The interplay between arms-only propelling efficiency, power output and speed in master swimmers

How Technique Modifications in Elite 100m Swimmers Might Improve Front Crawl Performances to Podium Levels: Swimming 'Chariots of Fire'

In this paper ways in which performance in 100 m front crawl might be improved are explored. Researchers were identified as 'primary sources' to provide a rationale for how swimmers might improve their performance and to estimate the potential magnitude of improvement. The researchers selected as the primary sources were identified from an initial search of the Scopus and Web of Science data bases using keywords appropriate for the race phases including start, stroking, turn, and finish and their component sub-phases. Recent research was prioritised to ensure that the latest knowledge was considered. Based on an analogy drawn from the 'Chariots of Fire' movie, the hypothetical question was asked: how can we reduce the 100 m time by 0.5s of a swimmer who is already an elite performer? Estimates of potential improvement ranged from 0.013s for the reaction time in the start phase to 1.0s by optimising mid-pool kicking to minimise drag. It is concluded that even at the very elite level, fine-tuning to optimise performance in the different phases of the race could elevate an elite swimmer to podium level performance.

Froude Efficiency and Velocity Fluctuation in Forearm-Amputee Front Crawl: Implications for Para Swimming Classification

PURPOSE

The impact of physical impairment on Froude efficiency and intracyclic velocity fluctuation in Para swimmers is not well documented. Identification of differences in these variables between disabled and nondisabled swimmers could help develop a more objective system for assigning Para swimmers to classes for competition. This study quantifies Froude efficiency and intracyclic velocity fluctuation in unilateral forearm-amputee front crawl swimmers and evaluates associations between these variables and performance.

METHODS

Ten unilateral forearm-amputee swimmers completed front crawl trials at 50- and 400-m pace; three-dimensional video analysis provided mass center, and wrist and stump velocities. Intracyclic velocity fluctuation was calculated as follows: 1) maximum-minimum mass center velocity, expressed as percent of mean velocity, and 2) coefficient of variation in mass center velocity. Froude efficiency was the ratio between mean swimming velocity and wrist plus stump velocity during each segment's respective 1) underwater phase and 2) propulsive underwater phase.

RESULTS

Forearm amputees' intracyclic velocity fluctuation (400 m: 22% ± 7%, 50 m: 18% ± 5%) was similar to published values for nondisabled swimmers, whereas Froude efficiencies were lower. Froude efficiency was higher at 400-m (0.37 ± 0.04) than 50-m pace (0.35 ± 0.05; P < 0.05) and higher for the unaffected limb (400 m: 0.52 ± 0.03, 50 m: 0.54 ± 0.04) than the residual limb (400 m: 0.38 ± 0.03, 50 m 0.38 ± 0.02; P < 0.05). Neither intracyclic velocity fluctuation nor Froude efficiency was associated with swimming performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Froude efficiency may be a valuable measure of activity limitation in swimmers with an upper limb deficiency and a useful metric for comparing swimmers with different types and severity of physical impairment.

Sprint Performance in Arms-Only Front Crawl Swimming Is Strongly Associated With the Power-To-Drag Ratio

To date, optimal propulsion in swimming has been studied predominantly using physical or computational models of the arm and seldom during real-life swimming. In the present study we examined the contributions of selected power, technique and anthropometric measures on sprint performance during arms-only front crawl swimming. To this end, 25 male adult competitive swimmers, equipped with markers on their arms and hands, performed four 25-m sprint trials, which were recorded on video. For the fastest trial of each swimmer, we determined the average swim speed as well as two technique variables: the average stroke width and average horizontal acceleration. Each participant also swam 10–12 trials over a custom-made system for measuring active drag, the MAD system. Since the propelling efficiency is 100% while swimming over the MAD system, the power output of the swimmer is fully used to overcome the drag acting on the body. The resulting speed thus represents the ratio between power output and drag. We included this power-to-drag ratio, the power output and the drag coefficient of the fastest trial on the MAD system in the analysis. Finally, the body height and hand surface area of each swimmer were determined as anthropometric variables. A model selection procedure was conducted to predict the swim speed from the two technique variables, three power variables and the two anthropometric variables. The ratio between power output and the drag was the only significant predictor of the maximal swimming speed (v = 0.86·power/drag). The variations in this ratio explained 65% of the variance in swimming performance. This indicates that sprint performance in arms-only front crawl swimming is strongly associated with the power-to-drag ratio and not with the isolated power variables and the anthropometric and technique variables selected in the present study.

