Role of kicking action in front crawl: the inter-relationships between swimming velocity, hand propulsive force and trunk inclination.

This study aimed to investigate the essential role of the kicking action in front crawl. To achieve this objective, we examined the relationships of the hand propulsive force and trunk inclination with swimming velocity over a wide range of velocities from 0.75 m·s-1 to maximum effort, including the experimental conditions of arm stroke without a pull buoy. Seven male swimmers performed a 25 m front crawl at various speeds under three swimming conditions: arm stroke with a pull buoy, arm stroke without a pull buoy (AWOB) and arm stroke with a six-beat kick (SWIM). Swimming velocity, hand propulsive force and trunk inclination were calculated using an underwater motion-capture system and pressure sensors. Most notably, AWOB consistently exhibited greater values than SWIM for hand propulsive force across the range of observed velocities (p < 0.05) and for trunk inclination below the severe velocity (p < 0.05), and these differences increased with decreasing velocity. These results indicate that 1) the kicking action in front crawl has a positive effect on reducing the pressure drag acting on the trunk, thereby allowing swimmers to achieve a given velocity with less hand propulsive force, and 2) this phenomenon is significant in low-velocity ranges.

How do swimmers control their front crawl swimming velocity? Current knowledge and gaps from hydrodynamic perspectives.

The aim of this study was to review the literature on front crawl swimming biomechanics, focusing on propulsive and resistive forces at different swimming velocities. Recent studies show that the resistive force increases in proportion to the cube of the velocity, which implies that a proficient technique to miminise the resistive (and maximise the propulsive) force is particularly important in sprinters. To increase the velocity in races, swimmers increase their stroke frequency. However, experimental and simulation studies have revealed that there is a maximum frequency beyond which swimmers cannot further increase swimming velocity due to a change in the angle of attack of the hand that reduces its propulsive force. While the results of experimental and simulation studies are consistent regarding the effect of the arm actions on propulsion, the findings of investigations into the effect of the kicking motion are conflicting. Some studies have indicated a positive effect of kicking on propulsion at high swimming velocities while the others have yielded the opposite result. Therefore, this review contributes to knowledge of how the upper-limb propulsion can be optimised and indicates a need for further investigation to understand how the kicking action can be optimised in front crawl swimming.Abbreviations: C: Energy cost [kJ/m]; E: Metabolic power [W, kJ/s]; Fhand: Fluid resultant force exerted by the hand [N]; Ftotal: Total resultant force [N] (See Appendix A); Fnormal: The sum of the fluid forces acting on body segments toward directions perpendicular to the segmental long axis, which is proportional to the square of the segmental velocity. [N] (See Appendix A); Ftangent: The sum of the fluid forces acting on body segments along the direction parallel to the segmental long axis, which is proportional to the square of the segmental velocity. [N] (See Appendix A); Faddmass: The sum of the inertial force acting on the body segments due to the acceleration of a mass of water [N] (See Appendix A); Fbuoyant: The sum of the buoyant forces acting on the body segments [N] (See Appendix A); D: Fluid resistive force acting on a swimmer's body (active drag) [N]; T: Thrust (propulsive) force acting in the swimming direction in reaction to the swimmer's actions [N]; Thand: Thrust force produced in reaction to the actions of the hand [N]; Tupper_limb: Thrust force produced in reaction to the actions of the upper limbs [N]; Tlower_limb: Thrust force produced in reaction to the actions of the lower limbs [N]; Mbody: Whole-body mass of the swimmer [kg]; SF: Stroke frequency (stroke number per second) [Hz]; SL: Stroke length (distance travelled per stroke) [m]; v: Instantaneous centre of mass velocity of the swimmer [m/s]; V-: Mean of the instantaneous centre of mass velocities in the swimming direction over the period of the stroke cycle [m/s]; a: Centre of mass acceleration of the swimmer [m/s2]; V-hand: Mean of the instantaneous magnitudes of hand velocity over a period of time [m/s]; Wtot: Total mechanical power [W]; Wext: External mechanical power [W]; Wd: Drag power (mechanical power needed to overcome drag) [W, Nm/s]; α: Angle of attack of the palm plane with respect to the velocity vector of the hand [deg]; ηo: Overall efficiency [%]; ηp: Propelling efficiency [%]; MAD-system: Measuring Active Drag system; MRT method: Measuring Residual Thrust method.

Novel Method for Estimating Propulsive Force Generated by Swimmers' Hands Using Inertial Measurement Units and Pressure Sensors.

