Keywords

gender, physical endurance, running, track

Abstract

Women began contesting the 3000 m steeplechase during the 1990’s using barriers of different dimensions than men. Whenever a new event is introduced for women, consideration should be taken as to whether different technique or training methods should be utilized. This study investigated three aspects of hurdling technique: 1) Differences in the ratio of the landing step to the penultimate step between men and women around each non-water jump steeplechase barrier, 2) differences in step lengths between the four non-water jump barriers, and 3) changes in the step lengths around the barrier throughout the race. The step lengths around the 28 non-water jump barriers of the top seven men and women at the 2003 USA Track and Field Championships were measured using a two-dimensional analysis. A t-test determined any differences between men and women for the ratio of the landing to penultimate steps. A 2x4 repeated measures ANOVA tested for differences between the four non-water jump barriers. Linear regression tested for changes in step lengths throughout the race. Men exhibited a smaller ratio between the lengths of the landing to penultimate steps than women (0.73 ± 0.09 and 0.77 ± 0.10 for men and women respectively, p = 0.002). No step length differences were observed between the four barriers in the step lengths around each barrier (p = 0.192 and p = 0.105 for men and women respectively). Athletes gradually increased the total length of all steps around the barriers throughout the race (R2 = 0.021, p = 0.048 and R2 = 0.137, p < 0.001 for men and women respectively). The smaller ratio between landing to penultimate steps shows that the barriers affect women less than men. There may be a need to train men and women differently for the non-water jump barriers in the steeplechase or slightly alter racing strategy.

Original Publication Citation

Hunter I & Bushnell TD. (26). "Steeplechase barriers affect women less than men". Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 5(2), 318-322.