MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: ‘ P1ace in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from Auuntyamln. your record. flfl§§_w111 be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. STRENGTH AND POWER IN ELITE SWIMMERS By Bonnie Lee Smoak A DISSERTATION Submitted to A Michigan State University in partiaT fu1fi11ment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Heaith, Physicai Education 1985 ABSTRACT STRENGTH AND POWER IN ELITE SNIMMERS By Bonnie Lee Smoak One hundred and twenty-one national-caliber swimmers under- went Cybex testing and a modified vertical jump to provide descrip- tive data about strength and power in elite swimmers. Isokinetic absolute and relative torque and power measurements during elbow extension, shoulder joint extension, shoulder joint inward rotation, and knee extension at angular velocities of 30, 180, 240, and 3000/5 were obtained. Absolute and relative average power, work, and vertical distance achieved during a modified vertical power jump were analyzed also. Five comparison groups were defined as follows: (a) male vs. female swimmers; (b) male sprinters vs. middle- distance swimmers; (c) female sprinters vs. middle-distance swimmers; (d) upper- vs. lower-twenty percent of male swimmers; and (e) upper- vs. lower-twenty percent of female swimmers. Analyses of variance indicated that elite male swimmers were significantly stronger and more powerful than female swimmers. These differences were still apparent when body size and shape were considered. Both male and female sprinters had mean torque and power values which were consistently higher than those recorded for male and fena 160 ton; differer lower-twt Bonnie Lee Smoak and female middle-distance swimmers respectively. Thirty-four of 160 comparisons were statistically significant. Analyses of variance revealed that there were no significant differences in the majority of comparisons between upper- vs. lower-twenty percent of either male or female swimmers. DEDICATION To my brothers and sister and their families. ii l 1 Heusner f tinual 9c grateful medical e e"PEI‘iencl Herbert 0l SPECial ti MW Ann I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my deep appreciation to Dr. William Heusner for his support during my graduate career and for his con- tinual guidance during the writing of this dissertation. .I am also grateful to Dr. Robert Echt for his personal assistance in my medical education and for his participation in my graduate school experience. I would like also to thank Dr. Kwok-kai Ho and Dr. Herbert Olson for their help in the preparation of this manuscript. Special thanks are given to Bruce and Mary Jo Alexander and Bob and Mary Ann Villaneuva for their hospitality and friendship. iii LIST OF LIST OF CHAPTER 1 Purpog Resear Antece Resear Rat Lim Signif CHAPTER 1 Statis- CHAPTER Il 9y! Sut~ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix CHAPTER I - THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of the Study. Research Hypotheses . Antecedent Problem Research Plan . . . Rationale for the Research Plan . Limitations of the Research Plan. Significance . . . . . . @mNNU'lm-b CHAPTER II - RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . 10 The Cybex in Scientific Measurements . . . . l0 Relationship of In Vitro T-V Curves to In Vitro F-V Curves . 19 Relationship Between T-V Curves and Muscle Fiber Composi- tion . . . . . . . . . 22 Relationship of T- V Curves to Training. . . . . . . 27 CHAPTER III - RESEARCH METHODS . . . . . . . . . . 31 Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Testing Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Anthropometric Measurements . . . . . . . . . 33 Body Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Cybex Testing. . . . . . . . . . 34 Modified Vertical Power Jump. . . . . . . . . 38 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Statistical Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 CHAPTER IV- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . 43 Male vs. Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Subject Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . 44 iv Isokinetic Data . . Modified Vertical Power Jump. . . Male Sprinters vs. Middle- Distance Swimmers . . Subject Characteristics. Isokinetic Data . Modified Vertical Power Jump. . Female Sprinters vs. Middle- Distance Swimmers Subject Characteristics. Isokinetic Data . Modified Vertical Power Jump. . Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers Subject Characteristics. Isokinetic Data . Modified Vertical Power Jump. . Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. Subject Characteristics. Isokinetic Data . . Modified Vertical Power Jump. Discussion . . Male vs. Female Swimmers . Sprinters vs. Middle- Distance Swimmers. Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Swimmers . CHAPTER V - SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Summary . Conclusions. Recommendations APPENDICES Appendix A - Derivation Used in the Measurement of Leg Power . Appendix B - Tables . REFERENCES . I38 138 140 140 144 153 185 Bl 82 B3 84 BS 36 87 Table B1 82 B3 B4 BS 86 B7 LIST OF TABLES Selected Parameters of Male vs. Female Swimmers. Selected Parameters of Male Sprinters vs. Middle- Distance Swimmers. . . . . . Selected Parameters of Female Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers Selected Parameters of Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers . . . . Selected Parameters of Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. . Comparative Physical Characteristics of Female Swimmers. . . . Comparative Physical Characteristics of Male Swimmers. . . . Absolute Torque and Power Results for Male vs. Female Swi mmers Relative (by Body Height) Torque and Power Results for Male vs. Female Swimmers Relative (by Lean Body Height) Torque and Power Results for Male vs. Female Swimmers . . Relative (by Height) Torque and Power Results for Male vs. Female Swimmers . . . . Relative (by Ponderal Index) Torque and Power Results for Male vs. Female Swimmers Modified Vertical Power Jump Results for Male vs. Female Swimmers . . . . . Absolute Torque and Power Results for Male Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers. vi 89 93 121 124 125 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 Table “p 89 810 321 Table 88 B9 810 811 812 813 814 815 B16 B17 B18 B19 820 821 Relative (by Body Height) Torque and Power Results for Male Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers. Relative (by Lean Body Height) Torque and Power Results for Male Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers. . . . . . . . . . . . Relative (by Height) Torque and Power Results for Male Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers . Relative (by Ponderal Index) Torque and Power Results for Male Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers. Modified Vertical Power Jump Results for Male Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers. Absolute Torque and Power Results for Female Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers. Relative (by Body Height) Torque and Power Results fOr Female Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers . Relative (by Lean Body Height) Torque and Power Results for Female Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers. . . . . . . . Relative (by Height) Torque and Power Results for Female Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers Relative (by Ponderal Index) Torque and Power Results for Female Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Modified Vertical Power Jump Results for Female Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers. Absolute Torque and Power Results fer Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers . . Relative (by Body Height) Torque and Power Results for Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers. . . . . . . . . . Relative (by Lean Body Height) Torque and Power Results for Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers . . . . . . . . vii Page . 161 . 162 . 163 . 164 . 165 . 166 167 . 168 . 169 . 17D . 171 . 172 . 173 . 174 Table —~ 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 Table 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 Relative (by Height) Torque and Power Results for Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers. Relative (by Ponderal Index) Torque and Power Results for Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers . . . . . . . . . . Modified Vertical Power Jump Results for Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers . Absolute Torque and Power Results fOr Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. Relative (by Body Height) Torque and Power Results for Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relative (by Lean Body Height) Torque and Power Results fOr Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. . . . . . . . . . . Relative (by Height) Torque and Power Results for Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers Relative (by Ponderal Index) Torque and Power Results for Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. . . . . . . . . Modified Vertical Power Jump Results for Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers viii Page 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 Figure Figure 10 LIST OF FIGURES Elbow Extension: Absolute Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swimmers. Elbow Extension: Relative (by Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swimmers . . Elbow Extension: Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Rela- tionships for Male vs. Female Swimmers . Shoulder Joint Extension: Absolute Peak Torque- Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swimmers. . . . . Shoulder Joint Extension: Relative (by Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swimmers. Shoulder Joint Extension: Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swimmers. Shoulder Joint Inward Rotation: Absolute Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swimmers . . . Shoulder Joint Inward Rotation: Relative (by Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power- Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swimmers . . . . . . Shoulder Joint Inward Rotation: Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power- Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swimmers . . . . . . . Knee Extension: Absolute Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swimmers. ix Page 46 47 48 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Figur I 11 14 16 17 Figure 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Knee Extension: Relative (by Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swimmers. . . . Knee Extension: Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relation- ships for Male vs. Female Swimmers. Elbow Extension: Peak Absolute Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers and for Female Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers Elbow Extension: Relative (by Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers and for Female Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers . . . Elbow Extension: Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relation- ships for Male Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers and for Female Sprinters vs. Middle- Distance Swimmers . . . Shoulder Joint Extension: Peak Absolute Torque— Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers and for Female Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers Shoulder Joint Extension: Relative (by Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male Sprinters vs. Middle- Distance Swimmers and for Female Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers . . . . Shoulder Joint Extension: Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power Velocity Relationships for Male Sprinters vs. Middle- Distance Swimmers and for Female Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers . . . . . Shoulder Joint Inward Rotation: Peak Absolute Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers and for Female Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers . Page 57 58 62 64 66 69 71 73 75 Figurl 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 Figure 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Shoulder Joint Inward Rotation: Relative (by Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power- Velocity Relationships for Male Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers and for Female Sprint- ers vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers . . . Shoulder Joint Inward Rotation: Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power- Velocity Relationships for Male Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers and for Female Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers . . . . . Knee Extension: Peak Absolute Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers and for Female Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers . Knee Extension: Relative (by Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers and for Female Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers . Knee Extension: Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relation- ships for Male Sprinters and Middle-Distance Swimmers and for Female Sprinters vs. Middle- Distance Swimmers . . . Elbow Extension: Absolute Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships fOr the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and fer the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers . . . . . Elbow Extension: Relative (by Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and fur the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers . . . . Elbow Extension: Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relation- ships for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers . . . . xi Page 77 79 82 86 95 97 99 Figure 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 Shoulder Joint Extension: Absolute Peak Torque- Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. Shoulder Joint Extension: Relative (by Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for the Upper— vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers Shoulder Joint Extension: Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power- Velocity Relationships for the Upper- vs. Lower- Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. Shoulder Joint Inward Rotation: Absolute Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. . . . Shoulder Joint Inward Rotation: Relative (by Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power- Velocity Relationships for the Upper- vs. Lower- Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers . Shoulder Joint Inward Rotation: Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque—Velocity and Power— Velocity Relationships for the Upper- vs. Lower- Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers . Knee Extension: Absolute Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. . . . . . . . . . Knee Extension: Relative (by Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. . . . xii Page 101 103 105 107 109 111 114 116 Figure Page 36 Knee Extension: Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relation- ships for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. . . . . . . . 118 Al General Testing Situation . . . . . . . . l44 xiii factors formed foundat SIPEngt HuTtipl and tes Contrac CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Muscular strength and power are important, if not crucial, factors in many athletic events. Hhile many studies have been per- formed in this area, few have contributed to a clear theoretical foundation of knowledge. One possible reason is that muscular strength is a complex phenomenon which is difficult to characterize. Multiple factors influence strength data. Age, sex, motivation, and test position as well as type, rate, and duration of muscular contraction are important (ll, 13, 18, 5l, 55, 73). Early studies used isometric measurements to access human strength. A variety of instrumentation, such as spring dynanometers, strain gauges, cable tensiometers, and myometers, were used and detailed studies were performed to determfine optimal body position during testing (l7, 49). Measurements from these studies were reliable, but they did not correlate well with dynamic muscular performance (14, 30, 38, 63, 86). Isotonic measurements have been used in strength studies, but several practical aspects of testing have limited its use. Subjects often had to lift several weights before the maximal resis- tance was determined. In addition, this method measures the weakest point in the range of movement. isokine motion is acca= force t continu meters ( Power), angular In 1967, Hislop and Perrine (44) introduced the concept of isokinetic exercise. Isokinetic movement is defined as joint motion in which the limb's angular velocity is held constant. This is accomplished by an external machine which provides a resistive force that matches the applied force. Muscular torque is measured continuously throughout the movement. The Cybex;l an isokinetic dynanometer, allows various para- meters of muscular function to be examined (i.e., torque, work, and power). In addition, these parameters can be examined near the angular velocities used during athletic events. Several problems have been reported with the use of the Cybex in scientific measurements. Gravitational corrections should be made on raw data if comparisons between studies are planned (111). In addition, certain precautions must be observed to avoid confus- ing the peak values resulting from the deceleration of fast-moving limb with true peak torque values (88, 90, 102, 111). Finally, the torque-measuring transducer must be tested and calibrated to ensure valid measurements (31, 59). The development of the Cybex has allowed several theoreti- cal questions about human jg 31359 muscular performance to be examined. Studies comparing human torque-velocity curves and animal force-velocity curves have been performed (88, 102, 109). Other areas of research include studies examining the relationship 1Cybex II (Lumex, Inc., Bay Shore, N.Y.). of mus 52, 53 traini. ficien‘ needed I be made gated. AS strc in Uppe 80.110 111 Ski majOr CO Measure)!" of muscle fiber composition to torque-velocity curves (19, 25, 36, 52, 53, 91, 102, 103, 112) and the relationship of velocity-specific training to torque development (10, 26, 56, 67, 75, 95). Insuf- ficient knowledge exists in these areas and further research is needed before definitive conclusions about such relationships can be made. Strength differences between sexes also have been investi- gated. Untrained females have been reported to be only 59% to 84% as strong as untrained males (65). These differences are greater in upper body measurements than in lower body measurements (45, 65, 80, 110). Relatively few studies have investigated strength and power in swimmers. This is surprising because strength training is a major component of the dry-land training performed by swimmers. One study reported that strength, determined by composite isometric measurements, in post-pubertal males was approximately equal to norms established for age and weight (105). Significant negative correlations have been reported for isokinetic strength and power measurements and swim time (74, 93). Miyashita and Kanehisa (74) observed significant correlations laetween peak torque of armpull muscles at 210 0Is and the best T’Erformance time in lOOM freestyle in both males (-.728) and females (-.515). Sharp, Troup, and Costill (93) observed a signi- ficant correlation (.90) between arm power, measured on a Biokinetic Swim Bench, and 25-yd swim velocity in a wide variety of competitive swimme J gradua velocii at 200 gest th distanc male Sp 0f the s SMMmr; measure.