Velocity-Based Strength Training: A Track and Field Perspective

Introduction

Strength training is widely recognised as a critical component of high-performance athletic programs. Traditionally, exercise intensity has been prescribed relative to an individual’s maximal strength level, as measured by a one-repetition maximum (1RM) (Sheppard & Triplett, 2015). This approach fails to account for the rate of force development, technical proficiency, and daily fluctuations in performance.  These variables create the need to adjust training sessions in response to acute and chronic neuromuscular fatigue. An increasing body of evidence further suggests that how a load is lifted—encompassing factors such as intent, velocity, and technical skill—may be more influential than absolute load itself (Comfort, et al., 2023). A persistent challenge within strength training for sport is determining whether improvements in physical qualities such as strength and power effectively transfer to on-field performance (Young, 2006).  To address these limitations, many coaches and sport scientists are increasingly adopting velocity-based training (VBT) as a more precise and adaptable method of prescription and monitoring.  VBT involves measuring barbell velocity to ensure that the intended training adaptations (e.g., neuromuscular, musculoskeletal) are being achieved. These data enable practitioners to more accurately prescribe the most appropriate variables—sets, reps, resistance, tempo, and recovery (Weakley, et al., 2021).  In addition to improving prescription accuracy, VBT can be used to assess when to terminate a set (Włodarczyk, Adamus, Zieliński, & Kantanista, 2021), substantially reducing accumulated fatigue and improving the quality of subsequent running or sport-specific sessions (Pérez-Castilla, et al., 2024). This review aims to critically examine the application of velocity-based training within strength and conditioning, with particular emphasis on its role in enhancing performance transfer in track and field athletes. This challenge is particularly relevant in track and field, where event-specific performance depends on the precise expression of force and velocity within extremely short time windows.

Force–Velocity Curve in Athletic Performance

Figure 1. Force-velocity curve. Adapted from Alcazar et al. (2019).

The force-velocity curve (FV curve) describes the inverse relationship between the force a muscle can produce and the concentric contraction velocity (Alcazar, Csapo, Ara, & Alegre, 2019). The relationship typically takes on a hyperbolic shape.  At a velocity of zero, maximal force (Fmax) is produced because an isometric contraction allows the muscle to express its highest force. The lowest force occurs at the highest velocity due to less efficient cross-bridge kinetics; fewer cross-bridges can form because attachment time decreases.  Figure 1 illustrates this relationship (adapted from Alcazar et al., 2019, p. 4).  There are several factors that affect the FV curve such as muscle architecture, fibre type distribution, neural drive to the muscle, and training history.  All factors must be considered when assessing and programming for sports performance.

When assessing the FV curve, it is important to understand the purpose of the assessment and the intended use of the data, such as to create a profile for talent identification or to measure training adaptation (Alcazar, Csapo, & Alegre, 2022).  This depth of understanding allows the assessment to capture the required information in the correct context.  In a research context, the use of an isokinetic dynamometer to measure knee flexion and extension would be appropriate. However, in the field this is more appropriately assessed using an isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) to capture Fmax capacities.  Higher velocity force characteristics are better assessed with a squat jump (SJ) if concentric power is the focus, or a countermovement jump (CMJ) if the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) is the focus, due to the rapid drop in centre of mass prior to the jump. Additionally, track and field performance relies on the SSC (Booth & Orr, 2016), making the CMJ the more appropriate test for track and field in most cases.

