Hurdle height alters hurdle clearance kinematics and interval running: Implications for technique instruction in beginners

Introduction

Hurdle running is a track-and-field event that is an established component of the physical education curriculum. This event requires athletes to sprint over a fixed distance while clearing a series of hurdles. It integrates sprinting mechanics with technically demanding clearance actions. Among the various skills involved in hurdling, clearance is particularly challenging because it requires precise whole-body coordination, rapid temporal control, and adaptation to running mechanics. ¹ This combination of technical and temporal demands is classified as a complex motor skill with high nominal task difficulty, ² which is consistent with Guadagnoli and Lee's ³ challenge point framework. However, despite the recognition of these complexities, no systematically validated or empirically tested instructional approaches to learning hurdling have been established for beginners. A key factor in such an instructional design is the manipulation of hurdle height and interval distance, which are frequently modified in training and educational contexts.

In competitive hurdling, hurdle height and interval distance are standardized by World Athletics. However, in training and physical education, these parameters are often adjusted to accommodate individual needs and facilitate skill acquisition.^1,4,5 Beginners typically practice with lower hurdles and shorter intervals, whereas more advanced hurdlers train under conditions closer to competition standards. Adjustments to hurdle configurations are also strategically applied to emphasize the technical components or reduce the risk of injury. Thus, hurdle height and interval distance are the primary variables in the instructional design of hurdling practice. Although elite coaches and athletes often adjust task constraints, such as hurdle height when instructing novice performers, empirical evidence supporting this practice is limited.

Hurdle height, in particular, strongly influences kinematic variables during clearance, as well as foot placement before and after the hurdle^4,6–10. McDonald and Dapena ¹⁰ compared the men's 110-m and women's 100-m hurdle events, with hurdle heights of 1.06 m and 0.84 m, respectively. They reported that both the maximum center of mass (CoM) height and horizontal velocity were greater in men, consistent with findings from recent studies.^11,12 However, these differences were affected not only by hurdle height, but also by other event-specific parameters, such as interval distance, total race distance, and sex. For instance, men are taller than women, which is reflected in the higher hurdle heights, longer race and interval distance in the men's event. Consequently, although cross-sectional studies have highlighted broad performance trends, they cannot isolate the specific contribution of hurdle height to clearance mechanics and subsequent interval running. To address this limitation, intraindividual comparisons are essential to determine the direct mechanical effects.

Intraindividual studies are also critical for examining individual movement patterns and the mechanisms underlying optimal technique.^13–15 Techniques effective for one athlete may not be transferable to others, particularly across performance levels, because of substantial anatomical, biomechanical, and neuromuscular variability. ¹³ Ozaki and Ueda ⁹ investigated the effects of different hurdle heights on clearance kinematics in highly trained hurdlers. They compared clearance mechanics at the first hurdle following a 15-m approach, with hurdle height set at 10% above and 10% below the participants’ CoM height. They reported that higher hurdle heights were associated with lower clearance velocity, longer flight time, and higher maximum CoM height, and that these variables were related to the clearance velocity. Smirniotou et al. ⁷ compared three hurdle heights—0.76 m (the lowest official hurdle height used in the women's 400-m hurdles), 0.50 m, and 0.00 m (a line only)— at the first hurdle following a 13-m approach, in a sample of physical education students. They found that higher hurdle heights produced longer takeoff distances, lower horizontal velocities, and larger takeoff angles. These findings highlight the mechanical constraints imposed by hurdle height, which can influence the subsequent running phases. Seki et al. ¹³ further suggested that takeoff distance affects spatiotemporal parameters during interval running. In actual hurdle races, multiple hurdles are placed along the track, whereas previous studies used only a single hurdle. The need to prepare for the next hurdle influences both the clearance mechanics and spatiotemporal characteristics of the subsequent interval running. The interaction between clearance and interval running cannot be fully captured in single-hurdle studies; therefore, empirical data on this relationship are scarce. Importantly, these limitations indicate that the effects of hurdle height on clearance mechanics and subsequent interval running have yet to be examined under conditions that reflect continuous hurdling.

Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of hurdle height on hurdling kinematics and spatiotemporal parameters during interval running in a 40-m hurdling trial. As higher hurdle heights are associated with greater maximum CoM height, it was hypothesized that clearance kinematics and spatiotemporal parameters of interval running would also be affected by hurdle height. To our knowledge, these hypotheses have not been previously examined under continuous hurdling conditions. These alterations could provide valuable insights for the development of hurdling techniques.

Methods

Procedure and measurements

Before data collection, each participant completed a self-selected warm-up lasting between 10 and 30 min, which included jogging, sprinting, and practice trials. Figure 1 illustrates the experimental setup and the key terminology. All the measurements were conducted in an indoor sports hall. Participants performed a 40-m hurdle run from a standing start under three hurdle height conditions: high (0.84 m), medium (0.76 m), and low (0.68 m). According to the World Athletics regulations, medium and high heights correspond to the official hurdle heights for women's 400-m and 100-m hurdles, respectively. Because the participants in this study were not competitive hurdlers, the hurdle heights were set lower than the official height for men's 110-m hurdles. The approach and interval distances were set at 13.0 m and 7.5 m, respectively, based on pilot testing.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Experimental setup and terminology.

The trial order was randomized for each participant to minimize order effects. A minimum rest period of 5 min was provided between trials. All measurements were performed on the same day. The participants were not given specific training instructions or dietary restrictions before testing.

Reflective markers were attached to 45 anatomical landmarks, based on the model for Japanese athletes proposed by Ae et al.. ¹⁷ Markers were placed directly on the skin, except in a few cases. Markers for the greater trochanter, anterior superior iliac spine, posterior superior iliac spine, and lower ribs were attached to the tights, whereas markers for the toe, first and fifth metatarsal heads, and heel were attached to the shoes. Coordinate data of the anatomical landmarks were captured using a motion capture system (Vicon V5/v2.2, Vicon Motion Systems, UK) at a sampling rate of 250 Hz.

Data were captured from one step before hurdle clearance through two subsequent steps after the clearance of the second hurdle (Figure 1). The four steps within this captured sequence were labeled as follows: preparatory, hurdling, landing, and recovery, following the terminology of McDonald and Dapena ¹⁰ (Figure 1). A single step was defined as the movement from the foot strike of one foot to the foot strike of the opposite foot.

Results

Interval variables

Table 1 demonstrates the descriptive statistics for the interval variables and the results of univariate analyses. The MANOVA revealed a main effect of hurdle height on the combined dependent variables (Wilks’ Λ = 0.341, F(6, 24) = 7.740, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.659). Although there was a step × height interaction at the multivariate level (Wilks’ Λ = 0.382, F(12, 18) = 2.423, p = 0.044), subsequent univariate tests revealed no significant interaction effects for individual dependent variables (ps = 0.098–0.179). Therefore, no further interaction analyses were conducted.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Interval variables and results of statistical analyses.

		Mean ± SD			Interaction
Variable	Step	High	Medium	Low	df	F	Multiple comparisons
Step speed (m·s−1)	Preparatory	5.95 ± 0.51	6.13 ± 0.55	6.16 ± 0.57	2.137	1.822	High < Medium, Low
	Landing	5.41 ± 0.62	5.63 ± 0.63	5.74 ± 0.62	61.973
	Recovery	5.46 ± 0.69	5.54 ± 0.72	5.66 ± 0.67
Step length (m)	Preparatory	1.45 ± 0.13	1.45 ± 0.15	1.45 ± 0.13	4	2.008	High < Low
	Landing	0.97 ± 0.19	1.02 ± 0.16	1.07 ± 0.17	116
	Recovery	1.70 ± 0.16	1.69 ± 0.20	1.71 ± 0.19
Step frequency (Hz)	Preparatory	4.15 ± 0.51	4.28 ± 0.67	4.27 ± 0.52	1.653	1.815	n. s.
	Landing	5.81 ± 1.62	5.66 ± 1.16	5.52 ± 1.23	47.931
	Recovery	3.23 ± 0.48	3.21 ± 0.56	3.34 ± 0.49

n. s.: not significant.

