4.5 Article

Profiling of elite male junior 50 m freestyle sprinters: Understanding the speed-time relationship

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/sms.14058

关键词

curve fitting; performance; race analysis; swimming

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [UIDB/DTP/04045/2020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to analyze and compare the race performance and stability between the fastest and slowest male swimmers in the 50 m freestyle event, and understand the speed-time relationship. Significant differences were found in swimming speed between the two groups in all sections of the race, with the fastest swimmers performing best in all sections.
The aim of this study was to (1) analyze and compare the race performance and stability between the fastest and slowest male swimmers during the 50 m freestyle event, and (2) to understand the speed-time relationship in this race. The performances (start, clean swim, and finish) of 86 swimmers (divided into two tiers: best and poorest performances) who competed in the 50 m freestyle event in the 2019 long course LEN European Junior Championships were analyzed. The swimming speed presented a significant difference between the groups (tier #1 vs tier #2) in all sections of the race, in which the start (S0-15 m: p < 0.001, d = 1.64) and finish sections (S45-50: p < 0.001, d = 1.63) showed the greatest differences. Significant variances over the race sections were noted for both groups in all variables, in which the swimming speed was the variable with the highest variance (tier #1: p < 0.001, eta(2) = 0.72; tier #2: p < 0.001, eta(2) = 0.82). Both groups exhibited a similar normative stability, with the fastest swimmers tending to be the best in all sections. The fit analysis produced a cubic speed-time relationship. Notwithstanding, junior swimmers who raced the 50 m freestyle can be considered to have an all-out pacing. This information is of paramount importance for coaches and swimmers to understand the intra-lap race performance in this short event.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据