Differences in 200-m sprint running performance between outdoor and indoor venues

Thumbnail Image
Publication date
Reading date
Event date
Start date of the public exhibition period
End date of the public exhibition period
Authors of photography
Person who provides the photography
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
The purpose of this study was to determine which 50-m sections were slower indoors than outdoors in 200-m sprint events and by how much. Using 2-dimensional photogrammetric techniques, a 50-m split-time analysis was made of the performance of 17 men and 16 women, all well-trained athletes, at 4 national competitions held over 5 years. The time taken to run the 0- to 50-m section was longer indoors than outdoors in women (6.89 +/- 0.12 vs. 6.75 +/- 0.04 seconds; p < 0.05) and in men (6.18 +/- 0.10 vs. 6.08 +/- 0.09 seconds; p < 0.05). Similarly, both women and men took more time to run the 100- to 150-m section indoors (6.03 +/- 0.15 vs. 5.84 +/- 0.06 seconds; p < 0.01, respectively) than outdoors (5.26 +/- 0.15 vs. 5.06 +/- 0.07 seconds; p < 0.01, respectively). Both sections indoors were run mostly on the curve. However, significant differences were not found in the split times for 50-100 and 150-200 m in either sex. In both categories, the relative average velocity (RAV), percentage of average velocity relative to the maximum velocity reached in the fastest section (50-100 m), was about 3% lower indoors than outdoors in 100- to 150-m section. The athletes' lower capacity to develop speed indoors could be caused specifically, by the curved 0- to 50-m and 100- to 150-m sections of the indoor track. Coaches could use these data as reference values there being few published data from high-level competitions. The RAV could be used by coaches to compare results among athletes of different levels and sexes.
Doctoral program
Related publication
Research projects
Bibliographic reference
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27(1), 83-88
Photography rights