Univariate analyses showed that hurdle height had a main effect on step speed, F(1.672, 48.492) = 15.656, p < 0.001, and on step length, F(2, 58) = 3.954, p = 0.025. No significant effect of hurdle height was observed on step frequency, F(1.347, 39.067) = 0.185, p = 0.832. Post hoc pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni-adjusted) revealed that step speed was lower in the high condition than in both the medium (p < 0.001) and low (p < 0.001) conditions, with no significant difference between the medium and low conditions (p = 0.382). For step length, a small increase was observed from the high to the low condition (p = 0.026), whereas no significant differences were found between the high and medium conditions (p = 0.861) or between the medium and low conditions (p = 0.333).

Clearance variables

Table 2 demonstrates the descriptive statistics for the hurdling variables and the results of the univariate analyses. A one-way repeated-measures MANOVA revealed a effect of hurdle height on the combined dependent variables, Wilks’ Λ = 0.006, F(26, 4) = 24.702, p = 0.003, partial η² = 0.994.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Hurdle clearance variables and results of statistical analyses.

Variable	High	Medium	Low	df	F	Multiple comparisons
Speed (m·s−1)	5.39 ± 0.64	5.66 ± 0.69	5.80 ± 0.17	2, 58	40.051*	High < Medium < Low
Step length (m)	3.22 ± 0.24	3.21 ± 0.26	3.14 ± 0.21	2, 58	5.075*	Low < High
Step frequency (Hz)	1.68 ± 0.18	1.76 ± 0.17	1.85 ± 0.20	2, 58	40.269*	High < Medium < Low
Takeoff distance (m)	1.62 ± 0.17	1.61 ± 0.21	1.63 ± 0.18	2, 58	0.352	n. s.
Takeoff angle (deg)	22.7 ± 4.5	20.4 ± 4.1	18.7 ± 4.2	2, 58	50.741*	Low < Medium < High
Maximum CoM height (m)	1.35 ± 0.09	1.31 ± 0.07	1.27 ± 0.06	1.653, 47.949	60.626*	Low < Medium < High
Landing distance (m)	1.32 ± 0.23	1.34 ± 0.29	1.29 ± 0.28	2, 58	1.422	n. s.
Model angle at FS (°)	27.1 ± 4.45	26.7 ± 4.51	25.7 ± 5.0	2, 58	3.875*	Low < High
Model angle at TO (°)	−21.0 ± 3.5	−22.9 ± 3.5	−24.7 ± 3.0	2, 58	26.121*	Low < Medium < High
Thigh angle at FS (°)	36.9 ± 4.6	36.6 ± 4.1	36.2 ± 4.1	2, 58	0.865	n.s.
Thigh angle at TO (°)	−10.1 ± 3.7	−12.1 ± 3.9	−13.7 ± 3.9	2, 58	21.763*	Low < Medium < High
Shank angle at FS (°)	9.9 ± 4.3	9.0 ± 5.2	7.1 ± 5.5	2, 58	7.423*	Low < High
Shank angle at TO (°)	−36.0 ± 5.2	−38.9 ± 5.8	−40.8 ± 5.3	2, 58	22.408*	Low < Medium < High

*: p < 0.05, n. s.: not significant, FS: foot strike, TO: toe-off.

Univariate analyses revealed main effects of hurdle height on ten of the 13 variables: step speed (p < 0.001), step length (p = 0.009), step frequency (p < 0.001), takeoff angle (p < 0.001), maximum CoM height (p < 0.001), model angle at foot strike (p = 0.026), model angle at toe off(p < 0.001), thigh angle at toe off (p < 0.001), shank angle at foot strike (p = 0.001), and shank angle at toe off (p < 0.001). No significant effects were found for takeoff distance (p = 0.705), landing distance (p = 0.249), and thigh angle at foot strike (p = 0.426).

Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons indicated that both step speed and step frequency differed across all three hurdle heights. Specifically, both measures were lower in the high condition than in the medium (p < 0.001) and low (p < 0.001) conditions and were also lower in the medium condition than in the low condition (ps ≤ 0.001–0.008). Step length was longer in the high condition than in the low condition (p = 0.029). Takeoff angle, maximum CoM height, model angle at toe-off, thigh angle at toe-off, and shank angle at toe-off were greater in the high condition than in the medium (ps ≤ 0.001–0.008) and low (ps < 0.001) conditions, and greater in the medium condition than in the low condition (ps ≤ 0.001–0.019).

Pearson correlation analysis revealed that hurdling step speed had a large negative correlation with takeoff angle (p < 0.001; Figure 2), model angle at foot strike (p < 0.001; Figure 2), shank angle at toe off (p < 0.001; Figure 2), model angle at toe off (p < 0.001; Figure 2), and shank angle at foot strike (r = −0.537, p < 0.001). The hurdling step speed showed large positive correlations with step frequency (p < 0.001; Figure 2) and takeoff distance (p < 0.001; Figure 2). A medium positive correlation was observed with step length (r = 0.436, p < 0.001). Medium negative correlations were observed with thigh angle at foot strike (r = −0.316, p = 0.002) and maximum CoM height (r = −0.303, p = 0.004). No significant correlations were observed for landing distance (r = 0.107, p = 0.314).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Relationship between hurdling step speed and selected variables.

Discussion

The main findings of the present study can be summarized as follows: (1) step speed, including both hurdle clearance and interval phases, decreased as hurdle height increased; (2) takeoff angle and maximum CoM height increased with hurdle height; (3) hurdling step speed was negatively correlated with takeoff angle; (4) the model, thigh, and shank angles at toe-off during takeoff increased with hurdle height; (5) the model, thigh, and shank angles at foot strike and toe-off during takeoff were negatively correlated with hurdling step speed; (6) hurdling step speed was positively correlated with takeoff distance; and (7) takeoff distance did not differ across conditions. These findings support our hypothesis.

A higher hurdle height reduced step speed during both hurdle clearance and interval running. Although direct comparisons with cross-sectional studies are limited, our results are consistent with the findings of previous intraindividual studies. For example, Ozaki and Ueda ⁹ reported that hurdle clearance velocity was lower in the higher- versus lower-hurdle condition among highly trained hurdlers. Similarly, Smirniotou et al. ⁷ observed that horizontal velocity was greatest in the line-only condition and lowest in the 0.76-m hurdle height condition among physical education students. These intraindividual studies demonstrated patterns consistent with those observed in the present study. Because step speed is directly linked to the overall hurdling performance, the present findings indicate that an increased hurdle height substantially impairs performance.

Takeoff angle and maximum CoM height were greater under the higher-hurdle condition compared with the lower-hurdle condition. The maximum CoM height observed in the present study was relatively higher than values reported in previous studies, despite differences in hurdle heights. For example, McDonald and Dapena ¹⁰ reported maximum CoM heights of 1.347 ± 0.025 m in the men's 110-m hurdles (1.06-m hurdle height) and 1.193 ± 0.033 m in the women's 100-m hurdles (0.84-m hurdle height) among world-class hurdlers. Hanley et al. ¹¹ similarly reported values of 1.33 ± 0.02 m for the men's 110-m hurdles and 1.13 ± 0.02 m for the women's 100-m hurdles. Ozaki and Ueda ⁹ also reported maximum CoM heights of approximately 1.39 and 1.27 m under hurdle heights of approximately 1.063 and 0.87 m, respectively, in highly trained hurdlers. The relatively higher maximum CoM height observed in the present study suggests that the participants were at the beginner level of hurdling, as a less efficient technique requires a larger vertical displacement. However, given the differences between the maximum CoM and hurdle heights, the beginners were able to clear the high hurdle using a CoM trajectory similar to that observed under the low hurdle. This result suggests that beginners naturally adopt a higher CoM trajectory to avoid hitting hurdles.

