Affiliation:
1. School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland, Australia
2. School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia
Abstract
Since publication of this paper (Royal Society open science, 2022.
9
(1): p. 211799), the authors have published a correction clarifying that the paper presents a case study that ‘… did not meet the definition for research with regard to human subjects'. The data are incorrectly referred to as experimental because the study has no experimental control. Furthermore, the paper has been presented previously but the version presented here selectively omits several analyses, posing a significant risk of bias. Of the prosthetic-related disadvantages identified by the authors, the most substantive was a 40% increase in time to 20 m (59.5 s.d. below the mean for NA sprinters). However the analysis was incomplete: acceleration modelling for NA sprinters continued up to 98% of maximum velocity, while Fastest BA was truncated at approximately 80%. We extrapolated the model, revealing the duration of maximum acceleration for Fastest BA is approximately 100% longer than NA sprinters. Important differences in Fastest BA contact lengths (0.10–0.15 m) were also identified. We posit that together, these large and important differences in sprint biomechanics and their likely physiological consequences suggest that running with and without prosthetics are so different that, although running times may be similar, the precautionary principle should apply and, in the interests of athletic competition integrity, runners with and without prosthetics should continue to compete separately.