Elsevier

Journal of Biomechanics

Volume 48, Issue 15, 26 November 2015, Pages 3995-4001
Journal of Biomechanics

Upper limb kinematic differences between breathing and non-breathing conditions in front crawl sprint swimming

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.09.012Get rights and content

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the breathing action in front crawl (FC) sprint swimming affects the ipsilateral upper limb kinematics relative to a non-breathing stroke cycle (SC). Ten male competitive swimmers performed two 25 m FC sprints: one breathing to their preferred side (Br) and one not breathing (NBr). Both swim trials were performed through a 6.75 m3 calibrated space and recorded by six gen-locked JVC KY32 CCD cameras. A paired t-test was used to assess statistical differences between the trials, with a confidence level of p<0.05 accepted as significant. Swimmers were slower (3%) when breathing. Within the entry phase, swimmers had a slower COM horizontal velocity (3.3%), less shoulder flexion (8%), abduction (33%) and roll (4%) when breathing. The pull phase was longer in duration (14%) swimmers had a shallower hand path (11%), less shoulder abduction (11%), a slower hand vertical acceleration (30%) and slower centre of mass (COM) horizontal velocity (3%) when breathing. In the push phase, swimmers had a smaller elbow range of motion (ROM) (38%), faster backwards hand speed (25%) and faster hand vertical acceleration (33%) when breathing. Swimmers rolled their shoulders more (12%) in the recovery phase when breathing. This study confirms that swim performance is compromised by the inclusion of taking a breath in sprint FC swimming. It was proposed that swimmers aim to orient their ipsilateral shoulder into a stronger position by stretching and rolling the shoulders more in the entry phase whilst preparing to take a breath. Swimmers should focus on lengthening the push phase by extending the elbow more and not accelerating the hand too quickly upwards when preparing to inhale.

Introduction

Researchers have often recommended that swimmers limit the number of breaths taken during a race due to the possible adverse effects that the front crawl breathing action may have on stroke mechanics and hydrodynamic drag (Di Prampero et al., 1974, Pendergast et al., 1977, Town and Vanness, 1990, Cardelli et al., 1999, Formosa et al., 2014). However the literature does not conclusively support the premise that breathing in front crawl swimming has a negative effect on swim performance. Some studies have reported reduced swim velocity and/or stroke frequency as a result of breathing compared to not breathing (Pedersen and Kjendlie, 2006, Psycharakis and McCabe, 2011), whereas other researchers have reported no differences (Castro et al., 2006, Vezos et al., 2007, Seifert et al., 2008). The disparity within the literature may be attributed to methodological issues such as whether the centre of mass (COM) or hip joint was utilised to quantify the above variables, which mathematical approach was implemented, and the range of swim speeds assessed within these studies. Nevertheless, as breathing is a fundamental skill within front crawl swimming, it is imperative to further assess what effect it may have on a swimmer׳s sprint performance.

As the arms contribute to propulsion more than the legs in front crawl swimming (Di Prampero et al., 1974, Watkins and Gordan, 1983), this study will focus on examining the effect breathing has on various key upper limb kinematic variables linked to swim performance. Shoulder and hip roll rotations have been strongly related to front crawl swim performance (Payton et al., 1999, Castro et al., 2002, Psycharakis and Sanders, 2010). Swimming at a 200 m pace, Payton et al. (1999) reported that swimmers rolled their shoulders 9° more during a breathing trial compared to a non-breathing trial. More recently Psycharakis and McCabe (2011) found that although the total magnitude of shoulder and hip roll angles did not differ between breathing conditions, male sprinters rolled their shoulders and hips to the breathing side significantly more (9.5° or 18.8%) relative to the non-breathing side. Previous studies have tended to examine shoulder and hip roll angles in terms of the total magnitudes within the SC. The aim of this study will be to investigate shoulder and hip roll angles within the integral phases of the SC in order to provide a more comprehensive insight as to how these parameters may, or may not, be influenced by the breathing action.

The motion of the shoulders, in terms of flexion/extension, abduction/adduction internal/external rotation and elevation have been associated with determining upper limb propulsion. However, shoulder kinematics are more commonly discussed within aquatic literature in relation to injury and rarely with respect to swim performance within an ecological environment. Consequently, it is unknown whether incorporating a breath within the SC causes alterations of the shoulder movements and thus influences the swimmer׳s overall performance.

The shoulder motion has often been linked to the hand-path throughout the underwater stroke cycle (SC) which consists of horizontal, vertical and lateral motions in order to achieve forward propulsion of the body (Schleihauf et al., 1983, Deschodt et al., 1996a, Deschodt et al., 1999). To date, only two studies have investigated the influence the breathing action has on hand-path trajectory. Payton et al. (1999) reported that the front crawl breathing action did not interfere with the underwater hand-path, in terms of maximum depth and width when elite male swimmers swam at a 200 m pace. However Vezos et al. (2007) found that the breathing action caused significant modifications in hand-path when investigating a group of female front crawl sprinters at a submaximal pace. Vezos et al. (2007) speculated that the discrepancies with Payton et al. (1999) were due to anthropometric differences associated with opposing genders sampled, yet did not consider the differing swim pace. Because Payton et al. (1999) analysed swimmers at a 200 m pace, it is unknown whether male swimmers adjust their hand-path between breathing and non-breathing conditions when swimming at a sprint pace. Such knowledge is beneficial in terms of how the breathing action may, or may not, alter a swimmer׳s hand-path when maximally swimming, thus ultimately influencing their forward propulsion and performance.

The elbow angle magnitude during the underwater phase of the SC has been proposed to influence the hand-path trajectory (Hay et al., 1993) whilst also affecting the propulsive actions of the upper limbs (Cappaert, 1998, Haffner and Cappaert, 1998). Payton et al. (1999) is the only study to examine the elbow angle between breathing and non-breathing conditions, reporting that the breathing action did not influence the elbow angle range of motion (ROM) during the pull phase (breathing: 44±15°; non-breathing: 45±14°). Therefore, with the exception of only the pull phase, no study has examined the elbow angle magnitudes throughout the underwater SC between breathing conditions when front crawl sprinting, which could affect the capability of the upper limbs to generate propulsion.

The pull and push phases are regarded as propulsive and the entry and recovery phases are regarded non-propulsive (Chollet et al., 2000). Payton et al. (1999) noted that male swimmers had a longer duration of the underwater phase during the breathing trials (1.11±0.15 s) vs. non-breathing trials (1.05±0.12 s) but did not comment whether this observed difference was significant. Vezos et al. (2007) found similar results within a female sprint group (breathing: 1.25±0.17 s vs. breath-holding: 1.16±0.15 s; p<0.05), but added that the longer duration within breathing trials was the result of a prolonged entry phase compared to the non-breathing trials. Payton et al. (1999) did not report the durations of the discrete phases between breathing conditions. Thus, it is important to explore whether the breathing action affects the duration of the propulsive and/or non-propulsive stroke phases in front crawl sprint swimming as ultimately any changes are likely to affect swim performance.

The velocity of the swimmer׳s COM has become a valuable tool as it indicates when and to what extent phases of the SC are effective in propelling the body forwards (Maglischo et al., 1989, Alves et al., 1994). To date, no study has investigated the COM velocity magnitude within the integral phases of the SC in relation to breathing vs. non-breathing conditions. The literature further indicates that the COM velocity is strongly influenced by swimmers accelerating their hands (Schleihauf, 1984), yet no study has examined these characteristics between breathing conditions within a male sprinting population.

In summary, it is unclear to what extent breathing affects performance in terms of, shoulder/hip roll, shoulder kinematics, hand-path, elbow angle magnitudes, stroke phase durations, COM velocity profile, hand velocity and acceleration throughout the SC. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the breathing action in front crawl sprint swimming affects the ipsilateral upper limb kinematics (same side as breathing side) relative to a non-breathing stroke cycle and to assess any changes in swimming performance. The rationale to analyse the ipsilateral hand was to compare datasets in relation to previous studies and its action may be constrained by the breathing rotation whereas there is no a priori reason to expect that the hand motion on the non-breathing side would be affected.

