Relationship between Maximum Force–Velocity Exertion and Swimming Performances among Four Strokes over Medium and Short Distances: The Stronger on Dry Land, the Faster in Water?

Abstract

Evaluating force–velocity characteristics on dry-land is of the utmost importance in swimming, because higher levels of these bio-motor abilities positively affect in-water performance. However, the wide range of possible technical specializations presents an opportunity for a more categorized approach that has yet to be seized. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify feasible differences in maximum force–velocity exertion based on swimmers’ stroke and distance specialization. To this scope, 96 young male swimmers competing at the regional level were divided into 12 groups, one for each stroke (butterfly, backstroke, breaststroke, and front crawl) and distance (50 m, 100 m, and 200 m). They performed two single pull-up tests, 5-min before and after competing in a federal swimming race. We assessed force (N) and velocity (m/s) exertion via linear encoder. There were no significant differences between pre-post maximum force–velocity exertions, despite the decreasing trend. Force-parameters highly correlated with each other and with the swimming performance time. Moreover, both force (t = −3.60, p < 0.001) and velocity (t = −3.90, p < 0.001) were significant predictors of swimming race time. Sprinters (both 50 m and 100 m) of all strokes could exert significantly higher force–velocity compared to 200 m swimmers (e.g., 0.96 ± 0.06 m/s performed by sprinters vs. 0.66 ± 0.03 m/s performed by 200 m swimmers). Moreover, breaststroke sprinters presented significantly lower force–velocity compared to sprinters specialized in the other strokes (e.g., 1047.83 ± 61.33 N performed by breaststroke sprinters vs. 1263.62 ± 161.23 N performed by butterfly sprinters). This study could provide the foundation for future research regarding the role of stroke and distance specializations in modeling swimmers’ force–velocity abilities, thus influencing paramount elements for specific training and improvement towards competitions.

Countermovement-Jump and Pull-Up Performance Before and After a Swimming Race in Preparatory and Competitive Phases of a Swimming Season

“…Between the data collection in October and May (total 28 weeks), all three coaches voluntarily reported training information regarding volume, intensity, dryland sessions and competitions for research purposes only As shown in Figure 1, the swimmers first executed 30 min of warm-up in the official period set aside for this purpose. Prior to the start of the race, the participants were instructed to perform two maximal explosive PU tests, according to the procedure shown in Sorgente et al 5 , and two maximal CMJs in that order. For all tests, participants were fully dried and completed tests barefoot on a dry surface and wearing only swimsuits.…”

“…The pull-ups were performed using a standard steel bar of 3.81 cm in diameter (1.5 inches), standing 2.5 m from the ground. Mean Velocity (m/s) during the pull-up was calculated using the Vitruve linear encoder (Speed4Lifts, Madrid, Spain), previously validated 16 and used by our research team 5 . Specifically, this linear encoder comes in the portable form of an 8 cm 3 box, equipped with an extensible wire that is attachable via a Velcro strap.…”

“…For example, Keiner et al 3 reported several strong correlations between a range of strength tests (bench press, squats and countermovement jumps, CMJ) and swimming performance for sprints between 15-100m, and particularly for the shorter distances up to 25m. It has also been shown that the maximum velocity and force generated during the pull-up exercise correlates highly with swimming velocity [4][5] . The study by Pérez-Olea et al 4 , examined the validity of the CMJ and the pull-up (PU) exercise as predictors of swimming performance.…”

The effectiveness of adjusting resistance training loads through velocity-based techniques in experienced sprinters: a case series study

“…Moreover, we employed the PSQ incremental test to develop the force-velocity profile of each participant. By leveraging on the well-known load-velocity relation (which is R 2 > 0.98) ( Samozino et al, 2012 ; González Badillo et al, 2017 ; Sánchez-Medina et al, 2017 ; Sorgente et al, 2023 ), from the force-velocity profile we were able to establish the load intensity for each ST session. At least six loads were needed, which represent points in the linear relationship As for the SJ test, participants started the exercise with only their bodyweight, progressively increasing the load by 5-10 Kg until they jumped as low as 20 cm, which represents the optimum mean propulsive power of the athlete ( Loturco et al, 2015b ).…”

Efficiency in Kinesiology: Innovative Approaches in Enhancing Motor Skills for Athletic Performance

“…Evaluating force–velocity characteristics on dry land is of the utmost importance in swimming, since higher levels of these bio-motor abilities positively affect in-water performance. Sorgente et al [ 6 ] search for differences among swimmers’ stroke (butterfly, backstroke, breaststroke, front-crawl) and distance specialization (50, 100, and 200 m) by measuring the maximum force–velocity exertion during the pull-up motion. Assessments are performed (via linear encoder) before and after taking part in an official swimming race.…”