Compares pickup acceleration performance and force production in athletes, suggesting key kinematic differences.
Background/Objectives: Pickup acceleration refers to acceleration initiated from a non-static start and can be described as a function of Approach, Transition, and Pickup steps. Given the forward-leaning posture adopted during the Transition and Pickup steps, it was hypothesized that estimated step horizontal force (SFh) production would be a key determinant of pickup acceleration ability. Methods: Forty-eight male athletes performed four 30 m pickup sprints at LED-guided entry velocities of 1.5 m/s (walking) and 3.0 m/s (jogging), with spatiotemporal data collected via a horizontal linear position transducer. Athletes were grouped as “fast” or “slow” based on maximal acceleration (amax) and were compared at time points/steps using Bonferroni-adjusted independent t-tests. Results: Across both entries, faster athletes achieved significantly higher amax (~13–17%) and maximum velocity (vmax; ~7–8%). At 1.5 m/s, the faster group produced significantly greater SFh during the Transition and Pickup steps (~33–34%), resulting in longer step lengths (SL; ~12%), higher step acceleration (Sa; ~16–23%), and higher step velocities (Sv; ~4–9%). At 3.0 m/s, SFh and Sa remained greater (adjusted p ≤ 0.01) in the faster group (~23–41%; 25–32% respectively) but produced fewer significant kinematic differences. It would seem that “faster” pickup acceleration is likely associated with greater SFh across the transition and first pickup steps; this increase in force may influence kinematics during a walking entry, but its influence is less apparent during a jogging entry. It is possible that at higher entry velocities, other technical/mechanical factors may become more important, necessitating a more advanced technological approach to studying pickup acceleration than that used in this study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pryer et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: