Scand J Med Sci Sports 2008: 18: 417–426
Printed in Singapore . All rights reserved
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2008.00769.x
Review
A review of research on the mechanical stiffness in running and
jumping: methodology and implications
M. Brughelli1, J. Cronin1,2
1
School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia, 2Institute of Sport
and Recreation Research New Zealand, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland 1020, New Zealand
Corresponding author: M. Brughelli, School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 100
Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, Western Australia 6027. Tel: 0061 86304 5152, Fax: 0061 86304 5036, E-mail: m.brugh-
elli@ecu.edu.au
Accepted for publication 6 December 2007
Mechanical stiffness (vertical, leg and joint stiffness) can be
calculated during normal human movements, such as run-
ning and hopping. Mechanical stiffness is thought to influ-
ence several athletic variables, including rate of force
development, elastic energy storage and utilization and
sprint kinematics. Consequently, the relationship between
mechanical stiffness and athletic performance is of great
interest to the sport and research communities. Unfortu-
nately, these relationships are relatively unexplored by
researchers. For example, there are no longitudinal studies
that have investigated the effects of strength or power
training on mechanical stiffness levels (calculated during
Stiffness is often defined as the resistance of an
object or a body to a change in length (McMahon
& Cheng, 1990; Cavagna et al., 1991; Seyfarth et al.,
2002). It is thought that the mechanical stiffness in
the human leg has a major influence on various
athletic variables, including the following: rate of
force development, elastic energy storage and utili-
zation and sprint kinematics (i.e. contact and flight
times, and stride length and frequency). However,
the optimal mechanical stiffness required for move-
ments such as running and jumping remains a topic
of debate for the scientific and sport communities.
For example, a few authors have argued that greater
mechanical stiffness would be beneficial for move-
ments such as running and jumping (Chelly & Denis,
2002; Butler et al., 2003). These arguments have
been based on studies that have shown that vertical
and joint stiffness increase with running velocity and
jumping height (McMahon & Cheng, 1990; Farley et
al., 1991; He et al., 1991). Conversely, one mechan-
ical modelling study found that there is an optimal
mechanical stiffness for long jumping and that
increasing this level would not enhance jump dis-
tance (Seyfarth et al., 2000). Furthermore, other
researchers have reported that elite high jumpers
Copyright & 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation & 2008 Blackwell Munksgaard
human running). In addition to reviewing the available
literature on the relationships between mechanical stiffness
(calculated during human running) and functional perfor-
mance, this review focuses its discussion on the various
equipment and methods used to calculate leg-spring stiffness
during human running. Furthermore, future implications are
presented for practitioners and researchers based on both
the limitations and the gaps in the literature reviewed. It is
our hope that a better understanding of mechanical stiffness
will aid in improving the methodological quality of research
in this area and its subsequent effect on athletic perfor-
mance.
have greater leg compliance than non-elite high
jumpers (Laffaye et al., 2005). Unfortunately, there
have not been any longitudinal training studies that
have investigated the effects of training on mechan-
ical stiffness during human running. Nor has any
research been performed on the effects of different
mechanical stiffness levels (induced by a training
intervention) on athletic performance. Until such
research is conducted, the full importance of me-
chanical stiffness will remain unknown. This paper
reviews the relationships between vertical, leg and
joint stiffness (calculated during human running)
and functional performance, i.e. running and jump-
ing. In addition, other forms of stiffness (tendon,
musculotendinous, and passive) that are thought to
influence functional performance are reviewed. Spe-
cifically, this paper discusses: (1) the equipment used
for calculating vertical, leg and joint stiffness during
human running and (2) the various stiffness calcula-
tion methods used in the literature. We feel that
reviewing the literature in this area will provide a
better understanding of mechanical stiffness, and
will give valuable information on the directions
that need to be taken for researchers and practi-
tioners in the future.
417
Brughelli & Cronin
Equipment and stiffness
The most common types of equipment used for
calculating vertical, leg and joint stiffness during
human running include film/video, force plates, kine-
matic arms, contact mats, and pressure sensors. Each
type of equipment has its strengths and weaknesses,
which are the focus of this section.
Force plate
Force sensors (i.e. force plates and force transducers)
have been used extensively in the literature for
measuring leg, vertical and joint stiffness (Cavagna
et al., 1988; Belli et al., 1995). Ground reaction force
(GRF) can be directly measured with a force plate.
Cavagna (1975) demonstrated how to calculate ver-
tical CM velocity and vertical CM displacement with
single and double integrations of GRF. Because peak
GRF and maximum CM displacements can be mea-
sured (both occurring at mid-stance), vertical stiff-
ness can be calculated during running. With other
mechanical parameters (e.g. contact time and hor-
izontal velocity), leg stiffness can also be measured
with a force plate (McMahon & Cheng, 1990).
However, force plates are very expensive and difficult
to transport. Also, the number of steps that can be
taken is limited with ground-mounted force plates.
One way to increase the number of strides that can be
analyzed is to use multiple force plates in a row.
Cavagna (1975) used a force plate made up of eight
individual force plates in series. However, not many
facilities have access to multiple force plates; thus,
the number of studies using them is limited.
Treadmills fitted on top of force plates or force
transducers are becoming more prevalent in research
designs. The benefit of using a force-sensing treadmill
is that multiple steps can be measured and analyzed
easily. The subjects can run for longer distances and
obtain constant velocities over different trials. Kram
et al. (1998) used force-sensing treadmill that could
measure all three planes (vertical, horizontal, trans-
verse) during multiple strides.
