Sprinting with prosthetic versus biological legs: insight from experimental data

The effects on sports performance of technologic advances in sports prostheses and wheelchairs

The field of medicine continues to advance as new technologies emerge. These technological advancements include the science of sports prostheses and wheelchairs, in which there have been significant advancements over the past decades. The world of adaptive sports continues to expand, largely due to a combination of the increase in awareness, inclusion, and technology. As participation in sports for people with impairments increases, there has been an associated demand for new, innovative adaptive sporting equipment designs that help accommodate the physical deficits of the individual. Controversy has risen as persons with disabilities advance their skills with adaptive sports equipment to compete with individuals without disabilities. The controversy leads to the question: is the adaptive equipment allowing athletes with disability to regain the lost function from their baseline or does it allow them to exceed prior ability level? This narrative review provides information regarding the performance effects of advances in technology and biomechanics of adaptive sports equipment to help answer these questions.

The potential impact of advanced footwear technology on the recent evolution of elite sprint performances

Background

Elite track and field sprint performances have reached a point of stability as we near the limits of human physiology, and further significant improvements may require technological intervention. Following the widely reported performance benefits of new advanced footwear technology (AFT) in road-running events, similar innovations have since been applied to sprint spikes in hope of providing similar performance enhancing benefits. However, it is not yet clear based on current evidence whether there have been subsequent improvements in sprint performance. Therefore, the aims of this study were to establish if there have been recent year-to-year improvements in the times of the annual top 100 and top 20 athletes in the men's and women's sprint events, and to establish if there is an association between the extensive use of AFT and potential recent improvements in sprint performances.

Methods

For the years 2016-19 and 2021-2022, the season best performances of the top 100 athletes in each sprint event were extracted from the World Athletics Top lists. Independent t-tests with Holm corrections were performed using the season's best performance of the top 100 and top 20 athletes in each year to identify significant differences between years for each sprint discipline. Following the classification of shoes worn by the top 20 athletes in each event during their annual best race (AFT or non-AFT), separate linear mixed-model regressions were performed to determine the influence of AFT on performance times.

Results

For the top 100 and top 20 athletes, there were no significant differences year-to-year in any sprint event prior to the release of AFT (2016-2019). There were significant differences between AFT years (2021 or 2022) and pre-AFT years (2016-2019) in eight out of 10 events. These differences ranged from a 0.40% improvement (men's 100 m) to a 1.52% improvement (women's 400 m hurdles). In the second analysis, multiple linear mixed model regressions revealed that the use of AFT was associated with improved performance in six out of ten events, including the men's and women's 100 m, women's 200 m, men's 110 m hurdles, women's 100 m hurdles and women's 400 m hurdles (estimate range: -0.037 - 0.521, p = <0.001 - 0.021). Across both analyses, improvements were more pronounced in women's sprint events than men's sprint events.

Conclusion

Following a period of stability, there were significant improvements in most sprint events which may be partly explained by advances in footwear technology. These improvements appear to be mediated by event, sex and potentially level of athlete.

Sprinting with bilateral transtibial running-specific prostheses versus biological limbs - are they comparable? Comments on Beck et al. (2022)

Since publication of this paper (Royal Society open science, 2022. 9(1): p. 211799), the authors have published a correction clarifying that the paper presents a case study that '… did not meet the definition for research with regard to human subjects'. The data are incorrectly referred to as experimental because the study has no experimental control. Furthermore, the paper has been presented previously but the version presented here selectively omits several analyses, posing a significant risk of bias. Of the prosthetic-related disadvantages identified by the authors, the most substantive was a 40% increase in time to 20 m (59.5 s.d. below the mean for NA sprinters). However the analysis was incomplete: acceleration modelling for NA sprinters continued up to 98% of maximum velocity, while Fastest BA was truncated at approximately 80%. We extrapolated the model, revealing the duration of maximum acceleration for Fastest BA is approximately 100% longer than NA sprinters. Important differences in Fastest BA contact lengths (0.10-0.15 m) were also identified. We posit that together, these large and important differences in sprint biomechanics and their likely physiological consequences suggest that running with and without prosthetics are so different that, although running times may be similar, the precautionary principle should apply and, in the interests of athletic competition integrity, runners with and without prosthetics should continue to compete separately.

Equivalent running leg lengths require prosthetic legs to be longer than biological legs during standing