— hip flex DOHer 1n tw enty‘one S' Wlmners , SprinIErS swimmers which included 22 females and 18 males. There was a gradual decline in the relationship between arm power and swim velocity as the distance increased (r = 0.86 at 100 yds, r = 0.85 at 200 yds, and r = 0.76 at 500 yds). However, these studies sug- gest that muscular strength and power is important in middle- distance as well as sprint events. One study has investigated differences in strength between male sprinters and middle—distance swimmers. Hhile the mean values of the sprinters were higher than those of the middle-distance swimmers, no significant differences were observed in the isometric measurements of shoulder joint flexion, shoulder joint extension, hip flexion, hip extension (6). In summary, little information exists about strength and power in male and female swimmers. Some previous studies have used isometric measurements which have low correlations with dynamic performance. The development of an isokinetic dynanometer has allowed strength and power values to be determined at joint veloci- ties used in swimming. Purpose gf Eh; Study The purpose of this study was to provide information about the muscular strength and power of elite swimmers. One hundred and twenty-one national-caliber swimmers served as subjects. Five com- parisons of interest were defined. They were male vs. female swimmers, male sprinters vs. middle-distance swimmers, female sprinters vs. middle-distance swimmers, upper-twenty percent vs. titive attains Elite f aNd sha. 800 fEme TOWEr bC and DONE "me and EXDTbjt E OF elite lower-twenty percent of male swimmers as determined by best compe- titive times, and upper-twenty percent vs. lower twenty percent of female swimmers. Absolute and relative peak torque and power values in four joint movements at four angular velocities were analyzed. In addition, absolute and relative work, average power, and height attained in a modified vertical jump were analyzed. Research Hypotheses Elite male swimmers are stronger and more powerful than elite female swimmers. These differences exist even if body size and shape are considered. The differences in strength and power between elite male and female swimmers is greater in upper body movements than in lower body movements. Elite male and female sprinters exhibit greater strength and power at joint angular velocities near swimming rates than do male and female middle-distance swimmers. The upper-twenty percent of elite male and female swimmers exhibit greater strength and power than do the lower-twenty percent of elite male and female swimmers. Antecedent Problem An easily administered test of leg power which would yield measurements in power units was needed for the assessment of elite swimmers. A modified vertical power jump was developed. This required a new derivation for the calculation of average power (P) generated during the acceleration phase of a vertical jump. Its theore but un of dis) ratus e Locam c values formula l1ium tc Clock, a 5“biect was obta fran the hadJust Has 0btai the poker RE SIUdy 10% at the DOM three jump betWGEn th theoretical development is presented in Appendix A. An inexpensive but unique apparatus was developed to allow for easy measurements of displacement values. Cinematographic techniques were used to validate the appa- ratus as a test of leg power. Twenty subjects were filmed using a Locam camera during an actual jump on the apparatus. The power values from film analyses were calculated with the following formula: Height x Gravity x Total jgmp displacement Acceleration time Highly visible markers were placed on the crest of the ilium to aide measurement of jump displacement. An electronic clock, accurate to one-thousandth of a second, was placed near the subject during filming. The acceleration time for film analyses was obtained by recording the time taken by the subject to rise from the lowest position of the squat to a position when the feet had just left the platform. A Pearson product moment correlation coefficient of 0.95 was obtained between the P values obtained from the apparatus and the power values calculated from film analyses. Reliability values were obtained through a test-retest study involving fifteen subjects. Each subject had six attempts at the power jump. The attempts were grouped into two rounds of three jumps each. A twenty- to thirty-minute interval was allowed between the test situations. The best performance in each test cent of ('1 =14). 510". Si k08e eXt dEgreES mOVement modjfled was used in the calculation. A reliability coefficient of .975 was obtained for the average power measurements. Research Plan The subjects were 121 swimmers who had been invited to a training camp on the basis of their outstanding swimming performance during the past year. The study was organized as five ex post facto one-way designs, each with two comparison groups. The groups were as follows: male (n = 55) vs. female (n = 66); male sprinters (n (n cent of male swimmers (n = 12) vs. lower-twenty percent of male 38) vs. middle-distance swimmers (n 17); female sprinters 38); upper-twenty per- 45) vs. middle-distance swimmers (n swimmers (n = 9); and upper-twenty percent of female swimmers (n = 14) vs. lower-twenty percent of female swimners (n = 12). The subjects underwent isokinetic testing of elbow exten- sion, shoulder joint inward rotation, shoulder joint extension, and knee extension at angular velocities of 30, 180, 240, and 300 degrees per second. The protocols for testing the various joint movements will be described in Chapter III. Relative values by body weight, lean body weight, height, and ponderal index as well as absolute peak torque and power values were analyzed. Absolute and relative average power, work, and distance-jumped from the modified vertical power jump were analyzed also. ‘Rgtionale for the Research Plan Several relative values of torque and power were obtained to facilitate comparisons between swimmers. Relative measurements by bod_ 1S C01“: slightl weight was useI index HP related age rang joint 6C aNgleS 0. the Craw' 1 ist1C5 0*. 8mm”; by body weight and lean body weight were analyzed since strength is correlated with body size (16, 64, 107). Unlike many sports, performance in swimming is affected only slightly by gravity. Relative strength values by factors other than weight may be more appropriate in comparisons of swimmers. Height was used to reflect lever length as well as body size. Ponderal index was selected to represent body shape (66, 107) which may be related to drag. Limitations 9: the Research Plan The results of this study can be generalized only to the age range and swimming caliber of the subjects used in this study. Swimming involves complex joint actions. The isokinetic joint actions tested in this study do not duplicate the varying angles of pull, accelerations, and patterns of movement used in the crawl stroke. Peak torque and power values may not measure the character- istics of strength and power that are needed to be successful in swimming. The Cybex data were not corrected for gravitational errors. However, all measurement techniques were standardized and compari- sons within this investigation are valid. During isokinetic testing some subjects may not be able to achieve constant velocities of 240 or 300 °/s quickly enough in various joint actions to record valid peak torques. effor‘ each s many a import this 11 help a. 0T SUC( Each subject was encouraged and appeared to give maximal effort in each test procedure, but there was no attempt to quantify each subject's motivation. Significance Strength and power are important physical attributes in many athletic events. This study will help assess the relative importance of these attributes in elite swimmers. The results of this investigation may guide training methods in swimming and may help determine the significance of strength and power as a factor of success at high levels of competition. 0f the addltic functio Discuss V610cit‘ curves, .9051thI be pT‘ESf isoklnet ment of Torque 1. load cei' tion of 1 is prODOT point In ”Verne“ tance is . CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE The following sections will review the use and limitations of the Cybex in the measurement of muscular strength and power. In addition, several fundamental questions concerning lg zixg_muscle function, as determined by isokinetic testing, will be described. Discussions of the relationship between 1_ gigg_human torque- velocity (T-V) curves and jg x1319 animal force-velocity (F-V) curves, the relationship between T-V curves and muscle fiber com- position, and the relationship between training and T-V curves will be presented. The .9225 _i_r_1_ Scientific Measurements In 1967, Hislop and Perrine (44) introduced the concept of isokinetic exercise. During isokinetic exercise the rate of move- ment of body segments is held constant by an external machine. Torque is measured throughout the range of motion by means of a load cell oriented perpendicularly to the limb segment. Accelera- tion of the limb segment is prevented because the resisting force is proportional to the magnitude of the muscular force at every point in the range of motion. Thus, at the extreme ends of a joint Inovement, when the muscle has poor mechanical advantage, the resis- tance is the least. This enables a subject to exert maximum 10 vol nt ing 1 vol 1t Horl (3' Maxi la? angu ar tion is Fina 1y dete 11 50 C(lti 11 voluntary muscular contraction at each joint angle while maintain- ing a particular angular velocity. The muscle can perform maximum voluntary work at the preset speed. The Cybex also allows several other variables to be measured. Hork and power can be calculated from the observed torque curve. 1 Maximal torque and power outputs can be determined by varying the angular velocity. Hhen the number of contractions or a time dura- tion is imposed, an average power output can be ascertained. Finally, the fatiguability of muscle groups can be measured by determining the percent decline in maximal torque that occurs after 50 contractions at a high angular velocity (104). There has been confusion in the literature as to whether isokinetic refers to constant angular velocity of a limb segment or to constant linear velocity of muscular shortening. These two concepts are not synonymous. Using a mathematical model of elbow flexion, Hinson, Smith, and Funk (42) proved that a unifbrm angular velocity of a limb is not accompanied by a uniform linear rate of muscular contraction. Hhile Perrine's work is somewhat ambiguous, his U.S. patent (No. 3465592) strongly suggests that isokinetic refers to exercise during which the angular velocity is held constant (44, 87). In this study, the term "isokinetic" will refer to movement involving constant angular velocity of a limb segment. Hhen the Cybex was first marketed, it was promoted not only as an exercise device but also as a scientific instrument that could measure muscle performance with great accuracy and reliability. Initi 67, 7 the le static lated measur an inii be acc1 Dotenti noted t gravita‘ uncorrec 0f the invo1v1r Those ac In addit with Sut tiona] c tune of Values, DercEnta Beak tor constant Probiem. 12 Initial studies reported validity measurements of .92 to .99 (25, 67, 78, 102). These values were obtained by placing weights on the lever arm and comparing the observed torque, produced both statically at different angles and at different speeds, to calcu- lated torques. Test-retest reliability with fixed loads were measured from .98 to .995 (25, 67, 71, 78, 101, 102). Following an initial acceleration period, angular velocities were found to be accurate to within the reading accuracy of the machine (25, 102). In 1981, Hinter, Hells, and Orr (111) reported on two potential sources of error in measurement with Cybex. First, they noted that vertical movements of body segments were affected by gravitational forces and that these forces were not reflected in uncorrected data generated by the Cybex. For example, if the weight of the limb segment was not considered, then the recorded torque involving joint motion against gravity was falsely low in value. Those acting with gravity had falsely elevated recorded torques. In addition, the magnitude of the error was potentially larger with submaximal contractions. This occurred because the gravita- tional correction factor remained the same regardless of the magni- tude of the contraction. In contractions that produce large torque values, the gravitational correction factor represented a smaller percentage error. Due to differing limb masses and angles at which peak torque occurred, the gravitational correction factor was not constant between subjects. Hinter proposed a relatively simple solution for the above problem. By attaching an accelerometer, which acted as a cosine gener when the r full r some a follow and to ProdUC' (88, it was cau movemen a PIESe the mac limb ma may be tl°n of be mist If the ””1 tb at Whig phenOme. 0r tran; ahaine1 13 generator, to the lever system and by recording the torque produced when the limb-lever system was allowed passively to drop through the range of motion, a correction for gravitational errors over the full range of movement was made easily. The second source of error noted by Hinter is more trouble- some and difficult to overcome. A large initial "peak" torque followed by a variable period of oscillation was observed to occur and to be more pronounced during higher velocity and larger torque- producing contractions. Several authors had noted these spikes (88, 102). Hinter postulated that this prominent initial spike was caused by an impact artifact. During the initial phase of the movement, the limb is allowed to freely accelerate until it reaches a preset velocity. This initial acceleration is not recorded by the machine. A torque is recorded only when the velocity of the limb matches the preset angular velocity. However, since the limb may be moving very fast, the imposed fixed speed causes a decelera- tion of the limb. This produces a large initial torque which may be mistaken for a peak torque when in fact, it is an impact artifact. If the overshoot is mistaken for an actual torque, then not only will the magnitude of the peak torque be in error, but the angle at which it occurs will be in error. Sapega et a1. (90) further investigated this overshoot phenomenon to determine whether these spikes represented artifact or transient surges of muscular tension. Using cinematographic analyses with both inert weights and human subjects, they determined that * quanti torque They n having BCCETEI FEPPESE inertia muscula One way This all Easily 1 that ini and Edge hiQAEr v range of data Obte of knee 6 free data 1 inv01vES l angular V6 4 freqUe”C 14 that the deceleration of the limb-lever system observed in the film quantitatively accounted for all the initial recorded overshoot torque. The secondary oscillations were also inertial in nature. They noted that the overshoot was greatest with limb-lever systems having large masses, with long lever systems, and with high angular accelerations. They concluded that these prominent initial spikes represent the sum of gravitational and muscular force as well as inertial forces and that they should not be mistaken for true muscular tension development. Sapega et al. reported two methods to avoid the above error. One way is to eliminate all electronic damping of the torque signal. This allows the point at which the oscillations stop to be more easily identified. Torque values can be obtained accurately after that initial range. This technique was first reported by Perrine and Edgerton (88). The difficulty with this method is that at higher velocities the oscillations occur throughout most of the range of motion. Perrine and Edgerton reported that artifact-free data obtained at 288 0[5 occurs only in the final thirty degrees of knee extension. Sapega et al. were unable to obtain artifact- free data during hip abduction at 180 degrees per second. The second method of correcting the overshoot phenomenon involves using a damping circuit in the Cybex recorder. At low angular velocities, the overshoot is typically a sharp spike with a frequency of oscillation that is much higher than the overall torque curve. The use of selective electronic suppression in this insta incre of th oscil Conse: damp t absolu large 1 curve 15 instance corrected the artifact. However, as the test velocity increases, the primary overshoot is spread over a larger portion of the torque curve. This causes the frequency of the artifactual oscillations and the true torque curve to approach each other. Consequently, at higher velocities, the ability to selectively damp the overshoot is reduced. Damping affects the torque curve in other ways. It lowers absolute torque values. In addition, in joint motion involving large masses and a relatively short range of motion, the damped curve exhibits a non-specific flattening and a rightward shift (94). Gransberg and Knutsson (34) have reported an alternative method that corrects for the initial overshoot and secondary oscil- lations. It involves the use of computer-controlled resistance during the initial acceleration phase of the limb-lever system and the control of the start of joint motion at a predetermined torque level. Explicitly, joint movements are not allowed to start until some preset level of torque is reached. Then a preset angular acceleration is allowed through feedback of a computer until the selected angular velocity is achieved. The rate of increase of rotation speed is determined for each subject. If the angular acceleration is set too high, the torque of the lever arm will fall. If the angular acceleration is set too low, the time taken to reach the test angular velocity will be unnecessarily long. The use of controlled acceleration results in a longer period of time to reach the pre-selected angular velocity than is the case with the use of free a minim: larger used f muscul recordi oilcell Ericss Densate that th movemen CODStan the cal ing the 16 free acceleration. However, since the overshoot oscillations are minimized, the angular range with constant angular velocity is larger. This allows a larger portion of the torque curve to be used for data analysis. Another potential source of error in the measurement of muscular force with the Cybex may occur in the detection of the recorded torque. Some authors have reported that the original oilcell used to detect torque produced a non-linear output (31, 59). Ericsson et a1. (31) replaced the oilcell with a temperature com- pensated strain gauge transducer. Using this transducer, they found that the calibration constant differed between extension and flexion movement of the knee joint. During extension, the calibration constant was independent of joint angle. During knee extension, the calibration constant was dependent on the angle of flexion. As described above, there have been some questions concern- ing the validity of uncorrected Cybex data. Other questions have arisen concerning which measurements to report. Most investigators have used maximum peak torque as the dependent variable. Other authors have questioned its validity and have suggested that angle- specific torque be used (10, 36, 37, 88, 108). Angle-specific torque refers to the torque produced at some specific joint angle in a range of motion regardless of angular velocity. There are several advantages in using angle-specific torque (10, 36, 37, 88, 108). If a joint angle that occurs near the end of a joint movement is selected, then data can be collected in an 8 pheno allow lengti a joir muscle higher may de obtair Joint infTue the it a Stra 17 in an area of the torque curve that is not affected by the overshoot phenomenon. More importantly, the use of angle-specific torque allows measurements to be made at a relatively constant muscle length and moment arm within each subject. In addition, the use of a joint angle near the end of the joint movement may allow the muscle sufficient time to generate maximum tension, especially at higher test angular velocities. A possible problem in using human angle-specific T-V curves may develop when these curves are compared to lg vitro F-V curves obtained in animals. Angle-specific torque curves, especially when joint angles occurring late in the joint movement are used, may be influenced by the mechanical relationships between the muscle and the joint. This would make comparisons to in 11339 curves, where a straight line of force operates, difficult. Hhile the use of maximum peak torque appears empirically appropriate, there is question as to its validity in isokinetic movement. First, peak torque must not be confused with the over- shoot spike. Second, theoretical and empiric observations suggest that peak torque may not be an appropriate measure in comparisons of torques produced at different angular velocities. For example, it has been reported that peak torques during knee extension occur at progressively smaller angles as angular velocity increases (76, 85, 88, 92). This observation has several possible eXplana— tions. First, as angular velocity increases, joint movement time decreases. However, the time for a muscle to reach maximum tension is re tion neede occur. . , | 15 inf a Char torque graphe (102) = aPPear aPDear 18 is relatively fixed (25). Thus, at higher velocities, the observa- tion that peak torque occurs later may merely reflect the time needed for tension development. Second, since the peak torque occurs at later