Comparison and Agreement between Simplified and Three-dimensional Methods for Estimating the Front Crawl Stroke Arm Stroke Efficiency

Q3 Health Professions Open Sports Sciences Journal Pub Date : 2022-10-19 DOI:10.2174/1875399x-v15-e2208100
A. F. Giuliano, R. Correia, W. G. Feitosa, Lucas Beal, Ana Laura R. Cardoso, F. Castro
{"title":"Comparison and Agreement between Simplified and Three-dimensional Methods for Estimating the Front Crawl Stroke Arm Stroke Efficiency","authors":"A. F. Giuliano, R. Correia, W. G. Feitosa, Lucas Beal, Ana Laura R. Cardoso, F. Castro","doi":"10.2174/1875399x-v15-e2208100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n To compare and verify the agreement of the arm stroke efficiency (ȠF) results obtained by simplified (ȠFS) and three-dimensional (ȠF 3D) methods.\n \n \n \n Arm stroke efficiency (ȠF) estimates how much of the force applied by the swimmers’ upper limbs contribute to their propulsion. To estimate ȠF, in front crawl stroke, three-dimensional (ȠF3D) and simplified (ȠFS) methods are highlighted.\n \n \n \n To verify if different methods estimate similar arm stroke efficiency values.\n \n \n \n Ten male swimmers (age: 21.5 ± 2.6 years; height: 1.78 ± 0.05 m; competitive swimming experience: 12.2 ± 5.0 years) were tested in three 25 m front crawl stroke bouts at low, moderate, and high intensities. The ȠF data were obtained after collecting swimming images with six synchronized cameras and later analyzed in motion reconstruction software.\n \n \n \n The mean results of ȠF, respectively for ȠF3D and ȠFS, were: 34.7±2.1% and 47.4±6.4% at a low; 34.8±2.7% and 42.3±3.3% in moderate; and 33.1±2.6% and 32.4±2.9% at high intensity. Along the intensities, ȠF remained similar with ȠF3D and reduced with ȠFS. ȠF was lower with ȠF3D than with ȠFS at low and moderate intensities (p < 0.05) and similar at maximum intensity (p > 0.05).\n \n \n \n At maximum intensity, the ȠF values agree between the methods. The results obtained by both methods were not fully similar. ȠF3D and ȠFS results agree just at high intensity. The differences between the methods may be due to the different variables used to measure ȠF, stroke rate in the ȠFS and three-dimensional hand velocity in the ȠF3D.\n","PeriodicalId":38865,"journal":{"name":"Open Sports Sciences Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Sports Sciences Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1875399x-v15-e2208100","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To compare and verify the agreement of the arm stroke efficiency (ȠF) results obtained by simplified (ȠFS) and three-dimensional (ȠF 3D) methods. Arm stroke efficiency (ȠF) estimates how much of the force applied by the swimmers’ upper limbs contribute to their propulsion. To estimate ȠF, in front crawl stroke, three-dimensional (ȠF3D) and simplified (ȠFS) methods are highlighted. To verify if different methods estimate similar arm stroke efficiency values. Ten male swimmers (age: 21.5 ± 2.6 years; height: 1.78 ± 0.05 m; competitive swimming experience: 12.2 ± 5.0 years) were tested in three 25 m front crawl stroke bouts at low, moderate, and high intensities. The ȠF data were obtained after collecting swimming images with six synchronized cameras and later analyzed in motion reconstruction software. The mean results of ȠF, respectively for ȠF3D and ȠFS, were: 34.7±2.1% and 47.4±6.4% at a low; 34.8±2.7% and 42.3±3.3% in moderate; and 33.1±2.6% and 32.4±2.9% at high intensity. Along the intensities, ȠF remained similar with ȠF3D and reduced with ȠFS. ȠF was lower with ȠF3D than with ȠFS at low and moderate intensities (p < 0.05) and similar at maximum intensity (p > 0.05). At maximum intensity, the ȠF values agree between the methods. The results obtained by both methods were not fully similar. ȠF3D and ȠFS results agree just at high intensity. The differences between the methods may be due to the different variables used to measure ȠF, stroke rate in the ȠFS and three-dimensional hand velocity in the ȠF3D.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
估算前爬泳臂游效率的简化方法与三维方法的比较与一致
比较并验证简化(ȠFS)方法与三维(ȠF 3D)方法所得的手臂冲程效率(ȠF)结果的一致性。手臂划水效率(ȠF)估算游泳者上肢对推进力的贡献。为了估计ȠF,在前爬泳中,强调了三维(ȠF3D)和简化(ȠFS)方法。验证不同方法是否估算出相似的臂划效率值。男性游泳运动员10名(年龄21.5±2.6岁;高度:1.78±0.05 m;竞技游泳经验:12.2±5.0年)在低、中、高强度三组25米爬泳中进行测试。ȠF数据是通过6台同步摄像机采集游泳图像,然后在运动重建软件中进行分析得到的。ȠF3D和ȠFS的平均结果分别为:最低时为34.7±2.1%和47.4±6.4%;中度34.8±2.7%,42.3±3.3%;高强度为33.1±2.6%、32.4±2.9%。沿强度方向,ȠF与ȠF3D基本一致,随ȠFS减小。在低、中强度下,ȠF与ȠF3D的比值低于ȠFS (p < 0.05),在最高强度下,两者相差不大(p < 0.05)。在最大强度下,两种方法的ȠF值一致。两种方法得到的结果并不完全相似。ȠF3D和ȠFS的结果在高强度下一致。两种方法之间的差异可能是由于用于测量ȠF的不同变量,ȠFS中的冲程速率和ȠF3D中的三维手速度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Open Sports Sciences Journal
Open Sports Sciences Journal Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
Different Smoothing Window Lengths can Estimate the Neuromuscular Fatigue Threshold at The same Intensity of the Lactate Threshold During the Leg Press Exercise Different Smoothing Window Lengths can Estimate the Neuromuscular Fatigue Threshold at The same Intensity of the Lactate Threshold During the Leg Press Exercise Attitudes towards LGBTQ+ Inclusion in Canadian Figure Skating The Post-Exercise Lower Limbs Recovery Process: A Questionnaire Applied To Physiotherapists Inflammatory Indices During and After a Randomized Controlled Trial on Exercise in Old Adults: Could Moderate-Intensity Exercise Be Safe Enough? (Active Elderly and Health – Clinicaltrials.Gov, Nct03858114)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1