v
S
, 3.5

.e

. no". if
nﬂnvkuh nu
,‘zzkug .

wanna? 5%. . W“, 83.9%.
ﬁuﬂ§§s§m , ELL? n
in, .d .554? .
,

3‘!
9-2.1 '

v.5,
..

3“
$3;
ﬂ...
_ Ea“...
I. i
.m

P:

a» .-
l.#. g

sﬁmﬂﬁu

J5.) .v- :1.
1!.iﬂi In!

4:12.. 55!! 9
~19..th
t 3; xvi
(4.9 Itclv
05*: 3.5:8:

c. I

E. $.33.
Jul-'35:». I?
A331,; ..
. é.

, i a

.9
to... vnulubun

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

EFFECTS OF STROKE PATTERN ON POWER OUTPUT IN
FREESTYLE SWIMMING

presented by

MARK ANDREW DZIAK

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in KINESIOLOGY

- "-I-I---l-.---l-l-I-l-l-l-I-I-'-I-I-I-I-O'.-l-I-o-o-.-.A

 

 

(LW 4 @m/

 

/ Major Professor’s Signature

”74/ #2 Z,” /0

Date

 

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5108 KzlProj/AocaPreleIRC/DateDue.indd

 

 

 

EFFECTS OF STROKE PATTERN ON POWER OUTPUT IN FREESTYLE
SWIMMING

By

Mark Andrew Dziak

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Kinesiology

2010

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

EFFECTS OF STROKE PATTERN ON POWER OUTPUT IN FREESTYLE
SWIMMING

By

Mark Andrew Dziak
This study explored the amount of swimming power generated by two different freestyle
(ﬁ'ont crawl) stroke patterns. The two stroke patterns are a curvilinear S-shape pull and a
straight-path I-pull. Power was measured by having the athletes swim against the
resistance of a Power Rack, a weight and pulley system that allows for in-water power
training for swimmers. Fiﬁeen experienced swimmers (eight males and seven females)
participated in this study. Each participant swam 18 trials — nine with each of the two
stroke styles. Dependent and independent t-tests were calculated to ﬁnd the potential
differences between population groups. There were 12 results that gave a statistical
difference (t = 0.05) among groups: the I-Stroke produced more power than the S-Stroke
for the entire population at resistance level 1, and for males at resistance levels 1 and 2;
freestylers produced more power than non-freestylers for the I-Stroke at resistance levels
1, 2, and 3; males produced more power than females at each resistance level for each
stroke style. The power results were also correlated with anthropometric measures of
height, weight, and arm length. In this study, swimming power correlates best with
weight. This study cannot say that one stroke is better then the other but the data
indicates that swimmers generate more power with the I-Stroke more often throughout
the study. The research does open up the possibility for future studies to further explore

the role of stroke style on power output.

 

DEDICATION

To my wonderful wife, Dorothee: Thank you for the continued love and support during

this project. It would not have been completed without your inspiration

 

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I’d like to recognize my committee of Eugene Brown, Gail Dummer, and Deborah Feltz.

They were a great help in the completion of the research and the project.

I would like to thank my parents for their support throughout the years and always

believing in me.

iv

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x
LIST OF EQUATIONS .................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
Overview and Signiﬁcance of the Problem .................................................................... 1
Veriﬁcation of Pull Patterns ............................................................................................ 2
Need for Study ................................................................................................................ 3
Purpose of Research ........................................................................................................ 4
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 5
Assumptions .................................................................................................................... 6
Deﬁnitions ....................................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2 — REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................. 13
Biomechanical Principles of Freestyle Stroke Technique ............................................ 13
Swimming Power .......................................................................................................... 17
Dryland measures of power ...................................................................................... l8
Swim bench ........................................................................................................... 18

Cycle ergometry .................................................................................................... 20
Resistance exercises .............................................................................................. 21
Swimming speciﬁc measures of power .................................................................... 21
Measurement of Active Drag System ................................................................... 22
Swimming ﬂume ................................................................................................... 23
Videography .......................................................................................................... 25

Power Rack and Swimgate test ............................................................................. 26
Limitations of Potential Equipment .............................................................................. 27
Swimming Velocity, Stroke Rate, and Stroke Length .................................................. 28
Implications of the Literature on the Current Study ..................................................... 29
CHAPTER 3 — METHODS .............................................................................................. 30
Research Design ............................................................................................................ 30
Threats to Validity ........................................................................................................ 31
Internal validity ......................................................................................................... 31
External validity ........................................................................................................ 31
Selection criteria ................................................................................................... 32
Recruitment ........................................................................................................... 32
Informed Consent .......................................................................................................... 33

 

Swimming Background Questionnaire ......................................................................... 33

Intervention ................................................................................................................... 33
One-Rep Max Test on Power Rack .............................................................................. 35
Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................................... 37
Freestyle Pull Technique ............................................................................................... 42
Testing Personnel and Qualiﬁcations ........................................................................... 43
Data Management ......................................................................................................... 44
Data Analyses .......................... 45
Resources ...................................................................................................................... 46
CHAPTER 4 — RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................. 47
Results ........................................................................................................................... 47
Population description .............................................................................................. 47
Power testing ............................................................................................................. 49
Stroke pattern analysis .............................................................................................. 50
Power comparison ..................................................................................................... 55
Correlation relationships ........................................................................................... 60
Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 62
CHAPTER 5 - CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE STUDIES .......................................... 71
Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 72
Limitations and Future Studies ..................................................................................... 73
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 76
APPENDIX A -- Informed Consent Form .................................................................... 77
APPENDIX B -- Swimming Background Questionnaire ............................................. 79
APPENDIX C -- Drills and Sets for Teaching the Two Stroke Styles ......................... 80
APPENDIX D -- Data Collection Forms ...................................................................... 81
APPENDIX E -- Testing Results .................................................................................. 82
APPENDD( F -- Stroke Analysis ................................................................................. 97
APPENDIX G -- I-Stroke and S-Stroke Scatter Plots of Power Output ..................... 112
APPENDIX H -- t-test Results ................................................................................... 118
APPENDD( I -- ANOVA Charts ................................................................................ 122
APPENDIX J -- Correlation Scatter Plots .................................................................. 125
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 143

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Research design .................................................................................................. 30
Table 2: Power Rack testing matrix .................................................................................. 37
Table 3: Relationships between lengths and angles of Power Rack setup ....................... 42
Table 4: Population description ........................................................................................ 48
Table 5: Summary comparison of average power based on random assignment to

stroke order ......................................................................................................... 50
Table 6: Average power per resistance level and stroke style .......................................... 55
Table 7: t-test results ......................................................................................................... 58
Table 8: Correlation summary, r statistic ......................................................................... 61
Table 9: Correlation between best time in 50 yard freestyle and power generated .......... 69
Table 10: Female] data ..................................................................................................... 82
Table 11: Female2 data ..................................................................................................... 83
Table 12: Female3 data ..................................................................................................... 84
Table 13: Female4 data ..................................................................................................... 85
Table 14: Female5 data ..................................................................................................... 86
Table 15: Female6 data ..................................................................................................... 87
Table 16: Female7 data ..................................................................................................... 88
Table 17: Male] data ........................................................................................................ 89
Table 18: Male2 data ........................................................................................................ 90
Table 19: Male3 data ........................................................................................................ 91
Table 20: Male4 data ........................................................................................................ 92
Table 21: Ma1e5 data ........................................................................................................ 93
Table 22: Male6 data ........................................................................................................ 94

vii

Table 23: Male? data ........................................................................................................ 95
Table 24: Male8 data ........................................................................................................ 96
Table 25: Stroke analysis, Malel ...................................................................................... 97
Table 26: Stroke analysis, Male2 ...................................................................................... 98
Table 27: Stroke analysis, Male3 ...................................................................................... 99
Table 28: Stroke analysis, Male4 .................................................................................... 100
Table 29: Stroke analysis, Male5 .................................................................................... 101
Table 30: Stroke analysis, Male6 .................................................................................... 102
Table 31: Stroke analysis, Male7 .................................................................................... 103
Table 32: Stroke analysis, Male8 .................................................................................... 104
Table 33: Stroke analysis, Femalel ................................................................................ 105
Table 34: Stroke analysis, Female2 ................................................................................ 106
Table 35: Stroke analysis, Female3 ................................................................................ 107
Table 36: Stroke analysis, Female4 ................................................................................ 108
Table 37: Stroke analysis, Female5 ................................................................................ 109
Table 38: Stroke analysis, Female6 ................................................................................ 110
Table 39: Stroke analysis, Female7 ................................................................................ 111
Table 40: Dependent t-test — I-Stroke versus S-Stroke, entire population ..................... l 18
Table 41: Dependent t-test — I-Stroke versus S-Stroke, males ....................................... 1 18
Table 42: Dependent t-test — I-Stroke versus S-Stroke, females .................................... 1 18

Table 43: Independent t-test -- Freestylers versus non-freestylers, entire population 119

Table 44: Independent t-test — Sprinters versus non-sprinters, entire population ........... 120

Table 45: Independent t-test — Male versus female, entire population ........................... 121

viii

TH

Zr

 

 

 

Table 46: Repeated measures AN OVA for entire population ........................................ 122
Table 47: Repeated measures ANOVA for male participants ........................................ 123

Table 48: Repeated measures AN OVA for female participants ..................................... 124

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Images in this thesis are presented in color

 

Figure l: A comparison of the S—Pull and the I-Pull (adapted from Ito, 2004) .................. 7
Figure 2: The Power Rack .................................................................................................. 9
Figure 3: Power Rack detail (a), and swimmer using the Power Rack (b) ....................... 10
Figure 4: Pull buoy (a) and swimmer and pull buoy (b) (www.isokineticsinc.com) ........ 11
Figure 5: A swim bench (http://www.swimshop.pl) ......................................................... 19
Figure 6: The MAD-system (adapted from Toussaint, 2002) ........................................... 22
Figure 7: Schematic of camera position — aerial view of underwater camera and

swimmer ........................................................................................................... 39

Figure 8: Power Rack schematic (not to scale) ................................................................. 41
Figure 9: Schematic of rearview comparison of S-Pull and I-Pull ................................... 51
Figure 10: Anthropometric and power data sheets ........................................................... 81
Figure 11: Stroke technique analysis form ....................................................................... 81
Figure 12: Power comparison, males, I-Stroke vs S-Stroke, resistance level 1 .............. 112
Figure 13: Power comparison, females, I-Stroke vs S-Stroke, resistance level 1 .......... 113
Figure 14: Power comparison, males, I-Stroke vs S-Stroke, resistance level 2 .............. 114
Figure 15: Power comparison, females, I-Stroke vs S-Stroke, resistance level 2 .......... 115
Figure 16: Power comparison, males, I-Stroke vs S-Stroke, resistance level 3 .............. 116
Figure 17: Power comparison, females, I-Stroke vs S-Stroke, resistance level 3 .......... 117
Figure 18: Power versus height for the I-Stroke, entire population ................................ 125
Figul‘e 19: Power versus height for the S-Stroke, entire population ............................... 126
Figul‘e 20: Power versus weight for the I-Stroke, entire population ............................... 127
FiEUI‘e 21: Power versus weight for the S-Stroke, entire population .............................. 128

Figure 22: Power versus arm length for the I-Stroke, entire population ........................ 129
Figure 23: Power versus arm length for the S-Stroke, entire population ........................ 130
Figure 24: Power versus height for the I-Stroke, males .................................................. 131
Figure 25: Power versus height for the S-Stroke, males ................................................. 132
Figure 26: Power versus weight for the I-Stroke, males ................................................. 133
Figure 27: Power versus weight for the S-Stroke, males ................................................ 134
Figure 28: Power versus arm length for the I-Stroke, males .......................................... 135
Figure 29: Power versus arm length for the S-Stroke, males ......................................... 136
Figure 30: Power versus height for the I-Stroke, females .............................................. 137
Figure 31: Power versus height for the S-Stroke, females .............................................. 138
Figure 32: Power versus weight for the I-Stroke, females .............................................. 139
Figure 33: Power versus weight for the S-Stroke, females ............................................. 140
Figure 34: Power versus arm length for the I-Stroke, females ....................................... 141
Figure 35: Power versus arm length for the S-Stroke, females ..................................... 142

xi

Equation 1:
Equation 2:
Equation 3:
Equation 4:
Equation 5:
Equation 6:
Equation 7:
Equation 8:

Equation 9:

LIST OF EQUATIONS

Power calculation .......................................................................................... l7
Force to overcome drag ................................................................................. 24
Power to overcome drag ................................................................................ 24
Total power .................................................................................................... 25
Power calculation for the Power Rack .......................................................... 26
Swimming velocity, stroke rate, and stroke length ....................................... 28
Calculations of length and angle parameters for the Power Rack ................. 42
Dependent t-test calculation .......................................................................... 56
Independent t-test calculation ........................................................................ 57

xii

CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION

Overview and Signiﬁcance of the Problem

Swimming stroke technique has evolved as scientiﬁc principles of biomechanics and
physiology have been applied to the sport. The pioneer and leader of applying science to
swimming was James “Doc” Counsilman, the late swimming coach of Indiana
University. His book The Science of Swimming, ﬁrst published in 1968, provided
scientiﬁc insight into the sport and laid the basis for research that continues to this day.
One of Counsilman’s ﬁndings was the pattern the hand made in the water during the
freestyle or crawl stroke. Prior to Counsilman’s work, there was not much science used
to study the mechanics of stroke technique. Counsihnan observed that the hands and
arms of top swimmers did not follow a straight path through the water, which was the
conventional wisdom of the day, but rather their hands and arms performed a series of
sculls. This sculling motion resulted in the arm following a more S-shaped pattern with
respect to the body as the arm and hand moved through the water. Stroke patterns vary
from individual to individual, but to this day, the S-shape is seen and taught as the most

eﬁrective pull.

A I‘eport by Ito (2004) indicated that the S-Pull may not be the most effective pull.
Shililichiro Ito, a mechanical engineer with the National Defense Academy in Yokosuka,
Japan, ﬁrst analyzed the swim patterns in turtles. He found that to maximize speed,
t"miles use a straight pull while to maximize efﬁciency turtles use a more S-shaped ﬁn
patttEtrn. Subsequently, Ito used computer modeling to examine pull patterns in humans.

Hi3 results on humans agreed with those on the turtles, that the conventional S-Pull is the

most efﬁcient pull, while a straighter I-Pull permits the swimmer to generate more power

in freestyle swimming.

As this is a recent report, there has been no research to validate this theory under
conditions of human performance. These new hypotheses into the power generated
through the I-Pull need to be veriﬁed. As speciﬁed by the Ito model, an I-Pull will
generate more power, as compared to an S-Pull. As Ito’s theory is based on a computer
model, testing needs to be done on the pull patterns of actual swimmers to see if there is

indeed a signiﬁcant difference in the power output between the I-Pull and the S-Pull.

Veriﬁcation of Pull Patterns

The Ito study (2004) has opened up new research ideas that have not been previously
considered. There are two main questions: (1) How can different freestyle stroke patterns
be examined? and (2) How can arm power be measured most effectively? The I-Pull,

being seen as generating more power, is a new concept and there is little, if any,

information in the literature regarding this stroke pull pattern.

Pro‘gress in swimming is measured through the change in performance records. These
recOl‘ds can be on various levels, from each individual’s personal records, to school and
meet records, to national and Olympic records. As a swimmer’s times improve, it
becOInes progressively harder to go faster (i.e., it progressively takes more work to drop
less time). In this quest to achieve maximum speed, minor changes in stroke technique

and body position may result in the improvement desired by the swimmer. A drop of a

few tenths or even hundredths of a second can mean the difference between a gold medal
and no medal. Performance success can also lead to monetary rewards in terms of
scholarships and endorsement money. Coaches and swimmers are constantly searching
for techniques that will result in faster swimming. The swimming community needs

empirical data to verify whether the I-Pull will produce more power and ultimately lead

to faster swimming performances.

Need for Study

There have been no published studies to test how the power generated through the S-Pull
compares with that through the I-Pull. For the past 40 years, stroke patterns have been
analyzed primarily to assess how patterns vary by individual, not how one pull compares
to another. Until the Ito (2004) study, the S-Pull had been thought as the best stroke
pattern for all situations and no research was needed into a straight I-Pull. As stated
Previously, testing the differences between the two pulls has yet to be done. The results
50111 a comparative study will help to either support the traditional S-Pull or provide

more credence to the idea that the I-Pull generates more power and potentially greater

SVViI‘nming velocity.

A11 swimmers and coaches can potentially beneﬁt from a comparative study. Before
coaches and swimmers start using the I-Pull, they need to know that it works as a viable
SWilrrming technique. Coaches in any sport are keen to “jump on the bandwagon” when a

new technique becomes known to a sport, especially if it is used by an athlete who is

successful at a high level. However, new techniques need to be validated through
scientiﬁc inquiry. The best athletes in a particular sport may be using a certain technique
because it is biomechanically advantageous for their own bodies and not the population
as a whole. Conversely, other swimmers may imitate a champion swimmer’s technique
that is biomechanically disadvantageous for their own bodies. Coaches need physical

validation of Ito’s computer model in order to have conﬁdence in selecting the I-Pull as a

training technique for their athletes.

The results of a comparative study may lead to situation speciﬁc training. If the results
Show that the I-Pull does indeed generate more power, coaches can begin to teach their
swimmers to use this stroke in speciﬁc conditions. The original Ito report shows that the
I —Pull generates more power while decreasing the efﬁciency of the stroke. Sprinters (50
meter and 100 meter competitors) could beneﬁt most from the I-Pull as the emphasis in
these events is power and speed. The sprint events last no-longer than a minute; these
SWimmers may afford a drop in efﬁciency for an increase in power that they may obtain
t1ll‘ough the proposed I-Pull. Swimmers in longer events (400 meter, 800 meter, and
1500 meter) may want to use the conventional S-Pull while utilizing the I-Pull at key
moments - speciﬁcally at the end of a race when speed is important or when they need a

Quick burst of speed to pass an opponent or to prevent others from passing them.

PUrpose of Research

The purpose of this study was to measure the differences, if any, in the power output

generated ﬁ'om the conventional S-shaped pull versus a straight I-shaped pull during

freestyle swimming in experienced swimmers. Participants learned each of the two pull
patterns during a training period prior to data collection. The Power Rack was used to

measure the amount of power generated through the use of both of the pull techniques.

Research Questions

Is there a signiﬁcant difference in the power output in freestyle swimming as
measured by the Power Rack in trained experienced swimmers using a straight I-Pull

as compared to the traditional S-shaped pull?

Aside from power output, other variables were measured for differences:

0 Are there differences in the amount of power generated in freestyle
swimming with the two strokes between athletes who specialize in
freestyle and those that specialize in one of the other three stroke
disciplines (backstroke, butterﬂy, and breaststroke)?

o Is there a difference in the amount of power generated in freestyle
swimming with the two strokes between athletes who specialize in sprint
events (up to 100 meters) and those who specialize in non-sprint events
(100 meters and greater)?

0 Is there a correlation between power output and anthropometric measures

of height, weight, and arm length?

‘ugﬂl’

Assumptions

There were a few assumptions that were made to carry out the current study. One
assumption was that the Power Rack was a viable device to measure power output in
swimmers. The Power Rack is used on a regular basis by the majority of collegiate and

elite programs to train and develop power, speed, and strength in the water. As it is a

.u'md

regularly used device, another assumption was that the Power Rack would not likely

cause injury or hurt the participants in the study.

There were a few assumptions based on the video equipment and set-up of the
underwater camera. There was only one underwater camera available for video analysis.
It was assumed that the stroke patterns could best be analyzed from a perspective behind
the swimmer when using a single underwater video camera. The other two possible
camera positions, above or below the swimmer, would not have been easily implemented.
The underwater camera consists of a telescoping lens that goes under the water, upon
which the camera rests outside of the water. To take video underneath the swimmer
would require a modiﬁcation of the underwater camera to get this view. To get video
above the swimmer would require an apparatus made so that the camera could look down
upon a swimmer from above the pool. The above and below camera views would have

required extensive modiﬁcations which would be beyond the scope of the current study.

Deﬁnitions

Catch — Figure 1. The initial part of the freestyle pull where the hand engages the water.

In the S-Stroke the catchiis the initial out-sweep of the hand away from the body.
This can also be thought of as the top portion of the “S”. In the I-Stroke the catch is

the ﬁrst part of the pull as the hand and forearm move from a horizontal to a vertical

position in the water.

 

 

 

(a) S-Shaped pull (b) I-Shuped pull
Figure 1: A comparison of the S-Pull and the I-Pull (adapted from Ito, 2004)

Finish - Figure I. The last part of the freestyle pull where the hand and forearm are at a
position near the hip and initiate exit from the water.

Flume - A highly-technological swimming apparatus that is analogous to a treadmill for
swimmers. A swimmer is able to swim against a controlled current ﬂow of water
created by the ﬂume. The ﬂume is used to monitor stroke behaviors and can be used
for scientiﬁc research.

Freestyle - Includes any type of swimming that falls under competitive swimming. In
other words, swimmers in a freestyle event can choose to swim any stroke variation

they want as long as it remains legal. Most swimmers use the front crawl swimming

I
I.

 

stroke characterized by alternating right and left arm strokes and alternating right and
left straight leg kicks.

I-shape pull (I-Stroke or I-Pull) — Figure I. A freestyle swimming stroke pattern where
the hand and forearm follow a straight line pull parallel to the midline of the body as
they move underneath the body. F3

One-rep max — The largest amount of weight that can be lifted in a speciﬁc exercise by

an individual at one time. This can be abbreviated as lRM.

 

Power — Deﬁned as the rate of work, measured in watts. In the current study it was I
deﬁned as the amount of time it takes to move a set amount of weight a set distance
on the Power Rack.
Power Rack — Figure 2 and Figure 3. A training device for swimmers consisting of a
Weight stack and pulley system. The Power Rack allows athletes to swim against a
given resistance and develop in-water strength. The Power Rack is manufactured by

Total Performance Inc. Mansﬁeld, Ohio.

   

Figure 2: The Power Rack

   

Figure 3: Power Rack detail (a), and swimmer using the Power Rack (b)

Pull buoy — Figure 4. A small piece of equipment usually made out of foam that is
placed between the legs to prevent the swimmer from kicking. When using a pull

buoy, swimming propulsion can only be generated by the upper extremities.

