Abstract
on: Reaction speed and maximum sprinting velocity are two essential determinants that influence the overall performance of athletes in athletics, particularly in the 100-meter event. Despite their importance, comprehensive and empirically validated training models designed specifically to enhance reaction speed and top-end sprint velocity remain insufficiently explored in current sports science literature. Therefore, identifying and examining structured training methods that effectively target these components is crucial for optimizing competitive sprint performance. Objective: This study aims to investigate and verify the impact of Cone Drill training on reaction speed and maximum sprint velocity in youth athletes specializing in the 100-meter sprint, with a particular focus on performance improvements measured through the 60-meter sprint test. Methodology: The study involved 16 youth sprinters aged 15–17 years who participated in a struc- tured 6-week Cone Drill training intervention. Performance data were obtained through the 60-me- ter sprint test to assess maximum sprinting velocity, while reaction speed was measured using a whole-body auditory and visual reaction assessment conducted both before and after the training period. A parametric paired-sample t-test was used to evaluate within-group differences, and an in- dependent-sample t-test was employed to examine between-group differences, with the level of sig- nificance set at 5%. Results: Findings revealed significant improvements in 60-meter sprint performance and reaction speed after six weeks of training (p ≤ 0.001). Additionally, comparative analysis between groups in- dicated meaningful increases in both reaction speed and 60-meter sprint outcomes in the experi- mental group compared with the control group (p ≤ 0.05). Conclusions: The results demonstrate that Cone Drill training produces a
Results: Findings revealed significant improvements in 60-meter sprint performance and reaction speed after six weeks of training (p ≤ 0.001). Additionally, comparative analysis between groups in- dicated meaningful increases in both reaction speed and 60-meter sprint outcomes in the experi- mental group compared with the control group (p ≤ 0.05). Conclusions: The results demonstrate that Cone Drill training produces a substantial positive influ- ence on enhancing reaction speed and 60-meter sprint performance in youth sprinters. These out- comes suggest that Cone Drill–based agility training should be considered a viable and effective com- ponent within the preparation and implementation phases of training programs for developing 100- meter sprint athletes. Keywords Athletics; 60-meter sprint test; physical performance components; reaction speed; agility-based training model. Resumen Introducción: La velocidad de reacción y la velocidad máxima se consideran factores determinantes del rendimiento deportivo, particularmente en las pruebas de velocidad como los 100 metros planos. No obstante, los programas de entrenamiento orientados al desarrollo simultáneo de ambos compo- nentes aún presentan limitaciones dentro de la literatura científica, lo que pone de manifiesto la ne- cesidad de realizar investigaciones que permitan identificar estrategias de preparación más eficaces para la optimización del rendimiento atlético.. Objetivo: El presente estudio tuvo como propósito analizar la influencia del entrenamiento basado en el Five Cone Drill sobre la velocidad de reacción y la velocidad máxima en atletas juveniles espe- cializados en pruebas de velocidad, empleando la prueba de sprint de 60 metros como principal in- dicador de evaluación del rendimiento. Metodología: Participaron 16 atletas jóvenes velocistas de entre 15 y 17 años, quienes realizaron un programa de entrenamiento con el taladro de 5 conos I of Pain durante 6 semanas. La velocidad má- xima se midió mediante una prueba de sprint de 60 metros, mientras que la velocidad de reacción se evaluó mediante pruebas auditivas y visuales de cuerpo completo antes y después de la intervención. Para el análisis estadístico se aplicaron la prueba t de muestras pareadas y la prueba t de muestras independientes, con un nivel de significancia del 5%. Resultados: Los análisis realizados evidenciaron mejoras estadísticamente significativas en la
60 metros, mientras que la velocidad de reacción se evaluó mediante pruebas auditivas y visuales de cuerpo completo antes y después de la intervención. Para el análisis estadístico se aplicaron la prueba t de muestras pareadas y la prueba t de muestras independientes, con un nivel de significancia del 5%. Resultados: Los análisis realizados evidenciaron mejoras estadísticamente significativas en la velo- cidad de reacción y en el rendimiento del sprint de 60 metros tras el periodo de intervención (p ≤ 0,001). Asimismo, el grupo experimental presentó incrementos superiores en comparación con el grupo control (p ≤ 0,05), lo que confirma el efecto positivo del programa de entrenamiento aplicado. Conclusiones: Los resultados indican que el entrenamiento I of Pain 5 Cone Drill tiene un impacto favorable en el aumento de la velocidad de reacción y del rendimiento en el sprint de 60 metros, consolidándose como un método eficaz que puede incorporarse a los programas de preparación de atletas juveniles de 100 metros lisos. Palabras clave Atletismo; prueba de 60 metros; componentes físicos del rendimiento; velocidad de reacción; modelo de entrenamiento basado en agilidad. The impact of cone drill training on reaction time and 60-meter sprint performance in youth sprinters El impacto del entrenamiento con ejercicios de cono en el tiempo de reacción y el rendimiento en el sprint de 60 metros en velocistas jóvenes
