Content uploaded by Lee E Brown
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lee E Brown on Oct 10, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
EFFECT OF ONE-VS.TWO-STAIR CLIMB TRAINING ON
SPRINT POWER
KENTEN B. HARRIS,LEE E. BROWN,TRACI A. STATLER,GUILLERMO J. NOFFAL,AND
J. ALBERT BARTOLINI
Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, Center for Sport Performance, California State University,
Fullerton, California
ABSTRACT
Harris, KB, Brown, LE, Statler, TA, Noffal, GJ, and Bartolini, JA.
Effect of one- vs. two-stair climb training on sprint power.
J Strength Cond Res 28(11): 3100–3104, 2014—Although run-
ning stairs is often used in sport conditioning programs, at pres-
ent, little research has examined the effect of stair climb training
on sprint power. The purpose of this study was to investigate the
effects of running stairs either 1 stair (1S) or 2 stairs (2S) at
a time on power. Fourteen male college track and field athletes
were randomized into 3 groups; 1S, 2S, or control (C). All groups
werepre-andposttestedfor1S,2S,and40-msprintsplittimes.
The 1S and 2S groups trained twice per week, for 4 weeks,
performing 10 sets of climbing 68 total stairs with 2.5-minute
rest between trials. The greatest power values (W) from pre-
and poststairs and sprint splits were used for statistical analyses.
There was a significant (p,0.05) interaction of group 3time for
stair climb. The 1S group increased power for the 1S test (pre-
1,492.89 6123.76; post-1,647.41 673.65) with no change in
the 2S test (pre-2,428.80 6414.81; post-2,430.32 6154.90),
whereas the 2S group increased power for the 2S test (pre-
2,343.73 6317.50; post-2,646.17 6305.43) with no change
in the 1S test (pre-1,516.69 6210.64; post-1,529.38 6236.69).
The C group showed no change in either stair test (1S: pre-
1,403.35 6238.67, post-1,384.38 6153.32; 2S: pre-
2,285.93 6345.03, post-2,261.85 6356.88). There were no
significant interactions or main effects for any sprint split power
(40 m: pre-5,337.13 6611.86, post-5,318.68 6586.24).
Therefore, stair climb training either 1 or 2 at a time did not
affect 40-m sprint split power but increased power for the spe-
cific stair training type. Coaches should choose the number of
stairs that are similar in time and power output to sprint training.
KEY WORDS speed, split, ascent
INTRODUCTION
Coaches from a variety of sports have used stair
climbing as a way to condition their athletes as
a stadium is a great location to have athletes train
both anaerobically and aerobically to enhance
running performance. Track athletes, in particular, require
acceleration and speed to cover distances as quickly as pos-
sible with maximal effort (3,5,6,8,11,12,14,17,18,22,24). Pre-
vious methods of training have used assisted and resisted
sprinting. Assisted methods include movements that require
less energy expenditure (8,11,12,17–19), whereas resisted
methods include movements that require more energy to
cover the same distance (1,7,9,16–19,22). In both forms of
training, acceleration is often measured by short distances
between 5 and 10 yards (10), whereas speed is measured
over longer distances of 40 m or more (10). Achieving
greater sprint speed requires leg strength, power, and coor-
dination (1,2,8–10,15,17,19,22) and these are seen in stair
climb training.
Ascending stairs is closely related to sprint running on a
track (16,21). One technique of ascending stairs is by step-
ping on every stair. This method produces multiple muscle
actions, but the power output is low (5). A more demanding
method is stepping on every other stair. Clemons and
Harrison explored power output of running 1, 2, or 3 stairs
at a time and found that 3 stairs yielded the greatest power
output but was not practical for individuals with shorter leg
lengths or for untrained individuals (7). Track sprinting, such
as the 100 m (and shorter), uses the adenosine triphosphate
polymerase chain reaction energy system and lasts approx-
imately 8–12 seconds, the duration it takes to complete
100 m (2). Therefore, any training designed to increase sprint
speed should be metabolically similar.
Previous research (4,13,20,23) has examined the biome-
chanics of the foot and leg during the use of stair climbers in
gyms vs. treadmills but the influence of stair climb training
on sprint performance was not addressed. Other relevant
research has explored running up and down hills to deter-
mine optimal slope angle to maximize sprint performance
(8,9,14,16). However, there appears to be a paucity of
research on the effects of manipulating stepping frequency
during running stairs on sprinting performance. Because of
Address correspondence to Lee E. Brown, leebrown@fullerton.edu.