Although the takeoff mechanics of running jumps, such as long and high jumps, have been reported,^21,24 information on hurdle clearance mechanics is scarce. The present study did not measure kinetics; however, it revealed the kinematic characteristics of the inverted pendulum model and lower limbs. The model and shank angles were more backward-leaned at foot strike, and the model, thigh, and shank angles were less forward-leaned at the toe-off under higher hurdle conditions. Shibata et al. ²¹ also reported that, in running jumps, the model leaned significantly more backward at foot strike in a vertical running jump than in a horizontal running jump, and significantly leaned more forward at toe-off in a horizontal running jump than in a vertical running jump. Shibata et al. ²¹ also suggested that backward leaning of the body assists in generating vertical velocity during the takeoff of a running jump, as this posture tends to gain an impulse in the direction change component of velocity during the first half of the takeoff. In the present study, participants leaned their bodies more backward at foot strike during takeoff under higher hurdle heights. Thus, participants naturally chose to lean their bodies backward to achieve a higher takeoff. In other words, to clear a hurdle with a lower CoM trajectory, the body should be kept as vertical as possible while maintaining an appropriate backward lean. In addition, the shank angle also showed a backward lean at foot strike under higher hurdle heights. Furthermore, the model, shank, and thigh angles were more forward-leaned at toe-off under lower hurdle heights, and the model and shank angles were negatively correlated with speed. Therefore, a smaller backward lean of the body and lower limbs at foot strike and a greater forward lean at toe-off contribute to a lower hurdling trajectory and higher running speed. Among these variables, the shank angle is particularly important, as it affects the body posture during takeoff. However, it should be noted that a lower CoM trajectory may increase the risk of hurdle contact. Iwasaki et al.^25,26 reported that even in trained hurdlers, a lower CoM height at takeoff may be associated with an increased risk of hitting hurdles, and hitting a hurdle is associated with a decrease in running speed. ²⁶ This trade-off may be particularly relevant for beginners, who have less precise motor control. Decreasing speed by hitting a hurdle may disrupt the step pattern during interval running, leading to an inappropriate takeoff position for the subsequent hurdle. Therefore, coaches should be aware of this trade-off when applying these findings to instructional practice.

Given that the beginners exhibited relatively higher CoM heights, it is important to consider how these heights were achieved. Two primary strategies exist: increasing the takeoff velocity or increasing takeoff angle. If takeoff velocity increases, the maximum CoM height also increases, but the point of maximum height shifts further forward in the running direction, requiring a longer takeoff distance. Seki et al. ¹³ suggested that although a longer takeoff distance may introduce slight technical inefficiencies, it is less detrimental to performance than a shorter takeoff distance. However, extending takeoff distance is challenging for beginners. Strüder et al. ¹ noted that beginners tend to takeoff too close to the hurdle, producing a steep upward trajectory. Therefore, increasing takeoff distance is unlikely to be a feasible strategy for beginners in this study. Instead, the large negative correlation between hurdling step speed and takeoff angle indicates that participants relied on the latter strategy, namely increasing the takeoff angle.