Section snippets

Participants

Ten male front crawl swimmers (age: 18.4±2.6 years; mass: 72.9±10.2 kg; height: 182.7±7.9 cm) volunteered to participate in this study. These athletes competed at a national/international level and registered a personal best time of 25.31±0.98 s (long course) for 50 m front crawl sprint. The test procedures were approved by the University Ethics Committee and all swimmers provided written informed consent.

Testing Procedure

Following an individualised warm-up each participant swam two randomised maximal 25 m front

Race parameters

Swim velocity was significantly greater during the NBr (1.82±0.08 m s−1) compared to Br (1.77±0.07 m s-1) trials (t(9)=2.78; p=0.02; d=0.67). There were no significant differences between conditions for SL (NBr: 1.98±0.14 m; Br: 1.96±0.18 m; t(9)=0.52; d=0.12) and SF (NBr: 55.2±4.1 cycles min−1; Br: 54.6±4.5 cycles min−1; t(9)=0.63; d=0.14).

Shoulder and hip roll

Fig. 1 illustrates the finding that average shoulder roll angle was 4° (11%) greater within the entry phase of the NBr trial compared to Br trial (p=0.03; d=1.04).

Discussion

When incorporating a breath into the SC, swimmers were overall slower. For the entry phase, swimmers had a slower COM horizontal velocity, less shoulder flexion, abduction and roll during the breathing trial. The pull phase was longer in duration, swimmers had a shallower hand path, less shoulder abduction, a slower hand vertical acceleration and slower COM horizontal velocity when breathing. The push phase was shorter in duration, swimmers had a smaller range of elbow extension, faster hand

Conclusion

Taking a breath in sprint front crawl swimming resulted in a decrement in performance compared to not taking a breath. Overall, as swimmers prepare to incorporate a breath into the stroke cycle, the ipsilateral shoulder remains closer to the COM during both the entry and pull phases thus potentially reducing the magnitude of torque applied compared to the faster non-breathing trial. Swimmers should ‘stretch’ and roll the shoulders more within the entry phase of a breathing trial as this should

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Georgios Machtsiras for his assistance during the data collection process.

References (33)

  • S.G. Psycharakis et al.

    Shoulder and hip roll differences between breathing and non-breathing conditions in front crawl swimming

    J. Biomech.

    (2011)
  • E.J. Weldon et al.

    Upper extremity overuse injuries in swimming

    Clin. Sports Med.

    (2001)
  • Alves, F., Santos, P.M., Veloso, A., Pinto Correia, I., Gomes-Pereira, J., 1994. A method to evaluate intracycle...
  • P. Bloomfield

    Fourier Analysis of Time Series

    (1976)
  • Cappaert, J.M., 1998. Biomechanics of swimming analysed by three-dimensional techniques. In: Proceedings of the VIII...
  • C. Cardelli et al.

    Analysis of the 100-m front crawl as a function of skill level in non-expert swimmers

    J. Hum. Mov. Stud.

    (1999)
  • Castro, F., Minghelli, F., Floss, J., Guimaraes, A., 2002. Body roll angles in frontcrawl swimming in different...
  • F. Castro et al.

    Effect of swimming intensity and breathing in front crawl body roll angles for swimmers and triathletes

    Braz. J. Biomech.

    (2006)
  • D. Chollet et al.

    A new index of coordination for the crawl: description and usefulness

    Int. J. Sports Med.

    (2000)
  • J. Cohen

    A power primer

    Psychol. Bull.

    (1992)
  • Deffeyes, J., Sanders, R.H., 2005. Elliptical zone body segment modelling software: digitising, modelling and body...
  • Deschodt, V.J., Rouard, A.H., Monteil, K.M., 1996a. Relationships between the three coordinates of the upper limb...
  • Deschodt, V.J., Rouard, A.H., Monteil, K.M., 1996b. Relative displacements of the wrist, elbow, and shoulder. In:...
  • V.J. Deschodt et al.

    Relative contribution of arms and legs in humans to propulsion in 25-m sprint front-crawl swimming

    Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol.

    (1999)
  • P.E. Di Prampero et al.

    Energetics of swimming in man

    J. Appl. Physiol.

    (1974)
  • D. Formosa et al.

    The influence of the breathing action on net drag force production in front crawl swimming

    Int. J. Sports Med.

    (2014)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text