Film/video
Film/video analysis is often used for recording dis-
placements, velocities, and accelerations of various
segments or joints (Cavanagh et al., 1977; Vagenas &
Hoshizaki, 1992). Film/video analysis, in combina-
tion with force plate analysis, can also be used to
measure joint moments and ultimately joint stiffness
(joint moment/joint displacement). However, the
digitizing process requires a considerable time, espe-
cially if there are large subject numbers or move-
ments are of a long duration. The ‘‘noise’’ associated
with film or video data analyses is considered to be
418
problematic (e.g. marker placement movement), thus
making it difficult to measure the displacement of the
CM during running accurately. One of the main
problems encountered is camera speed, which is
usually o120–240 frames/s. The contact phase of
high-speed running can be less than 100 ms. Thus, a
camera that has a speed of 120 frames/s for 100 ms
will only give 12 frames that can be digitized. This
can lead to gross underestimations of segment or CM
displacements.
There is a paucity of research that has used video/
film analysis to calculate vertical or leg stiffness.
Luhtanen and Komi (1980), and (Mero and Komi
(1986) used a 13-segment rigid model and basic laws
of dynamics to determine vertical stiffness from film
analysis. From these data, CM displacement was
calculated and ultimately vertical stiffness. Arampat-
zis et al. (1999) used a 15-model rigid segment model,
where only two segments (lower leg and upper leg)
were used to measure the change in leg spring length,
along with a force plate to measure GRF (Table 1).
Kinematic arm
Another piece of equipment that has been used to
measure the displacements of the center of mass has
been termed the kinematic arm (Belli et al., 1995).
The kinematic arm is made up of four light rigid bars
that are linked by three joints, with the distal end
attached to the subject while running or walking on a
treadmill. One end of the arm is connected to a
reference point and the other end (which is attached
to the subject) is allowed to move freely in all three
planes. With given arm (bar) lengths and angles, by
measuring the angles between bars using electrical
potentiometers, the instantaneous position of the
moving end relative to the reference end can be
calculated. The kinematic arm allows for recordings
of body displacement in all three planes.
Contact mats and pressure sensors
More recently, simple methods of calculating vertical
stiffness and leg stiffness have been proposed using
only a contact mat or pressure sensors (placed under
the insoles of shoes). Vertical stiffness during hop-
ping and running has been calculated from contact
time, aerial time, and body mass with the use of a
single contact mat (Dalleau et al., 2004; Morin et al.,
2005). Leg stiffness during running has been calcu-
lated from leg length, forward velocity, body mass,
contact times, and aerial times. The pressure sensors
were used to calculate contact and aerial times, and a
radar gun was used to measure velocity (Morin et al.,
2006). The benefit of using contact mats or pressure
sensors is that they are accessible to professionals in

Table 1. Vertical and leg stiffness calculations
Study and stiffness type Equipment needed
Vertical stiffness
McMahon and Cheng (1990) Force plate
McMahon et al. (1987) Force plate
Cavagna et al. (1988) Force plate
Morin et al. (2005) Pressure sensors
Leg stiffness
McMahon and Cheng (1990) Force plate
Morin et al. (2005) Pressure sensors
Arampatzis et al. (1999) Force plate and high-speed
video cameras
the field, they are easy to use and are less expensive
than the other equipment.
Calculating stiffness
Vertical stiffness
There are four published methods for calculating
vertical stiffness during human running. The McMa-
hon and Cheng (1990) vertical stiffness method
(VSM) is the first and most commonly used method.
This method requires only two mechanical para-
meters: maximum vertical force and maximum ver-
tical displacement of the CM (both are assumed to
reach maximum levels during the mid-stance phase).
Vertical stiffness is equal to peak vertical force
divided by the maximum vertical displacement.
Cavagna (1975) was the first to show how force
sensors could be used to calculate CM vertical
displacement from vertical force. Because force is
equal to mass multiplied by acceleration and because
mass remains constant, vertical force can be graphed
as vertical acceleration. Then, vertical acceleration
can be integrated to produce vertical velocity (single
integration), and then vertical velocity can be inte-
grated to produce vertical displacement of the CM
(double integration). It should be noted that K refers
to dimensionless stiffness as defined by McMahon &
Cheng (1990), and k refers to dimensional stiffness.
The advantage of using dimensionless numbers and
calculations is that a wide range of animals and body
sizes could be compared on an equivalent basis, as
first proposed by Alexander (1976) in an attempt to
estimate the speeds of dinosaurs.
The second method for calculating vertical stiff-
ness was detailed by McMahon et al. (1987) VSM.
Mechanical stiffness
Formula
kvert 5 Fmax/Dy
where Fmax, maximum vertical force; Dy, maximum vertical displacement of
center of mass
kvert 5 mo2
where m, mass of body; o, natural frequency of oscillation
kvert 5 m(2P/P)2
where m, mass of the body; P, period of oscillation
kvert/m 5 (P(Tv1Tc))/(T2c(((Tv1Tc)/P)) (Tc/4)))
where Tv, flight time, Tc, contact time, and m, mass of body
kleg 5 Fmax/DL
where Fmax, maximum vertical force; DL 5 Dy1L (1 cosy); y 5 sin (vTc/
2L); Dy, vertical displacement of the center of mass; v, forward velocity; L,
initial leg length
kleg 5 L (L2 ((vTc/2)).051Dy
where L, initial leg length; v, velocity; Tc, contact time;Dy, maximum vertical
displacement of center of mass
kleg 5 Fmax/DVCL
where Fmax, maximum vertical force; VCL, change is leg length derived from
video analysis
The formula used by McMahon was: vertical stiff-
ness (kvert) equals mass (m) multiplied by the square
of the natural frequency of oscillation (o). A force
plate was used to calculate the vertical force – contact
time curve (F/t curve). From the F/t curve, vertical
velocity could be calculated (single integration). With
contact time and vertical velocity, the natural fre-
quency of oscillation (o) was calculated and ulti-
mately vertical stiffness was calculated (kvert 5 mo2).
Since McMahon et al. (1987), there have been no
other studies that have calculated vertical stiffness
during human running with this method.
