Effect of Different Sprint Training Methods on Sprint Performance Over Various Distances: A Brief Review : The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research

Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Brief Review

Effect of Different Sprint Training Methods on Sprint Performance Over Various Distances

A Brief Review

Rumpf, Michael C.; Lockie, Robert G.; Cronin, John B.; Jalilvand, Farzad

Author Information
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 30(6):p 1767-1785, June 2016. | DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001245
  • Free



Sprint ability is an important factor in a range of athletic activities and in many instances can define performance success. A specific example can be seen in the 100-m track and field sprint event, where the fastest sprinter will typically win the race (31). However, quicker athletes will have an advantage in team sports as well. For example, faster soccer players should be able to reposition themselves more quickly during crucial match situations, such as contests for the ball (80) and goal-scoring opportunities (28). Depending on the sport, the importance of speed can be affected by the distance traveled during a sprint effort. For strength and conditioning coaches, understanding the number of sprints and associated distances is important for sport-specific speed development.

Previous research has emphasized the value of acceleration (i.e., sprints of less than 20 m) for field sport athletes (27,54,88). For example, most (approximately 68%) sprint distances in professional rugby league were less than 20 m (30). To further illustrate the importance of short sprint speed, Gabbett (30) stated that the most common (approximately 46%) sprint distance for the positional grouping of hit-up forwards was 6–10 m, which emphasizes the ability to accelerate. Similar values for average sprinting distances were obtained for professional elite rugby union players (3), whereas Australian state-level cricket players cover between 10-17 m per sprint in 20-20 games (76). In professional soccer players, various researchers have reported that players sprint a total distance of between 200 and 1,100 m during a match (1,8,70,77). However, the mean duration of sprints completed during a soccer match is very short, tending to be between 2 and 4 seconds (90). This results in mean sprint distances of approximately 10–30 m (78), with most sprints being shorter than 20 m (26).

Although it is clear that speed over short distances is a requirement for most team sport athletes, a high maximal running velocity is also an important trait. Maximal velocity for team sport athletes is typically achieved during a longer sprint of 30–40 m (27,93,98). This has value to athletes, as maximal sprints in team sports can often be initiated from a moving start (27). Although sprints of these distances are less frequent in match play (26,46), athletes could have the opportunity to attain maximal velocity during a sprint effort if they begin the sprint while moving. This suggests that despite the importance of acceleration development for most athletes, speed over longer distance sprints (i.e., 30 m or greater) should also be developed. On the basis of these collective research findings, strength and conditioning coaches should therefore use distance-specific training for their athletes when looking to enhance speed.

To improve the speed qualities associated with various sports, coaches implement various types of training modalities (e.g., free, assisted, and resisted sprinting, resistance training, and plyometrics) (20,56). However, despite the widespread use of many training methods, there is limited information as to whether certain protocols are better used to induce speed improvements over specific distances (i.e., shorter or longer distance sprints). For this reason, it would be of great benefit for strength and conditioning coaches to have a resource that centralizes information regarding different speed training protocols and how they influence sprint performance over various distances.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to perform a brief review and investigate the current scientific literature to quantify the effect of different training methods on sprint times over various sport-specific distances. The sprint distances investigated were 0–10, 0–20, 0–30, and 31+ m. As will be documented, these distances were investigated as they have been commonly used within the scientific literature and have application for team sport athletes. In this review, training studies were categorized into specific sprint training (free sprint, resisted, and assisted training methods); nonspecific training methods (strength, power, and plyometric training), and combined training methods, which is a mixture of specific and nonspecific methods. This brief review will document the speed training protocols established within the literature as being able to enhance sprint performance. More importantly, this study will highlight the protocols that could be used to improve speed over specific distances for athletes.


Study Selection

To obtain articles for the review, a database search of PubMed, Google Scholar, SPORTDiscus, and MEDLINE was conducted at the end of October 2014. The bibliographies of all reviewed articles were then searched and reviewed. Studies were chosen for inclusion if they fulfilled the following 7 selection criteria: (a) the study used a training method described earlier as nonspecific, specific, or combined; (b) the study detailed the duration of the training and the training frequency per week; (c) the study clearly detailed the outcome measures of interest (e.g., 10-m sprint time) measured with appropriate equipment (i.e., timing gates or radar gun); (d) the study provided detailed information about the male participants (e.g., age >18 years, height, body mass, and training status); (e) the study presented group mean and SDs for the dependent variable (sprint time or average velocity) of up to 100 m before and after training, or the effect sizes (ESs) and calculated percent changes; (f) the study was published before October 2014; and (g) the study was written in English and published as a full-text article in a peer-reviewed journal.