 

(a) ' (b)
Figure 4: Pull buoy (a) and swimmer and pull buoy (b) (wwszokineticsincxom)
S-shape pull (S-Stroke or S-Pull) — Figure I. A freestyle swimming stroke pattern
consisting ﬁrst of a pull to the outside away from the body followed by a pull back
inside toward the body’s midline and ﬁnishing with a pull back away from the
midline
Scull — Short hand and arm movements that utilize liﬁ forces to propel a person forward
through the water. A soul] is a sideways back-and-forth motion of the hand and
forearm in which the hand is angled to push water backwards. It is used in
competitive strokes to help move the body past the hand. The S-shape pull features a
combination of sculls to move the body forward through the water.
Stroke length — A measure of how far a swimmer moves through the water in one stroke

cycle. Stroke length is typically measured from the point where one hand enters the

in. .

water until it enters the water again for the next stroke cycle. Stroke length can also
be referred to as distance per stroke (DPS. )
Stroke rate -— Frequency or number of strokes taken over a certain period of time.
VOZmax - Can also be referred to as the aerobic capacity of a person. This is the
maximum rate at which oxygen is consumed. VOZmax measures the level of

physical ﬁtness in an individual. (Brooks, Fahey, White, & Baldwin, 2000)

12

 

CHAPTER 2 — REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Biomechanical Principles of Freestyle Stroke Technique

There are two general principles that can be applied to swimmers — Newton’s Laws of
Motion and Bemoulli’s Lift Principle. Newton’s Third Law of Motion states that for
every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Applying Newton’s Third Law, a I

swimmer pushing water backwards results in forward propulsion of the body

 

-‘Ws'

(Counsilman & Counsilman, 1994). This law holds true for all of the four stroke

disciplines (backstroke, breaststroke, butterﬂy, and freestyle).

Initially swimmers were thought to pull their arms straight through the water much like a
paddle to create a forward motion (Counsilman & Counsilman, 1994). Through the use
of underwater cameras, Counsihnan (1968) saw that swimmers actually moved their arms
in a curvilinear S-shape. This S-shaped pull was attributed to the concept of Bemoulli’s
Lift Principle. Lift is a condition that is produced when a forward thrust of an object
(blade, hand, or propeller) produces positive pressure on one side and negative pressure
on the other. In a swimmer, the hand produces positive pressure on the palm surface and
negative pressure on the top side of the hand. As the swirnmer’s hand moves through the
water, the resulting force moves the swimmer forward. By moving the arm in an S-
shape, the swimmer’s hand acts like a propeller — it uses lift to produce a forward motion
(Counsilman & Counsilman, 1994). Elite swimmers are able to grab the water so that the
arm acts as an anchor and stays in one location in the forward-backward dimension. The

hand stays in one place and the body moves past the hand. In non-elite swimmers, there

13

is a degree of slippage that occurs; the hand exits the water behind the entry point. The
S-Pull evolved so that the swirnmer’s pull would constantly encounter still water to move
to produce these liﬁ forces (Counsilman & Counsilman, 1994). The S-Pull allows a
swimmer to move a relatively large amount of water a short distance which results in a
more efﬁcient pull; the I-Pull moves a small amount of water a relatively large distance
(Counsilman & Counsilman, 1994). Since Counsilman’s initial ﬁndings in 1964, the S-

shaped curvilinear pull has been the accepted freestyle stroke pattern.

There are three parts to a swimming S-Pull as seen in Figure I: catch, pull, and ﬁnish. In
some swimmers, prior to the catch, there is a short glide period where the hand is moving
forward relative to the water as it enters the water. This initial glide is dependent upon
where the swimmer places the hand upon entry and varies ﬁom swimmer to swimmer.
The catch starts with a short lateral scull away from the body followed by a scull back
toward the midline of the body and is semi-circular in shape. As the arm travels through
the pull section, the hand follows a natural pattern and starts moving backward and
toward the lateral side of the body. The ﬁnish is denoted by elbow extension as the hand
and forearm exit the water. The pull has also been divided into ﬁve parts: entry, down-
sweep and in-sweep which together make the catch; out-sweep (pull); and up—sweep

(ﬁnish) (Chatard, Collomp, Maglischo, & Maglischo, 1990).

The straight-pull, or I-Pull theory, is based on Ito’s (2004) study. As stated earlier, his

work was derived from studying turtles and was extended to include a computer model of

human swimming. The I-Pull is devoid of the lateral back-and—forth sculling patterns

14

 

found in the S-Pull; instead, the hand follows a straight back pull. A video analysis taken
from behind the swimmer will show that in the S-Pull the hand and arm will engage in a
signiﬁcant amount of lateral movement while in the I-Pull there is little or no lateral
movement. Figure 1 shows a comparison between the different pull-pattems of these two
strokes. Beside the path that the hand travels through the water, the major difference
between the two pulls is the position of the elbow during the catch. In the S-Pull the l

elbow is extended during the catch while in the I-Pull the elbow is ﬂexed as soon as the

 

hand enters the water (Ito, 2004). In both techniques, through the pull and the ﬁnish, the #7

elbow has similar positioning.

The pull-pattern for swimmers is a three-dimensional movement and involves rotation of
the body as well. A swimmer’s body does not stay ﬂat in the water when swimming the
front crawl stroke but rather it rotates along an axis running from the head to the feet.

The frame of reference is important when describing the pull pattern. Is the arm and
hand moving relative to the body of the swimmer or another reference point, such as a
ﬁxed point in the pool? The frame of reference can affect how the pull pattern is
described. In the case where the body serves as the frame of reference body rotation is an
important factor. The S-Pull can be described as when the body has maximum rotation
and the arm and hand are set in a ﬁxed point in the water; as the body rotates, the arm and
hand make an S-shape relative to the body. Conversely, the I-Pull will have minimal

body rotation with the arm and hand not contained in a ﬁxed point in the water.

15

Using a ﬁxed point either behind or below the swimmer as a reference point results in a
different description of the two pull styles. In this case, body rotation is not a factor in
the description of the pull pattern. The visual description of the stroke will only take into
consideration the arm and hand as they move relative to the reference point. The S-Pull
will have lateral movements with elbow ﬂexion, whereas, the I-Pull will have a straighter F...
arm with few, if any lateral. When a ﬁxed point in the pool is used as the reference point,

the swirnmer’s body can rotate as much or as little as possible with either stroke

 

technique as the focus and description of the stroke is solely with the arm and hand.

‘ inn-n..- “1.,
I

There are few studies that have closely looked at stroke patterns. One reason for this is
that since Counsilman’s ﬁndings, the S-type pull has been accepted as the
biomechanically superior stroke technique. A second reason is that pull patterns are
three-dimensional and in-depth analysis takes a lot of time and equipment which is not
available to a lot of researchers. Ito and Counsilman agree that the S-Pull is the more
efﬁcient pull. Chatard et a1. (1990) measured swimming performance based on VO2max,
stroke pattern, lift forces on the arm, and anthropometric measures in nine male
competitive swimmers. Participants in this study were labeled either “skilled” or
“unskilled” based on actual performance compared to theoretical performance. The
“skilled” swimmers performed better then predicted and had distinct differences in their
stroke pattern than the “unskilled” swimmers; namely, the skilled swimmers had a shorter
catch phase and a longer ﬁnish phase to their strokes. There was a strong correlation (r =

0.77) between stroke depth and the generation of lift forces.

16

Swimming Power

Power, by deﬁnition, is the rate of work done. Mathematically, power can be represented

as:

P = W/t = F *d/t
E»:
Where: P = power
W = work
F = force
(1 = distance
t = time

 

Equation 1: Power calculation

Power can be applied to athletes and can be thought of as the rate at which a muscle
produces a force. Athletes who are able to produce the most power are going to be

producing the most force at the fastest rates.

Swimming is known as a full-body sport. Swimmers are constantly activating muscles
throughout the body as they move through the water. In propelling the body, the lower
body employs the kick; the upper body and arms contribute to the majority of the forward
velocity; and the mid-section, or core, links the upper and lower bodies together while
helping to maintain a straight-line body position. The muscles of the shoulders, upper-
back, and triceps are the muscle groups that are the most important in providing
swimming speed. These are the muscle groups that hypertrophy the most through in-
water training and are targeted via strength training out of the water. Swimming power is

going to be affected by the strength of these muscles. Swimming-speciﬁc training,

17

including power, can be classiﬁed into two categories: out-of-the-water based training, or

“dryland” training and water-based training.

Dryland measures of power

Arm power for swimmers has been typically measured out-of-the water in three different
ways: swim bench, cycle ergometry, and resistance exercises. All three of these methods
have beneﬁts and drawbacks when it comes to analyzing power in swimmers. Cycle
ergometry and resistance exercises are common methodologies and both are easy to use;
the swim bench is a common swimming training device used by many universities and
club teams. The main drawback to all three methods is the question of how well do the

dryland measures transfer to actual swimming power.

Swim bench

The swim bench (H and M Engineering, Gwent, Wales) (Figure 5) is a dryland device
that has been used in numerous studies (e. g., Costill, King, Thomas, & Hargreaves, 1985;
Johnson, Sharp, & Hedrick, 1993; Neufer, Costill, Fielding, Flynn, & Kirwan, 1987;
Sharp, Troup, & Costill, 1982; Swaine, 1997, 2000; Tanaka, Costill, Thomas, Fink, &
Widrick, 1993) to measure arm power. The bench is constructed so that the participant
can lie prone on it. The bench has a hand paddle and pulley system that allows for
simulated swimming motion outside of the water. Transducers can be used with the

swim bench to measure power output (Swaine, 1997).

18

 

 

 

 

Figure 5: A swim bench (http://www.swimshop.pl)

Sharp, Troup, and Costill (1982) tested 22 male and 18 female teenage swimmers to
correlate upper body power and sprint freestyle performance. Maximum arm power,
peak force, and work were all measured on a swim bench. The bench has resistance
settings that provide “a constant amount of acceleration in proportion to the force applied
by the user.” There were three data collection components employed in this research: (3)
participants performed 25-yard sprints in the pool, (b) the swim bench was used to
measure power, and (c) fatigue. Peak power and fatigue were measured on the
participants while they performed a 45-second interval on the swim bench. The power
generated by the swimmer on the bench was measured by dividing time (the 45-second
interval) into work output from the swim bench through Equation 1. Participants were
tested twice on the bench to establish reliability of the apparatus. The results gave a

Signiﬁcant positive correlation (r = 0.90) between arm power (measured on the swim

 

bench) and sprint performance. As the distance swum increases, the amount of power
generated becomes less important. Power is still signiﬁcant, however, in distances as
great as 500 yards. The investigators suggest that measurements of arm power should be

made in devices that best imitate the actual swimming motion.

Swaine (1997, 2000) has conducted two studies utilizing the swim bench to measure arm
power. The 1997 study focused on the arm power generated by swimmers who were
recovering from injury. The 2000 study added a leg-kicking ergometer to the swim
bench that was able to isolate arm and leg power. Three studies (Sharp et al., 1982;
Swaine, 1997, 2000) agree with previous results (Olbrecht & Clarys, 1983) that, while
the swim bench is good for measuring arm power, it is not suitable for imitating the
swimming motions themselves. Motion in water is much different than that on land due
to the buoyant nature of water. Even though the bench can be used to supplement

training, it should not be used as a replacement for swimming.

Cycle ergometry

Cycle ergometry and resistance exercises have also been used to measure arm power. A
cycle ergometer relies upon a single wheel in which the resistance can be adjusted to
measure work and power output. There are two different types of cycle ergometers: one
for measuring leg power and one for measuring arm power. Hawley, Williams, Vickovic,
and Handcock (1992) used arm and leg cycle ergometry to measure power. Twelve male
and ten female teenagers performed a Wingate Aerobic Test for both the upper and lower

body to measure maximum power output. Participants also completed timed swims of 50

20

 

 

 

 

 

m and 400 m. Their results had a correlation of 0.63 between sprint speed and arm
power. These results suggest that there may be better methods than cycle ergometry to
assess potential swim performance. The Wingate test was the only measure that
predicted sprint performance uniformly across genders. The results of this study showed

that arm power signiﬁcantly contributes (r = 0.70) to performance in distances up to 400

j 7
meters. 3 5

Resistance exercises

Resistance exercises can include any type of strength exercises such as the bench press or
the squat lift. Johnson, Sharp, and Hedrick (1993) used a IRM on a bench press on a
Universal machine and compared these results to swimming speed and power. Simmons
(2003) used IRM bench press, medicine ball exercises, and vertical jump to compare
male and females and how these exercises correlate to swimming performance. Tanaka
et al. (1993) used an 8-week resistance program that focused on developing swimming-
speciﬁc muscles. The exercises used in this study included chin-ups, dips, lat pull-
downs, elbow extensions, and bent-arm ﬂys. These three studies all agree that there is
little correlation between resistance strength and swimming velocity and that other

methods of strength training are superior for swimmers.

Swimming speciﬁc measures of power

Swimming power can also be measured directly through water-based devices. These
devices include the Measurement of Active Drag system (MAD-system), swimming

ﬂume, videography, Power Rack, and Swimgate Test.

21

Measurement of Active Drag system

Hollander et a1. (1986) have developed the MAD-system. This system (Figure 6)
consists of a series of hand-pads below the water that the participant is able to push off
while swimming. The system is connected to transducers that allow for power 1
measurements. Toussaint has led a group that has used the MAD-system in a series of
studies (1988, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c, 2002) as a means of measuring swimming efficiency

and power. The MAD-system is unique to this research group.

 

 

 

   
 

/ 1
Calibration ,x"
Device ,/

/

,p
.I‘
I

n/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6: The MAD-system (adapted from Toussaint, 2002)

Toussaint, Knops, de Groot, and Hollander (1990) published a study that measured arm
power via the MAD-system. Transducers in the MAD-system enable force and drag
measurements to be made. The study was done on 10 competitive swimmers ages 19-24
years. A pull buoy (Figure 4) was used during the study to minimize leg effects.
Respiratory (efﬁciency) measures were also taken to ﬁnd the ratio of power output to
power input. The efﬁciency of the participants ranged from 5.1 to 9.5% which was in

agreement with Bobbert’s (1960) and Davies & Sargeant’s (1974) published studies of

22

arm cranking (as cited in Toussaint et al., 1990). Berger, Hollander, and de Groot (1997)
measured technique and related power losses of ﬁ'ont crawl swimming. The participants
in their study were seven males and four females who were at the national or
international level in swimming or triathlons. The swimmers performed two 400 meter
swims at different velocities -— one with the MAD-system and one without it. Underwater
videography was used to measure the orientation of the hand and arms during the pull
phase of the stroke. The study concluded that different phases of the stroke have
different proportions of lift and drag. The drag force is opposite the line of motion of the
hand and thus there cannot be lift (propulsive) forces without the drag force. The role of

power was found to overcome drag and provide propulsion.

Swimming ﬂume

Another water-based research device is the swimming ﬂume. The ﬂume is an advanced
piece of technology, a few of which exist in the world. In the ﬂume, a swimmer swims in
one place against a water current controlled by the ﬂume that can be changed; the ﬂume
can be thought of as a swimming treadmill. Aside from a variable current, researchers
can easily accommodate oxygen uptake (including VOZmax) equipment, and the ﬂume
provides viewing windows for biomechanical and video analysis. The ﬂume is also built

in a hyperbaric chamber so that training at different altitudes can be simulated.
Toussaint, Wakayoshi, Hollander, and Ogita (1998) used a modeling technique along

With the ﬂume to measure aerobic and anaerobic capacity related to swimming

Performance. The force (F d) to overcome drag (Equation 2) is related to the square of

23

 

velocity (v) while the power (Pd) to overcome drag (Equation 3) is related to the cube of
velocity. In these two equations, A is a proportionality constant based on water density,

drag coefﬁcient, and cross sectional area of the swimmer’s body.

F d = sz,
where: Fd = force to overcome drag

A = proportionality constant
v = velocity.

Equation 2: Force to overcome drag

2 3
Pd = Av * v = Av ,
where: Pd = power to overcome drag

A = proportionality constant
v = velocity.

Equation 3: Power to overcome drag

Using Newton’s third law of motion, propulsion in swimming is obtained by pushing

(pulling) water backward. The total power (Equation 4) is the sum of the power to

overcome drag (Pd) and the power to move a given mass of water (Pk).

24

Pa = Pd + Pb
Where: P0 = total power
Pd = power to overcome drag

Pk = power to move a given mass of water

Equation 4: Total power

The investigators tested eight college-age male swimmers in a swimming ﬂume.
Measures of VOZmax and anaerobic power were used to create a computational model to
predict swimming performance at various distances. Aerobic capacity better predicts
performance at longer distances rather then shorter distances. The proposed model in the
study, putting an emphasis on anaerobic power capacity, poorly predicted aerobic

performance.

Videograph y

Berger et a1. (1997) used videography to measure the motion of arms through the water.
Anatomical landmarks were identiﬁed to measure arm movement and body velocity. The
swimmers swam a 400 meter distance twice — one swimming normal and one with the
MAD-system. The videography was used to identify different phases of the swimming
pull. In this study, the researchers used a pull buoy to support the legs, isolate the arms,
and to eliminate any leg effects. Similar studies (Toussaint, 1990a & 1990b) in the

literature have focused solely on arm power used a pull buoy as well.

25

Power Rack and Swimgate test
Another swimming-based device is the Power Rack (Figure 2). The Power Rack is a
weight and pulley system that allows a swimmer to swim against a known amount of
resistance. The swimmer wears a belt that is then attached to the Power Rack. The
swimmer then sprints approximately 10.1 meters until the weight stack hits the top of the
rack. The Power Rack is a common training device that is found in a majority of
collegiate and elite swimming programs. Power (P) is a product of force (F) and velocity
(v):
P = F *v = mg*Ax/At,
Where: m = mass
g = acceleration due to gravity
Ax = amount of displacement
At = time

Equation 5: Power calculation for the Power Rack

When using the Power Rack, a given mass, m, is moved a given distance, Ax, in a given

amount of time, At. Using the acceleration due to gravity, g, the power can easily be

calculated.

There have been very few studies that have used the Power Rack as a means of
measuring power output. Johnson et a1. (1993) measured power through both the Power
Rack and swim bench. They also looked at individual strength through a IRM maximum

bench press on a Universal gym. Simmons (2003) measured power through the Power

26

Rack and a Swimgate Test. She examined differences between genders and body types
on the power generated during swimming. The Swimgate Test is comparable to the
Wingate Test as a measure of power. In the Swimgate Test a swimmer performs a 30-

second all-out swim while attached to a tether (Stager & Tanner, 2004).

There is a lack of published information utilizing the Power Rack as a measurement
device. The Power Rack is a common training apparatus utilized by a majority of
competitive and elite swim teams. It is a simple device that can easily be used for
scientiﬁc measures. As there are few facilities that have the advanced technology
(swimming ﬂume and MAD-System) to assess swimming performance, it is surprising
that the Power Rack has not been used in more studies. By using the Power Rack as a
measurement device, a comparative research question to be explored relates to the

validity of the Power Rack as a research device in swimming.

Limitations of Potential Equipment

There are some limitations in terms of the various equipment and methods discussed.
The MAD-system and swimming ﬂume are expensive pieces of technology that are not
available to most researchers. The MAD-system also presents a limitation in its inherent
design. There are pads attached to poles in which a swimmer uses to push against as
he/she swims across the pool. The current study examines the shape of stroke pull
patterns. By having these pads, the MAD-system cannot take into account the sculling
motions and forces a swimmer to pull such that the hand and forearm do not change pitch

nor does the hand change positions in the horizontal or vertical dimensions. . In reality,

27

the hand, forearm, and arm are moving in three dimensions underwater. In addition,
there is no swim bench available to this researcher for power measurements. The
availability of a Power Rack and an underwater camera served as a basis of the

instrumentation for this study.

Swimming Velocity, Stroke Rate, and Stroke Length

Swimming velocity (V) is directly affected by stroke rate (SR) and stroke length (SL) by
the following equation:
V = SR x SL.

Equation 6: Swimming velocity, stroke rate, and stroke length

A number of studies (Chatard et al., 1990; Craig & Pendergast, 1979; Craig, Skehan,
Pawelczyk, & Boomer, 1985; Tanaka et al., 1993; Toussaint, 1990; Wakayoshi et al.,
1993, 1995) have all examined relationships between swimming velocity, stroke rate, and
stroke length. There is a general agreement in these studies that in higher skilled
swimmers, an increase in velocity is more attributed to an increase in stroke length rather
then stroke rate. Craig and Pendergast’s (1979) study had the largest number of
participants (41 males, 22 females) and plotted velocity versus stroke rate for each
participant. While this was an early study, it did show that the fastest swimmers had the
greatest distance per stroke (DPS) at sub maximal velocities. Additionally, there was a
correlation (r = .52) between maximum DPS and maximum velocity. Wakayoshi et al.
(1995) performed measurements on ten males swimming in a ﬂurne set at varying flow

rates. Their work suggests that high performance (i.e., fast) swimmers have a lower SR

28

51‘; an 11

)f’hy f
mun 3:)“
I

with an increased SL and that SR correlates more closely with the square of the velocity
than with velocity. Swimmers who take fewer strokes at a given velocity are
metabolically more efﬁcient and more technically sound. A second study by Wakayoshi
et a1. (1993) showed that after six months of training, increases in velocity were attributed
more to an increase in stroke length than stroke rate. Chatard et a1. (1990), on the other
hand, found a closer relation between stroke rate and velocity. His work compared a
group of unskilled swimmers with skilled swimmers. The skilled swimmers had a higher
stroke rate with a lower stroke length. Additionally, Chatard found that stroke length and

anthropometric arm measures were not signiﬁcantly related.

Implications of the Literature on the Current Study

Power output in swimmers has been extensively studied. The impact of stroke patterns
and the use of the Power Rack as a research tool, however, have been minimally studied.
In addition to the main goals of the research, a concomitant intent of the current study
was to shed light on the validity of the use of the Power Rack as a research tool and to
provide more data on stroke patterns. The literature also provides for some
recommended resistance values when using the Power Rack. The study by Simmons

(2003) illustrated how to conduct and establish criteria for a IRM test on the Power Rack.

29

CHAF

Resea

q
a '6:

AM» i

3—4 e
.16! L0

I...
.13
Anti»

11”"
. as.“
' I

 

CHAPTER 3 - METHODS

Research Design

The research design for this study involved participants serving as their own controls.

Prior to the study, participants were provided with an informed consent form (Appendix

A) to read and to learn about the current study and to sign if they were interested in

participating. Subsequently, those consenting to participate completed a swimming

background questionnaire (Appendix B) to provide some characteristic data about

themselves and their swimming ability. Participants were randomly assigned to one of

two groups. Both groups performed a pretest during the ﬁrst week of the study to

establish a 1RM on the Power Rack and then participated in the 4-week intervention

period in which they were instructed on the two different stroke styles. After the

intervention, one group (Group 1) was tested ﬁrst with the I-Pull and second with the S-

Pull; the second group (Group 2) was tested ﬁrst with the S-Pull and then with the I-Pull.

