2001
DOI: 10.1080/10578310210396
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Kinematical Analysis of Underwater Walking and Running

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

4
32
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
4
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The data collected in this case study supports the increased metabolic cost of running during ATM at the same speed ( Figure 4) and is likely a result of increased hydrodynamic resistance, 26 identified as an "added-mass".…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 53%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The data collected in this case study supports the increased metabolic cost of running during ATM at the same speed ( Figure 4) and is likely a result of increased hydrodynamic resistance, 26 identified as an "added-mass".…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 53%
“…Furthermore, the understanding that ATM compared to LTM running can result in greater metabolic costs [23][24][25][26] suggests it could be used as a means for maintaining specific cardiovascular fitness and therefore performance during periods of injury amongst runners. However, such suppositions are unsubstantiated for an injured athlete(s) and it is unknown how such periods of training might effect normal running dynamics on return to land based training.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The differences in water levels between these studies make it difficult to make direct comparisons. Kato, Onishi, and Kitagawa (2001), however, reported that SWR at 200 m/min in water depth set at the umbilicus yielded a greater VO 2 cost than TM at the same speed . This contradicts the results of Gleim and Nicholas and the present study and might reflect differences in water depth, participant population, familiarity with SWR, and training state (Frangolias, Rhodes, & Taunton, 1996).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pohl and McNaughton (2003) reported significantly greater (22%) stride rates on land (149 strides/min) than in waist-deep water (122 strides/min) during running at 116.7 m/min. Kato, Onishi, and Kitagawa (2001) reported significantly lower stride rates during running at 200 m/min in waist-deep water than on land. Gleim and Nicholas (1989) proposed that running in thigh-deep or shallower water provides little buoyancy, and thus the added drag forces in water magnify the overall metabolic cost.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%