TY - JOUR
T1 - Differences in kinematics and energy cost between front crawl and backstroke below the anaerobic threshold
AU - Gonjo, Tomohiro
AU - McCabe, Carla
AU - Sousa, Ana
AU - Ribeiro, João
AU - Fernandes, Ricardo J.
AU - Vilas-Boas, João Paulo
AU - Sanders, Ross
PY - 2018/6
Y1 - 2018/6
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Adolescent
KW - Anaerobic Threshold
KW - Biomechanical Phenomena
KW - Energy Metabolism
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Swimming/physiology
U2 - 10.1007/s00421-018-3841-z
DO - 10.1007/s00421-018-3841-z
M3 - Article
C2 - 29556773
SN - 1439-6319
VL - 118
SP - 1107
EP - 1118
JO - European Journal of Applied Physiology
JF - European Journal of Applied Physiology
IS - 6
ER -