We aimed to determine a method for prescribing a standing prosthetic leg length (ProsL) that results in an equivalent running biological leg length (BioL) for athletes with unilateral (UTTA) and bilateral transtibial amputations (BTTA). We measured standing leg length of ten non-amputee (NA) athletes, ten athletes with UTTA, and five athletes with BTTA. All athletes performed treadmill running trials from 3 m/s to their maximum speed. We calculated standing and running BioL and ProsL lengths and assessed the running-to-standing leg length ratio (L_ratio) at three instances during ground contact: touchdown, mid-stance, and take-off. Athletes with UTTA had 2.4 cm longer standing ProsL than BioL length (p = 0.030), but their ProsL length were up to 3.3 cm shorter at touchdown and 4.1 cm shorter at mid-stance than BioL, at speed 3-11.5 m/s. At touchdown, mid-stance, and take-off, athletes with BTTA had 0.01-0.05 lower L_ratio at 3 m/s (p < 0.001) and 0.03-0.07 lower L_ratio at 10 m/s (p < 0.001) in their ProsL compared to the BioL of NA athletes. During running, ProsL were consistently shorter than BioL. To achieve equivalent running leg lengths at touchdown and take-off, athletes with UTTA should set their running-specific prosthesis height so that their standing ProsL length is 2.8-4.5% longer than their BioL length, and athletes with BTTA should set their running-specific prosthesis height so that their standing ProsL lengths are at least 2.1-3.9% longer than their presumed BioL length. Setting ProsL length to match presumed biological dimensions during standing results in shorter legs during running.

Psychosocial aspects of sports medicine in pediatric athletes: Current concepts in the 21st century

Behavioral aspects of organized sports activity for pediatric athletes are considered in a world consumed with winning at all costs. In the first part of this treatise, we deal with a number of themes faced by our children in their sports play. These concepts include the lure of sports, sports attrition, the mental health of pediatric athletes (i.e., effects of stress, anxiety, depression, suicide in athletes, ADHD and stimulants, coping with injuries, drug use, and eating disorders), violence in sports (i.e., concepts of the abused athlete including sexual abuse), dealing with supervisors (i.e., coaches, parents), peers, the talented athlete, early sports specialization and sports clubs. In the second part of this discussion, we cover ergolytic agents consumed by young athletes in attempts to win at all costs. Sports doping agents covered include anabolic steroids (anabolic-androgenic steroids or AAS), androstenedione, dehydroepiandrostenedione (DHEA), human growth hormone (hGH; also its human recombinant homologue: rhGH), clenbuterol, creatine, gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), amphetamines, caffeine and ephedrine. Also considered are blood doping that includes erythropoietin (EPO) and concepts of gene doping. In the last section of this discussion, we look at disabled pediatric athletes that include such concepts as athletes with spinal cord injuries (SCIs), myelomeningocele, cerebral palsy, wheelchair athletes, and amputee athletes; also covered are pediatric athletes with visual impairment, deafness, and those with intellectual disability including Down syndrome. In addition, concepts of autonomic dysreflexia, boosting and atlantoaxial instability are emphasized. We conclude that clinicians and society should protect our precious pediatric athletes who face many challenges in their involvement with organized sports in a world obsessed with winning. There is much we can do to help our young athletes find benefit from sports play while avoiding or blunting negative consequences of organized sport activities.

Artificially long legs directly enhance long sprint running performance

This comment addresses the incomplete presentation and incorrect conclusion offered in the recent manuscript of Beck et al. (R. Soc. Open Sci. 9, 211799 (doi:10.1098/rsos.211799)). The manuscript introduces biomechanical and performance data on the fastest-ever, bilateral amputee 400 m runner. Using an advantage standard of not faster than the fastest non-amputee runner ever (i.e. performance superior to that of the intact-limb world record-holder), the Beck et al. manuscript concludes that sprint running performance on bilateral, lower-limb prostheses is not unequivocally advantageous compared to the biological limb condition. The manuscript acknowledges the long-standing support of the authors for the numerous eligibility applications of the bilateral-amputee athlete. However, it does not acknowledge that the athlete's anatomically disproportionate prosthetic limb lengths (+15 cm versus the World Para Athletics maximum) are ineligible in both Olympic and Paralympic track competition due to their performance-enhancing properties. Also not acknowledged are the slower sprint performances of the bilateral-amputee athlete on limbs of shorter length that directly refute their manuscript's primary conclusion. Our contribution here provides essential background information and data not included in the Beck et al. manuscript that make the correct empirical conclusion clear: artificially long legs artificially enhance long sprint running performance.

Sprinting with prosthetic versus biological legs: insight from experimental data

Running-prostheses have enabled exceptional athletes with bilateral leg amputations to surpass Olympic 400 m athletics qualifying standards. Due to the world-class performances and relatively fast race finishes of these athletes, many people assume that running-prostheses provide users an unfair advantage over biologically legged competitors during long sprint races. These assumptions have led athletics governing bodies to prohibit the use of running-prostheses in sanctioned non-amputee (NA) competitions, such as at the Olympics. However, here we show that no athlete with bilateral leg amputations using running-prostheses, including the fastest such athlete, exhibits a single 400 m running performance metric that is better than those achieved by NA athletes. Specifically, the best experimentally measured maximum running velocity and sprint endurance profile of athletes with prosthetic legs are similar to, but not better than those of NA athletes. Further, the best experimentally measured initial race acceleration (from 0 to 20 m), maximum velocity around curves, and velocity at aerobic capacity of athletes with prosthetic legs were 40%, 1-3% and 19% slower compared to NA athletes, respectively. Therefore, based on these 400 m performance metrics, use of prosthetic legs during 400 m running races is not unequivocally advantageous compared to the use of biological legs.