It is important to understand that the FV Curve doesn’t develop in isolation, an improvement in one-part leads to improvement in other parts of the FV Curve (Cormie, McGuigan, & Newton, 2011b).  An example of this is that improvements in Fmax, will lead to improvements in velocity, however these high velocity improvements will be limited (Wilson, Murphy, & Walshe, 1993).  Even though there are limited improvements at the velocity end of the training FV Curve with strength training targeting Fmax improvements the same authors make a case for still including heavy load low velocity training in the program due to what they described as “curve transfer”.  To support this many other authors (Suchomel, Nimphius, & Stone, The importance of muscular strength in athletic performance, 2016), (Haff & Nimphius, 2012) suggest that Fmax is a very important part of developing explosive power.  The proposed reason for this is that low-load high-velocity training targeting the velocity end of the FV curve provides insufficient muscular tension to develop Fmax adaptations.  When developing strength training programs it is important to consider the SAID principle (specific adaptation to imposed demands) when programming for sport performance as adaptations are highly load and velocity specific (Cormie, McGuigan, & Newton, 2011a) (Wilson, Murphy, & Walshe, 1993).  The practitioner is required to piece together a program that enhances athletic expression of power, the evidence largely supports using multiple methods to enhance different adaptations simultaneously. Within most sport, especially track and field the high-velocity and low-load adaptations specifically rate of force development (RFD), neuromuscular coordination and intermuscular coordination are more important than the Fmax adaptations (Cormie, McGuigan, & Newton, 2011b) (Haff & Nimphius, 2012). Optimal power expression requires improvement at both ends of the FV curve (Cormie, McGuigan, & Newton, 2011a) (Cormie, McGuigan, & Newton, 2011b).  This is best achieved through mixed-methods of programming; strength, ballistic, plyometric (Markovic & Mikulic, 2010). VBT enhances mixed-method programming by quantifying intent and ensuring correct velocity zones are hit, in turn allowing the correct neuromuscular adaptations are targeted.

For Track & Field Athletes, the Required Adaptations Depend on Event Demands

Track and field athletes require different FV curve adaptations. Sprinters require high velocity adaptations, particularly RFD due to the decreasing ground contact time that occurs at high sprint velocities high levels of force must be produced in decreasingly shorter time periods (Markovic & Mikulic, 2010).  Jumpers and throwers require the higher strength levels developed through Fmax focussed training as well as RFD to propel the implement or body into the air (Haff & Nimphius, 2012). Youth athletes will have velocity-based adaptations earlier and faster due to the neural and tendon adaptations that occur because of improved neuroplasticity in youth athletes (Suchomel, Comfort, & Lake, 2016). These adaptations are best addressed for track and field using VBT for strength training due to the focus on velocity within the lifts.

Limitations of Traditional Load Prescription

Traditionally, strength training loads have been prescribed using percentage of one repetition maximum (1RM). The issue with %1RM prescriptions is that it fails to account for fluctuations in daily performance, nor is it sensitive to fatigue.  While 1RM might remain reasonably stable, velocity at 1RM (V1RM) varies (Baynard, Nosaka, & Haff, 2017). This understanding of velocity variability provides insight into the neuromuscular status, readiness and fatigue levels (Jovanovic & Flanagan, 2014). These fluctuations in velocity are important factors because force adaptations are velocity specific. Consequently, VBT becomes a valuable tool, because velocity can be measured, as well as velocity loss caused by the variability in day do day performance and fatigue (Weakley, et al., 2021). As a result, the coach and athlete can autoregulate the load selection based on daily fluctuations. For a track and field context, this becomes particularly relevant as the whole sport happens at higher velocities, whether it be sprinting, jumping or throwing (World Athletics, 2018c) (World Athletics, 2018b) (World Athletics, 2018a). 

Strength Training Velocity Ranges and Adaptations

Table 1: Velocity Based Training Zones

Training Objective	Typical Bar Speed	Approx. % 1RM	Key Adaptations	Key References
Max Strength	0.15 to 0.35 m/s	>85% 1RM	↑ Fmax, ↑ neural drive, ↑ HTMU recruitment, ↑ tendon stiffness	González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010; Baynard, Nosaka, & Haff, 2017
Strength Speed	0.50 to 0.75 m/s	60 to 80% 1RM	↑ power at moderate loads, ↑ RFD, ↑ force velocity intersection	Jovanovic & Flanagan, 2014; Cronin & Sleivert, 2005
Speed Strength	0.75 to 1.00 m/s	30 to 60% 1RM	↑ rapid RFD, ↑ SSC efficiency, ↑ intermuscular coordination	Jidovtseff, Harris, Crielaard, & Cronin, 2011; Suchomel, Nimphius, & Stone, 2016
Max Velocity / Ballistic	>1.00 m/s Often 1.5 to 2.0+ m/s	0 to 30% 1RM	↑ max RFD, ↑ ballistic impulse, ↑ elastic contribution	Cormie, McCaulley, & McBride, 2007; McMaster, Cronin, & McGuigan, 2014

Key: Fmax = maximal force; HTMU = higher threshold motor unit; RFD = rate of force development; SSC = stretch shortening cycle.