Table 1 has the overview of the research design.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30

Group 1
1RM Pretest $32,113me-
. . on Power Test l-Pull Test S-Pull
Partrcrpants Rack Pull and S-Pull
randomly for 4 Weeks
assigned to
Group 1 or G'OUP 2
Group 2 - .
1 RM Pretest [$22]: $21
on Power Test S—Pull Test l-Pull
Rack Pull and S-Pull
for 4 Weeks
Table 1: Research design

 

Threa

lntem;

1"
a; 9F",
1.1» unl‘

7:2; ..
~¥ik U.

uns'}
H u;,'
find

92ml

Threats to Validity

Internal validity

The three biggest threats to internal validity were: reactivity to testing, expectancy
effects, and on-stage effects. Reactivity is how the participants respond to the testing. In
this research design, there was a test before the intervention to establish the amount of
resistance on the Power Rack for the future tests. The intervention was not used to
measure the amount of change from the pretest, but to teach and compare the two stoke
techniques. Expectancy effects were of concern to the researcher. Participants may feel
the need to give a higher effort on one stroke style then on the other. Participants were
told to give all-out efforts on each trial to minimize this threat. Additionally, participants
were not informed about the possible outcomes so they would not subconsciously try
harder with one stroke versus the other. The last threat to validity, the on-stage effect,
would be minimal since the Power Rack is a training tool that the participants had used
throughout the season on a regular basis. Swimmers are constantly being evaluated by
time-performance whether in practice or during competition. It was not likely that the
participants would feel as if they were performing for someone; they were just doing

something they normally did during training.

External validity

The external threats to validity were minimized and not a major concern for this study.
Randomization put the participants into different groups and they served as their own

controls. The Power Rack has been identiﬁed as a device that can measure swimming

31

,.
3aaum
31367315

‘-1 -..‘w
‘..Z UK“

b-A~'
v

TSCTU

T 1
'MH
r‘w

c:

\Vi.

Thi

power while duplicating the natural swimming motions; this minimized the threat to
experimental arrangement. The interaction of testing and treatment was minimized by

the design of the study.

Selection criteria

The participants for this study were fourteen college swimmers and one high school
swimmer. The college swimmers were team members on a local college team while the
high school swimmer was a member of a local high school and club team. The
swimmers were at a skill level where they have control and mastery of their strokes and
could make subtle changes to their technique. This population was considered as
“experienced swimmers” and required a minimal amount of teaching to learn and master
the I-Stroke technique. All members participated in daily swimming and conditioning
exercises. The recruitment of participants for the study was not limited to those
swimmers whose main stroke was freestyle; swimmers of all stroke disciplines were
recruited for the study. Participants were healthy and free from injuries and orthopedic
problems in the upper extremities. Additionally all participants were required to provide

informed consent (Appendix A) to participate in the research.

Recruitment
The college swimmers were all part of the varsity swim team at a local institution of
higher learning. In addition, the lone high school swimmer was on the local club team.

All participants had the choice whether or not to participate in the study.

32

, .
"IW‘." ..

{blurmsik
”‘3 '

'_Y
Lj‘ﬁc ‘ l$

farm.

Swimrr

Erma

mew
‘- - nut.

In.

v~ I
9....21:

lnlerv

a; r-
Th‘ 117;:
2M,

{H‘Hce

4;».

M m0

Informed Consent

Each participant gave signed informed consent prior to becoming involved in the study.
As all participants were 18 years of age or older, there was no need for parental consent.
Prior to participating in the research project, the secondary investigator held an
informational meeting. This meeting presented the potential participants with an

overview of the research and they had the opportunity to ask any questions regarding the

research.

Swimming Background Questionnaire

Prior to testing, each participant submitted a completed swimming background
Cluestionnaire, which can be found in Appendix B. This questionnaire detailed the
SWimnring experience of the participant in terms of years in the sport, stroke discipline,
diStance specialty, distance of daily practice, number of practices per week, and how
he/ she characterized his/her ﬁ'eestyle pull pattern. The questionnaire also asked for the
pal'tiGipants to provide some basic background information for the research. The

queStionnaire was used to describe the population tested.

Intervention

The intervention lasted four weeks. For ﬁve days a week, the participants swam a
practice that lasted from 1 to 1.5 hours in which the athletes swam between 3000 and
4500 meters. Every practice had part of it devoted to the learning and execution of the

two Stl‘oke techniques. This lasted anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes of the workout.

33

right
sends
Lani mm
armgr
axnrl

men:

I

miss
Izmt
tits-

1
“:3 11’3"
4 1mm;

r _
‘93.,

w .101

.- ,r
i} 01] «m

33:-M

u‘h‘

my ‘
~L3T\ e

.3: _
>.\L‘::

Iv
,5.
““5

During the ﬁrst week of the intervention, the participants concentrated on learning the
two stroke techniques. The participants were instructed to visualize how the arm and
hand move relative to the body. The technique of the S-Stroke involved focusing on
shifting the pitch of the hand and arm in the vertical direction. The swimmers worked on
a semi-circular catch at the beginning of each S-Stroke. In addition, sculling drills were
performed to reinforce the change in direction of the hand and arm. The practice of the
technique of the I-Stroke directed the participant to concentrate on keeping the hand and
arm in the same orientation for the duration of the pull. The participants were instructed
to always face the palm and forearm opposite the direction of travel and there should be
no lateral sculling motions. To help the swimmers concentrate on pulling in one

direction, they were instructed to have their hands follow the outside of the black line that

is on the bottom of the pool in each lane.

SWimming speed was incorporated into the training during the second week of the
intervention. The participants swam short sprints of 10 meters with each stroke
technique. Before these sprints, the two stroke styles were reinforced with the drills that
were introduced during the ﬁrst week. As the intervention progressed into the third and
fourth weeks, the amount of drilling and technique work decreased. The participants
increased the amount of swimming they did with each stroke style. In addition, the
amount of sprinting, in terms of distance and number of repeats, increased during the

second two weeks. Appendix C has additional information on drills and practice sets that

w
ere used for the two stroke styles.

34

v a ‘
Pg, $3.: I
ran at
~{u9‘
Bud». le\

$46431}

J...“-
b

For example, during the ﬁrst week of the intervention, the participants swam a set of 20
swims of 22.8 meters. These were swum so that the ﬁrst 10 were a drill incorporating the
stroke technique and the second ten were swum using the speciﬁc stroke technique.
During the second week, this set progressed into ﬁve sets of four swims of 22.8 meters
each. A set of four had the ﬁrst two being a drill, the third being a swim, and the fourth
being a swim at top speed. In the third week this set evolved into ten sets of two where
the ﬁrst was a drill and the second was a swim at top speed with the proper stroke

technique. In the fourth week, all swims of the set were done with the proper stroke style

and at top speed.

One-Rep Max Test on Power Rack

During the ﬁrst week of the intervention, the participants performed Power Rack trials to
ﬁnd their 1RM that would establish resistance levels for the ﬁnal test. The ﬁrst trial
began with 4.5 kg of resistance and the weight was increased by 2.3 kg each trial. A
1RM was reached when a trial was 3 seconds (or more) slower then the ﬁrst trial. This
f(MOW/ed the criteria set forth by Simmons (2003). Simmons also included a condition
for eStablishing 1RM with stroke count as well as time. Stroke count was included in the
1RM testing but resulted in a wide variable range of results and would have resulted in an
early termination of the test. Due to this large variability with each participant, time was
favored over stroke count when determining the 1RM. Participants used a pull buoy
between their legs and a strap binding the ankles to minimize the effect of legs on the
results, In addition, the participants began each trial without a push-off of the wall. The

participants were prone in the water with their feet just off of the wall and thus began

35

:‘IC‘L’S Elli

ﬁrmer

. m uku'i“
A

v- ‘ ‘

“919.1,
“m j
5 ‘ .

each trial from a stationary start. Participants were instructed to swim each trial at top
speed and as fast as possible. The timing of a trial started at the initiation of the ﬁrst arm
stroke and stopped when the weight stack reached the top of the Power Rack.

Participants rested one minute between trials and repeated until a 1RM was reached.

The 1RM testing led to some changes in the proposed procedure. Initially the protocol
was to have the participants perform the ﬁnal testing at resistance levels of 25, 50, and
75% of the 1RM. The Power Rack only allowed for a minimum of 4.5 kg of resistance
with added increments of 2.3 kg. Since the participants did not use a push-off of the wall,
this greatly reduced the amount of weight that they could pull. Under normal training
conditions the athletes start with a push-off of the wall. This push-off engages the legs
and produces momentum which helps the swimmers get up to top speed quickly. As this
StlIdy is concerned with arm power, the legs were not used and this affected the testing
Conditions. Calculation of the three resistance levels (25, 50, and 75% of 1RM) did not
6911211 a weight that was available for use on the Power Rack. For example, Male6 had a
1RM of 11.3 kg which corresponds to resistance levels of 2.8, 5.7, and 8.5 kg for 25, 50,
and 75 % of 1RM, respectively. These were adjusted to 4.5, 6.8, and 9.1 kg for the ﬁnal
test All adjustments were made to the resistances closest to the 25, 50, and 75%
per-111i Ssible on the Power Rack. These adjustments were made throughout the testing.
For the ﬁnal testing, each participant did three trials on three different resistance levels;
they Were not, however, at the 25, 50, and 75% of the 1RM levels as initially proposed.

Subs'i‘vquently, the resistance levels were termed Level 1 (lowest weight), Level 2 (middle

Weight), and Level 3 (highest weight).

36

Data Collection Procedures

All testing took place at a local competitive swimming pool. The ﬁnal data collection

was done at the end of week four of the intervention. On the day of testing, participants
arrived at the pool with their swimsuit and goggles. Additionally, participants were
expected to be well fed and rested for testing. Participants were initially measured for
weight, and upper extremity length. Weight was measured with a standard scale to the
nearest pound. The upper extremity was measured as one length from the acromion
process to the dactylion (tip of the middle ﬁnger) with a tape measure to the nearest inch.
Participants provided their height to the nearest inch. All measures were converted to

metric units for calculation purposes. Appendix D contains data sheets that were used for

anthr0pometrical and power measures.

 

Resrstance s-Pull |-pu||

Level

 

Level1

9 Randomized
Trials: 3 at Each
Level

 

9 Randomized
Trials: 3 at Each

Level2
Level

 

 

 

Level3

 

 

 

Table 2: Power Rack testing matrix

Pnor to testing, the participants swam a warm-up of 600 meters that consisted of

swilnrning, kicking, and pulling. After the warm-up, they swam eight sprints of 10

37

 

353:5 fOU

his: R3:

5:013 \

335:- {You
.

"' "5: ’35.

1
II IA 0

- - I
“3"- l

.1. .3... .
«L . .
31.;353.
*‘l‘F'HO.

.2“;th
p u

u A... .
.14...?,;‘:

"I

“i

The :33:

Pine 11

meters, four with each stroke technique. Each participant performed 18 swims on the
Power Rack — nine trials using the S-Pull and nine trials using the I-Pull. The nine trials
by stroke were further divided into three different resistance levels as seen in Table 2.
Each group of nine trials was randomized by resistance and participants were not aware
of the resistance level of each trial until they physically experienced the resistance during
the trial. During these trials, the participants used a pull buoy between their legs along
with a strap binding their ankles to minimize the kicking affects. Before each trial, verbal
instruction was given to reinforce the proper stroke style and to ensure an all-out effort.
Examples of the cues used were:
“Use a big S-Pull during each stroke; think ‘out-in-out’ ”
“Straight pull, keep the hand and arm moving backward, trace the black line”
“All-out effort here, no holding back”
During testing, participants were instructed to swim each trail without breathing to

eliminate the inﬂuence of taking a breath on the technique.

The testing was done in the same way as the 1RM testing in that the participants began
prone in the water with the feet just at the wall and did not push-off the wall to start a
trial; again, this was to eliminate leg effects from the study. The participants were
inStI‘ucted to swim each trial as fast as they could. Timing started with the ﬁrst arm
Stroke and stopped when the weight stack reached the top of the Power Rack.
Participants took approximately one minute of rest between Power Rack trials. After the
ﬁrst nine trials of one stroke style, participants took ten rrrinutes of active rest. Active

rest in this study was deﬁned as any combination of easy swimming and rest. The design

38

- I
3? 3: me

A

«9". 3:131.

I,“ {LA

oiﬂhﬂﬁ
.1 ‘l
k“

of the research was a counterbalanced study; one group performed the nine random trials
with the I-Pull ﬁrst, took an active rest, and then performed the nine random trials with
the S-Pull; the second group performed the S-Pull ﬁrst and then the I-Pull second.
Testing was done on an individual basis and the testing sessions each lasted 30-45

minutes.

 

 

 

 

Camera

Figure 7: Schematic of camera position - aerial view of
underwater camera and swimmer

Each trial was videotaped using an underwater camera. The underwater camera set-up
conSiSts of handheld camcorder and the underwater camera attachment. The camcorder
model used was the Sony Handycam DCR-DVD305. The camcorder has 1.07
megaPixels with an effective resolution of 0.69 megapixels. The camcorder recorded
directly to a DVD. The underwater camera attachment came from the Underwater
Camera Company of America. The underwater camera consisted of a telesc0ping pole
upon Which the camcorder attached. The camcorder was attached via video cables to the
pole’ which then extended down into the water. Due to the set-up, the zoom capabilities

of the camera were disabled. The camera was positioned (Figure 7) on the wall and

39

 

nq '5
girl 4'\
h

v
.. 1 .-
beer I'\

...r:

1.1““ h

I“- '-
- "a‘
\-

captured rear-views of the swimmers as they swam away from the wall. The video was

used to deterrrrine and verify compliance with assigned stroke styles.

As previously described, the Power Rack consisted of a weight stack and pulley system.
The Power Rack has an adjustable Velcro belt that attaches the swimmer to the cable and
weight stack. The length of the cable allows for a swim of 10.1 meters. The weight stack
is adjustable from 2.27 to 45.4 kg (5 to 100 lb) in 2.27 kg (5 lb) increments. Equation 5
was used to calculate power in units of Nrn/s. The power calculations were averaged
across each of the three trials at each level of resistance for each of the two stroke styles.
In terms of psychometric properties, the Power Rack has already been identiﬁed as a

valid and reliable research and training apparatus (Johnson, 1993; Simmons, 2003).

Aside from the variables of time and resistance for calculating power, the setup of the
Power Rack created other variables involving the length of the wire and the angles
created with the pool and the water. Figure 8 has a schematic representation of the Power
Rack setup for this study. The Power Rack stood on the pool deck 32 cm above the
surface of the water. The lengths and angles were dependent on how far a swimmer has
progressed (I in Figure 8) during a trial. The maximum length of wire that can be
extended from the Power Rack is 1005.8 cm; based on the experimental setup in Figure 8
the maximum distance a swimmer could travel was 1005.3 cm. The relationships between
1, w, a, and ,6 can be found in Table 3 ranging from I: 30 cm (standing in water next to

the pool wall) to I = 1005.3 (maximum length swum in the pool).

40

 

03 = angle of wire with water
5 = angle ofwire with pool wall
1 = distance swurn by swimmer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

w=wirelength
l3 incur
a

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8: Power Rack schematic (not to scale)

41

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I (cm) w (cm) a I g
30 43.9 46.8 43.2
50 59.4 32.6 57.4

100 105.0 17.7 72.3
150 153.4 12.0 78.0
200 202.5 9.1 80.9
250 252.0 7.3 82.7
300 301.7 6.1 83.9
350 351.5 5.2 84.8
400 401.3 4.6 85.4
450 451.1 4.1 85.9
500 501.0 3.7 86.3
550 550.9 3.3 86.7
600 600.9 3.1 86.9
650 650.8 2.8 87.2
700 700.7 2.6 87.4
750 750.7 2.4 87.6
800 800.6 2.3 87.7
850 850.6 2.2 87.8
900 900.6 2.0 88.0
950 950.5 1.9 88.1
1000 1000.5 1.8 88.2
1005.3 1005.8 1.8 88.2

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3: Relationships between lengths and angles of Power Rack setup

(a) a = sin'1 l/w (b) ,3 = cos"! l/w

where: a and B = the angles in Figure 8
1 = distance from the wall
w = length of the wire pulled on the Power Rack

Equation 7: Calculations of length and angle parameters for the Power Rack

Freestyle Pull Technique

Freestyle pull technique was analyzed by taking underwater video of each participant to
Classify the stroke patterns. The underwater camera was positioned on the wall where the

Participant began each trial. The camera recorded perpendicular to the wall as the

42

mp5.
raralvz:

1351-16311!

31871 US

..'\x;a
715th
Emits:
‘_ .

'I: mm

W

pets-Olin:

1:353 It:
Gilt Um,-
“‘5‘ Tn
R501' '3 ea

participant swam away, providing a rear view of the swimmer. This rear view was used
to analyze which stroke pattern was used by each participant for each trial. For stroke
veriﬁcation the video record of each trial was viewed again at a later date and the stroke
pattern used was then described. The described stroke pattern was then compared to the
prescribed stroke pattern for a possible match. The difference between the strokes is that
the S-Pull features lateral sculls, while an I-Pull has minimal lateral-medial movements
of the arm and hand. The biomechanical characteristics of each swimmer were described

as well during the stroke analysis.

Testing Personnel and Qualiﬁcations

The investigator responsible for research in this study led and oversaw all aspects of
testing. This researcher has an extensive background in swimming both as an athlete and
as a coach. He was a competitive swimmer for 12 years, is an American Swim Coaches
Association Level 2 certiﬁed coach, and currently coaches at the collegiate level. He
recruited the participants, provided background information on the study, and conducted
the intervention and instruction for the stroke technique. There were four additional
personnel that assisted during the testing sessions. These four people were other coaches
and swimmers. Three of these individuals served as timers and each trial had these three
times recorded for the power calculations, which were later averaged for power output.
One timer served also as the recorder to write down the three times for each Power Rack
trial. The second timer had the added task of adjusting the resistance of the Power Rack
before each trail to match the requirements of randomization. The fourth person was

needed to operate the video camera and to count the number of strokes that were taken by

43

”up;
bHdu \
l

' I
unl-
.

h ltd).

‘
...A .3
)ntiAL

’?
I“?
r‘;

each participant during each trial. Stroke counts were measured by counting the ﬁrst
stroke and ended with the last full stroke; any partial strokes at the end of a trial were not
included as measurements. Testing personnel knew how to appropriately use a stopwatch
and/or were able to use the underwater camera system. These were all simple tasks that
required a minimal amount of training, if any. Video analysis of stroke patterns was done
by the secondary investigator. The stroke patterns were viewed at a date later then the
trials. The secondary investigator viewed the trials, made comments, and described the
stroke pattern used. These were then compared to the stroke style that was used for
veriﬁcation purposes. As there was a gap of time between the testing and the video
analysis, the secondary investigator did not have prior knowledge of which stroke style

was used for each trial and independently described the characteristics of each trial.

Data Management

The secondary investigator had primary access to data and was responsible for security
and storage of the data. The secondary investigator’s advisory committee also had access
to the research data. The data included testing measures — anthropometrical measures,
Power Rack trial data, all videography of the participants, and identiﬁcation of
participants to their testing aliases. Informed consent forms and the swimming
background questionnaire were also included among these secure items. After testing
was completed and the data was analyzed, individual participants had the option to

review their results.

44

Data A

. _,;_,‘..
v'ﬁv "I ‘

5:42"
$0 lung

.
n... 1.,

LLOLI

arr

- ...-a.

' v
4.“

20
L...“

Data Analyses
Descriptive statistics were completed on data gathered from the swimming background
questionnaire, anthropometric measures, and the Power Rack. The means and standard
deviations of power at each resistance level for each pull pattern were calculated using
the average of the three times measured by the timers. In addition the means and
standard deviations were calculated for age, height, weight, arm length, years spent

swimming, and the length of their recent workouts. The participants were also classiﬁed

in terms of their stroke and distance specialties.

In this experimental design, each participant acted as his/her own control. The main
research question was to determine if there was a difference between the power generated
by the two stroke techniques. A t-test (p < 0.05) was used to test for signiﬁcant
differences in power between the two different pulls. The dependent t-test was used to
coIllpare the I-Stroke and S-Stroke while the independent t-test was used to compare
different populations. The t-test was calculated at each level (low, middle, high) of
reSiStﬁmce. Aside from the t-test variables, there were exploratory analyses to look for
Possible correlations between variables. A Pearson product moment correlation and

regression analyses were used to determine relationships among anthropometric and

POWer measures, stroke rates, and stroke lengths.

45

Resour

33S)”. Ill:

20.3213
U

3.71.3111

I
' ‘3 r"
‘39 kt

H
i”? in?
Jan-.151

com

“10). L

Resources

All testing took place at a local competitive swimming pool. The varsity swim team that
used the pool had the resources necessary for this research project to take place. The

main equipment needed was a pool, the Power Rack, and an underwater camera. The
school had given approval for the research to take place at their institution. In terms of
research assistants, there were several graduate and undergraduates who were willing to
assist the investigator with his study. In addition to the resources at the pool, several
collegiate libraries provided additional means of supporting the research. These libraries
contain an extensive collection of kinesiology journals and literature to search for past
research that was pertinent to this project. The only limitation was access to some
smaller journals and research reports. The investigator used interlibrary loans and
contacts to gain access to these reports. Since the research took place through the
cooperation of two institutions, both gave approval for the study through their respective

human subjects committees. There were no major problems that impeded this study from

taking place.

46

CHAP

Result

Popul:

72:3 5

my. 5:
{02111

r.

551:3“:

CHAPTER 4 — RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results

Population description

There were 19 participants who initially participated in this study — ten males and nine
females. Four participants dropped out of the study for various reasons — three chose to
remove themselves before the ﬁnal testing session; a fourth did participate in the ﬁnal
testing session, but was unable to complete it, and therefore not included in the ﬁnal
analysis. There were ﬁfteen participants — eight male and seven female who did
complete the full study. Fourteen of the participants were NCAA Division II collegiate
SWers while one male was a high school swimmer who trained with a local club
team. All were injury free at the time of their participation in the study. One female had
Surgery on both shoulders in the past two years. However, she was regularly training for
SVVimming, did not feel discomfort when swimming against the resistance of the Power

Rack, and chose to continue with the study.

Characteristic data for the study population can be found in Table 4. The average age of
the Participants was 19.6 years. The average participant swam 6.5 practices a week, for
1 66 hours, and averaged 4600 meters per workout. Participants reported their average
height to be 1.69 meters. They weighed 65.6 kilograms and had an arm length of 0.72
In<3tel‘s. Appendix E contains each participant’s anthropometric measures along with the

test data for each of their 18 Power Rack trials.