2026 (Abril), Retos, 77, 603-611 ISSN: 1579-1726, eISSN: 1988-2041 https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/retos/index 604 Introduction Action speed and maximum sprint velocity are two fundamental components that strongly influence athletic performance, particularly in sprint events such as the 100-meter discipline (Haugen et al., 2019). Sprinting is commonly defined as a running activity in which athletes perform at near-maximal velocity throughout the race distance (Bushnell et al., 2007). During sprint locomotion, both feet fre- quently enter a flight phase, meaning that the athlete’s center of mass is momentarily suspended with- out ground contact (McDermott et al., 2017). The 100-meter sprint not only assesses how rapidly an athlete can run, but also evaluates their ability to respond efficiently to an initial external stimulus— most commonly the starting gun—as well as their capacity to generate rapid acceleration, sustain max- imal velocity, and effectively manage the inevitable phase of deceleration within a relatively short time frame (Tønnessen et al., 2013). Broadly, this sprint event consists of three primary phases: block start and acceleration, maximum-speed maintenance, and deceleration prior to the finish line (Healy et al., 2022). During the acceleration phase, athletes must rapidly transition from a stationary position to high velocity. In the maximum-speed phase, the objective is to maintain peak velocity for as long as possible, whereas in the deceleration phase, athletes must efficiently control the gradual reduction in speed. The ability to effectively manage these phases is widely recognized as a decisive determinant of overall sprint performance (Nagahara et al., 2014). Reaction speed refers to the time required for an athlete to respond to an external cue, such as an audi- tory starting signal, and represents a performance factor of critical importance in all sprint events (Tøn- nessen et al., 2013). Even minimal delays, often measured in milliseconds, can substantially influence competitive outcomes, particularly at elite levels of performance. A delayed reaction negatively affects the acceleration phase and is often extremely difficult to compensate for during the subsequent stages of the race. In contrast, maximum sprint speed reflects an athlete’s ability to attain and maintain high running velocities, which depends on an optimal interaction of muscular
in milliseconds, can substantially influence competitive outcomes, particularly at elite levels of performance. A delayed reaction negatively affects the acceleration phase and is often extremely difficult to compensate for during the subsequent stages of the race. In contrast, maximum sprint speed reflects an athlete’s ability to attain and maintain high running velocities, which depends on an optimal interaction of muscular power, neuromuscular coordi- nation, biomechanical efficiency, and technical execution (Tam & Yao, 2024). Both reaction speed and maximal velocity are considered highly adaptable physical qualities that can be enhanced through ap- propriately structured training programs, which continue to evolve alongside advances in sports science and performance technology (Neviantoko et al., 2020). As emphasized by Maksum and Indahwati (2023), athletic achievement results from the integration of multiple interacting components, among which the design and application of effective training methods play a central role. Contemporary sprint- training approaches therefore extend beyond traditional strength or endurance development and in- creasingly incorporate agility, coordination, and neuromotor-focused drills to improve overall perfor- mance capacity (Neviantoko et al., 2020). Among agility-based training methods receiving increasing attention is the Five Cone Drill (5CD), an exercise specifically designed to enhance acceleration, deceleration, directional speed, and rapid changes of movement (Diputra et al., 2015). Although its direct application within sprint-specific train- ing has not been extensively documented, the drill involves repetitive changes of direction around five strategically positioned cones, demanding high levels of agility, spatial awareness, coordination, and rapid neuromuscular responses. Existing evidence suggests that agility-oriented training may contrib- ute to improvements in reaction speed and maximum running velocity through underlying neuromus- cular adaptations. Previous research has indicated that agility-based training can enhance neuromuscu- lar responsiveness, coordination, and sensorimotor integration, which may be particularly relevant for developing sprint performance in youth athletes. The Five Cone Drill (5CD) may exert its effects through several neuromuscular mechanisms, including enhanced motor-cortex engagement and improved synchronization of muscle activation during com- plex movement tasks (Yeom et al., 2020). Furthermore, agility-based training may promote greater re- cruitment of type II muscle fibers, which are essential for explosive sprint actions, and enhance the effi- ciency
in youth athletes. The Five Cone Drill (5CD) may exert its effects through several neuromuscular mechanisms, including enhanced motor-cortex engagement and improved synchronization of muscle activation during com- plex movement tasks (Yeom et al., 2020). Furthermore, agility-based training may promote greater re- cruitment of type II muscle fibers, which are essential for explosive sprint actions, and enhance the effi- ciency of actin–myosin interactions that underlie high-velocity muscle contractions (Plotkin et al., 2021). Improvements in proprioceptive control may allow athletes to respond more effectively to rapid directional changes, while metabolic adaptations—such as increased glycolytic activity—may support greater short-duration power output during sprint performance (Yılmaz et al., 2024). Although these physiological adaptations are indirectly associated with reaction speed, further empirical research is
