Skip to main content

05.12.2018 | Original Article

Force–velocity profiling of sprinting athletes: single-run vs. multiple-run methods

European Journal of Applied Physiology
Christian Helland, Thomas Haugen, Elvir Rakovic, Ola Eriksrud, Olivier Seynnes, Antti A. Mero, Gøran Paulsen
Wichtige Hinweise
Communicated by Jean-René Lacour.
This manuscript has been read and approved by all the listed co-authors. The manuscript contains original material only that has not previously been published, and is not currently under consideration elsewhere, nor will be submitted elsewhere until a final decision has been made by the journal.
A correction to this article is available online at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00421-018-04057-7.



This study explored the agreement between a single-run and a multiple-run method for force–velocity (Fv) profiling of sprinting athletes; we evaluated both absolute values and changes over time caused by sprint training.


Seventeen female handball players (23 ± 3 years, 177 ± 7 cm, 73 ± 6 kg) performed 30 m un-resisted and resisted sprints (50, 80 and 110 N resistance) before and after an 8-week sprint training intervention. Two approaches were used to calculate theoretical maximal velocity (v0), horizontal force (F0), power (Pmax), and the force–velocity slope (SFv): (1) the single-run method, based on inverse dynamics applied to the centre-of-mass movement, was calculated from anthropometric and sprint split time data; and (2) the multiple-run method, where peak velocity from un-resisted and resisted sprints were plotted against the horizontal resistances.


Trivial differences in v0 (0.7%) were observed between the two calculation methods. Corresponding differences for F0, Pmax and SFv were 16.4, 15.6 and 17.6%, respectively (most likely; very large effect size). F0 showed poor agreement between the methods (r = 0.26 and 0.16 before and after the intervention). No substantial correlation between the changes (from pre- to post-training tests) in SFV calculated with the single-run and the multiple-run methods were observed (r = 0.02).


This study revealed poor agreement between the Fv relationships of the investigated calculation methods. In practice, both methods may have a purpose, but the single-run and the multiple-run methods appear to measure somewhat different sprint properties and cannot be used interchangeably.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf Zusätzlich können Sie eine Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl in gedruckter Form beziehen – ohne Aufpreis.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Über diesen Artikel
  1. Das kostenlose Testabonnement läuft nach 14 Tagen automatisch und formlos aus. Dieses Abonnement kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet Arbeitsmedizin