angles in rapid joint movements, the measured torque is influenced both by a change in the angle of muscular pull and by a change in the length of the muscle. Some authors have used both peak torques and angle-specific torques in their investigations. Hhen angle-specific torques are graphed from data provided by Thorstensson, Grimby, and Karlsson (102) and compared to peak T-V curves in the same study, the curves appear different. Angle-specific curves are lower in magnitude and appear to plateau at slow velocities. In a later study, Yates and Kamon (112) compared the T-V curves produced during knee extension from peak torque values and from angle-specific measurements. They reported significant differ- ences in the magnitude of absolute values at randomly assigned velocities from 30 to 300 0/s. However, the curves ran parallel to each other and were similar in shape. Hhen the curves were normalized with respect to torque produced at 30 0Is, no significant differences were observed. Coyle et al. (26) simultaneously measured damped peak torque and undamped angle-specific torque during knee extension. They found a difference in magnitude between the two curves. After training, both curves changed. Peak torque was observed to be a Inore reliable measure (r = .96) as determined from test-retest Tneasures on alternate days. value a coml have 1 currer data, above 0i Tu: i01101 curve Veloc of tr 19 It is not clear from the literature whether peak torque values or angle-specific values should be used. With the use of a computer, both values are obtained easily. Past investigators have used mostly peak torque values. This fact, combined with the current knowledge concerning the limitations of uncorrected Cybex data, may explain partly the conflicting studies in this area. Despite the technical and procedural difficulties noted above, the development of the Cybex has allowed the investigation of fundamental questions concerning lg 1119 muscle function. The following sections will discuss the relationship between human T-V curves and animal F-V curves, the relationship between torque- velocity curves and muscle fiber composition, and the relationship of training to alterations in T-V curves Relationship 91‘ I=n Vivo T-V Curves 1:3 Lg Vitro F-V Curves In the early 19005 several investigators developed empirical equations describing the relationship between the force generated and the velocity of muscular shortening in isolated animal tissues. One well-known equation was constructed by Hill (39). His equation implied that the speed of muscular shortening is inversely related to the load against which the muscle shortens. The relationship followed a rectangular hyperbolic curve with the force rising increasingly as the velocity decreased until a maximum was attained at zero degrees. Hill was able to fit most of the observed values in his experiments to the curve defined by his equation. However, lr—'—‘_ 'l value curve, to th Speed with 1 betwee conclul inerti Same F isolate iects' Cybex a Specifj curVeS their 0 earTier of ear]. of ”ide' were Ina- indie.SF r ePOrtec 20 values obtained in the low tension, high velocity portion of the curve showed some deviations. He attributed these discrepancies to the presence of a certain number of fibers with high intrinsic speed (41). In 1950, Hilkie (109) conducted comprehensive experiments with isotonic loading to determine the specific relationship between maximum myometric force and velocity in human muscle. He concluded that, after a mathematical correction for the effects of inertia had been made, the ig-gigg muscle appeared to exhibit the same F-V relationship that had been determined previously for isolated animal muscles. In Hilkie's studies, the actual force outputs of the sub- jects' muscles were not measured directly. The development of the Cybex allowed for the direct measurement of torque produced at specific velocities in various human muscle groups. Thorstensson, Grimby, and Karlsson (102) studied the T-V curves of human knee extensors using a Cybex. They concluded that their observations on intact human muscle were consistent with earlier findings in animal preparations. Perrine and Edgerton (88) disagreed with the conclusions of earlier investigators. In a study of ten males and five females of widely varying physical fitness levels, they concluded that there were major discrepancies between the T-V curves found for maximal angle-specific torques during knee extension and the F-V curves reported for animal muscle. At high test velocities (192, 240, 288 pre~' to p at t' than somet by Thc values 51mila Specif Perrine torque in TDOT reglon VaIUes 8t 29rc 21 288 o/s), the data appeared to follow a curve similar to animal preparations. However, as velocity decreased, their curve appeared to plateau and follow a distinctly different pattern. The torques at the lower velocities and under isometric conditions were lower than predicted values. In addition, torques at low velocities were sometimes higher than those generated isometrically. Perrine and Edgerton critically reviewed the data presented by Thorstensson, Grimby, and Karlsson (102). Hhen peak torque values were plotted, the Thorstensson data appear to follow curves similar to those found in animal lg gitgg studies. Hhen angle- specific torque values were graphed, curves similar to those of Perrine and Edgerton were generated. The major exception was that torque at zero degrees per second appeared to have higher values in Thorstensson's data. Other authors have reported a plateau region at slow velocities during knee extension using peak torque values (19, 58, 92) and angle-specific torque values (76). Torques at zero 0/s were more consistent in Thorstensson's data. Several characteristics of the plateau effect should be noted. The plateau is more readily identified when several test velocities below 90 0/s are used. The plateau is more pronounced during knee extension as the angle at which torque is measured becomes smaller. This is seen in Thorstensson's data and was noted by Perrine and Edgerton in their data. The plateau may be more pronounced in untrained individuals. Caiozzo, Perrine, and Edgerton (10) reported that untrained subjects who t marke decre have flexi Curves must I isola‘ reDre do no tions Confo may (3 22 who trained for four weeks with an isokinetic dynamometer showed a marked improvement in angle-specific torque at low velocities which decreased the plateau effect. Similar plateau regions in angle-specific torque curves have been reported for muscle groups used in knee flexion, plantar flexion, and dorsal flexion in untrained subjects (108). Hhile it remains to be determined to what extent human T-V curves resemble animal F-V curves, clearly their interpretation must be different. In classical F-V studies, the force of an isolated muscle is measured in a direct line of pull. The force is representative of muscular tension. In human studies, torque values do not measure actual muscular force. Joint position-tension rela- tionships and the time needed to development maximum tension may confound interpretations. The use of angle-specific measurements may overcome these shortcomings. Relationship Between T-V Curves and ‘ Muscle Fiber Composition An athlete's performance in a particular event may be depen- dent on the individual's muscle fiber composition. Several inves- tigators have suggested that athletes who have a higher proportion of fast contracting muscle fibers are more likely to succeed in events that require maximal force production at high velocities (62, 102, 103). The development of the Cybex has allowed investi- gators to explore the functional significance of different muscle fiber compositions in the generation of torque and power at differ- ent velocities. musci Costi The s of th great less - l6, 2; duced PESpeC betwee were 5- results PETatec 23 Significant relationships between relative peak torque and muscle fiber composition have been reported (25, 36, 53, 102). Coyle, Costill, and Lesmes (25) studied twenty-one physically active males. The subjects were divided on the basis of a needle muscle biopsy of the vastus lateralis into a fast-twitch (FT) group, having greater than 50% FT fibers, and a slow-twitch group (ST), having less than 50% FT fibers. The FT subjects were able to generate ll, 16, 23, and 47% greater relative (normalized to peak torque pro- duced at 57 0/s) torque at velocities of 115, 200, 287, 400 0Is respectively than the ST group during leg extension. Correlations between relative torque production and the percentage of FT fibers were significant and rose in value as velocity increased. The results suggest that muscle fiber composition becomes increasingly related to power performance as velocity increases. These observations were consistent with results reported by Thorstensson, Grimby, and Karlsson (102). They found a significant correlation in males between the percentage of maximal isometric torque that a subject could generate at a velocity of 180 0/5 during knee extension and the percentage as well as the relative fiber area of FT fibers. In addition, there was a significant positive correlative between the maximal contraction velocity and the per- centage and relative area of FT fibers. Thorstensson, Larsson, Tesch, and Karlsson (103) reported that the proportion of FT fibers in the vastus lateralis was related to the peak torque produced during knee extension in elite athletes. The A and c tive The s'I fiber- ST fit fat-fr mediat b9tWee Signif 180: al tESt, ‘ 24 The subjects included track and field athletes, skiers, race walkers, and orienteerers. Ivy et a1. (53) studied muscle fiber composition and rela- tive torque production in fifteen active males during knee extension. The subjects were divided into a FT group (greater than 60% FT fibers), and intermediate group, and a ST group (greater than 60% ST fibers). The FT group exerted more relative torque (per unit fat-free thigh volume) at each test velocity than either the inter- mediate or ST groups. However, there was a significant difference between the FT and ST groups only at 180 0/s. Peak power was significantly correlated to the precentage of FT fibers at 60, 120, 180, and 240 °/s. During the initial contractions of an isokinetic fatigue test, Tesch et al. (98) found significant correlations between the percentage and relative area of FT fibers and knee extensor peak torques at 180 0/s in nine physical education students. Clarkson, Kroll, and Melchionda (19), in a study involving five male and four female elite canoe and kayak paddlers, found significant correlations between the diameters of fast oxidative- glycolytic (F06) and fast glycolytic (FG) fibers in the biceps brachii and peak torques at 0, 60, and 180 0/s during knee extension. FT fiber size and percentage area of FT fibers significantly cor- related with peak torque at the test velocities. Other investigators have reported no significant relation- ships between muscle fiber composition and torque production during isok corr area the 1 male Krist or re Plott analy; not d1 muscul merely (25), Corre] 1'9qu PT And f1! a”Elle-g betWEe! 1atera' 25 isokinetic movement. Schantz et a1. (91) observed no significant correlations between relative torque (per muscle cross-sectional area times body height) and the percentage area of ST fibers from the vastus lateralis and triceps brachii in seven female and eleven male physical education students. Ingemann-Hansen and Halkjaer- Kristensen (52) reported no significant correlations between percent or relative area of ST fibers and the slope of the peak T-V curves plotted on a semilogarithmic scale. In the preceding investigations, peak torque values were analyzed. As mentioned earlier, the use of peak torque values may not differentiate whether FT subjects actually generate greater muscular tension at high velocities or if the higher peak torques merely reflect the ability of FT subjects to accelerate faster (25). Nilsson, Tesch, and Thorstensson (79) reported a significant correlation between the percentage of FT fibers and the time required to accelerate to a constant velocity. This characteristic would enable FT subjects to achieve the test velocity in a faster time and at an angle closer to the optimal angle for torque produc- tion. The use of angle-specific torque may overcome this problem. Gregor et al. (36), in a study involving 22 elite track and field female athletes, reported significant differences in angle-specific knee extensor torques at 96, 196, and 288 0/s between subjects who had greater than 50% ST fibers in the vastus lateralis and subjects who had less than 50% ST fibers. Relative torque values (per kg body weight) were significant only at 192 °/s. Sign‘ veloc and a speci separ vastu FT gr( 0f n01 ST grc When r that a ences 26 Significant correlations, which increased in value as the angular velocity increased, were observed between relative FT fiber area and angle-specific torque. Yates and Kamon (112) compared peak T-V curves and angle- specific T-V curves during knee extension. The subjects were separated into a FT and ST group based on a muscle biopsy from the vastus lateralis. Hhen angle-specific torque values were used, the FT group was able to generate a significantly greater percentage of normalized torque at 130, 210, 240, 270, and 300 °/s than the ST group. No significant differences existed between the groups when normalized peak T-V values were used. The results suggested that angle-specific measurements may be more sensitive to differ- ences in fiber type. No definitive conclusions can be drawn about the relation- ship of muscle fiber composition and the T-V curve. It appears that there may be a significant relationship between the percentage of FT fibers and relative knee extensor torques. The weak association of muscle fiber composition to the torque-velocity curve may be due to the current instrumentation. The maximum speed of the Cybex is approximately 30-40% of the maximum contractile velocity of the knee extensors. The peak efficiency of a predominently fast twitch muscle may not have been tested. The above studies had other limitations. None of them used gravitational corrections with their data. The biopsy investigations attempt to categorize subjects into slow-twitch and fast-twitch for i reseai train- Hhippl diVlde 36 O/S as a C eXerci ijFOV 27 groups based upon limited data obtained from a single leg muscle that may not be critical in the sport studied. In addition, hetero- geneous groups of subjects and small sample sizes limit the conclu- sions of some studies. Relationship ELEM 2 Training Numerous studies have tried to determine the optimum method for increasing strength and power. Hith the aid of the Cybex, researchers have investigated the effects of velocity-specific training in human strength development. One of the earliest studies was performed by Moffoid and Hhipple (75) in 1970. Twenty-three females and five males were divided into three groups: one group trained at a velocity of 36 0/s (group I), one trained at 108 0/s (group II), and one served as a control group. The subjects performed two minutes of maximal exercise every other day for six weeks. Group I showed significant improvement in peak torque at 18 and 36 0/s and non-significant increases at all other test velocities. Group II showed even gains in peak torque at all test velocities except zero degrees per second. These gains were greater than those observed in the control group, but were not significant. Hhile the authors concluded that low speed exercise produces strength gains only at slow speeds and that high speed exercise produces strength gains at the below the training speed, it should be noted that knee extension at 180 0Is is not a high-speed exercise. Maximal knee extension velocities averag- ing 687 0/s have been reported (102). Furthermore, the limb veloci- ties in sport activities have been reported to be 180 0/s or higher. The this repo sion subje were were SUppoi in St: 189 vel MEllon 108 an ties ( (NaUtji Sample reDurte an, E 240 0/s geins c FESDEQt 22 pbvs lsokjne 28 The terminology of "fast" and "slow" speeds should be avoided. In this paper, actual test velocities will be stated. Lesmes et a1. (67), as part of a larger investigation reported significant improvement in peak torques during knee exten- sion after training four times per week for seven weeks. Five male subjects trained at 180 0/s. Significant gains in peak torques r were observed at 0, 60, 120, and 180 0/s. NonsignifiCant gains were reported at velocities of 240 and 300 0/s. These results a support the work of Moffoid and Hhipple (75) and suggest that gains in strength from isokinetic training at 180 0/s occur at the train- ing velocity and at slower velocities. Later studies included higher limb velocities. Smith and Mellon (95) investigated the effect of training on knee extension at low angular velocities (30, 60, 90 °/s), at higher angular veloci- ties (180, 240, 300 0/s) and with a variable-resistance machine (Nautilus). The subjects trained three times a week for six weeks. Sample size was small (n = 3) and the entire T-V curve was not reported. The slower isokinetic group demonstrated significant gains at both low and high velocities (.5, 21, 25% at 0, 60, and 240 0/s, respectively). The faster isokinetic group had significant gains only at higher speeds (7, 3, 61% at 0, 60, and 240 0Is, respectively). Coyle et a1. (26), in an intereSting experiment, divided 22 physically active males into five groups: a control group, an isokinetic group training at 60 0/s, an isokinetic group training at 300 0/s, a mixed group training at both 60 and 300 0/s, and a 29 placebo group. The placebo group received low-level faradic muscle stimulation. Each group trained three times per week for six weeks. The placebo group showed a significant gain in two-legged knee exten- sion peak torque values at 0 0/s only. The 60 °/s group exhibited significant gains of 20.3, 31.8, and 9.2% at o, 60, and 130 °/s respectively. The 300 0/s group demonstrated gains of 23.6, 15.1, r 16.8, and 18.5 at o, 60, 180, and 300 °/s respectively. The mixed group had significant gains of 18.9, 23.6, 7.9, and 16.1 at 0, 60, i 180, and 300 0/s respectively. In comparison to the placebo group, the 60 0/s group and the mixed group had significantly greater gains at a velocity of 60 0/s. At a test velocity of 180 0/s, only the 300 0/5 group had a significant gain over the placebo group. Finally, at a test velocity of 300 °/s, the fast and the mixed group were significantly different from the placebo group. The results of this study indicate that training at a slow velocity of 60 0/s does not improve performance at higher velocities of 300 0Is. How- ever, training at high velocity (300 0[5) may improve performance, not only at that velocity, but at slower velocities as well. Caizzo, Perrine, and Edgerton (10) used angle-specific torque as the dependent variable in their study of training-induced alterations in the T-V curve. Twelve males and five female seden- tary subjects were divided into a control group, a group trained at 96 0/s, and a group trained at 240 0/s. The subjects trained three times a week for four weeks. The 96 0/s group had signi- ficant gains of 14.7, 14.2, 8.0, 7.8, 7.9, and 5.5% for test vel 240 192, some velod three 180 C for e in ti grou; 300 C The 5 Speed COncl Curve ‘eHSt Addit 30 velocities of o, 48, 96, 144, 192, and 240 °/s respectively. The 240 °/s group had significant gains of 5.9, 6.6, and 8.8% at 144, 192, and 240 0/s respectively. In contrast to the results found in some studies the fast group did not show improvement at slower velocities. Kanehisa and Miyashita (56) randomly divided 21 males into three experimental groups: one group training at 60 0/s, one at 180 0/s, and one at 300 0/s. Each group trained six times a week for eight weeks. Significant gains in average power were reported in the 300 °/s group at velocities of 240 and 300 °/s. The 180 °/s group had significant gains at all test velocities (30 through 300 °/s) with the greatest gains occurring at 180, 240, and 300 °/s. The 60 0/s group showed significant increases in power at all test speeds, but greater gains were seen in the lower velocities. The small number of studies in this area makes definitive conclusions difficult. The studies used several types of velocity curves which make comparisons inappropriate. In addition, the length and intensity of training varies greatly between the studies. Additional studies are needed in this area. StrEr Paris dista level elbow Exten 240 absol dUTin WOUld SeCom distal Nouid Natl-0n Selest CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS The purpose