The Hip Thrust and Speed Development: A Biomechanical Reappraisal

Over the past decade the barbell hip thrust has become one of the most widely adopted posterior-chain exercises in strength and conditioning. Part of the reason is electromyographic work showing high gluteus maximus activation relative to more conventional lifts (Contreras et al., 2015; Andersen et al., 2018). The other part is the idea that the exercise loads the hip in a "horizontal" force vector and may therefore transfer preferentially to acceleration and sprinting (Contreras, Cronin and Schoenfeld, 2011; Contreras et al., 2017). This second idea has been repeated often enough that it now operates as a background assumption in many coaching environments, and it deserves a closer look. Set alongside the joint kinetics of acceleration, the timing of force production, and the available intervention data, the hip thrust looks more like a general hip extensor exercise than a sprint-specific one. The aim here is not to argue against it, since it clearly has value, but to describe its role more accurately.

Where the Hip Extensor Demand Actually Occurs

The hip thrust is usually described as loading the glutes near full hip extension, with the pelvis posteriorly tilted and the femur close to horizontal. The first comprehensive inverse-dynamics analysis of the exercise does not support that description. Brazil and colleagues (2021) found that peak unilateral hip extensor moment occurred early in the lifting phase, at approximately 14% of lift time and at a hip joint angle of 83 ± 16 degrees of flexion, and then declined by roughly two-thirds toward full extension. An extensor moment is still present at lockout, which does separate the hip thrust from the back squat, where the hip extensor moment approaches zero at the end of the range. That is a real difference, but a narrower one than the usual account suggests: demand is highest in a flexed position and merely persists at the top.

This changes how the specificity question should be framed. If peak demand occurs at a flexed hip angle, joint angle alone cannot explain the gap between the exercise and sprinting. The more likely explanations are the time available for force production, the involvement of the rest of the kinetic chain, and how the resultant force vector is oriented relative to the athlete.

The Joint Kinetics of Acceleration

Acceleration distributes extensor demand differently across the lower limb depending on the phase. Brazil and colleagues (2017) reported that the hip joint dominated leg extensor energy generation during the block phase, contributing 61 ± 10% in the rear leg and 64 ± 8% in the front leg, and that its contribution declined to 32 ± 9% during first stance, where the ankle became the largest single contributor at 42 ± 6%. Early acceleration is therefore hip-dominant at the point of departure and more evenly distributed within a few steps, with the ankle taking on a role the hip thrust does not train, since ankle joint kinetics during the exercise are negligible and inconsistent in direction (Brazil et al., 2021).

The orientation of the ground reaction force during acceleration also has a whole-body origin. Kugler and Janshen (2010) showed that higher accelerations were associated with lower but more forward-oriented resultant forces, and that this orientation depended primarily on body position rather than on any isolated capacity to produce force in a given direction. The ratio of horizontal to resultant force, and the ability to maintain it as velocity rises, is now well established as a determinant of acceleration performance across a wide range of ability levels (Morin, Edouard and Samozino, 2011; Rabita et al., 2015). Force direction in sprinting appears to emerge from trunk inclination, pelvic position, shin angle and touchdown location, rather than from the properties of a single muscle group.

The Force-Vector Rationale and Its Limitations

The force-vector concept classifies exercises by the direction of the external force relative to the global reference frame, and predicts preferential transfer to tasks sharing that direction. Fitzpatrick, Cimadoro and Cleather (2019) argued that this framing is mechanically inconsistent, since the principle of dynamic correspondence concerns force direction relative to the athlete rather than to the world. Their intervention data agreed with the critique: after fourteen weeks of hip thrust training, participants improved 3RM hip thrust performance by 33.0% and improved both horizontal and vertical jump performance by similar amounts, with no difference between the two. Brazil and colleagues (2021) made a related point, noting that during sprinting the athlete adopts a forward-leaning position that brings the body and the resultant force vector into closer alignment, so that in the athlete's local coordinate system the gap between the hip thrust and standing exercises may be larger, not smaller, than the global-frame description implies.

Some findings are more supportive of the force-vector position. Loturco and colleagues (2018) reported meaningful relationships between horizontally directed power exercises and sprint performance in top-level athletes, and Contreras and colleagues (2017) found potentially beneficial effects for the hip thrust relative to the front squat in 10 m and 20 m sprint times, alongside effects favouring the front squat for vertical jump. On balance, the directional classification looks like a rough heuristic rather than a mechanical explanation, and it does not on its own establish specificity.

