds (3,20), with similar findings reported in rugby league (5,13), rugby union (7–9), and field hockey (16). The outcome of the game tends to be determined during these periods of sprinting.

Sprinting requires high levels of acceleration and as such strength to overcome the inertia of the body mass (BM). A number of studies have investigated the relationship between strength and sprint performance, demonstrating that, in general, stronger athletes perform better during sprint performances (2,6,14,19). This may be explained by the fact that peak ground reaction forces and impulse are strong determinants of sprint performance (11,17,18,21).

Studies have used various methods to assess strength, including isokinetics (2,4), machine squats (10), and free weight squats (2,4,6,14,19), when investigating the relationship between strength and sprint performance. The strongest correlations were achieved with free weight squats (14,19). Others have also looked at multiple tests, usually including assessment of power, to develop a model to predict sprint performance (4,15).

There appears to be a clear relationship between maximal free weight squat strength and sprint performance (2,19) in well-trained individuals. Wisloff et al. (19) found a strong correlation (r = −0.94) between 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squat performance and 10-m sprint time; however, in contrast, Harris et al. (10) found a weak and nonsignificant correlation between Smith machine squats and 10- and 40-m sprint times in athletes. More recently, McBride et al. (14) demonstrated a stronger relationship (r = −0.605, p = 0.01) between relative strength and sprint performance (40 yd) in individuals with a high relative strength (≥2.1 kg/kg) compared to individuals with a lower relative strength (<1.9 kg/kg). However, in contrast, 5-yd sprint times and relative strength showed a nonsignificant correlation (r = 0.45, p = 0.0698). Each of these studies has used well-trained athletes, who tend to have highly developed strength and sprint performance; however, no investigation has been identified if these relationships occur in recreationally trained individuals. The aim of this study, therefore, was to compare maximal back squat strength and 5-, 10-, and 20-m sprint performances and their relationships in well-trained athletes and recreationally trained individuals. It was hypothesized that the relationships between maximal squat strength and sprint performance in recreationally trained individuals would be weaker because of a lower level of conditioning.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Methods

Experimental Approach to the Problem

This study was designed to describe the maximal back squat strength and sprint times (dependant variables) over 5, 10, and 20 m and then to determine the relationship between relative strength and sprint performance in well-trained athletes and recreationally trained (≥3 × week for ≥2 years) individuals (independent variables). The sprint distances were selected because these are representative of sprint distances covered during competition in multiple sprint sports (3,5,7–9,12,15,19).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Subjects

Twenty-four, professional, rugby league players (height = 1.83 ± 0.06 m, BM = 96.5 ± 11.14 kg, 1RM = 170.6 ± 21.4 kg, 1RM/BM = 1.78 ± 0.27) and 20 recreationally trained individuals (height = 1.75 ± 0.07 m, BM = 78.72 ± 10.68 kg, 1RM = 138.6.6 ± 27.9 kg, 1RM/BM = 1.77 ± 0.33) participated in this investigation. The rugby league players had just completed preseason training (including a 4-week strength mesocycle and a 4-week power mesocycle), and all recreationally trained subjects had just completed a power mesocycle (4–8 weeks). All participants provided written informed consent, which was approved by the University Ethics Committee. All procedures conformed to the Declaration of Helsinki.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Order of Testing

Participants attended the human performance laboratory on 2 separate occasions, at the same time of day, to undertake the maximal strength testing and the sprint performances, separated by 48–72 hours. Participants had abstained from training on the day before testing and were asked to maintain a consistent dietary intake on each day of testing.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Maximal Strength Testing

One repetition maximum back squat was assessed via a standardized protocol (1), with warm-up loads approximated via individual training loads. During all attempts, participants were required to squat to a depth where a 90° knee angle was achieved. Before the start of the warm-up, this knee angle was assessed using a goniometer while the participant was squatting. A bungee was placed at the appropriate height so that the participants' buttocks touched the bungee once the squat depth was achieved (Figure 1); this was also reinforced with verbal commands. All participants achieved their 1RM within 5 attempts.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Back to Top | Article Outline

Sprint Times

After a standardized warm-up, participants performed three 20-m sprints on an indoor track (Mondo, SportsFlex, 10 mm; Mondo America Inc., Mondo, Summit, NJ, USA), wearing standard training shoes. Sprints were interspersed with a 1-minute rest period in accordance with McBride et al. (14). Time to 5, 10, and 20 m was assessed using infrared timing gates (Brower, Speed Trap 2, Wireless Timing System, Draper, UT, USA.). All subjects began with their front foot positioned 0.5 m behind the start line and were instructed to perform all sprints with a maximal effort.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Statistical Analyses

Intraclass correlation coefficients were performed to assess repeatability between each of the 3 sprints. Independent t-tests were performed to determine differences in strength and sprint times between well-trained athletes and recreationally trained individuals. Pearson's correlations were also performed to determine relationships between measurements of strength and sprint times using SPSS software (Version 16.0; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). An a priori level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Where no significant differences were found between well-trained and recreationally trained individuals, the data were pooled for correlation analysis. Power calculations, for correlations, were calculated using G*Power (Version 3.1, University of Deusseldorf, Germany) (12).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Results

Intraclass correlations demonstrated a high level of reliability between each of the 3 trials for the 5-, 10-, and 20-m sprints (r = 0.96, p < 0.001; r = 0.97, p ≤ 0.001; r = 0.97, p < 0.001, respectively).