47

Out of the 15 who completed the study, eight specialized in freestyle, two specialized in

breaststroke, one in butterﬂy, one in backstroke, and three specialized in both backstroke

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and freestyle.
Population (n=1 5) Males (n=8) Females (n=7)
Standard Standard Standard
Parameter Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Mean Deviation
Age (years) 19.6 1.45 19.9 1.46 19.3 1.5
Weight (kg) 65.6 10.7 72.5 7.3 57.7 8.4
"“9” 1.69 0.11 1.77 0.05 1.59 0.05
(meters)
Arm “"9“ 0.72 0.07 0.76 0.06 0.67 0.03
(meters)
Swimming
Experience 9.45 3.02 8.25 3.33 10.86 2.91
(years)
Practices
(number per 6.5 2.23 6.00 2.14 7.14 2.34
week)
Practice
Length 1.66 0.31 1.63 0.23 1.71 0.39
(hours)
Distance
swum P" 4600 1400 4300 1280 4900 1560
Practice
(meters)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4: Population description

Out of these 15, seven were sprinters (events up to 100 meters), six were middle-distance
swimmers (100-400 meter events), and two were distance swimmers (events over 400

meters). Seven of the participants said that they typically swam more with an I-Stroke,

48

.1: rpm

r0535:

six typically swam with an S-Stroke, one said that she had aspects of both, and one did

not have immediate knowledge of his stroke pattern.

Power testing

The 18 trials for each participant can be found in Appendix E. To ensure that testing
order did not inﬂuence the results, the participants performed the trials in a random order.
The design of the experiment had each participant performing both strokes during the
testing session. The participants were randomly chosen so that half performed the 1-
Stroke ﬁrst (Group 1) and the other half performed the S-Stroke ﬁrst (Group 2) resulting
in 45 sets of data (i.e., 15 participants X 3 resistance levels). Average power output for
each resistance level was not always calculated on the basis of three I-Strokes trials and
three S-Stroke trials for each participant. Some trials were omitted when a participant
failed to properly perform a designated stroke pattern. Out of the 24 sets of data where
the S-Stroke was performed ﬁrst, nine had the average power of the S-Stroke greater then
that of the I-Stroke, 12 had the average power of the I-Stroke greater then that of the S-
Stroke, and three in one participant (Male2) had data that could not be compared due to
the two stroke styles used by the participants being too similar. Out of the 21 sets where
the I-Stroke was performed ﬁrst (Group 1), 17 had the average power of the I-Stroke
greater then that of the S-Stroke, and four had the average power of the S-Stroke greater
then that of the I-Stroke. Table 5 has a summary of the order of testing and which stroke
style had a higher power output by resistance level for each participant. It should be
noted that the participants were randomly assigned to perform either the I-Stroke ﬁrst

then the S-Stroke (Group 1) or the S-Stroke ﬁrst then the I-Stroke (Group 2). The

49

random assignment resulted in the majority of the female participants performing the S-

Stroke ﬁrst and the majority of the male participants performing the I-Stroke ﬁrst.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group 1: Testing the l-Pull then the S-Pull
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Male3 Iavg > Savg Iavg > Savg |avg > Savg
Male4 Savg > |avg |avg > Savg Savg > lavg
Ma’e5 lavg > Savg lavg > Savg Iavg > Savg
Ada/96 lavg > Savg Savg > Iavg Savg > lavg
Male7 Iavg > Savg Iavg > Savg Iavg > Savg
M8I68 |avg > Savg lavg > Savg lavg > Savg
Female6 I...Vg > Savg Iavg > Savg lavg > Savg
Group 2: Testing the S-Pull then the l-Pull
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Male1 lavg > Savg lavg > Savg Iavg > Savg
Male2 N/A* NlA* N/A*
Fame/91 Iavg > Savg lavg > Savg lavg > Savg
, FemaIeZ Savg > lavg Savg > lavg Savg > lavg
F ema’e3 |avg > Savg Savg > Iavg Savg > lavg
Female4 lavg = Savg lavg > Savg Savg > Iavg
F 9male5 lavg > Savg Iavg > Savg lavg > Savg
Female7 Savg > lavg Savg > lavg Savg > Iavg

 

 

 

*Not compatible because designated I-Strokes were not able to be differentiated from S-Strokes.

Table 5: Summary comparison of average power based
on random assignment to stroke order

stToke pattern analysis

Each trial was videotaped for stroke pattern analysis. The trials were viewed via a hook-
up between a video camera and a monitor. The viewing and analysis of the trials took

plaCe at least a week after testing. When viewing the videotape, the researcher did not

50

hqmﬂ
arms
Erna
rand

5555

ﬁrm:

Mai

mp:

have prior knowledge as to which stroke each participant was performing. The
researcher viewed each trial multiple times to best describe the stroke characteristics and
determine his opinion as to which stroke style it was. There was not a set number of
times each trial was viewed as the trials were viewed enough to get a proper description
of each trial and stroke style. The frame of reference for the technique analysis was the
point on the wall where the video camera was positioned rather than the swimmer. The
pull pattern was described relative to this point as this would eliminate any body rotation

variance for each participant and focus just on the arm and hand.

 

I1 I1
I7 I1

S—Pull I-Pull

 

 

 

Figure 9: Schematic of rearview comparison of S-Pull and I-Pull

The criteria used to differentiate between the two stroke styles was to look at the lateral

movement of the arm and hand. As each trial was viewed the lateral movement was

51

niyzed an
$2013 0: 111
15153:: I
10131116111

6315 c001:

" a
33m 336.

l‘: is 0b
and 1113::
rejoin

pump;

inlets:

analyzed and the amount (if any) determined if the stoke would be classiﬁed as the 1-
Stroke or the S-Stroke. Trials that showed a distinct lateral movement of the arm and
hand were categorized as the S-Stroke; trials that had a minimal amount of lateral
movement were categorized as the I-Stroke. The position of the arm could vary as two
trials could be categorized as the I-Stroke with one taking place underneath the body and
another taking place to the side of the body, with both having minimal lateral movement.
Figure 9 provides a schematic example of how the two stroke styles may differentiate

from each other.

It was observed that the participants primarily adhered to the prescribed stroke patterns
and there was an observable difference between their I-Stroke and S-Stroke for the
majority of participants. The analysis of the trials and general comments for each

participant can be found in Appendix F

There were data that were not included in the calculations. There were some trials that
were indistinguishable and the researcher could not determine which stroke style the
participant was using. This is denoted by “US” in Appendix F; these data points were not
included in subsequent t-test and correlation calculations. As an example, Figure 12
(Appendix G) is a comparison of the power output at lowest resistance level for the male
participants. The stroke style for Male2’s second set of data (I-Stroke) was deemed
indeterrrrinable and was not included on the chart; this is why there are only data points

for the S-Stroke in Figure 12 for Male2. Following accordingly, the reason that there

52

appears to be missing data points in Figures 13-17 is because those trials that were not

veriﬁed as a certain stroke style were orrritted.

In addition to the similarities in stroke patterns, the hook-up between the camera and
underwater attachment became faulty for some of the trials for Female6 and Female7.
Female6 had six S-Stroke trials that were not recorded cleanly and Female7 had eight
trials (three S-Stroke and two I-Stroke) that were not recorded cleanly. From the trials
that were recorded well, there was a discemable difference between the stroke styles for
each of these two participants. Therefore, it was assumed that the remaining trials were
correctly performed with the designated technique and therefore were included into the

calculations.

The video of the underwater strokes provided some general trends and observations that
occurred across all test participants. First of all, stroke patterns were done on an
individual level — each swimmer’s stroke evolved to what was best for him/her; there was
a lot of variation between swimmers. For example, on the I-Pull there were swimmers
who had a bent elbow but whose hands follows a straight path back while others had a
more straight-arm pulls with minimal elbow ﬂexion. The variation between swimmers
did make it hard to compare the swimmers as a group but allowed for comparison

between the two stroke styles for each individual participant.

The S-Pull features a large amount of elbow ﬂexion during the pull. This is evident

during the catch and as the hand comes back toward the nridline of the body. Male3 had

53

a wide catch and then his hand came back toward the body. There was also a pronounced
out-sweep at the end of the stroke as the hand exited the water. In the I-Pull the hand
stayed more to the lateral side of the body. Four participants (Male3, Male4, Male6, and
Female2) showed a wider I-Pull as compared to the S-Pull; whereas Female] had a
straight-path pull that came under the body. Malel had a deeper I-Pull which may have
been due to the decrease in elbow ﬂexion. Like the S-Pull, the I-Pull showed an out-

sweep at the end of the stroke as the hand left the water.

Due to the set-up of the study, the legs of every test participant showed a negative
vertical displacement in the water (i.e., their legs dropped due to the pull buoy and the
ankle strap). After viewing the trials, it may have been better to have placed the pull
buoy between the shanks to prevent the dropping of the legs rather then positioning the
buoy between the thighs. At least ﬁve of the participants were seen doing a butterﬂy-

type of kick in an attempt to get the legs higher in the water.

As the participants swam away from the wall, the hand entry and pulling did create
turbulence and bubbles in the water which made viewing of the second half of each trial
problematic. The turbulence was more pronounced during the S-Pull rather then the 1-
Pull. This could be due to the nature of the pull itself —- the lateral sculling results in the
hand changing directions to encounter still water. As the hand catches the still water, it
will displace it, resulting in turbulence. The I-Pull, as it remains in a more unidrrectional

plane, encounters the still water at the beginning of the pull.

54

Power

1‘15 iav
1J5 '0“
A

i v
Q.hy31
buﬁahl

no ‘
Ll: ""
' t to.

n:
{.1
. r

l???

Power comparison

The dependent t-test was used to compare sets of data to ﬁnd if there was a statistical
difference in power output between the two different stroke styles and the independent t-
test was used to compare differences between different populations. It should be noted
that the actual resistance used for each participant was individually determined on the
basis of each participant’s 1RM (i.e., 25, 50, and 75% of 1RM, within the limits of 2.3 kg
increments). This resulted in different resistances being used for individuals for each
resistance level. There were six scatter plots (Appendix G) produced to ﬁrst visually
examine the data. There were three plots for each gender — one at each of the three
resistance levels. The data points were each successful trial for each participant. This
included trials for Female6 and Female7 where video camera problems occurred. Aside
from the data points (Appendix G), the plots also have dashed lines indicating the

average power value for the two stroke styles, which can also be found in Table 6.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Power (W)
Resistance
Level Stroke Style Population Male Female
1 I 44.0 50.1 37.7
S 42.3 47.3 36.6
2 | 65.0 79.0 50.2
S 62.5 74.3 49.1
3 I 78.5 98.1 57.8
S 77.4 94.4 57.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6: Average power per resistance level and stroke style

55

The I-Stroke had a greater average power output then the S-Stroke at all resistance levels
and demographics except for resistance level three for female participants. It is worth
noting that, although the average powers at each level were numerically different
between the two stroke styles, the magnitudes of the differences were relatively small.
The highest difference was 3.7 watts at resistance level three for male participants. It
should also be noted that as resistance level increased power output also increased for

both the S-Stroke and I-Stroke.

0... = zoo-X10621: Tin (2057-2001 (Zoe-X10) 2)/(n- 1)]
where: XSi = power of S-Stroke for participant i

Xli = power of I-Stroke for participant i

n = number of data points (participants)

SQRT = square root

Equation 8: Dependent t-test calculation

56

find = (X [bar-X2bar)/SQRT [ ($12411+ 522012)

where: Xibar = average power of population 1,
X21,at = average power of population 2
s12 = standard deviation of population 1,
822: standard deviation of population 2,
n1 = number of data points of population 1,

112 = number of data points of population 2,

SQRT = square root

Equation 9: Independent t-test calculation

After plotting the data, the dependent t-tests were calculated using Equation 8. The
dependent t-test was used to compare sets of data to ﬁnd if there were statistical
differences in power output. The t-statistic at the 0.05 level was calculated for the
following comparisons:
I-Stroke vs. S-Stroke at each resistance level for the entire population (Table 40),
I-Stroke vs. S-Stroke at each resistance level for male participants (Table 41),

I-Stroke vs. S-Stroke at each resistance level for female participants (Table 42),
The independent t—tests were calculated using Equation 9 to compare different

populations and to ﬁnd out if there were statistical differences between different groups.

Th e t-statistic at the 0.05 level was calculated for the following comparisons:

57

Freestylers vs. non-freestylers at each resistance level for each stroke style for the
entire population (Table 43),

Sprinters vs. non-sprinters at each resistance level for each stroke style for the
entire population (Table 44) and,

Male vs. female at each resistance level for each stroke style for the entire

population (Table 45).

The calculations for all t-tests were calculated using Excel via two different methods.
The ﬁrst method used Excel’s function to calculate these values. The second method
used hand-calculations with Excel to conﬁrm the values. The hand-calculations veriﬁed

the Excel ﬁrnction and all numbers were in agreement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dependent t-test
‘ Resistence Level . .
Entire Population 1.62 2.00* 1.05 1.77
Males 262* 3.45* 1 .78 1.94
Females 012 0.09 -0.30 1.94
Independent t-test
I-Stroke 1 Resistergce Level 3 t critical
Sprinter vs Non-Sprinter 0.89 0.51 0.53 1.78
Freestyle vs Non-Freestyle 2.37* 2.28* 2.03* 1.78
Male vs Female 389* 4.45* 3.85* 1.78
S-Stroke 1 Resrstenzce Level 3 t critical
Sprinter vs Non-Sprinter 1.67 0.66 0.54 1.77
Freestyle vs Non-Freestyle 1.03 1.74 1.50 1.77
Male vs Female 354* 4.34* 3.97* 1.77

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Denotes signiﬁcant difference at a. = 0.05 level

Table 7: t-test results

58

All

in

C3.

dll

Sr.

This resulted in 27 different calculations (Appendix H) for the t-statistic which were
calculated on the non-averaged data. Table 7 has a summary of the t-test results. Out of
these 27 values, there were 12 which showed a signiﬁcant difference (denoted by
asterisks in Table 7) at the 0.05 level:
the I-Stroke produced more power than the S-Stroke for the entire population at
resistance level 2,
the I-Stroke produced more power than the S-Stroke for the males at resistance
levels 1 and 2,
freestylers produced more power than non-freestylers with the I-Stroke at
resistance levels 1, 2, and 3
males produced more power than females with the I-Stroke and S-Stroke at
resistance levels 1, 2, and 3
All other sets of comparisons did not show a statistical difference between the I-Stroke

and the S-Stroke.

There is an obvious inherent difference between males and females. The t-test
calculations were done to compare these two populations to conﬁrm this difference,
which the data did show. It would have been worth noting if the data did not show a

difference between males and females.

A repeated measures AN OVA was done to further explore the relationship between the I-

StTOke and the S-Stroke. The ANOVA charts were calculated using SPSS statistical

59

 

(2:

CC

software. The F-statistic was calculated to compare the l-Stroke and S-Stroke and can be
found in Appendix I. The AN OVA resulted in no difference between the two strokes for
all participants, the male participants, or the female participants. The AN OVA does

follow inline with the t-test results which gave 6 out of 9 comparisons with no statistical

difference.

Correlation relationships

The data was analyzed for possible correlations between variables. The dependent
variable throughout the study was power generated by experienced swimmers, as
measured in watts on the Power Rack. Power, measured on each level of resistance (i.e.,
25, 50, and 75% of 1RM) for each stroke pattern (i.e., S-Stroke and I-Stroke), was
Correlated with the height, weight, and arm length of the participants. As there were three
trials at each resistance level and stroke pattern, the averages of these were used in the
Correlation calculations. These correlations were done three times — once on the
Population as a whole, a second time on the male population, and a third time on the

f'Em'rale population. As noted earlier, the trials with an indeterminable stroke style were

n0t included in these calculations.

A Scatter plot for each of the 54 correlation sets was constructed. Each plot can be found

in Appendix J. After the data were plotted, both the r and R2 statistics were calculated

fol’ each data set. The values for R2 are included on each of the scatter plots in Appendix

J and the r values are included in Table 8. The r statistic tells how strong a relationship

60

existed between the two variables; the closer the r statistic is to 1.0 (or -1 .0), the stronger

the relationship is. A summary of all correlation results can be found in Table 8.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stroke Type I 8

Resistance Level 1 2 3 1 2 3
g Height 0.71 0.69 0.65 0.56 0.64 0.61

:5; 1; Weight 0.67 0.68 0.67 0.69 0.63 0.69
1?. ArmLength 0.58 0.64 0.60 0.44 0.54 0.51
» IHeight 0.11 -0.07 -0.06 -0.23 -0.21 -0.27
i Weight 0.30 0.29 0.23 0.33 0.09 0.18
Arm Length 0.09 0.26 0.23 0.01 0.08 0.07

3 lHeight 0.09 0.07 0.13 -0.15 -0.06 0.06
“E lWeight 0.27 0.30 0.51 0.42 0.33 0.65
'2 IAn'nLength 0.01 -0.10 -0.10 -0.38 -0.40 -0.42

 

 

Table 8: Correlation summary, r statistic

Examining the population as a whole, height and weight correlate most strongly to power
PTOduced by the two stroke styles. Height and weight have correlations between 0.56 and
O-7 1 across stroke type and resistance level. Based on the data collected, weight
cofresponds equally as strong as height to both stroke types. Arm length has the weakest
Correlation amongst the three measured variables. As seen with height, the correlations
bPtWeen arm length and power with the I-Stroke are stronger then between arm length
and power with the S-Stroke. The results here, correlating the entire population, are to be
exPected. Males and females do have physical biological differences. The inherent
natul'e of these differences automatically gives rise to the resulting correlations, while at
the Same time it is hard to draw notable conclusions from these relationships. It is more

v"()l‘tl'lwhile to look at gender-only relationships.

61

33311
A b

til-530]

{/5
K /)
rq
C)

H“

Mir 9e

y .

When the populations are analyzed by gender, the correlations become much weaker.
Weight has the strongest relationship to swimming power in both genders, yet the level of
correlation has dropped in comparison to the population correlation. The average (across
all three resistance levels and stroke types) r statistic between weight and power for all
participants is 0.67 for both stroke types; the values of these types of averages fall to 0.27
(I-Stroke) and 0.20 (S-Stroke) for the male participants and to 0.36 (I-Stroke) and 0.47
(S-Stroke) for the female participants. The data does suggest that weight may contribute
more to power output in females than males. Height actually indicates a possible inverse
relationship with power for males. Out of the six correlation values for the males all but
the I-Stroke at resistance level 1 have a negative correlation to swimming power. The
females have negative correlations only for the S-Stroke at resistance levels 1 and 2.
These correlations between height and power are weak. Another factor affecting the
relationship between height and power is that height was reported by participants rather
then measured by an anthropometn'st. Slight variations in the height may have resulted in
Stl‘onger or weaker correlations. For the males the S-Stroke shows a stronger relationship
then the I-Stroke. Male arm length has a weak positive relationship with swimming
POWer. The I-Stroke correlates better with arm length then the S-Stroke does. Female

am length has a negative relationship with power with the S-Stroke correlating stronger

then the I-Stroke.

Diseussion

The main purpose of this study was to ﬁnd out if there is a difference in the amount of

p owe! generated by two different freestyle stroke patterns — the straight I-Stroke and the

62

med S-Su
mifillﬂalfd
at". Spilllli‘i

abated 10

The data 1%
times
cemmso
Stole; it}
his mg:
the data ft
mum-
9001330

minim

curved S-Stroke. Aside from this question, there were several sub-questions which
investigated the difference in power generated by freestylers compared to non-freestylers,
and sprinters compared to non-sprinters. In addition, there were exploratory data

gathered to relate the power generated to different anthropometric measures.

The data that was compiled during this study was inconclusive in determining a statistical
difference for power generated between the I-Stroke and the S-Stroke. Three out of nine
comparisons did result with the I-Stroke generating statistically more power than the S-
Stroke; whereas six comparisons resulted with the two strokes being statistically equal.
This suggests that swimmers can use either stroke to perform equally as well. Examining
the data further, does give some support in favor of using the I-Stroke over the S-Stroke
to maximize power output. At each of the three resistance levels for the entire
Population, the I-Stroke had a higher average power then the S-Stroke. The power
differences between the two strokes were 1.7 W for resistance level 1, 0.8 W for
resistance level 2, and 1.1 W for resistance level 3.
Examining the data based on gender gave similar results. The I-Stroke has the higher
average power for males with differences of 2.8 W, 1.3 W, and 3.7 W at resistance levels
1 , 2, and 3, respectively. The I-Stroke has the higher average power for females at
reSiStance levels 1 and 2 with differences of 1.1 W and 0.8 W, respectively. Out of the
nine total comparisons (entire population, male, female) the only instance in which the S-

Stl‘Oke had a higher average power was for the females at resistance level 3 with a

diffeI‘ence of 0.1 W.

63

These differences are small but when put in context of the purpose of the I-Stroke, it may
be more beneﬁcial to use. Ito’s theory (2004) behind the I-Stroke states that it will
provide more power while being less efﬁcient. The population demographic that would
most likely use the I-Stroke is freestyle sprinters who specialize in the 50 and 100 meter
events. The results of competitions in these events are determined by tenths or even
hundredths of a second, which brings up the comparison of statistical signiﬁcance versus
practical signiﬁcance. While there were only three comparisons that resulted with the 1-
Stroke being statistically better than the S-Stroke for power generation, the data does lean
toward the I-Stroke being more beneﬁcial. The differences between the I-Stroke and the
S-Stroke, however small, could be enough to make a swimmer faster then ever before.
Athletes are looking for every possible advantage that they can get to put them ahead of
their previous best and their competitors. If a swimmer is able to generate even just a
small amount of power more during these events, regardless if it is statistically signiﬁcant

or not, it could be the difference they are looking for.

Examining the participants by stroke specialties provides interesting results. The data
(Table 43, Appendix H) indicates that at all three resistance levels there is a signiﬁcant
difference in the power generated with the I-Stroke between those who specialize in
freestyle and those who specialize in other strokes. This indicates that those swimmers
whose best events are freestyle events generate more power using the freestyle stroke
than those whose best events are strokes other then freestyle. Freestyle is the fastest of
competitive strokes and those who practice it more are more likely to produce more

Power. For freestylers the I—Stroke consistently produced more power than the S-Stroke

64

iii:

p031

fDl‘

1"‘4

while for non-freestylers the S-Stroke consistently produced more power. Since the non-
freestylers are focusing on other strokes, they are more likely to adopt a stroke technique
that is using less energy (i.e., the S-Stroke). Each swim coach has a different way to train
his/her athletes, but most swimmers are going to swim the majority of their yards using
the freestyle stroke. The energy that is conserved while using the S-Stroke can then be

used later during a workout on the swimmers’ main stroke.

