4.7 Article

Arm-pull thrust in human swimming and the effect of post-activation potentiation

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-65494-z

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIE AcRF Grant [RI 6/17 TB]
  2. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology [UID04045/2020]
  3. European Fund for Regional Development (FEDER)-COMPETE 2020 [POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006969]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to analyse the front-crawl arm-pull kinetics and kinematics, comparing it before and after post-activation potentiation (PAP), and the associations between variables describing of the arm-pull kinetics. Twelve male competitive swimmers were randomly assigned to perform two different warm-ups in a crossover manner: (i) non-PAP (control condition); and (ii) PAP (experimental condition). PAP consisted of 2x5 arm-pulls with resistance bands by both upper-limbs. Eight minutes later, participants underwent a 25m all-out trial in front-crawl arm-pull. Kinetics (i.e., peak thrust, mean thrust and thrust-time integral) and kinematics (i.e., speed and speed fluctuation) were collected by an in-house customised system composed of differential pressure sensors, speedo-meter and underwater camera. There was a significant and large improvement of the arm-pull kinetics after completing the warm-up with PAP sets (0.010 <0.054, 0.50<0.74). There were non-significant and small effects of PAP on speed (P=0.307, d=0.18) and speed fluctuation (P=0.498, d=0.04). Correlation coefficients among kinetic variables were significant with large associations (0.51<0.90, 0.001 <0.088). In conclusion, warm-ups including PAP conditioning sets elicit a large improvement in the thrust, but with small improvement in performance. Variables used to characterise thrust are strongly correlated and hence can be used interchangeably.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available