Stepping Back to Improve Sprint Performance: A Kinetic Analysis of the First Step Forwards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a step backward to initiate forward movement can increase force and power at push-off and improve sprint performance over short distances. However, it is not clear whether the benefit provided by this paradoxical step influences the mechanics of the first step forwards. Twenty-seven men of an athletic background performed maximal effort 5-m sprints from a standing start and employed a step forwards (parallel and split stance) or backwards (false) to initiate movement. Each sprint was started with an audio cue that also activated the timing gates. Three trials of each starting style were performed and movement (0 m), 2.5-, and 5-m times were recorded. An in-ground force plate placed at the 0-m mark measured the kinetic and temporal characteristics of the first step. Sprint times to 2.5 and 5 m were slower (p < 0.05) when a parallel start was used. No differences were seen in the normalized peak forces (vertical and horizontal) or the vertical impulse between starts, but the vertical mean force was 11 and 12% higher for the false and split starts, respectively. Surprisingly, the parallel start's impulse was significantly greater than that of the false (24%) and split (22%) styles, a consequence of the additional time spent in contact with the ground. The ground contact time, time to peak force, and time from peak force to toe-off (vertical and horizontal) were significantly longer for the parallel start. These temporal variables were also better correlated with sprint performance than any kinetic measure (0.42 ≤ r ≤ 0.75). The false start appears to be advantageous over short distances by improving push-off and the temporal characteristics of the first step.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".