A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

The Mechanical and Efficiency Constraints When Swimming Front Crawl with the Aquanex System. | LitMetric

The Mechanical and Efficiency Constraints When Swimming Front Crawl with the Aquanex System.

J Hum Kinet

Centre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport (CIFI2D), Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.

Published: October 2022


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the mechanical and efficiency constraints between free swim and swimming with differential pressure sensors (Aquanex System). These conditions were also analysed to understand the differences between sexes. Thirty young swimmers, 14 boys and 16 girls (12.31 ± 0.67 years) performed three 25-m front crawl maximal bouts under each condition: free swim and swimming with sensors. Under the condition with sensors, swimmers carried the Aquanex System composed of two hand pressure sensors (v.4.1, Model DU2, Type A, Swimming Technology Research, Richmond, VA, USA). The 25-m time (T25) was assessed as a swimming performance variable. The swimming velocity (v), stroke rate (SR), and stroke length (SL) were assessed and calculated as stroke mechanics variables. Thereafter, the stroke index (SI) and arm stroke efficiency ( ) were estimated for swimming efficiency. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Swimming performance was impaired when swimmers swam with sensors (overall: p = 0.03, d = 0.14; Δ = 1.30%) and a significant decrease in v was found for overall (p = 0.04, d = 0.14; Δ = 1.42%) and the girls' group (p < 0.01, d = 0.39; Δ = -1.99%). The remaining stroke mechanics variables showed no differences between conditions, as well as for swimming efficiency. Furthermore, there were no differences between girls and boys in free swim and with sensors for all variables. Swimming with the Aquanex System seems not to impose constraints in the mechanics and efficiency of young swimmers, despite differences in swimming performance and v.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9679191PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2022-0090DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

aquanex system
16
free swim
12
swimming performance
12
swimming
11
mechanical efficiency
8
efficiency constraints
8
front crawl
8
swim swimming
8
pressure sensors
8
young swimmers
8

Similar Publications