4.2 Article

Differences in swimming smoothness between elite and non-elite swimmers

Journal

SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
Volume 22, Issue 5, Pages 675-688

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14763141.2019.1650102

Keywords

Jerk; accelerometry; daily monitoring; technique; efficiency

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates whether jerk cost (JC) can differentiate between swimming levels. The results show that elite swimmers have faster lap times and lower levels of JC compared to non-elite swimmers. Additionally, higher speed swimming is associated with more accelerations and decelerations, resulting in higher JC and lower smoothness. Overall, JC provides a simple and useful index for swimming technique.
Indeed the abstract now contains more words. Please correct to: The aim of the study was to investigate whether jerk cost (JC) can discriminate between swimming levels. Nine elite and nine non-elite swimmers swam a 50-m front-crawl sprint wearing a 3D accelerometer on their back between the inferior angles of the scapulae. Lap times and JC were calculated from the acceleration signal and compared between groups and between swimmers within a group. The elite swimmers swam significantly faster lap times than the non-elite swimmers (p < 0.001). They did so with significantly lower levels of JC compared to the non-elite swimmers (p = 0.005). Furthermore, a stepwise multiple linear regression showed JC accounted for 32.9% of the variation in lap time of the elite swimmers. These results indicate that it is possible to discriminate elite from non-elite swimmers using JC: elite swimmers swim with lower JCs than non-elite swimmers. Additionally, swimming at higher speed is associated with more accelerations and decelerations in both elite and non-elite swimmers, which is reflected by higher JCs and lower smoothness. In sum, JC provides an index of swimming technique that is easy to use in training practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available