Temporal and Neuromuscular Characteristics of the Hip Thrust

The two tasks also differ considerably in the time available for force production. In the analysis by Brazil and colleagues (2021), the lifting phase of the hip thrust lasted 0.828 ± 0.148 s over a barbell displacement of 0.361 ± 0.042 m. Ground contact during sprint acceleration typically occupies less than 200 ms and shortens as velocity rises (Rabita et al., 2015). The hip thrust is also concentric in emphasis and does not involve a fast stretch-shortening action at the ankle and knee, whereas sprinting depends substantially on the regulation of joint stiffness at those joints (Kuitunen, Komi and Kyröläinen, 2002). Muscle-level contributions differ as well: gluteus maximus activity dominates during the hip thrust (Contreras et al., 2015, 2016), while biceps femoris appears more prominent in hip extension during the sprint push-off (Jacobs and van Ingen Schenau, 1992). These differences are substantial, and they may account for much of the limited transfer seen in training studies.

Pelvis and Trunk

The claim that the hip thrust removes the trunk from the force equation is not supported by the joint kinetic data. Brazil and colleagues (2021) reported a peak pelvic-trunk extensor moment of 4.93 ± 1.53 N·m·kg⁻¹, comparable in magnitude to values reported for squat and deadlift variations at similar relative loads, although the associated range of motion was small (12 ± 21°) and the extensor work performed was more than six times smaller than at the hip. The trunk musculature therefore appears to work largely isometrically to resist pelvic-trunk flexion rather than to contribute to displacement. That is a different demand from the one imposed during acceleration, where the trunk contributes to force transmission and to the positioning of the centre of mass, but the trunk is still loaded.

The related claim that the hip thrust reinforces posterior pelvic tilt in a way that degrades sprint mechanics remains untested. Terminal posterior tilt is a coaching convention intended to limit lumbar extension under load, and pelvic-trunk motion in the exercise is small and varies in direction between individuals (Brazil et al., 2021). No intervention study has examined whether hip thrust training alters pelvic orientation during sprinting. The non-axial loading of the exercise may even be an advantage where reduced spinal compression is desirable, as in rehabilitation.

What the Intervention Evidence Shows

Training studies agree that hip thrust training reliably improves hip thrust strength, and disagree about what else it improves. Jarvis and colleagues (2019) reported a mean 1RM increase of 44.09 kg over eight weeks in collegiate athletes, with no accompanying change in 40 m sprint time or in any 10 m split. Fitzpatrick, Cimadoro and Cleather (2019) reported a 33.0% 3RM improvement with equivalent gains in horizontal and vertical jumping. Contreras and colleagues (2017) reported effects favouring the hip thrust for short sprint times relative to a front squat programme.

The most recent synthesis brings these together. Lin and colleagues (2026), pooling twenty randomised controlled trials, reported that long-term hip thrust training improved exercise-specific strength (ES = 0.53) but did not transfer to squat strength or jumping. Transfer to change of direction was small (ES = 0.25), and when combined-training protocols were excluded, sprint transfer was borderline (ES = 0.22, p = 0.05), which the authors read as minimal independent benefit for sprint acceleration. Acute effects were more favourable, with a moderate post-activation performance enhancement on sprinting (ES = 0.55) under appropriate protocols, consistent with earlier work using loaded hip thrusts as a conditioning activity (Dello Iacono, Padulo and Seitz, 2018). The certainty of evidence was rated low to very low owing to risk of bias, so these estimates are best treated as provisional.

Positioning the Exercise

The biomechanical and intervention evidence together supports a fairly narrow role. The hip thrust places a large extensor demand on the hip musculature, the largest of any joint in the movement (Brazil et al., 2021), and it does so with low ankle loading and without axial spinal compression. Those properties make it well suited to developing hip extensor strength and gluteal hypertrophy, and to loading the hip extensors when other options are contraindicated. The evidence does not currently establish that these gains transfer to sprint acceleration to a degree that would justify treating the exercise as sprint-specific.

