Tomohiro Gonjo1,2, Carla McCabe3, Ana Sousa4,5,6, João Ribeiro4,5,6, Ricardo J Fernandes6, João Paulo Vilas-Boas6, Ross Sanders7. 1. Faculty of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan. gonjo.tomohiro.ga@u.tsukuba.ac.jp. 2. Institute for Sport, Physical Education & Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. gonjo.tomohiro.ga@u.tsukuba.ac.jp. 3. Faculty of Life and Health Sciences, Ulster University, Antrim, Northern Ireland, UK. 4. Research Centre for Sports, Exercise and Human Development, CIDESD, Vila Real, Portugal. 5. University Institute of Maia, ISMAI, Maia, Portugal. 6. Faculty of Sports, CIFI2D, and LABIOMEP, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. 7. Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine kinematic and energetic differences between front crawl and backstroke performed at the same aerobic speeds. METHODS: Ten male competitive swimmers performed front crawl and backstroke at a pre-determined sub-anaerobic threshold speed to assess energy cost (through oxygen uptake measurement) and kinematics (using three-dimensional videography to determine stroke frequency and length, intra-cycle velocity fluctuation, three-dimensional wrist and ankle speeds, and vertical and lateral ankle range of motion). For detailed kinematic analysis, resultant displacement, the duration, and three-dimensional speed of the wrist during the entry, pull, push, and release phases were also investigated. RESULTS: There were no differences in stroke frequency/length and intra-cycle velocity fluctuation between the swimming techniques, however, swimmers had lower energy cost in front crawl than in backstroke (0.77 ± 0.08 vs 0.91 ± 0.12 kJ m-1, p < 0.01). Slower three-dimensional wrist and ankle speeds under the water (1.29 ± 0.10 vs 1.55 ± 0.10 and 0.80 ± 0.16 vs 0.97 ± 0.13 m s-1, both p < 0.01) and smaller ankle vertical range of motion (0.36 ± 0.06 vs 0.47 ± 0.07 m, p < 0.01) in front crawl than in backstroke were also observed, which indirectly suggested higher propulsive efficiency in front crawl. CONCLUSION: Front crawl is less costly than backstroke, and limbs motion in front crawl is more effective than in backstroke.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine kinematic and energetic differences between front crawl and backstroke performed at the same aerobic speeds. METHODS: Ten male competitive swimmers performed front crawl and backstroke at a pre-determined sub-anaerobic threshold speed to assess energy cost (through oxygen uptake measurement) and kinematics (using three-dimensional videography to determine stroke frequency and length, intra-cycle velocity fluctuation, three-dimensional wrist and ankle speeds, and vertical and lateral ankle range of motion). For detailed kinematic analysis, resultant displacement, the duration, and three-dimensional speed of the wrist during the entry, pull, push, and release phases were also investigated. RESULTS: There were no differences in stroke frequency/length and intra-cycle velocity fluctuation between the swimming techniques, however, swimmers had lower energy cost in front crawl than in backstroke (0.77 ± 0.08 vs 0.91 ± 0.12 kJ m-1, p < 0.01). Slower three-dimensional wrist and ankle speeds under the water (1.29 ± 0.10 vs 1.55 ± 0.10 and 0.80 ± 0.16 vs 0.97 ± 0.13 m s-1, both p < 0.01) and smaller ankle vertical range of motion (0.36 ± 0.06 vs 0.47 ± 0.07 m, p < 0.01) in front crawl than in backstroke were also observed, which indirectly suggested higher propulsive efficiency in front crawl. CONCLUSION: Front crawl is less costly than backstroke, and limbs motion in front crawl is more effective than in backstroke.
Authors: J Ribeiro; P Figueiredo; L Guidetti; F Alves; H Toussaint; J P Vilas-Boas; C Baldari; R J Fernandes Journal: Int J Sports Med Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 3.118
Authors: Tiago M Barbosa; José A Bragada; Víctor M Reis; Daniel A Marinho; Carlos Carvalho; António J Silva Journal: J Sci Med Sport Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 4.319
Authors: Pedro Figueiredo; David R Pendergast; João Paulo Vilas-Boas; Ricardo J Fernandes Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2013-03-17 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Danilo A Massini; Tiago A F Almeida; Camila M T Vasconcelos; Anderson G Macedo; Mário A C Espada; Joana F Reis; Francisco J B Alves; Ricardo J P Fernandes; Dalton M Pessôa Filho Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2021-12-14 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Diogo D Carvalho; Susana Soares; Rodrigo Zacca; Daniel A Marinho; António J Silva; David B Pyne; J Paulo Vilas-Boas; Ricardo J Fernandes Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 3.390