of this study was to provide descriptive strength and power data on elite male and female swimmers. Com- parisons were drawn between sexes, between sprint and middle- distance swimmers, and between swimmers of different performance levels. Absolute and relative torque and power measurements during elbow extension, shoulder joint inward rotation, shoulder joint extension, and knee extension at angular velocities of 30, 180, 240, and 300 degrees per second were obtained. In addition, absolute and relative average power, work, and distance jumped during a modified vertical power jump were analyzed. Several hypotheses were tested. First, elite male swimmers would be stronger and more powerful than elite female swimmers. Second, sprinters would be stronger and more powerful than middle- distance swimmers. Finally, the upper-twenty percent of swimmers would exert greater torque and power than the lower-twenty percent of swimmers. m Based upon performances at the Junior National or Senior National Swimming Meets from the previous year, the subjects were selected and invited to participate in one of three two-week 31 32 training sessions at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado during the summer of 1979. Sixty—six females and 55 males accepted the invitation to participate. The training camp was conducted by various nationally known coaches. The camp included training sessions and a series of physio- logical performance tests that were designed to assess the abilities of the athletes to perform the physical tasks involved in competi- tive swimming. These tests included a tethered swim with progres- sive restraining loads, anthropometric measurements, body composition determinations, Cybex testing, and a modified vertical power jump. The physiological testing was administered by a team of investiga- tors from various universities and by the staff of the exercise physiology laboratory at the Olympic Training Center. In addition, each subject completed a training and performance questionnaire. Prior to the testing, each subject was informed fully of the risks, discomfort, and possible benefits associated with these tests and each signed an informed consent form. If the subject was below the age of 18, a parent also signed the consent form. The mean age for the females was 16 yrs 10 mos and the mean age for the males was 18 yrs 1 mo. Testing ProcedUres The procedures used in the collection of data during anthro- pometric measurements, body composition, Cybex testing, and the modified vertical power jump will be discussed. thr: weig indi scale angle head reste Cantii VldUa‘ b61501 The Dc 33 Anthropometric Measurements The physique of the human body can be accurately described through a series of external measurements. In this study, height, weight, and ponderal index were obtained. The stature of each subject was determined by having the individual, without shoes, stand with his/her back against a sliding scale on a wall. Heels were placed together and the toes were angled slightly out. A steel blade projected from the scale. The head was adjusted so that the blade formed a horizontal line and rested on the top of the subject's head. Height in tenths of a centimeter was read from the underside of the steel blade. The weight of each subject was obtained by having the indi- vidual, wearing only a swimming suit, stand on.a calibrated Toledo balance scale. Height was measured to a tenth of a pound and con- verted to the nearest tenth of a kilogram. The ponderal index was used as a measure of body shape (43). The ponderal index was calculated as: 3/Height (kg) x 1000 Ponderal Index = Heig t cm Body Composition The assessment of subcutaneous body fat was accomplished by the use of Lange calibers to measure the thickness of a double layer of skin and the interposed layer of fat in tenths of a millimeter. Hiln 34 The following skinfold sites, as described by Behnke and Hilmore (3), were measured: Subscapular. Inferior angle of the scapula with the fold running parallel to the axillary border. Triceps. Midway between the acromion and olecronon processes on the posterior aspect of the arm, the arm held vertically, with the fold running parallel to the length of the arm. Supra-iliac. Vertical fold on the crest of the ilium at the midaxillary line. Thigh. Vertical fold on the anterior aspect of the thigh midway between the hip and knee joints. The Sloan-Heir formulas were used to predict body density (Db) from skinfold measurements. The formulas are as follows: Male: 0b = 1.1043 - 0.00133 (thigh skinfold) - 0.00131 (subscapula skinfold) Female: 0b = 1.0764 - 0.00081 (suprailiac skinfold) - 0.00088 (triceps skinfold) The percentage of body fat was calculated from the follow- ing formula of Brozek et a1. (9). Fat % = 100((4.570/Db) - 4.142) Lean body weight was determined simply as total body weight minus estimated fat weight. Cybex Testing Cybex testing was used to evaluate muscular strength and power. The Cybex is an isokinetic dynamometer that controls move- ment by giving resistance at a preset speed of angular rotation. Joint angular velocity is prevented from surpassing the preset level by the rotation of a motordriven axis kept at the preset speed by 1‘ ' 35 a feedback control. The device allows maximum muscular contractions to be performed throughout a defined range of movement at the fixed velocity. At velocities lower than that preset, the movement is unresisted. Torque is measured by a load cell oriented perpendicularly to the limb segment. The torque recorded reflects the dynamometer's resistance to the movement and may differ from the muscle force producing the movement. This concept was discussed in Chapter II. Peak torque, regardless of joint angle, was measured by a Cybex II and recorded using a dual channel Cybex recorder. The Cybex unit was calibrated at the beginning of each test period or whenever a baseline drift occurred. Measurement in foot-pounds was made in a section of the torque curve that avoided the overshoot phenomenon. Hhen this study was performed, the necessity for a gravitational correction of limb segments was not appreciated. The data in this study represent uncorrected measurements. Values of peak torque in foot-pounds were converted to units of newton-meters using the following formula: Torque (N - mtr) = 1.35582 x Torque (ft - lbs) Peak power in watts was calculated from the original data using the following equation: Power (watts) = .01745 x angular velocity (°/s) x Torque (N - mtr) 36 Relative values of peak torque and peak power were calculated to facilitate the comparisons between swimmers of varying body sizes. Measurements of peak torque and power were divided by weight in kilograms, height in centimeters, lean body weight in kilograms, and ponderal index. The joint movements tested were elbow extension, shoulder joint extension, shoulder joint inward rotation, and knee extension. Joint movements on both the right and left sides of the body were examined; however, for the purpose of the study, the maximum value obtained from either the right or left side was analyzed. Each joint action was tested at velocities of 30, 180, 240, and 300 degrees per second. The rate of 30 0/s was selected to obtain strength data. The velocities of 180, 240, and 300 °/s were selected to obtain power data. The two highest rates are similar to angular velocities achieved at the shoulder joint during swimming. Each joint movement was tested on separate days. Each sub- ject was given a standard set of instruction and was encouraged to perform as well as possible. The subjects were allowed to warmup by performing several joint movements at each velocity prior to testing. After the warmup period at each velocity, the subject attempted two maximum contractions. The larger of the peak torques measured was recorded. Approximately one to two minutes were allowed between test motions. Slow velocities were measured first, with sequential testing of the faster velocities. Range of joint motion was not measured simultaneously with torque production. 37 Elbow extension was performed with the subject kneeling in front of the test table with the upper arm placed horizontally on the table. The forearm was pronated and the hand gripped a handle on the Cybex. The length of the dynamometer input lever arm was adjusted to each subject to allow smooth, comfortable movement throughout the range of motion. The axis of the Cybex was aligned as closely as possible to the axis of rotation of the elbow. Movement of the forearm was in a sagittal plane with a range of motion of approximately 150° to 0° (0° equals full elbow extension). The subject was not permitted to raise the shoulder or lift the upper-arm from the table during testing. Shoulder joint extension was performed with the subject lying supine on the test table. The elbow was held in full exten- sion throughout the movement. The hand, with the forearm in a slightly pronated position, grasped a handle on the input arm of dynamometer. The length of the input arm of the Cybex was adjusted to allow for comfortable movement throughout the range of motion. Limb movement occurred in a saggital plane from 180° to 10° (0° equals arm adducted to the side of the body). The subject was not permitted to raise the shoulder from the table during testing. Shoulder joint inward rotation was tested with the subject kneeling beside and facing the test table. The upperarm was placed horizontally on the table with the elbow held at a 90° angle. The forearm was held in a neutral position with the palm of the hand facing a saggital place through the midline of the body. The hand 38 grasped a handle attached to the input lever of the Cybex. The length of the input lever was adjusted to allow for comfortable movement throughout the range of motion. The forearm moved in a coronal plane from 90° (vertical) to 0° (horizontal). Knee extension was tested with the subject sitting on a test chair. The thigh was stabilized with a velcro strap. A shinpad, attached to the input lever arm, was placed on the tibia just proximal to the malleoli. Limb movement occurred in a saggital plane with a range of motion from 90° to 0° (0° equals leg at full extension). Modified Vertical Power Jump The use of a modified vertical power jump was included in this study to provide a measurement of total leg power. This action is important in starts and turns in swimming. A new derivation for the calculation of average power generated during the acceleration phase of a vertical jump was developed. The new equation differs slightly from a formula reported by Gray, Start, and Glencross (35). Its theoretical development is presented in Appendix A. In its final form, the formula for average power production (P) during a vertical jump is: p = w (.864451 + .0046 + $1) /gs2 .8644s1 + .0046 2 where: g = force of gravity 39 s1 = squat displacement s2 = jump displacement w = body weight Thus, average power can be calculated from the three measured vari- ables of body weight, squat displacement, and jump displacement. An inexpensive but unique apparatus was developed to allow easy measurement of squat displacement and jump displacement. The apparatus consisted of an L-shaped pole secured into a wooden plat- form (see Figure Al in Appendix A). Measuring tapes were located at the top of the pole and beneath the wooden platform. A line connected the ends of the two tapes. Each tape traveled through a felt pad. The pad provided sufficient friction to stop the movement of the tape as soon as the force causing the movement was removed. The line between the two measuring tapes was attached to the subject's lower back midway between the posterior superior iliac spines. During the attachment, the subject simulated the actual take-off position by standing in a planter-flexed posture. In the take-off position, both tapes recorded values of zero. As the sub- ject assumed a natural squatting position, the upper tape on the pole was drawn out. This provided a measurement of squat displace- ment. From the time the subject passed the take-off position until the peak of the jump, the bottom tape was drawn out. This provided a measurement of jump displacement. To ensure that the movement of the center of gravity was in a vertical direction with little lateral or anteroposterior 40 displacement, a 1 ft by 1 ft box was drawn on the wooden platform. If the subject landed outside the dimensions of the box, the jump was not recorded. Arm movements were eliminated by having the subjects place both hands on the hips during the jump. The jump was initiated from a standing position and the subject was allowed to accelerate the body naturally. Each subject was allowed three warm-up jumps and three trial jumps. Between each trial jump, squat displacement and jump displacement were obtained and recorded to the nearest .5 cm. Body weight was measured before the test situation. Research Design The present study was designed to provide data describing the muscular strength and power in elite swimmers. It was organized as five one-way ex post facto designs with each design having two treatment groups. The first comparison involved the preassigned characteris- tic of sex. Data from 55 males and 66 females were analyzed. The second and third comparisons were based on the distance swum during competition. Separate analyses were obtained for male and female swimmers. subject was classified as a sprinter if his/her best_perform8nie time was in an event with a distance of 200 meters or less. A subject was classified as a middle-distance swimmer if his/her best performance time was in an event with a distance between 200 and 1,500 meters. If a swimmer had excellent tirn the prh ES in clas clas of - obt.‘ aSS' his If 100 1We the ten the Sen and 41 times in both categories, the decision as to which group to place the subject was based on his/her training. Subjects who trained primarily at short distances and high intensities were classified as sprinters. Swimmers who trained at long distances were placed in the middle-distance group. Forty-five females and 38 males were classified as sprinters. Thirty-eight females and 17 males were classified as middle-distance swimmers. The fourth and fifth comparisons were based on the quality of the best performance of each swimmer. Separate analyses were obtained for male and female swimmers. A quality rating was assigned to each subject that reflected the relationship between his/her best performance time and the American record in that event. If the swimmer held the American record, then a quality rating of 100.0 was given. If the swimmer's time was 4% slower than the American record, then a quality rating of 104.0 was assigned. THo treatment groups in each comparison were obtained using the quality ratings. One group consisted of the upper-twenty per- cent of the swimmers based on performance. The second group was the lower-twenty percent. Fourteen females and twelve males repre- sented the upper-twenty percent group, respectively. Twelve females and nine males were in the lower-twenty percent group, respectively. Statistical Procedures Independent variables in this study were sex, distance com- petitively swum (male and female), and quality of best performance (male and female). eff W81” wei joir 42 Dependent variables were analyzed using one-way fixed effect analyses of variance. The following dependent variables were analyzed: height, weight, lean body weight, ponderal index, absolute and relative torque and power values by weight, lean body weight, height, and ponderal index for elbow extension, shoulder joint inward rotation, shoulder joint extension, and knee extension at angular velocities of 30, 180, 240, and 300 degrees per second, absolute and relative average power, work, and distance jumped by weight, lean body weight, height, and ponderal index from the modi- fied vertical power jump. A statistical probability of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate significant differences between means. sect vert The verti dista the 8 disc“ more midd] swimm "1th . grOUp‘ Part 0 CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The material in this chapter is organized into eight main sections. The first part deals with the isokinetic and modified vertical power jump results from the male vs. female comparison. The second and third sections cover the isokinetic and modified vertical power results from the male and female sprinters vs. middle- distance swimmers, respectively. Strength and power results from the upper- vs. lower-twenty percent of male and female swimmers are discussed in the fourth and fifth sections. Discussions of the more important findings from the male vs. female, sprinter vs. middle distance swimmers, and upper- vs. lower-twenty percent of swimmers comparisons are given separately at the end of the chapter. Standard errors were not included in the figures presented with the results because of the unequal number of subjects in each group. Standard deviations are given in Appendix B. Males vs. Females This section is subdivided into three parts. The first part describes the subjects. Next, the isokinetic data are pre- sented. Modified vertical power results are given last. 43 l S_ub Sixl age the tall fere angu in l swir Yali ShOl Va] enc 240 Eng} bocj at DQ" ~l Din 44 Subject Characteristics Selected parameters of the subjects are presented in Table l. Sixty-six females and 55 males participated in the study. The aver- age age of the females was 16 years 10 months. The average age of the males was 18 years 1 month. The males were significantly older, taller, heavier, and leaner than the females. No significant dif- ferences were observed in ponderal index or quality of swimmer. Isokinetic Data Actual values and ANOVA results for each joint action and angular velocity are presented in Appendix 8, Tables B1 through 85. Cybex data obtained during elbow extension are presented in Figures 1 through 3. All comparisons between male and female swimmers, at each angular velocity using all absolute and relative values, were highly significant (p < .001). Both males and females showed an increase in power as velocity increased with maximal values of power occurring at 300 0/s. The most significant differ— ence in absolute power, as determined by the F ratio, occurred at 240 0Is. This also was observed in power values relative to height and ponderal index.1 Hhen values relative to body weight and lean body weight were examined, the largest difference in power occurred at 300 0Is. Furthermore, the sex-related differences in strength 1Figures are not provided for data relative to height and ponderal index because the patterns observed with increasing joint velocities were identical to those shown for absolute torque and power values in these and all subsequent comparisons. 45 em. cm. poo.v Poo.v Foo.v poo.v poo.v moo. mm. Fm.wmm mm.mmm FN.MN_ o~.m—F vo.o~ on. op.mm «m —.N m.mop mm o.N _.m mm o.m m.mm mm m.o ¢.Nm mm m.m n.0wp em 5— Rpm mm m m : nope: um. mo.mN mo ¢.N N.mop we v.~ w.wp om m.m m.w¢ on m.m ¢.oo om o.m m.mop mm mp Now mm m m : mmmemu xoucm pmcmccoa LwEszm to seepaeo you zoom ucmugma Anew peeve: Atom cam; Amxv peeve: Asuv unwed: Amcwcoev om< meEme meEwu— .m> wpmz $0 mLmeEwLma waumpwm .F mqm<._. «E . 7: $390.» 46 o—-o Females in = 641 x———-x Males (n = 54) All contrasts are significant at p < .05 220—> 220- 200- 200.. IBOP 180'- 160- '50- I40— 140- E E g 120- g IZO- '” 1' 3 o E’ICKDr- 33 ICK)~ o o F a / 80- 30- 60- ' 60- 0 o X 40- 40- O \ x (’L""F'V‘LT l l C’L""F‘/‘£ 1 1 *1 30 180 240 300 30 180 240 300 Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) Figure l.--Elbow Extension: Absolute Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swimmers. --«ux\E.Zv 8:95.» QEEQI Relative Torque (N-m/kgl 3110 2375 2£HD 2125 2130 |f75 1.5() 1125 I1ND OU75 CL5C) 0.2 5 CLCM) Figure 2 3C) .--Elbow Extension: 47 0-—0 Females in = 64) x——-x Males (n = 54) All contrasts are significant at p < .05 % L—H'L—i 1 l 1801 2540' EKXD Relative Power (watts/kg) 31MB 2375 21“) 2135 2130 lf75 1.5C) |£25 1130 0175 (15C) (X255 l0130 x _. o L‘-'l—'”fi1 1 1 30’ 15K) 24‘) 1500 Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) Relative (by Body Height) Peak Torque- Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swimmers. “3):. 7: 265;. a>.:2ot Ff 9t 3.00 o——o Females in = 64) X-—-x Males (n = 54) All contrasts are significant at p < .05 3.00 l‘ 2.75 2.75- 2.50 2.50- 2.25 2.25- A 2.00 A 2.00- 3‘ .9 \ \ {5 75 g l 75— E I. g . 3 a g I50 3 I50- .— a / .3 1.25 ,3 |.25- 1.5 § ' /°"""° o o m |.00 ‘1 LOO- 0.75 0.75- 0.50 0.50r X \ 0 0.25 °\°\° oasi- O.OOL‘ T’r’j 1 I 0.00“. _H#' l T 30 '80 240 300 30 I80 240 300 Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) Figure 3.