Where horizontal-vector development is the aim, resisted sprinting has more direct support. Alcaraz and colleagues (2018) reported significant pre-post improvements in the acceleration phase following resisted sled training (ES = 0.61), while noting that superiority over unresisted sprinting has not been demonstrated. Split-stance hip extension patterns are also worth considering, since they load the hip in flexion while requiring pelvic stabilisation and trunk contribution, and gluteus maximus activation in the split squat has been compared directly with the hip thrust and back squat alongside sprint force measures (Williams et al., 2021). Motorised resistance devices allow load and velocity to be manipulated within the sprint action itself, which is mechanically attractive, though the intervention literature on these systems remains limited relative to sled-based work.

Conclusion

The hip thrust is an effective way to load the hip extensors, and the evidence for exercise-specific strength gains is reasonably clear. Evidence for meaningful independent transfer to sprint acceleration is much weaker. The gap between the two tasks is not mainly a matter of joint angle, since peak hip extensor demand in the exercise occurs in a flexed rather than an extended hip position, and the trunk is not unloaded. It has more to do with the time available for force production, the absence of ankle and stretch-shortening contributions, and the fact that force orientation in sprinting depends on whole-body position rather than on the direction of an external load in a supported position. Seen this way, the hip thrust can be used for what it does well, and exercise selection for acceleration can be guided by tasks with closer mechanical correspondence.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Should the hip thrust be removed from a speed-development programme?

There is no strong reason to remove it. The exercise develops hip extensor strength efficiently, permits heavy loading without axial spinal compression, and imposes minimal demand on the ankle, which is useful in return-to-play contexts. What should change is how it is classified: it belongs in the general strength category alongside other bilateral hip extension work, while the sprint-specific portion of the programme is better served by resisted and unresisted sprinting.

Q: Is it true that the hip thrust loads the glutes at end range?

Not in the sense usually meant. Inverse-dynamics data show that peak hip extensor moment occurs early in the lift, at roughly 83 degrees of hip flexion, and declines by about two-thirds as the hip approaches full extension (Brazil et al., 2021). What distinguishes the exercise is that a hip extensor moment is still present near lockout, whereas in the back squat it approaches zero there. The exercise loads through the range with an early peak, rather than loading the end range preferentially.

Q: If hip thrust strength correlates with sprint performance, why does training it not improve sprinting?

The two observations answer different questions. Faster athletes tend to be stronger, so cross-sectional associations between hip thrust output and sprint measures are expected whether or not the exercise causes improvement. Intervention data show large, reliable gains in hip thrust strength alongside minimal independent change in sprint times (Jarvis et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2026), which suggests the limiting factor in acceleration is not hip extensor strength alone but the coordination, timing and orientation of force application.

Q: Does the hip thrust have any acute use before sprinting?

The acute evidence is more favourable than the chronic evidence. Pooled data indicate a moderate post-activation performance enhancement on sprinting following hip thrust conditioning activities, with the effect dependent on protocol design, typically multiple sets and at least four minutes of recovery (Lin et al., 2026). This is a separate application from chronic training and does not imply long-term transfer, but it may have practical value in warm-up sequencing for athletes who respond well to it.

Q: What is the practical alternative for developing horizontal-vector strength?

Resisted sprinting has the most direct evidence, with meta-analytic support for improvement in the acceleration phase, although it has not been shown to outperform unresisted sprinting (Alcaraz et al., 2018). Split-stance hip extension patterns offer a reasonable complement, since they load the hip in flexion while requiring pelvic control and trunk contribution to force transmission. Motorised resistance systems allow finer manipulation of load and velocity within the sprint action, though the training-study evidence for them is currently thinner than for sleds.

References

• Alcaraz, P.E., Carlos-Vivas, J., Oponjuru, B.O. and Martínez-Rodríguez, A. (2018) 'The effectiveness of resisted sled training (RST) for sprint performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis', Sports Medicine, 48(9), pp. 2143–2165.

• Andersen, V., Fimland, M.S., Mo, D.-A., Iversen, V.M., Vederhus, T., Rockland Hellebø, L.R., Nordaune, K.I. and Saeterbakken, A.H. (2018) 'Electromyographic comparison of barbell deadlift, hex bar deadlift, and hip thrust exercises: a cross-over study', Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 32(3), pp. 587–593.