Data Acquisition and Analysis

The following characteristics were recorded for all articles: author, year, sample size, age, training status, training methods, total amount of training sessions, duration of training intervention, number of sessions per week, testing distances, and training effect in percent change or ES. This review used a methodological approach that quantified the changes associated with a training intervention (83,84). Training studies have been categorized into specific sprint training (free sprint, resisted, and assisted training methods); nonspecific sprint training (strength, power, and plyometric training methods); and combined training (combination of specific and nonspecific methods). To further the analysis, specific and nonspecific training methods were also analyzed within their subcategories of free sprinting, resisted sprinting, assisted sprinting, strength training, power training, and plyometrics. Studies using strength training were based on high-force or nonballistic training. Power training studies were characterized by high-velocity or ballistic training, including Olympic lifting.

Percent changes (%change), ESs, and training efficacy (TE) were used to quantify the changes with each training intervention and sprint distance of 0–10, 0–20, 0–30, and 31+ m (i.e., >30 m until the end of sprint distance). The qualitative inferences associated with the ES that were used in this review were in accordance with Hopkins (44). An ES less than 0.2 was considered a trivial effect; 0.2–0.6, a small effect; 0.6–1.2, a moderate effect; 1.2–2.0, a large effect; 2.0–4.0, a very large effect; and 4.0 and above, an extremely large effect. Training efficacy was defined as the change in sprint time per session and calculated for all cited studies (67).

It should be noted that an improvement in sprint performance (i.e., a decrease in sprint time) is denoted as a negative ES. This approach allows the reader to make decisions about the practicality and efficacy of certain training methods in relation to other samples for potential inclusion into strength and conditioning programs. After the literature search, 48 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. The analysis included 1,485 subjects, with an average age of 22.2 ± 3.00 years, height of 1.79 ± 0.06 m, and mass of 80.2 ± 8.80 kg.


Specific Sprint Training

Specific sprint training methods comprised all training forms in which the athlete sprinted either (a) without any loading on a flat surface (i.e., free sprinting); (b) resisted by sleds, bands, or an uphill incline; or (c) assisted with a towing device or a downhill slope. In summary, a total of 8 studies (13,23,49,56,61,81,89,100) were included for analysis in this section. Two hundred ten subjects with an average age of 22.3 ± 3.18 years, height of 1.79 ± 0.06 m, and body mass of 79.9 ± 7.34 kg were included in this analysis.

Table 1 displays the data from the specific sprint studies investigated. A summary of the distance interaction for each of the specific sprint training methods from Table 1 can be observed in Table 2. The training effects associated with specific sprint training across all distances were generally classified as moderate (ES = ∼−1.10; %change = −3.40), with the greatest effect (ES = −1.12) observed for the 31+ m distance. Free sprinting had an average ES of −0.92 across all distances, and the greatest training effects were observed for the 31+ m distance. Training effects of resisted sprinting across all distances were classified as large, with an average ES of −1.39. The greatest ES for resisted sprinting was observed for the 0–20 m distance, and resisted sprinting tended to show the greatest training effects of all specific sprint training methods. Assisted sprint training was only investigated over the 31+ m distance and showed a small effect (ES = −0.31). Additionally, the greatest TE was observed for resisted sprint training across distances 0–10 and 0–20 m, with an average ES of −0.08. Free sprinting provided the greatest TE over the 0–30 and 31+ m distances, with an average ES of −0.07.

Table 1-a:
Specific sprint training studies.
Table 1-b:
Specific sprint training studies.
Table 2:
Specific sprint training and its effect on different distances.*

Nonspecific Sprint Training

Strength and power-based training, in addition to plyometric training, were included as nonspecific forms of sprint training in this review. A total of 28 studies were included, in which 1,062 subjects (age = 22.1 ± 3.04 years, height = 1.79 ± 0.06 m, and body mass = 79.5 ± 8.93 kg) were included in the analysis. The data for all studies are presented in Table 3. Table 4 provides a summary of the distance interactions from the pooled and averaged data for the nonspecific sprint training methods. The combined nonspecific training effects across all distances were classified as small (average ES = −0.32; %change = −2.63). Although there was a tendency for the ES to decrease with distance (i.e., from 0–10 to 0–30 m), the greatest effect (ES = −0.43), although small, was observed for the 31+ m distance.

Table 3-a:
Nonspecific sprint training studies.
Table 3-b:
Nonspecific sprint training studies.
Table 3-c:
Nonspecific sprint training studies.
Table 3-d:
Nonspecific sprint training studies.
Table 3-e:
Nonspecific sprint training studies.
Table 4:
Nonspecific sprint training and its effect on different distances.*

Similarly, the ES for strength training was classified as small (ES = 0.34) and tended to decrease as the sprint distance increased. However, the greatest ES (−0.55) was observed for the 31+ m distance. Power training had the lowest overall average effect (ES = −0.17) out of the nonspecific sprint training methods. Unlike strength training, the ES for power training increased with distance, with the greatest effect (ES = −0.33) observed for the 31+ m distance. Plyometric training had an average small ES of −0.29 over all distances. The greatest effect for plyometric training was observed for the 0–10 m distance (ES = −0.35; %change = −2.39).

