Starting from standing; why step backwards?
1: J Biomech. 2001 Feb;34(2):211-5.
Kraan GA, van Veen J, Snijders CJ, Storm J.
Department of Biomedical Physics and Technology, Faculty of Medicine and Allied, Health Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738 3000 DR, Rotterdam, Netherlands. vankruining@bnt.fgg.eur.nl
At push-off, the mass centre of gravity of the body must be positioned in front of the foot to prevent a somersault. When starting a sprint from out the standing position the use of a step backwards is necessary for maximal acceleration. The aim of the present study was to quantify the positive contribution to push off from a backward step of the leg, which seems to be counterproductive. Ten subjects were instructed to sprint start in three different ways: (a) starting from the standing position just in front of the force platform on the subject’s own initiative, (b) starting from the standing position on the force platform with no step backward allowed, and © starting out of the starting position with one leg in front of the force platform and the push-off leg on the force platform. A step backwards was observed in 95% of the starts from the standing position. The push-off force was highest in starting type (a), which had the shortest time to build up the push-off force. The results indicate a positive contribution to the force and power from a step backwards. We advocate developing a training program with special attention to the phenomenon step backwards.
Stepping Backward Can Improve Sprint Performance Over Short Distances.
J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Apr 15.
Frost DM, Cronin JB, Levin G.
School of Exercise, Biomedical, and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, West Australia, Australia.
The use of a backward (false) step to initiate forward movement has been regarded as an inferior starting technique and detrimental to sprinting performance over short distances as it requires additional time to be completed, but little evidence exists to support or refute this claim. Therefore, we recruited 27 men to examine the temporal differences among three standing starts that employed either a step forward (F) or a step backward (B) to initiate movement. An audio cue was used to mark the commencement of each start and to activate the subsequent timing gates. Three trials of each starting style were performed, and movement (0 m), 2.5 m, and 5 m times were recorded. Despite similar performances to the first timing gate (0.80 and 0.81s for F and B, respectively), utilizing a step forward to initiate movement resulted in significantly slower sprint times to both 2.5 and 5 m (6.4% and 5.3%, respectively). Furthermore, when the movement times were removed and performances were compared between gates 1 and 2, and 2 and 3, all significant differences were seen before reaching a distance of only 2.5 m. The results from this investigation question the advocacy of removing the false step to improve an athlete’s sprint performance over short distances. In fact, if the distance to be traveled is as little as 0.5 m in the forward direction, adopting a starting technique in which a step backward is employed may result in superior performance.
Weren’t these studies just a complicated way of saying that a step backward start (starting with feet parallel) was better than a step forward start (from feet parallel) and almost as good as a split stance start. That was the gist of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning study from what I understood.