Sprinter

Biomechanics of Rotational Force Generation in Elite Sprinters

Kinematic signatures (world-class cohorts)

High-speed 3D analyzes reveal that as speed rises from acceleration to maximum velocity, trunk lateral flexion amplitude decreases while thorax–pelvis axial rotation and pelvic obliquity control remain tightly regulated; Faster athletes exhibit smaller thoracic oblique and efficient thorax–pelvis timing [7–9]. During early acceleration, larger whole-body “skating-like” side-to-side vectors and pelvic list are typical; at maximum velocity, rotations are faster and smaller , serving primarily stabilization and power routing [7–9]. (Recent syntheses: [5–6].)

Lumbosacral torsion and pelvic list: quantified contributions

Across tasks close to sprinting:

  • Block start / first stance: Peak lumbosacral extension work ~0.35 J kg⁻¹ (≈9% of joint work) and trunk lateral flexion work ~0.18 J kg⁻¹ (≈5%) contribute materially to propulsion and swing initiation [11].
  • Max sprinting (~9–10 m s⁻¹): Trunk axial torsional torque about the LS joint aids pelvic rotation and assists thigh angular acceleration in swing; the trunk behaves as an active torsional spring–damper rather than a passive payload [10].
  • Single-leg jump/running proxies: Hip abductor moments and lateral flexor work show strong associations with the ability to generate vertical and fore–aft impulses, highlighting the role of frontal-plane control in “linear” tasks [12–13].

Collectively, these data show that rotational work (axial twist + lateral flexion) is not trivial “overhead.” It injects and times energy into the system, particularly to assist swing and to shape ground-contact force vectors [10–12]. (Evidence overview: [7–13].)

Coordinative role of counter-rotation and arm swing

Inter- and intra-limb coordination at the start is predominantly anti-phase (thigh–thigh and arm–thigh couples), with consistent step-to-step organization in elite vs. sub-elite sprinters [5,8]. Counter-rotations of the shoulder girdle with pelvis help keep the CoM path straight while enabling hips to load and unload rapidly. These patterns persist as constraints change from the first steps to upright sprinting [5,8].

A note on elite asymmetries

Even the fastest sprinters display lateral asymmetries tied to trunk/pelvic mechanics (eg, scoliosis, habitual lean) yet remain exceptionally stable. Analyzes of Usain Bolt from the SMU Locomotor Performance Lab show non-trivial left–right differences in support forces (often quoted ~1080 N vs. ~955 N peaks in specific examples) and contact timing while maintaining straight-line speed, consistent with a rotational–stabilizing trunk strategy that compensates for asymmetry [25].

Contributions of Lateral Flexors and Hip Abductors Across the Sprint “Circle”

Below, we map rotational roles over the entire sprint cycle —from blocks to max-velocity—emphasizing when and how trunk and pelvic rotations contribute.

1) Block exit and early acceleration (Steps 1–4)

  • Pelvic list + lateral flexion help direct the initial CoM trajectory, orient horizontal force, and organize swing-leg recovery [11].
  • Quantitatively, lateral flexor work and LS extension work contribute ~5–9% of joint work at block exit/first stance; magnitudes rise with intent to lean and to project force horizontally [11,15].
  • Coordination is anti-phase , with trailing-leg dominance and precise timing of arm–thigh couplings [5,8].

2) Mid-acceleration (Steps 5–12)

  • Athletes exhibit a “skating-like” pattern with visible mediolateral forces as they transition upright; Effective management of pelvic oblique and thorax–pelvis twist supports both propulsion and balance [7–9,14].
  • Morin/Samozino profiling shows that force orientation (high RF early) distinguishes better accelerators beyond force magnitude alone [2–4,6,10].

3) Maximum velocity (upright sprinting)

  • The trunk's lateral excursions shrink ; Axial torsion rate and thorax–pelvis timing remain tightly controlled [7–9].
  • Inverse dynamics indicate trunk torsional torques assist swing-leg angular acceleration and pelvic rotation, supporting step frequency within ultra-short stance windows [10].

