How muscles maximize performance in accelerated sprinting
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how the individual leg muscles act synergistically to generate a ground force impulse and maximize the change in forward momentum of the body during accelerated sprinting. We combined musculoskeletal modelling with gait data to simulate the majority of the acceleration phase (19 foot contacts) of a maximal sprint over ground. Individual muscle contributions to the ground force impulse were found by evaluating each muscle's contribution to the vertical and fore-aft components of the ground force (termed "supporter" and "accelerator/brake," respectively). The ankle plantarflexors played a major role in achieving maximal-effort accelerated sprinting. Soleus acted primarily as a supporter by generating a large fraction of the upward impulse at each step whereas gastrocnemius contributed appreciably to the propulsive and upward impulses and functioned as both accelerator and supporter. The primary role of the vasti was to deliver an upward impulse to the body (supporter), but these muscles also acted as a brake by retarding forward momentum. The hamstrings and gluteus medius functioned primarily as accelerators. Gluteus maximus was neither an accelerator nor supporter as it functioned mainly to decelerate the swinging leg in preparation for foot contact at the next step. Fundamental knowledge of lower-limb muscle function during maximum acceleration sprinting is of interest to coaches endeavoring to optimize sprint performance in elite athletes as well as sports medicine clinicians aiming to improve injury prevention and rehabilitation practices.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it