When the participants are examined by distance of events that they swim (Table 44,
Appendix H), there were no signiﬁcant differences between sprinters and non-sprinters.
These results do come as a bit of a surprise as sprinters are traditionally the strongest and
fastest swimmers. Hawley et al. (1992) and Sharp et al. (1982a, 1982b) have shown that
power is most important at shorter distances. Non-sprinters are trying to maximize speed
for the longest possible time. While there was not a statistical difference between the
groups, the sprinters were producing more power at each resistance level regardless of the
stroke style they used. A possible follow-up study would be to examine just males or

females and the break-down between sprinters and non-sprinters.

One area which produced statistical differences was between female swimmers and male
swimmers. The male swimmers produce more power at each resistance level and with
each stroke technique. These results follow that of Simmons (2003) and Hawley et al.
(1992) who each showed that males produce more power than females. Simmons
accounted the difference in power to the added muscle that male swimmers have

compared to female swimmers. The current study did not look at body composition, but,

65

since it follows that on average females have a higher proportion of body fat and thus a
lower percentage of muscle, this is one way to account for the difference between men
and women. The current study also found that body weight best correlates to swimming
power. Since the males’ average body weight in the current study outweighed the
females’ average body weight (7 2.5 kg to 57.7 kg), body weight may be another factor

that affects the differences in power generation between females and males.

After the participants completed their trials, some provided unsolicited feedback on the
different strokes, the experimental setup, and how they performed. As this information
was not part of the design, it was not recorded, but should be noted. Part of the
Swimming Background Questionnaire asked if their pull pattern was more curvilinear (S-
Stroke) or straight (I-Stroke). Some of the participants commented that one stroke style
was more natural, and thus the favored stroke. The intervention and experiment had an
unintended consequence — it made the participants more aware of their stroke technique
and what they were actually doing in the water. The design of the trials (no push-off to
start) was hard for a couple of the participants and the resistance on the Power Rack was
quite a bit lower than what they use in a training environment. There were also random
comments from participants about the trials regarding the resistance and not knowing
how much resistance to expect for each trail. This often occurred after a trial as the

participants vocalized whether it was light, medium, or high resistance.

One area that was not controlled for was possible researcher expectation when analyzing

and viewing the stroke patterns. The researcher did not have any perceived bias in terms

66

of the analysis and expectations of the results. As Ito’s (2004) initial hypothesis was that
the I-Stroke produces more power than then S-Stroke, there is a chance that there was a

subconscious bias in favoring the I-Stroke. This is a factor that would need to be

corrected for in any future studies.

The correlation results show that of the three anthropometric measures, weight correlates
best to power output. These results agree with Simmons (2003) who showed a positive
correlation between subject weight and overall speed in over 600 male and female
swimmers. The population of the current study was experienced swimmers. These

athletes have been participating in the sport, on average, for over nine years. The
combination of swimming and weight training has resulted in participants whose muscles
are conditioned to excel in the sport of sWimming. As body composition was not

analyzed for this study, it can be hypothesized that those participants who have the higher

weight possess a greater amount of swimming-speciﬁc muscle.

The inﬂuence of arm length and height of the participants is less inﬂuential on power
0W‘Put then weight. Previous work done relating anthropometric variables to swimming
velocity have provided conﬂicting results. Chatard et al. (1990) found that there is no
relationship between height and arm length to swimming velocity. Chatard did attribute
this lack of a relationship to the homogeneous nature of the population used for the study.
Grimston and Hay (1986), on the other hand, found that arm length has a positive
cOrrelation to stroke length which in-turn correlates to velocity. They looked more

Closely at anthropometric measures and included cross-sectional area in her study.

67

r“

7

ea'
.th

E.

or
“M

’J

J .

7’

The gender correlations are less consistent to height and arm-length. There are several
negative correlations occurring in both the male and female population. The correlations
for the entire population have moderate relationships while those that are gender-speciﬁc
have much weaker relationships. The discrepancy in the data can be attributed to the
number of participants used in the study. There were 15 total participants and when these
were divided into half by gender, the low number of participants affects statistical
signiﬁcance of the results. There needs to be more work done with larger populations of
single-gender studies, along with more precise measures of height to provide a clearer

relationship between arm length and height to power output.

The data was examined to look for gender differences between the I-Stroke and S-Stroke
with the anthropometric measures. For males, the S-Stroke had a stronger negative
correlation to height while the I-stroke had no discemable relationship; with the females,
the correlations were so weak that no relationship existed between height and either of
the stroke types. The data indicates that shorter males are producing more power with the
S-Stroke as compared to their taller counterparts. Weight had positive correlations to
both stroke types for both genders. Heavier males may beneﬁt more from using the I-
Stroke while heavier females may produce more power using the S-Stroke. Body
composition was not analyzed, but, since there are differences between genders (women
having a higher percentage of body fat), it is possible that body composition affects
Which stroke style is better for each gender. Arm length had conﬂicting results when it

did come to gender. The males had a positive correlation to arm length with the I-Stroke,

68

while 1h:
is m It

301‘ 961

produce
S'S‘L'Oh:
i re I-Sn
’55 he .

Shiner .

/
/,

 

/.:~/-[§’...£

Tabl

while the S-Stroke had a non-existent correlation. The females had a negative correlation
to arm length with the S-Stroke and a very weak negative correlation to the I—Stroke.

Both genders with longer arms would beneﬁt from using the I-Stroke over the S-Stroke.

Taking the gender, anthropometric, and stroke types into consideration, one could
develop a model for an ideal swimmer from this study. Males who use the I-Stroke may
produce the most power if they were heavier and have shorter arms. Males who use the
S-Stroke may produce the most power if they were shorter and heavier. Females who use
the I-Stroke may produce the most power if they were taller and heavier. Females who
use the S-Stroke would produce the most power if they were shorter, heavier, and had

shorter arms.

There is a moderate—to-strong correlation between power and speed. This study did not
directly measure a participant’s time and speed for a competitive swimming distance.
The initial questionnaire, however, did ask for each participant’s best time (overall and in

the past year) in the 50-yard freestyle event. The correlations can be found in Table 9.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ I-Stroke S-Stroke
§\\\\\\\ “8‘50“” Level1 Level2 Lave/3 Level1 Level2 Leve/3
Entire Within the past year -0.83 -O.82 -0.82 -0.73 -0.75 -O.75
Population Lifetime -0.85 -O.86 -0.86 -0.79 -0.81 -O.82
Males Within the past year -0.83 -0.60 -0.64 -0.50 -0.41 -0.44
Lifetime -O.83 -O.7O -0.73 -O.67 -0.47 -0.54
Females Within the past year -0.34 -O.29 -0.35 —0.22 -O.13 -0.22
Lifetime -0.26 -O.24 -O.41 -0.30 -O.23 -0.45

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9: Correlation between best time in 50 yard freestyle and power generated

69

. ..i,
1043!
3313531“

83pm

1301312
' u

There is a negative correlation between the two variables, meaning that the faster
performances were associated with greater power production. This suggests that the
fastest swimmers produce the most power and increases in swimming-speciﬁc power
may result in improved performance. An evaluation of the correlations reveals that the I-
Stroke correlates slightly stronger to performance than the S-Stroke for most of the
population. The only instance in which the S-Stroke has a better correlation is when the
times are correlated to the females best ever time in the 50 freestyle. The best 50 time in
the past year may be more applicable as it describes recent success. Females also peak at
a younger age and it is not uncommon to have college-age female swimmers whose best
times are from when they were younger. The correlations suggest and give credence to
the idea that the I-Stroke may be better suited to producing speed and power in the sprint

events.

It should be noted when examining correlation results, correlation does not necessarily
indicate causation. In this study, weight had the highest correlation to the amount of
swimming power generated with either stroke technique. This does not necessarily mean
that the more a swimmer weighs the more power he/she is going to generate. What it
does mean is that those swimmers who weight more will have an increased possibility of
generating more swimming power, especially if they have a relatively low percent of
body fat and a relatively higher percent of lean body mass. There is a ceiling, however; if
these results are extrapolated upward, there will come a certain body weight (probably
dependent on each individual) where it becomes a hindrance to generating swimming

Power. This would fall in line with the athlete’s body mass index and the percentage of

70

fat free mass to total body mass. There is a limit as to how body mass index would affect

the power production.

The study did help to establish face validity for the Power Rack. There was not a statistic
reliability and validity test done with the Power Rack but it was used in a minimum of
270 separate trials throughout the study. The Power Rack is a simple and easy device to
use. It is normally used as a training device to develop sprint speed, strength, and power.
It should be noted that as the resistance level increased so too did the power output for
both the I-Stroke and S-Stroke for all participants in this study. This fact could be used
by swimming coaches in training their athletes. The current study, along with the
previous studies (Simmons, 2003; Johnson et al., 1993), has shown that the Power Rack

is a valid device to be used in a research setting.

71

- B7

CHAPTER 5 - CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE STUDIES

Conclusions

The aim of this study was to explore two different stroke styles and to ﬁnd any potential
differences in the amount of power generated by the two. The data in this study did not
show that one stroke style produced more power than the other. This study was the ﬁrst
of its kind — there are no published studies that have looked at stroke patterns and how
they affect power. There have been studies that have examined power, but these focused
on different ways to measure swimming power and how these related to other swimming

characteristics such as swimming velocity and anthropometric measures.

While there was not a statistical difference between the power output generated via the S-
Stroke and the I-Stroke, the data suggests that the I-Stroke may be more beneﬁcial then
the S-Stroke for generating power. The I-Stroke consistently provided higher power
values over the S-Stroke. There were 72 pairs of data comparing the two strokes. When
these pairs were matched and compared, the I-Stroke had a higher value 61% of the time
(44 out of 72), the S-Stroke yielded a higher value 36% of the time (26 out of 72) and 3%
of the time the results were equal (2 out of 72). At resistance levels 1 and 2, the average
power output of the I-Stroke was higher then that of the S-Stroke. The I-Stroke had
higher correlations to anthropometric measures of arm length, height, and weight; as well

as to historical sprint performance times of the participants.

Stroke patterns vary from swimmer to swimmer. Each swimmer typically adopts a stroke

Style that is biomechanically best for him/her. While there are differences between

72

individuals, there are some generalities that appear between the two stroke styles
discussed in the current study. The S-Stroke featured elbow ﬂexion that allowed for the
sculling motions that is inherent to this style. The elbow ﬂexion and lateral movement of
the S-Stroke resulted in a stroke that comes underneath the body more. The I-Stroke,
while exhibiting some elbow ﬂexion, is a wider stroke and travels more laterally in
reference to the body. Both strokes do have an upsweep at the end during the transition

from the pull to the recovery above the water.

Limitations and Future Studies

There were several limitations to this study. The ﬁrst is the number of participants.
There were a couple of participants who did not participate for the duration of the study.
A greater number of participants would contribute to a better chance of statistical
signiﬁcance. Along these lines, more participants would allow for more comparative
statistical measures to take place such as additional correlations, causal relationships, and

more conﬁdence in the results.

The other major limitation of the study was the video recording of the underwater
strokes. The underwater camera was only capable of recording the strokes in two
dimensions. The video camera was oriented behind the swimmers and captured the
participants swimming away from the wall. This camera angle allowed the viewer to
differentiate between the I-Stroke and S-Stroke by examining the degree of lateral
movement of the hand and arm away from the center line of the body. The depth and the

length of the stroke were unable to be measured with this camera orientation. An

73

TEE

bet

overhead or underneath camera angle would have helped to establish these differences

between the two strokes.

The study does open the possibility to additional studies to further look at the relationship
between stroke pattern and power. One of the goals of this study was to serve as a base
for future analysis of stroke patterns and power. This is a new area of swimming
research and the swimming community can use this study as a springboard to additional
studies. Here are some of the possible research questions that could extend from this
study:
Is there statistical proof by gender that the I-Stroke produces more power than the S-
Stroke?
What are the biomechanical and physiological principals that produce more power
with a certain stroke?

Is there a signiﬁcant correlation between body composition and swimming power?

Aside ﬁ'om these questions, the current study could be repeated or amended in a couple
of different ways. Recruiting a higher number of research participants would improve the
statistical power of the study. A higher number of participants would also allow a study
to take place where the participants are divided into multiple groups — one doing the I-
Stroke and one doing the S-Stroke; the results between the two groups would then be
compared and the participants would not have to worry about learning two different
stroke styles. The study could be repeated with a higher participant count and with just

one gender. A single-sex study would eliminate any gender bias and have results that are

74

valid for one gender. Another option would be to do a longer study of 6, 8, 10, or 12
weeks, although that could impact participant retention. A last possible study would be
to look at the long-term beneﬁts of either stroke. As proposed, the I-Stroke is to be used

for short sprints — would it be beneﬁcial to use it for longer events as well?

The research study opened up the possibility that a straight-path pull produces more
swimming power then a curved-path pull. While there is no statistical difference between
the two strokes; when the body of data is taken as a whole, it suggests that experienced
swimmers are able to produce more power with the I-Stroke than with the S-Stroke. The
study does lay the ground work for more in-depth research to more fully examine the
relationship between the two stroke styles and the amount of power that may be

generated with each one.

75

APPENDICES

76

APPENDIX A -- Informed Consent Form

Summary of research

The purpose of this study is to measure the power output generated by two different
freestyle swimming stroke patterns. Participants will perform a series of 18 swims on the
Power Rack (a weight stack and cable-pulley system). Half of the swims will be done
with a conventional S-Pull stroke and half will be done with a straight I-Pull stroke.

Permission to videotape

Participants who choose to participate in this study will be videotaped. The video will be
transferred into digital form for analysis and characterization of stroke technique. The
video will be kept for a to-be—determined amount of time and then destroyed. You have
the option to request the video to be destroyed in the event that you withdraw from the

study.

Estimate of time
There will be two parts to this study. The ﬁrst part will consist of an instructional period

and Power Rack 1RM test. The instructional period will go over the I-Pull technique and
some drills to help in mastering it. The 1RM test on the Power Rack will increase
resistance each trial until the participant is unable to complete a trial. This ﬁrst part of
the testing should take no more then two hours. The second part of the testing involves a
series of anthropometrical measurements (height, weight, and arm length), and the 18
Power Rack trials. This second part of the test should take no longer then 90 nrinutes.

Voluntary participation

Participation in this research is strictly voluntary. As a participant, you have the right to
refuse from participating in certain parts of the study and at any time you may withdraw
from the study without penalty.

Conﬁdentiality and anonymity

As a participant, your conﬁdentiality and anonymity as a participant will be upheld.
Written reports and publications will list participants as Participant. The principle
investigator and those assisting him with the research (advisory committee and research
assistants) will have access to the data and will have knowledge of participants. As a
participant, you have a right to the data collected during research. Your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Contact persons

The principle investigator is Dr. Eugene Brown who can be contacted via phone at
517.353.6491 or via email at ewbrown@msu.edu. The person conducting the research
will be Mark Dziak, a graduate student in the department of Kinesiology at Michigan
State University. Mr. Dziak can be contacted via phone at 216.773.1232 or via email at
QZiaknrar@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study
participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact
~ anonymously, if you wish — Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee

77

on Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS) by phone: 517.355.2180, fax:
517.432.4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu. or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI
48824.

Experimental procedures

As a participant you will use the Power Rack. The Power Rack is a device that allows
swimmers to swim against an adjustable amount of weight. There is a belt that is
tethered to a cable and to the Power Rack. The Power Rack may be a new device for you
to use as a swimmer. There may be some slight discomfort from the positioning of the
belt and swimming against weight. Standard anthropometrical measures of height,
weight, and arm length will be gathered for participant characteristic and data analysis.

Risk of physical injury to participants

If you are injured as a result of your participation in this research project, Michigan State
University will assist you in obtaining emergency care, if necessary, for your research
related injuries. If you have insurance for medical care, your insurance carrier will be
billed in the ordinary manner. As with any medical insurance, any costs that are not
covered or in excess of what are paid by your insurance, including deductibles, will be
your responsibility. Financial compensation for lost wages, disability, pain or discomfort
is not available. This does not mean that you are giving up any legal rights you may
have. You may contact Mark Dziak via phone at 216.773.1232 or via email at

dziakmar@msu.edu with any questions.

Copy of consent form
Participants will be provided with a copy of this form for their personal records.

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study

Name Date

 

 

Signature Date

 

 

78

Sam

1:.
J-i§

We:

Amt

WQuit

l.- '
5- AH“.
H‘i.
\y

APPENDIX B — Swimming Background Questionnaire

Name:

 

Date of birth:

 

Number of years swimming competitively:

 

Best 50 yard freestyle time:

 

 

Best 50 yard freestyle time in the past year:

 

What is your stroke specialty?

 

What is your distance specialty (sprint (50-100), middle (100-500), distance (500+))?

 

Approximate number of yards/meters (specify) swum per practice in the past month:

 

Approximate number of practices per week and their duration (time) in the past month:

 

Would you describe your freestyle pull pattern as more of a curvilinear pull or more of a
straight pull (circle one)?
Curvilinear Straight

79

APPENDIX C — Drills and Sets for Teaching the Two Stroke Styles

I Stroke

The main drill used to teach the I-Stroke was the Vasa Drill. In this drill the swimmer
lies prone in the water with their arms extended above the head and a pull buoy between
the ankles. The swimmer would initiate the pull and focus on keeping the hand and
forearm facing rearward. The swimmers were also told to use the black line on the
bottom of the pool to trace and reinforce the straight nature of the I-Pull. This drill was
done slowly so that the swimmer can concentrate on the stroke mechanics. The drill can
be done with both arms at the same time or by alternating arms.

S-Stroke

Sculling was used to teach the S-Pull. The sculling drills were used one at a time and in
combination with each other. Sculling was done in the following ways:

Front Scull: Swimmer prone in the water, arms straight and extended above the head.

High Elbow Scull: Same position as the ﬁont scull but the elbows are bent and the hands
& forearms are oriented toward the bottom of the pool

Middle Scull: Similar to the High Elbow Scull but with the arms in—line with the
shoulders. The hands & forearms are still oriented to the bottom of the pool

Back Scull: Swimmer is prone in the water with the arms at the side. The sculling motion
initiates with the arms pointing to the bottom of the pool and the swimmer pushes the
water up and out towards the hips.

Swimming Sets

All drills were done in repetitions of 25 or 50 yards. An example of a set from the ﬁrst

week for the S-Stroke was:

Set I: 5 x {4 x 25 @ :40 Interval}. Each set was a different scull drill with the last set
being swim focusing on the S-Pull.

For the I-Stroke, an example set was:

Set 2: 10 x 50 @ 1:10 Interval. The ﬁrst 8 were done using the Vasa Drill while the last
2 were swum focusing on a straight I-Pull.

Each main technique set was a variance of one of the above two sets. The second week
started to incorporate speed. For example Set I from above could be repeated but with
the last 4 repeats, the swimmers would get faster on each one while maintaining the
proper S-Stroke pattern. Weeks 3 and 4 saw the amount of drilling reduced while putting
a larger emphasis on speed. For the I-Stroke the swimmers might do Set 2 from above
with the ﬁrst four repeats performed with the Vasa Drill; the last six repeats would have
the swimmer sprint the ﬁrst 15 yards of the repeat with the proper stroke style.

80

APPENDIX D — Data Collection Forms

Resistance Level 1
Stroke or Resistance Level 2
PR 1-RM: Resistance Level
Power Rack Time 3 Time Stroke Count

Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
Trial 4
Trial 5
Trial 8
Trial 7
Trial 8
Trial 9

Resistance Levei1
Stroke or Resistance Level 2
PR 1-RM: Resistance Level
Power Rack Time 3 The Stroke Count

Trial 10
Trial 1 1
Trial 12
Trial 13
Trial 14
Trial 15
Trial 16
Trial 17
Trial 18

 

Figure 10: Anthropometric and power data sheets

Tﬁal4 Tﬁa|5 Tﬁal6
Tﬁa|7 Tﬁa|8 Tﬁa|9

Tnal10 Tﬁal11 Tna|12
ﬁal13 nal14 Tﬁal15
ﬁal16 Tﬁal17 Tﬁal18

 

Figure 11: Stroke technique analysis form

81

APPENDIX E - Testing Results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Female] data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H. L7
6.3. 3 8.6 E... 8.6 New 3 3 6..»
6.8 :N 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8 3 6.3
3.6 :N 8.3 83 No.3 8.3 8 3 6.;
8.3 3 8.8 8... 8.8 8.... 3 3 6....
N3 3 8.3 3.3 8.3 8.3 3 3 6....
8.8 :N 8.3 3.3 8.3 8.3 8 3 6.3
3.8 3 3.: 8.: 3.: 3.: 3 3 6.:
3.3 3 a... 8... 8... 5... 3 : 6.3
8.8 3 8.3 8.3 3.3 8.3 3 3 6E
...... 96.. “Hum 6. 2:: u>< 6. 8 as: 6. N as: 6. 3 6...: 6.... 266.5 .63. .26..
w 8 n .26.. 8:66.63. 3.0 ...... 596.. ....< 8 .5... E
3 N .26.. 88663. N3 , .. .862. _ ... .e m. 8.6..»
3 3 6.6.. 85663. 5.: .E. 2% 366%. "663.6
38 8 3.: 3. : 3.: 8. : 3 6 6.3
8.3 3 8.6 8.6 8... 3.... 3 o 6....
«.8 :N 3.3 8.3 3.3 8.3 8 N 6.:
8.8 3 8.: 8.: ..N. : 8.: 3 o 6....
6.8 3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 3 m 6.:
6.3 3 8.... 5.6 8.6 3.6 3 e 6.:
...8 :N 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 8 ... 6....
8.3. 3 3.3 :3 8.3 8.3 3 N 6.:
...8 :N 8.3 3.3 8.3 5.3 8 3 6.:
cs. 96.. “HM...“ 6. 6...... 92 6. n 6...... 6. N 6...: 6. 3 as.» .2... 266.... .63. .36..
V 8 n 6.6.. 85663. 3... .5. £96.. :5 8 as... E
3 N .26.. 88663. N3 3... 2.862. m ... .6 m. 9.28
3 3 .26.. 8:56.63“ 5.: .5. $916... .6666". ".6635

 

 

 

Table 10

82

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.3 8 3.3 8.3 3.3 3.3 3 3 65
6.8 8 83 8.3 8.: ....3 3 3 6:3
.3 8 8.3 8.3 38.3 8.3 3 3 6:3
N8 NN 8.3 83 83 83 3 3 6:3
8.8. NN 83 33 8.3 8.3 3 : 6:3
.8 8 8.3 8.3 N33 83 8 3 6....
3.8 8 8.: 3.: 8.: 8.: 8 3 6:3
.3 8 8.3 8.3 No.3 3.3 8 33 6:3
6.3 ..N 3.: 3.33 3.: :.: 3 36:3

:30
..s. 96.. FEM .6. 66.3 3.. .... a 6...... .6. N 6...: 6. 3 as: 6.... :66; .63. .86..
8 8 .26.. 88663. 5... .E. 59.3 :5 8 .23.: 3....
3 N 6.6.. 88663. NE a... .86.... _ ... .6 m. 9.6.8
3 3 6.6. 886663. 8.3 .E. 2.96... N665... 66.38
3.8 8 8.: 8.: 8.: 8.: 8 6 6:3
N8 ..N 8.3 3. 33 3.3 3.3 3 a 6:3
3.... 8 8.3 3.3 83 No.3 8 3 6:3
N. 3.. NN 83 8.3 83 83 3 6 6:3
8.. NN No.3 3... S3 B3 3 ... 6:3
N8 NN 33 83 N33 83 3 3 6:3
6.33 ..N 8.: 3...: 8.: 8.: 8 .3 6:3
...3 8 3... 38 3... 3... 3 N 6:3
3.8 8 3.3 3.3 3.3 83 3 3 6:3
:30

..s. 96.. “.6...“ .... as: 92 6. ... 66.3 6. N 2:: .... 3 6...: 6.... 266.5 .663. .86..

x 8 ... .26.. 88663. 3m... .5138... :5. 8 .23.: 3...