Given the potential influence of hurdle height on takeoff mechanics, one might expect takeoff distance to change under higher hurdle conditions. However, the present study demonstrated that takeoff distance did not differ across conditions. In contrast, Smirniotou et al. ⁷ reported that takeoff distance was significantly longer at a 0.76-m hurdle height compared with 0.50-m and 0.00-m hurdle heights. Although their results may appear inconsistent with those of the present study, the range of hurdle heights differed considerably. In addition, Smirniotou et al. ⁷ did not report maximum CoM height, making direct comparison difficult. In the present study, three hurdle heights were tested with increments of approximately 0.15 m, but the resulting difference in maximum CoM height was only about 0.04 m. Thus, adopting a greater takeoff angle appeared to be the most feasible strategy for participants to clear higher hurdles, even though this approach was associated with reduced step speed. Moreover, the small differences in maximum CoM height suggest that lowering CoM trajectory is challenging for beginners. Novices may takeoff too steeply even over lower hurdles, and such steep takeoff angles may be necessary to achieve the required step length for clearance. To achieve a lower CoM height when clearing lower hurdles, greater takeoff velocity would likely be required.

Interestingly, a moderate positive correlation was observed between takeoff distance and hurdling step speed. Several previous studies have examined the role of takeoff distance in performance. Salo et al. ²⁷ reported that takeoff distance did not correlate with horizontal velocity in male athletes, whereas it was significantly correlated in elite female athletes. Based on analyses of world-class hurdlers, Mero & Luhtanen ²⁸ suggested that extending takeoff distance helps maximize vertical velocity while preserving horizontal velocity. More recently, Mansour et al. ²⁹ compared takeoff distance between hurdlers and decathletes—both classified as elite athletes according to McKay et al. ¹⁶ —and found that takeoff distance was significantly longer in decathletes than in hurdlers. Collectively, these studies suggest that achieving an optimal ratio between takeoff and touchdown distances is more important than simply increasing takeoff distance in elite athletes. At the same time, a short takeoff distance remains a common technical problem among beginners, ¹ yet effective instructional strategies for addressing this issue have not been proposed. The results of the present study suggest that higher approach speed may contribute to extending takeoff distance. Consistent with this, Günter ³⁰ reported that low horizontal velocity leads to shorter takeoff distance. Although the present study did not detect differences in takeoff distance across conditions, the randomized trial order minimized potential order effects, and practice effects specific to the lower hurdle height condition were not examined.

Hurdle clearance and interval running are closely interrelated. No significant interactions were observed in step variables during interval running. Step speed was lower under the high-hurdle condition compared with the medium- and low-hurdle conditions, which was likely a trade-off for increasing the takeoff angle, as discussed above. In addition, step length was shorter under the high-hurdle condition compared with the lower-hurdle condition. This finding can be explained by the fact that a longer hurdling step length at the high-hurdle condition required shorter subsequent steps within the fixed hurdle spacing. Seki et al. ¹³ reported significant interactions between step and takeoff distance conditions in step length. A possible explanation for the discrepancy is that the present study found no significant differences in takeoff distance across the three hurdle heights. As takeoff distance is a key biomechanical factor, ²⁸ it may strongly influence both hurdle clearance and interval running.

Finally, the present study has several limitations. First, the participants were beginner university students, which limits the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Second, hurdle heights were not normalized to participants’ stature or CoM height. In particular, sex differences in body height may have influenced the results. Nevertheless, in the practical context of hurdle running, such as physical education classes, hurdle height cannot always be tailored to individual body dimensions, as commercially available hurdles are produced with standardized height settings. Finally, the present study did not assess kinetics. Future research should examine these variables, as doing so would provide additional insights into hurdle running mechanics and motor learning process.

Conclusion

The present study demonstrates that hurdle height significantly influences hurdling kinematics and spatiotemporal parameters in beginners. Higher hurdles were associated with reduced running speed, greater takeoff angles, and a greater backward lean of the body at foot strike during takeoff. To lower the hurdle clearance trajectory, the body and shank at foot strike during takeoff should be kept as vertical as possible. In addition, running speed was closely related to both takeoff distance and takeoff angle, indicating a strong interdependence among these variables within the hurdling movement pattern. Although lowering hurdle height did not substantially reduce the CoM clearance height, higher running speed was accompanied by less deceleration and smaller takeoff angles. Overall, these findings clarify how variations in hurdle height affect the movement strategies adopted by beginners.