The third method for calculating vertical stiffness
was used by Cavagna et al. (1988). Like the previous
two methods, a force plate is required from which the
F/t curve is generated and used to determine the
effective contact time (tce). The effective contact time
refers to the amount of time that vertical force is
greater than body weight during the stance phase,
and is expressed as (P/2) where P equals the period of
oscillation (see Fig. 1). The natural frequency of
oscillation can be calculated from (P/2) with
o 5 2P/P. Then, vertical stiffness can be calculated
as kvert 5 mo2. Ultimately, the formulas used by
McMahon et al. (1987) and (Cavagna et al. (1988)
are the same. The two differences are in how they
calculated the natural frequency of oscillation, and
dimensionless group of numbers (i.e. groucho
number) used by (McMahon et al. (1987). Since
Cavagna et al. (1988), only two other studies have
used this method for calculating vertical stiffness
during human running (Cavagna et al., 2005;
Cavagna, 2006), and one study used this method to
calculate vertical stiffness during human hopping
(Farley et al., 1991).
419
Brughelli & Cronin
Vertical Force (body weight)
3 why leg stiffness does not increase is because as the
2
1 late the change in leg spring length. Running velocity
Half period of oscillation
(P/T)
0 0.3
Time (sec)
Fig. 1. Force–time curve relative to body mass. Schematic
representation of the half-period of oscillation in the force–
time curve. The half-period of oscillation is measured as the
time when force is above body weight during the stance
phase of a bouncing gat.
The fourth method for calculating vertical stiffness
during human running was described by Morin et al.
(2005). This is the only method that does not require
a force plate or a force transducer. With this method,
only contact time, aerial time and body mass are
needed for calculating vertical stiffness. Contact and
aerial times were measured with two pressure sensors
that were taped under the insole of each shoe. Morin
et al. (2005) calculated vertical stiffness by modelling
vertical force as a sine wave, which was first intro-
duced by Alexander (1989, 1992). The authors
argued that this method was appropriate because
force levels of a linear spring-mass model (once
perturbed) are expected to oscillate in the form of a
sine wave. From the sine wave, maximum vertical
force and maximum vertical displacement were cal-
culated and thus vertical stiffness was calculated.
Leg stiffness
Leg stiffness refers to the stiffness of the entire leg as
though it acts like a single linear spring. Running
velocity needs to be measured accurately for the first
two-leg stiffness methods, which can be obtained
from a treadmill or a radar gun. The first method
for calculating leg stiffness was used by McMahon &
Cheng (1990). Vertical force was measured directly
from a force plate. The change in leg spring length
was calculated from running velocity, leg length, leg
landing angle, and the vertical displacement of the
CM. The leg landing angle was calculated from
contact time, running velocity, and initial leg length.
Leg stiffness was then calculated as the ratio of
maximum vertical force to the maximum change in
leg length, which was measured during the stance
phase from the CM to the foot. Leg stiffness has been
reported to remain constant with running velocity up
420
to moderate velocities (  5.0 m/s) (He et al., 1991;
Farley et al., 1993; Morin et al., 2005). The reason
maximum vertical force increases, the change in leg
spring length also increases.
The Morin et al. (2005) leg stiffness method (LSM)
used initial leg length and forward velocity to calcu-
was measured with a radar gun, and the initial leg
length was measured from the greater trochanter to
the ground. The results of Morin et al. (2005) were
compared with that of a reference method (McMa-
hon & Cheng, 1990). The stiffness values of Morin
et al. (2005) were found to range from 0.67% to
6.93% less than those of McMahon and Cheng
(1990) and thus were reported to be acceptable.
The advantage of using the Morin et al. (2005)
formulae is that stiffness values can be calculated
without the use of force plates or force transducers.
A third method for calculating leg stiffness was
described by (Arampatzis et al. (1999). Vertical force
was first measured with a force plate. Then, leg
stiffness was calculated and the results were com-
pared with those of McMahon and Cheng (1990).
However, Arampatzis et al. (1999) measured the
change in leg length (a two segment model from the
hip joint to the knee joint to the ankle joint) with a
high-speed video, and reported much greater leg
stiffness values (435 kN/m) compared with leg stiff-
ness values reported with the McMahon LSM
(o20 kN/m) (McMahon & Cheng, 1990; He et al.,
1991; Farley & González, 1996; Morin et al., 2005).
The differences between these two studies could be
explained by either a slow camera speed (thus under-
estimations of segment displacement) or by differ-
ences in the measurements of leg length.
Joint stiffness
Joint stiffness refers to the stiffness of an individual
joint and is calculated as the ratio of joint moment to
angular joint displacement. There have only been
four studies that have calculated joint stiffness during
human running (Stefanyshyn & Nigg, 1998; Ara-
mpatzis et al., 1999; Gunther & Blickhan, 2002;
Kuitunen et al., 2002). Three of these studies used
the same method for calculating joint stiffness
(Stefanyshyn & Nigg, 1998; Gunther & Blickhan,
2002; Kuitunen et al., 2002). Force plates were used
to measure vertical and horizontal forces, and high-
speed video cameras were used for the kinematic
analysis. Retroreflective markers were placed on the
following anatomic landmarks: tip of the first toe,
fifth metatarsophalangeal joint, lateral malleolus,
lateral epicondyle of the femur, greater trochanter
and the acromion process of the scapulae. Once
digitized, the marker-position data were used to

calculate joint angular displacements, velocities, and
accelerations. Joint moments for the hip, knee, and
ankle were calculated from inverse dynamics.
Anthropometric measurements were used to calcu-
late segment masses, segment COM locations, and
segment moments of inertia. Then a rigid linked-
segment model was used to calculate the net muscle
moments at the ankle, knee and hip joints. This
process involved applying equations of angular and
translational motion to each segment, starting dis-
tally and moving proximally. All three studies found
that ankle joint stiffness remained constant and knee
joint stiffness increased with running speed. Thus, the
conclusion was that knee joint stiffness is the major
modulator of leg stiffness during running (Table 2).
