2009
DOI: 10.1123/jab.25.4.304
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relationships between the Front Crawl Stroke Parameters of Competitive Unilateral Arm Amputee Swimmers, with Selected Anthropometric Characteristics

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationships between swimming speed (SS), stroke length (SL), and stroke frequency (SF) for competitive single-arm amputee front crawl swimmers and assess their relationships with anthropometric characteristics. Thirteen highly trained swimmers (3 male, 10 female) were filmed underwater from a lateral view during seven increasingly faster 25-m front crawl trials. Increases in SS (above 75% of maximum SS) were achieved by a 5% increase in SF, which coincided with … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
25
0
3

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
3
25
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the group of swimmers in this study seem to have preferred a longer SL as opposed to SR, having adopted the catch-up model at vVȮ 2max . In another study, swimmers with physical impairment (sport class S5-S10, 100 m competitive event) also adopted the catch-up model in a slightly higher percentage (IdC = −0.17) and had longer propulsive phases (pull = 28.29% and push = 25.60%) [25] than those found in the current study. The swimmers who had a longer catch phase presented a higher IVV in our study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 48%
“…However, the group of swimmers in this study seem to have preferred a longer SL as opposed to SR, having adopted the catch-up model at vVȮ 2max . In another study, swimmers with physical impairment (sport class S5-S10, 100 m competitive event) also adopted the catch-up model in a slightly higher percentage (IdC = −0.17) and had longer propulsive phases (pull = 28.29% and push = 25.60%) [25] than those found in the current study. The swimmers who had a longer catch phase presented a higher IVV in our study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 48%
“…First, while there may be greater hydrodynamic forces reported at given sites for the hand segment, the forearm segment might contribute greater net positive propulsive force than the hand due to having greater propelling surface area . Further, the relative contribution of the forearm segment to 100 m freestyle performance may increase for Para swimmers with an upper limb impairment, as they show varied stroke patterns to increase the angular and linear velocities of their “intact” limb segments and maximize their net propulsive force during swimming . Second, this study only included Para swimmers in the analyses, of which the least impaired Para swimmers with an upper limb impairment would have up to ~50% of their hand length intact as per the minimum impairment eligibility criteria .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…33,37 Further, the relative contribution of the forearm segment to 100 m freestyle performance may increase for Para swimmers with an upper limb impairment, as they show varied stroke patterns to increase the angular and linear velocities of their "intact" limb segments and maximize their net propulsive force during swimming. 16,38,39 Second, this study only included Para swimmers in the analyses, of which the least impaired Para swimmers with an upper limb impairment would have up to ~50% of their hand length intact as per the minimum impairment eligibility criteria. 3 It is possible that the contribution of hand length to 100 m freestyle performance was underestimated by the partial least squares regression, as the results are dependent upon the cases included in the analysis that explain the variance within the dataset.…”
Section: Modelling the Impact Of Limb Deficiency Impairment On Perfmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The absence of body segments or the presence of movement restrictions (Figueiredo et al, 2014;Osborough et al, 2015) and great implications for drag production (Oh et al, 2013) seem to cause a high degree of heterogeneity in the vast majority of SWD classes (sport classes S1-S10). In these sport classes, generation of propulsion is more accentuated by only one upper limb, with a high SR and small SL values at higher speeds (Osborough, Payton, & Daly, 2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%