AquaTrainer® Snorkel does not Increase Hydrodynamic Drag but Influences Turning Time

Abstract

Our purpose was to verify if the use of the new AquaTrainer(®) respiratory snorkel lead to an increase of front crawl hydrodynamic drag and whether the constraint of using an adapted turning technique influences its corresponding turning time. 12 swimmers performed 2 (without and with snorkel) 12×25 front crawl repetitions from low to maximal velocity on the measuring active drag system. Complementarily, 3 swimming turns were compared: open turn with snorkel, tumble turn and open turn without snorkel. Drag values were similar without vs. with snorkel at 0.9, 1.1, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.7 m.s(-1) velocities: 15.84 ±5.32 vs. 16.18±4.81, 25.60±6.69 vs. 26.03±6.17, 38.37±8.04 vs. 38.88±7.56, 54.64±10.06 vs. 55.08±9.55, 74.77±14.09 vs. 74.92±13.14 N, (respectively, p≥0.05), and high agreement between conditions was observed (p<0.01). Front crawl swimming with snorkel using the open turn implied an increase in turning time of 14.2 and 5.1% than the tumble turn and open turn without the apparatus (p<0.01). AquaTrainer(®) snorkel does not lead to an increase in active drag during front crawl performed at a large range of velocities and, consequently, the metabolic energy necessary to overcome total drag will not be affected. However, turning with it requires an additional time that should be taken into account in scientific research and training conditions.

The 400-m Front Crawl Test: Energetic and 3D Kinematical Analyses

“…Subsequently, these were listed in an attempt to find which parameter(s) could explain the performance in 400-m front crawl test. T400 performance depends heavily on the aerobic system because the test lasts around 300 s. It should be pointed that the swimmers were breathing through a snorkel during the test, to enable obtaining VO 2 values, and this impairs turns and the dolphin kick phase after turns, thus increasing performance time but not impairing mean swimming speed or other kinematical parameters [26]. Energetic contributions can be expressed as work performed (in kJ), metabolic power (in kW) and ES percentage values.…”

Effects of detraining in age-group swimmers performance, energetics and kinematics

“…Swimmers were advised to record their daily activities for their own control. The IPAQ has adequate test-retest reliability with a mean correlation of~0.80 ranging from "fair" 0.46 to "excellent" 0.96 (Craig et al, 2003) Respiratory and pulmonary gas-exchange data were measured breath-by-breath using a telemetric portable gas analyzer (K4b 2 , Cosmed, Rome, Italy) connected to a low hydrodynamic resistance respiratory snorkel and valve system (AquaTrainer®, Cosmed, Rome, Italy; Ribeiro et al, 2016). The telemetric portable gas analyser was calibrated before each testing session and transported on a steel cable along the swimming pool suspended at a 2-m height over the water (de Jesus et al, 2014).…”

“…Swimmers were familiarised during three months before the PRE testing, three times per week, with a snorkel (Arena swim snorkel SKU: 95,257; Tolentino, Italy) and nose clip (Arena nose clip pro SKU: 95,204; Tolentino, Italy). In-water starts and open turns were employed given the physical restrictions associated with the equipment (Ribeiro et al, 2016). Heart rate (HR) was monitored continuously by a Polar Vantage NV (Polar Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland) that transmitted the data telemetrically to the K4b 2 portable unit.…”

Commentary: Anaerobic Contribution Determined in Swimming Distances: Relation With Performance

“…Furthermore, even if a more hydrodynamic, ergonomic, and comfortable snorkel generation is available (Baldari et al, 2013 ), it still does not allow diving and tumble turning, leading to lower velocities comparing to unimpeded swimming (Barbosa et al, 2010 ; Ribeiro et al, 2016 ). However, we disagree that this apparatus “clearly disrupts the motor pattern,” as there are no evidences of relevant technical modifications.…”