Gonjo, T., Narita, K., McCabe, C., Fernandes, R.J., Vilas-Boas, J.P., Takagi, H. and Sanders, R., 2020. Front Crawl Is More Efficient and Has Smaller Active Drag Than Backstroke Swimming: Kinematic and Kinetic Comparison Between the Two Techniques at the Same Swimming Speeds. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 8, -.
Full text available as:
|
PDF (OPEN ACCESS ARTICLE)
fbioe-08-570657.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. 1MB | |
Copyright to original material in this document is with the original owner(s). Access to this content through BURO is granted on condition that you use it only for research, scholarly or other non-commercial purposes. If you wish to use it for any other purposes, you must contact BU via BURO@bournemouth.ac.uk. Any third party copyright material in this document remains the property of its respective owner(s). BU grants no licence for further use of that third party material. |
DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.570657
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in Froude efficiency (η F ) and active drag (D A ) between front crawl and backstroke at the same speed. η F was investigated by the three-dimensional (3D) motion analysis using 10 male swimmers. The swimmers performed 50 m swims at four swimming speeds in each technique, and their whole body motion during one upper-limb cycle was quantified by a 3D direct linear transformation algorithm with manually digitized video footage. Stroke length (SL), stroke frequency (SF), the index of coordination (IdC), η F , and the underwater body volume (UWV body ) were obtained. D A was assessed by the measuring residual thrust method (MRT method) using a different group of swimmers (six males) due to a sufficient experience and familiarization required for the method. A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA (trials and techniques as the factors) and a paired t-test were used for the outcomes from the 3D motion analysis and the MRT method, respectively. Swimmers had 8.3% longer SL, 5.4% lower SF, 14.3% smaller IdC, and 30.8% higher η F in front crawl than backstroke in the 3D motion analysis (all p < 0.01), which suggest that front crawl is more efficient than backstroke. Backstroke had 25% larger D A at 1.2 m⋅s-1 than front crawl (p < 0.01) in the MRT trial. A 4% difference in UWV body (p < 0.001) between the two techniques in the 3D motion analysis also indirectly showed that the pressure drag and friction drag were probably larger in backstroke than in front crawl. In conclusion, front crawl is more efficient and has a smaller D A than backstroke at the same swimming speed.
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2296-4185 |
Uncontrolled Keywords: | aquatic locomotion ; back crawl ; freestyle ; kinematics ; kinetics |
Group: | Faculty of Health & Social Sciences |
ID Code: | 36262 |
Deposited By: | Symplectic RT2 |
Deposited On: | 16 Nov 2021 12:45 |
Last Modified: | 14 Mar 2022 14:30 |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
Repository Staff Only - |