28(11)/3100–3104
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2014 National Strength and Conditioning Association
3100
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the number of stairs and distance traveled between 1- and
2- stair climbing is constant, climbing 2 stairs is quicker and
results in greater power. In addition, running 2 stairs requires
greater step length. Thus, 2-stair climbing may have a greater
power transfer to sprinting. Therefore, the purpose of this study
was to compare 1- vs. 2-stair climb training on sprint power.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This was a between-subjects study that examined the effect
of 1-stair (1S) vs. 2-stair (2S) climb training on sprint power.
The major differences between experimental groups were
that time to completion was shorter, power was greater, and
step length was longer for 2S training. Therefore, 2S training
should have greater specificity to sprinting. All experimental
subjects performed on track sprint training and trained twice
a week for 4 weeks in their specific stair climb group. A control
(C) group performed only track sprint training. All groups
were measured for stair climb power and track sprint power
pre- and posttraining.
Subjects
Informed consent was obtained before participation and data
collection. All procedures were approved by the University
Institutional Review Board. Fourteen male subjects 1S = (n=5;
age (years), 20.8 61.3; height (cm), 180.14 65.51; mass (kg),
75.38 65.97), 2S = (n=5;age(years),19.260.83; height
(cm), 180.76 65.13; mass (kg), 78.78 611.27), and C = (n=4;
age (years), 19.75 61.70; height (cm), 197.97 66.14; mass (kg),
72.55 63.54) with 1 year prior college track experience
participated. Subjects were in-season and were selected from
track events 800 m or less including long jump, triple jump,
and pole vault and were all in-season. Participants were
asked to continue their regular training patterns throughout
the length of the study keeping hydration, diet, track work-
outs, resistance training, and sleep the same. Subjects were
placed into 1 of 3 groups using a counterbalanced method.
Test Procedures
General warm-up before testing included jogging 2 laps
around the track (800 m) followed by 5 minutes of dynamic
warm-up (2 repetitions of 20 m each: A-skips, high knees,
butt kicks, lunges, cariocas, running backwards, skipping and
3 accelerations to 50 m). The same synthetic all-weather track
was used to measure sprint time pre and post. Pretesting was
performed on the first and second visits lasting approximately
60 minutes each. On the first day, after warming up, subjects
completed a 40-m sprint test for time, followed randomly by
either a 1S or 2S climb test. The second day measured the
other stair climb test. For each pretest (40-m sprint, 1S, or 2S),
a warm up trial was allowed to familiarize subjects with the
block starts or stairs. Three maximal attempts were recorded
for each test with the best trial used for analysis.
Track sprinting was timed using a Brower Timing System
(Speedtrap II; Brower, Salt Lake City, UT, USA). This timing
system uses infrared light beams accurate to 0.01 seconds
according to manufacturer specifications. Subjects began in
starting blocks (preferred leg forward) with the time starting
when their finger lifted off a touch pad. Infrared beams
recorded times at 5, 10, 20, and 40 m. Horizontal power was
then determined by the following equation:
Power ¼F3V;
where F = body mass in kg 39.81 and V = distance divided
by time (m$s
21
).
Stair climbs were timed using
a Lafayette Instrument, Co.,
timing clock and switch mats
(Model # 54,519-A; Lafayette,
IN, USA) accurate to 0.001 sec-
onds according to manufacturer
specifications. Mats were placed
at the bottom on the first stair
step and at the top on the last
stair step with the timing clock
placed half way up the stairs.
Subjects started by stepping on
the first timing mat to start the
timer (during a sprint up the
stairs) and stopped the timer
by stepping on the timing mat
at the top of the stairs. The 1S
group sprinted up 68 stadium
stairs, stepping on every step
for a total of 68 steps. The 2S
group sprinted up the same 68
stairs, stepping on every other
Figure 1. One-stair test power (W), (mean 6SD). 1S = 1-stair training group; 2S = 2-stair training group; C =
control group; Pre = pretraining; Post = posttraining. *Significantly (p,0.05) greater than Pre.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2014 | 3101
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
step (2 at a time), for a total of 34 steps (average step riser of
19.51 cm and average tread of 38.8 cm). All training sessions,
pre- and posttesting, and stair climbs were completed on
the same stadium stairs. Horizontal power was then calcu-
lated using the same equation as for sprinting (38.8 cm 3
68 steps = 26.38 m), whereas vertical power was calculated
by the following equation:
Power ¼½ðM3DÞ39:8=t;
where M= body mass in kg, D= vertical height between
first and last stairs (19.51 cm 368 steps = 13.27 m), t= time
from first to last stair. Finally, stair climb power was calculated
via the Pythagorean theorem using the following equation:
resultant power ¼ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
horizontal power2
q
þvertical power2:
Training Session Procedures
The 1S and 2S groups trained
on visits 3 through 10 with each
visit lasting approximately 45 mi-
nutes. Each visit started with the
samewarm-upasusedontest
days, followed by sprinting up
the stairs in their assigned
group. Ten sets were completed
on every training visit. Rest time
was 2.5 minutes for all training
trials. If subjects were assigned
to the control group, they did
not participate in stair climb
training during visits 3–10.
