'Traditional' perspectives can explain the sprint finish

TO THE EDITOR: Why is it that while the rest of the world calls a finishing sprint a 'sprint finish,' a small number of exercise physiologists insist on using the term 'end-spurt'. We do not refer to 'spurt cyclists' nor '100-m spurters' (thank heavens!). So first a plea: let's call it a sprint finish. Second, we believe that suggestions that peripheral mechanisms (including afferent feedback) cannot explain the finishing sprint ignore the critical power (CP) concept, which predicts that there is a finite amount of work (or distance, D'), predominantly of nonoxidative origin, that can be performed above the CP (or critical speed, CS). This, in turn, places a metabolic limit on exercise performance. Consider, for example, a 5,000-m track race performed by a runner with a CS of 5 m/s and a D' of 300 m. Assume that the runner completes 4,600 m at 5.2 m/s, expending 177 m of D' in the process. In the final lap, the runner would be able to increase speed to 7.2 m/s {sprint finish = CS/ [1–(remaining D'/400 m)] = 5/[1–(123/400)] = 7.2 m/s}. It can be calculated that if the first 4,600 m were run at 5.32 m/s no acceleration would be possible, while running at 5.4 m/s would result in D' being fully utilized after only 4,050 m (a 'suicidal' pacing strategy). The CP concept is therefore integral to understanding pacing strategies. Peripheral mechanisms can and do contribute to limiting physical performance.