3 N 6.6. 886663. N3... =9. .86.... m a. .o m. 9.6..»
3 3 .26.. 88663l 8.3 _.E. .863. 86.83 .6635

 

 

FemaleZ data

Table 1 l

83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F r
...: 3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 3 3 6:3!
...8 8 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8 3 6.3
68.. 8 8.8 8.3 38 8.8 8 3 6.3
Q8 8 :.3 8.3 8.3 3.3 8 3 6.3
8... 8 36.3 8.3 8.3 36.3 3 : 6:3
3. 3.. 8 8.3 38.3 3.3 8.3 3 3 6....
o3. NN 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 3 3 6.3
6.8 3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 3 33 6:3
N8 3 8.: . 8.33 8.33 8.33 3 3 6.3
..s. 96.. “....an .... 6:..3 u>< 6. ... 2:.3 6. N 66.3 6. 3 66.3 .3... .3662. .663. .26..
\\ 8 n 6.6. 836663. 8... .3... 3.6.6. ....< 8 ”23.3 m...
3 N 6.6. 8:66.83. ...... .3 2.9162. _ ... .o m. 96......
3 3 6.6. 3.366663. 8.3 .E. .86.. 86563.. .666...»
N8 8 3.3 36.3 :3 3.3 8 a 6:3
”.8 3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 3 a 6:3
3.... 8 8.3 8.3 3.3 8.3 8 3 6:3
...3. 8 3.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 3 o 6.3
...8 3 3.. 33 8.: 3. 33 8. 33 3 6 6:3
N8 8 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 3 6 6:3
6.8 3 3.3 8. 33 8.3 8.3 3 a 6:3
86 8 8.3 8.3 8.3 3.3 3 N 6:3
38 NN 83 No.3 8.3 8.3 8 3 6.3
...... 96.. “mum...“ .... 6....3 u>< 6. 3. 66.3 .... N .....3 .... 3 6....3 .3... 2.36.... .363. .36..
8 ... 6.6. 886.363. 8... .6. .....36. E... 8 3.3.3 3.3.
3 N 6.6. 8:66.83. 98 g 2.962. m ... .o m. 9.28
3 3 6.6. 8566mm 8.3 .3... .366: 8666.1. .6665

 

 

 

Female3 data

Table 12

84

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.8 33 88.33 8...: 38.: 38.33 3 36:3
N8 3 8.: :.: 38.3 3...: 3 33 6:3
3.8.. 3 838 88 388 88 o. 3 6.3
8.8 3 8.3 33.3 3.3 N83 8 3 6:3
883 3 3.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8 ..3 6:3
.83 3 ..8. 33 8. 33 o... 33 88. 33 o . 8 3 6.3
8. 38 3 83 N83 83 3.3 3 N 3 6.3
8.3.. 3 38.3 8.3 3.3 .83 3 33 6.3
N83 : 3.8 3.8 88 388 3 3 6:3

...... 8.6.. Hum...“ .8. 6:..3 8.2 .8. 8 6:..3 6. N 6:..3 .8. 3 6....3 .3... 2.86.... .683. .6263.

8 8 6.6. 85668. 88 .E. 58.6. E.< 8 .23.: 3.3.

3 N 6.6. 8.66668. 83.3 .. £86.... _ ... .o m. 9.2.8

3 3 6.6. 8:86.88. 88.3 :6. ...86: .6656. 366.368
8. 3.. 3 83 3:3 N83 83 3 8 6:3
8.8 33 38. 33 83. 33 8.: 8. 33 3 8 6:3
8.8 33 8.33 33.33 88.33 8. 33 3 3 6.3
3.3.. 3 38.3 8.3 38.3 363 3 8 6.3
383 3 3. 33 o... 33 8. 33 8. 33 8 8 6.3
:8 3 8.3 8.3 8.3 38.3 3 .. 6:3
8.83 3 8.: 3... 33 N8. 33 8. 33 8 8 6.3
3.8 3 88 388 88 838 8 3 6.3
3.3.. I8 3 88 38 E... 8.8 3 . 6:3

.3. 8.6.. “NM .8. 6:..3 8.2 .8. 8 6:..3 .8. N 6:..3 .8. 3 6:..3 .3... £862. .68. 6......
8 8 6.6. 8:66.83. 88 ...... £88. ....< 8 323.3 3.3.
3 N 6.6. 8:66.83. 8.83 .. ... 6.... w ... .o w. 3.2.8

 

 

 

: Female4 data

Table 13

85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elllllu “I
8.3.. 3 88.83 8.83 88.83 3.3 3 3 6.3F
8.8.. 3 8.3 88.83 3.83 .883 3 33 6:3
8.8 8 8.3 8.3 88.3 8.3 8 3 6:3
.88 3 8.3 8.3 3.3 38.3 3 3 6:3
88.. 3 8.83 8.3 38.83 8.3 3 3.3 6:3
338 33 38.3 83 N83 3.3 3 3 6:3
88.. 8 N83 88.33 88.3 8.33 8 N3 6:3
8.8 3 N3. 33 83.: 8. 33 33. 33 3 33 6:3
3.8 8 8.: N8: 8.: 8.: 8 3 6:3
...... 96.. “......wa 6. 6:..3 8.2 6. 8 6....3 6. N 6....3 6. 3 6....3 6.... £86.... .63. 6.33.

8 8 6.6. 8:86.83. 88 .3... 58.6. :..< 8 3.3.3 3...

3 N 6.6. 8:33.63. 3.8 :93 3.8.12... _ ... .o m. 3.2.8

3 3 6.6. 8:88.83. 88.3 :6. 2.8.16... 865 863......
8.8.. 8 8.3 883 883 8.3 8 8 6:3
N8 3 3.: 3.: 8.: :.: 3 8 6:3
8.8.6 8 3.83 88.3 8.83 8.3 8 3 6.3
8.3. 3 8.3 8.3 N83 8.3 3 8 6.3
8.8 33 8.: 88.3 3.3 8.: 3 ... 6.3
3.3. ..N 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8 3. 6:3
38 3 8.: 3...: 8.: 8...: 3 8 6:3
8.... 3 N33 83 _ 33.3 38.3 3 N 6:3
8.88 3 8.3 38.3 8.3 88.3 3 3 6:3

.3. 8.6.. “......HW 6. 3:: 8.... 6. 8 6:..3 6. N 6....3 6. 3 6:..3 .3... 3.86.... .63. 6:6.

8 86.6. 8:33.63. 88 ...... 58.6. ....< 8 ”.23... 3...

3 N 6.6. 8:66.83. 3.8 a... 2.86.... w ... 6 m. 96.38

3 3 6.6. 8:86.83. 83 =:.. .86: 86:6. 3863

 

 

 

Female5 data

Table 14

86

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.88 3 88.3 38.3 83.83 83.3 3 3 683
N88 83 83.33 83.33 88.33 3.: 3 33 683
8.88 : N83. N83. 8.: 88. 33 3 83 .883
N38 33 88.83 88.83 38.83 88.8. 3 3 683
8.88 3 88.: 88.: 88.: 83.: 8 83 683
3. 38 3 88.3 88.N. 88.3 88.3 3 83 683
3.88 3 N83 88.3 83.83 88.3 8 N3 683
8.88 3 83.3 N83 83 83.3 8N 33 683
3.88 .... 8.: 8.: 3.83 83.: 3 83 683

:5. 8.6.. “Hum 6. 8.8.3 82.. 6. 8 8.8.3 6. N 8.8.3 6. 3 8.8.3 6.... 28.82. .63. 68.8..

\ 8 8 .38.. 888663. 88.8 88. 8.888.. :5 8 ”28.3 3...

\ 3 N .88.. 8888663. 8.88 9.8.8862. 8 ... 6 8. 8.6.88

3 3 .88.. 8888663. 883 38.. .886: 886.888. 888.888
3.88 3 .83 88.3 88.3 88.3 83 8 .883
8.88 83 38.83 38.83 88.8. 88.3 8 8 683
8.88 33 88.3 N83 3.3 88.3 3 3 63.3
8.38 3 3.3. 833 88.33 3.: 3 8683
8.88 3 88.3 38.3 88.3 88.3 8N 8 683
3.N3 3 83. 33 N3. 33 83. 33 38. 33 8N 8 683
8. 38 3 8883 N83 8883 8.83 3 8 .883
8.88 83 88.8 38.8 88.8 83.8 3 N 683
8.88 83 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 3 3 683
8.... 8.6.. “Hum...“ 6. 8.8.3 82 6. 8 8883 6. N 8883 6. 3 8.8.3 6.... .8862. .63. 68.8..
8 8 6.6.. 888663. 88.8 ..8. 8.888.. .82 8 828-3 3...
83 N 6...... 888663. 8.88 83.88.82. _ .3. 6 8. 9.2.8
83 3 .26.. 888663.| 883 ..8. .886: 886.88.. 288.888

 

 

 

Female6 data

Table 15

87

 

- Cr

m! .€>€J 908.1m¢.2$~8

\mm P

nn-.\ c3888—3u7d

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Female7 data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.88 3N 88.8 .8. .N 88.8 N8.NN 8 3 683F
8.88 8N 83.8 88.8 88.8 .38 8. 33 683
3.38 3N 88.8 3.8 3.8 8.8 8 83 683
8.8N 8. 3.8. 8.3 83.3 :.8. 8. 3 683
8.38 8N 38.NN .8.NN 8.8 8.8 8 8. 683
8.88 8N 83.8 88.8 83.8 83.8 3 8. 683
8.8N 3 88.3. 88.3. 88.3. 88.33 3 N3 683
8.88 .N 88.8. N33 88.8. 88.8. 8. .. 683
8.3N 8. 88.8. 38.8. 3.8.3 N83 3 3 683
..s. 8.6.. Hum...“ 6. 8.8.3 8.2 6. 8 8.8.3 6. N 8.8.3 6. 3 8.8.3 6.... .8862. .63. .83....
8N 8 .88. 888663. 88.8 ..8. 8.888.. 88.. 8N .23.-. ....
3 N 6.6.. 888663. 8.88 .8... .8862. _ ... ... 8. 3.8.8
8. 3 6...... 888663. 38.. .8.. .886... 386881.. 888.888
N88 8. 3.: 3.8. 88.8. 8.8. 8. 8 683
8. 38 8 N88 888 N88 888 8N 8 .....3
8.38 8N .83 88.8. 88.8. .83 8. 3 683
8.N8 NN 38.8 .88 .88 88.8 8 8 683
8.38 8. 3.3. 88.3. 3.3. 83. 8. 8 .883
8.38 3 38.8. .83. 88.8. 88.3. 3 8 6....
338 8. 88.8. 88.8. .88. .88. 8N 8 .883
8. 38 8. 88.8. 88.8. 88.8. 88.8. 8. N 683
8.N8 8. 8.3 88.8. 8.3 8.3 8. . 683
.3. 8...... Hum.“ 6. 8.8.3 8.2 6. 8 8883 6. N 8.8.3 6. . 8.8.3 6.... .8862. .63. .83....
8N 8 6.6. 888663. 88.8 .8. 8.888.. ....< 8N “28.3 3...
83 N 6.6.. 888663. 8.88 . .. .8862. 8 ... .8 8. 3.2.8
R 8. . .26.. 888663..| 38.. ..8. .8983. 386.88.. 88388

 

 

 

Table 16

88

.8. 8E... m><

6. 8883 83.

6. 8 8.8.3

6. 8 8.8.3

6. N 8.8.3

6. N 8.8.3

6. 3 8.8.3

6. 38.8.3

6.... .8862.

6.... .8862.

3.0.8”. .826...

3.883. .826;

 

: Malel data

Table 17

89

6. 8883 8.2

6. 8.8.3 8.2

6. 8 8.8.3

6. 8 88....

6. N 8.8.3

6. N 8.8.3

6. 3 8.8.3

6. 3 8883

68.. 8.8.82.

6.... .8862.

8.0.8”. .826...

scam .8268.

 

Table 18: Male2 data

90

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.83 8N 88.8. 88.8. 83.8. 83.8. 8N 8. 68%
8.83 8 83.8. 83.8. 88.8. 83.8. 8 3. .883
8.88 8. 38 38.8 3.8 ...8 8. 8. .....3
8.88 3. .88 88.8 88.8 88.8 8. 3 .883
8.88 8. 88.8 88.8 88.8 .88 8. 8. 683
3.83 8. 88. .. 88... N8... 88... 8 8. 683
8.88 3. .3.8. 33.8. 83.8. 88.8. 8. N. 683
8.88 3. 83.8 N88 83.8 83.8 8. .. 6....
N88 8. 88.8 33.8 88.8 88.8 8. 8. 683
...... 8.6.. Hum“. 6. 8.8.3 8.8.. 6. 8 8.8.3 6. N 8....3 6. . 8.8.3 68.. .8862. .688 .83....
\ 8N 8 688.. 88886688 83.8 .8.. 8.888.. .8.... 88 .28-. 8..
8. N 6.8.. 8886688 3.83 .8... .8862. 8 ... .8 8. 8.688
8. . 688.. 8.66688 83.. ..8. .886... 8862 888.888
8.88 8. 38.8. .88. 3.3 88.8. 8. 8 .883
8.88 3. 88.8 88.8 .88 88.8 8. 8 6....
8.88 8. 83.8 88.8 88.8 83.8 8. 3 .883
8.83 .N N8... 38... 8N... .8... 8N 8 .883
8.88 8. .88 N88 88.8 88.8 8. 8 .883
3.88 8. 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 8. 8 683
8.88 8. 3.3 88.8. 3.3 3.8. 8N 8 683
..88 8. 83.8 38.8 .38 N38 8. N 683
8.88 8N 88.8 N88. 38.8 38.8 8 . .883
_..s. 96.. ...“..HNM 6. 8.8.3 88¢ 6. 8 8883 6. N 8.8.3 6. . 8.8.3 68.. .8862. .688 .83....
8N 8 .883 88886688 3.88 ..8. 8.888.. .8... 88 .28.. 8..
8. N 688.. 8886688 3.83 .88. .38.... _ ... .8 8. 8.688
8. . 6.6.. 88886688I 83.. ..8. .898... 8862 888.888

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Male3 data

Table 19

91

 

6. 8.8.3 8.2

6. 8.8.3 8.2

6. 8 8.8.3

6. 8 8.8.3

6. N 88....

.8. N 8.8.3

6. .8.8.3

6. . 8....3

6.... .8862.

.8.... 8.8.8....

8888. .826...

8883. .2208.

 

: Male4 data

Table 20

92

 

6. 8.8.3 8.2

6. 8....3 85.

6. 8 8.8.3

6. 8 8.8.3

6. N 8....3

6. N 8883

6. . 8.8.3

6. . 8883

68.. 8.8.82.

.88.. .8862.

888m .826...—

xuum .8268.

 

: Male5 data

Table 21

93

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.88 .N 3.3 8.3 8.3 3.3 8N 3 6.3.
8.88 8. 88.8. 88.8. 88.8. 88.8. 8. 3. 6..3
3.88 8. 83.8. 83.8. .88. 88.8. 8. 8. 6..3
838 3. 88.8. N88. 88. 88.8. 8. 8. 6..3
3.38 8. ..... 8... .8... 8.... 8. 8. 6..3
8.83 .N N8... .8... 88. .. 88... 8 8. 6..3
838 3. 8.8. 38.8. 8.8. 8.8. 8. N. 6..3
3.83 8. 88... 38... N8... N8... 8 .. 6..3
N88 8. 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 8. 8. 6..3
..s. 8...... “Hum”... 6. 8883 8.2 6. 8 8883 6. N 88.3 6. . 8.8.3 68.. .8862. .688 .8......
\ 8 8 688.. 88886688 88.8 ..8. 8.888.. .8.... 8N .28-. 8..
8. N 688.. 88886688 8.88 .8.... .8838 8 ... .8 8. 8.688
8. . 688-. 88886688 83.. ...8. 8.8.8... 8 862 888.888
8.83 8N 88... 83... 88... 88... 8N 8 6..3
3.38 .N 8.3 N8.N. 3.3 8.3 8 8 6..3
8.38 8 88.N. 8.3 8.3 .3.N. 8N 3 6..3
8.88 8. 83.8. .3.8. 88.8. 83.8. 8. 8 6..3
8. .8 8. 8.3 8.8. 8.3 88.8. 8. 8 6..3
8.38 8. 8N... 88... .8. .. N.. .. 8. 8 6..3
8.88 8. N88 88.8 88.8 88.8 8. 8 6..3
8.88 3. 88.8 N88. 88.8 88.8 8. N 6..3
8.88 8. 88.8 88.8 88.8 N88 8. . 6..3
...... 8.6.. Hum...“ 6.8.8.3 88.. 6. 8 8883 6. N 8....3 6. . 8883 68.. .8862. ..888 .83....
8N 8 688.. 88886688 88.8 .8.. 8.888.. .82 8 .28.. 8..
\ 8. N .8...... 88.66688 8.88 ..m... .8862. _ ... .8 8. 8.688
\t 8. . 688.. 88886688|| 83.. ...8. 8.8.8.. 8862 888.888

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

: Male6 data

Table 22

94

6. 85.. 92

6. 85.. 92

6. 8 8:...

6. 8 82..

6. N 85..

6. N 85..

6. .85..

6. . 8.8..

68.. 8.8.8....

6.... 28.8.5

888”. 3826..

scam .8268.

 

: Male7 data

Table 23

95

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N88 8. 88.8 38.8 88.8 88.8 8 8. .8...
8.88 8. 88.3 .8.3 88.8 88.8 8. 3. .8....
N.8N. 3. 88. 88.8. 8.8. .N.8. 88 8. .8.:

8. .8. 8. 88.8 38.8 .88 88.8 8 8. .8....
3.88 8. .8.3 88.3 83.3 83.3 8. 8. .8....
3.88 8. 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 8 8. .8...
8.88. 8. 8.8 8.8 8.8 88.8 88 N. .8...
N88 N. 88.3 .8.3 88.3 88.3 8. .. .8...
8.8N. 8. ...8. 8.8. 38.8. 88.8. 88 8. .8...
8s. 888.. Hum“. 6. 8.8.. 8.2 6. 8 8.8: 6. N 8E: 6. . 8.8.. 68.. 8.8.8.5 8.888 .886...
\ 88 8 .8888 888888.888 83.8 .5. 8.888.. .82 88 .28-. 8..
8 N 688.. 888888688 8.88 a... 8%; 8 8. .8 8. 9.888
8. . .85.. 888888.888 83.. .8.. 888.8: 88.8.2 888.888
8. .8. 3. 83.8 88.8 .88 83.8 88 8 .8...
N.38 8. 38.3 88.3 38.3 88.3 8. 8 .8...
8.88 8. 88.8 33.8 .88 88.8 8 3 .8...
8.88. 8. 3.8 88.8 3N8 8.8 8 8 .8...
8.88. 3. .88 88.8 88.8 38.8 88 8 .8...
8.88 8. 88.3 83.3 88.3 N8.3 8. 8 .8...
8.N8. 8. 38.8 38.8 88.8 88.8 8 8 .8...
8.88 8. .8.3 88.3 88.3 8.3 8. N .8....
.. .8. 3. 88.8 .88 3.8 88.8 88 . .8... .
85. 888.. “mun...“ 6. 8.8.. 88< 6. 8 8.8.. 6. N 8.8.. 6. . 8E... 68.. 8.8.8.5 ..888 .8388
88 8 .28.. 888888.888 83.8 88. £888.. :5 88 .28.. 8..
8N N .88... 888888.888 8.88 ... 888.82. _ ... .8 8. 88.888
8. . .38.. 888.88.88ml 83.. 8... 888.8: 88.8.2 888.888

 

 

 

Male8 data

Table 24

96

APPENDIX F - Stroke Analysis

Notes: A denoting of US indicates the stroke style could not be determined.

A denoting of 1* or 8* means that the trial was not recorded clearly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject: Male 1
Trial Described Stroke Resistance Level Average Power
1 S 20 79.3
2 S 10 50.7
3 S 20 84.1
4 S 30 1 1 1.2
5 S 30 1 15.4
6 S 10 50.6
7 S 30 1 18.1
8 S 10 49.9
9 l 20 85.6
10 I 30 1 10.9
1 1 l 10 51 .1
12 l 30 123.5
13 I 20 92.1
14 | 10 , 49.4
15 S* 20 90.5
16 | 30 1 17.7
17 8* 20 95.8
18 l 10 55.2
Notes: With the S-pull, subject takes a few strokes to get going...also
Qshows some pronounced up-and-down movement with the legs
as he swims. With the l-pull, the hand tends to go deeper then
on the S. Can only get data from the ﬁrst couple of pulls due to
turbulence in the water

 

Table 25: Stroke analysis, Male]

97

 

 

Subject: Male 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trial Described Stroke Resistance Level Average Power
1 S 1 0 51 .7
2 S 1 5 72.5
3 S 10 52.6
4 S 20 95.0
5 S 20 92.8
6 S 1 0 52.8
7 S 1 5 73.9
8 S 20 93.0
9 S 1 5 72.6

10 VS 1 5 82.9
1 1 VS 20 86.4
12 VS 1 5 66.9
1 3 VS 20 76.1
14 VS 1 5 64.6
15 VS 1 0 46.3
16 VS 20 83.7
17 VS 10 54.1
18 VS 1 0 54.3

 

 

fcharacten‘stics to it.