Applicability of Maximal Ergometer Testing and Sprint Performance in Adolescent Endurance and Sprint Trained Swimmers

Sprint swimming is a short duration, high intensity sport requiring a relatively greater contribution of energy from anaerobic metabolism. Understanding energy system utilization for the classification of a competitive swimmer (sprint or distance) may be useful for both training prescription and event specialization. The relationship between anaerobic swim ergometer testing and adolescent sprint swimming performance has not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance and physiological responses during a maximal all-out ergometer test as well as the maximal anaerobic lactate test in a group of sprint vs. middle-distance specialized swimmers. Sixteen (n = 16) competitive swimmers (mean ± standard deviation (SD), age 16.8 ± 0.7 year; body mass 67.3 ± 9.8 kg) were categorized into two gender matched groups: sprint (n = 8) and middle-distance (n = 8). Each athlete performed (1) a 45 s swim ergometer maximal test to determine peak and mean power output (Watts (W)), (2) a MANLT test to determine peak and average velocity as well as the post-exercise lactate response, and (3) a 50 m swim time trial. The sprint group showed a higher mean (p = 0.026) and peak (p = 0.031) velocity during the MANLT. In addition, blood lactate concentration was significantly (p < 0.01) higher in the sprint vs. middle-distance trained group at 3 and 12 min after completion of the MANLT (3-min post 11.29 ± 2.32 vs. 9.55 ± 3.48 mmol/L; 12-min post 8.23 ± 2.28 vs. 7.05 ± 2.47 mmol/L). The power output during the 45 s all-out swimming ergometer test was higher in the sprint trained group. The results of this study demonstrate the anaerobic contribution to sprint swimming measured during an all-out dryland ergometer test.

The energy cost of swimming and its determinants

The energy expended to transport the body over a given distance (C, the energy cost) increases with speed both on land and in water. At any given speed, C is lower on land (e.g., running or cycling) than in water (e.g., swimming or kayaking) and this difference can be easily understood when one considers that energy should be expended (among the others) to overcome resistive forces since these, at any given speed, are far larger in water (hydrodynamic resistance, drag) than on land (aerodynamic resistance). Another reason for the differences in C between water and land locomotion is the lower capability to exert useful forces in water than on land (e.g., a lower propelling efficiency in the former case). These two parameters (drag and efficiency) not only can explain the differences in C between land and water locomotion but can also explain the differences in C within a given form of locomotion (swimming at the surface, which is the topic of this review): e.g., differences between strokes or between swimmers of different age, sex, and technical level. In this review, the determinants of C (drag and efficiency, as well as energy expenditure in its aerobic and anaerobic components) will, thus, be described and discussed. In aquatic locomotion it is difficult to obtain quantitative measures of drag and efficiency and only a comprehensive (biophysical) approach could allow to understand which estimates are "reasonable" and which are not. Examples of these calculations are also reported and discussed.

A Biophysical Analysis on the Arm Stroke Efficiency in Front Crawl Swimming: Comparing Methods and Determining the Main Performance Predictors