Table 1 above outlines the different training objectives, the velocities associated as they relate to %1RM as well as the adaptations to expect from this style of training. The main point of VBT is around intent, the athlete should be lifting each weight as rapidly as possible through the concentric phase.  As previously discussed, strength adaptations are velocity specific, however, improvements at one part of the FV curve will lead to improvements in the entire curve.  Therefore, it is important that the coach targets multiple parts of the FV curve to achieve optimal results.  It is common practice in training to have multiple strength and conditioning sessions per week all targeting different parts of the FV curve (Cormie, McGuigan, & Newton, 2011b). The Conjugate System, popularised in North America by Louie Simmons, is grounded in Soviet-era strength science—particularly the conjugate sequence and special strength development methods described by (Zatsiorsky & Kraemer, 2006) and expanded upon by (Siff & Verkhoshansky, 2009).  The conjugate method relies almost entirely upon building all parts of the FV curve, one session per week is normally a “maximal effort” session where the weights are selected to target Fmax, and another is programmed targeting a more speed strength or ballistic qualities.  From an applied context coaches should consider the adaptations they are targeting and program the VBT variables that suit the needs of the athlete, while also considering the entire FV Curve.  Within the track and field context VBT is crucial in triggering the adaptation the coach and athlete are chasing, all adaptations outlined in table 1 are relevant to track and field, however some are required to build upon with other subsequent methods.  The best example of this is the max strength adaptations are often used as the base on which to build the speed strength and max velocity adaptations that often follow in the training sequence.

Strength Training Velocity Ranges and Adaptations

Table 2: Velocity Loss Thresholds and Track and Field Performance

Velocity Loss Threshold	Fatigue Profile	Expected Mechanical Quality	Implications for Track and Field Performance	Key References
0 to 10%	Low neuromuscular fatigue	High velocity maintenance; minimal technical degradation	Preserves readiness for sprinting, jumping and throwing within the same microcycle; suited to speed power emphasis	Sánchez-Medina & González-Badillo, 2011; Pareja-Blanco, Rodríguez-Rosell, Sánchez-Medina, Gorostiaga, & González-Badillo, 2020; Weakley et al., 2021
10 to 20%	Moderate fatigue	Some reduction in velocity; mechanical output largely preserved	Balances strength stimulus with fatigue control; may support strength and power development without excessive fatigue	Pareja-Blanco, Rodríguez-Rosell, Sánchez-Medina, Gorostiaga, & González-Badillo, 2020; Weakley et al., 2021
20 to 40%	High neuromuscular and metabolic fatigue	Marked velocity decline; increased technical variability	Higher fatigue cost may reduce the quality of subsequent high velocity technical sessions; requires careful sequencing	Sánchez-Medina & González-Badillo, 2011; Pareja-Blanco, Rodríguez-Rosell, Sánchez-Medina, Gorostiaga, & González-Badillo, 2020

Table 2 outlines a range of uses of velocity loss, depending on the goal of the session. Velocity loss (VL) refers to the percentage decline in concentric barbell velocity within a typical set, typically calculated relative to the fastest repetition achieved, assuming maximal concentric intent is maintained. Reductions in velocity reflect the accumulation of neuromuscular fatigue, resulting in reduced force producing capacity and altered motor unit behaviour (Sánchez-Medina & González-Badillo, 2011). This permits VL to provide a more sensitive and objective indicator of in-set fatigue than fixed repetition schemes or training to failure. Subsequently, allowing for the minimum effective dose to be prescribed, this results in less post session fatigue affecting subsequent sessions, thus increasing training quality.

Research demonstrated that manipulating allowable velocity loss, while holding relative load constant, results in distinct training stimuli and adaptations (Pareja-Blanco, Rodríguez-Rosell, Sánchez-Medina, Gorostiaga, & González-Badillo, 2020). Lower VL thresholds (0-10%) are associated with the preservation of movement velocity and mechanical output, whereas higher thresholds (≥20–40%) correspond to substantially greater neuromuscular and metabolic fatigue.  From a track and field perspective, excessive fatigue within strength training may negatively influence the quality of subsequent sessions within the same microcycle, especially ones that rely on the neuromuscular system such as sprinting, jumping and throwing. Consequently, limiting velocity loss has been proposed as a strategy to reduce unnecessary fatigue accumulation and improve the transfer of strength training adaptations to high-velocity sport-specific performance (Weakley, et al., 2021) (Włodarczyk, Adamus, Zieliński, & Kantanista, 2021).

