The determination of drag in front crawl swimming

被引:101
作者
Toussaint, HM
Roos, PE
Kolmogorov, S
机构
[1] Free Univ Amsterdam, IFKB, Inst Fundamental & Clin Human Movement Sci, Fac Human Movement Sci, NL-1081 BT Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Univ Profess Educ, Acad Phys Educ, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[3] Univ Wageningen & Res Ctr, Dept Expt Zool, Wageningen, Netherlands
[4] Pomor State Univ, Dept Phys Educ & Sport, Arkhangelsk, Russia
关键词
swimming; front crawl; active drag; velocity perturbation method; MAD-system;
D O I
10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.02.020
中图分类号
Q6 [生物物理学];
学科分类号
071011 ;
摘要
The measurement of drag while swimming (i.e. active drag) is a controversial issue. Therefore, in a group of six elite swimmers two active drag measurement methods were compared to assess whether both measure the same retarding force during swimming. In method 1 push-off forces are measured directly using the system to measure active drag (MAD-system). In method 2 (the velocity perturbation method, VPM) drag is estimated from the difference in swimming speed when subjects swim twice at maximal effort (assuming equal power output and assuming a quadratic drag-speed relationship): once swimming free, and once swimming with a hydrodynamic body attached that created a known additional resistance. The average drag for the VPM tests (53.2 N) was statistically significant and different from the active drag for the MAD-test (66.9 N), paired Student's t-test: 2.484, 12 DF, p = 0.029. A post hoc analysis was performed to assess whether the two methods measure a different phenomenon. Based on the drag speed curve obtained with the MAD-system, the VPM-data were re-examined. For diverging drag determinations the assumption of equal power output of the 'free' trial (swimming free) vs. the towing trial (swimming with hydrodynamic buoy) appeared to be violated. The regression of the relative difference in force (MAD vs. VPM) on the relative difference in power (swimming free vs. swimming with hydrodynamic body) was: %Deltadrag = 1.898 x %Deltapower -4.498, r(2) = 0.88. This suggests that the major part of the difference in active drag values is due to a non-equal power output in the 'free' relative towing trial during the VPM-test. The simulation of the violation of the equal power output assumption and the calculation of the effect of an other than quadratic drag-speed relationship corroborated the tentative conclusion that both methods measure essentially the same phenomenon and that active drag differences can be explained by a violation of test assumptions. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1655 / 1663
页数:9
相关论文
共 16 条
  • [1] Amar J., 1920, HUMAN MOTOR
  • [2] CLARYS JP, 1975, SWIMMING 2
  • [3] CLARYS JP, 1974, BIOMECHANICS, V1, P187
  • [4] DIPRAMPE.PE, 1974, J APPL PHYSIOL, V37, P1
  • [5] Du Bois-Reymond R., 1905, ARCH ANAT PHYSL ABT, V29, P252, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1748-1716.1920.TB00731.X
  • [6] Measurement of active drag during crawl arm stroke swimming
    Hollander, A. P.
    de Groot, G.
    Schenau, G. J. van Ingen
    Toussaint, H. M.
    de Best, H.
    Peeters, W.
    Meulemans, A.
    Schreurs, A. W.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES, 1986, 4 (01) : 21 - 30
  • [7] PROPULSIVE EFFICIENCY OF BREASTSTROKE AND FREESTYLE SWIMMING
    HOLMER, I
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY AND OCCUPATIONAL PHYSIOLOGY, 1974, 33 (02): : 95 - 103
  • [8] Karpovich PV, 1933, RES QUART, V4, P21
  • [9] ACTIVE DRAG, USEFUL MECHANICAL POWER OUTPUT AND HYDRODYNAMIC FORCE COEFFICIENT IN DIFFERENT SWIMMING STROKES AT MAXIMAL VELOCITY
    KOLMOGOROV, SV
    DUPLISHCHEVA, OA
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS, 1992, 25 (03) : 311 - 318
  • [10] Hydrodynamic characteristics of competitive swimmers of different genders and performance levels
    Kolmogorov, SV
    Rumyantseva, OA
    Gordon, BJ
    Cappaert, JM
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED BIOMECHANICS, 1997, 13 (01) : 88 - 97