Background: Aquatic plyometric programs are becoming increasingly popular because they provide a less stressful alternative to land-based programs. Buoyancy reduces the impact forces experienced in water. Purpose: To quantify the landing kinetics during a range of typical lower limb plyometric exercises performed on land and in water. Study Design: Crossover design. Methods: Eighteen male participants performed ankle hops, tuck jumps, a countermovement jump, a single-leg vertical jump, and a drop jump from 30 cm in a biomechanics laboratory and in a swimming pool. Land and underwater force plates (Kistler) were used to obtain peak impact force, impulse, rate of force development, and time to reach peak force for the landing phase of each jump. Results: Significant reductions were observed in peak impact forces (33%-54%), impulse (19%-54%), and rate of force development (33%-62%) in water compared with land for the majority of exercises in this study (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The level of force reduction varies with landing technique, water depth, and participant height and body composition. Clinical Relevance: This information can be used to reintroduce athletes to the demands of plyometric exercises after injury.

The purpose of this study was to analyse stroke phases, arm‐leg coordination and trunk motion fluctuation during breaststroke in elite male and female 50, 100 and 200m events at the 9th FINA World Swimming Championships, Fukuoka 2001. Four phases of the arm stroke and three phases of the leg kick as well as phases of simultaneous arm and leg propulsion and recovery were identified from video of swimmers’ motions below the surface. The duration of each phase was expressed as a proportion of the whole stroke cycle. Three measures of the arm‐leg coordination, percent simultaneous arm‐leg recovery time (%SRT), percent arm lag time (%ALT) and percent simultaneous arm‐leg propulsion time (%SPT) were calculated. Mean mid‐pool swimming hip velocity (V), stroke rate (SR) and stroke length (SL) were also calculated. In addition, the intra‐cycle hip velocity of the swimmers was obtained by cinematographic analysis. The SR decreased and SL increased significantly as the event distance increased. For the arm‐leg coordination the %ALT, %SPT and %SRT indicated significant differences between event, gender and performance level. In particular, for increasing event distance and for the higher performing swimmer the lower the %SPT and the higher the %SRT. In addition, the range of the intra‐cycle hip velocity fluctuation in the lower performing group was greater than the higher performing group. The non‐propulsive phase seems to be a key factor for better performance. The breaststroke swimmers must avoid rapid deceleration during the non‐propulsive phase by adopting a low resistance posture and stroking technique.

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.

This paper reviews unsteady flow conditions in human swimming and identifies the limitations and future potential of the current methods of analysing unsteady flow. The capability of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has been extended from approaches assuming steady-state conditions to consideration of unsteady/transient conditions associated with the body motion of a swimmer. However, to predict hydrodynamic forces and the swimmer’s potential speeds accurately, more robust and efficient numerical methods are necessary, coupled with validation procedures, requiring detailed experimental data reflecting local flow. Experimental data obtained by particle image velocimetry (PIV) in this area are limited, because at present observations are restricted to a two-dimensional 1.0 m² area, though this could be improved if the output range of the associated laser sheet increased. Simulations of human swimming are expected to improve competitive swimming, and our review has identified two important advances relating to understanding the flow conditions affecting performance in front crawl swimming: one is a mechanism for generating unsteady fluid forces, and the other is a theory relating to increased speed and efficiency.

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]; Ė: Metabolic power [W, kJ/s]; F_hand: Fluid resultant force exerted by the hand [N]; F_total: Total resultant force [N] (See Appendix A); F_normal: 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); F_tangent: 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); F_addmass: The sum of the inertial force acting on the body segments due to the acceleration of a mass of water [N] (See Appendix A); F_buoyant: 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]; T_hand: Thrust force produced in reaction to the actions of the hand [N]; T_{upper_limb}: Thrust force produced in reaction to the actions of the upper limbs [N]; T_{lower_limb}: Thrust force produced in reaction to the actions of the lower limbs [N]; M_body: 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]; $\bar{V}$: 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]; $\bar{V}$_hand: Mean of the instantaneous magnitudes of hand velocity over a period of time [m/s]; Ẇ_tot: Total mechanical power [W]; Ẇ_ext: External mechanical power [W]; Ẇ_d: 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]; η_o: Overall efficiency [%]; η_p: Propelling efficiency [%]; MAD-system: Measuring Active Drag system; MRT method: Measuring Residual Thrust method.