The Spinal Engine and the Fascia-Based Transmission Hypothesis

Spinal engine theory proposes that spine- and pelvis-driven rotations can drive and modulate limb motion, with legs amplifying trunk-origin energy via segmental timing and elastic recoil [15–17]. Empirically, the vertebral column and lumbosacral junction demonstrate coupled motions (eg, lateral flexion with axial rotation) in vitro and in vivo—anatomically constrained by facet orientation and curvature—which provides a mechanical substrate for rotation-assisted propulsion and stabilization [22–24].

Fascial orchestration & TLF. The posterior TLF forms a load-sharing sheet linking paraspinals with latissimus dorsi and (via the posterior layer) to the contralateral gluteus maximus , enabling cross-body transmission of tension during rotation [18–19]. Human experiments show myofascial force transmission (MFT) from LD to contra-GM—modifying lumbar stiffness and contralateral hip passive properties—particularly in runners [20–21]. These findings support the idea that, in sprinting, trunk torsion and lateral flexion can be routed through fascial paths to influence hip extension/abduction moments and force orientation without requiring additional muscle fiber shortening at the hip—an efficient advantage in short stance windows [18–21].

Elastic energy & tendons. During running, distal leg tendons can return a large fraction of MTU positive work (eg, Achilles ~50–60% MTU work in some conditions), with the contribution increasing as speed rises [7, 26–29]. Trunk-generated rotations that optimize limb timing can improve exploitation of this elastic work, because they help align force vectors and modulate joint angular velocities at touchdown/toe-off—both critical for tendon stretch–recoil effectiveness [7,26–29].

Myofascial chains. Systematic review evidence indicates direct connective tissue continuity between many skeletal muscles and moderate support for spiral/functional lines (eg, superficial back line; front/back functional; spiral line), providing plausible anatomical conduits for rotational loads to traverse the trunk–pelvis–limb system [21].

Quantitative Assessment: How Big Are the Rotational Contributions?

  1. Joint-level work/torque
    • Block/early stance: ~0.35 J kg⁻¹ LS extension (≈9%), ~0.18 J kg⁻¹ trunk lateral flexion (≈5%)—non-negligible shares of total joint work, with timing aligned to assist swing and direct CoM early [11].
    • Max speed: Trunk torsional torques contribute to pelvic rotation and swing-leg acceleration; magnitudes are athlete- and step-specific but consistently present in elite datasets [10].
  2. Force orientation & acceleration quality
    • Ratio of forces (RF) and its decay slope (DRF) explain substantial between-athlete variance in acceleration; effective athletes maintain highly horizontal force orientation longer—an outcome supported by trunk–pelvis rotation that aligns the leg vector [2–4,6].
  3. Coordination metrics
    • Elite performers exhibit higher prevalence of anti-phase thigh coordination and tighter arm–thigh couplings during initial steps, consistent with efficient counter-rotation to stabilize and route power [5,8].
  4. Elastic return & economy implications
    • Tendon spring behavior can supply a large fraction of MTU positive work at running speeds [26–29]. Trunk rotation and pelvic list that optimize leg timing/angles likely increase useful elastic return within the micro-timing constraints of elite sprinting (inference consistent with tendon studies and kinematic evidence) [7,26–29].

Practical Implications for Coaches and Scientists

A. Screening & KPIs (3D): Track thorax–pelvis axial rotation , pelvic obliquity (list) , thorax obliquity , and their phase relationships from blocks to max-V. Efficient elite patterns: small thorax obliquity, controlled pelvic list, fast but small axial rotations, and stable counter-rotation [7–9]. Use RF/DRF and F–v–P to connect kinematics with horizontal force orientation [2–4,6].

B. Training emphasis across the sprint circle:

  • Blocks/early steps: Drills that constrain pelvic list control and trunk lateral flexion timing (eg, marching bounds with stick overhead, staggered wall drills) to direct early RF .
  • Mid-acceleration: “Skating” pattern development with pelvic oblique control and thorax–pelvis anti-phase rhythm (eg, wicket runs with arm emphasis).
  • Max-V: Maintain minimal thorax obliquity while preserving axial torsion rate and shoulder–pelvis counter-rotation to keep step frequency high in ≤90 ms contacts.