• Brazil, A., Exell, T., Wilson, C., Willwacher, S., Bezodis, I. and Irwin, G. (2017) 'Lower limb joint kinetics in the starting blocks and first stance in athletic sprinting', Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(16), pp. 1629–1635.

• Brazil, A., Needham, L., Palmer, J.L. and Bezodis, I.N. (2021) 'A comprehensive biomechanical analysis of the barbell hip thrust', PLOS ONE, 16(3), e0249307.

• Contreras, B., Cronin, J. and Schoenfeld, B. (2011) 'Barbell hip thrust', Strength and Conditioning Journal, 33(5), pp. 58–61.

• Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A.D., Schoenfeld, B.J., Beardsley, C. and Cronin, J. (2015) 'A comparison of gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, and vastus lateralis electromyographic activity in the back squat and barbell hip thrust exercises', Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 31(6), pp. 452–458.

• Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A.D., Schoenfeld, B.J., Beardsley, C. and Cronin, J. (2016) 'A comparison of gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, and vastus lateralis electromyography amplitude for the barbell, band, and American hip thrust variations', Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 32(3), pp. 254–260.

• Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A.D., Schoenfeld, B.J., Beardsley, C., McMaster, D.T., Reyneke, J.H.T. and Cronin, J.B. (2017) 'Effects of a six-week hip thrust vs. front squat resistance training program on performance in adolescent males: a randomized controlled trial', Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(4), pp. 999–1008.

• Dello Iacono, A., Padulo, J. and Seitz, L.B. (2018) 'Loaded hip thrust-based PAP protocol effects on acceleration and sprint performance of handball players', Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(11), pp. 1269–1276.

• Fitzpatrick, D.A., Cimadoro, G. and Cleather, D.J. (2019) 'The magical horizontal force muscle? A preliminary study examining the "force-vector" theory', Sports, 7(2), 30.

• Jacobs, R. and van Ingen Schenau, G.J. (1992) 'Intermuscular coordination in a sprint push-off', Journal of Biomechanics, 25(9), pp. 953–965.

• Jarvis, P., Cassone, N., Turner, A., Chavda, S., Edwards, M. and Bishop, C. (2019) 'Heavy barbell hip thrusts do not effect sprint performance: an 8-week randomized-controlled study', Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 33(7S), pp. S78–S84.

• Kugler, F. and Janshen, L. (2010) 'Body position determines propulsive forces in accelerated running', Journal of Biomechanics, 43(2), pp. 343–348.

• Kuitunen, S., Komi, P.V. and Kyröläinen, H. (2002) 'Knee and ankle joint stiffness in sprint running', Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34(1), pp. 166–173.

• Lin, S., Cheng, M., Yi, X., Li, Y. and Liu, R. (2026) 'Acute and long-term effects of hip thrust training on athletic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis', PeerJ, 14, e20785.

• Loturco, I., Contreras, B., Kobal, R., Fernandes, V., Moura, N., Siqueira, F., Winckler, C., Suchomel, T. and Pereira, L.A. (2018) 'Vertically and horizontally directed muscle power exercises: relationships with top-level sprint performance', PLOS ONE, 13(7), e0201475.

• Morin, J.-B., Edouard, P. and Samozino, P. (2011) 'Technical ability of force application as a determinant factor of sprint performance', Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 43(9), pp. 1680–1688.

• Rabita, G., Dorel, S., Slawinski, J., Sàez-de-Villarreal, E., Couturier, A., Samozino, P. and Morin, J.-B. (2015) 'Sprint mechanics in world-class athletes: a new insight into the limits of human locomotion', Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 25, pp. 583–594.

• Williams, M.J., Gibson, N.V., Sorbie, G.G., Ugbolue, U.C., Brouner, J. and Easton, C. (2021) 'Activation of the gluteus maximus during performance of the back squat, split squat, and barbell hip thrust and the relationship with maximal sprinting', Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 35(1), pp. 16–24.

Antonio Robustelli is the founder of Omniathlete. He is an international high performance consultant and sought-after speaker in the area of Sport Science and Sports Medicine, working all over the world with individual athletes (including participation in the last 5 Olympics) as well as professional teams in soccer, basketball, rugby, baseball since 24 years. Currently serving as Faculty Member and Programme Leader at the National Institute of Sports in India (SAI-NSNIS).