This study aimed to examine the effects of eight weeks of dry-land strength combined with swimming training on the development of upper and lower body strength, jumping ability, and swimming performance in competitive sprinter swimmers. Twenty (14 men and 6 women) university swimmers of national-level (age: 20.55 ± 1.76 years, body mass: 68.86 ± 7.69 kg, height: 1.77 ± 0.06 m, 100 m front crawl: 71.08 ± 6.71s, 50 m front crawl: 31.70 ± 2.45s) were randomly divided into two groups: experimental group (EG: 11) and control group (CG: 9). In addition to the usual in-water training (3–4 sessions per week of ∼80 min), the EG performed 8 weeks (one session per week) of strength-training (ST). The ST included bench press, full squat, countermovement jumping, countermovement jumping with free-arm movement, and the medical ball throwing. Stroke length, stroke frequency, stroke index, and swimming velocity were recorded during 50 and 100 m front crawl time-trials. Strength and swimming performance were evaluated before and after 8 weeks of training. The results showed a significant improvement in sprint performance (50 m: p < 0.01, d = 0.47; 100 m: p < 0.05, d = 0.42), stroke frequency (50 m: p < 0.01, d = 0.90) and stroke index (100 m: p < 0.01, d = 0.29) in the EG. Despite both groups’ increased strength performance, increases in bench press were higher in the EG (p < 0.001, d = 0.75) than CG (p = 0.05, d = 0.34). Complementing in-water training with strength training seems to be relevant to improve upper body strength and to optimize 50 m and 100 m swimming performance, adapting technical patterns used during all-out swimming.

Gonçalves, CA, Lopes, TJD, Nunes, C, Marinho, DA, and Neiva, HP. Neuromuscular jumping performance and upper-body horizontal power of volleyball players. J Strength Cond Res 35(8): 2236–2241, 2021—The aim of the current study was to characterize the neuromuscular jumping performance and upper-body horizontal power of elite and subelite volleyball players. In addition, those neuromuscular performances were compared between field positions. One hundred twenty-two male volleyball players participated in the study: 83 elite players (mean ± SD : 24.11 ± 5.57 years) and 39 subelite players (25.38 ± 6.19 years). They were divided according to their playing position: setters ( n = 22), opposite hitters ( n = 16), middle hitters ( n = 30), right-side hitters ( n = 38), and liberos ( n = 16). Each subject randomly performed 3 repetitions of medicine ball throwing (MBT), countermovement jump (CMJ), CMJ with free arms (CMJFA), and spike jump (SPJ). The results showed no significant differences between positions in the analyzed variables. However, there were differences between elite and subelite in the CMJ ( p = 0.000, = 0.12), the CMJFA ( p = 0.000, = 0.15), the SPJ ( p = 0.000, = 0.21), and MBT ( p = 0.001, = 0.09), showing a tendency for increased jumping performance and upper-body horizontal power for elite players. The elite opposite hitters and right-side hitters recorded greater CMJ performances ( d = 1.20 and d = 1.62, respectively). The right-side hitters were the only group that showed greater horizontal upper-body muscular power ( p = 0.000, d = 1.50). It is suggested that jumping performance is a determining factor for higher-level players, which was more relevant for the opposite hitters and right-side hitters. Nevertheless, the movement pattern of MBT seems to be relevant for the right-side hitters. Coaches should seek to develop jumping ability for the improvement of volleyball performances, without disregarding upper-body performances, depending on the position-specific demands.

Understanding the difference in each upper limb between age groups can provide deeper insights into swimmers’ propulsion. This study aimed to: (1) compare swimming velocity and a set of kinematical variables between junior and juvenile swimmers and (2) compare the propulsion outputs through discrete and continuous analyses (Statistical Parametric Mapping—SPM) between junior and juvenile swimmers for each upper limb (i.e., dominant and non-dominant). The sample was composed of 22 male swimmers (12 juniors with 16.35 ± 0.74 years; 10 juveniles with 15.40 ± 0.32 years). A set of kinematic and propulsion variables was measured at maximum swimming velocity. Statistical Parametric Mapping was used as a continuous analysis approach to identify differences in the propulsion of both upper limbs between junior and juvenile swimmers. Junior swimmers were significantly faster than juveniles (p = 0.04, d = 0.86). Although juniors showed higher propulsion values, the SPM did not reveal significant differences (p < 0.05) for dominant and non-dominant upper limbs between the two age groups. This indicates that other factors (such as drag) may be responsible for the difference in swimming velocity. Coaches and swimmers should be aware that an increase in propulsion alone may not immediately lead to an increase in swimming velocity.

Evidence on the role of propulsion compared to drag in swimming, based on experimental settings, is still lacking. However, higher levels of propulsion seem to lead to faster swimming velocities. The aim of this study was to understand the variation in a set of kinematic and kinetic variables between two swimming sections and their relationship to swimming velocity. The sample consisted of 15 young adult recreational swimmers (8 males: 20.84 ± 2.03 years; 7 females: 20.13 ± 1.90 years). Maximum swimming velocity and a set of kinematic and kinetic variables were measured during two consecutive sections of the swimming pool. Differences between sections were measured and the determinants of swimming velocity were analyzed. Swimming velocity, propulsive force, and the other kinematic and kinetic variables did not change significantly (p < 0.05) between sections (only the intra-cyclic fluctuation of swimming velocity decreased significantly, p = 0.005). The modeling identified the propulsive force, stroke length, and active drag coefficient as the determinants of swimming velocity. Swimming velocity was determined by the interaction of kinematic and kinetic variables, specifically propulsive force and active drag coefficient.

Introduction: In swimming, it is necessary to understand and identify the main factors that are important to reduce active drag and, consequently, improve the performance of swimmers. However, there is no up-to-date review in the literature clarifying this topic. Thus, a systematic narrative review was performed to update the body of knowledge on active drag in swimming through numerical and experimental methods.Methods: To determine and identify the most relevant studies for this review, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach was used.Results: 75 studies related to active drag in swimming and the methodologies applied to study them were analyzed and kept for synthesis. The included studies showed a high-quality score by the Delphi scale (mean score was 5.85 ± 0.38). Active drag was included in seven studies through numerical methods and 68 through experimental methods. In both methods used by the authors to determine the drag, it can be concluded that the frontal surface area plays a fundamental role. Additionally, the technique seems to be a determining factor in reducing the drag force and increasing the propulsive force. Drag tends to increase with speed and frontal surface area, being greater in adults than in children due to body density factors and high levels of speed. However, the coefficient of drag decreases as the technical efficiency of swimming increases (i.e., the best swimmers (the fastest or most efficient) are those with the best drag and swimming hydrodynamics efficiency).Conclusion: Active drag was studied through numerical and experimental methods. There are significantly fewer numerical studies than experimental ones. This is because active drag, as a dynamical phenomenon, is too complex to be studied numerically. Drag is greater in adults than in children and greater in men than in women across all age groups. The study of drag is increasingly essential to collaborate with coaches in the process of understanding the fundamental patterns of movement biomechanics to achieve the best performance in swimming. Although most agree with these findings, there is disagreement in some studies, especially when it is difficult to define competitive level and age. The disagreement concerns three main aspects: 1) period of the studies and improvement of methodologies; 2) discrimination of methodologies between factors observed in numerical vs. experimental methods; 3) evidence that drag tends to be non-linear and depends on personal, technical, and stylistic factors. Based on the complexity of active drag, the study of this phenomenon must continue to improve swimming performance.