Arampatzis et al. (1999) introduced a different
method for calculating joint stiffness during human
running. Joint stiffness was calculated as the ratio of
negative mechanical work to the change in joint
angle. Both kinetic and kinematic analyses were
used to determine work and the change in joint
angle. However, this method has been questioned
recently. Gunther and Blickhan (2002) argued that it
was not reasonable to divide a work integral by a
change in joint angle in order to calculate stiffness.
There have been no other studies that have used the
formulae of Arampatzis et al. (1999) to calculate
joint stiffness during human running.
Additional forms of stiffness
There are additional forms of stiffness that are
thought to affect vertical, leg and joint stiffness
during human running: musculotendinous stiffness,
tendon stiffness, and passive stiffness. These stiffness
types will be discussed briefly in this section as they
have each been linked to running performance.
Musculotendinous unit (MTU) stiffness can be cal-
Mechanical stiffness
culated with the oscillation technique (Wilson et al.,
1991, 1994; Walshe et al., 1996; Walshe & Wilson,
1997). With this technique, an active and loaded
MTU was perturbed and the free response was
recorded; thus, the human muscle was modelled as
a damped spring system. Any perturbation to this
system will result in damped oscillations.
Tendon stiffness has been calculated with the use
of ultrasonography (Kubo et al., 1999, 2000,
2001a, b). The stiffness of the tendon was calculated
as the slope of the force-tendon length curve. An
isokinetic dynamometer was used to measure joint
torque, which was then converted to muscle force
with the following formula: muscle force 5 stiffness
(k) multiplied by torque (T), multiplied by cross-
sectional area (CSA) of the chosen muscle group.
Then, ultrasonography was used to measure tendon
displacement. This technique has been used to calcu-
late tendon stiffness for the quadriceps, hamstrings,
and plantar flexors.
Passive stiffness has also been calculated with the
use of an isokinetic dynamometer (Reid & McNair,
2004; Gajdosik et al., 2005). The subjects were placed
and secured in the dynamometer. Then, the chosen
joint was taken through a range of motion while the
subjects did not actively resist, which measured
passive resistance torque. Stiffness was calculated as
the ratio of passive resistance torque to angular
displacement. Passive stiffness has been calculated
in the hamstrings (Reid & McNair, 2004) and plantar
flexors (Gajdosik et al., 2005).
Implications for future research and training
Stiffness and functional performance
Farley et al. (1991) and Granata et al. (2002)
reported that vertical stiffness increased with hop-
ping frequency when subjects hopped in the vertical

Table 2. Calculations for joint stiffness and additional stiffness types

Study and stiffness types Equipment needed Formula

Joint stiffness
Stefanyshyn and Nigg (1998)
Arampatzis et al. (1999)
Musculotendinous stiffness
Wilson et al. (1991)
Tendon stiffness
Kubo et al. (1999)
Passive stiffness
Reid and McNair (2004)
Force plate and high-speed
video camera
Force plate and high-speed
video camera
Oscillation system
Ultrasonography and
isokinetic dynamometer
Isokinetic dynamometer
kjoint 5 Jm/Jd
where Jm, joint moment; Jk, joint angular displacement
kjoint 5 2W /Dy
where W , negative mechanical work; Dy, change in angular
displacement
kmus 5 4mf2p21c2/4m
where m, mass of the bar-weights system; f, damped natural frequency;
c, the damping coefficient
ktendon 5 Fmax/Dy Fmax, maximum force; Dy, change in angular
displacement
kp 5 Tp/Dy Where Tp, passive joint torque; Dy, change in angular
displacement

421
Brughelli & Cronin
direction. Farley et al. (1991) reported that vertical
stiffness increased by more than double (20–440 kN/m)
as forward hopping speed increased from 1.0 to
3.0 m/s. The increase in vertical stiffness resulted
from a decrease in contact time and an increase in
the rate of force development during the stance
phase. It was also reported that vertical stiffness
increased with hopping height. From these findings,
it has been suggested that bilateral jumping height
can be increased with greater levels of vertical stiff-
ness (Butler et al., 2003).
Arampatzis et al. (2001) studied the effects of
different landing heights (20–60 cm) on leg stiffness
during a rebound hop i.e. depth jump. Subjects were
allocated to five groups based on how long they were
instructed to remain on the ground (contact time)
during the rebound. Arampatzis et al. (2001) found
that leg stiffness decreased (15%) with landing height
across all five groups. Walshe and Wilson (1997)
reported similar results when comparing depth jump
ability of stiff subjects vs compliant subjects. It was
reported that the more compliant subjects had super-
ior performances at the greater landing heights
(60–80 cm), while there was no difference at lower
landing heights (20 cm).
Only two studies have examined the effects of
stiffness on single leg jumping performance (Seyfarth
et al., 2000; Laffaye et al., 2005). Seyfarth et al.
(2000) performed a simulation study using a mechan-
ical model during the stance phase of long jump.
With this model, leg stiffness and the optimum take-
off angle could be manipulated. It was reported that
there was a minimal level of leg stiffness (16.2 kN/m)
required for maximizing jumping distance, and
increasing the leg stiffness did not result in longer
jumps. Only one empirical study has investigated the
effects of stiffness on single leg jumping performance
(Laffaye et al., 2005). There were five groups of
subjects for this study: high jumpers, volleyball
players, basketball players, netball players, and five
novice jumpers. Laffaye et al. (2005) found that leg
stiffness decreased (15%) with jumping height in all
five groups. Thus, it appears that leg stiffness during
single leg jumping does not need to be increased in
order to enhance performance.