--Elbow Extension: Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swimers. an we pre wen Str occ at 2 difi rela diff 49 and power were observed to decrease when values relative to body weight and lean body weight were considered. Cybex data obtained during shoulder joint extension are presented in Figures 4 through 6. All comparisons between sexes were highly significant (p < .OOl). The female power curve demon- strated increasing power as velocity increased. Maximal values occurred at 300 0/s. The male power curve had maximal power values at 240 0/s with a slight decline at 300 0/s. The most significant differences in strength and power occurred at 30 0/s. When values relative to body weight and lean body weight were examined, the differences between sexes were less. Strength and power values during shoulder joint inward rotation are graphed in Figures 7 through 9. All comparisons were highly significant (p < .001). The female power curves appeared to rise until 240 0/s and then leveled off. The male power curves continued to rise to maximal values at 300 0/s. The greatest dif- ference in power between male and female swimmers occurred at 300 0/s. Values relative to height and ponderal index appeared to follow a pattern similar to the absolute power curves. Values relative to body weight and lean body weight followed a similar pattern, but the differences between male and female swimmers were less. Cybex data during knee extension are shown in Figures l0 through 12. All absolute values and values relative to body weight, height, and ponderal index were significant (p < .OOl). Maximal ~E.2~ @ZCLOF 50 o———o Females. (n = 62) X-—K Males (n = 53) All contrasts are significant at p < .05 220)- 220)— I80- I80~ l60- ISO- I40- I40— ? :5 0/0’0 g l20~ ‘g’ I20- w ”I g IOO- g IOOr- l— x a. 80- 80*- 60- a so- X 40- 4o- 0 20- 20- 0“ fikl I I 0" ‘1‘“"I l l 3C) IEK) 24C) 30C) 3C) IEK) 24C) 1300 Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) Figure 4.--Shoulder Joint Extension: Absolute Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swimmers. Relative Torque (N -m/kg) 3130 2375 21%3 2L225 2130 I375 I.5C) Cl5C) Ch2€i (lCX) Figure 51 o———o Females (n = 62) *-—-X Males (n= 53) All contrasts are significant at p < .05 Relative Power (watts/kg) X o h I I 30 I80 240 300 3130 2375 21N3 2125 2130 I375 |.5C) I125 LCK) 0U75 CL5C) (3125 (1CX3 30 /.. / r l I T IGC) 24() 30&) Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) .--Shoulder Joint Extension: Relative (by Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swimmers. 3.25 3.0C 5 .I. 2 2.50 5 D... 2 0 5 0 5 O 7. 5 2 2. l 3x\E.Z. 0:05... EEOEQ .00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 . Relative Torque (N - m/kg) 3125 3130 2375 2150 2125 21M3 I375 I.5C) I125 LCM) 0375 Ch5C) Cl2€5 <1CX3 Figure 6. 52 o—o Females (n = 62) X-—* Males (n = 53) All contrasts are significant at p < .05 30’ T I IBK) 24K) 3CK3 Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) --Shoulder Joint Extension: Male vs. Female Swimmers. Relative Power (watts/kg) 3125 3130 2375 2150 2125 2130 I375 I.5C) l.25 I.0C) 0375 Ch5C) Ct25> CLCX) F g. h. 3C) f I I T’ T IBCI 24C) 30!) Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for 220{ 200 I IBOF ISO . I40 .. h) we. IOO. Apr..s‘v .WSRULANF 80.. 50. 40.. 20.. 0. FIQUre 7 22C) 20C) IBC) I6C) I4C) I2C) H30 Torque (N - m) SC) SC) 4&3 2C) o—-o Females (n = 63- 66) *—-K Males (n = 53 - 54) All contrasts are significant at p < .05 L I "LI l I so IBO 240 300 22C) 2CK3 IBC) |6CI N40 I2C) H30 Power (watts) 8C) .6C) 4!) 2C) 0* L. r I I I 30l I80) 24C) 30C) Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) Figure 7.—-Shoulder Joint Inward Rotation: . Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swimmers. Absolute Peak Torque- a I. .I. I. ll.. AOX\E.Z» 030L0F 0>.ZD.0Q ”We 8 54 o-——o Females (n = 63-66) H Males (n = 53- 54) All contrasts are significant at p < .05 300 500- 2.?5 2.75 _ 2.50 2.50 - 2.25 2.25 - a 2.00 ’5 2.00 '" i‘ i‘ E’ . £2 2 I375 5 |.75 +- "' .3. 8 a g L50 3 L50 '- I— 8 a: a: .2 L25 ,2 L25— .‘é :0 & l.00 & I.OO _. o/O——-O 0.75 0.75 - x 0.50 o 0.50 - \N X 0.25 °\o\o 0.25 _ o (lCX) -1—dHFI I I (lCK)--—1-1/f] I 30 ISO 240 300 30 I80 240 Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) Figure 8.--Shoulder Joint Inward Rotation: Relative (by Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swimmers. 55 0—0 Females (n = 63 - 66) X——-X Males (n = 53-54) All contrasts are significant at p < .05 soar 100- 2.75 - 2.75 .. 2.50 r- 2.50 - 2.25 - 2.25 L- .. 2.oo - ... 2.oo - 3‘ é" \ In E I 75F g 1.75- 5 .2 2 I 50*- § 1.50— E 2 g l 252 f‘g’ 1.25)- 6 a 76 W m I.00 - & |.00 .. 0.75 F- x 0,75 _ o 0.50 - 0.50 L- \ X o 0.25 ‘- 0\0\ 0.25 '- 0.00 '- —_r_/IL I ] 1 0.00 '- —I_/IL I fi l 30 ISO 240 300 ' 30 I80 240 300 Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) Figure 9.--Shoulder Joint Inward Rotation: Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relation- ships for Male vs. Female Swimmers. 56 o——o Females (n = 64 - 65) X—-* Males (n = 53- 54) All contrasts are significant at p < .05 220- 220— x 200- 200- lBO- I80- I60- l60- 0 Q‘\ I40- I40- ? 13 3 I202 233 IZO- 3 3 x g Ioo- é I00- I- 80- 90.. o 60r- 60- 40- 40~ 20- 20... OL—l—fi I I . I 0L"‘l"’rL I I I 30 ISO 240 300 30 ISO 240 300 Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) Figure l0.--Knee Extension: Absolute Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swimmers. All contrasts are significant at p < .05 57 o——o Females in = 64- 65) x——x Males (n= 53-54) 3.00 3.00 r- x 2.75 2375 I- 2.50 o 2.50 .- K\ 2.25 2.25 - A 2.00 A 2.00- 2’ 2’ \ \ E (D . l.75 3: l.75 _ .7: E g II. g I50 g l.50- x p 2 o _3 L25 .3 L25- § .§ 0 ‘5 l.00 “ l.00 - 0.75 0.75 P 0.50 0.50 - 0.25 0.25 I- 0.00 -T—{Il I I I 0.00 " -_'_/IL I I r 30 ISO 240 300 30 IBO 24-0 300 Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) Figure ll.--Knee Extension: Relative (by Body Height) Peak Torque- Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swinmers Figure l2.--Knee Extension: 58 o——-o Females (n = 64-65) x———-x Males (n = 53- 54) p < .05 at l80°ls Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) 3.25 - 3.25 - X 0 3.00 - 3.00 _ 0\\ 2.75 - 2.75 - 2.50 - 2.50 - 2.25 - 2.25 - ’5. ’5 g 2.00 _. i‘ 2.00 - .5 £3 2 U V I.75- 3 L75— 3 ‘a’: 5 g” 3 *- LGO F- & I.50 '- 3 .3 % l.25 t- .3 L25 - m m I1M3- LCKJP- 0.75 - 0.75 - 0.50 - 0.50 - 0.25 - 0.25 - 0.00L —r—/; r . 1 0.00- -—.—¥/ . I l 330 ISO) 24C) 3CK) 30) IE!) 24K) 3CK) Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for Male vs. Female Swimmers. 59 power values occurred at 180 0/s with a decline in power as velocity increased further. The curves of values relative to height and ponderal index were similar to the absolute strength and power curves. The greatest differences between sexes occurred at 180 0/s. This difference was less when values relative to body weight were considered, but it was still significant. Hhen values relative to lean body weight were examined, the only significant difference between male and female swimmers occurred at 180 0/s (p = .01). Modified Vertical Power Jump The actual values and ANOVA results are presented in Appen- dix B, Table 86. The males jumped significantly greater vertical distances than did the females (45.8 cm vs. 34.6 cm, p < .001). Values of distance relative to height and ponderal index were significant also (p < .001). Hhile still significant, the difference between male and female swimmers was less when values relative to body weight were considered (p = .01). No significant difference was observed in values relative to lean body weight. Male swimmers performed significantly more work during the jump (X = 551 joules) than did the female swimmers (i = 383 joules, p < .001). Values relative to height and ponderal index were highly significant also (p < .001). Differences between the sexes were less when body weight (F = 52, p < .001) and lean body weight (F = 6.86, p = .01) were considered. 60 Male swimmers (i = 2,664 watts) were more powerful than female swimmers (i = 1,663 watts). All comparisons were highly significant (p < .001); however, the differences were less when values relative to body weight and lean body weight were examined. Male Sprinters vs. Middle-Distance Swimmers This section is divided into three divisions. A description of the subjects, isokinetic results, and the modified vertical power jump results are discussed separately. Subject Characteristics Selected parameters of the subjects are shown in Table 2. Data from approximately 38 male sprinters and 17 male middle- distance swimmers were analyzed. The sprinters were not signifi- cantly different from the middle-distance swimmers in age, height, weight, lean body weight, ponderal index, or quality of performance. The sprinters had significantly less body fat than did the middle- distance swimmers (8.6% vs. 10.2%, p = .005). Isokinetic Data Actual values and ANOVA results for each joint action and angular velocity are presented in Appendix 8, Tables 87 through 811. Cybex data obtained during elbow extension are presented in Figures 13 through 15. In all comparisons, the sprinters had higher torque and power values than did the middle-distance swimmers. However, the difference was significant only when the value relative 61 mm. mm. moo. om. mm. en. mm. mm. mm.— om.m mm. co. pp. mo. <>oz< om. m.p ~.N n.m m.m o.m op m~.mm «.mop m.o~ ~.mo N.mn m.owp opm X up up up up up u— up museumwalapuuwz ex. eo.m~ em F.~ _.oo_ mm m.F o.m mm e.m m.om mm 5.5 m.~e mm m.m 5.0m” Am m_ AFN mm m IIMWII .IAHI aapcpaaw xmvcm Fmgmvcoa Losswzm mo zuwpmso an; anon 5:00:05 Amxv agave: zoom com; Amxv 0:52.: Asuv 3:52.: Amzucosv mm< mgmsswzm mocmgmwolmpuuwz .m> mcmucweam ape: mo msmuosmamm uoaompmm .N ugm

oz< mm. n.~ ¢.N m.m m.m m.m mp oo.m~ p.0op o.wp o.w¢ o.mm N.mop amp x FN pm FN —N pm Fm pm magnumwo-apuewz mo. ap.mN cw m.~ ~.oo~ me ¢.~ m.mp me p.¢ «.me me N.o o.Pm me m.¢ o.onp we om com me m. .IMWI. .Immu memucwgam xmucn paemucoa eweswzm ea »e_Pe=o we; zvom “smegma Aaxv pod zoom cam; Amxv pear»: Asuv “cave: Angucoev mm< .memsswzm mocmpmwolwpucwz .m> mewucmgam mpmsmu we memumsmemm umuuwpmm .m m4m

oz< mm. oo.m~ m.~ n.w m.¢ n.mm N.m o.ou ¢.m p.mmp op mom iMWII IImII. aucmzhuemzod mo. o.~ ~.¢ n.v o.o mp nm.m~ o.op m.on m.mn o.¢wp mmm x up up up NF Np Np aucwzhueumm: xmvcfi —oemucoe use atom ucmoewe Amxv agave: atom cam; Amxv peeve: Asov agave: Amcpcoev mm< memeswzm ope: mo ucwuewe apcwzhugmzop .m> lemma: eo mgwuosmgee kuumpmm .e m4m<~ am. 821 Fig be‘ Pal pov va‘ to tit Cl.llr are Mr 9% did 9?: ind Wei 9m In Bot 94 Isokinetic Data Actual values and ANOVA results for each joint action and angular velocity are presented in Appendix B, Table 819 through 823. Cybex data obtained during elbow extension are presented in Figures 25 through 27. A significant difference was observed between the absolute values at 30 0/s (p = .047). All other com- parisons were not significant. Both groups demonstrated increasing power with increased velocity. The UTP group had higher mean values than the LTP group in absolute values and values relative to height and ponderal index at each velocity. Hhen values rela- tive to body weight and lean body weight were considered, the curves were indistinguishable. Strength and power values during shoulder joint extension are graphed in Figures 28 through 30. No significant differences were obtained in any absolute or relative comparisons. The LTP group demonstrated greater declines in power values at 300 0/s than did the UTP group. The UTP group curves were higher than the LTP group in absolute value and power relative to height and ponderal index. In the power curves relative to body weight and lean body weight, the LTP group had higher mean values than did the UTP group at 30 °/s, 180 °/s, and 240 °/s. Cybex data during shoulder joint inward rotation are shown in Figures 31 through 33. No significant differences were observed. Both groups demonstrated maximal power values at 300 0/s. The UTP 95 Figure 25.--Elbow Extension: Absolute Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for the Upper- vs. Lower—Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. Torque (N - m) Figu 96 o-—-o Upper-Twenty Percent Female (n = I3) e-—-e Lower -Twenty Percent Female (n= l4) A——a Upper-Twenty Percent Male (n = l2) X—-—X Lower -Twenty Percent Male (n = 9) For Females: All contrasts nonsignificant For Males: p < .05 at 30°/s 220r- 220)— IBO— I80- 160- 160- l40- 140- E 15 ' l20- "' l20— 5 3. o L. § lOO- “3’ I00- 80- 30... 60h- A 60- 8 8 40m 40- 8 a 20- \R 20_ X \ a 07' I‘LL! I I 0‘ WI’LI I 1 30 l80 240 300 30 180 240 300 Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) Figure 25 97 Figure 26.--Elbow Extension: Relative (by Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. 98 o——o Upper-Twenty Percent Female (n= l3) O—-O Lower -Twenty Percent Female (n= l4) A—-4 Upper -Twenty Percent Male (n = l2) X——t< Lower -Twenty Percent Male (n= 9) For Females: All contrasts nonsignificant For Males: All contrasts nonsignificant 3.00— 3.00- 2.75— 2.75- 2.50- 2.50- 2.25r- 2.25- 3 2.00- 3 2.00- x x \ \ e .“2 . 1.75... ‘5 l.75r- .2, 3 Q) L 8 1.50- ; I.50- 5 to F- O. 3.3 '25“ E I.25- § 3.5 0 O “ Loo.- 0: LOO- 0.75-— 0.75.. ii 0.50- 9 0.50— 0.25)- KN 0.25- 9 g 0.00L- HF 1 1 l 0.00— _'__/le l j 30 180 240 300 30 180 240 300 Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) Figure 26 99 Figure 27.--Elbow Extension: Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relation- ships for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. 100 o——o UpperoTwenty Percent Female (n = I3) H Lower-Twenty Percent Female (n = l4) a-—-a Upper-Twenty Percent Male (n = I2) X———-X Lower—Twenty Percent Male (n = 9) For Females: All contrasts nonsignificant For Males: All contrasts nonsignificant soo ~ 3.00 - 2-75 r 2.75 r- 2.50 — 2.50 - 2.25 - 2.25 - ,. 2.00- a 2.00 - O s s F l.75 r 3; l.75 - 5 3. 0 I... § l.50 - g |.50 - O O F a. r .3 '25- ,3 I.25— § 32 fl 0 0 a: 1.00 - 0.: |.00 .. 0.75 - f, 0.75 — 8 0.50 - 0.50 e 0.25 — 8% 0,25 _. o.ooL- —1—/; 1 , I 0.00.. _'__#1 I 1 so 130 240 soo so I80 240 300 Figure 27 Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) 101 Figure 28.--Shoulder Joint Extension: Absolute Peak Torque- Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. 102 o——o Upper—Twenty Percent Female (n = l3) O-—-O Lower—Twenty Percent Female (n= l4) a——-a Upper-Twenty Percent Male (n = l l) X—-—* Lower—Twenty Percent Male (n =9) For Females: p< .05 at 300°ls For Males: All contrasts nonsignificant 240w 240- 220? 220? /\q 200- 200_ A 180- '30.. 160- 160P E 140- :5 I40- / E 3 / at '20P V l20P 3 0'» E" , s 1- 100- x O. '00.. 80*- 30.. eo-— 9 60- A x 40— , 4o- 8 20- 20- 0L "1'""" I F I 0L“ ‘1"; I I I 30 ISO 240 300 30 180 240 300 Figure 28 Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) 103 Figure 29.--Shoulder Joint Extension: Relative (by Body Weight) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relation- ships for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. 104 o—o Upper—Twenty Percent Female (n = l3) e——e Lower—Twenty Percent Female (n = l4) e-—-a Upper—Twenty Percent Males (n = II) x—-x Lower-Twenty Percent Males (n = 9) For Females: p < .05 at 300°ls For Males: All contrasts nonsignificant soar 3.00 r 2.75 - 2.75 _ 2.50 — 2.50 - 2.25 ~ 2 25 - /~o 3 2.00 — E 2 oo - E e ' l.75- ‘- l 75 .. .2. E g I.5o- ‘i’ 1.50- 19 x 8 0 A 0 .2 I.25- .3: I.25- ‘6 2 a 0 m 1.00- O m 1.00- 0 0.75 P 0.75 .. it 0.50 — \ 0.5o — B 0.25 - 0.25 - 0.00 L —,—v.fi , . 0.00 - _'_,, , . I so l80 240 300 so ISO 240 soo Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) Figure 29 105 Figure 30.--Shoulder Joint Extension: Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower—Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. Relative Torque (N-m/kg) Figure 30 3.25 3.00 2.75 2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.50 I.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 106 0——o Upper-Twenty Percent Female (n = I3) O—-O Lower—Twenty Percent Female (n = l4) e———-A Upper-Twenty Percent Males (n = II) x———x Lower-Twenty Percent Males (n= 9) For Females: p < .05 at 300°ls For Males: All contrasts nonsignificant ’6» I.— x \ ."3 ‘6 _ 3, t— a: 3 r- fi 0. at .2 _. :5. 9 E: p— L' "T'7‘F_I I I 30 ISO 240 300 3.25 3.00 2.75 2. 50 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 r. B L. ”—H'LI I I 30 ISO 240 300 Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) 107 Figure 31.--Shoulder Joint Inward Rotation: Absolute Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for the Upper- vs. Lower Twenty-Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. 220 (— 2CK)- 18C)- 16C)- 140?- Torque (N -m) 8C)-' 6()- 40-- 2C)- 12C)- 10(1- 108 0—0 Upper-Twenty Percent Female (n =l4) e——e Lowervaenty Percent Female (n =l4) a———a Upper—Twenty Percent Male (n= l2) x——-x Lower—Twenty Percent Male (n =8-9) For Females: All contrasts nonsignificant For Males: All contrasts nonsignificant zeor 200 - l80 - l60 - I40 - I20 - ICC)- Power (watts) 8C)- 6()- 2 a 40- ' I \i 20— . XD _1_"L‘I I I 0" —1—/'L I I I 30 180 240 300 30 ISO 240 300 Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) Figure 31 109 Figure 32.--Shoulder Joint Inward Rotation: Relative (by Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. Relative Torque (N - ml kg) 3.00 2. 75 2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.50 I.25 1.00 0.75 0. 50 0.25 0.00 o-——o Upper-Twenty Percent Female (n = l4) v—e Lower—Twenty Percent Female (n = I4) a—-—a Uppen-Twenty Percent Male (n = l2) X——X Lower--Twenty Percent Male (n = 8-9) Figure 32 I — O L ##I I r 30 ISO 240 300 Relative Power (watts/kg) M 3.00 2.75 2.50 2.25 2.00 l.75 L50 I.25 1.00 0.75 0. so 0.25 0.00 For Females: All contrasts nonsignificant For Males: AIl contrasts nonsignificant .D‘ —T_/’Ll I I 30 I80 240 300 Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) 111 Figure 33.--Shoulder Joint Inward Rotation: Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Per- cent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower- Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. 112 o—-o Upper-Twenty Percent Female (n = l4) O——O Lower-Twenty Percent Female (n = I4) 4——0 Upper-Twenty Percent Male (n= I2) H Lower-Twenty Percent Male (n = 8-9) For Females: All contrasts nonsignificant For Males: All contrasts nonsignificant Relative Torque (N - m/kg) 3.00 I- 3.00 (- 2.75 - 2.75 _ 2.50 - 2.50 L- 225 - 2.25 - 2.00 - 3 2.00 '- x \ £3 l.75 - '6 1.75 - 3 1.50 - 5 . - ‘3 l 5C) 0. I.25 — .‘é’ I.25 - 32 3:::::::::::9 a> l.00 - a: 1.00 _ 0.75 - 0.75 - 0.50 - 0.50 - I - O 0.25 - 0.25 - 30 180 240 300 30 IBO 240 300 Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) Figure 33 113 power curves were higher than the LTP power curves in absolute values and values relative to both height and ponderal index. The position of the curves were reversed in comparisons of power values relative to body weight and lean body weight. Cybex data obtained during knee extension are presented in Figures 34 through 36. No statistically significant differences were obtained. Both groups demonstrated maximal power values at 180 0/s. The UTP curves were higher than the LTP curves in absolute values and values relative to height and ponderal index. The power curves of values relative to body weight of the two groups were similar. Higher mean values for the UTP group than the LTP group were observed in values relative to lean body weight at 180 °/s, 240 °/s, and 300 °/s. Modified Vertical Power Jump Actual values and ANOVA results are presented in Appendix B, Table 824. No significant differences were observed in the absolute heights achieved during the vertical jump or in any relative compari- sons. No significant differences were obtained in the amount of work performed during the jump or in any relative values. However, the mean values for the UTP group were consistently higher than those for the LTP group. 114 Figure 34.--Knee Extension: Absolute Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. 115 o——-o Upper-Twenty Percent Female (n = I3) O-—* Loweerwenty Percent Female (n= l4) a—a Upper-Twenty Percent Male (n =l|) X———K Lower-Twenty Percent Male (n =9) For Females: AII contrasts nonsignificant For Males: All contrasts nonsignificant Torque (N ' m) 240l- 240)- A 200- x 200- 180- 180- IGOP 160- 0 I40- ' .5 140- § 0 A 3 x lOO— 0- loo- 80” 80- o 0 60- 60- 40— 4o- 20- 20- 0“ "T‘th I I 0" ‘1‘” I j I 30 180 240 300 30 I80 240 300 Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) Figure 34 116 Figure 35.--Knee Extension: Relative (by Body Weight) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relationships for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. 