Age-Related Changes of Sprint Kinematics

Abstract

The sprint performance of master athletes decreases with age, but little is known about possible contributions of changes in sprint kinematics. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of age, sex and sprinting kinematics on sprint performance. To investigate this, in 199 men (30-89 years) and 81 women (33-76 years), bending over, brake, propulsion, leg stiffness and hip flexion angles were assessed during a sprint stride using high-resolution video analyses. Propulsion angle (men 25 ± 4.2, women 23.7 ± 4) was larger and hip flexion angle (men 25.3 ± 7.3, women 28 ± 5.7) was smaller in men than in women (both p < 0.001). Bending over angle (p = 0.004), brake angle (p = 0.004) and hip flexion angle (p < 0.001) increased, whereas propulsion angle (p < 0.001) and leg stiffness angle (p = 0.001) decreased with age, irrespective of sex. While performance was mainly determined by age (R ² = 0.501, p < 0.001) and sex (adjusted R ² = 0.642), hip flexion angle (adjusted R ² = 0.686) and bending over angle (adjusted R ² = 0.705) contributed also to performance in 60-m sprint. In 200-m sprint, in addition to age and sex, only hip flexion angle (age: R ² = 0.506; age + sex adjusted: R ² = 641; age + sex + hip flexion adjusted: R ² = 0.655) contributed to performance. In conclusion, the kinematics of sprinting differ between sexes and change with age. The aging-related changes of sprinting kinematics have a minor contribution to the aging-related decline in performance.

Keywords: age; aging; locomotion; master athletics; running; sex; track and field; video analysis.

Figure 1

Camera locations.

Figure 2

Description of angles. (A) α: bending over angle, phase 1 of the cycle of motion; (B) β: brake angle, phase 1 of the cycle of motion; (C) δ: leg stiffness angle, phase 3 of the cycle of motion; (D) χ: propulsion angle, phase 5 of the cycle of motion; and (E) ε: hip flexion angle, phase 6 of the cycle of motion.

Figure 3

Correlations in 60-m (A) and 200-m (B) performance with age (men, 60-m: R = 0.801, p < 0.001; 200-m: R = 0.801, p < 0.001; women, 60-m: R = 0.727, p < 0.001; 200-m: R = 0.747, p < 0.001). Point: M, circle: F.

Figure 4

Correlations in 60-m (A,C,E) and 200-m (B,D,F) with age of (A,B) bending over angle (men and women, 60-m: R = 0.28, p = 0.001; 200-m: R = 0.424, p < 0.001), (C,D) brake angle (men and women, 60-m: R = 0.327, p < 0.001; 200-m: R = 0.494, p < 0.001), and (E,F) leg stiffness angle (men, 60-m: R = −0.447, p < 0.001; 200-m: R = −0.436, p < 0.001; women, 60-m and 200-m: not significant). Point: M, circle: F.

Figure 5

Correlations in 60-m (A,C) and 200-m (B,D) with age of (A,B) propulsion angle (men, 60-m: R = −0.35, p < 0.001; 200-m: R = −0.485, p < 0.001; women, 60-m: no significances; 200-m: R = −0.694, p < 0.001), and (C,D) hip flexion (men, 60-m: R = 0.604, p < 0.001; 200-m: R = 0.489, p < 0.001; women, 60-m: R = 0.394, p = 0.014; 200-m: R = 0.36, p = 0.018). Point: M, circle: F.