A number of studies have examined the relation-
ship between tendon stiffness and jumping perfor-
mance. Walshe and Wilson (1997) reported that
MTU stiffness was inversely correlated with the
difference between the countermovement jump and
squat jump (R 5 0.54). This would suggest that a
tendon with less stiffness would be more able to store
and return elastic energy, thus having a favorable
effect on the countermovement jump.
Ultrasonography has been used to determine ten-
don stiffness in vivo (Kubo et al., 1999, 2001a, b).
Kubo et al. (1999) reported that tendon stiffness
422
did not correlate with the squat jump or counter-
movement jump performance. However, an inverse
correlation was found between tendon stiffness and
the difference in jump height between the counter-
movement jump and squat jump (R 5 0.46). Kubo
et al. (2005) suggested that the combination of
greater storage of elastic energy (less tendon stiffness)
and a greater re-use of elastic energy (less hysteresis)
would have favorable effects on stretch–shorten
cycle exercises. Bojsen-Møller et al. (2005) reported
that tendon stiffness correlated to a greater degree
with the squat jump (R 5 0.64) than the counter-
movement jump (R 5 0.55). However, their interpre-
tation of the data was that becasue tendon stiffness
correlated with both jumps, greater tendon stif-
fness was desirable for both types of jumps. It
should be noted that passive stiffness and tendon
stiffness are independent of each other (Kubo et al.,
2001a, b).
Correlation analysis and future directions
The relationship between human hopping in the
vertical direction and sprint performance has been
investigated recently. The authors suggested that
there are similar basic mechanical features between
hopping in place and forward running (Bret et al.,
2002; Chelly & Denis, 2002). Thus, both Chelly and
Denis (2002) and Bret et al. (2002) investigated the
correlation between vertical stiffness during hopping
and sprinting performance. It should be noted that
correlations only signify relationships between vari-
ables and do not imply cause and effect. Bret et al.
(2002) reported that vertical stiffness during hopping
was correlated (R 5 0.59) with maximum sprinting
velocity (from 30 to 60 m), but not with acceleration
(0–30 m) in elite sprinters. Chelly and Denis (2002)
also found a significant correlation between vertical
stiffness during hopping and maximum sprinting
velocity (R 5 0.68), but not with acceleration. Both
authors concluded that increasing leg stiffness may
enhance maximum sprinting velocity. However,
these conclusions may not be accurate based on their
methodology. During human running, leg stiffness is
mainly modulated by knee joint stiffness (Gunther &
Blickhan, 2002; Kuitunen et al., 2002). There is
greater flexion and moment change in the knee joint
relative to the hip and ankle joints during running.
Conversely, leg stiffness is mainly determined by
ankle joint stiffness during human hopping (Farley
et al., 1998). All four studies that have calculated
joint stiffness during human running reported that
ankle joint stiffness remained constant and knee joint
stiffness increased with running speed (Arampatzis
et al., 1999; Gunther & Blickhan, 2002; Kuitunen
et al., 2002; Stefanyshyn & Nigg, 1998). Thus,
performing a correlation between human running

and human hopping may not provided an insight into
the relationship between stiffness and running perfor-
mance. A better approach might be to investigate
correlations between vertical, leg or joint stiffness dur-
ing human running, with maximum running speed.
It is well established that vertical and joint stiffness
increase with running speed (He et al., 1991; Farley
et al., 1993; Gunther & Blickhan, 2002; Kuitunen
et al., 2002; Morin et al., 2005). Based on these
findings, some authors have speculated that running
speed might be enhanced with greater vertical or
knee joint stiffness (Stefanyshyn & Nigg, 1998; Butler
et al., 2003). However, these speculations might be
pre-mature because the effects of altering stiffness
levels (vertical, leg and joint) on running velocity are
unknown. Furthermore, it is not known how training
could affect mechanical stiffness. Only one study has
calculated correlations between stiffness and perfor-
mance during human running (Morin et al., 2006) in
recreationally active male subjects (n 5 8). They did
not find a significant correlation between vertical
stiffness and sprint times (average velocity) during
the 100 m dash. Unfortunately, there have not been
no studies that have investigated correlations
between vertical, leg or joint stiffness (calculated
during human running) with maximum running
velocity in an athletic population.
It is also well established that leg stiffness remains
constant from slow to moderate running speeds.
With the exception of Arampatzis et al. (1999), all
of the studies that have calculated leg stiffness
during running (He et al., 1991; Farley et al., 1993;
Avogadro et al., 2004; Cavagna et al., 2005; Morin
et al., 2005) have reported that leg stiffness remains
constant with increasing running velocity at slow to
moderate velocities. The effect of greater running
speeds on leg stiffness is not known. Similar to
vertical and joint stiffness, there have been no
studies on the effects of training of leg stiffness, or
on how manipulating leg stiffness could affect run-
ning speed.
Effects of strength training on stiffness
Many authors have suggested that greater values of
MT stiffness are advantageous for sprint perfor-
mance (Komi, 1986; Mero et al., 1992; Butler et al.,
2003). A stiffer MTU is thought to enhance the rate
of force development, which would aid in events that
require maximum force production over very short
time periods (i.e. the stance phase in sprinting). It has
been suggested that one of the purposes of strength
training was to increase the stiffness of the MTU
(Komi, 1986). Wilson et al. (1991) reported that the
load lifted by their subjects (bench press) was sig-
nificantly correlated with MTU stiffness. MTU stiff-
ness has also been reported to correlate with
Mechanical stiffness
isometric (R 5 0.50) and concentric (R 5 0.54) rates
of force development (Walshe et al., 1996) in the
lower body. Wilson et al. (1994) reported even
greater correlations between MTU stiffness levels in
the upper body with isometric and concentric rates of
force development (R 5 0.57 and 0.78).