Nonspecific sprint TE was −0.02 across all distances, and the greatest value was observed for strength training for the 31+ m distance. Average strength TE was −0.02 per session for all distances, whereas power training was most efficient for the 0–30 and 31+ m distance. The TE for plyometric training was −0.01 per training session, with a maximum value of −0.02 for the 31+ m distance.

Combined Sprint Training

Several investigations used a combination of specific and nonspecific training, which have been categorized as combined sprint training in this review. Eleven studies were included in this section. The training consisted of 4–10 weeks of strength and power (29), assisted and resisted sprint training (61), strength and plyometric training (40,60,82,85,92), different strength and resistance training (43), sprint plus resistance training (89) and resisted sprinting (94), or sprint plus endurance or power training (47). The subjects (n = 211) in the included studies had an average age of 22.2 ± 2.41 years, height of 1.81 ± 0.06 m, and body mass of 82.3 ± 9.51 kg. The data for all combined training studies are shown in Table 5. Table 6 provides a summary of the pooled and averaged ES, %change, and TE across all distances. Combined training methods showed a small effect, with an average ES of −0.51 across all distances. The largest training effects (ES = −0.59; %change = −2.81) for this training method were observed for the 0–10 m distance, although training effects seemed to diminish with distance. Training efficacy equaled approximately −0.03 to −0.04 ES across all distances.

Table 5:
Combined training studies.
Table 6:
Combined sprint training and its effect on different distances.*

Training Efficacy

To clearly document the TE data for each of the individual protocols, they have been included again in Figure 1. From the data displayed in Figure 1, the results indicated that specific training methods seemed to be the most efficient method across all distances, followed by the combined methods of sprint training. More specifically, resisted sprinting provided the highest TE for the 0–10 and 0–20 m distances. Free sprinting had the highest TE for the 0–30 and 31+ m distances.

Figure 1:
Training efficacy of each training method in different distances.


This study provided a brief review of the effects of specific, nonspecific, and combined sprint training methods and their TE on sprint times over different distances. This information is important for the strength and conditioning coach, as coaches must attempt to use the most appropriate protocols for developing speed over specific distances (i.e., 0–10, 0–20, 0–30, and 31+ m) for their athletes. Collectively, the results from the reviewed articles demonstrated that each specific (sprint, resisted, and assisted training methods), nonspecific (strength, power, and plyometric training), and combined (mixture of specific and nonspecific protocols) training method could improve sprint performance. However, as will be discussed, there seem to be specific adaptations to the distances investigated.

With regard to the 0–10 and 0–20 m sprint distances, the largest percent changes (∼4.1%) and effects (ES = −1.11) were observed for specific sprint training methods (i.e., free and resisted sprinting) (Tables 1 and 2; Figure 1). With regard to free sprint training, this modality typically forms the basis for most speed development programs (56). Indeed, previous research has documented that free sprint training can induce positive technical adaptations, such as increased step length (52,53,56) and reduced contact time (89) during acceleration. Taken together, this provides evidence as to why free sprint training is a popular method used to improve speed over 20 m in athletes.

In recent years, modalities that overload an athlete (i.e., resisted sprinting), or allow an athlete to reach supramaximal velocities (i.e., assisted sprinting), have increased in popularity (10,20,25,56). Of these 2 specific modalities, resisted sprint training is more commonly used in an attempt to improve speed over distances up to 20 m (49,56,100). Certainly, of the reviewed articles, only 1 used assisted methods (61), and speed was not measured over the acceleration period. In contrast to assisted methods, resisted sprint training has been typically used to improve the acceleration phase of sprinting (4,20,57,89). Resisted sprint training has value as it can overload an athlete within the specific movements of sprint acceleration (57), and the results from this review indicated that this method seemed to be the most efficient for improving speed over distances less than 20 m (Figure 1). Indeed, relatively greater resisted sprint training loads (>10% body weight or a weight that caused more than a 10% decrease in sprint time) can not only improve linear sprinting speed (4) but also increase horizontal force production (48). Resisted sprint training methods, in this instance sled towing, can also increase step length (56) and reduce contact time (89), which illustrates the positive influence this training method can have on sprint kinematics. The data from this brief review highlight the need for specific training to optimize early sprint speed, which likely could be linked to movement specificity. To this end, both free and resisted sprint training methods can be used.

To an extent, this study also supports the use of nonspecific methods (i.e., strength, power, and plyometric training) for improving speed over distances up to 20 m (Tables 3 and 4; Figure 1). The training effects for the nonspecific methods were, however, generally less than those of the specific methods. Nonetheless, strength and conditioning coaches should be cognizant of how these methods could still influence sprint acceleration. Force production is clearly important while accelerating (72,88), in addition to generating the necessary power for sprinting (5,36). Furthermore, several studies have indicated strong relationships between maximal strength and sprint acceleration performance (6,22,64,97), and strength training by itself can improve short sprint speed (56). This underscores the importance of strength to the initial phase of sprinting. Furthermore, although strength and power training may not have a pronounced and direct transfer of training effect to running speed in trained athletes (7,75), it can positively influence changes in muscle architecture (75) and aspects of technique, such as step length during acceleration (7).