There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in 5-m sprint times between the well-trained group (1.05 ± 0.06 seconds) and recreationally trained group (1.08 ± 0.06 seconds), although the well-trained group demonstrated the lowest mean 5-m sprint times. In contrast, the well-trained group generated significantly (p = 0.004; p = 0.002) lower 10- and 20-m (1.78 ± 0.06 seconds; 3.03 ± 0.09 seconds) sprint times compared with the recreationally trained group (1.84 ± 0.07 seconds; 3.13 ± 0.11 seconds) (Figure 1).

In terms of absolute strength, well-trained individuals (170.63 ± 21.43 kg) were significantly stronger (p = 0.01) than the recreationally trained individuals (135.45 ± 30.07 kg) (Figure 2); however, in contrast, there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in relative strength between groups (1.78 ± 0.27 kg/kg; 1.78 ± 0.33 kg/kg, respectively).

Figure 2

Figure 2

Statistically significant correlations were found between 5-m sprint time and relative squat strength (r = −0.613, power = 0.96, p = 0.004) for the combined data.

Relative squat strength and both 10- and 20-m sprint times showed significant correlations in the recreationally trained group (r = −0.621, power = 0.51, p = 0.003; r = −0.604, power = 0.53, p = 0.005, respectively) (Figures 3 and 4) but nonsignificant correlations for the well-trained group (r = −0.336, power = 0.52, p = 0.109; r = −0.360, power = 0.52, p = 0.084, respectively).

Figure 3

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 4

Back to Top | Article Outline

Discussion

This investigation found no significant differences (p = 0.068) between well-trained (1.05 ± 0.06 seconds) and recreationally trained (1.08 ± 0.06 seconds) groups for 5-m sprint times, although the well-trained groups were slightly (0.03 seconds) quicker. This may be because of the fact that even though well-trained individuals (170.63 ± 21.43 kg) were significantly stronger (p = 0.01), in terms of absolute strength, when compared with recreationally trained individuals (135.45 ± 30.07 kg), there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in relative strength between groups (1.78 ± 0.27 kg/kg; 1.78 ± 0.33 kg/kg, respectively). The initial start (0–5 m) during a sprint is likely to be affected more by relative strength than absolute strength because of the requirement of accelerating the individuals' BM. There may also be an upper threshold for strength, beyond which further increases in strength have less effect on sprint performance and acceleration.

In contrast, the well-trained group performed significantly (p = 0.004; p = 0.002) quicker 10- and 20-m (1.78 ± 0.06 seconds; 3.03 ± 0.09 seconds) sprints compared with the recreationally trained group (1.84 ± 0.07 seconds; 3.13 ± 0.11 seconds). This may be partly explained by Baker and Nance (2) who postulated that performance over greater sprint distances may be affected by the stretch shorten cycle, therefore possibly reducing the relationship between maximal strength and sprint performance over longer distances, as can be seen in the results of this investigation. Further possible explanation for the quicker 10- and 20-m sprint performances by the athletes may be explained by better technique and the ability to generate high forces at high velocities possibly because of a higher percentage of type II muscle fibers, although this was not assessed within the study.

Statistically significant correlations were found between 5-m sprint time and relative squat strength (r = −0.613, power = 0.96, p = 0.004) for the combined data, which is stronger than the relationships previously reported by McBride et al. (14), who found a moderate (r = −0.45, power = 0.44, p = 0.0698) although nonsignificant relationship between relative squat strength and 5-yd sprint times.

Relative squat strength and both 10- and 20-m sprint times showed significant correlations in the recreationally trained group (r = −0.621, power = 0.51, p = 0.003; r = −0.604, power = 0.53, p = 0.005, respectively). However, this was not as strong as the relationship previously reported by Wisloff et al. (19) (r = −0.94, p < 0.05) between absolute 1RM squat performance and 10-m sprint time; in contrast, these findings are similar to those previously reported by McBride et al. (14) who found a strong relationship (r = −0.605, p = 0.01) between relative strength and sprint performances (10 and 40 yd). As aforementioned, Baker and Nance (2) explain that differences in the relationships between strength and sprint performance may be partly explained by a greater involvement of the stretch-shorten cycle over greater distances or other factors such as reduced muscle cocontraction, with increased sprint skill. The assessment, therefore, of peak force or peak power during squat jumps or countermovement jumps may be a better predictor of sprint performances over distances of >10 m in well-trained athletes.