2026 (Abril), Retos, 77, 603-611 ISSN: 1579-1726, eISSN: 1988-2041 https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/retos/index 605 required to establish direct effects on stimulus–response performance under both auditory and visual conditions. Given the essential role of reaction speed and maximal sprint velocity in determining sprint perfor- mance, the identification of effective training strategies remains a priority in athletic development. The Five Cone Drill (5CD), as a training modality designed to optimize movement quality through combined neuromuscular and biomechanical adaptations, may offer substantial performance benefits. Although the drill does not explicitly target auditory or visual reaction stimuli, its emphasis on rapid directional changes, acceleration control, and sensorimotor integration suggests potential improvements in reac- tion-related performance. Complex agility exercises are known to stimulate rapid activation of the cen- tral nervous system and enhance neural transmission efficiency (Yeom et al., 2020). Previous studies have demonstrated that agility training can improve decision-making speed and proprioceptive respon- siveness, both of which contribute to effective sprint starts (Lichtenstein et al., 2023). Despite these theoretical advantages, empirical evidence examining the direct effects of agility-based drills, such as the Five Cone Drill, on reaction time and sprint performance remains limited, particularly in youth athletes who are still undergoing neuromuscular development. Therefore, the present study aims to investigate the effects of Five Cone Drill training on reaction time and 60-meter sprint perfor- mance in youth sprinters. It is hypothesized that this agility-based intervention will lead to significant improvements in both reaction speed and sprint performance compared with conventional sprint train- ing methods. The findings are expected to contribute to the existing body of literature by providing em- pirical insight into the practical applications of agility-based training for enhancing sprint-specific per- formance in young athletes. Method Study design and participants This study was conducted using a true-experimental research design with a pretest–posttest control group structure. A total of sixteen youth sprinter athletes voluntarily participated in the investigation. The inclusion criteria required participants to be between 15 and 17 years of age; to have a body mass index (BMI) ranging from 20 to 22 kg/m²; to present normal systolic and diastolic blood pressure values (120–110/90–80 mmHg); a
true-experimental research design with a pretest–posttest control group structure. A total of sixteen youth sprinter athletes voluntarily participated in the investigation. The inclusion criteria required participants to be between 15 and 17 years of age; to have a body mass index (BMI) ranging from 20 to 22 kg/m²; to present normal systolic and diastolic blood pressure values (120–110/90–80 mmHg); a resting heart rate between 60 and 80 bpm; oxygen saturation levels be- tween 96% and 100%; and a body temperature ranging from 36.1 to 37.0 °C. All participants were screened to ensure the absence of smoking habits, alcohol consumption, hypertension, diabetes, or any diagnosed medical conditions that could influence physiological or neuromuscular performance. In ad- dition, none of the athletes were undergoing medication or therapeutic interventions that could affect performance outcomes. Following the eligibility assessment, participants were randomly allocated into two groups using a sim- ple randomization procedure generated by a computerized random sequence. The experimental group (n = 8) completed a structured Five Cone Drill (5CD) training intervention, while the control group (n = 8) continued with their standard sprint training program. Randomization and group allocation were performed by an independent research assistant who was not involved in subsequent data collection or statistical analysis, in order to minimize allocation bias. All athletes completed a six-week training program, with training sessions conducted three times per week under the direct supervision of certified athletic coaches. Protocol of Cone Drill training The Cone Drill training protocol followed a clearly defined sequence of forward and backward move- ments combined with repeated changes of direction. Athletes started from the first cone and initially moved backward to the second cone positioned 5 meters away. They then sprinted forward to return to the first cone. Subsequently, athletes moved backward to the third cone located 10 meters from the starting point and sprinted forward again to the first cone. This forward–backward movement pattern continued with a forward sprint to the fourth cone placed 15 meters away, followed by a backward movement to the fifth cone positioned at a distance of 20 meters. The drill concluded with a
athletes moved backward to the third cone located 10 meters from the starting point and sprinted forward again to the first cone. This forward–backward movement pattern continued with a forward sprint to the fourth cone placed 15 meters away, followed by a backward movement to the fifth cone positioned at a distance of 20 meters. The drill concluded with a maximal forward sprint back to the first cone.