Nevertheless, the nonspecific protocols investigated in this brief review typically form the foundation for an athlete's training program, to influence other aspects of sport-specific performance. Some examples include increases in general strength (11,17,34,50), body mass (14,33), movement velocity (21), and intermuscular coordination (26), which can ultimately benefit sports performance. Further to this, plyometrics can improve leg power (19,59,91), even if the direct influence on speed may not be as pronounced when compared to specific training methods. Athletes should incorporate multiple training modalities within their training programs (40,82,85), several of which could provide some impact on speed over short distances by enhancing strength and lower-body power. Furthermore, strength and conditioning coaches must ensure that their athletes can express their strength and power within the sprint step, and this can be encouraged by using more specific methods of training.

For the longer sprint distances (0–30 and 31+ m), which is characterized as the maximum velocity phase of sprinting for most athletes (10), specific training was again found to be more beneficial than other methods. Further to this, from the reviewed research, no studies that investigated resisted methods measured sprint performance over distances greater than 30 m. In contrast, 4 studies documented the effects of free sprint training on maximum velocity sprinting (13,23,61,81), whereas 1 study analyzed assisted sprinting (61). The benefits of free sprint training are not surprising, given the importance of an effective technique for generating a high maximum running speed (62,69). Indeed, there are specific technical characteristics that can distinguish between skill levels (12,16,87) and contribute to faster sprinting performance (16,55). For example, short ground contact times (16), smaller touchdown distances (69), higher angular velocities of the stance-limb hip joint (63), a greater step frequency (16,99), and greater extension of the hip, knee, and ankle joints of the stance limb at takeoff (38) will all contribute to a higher maximal velocity when sprinting. Unfortunately, to the investigator's knowledge, there has been no scientific research that has documented the technique adaptations to maximal velocity sprinting, which result from any of the specific training methods analyzed in this study. Although it could be surmised that, similar to acceleration, there could be increases in step length (52,53,56) and decreases in contact time (89) during maximum velocity sprinting, this must be confirmed through further analysis.

Although not as pronounced as for specific training, the results from this brief review also provided evidence for the positive effect nonspecific speed training can have on 0–30 and 31+ m sprint performance. Once again, however, even though the effect on speed may not be as great as that for specific training, the findings from this brief review do not discount the value of strength, power, and plyometric training. As previously stated, there are many other benefits for an athlete that can be attained from these training protocols (18,19,32). Furthermore, the effects of plyometric training, which places an emphasis on the development of the stretch-shortening capacities of the muscles such that improvements in a dynamic athletic action such as jumping can be achieved (92,96), could be more impactful on the maximal velocity phase of sprinting. This is because the stretch-shortening capacities of the lower-body muscles contribute more to maximal velocity sprinting than acceleration (51), and a recent meta-analysis also concluded that plyometric training can positively influence sprint performance (68). Collectively, the results from this study and those of previous research suggest that strength and conditioning coaches should use nonspecific training modes to supplement the use of specific methods, as this could potentially enhance maximal sprinting speed in athletes.

The greatest limitation of this brief review of different speed training methods on sprint performance over different distances is the grouping of subjects across a range of studies. As a result, the training status of subjects across the different investigations was likely different. Indeed, highly trained athletes will adapt differently to the same stimulus when compared to healthy, untrained participants (5). In the context of this study, however, all populations were grouped into 1 pool to increase sample size for the analysis of each sprint distance. Additionally, the specific and the nonspecific training methods each combined 3 different subcategories. For some of these categories, there was limited research for protocols (i.e., assisted sprint training) or training effects over certain distances (i.e., the effects of plyometric and power training on sprint performance over the 31+ m distance). Therefore, some of the guidelines with regard to these training methods and distances should be considered with the correct context by the reader.

Nevertheless, this review provides the strength and conditioning coach with insight into the effects of various speed training methods related to distance traveled when sprinting. The overall effects of training tended to decrease with distance. This suggests that larger improvements in speed can be made over the initial few strides of a sprint, perhaps implying that sprint acceleration may be more trainable than maximum velocity in many athletes. However, such a contention needs validation through empirical means. For all distances, specific sprint training was found to be the most beneficial in decreasing sprint times. However, nonspecific training should also be used to supplement speed development for all distances.

Practical Applications

There are several practical implications for the strength and conditioning coach that can be drawn from this brief review. To improve sprint performance, distance-specific training should be implemented. For speed over short distances (i.e., a sprint distance up to 20 m), coaches should focus on specific sprint training, especially free and resisted sprinting protocols. For example, free sprinting with a focus on technique and also resisted sprinting using a moderate load (>10% body weight or weight that cause more than 10% decrease in time) seem to elicit the greatest gains in sprint performance. This type of training adheres to principles of specificity in that the primary goal is to improve technique specific to sprinting, hence the increased likelihood of transference to running speed.

