Energy cost of leg kick, arm stroke, and whole crawl stroke

Adrian, Marlene; Singh, M Ratan Kumar; Karpovich, Peter V.

doi:10.1152/jappl.1966.21.6.1763

Cited by 18 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The overall efficiency of swimming Data presented in this study show: (1) that the front crawl (with or without fins) is indeed a more efficient way of moving in water than the leg kick (with or without fins) as indicated by other studies (Adrian et al 1966;Pendergast et al 2003), (2) that the overall efficiency of the front crawl can be substantially higher than previously reported (di Prampero et al 1974;Toussaint 1990;Toussaint et al 1990), but (3) that it does not reach an optimum since g O increases almost continuously from the slower speeds attainable with the leg kick to those attainable in the front crawl (see Fig. 4).…”

Section: The Internal Work Ratesupporting

confidence: 58%

An energy balance of front crawl

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the aim of computing a complete energy balance of front crawl, the energy cost per unit distance (C = Ev(-1), where E is the metabolic power and v is the speed) and the overall efficiency (eta(o) = W(tot)/C, where W(tot) is the mechanical work per unit distance) were calculated for subjects swimming with and without fins. In aquatic locomotion W(tot) is given by the sum of: (1) W(int), the internal work, which was calculated from video analysis, (2) W(d), the work to overcome hydrodynamic resistance, which was calculated from measures of active drag, and (3) W(k), calculated from measures of Froude efficiency (eta(F)). In turn, eta(F) = W(d)/(W(d) + W(k)) and was calculated by modelling the arm movement as that of a paddle wheel. When swimming at speeds from 1.0 to 1.4 m s(-1), eta(F) is about 0.5, power to overcome water resistance (active body drag x v) and power to give water kinetic energy increase from 50 to 100 W, and internal mechanical power from 10 to 30 W. In the same range of speeds E increases from 600 to 1,200 W and C from 600 to 800 J m(-1). The use of fins decreases total mechanical power and C by the same amount (10-15%) so that eta(o) (overall efficiency) is the same when swimming with or without fins [0.20 (0.03)]. The values of eta(o) are higher than previously reported for the front crawl, essentially because of the larger values of W(tot) calculated in this study. This is so because the contribution of W(int) to W(tot )was taken into account, and because eta(F) was computed by also taking into account the contribution of the legs to forward propulsion.

show abstract

Section: The Internal Work Ratesupporting

confidence: 58%

An energy balance of front crawl

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies conducted without direct VO 2 assessment in specific ergometers or in free swimming conditions Liljestrand and Lindhard (1920), Karpovich and Le Maistre (1940), Karpovich and Millman (1944), Van Huss and Cureton (1955), Andersen (1960), Astrand and Saltin (1961), Adrian et al (1966), Costill (1966), Costill et al (1967), Magel and Faulkner (1967), Dixon and Faulkner (1971), Holmér (1971, 1974a, 1974b, 1974c, 1975, McCardle et al (1971), Holmér andAstrand (1972), di Prampero et al (1974), Nadel et al (1974), von Dobeln andHolmér (1974), Hay et al (1975), Magel et al (1967), Miyashita (1975), Kemper et al (1976), Pendergast et al (1977), Eriksson et al (1978), Houston et al (1978), Kasch (1978), Kipke (1978), Klissouras and Sinning (1978), Nomura (1979), Bonen et al (1980), Holmér and Gullstrand (1980), Montpetit et al (1981Montpetit et al ( , 1982, Cazorla and Montpetit (1983), Kemper et al (1982), Lavoie et al (1983), Nomura (1982), Toussaint et al (1982), Chatard (1985), Costill et al (1985), Lavoie et al (1985), …”

Section: Methods Authorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical Evaluation of Oxygen-Uptake Assessment in Swimming

Sousa¹,

Figueiredo²,

Pendergast³

et al. 2014

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dette er siste tekst-versjon av artikkelen, og den kan inneholde små forskjeller fra forlagets pdf-versjon. Forlagets pdf-versjon finner du på www.humankinetics.com: http://dx.doi.org/10. 1123 /IJSPP.2013 This is the final text version of the article, and it may contain minor differences from the journal's pdf version. AbstractSwimming has become one important area of sport science research since the 1970s, with the bioenergetical factors assuming a fundamental performanceinfluencing role. The purpose of this study is to conduct a critical evaluation of the literature concerning the oxygen uptake (VO 2 ) assessment in swimming, by describing the equipment and methods used and emphasizing the recent works conducted in ecological conditions. Particularly in swimming, due to the inherent technical constraints imposed by swimming in a water environment, assessment of VO 2max was accomplished only in the 1960s. Later, the development of automated portable measurement devices allowed VO 2max to be assessed more effortless, even in ecological swimming conditions, but few studies have been conducted in swimming pool conditions with portable breathby-breath telemetric systems. An inverse relationship exists between the velocity corresponding to VO 2max and the time a swimmer can sustain it at this velocity. The energy cost of swimming varies according to its association with velocity variability. As, in the end, the supply of oxygen (which limitation may be due to central -O 2 delivery and transportation to the working muscles -or peripheral factors -O 2 diffusion and utilization in the muscles) is one of the critical factors that determine swimming performance, VO 2 kinetics and its maximal values are critical in understanding swimmers' behaviour in competition and for develop efficient training programs.

show abstract

“…Karpovich 1933;Karpovich and Pestrecov 1939;Adrian et al 1966;Faulkner 1968). These early studies pointed out the higher energy expenditure that one has to face, at a given speed, when moving in water with respect to land.…”

Section: The Energy Cost Of Swimmingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energetics of swimming: a historical perspective

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The energy cost to swim a unit distance (C(sw)) is given by the ratio E/v where E is the net metabolic power and v is the swimming speed. The contribution of the aerobic and anaerobic energy sources to E in swimming competitions is independent of swimming style, gender or skill and depends essentially upon the duration of the exercise. C(sw) is essentially determined by the hydrodynamic resistance (W(d)): the higher W(d) the higher C(sw); and by the propelling efficiency (η(P)): the higher η(P) the lower C(sw). Hence, all factors influencing W(d) and/or η(P) result in proportional changes in C(sw). Maximal metabolic power E max and C(sw) are the main determinants of swimming performance; an improvement in a subject's best performance time can more easily be obtained by a reduction of C sw) rather than by an (equal) increase in E max (in either of its components, aerobic or anaerobic). These sentences, which constitute a significant contribution to today's knowledge about swimming energetics, are based on the studies that Professor Pietro Enrico di Prampero and his co-workers carried out since the 1970s. This paper is devoted to examine how this body of work helped to improve our understanding of this fascinating mode of locomotion.

show abstract

Energy cost of leg kick, arm stroke, and whole crawl stroke

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

An energy balance of front crawl

An energy balance of front crawl

Critical Evaluation of Oxygen-Uptake Assessment in Swimming

Energetics of swimming: a historical perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About