Abstract

The kinematic profiles of the hip and center of mass in front crawl swimming were compared to quantify the error of using a fixed body point to assess intracyclic velocity variations at moderate intensity exercise. The practical goal was to provide a useful tool, easy and fast to assess, and to use as feedback, for assessing swimming efficiency. Sixteen swimmers performed an intermittent incremental protocol that allowed assessing the individual anaerobic threshold velocity. One complete stroke cycle was analysed at the step intensity corresponding to each swimmer’s anaerobic threshold. The subjects were videotaped in the sagittal plane using a double camera set-up for two-dimensional kinematical analyses. The hip and the center of mass presented similar mean velocity and displacement values, being highly related to both parameters. However, the hip reflects the center of mass forward velocity and horizontal displacement with 7.54% and 3.24% associated error, respectively. Differences between hip and center of mass were observed for intracyclic velocity variations (0.19±0.05 and 0.25±0.08, respectively, for a p<0.001), and the negative mean error value found (−0.06) evidenced a tendency of the hip to overestimate the center of mass velocity variation. It is possible to conclude that the hips forward movements might provide a good estimate of the swimmer’s horizontal velocity and displacement that is relevant for diagnostic purposes, especially to assess swimming efficiency through the intracyclic velocity variations. Nevertheless, the hip point error magnitude should be taken into consideration in data interpretation.

Highlights

  • Evaluation of swimmers is an essential tool for increasing the efficiency of the training processes and to predict performance (Smith et al, 2002)

  • The importance of improving technique to enhance swimming performance is a topic of great interest for coaches and researchers, being observed that 40% of the 662 papers published in the Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming books had a biomechanical approach (Vilas-Boas et al, 2010)

  • Studies focusing on swimming biomechanics usually include a kinematic, kinetic, electromyographic or coordinative approach (Barbosa et al, 2008; Schnitzler et al, 2010), but, due to its complexity, swimming technique has been frequently characterized using a simple analysis of the stroking parameters

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Evaluation of swimmers is an essential tool for increasing the efficiency of the training processes and to predict performance (Smith et al, 2002). Barbosa et al (2010) evidenced the importance of the swimmer’s energetic profile and this one from the biomechanical behaviour. The importance of improving technique to enhance swimming performance is a topic of great interest for coaches and researchers, being observed that 40% of the 662 papers published in the Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming books (a series of international symposia organized every four years since 1970) had a biomechanical approach (Vilas-Boas et al, 2010). Studies focusing on swimming biomechanics usually include a kinematic, kinetic, electromyographic or coordinative approach (Barbosa et al, 2008; Schnitzler et al, 2010), but, due to its complexity, swimming technique has been frequently characterized using a simple analysis of the stroking parameters (velocity, stroke rate and stroke length). Its assessment has been carried out since the 1970s

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call