2026 (Abril), Retos, 77, 603-611 ISSN: 1579-1726, eISSN: 1988-2041 https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/retos/index 606 This protocol required athletes to repeatedly accelerate, decelerate, and change direction in a linear forward–backward manner (“go-and-return” pattern), thereby emphasizing neuromuscular control, co- ordination, and sprint-specific movement efficiency. Such directional changes were intentionally incor- porated to simulate the acceleration–deceleration demands commonly observed during sprint perfor- mance. The drill was performed for three sets of six repetitions per training session, with three-minute rest intervals between repetitions and an additional three-minute recovery period between sets. Training sessions were conducted three times per week over a six-week intervention period. Training intensity was prescribed at a high level corresponding to near-maximal effort. Although maxi- mal aerobic speed (MAS) was used as a general reference for controlling exercise intensity, the drill primarily targeted anaerobic sprint performance, emphasizing maximal acceleration and sprint velocity relevant to the 60-meter sprint test. Heart rate and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were monitored throughout each session to ensure that athletes consistently performed the drill at the intended high- intensity level. All athletes completed the same training protocol under direct supervision of certified coaches. Training adherence was recorded, and compliance of at least 90% of the prescribed sessions was required. A schematic representation of the Cone Drill training protocol, including cone placement and movement directions, is presented in Figure 1. Figure 1. Protocol of the Five Cone Drill training. The arrows indicate the movement sequence performed in a forward–backward (“go-and-return” or “yo-yo”) pattern. Athletes sprint forward and retreat backward between cones positioned at increasing distances (5 m, 10 m, 15 m, and 20 m), emphasizing repeated acceleration, deceleration, and directional changes. Control Group Activities The control group continued with their routine sprint training program, which consisted of warm-up activities, fundamental technical sprint drills, and general conditioning exercises such as bodyweight strength training. This group did not receive any additional agility-based or cone-oriented training throughout the study duration. The purpose of this approach was to isolate and highlight the specific effects of the Five Cone Drill intervention by ensuring that only the experimental group received agility- focused stimulus during the training
technical sprint drills, and general conditioning exercises such as bodyweight strength training. This group did not receive any additional agility-based or cone-oriented training throughout the study duration. The purpose of this approach was to isolate and highlight the specific effects of the Five Cone Drill intervention by ensuring that only the experimental group received agility- focused stimulus during the training period. Data collection Data collection was carried out by assessing reaction speed through a whole-body reaction test, follow- ing the procedures described by Gavkare et al. (2013). The whole-body auditory and visual reaction test required the preparation of standardized equipment, including visual stimulus devices (such as LED lights or digital display screens) and auditory stimulus systems (such as loudspeakers or calibrated headphones), along with a digital stopwatch to record precise reaction times. Participants were thor- oughly instructed to respond to each stimulus—either visual (light-based) or auditory (sound-based)—
2026 (Abril), Retos, 77, 603-611 ISSN: 1579-1726, eISSN: 1988-2041 https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/retos/index 607 as quickly as possible using full-body movement initiation. Reaction time was recorded from the exact moment the external stimulus was delivered until the participant initiated visible movement. Meanwhile, maximum sprinting speed was evaluated using a 60-meter sprint test, which served as the primary performance indicator for maximal velocity in this study (adapted from Ferro et al., 2014; Put- era et al., 2023). The 60-meter measurement was selected to provide a more comprehensive reflection of maximum sprint speed, as it allows athletes sufficient distance to reach and maintain near-peak ve- locity. This test was administered both before and after the six-week intervention. Additionally, several anthropometric and physiological variables—including age, body mass, height, body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, resting heart rate, oxygen saturation, and body temperature—were measured prior to the intervention to ensure that all participants met the health and safety criteria for high-intensity sprint training. Data analysis Effect size was calculated using Cohen’s d, with interpretative criteria of small (0.2), medium (0.5), large (0.8), and very large (1.3), as described by Sullivan et al. (2012). Furthermore, an a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power version 3.1 to ensure that the sample size provided adequate statistical power. The analysis assumed an independent-sample t-test design with two groups (n = 8 per group), targeting a large effect size (d = 0.80), a significance level of α = 0.05, and a minimum statistical power of ≥ 0.80, confirming that the sample size was sufficient to detect meaningful differences. All statistical procedures adhered to a 5% significance level, and the results were expressed as mean ± standard de- viation (SD). Results Data distribution was verified for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test and for homogeneity using Levene’s test. The results demonstrated statistically significant increases in maximum sprint speed and reaction speed following the six-week intervention (p ≤ 0.001) (Figures 2–4). Specifically, the experi- mental group exhibited significant improvements in 60-meter sprint performance, indicating an en- hanced ability to accelerate and maintain near-maximal velocity throughout the testing distance. Im- provements in both
Description
Cone Drill training significantly improves reaction speed and 60-meter sprint performance in youth sprinters.