Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorGonjo, Tomohiro
dc.contributor.authorNarita, Kenzo
dc.contributor.authorMcCabe, Carla
dc.contributor.authorFernandes, Ricardo J.
dc.contributor.authorVilas-Boas, João Paulo
dc.contributor.authorTakagi, Hideki
dc.contributor.authorSanders, Ross
dc.date.accessioned2021-02-01T10:28:40Z
dc.date.available2021-02-01T10:28:40Z
dc.date.created2020-10-05T15:47:16Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.issn2296-4185
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2725516
dc.descriptionThis is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.en_US
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of this study was to investigate differences in Froude efficiency (ηF ) and active drag (DA) between front crawl and backstroke at the same speed. ηF was investigated by the three-dimensional (3D) motion analysis using 10 male swimmers. The swimmers performed 50 m swims at four swimming speeds in each technique, and their whole body motion during one upper-limb cycle was quantified by a 3D direct linear transformation algorithm with manually digitized video footage. Stroke length (SL), stroke frequency (SF), the index of coordination (IdC), ηF , and the underwater body volume (UWVbody) were obtained. DA was assessed by the measuring residual thrust method (MRT method) using a different group of swimmers (six males) due to a sufficient experience and familiarization required for the method. A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA (trials and techniques as the factors) and a paired t-test were used for the outcomes from the 3D motion analysis and the MRT method, respectively. Swimmers had 8.3% longer SL, 5.4% lower SF, 14.3% smaller IdC, and 30.8% higher ηF in front crawl than backstroke in the 3D motion analysis (all p < 0.01), which suggest that front crawl is more efficient than backstroke. Backstroke had 25% larger DA at 1.2 m·s −1 than front crawl (p < 0.01) in the MRT trial. A 4% difference in UWVbody (p < 0.001) between the two techniques in the 3D motion analysis also indirectly showed that the pressure drag and friction drag were probably larger in backstroke than in front crawl. In conclusion, front crawl is more efficient and has a smaller DA than backstroke at the same swimming speed.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.subjectaquatic locomotionen_US
dc.subjectkinematicsen_US
dc.subjectkineticsen_US
dc.subjectfreestyleen_US
dc.subjectback crawlen_US
dc.titleFront Crawl Is More Efficient and Has Smaller Active Drag Than Backstroke Swimming: Kinematic and Kinetic Comparison Between the Two Techniques at the Same Swimming Speedsen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holder© 2020 Gonjo, Narita, McCabe, Fernandes, Vilas-Boas, Takagi and Sanders.en_US
dc.source.journalFrontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 2020, 8, Artikkel 570657en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fbioe.2020.570657
dc.identifier.cristin1837219
dc.description.localcodeInstitutt for fysisk prestasjonsevne / Department of Physical Performanceen_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel