Differences in kinematics and energy cost between front crawl and backstroke below the anaerobic threshold

Tomohiro Gonjo, Carla McCabe, Ana Sousa, João Ribeiro, Ricardo J. Fernandes , João Paulo Vilas-Boas, Ross H. Sanders

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

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.
LanguageEnglish
Pages1107–1118
Number of pages12
JournalEuropean Journal of Applied Physiology
Volume118
Issue number6
Early online date19 Mar 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2018

Fingerprint

Anaerobic Threshold
Biomechanical Phenomena
Ankle
Wrist
Costs and Cost Analysis
Articular Range of Motion
Stroke
Extremities
Oxygen
Water

Keywords

  • Swimming
  • Freestyle
  • Backstroke
  • Kinematics
  • Energy
  • Efficiency

Cite this

Gonjo, Tomohiro ; McCabe, Carla ; Sousa, Ana ; Ribeiro, João ; Fernandes , Ricardo J. ; Vilas-Boas, João Paulo ; Sanders, Ross H. / Differences in kinematics and energy cost between front crawl and backstroke below the anaerobic threshold. In: European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2018 ; Vol. 118, No. 6. pp. 1107–1118.
@article{c0a6151deb364905bd58d374a0d28631,
title = "Differences in kinematics and energy cost between front crawl and backstroke below the anaerobic threshold",
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.",
keywords = "Swimming, Freestyle, Backstroke, Kinematics, Energy, Efficiency",
author = "Tomohiro Gonjo and Carla McCabe and Ana Sousa and Jo{\~a}o Ribeiro and Fernandes, {Ricardo J.} and Vilas-Boas, {Jo{\~a}o Paulo} and Sanders, {Ross H.}",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1007/s00421-018-3841-z",
language = "English",
volume = "118",
pages = "1107–1118",
journal = "European Journal of Applied Physiology",
issn = "1439-6319",
number = "6",

}

Differences in kinematics and energy cost between front crawl and backstroke below the anaerobic threshold. / Gonjo, Tomohiro; McCabe, Carla; Sousa, Ana ; Ribeiro, João ; Fernandes , Ricardo J.; Vilas-Boas, João Paulo ; Sanders, Ross H.

In: European Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 118, No. 6, 06.2018, p. 1107–1118.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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 H.

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 - Swimming

KW - Freestyle

KW - Backstroke

KW - Kinematics

KW - Energy

KW - Efficiency

U2 - 10.1007/s00421-018-3841-z

DO - 10.1007/s00421-018-3841-z

M3 - Article

VL - 118

SP - 1107

EP - 1118

JO - European Journal of Applied Physiology

T2 - European Journal of Applied Physiology

JF - European Journal of Applied Physiology

SN - 1439-6319

IS - 6

ER -