3.00 1- 2.75“- 2.5C1- 2125- i3 1.75- 1.5CI- I.25”- Relative Torque (N-m/ kg) IIX)- GETS- Cl5Cl— Ck25- OJDOL- Figure 35 117 o——o Upper-Twenty Percent Female (n =13) o—o Lower-Twenty Percent Female (n =14) a-——-a Upper-Twenty Percent Male (n =11) x-——-x Lower-Twenty Percent Male (n = 9) For Females: All contrasts nonsignificant For Males: All contrasts nonsignificant 3&N3f' X A 2.75- 0 . 2L5CI- 2.25- 15 BIND- x \ £3 a 1.75- 5 113 1.50- x 3 11 °- a $1.25- ' 15 O a: 1.00- 675— 0.50- 0.25- mug, I , 0.00- —,—/,L I so 180 240 300 so 180 2 Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) l 1 40 300 118 Figure 36.--Knee Extension: Relative (by Lean Body Height) Peak Torque-Velocity and Power-Velocity Relation- ships for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Male Swimmers and for the Upper- vs. Lower-Twenty Percent of Female Swimmers. 119 0-—--,O Upper—Twenty Percent Female (n= 13) e——e Lower—Twenty Percent Female (n =14) A-—-A Upper—Twenty Percent Male (n =11) x——x Lower—Twenty Percent Male (n = 9) For Females: All contrasts nonsignificant For Males: A11 contrasts nonsignificant Relative Torque (N ml kg) s.25~ 5.25.- 12 s.oo- ‘ soar 2.75 2.75 2.50 2.50 2.25 2.25 3 2.00 i 2.00 :2 6 1.75 3 1.75 a": 3 1.50 :2 1.50 0 .2 1.25 2 1.25 0 c: 1.00 I.oo 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.00; Ilf] r I 0.005 —[_‘{’L I I 1 so 180 240 soo so I80 240 soo Angular Velocity (degrees/sec) Figure 36 120 No significant differences were seen in the power generated during the jump or in any relative comparisons. Again, the UTP group had higher mean values than did the LTP group. Upper- vs. Lower-TwentyPercent‘gf Female Swimmers This section has three parts. The subjects' characteristics are discussed first. This is followed by a description of the isokinetic results. Finally, data from the modified vertical power jump are reviewed. Subject Characteristics Selected parameters of the subjects are presented in Table 5. Approximately fourteen subjects were in each group. No signi- ficant differences were observed in age, height, weight, lean body weight, percentage of body fat, or ponderal index. Isokinetic Data Actual values and ANOVA results far each joint action and angular velocity are presented in Appendix B, Table 825 through 829. Cybex data obtained during elbow extension are presented in Figures 25 through 27. No significant differences were observed in any absolute or relative comparisons. Absolute values and values relative to ponderal index were slightly higher in the UTP group than in the LTP group. Strength and power values obtained during shoulder joint extension are shown in Figures 28 through 30. Significant 121 cm. mm. mm. co. co. mm. No.p om. mm. mm. ¢.N m.~ o.m ¢.m mo.mm o.m~ m.n¢ F.mm m.mm~ mom x mp up w. er mp aucmzhHMszA on. ¢.N o.m m.m NN No.mm F.mp o.m¢ 0.0m m.mmp mom x ep up e— «F Ixucwzeiemaa: chcH pengcoe and seem academm Amxv pem_ez xuom new; Amxv peeve: Asov “cave: Amgucoev mm< meoeemzm dream; mo ucwuema apcwzhiemzog .m> iguana mo memuwsmema wouuwpmm .m m4mogm=>eam Avmv xm>oz Ammv xe>oz “Nev gaze: mmocmgmemm .eoeez zeom page» u see .epoeeexm u Lem .meeemeoz Lopezeoeea . z: mxm uxm z: 3mh 3mb 3: I’ll «cozuwz m.mw w.mp m.mp m.mp m.o~ N.mp m.mp o.n~ m.m~ pee Neon “coupon ¢.¢m ¢.om p.~e m.nm m.mc m.mm P.0o m.we m.mm m.~op n.mwp —.mop m.mop o.mop N.oop o.nwp p.wmp N.wop Nuxq.eemeoz “soy oemeoz c.9— w.mp m.mp ¢.o~ m.mp n.5p m.¢~ p.o~ wm< "new: meoeeoz. we mp mp op aaoeu mocmgmeom zespm awe» some wmmppou mumppou ucm aspu swzm memeswzm momppou snob .zomNu empoume mownEz—o Nump same cmstw acmcweoee owasxpo Lowcao camp mmxh memsepzm apnea; mo muwpmpempuosago pmowmxge m>wumsmaeou .o m4mogmcxgam Ammv xm>oz Aoopv eeepeeee prv xm>oz mwucmewwmm .epoeeexm n Lem .meeeewez eoeezeoee= u 3: .eoeez seem .eeoe u see. amen: meeeoz. ¢.Fp uxm p.@ z: m¢.w 3m» mm.¢ 3: p.~p 3m» m.~ aeoepoz. gee Neon «smegma m.no m.~n —.mn m.mn N.NN m.¢n m.mn~ n.0wp m.mm~ m.~w~ n.0mp m.mnp Amxg agape: I~eov egmwoz m.np o.w_ m.p~ o om m.np m.mp mm< mm mp mm nzogw mucwgwemm aesom m_ee meweewzm eooNQ ope,“ saw» mumppou muwaszpo cowcsw owmp mopeexpo weep omxp .meosswzm are: eo muwumwewuuweezu ~movmxsa m>wumgmaeou .m m4m _m a: > a. s an a: .cowum=u_m mcwumm» Pmcmcmm .p< oeamwu J 146 An expression for the average leg power (P) which is generated during the acceleration phase of the jump was derived by 1 as follows: Heusner A definitional formula for the average leg power generated during the vertical jump is: P = w/t1 (l) where t1 is the acceleration time. Nork can be calculated as: resistance where R S total distance through which resistance is moved. Therefore, in the vertical jump: w = w(s1 + $2)° (2) where w = body weight s1 = squat displacement s2 = jump displacement. Substituting the value of w in Eq. 2 into Eq. 1 yields: w (51 + $2) P = t1 (3) Acceleration time (t]) is derived from Newton's second law: FoAtem-Av (4) where F'= average net force At = interval of time that force operates m = mass Av = change in velocity during t1 due to F operating. 1 Unpublished report, Michigan State University. Substituting f' At: m: Av: "I‘ll 11 where V1: "0 we obtain: The take-off phase of the 147 the following values into Eq. 4, average total force acceleration due to gravity, take-off velocity final velocity at top of jump, - -! v (F - w) t1 — g l _ V 111"! '1 9 F - W (5) velocity (V!) can be obtained from the free-flight jump as follows: _ ‘ 2r v2 -¢/v1 + ng2 A_ 0 =JIV1Z-t 2 (-g) s2 0 =¢lv1z- 2 g 52 (6) where g = acceleration due to gravity. 148 Squaring both sides of Eq. 6, yields: _ 2 0 - v1 - 2 9 s2 2 v1 = 2 g 52 V] = V2952 (7) Substituting the value of v1 obtained in Eq. 7 into Eq. 5 yields: '7'" - w (8) The only term in Eq. 8 which cannot be measured directly is F, but this can be calculated from the alternate formula for work: N = F 51 i = w/s1 (9) Substituting the value of work obtained from Eq. 2 into Eq. 9 yields: w(s1 + 52) F = s1 (10) By substituting the value of F from Eq. 10 into Eq. 8, the accelera— tion time (t1) can be obtained directly from measured variables: t =‘!- “5952 l 9 w(€11.52) w SI 3!. V2952 = 9 :5 eta .3131 '. t1= S] Returning to Eq. 3 with the value of LI in Eq. 11, yields an expression for average leg power: _ w (s + s ) P J— 2 51 '2/952 . _ _ w(s1 + 52) £52 ’ s1 2 'U 1 (ll) (12) 150 The right-hand side of Eq. 12 is identical to the expression for P that was developed by Gray, Start, and Glencross (35). From just three measured variables (body weight, squat displacement, and jump displacement) the average leg power generated during a vertical jump can be obtained. Furthermore, if the individual terms on the right-hand side of Eq. 12 are measured in the mks system, the units of P will be watts. In addition to assuming that the leg force remains constant throughout the acceleration phase of the vertical jump, Gray et al. made the assumption that the position of the center of gravity, relative to the fingertips of the raised arm, remains constant dur- ing all phases of the jump. The second assumption is not reasonable. Taking a squatting position raises the relative position of the center of gravity in the body. Thus the effective value of the squat displacement (s1) is less than the measured value. The net result is that P is underestimated by some unknown amount. Eight actual and twelve theoretical subjects were used to evaluate the potential magnitude of the errors caused by assuming the center of gravity remains stationary relative to the raised fingertips. The inclusion of theoretical subjects allowed compara- tive calculations to be made over a wide range of assumed values: 2 II 36 through 109 Kg 15 through 61 cm m d 11 15 through 76 cm 151 The segmental method of locating the center of gravity was used as described by Dempster (28). Muscular, thin, and median body types were assumped for each combination of w, s], and 52 values. In each case (n = 60) the height of the center of gravity was cal- culated for the standing and squatting-positions. The difference between the corrected and the true s1 value was used as a correction factor, A s]. The use of the measured s1 values resulted in underestimates of P ranging from -3.17 through -lO.23%. There was no relationship with body size as measured by either body weight or height. Body type was shown to have an effect on P, but the maximum change in P was limited to i0.59% when 52 = jump displacement with partialled out. A correlational analysis then was conducted which revealed that there is an almost perfect relationship (r = 0.98) between the measured value of 51 = squat displacement and As], the correction factor. Therefore, a regression equation was calculated to predict the corrected squat displacement 5] from 52: s, = .8544s1 I .0045 This equation was used to estimate a value of 51 for each of the 60 actual and theoretical cases. Correcting 51 by regression reduced the errors in P to only -0.18 through -0.34%. 152 Incorporating the regression based correction S] into Equation 12, the final equation for average leg power is: _ w(.8644s1 + .0046 + 5]) J/gsz P = .864451 + .0045 T 153 Appendix B Tables 154 .8. an.~« .8.v m«.8. .8.v c . .«w. .8.v m . .on. .8.v 2.3. .8.v ~06... .8.v B. 3. . 8.v 5.8. .8.v 8.2”. .8. v «Ni... .8.v 8.2. .8. v -.nm~ .8. v w . .8. .8. v 3...: .8. v n«.ww. .8. v. ~«.mm. n. n. <>OZ< «. . n «.c« . an .im 9mm. mm .d 18 3. Ni «.3 mm {088 «.8 «i8 3 m.e~ «.9: 3 mi via 3 «.m min 3 409% 8.8 a.~..~ mm «.N~ adm . mm m6. Niw mm m... «in mm n\oco. OK. #8. cm s. _ . «in «w in ..SN 3 m.- «i... mm {as ca.»co.xm 08v. ~.- ..~o. en mi. «.3 mm N... mi. em mi m6. mm {085 w.- w.m« mm «.m. 93m 3 a... aim mm «5 .i. we {ocg mi. 98 mm mi. aim mm «.m wiN mm .6 v.2 «w {08. w... 8.3 3 mi «.m . 8 «.m via an 9w ed.” 8 <08 8223... 9.53:. 2.0.. 3339.... aim WEN mm v.2 win . 3 mi «in mm m... «.3 8 {098 «.3 c.8~ mm Ni. win . 3 mi mic mm w... «.NM 3 «\OOQN «.3 «.3. mm 8. ~.w~ _ ~w c. . . «. . w mm. «.m N6: 3 {08. .6 «in mm m... «.8 mm ai . «.e« an «.o N8 8 {08 8.30.3. 2.0.. 50235.. Ni . c.e« an a. . . 8.3 3 Wm ad. 3 ~.~ «.c. 3 {08" .i. «.o« 3 «.o. «.3 3 .3 h. .N 3. mi mi. 3 £083 «.m. 8.8 em «.8. vim 3 ..m «.3 3. mi «.w. 3 n\oA8_ ~.w ..w~ an «.N 9w. 3 «. . . «i: an Ni «.8 3 {com 8.2030 32.5 a X c n x c o. X c n X c 341..” I I I I 5_.o< .58 3.05 lulllmfleEImMI 8.02 8.050.... @203. 5030.. . Z 3h 2055.3m 0.050.... .n> 0.02 ea. 3.30”. .033. v8 030.5... 05.022 . _ m 0.8.— 155 .8. v N92 .8. v NN.: . 8. v 2i: .8. v QumN .8. v «a..N . .8. v e«. .m .8. v «mi» .8. v .N.N« .8. v .min .8. v 3.3 .8. v mn.«« .8. v . .43. .8. v .«.8 .8. v 2...... .8. v N9: .8. v 8.8 a h. <>OZ< no. NN. « . . wN. wN. NN. «a. 83.5: «c. NN. .N. 2. so. 8.22 333% N... .m.N mm «m. m0.N 3 NM. RN 3 ON. .m.. 3 .N. R. «w NN. _«. no .N. 8. 8 mo. mN. 3 0.... .n.N Nw «N. mN.N Nw 0N. 8.N Nw 8. 8. N0 « . . m«. 5 m . . e«. 3 w . . B. 3 no. «N. 3 v. M c «0.050... 33W...w3. .0300 S. an. an 8. .3. 3 o. . 8. an «a. «m. 3 N . . m«. nm N . . 8. mm um. an an mm. «e.N mm 3. NN. em 3. N . . mm 8. .m. mm «a. NN. «w 8. 8. mm 8. «N. mm c. . aw. cm c . . on. 3 8. 3. mm B. 5. Nw . .. 8. mm 8. 3. N0 N . . m... an 8. 3. N0 o _ . on. . mm N . . w«. N0 3. m N. am 3. o . . 3 «c. an. an 3. NN. 3 8. sn. an m... «N. 3 a. . 8. an «a. _ m. 5 a x c ... M 0 8.0.2 8.080... .3? . z. 883 {080 n\03N a\OOQ . a\Oon 00.nc0oxm 005. {$8 {003 a. 8. a COM 0020.01 203:. .53 .832... 58.” {0ch $8. nxOOn 00.20.00 .52 5.32m n‘00.! «\OOaN a\08 . «.08 8:85 :8. m N..00.0> 05 :0..0< «0.0.. EoEE.3m 0.05.0... .m> 0.03. 3. ”:30”. .0300 08 038k €5.03 itom x5 03.0.01 .Nm 039p 156 mm. MN. an. .m. .c. 86 we. 3. .8. v 9.3 .8. v oadm .8. v 3.3 .8. v 86m .8. v n . .N. .8. v and. .8. v a . . . n .8. v 3.3 .8. v mafia .8. v 3.3 .8. v n . .8 .8. v 3.3 a n. (>024 o... 80 5. 9. .3 3 3. 2..” a. w... an S a. can a .3. 85 S .N. 3.. 3. a. 3.. S a. a. a R. 2.. a. z. 3.. 8 a. N... S a. .0. m a. 8.. 8 8. a. 3 8. 8. 3 3. :5 a 3. 80 G S. s... n... a. 8.~ S 3. N2 3 a. .3 a 2. m. 9. 8. S. a. a. 0... 3 a. 2.. S m. 2.. a. NN. w... 3 2. a. 3. 8. 8.. S 8. a. 3 8. R. s a m c o. x c 8.3.. 8.95.... 3.2.2... 03.. 8. mm. an 8. an. mw . .. mm. an _ .. mm. 3 m .. 3.. mm a . . mm. mm .0. n . .n an .3. 3." mm no. 3. am no. .N. mm 3. an. mm 3. «N. mm 8. Ne. mm 8. on. Q . _. ms. 3 N . . 3. 3 8. cm. mm 8. 3. S N . . mm. mm 8. S. G n . . mm. mm 8. No. 3 2. 3.. mm m.. m... S no. N. am 3. -. 3 3. mm. an me. a. 3 3. a... an 3. an. 3 m . . m. an _ .. mm. 3 m x c a x c 8.0 8.050.”. {a .z. .33 0030.0m. 0.53:. 2.2 5.8.... {008 00.20.00 2.2 5.8% {coon {03.4. {08 . £08 8.826 33. m 5.8.; 08 8:2 2...... n.0EE.3m 0.050“. .m> 0.02 .0. 3.00.0”. .030n. 0:0 033k $5.03 xvom 50.. x3 03.0.01 .mm 0.3.. 157 .8. v 3.3 .8. v 3.3 .8. v 3d. . .8. v 3.8 .8. v 2.8. .8. v NM..N_ .8. v 8.3 _ .8. v anam— .8. v 3.8. .8. v 3.: . .8. v 2.3. .8. v mm.o.N .8. v 5.2”. .8. v 85m. .8. v 8.8. .8. v 3.: . a n. <>OZ< a . . ma; mm w. . Na. 3 . N. m . .. mm a. . am. no a. . cN.. Nm m _ . 8. 3 8. 8. mm 5. we. 3 . _. wm. mm 8. Nm. 3 N . . mm. mm 8. NM. 3 c . . 3. mm 8. .m. Nw No. a. . nm N... mo. mw .N. m... an 2. Na. .w NN. m... mm 2. .m. .w 5.. 3.. mm o.. 3.. .w 3. NN. mm 8. a. . .w o. . Nm. mm B. an. no mo. 8. mm mo. mm. 3 8. 3. mm 3. .m. am no. a . . mm No. mo. 8 m x c n X c 8.02 00.050“. €07,303. 830.. 8. ON. mm 8. m . . 3 ma. NN. an no. . N. nw 3. 3. Na 3. mN. 3 N . . a. . . mm m . . mm. 3 Ne. . .. mm Na. 3. 3 no. n . . mm NO. 8. 3 me. n . . mm NO. c . . Nw mo. NN. mm 3. a . . 3 3. N N. mm 8. w . . . w me. NN. an no. a . . .w 3. on. mm ma. 3. . w 8. N m. mm 2.. on. .w No. c . . mm .c. 3. mm No. N . . mm No. 8. 8 no. m . . nm N... o _ . am we. mN. mm 8. a . . 8 n x C n x C as? . z. .35 {coca {.63 <08 _ «\OOM 5.8030 005.. {econ {cog mix: {08 5:23. 303:. 2.2. 50.0.3.3 {0:8 0#63 3.8. {can 8.30:6 2.3 .8393 58m {09%. $8. n\°OM 8.203 38. m 98.; v6. 8:04 3.0.. 2055.3m 0.2.0.... .v.> 0.02 .5. £33m. .033. vs 0.63» 25.0... >8 025.0”. .3 0.3» 158 .8. v Nada .8. v 3.3. .8. v NQNN. .8. v mw.mN. .8. v NNdoN .8. v N93. .8. v and... .8. v 36m. :5. v mafia. .8. v 3.3 . .8. v Rd... .8. v :KwN .8. v 8.3. .8. v n . .2. .8. v 3.3. .8. v m . .aN. n. h. <>OZ< NN.. 35 mm m _ .. 8.0 3 mm. . mmé mm 8. . 3.0 mm mm. . max 3 R. 36 3 E. 3... mm Nm. 3..” 3 3. 0m... mm 8. RN 3 mm. a . .e 8 mm. mm.~ S 8. 2..” mm mm. wNN N0 2. N... mm 2. 8. mm 8. . 3d mm 8. . 8.0 G 2.. . 8x mm 8. R6 .0 3.. :3 mm as. 36 .w an. m . .N mm 0N. Nm.. .0 3. 3... mm m... 0.3 mm 2. N3” mm S. 0.3 S G. .w.n mm 3. EN 8 R. m... nm N . . S. 8 n R c a M c «0.02 «0.050... 3.32 «03% .0300 a. .3 m... 2. m... S 8. :2 R a. 3.. 8 S. 22 S .n. 8.~ S 3.. a... 8 a. $0 .0 t. 8. 0.. 2. 3. s 2. a. m 2. a. .0 a. 8.. m 2. 2. 8 an. 30 m... 2. a; S N... N... a a. w... G 3. m2 8 2. 2.. G S. a: 8 a. 2.. a S. _ .5 m R. 02 G 2. R. m 8. S. a. h _ . a. a . .. a. 8 a. m... m 2. 2. 8 a. 20 mm 2. 3.. S n X c n X C 406—02 8-850L 3.0.5. 2. RHMH £08... £003 £08 . «.08 00.30.00 000v. £08m {003 {08 . «\OOM 0020—3. E030. .52 .839... £008 00.30.06 2.3 5.8.2. £008 {com 8.226 333 5.87.5 n5 0020< 2.0.. 20EE.3m 0.900.... .9 0.0.2 .5. 3.30m. .0300 05 030.0» 0.00:. 3.00000 .3. 0.50.0”. .mm 0:1: 159 .8.v 8.3K .8.v 8.: .8.v 3.3 .8.v mafia. .8.v s~.-~ .8.v wad... .8.v 2.8. .c. wad .ce.v 3.3 .8.v 2.9: .8.v ...~o. .8.v .ndw N... mi .0. 2K .8.v 5.8. m m <>OZ< mad. . ..m. . mm m0.~ :4: mm 36 NN.? an mmd 8.3 an mg 33 3 mm... 3.2 mm 3. 3A mm 3.. and 3. 5.. 3.5 3 mm .3 cm QN. mm. mm 3. m~. mm _ .. 3. an . _. mw. am m6 ode cm v. x c 3.02 3.. . .w. _ 8... mad .8 me.~ Nm. wm. mm. mm MN. 8. ~.. 2. 2.. _ 5 mm Rfi 3 3.8 3 8.2 3 m3. 8 8.0. m0 0~.~ 3 No; 3 mmé 8 mom 3 3.. m0 8. mm I. 3 mm. 3 0.3” 3 M c m man... .62. 3.88.. 5 .5. £9»: 5 a... .52.; 68 60.. a a... 22...; .6 52.03. .0300 x000. .05—0000 x0 .5. £23.. a .9: 22...; 0.5 83 .5 a... 22»; 3 .83.... :83 x00... .0000000 xm .53 29»... km a... 2%; >30 83 5 a... 22...; 6 .50. 00003.0 08.5.3 295... .9. so: a. £300 9:3 .25.... .80.; 3:32 .8 3...: o. . 8.~ _.m~ ~62 «_ Qmm v.3. «n mé flan «. né c.«n «n {099” «N. «.1 «.mn a.w«_ «_ «.«n ~.~ _ ~ «n md e.«a «_ m.« «.3 «m {09% 3. 3.. cdn «.«o~ «_ cén :3 3 w.« 93 «_ ad. 3.2 wn ax 8. «m. m«. w.«. «.3. «_ m6. m.«c_ «n «.mm m._c~ «. ..~n «.«o~ «n a 08 co_nco.xm 005. so. «cé m.«_ e.n« «_ m.- «.3. «n «.m w.«_ «. m... flow «m {coon «c. c«.~ «so. «.«m w. m.n~ _.«« «m 3.: «.8 w. Wm «AN «n {09% m _ . ~c.~ «3: «.8 w. w.«_ c.«m «n «.c «.2 w. ~.m méN «M £08. « _ . m«._ «.3 méw «_ mé «.3 «n «.m n.«e «_ «.0 «.8 «n £08 8220”. v3):— «50... .8_§m 3. ~«.n «.3 _.~«. 2 m6: n.3~ «n mi «.3 w. «.« «.3 «n £008 0 8. w . .m .6: «.«a. w. m.«m m6 _ ~ «n «.2 «.3 w. c.« «. .m «m {OSN 6 8. a~.m «.3 «:3. w. mam ~..c~ «m «6. min w. «.c. 13 «n Q 8. 1.. 2. o«.~ ad «.3 w. «.« «.3 «m .6. «.«a w. «.3 ~.«« «m a can :o_ncu§m 2.0.. .8.:2m o _ . «m.~ _.m _ v.3 «_ «.8 o.«« «m m.~ «.3 «. c5 «.2 «n £098 a . . o~.~ m6. «.3 «_ .6. ~.m« «n ~.n «:8 «_ «5 n.- «n {ooa .1. cm.~ m._ _ ~.«« «_ m.«. ~.wc «n w.n ~.m~ «_ n6 c.«~ «n «‘08. «N. am.- cfi «.3 «_ «.w 93 «m c.« ..«c «_ 9N. .. _m «m £08 9.83026 Boa—m a x c n x c a x c a x c a I I I I 8:2 26.. M M 095.n_0$.3_2 . houfiwm 08230.33: .0233 <>oz< 3.2.: 33¢ As . z. 033» SvEE_3m oucofi_o.o_8_2 .n> ”barium 0.02 .6. 833m “030.“. v8 033... 03.942 .«m v.35. 161 3. ca... cm. «a.N « . «m. «9N «n 8. «a. « . «o. .m. «n a«0.5m «o. 36 mm. c«.N «. m... N«.N «n 8. mm. «_ . .. o«. «n {0ch c . . .m.N .m. «9N «_ mm. 3..” 3 c. . .«. «. N. . ««. mm {08. :N. m... . N. 3.. «. « _ . .m.. «n «m. w«.N «. wn. mm.N «n {can 00.9.0.me No. SA «N. mN. . «. .N. 3.. «n no. aN. « _ me. mN. «M {08m 8. a. .m . N. « . .. w. N. 3.. «m we. wN. w. 3. NM. «m QoSN cmc. «m6 « . . o . .. w. NN. MN. «m 3. mm. w. «a. «n. «n {08. =. $.N mo. an. «. 3. on. «m o . . mm. «. c. . «w. «M £08 8:0.0m 0.03:. 2.0.. .0209; «8. mm.« cm. .w.N w. m... m«.N «m 3. cm. w. «9. mm. «M £08.” N8. and. n... «m.N m. N... m«.N «m o. . .w. w. o. . .«. «M £0ch .8. «a... mN. N...N m. cm. ««.N «m «o. ««. m. N.. mm. «m ax 8. Na. n«.m mo. 3. w. «o. c«. «m i. NN.. w. E. 3.. «m n 08 00.3020 «£2. 8.0.3.3 «3. «o... w . . cN.. «. 3N. mm. «m 8. MN. «_ no. N. «n {098 o. . c«.N « . . m . .. «. NN. mN.. «n ma. wN. «. me. .n. «n «\ooeN «c. and m . . 8.. «_ « . . m . . «n 3. mm. «. we. on. «n {08. w . . mc.N mo. 3.. «. 8. «m. «n o. . cw. «. w. . c«. «m {can 00.3020 32.3 a X c a x c a x c v. x c a?” I I I I c2855.... nIP Ml 1409.03.00.3E .0.c..am 009.03.00.00. .0220...” <>oz< .3383. 83o. in? .z. 0.63. 2055.26 0000351232.. .n> n.0.c..0m 0.02 .0. 3.30m. .030n. 0.8 030.0» $3.03 «00m «5 03.0.0”. .8 0.40... 162 c . . am.~ an. SUN n . 3. em.~ mm 3. Na. 2 8. mm. 2... {028 m . . 2... an. 5..” 2 a... m . .n um 8. N... s. ~ . . 3. mm £023 3. 2.... an. 26 n. 3. mad wm 2. 3.. h. n.. 3.. 3. Q 8. 3. mm. NN. 3.. s. .~. 3.. NM 3. 36 s. o... w. .n km a can 00.20:.w 000v. m8. 8... on. 3.. 2 3.. 3.. R 8. z. 2 8. en. 2. $8.. .8. 8... z. 2.. 2 a. 9.. R 8. N... w. 8. 3. B 2%: 8. .2 .N. NN.. m. z. 3.. R 8. an. m. 8. 2. 3 58. .~. 3.. 8. 8. 2 8. S. R 2. 2. 2 2. 2. R {can Sun—v.0". U33C— 2.2 5.85. 8. .3 mm. .2 w. a... a... R 8. 3.. 3 8. 2.. 2” :08.“ 08. . 2. S. 8. 2 m... 2.” R N .. 8. 2 . .. 2. 2H {o3 8... a... .0 .3 2 a. 8.. R 2. 8. 2 2. R. 2” n$8. .8. 8a 8. z. w. 2. R. R 2. 8.. w. 2. 2... R {can Smguxw 2.3 .832... 2. 22 2. 3.. 2 a. e... R 8. 3. 2 8. 8. 2 $8M 2. a... a. .0. 2 2. 3.. R 3. .m. 2 8. an. R {.63 m _. .2 2. _~.. 2 8. 3.. R 8. 8. 2 8. S. R 58. a. a. 8. R. 2 S. 8. R . .. a. 2 2. R. 2” {o8 8.23.6 33.0 n x C a X C a x C n x C N:8_0> g I I I I 8:3 2.2. m N $930.28.: - .2...an 32.5.28. 52.09.... «.52.. 3 $3; m.0EE.3m 09.03.00.022 .9 0.0.2.23 0.02 .0. 2.30M. .030... 05 033p €3.03 3 50.. .3. 03.0.0”. .mm 030... 163 i. 0.. 2. 8. 3. NN. 3. 3. 8. 8.. 2 o... 2 w... s. cm. s. ~m. 2 we. 2 ma. w. E. n. 3.. w. 3.. w. um. m. 3. w. 3. 2 we. 2 .3. 2 S. s. M c m _ . a . .N 3. 8. . ”N. ON. _ a... we. 8. 3d 8. w~.m _ _. $.N a _ . R. . 3. a... No. wad Na. ~ . .w mo. :5 _ _. mwfi s _ . R. _ h . . ea. . R. :N. _ h h. (>024 ugsaéuui 2. 8.. 3 -. h . ._ 8 2. -.. mm 8. 8. 8 . .. mm. mm m _. mm. R 2. a... R 8. m .. 3 .N. a... R 8. 2.. B 2. . 3 R 3. 8. R _ .. mm. 3 2. .m. 3 8. S. 3.. 3. m _. cm a. X c .2553 Eu to) 5030.. 8. m . . s . 3. .~. on 3. mm. s . ma. 2. mm 8. B. s _ 3. an. mm 2. N... 2 2. m... wn S. c _ . s _ 3. . _. 8 8. ~ . . w _ 8. m _ . R No. a . . w . 8. w . . R 3. 3. s . 3. mN. mm 8. 8. m _ 8. 2. B 3. m~. w. 3. «N. R 3. .n. w. 3. mm. B 8. 3. w. 8. 3. R .o. 8. 2 3. 2. mm 8. _ . . n . 3. ~ . . 3 No. a. . n _ 8. m . . mm 8. 3.. n . 8. 8. 8 n X c r. X c 09535-0522 :3:th . a}: . Z. ”.90... £08m {cog £08 _ {can 8.n§.xm oocv. {coon 8:03”. 033:. 2.0.. 5023.3 {coon {06$ £08 . {can Rico—.m— Eos 828..» <08.” «o3 $15 8.226 33a. 5.8.; v6 8:2 2.3 2056.3m 3:035:0632 .n> 28:23 0.02 3. 3.30”. .033. vac 0330... $5.0... >5 3.5.0”. .65 0.4: 164 mo. mN.n cN. ow. . . N. am. . 3. am. «3. we... 8. «N... . .. Nw.N cN. Nw. _ m3. 8... No. :6 No. cad 8. m _ .m mo. 3N a _ . NN.N .. _ . cm.N 3N. mm. . n. u <>OZ< 2. .3. .3. 2. an. NN. 8. mo. . 8N m N. N. N. N. N. w. o. N. w. w. w. w. N. N. N. N. 5.. mN.N N. am. Ned wm 9... mad N. N9. m_.m wm 3N. Si N. 9... fizm m... wN. mm... N. 8. NN... mm mm. 8... N . 