Purpose: to compare different methods to assess the arm stroke efficiency (ηF), when swimming front crawl using the arms only on the Measurement of Active Drag System (MAD System) and in a free-swimming condition, and to identify biophysical adaptations to swimming on the MAD System and the main biophysical predictors of maximal swimming speed in the 200 m front crawl using the arms only (v200m). Methods: fourteen swimmers performed twice a 5 × 200 m incremental trial swimming the front crawl stroke using the arms only, once swimming freely, and once swimming on the MAD System. The total metabolic power was assessed in both conditions. The biomechanical parameters were obtained from video analysis and force data recorded on the MAD System. The ηF was calculated using: (i) direct measures of mechanical and metabolic power (power-based method); (ii) forward speed/hand speed ratio (speed-based method), and (iii) the simplified paddle-wheel model. Results: both methods to assess ηF on the MAD System differed (p < 0.001) from the expected values for this condition (ηF = 1), with the speed-based method providing the closest values (ηF~0.96). In the free-swimming condition, the power-based (ηF~0.75), speed-based (ηF~0.62), and paddle-wheel (ηF~0.39) efficiencies were significantly different (p < 0.001). Although all methods provided values within the limits of agreement, the speed-based method provided the closest values to the “actual efficiency”. The main biophysical predictors of v200m were included in two models: biomechanical (R² = 0.98) and physiological (R² = 0.98). Conclusions: our results suggest that the speed-based method provides the closest values to the “actual ηF” and confirm that swimming performance depends on the balance of biomechanical and bioenergetic parameters

Intracyclic Variation of Force and Swimming Performance

Context: In front-crawl swimming, the upper limbs perform alternating movements with the aim of achieving a continuous application of force in the water, leading to lower intracyclic velocity variation (dv). This parameter has been identified as a crucial criterion for swimmers’ evaluation. Purpose: To examine the assessment of intracyclic force variation (dF) and to analyze its relationship with dv and swimming performance. Methods: A total of 22 high-level male swimmers performed a maximal-effort 50-m front-crawl time trial and a 30-s maximal-effort fully tethered swimming test, which were randomly assigned. Instantaneous velocity was obtained by a speedometer and force by a strain-gauge system. Results: Similarity was observed between the tests, with dF attaining much higher magnitudes than dv (P < .001; d = 8.89). There were no differences in stroke rate or in physiological responses between tethered and free swimming, with a high level of agreement for the stroke rate and blood lactate increase. Swimming velocity presented a strong negative linear relationship with dF (r = −.826, P < .001) and a moderate negative nonlinear relationship with dv (r = .734, P < .01). With the addition of the maximum impulse to dF, multiple-regression analysis explained 83% of the free-swimming performance. Conclusions: Assessing dF is a promising approach for evaluating a swimmer’s performance. From the experiments, this new parameter showed that swimmers with higher dF also present higher dv, leading to a decrease in performance.

Energetics, Biomechanics, and Performance in Masters' Swimmers: A Systematic Review

Ferreira, MI, Barbosa, TM, Costa, MJ, Neiva, HP, and Marinho, DA. Energetics, biomechanics, and performance in masters' swimmers: a systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 30(7): 2069-2081, 2016-This study aimed to summarize evidence on masters' swimmers energetics, biomechanics, and performance gathered in selected studies. An expanded search was conducted on 6 databases, conference proceedings, and department files. Fifteen studies were selected for further analysis. A qualitative evaluation of the studies based on the Quality Index (QI) was performed by 2 independent reviewers. The studies were thereafter classified into 3 domains according to the reported data: performance (10 studies), energetics (4 studies), and biomechanics (6 studies). The selected 15 articles included in this review presented low QI scores (mean score, 10.47 points). The biomechanics domain obtained higher QI (11.5 points), followed by energetics and performance (10.6 and 9.9 points, respectively). Stroke frequency (SF) and stroke length (SL) were both influenced by aging, although SF is more affected than SL. Propelling efficiency (ηp) decreased with age. Swimming performance declined with age. The performance declines with age having male swimmers deliver better performances than female counterparts, although this difference tends to be narrow in long-distance events. One single longitudinal study is found in the literature reporting the changes in performance over time. The remaining studies are cross-sectional designs focusing on the energetics and biomechanics. Overall, biomechanics parameters, such as SF, SL, and ηp, tend to decrease with age. This review shows the lack of a solid body of knowledge (reflected in the amount and quality of the articles published) on the changes in biomechanics, energetics, and performance of master swimmers over time. The training programs for this age-group should aim to preserve the energetics as much as possible and, concurrently, improve the technique. Training sessions should feature a higher percentage of technical drills with the goal of enhancing the swim technique. Another goal should be the association of technique enhancement with aerobic and anaerobic sets, enabling the swimmer to improve the swimming efficiency.