The practical applications that can be drawn from this brief review also do not discount the benefits of nonspecific training. Nonspecific speed training modalities, such as strength, power, and plyometric training, would benefit other physical performance characteristics, such as increased strength and power production, which would still influence sprinting speed. Strength and conditioning coaches can use nonspecific training methods to support specific speed training. However, if a coach wishes to improve the speed of their athletes, they must use specific sprint training to ensure optimal performance improvements for all distances.


1. Andrzejewski M, Chmura J, Pluta B, Strzelczyk R, Kasprzak A. Analysis of sprinting activities of professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 27: 2134–2140, 2013.
2. Askling C, Karlsson J, Thorstensson A. Hamstring injury occurrence in elite soccer players after preseason strength training with eccentric overload. Scand J Med Sci Sports 13: 244–250, 2003.
3. Austin D, Gabbett T, Jenkins D. The physical demands of super 14 rugby union. J Sci Med Sport 14: 259–263, 2011.
4. Bachero-Mena B, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Effects of resisted sprint training on acceleration with three different loads accounting for 5, 12.5, and 20% of body mass. J Strength Cond Res 28: 2954–2960, 2014.
5. Baker D, Nance S. The relation between running speed and measures of strength and power in professional rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 13: 230–235, 1999.
6. Baker D, Nance S. The relation between strength and power in professional rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 13: 224–229, 1999.
7. Barr MJ, Sheppard JM, Agar-Newman DJ, Newton RU. Transfer effect of strength and power training to the sprinting kinematics of international rugby players. J Strength Cond Res 28: 2585–2596, 2014.
8. Barros RM, Misuta MS, Menezes RP, Figueroa PJ, Moura FA, Cunha SA, et al.. Analysis of the distances covered by first division Brazilian soccer players obtained with an automatic tracking method. J Sports Sci Med 6: 233–242, 2007.
9. Blazevich AJ, Jenkins DG. Effect of the movement speed of resistance training exercises on sprint and strength performance in concurrently training elite junior sprinters. J Sports Sci 20: 981–990, 2002.
10. Bret C, Rahmani A, Dufour AB, Messonnier L, Lacour JR. Leg strength and stiffness as ability factors in 100 m sprint running. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 42: 274–281, 2002.
11. Bruhn S, Kullmann N, Gollhofer A. The effects of a sensorimotor training and a strength training on postural stabilisation, maximum isometric contraction and jump performance. Int J Sports Med 25: 56–60, 2004.
12. Bushnell T, Hunter I. Differences in technique between sprinters and distance runners at equal and maximal speeds. Sports Biomech 6: 261–268, 2007.
13. Callister R, Shealy MJ, Fleck SJ, Dudley GA. Performance adaptations to sprint endurance and both modes of training. J Appl Sport Sci Res 2: 46–51, 1988.
14. Candow DG, Burke DG. Effect of short-term equal-volume resistance training with different workout frequency on muscle mass and strength in untrained men and women. J Strength Cond Res 21: 204–207, 2007.
15. Chelly MS, Ghenem MA, Abid K, Hermassi S, Tabka Z, Shephard RJ. Effects of in-season short-term plyometric training program on leg power, jump- and sprint performance of soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2670–2676, 2010.
16. Coh M, Milanovic D, Kampmiller T. Morphologic and kinematic characteristics of elite sprinters. Coll Antropol 25: 605–610, 2001.
17. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Adaptations in athletic performance after ballistic power versus strength training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1582–1598, 2010.
18. Coutts AJ, Murphy AJ, Dascombe BJ. Effect of direct supervision of a strength coach on measures of muscular strength and power in young rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 316–323, 2004.
19. Cronin J, Crewther B. Training volume and strength and power development. J Sci Med Sports 7: 144–155, 2004.
20. Cronin J, Hansen K, Kawamori N, McNair P. Effects of weighted vests and sled towing on sprint kinematics. Sports Biomech 7: 160–172, 2008.
21. Cronin J, McNair PJ, Marshall RN. Velocity specificity, combination training and sport specific tasks. J Sci Med Sport 4: 168–178, 2001.
22. Cronin JB, Hansen KT. Strength and power predictors of sports speed. J Strength Cond Res 19: 349–357, 2005.
23. Dawson B, Fitzsimons M, Green S, Goodman C, Carey M, Cole K. Changes in performance, muscle metabolites, enzymes and fibre types after short sprint training. Eur J Appl Physiol 78: 163–169, 1998.
24. Deane RS, Chow JW, Tillman MD, Fournier KA. Effects of hip flexor training on sprint, shuttle run, and vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 19: 615–621, 2005.
