Differences in kinematics and energy cost between front crawl and backstroke below the anaerobic threshold

Gonjo, Tomohiro; McCabe, Carla; Sousa, Ana; Ribeiro, João; Fernandes, Ricardo J.; Vilas‐Boas, João Paulo; Sanders, Ross

doi:10.1007/s00421-018-3841-z

Cited by 19 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The above-referenced comparisons between swimming techniques were made possible since v AnT occurred at ~92 % of the velocity of the last protocol step in all four of them, a similar value to that found in the literature [33,34]. However, [La] AnT assessment were not reliable when analysing swimming techniques between upper and lower limb-action groups, since a [La] AnT lower than 3.5 mmol • l − 1 corresponded to a higher velocity than v3.5, confirming the assertion that swimming techniques are not equal biophysical terms [4,18,31]. Moreover, we observed that front crawl presented higher velocities in all five steps of the incremental protocol.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Each swimmer's anaerobic profile was established with two derived indicators: (i) the blood lactate increase rate ([La] rate; adapted from [21]), as the ratio between the net [La] and velocities (Δ [La] and Δv, respectively) of the two last protocol steps; and (ii) the blood lactate increase speed (BLIS) of 4 th and 5 th steps, as the time rate of net [La] per step (difference between the [La] obtained after the current step and the previous one, and the time needed to accomplish the 200 m step; adapted from [1]). Swimming techniques were analysed individually and by alternated (front crawl and backstroke) and simultaneous (breaststroke and butterfly) upper and lower limb-action groups, given the obvious dichotomy between them [4,18].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, accurate and dedicated exercise prescription is required, reinforcing the impor-tance of regular training control and pool-based testing of biophysical measures [1][2][3]. From the complex group of swimming determinants, the physiological variables have been studied extensively using established testing procedures [e.g., [4]]. The most field-ap-Downloaded by: Glasgow University Library.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Anaerobic Threshold Biophysical Characterisation of the Four Swimming Techniques

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The anaerobic threshold (AnT) seems to be not only a physiologic boundary but also a transition after which swimmers technique changes, modifying their biomechanical behaviour. We expanded the AnT concept to a biophysical construct in the four conventional swimming techniques. Seventy-two elite swimmers performed a 5×200 m incremental protocol in their preferred swimming technique (with a 0.05 m·s−1 increase and a 30 s interval between steps). A capillary blood samples were collected from the fingertip and stroke rate (SR) and length (SL) determined for the assessment of [La], SR and SL vs. velocity inflexion points (using the interception of a pair of linear and exponential regression curves). The [La] values at the AnT were 3.3±1.0, 3.9±1.1, 2.9±1 .34 and 4.5±1.4 mmol·l−1 (mean±SD) for front crawl, backstroke, breaststroke and butterfly, and its corresponding velocity correlated highly with those at SR and SL inflection points (r=0.91–0.99, p<0.001). The agreement analyses confirmed that AnT represents a biophysical boundary in the four competitive swimming techniques and can be determined individually using [La] and/or SR/SL. Blood lactate increase speed can help characterise swimmers’ anaerobic behaviour after AnT and between competitive swimming techniques.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Anaerobic Threshold Biophysical Characterisation of the Four Swimming Techniques

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The biomechanical asymmetries are useful both for clinical and research purposes, permitting the characterization of the functional imbalances between contralateral limbs [31]. Theoretically, the front crawl and backstroke intracycle velocity variation can be enhanced by this functional imbalance, increasing the energy cost of swimming [32,33] and deteriorating body postures with increasing hydrodynamic drag [10] at a given swimming speed. The current results demonstrate that elite swimmers are more symmetrical than lower level swimmers (data from [16]), since we did not observe considerable differences between the force production of contralateral body sides.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

In-Water and On-Land Swimmers’ Symmetry and Force Production

Carvalho

Soares

Zacca

et al. 2019

IJERPH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although performance and biomechanical evaluations are becoming more swimming-specific, dryland testing permits monitoring of a larger number of performance-related variables. However, as the degree of comparability of measurements conducted in-water and on land conditions is unclear, we aimed to assess the differences between force production in these two different conditions. Twelve elite swimmers performed a 30 s tethered swimming test and four isokinetic tests (shoulder and knee extension at 90 and 300°/s) to assess peak force, peak and average torque, and power symmetry index. We observed contralateral symmetry in all the tests performed, e.g., for 30 s tethered swimming and peak torque shoulder extension at 90°/s: 178 ± 50 vs. 183 ± 56 N (p = 0.38) and 95 ± 37 vs. 94 ± 35 N × m (p = 0.52). Moderate to very large direct relationships were evident between dryland testing and swimming force production (r = 0.62 to 0.96; p < 0.05). Swimmers maintained similar symmetry index values independently of the testing conditions (r = −0.06 to −0.41 and 0.04 to 0.44; p = 0.18–0.88). Asymmetries in water seems to be more related to technical constraints than muscular imbalances, but swimmers that displayed higher propulsive forces were the ones with greater force values on land. Thus, tethered swimming and isokinetic evaluations are useful for assessing muscular imbalances regarding propulsive force production and technical asymmetries.

show abstract

“…In the present study, LED lights on the device are separated by 1 m and the lights flash intermittently. Even though this type of the pacer (with flashing lights have 1 m or more distance between them) has been widely used in swimming research (Aspenes et al, 2009;Figueiredo, Barbosa, Vilas-Boas, & Fernandes, 2012;Gonjo et al, 2018;Kjendlie, Ingjer, Madsen, Stallman, & Stray-Gundersen, 2004;Marinho et al, 2004), intermittent flashing means that swimmers are not informed of the required speed constantly by the system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do swimmers conform to criterion speed during pace-controlled swimming in a 25-m pool using a visual light pacer?

Gonjo

McCabe

Coleman

et al. 2019

Sports Biomechanics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether swimmers follow accurately the instructed speed (vtarget) with the aid of a commercial visual light pacer during front crawl and backstroke swimming in a 25 m pool. Ten male swimmers performed 50 m front crawl and backstroke at different speeds (controlled by a visual light pacer) in a 25 m pool. The mean speed during the 50 m swimming (vS) was quantified from the time measured by a stopwatch. The mean speed of the centre of mass during a stroke cycle in the middle of the pool (vCOM) was calculated from threedimensional coordinates obtained from Direct Linear Transformation of two-dimensional digitised coordinates of 19 segment endpoints for each of six cameras. Swimmers achieved accurate vS in front crawl and backstroke (ICC = 0.972 and 0.978, respectively). However, vCOM for the single midpool sample had lower correlations with vtarget (ICC = 0.781 and 0.681, respectively). In backstroke, vCOM was slower by 4.1-5.1% than vtarget. However, this was not the case in front crawl (1.0-2.7%). With the use of a visual light pacer, swimmers can achieve accurate mean speed overall but are less able to achieve the target speed stroke by stroke.

show abstract

Differences in kinematics and energy cost between front crawl and backstroke below the anaerobic threshold

Abstract: Front crawl is less costly than backstroke, and limbs motion in front crawl is more effective than in backstroke.

Cited by 19 publications

References 42 publications

Anaerobic Threshold Biophysical Characterisation of the Four Swimming Techniques

Anaerobic Threshold Biophysical Characterisation of the Four Swimming Techniques

In-Water and On-Land Swimmers’ Symmetry and Force Production

Do swimmers conform to criterion speed during pace-controlled swimming in a 25-m pool using a visual light pacer?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About