Kubo et al. (2006) investigated the effects of
isometric strength training (bilateral squat) on ten-
don stiffness and jumping performance. After 14
weeks of isometric training, both tendon stiffness
(14%) and squat jump height increased significantly
(4.9%). Countermovement jump height was not
significantly altered; thus, the difference between
countermovement jump height and squat jump
height decreased by 28.3%. The authors suggested
that an increase in tendon stiffness could negatively
affect the pre-stretch in stretch–shorten cycle exer-
cises.
Strength training has traditionally been used by
coaches and practitioners to enhance lower body
strength, power and sprint ability (especially the
acceleration phase). Unfortunately, there have been
no studies that have investigated the effects of
strength training on vertical, leg, or joint stiffness
(calculated during human running). A greater under-
standing could be gained in this area if future studies
investigated the effects of strength training on both
stiffness and sprint performance. This would provide
an insight into how strength-induced changes in
stiffness (vertical, leg, and joint) affect sprint perfor-
mance.
Effects of power training on stiffness
There are more studies appearing in the literature on
the effect of power training on stiffness and other
factors related to stiffness. Specific power training
usually involves jumps, weighted jumps, dynamic
resistance training or plyometric exercises. Cornu
and Goubel (1997) reported that after seven weeks
of power training, active stiffness decreased by
32.7% but passive stiffness increased by 58.2%.
From a functional point of view, Cornu and
Goubel (1997) speculated that an increase in passive
stiffness would be desirable for rate of force devel-
opment and a simultaneous decrease in active stiff-
ness would be desirable for storing and re-using
elastic energy.
Hunter and Marshall (2002) reported that after
6 weeks of power training, eccentric lower body
stiffness decreased (1.1–2.3%) calculated from their
subjects performing depth jumps at heights of 30, 60
and 90 cm. Also, eccentric lower body stiffness
increased (1.8%) during countermovement jump
assessment. The different results could be due to the
requirements of the specific jump being performed.
423
Brughelli & Cronin
Only one study has investigated the effects of
physical training on vertical stiffness and jumping
performance. Toumi et al. (2004) investigated the
effects of complex training (plyometrics combined
with the leg press machine) on vertical stiffness and
jump performance. After six weeks of training, squat
jump height increased by 11.3%, countermovement
jump height increased by 13.2% and knee joint
stiffness increased by 8.2%. Because both strength
and power exercises were used, it is difficult to
disentangle the cause of these adaptations.
Specific power training programs have also been
used in order to change muscle architecture (fascicle
length) (Blazevich et al., 2003; Alegre et al., 2006),
which is thought to influence MTU stiffness and
human running performance. A change in fascicle
length to longer lengths would have implications for
the force–length relationship. The change in length is
thought to be due to sarcomereogenesis, or an
addition of sarcomeres in series, which would shift
the length–tension relationship to longer lengths
(Alegre et al., 2006). It has been speculated that
this change to the length-tension relationship would
allow the muscle to operate at its optimum length
(i.e. joint angle) for longer periods, thus resulting in
greater force outputs at higher rates (Alegre et al.,
2006). It has been reported that elite male and female
sprinters have longer fascicle lengths than non-elite
male (Kumagai et al., 2000) and female sprinters
(Abe et al., 2001).
Alegre et al. (2006) investigated the effects of
power training on fascicle length of the vastus
lateralis. The exercise protocol consisted of half-
squats performed at 30% to 460% of the subject’s
one rep maximum (1RM). At the end of the study,
the subjects increased their fascicle length (13%),
muscle thickness (6.9%), rate of force development
(23%), and amount of force produced in the first
500 ms (11.7%). Blazevich et al. (2003) reported
similar findings when performing power training
with light loads at high velocities. Fascicle length
increased by (24.9%) after 5 weeks of sprint and
jump training; however, neither sprint nor jump
performance increased. The lack of change in the
athletic performance measures could be due to the
short intervention period (5 weeks) or the concurrent
in-season training the subjects were already perform-
ing. More research is needed in this area with longer
training periods taking place outside of the training
season.
Power training has been shown to be effective at
enhancing sprint and jumping performance. How-
ever, it is not known how power training affects
vertical, leg or joint stiffness. Nor is it known how
these changes might affect sprint performance. Until
training studies investigate how stiffness can be
altered with training, the effects of stiffness on sprint
424
performance will remain a topic of confusion and
controversy.
Effects of eccentric exercise on stiffness
Eccentric exercise has been reported to affect passive
stiffness and has been associated with enhancing
sprint performance. Reich et al. (2000) reported
that an eccentric-based exercise program increased
passive stiffness and the length of optimum length of
force development in rats. The increase in passive
stiffness after eccentric exercise has also been
reported in humans. Pousson et al. (1990) reported
an increase in passive stiffness after eccentrically
training the elbow flexors. The increase in passive
stiffness was thought to be due to an increase in titin
filament expression, which is responsible for the
majority of passive tension at longer muscle lengths
(Reich et al., 2000). It has been suggested that
eccentric exercise causes an increase in passive stiff-
ness (due to the titin filament), which could enhance
athletic performance during running and jumping
(Reich et al., 2000; Lindstedt et al., 2002; LaStayo
et al., 2003).
Eccentric exercise has also been reported to
increase the optimum length of force development
and induce sarcomereogenesis. It could be speculated
that eccentric exercise could also cause an increase in
fascicle length. All of these adaptations would cause
alterations in MTU stiffness, and possibly vertical,
leg and joint stiffness during human running. More
research is needed on the effects of eccentric exercise
on stiffness and running performance.
Similar to power and strength training, the effects
of eccentric training on stiffness have not been
studied. Future studies should investigate the effects
of various training methods, including eccentric
training, on stiffness (vertical, leg, and joint) and
how these changes affect sprint performance.