Tools and Technologies for Measuring Velocity

Table 3: Velocity Based Training Technology Options

Technology Type	Approx. Cost Level	Typical Examples	Strengths	Limitations	Suitability for Track & Field
Linear Position Transducers LPTs	High	GymAware, T-Force	High validity and reliability; direct displacement measurement; widely used in research	High cost; tether attachment may limit some ballistic movements	High performance programmes; research and elite environments
Inertial Measurement Units IMUs	Moderate	PUSH Band, Beast Sensor, Spleft smartphone app	Portable; lower cost; suitable for group settings	Greater sensitivity to placement and movement artefact; variable validity across exercises	Schools, clubs and developing performance programmes
Smartphone Based Video Analysis	Low	MyLift, OpenBarbell video, Kinovea	Minimal cost; accessible; useful for basic velocity estimation	Manual processing; lower temporal resolution; reduced accuracy	Entry level use; education and technique focused contexts

Table 3 outlines a range of options available to the practitioner for measuring VBT. While linear position transducers remain the gold standard for measuring barbell velocity due to their demonstrated validity and reliability, their cost may limit accessibility outside of elite environments (Weakley, et al., 2021). Inertial measurement units offer a more affordable and portable alternative, though practitioners must account for increased measurement error and exercise-specific variability. Low-cost video-based methods provide an accessible entry point for velocity monitoring but are best suited to educational or technique-focused applications rather than precise load prescription. In practice, track and field programs often adopt a tiered approach, using higher-precision tools where available while integrating lower-cost or indirect methods to support broader monitoring and coaching decisions.

Application of VBT in Track and Field Performance

The application of velocity-based training (VBT) in track and field centres on aligning resistance-training variables with the specific force–velocity and fatigue demands of the event. Rather than prescribing loads solely as a percentage of one-repetition maximum, VBT uses real-time velocity feedback to ensure that athletes train within targeted velocity zones corresponding to the intended neuromuscular adaptation. This approach allows practitioners to autoregulate load selection on a daily basis, accounting for fluctuations in readiness and fatigue while preserving the quality of high-velocity movement essential for sprinting, jumping, and throwing performance (Weakley, et al., 2021).

In practice, VBT is implemented by first identifying the training objective (e.g., maximal strength, strength–speed, or speed–strength) and selecting the corresponding velocity range. Athletes are instructed to perform each repetition with maximal concentric intent, and load is adjusted to maintain the desired velocity zone. Set termination is guided by predefined velocity-loss thresholds to constrain excessive fatigue and minimise interference with technical or running-based sessions conducted within the same training microcycle. Velocity feedback can also be used to monitor between-set recovery and inform load adjustments across sessions, supporting consistent exposure to the targeted stimulus. Collectively, these practices position VBT as a flexible framework for enhancing the transfer of strength training adaptations to event-specific performance in track and field. Table 4 illustrates an example of how VBT can assist in ensuring strength training coexists with high-velocity technical sessions within the same microcycle.

Table 4: Example Weekly Track and Field Microcycle Using VBT

Day	Primary Objective	Track Session Focus	Strength Training Focus	Key VBT Parameters	Rationale
Monday	Max velocity expression	Max velocity sprinting, including flying sprints and wicket drills	None or upper body only	Not applicable	High velocity neural work is prioritised while the athlete is fresh; lower body fatigue interference is avoided.
Tuesday	Strength speed development	Acceleration development from 0 to 30 m	Lower body strength speed	0.50 to 0.75 m/s VL ≤ 10%	Moderate force at high intent enhances RFD while preserving readiness for later sprint sessions.
Wednesday	Extensive recovery	Tempo running and mobility	None	Not applicable	Promotes recovery without additional neuromuscular stress.
Thursday	Maximal strength stimulus	Technical acceleration or drills only	Lower body maximal strength	0.15 to 0.35 m/s VL 15 to 20%	High force stimulus is placed away from maximal velocity days to manage fatigue cost.
Friday	Speed endurance and rhythm	Speed endurance or submaximal sprinting	Optional upper body or trunk	Not applicable	Lower neuromuscular cost than maximal velocity work; lower body loading is avoided.
Saturday	Optional technical exposure	Event specific drills or jumps	None	Not applicable	Low load technical work only; no meaningful fatigue is introduced.
Sunday	Rest	None	None	Not applicable	Full neuromuscular recovery.