Posttesting was performed on
visits 11 and 12 exactly the same
as pretesting. Subjects completed
thesame3tests(40-msprint,1S
climb, and 2S climb) in the same
order they did in pretesting.
Statistical Analyses
A23337 (time 3group 3distance) mixed factor analysis
of variance (ANOVA) analyzed split sprint power for 0–5, 0–10,
0–20, 0–40, 5–10, 10–20, and 20–40 m. A 2 3233(test3
time 3group) mixed factor ANOVA analyzed stair climb
power. Significant interactions were followed up with simple
ANOVAs. Reliability was analyzed via the intraclass correlation
coefficient (ICC). The data were analyzed using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (version 20.0; SPSS, Inc.,
Chicago, IL, USA). A priori alpha was set at 0.05.
RESULTS
For stair climb power, there was a significant 3-way interac-
tion which was followed up with three 2 32 ANOVAs for
each group. The 1S and 2S groups showed significant inter-
actions which were followed up with two 1 32ANOVAsfor
time for each stair test. The 1S group demonstrated a signifi-
cant increase in power for the 1S test with no change in the 2S
test (Figure 1), whereas the 2S
group demonstrated a significant
increase in power for the 2S test
with no change in the 1S test
(Figure2).TheCgroupshowed
no change in either stair test
(Figures 1 and 2). There was also
a significant main effect for test
with 2S power being greater than
1S. Reliability for both 1S and 2S
tests were high with ICC values
ranging between 0.914 and 0.994.
For split sprint power, there
were no significant interactions,
just a main effect for distance
Figure 2. Two-stair test power (W), (mean 6SD). 1S = 1-stair training group; 2S = 2-stair training group; C =
control group; Pre = pretraining; Post = posttraining. *Significantly (p,0.05) greater than Pre.
TABLE 1. Sprint test power (W) for distance splits, (mean 6SD).
Distance (m) Pretraining Posttraining
0–5 2,975.13 6402.42 2,969.45 6337.29
0–10 3,739.47 6461.04 3,716.18 6395.01
0–20 4,563.07 6527.14 4,533.14 6488.62
0–40 5,337.13 6611.86 5,318.68 6586.24
5–10 5,041.28 6539.19 4,972.79 6503.07
10–20 5,858.57 6630.99 5,815.51 6663.49
20–40 6,430.05 6739.72 6,434.79 6736.73
Stair Climb Training on Power
3102
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
with power increasing along with increasing split distance
(Table 1). Reliability for all sprint splits was high with ICC
values ranging between 0.932 and 0.965.
DISCUSSION
This study examined the effect of climbing stairs either 1 at
a time (1S) or 2 at a time (2S) on sprint power. The 1S group
increased their power for 1S, but not 2S, whereas the 2S
group increased their power for 2S, but not 1S. Although
there was a stair climb specificity training effect, neither
group showed any transfer of training to sprint power at any
split distance. Reasons for this may be specificity of training
or the in-season high performance level of these track
athletes. Skills like sprinting require specific training methods
and durations to achieve maximal transfer and increases in
performance are best seen in more novice athletes.
Following the concept of specificity, stair climbing 1S or
2S did not have any transfer from one to the other. It seems
that training 1 skill leads an athlete to learn that 1 skill best.
Clemons and Harrison (7) found the optimal power output
for stair sprinting to be 3 stairs. Their study sought to find
optimal power output with just 2–3 stride cycles, whereas
this study used either 34 or 68 stride cycles. Therefore,
greater power outputs may have been achieved in the first
half of our stair climb but decreased over time because of
fatigue. This may have led to less of a training effect.