C. Fascia-informed strength/therapy: Integrate posterior oblique sling (LD↔contra-GM) loading (eg, chop–lift patterns, contralateral hip hinge rows), and lateral subsystem (gluteus medius + QL + obliques) to support rotational stability + force orientation [18–21].

D. Core & sprint performance: Recent systematic reviews/meta-analyses report that core/torso training can improve sprint-relevant outcomes (eg, sprint times, COD, balance, trunk endurance), supporting targeted development of rotational control and force transmission capacities alongside track work [30–32].

Figure and Table

Figure 1. Schematic of rotational contributions across one sprint step for an elite sprinter: (A) LS axial torsional torque assists pelvic rotation and thigh angular acceleration in swing; (B) Trunk lateral flexion creates axial twist (coupling) and helps orient the GRF; (C) Counter-rotation of shoulders with pelvis damps yaw/roll. Values ​​and timing windows are consistent with block-start and maximum-velocity reports (eg, LS extension ≈0.35 J kg⁻¹ and lateral flexion ≈0.18 J kg⁻¹ at early stance) [10–11].

Table 1. (presented earlier) contrasts linear vs. rotational emphasis and their evidence bases.

Conclusions

Elite sprint performance depends on both the spring–mass imperatives (very high support forces, ultra-short stance) and a sophisticated rotational control system : axial rotations of pelvis/torax, lateral flexion, and lumbosacral torsion that stabilize, route, and—in specific windows— generate useful work . The spinal engine perspective and fascia-based load transmission via the TLF and myofascial slings provide plausible mechanisms for how the trunk contributes to forward speed beyond acting as “cargo.” Quantitatively, rotational work/torque shares are non-trivial (order 5–10% in key phases) and mechanically decisive via timing and force orientation. Practically, coaches should (i) monitor 3D trunk–pelvis kinematics and F–v–P metrics together, (ii) progress rotational control drills across the sprint circle, and (iii) strengthen sling systems that couple trunk to hips. This integrative approach aligns linear and rotational models into a single, more complete account of how humans run fast .