Mechanical stiffness can be calculated during nor-
mal human movements and thus has been an area of
interest for researchers and practitioners for many
years. It is thought that the mechanical stiffness has a
major influence on functional performance. However,
the optimal amount of stiffness required for move-
ments such as running and jumping remains contro-
versial. Consequently, experimental research that
investigates the effects of strength and power training
on stiffness levels needs to be conducted. Further-
more, research needs to investigate the influence that
these changes will have on performance. Currently,
the optimum amount of stiffness levels for functional
performance is based on correlation analysis and thus
should be considered to be speculative at best.
Key words: stiffness, spring, running, jumping.

References
Abe T, Fukashiro S, Harada Y,
Kawamoto K. Relationship between
sprint performance and muscle fascicle
length in female sprinters. J Physiol
Anthropol Appl Human Sci 2001: 20:
141–147.
Alegre L, Jimenez F, Gonzalo-Orden J,
Martin-Acero R, Aguado X. Effects of
dynamic resistance training on fascicle
length and isometric strength. J Sports
Sci 2006: 24(5): 501–508.
Alexander R. Estimates of speeds of
dinosaurs. Nature 1976: 261: 129–130.
Alexander R. On the synchronization of
breathing with running in wallabies
(Macropusspp.) and horses (Equus
caballus). J Zool 1989: 218: 69–85.
Alexander R. A model of bipedal
locomotion on compliant legs. Philos
Trans R Soc Lond 1992: B338:
189–198.
Arampatzis A, Bruggemann G, Metzler
V. The effect of speed on leg stiffness
and joint kinetics in human running. J
Biomech 1999: 32: 1349–1353.
Arampatzis A, Schade F, Walsh M,
Bruggemann G. Influence of leg
stiffness and its effect on myodynamic
jumping performance. J
Electromyography Kinesiol 2001: 11:
355–364.
Avogadro P, Kyrolainen H, Belli A.
Influence of mechanical and metabolic
strain on the oxygen consumption slow
component during forward pulled
running. Eur J Appl Physiol 2004: 93:
182–185.
Belli A, Lacour J, Komi P, Candau R,
Denis C. Mechanical step variability
during treadmill running. Eur J Appl
Physiol 1995: 70: 510–517.
Blazevich A, Gill N, Bronk R, Newton R.
Training-Specific Muscle Architecture
Adaptation after 5-wk Training in
Athletes. Med Sci Sport Exerc 2003: 35:
2013–2022.
Bojsen-Møller J, Magnusson P,
Rasmussen LR, Kjaer M, Aagaard P.
Muscle performance during maximal
isometric and dynamic contractions is
influenced by the stiffness of the
tendinous structures. J Appl Physiol
2005: 99: 986–994.
Bret C, Rahmani A, Dufour A,
Messonnier L, Lacour J. Leg strength
and stiffness as ability factors in 100 m
sprint running. J Sports Med Phys
Fitness 2002: 42: 274–281.
Butler R, Harrison P, Crowell I, Davis I.
Lower extremity stiffness: implications
for performance and injury. Clin
Biomech 2003: 18: 511–517.
Cavagna G. Force platforms as ergometers.
J Appl Physiol 1975: 39: 174–179.
Cavagna G, Franzetti P, Heglund N,
Willems P. The determinants of the
step frequency in running, trotting and
hopping in man and other vertebrates.
J Physiol 1988: 399: 81–92.
Cavagna G, Heglund N, Willems P. Effect
of an increase in gravity on the power
output and the rebound of the body in
human running. J Exp Biol 2005: 208:
2333–2346.
Cavagna G, Willems P, Franzetti P,
Detrembleur C. The two power limits
conditioning step frequency in human
running. J Physiol 1991: 437: 95–108.
Cavagna GA. The landing – take-off
asymmetry in human running. J Exp
Biol 2006: 209: 4051–4060.
Cavanagh P, Pollock M, Landa J. A
biomechanical comparison of elite and
good distance runners. The marathon:
physiological, epidemiological, and
psychological studies. Ann NY Acad
Sci 1977: 301: 328–345.
Chelly S, Denis C. Leg power and
hopping stiffness: relationship with
sprint running performance. Med Sci
Sport Exerc 2002: 33: 326–333.
Cornu C, Goubel M. Influence of
plyometric training on the mechanical
impedance of the human ankle
joint. Eur J Appl Physiol 1997: 76:
282–288.
Dalleau G, Belli A, Viale F, Lacour J,
Bourdin J. A simple method for field
measurements of leg stiffness in
hopping. Int J Sports Med 2004: 25:
170–176.
Farley C, Blickhan R, Saito J, Taylor C.
Hopping frequency in humans: a test of
how springs set stride frequency in
bouncing gaits. J Appl Physiol 1991:
71: 2127–2132.
Farley C, Glasheen J, McMahon T.
Running springs: speed and animal
size. J Exp Biol 1993: 185: 71–86.
Farley C, González O. Leg stiffness and
stride frequency in human running. J
Biomech 1996: 29: 181–186.
Farley C, Houdijk H, Strien CV, Louie
M. Mechanism of leg stiffness
adjustment for hopping on surfaces of
different stiffnesses. J Appl Physiol
1998: 85: 1044–1055.
Gajdosik R, Vander Linden D, McNair
P, Williams A, Riggin T. Effects of an
eight-week stretching program on the
passive-elastic properties and function
of the calf muscles of older women.
Clin Biomech 2005: 20: 973–983.
Granata K, Padua D, Wilson S. Gender
differences in active musculoskeletal
stiffness. Part II. Quantification of leg
stiffness during functional hopping
tasks. J Electromyography Kinesiol
2002: 12: 127–135.
Gunther M, Blickhan R. Joint stiffness of
the ankle and the knee in running.
J Biomech 2002: 35: 1459–1474.
Mechanical stiffness
He J, Kram R, McMahon T. Mechanics
of running under simulated low
gravity. J Appl Physiol 1991: 71:
863–870.