Notes: {Legs drop a lot, some ﬁshtailing but this is mostly due to body
ﬁrotation. There is no turbulence in the water. On the S-pull
'there is a lot of elbow ﬂexion during the in-sweep. There is
some elbow ﬂexion with the l—pull but not nearly to the degree
as with the S-pull. The I-pull does have some S-shape

 

 

Table 26: Stroke analysis, Male2

98

 

 

Subject: Male 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“'5"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trial Described Stroke Resistance Level Average Power

(IDS) M)

1 l 20 85.6
2 I 10 49.1
3 l 20 84.5
4 I 15 66.7
5 I 10 45.4
6 I 20 75.5
7 I 10 48.6
8 I 15 68.6
9 I 15 63.6
10 S 15 65.2
1 1 S 15 65.5
12 S 15 59.9
13 S 20 74.7
14 S 10 44.3
15 S 10 45.4
16 S 10 46.8
17 S 20 79.4
18 S 20 79.9

 

 

 

 

Notes: iThere is a little elbow ﬂexion on the I, but it is minimal. The
hand is laterally wide of the body during the l—Pull. The feet
:drop with the l-Pull and there is very little lateral movement of
the legs. The subject had a hard time swimming straight during
jthe S-Pull. There is ﬁshtailing of the legs/lower body during the
S-Pull. A distinct catch and elbow flexion are visible during the
,S-Pull with the catch moving real wide ofﬂie body. Afterthe
catch, one can see movement of the amt/hand back toward me
‘body

 

 

 

Table 27: Stroke analysis, Male3

99

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject: Male 4
Trial Described Stroke Resistance Level Average Power
(lbs) (W)
1 I 20 74.7
2 I 30 84.4
3 | 10 39.7
4 l 20 73.8
5 VS 20 65.7
6 I 10 40.2
7 l 10 43.1
8 l 30 66.6
9 I 30 80.6
10 S 20 71 .5
1 1 S 20 65.2
12 S 10 41.9
13 S 30 78.4
14 S 30 84.7
15 S 30 79.6
16 S 20 66.3
17 S 10 41 .3
18 S 10 41 .0
Notes: The feet sink during both sets of trials and there is a butterﬂy
movement with them. The I-pull goes wide of the body. There
f is a lot more turbulence in the water during the S-Pull. There is
evident elbow ﬂexion during the catch and as the pull comes
toward the midline ofthe body.

 

 

Table 28: Stroke analysis, Male4

100

 

 

 

Subject: Male 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trial Described Stroke Resistance Level Average Power
(lbs) (W)
1 I 15 81.4
2 I 10 54.4
3 l 20 104.1
4 l 15 71 .5
5 I 10 51 .7
6 I 15 69.0
7 I 20 85.4
8 I 20 82.8
9 I 10 51 .1
10 S 15 63.4
1 1 S 10 45.7
12 S 20 78.7
13 S 20 76.5
14 S 10 44.3
15 S 15 62.8
16 S 10 45.1
17 S 20 79.6
18 S 15 60.3

 

 

 

 

 

Notes: The l-Pull creates turbulence and the pull goes under the body
but it is a straight pull (think diagonal). The legs are dropping a
"bit but not as much as with other subjects. There is elbow
iflextion during both pulls but there is a greater amount with the
jS-Pull One can see an outsweep at the end of the S-Pull as the
.hand exits the water.

 

Table 29: Stroke analysis, Males

101

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject: Male 6
Trial Described Stroke Resistance Level Average Power
(lbs) (W)
1 l 10 48.0
2 I 15 64.5
3 I 10 45.4
4 I 15 57.0
5 I 10 41 .5
6 l 15 59.4
7 I 20 67.5 T“-
8 l 20 67.7
9 I 20 73.3
10 S 15 68.2
1 1 S 20 74.7
12 S 10 41.6 '
13 S 20 75.5
14 S 15 57.7
15 S 10 41.3
16 S 15 59.7
17 S 10 40.5
18 S 20 66.8
Notes: fT'he legs drop a lot during the l-Pull and the subject tries to do
some butterﬂy kicks to get the legs to the surface. There is
3also some lateral movement of the legs during a few of the
ftn'als. The I-Pull is wide ofthe body and stays there. The S-Pull
:has a visible insweep toward the body. The S-Pull has a
{tendencey to create more eddies/turbulence in the water due to
the back-and-forth nature of the pull. There is still a little bit of
.the butterﬂy kicks with the S-Pull

 

 

Table 30: Stroke analysis, Male6

102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I - :'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject: Male 7
Trial Described Stroke Resistance Level Average Power
(lbs) (W)
1 I 10 63.9
2 I 20 96.4
3 I 20 92.9
4 l 20 91.4
5 S* 30 112.0
6 l 10 54.0
7 I 30 122.1
8 S* 10 52.1
9 I 30 121.5
10 S 30 1 10.8
1 1 S 20 88.4
12 S 20 84.1
13 S 10 47.8
14 S 10 48.8
15 S 10 47.2
16 S 20 83.6
17 S 30 105.2
18 S 30 105.0
Notes: The subject does a good job of differentiating between the two
stroke styles. The legs are dropping and there is a little vertical
"movement with them. The I-Stroke is a bit inconsistent and two
of the trials were more curvilinear. The S-Stroke exhibits a
good amount of elbow ﬂexion and on the \n'deo one can see the
Eout-in—out characteristics of the stroke.

 

 

 

Table 31: Stroke analysis, Male7

103

 

Subject: Male 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trial Described Stroke Resistance Level Average Power
(lbs) (W)
1 l 30 141 .1
2 l 10 58.4
3 I 20 102.0
4 l 10 54.5
5 I 30 136.3
6 l 20 104.6
7 I 20 98.5
8 l 10 57.2
9 I 30 131 .0
10 S 30 126.8
1 1 S 10 56.2
12 S 30 138.9
13 S 20 95.7
14 S 10 54.7
15 S 20 101 .8
16 S 30 125.2
17 S 10 53.5
18 S 20 95.2

 

1" minimal elbow ﬂexion

 

Notes: ,The l-Stroke is very straight and this seems to be the more
inatural of the stroke of this subject. There pull path is wide of
the body and the annmand remain straight throughout. The 8-
:Pull creates more turbulence as the hand comes under the
body and then back away. There is more elbow ﬂexion during
the catch of the S-Stroke while with the l-Stroke the arm has

 

 

Table 32: Stroke analysis, Male8

104

 

 

 

 

Subject: Female 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Resistance Level Average Power

Tnal Descrrbed Stroke (“35L (W)
1 S 20 66.7
2 S 10 42.3
3 S 20 68.7
4 S 10 43.5
5 S 15 58.9
6 S 15 56.8
7 S 20 65.4
8 S 10 43.3
9 I 15 54.8
10 I 15 59.3
1 1 l 10 43.1
12 VS* 15 56.1
13 I 20 69.3
14 VS* 15 62.7
15 l 10 43.3
16 I 20 67.9
17 S* 20 69.6
18 | 10 43.5

 

 

Notes: Subject had some equipment issues and and it took 3 trials
{before there was a good trial. The S-Pull comes out and back
in toward the body and then undemeath. There is not so much
gout-movement with the l-Pull, it is straighter and still comes
under the body. There is variance between the trials - the
Estrokes are not consistent

 

 

Table 33: Stroke analysis, Female]

105

 

 

 

 

Subject: Female 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trial Described Stroke Resrstance Level Average Power

(le) (W)

1 S 15 63.1
2 S 10 43.8
3 S 20 71 .6
4 S 1 5 59.2
5 S 10 42.7
6 S 10 41 .2
7 S 20 67.7
8 S 15 53.2
9 S 20 59.1
10 I 15 57.6
1 1 l 20 62.7
12 l 20 60.7
13 l 20 55.7
14 I 10 39.3
15 VS* 10 39.2
16 I 15 52.1
17 I 10 38.9
18 I 15 52.6

 

 

Notes: :There is some extra lateral and vertical movement with the legs

during all trials, kind of like a butterﬂy kick. There is elbow
ﬂexion during the S-Pull. There is more water turbulence with
Ethe l-Pull and it is more of a diagonal pull from out-to-in. The
hand stays wide of the body and doesn't come undemeath.

 

 

Table 34: Stroke analysis, Female2

106

 

 

Subject: :Female 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trial Described Stroke Resistance Level Average Power

("08) (W)
1 S 20 54.6
2 S 15 48.5
3 S 10 35.6
4 S 15 46.2
5 S 10 36.4
6 S 15 42.6
7 S 20 46.7
8 S 10 32.3
9 S 20 43.2
10 S 10 36.2
1 1 l 10 34.8
12 VS* 15 42.0
13 VS* 15 41.1
14 l 15 40.5
15 VS* 20 53.0
16 S 20 42.6
17 S 20 43.8
18 VS* 10 34.0

 

 

Notes: The subject has a hard time maintaining a straight path pull with
the I-Stroke and there is more variability with this pull than with
{the S-Stroke. The hand and arm come underthe body during
the catch ofthe S-Stroke and stay wide of the body during the I-

Stroke. The legs like to drop and there is lateral movement

with the legs that affects body position.

 

 

Table 35: Stroke analysis, Female3

107

 

 

Subject: Female 4

 

Resistance Level

Average Power

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tnal Descrrbed Stroke (lbs) (W)
1 S 10 47.7
2 S 20 86.7
3 S 20 75.2
4 S 15 59.4
5 S 20 74.7
6 S 10 41.1
7 S 15 56.8
8 S 15 54.9
9 S 10 41 .3

10 I 10 45.2
1 1 I 10 41.2
12 l 15 61.8
13 I 20 75.4
14 l 20 70.5
15 l 20 69.9
16 l 10 43.7
17 l 15 58.2
18 I 15 56.3

 

 

Notes: _,The arm enters wide with the S-Stroke and has a nice catch,
although the arm does not travel under the body like some of
'the other subjects. The legs are pretty elevated with some
:minimal lateral movements. The arm stays wide of the body
5during the I-pull and there is less elbow ﬂexion. The I-Stroke
1 seems more natural for the subject

 

 

Table 36: Stroke analysis, Female4

108

 

F
S

 

 

 

Subject: Female 5

 

Resistance Level

Average Power

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trral Descnbed Stroke (lbs) (W)
1 S 15 38.8
2 S 15 40.8
3 S 10 29.7
4 S 20 45.1
5 S 10 28.6
6 S 15 40.3
7 S 20 43.9
8 S 10 30.2
9 S 20 45.0

10 I 20 58.7
1 1 l 10 36.5
12 | 20 49.3
13 I 10 34.1
14 I 15 49.3
15 I 10 35.4
16 l 20 53.8
17 l 15 48.3
18 l 15 47.0

 

 

Notes: The S-Stroke is more of a wide pull and the arm doesn't come
under the body until the middle ofthe pull. As the hand moves
. under the body, there is a lot of elbow ﬂexion. The legs are
pretty still and just rotate with the body. There is elbow ﬂexion
fwith the l-pull but the arm does not travel under the body - it
stays laterally to the state.

 

Table 37: Stroke analysis, Female5

109

 

 

Subject: Female 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trial Described Stroke Resistance Level Average Power

(IbSI (WI

1 l 15 64.8
2 I 10 44.3
3 I 10 41.4
4 l 20 72.7
5 I 20 68.6
6 I 15 57.5
7 I 15 53.0
8 I 20 63.0
9 l 10 39.1
10 S 15 45.1
1 1 S 20 54.3
12 S 20 54.7
13 S* 15 51.7
14 S* 20 58.3
15 S* 15 47.2
16 S* 10 35.8
17 S* 10 38.2
18 S" 10 39.5

 

 

 

 

Notes: gThe arm Is very straight during the l-Pull, maybe the best one

yet! It is a wide pull and therere is minimal elbow ﬂexion. The

. legs stay pretty elevated and the only movement is with the
natural body rotations. The S-Pull has substantially more elbow

ﬂexion - the arm enters wide and and then sweeps back toward

'the body. There were some camera issues and onlythe ﬁrst 3
”of the S-Pull trials were able to be recorded.

 

Table 38: Stroke analysis, Female6

110

 

 

 

Subject: Female 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trial Described Stroke Resistance Level Average Power

(le) (W)

1 S 10 32.9
2 S 10 31 .4
3 S 20 51 .7
4 S 15 37.8
5 S 1 5 37.4
6 S 20 42.0
7 S* 15 37.9
8 S* 20 41 .6
9 S* 10 30.2
10 l 10 27.6
1 1 l 1 5 34.0
12 l 10 24.3
13 I" 15 30.9
14 I* 20 37.4
15 l* 10 23.5
16 I* 20 37.1
17 I" 1 5 30.9
18 I” 20 38.8

 

 

Notes: The S-Stroke enters wide and then sweeps back in toward the
‘body. There characteristic elbow ﬂexion during the catch as
’the amr and hand sweep back toward the body. The feet and
legs stay in an elevated position and there is little extra
movement with them. The camera wasn't able to record the
last three S-Stroke trials and was only able to get the ﬁrst three
:l-Stroke trials. From the ones that were recorded, there is a
fvisible difference between the two strokes. There is still elbow
ﬂexion with the l-Stroke but the arm and hand stay wide of the
body and do not sweep back toward the middle

 

Table 39: Stroke analysis, Female7

111

 

 

APPENDIX G — I-Stroke and S-Stroke Scatter Plots of Power Output
*Each participant should have six data points: three each for the I-Stroke and S-Stroke.
Participants with fewer than three data points indicate that the stroke style was incorrect and thus

left out of the calculations

 

 

150
__'

140

 

 

 

 

 

ti 8 l
88 1
on o

~52

52

O

’2

-8

Power Comparison: I vs S, Resistance Level 1, Male

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E 2
. s
“-3.------? ............... 3W. 18. .
........... 3--."-.. -.-------.1-------.---l--,-------.l-------. ‘0
o a B T
l l c e
i
g a
d)
e s e 3 :3 3 3 32
'89 s g s s s s s

 

 

 

Figure 12: Power comparison, males, I-Stroke vs. S-Stroke, resistance level 1

112

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:5. .3308.
om _. 03. cm _. ON? 9. _. 00—. cm on on om om ow om ON
.- W -
80 0M All cams.
m exchwrm
888.2 96.6... llv $.58 a
8.8888, 8 ._ W -
GxObMA Of 00 I m m n.
:3 an
. ...-Ms
W 08 e 3

 

 

0.8—=8“. .. .26.. 3:58.81 .8 8>. "coated—:00 32508.

.2858”.

N995".

8288.8“.

8868.8".

moﬁEon.

88.8.3.8“.

828.com.

 

 

females, I-Stroke vs S-Stroke, resistance level 1

rison,

Power compa

Figure 13

113

 

 

 

 

 

 

om.

 

 

 

€32.38.
88. 88. 8N. 8.. 88. 88 88 83 88 88 88 88 8
0 DD nun. W

. all 588.2 880.5%
@988 ml - -
- 8.88....) .8..

888.2 8.888. ll - ...8. 8
.e 0 2H.

l

l
l
l
l
l
|
l
I

l

--------—------od-----c----------h------------------------.--—

-
8
.
-
_
.
.i bl ii it ‘I. . I i
-
.
—
8
-
—
_

 

 

28! .N .33 8:38.881 .w 8> _ .coetequo 32858.

.282

N285.

mugs—2

8828—2

mmﬁﬁ

@285.

528.2

@282

 

 

Power comparison, males, I-Stroke vs S-Stroke, resistance level 2

Figure 14

114

 

 

 

 

 

:5. 32508.
cm. oi. on _. ON. 0. 8 co. cm on on ow om ov om

A. n. D 3.8.3.0....
a no a. NoEEon.

-- l 888.2 88888-8
888.). 9.0.5-. _ no u o 8 8288.8”.

6.8888 8._ W-

_ro..o..w-_ o o 8.868. mm 828.88....
MT. .86 82.88.83.
e e eaw. n. 0 ©2935“.
a. 328.88....

 

 

 

0.2.8". .N .26.. 00:88.3. .8 e>. "coat—88.800 ..eiom

 

 

Power comparison, females, I-Stroke vs S-Stroke, resistance level 2

Figure 15

115

 

 

 

 

 

om.

 

 

92. 32508.
ovw on. ON_. or F cow om om on om on O? on ON
8 .U u a. m m Al 8.822 88.95%
-M..o..w..wlm. ,_ m m - I
u D 0
P28. 8- n -
caes— exo..m-_ . 8 3 a. a
M W . .8 O
o m . e e Bo
W Be en.
8 U a M .
e .u e e an.

 

 

2s: .m .85.. 3:88.88: .m 8>_ "Suntan—=00 3250...

8222

N222

m2m2

#222

m222

$2.82

3.222

@222

 

 

les, I-Stroke vs S-Stroke, resistance level 3

rison, ma

Power compa

Figure 16

116

 

 

 

 

 

ON

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

85.82888
88. 88. 88. 8N. 8.. 88. 88 88 83 88 88 88 88
eenn. m
H Al 882288282.
m
0 n. eeqre
888.2 82888.8 Iv u o 3
8.2.8.88 m
9.888... n. a. s .-
e“. e e B
e e e 8mg
m a 8.3

 

 

 

8.8.3.88. .8 .38.. 3:58.88 .m 83 Est—3.80032588—

.2888“.

388.8“.

8288.8".

8223.6"—

moﬁEou.

8223.8".

52080....

 

 

Figure 17 : Power comparison, females, I-Stroke vs S-Stroke, resistance level 3

117

APPENDIX H - t-test Results

 

Table 40: Dependent t-test — I-Stroke versus S-Stroke, entire population

 

Table 41: Dependent t-test — I-Stroke versus S-Stroke, males

1 2

Critical one-tail

 

Table 42: Dependent t-test —- l-Stroke versus S-Stroke, females

118

 

 

I k - - -
6t") e Freestylers Non Freestylers Non Freestylers Non

Difference 0'00

S-Stroke Non-

Freestylers Freestylers

Freestylers Freestylers

N -
Freestylers

O _
Freestylers

Difference 0'00

 

Table 43: Independent t-test — Freestylers versus non-freestylers, entire population

119

 

laSt k
ro e Sprinters Sprinters

S-Stroke Non-

Sprrnters Sprinters Sprrnters

Non-
Sprinters

Sprinters

Sprinters

Non-
Sprinters

 

Table 44: Independent t-test — Sprinters versus non-sprinters, entire population

120

 

l-Stroke

S-Stroke

Variance

 

Table 45: Independent t-test — Male versus female, entire population

121

APPENDIX I — ANOVA Charts

Note: All charts were calculated using SPSS statistical software

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tests of WIthIn-Subjects Effects
Measure:MEASURE_1
Type III Sum Mean Noncent Observed
urce of Squares df Square F Sig. Parameter Power'
IStrokeType Sphericity .034 1 .034 .000 .993 .000 .050
Assumed
Greenhouse- .034 1 .000 .034 .000 .993 .000 .050
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt .034 1.000 .034 .000 .993 .000 .050
Lower-bound .034 1.000 .034 .000 .993 .000 .050
lError(StrokeType) Sphericity 6050.917 13 465.455
Assumed
Greenhouse- 6050.917 13.000 465.455
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 6050.917 13.000 465.455
Lower-bound 6050.917 13.000 465.455
WPowerLevel Sphericity 17907.540 2 8953.770 60.390 .000 120.780 1.
Assumed
Greenhouse- 17907.540 1.038 17246.578 60.390 .000 62.704 1.
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 17907.540 1.048 17086.389 60.390 .000 63.292. 1.
Lower-bound 17907.540 1.000 17907.540 60.390 .000 60.390 1.
lError(PowerLevel) Sphericity 3854.907 26 148266
Assumed
Greenhouse- 3854.907 13.498 285.586
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 3854.907 13.625 . 282.934
Lower-bound 3854.907 13.000 296.531
IStrokeType ’ Sphericity 6.835 2 3.418 .066 .936 .132 .0591
Poweri.evel Assumed
Greenhouse— 6.835 1.228 5.564 .066 .849 .081 .054
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 6.835 . 1.291 5.294 .066 .859 .085 .051
Lower-bound 6.835 1.000 6.835. .066 .801 .066 .057
En'or(StrokeType'Po Sphericity 1344.958 26 51.729
werLevel) Assumed
Greenhouse- 1344.958 15.970 84.218
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 1344.958 16.784 80.131
Lower-bound 1344.958 13.000 103.458

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Computed using alpha = .05

Table 46: Repeated measures AN OVA for entire population

122

Measure:MEASURE_1

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type III Sum Mean Noncent. Observed
urea of Squares df Square F Sig. Parameter Power'
IStrokeType Sphericity 649.787 1 649.787 2.238 .185 2.238 .2
Assumed
Greenhouse- 649.787 1.000 649.787 2.238 .185 2238i .2
Gelsser
Huynh-Feldt 649.787 1.000 649.787 2.238. .185 2.238. .2
Lower-bound 649.787 1.000 649.787 2.238 .185 2.238 .2
Error(StrokeType) Sphericity 1741.947 6 290.324
Assumed
Greenhouse- 1741.947 6.000. 290.324
Gelsser
Huynh-Feldt 1741 .947 6.000 290.324
Lower-bound 1741.947 6.000 290.324
PowerLevel Sphericity 14917.090 2 7458.545 59.564 .000 119.128 1.000
Assumed
Greenhouse— 14917.090 1.071 13924.940 59.564 .000 63.8081 1.
Gelsser
Huynh-Feldt 14917.090 1.116 13370.789 59.564 .000 66.452 1.
Lower-bound 14917.090 1.000 14917.090 59.564 .000 59.564 1.
lError(PowerLeveI) Sphericity 1502.633 12 125.219
Assumed
Greenhouse— 1502.633 6.427 233.782
Gelsser
Huynh-Feldt 1502.633 6.694 224.478
Lower-bound 1502.633 6.000 1 250.439
StrokeType ' Sphericity 67.952 2 33.976 .997 .398 1.994 .1
PowerLevel Assumed
Greenhouse- 67.952 1.375 49.416 .997 .377 1.371 .15
Gelsser
Huynh-Feldt 67.952 1.649 41.212 .997 .387 1.644 .1
Lower-bound 67.952 1.000 67.952 .997 .357 .997 .1
Err'or(StrokeType‘Po Sphericity 409.025 12 34.085
rLevel) Assumed
Greenhouse- 409.025 8.251 49.575
Gelsser ‘
Huynh-Feldt 409.025 9.893 41 .344
Lower-bound 409.025 6.000 68.171

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7a. Computed using alpha = .05

Table 47 : Repeated measures AN OVA for male participants

123

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure:MEASURE_1
Type III Sum Mean Noncent. Observed
Source of Squares df Square F Sig. Parameter Power'
IStrokeType Sphericity .572 1 .572 .016 .905 .016 .051
Assumed
Greenhouse- .572 1.000 .572 .016 .905 .016 .051
Gelsser
Huynh-Feldt .572 1.000 .572 .016 .905 .016 .051
Lower-bound .572 1.000 .572 .016 .905 .016 .051
'Error(StrokeType) Sphericity 220.160 6 36.693
Assumed
Greenhouse- 220.160 6.000 36.693
Gelsser
Huynh-Feldt 220.160 6.000 36.693
Lower-bound 220.160 6.000 36.693
lPoweri.evel Sphericity 3066.146 2 1533.073 55.268 .000 110.537 1.000
Assumed
Greenhouse- 3066.146 1.270 2414.832 55.268 .000 70.175 1.000
Gelsser
Huynh-Feldt 3066.146 1.456 2105.655 55.268 .000 80.479 1.000
Lower-bound 3066.146 1.000 3066.146 55.268 .000 55.268 1.000
lError(PowerLevel) Sphericity 332.864 12 27.739
Assumed
Greenhouse- 332.864 7.618 43.693
Gelsser
Huynh-Feldt 332.864 8.737 38.099
Lower-bound 332.864 6.000 55.477
StrokeType ' Sphericity 1.298 2 .649 .182 .836 .364 .072
PowerLevel Assumed
Greenhouse- 1.298 1.538 .844 .182 .782 .280 .069
Gelsser
Huynh-Feldt 1.298 1.965 .661 .182 .832 .357 .072
Lower-bound 1.298 1.000 1.298 .182 .685 .182 .065
lError(StrokeType‘Po Sphericity 42.826 12 3.569
werLevel) Assumed
Greenhouse- 42.826 9.228 4.641
Gelsser
Huynh-Feldt 42.826 11.788 3.633
Lower-bound 42.826 6.000 7.138

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Computed using alpha = .05

Table 48: Repeated measures AN OVA for female participants

124

APPENDIX J - Correlation Scatter Plots

 

 

 

Om: mwé

OO._.