The 1S and 2S climb training showed no transfer to any
sprint distance. This is also likely because of the specificity of
training effect. Even though stair climb training is a physically
demanding activity, the vertical movements may not have
been specific enough to transfer to horizontal sprinting (25).
In addition, stair climbing may have been too long in duration,
reducing power output. Sprint times averaged approximately
5–6 seconds, resulting in power outputs between 1,500 and
2,700 W. In contrast, stair climbing averaged 8–15 seconds
resulting in split power outputs between 3,000 and 6,500 W.
Therefore, stair time was 2–3 times longer than horizontal
sprinting, and power output was less than half, thus possibly
reducing transfer of training. Perhaps reducing the stair climb-
ing distance to achieve times of approximately 6 seconds
might make the training more specific to track sprinting. In
addition, possibly a transfer effect would have been noticeable
at sprinting distances .40 m, resembling a time and power
output closer to that of stair climbing. However, we sought to
control the distance covered by all subjects (68 stairs) to
maintain workload across groups.
Previous studies have explored the interaction of step rate
and step length (8,11,14,16) on sprinting. For sprinters to run
faster, either step rate or step length must increase (11).
Increased step length has been identified as the key factor
contributing to faster sprint times. Corn and Knudson found
that elastic cord pulling did not change subject’s step rate,
while the step length was longer, which accounted for faster
sprint times (8). This study used 1S to resemble training for
step rate and 2S to resemble training for step length.
Although this study altered step rate and step length during
training, we did not measure these variables as only sprint
time and power were of interest.
Other forms of nonspecific training have also sought to
elicit a transfer effect. Loy et al. (16) explored running on
a treadmill vs. running on a track on track sprinting times
and found similar results to this study. In their study, running
on a track resulted in faster track running, when compared
with running on a treadmill. In this study, training via run-
ning of stairs resulted in subjects decreasing their post test
time to complete the stairclimb but did not transfer to
decreased sprint times.
The use of trained college athletes in our study could have
affected our results as was seen in a study by Ebben et al. (11)
They found that a National Collegiate Athletic Association
Division III sprinter achieved an optimal 40-yard sprint time
at a hill slope steeper than that of the untrained subjects (8).
This indicates that more highly trained athletes may benefit
from a greater difficulty of training, although trained college
athletes may not show significant improvements because of
their high level of training. Clemons and Harrison (7) mea-
sured college-aged untrained subjects explosive power on stair
climbing. They used 2 steps with untrained subjects, whereas
our study used 68 total steps with trained athletes. Their study
measured power over 2 stairs, whereas our study focused on
the training effect of stair climb training on track athletes
sprint power across a much greater distance. In addition, their
study used untrained subjects whereas we used trained ath-
letes in-season, suggesting our subjects were at or near their
peak performance, because of their greater training demands.
It should be noted that our subjects continued with their
traditional track training throughout the duration of the study.
The only added exercise was stair climbing for the 1S and 2S
training groups. High-level athletes such as track athletes have
only minor room for improvement; therefore, any improve-
ments in sprint power because of stair climbing might have
been masked by the high-performance level of our athletes.
Recovery for all sports is vital to athletic performance
(5,6,17,18). Subjects in this study were posttested only
48 hours after their last training session. This short period
of recovery may not have been enough to see a significant
stair climb training effect on sprint power. Perhaps 1, 2, or
3 weeks of recovery time before posttesting may have
allowed subjects to fully recover from their stair training
bouts (18). Loy et al. examined treadmill running vs. track
running on track running performance and allowed the same
rest time (2–2.5 minutes) before a 1.5-mile posttesting run.
They found significantly improved postperformance when
compared with preperformance (16). Testing and training
horizontal sprinting only may have led to their significant
findings compared with our vertical stair climbing results.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Our 1S or 2S climb training did not transfer to sprint power.
The specific frequency, volume, and recovery times may
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2014 | 3103
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
have been ineffective in producing significant performance
transfer from stair climbing to sprinting, although stair
climbing did improve in a specific manner. Coaches should
use sprint training as a main means of training their sprinting
athletes and possibly supplement that with other forms of
conditioning such as stair climbing. Stair climbing, as used in
this study, should not be used as a main means of increasing
sprint power. Stair climb training times and power outputs
should specifically resemble those of the intended sprint
event. In addition, different subject populations may require
different frequencies, volumes, and recovery times to effec-
tively use stair climbing to enhance sprint power.