Hunter J, Marshall R. Effects of power
and flexibility training on vertical jump
technique. Med Sci Sport Exerc 2002:
34: 478–486.
Komi P. Training of muscle strength and
power: interaction of neuromotoric,
hypertrophic, and mechanical factors.
Int J Sports Med 1986: 7: 10–15.
Kram R, Griffin T, Donelan J, Hui Chang
Y. Force treadmill for measuring
vertical and horizontal ground reaction
forces. J Appl Physiol 1998: 85:
764–769.
Kubo K, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T. Is
passive stiffness in human muscles
related to the elasticity of tendon
structures? Eur J Appl Physiol 2001a:
85: 226–232.
Kubo K, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T. Is
passive stiffness related to the elasticity
of tendon structures? Eur J Appl
Physiol 2001b: 85: 226–232.
Kubo K, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T.
Effects of viscoelastic properties of
tendon structures on stretch –
shortening cycle exercise in vivo. J
Sports Sci 2005: 23: 851–860.
Kubo K, Kanehisa H, Kawakami Y,
Fukunaga T. Elasticity of tendon
structures of lower limbs in sprinters.
Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 2000:
168: 327–335.
Kubo K, Kawakami Y, Fukunaga T.
Influence of elastic properties of tendon
structures on jump performance in
humans. J Appl Physiol 1999: 87:
2090–2096.
Kubo K, Yata H, Kanehisa K, Fukunaga
T. Effects of isometric squat training on
the tendon stiffness and jump
performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 2006:
96: 305–314.
Kuitunen S, Komi PV, Kyrolainen H.
Knee and ankle joint stiffness in spring
running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002:
34: 166–173.
Kumagai K, Abe T, Brechue W, Ryushi
T, Takano S, Mizuno M. Sprint
performance is related to muscle
fascicle length in male 100-m sprinters.
J Appl Physiol 2000: 88: 811–816.
Laffaye G, Bardy B, Durey A. Leg
stiffness and expertise in men jump-
ing. Med Sci Sport Exerc 2005: 37:
536–543.
LaStayo P, Woolf J, Lewek M, Snyder-
Mackler L, Reich T, Lindstedt S.
Eccentric muscle contractions: their
contribution to injury, prevention,
rehabilitation, and sport. J
Orthopaedic Sports Phys Ther 2003:
33: 557–571.
425
Brughelli & Cronin
Lindstedt S, Reich T, Keim P, LaStayo P.
Do muscles function as adaptable
locomotor springs? J Exp Biol 2002:
205: 2211–2216.
Luhtanen P, Komi PV. Force-, power-,
and elasticity- velocity relationships in
walking, running, and jumping. Eur J
Physiol 1980: 44: 279–289.
McMahon T, Cheng G. The mechanics
of running: how does stiffness couple
with speed? J Biomech 1990: 23:
65–78.
McMahon TA, Valiant G, Frederick EC.
Groucho running. J Appl Physiol 1987:
62: 2326–2337.
Mero A, Komi P, Gregor R.
Biomechanics of sprint running. Sports
Med 1992: 13: 376–392.
Mero A, Komi PV. Force-, EMG-, and
elasticity-velocity relationships at
submaximal, maximal and
supramaximal running speeds in
sprinters. Eur J Physiol 1986: 55:
553–561.
Morin J, Dalleau G, Kyrolainen H,
Jeannin T, Belli A. A simple method
for measuring stiffness during running.
J Appl Biomech 2005: 21: 167–180.
426
Morin J, Jeannin T, Chevallier B, Belli A.
Spring-mass model characteristics
during sprint running: correlation with
performance and fatigue-induced
changes. Int J Sports Med 2006: 27:
158–165.
Pousson M, van Hoecke J, Goubel F.
Changes in elastic characteristics of
human muscle induced by eccentric
exercise. J Biomech 1990: 23: 343–348.
Reich T, Lindstedt S, LaStayo P, Pierotti
D. Is the spring quality of muscle
plastic? Am J Physiol Regulatory,
Integrative Comparative Physiol 2000:
278: R1661–R1666.
Reid D, McNair P. Passive force, angle,
and stiffness changes after stretching of
hamstring muscles. Med Sci Sport
Exerc 2004: 36: 1944–1948.
Seyfarth A, Blickhan R, van Leeuwen J.
Optimum take-off techniques and
muscle design for long jump. J Exp Biol
2000: 203: 741–750.
Seyfarth A, Geyer H, Günther M,
Blickhan R. A movement criterion for
running. J Biomech 2002: 35: 649–655.
Stefanyshyn D, Nigg B. Dynamic angular
stiffness of the ankle joint during
running and sprinting. J Appl Biomech
1998: 14: 292–299.
Toumi H, Best T, Martin A, Poumarat G.
Muscle plasticity after weight and
combined (weight1jump) training.
Med Sci Sport Exerc 2004: 36:
1580–1588.
Vagenas G, Hoshizaki B. A Multivariable
Analysis of Lower Extremity
Kinematic Asymmetry in Running. Int
J Sports Biomech 1992: 8: 11–29.
Walshe A, Wilson G. The influence of
musculotendinous stiffness on drop
jump performance. Can J Appl Physiol
1997: 22: 117–132.
Walshe A, Wilson G, Murphy AJ. The
validity and reliability of a test of lower
body musculotendinous stiffness. Eur J
Appl Physiol 1996: 73: 332–339.
Wilson G, Murphy A, Pryor J.
Musculotendinous stiffness: its
relationship to eccentric, isometric, and
concentric performance. J Appl Physiol
1994: 76: 2714–2719.
Wilson G, Wood G, Elliott B. Optimal
stiffness of series elastic component in a
stretch-shorten cycle activity. J Appl
Physiol 1991: 70: 825–833.