Limitations and Practical Considerations

While VBT enhances the precision of resistance-training prescription, it does not guarantee direct transfer to track and field performance. Improvements in barbell velocity reflect changes in neuromuscular output within constrained lifting tasks and do not fully capture the force–time characteristics, ground contact dynamics, or movement-specific coordination required in sprinting, jumping, and throwing. Furthermore, velocity measures are exercise and device-dependent, with accuracy influenced by sensor placement, movement artefact, and athlete technical proficiency. As such, VBT should be viewed as a decision-support tool rather than a standalone solution, requiring integration with event-specific technical training, appropriate exercise selection, and informed coaching judgement to maximise performance transfer.

Conclusion

Velocity-based training provides a practical and evidence-informed framework for improving the precision and effectiveness of strength training in track and field athletes. By quantifying movement velocity, VBT addresses key limitations of traditional load-based prescription, including insensitivity to daily fluctuations in performance and the inability to account for intent and fatigue. The integration of velocity zones, velocity-loss–based set termination, and autoregulated load selection allows practitioners to better align resistance training with the force–velocity and fatigue demands of sprinting, jumping, and throwing performance.

From a track and field perspective, the value of VBT lies in its capacity to enhance performance transfer while managing cumulative fatigue across complex training schedules. Lower velocity-loss thresholds and targeted velocity ranges support the preservation of movement quality and readiness for high-velocity sport-specific sessions, reducing the risk of interference between strength and technical training. Furthermore, the scalability of VBT technologies enables application across a wide range of performance contexts, from school and club environments to high-performance programs. Collectively, the evidence supports VBT as a flexible and adaptable approach to strength training that is particularly well suited to the speed–power demands of track and field.

