Modelling the relationship between biomechanics and performance of young sprinting swimmers

The aim of this study was to compute a swimming performance confirmatory model based on biomechanical parameters. The sample included 100 young swimmers (overall: 12.3 ± 0.74 years; 49 boys: 12.5 ± 0.76 years; 51 girls: 12.2 ± 0.71 years; both genders in Tanner stages 1–2 by self-report) participating on a regular basis in regional and national-level events. The 100 m freestyle event was chosen as the performance indicator. Anthropometric (arm span), strength (throwing velocity), power output (power to overcome drag), kinematic (swimming velocity) and efficiency (propelling efficiency) parameters were measured and included in the model. The path-flow analysis procedure was used to design and compute the model. The anthropometric parameter (arm span) was excluded in the final model, increasing its goodness-of-fit. The final model included the throw velocity, power output, swimming velocity and propelling efficiency. All links were significant between the parameters included, but the throw velocity–power output. The final model was explained by 69% presenting a reasonable adjustment (model’s goodness-of-fit; x2/df = 3.89). This model shows that strength and power output parameters do play a mediator and meaningful role in the young swimmers’ performance.

Effects of dry-land strength and conditioning programs in age group swimmers

Context: Even though dry-land S&C training is a common practice in swimming, there are countless uncertainties over it effects in performance of age group swimmers. Objective: To investigate the effects of dry-land S&C programs in swimming performance of age group swimmers. Participants: A total of 21 male competitive swimmers (12.7±0.7 years) were randomly assigned to the Control Group (n=7) and experimental GR1 and GR2 (n=7 for each group). Intervention: Control group performed a 10-week training period of swim training alone, GR1 followed a 6-week dry-land S&C program based on sets/repetitions plus a 4-week swim training program alone and GR2 followed a 6-week dry-land S&C program focused on explosiveness, plus a 4-week program of swim training alone. Results: For the dry-land tests a time effect was observed between week 0 and week 6 for vertical jump (p<0.01) in both experimental groups, and for the GR2 ball throwing (p<0.01), with moderate-strong effect sizes. The time*group analyses showed that for performance in 50 m, differences were significant, with the GR2 presenting higher improvements than their counterparts (F=4.156; ƿ=0.007; η2=0.316) at week 10. Conclusions: The results suggest that 6 weeks of a complementary dry-land S&C training may lead to improvements in dry-land strength. Furthermore, a 4-week adaptation period was mandatory to achieve beneficial transfer for aquatic performance. Additional benefits may occur if coaches plan the dry-land S&C training focusing on explosiveness.