25. Dhamija JK, Singh JS, Gautam R. Effects of three weeks plyometrics on sprint velocity. Indian J Physio Occ Ther Lett 6: 98–100, 2012.
26. Di Salvo V, Baron R, Gonzalez-Haro C, Gormasz C, Pigozzi F, Bachl N. Sprinting analysis of elite soccer players during European Champions League and UEFA cup matches. J Sports Sci 28: 1489–1494, 2010.
27. Duthie GM, Pyne DB, Marsh DJ, Hooper SL. Sprint patterns in rugby union players during competition. J Strength Cond Res 20: 208–214, 2006.
28. Faude O, Koch T, Meyer T. Straight sprinting is the most frequent action in goal situations in professional football. J Sports Sci 30: 625–631, 2012.
29. Faude O, Roth R, Di Giovine D, Zahner L, Donath L. Combined strength and power training in high-level amateur football during the competitive season: A randomised-controlled trial. J Sports Sci 31: 1460–1467, 2013.
30. Gabbett TJ. Sprinting patterns of National Rugby League competition. J Strength Cond Res 26: 121–130, 2012.
31. Gomez JH, Marquina V, Gomez RW. On the performance of Usain Bold in the 100 metre sprint. Eur J Phys 34: 1227, 2013.
32. Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Gorostiaga EM, Arellano R, Izquierdo M. Moderate resistance training volume produces more favorable strength gains than high or low volumes during a short-term training cycle. J Strength Cond Res 19: 689–697, 2005.
33. Goto K, Nagasawa M, Yanagisawa O, Kizuka T, Ishii N, Takamatsu K. Muscular adaptations to combinations of high- and low-intensity resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res 18: 730–737, 2004.
34. Hakkinen K, Alen M, Kraemer WJ, Gorostiaga E, Izquierdo M, Rusko H, et al.. Neuromuscular adaptations during concurrent strength and endurance training versus strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol 89: 42–52, 2003.
35. Harris GR, Stone MH, O'Bryant HS, Proulx CM, Johnson RL. Short-term performance effects of high power high force or combined weight training methods. J Strength Cond Res 14: 14–20, 2000.
36. Harris NK, Cronin JB, Hopkins WG, Hansen KT. Relationship between sprint times and the strength/power outputs of a machine squat jump. J Strength Cond Res 22: 691–698, 2008.
37. Harris NK, Cronin JB, Hopkins WG, Hansen KT. Squat jump training at maximal power loads vs. heavy loads: Effect on sprint ability. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1742–1749, 2008.
38. Hay JG. The Biomechanics of Sports Techniques. Vol. 4th. London, United Kingdom: Prentice Hall International, 1994.
39. Helgerud J, Rodas G, Kemi OJ, Hoff J. Strength and endurance in elite football players. Int J Sports Med 32: 677–682, 2011.
40. Herrero AJ, Martin J, Martin T, Abadia O, Fernandez B, Garcia-Lopez D. Short-term effect of plyometrics and strength training with and without superimposed electrical stimulation on muscle strength and anaerobic performance: A randomized controlled trial. Part II. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1616–1622, 2010.
41. Hoffman JR, Cooper J, Wendell M, Kang J. Comparison of olympic vs. traditional power lifting training programs in football players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 129–315, 2004.
42. Hoffman JR, Fry AC, Howard R, Maresh CM, Kraemer WJ. Strength, speed and endurance changes during the course of a division I basketball season. J Appl Sport Sci Res 5: 144.149, 1991.
    43. Hoffman JR, Ratamess NA, Cooper JJ, Kang J, Chilakos A, Faigenbaum AD. Comparison of loaded and unloaded jump squat training on strength/power performance in college football players. J Strength Cond Res 19: 810–815, 2005.
    44. Hopkins WG. A New View of Statistics, 2009. Available at: http://sportsci.org/resource/stats/effectmag.html. Accessed March 17, 2011.
    45. Impellizzeri FM, Rampinini E, Castagna C, Martino F, Fiorini S, Wisloff U. Effect of plyometric training on sand versus grass on muscle soreness and jumping and sprinting ability in soccer players. Br J Sports Med 42: 42–46, 2008.
    46. Ingebrigtsen J, Dalen T, Hjelde GH, Drust B, Wisloff U. Acceleration and sprint profiles of a professional elite football team in match play. Eur J Sport Sci 15: 101–110, 2014.
    47. Kamandulis S, Skurvydas A, Brazaitis M, Stanislovaitis A, Duchateau J, Stanislovaitiene J. Effect of a periodized power training program on the functional performances and contractile properties of the quadriceps in sprinters. Res Q Exerc Sport 83: 540–545, 2012.
    48. Kawamori N, Newton R, Nosaka K. Effects of weighted sled towing on ground reaction force during the acceleration phase of sprint running. J Sports Sci 32: 1139–1145, 2014.
    49. Kawamori N, Newton RU, Hori N, Nosaka K. Effects of weighted sled towing with heavy versus light load on sprint acceleration ability. J Strength Cond Res, 2013.