References

1. Alcazar, J., Csapo, R., & Alegre, L. M. (2022). Editorial: The force velocity relationship: Assessment and adaptations provoked by exercise, disuse and disease. Frontiers in Physiology, 13. doi:10.3389
2. Alcazar, J., Csapo, R., Ara, I., & Alegre, L. M. (2019). On the shape of the force velocity relationship in skeletal muscles: The linear, the hyperbolic, and the double hyperbolic. Frontiers in Physiology, 10, 769. doi:10.3389
3. Banyard, H. G., Nosaka, K., Sato, K., & Haff, G. G. (2017). Validity of various methods for determining velocity, force, and power in the back squat. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 12(9), 1170–1176. doi:10.1123
4. Baynard, H. G., Nosaka, K., & Haff, G. G. (2017). Reliability and validity of the load velocity relationship to predict the 1RM back squat. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(7), 1897–1904. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001657
5. Booth, M. A., & Orr, R. (2016). Effects of plyometric training on sports performance. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 38(1), 36–46. Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj/fulltext/2016/02000/effects_of_plyometric_training_on_sports.5.aspx
6. Comfort, P., Haff, G. G., Suchomel, T. J., Soriano, M. A., Pierce, K. C., Hornsby, G. W., & Stone, M. H. (2023). National Strength and Conditioning Association position statement on weightlifting for sports performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 37(6), 1163–1190. doi:10.1519
7. Cormie, P., McCaulley, G. O., & McBride, J. M. (2007). Power versus strength power jump squat training: Influence on the load power relationship. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 98(1), 113–121. doi:10.1007
8. Cormie, P., McGuigan, M. R., & Newton, R. U. (2011a). Developing maximal neuromuscular power: Part 1, biological bases of maximal power production. Sports Medicine, 41(1), 17–38. doi:10.2165/11537690-000000000-00000
9. Cormie, P., McGuigan, M. R., & Newton, R. U. (2011b). Developing neuromuscular power: Part 2, training considerations for improving power. Sports Medicine, 41(2), 125–146. doi:10.2165/11538500-000000000-00000
10. Cronin, J., & Sleivert, G. (2005). Challenges in understanding the influence of maximal power training on improving athletic performance. Sports Medicine, 35(3), 213–234. doi:10.2165
11. González-Badillo, J. J., & Sánchez-Medina, L. (2010). Movement velocity as a measure of loading intensity in resistance training. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 31(5), 347–352. doi:10.1055
12. Haff, G. G., & Nimphius, S. (2012). Training principles for power. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 34(6), 2–12.
13. Jidovtseff, B., Harris, N. K., Crielaard, J. M., & Cronin, J. B. (2011). Using the load velocity relationship for 1RM prediction. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(1), 267–270. doi:10.1519
14. Jovanovic, M., & Flanagan, E. P. (2014). Researched applications of velocity based strength training. Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning, 22(2), 58–69.
15. Lake, J., & Lauder, M. (2012). Mechanical demands of kettlebell swing, snatch and deadlift. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(12), 3209–3216.
16. Markovic, G., & Mikulic, P. (2010). Neuromuscular adaptations to training and testing for explosive athletic performance. Sports Medicine, 40(10), 859–895.
17. McMaster, D. T., Cronin, J., & McGuigan, M. R. (2014). Forms of variable resistance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28(12), 3535–3553.
18. Newton, R. U., & Kraemer, W. J. (1994). Developing explosive muscular power: Implications for a mixed methods training strategy. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 16(5), 20–31.
19. Pareja-Blanco, F., Rodríguez-Rosell, D., Sánchez-Medina, L., Gorostiaga, E. M., & González-Badillo, J. J. (2020). Effects of velocity loss thresholds during resistance training on neuromuscular performance and muscle hypertrophy. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 34(10), 2807–2817.
20. Pérez-Castilla, A., Ruiz-Alias, S., Ramirez-Campillo, R., Miras-Moreno, S., Garcia-Pinillos, F., & Marco-Blanco, A. (2024). Acute effect of velocity based resistance training on subsequent endurance running performance: Volume and intensity relevance. Applied Sciences, 14(7), 2736. doi:10.3390
21. Sánchez-Medina, L., & González-Badillo, J. J. (2011). Velocity loss as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43(9), 1725–1734.
22. Sheppard, J. M., & Triplett, T. N. (2015). Program design for resistance training. In G. G. Haff & T. N. Triplett (Eds.), Essentials of Strength and Conditioning (4th ed.). Human Kinetics.
23. Siff, M. C., & Verkhoshansky, Y. V. (2009). Supertraining (6th ed.). Supertraining Institute.
24. Suchomel, T. J., Comfort, P., & Lake, J. P. (2016). Enhancing the force velocity profile of athletes using resistance training. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 38(1), 1–15.
25. Suchomel, T. J., Nimphius, S., & Stone, M. H. (2016). The importance of muscular strength in athletic performance. Sports Medicine, 46(10), 1419–1449.
26. Weakley, J., Mann, B., Banyard, H., McLaren, S., Tannath, S., Garcia-Ramos, A., & Haff, G. G. (2021). Velocity based training: From theory to application. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 43(2), 31–49. doi:10.1519
27. Wilson, J. M., Murphy, A. J., & Walshe, A. (1993). The effect of velocity specific strength training on peak torque and power. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 7(3), 79–84.
28. Włodarczyk, M., Adamus, P., Zieliński, J., & Kantanista, A. (2021). Effects of velocity based training on strength and power in elite athletes: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(10), 1–13. doi:10.3390
29. World Athletics. (2018a). Biomechanical analysis of the men’s javelin throw: IAAF World Championships London 2017. World Athletics.
30. World Athletics. (2018b). Biomechanical analysis of the men’s long jump: IAAF World Championships London 2017. World Athletics.
31. World Athletics. (2018c). Biomechanical report: Men’s 100 m, IAAF World Championships London 2017. World Athletics.
32. Young, W. B. (2006). Transfer of strength and power training. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 1(2), 74–83. doi:10.1123
33. Zatsiorsky, V. M., & Kraemer, W. J. (2006). Science and practice of strength training (2nd ed.). Human Kinetics.