Propulsive force is a determinant of swimming performance. Several methods have been proposed to estimate the propulsive force in human swimming; however, their practical use in coaching is limited. Herein, we propose a novel method for estimating the propulsive force generated by swimmers' hands using an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and pressure sensors. In Experiment 1, we use a hand model to examine the effect of a hand-mounted IMU on pressure around the hand model at several flow velocities and water flow directions. In Experiment 2, we compare the propulsive force estimated using the IMU and pressure sensors (FIMU) via an underwater motion-capture system and pressure sensors (FMocap). Five swimmers had markers, pressure sensors, and IMUs attached to their hands and performed front crawl swimming for 25 m twice at each of nine different swimming speeds. The results show that the hand-mounted IMU affects the resultant force; however, the effect of the hand-mounted IMU varies with the flow direction. The mean values of FMocap and FIMU are similar (19.59 ± 7.66 N and 19.36 ± 7.86 N, respectively; intraclass correlation coefficient(2,1) = 0.966), and their waveforms are similar (coefficient of multiple correlation = 0.99). These results indicate that the IMU can estimate the same level of propulsive force as an underwater motion-capture system.

Front Crawl Is More Efficient and Has Smaller Active Drag Than Backstroke Swimming: Kinematic and Kinetic Comparison Between the Two Techniques at the Same Swimming Speeds.

The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in Froude efficiency (η F ) and active drag (D A ) between front crawl and backstroke at the same speed. η F was investigated by the three-dimensional (3D) motion analysis using 10 male swimmers. The swimmers performed 50 m swims at four swimming speeds in each technique, and their whole body motion during one upper-limb cycle was quantified by a 3D direct linear transformation algorithm with manually digitized video footage. Stroke length (SL), stroke frequency (SF), the index of coordination (IdC), η F , and the underwater body volume (UWV body ) were obtained. D A was assessed by the measuring residual thrust method (MRT method) using a different group of swimmers (six males) due to a sufficient experience and familiarization required for the method. A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA (trials and techniques as the factors) and a paired t-test were used for the outcomes from the 3D motion analysis and the MRT method, respectively. Swimmers had 8.3% longer SL, 5.4% lower SF, 14.3% smaller IdC, and 30.8% higher η F in front crawl than backstroke in the 3D motion analysis (all p < 0.01), which suggest that front crawl is more efficient than backstroke. Backstroke had 25% larger D A at 1.2 m⋅s-1 than front crawl (p < 0.01) in the MRT trial. A 4% difference in UWV body (p < 0.001) between the two techniques in the 3D motion analysis also indirectly showed that the pressure drag and friction drag were probably larger in backstroke than in front crawl. In conclusion, front crawl is more efficient and has a smaller D A than backstroke at the same swimming speed.

Effect of leg kick on active drag in front-crawl swimming: Comparison of whole stroke and arms-only stroke during front-crawl and the streamlined position.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of leg kick on the resistance force in front-crawl swimming. The active drag in front-crawl swimming with and without leg motion was evaluated using measured values of residual thrust (MRT method) and compared with the passive drag of the streamlined position (SP) for the same swimmers. Seven male competitive swimmers participated in this study, and the testing was conducted in a swimming flume. Each swimmer performed front-crawl under two conditions: using arms and legs (whole stroke: WS) and using arms only (arms-only stroke: AS). Active drag and passive drag were measured at swimming velocities of 1.1 and 1.3 m s-1 using load cells connected to the swimmer via wires. We calculated a drag coefficient to compare the resistances of the WS, AS and SP at each velocity. For both the WS and AS at both swimming velocities, active drag coefficient was found to be about 1.6-1.9 times larger than that in passive conditions. In contrast, although leg movement did not cause a difference in drag coefficient for front-crawl swimming, there was a large effect size (d = 1.43) at 1.3 m s-1. Therefore, although upper and lower limb movements increase resistance compared to the passive condition, the effect of leg kick on drag may depend on swimming velocity.

Developing a methodology for estimating the drag in front-crawl swimming at various velocities.

We aimed to develop a new method for evaluating the drag in front-crawl swimming at various velocities and at full stroke. In this study, we introduce the basic principle and apparatus for the new method, which estimates the drag in swimming using measured values of residual thrust (MRT). Furthermore, we applied the MRT to evaluate the active drag (Da) and compared it with the passive drag (Dp) measured for the same swimmers. Da was estimated in five-stages for velocities ranging from 1.0 to 1.4ms-1; Dp was measured at flow velocities ranging from 0.9 to 1.5ms-1 at intervals of 0.1ms-1. The variability in the values of Da at MRT was also investigated for two swimmers. According to the results, Da (Da=32.3 v3.3, N=30, R2=0.90) was larger than Dp (Dp=23.5 v2.0, N=42, R2=0.89) and the variability in Da for the two swimmers was 6.5% and 3.0%. MRT can be used to evaluate Da at various velocities and is special in that it can be applied to various swimming styles. Therefore, the evaluation of drag in swimming using MRT is expected to play a role in establishing the fundamental data for swimming.