    50. Kim E, Dear A, Ferguson SL, Seo D, Bemben MG. Effects of 4 weeks of traditional resistance training vs. superslow strength training on early phase adaptations in strength, flexibility, and aerobic capacity in college-aged women. J Strength Cond Res 25: 3006–3013, 2011.
    51. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA, Volek JS, Mazzetti SA, Gómez AL. The effect of the meridian shoe on vertical jump and sprint performances following short-term combined plyometric/sprint and resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 14: 228–238, 2000.
    52. Kristensen GO, van den Tillaar R, Ettema GJ. Velocity specificity in early-phase sprint training. J Strength Cond Res 20: 833–837, 2006.
    53. Lockie RG, Murphy AJ, Callaghan SJ, Jeffriess MD. Effects of sprint and plyometrics training on field sport acceleration technique. J Strength Cond Res 28: 1790–1801, 2014.
    54. Lockie RG, Murphy AJ, Knight TJ, Janse de Jonge XA. Factors that differentiate acceleration ability in field sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2704–2714, 2011.
    55. Lockie RG, Murphy AJ, Schultz AB, Jeffriess MD, Callaghan SJ. Influence of sprint acceleration stance kinetics on velocity and step kinematics in field sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res 27: 2494–2503, 2013.
    56. Lockie RG, Murphy AJ, Schultz AB, Knight TJ, Janse de Jonge XA. The effects of different speed training protocols on sprint acceleration kinematics and muscle strength and power in field sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res 26: 1539–1550, 2012.
    57. Lockie RG, Murphy AJ, Spinks CD. Effects of resisted sled towing on sprint kinematics in field-sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res 17: 760–767, 2003.
    58. Los Arcos A, Yanci J, Mendiguchia J, Salinero JJ, Brughelli M, Castagna C. Short-term training effects of vertically and horizontally oriented exercises on neuromuscular performance in professional soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 9: 480–488, 2014.
      59. Luebbers PE, Potteiger JA, Hulver MW, Thyfault JP, Carper MJ, Lockwood RH. Effects of plyometric training and recovery on vertical jump performance and anaerobic power. J Strength Cond Res 17: 704–709, 2003.
      60. Lyttle AD, Wilson GJ, Ostrowski KJ. Enhancing performance: Maximal power versus combined weights and plyometrics training. J Strength Cond Res 10: 173–179, 1996.
      61. Majdell R, Alexander MJ. The effect of overspeed training on kinematic variables in sprinting. J Hum Mov Stud 21: 19–39, 1991.
      62. Mann R, Sprague P. A kinetic analysis of the ground leg during sprint running. Res Q Exerc Sport 51: 334–348, 1980.
      63. Mann R, Sprague P. Kinetics of sprinting. Track Field Q Rev 83: 4–9, 1983.
      64. 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.
      65. McBride JM, Triplett-McBride T, Davie A, Newton RU. The effect of heavy- vs. light-load jump squats on the development of strength, power, and speed. J Strength Cond Res 16: 75–82, 2002.
      66. McEvoy KP, Newton RU. Baseball throwing speed and base running speed: The effects of ballistic resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 12: 216–221, 1998.
      67. McMaster DT, Gill N, Cronin J, McGuigan M. The development, retention and decay rates of strength and power in elite rugby union, rugby league and American football: A systematic review. Sports Med 43: 367–384, 2013.
      68. McMaster DT, Gill N, McGuigan M, Cronin J. Effects of complex strength and ballistic training on maximum strength, sprint ability and force-velocity-power profile of semi-professional rugby union players. J Aust Strength Cond 22: 17–30, 2014.
      69. Mero A, Komi PV, Gregor RJ. Biomechanics of sprint running. Sports Med 13: 376–392, 1992.
      70. Mohr M, Krustrup P, Bangsbo J. Match performance of high-standard soccer players with special reference to development of fatigue. J Sports Sci 21: 519–528, 2003.
      71. Moir G, Sanders R, Button C, Glaister M. The effect of periodized resistance training on accelerative sprint performance. Sports Biomech 6: 285–300, 2007.
      72. Morin JB, Bourdin M, Edouard P, Peyrot N, Samozino P, Lacour JR. Mechanical determinants of 100-m sprint running performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 112: 3921–3930, 2012.
      73. Murphy AJ, Wilson GJ. The ability of tests of muscular function to reflect training-induced changes in performance. J Sports Sci 15: 191–200, 1997.
      74. Nakamura D, Suzuki T, Yasumatsu M, Akimoto T. Moderate running and plyometric training during off-season did not show a significant difference on soccer-related high-intensity performances compared with no-training controls. J Strength Cond Res 26: 3392–3397, 2012.
      75. Nimphius S, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Changes in muscle architecture and performance during a competitive season in female softball players. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2655–2666, 2012.
