4.4 Article

VELOCITY AND STRIDE PARAMETERS OF WORLD-CLASS 400-METER ATHLETES COMPARED WITH LESS EXPERIENCED RUNNERS

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318194e071

关键词

pacing strategy; competition; stride length; stride frequency; fatigue index

资金

  1. French Ministry of Health, Youth and Sport
  2. French Athletics Federation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hanon, C and Gajer, B. Velocity and stride parameters of world-class 400-meter athletes compared with less experienced runners. J Strength Cond Res 23(2): 524-531, 2009-The purpose of this study was to determine, based on the time course of the velocity and stride pattern recorded in each 50-m segment of a 400-m competition, whether elite 400-m runners present the same pacing strategy as less successful athletes. Based on video data, 3 different levels of performance were analyzed: world-class, national, and regional levels for both sexes, with each of the 6 groups comprising 5 subjects. The peak velocity was reached by all athletes between the 50- and 100m marks with mean values of 8.96 and 10.12 m.s(-1) for the 5 best women and men, respectively. Peak frequencies were observed in the second and third 50m segments; peak values were 3.99 +/- 0.13 for the worldclass women (WWC) and 4.12 +/- 0.19 for the men (MWC). A stride length of 2.29 +/- 0.04 was observed for the WWC and 2.53 +/- 0.08 for the MWC. The better athletes were able to achieve higher absolute and relative velocities (97.6 +/- 0.5 [MWC] and 96.3 +/- 0.7% [WWC] of their best performance for 200 m) at the 200-m mark compared with the lowerlevel athletes. Furthermore, the fatigue index was calculated as 22.99, 14.43, and 13.91% for the worldclass, national, and regional levels, respectively. In summary, world-class runners adopt a more aggressive pacing strategy and demonstrate greater fatigue than the less experienced runners; this might indicate a greater mental commitment and/or a better capacity to run under fatigue.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据