8. Na... mm 8. mN.n w. mm. «N... N... 3. Si w. 8. 86 Nm 8. NA... N. m_. 3... mm ._ and w. NN.. mNd Nm No; a . .m w. 3.. Qua Nm NN.. cN.N w. 3.. Ni Nn mm. mc.N m. NM. .N.N Nm mm. mN.m N . mm. m. .c wm mm. ON... N. NN. Na... mm m... I...“ N. MN. .N.N mm ON. 3.. N. N. w... w.” v. X c a. M c 09.03.00.332 .0.c..nm . :03 .030; 88:50.83 3.35 .2W 883 mN. 5.. mm mm. m . .N wm .3. 3..” mm 2.. No.m wn w . . w... wn MN. 8.. R N. NN.. N.” R. m . .N wm mm. NN.. R on. .N.N Nm 3. mN.N Na .0. .N... N... N _ . 8. 3 m _ . 3. mm MN. m . .. w.” w... .N.N w.” v. x c 32.25 {coon nNeceN £08. £08 co.«c0.xw 005. {$8 :09; z 8. .Voon gnu—30m U503...— 25 5.85 £08m {oak {08 _ <08 8.30:0 2.3 .832... {0ch $3 {coo . {can Swap—Ooxw 32.. w 5.8.; as 8.84 .52, 20EE.3m 0803.00.33 .n> 20.:tam 0.02 3. 2.30m. .030n. v8 033 N 6.0.2.. 3.0.3.3. .3. 02.0.0". .. .m 0.4; 165 c . . mm.N w . . mc.N . .. SN 3. Na... m .. 3N we. mm... 8. mN.m 3. mm... Nc. wN.w 8. c. .n 25. _ mi «8. .N.N N... mm... 5. SN moo. cad m. H... <>OZ< me... N... NN. 8 .N. no. 8. m4... ado. No... . ondn 3.3m mNmN mm.NN Nm.N Nm.N N¢.N 2m Nm. MN. 3. 80 NN.. X 0000.».Ou«_a..fll N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. C m.N . . .m. . mm mN.N 36 _ mm and N... 3 Nn mN.m 3...... Nm m _ e NNNN NM 3... mm...N 2. .m. n . .m w... 3. _ omd Nm a... _ mN.N N... mm 3m Nm NN. wo.N 3” co. wN. wn . .. NN. Nn . .. 3. Nn NJ 0.3 NM a X c 20.0.23 x005 3.0.0000 Nm .5. 293. .m a... 2203 g 53 .m a... 22...... .m .333. .0300 .63. 3893.. 6 .53 .53: .m a... 29...... .68 8.... .m a... .633 .m .83.... .33 .3... .288. a .5. 2a.»: .6 a... 2...»; .8.. 8.... .m a... £2»; .6 .50. 00003.0 2055.3... 09.03.010.232 .0) 20.0.35 0.02 .0. 2.30m. 053.. .030... .00...0> 00.3.32 .N.m 0.3.. 166 m . . SN 8. .N.N 8. ..N... No. 3.... mo. 3..” a . . NN. . n . . wm.N m .. c. .N 95. a . ... Na. 36 3. 8..” . .. 8N a . . NN. . 8. .R.N c . . mN.N mm... and a h. <>OZ< v.3 m. . n. a...N o. . ... mdN ... . ... v.6. N.NN N.. . «.«.. . .o. w. .m 9a «.3 N.N c6. m.N. v.2”. N... . flaN . Nd. flu. . m.n ..mN Né .....m °.N N.mm ..a m5: ...N ..m. ... x 00.33.010.332 8888 .N .N a. a. m. m. .N .N .N _N o.NN QN... ma N.NN ..Nm . .3 QN N ...am . we a. . v.8 we ...m. ..Nm .3 c6. mém .3 6.... N.N..“ me N.m m6. ma ..mN 9m... ma mdN n. .... n: de ~.mN. 3 9m . . .n Q. {N . min 3 . .N . . .3 ma wd. 93 m... 9N mi. Q. n X c BEEWI Ant—um - .033. ..m ..mN ON «6 N.N.” ON 9w $6.. 8 NE ed... 8 ..N .....m .N ...N m.N. .N «N ...m. 8 ..m NdN .N m6 méN a. m...” «.8 m. ...n cdn m. N6 mfim a. N. . ...c. . N N.. N.N. . N «N m6. _N w... 98 .N n x c 00.82.0123. E . Z N «6. n Wm. ... ..N. N N. .n m a {NN a... N.N.” w w ...c m a aim ...N ... . m.N N.N. ...n N. N . nd a. .n a m lllJOalCmflmll 3.» me we me 3933 me me me no me no as me C £028 £03... {08 . <08 5.20:0 00:! {009” 53 n\ $8 8.3.3. .983:— ..._o_. .832... {coon «co: «was co.nC0.xm .53 :28... {coon £003 0\ _ n GOG 8.826 335 .98.; ..8 8:3 2.3 2058.3m 0955010522 6) 202...}. 0.950... 8. 3.30m. .03.. van 0.6:; 03.022 .na 0.4; 167 N... mm. mm. NO. ON. ON. . N . . 3.. m . . N . . N... OO. ON. m . . mm. Om. .. . . ON.N . .. OO.N .. . . ..N.N Om. O... NO. ..N. On. ON. On. ON. ON. mm... Q ... <>OZ< ON. O.. m.. ..O. mm. ON. .N. E. O.. N.. ..O. m . N.N a . .N NO.N a... ma. .«. mO. ON. m I. 09.03.010.022 ON .... NON m.. ON ON. .m.N .... ON On. ......N O.. ON ON. an. m.. .N NN. ..O. .... .N .N. mm. .... ON NN. OO. m... .N OO. NN. m.. m. ..N. mn.N N.. a. ON. Nm.N N.. a. mN. . ..N N.. O. OO. .O. N.. .N a . . Oa. N.. . N m . . ma. N.. . N O. . 3. N.. .N mO. NN. N.. 0 v. X 0 .0.0..mml 3%....53“ .0300 OO. n... ON O. . Om. ON n . . NN. ON On. O...N ON ..O. O. . . N ..O. . N. . N no. ON. ON 8. a... . N NO. N... a. NO. NO. a. NO. ..O. a. N . . ..O. a. ..O. O. . . N ..O. NN. . N 3. NN. . N OO. O... _ N a .X 0 8003.00.32 .. 8. m... m... 8. 8. .... . .. .O. Q. On. ..m.~ Q. ..O. .... .... O0. NN. .... NO. ON. Q. ... .m. Q. 3. m... Q. 8. mm. Q. 8. NO. Q. N.. R. Q. ..O. O. . Q. ..O. .N. Q. 3. ON. Q. 8. N... Q. a X 0 .0.0..dm . .0... {coca ..oSN <08. <08 00.00030 000v. «\OOON ”“OOeN ...... 00.3.0”. ...030. 2.0.. .0039... {008 ..O....N <08. <08 00.00026 .53 5.8... «.08.. ..O....N {08. {08 8.92.... .8.... fl._.8.o> ..S. 8:2 .53 20.0.0.3... 00003510522 .n> 20.0..0m 0.00.0... .0. 2.30.". .030... 000 000.0... :53; .300 .3. 02.0.0”. ....m 0.31; 168 On. ON. NN. ON.— N . . OO.. . _. NO.N m .. Om.N On. NN. NN. ON.. ON. ... .. O . . ON.N NO. OO..” O. . NN.N ON. mm. mm. O... NO. 8.. .N. ..O.. ON. .N.. 0 0 <>OZ< NO. ON.N N... OO.N m... Nm.N .N. ..O.. ..N. ..O.. NN. OO.. O . . .O.. OO. .m. mm. .N.N OO. OO.N NN. O... OO. OO. . N. .. . .. O. . N. . . ON. ..O.. OO. NO. 0 X a. m. a. m. .N .N .N .N 00.53.00.022 30.3203v .0300 a... OO.N Q. m... 86 .... Q.. n . .n Q. mN. ..O.. Q. ON. m ... .... ON. .. _ .. .... ..N. 8.. Q. N... mm. Q. .... ON.N Q. ..O. OO.N Q. .m. .O.N Q. OO. OO. Q. «N. O... Q. mN. O... Q. ON. OO.. Q. OO. mm. Q. n m 0 .0.0..0O 2. R. 8 8. 3. 0. _ _. ... ..N _ .. .... .... .... a. ..N .... 8.. 0. .... ...... 8 .... :a 0. no. ..N. _~ 8. .N. .... 8. .N. a S. .N. .... 8. N.. 8 8. mm. 0. 2. 8. _~ 2. Q. 0. S. m. m. 8. mm. 0. 8. S. a. 8. 8. 0. B. ...... m. .... 8. Q. .... 2.. 2 2. o... 0. 3. N.. a 3. 2. 0. 8. R. a 8. ..N. 0. 8. Q. _~ 3. mm. 2 S. 8. a _ .. S. 0. v. x 0 a K 0 00.03.00.022 .0.0..0m 0...... a 80.0. <08.” <08. «.08 . 0.08 00300.5. 000v. n.08... 0.003 n.08 _ n.03 0020.00 0.030. .53 .8320 0.08.” ....0O..N 0.. ..O. n OOH 00.0002“... .50. .8323 0.08m. ....0O..N 3. OO. O 0Om 00.00006 3005 0.28.; .06 8:2 .52 3.0.05.3m 005350.022 .m> 3.0.2.0... 0.00.0 ... .0. 2.30m. .0300 .000 0:0.0h .2203 xvom 000... 3. 02.0.00 .m.@ 0.8; 169 2. 8.~ 2. .... 8 2. 8. .... 8. 2. 8 8. 2. .... 0.08.. 8.. .2 .... 8. 8 .... 8. 8 8. 8. 8 8. .N. 8 <8: 8. 8... 2. 8. 8 2. .2 .... 8. 8. 8 8. a. .... <08. 8. 8.... 8. 8. 8 8. 8. .... . .. 8. 8 ~ _ . .2 .... ..08 00.00006 000v. 8. 2.8 8. 8. _~ 8. 8. 8 .8. 8. .N 8. 8. 8 ..88 8. 3.. 8. .8. .N 8. 8. 8 8. 8. .~ 8. 8. 8 <8... 2. 88 8. 8. 8 8. 8. 8 8. 8. 8 8. 2. 8 2 8. ... ...... 8. 8. .0 8. 8.. .... 8. ... .~ 8. 2. .... a 08 8.230”. v83:— .58 .8320 8. 8... . .. R. 2 .... 8. 8 8. 2. 2 8. 2. 8 ..08... 8. ...... 8. .... 2 _ .. 8. 8 8. 2. 2 8. 8. 8 .<8... 8. 8... 8. 8.. 2 . _. 0.. 8 2. 8. 2 8. ..N. 8 .. 8. ... 8.. 8. 2. 2 8. 2. 8 .... 8. 2 8. 8. 8 a 08 00.00026 .58 .832... 2. 8.. 8. 8. _~ 8. ..8. 8 8. 8. .~ 8. 8. 8 n.088 8. . 8.. 8. .8. .N 8. ..8. 8 8. 8. .~ 8. 8. 8 0.08... 2. 8.. 8. 8. _~ 8. 8. 8 8. 8. .N 8. .... 8 ..08. 8. 8.8 8. 8. _~ 8. .... 8 8. 2. .~ 8. 2.. 8 n.08 8.82.... 33.0 0 X 0 0 X 0 0 X 0 0 X 0 Mum-local...- |f .. n s ... 8:3 .58 m M 0200.00.88 . .253... 86.50.28... .255... (>020. 3.08.339 .0300 .90): . 2v 000.0... 0.00.0..3m 0000350522 .0) 0.0.0.85 0.00.0 ... .0. 00.0000 .0300 000 000.00. 2.201 .3. 0300.00 .30 0.3... 170 0.. m... a... and o. m... 2.0 .... n.. o... o. ... .... .3 £08. _ _. 00.. mo. ... .0 0. R. 3.0 ... 0.. 5.. c. 0.. .0.. Q. 0.00... ..o. 0..... .0. 0. .0 0. mm. 2.0 3 0.. 0m. . a. on. m ... .... 0.08. 8. .0... .... m . .m o. .m. «.... .3 00. o . .0 0. am. .00 .8 0.00m 00.0..0exw 000v. 8. min a... . . .. .. 00. 5.. ... mo. _ ... .. n _ . .... Q. 0.08. ... 00.. m... a... _. m0. 3.. m... 0.. an. .. 0.. on. Q. <00... m_. .m.. an. .... o. .0. mm... ... ... .0. c. 8.. .... ... 0x08. . 0.. 3.. ... m0. .. 0.. .... .3 ... m... _. on. m... .... 0.08 00:0.0m. 0.030. 2.3 .8320 .8. 8.. 0.. 8.. 2 8.. ...0 8 2. 8.. 2 8.. 2.. 8 .88 mo. ...: 00. 00.0 m. 00. . . .0 ... ... . m... a. ... 0.... ... 0\00... we. 0... cm. 0.6 m. B. 00.0 ... 0. . 00.. a. 0.. a... ... 0.08. 0. . 8.. m _. .... 2 ... .8.. ... 0.. .0.. m. 3. 00.. ... 0.09.. 00.00006 2.0.. 00.0000 0.. 00.. o... R. _. ...: 3.. ... 8. m... .. c. . 0... ... 0.08.. c. . 8.. .... .0.. .. .0. .0.. ... mo. mm. _. . _ . c0. ... 0‘00... ... .... .... 0... _. 0... .8.. ... 2. a0. .. 0.. .... ... 0. 8. 8. 8.. ... 00. .. ... ... ... ... 0... .. .... 0... ... 0 00m 8.000.xm 335 0 M 0 0 W 0 0 X 0 0 X 0 N..00.0> 0..! I I 8.0:. 2.0.. m m 09.20.00.022 .0.0..0m 0000.0.010.00.2 .0.0..Qm <>oz< 0.80.63. .23.. 0.35. z. 303. 0.00.0...3m 0000.0.00.00.2 .0> 0.0.0.83 0.0.00... .0. 0.300.. .0302 08 03.0.. 0.000. .0.0000Q 3. 03.0.0”. .. _m 0.40.— 171 moo. $5 .08. «9m 3. ...m .o. m . .5 .8. Ed. 5. no... 5. 5.. .0. 0.6 3. .m... 5. an... .o. ....m 8. 36 N . . ...... m . . m... . .o. .N.. m m <>OZ< :0. . . N. .0. mm. 2. mo. ... m6 0.60 .. mm... _. .0. .m _. ....m. _. m .m. .. 3.0 . .. c... .. .0.. .. 8.0 .. 0mm _. 9... .. m.. _. m0. .. mm. .. ...m .. X 0 0000.0.Ouu_a_.8 :0. in. Na. _ .0 mm. 8. ... Wm «.0.... 0 . d. 8.9” 3.0. an: ...... 2... 5.0 3.0 0mm mm. ... an. ...mm X me we r... we we me me .3 3 me me me C 0.0.0..mm .62. 3.88.. .0 .50. 20...: .m a... 20...; 8cm :2.._ .0 .0... 20.»; .0 Anctgv ugh. .0000. 3.00000 00 85. 20...... .m a... 20.»... .80 8.... .0 .08 20.03 .m 00.8.. v.8... x00... .2093. .0 .5. 20.0: .m a... 20.»; ..80 :3.. .0 a... 22...; .0 .50. 0000.05 0.00.0..3m 09.20.00.002 .0> 0.0.0..0m 0.00.00 .0. 0.3001 00.5.. .0300 .00...0> 00.3002 0.0 0.00.. 172 0o. ...... c.0N 0.8. « n.0N c.0oN . . 0.0 0.0.. « m... ...«n . . {098 0.. ON.N 0.3 0.8N « 0.8 0.0NN . . N.. . «.N.. « .N.N ..cm . . «\OSN 0.. «N 0.2” N.8N « mdN QMMN . . «.. . n00 « o.« Q: . . n\08 . nm. N... o.«. n33. « 0.: N.N. . . . 0.5 m.««. « ...nn N.«.N . . {08 00.00020 000v. 0n. «0. a... . 0.~.« « 0.0N «.00. N . «..N fim. « ..m 0.8 N . £068 00. 0N. 0..: N.0« « ..an 0.8. N . ...n Q..”N « ..o méN N. axooeN 8. S. 0.2 0.00 « N.0N «.8 N. n... «..N « n6 ..QN N. <08. .m. 8.. 0.m N.0N m «.0 céN N. a: Na: 0 «.N. #60 N . {08 0020.3". 0330. 2.0.. ..«.—0.00:0 No. on... 0...N .. .cN « «.00 0.2K . _ N... ...on « Q0 0.3 . . {008 n . . «..N QNN m.«oN « fine «.mMN . . 0.0 900 « «.c. «:00 . . $003 an. n .. N.«. N.8N « 0.2” «....N . . ..0 N.N0 « c. N. 0.00 . . a\OAE. MN. .00.. «.0 0.8 « Nd. 9mm . . N.N. m.m« « m.«. 0.0:. . . {can 00.9.0uxm 2.0.. 000.09% on. m ... 0.8 «.c« « N.NN ...c. N. «.n ...: « mé N.«. N. €085 NM. ..0. 0.: 0.8 « ..«. n.N« N. N... 0. .N « 0... N.NN N. n\oceN 0. . . NN.N ...N. «.2. « N.«. «.«0 N. «.n ..mN « ..0 0.0N N. <08. «3. cm... c.N c...N « N.N. c.«N N. m... «.m: « «.N. N00 N. {08 00.00000 3003 ... x c ... x c a x c n X : N..00.0> 05 .. I a I 8:3. 2.2. m M 5003.703. 300) 7.0003 5:03.700: 5:03....00dmml <>oz< as... .23.. j 0.0.0:..3m 0.02 .0 .0020“. 500370030. £00003 .0. 3.000”. .0300 000 01000 .. 03.02? .«.m 0.4; 'l73 w«. .8. m«. 08. ««. .8. v 90. mN. 2. m . . 00. mm. mm. m«. .«. .c. n... no. .0. 0... .N. «0.. 00. Nm. m«. .08. 00. NN. 8. 3. mm. m«. n. ... <>OZ< ma. n0.N « on. n0.N _ . .0. SN « an. «9N . . 00. o«.N « mm. w«.N . _ NN. «.... « « . . .3.— _ . .N. 3.. « «N. 0N.. N. NN. an. « NM. 8.. N. «.. MN. m «N. N... N. mc. 00. o no. mm. N. n... o«.N « «... ..«.N . . we. Nod” « 08. N.«.N _ _ mm. 8N « an. .N.N . . m . . NN. « o. . «0. . . mN. «N.. a ..N. «N.. N. .N. @N. « ON. ..N. N. m.. n... « .N. m... N. 8. mm. « 2.. NM. N. n X 0 n M 0 50.0.3 b.0030. 5003....ENMI fixwngm 0030a. 8. cm. « 0o. Om. . . 0 . . «0. « co. «0. . . m . . m«. « o. . m«. . . N... 3N « NM. mN.N . . 3. NN. « 0c. 0N. N. «o. mm. « «o. .n. N. 0c. «M. « «0. 0n. N. o . . 00. a n . . 00. N. mo. 00. « «o. 00. . . . .. NN. « . .. .N. . . . .. N«. « N . . 0m. _ . N. am. « ON. NN.. . . no. «N. « mo. 0N. N. me. .n. « no. 2... N. 0... 0m. « 3. N«. N. mo. 00. « ... . .N. N. a VIA 0 n X 0 5003......030... 5003h£§w a»? .z. 88.: <08.” £09K {08. {can 00.00000 000v. {09H 0‘0?~N £08 . {08 00.3.0”. 00030. 2.2 5.8.0 <08... {0ch n\OGQ _ {can 00.000pr 2.3 5.8.0 {008 {0ch £08 . {can 00.30:.w 30.... w 128.0929... 00..U< «0.0... 200.00.3m 0.02 .0 .000000 353.7330. .n>.._0&D 000 3.30m. .0300 000 0300... «20.03 x000 .3. 03.0.0”. .86 Ii... 174 «N. NO. 0... OO.N « «N. N«.N . . 8. 0O. ..N. 0 . .n « mm. .N.m . . 00. ..O. N0. NN.N « NN. .N.N _ . NN. N.. ON. n0. « «.. O0.. .. OO. NO. MN. 3.. « On. .0.. N. N0. 0N. ..N. N«.. « «m. .3. . N . On. .0. .N. 0.... « .n. «N.. N. ««. .8. v 0O. «m. O NO. «n. N . 00. . N. N... N. .n « \«e. NN.N . . N«. N8. N... .N..” « m... ON.N . . Om. Na. 0.... 0.. « 0n. 5... . . «0. N.. .... «N. « O.. NN. .. 0«. m8. «N. N... « ..N. ...... . N . «N. O.. ..N. .0.. « ON. Om. N. 00. ON. N. . NN.. « NN. NN.. N. ..N. «a. . ..O. On. « OO. .... N _ n X 0 n X 0 M M 5003....0030 3003......00001 $624 {233. .26.. «e. um. « 0o. 0.... . . m . . mN. « 00. NN. . . m _ . 3.. « 0 . . 3.. . . Q... N. .m « 0n. med . . 3. «N. « 00. «N. N. 0... 0n. « «0. cm. N. N0. ...... « 0. . c... N. . .. «N. o a _ . 0N. N. «o. .0. « «a. N0. . . . .. «N. « . .. «N. . . N . . 8.. « . .. 0«. . _ NN. .0.. « «.. N... _. 00. NN. « 00. NN. N. 00. ..N. « 00. mm. N. m... «n. « N0. 3. N. 00. NN. « m . . «N. N. a X 0 a X 0 5003......030H 5003.12.03 0..? . z. 0.qu 0.08.” nxOOgN <08 . ”\08 00.0002“... 000v. 0.08.. 0.003 a. 8. a 08 00.2.3. 00030. 2.0.. 000.09.... 0°98 ....ooeN $8. 58 00.0.0006 2..... .832... {coon 0.0....N {08 . «\08 8.836 33a $8.; ..6 8:2 2.3 20500.30 0.02 .0 200.00 «20370030.. ....> .0000... ..0. 3.30m. .0300 0.8 03000... $5.03 N000 000.. NS 028.0”. . .Nm 0.3.. 175 n .. «3.N 0N. Nn. . ON. .O. . Nm. .3. Nm. .3. ON. OO. O«. .OO. O... Na. m . . NN.N 0N. 0m. . mm. .m. 3. O..... .3. 3. 0m. mm. 3N. Om. . NO. NN.N n. . <>OZ< .... ... ..O. N . . O. . NO. NO. mm. .3. .... N... N... N... ON. .m. on. .3. N.. m « N.. N... .. « «.. NN.. ._ « «.. NN.. .. « «c. .0. .. « .... mm. N. « N.. 3. N. « N.. a... N. o no. «.. N. « «N. 0N.. .. « NN. NN.. ._ « «.. w... .. « mo. 0«. .. « ... mm. N. « 0.. nm. N. « O.. «... N. « ..0. 0.. N. 0 0 M 0 5003.....00H. 300370030. €07,203. .0300 8. 8. .N. NO. NO. 8. ..O. ON. NN. Nn. . . . . O.. N.. m.. NN. O.. N.. .... N. m «20330030.. « NO. .N. . . « ..O. «N. . . « «O. O... . . « N.. N... . . « nO. . .. N. « ..O. N.. N. « ..O. m .. N. O 8. «N. N. « ..O. ..N. . . « «O. 8. . . « 3. Nn. . . « O.. Nm. . . « NO. O.. N. « NO. N.. N. « NO. 0.. N. « NO. Om. N. 0 0 X 0 x503 .108” 0.030.. . 2. g 0.08.” N..... .N..” 00.00000 000v. 0\0OOn 0\0O3N 0.08 . {08 000000.". 00030. .52. .832. 0.08... 0\0OeN 0.08 . 0\0On 030000.”. «0.0.. 000.093 {008 0......QN 0.08. u\¢On 00.000wa 300... 038...; ..E 8:2 2.3 0.00.00.3m 0.0.2 .0 500.00 3003.10.50. .0) .0000: ..0. 8.0001 0030.. 000 0:000N :53... .3. 0>.N0.0m. .NNm 0.3... 176 «O. NN.N « . . OO.. 3 . . «..N Na. 30. N... «O. OO. ON. OO. OO. Nm. OO.. «O. . ..m N .. OO.N 0«. OO. NN. .N.. NO. 3.. .... NN. O . . n ..N OO. «O... A. .. <>OZ< N _ .. 0«.N « SN NN.O « «m. «..N « 8. mm... « .0. «N... « N0. O . ... « mm. NN.N « .... «0.. O «O.. «NO « «O.. N . .« « ..O. .N.O « on. N ..N « NO. ..«..” « «w. «O.m « N... ....n « «c. 3.. « 0 X 0 5003.7.030. . ... O0.0 . . «O.. ON.« . . ON.. m0.0. . . NN. mO... . . O... OO.: N. «.... N..... N. m... 8.m N. Om. ON.. N. OO.N «0.0. . . OO.N «..O. _ . OO.. ON.« . . m3. NN.N . . N«. mm... N. M... O..: N. 30. N0.0 N. NO. ON.. N. 0 X 0 5003N£0§Iu 0030.. .._.&.:§. NN. N«.. « O... OO.N « .«.. OO.N « N«.. SO « N . . .O. « m . . OO.. « O. . « . .. « NN. OO.N O .N. NO.. « «N. O. .N « NN. NN.N « NO. m .... « O. . mN. « N . . «.«. « m . . «O.. « N. . OO.N « 0 N 0 N.003...L030u.| _ N. ON. . . . mm. mm.N . . O3. ON.N . . N3._ NN.« . . NN. OO. N. OO. OO.. N. Nm. . N. . N. Nm. OO.N N. «O. N«.. . . O... n3.N . . mm. m«.N . . «O. NO... . . « _ . OO. N. ON. 8.. N. NN. .N.. N. OO. N3.N N. 0 N 0 5003.7.ng 132.? 204.0 0.08m 03ch 0.08. {08 00.00000 005.. 0.85 0\0O3N 0.8. ...... ram-ONOK “:03:- Eos 5.8... <08.” {OO.N 0. 8. a COM 00.00006 .52 5.8... 0.08.” {OO.N 0.08 . «.08 00.00006 300. m H.383 ..6 8:2 .52 20.08.26 0.02 .0 «00000.. 5003......030. 00,0000: 3. 0:000”. 0030.. 08 00000... 0.000. .0000000 3. 02.0.3. .NNO 0.3.. 177 «O. ON... . .. «N.N OO. O... O0. O. . OO. 00... O. . 0«. . NN. Om. . OO. NO. ..«. .O. 3 . . .3.N N«. OO. ..N. N . . ... . ..O.N m . . O...N OO. NO. 1 I <>OZ< N..... o. .0.. « 00.0. NN...N_ .. 00.N 0. ... . « NN.N NN.m. . . 0. ... N0.«m « 3.0 ..N. ... . . ON.N « . .0.. « NN.« OO.N.” _ . 8m 33 « .Om 8«N . . O0.m « . .MN « «m... N0.0N _ . 0... O«.N « «... «N.N . . NN.. «m... « N«. 0...O . . «N.. 00.N « ««. N0.N . . ..0 man « No. ««m . . 0N. 8N « «N. OO.N . . 8. 0N. « no. «N. . . N . . NN. « Oo. «0. . _ N . . 00. « OO. «0. . . m.m 0.0.. « ...0 3.0.. _ . 0 X 0 0 X 0 #0003 7.030.. «0003.109... .8... 3.88.. ..0 ..5. 29...: .6 3... .603 .68 80.. ..0 a... 22...; .6 .0203. 0030.. .8... 3.88.. ..0 .Eu. 2%: .6 3... 29...; >80 60.. 0m. 3... 00.03 NO .83.... .8; X000. 3.008.. «m .5. £9»: a 3... .833 0.80 8.... 5 3... 2203 ..0 :00. 00030.0 0.00.0..3O 0.02 .0 300.00 3003700304 .0> 40003 ..0. 2.003. 005—. 0030.. .00..00> 003.002 ...Nm 0.8.. 178 O3. N«. .N. NN.. On. . ... NO. 5.. 3n. «n. NN. 0N.. NN. NN.. NO. 8. NO. 3.0 0 . . O. .N 3.. OO.N O. . m«. . N3. mm. OO. «O. . N. 3.. NN. ON. . n. u. <>OZ< n.O. N.Nn. 3. 3.0. ..N3. 3. N.3. n.3m . 3. OO. QON 3. N... ..3m 3. «.N. ONO 3. O.« «.O3 3. ON «.0. 3. 0.0. ONO. 3. N.m. ON... 3. ..N. 0.0. . 3. 0... «.ON 3. 0.N. N.NO 3. ON. 0.00 3. ad. O. .m 3. n.N 0.m . 3. 0 .X.. 0 5003......030 II N305 fiflf"! O 8 0--w QMMN N.N3 0.03. n. can «.00. n. ..NN O63. n. O. . . N.«N n. N. . . ..Nm 3. N. . . 0.Nm 3. 0.0. N.Nm 3. O.N Nd _ 3. O.NN 0. . m _ n. .. . N O.N3_ m . 0.0. «.ON. m. 0.3 .. .N m. 0.« «.00 n _ «.« 0.00 m. 3.« N.Nm m. ..N 0.0. m. 0 X 0 1583...; WV 0:03. .0300 n.0N ..mn N.«.. «.3. «0qu 8222 n.m N 0. .n N.NO Odm OO. O... . Q0. O.«N m 5003......0303 3. 0.0N n. 3. 0.0n n. 3. 3.03 O. 3. ..NO. n. 3. «.O. 3. 3. O... 3. 3. «.0. 3. 3. ..On 3. 3. 0.0N O. 3. ..3n O. 3. «.O3 m. 3. 3.«m n. 3. «.O. O. 3. «.O. m. 3. 0.0. n. 3. 0..... n. 0 N 0 N.L0I03Ni0al3| .9. z. .35 3.8. 3.3 3.8. 0.8 00.0000.w 000v. 0.08.” 0\0O3N 00.033. 0.030. «0.0.. 000.000.... 0.08.” 0.003N 0.08. 0x09” 00.00000 3.3 .832. 0.008 ”“00: $08 8.2030 33.0 ul...8..o> .06... 8:2 3.8 0000.00.06 0.000... .0 0000000 50037830.. 65.5003 ..0. 0..:00m. 0030.. 0.5 000.0N 0.0.023 .mNm. 0.9; 179 0O. 0O. 30. 30. ON. «3. . m3. 30. N0. 0N. 30. 3«. O3. ON. .N. N . . NO. .3.0 O . . ..«. . «O. 3. .m NN. .0.. 3. On. 3«. .O. OO. NO. 03. «m. n. . (>023. 0n. OO.N 3. m0. 03.N O. Na. .0.N 3. N3. 3m.N O. NO. m0.N 3. .3. 03.N n. ON. ON. . 3. 0N. ON.. n. NN. N«. 3. .N. 0«. 3. .N. «O. 3. NN. N«. 3. O. . 30. 3. . N. O«. 3. 30. NN. 3. OO. 0N. 3. ON. 3N.N 3. 3n. OO.N n. ON. ON.N 3. 3. «ON 0. «.. .O.N 3. ON. m..N m. 0O. «3. 3. 0O. NO. 0. .N. N«. 3. 0. . 0«. n. ON. 0«. 3. 0. . 0«. n. O. . NO. 3 . O . . «O. m . «O. NN. 3. OO. ON. n. 0 M 0 0 VIN c «000300.030; 5003.10.33 3.3.03. 0030.. NO. «O. O. . «n. 03. O0. 3O. 03.N O.. .N. NN. O3. $0 3«. N.. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. C 5003 N10301— 0. N . . N3. 0. . .. .0. m. n . . ON. n. «3. «ON n. 30. O. . 3. OO. MN. 3. NO. «N. 3. O. . O0. 3. 0O. O3. m. OO. N0. n. NO. O0. 0. N. . OO.. n. OO. O. . n. 30. NN. O. OO. ON. n. O. . 3n. n. 0 W 0 5003.10.04. 00h 0.080 0.0O3N 0.08. 0\0On 00.00000 000v. 0.08m 8.330 .82.. E30 .8320 0\0OOn 0N0O3N 0.08. 0.0On 00.00006 2.0.. 000.005 0.08.” 00.0000m. 309m 00.8.; .08 8:0... 2.0.. 000,000.30. 0.00.0... .0 000000.. «0003700304 05.00003 ..0. 0.300.. .0300. 050 0..—03.N 35.03 «00m «a. 02.0.0”. .0Nm 0.40.. 180 OO. . N. O«. .OO. O . . « . .N mm. O3. 3N. N . . «3. OO. O3. NO. NO. NO. OO. N0.0 ON. .O. _ N . . OO.N ON. 3N. . OO. «_ . O«. .O. 3«. .O. 3. «n. n .... <>OZ< O3. .3. NO. ON. ON. NO. ON. 8. NN.N ON.N O3.N .O. IX 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. C N.:03h..030 fixwmzoz,“ .0300 ON. O0.0 n. . OO. O. .n n. .O. OO.N n. «N. OO.. O. 3N. N. . . 3. ON. O. .. 3. ..N. «O.. 3. OO. NO. 3. O3. O0.0 O. OO. N«.N n. NN. NO.N O. NO. 30. n. « . . N . .. n. ON. O. . . n. O. . OO.. O. OO. 30. O. ... VIA c 353.1% OO. OO. O. . 3N. N . . OO. . 33. NO.N OO. NN. OO. ON. NO. OO. O. . 30. OO. 3. OO. OO. OO. «N. N. . O. . . OO. NN. NO. ON. NO. 30. . .. OO. n X I»; Jam: 34...“... J... .405 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. ..N 3.. 3.. O.. mm. €S$8 NO. 3N. m..m NN. ON. ON. NO. X O. O. m. n. 3. 3. 3. 3. m. n. m. m. n. n. m. nNOOOO O“OO3N a 8. % 8.303.”. 00:! 00.3.3. .20).... 2.0.. 5.02m nNoOOn n.0O3N <08 . aN08 8.30:0 .52 5.8% $08.. {cog $8. O\Oa 8.2.».xm 33E ul._8__o> as.-. 8:2 2...... .....oEE.)m 0.050... .0 200.3. «203......0254 ....> .3003 .0. 2.30m .930... 9.0 013.0 N $5.03 «.000 50.. .3. 9.90.0”. .NNO 0.3... OO. O. OO. O. O«. O. O3. O. NO. O. .O. O. «N. O. «O. O. «N. O. «N. O. ON. O. N.. O. NO. O. OO. O. OO. O. «O. O. m. .. 8. a. 8. 8. :. mm. 3. S. 3. 2. on. .O. 2. S. 8. B. m Re. 2.3 2. 8.. N.. 8.~ O.. 8.. S. 2. R. 8o. 5. 8. 8. N... a . <>oz< fi.co3.......o30u...l 3:2... ON. OO. O. «.. «O. O. O. . OO. O. NO. N3. O. NO. 30. 3. NO. 30. 3. OO. .O. 3. NO. «O. 3. O . . «O. O. N.. 30. O. «O. ON. O. OO. O. . O. OO. OO. O. OO. OO. O. OO. .O. O. .O. O. . O. n MM 0 «.cghnuuaml 830a NO. O. . O . OO. . N. O . OO. OO. O . N . . OO. O . NO. OO. O . NO. NO. O . NO. «O. O . OO. O. . O _ NO. O . . O . NO. «. . O _ OO. NN. O _ 30. OO. O . .O. OO. O . NO. OO. O . NO. O. . O . OO. O. . O . n X c bywazio... OO. N . . O. OO. .N. O. OO. NO. O . O . . O«. O. .O. OO. 3. NO. OO. 3. NO. O . . 