Quantitative comparison of 2D and 3D monitoring dimensions in fish behavior analysis

To improve the accuracy and efficiency of fish behavior assessment, this paper focuses on quantitatively exploring the variations and relationships between different monitoring dimensions. A systematic comparison was conducted between 3D and 2D behavioral factors using an infrared tracing system, during both day and night. Significant differences in swimming distance were observed among the different monitoring methods, as determined by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test. A correction was applied to account for the disparities observed in 2D swimming distance, ensuring accurate measurements. These findings present a cost-effective and efficient approach for obtaining precise 3D distance data. Additionally, a kinematic factor called the "number of U-turns" was proposed to provide a more intuitive characterization of directional changes in fish swimming. Significant differences were observed between 2D and 3D data, with higher percentages of false U-turn counts and missing U-turn counts compared to correct counts in the 2D view. These findings suggest that reducing the monitoring dimension may impact the accurate estimation of swimming motion, potentially resulting in inaccurate outcomes. Finally, the statistical analyses of the non-linear properties of fractal dimension revealed significant differences among the various monitoring methods. This conclusion has practical implications for biologists and physicists, enabling them to improve the accuracy of behavioral phenotyping for organisms exhibiting 3D motion.

Training Distribution During a Paralympic Cycle for a Multiple Swimming Champion With Paraplegia: A Case Report

PURPOSE

To describe the training volume, intensity distribution, and use of swimming styles during a Paralympic cycle in a multiple swimming champion with paraplegia.

METHODS

The female Paralympic swimmer was 23-26 years of age and had a body mass of 60 to 62 kg and a body height of 174 cm. She has a spinal cord injury at the Th6 level, competed in the S5/SB4 Para swimming classes, and uses a wheelchair for mobility. Training time, as well as distance in the different intensity zones and swimming styles, was registered with the "workouts for swim coaches" software throughout a full Paralympic cycle.

RESULTS

The Para swimmer performed a total of 388, 524, 471, and 656 annual hours of swimming, corresponding to 1126, 1504, 1463, and 1993 km, in the 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 seasons, respectively. In addition, she performed 1 to 3 weekly dry-land strength sessions and 4 to 6 weekly dry-land basic skill sessions. She conducted 91% to 94% of the swimming distance in each macrocycle at low intensity, 2% to 4% at moderate intensity, and 3% to 6% at high intensity. She performed 78% to 84% of the swimming distance in each macrocycle in the freestyle swimming technique and the remaining 16% to 22% in the backstroke, breaststroke, and butterfly techniques.

CONCLUSION

This case study exemplifies how a female Paralympic swimmer with paraplegia progressed her training in the seasons leading up to the Paralympic Games, reaching an annual training distance of 2000 km, which is similar to that of able-bodied swimmers.

Training Regimes and Recovery Monitoring Practices of Elite British Swimmers

Consistent prescriptions for event-specific training of swimmers are lacking, which points to likely differences in training practices and a potential gap between practice and scientific knowledge. This study aimed to analyze the distance-specific training load of elite swimmers, derive a consistent training sessions' description and reflect on the current recommendations for training and recovery. The individual training regimes of 18 elite British swimmers were documented by surveying four swim and two strength and conditioning (S&C) coaches. The annual and weekly training load and content were compared between swimmers competing in sprint, middle and long-distance events. Thematic analysis of the surveys was conducted to identify key codes and general dimensions and to define a unified classification of the swimming and S&C training sessions. Weekly training loads and content of the swim (ƞ² - effect size; p = 0.016, ƞ² = 0.423) and S&C (p = 0.028, ƞ² = 0.38) sessions significantly differed between the groups. Long-distance swimmers swam significantly longer distances (mean ± SD; 58.1 ± 10.2 km vs. 43.2 ± 5.3 km; p = 0.018) weekly but completed similar number of S&C sessions compared to sprinters. The annual swimming load distribution of middle-distance specialists did not differ from that of long-distance swimmers but consisted of more S&C sessions per week (4.7 ± 0.5 vs. 2.3 ± 2.3; p = 0.04). Sprinters and middle-distance swimmers swam similar distances per week and completed similar number of S&C sessions but with different proportional content. Whereas all coaches reported monitoring fatigue, only 51% indicated implementing individualized recovery protocols. We propose a consistent terminology for the description of training sessions in elite swimming to facilitate good practice exchanges. While the training prescription of elite British swimmers conforms to the scientific training principles, recommendations for recovery protocols to reduce the risk of injury and overtraining are warranted.