.8.. 8.8.8..
83.. 83.. 88.. 88..

mm... Om...

 

 

 

 

 

. .8 .28.. 88888688. .888... . I . I
.N .88.. 88886688. .888... I 1 ..
A. .85.. 3:58.881. 368:...—

 

m .93 88:28.88."— 4
N .93 8:28.88. e
. _o>o._ 8:28.868. e

 

 

 

 

c2523... o3=:m 68.0.59. .8298: e> 38308.

98.8

O _.
ON
on
O»8
on
O0
ON.
ow
Om.
OO 8
O _. _.
ON _.
on F
O». _.
on F

(M) JOMOd

 

 

Power versus height for the I-Stroke, entire population

Figure 18

125

 

 

 

OO._‘

mmé

Owé

:5 292..
m: o: 8; 8;

mm._. omé

 

 

 

 

 

C _o>o._ oucSmﬁomv Soc...

8 .33 323335 .695 . I . I
4 AN _o>w._ 8:93.35 23:: I I I

m _o>o... oocﬁmﬁom 4
N .93 oocﬂﬂwom I
F _o>o._ mocmﬁmom o

 

 

 

OO

00..
O:
ONP
O9.
OE.

 

 

5:230.“— Eacm .325.» ...—Be: > .830“.

OE.

(M) Jamod

 

 

Power versus height for the S-Stroke, entire population

Figure 19

126

 

 

 

mm

 

 

 

 

 

.9: £225
OO mu Oh mo Ow mm on m?
o
5 End M Na
\ \ \ \ ‘ \‘l \l \ u
I \\.\\\\\ 1‘ \u‘u ‘ ‘
. N‘“\\\\ \u\u\u\
. I \ \ I4 I I . \ I \ .
when O u «I . \ I \
I l‘ I -\ I \ I I\I I \
I . .I\ . \ I \ I I I I I
Immnv O H um I 8 $5.. oocﬂwﬁomv Eon: . I . I
4 AN .93 853.85 395 I I l
4 I I I :I _o>o._ 02.8235 525
m .93 mu:8m_mom 4
4 N .93 oocﬂmﬁwm I
F .05.. 8:338”. o

 

 

 

 

 

5.3.2.0.“. Esau 6:25.. .2225 n> 330.“.

O r
ON
Om
Ow
Om
OO
Ox.
O»
OO
OO _.
O F _.
ON _.
om _‘
OV w
om e

(M) JOMOd

 

 

Power versus weight for the I-Stroke, entire population

0
a

Figure 20

127

 

 

 

mm

 

 

 

 

 

35 £925
ow mm on mo OO mm om mv
II I Illll lllll \\ \.\.\ 4 4
Smoonmm \u\I \.\.\\ 4
4 4 4 I I I .
I 4 I \ . I .
I . I . \
. l d . \ . \ \
Essa .
4 8 _o>o._ sawing: Roe... . I . I
4 AN .90.. 09.5335 .35.. l l l
c. .05.. 3.523% 395
4 m .05.. 3:333. 4
N .93 oucSmﬁoK I
F 35.. mocﬂmﬁom 0

 

 

 

 

 

5:239... Szcm .93me .2225 n> 325;

OF
ON
on
ov
om
OO
ON
on
oo
oo F
OF F
ON F
OMF
OFF
on F

(M) JOMOd

 

 

Power versus weight for the S-Stroke, entire population

Figure 21

128

 

 

:5 593.. E4
mod 8.0 mg 2.0 mod 85

mmIO

 

 

 

 

I
I
I I I « I . I
I I I I \ I I 4 \ I \ I \ I 4
« \IIIIIII I \I\I\I 4
Emwouwm III 4 I.I.I.I
4 I \ I \ I \ II I I I
. I I \ l
Nwm O H am I Am .93 mocﬁmﬁomv 59.: I I I I
4 AN .05.. 8.5%me .35.. I I I
4 AF 65.. wocoﬁmmmv 395
n 63; mocmﬁﬁwm 4
4 I N .93 83562; I
II I F 63.. wocmﬁmom o

 

 

 

 

O F
ON
on
04
on
Ow
ON
on
OO
OO F
OF F
ON F
on F
Ov F

 

 

cassaaom 2.2m 6:0wa— .5m:o._ E..< m> .250.—

omF

(M) JOMOd

 

 

Power versus arm length for the I-Stroke, entire population

Figure 22

129

 

 

mad

:5 595.. E4

 

 

 

(M) JOMOd

130

 

 

 

 

 

 

omd mNIO ONO mod OOIO mmd
I , , 0
OF
ON
on
OF4
om
OO
I I on
88.0" yFIII - I.I.I. 4
w 4 . I . I. I. 4 8
I \ I I I I I I
NoNdINmIIIIII. - 4 8
OOF
4 I Am _93 oocﬁﬂmomv 56:: I I I I OFF
4 AN _93 85535 52.: I I I
F _93 8:33me 595 ONF
4 m _93 8:558”. 4 OOF
N _93 wocﬂmﬁom I
F _93 occﬂmﬁom o OvF
omF

 

 

5.3.2.0.. 2.2m .3256 .595.— ::< 9 .93..

 

Power versus arm length for the S-Stroke, entire population

 

Figure 23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:5 222..
an. F 00. F vw. F NO. F OO. F an. F on. F vs. F NF. F ON. F OO. F
O
An _93 oocmuwﬁomv 505.. I I I I OF
AN _93 mocﬂmﬁomv .695 I | I
A F _93 8:9535 5.3:: ON
m _93 8:85.31 4 ON
N _93 macsgmmm I
F _93 893285". 0 o O?
o
'1" O 0 OD
mod n am 0
o I OO
- 4 2.
ONOOIO M Na I «
IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII OO
4 OO
«8.: n E ......... .I ......... u
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I.I-l-l.l.l.l.l.I.I OOF
OF F
4 4 RF
Om F
4
OFF
OOF

«so: .3059. .253: 9 330..

(M) JOMOd

 

 

Power versus height for the I-Stroke, males

Figure 24

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AEO 2.90...
mm. F Om. F g. F NO. F ow. F OF. F on. F FR. F N... F Oh. F mo. F
O
OF
ON
Om
9.
«N8... H mm [ o u .
o o om
o
cm
I
Sod u um ._ u
llllllllllllllllllllllllll I ‘ ON
4 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 8
OFAIOO N am IIIIIIIII II . « I
....................... m I 8
u ................ 8F
4 o:
Am _93 853.35 .85.. . I I I 4
AN .93 853.8% 50:... I I I ONF
AF .93 856.35 395
m _93 oocmﬁﬁom 4 4 OOF
N _93 857.39. I OvF
F .93 8:358”. o
omF

 

no.2: .93..qu .292. 9 .253.

(M) .lOMOd

 

 

Power versus height for the S—Stroke, males

0
0

Figure 25

132

 

35 £225

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OIOO OIOO OImm OIOm
O
I OF
I ON
I I On
I I OF.
0 .KOIO u my.
on
o I I OO
a? to H mm
I lllllllllllll I4 ON
IIII I IIIIIIII Exoduwm 8
IIIIIIII I III I I I 8
OOF
Am _93 mocmﬁﬁmmv Soc... I I I
AN _93 8:3535 50:... l I I I OFF
AF .93 353535 Ema... ONF
I II I n _93 3:953”. 4 I OmF
4 N .93 8:35.31 I
I I I F .93 mocmﬁﬁom 0 OFF
on F

 

 

no.3... 6:25.. .5225 o> Sien—

 

133

(M) JOMOd

Power versus weight for the I-Stroke, males

 

Figure 26

 

3... 22oz.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of 2: 0.3 0.8 Qmm 98
, O

O F

ON

on

o o 9.

. o I «82. H mm
o o 4 0 on
I I I OO
I
IIIIIIIII Ox.
I III I4I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4 88.0 H mm
I4 4 on
I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII FOOO n my.

I . I4 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII cm

I ._ 8F
4 An _93 8:385 .85.. I I I I
4 AN .93 8:533”: .59.... I I I OFF
I I AF .90.. mocﬂmﬁomv Lama... ONF
4 m .93 856.8”. 4 on F
N .m>03 8:5».an I

F .93 8:853”. 0 OFF
on F

3.55 .33me £3.25 n> .826...

 

134

(M) .lOMOd

Power versus weight for the S-Stroke, males

 

Figure 27

 

 

:5 595.. E4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mad OOO ONO ONO mOd OOO
, _ . I o

OF

ON

on

0 OF»

4‘ o o Om

«Need H mm . o
I . . cm
I
I I I l4 Oh
« llllllllllllll
I IIIIIIII I IIIII 8
mﬁoduwm .III I

4 I I ...................... 00
835 u R IIIIIIIIIIIII . 2:
8 _93 35553: .85.. . I . I OFF

4 AN _93 oucﬂgmomv 59.: I I I
4 AF .05.. 856?.me Ema: ONF
I m _m>o._ oocsgwom 4 OOF
4
N _93 35.393". I OVF
F 35.. 3:323m 0

OOF

 

3...": .9359. .5934 _.E< o> .330“.

(M) JOMOd

 

 

Power versus arm length for the I-Stroke, males

Figure 28

135

 

 

:5 595.. E4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mad 8... 26 Ed 85 85
O
OF
ON
OO
0 0 O4
NOO0.0 u «w. o 4 o
o . on
O
. u u 8
I on
OOOOO H mm IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .4
« 4 I OO
I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 8
mmoodumm I.|.I.l-l.|-I.II ....... |4I.|.
OOF
4 8 .23 8cm§8mv .85.. . I . I
4 a _93 mossemmmv 59.: I I I o:
c _23 oocsmaomv .85.. oNF
4 m 65.. wocmamﬁwm 4 OOF
N _0>mu_ QUENuﬂmmm I
F _93 mocﬂﬂmom 0 O3.
omF

 

3.22 5.25% .5954 E4 n> .259“.

(M) Jemod

 

 

Power versus arm length for the S-Stroke, males

Figure 29

136

 

 

OFF

:5 222..

we. F 0O. F 40. F NO. F OO. F

. . _ . .

me omF va Nm.F OOF

_ _ _ _

O4. F

 

 

 

OF

ON

on

O4

om

OO

O»

 

o
I
. H . .
823 mm - < o o
O O ‘
IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
OMOOOHNK 4 I ......... II
. IIII III.I.I.III ................... “.I
FmFoduwm 4
4
4 Am _93 oocﬁﬂmomvﬁocﬁ . l - I

AN .03.. 028363: 56:: l l I
F _93 925$me 59.:
m _93 mocsgmmm 4
N _93 mocﬂwﬁwm I
F .93 3cﬁﬂmom o

 

 

OO

OO

 

 

 

 

«...—«Eon. 6:25.. .222. n> .825;

OOF

(M) .IOMOd

 

 

Power versus height for the I-Stroke, females

Figure 30

137

 

 

ONF

A529»:
93 8F 3F 3F 8F 93 8F

e

3F Nm.F OOF

9.. F

 

 

 

II 0 I I
O
Smodumm . I
I I O
. 4 o o e
mmooquwm -IIIIIIIIIIIIIa. IIIIIII 4 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.
Sooouwm ....... - I.I.I.mI .......... I. IIIIIIII -.I.I.II ......... h
4 4

OF

ON

ON

OFq

om

OO

Ox.

 

 

8 .23 mossewmmv 585.. . I . I
Am .23 8:328E .85.. I I I

A F 55.. mocﬂwﬁomv 59.:
n .93 oocﬂmﬁmm
N _93 mocmﬁmmm
F _o>mI_ mucmumﬁom

 

4
I
O

OO

OO

 

 

 

 

3.220". .83me .222.— n> 326m

OOF

(M) JOMOd

 

 

Power versus height for the S-Stroke, females

Figure 31

138

 

 

a... £225

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OO mu Ox. mm om mm om mv
, . O
I II III IIIII I IIIIIIoF
I I I IIIIII om
O
I u 8
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIuIIoIIIIwIIII
38.0 H mm o o u 8
I IIIIIIIIIHLIIIIIIHIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIII Om
IIIIIIIII I I I . . I
3.86 NmI IIIII .I.\1III.I 4.
I: III II.\-I.I.\-I. 4 4 I II I I O0
. I . I . I . I . I 4
. I . I . I . I I I I on
hmmN O NH. 4 Am _93 oocﬂmﬁomv .695 . I . I
I I I I I N .33 088$on .69.: l I I DO
FF _o>mI_ 0263766 59.:

m _93 mocmewm 4
N _m>o._ mos—2.33m I OO

F .33 8:Sm_wwm 0

OOF

 

 

3.2.3“. 6:25.. .2925 n> .839".

(M) JOMOd

 

 

Power versus weight for the I-Stroke, females

Figure 32

139

 

 

 

OO

as. 2235

ON Oh we OO mm on

mv

 

 

MES" mm < o
I IIIII

.I.|-II
IIllIl-lll
'Illlll
II.|I

4 .\I
.\I
.\

Fozduwm
I

I\

O
4

IIIII II
IIII I4

 

 

Am _93 oocSmﬁmmv 5oz: - I I I
AN _o>oI_ 02.5235 .6ch I I I
c .26.. 8:335 .85..
m _93 8:5m_mmm 4
N _93 mocﬂmﬁom I
F _93 woe—323m o

 

 

 

 

 

33:8". .323...» .2225 m> 330.".

OF

ON

on

O4

Om

OO

ON

on

OO

OOF

(M) JBMOd

 

 

Power versus weight for the S-Stroke, females

Figure 33

140

 

 

 

NEO

E: 593.. E4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOO and mod wad BO 86 med vmd de Fwd omd
, , , , O
OF
ON
0
u on
38.0 «m. o o I
I . I . 0v
4 O
mOOOO m
N IIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII on
55.0 n Nm I ..... m ................... n n
u 4 ................... I4 8
< E
4 Am _93 8.3.385 Ema: . I . I
N _o>m._ 92.8235 .85.. I I I 0»
AF 65.. 8553me 595
m _93 85363. 4
N _m>mI_ mocﬂmﬁmm I OO
F _93 nonﬁﬂmom o
OOF

«22:3. 6325.. .598.— E4 a> .833.

(M) JOMOd

 

 

Power versus arm length for the I-Stroke, females

Figure 34

141

 

. .5523 5.4
$6 85 5.0 8d mod 5.0 85 mod Fwd

.

 

o
I
o
FOmFOuNm IIIII4
4 I.

NOOFO u N”. I .....
I

 

 

[III
II,
I’Illl
III,
III,
III,
III,

I'l'I'
III'
I'.'
o'.’
III!
III:

 

F .264 853.3% 80:...
m 35.. 833.31
N .90.. 8cm.m_mmm
F .30.. 8:823”.

 

Am _o>mI_ 8.83.35 Ema... . I . I
4 AN .33 oocﬁmﬁomv 59.... I l I

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.2.3.... .83th .595.— E2 w> 326..

OOIO

OF

ON

on

O4

on

OO

O...

OO

OO

OOF

 

(M) JOMOd
Power versus arm length for the S-Stroke, females
142

 

Figure 35

REFERENCES

Berger, M., Hollander, A., & de Groot, G. (1997). Technique and energy losses in front
crawl swimming. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 29(11), 1491-
1498.

Bobbert, AD. (1960). Physiological comparison of three types of ergometry. Journal of
Applied Physiology, 15, 1007-1014.

Brooks, G., Fahey, T., White, T., & Baldwin, K. (2000). Exercise Physiology. New
York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Counsilman, J. (1968). The science of swimming. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.

Counsilman, J .E. & Counsihnan, BE. (1994). The new science of swimming.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Chatard, J ., Collomp, C., Maglischo, E., & Maglischo, C. (1990). Swimming skill and
stroking characteristics of front crawl swimmers. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 1 1(2), 156-161.

Costill, D.L., King, D.S., Thomas, R., & Hargreaves, M. (1985). Effects of reduced
training on muscular power in swimmers. The Physician and Sports Medicine,
13(2), 94-101.

Craig, A., & Pendergast, D. (1979). Relationships of stroke rate, distance per stroke, and
velocity in competitive swimmers. Medicine and Science in Exercise and Sport,
11(3), 278-283.

Craig, A., Skehan, P.L., Pawelczyk, J.A., & Boomer, W.L. (1985). Velocity, stroke rate,
and distance per stroke during elite swimming competition. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise, 17(6), 625-634.

Davies, C.T., & Sargeant, A.J. (1974). Physiological responses to standardized arm
work. Ergonomics, 17, 41-49.

Grimston, S.K., & Hay, J .G. (1986). Relationships among anthropometric and stroking
characteristics of college swimmers. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 18(1), 60-68. '

Hawley, J ., Williams, M., Vickovic, M., & Handcock, P. (1992). Muscle power predicts

freestyle swimming performance. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 26(3), 151-
155.

143

Hollander, A.P., de Groot, G., Van Ingen Schenau, G.J., Toussaint, H.M., de Best, H.,
Peeters, W., Meulemans, A., & Schreurs, A.W. (1986). Measurement of active
drag during crawl arm stroke swimming. Journal of Sports Sceinces, 4(1), 21-30.

Ito, S. (2004). The swimming style and ﬂuid dynamics of swimming. Japan Society of
Mechanical Engineers: News, 15(2), 1, 6-8.

Isokinetics, Inc. (2008, November 26). Retrieved November 26, 2008, from
http://www.isokineticsinc.com/mmS/merchantmvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code
=isokinetics&Product_Code=tb_401 70&Category_Code=

Johnson, R.E., Sharp, R.L., & Hedrick, CE. (1993). Relationship of swimming power
and dryland power to sprint freestyle performance: a multiple regression
approach. Journal of Swimming Research, 9, 10-14.

Neufer, P.D., Costill, D.L., Fielding, R.A., Flynn, M.G., & Kirwan, J .P. (1987). Effect
of reduced training on muscular strength and endurance in competitive swimmers.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 19(5), 486-490.

Olbrecht, J. & Clarys, J .P. (1983). EMG of speciﬁc dry land training for the frontcrawl.
In Hollander et al. (Eds) Biomechanics and medicine in swimming (pp. 136-141).
Human Kinetics, Champaign, 111.

Sharp, R., Troup, J ., & Costill, D. (1982). Relationship between power and sprint
freestyle swimming. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 14(1), 53-56.

Sharp, R., Costill, D. (1982). Force, work and power: what they mean to the competitive
swimmer. Swimming World. 23(2), 41-43.

Simmons, S. (2003). Sexual dimorphism and the correlates of sprint swim performance.
Ph.D. Thesis, Indiana University. Eugene, OR.: Kinesiology Publications.

Stager, J. & Tanner, D. (Eds). (2004). Swimming: Olympic Handbook of Sports Medicine,
2"d Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Swaine, I. (1997). Time course of changes in bilateral arm power of swimmers during
recovery ﬁ'om injury using a swim bench. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 31,
2 1 3-21 6.

Swaine, I. (2000). Arm and leg power output in swimmers during simulated swimming.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32(7), 1288-1292.

Swimshop (2009, July 6). Retrieved July 6, 2009 from

http://www.swimshop.pl/sklep/sprzet_treningowy/pozostale/prd,VASA%20TRAI
NER%20TRENA%C5%BBER%20ERGOMETER,rid,6979.htrnl

144

Tanaka, H., Costill, D.L., Thomas, R., Fink, W.J., & Widrick, J .J . (1993). Dry-land
resistance training for competitive swimmers. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 25(8), 952-959.

Total Performance, Inc (2008, November 26) Retrieved November 26, 2008 from
http://www.totalperfonn_ance.org/Power_Racl_g.htm1

Toussaint, H., Beelen, A., Rodenburg, A., Sargent, A.J., de Groot, G., Hollander, A.P., &
van Ingen Schenau, 6.]. (1988). Propelling efﬁciency of front crawl swimming.
Journal of Applied Physiology, 65(12), 2506-2512.

Toussaint, H., Knops, W., de Groot, G., & Hollander, A. (1990). The mechanical
efﬁciency of front crawl swimming. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 22(3), 402-408.

Toussaint, H. (1990). Differences in propelling efﬁciency between competitive
swimmers and triathlon swimmers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
22(3), 409-415.

Toussaint, H., & Vervoom, K. (1990). Effects of speciﬁc high resistance training in the
water on competitive swimmers. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 11

228-233.

Toussaint, H., Wakayoshi, K., Hollander, A., Ogita, F. (1998). Simulated front crawl
swimming performance related to critical speed and critical power. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise, 30(1), 144-151.

Toussaint, H. (2002). Measurement of active drag in swimming. Measuring Behavior
2002, 4'” International Conference on Methods and Techniques in Behavioral
Research. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Wakayoshi, K., Toshida, T., Ikuta, Y., Muthoh, Y., & Miyashita, M. (1993).
Adaptations to six months of aerobic swim training. International Journal of
Sports Medicine, 14, 368-372.

Wakayoshi, K., Acquisto, L.J.D., Cappaert, J .M., & Troup, J .P. (1995). Relationship

between oxygen uptake, stroke rate, and swimming velocity in competitive
swimming. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 16(1), 19-23.

145

{I‘ll

ll

nwmwu

083 66

..lllll.

Illllllllltll