It is suggested that future research should determine if increasing squat strength results in a concomitant increase in sprint performances and also determine if muscle tissue distribution rather than relative strength explains the differences in sprint performances more clearly.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Practical Applications

Because of the relationship between squat strength and sprint performance, it is suggested that increasing squat strength is likely to improve sprint performance at short distances (∼5 m). Moreover, increasing squat strength may improve sprint performance (decrease sprint time) in recreationally trained individuals to a greater extent than in well-trained athletes, especially at distances up to 20 m. These results, indicating that relative strength, are important for initial sprint acceleration (0–5 m) in all athletes but more strongly related to sprint performance over greater distances (10 and 20 m) in recreationally trained individuals.

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. Baechle TR, Earle RW, Wathen D. Resistance Training. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. National Strength and Conditioning Association (3rd ed.). In: T.R Baechle, R.W Earle, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008. pp. 381–412.
2. Baker D, Nance S. The relationship between running speed and measures of strength and power in professional rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 13: 230–235, 1999.
3. Bangsbo J, Mohr M, Krustrup P. Physical and metabolic demands of training and match-play in the elite football player. J Sports Sci 24: 665–674, 2006.
4. Blazevich AJ, Jenkins DG. Predicting sprint running times from isokinetic and squat lift tests: A regression analysis. J Strength Cond Res 12: 101–103, 1998.
5. Brewer J, Davis J. Applied physiology of rugby league. Sports Med 20: 129–135, 1995.
6. Cronin JB, Hansen KT. Strength and power predictors of sports speed. J Strength Cond Res 19: 349–357, 2005.
7. Cunniffe B, Proctor W, Baker JS, Davies B. An evaluation of the physiological demands of elite rugby union using global positioning system tracking software. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1195–1203, 2009.
8. Duthie GM, Pyne DB, Hooper S. Time motion analysis of 2001 and 2002 super 12 rugby. J Sports Sci 23: 523–530, 2005.
9. Duthie GM, Pyne DB, Marsh DJ, Hooper SL. Sprint patterns in rugby union players during competition. J Strength Cond Res 20: 208–214, 2006.
10. Harris NK, Cronin JB, Hopkins WG, Hansen KT. Relationship between sprint times and strength/power outputs of a machine squat jump. J Strength Cond Res 22: 691–698, 2008.
11. Hunter JP, Marshall RN, McNair PJ. Relationships between ground reaction force impulse and kinematics of sprint-running acceleration. J Appl Biomech 21: 31–43, 2005.
12. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A. Statistical power analysis using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation regression analysis. Behav Res Methods 41: 1149–1160, 2009.
13. Meir R, Newton R, Curtis E, Fardell M, Butler B. Physical fitness qualities of professional rugby league football players: Determination of positional differences. J Strength Cond Res 15: 450–458, 2001.
14. McBride JM, Blow D, Kirby TJ, Haines TL, Dayne AM, Triplett NT. Relationship between maximal squat strength and five, ten, and forty yard sprint times. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1633–1636, 2009.
15. Nesser TW, Latin RW, Berg K, Prentice E. Physiological determinants of 40-metre sprint performance in young male athletes. J Strength Cond Res 10: 263–267, 1996.
16. Spencer M, Lawrence S, Rechichi C, Bishop D, Dawson B, Goodman C. Time motion analysis of elite field hockey, with special reference to repeated-sprint activity. J Sports Sci 22: 843–850, 2004.
17. Weyand PG, Sternlight DB, Bellizzi MJ, Wright S. Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements. J Appl Physiol 89: 1991–1999, 2000.
18. Weyand PG, Lin JE, Bundle MW. Sprint performance duration relationships are set by the fractional duration of external force application. Am J Physiol 290: R758–R765, 2006.
19. Wisloff U, Castagna C, Helgerud J, Jones R, Hoff J. Strong correlation of maximal squat strength with sprint performance and vertical jump height in elite soccer players. Br J Sport Med 38: 285–288, 2004.
20. Withers RT, Maricic Z, Wasilewski S, Kelly L. Match analysis of Australian professional soccer players. J Hum Mov Stud 8: 159–176, 1982.
21. Wright S, Weyand PG. The application of ground force explains the energetic cost of running backward and forward. J Exp Biol 204: 1805–1815, 2001.
Keywords:

sprinting performance; acceleration; correlation

Copyright © 2012 by the National Strength & Conditioning Association.