Scholarlink

<p>This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between the 2- and 3-point models in estimating load-velocity (L-v) profile parameters in swimmers; to compare L-v profile parameters of both models across three respiratory conditions: free breathing (FREE), snorkel (SNOR), and added respiratory dead space mask (ARDS); to examine the relationships between L-v profile parameters (from both models) and a 25&#xa0;m front crawl performance. Twenty-six male swimmers performed three front crawl semi-tethered 20&#xa0;m sprints at maximal effort with fixed external loads (1, 4, and 7&#xa0;kg) under three different respiratory conditions, as well as a 25&#xa0;m front crawl time trial. The raw data were processed using both 2-point and 3-point models to estimate L-v profile parameters. The two-way ANOVA revealed no significant main effect or interaction in the factors for all L-v parameters. Excellent agreement was observed between the 2- and 3-point models across all conditions for all L-v parameters (<i>r</i> ≥ 0.99, R² ≥ 0.98, ICC ≥ 0.99). The 2-point model allows for the assessment of L-v profile parameters as reliably as the 3-point model. The SNOR and ARDS did not affect the L-v profile during swim sprint performance.&#xa0;</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Validity of 2-point method for load-velocity profiling in free swimming, with snorkel, and with added respiratory dead space mask

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月14日

查看全文
  • Stefan Szczepan,
  • Beata Pożarowszczyk-Kuczko,
  • Kamil Michalik

摘要

This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between the 2- and 3-point models in estimating load-velocity (L-v) profile parameters in swimmers; to compare L-v profile parameters of both models across three respiratory conditions: free breathing (FREE), snorkel (SNOR), and added respiratory dead space mask (ARDS); to examine the relationships between L-v profile parameters (from both models) and a 25 m front crawl performance. Twenty-six male swimmers performed three front crawl semi-tethered 20 m sprints at maximal effort with fixed external loads (1, 4, and 7 kg) under three different respiratory conditions, as well as a 25 m front crawl time trial. The raw data were processed using both 2-point and 3-point models to estimate L-v profile parameters. The two-way ANOVA revealed no significant main effect or interaction in the factors for all L-v parameters. Excellent agreement was observed between the 2- and 3-point models across all conditions for all L-v parameters (r ≥ 0.99, R² ≥ 0.98, ICC ≥ 0.99). The 2-point model allows for the assessment of L-v profile parameters as reliably as the 3-point model. The SNOR and ARDS did not affect the L-v profile during swim sprint performance.