Download PDF
Int J Sports Med 2016; 37(04): 324-328
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1555859
Training & Testing
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

AquaTrainer® Snorkel does not Increase Hydrodynamic Drag but Influences Turning Time

J. Ribeiro
2   Porto Biomechanics Laboratory, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
,
P. Figueiredo
3   School of Physical Education, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
,
L. Guidetti
4   Health Sciences Department, University of Rome “Foro Italico”, Rome, Italy
,
F. Alves
5   Faculty of Human Movement, Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
,
H. Toussaint
6   School of Sports and Nutrition, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands
,
J. P. Vilas-Boas
2   Porto Biomechanics Laboratory, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
,
C. Baldari
4   Health Sciences Department, University of Rome “Foro Italico”, Rome, Italy
,
R. J. Fernandes
1   Centre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
2   Porto Biomechanics Laboratory, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History



accepted after revision 04 June 2015

Publication Date:
14 December 2015 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Our purpose was to verify if the use of the new AquaTrainer® respiratory snorkel lead to an increase of front crawl hydrodynamic drag and whether the constraint of using an adapted turning technique influences its corresponding turning time. 12 swimmers performed 2 (without and with snorkel) 12×25 front crawl repetitions from low to maximal velocity on the measuring active drag system. Complementarily, 3 swimming turns were compared: open turn with snorkel, tumble turn and open turn without snorkel. Drag values were similar without vs. with snorkel at 0.9, 1.1, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.7 m.s−1 velocities: 15.84 ±5.32 vs. 16.18±4.81, 25.60±6.69 vs. 26.03±6.17, 38.37±8.04 vs. 38.88±7.56, 54.64±10.06 vs. 55.08±9.55, 74.77±14.09 vs. 74.92±13.14 N, (respectively, p≥0.05), and high agreement between conditions was observed (p<0.01). Front crawl swimming with snorkel using the open turn implied an increase in turning time of 14.2 and 5.1% than the tumble turn and open turn without the apparatus (p<0.01). AquaTrainer® snorkel does not lead to an increase in active drag during front crawl performed at a large range of velocities and, consequently, the metabolic energy necessary to overcome total drag will not be affected. However, turning with it requires an additional time that should be taken into account in scientific research and training conditions.

