When the two groups were matched with respect to their absolute 100 m PRs, start performance was again reduced, this time by 17.7%—however, with a p value of 0.08, this reduction was not sufficient to be considered statistically significant. Both groups of athletes were similar with respect to their overall 100 m race performance (100 m PR). From these results, it can be concluded that during the race phases where speed was constant, ASs must have performed better compared to their non-amputee counterparts. We suggest two possible explanations for this. Firstly, the level of professionalism may be significantly higher for the particular ASs in this study. Some of these athletes compete at the very highest level of their sport, in the 100 m, 200 m and long jump, and this is reflected in the significant difference for relative 100 m PRs (109% vs. 119%, respectively). These amputee athletes may simply spend, on average, more time and effort on training and active recovery than the matching NASs. The second possible explanation is that sprint-specific prostheses, though inferior during the start phase, performed better in replacing the functionality of biological limbs during the maximum-constant-speed phase of the race by enabling the spring-like energy exchange in the lower limbs during ground contact . Additionally, they might be allowing for a more rapid limb-swing motion owing to their low mass and moment of inertia . During the start and early acceleration phases of a 100 m race, the majority of the mechanical work is performed by the contractile components of the muscle–tendon-units, but as the race goes on, the contribution of passive elastic structures, like tendons and ligaments, becomes dominant . In amputee athletes, the ratio of passive elastic structures to active contractile muscle mass is higher than in non-amputee athletes, which makes their legs better suited to constant speed running than to accelerating.