REFERENCES
1. Alcaraz, PE, Palao, JM, and Elvira, JLL. Determining the optimal
load for resisted sprint training with sled towing. J Strength Cond Res
23: 480–485, 2009.
2. Bosco, C, Rusko, H, and Hirvonen, J. The effect of extra-load
conditioning on muscle performance in athletes. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 18: 415–419, 1986.
3. Bret, C, Rahmani, A, Dufour, A, Messonnier, L, and Lacour, J. Leg
strength and stiffness as ability factors in 100 m sprint running.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness 42: 274–281, 2002.
4. Burnfield, JM, Jorde, AG, Augustin, TR, Augustin, TA, and
Bashford, GR. Variations in plantar pressure variables across five
cardiovascular exercises. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39: 2012–2020, 2007.
5. Cissik, JM. Means and methods of speed training: Part I. Strength
Cond J 26: 24–29, 2004.
6. Cissik, JM. Means and methods of speed training: Part II. Strength
Cond J 27: 18–25, 2005.
7. Clemons, J and Harrison, M. Validity and reliability of a new stair
sprinting test of explosive power. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1578–1583,
2008.
8. Corn, RJ and Knudson, D. Effect of elastic-cord towing on the
kinematics of the acceleration phase of sprinting. J Strength Cond Res
17: 72–75, 2003.
9. Cronin, J, Hansen, K, Kawamori, N, and McNair, P. Effects of
weighted vests and sled towing on sprint kinematics. Sports Biomech
7: 160–172, 2008.
10. Delecluse, C. Influence of strength training on sprint running
performance: Current findings and implications for training.
Sports Med 24: 147–156, 1997.
11. Ebben, WP. The optimal downhill slope for acute overspeed
running. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 3: 88–93, 2008.
12. Ebben, WP, Davies, JA, and Clewien, RW. Effect of the degree
of hill slope on acute downhill running velocity and acceleration.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 898–902, 2008.
13. Guggenheimer, JD, Dickin, DC, Reyes, GF, and Dolny, DG. The
effects of specific preconditioning activities on acute sprint
performance. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1135–1139, 2009.
14. Hunter, JP, Marshall, RN, and McNair, PJ. Interaction of step length
and step rate during sprint running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36:
261–271, 2004.
15. Johnson, MD and Buckley, JG. Muscle power patterns in the
mid-acceleration phase of sprinting. J Sports Sci 19: 263–272, 2001.
16. Loy, SF, Holland, GJ, Mutton, DL, Snow, J, Vincent, WJ,
Hoffmann, JJ, and Shaw, S. Effects of stair-climbing vs. run training
on treadmill and track running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25:
1275–1278, 1993.
17. Paradisis, GP, Bissas, A, and Cooke, CB. Combined uphill and
downhill sprint running training is more efficacious than horizontal.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform 4: 229–243, 2009.
18. Paradisis, GP and Cooke, CB. Kinematic and postural characteristics
of sprint running on sloping surfaces. J Sports Sci 19: 149–159,
2001.
19. Paradisis, GP, Cooke, CB, Newton, J, and Bissas, A. Sprinting
performance and uphill–downhill training. Int Soc Biomec 15: 2–6,
1995.
20. Reid, SM, Lynn, SK, Musselman, RP, and Costigan, PA. Knee
biomechanics of alternate stair ambulation patterns. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 39: 2005–2011, 2007.
21. Rosentswieg, J, Verstraete, D, and Bassett, G. Stair climbing as
a training modality for women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 18: S28, 1986.
22. Ross, ER, Ratamess, NA, Hoffman, JR, Faigenbaum, AD, Kang, J,
and Chilakos, A. The effects of treadmill sprint training and
resistance training on maximal running velocity and power.
J Strength Cond Res 23: 385–394, 2009.
23. Spanjaard, M, Reeves, ND, Van Dieen, JH, Baltzopoulos, V, and
Maganaris, CN. Influence of step-height and body mass on
gastrocnemius muscle fascicle behavior during stair ascent.
J Biomech 41: 937–944, 2008.
24. Vetter, RE. Effects of six warm-up protocols on sprint and jump
performance. J Strength Cond Res 21: 819–823, 2007.
25. Wilson, GJ, Newton, RU, Murphy, AJ, and Humphries, BJ.
The optimal training load for the development of dynamic
athletic performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25: 1279–1286,
1993.
Stair Climb Training on Power
3104
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