References

  1. Weyand PG , Sternlight DB, Bellizzi MJ, Wright S. Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements. J Appl Physiol. 2000;89(5):1991–1999. doi:10.1152/jappl.2000.89.5.1991.
  2. Morin JB , Edouard P, Samozino P. Technical ability of force application as a determinant factor of sprint performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(9):1680–1688. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e318216ea37.
  3. Samozino P , Rabita G, Dorel S, et al. A simple method for measuring power, force, velocity properties, and mechanical effectiveness in sprint running. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2016;26(6):648–658. doi:10.1111/sms.12490.
  4. Bezodis NE , Colyer SL, Brazil A, et al. Ratio of forces during sprint acceleration: a technical note and practical guide. ISBS Proc. Arch. 2021;39(1):1–4. (Tech note).
  5. Donaldson BJ , Bezodis NE, Bayne H. Inter- and intra-limb coordination during initial sprint acceleration. Biol Open. 2022;11(10):bio059501. doi:10.1242/bio.059501.
  6. Haugen T , Seiler S, Sandbakk Ø, Tønnessen E. The training and development of elite sprint performance: an integration of scientific and best practice literature. Sports Med Open. 2019;5:44. doi:10.1186/s40798-019-0221-0.
  7. Nagahara R , Matsubayashi T, Matsuo A, Zushi K. Kinematics of the thorax and pelvis during accelerated sprinting. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2018;58:1253–1263.
  8. Bayne H , Donaldson B, Bezodis N. Inter-limb coordination during sprint acceleration. ISBS Proc. Arch. 2020;38(1):448–451.
  9. Nagahara R , Mizutani M, Matsuo A, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T. Association of sprint performance with ground reaction forces during acceleration and maximum speed phases in a single sprint. J Appl Biomech. 2018;34:104–110. doi:10.1123/jab.2017-0157.
  10. Sado N , Yoshioka S, Fukashiro S. Trunk and lower-limb contributions to thigh acceleration during maximal sprint running. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(14):1351–1359. doi:10.1080/02640414.2016.1215498.
  11. Sado N , Yoshioka S, Fukashiro S. Mechanical contributions of the lumbo-pelvic-hip complex to sprint running at the start and acceleration phases. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(10):e0240129. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0240129.
  12. Sado N , Yoshioka S, Fukashiro S. Lateral flexion of the trunk and hip abductor strength in single-leg jumping and running. Int J Sports Med. 2018;39(11):832–840. doi:10.1055/a-0636-9968.
  13. Sado N , Yoshioka S, Fukashiro S. Non-extension movements contribute to resultant joint moment during jumping. J Biomech. 2020;104:109719. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2020.109719.
  14. Sado N , Yoshioka S, Fukashiro S. Pelvic elevation during running and its relation to vertical kinetic energy. J Sports Sci. 2022;40(7):836–844. doi:10.1080/02640414.2021.2003752.
  15. Gracovetsky S. The spinal engine. Med hypotheses. 1986;27(1):45–50. doi:10.1016/0306-9877(86)90123-6.
  16. Gracovetsky S , Iacono S. Energy transfers in the spinal engine. Surg Radiol Anat. 1987;9:269–273. doi:10.1007/BF02012050.
  17. Gracovetsky S. The Spinal Engine. jumper; 1988.
  18. Willard FH , Vleeming A, Schuenke MD, Danneels L, Schleip R. The thoracolumbar fascia: anatomy, function and clinical considerations. J Anat 2012;221(6):507–536. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7580.2012.01511.x.
  19. Vleeming A , Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Stoeckart R, van Wingerden JP, Snijders CJ. The posterior layer of the thoracolumbar fascia: its function in load transfer from spine to legs. Spine. 1995;20(7):753–758. doi:10.1097/00007632-199504000-00001.
  20. Caldeira PF , Ocarino JM, Carvalhais VO, et al. Myofascial force transmission between latissimus dorsi and contralateral gluteus maximus in runners: a cross-sectional study. J Biomech. 2024;163:111889. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.111889.
  21. Wilke J , Krause F, Vogt L, Banzer W. What is evidence-based about myofascial chains: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(3):454–461. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2015.07.023.
  22. Panjabi MM , Oxland TR, Yamamoto I, Crisco JJ. Mechanical behavior of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76(3):413–424. doi:10.2106/00004623-199403000-00012.
  23. Kingma I , Busscher I, van der Veen AJ, et al. Coupled motions in human and porcine thoracic and lumbar spines. J Biomech. 2018;70:51–58. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.11.034.
  24. Orbach MR , Mahoney J, Bucklen BS, Balasubramanian S. In vitro coupled motions of the whole human thoracic and lumbar spine with rib cage. JOR Spine. 2023;6(3):e1257. doi:10.1002/jsp2.1257.
  25. SMU Locomotor Performance Lab. The Nature of Speed—popular summaries and Q&A with P. Weyand (including Bolt asymmetry observations). (Blog posts, media briefs). Accessed 2013–2024.
  26. Monte A , Baltzopoulos V, Maganaris CN, Zamparo P. The influence of Achilles tendon mechanical behavior on apparent efficiency during running at different speeds. R Soc Open Sci. 2020;7(9):200262. doi:10.1098/rsos.200262.
  27. Ker RF , Bennett MB, Bibby SR, Kester RC, Alexander RMcN. The spring in the arch of the human foot. Nature. 1987;325:147-149. doi:10.1038/325147a0.
  28. Fletcher JR , Pfister TR, Macintosh BR. Achilles tendon strain energy in distance running: a retrospective review. J Exp Biol 2014;217(17):3144–3155. doi:10.1242/jeb.100826.
  29. Lichtwark GA , Wilson AM. Tendon compliance and its effect on muscle efficiency. J Exp Biol 2005;208:4715–4722. (and related JEB literature on tendon elastic energy return).
  30. Saeterbakken AH , Stien N, Andersen V, et al. The effects of core training on sports performance and functional measures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Physiol. 2022;13:967970. doi:10.3389/fphys.2022.967970.
  31. Luo L , et al. Effects of core training on sport performance: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(9):e0289973. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0289973.
  32. Rodríguez-Perea A , et al. Effects of trunk training on strength, sprint, jump and balance: systematic review. Sports Biomech. 2023;22:1–22. (Advance online).

Back to blog