Key words

swimming - energetics - K4b2 - turns - front crawl
 

  • References

  • 1 Baldari C, Fernandes RJ, Meucci M, Ribeiro J, Vilas-Boas JP, Guidetti L. Is the new AquaTrainer® snorkel valid for VO2 assessment in swimming?. Int J Sports Med 2013; 34: 336-344
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Barbosa T, Silva AJ, Reis AM, Costa M, Garrido N, Policarpo F, Reis VM. Kinematical changes in swimming front crawl and breaststroke with the AquaTrainer® snorkel. Eur J Appl Physiol 2010; 109: 1155-1162
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bentley DJ, Roels B, Hellard P, Fauquet C, Libicz S, Millet GP. Physiological responses during submaximal interval swimming training: Effects of interval duration. J Sci Med Sport 2005; 8: 392-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bland JM DGA Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307-310
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Conceição A, Silva AJ, Boaventura J, Marinho DA, Louro H. Wave characteristics in breaststroke technique with and without snorkel use. J Hum Kinet 2013; 39: 185-194
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dal Monte A, Sardella F, Alippi B, Faina M, Manetta A. A new respiratory valve system for measuring oxygen uptake during swimming. Eur J Appl Physiol 1994; 69: 159-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 de Jesus K, Guidetti L, de Jesus K, Vilas-Boas JP, Baldari C, Fernandes RJ. Which are the best VO2 sampling Intervals to characterize low to severe swimming intensities?. Int J Sports Med 2014; DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1368784.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Di Prampero PE, Pendergast DR, Wilson DW, Rennie DW. Energetics of swimming in man. J Appl Physiol 1974; 37: 1-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Fernandes RJ, Figueiredo P, Vilas-Boas JP. About the use and conclusions extracted from a single tube snorkel used for respiratory data acquisition during swimming. J Physiol Sci 2013; 63: 155-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gayda M, Bosquet L, Juneau M, Guiraud T, Lambert J, Nigam A. Comparison of gas exchange data using the Aquatrainer® system and the facemask with Cosmed K4b2 during exercise in healthy subjects. Eur J Appl Physiol 2010; 109: 191-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Ethical standards in sport and exercise science research: 2014 update. Int J Sports Med 2013; 34: 1025-1028
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hollander AP, Toussaint HM, De Groot G, Van Ingen Schenau GJ. Active drag and swimming performance. NZJ Sports Med 1985; 13: 110-113
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Keskinen K, Rodríguez F, Kusch M, Hoffmann U. Validity of breath-by-breath spirometric measurements with two swimming snorkels assessed by a gas exchange simulation system. In: Chatard JC. (ed.). Book of abstracts of IX Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming. Saint-Étienne: Publications de l’Université de Saint-Étienne; 2002: 95
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Keskinen KL, Rodriguez FA, Keskinen OP. Respiratory snorkel and valve system for breath-by-breath gas analysis in swimming. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2003; 13: 322-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kjendlie PL, Stallman R, Gundersen Js. Influences of a Breathing Valve on Swimming Technique. In: Chatard JC. (ed.). Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming IX. Saint-Étienne: Publications de l’Universií de Saint-Étienne; 2003: 69-74
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Kolmogorov SV, Duplishcheva OA. Active drag, useful mechanical power output and hydrodynamic force coefficient in different swimming strokes at maximal velocity. J Biomech 1992; 25: 311-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Komar J, Leprêtre PM, Alberty M, Vantorre J, Fernandes RJ, Hellard P, Chollet D, Seifert L. Effect of increasing energy cost on arm coordination in elite sprint swimmers. Hum Movment Sci 2012; 31: 620-629
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lyttle AD, Blanksby BA, Elliott BC, Lloyd DG. The effect of depth and velocity on drag during the streamlined glide. J Swimming Res 1998; 13: 15-22
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mollendorf JC, Termin IiAC, Oppenheim E, Pendergast DR. Effect of swim suit design on passive drag. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004; 36: 1029-1035
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Passing H, Bablok W. A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry. Part I. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1983; 21: 709-720
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pendergast DR, Capelli C, Craig A, Di Prampero PE, Minetti AE, Mollendorf J, Termin A, Zamparo P. Biophysics in swimming. In: Vilas-Boas JP, Alves F, Marques A. eds. Xth International Symposium of Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming. Porto, Portugal: 2006: 185-189
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Pitman EJG. A note on normal correlation. Biometrika 1939; 31: 9-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ribeiro J, De Jesus K, Figueiredo P, Toussaint H, Guidetti L, Alves F, Vilas-Boas J, Fernandes R. Biomechanical determinants of force production in front crawl swimming. J Sports Med Phys Fit 2013; 53: 30-37
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Rodriguez FA, Keskinen KL, Kusch M, Hoffmann U. Validity of a swimming snorkel for metabolic testing. Int J Sports Med 2008; 29: 120-128
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Schreven S, Toussaint HM, Smeets JBJ, Beek PJ. The effect of different inter-pad distances on the determination of active drag using the Measuring Active Drag system. J Biomech 2013; 46: 1933-1937
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Seifert L, Komar J, Leprtre PM, Lemaitre F, Chavallard F, Alberty M, Houel N, Hausswirth C, Chollet D, Hellard P. Swim specialty affects energy cost and motor organization. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 624-630
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Sousa A, Figueiredo P, Pendergast D, Kjendlie P, Vilas-Boas J, Fernandes R. Critical Evaluation of Oxygen Uptake Assessment in Swimming. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2014; 9: 190-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Sousa A, Vilas Boas JP, Fernandes RJ. VO2 Kinetics and Metabolic Contributions Whilst Swimming at 95, 100, and 105% of the Velocity at VO2max. BioMed Res Int 2014; DOI: 10.1155/2014/675363.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Toussaint HM, Beelen A, Rodenburg A, Sargeant AJ, De Groot G, Hollander AP, Van Ingen Schenau GJ. Propelling efficiency of front-crawl swimming. J Appl Physiol 1988; 65: 2506-2512
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Toussaint HM, Meulemans A, de Groot G, Hollander AP, Schreurs AW, Vervoorn K. Respiratory valve for oxygen uptake measurements during swimming. Eur J Appl Physiol 1987; 56: 363-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Toussaint HM, Roos PE, Kolmogorov S. The determination of drag in front crawl swimming. J Biomech 2004; 37: 1655-1663
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Vennell R, Pease D, Wilson B. Wave drag on human swimmers. J Biomech 2006; 39: 664-671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar