Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming XI

cost against time performance in six distances, yielding 114.5W. These
references are out of range for tethered-power at MLSS, but are approached
to the range of tethered-power at Fcrit (P Fcrit ).
The estimated powers (P Fcrit and P TethMLSS ) are related, but statistically
different, as the relationship observed to CV and v MLSS in nontethered
crawl. Dekerle et al. (2005) also found significance for difference
between v MLSS and CV in swimmers, despite the good relationship (r =
0.87) between these variables. Also, the physiological responses when
swimming 5% below and 5% above CV are those characterizing the
heavy (sustainable steady-state) and severe (non-sustainable) intensity
domain, whiling responses at CV lies within severe domains (Dekerle
et al. 2009). These results support the conclusion that CP and MLSS do
not represent the same physiological parameter, whilst associated workrate
seemed to be correlated among group of trained athletes (Pringle &
Jones, 2002; Dekerle et al., 2005). It should be pointed out that power
parameters obtained from tethered swimming protocols further increase
the dissociation between the MLSS and CP, and the interindividual
differences for these variables. Otherwise, tethered swimming may be
considered a reasonable ergometer to access aerobic endurance capacity
based on both invasive (lactate concentration profile) and non-invasive
(time to exhaustion model) methods, since it ensures a force controlling
environment that is a requirement for MLSS and CP protocols
Moreover, the differences in power output at tethered and non-tethered
swimming seems to corroborate the conclusion of Dekerle et al.
(2003) that the accuracy and reliability for evaluation of aerobic endurance
relies on MLSS determination, despite PC practicality. Nevertheless,
the optimization of training adaptation requires the definition of
work-rate clusters of common profile of physiological response among
subjects. Whether physiological response at VC (or PC) and at MLSS
provides or not a common reference of exercise intensity, it remains to
be elucidated.
Neither CV nor the mechanical power at Fcrit matches the assumption
for MLSS, the highest constant intensity that can be maintained
without progressive increases in blood lactate concentration over time.
Thus, the interchangeable use of these parameters seems to be unreliable.
However, further research about physiological contextualization of the
mechanical power output at Fcrit and at MLSS must take into account
the technical ability of moving forward. This would improve the usefulness
of data when assessing exercise tolerance, assisting in planning
programme and predicting performance in swimming.
reFerences
Beneke R., Leithäuser R.M., & Hütler M. (2001). Dependence of the
maximal lactate steady-state on the motor pattern of exercise. Brit J
Sports Med, 35, 192-196.
Dekerle J., Baron B., Dupont L., Vanvelcenaher J., & Pelayo P. (2003).
Maximal lactate steady state, respiratory compensation threshold and
critical power. Eur J Appl Physiol, 89, 281–288.
Dekerle J., Pelayo P., Clipet B., Depretz G., Lefevre T., & Sidney M.
(2005). Critical swimming speed does not represent the speed at
maximal lactate steady-state. Int J Sport Med, 26, 524–530.
Dekerle J., Brickley G., Alberty M., & Pelayo P. (2009). Characterinzing
the slope of the distance-time relationship in swimming. J Sci Med
Sport, doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2009.05.007.
deGroot G., & Ingen Schenau G.V. (1988). Fundamentals mechanics
applied to swimming: technique and propelling efficiency. In: Ungerechts
B.E., Wilke K., & Reischle K. (ed) Swimming Science V, vol.
18 (pp: 17-30).
Ikuta Y., Wakayoshi K., & Nomura T. (1996). Determinations and validity
of critical swimming force as performance index in tethered
swimming. In: Troup J.P., Hollander A.P., Strasse D., Trappe S.W.,
Cappaert J.M., & Trappe T.A. (ed) Biomechanics and Medicine in
Swimming VII, (pp: 146-151), E & FN SPON, London.
Johnson R.E., Sharp R.L., & Hedrick C.E. (1993). Relationship of
chaPter2.Biomechanics
swimming power and dryland power to sprint freestyle performance:
a multiple regression approach. J Swim Res, 09, 10-14.
Kjendlie P-L., & Thorsvald K. (2006). A tethered swimming power test
is high reliable. In: Vilas-Boas J.P., Alves F., & Marques A. (ed). Biomechanics
and Medicine in Swimming X. Rev Port Ciên Desp, 6(2),
231-235.
Pringle J.S. & Jones A.M. (2002). Maximal lactate steady state, critical
power and EMG during cycling. EurJ Appl Physiol, 88, 214–226.
Rouard A.H., Aujouannet Y.A., Hintz F., & Bonifazi M. (2006). Isometric
force, tethered force and power ratios as tools for the evaluation
of technical ability in freestyle swimming. In: Vilas-Boas J.P.,
Alves F., & Marques A. (ed) Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming
X. Rev Port Ciên Desp, 6(2), 249-250.
Swaine I.L. (1994). The relationship between physiological variables
from a swim bench ramp test and midlle-distance swimming performance.
J Swim Res, 10, 41-48.
Swaine I.L. (1996). The relationship between 1500 m swimming performance
and critical Power using an isokinetic swim bench. In:
Troup J.P., Hollander A.P., Strasse D., Trappe S.W., Cappaert J.M.,
& Trappe T.A. Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming VII, (pp: 229-
233), E & FN SPON, London.
Takahashi S., Wakayoshi K., Hayashi A., Sakaguchi Y., & Kitagawa K.
(2009). A method for determining critical swimming velocity. International
Journal of Sports Medicine, 30, 119–123.
Toussaint H.M., Wakayoshi K., Hollander A.P., & Ogita F. (1998).
Simulated front crawl swimming performance related to critical
speed and critical power. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 30(1), 144-151.
AcKnoWledGeMents
The authors wish to tank the subjects who agreed to participate in the
study, and FUNDUNESP (00155-09/DFP) for the funding support.
153