3. OO. O. . 3. NO. N . . O . OO. ON. O. OO. 3N. O . OO. OO. O. .O. OO. O. .O. OO. O . NO. O. . O. NO. « . . O. o. N c «.ghtuommml 38.5. 2. 88°» {coon n.0O3N ....OOO . «\OOM co.»:o.xm. 000v. ....oOOO «“0O3N a . ......“ 00.3.01 033:. 2.0.. 30.093 $8.” :03 a. . n OOH 00.38xm .33 8.85 «.098 n\0O3N aN08 . ONOOO 8.82m. 38. m 438.; .8. 8:3. 2.2. 2!:E.3O 0.0.00... .0 .0830 553.7530]. 65.3003 ..0. 2.03m. .030n. .08 000.0... 25.0: 3. “5.3.01 .ONO 030... 182 .O. 33. NN. O . . ON. 3N.. OO. OO. NO. O3. «N. N . . . .O. NO. . O«. .O. OO. O0.0 3. . OO.N O. . O«.N N. . OO.N OO. OO. .«. .O. OO. N . . NN. OO.. 0 0 <>OZ< .0.0 O. O3.0 O. «N.O O. ON.O O. 30.N O. «N.N O. 3. .N O. «O. O. NN.O O. 3N.O O. N . .O O. 3N.. O. NO.N O. 33.N O. ON.N O. NO. O. M 0 «203.700303 3N.. OO.. O... .3. O3. ... 3.03203. .0300 O0.0 O. O0.0 O. 30.0 O. N3.0 O. O3.N 3. OO.N 3. .O.N 3. OO. 3. O0.0 O. ON.O O. O0.0 O. OO.. O. O3.N O. O3.N O. OO.N O. NN. O. X 0 x203hs00003 O.. O.. ON. O... OO.. O..N ON.O O3. OO. OO. .O.. O 3. OO. ON. _ m O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. C 5003700303 N.3.: . z. 8.8. OO. OO. OO. . O.. N.. 3.. O.. NN. 8. OO. O.. O.. ON. N3. OO. 3N. _ O. . ON. . O3.. ON. . OO.N S. 3. OO.. X O. O. O. O. 3. 3. 3. 3. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. C J5003NL0d03 <08.” «\0O3N 0. OO. ... 0OO 00.0.0020 000v. 0.08.” «\0O3N ONOOO . n\OOO 00.2.0m. 00030. .8.. .8.:2m n.0OOO n.0O3N .\ a: a COM 00.0.0000 2.3 .832... n.0OOO nN0O3N nNOOO . {oOO 00.000.xm 33. w 5.8.; .8 00:3. 2.0.. 20.0.0.3O 0.0.00... .0 200000 N203NL0303 6?...0003 00. 3.30m 00300 000 00000... 1.000. .0000000 .3. 02.0.0! .«NO 0:: 183 ON. OO. . N3. OO. ON. O. . 30. ON. O3. OO. 30. OO.3 OO. O«.O NO. N0.0 OO. N«.O 30. «N.3 OO. 33.0 O . . O0.0 NN. «O. . . N. OO.. OO. ON.O I. l <>OZ< 30..O. O0.00 O N. . OO.« O0.0 «0.00 N0.0 NN.NN 3NN OOO. OO.. 30.0 . N . . 3. .N OO. OO.N . O. N. .O 3N OOO O . . O3. . NO. ON. . .. ON. O . . NO. 0.0 ..OO 0 x 5003700303 O. O. 3. 3. 3. O. O. 3. 3. 3. ON.. . .O.. OO.3 N«.O ONN «O. O3. N3. . ON. . NO .«.NN «O. « NN.3O 30.0N «N.N . .3.N O0.0 O0.0 23 NO. NN. G. ...... x 3. 3. 3. 3. 3.. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3:03 N080: .600. 2000000 NO .8. 20...... 0O a... .8.»; .8.. 80.. 0O a... .8.»; ..O .0203. .0300 .800. 20008.. «O .8. .8.»... .6 a... 20.»; .80 8a.. 0O .0... .8.»; ..O 30.3.. .003 .69.. 3.88.. .O .8. .8.»... 5 .0... .8.»; .80. 8a.. .m a... .8.»; .O .20. 00020.0 0.02.0.3... 0.020... .0 209.00 «.003NL0303 .0) 10003 3. 0..:00m 005.. 00300 .00....0> .00....002 .OOm 0.00... 184 REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. REFERENCES Ba11ow, J. L. Re1ationships of vertical jump to swimning categories for co11ege fema1es. Swimming_Technigue 16:76. 1979. Beam, N. C., R. L. Barte1s, and R. W. Ward. The relationship of isokinetic torque to body weight and to 1ean bod weight in ath1etes. Med. Sci. §ports Exerc. 14:17 , 1982. Behnke, A. R. and J. H. Hi1more. Fie1d Methods. In Eva1ua- tion gnd_Regu1ation of Body Bui1d and Comgosition. Englewood C 1 fs, N.J.: Prentice-Ha11, 74. Pp. 38-52. Bergh, UuyA.'Thorstensson, B. Sjodin, B. Hu1ten, K. Pieh1, and J. Kar1sson. Maxima1 oxygen uptake and musc1e fiber types in trained and untrained humans. ‘Med. Sci. §ports Exerc. 10:151-154, 1978. B1ank, S. and J. L. Puh1. Effect of isokinetic strength training on musc1e fiber composition and fiber size in young men and women. Med. Sci. §ports Exerc. 14:112. 1982. B1oomfie1d, J. and P. Sigerseth. Anatomica1 and physio1ogica1 differences between sprint and midd1e distance swimmers at the university 1eve1. J;_Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 5:76-81, 965. Bosco, C., P. Luhtanen. and P. V. Komi. A simp1e method for measurement of mechanica1 ower in jumping. Eur. J;_ App1ied Physio1. 50:273-2 2, 1983. ""' Bosco, C., P. Mognon, and P. Luhtanen. Re1ationship between isokinetic performance and ba11istic movement. 'Eur. J; App1ied Physio1. 51:357-364. 1983. Brozek, J., F. Grande, J. T. Anderson, and A. Keys. Densio- metric ana1ysis of body composition: Revision of some guantitative assumptions. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 110:113- 40. 963. Caiozzo, V. J., J. J. Perrine, and V. R. Edgerton. Training- induced a1terations of the in vivo force-ve1ocity re1a— tionship of human musc1e. J;_App1. Physio1. 51:750-754. 1981. 185 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 186 Ca1dwe11, L. 5. Body stabi1ization and the strength of arm extension. Hum. Factors 4:125-130, 1962. Campbe11, D. E. Generation of horsepower at 1ow and high ve1o- city by sprinters and distance runners. Res. Quart. 50:1-8, 1979. Chaffin, D. Ergonomics guide for the assessment of human static strength. .flfl. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J;_36:505-511, 1975. C1arke,D. H. Adaptations in strength and muscu1ar endurance resu1ting from exercise. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 1:74-102, 1973. C1arke, H. H. Re1ationship of strength and anthropometric measures to various arm strength criteria. Res. Quart. 25:134-143, 1954. C1arke, H. H. Re1ationships of strength and anthropometric measures to physica1 performances invo1ving the trunk and 1egs.‘ Res. Quart. 28:223-232, 1957. C1arke, H. H. Muscu1ar Strength and Endurance in Man. Eng1ewood C1iffs: Prentice-8311, inc., 1966. C1arke, H. H., E. C. E1kins, G. M. Martin, and K. G. Nakin. Re1ationship between body position and the app1ication of musc1e power to movements of the joints. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabi1. 31: 81-89, 1950. C1arkson, P. M., H. Kro11, and A. M. Me1chionda. Isokinetic strength, endurance, and fiber type composition in e1ite American padd1ers. ’Eur. J; Applied Physio1. 48:67-76, 1982. C1ose, R. 1. Dynamic properties of mamma1ian ske1eta1 musc1e. Physio1. Rev. 52:129-197. 1972. Conger, P. R. and R. B. J. McNab. Strength, body composition and work capacity of participants and nonparticipants in women's interco11egiate sports. Res. Quart. 38:184-192, 976. Costi11, D. L., J. Danie1s, w. Evans, N. Pink, G. Krahenbuh1, and B. Sa1tin. Ske1eta1 musc1e enzymes and fiber composi- tion in ma1e and fema1e track ath1etes. J;_Appl. Physio1. 40:149-154, 1976. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 187 Costi11, D. L., H. J. Fink and M. L. Po11ock. Musc1e fiber composition and enzyme activities of e1ite distance runners. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 8:96-100, 1976. Counsi1man, J. Fast exercises for fast musc1es - and faster ath1etes. Ath1etic Journa1 17:12-14, 1976. Coy1e, E. F., D. L. Costi11, and G. R. Lesmes. Leg extension power and musc1e fiber composition. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 11:12-15, 1979. Coy1e, E. F., D. Feiring, T. Rotkis, R. Cote, F. Roby, N. Lee and J. Hi1more. Specificity of power improvements through s1ow and fast isokinetic training. .JL App1. Physio1. 51:1437-1442, 1981. Davies, C. T. M. and R. Rennie. Human power output. Nature 217:770-771, 1968. Dempster, w. T. Space requirement of the seated operator geometrica1, kinematic, and mechanica1 aspects of the body with specia1 reference to the 1imbs. HADC TR 55-159. Wright Air Deve10pment Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, Ju1y, 1955. Desiprés, M. Po1yparometric study of the vertica1 jump. In Biomechan1g§.!;§. P. V. Komi (Ed.), Ba1timore: Univer- sity Park Press, 1976. Pp. 73-80. Duchateau, J. and K. Hainaut. Isometric or dynamic training: Differentia1 effects on mechanica1 properties of a human musc1e. '9; App1. Physio1.: Respirat. Environ. ExerCise PhysioI. 56:296-301, 1984. Ericsson, H., K. Johansoon, B. Nordgren, L. 0. Nordesjo, and 0. Borges. Eva1uation of a dynamometer for measurement of isometric and isokinetic torques. 995. J; Med. Sci. 87:223-233, 1982. Fug1-Meyer, A. R., L. Gustafsson, and Y. Burstedt. Isokinetic and static p1antar f1exion characteristics. Eur. J; App1ied'Physio1. 45:221-234, 1980. Go11nick, P. D., R. B. Armstrong, C. H. Saubert IV, K. Pieh1, and B. Sa1tin. Enzyme activity and fiber composition in ske1eta1 musc1e of untrained and trained men. .0; ,App1. Physio1. 33:312-319. 1972. Gransberg, L. and E. Knutsson. Determination of dynamic musc1e strength in man with acce1eration contro11ed isokinetic movements. Acta Physio1. Scand. 119:317-320, 1983. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 188 Gray, R. K., K. B. Start, and D. J. G1encross. A Test of Leg Power. Res. Quart. 33:44-50, 1962. Gregor, R. J., V. R. Edgerton, J. J. Perrine, D. S. Campion, and C. DeBus. Torque-ve1ocity re1ationships and musc1e fiber composition in e1ite fema1e ath1etes. J. A 1. thsio1}: Respirat. Environ. EXercise PhysioTT 7:388- 39 , 19 9. Gregor, R. J., V. R. Edgerton, R. Rozenek, and K. R. Cast1eman. Ske1eta1 musc1e properties and performances in e1ite fema1e track ath1etes. Eur. J; App1ied Physio1. 47:355- 364, 1981. Henry, F. M., and J. D. Hhit1ey. Re1ationships between indi- vidua1 differences in strength, speed and mass in arm movement. Res. Quart. 31:24-33, 1960. Hi11, A. V. The heat of shortening and the dynamic constants of musc1e. Proc. R;_Soc. Lond. 126:136-195, 1938. Hi11, A. V. The design of musc1e. Br, Med. Bu11. 12:165- 166, 1956. Hi11, A. V. First and 1ast experiments in musc1e mechanics. London: Cambridge University Press, 1970. P. 52. Hinson, M. M., N. C. Smith, and S. Funk. Isokinetics: A c1arification. Res. Quart. 50:30-35, 1979. Hirata, K. Pondera1 index. Res. 0;.Phys.‘Educ. 17:395-421, 1973. His1op, H. J. and J. J. Perrine. Isokinetic concept of exercise. Phys. Ther. 47:114-117. 1967. Hoffman, T., R. H. Stauffer,and A. S. Jackson. Sex differ- ence in strength. jAmp_J;_§ports Med. 7:265-267, 1979. Hopper. R- T- Power va1ues for sprint and distance swimmers. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 13:115, 1981. Housh, T. J., H. G. Thor1and, G. 0. Johnson, G. D. Tharp, C. J. Cisar, M. J. Refse11, and C. J. Ansorge. Body composition variab1es as discriminators of sports parti- cipation of e1ite ado1escent fema1e ath1etes.‘ Res. Quart. 55:302-304. 1984. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 56. 57. 58. 189 Housh, T. J., u. G. Thor1and, G. D. Tharp, G. 0. Johnson and C. J. Cisar. Isokinetic 1eg f1exion and extension strength of e1ite ado1escent fema1e track and fie1d ath1etes. Res. Quart. 55:347-350, 1984. Hunsicker, P. A. and R. L. Donne11y. Instruments to measure strength. Res. Quart. 26:408-420, 1955. Ikai, M. and T. Fukunaga. Ca1cu1ation of musc1e strength per unit cross-sectiona1 area of human musc1e by means of u1trasonic measurement. Int. ;;_angew. Physio1. 26:26- 32, 1968. Ikai, M. and A. H. Steinhaus. Some factors modifying the expression of human strength. J;_App1. Physio1. 16: 157-163, 1961. Ingemann-Hansen, T. and J. Ha1kjaer-Kristensen. Force-ve1ocity re1ationships in the human quadriceps musc1es. Scand. g; Rehabi1. Med. 11:85-89, 1979. Ivy, J. L., R. T. Withers, G. Brose, B. D. Maxwe11, and D. L. Costi11. Isokinetic contracti1e properties of the quadriceps with re1ation to fiber type. Eur. J;_5221ied PhysioT. 47:247-255, 1981. Jackson, A. S. and M. L. Po11ock. Factor ana1ysis and mu1ti- variate sca1ing of anthropometric variab1es for the assessment of body composition. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 8:196-203, 1976. Johnson, B. L. and J. K. Ne1son. Effect of different motiva- tiona1 techniques during training and in testing upon strength performance. Res. Quart. 38:630-636, 1967. Kanehisa, H. and M. Miyashita. Specifcity of ve1ocity in strength training. Eur. J,_App1ied Physio1. 52:104-106, 1983. King, D. S., R. L. Sharp, D. L. Costi11. and A. C. Snyder. Power characteristics of wor1d-c1ass swimmers: Re1a- tionship to freesty1e performance. 'Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 15:161, 1983. Knapik, J. J. and M. U. Ramos. Isokinetic and isometric torque re1ationships in the human body. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabi1. 61:64-67, 1980. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 190 Knutsson, E. and A. Martensson. Dynamic motor capacity in spastic paresis and its re1ation to prime mover dysfunc- tion, Spastic ref1exes and antagonist coactivation. Scand. J. Rehabi1. Med. 12:93-106, 1980. Komi, P. V. and C. Bosco. Uti1ization of stored e1astic energy in 1eg extensor musc1es by men and women. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 10:261-265, 1978. Komi, P. V. and J. Kar1sson. Ske1eta1 musc1e fibre types, enzyme activities and physica1 performance in young ma1es and fema1es. Acta Physio1. Scand. 103:210-218, 1978. Komi, P. V., H. Rusko, J. Vos, and V. Vihko. Anaerobic per- formance capacity in ath1etes. Acta Physio1. Scand. 100:107-114, 1977. Kroemer, K. H. E. Human strength: Termino1ogy, measurement, and interpretation of data. Hum. FactOrs 12:297-313, 1970. Lamphiear, D. E. and H. J. Montoye. Muscu1ar strength and body size. Hum. Bio1. 48:147-160, 1976. Laubach, L. L. Comparative muscu1ar strength of men and women: A review of the 1iterature.‘ Aviat. Space EnViron. Med. 47:534-542, 1976. Laubach, L. L. and J. T. McConvi11e. The re1ationship of strength to body size and typo1ogy. ‘Med. Sci. Sports 'Exerc. 1:189-194, 1969. Lesmes, G. R., D. L. Costi11, E. F. Coy1e, and H. J. Fink. Musc1e strength and power changes during maxima1 isokinetic training. Med. Sci. Spprts EXerc. 10:266- 269, 1978. MacIntosh, B. R. and C. S. Browman. Determination of optima1 conditions for peak power output. Med. Sci. Spprts Exerc. 15:143, 1983. Maugham, R. J., J. S. Watson, and J. Heir. Re1ationship between musc1e strength and musc1e cross-sectiona1 area in ma1e sprinters and endurance runners. Eur. g;_5pp1ied Physio1. 50:309-318, 1983. Maugham, R. J., J. S. Watson, and J. Heir. Strength and cross- sectiona1 area of human ske1eta1 musc1e. g; Physio1. 338:37-49, 1983. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 191 Mawds1ey, R. H. and J. J. Knapik. Comparison of isokinetic measurements with test repetitions. PhyS, Ther. 62:169- 172, 1982. Me1eski, B. W., R. F. Shoup, and R. M. Ma1ina. Size, physique, and body composition of competitive fema1e swimmers 11 through 20 years of age. Hum. Bio1. 54:609-625, 1982. Mend1er, H. M. Effect of stabi1ization on maximum isometric knee extension force. PhyS. Ther. 47:375-379, 1967. Miyashita, M. and H. Kanshisa. Dynamic peak torque re1ated to age, sex and performance. Res. Quart. 50:249-255, 1979. Moffoid, M. and R. H. Whipp1e. Specificity of speed of exer- cise. Phys. Ther. 50:1692-1700, 1970. Moffoid, M., R. H. Whipp1e, J. Hofkosh, E. Lowman, and H. Thist1e. A study of isokinetic exercises. Phys. Ther. 49:735-746, 1969. Morrow, J. R., Jr. and W. W. Hos1er. Strength comparisons in untrained men and trained women ath1etes. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 13:194-198. 1981. Murray, M. P., G. M. Gardner, L. A. Mo11inger, and S. B. Sepic. Strength of isometric and isokinetic contractions in knee musc1es from men aged 20-86. ‘Phys. Ther. 60:412-419. 1980. Ni1sson, J., P. Tesch, and A. Thorstensson. Fatique and EMG of repeated fast voluntary contraction in man. 'Acta Physio1. Scand. 101:194-198, 1977. Nordgren, B. Anthropometric measures and musc1e strength in young women. Scand.g;_Rehabi1. Med. 4:165-169, 1972. Novak, L. P., C. Bestit, H. Me11erowicz, and W. A. Woodward. Maxima1 oxygen consumption, body composition, and anthropometry of se1ected o1ympic ma1e ath1etes. .J; Sports Med. 18:139-151. 1978. Novak, L. P., M. Bierbaum, and H. Me11erowicz. Maxima1 oxygen consumption, pu1monary function, body composition, and anthropometry of ado1escent fema1e ath1etes. Int. ;; angew. Physio1. 31:103-119, 1973. Novak, L. P., R. E. Hyatt, and J. F. A1exander. Body composi- tion and physio1ogic function of ath1etes. ‘JAMA 205:764- 770, 968. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 192 Novak, L. P., W. A. Woodward, C. Bestit, and H. Me11erowicz. Working capacity, body compositon, and anthropometry of O1ympic fema1e ath1etes. .QL Sports Med. 17:275-283, 1977. Osternig, L. R. 0ptima1 isokinetic 1oads and ve1ocities produc- ing muscu1ar power in human subjects. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabi1. 56:152-155, 1975. Osternig, L. R., B. T. Bates, and S.‘T James. Isokinetic and isometric torque force re1ationship. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabi1. 58:254-257, 1977. Perrine, J. J. Isokinetic exercise and mechanica1 energy potentia1s of musc1e. g; Hea1th Phys. Educ. 39:40-44, 1968. Perrine, J. J. and V. R. Edgerton. Musc1e force-ve1ocity and power-ve1ocity re1ationships under isokinetic 1oading. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 10:195-166, 1978. Prins, J. A physio1ogica1 review of 1eg extensor power and jumping abi1ity. Swimminngor1d 21:28-32, 1980. Sapega, A. A., J. A. Nicho1as, D. Soko1ow and A. Saraniti. The nature of torque "overshoot" in Cybex isokinetic dynamometry. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 14:368-375, 1982. Schantz, P., E. Randa11-Fox, W. Hutchinson, A. Tyden, and P. 0. Astrand. Musc1e fibre type distribution, musc1e cross-sectiona1 area and maxima1 vo1untary strength in humans.’ Acta Physio1. Scand. 117:219-226, 1983. Scudder, G. N. Torque curves produced at the knee during isometric and isokinetic exercise. Arch. Phys. Med. ‘Rehabi1. 61:68-72, 1980. Sharp, R. L., J. P. Troup, and D. L. Costi11. Re1ationship between power and sprint freesty1e swimming. Med. Sci. Sports EXerc. 14:53-56, 1982. Sinacore, D. R., J. M. Rothstein, A. DeLitto and S. J. Rose. Effect of damp on isokinetic measurements. Phys. Ther. 63:1248-1250, 1983. Smith, M. J. and P. Me1ton. Isokinetic versus isotonic vari- ab1e-resistance training. AthJSSSports Med. 9:275-279, 1981. 193 96. Spyrnarova, S. and J. Parizkova. Comparison of the functiona1, circu1atory and respiratory capacity in gir1 gymnasts and swimmers. .JLSports Med. Phys. Fitness 9:165-172, 1969. 97. Sprynarova, S. and J. Parizkova. Functiona1 capacity and body composition in top weight-1ifters, swimmers.runners, and skiers. Int. ;;_angew. Physio1. 29:184-194. 1971. 98. Tesch, P., B. Sjodin, A. Thorstensson, and J. Kar1sson. Musc1e fatigue and its re1ation to 1actate accumu1ation and LDH activity in man. Acta Physio1. Scand. 103:413- 420, 1978. 99. Thor1and, W. G., G. 0. Johnson, T. G. Fagot, G. D. Tharp, and R. W. Hammer. Body composition and somatotype char- acteristics of junior o1ympic ath1etes. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 13:332-338, 1981. 100. Thor1and, W. G., G. 0. Johnson, T. J. Housh, and M. J. Refse11. Anthropometric characteristics of e1ite ado1escent compe- titive swimmers. Hum. Bio1. 55:735-748, 1983. 101. Thortensson, A. Musc1e strength, fibre types and enzyme acti- vities in man. 'Acta Physio1. Stand.'Supp. 443:45, 1976. 102. Thortensson, A., G. Grimby, and J. Kar1sson. Force-ve1ocity re1ations and fiber composition in human knee extensor musc1es. g;_App1. Physio1. 40:12-16, 1976. 103. Thortensson, A., L. Larason, P. Tesch, and J. Kar1sson. Musc1e strength and fiber composition in ath1etes and sedentary men. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 9:26-30, 1977. 104. Thortensson, A., and J. Kar1sson. Fatiguabi1ity and fibre composition of human ske1eta1 musc1e. 'Acta Physio1. Scand. 98:318-322, 1976. 105. Vaccaro, P., D. H. C1arke, and A. F. Morris. Physio1ogica1 characteristics of young we11-trained swimmers. Eur. g; App1ied'Physio1. 44:61-66, 1980. 106. Wade, C. E. Effects of season's training on the body composi- tion of fema1e co11ege swimmers. Res. Quart. 47:292-295, 1976. 107. Watson, A. W. S. and D. J. O'Donovan. Factors re1ating to the strength of ma1e ado1escents. J. épp1. Ph sio1.: ‘Respirat. Environ. Exercise Physi017_4 :8 -838, 1977. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 194 Wickiewicz, T. L., R. R. Roy, P. L. Powe11, J. J. Perrine. and V. R. Edgerton. Musc1e architecture and force- ve1ocity re1ationships in humans. J. App1. Physio1.: Respirat. Environ. Exercise Physio1. 57:435-443, 984. Wi1kie, D. R. The re1ation between force and ve1ocity in human musc1e. .J; Physio1. (Lon.) 110:249-280. 1950. Wi1more, J. H. A1ternations in strength, body composition and anthropometric measurements consequent to a 10-week weight training program. ’Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 6:133- 138. 1974. Winter, 0. A., R. P. We11s, and G. W. Orr. Errors in the use of isokinetic dynanometers. Eur.'g;_App1ied Physio1. 46:397-408. 1981. Yates, J. W. and E. Kamon. A comparison of peak and constant ang1e torque-ve1ocity curves in fast and s1ow-twitch popu1ations. 'Eur. J._App1ied Physio1. 51:67-74, 1983. Young, A., M. Strokes, I. C. R. Wa1ker, and D. Newham. The re1ationship between quadriceps size and strength in norma1 young adu1ts. Ann. RheUm. Dis. 40:619-620. 1981.