      76. Petersen C, Portus DB, Dawson MR. Quantifying positional movement patterns in Twenty-20 cricket. Int J Perform Anal Sport 9: 165–170, 2009.
      77. Rampinini E, Coutts AJ, Castagna C, Sassi R, Impellizzeri FM. Variation in top level soccer match performance. Int J Sports Med 28: 1018–1024, 2007.
      78. Reilly T. Motion analysis of workrate in different positional roles in professional football match-play. J Hum Mov Stud 2: 87–97, 1976.
      79. Reyment CM, Bones ME, Lundquist JC, Dallak LC, Janot JM. Effects of a four weeks plyometric training program on measurement of power in male collegiate hockey players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39: 210, 2007.
      80. Rienzi E, Drust B, Reilly T, Carter JE, Martin A. Investigation of anthropometric and work-rate profiles of elite South American international soccer players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 40: 162–169, 2000.
      81. Rimmer E, Sleivert G. Effects of a plyometrics intervention program on sprint performance. J Strength Cond Res 14: 295–301, 2000.
      82. Ronnestad BR, Kvamme NH, Sunde A, Raastad T. Short-term effects of strength and plyometric training on sprint and jump performance in professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 22: 773–780, 2008.
      83. Rumpf MC, Cronin JB, Oliver JL, Hughes M. Effect of different training methods on running sprint times in male youth. Pediatr Exerc Sci 24: 170–186, 2012.
      84. Rumpf MC, Cronin JB, Schneider C. Effect of different training methods on sprint times in recreational and athletic males. J Aust Strength Cond 22: 62–73, 2014.
      85. Saez de Villarreal E, Requena B, Izquierdo M, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Enhancing sprint and strength performance: Combined versus maximal power, traditional heavy-resistance and plyometric training. J Sci Med Sports 16: 146–150, 2013.
      86. Salonikidis K, Zafeiridis A. The effects of plyometric, tennis-drills, and combined training on reaction, lateral and linear speed, power, and strength in novice tennis players. J Strength Cond Res 22: 182–191, 2008.
      87. Slawinski J, Bonnefoy A, Leveque JM, Ontanon G, Riquet A, Dumas R, et al.. Kinematic and kinetic comparisons of elite and well-trained sprinters during sprint start. J Strength Cond Res 24: 896–905, 2010.
      88. Sleivert G, Taingahue M. The relationship between maximal jump-squat power and sprint acceleration in athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol 91: 46–52, 2004.
      89. Spinks CD, Murphy AJ, Spinks WL, Lockie RG. The effects of resisted sprint training on acceleration performance and kinematics in soccer, rugby union and Australian football players. J Strength Cond Res 21: 77–85, 2007.
      90. Stølen T, Chamari K, Castagna C, Wisloff U. Physiology of soccer: An update. Sports Med 35: 501–536, 2005.
      91. Thomas K, French D, Hayes PR. The effect of two plyometric training techniques on muscular power and agility in youth soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 23: 332–335, 2009.
      92. Tricoli V, Lamas L, Carnevale R, Ugrinowitsch C. Short-term effects on lower-body functional power development: Weightlifting vs. vertical jump training programs. J Strength Cond Res 19: 433–437, 2005.
      93. Vescovi JD. Sprint speed characteristics of high-level American female soccer players: Female Athletes in Motion (FAiM) study. J Sci Med Sports 15: 474–478, 2012.
      94. West DJ, Cunningham DJ, Bracken RM, Bevan HR, Crewther BT, Cook CJ, et al.. Effects of resisted sprint training on acceleration in professional rugby union players. J Strength Cond Res 27: 1014–1018, 2013.
      95. Wilson GJ, Murphy AJ, Walshe A. The specificity of strength training: The effect of posture. Eur J Appl Physiol 73: 346–352, 1996.
      96. Wilson GJ, Newton RU, Murphy AJ, Humphries BJ. The optimal training load for the development of dynamic athletic performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25: 1279–1286, 1993.
      97. Wisløff 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 Sports Med 38: 285–288, 2004.
      98. Young W, Russel A, Burge P, Clarke A, Cormack S, Stewart G. The use of sprint tests for assessment of speed qualities of elite Australian rules footballers. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 3: 199–206, 2008.
      99. Young WB, Benton D, Duthie G, Pryor J. Resistance training for short sprints and maximum-speed sprints. Natl Strength Cond Assoc J 23: 7–13, 2001.
      100. Zafeiridis A, Saraslanidis P, Manou V, Ioakimidis P, Dipla K, Kellis S. The effect of resisted sled-pulling sprint start training on acceleration and maximum speed performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 45: 284–290, 2005.

      speed training; training specificity; acceleration; maximal velocity; resisted and assisted sprinting

      Copyright © 2016 by the National Strength & Conditioning Association.