Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming XI

etween experimental groups and control for TC (P ≤ 0.05) (Figure 1) . (Control Group
35.9; Cycling Group (CG) = 154.93 ± 36 vs. 140.03 ± 21.8; Running Group (RG) =
= 155.78 ± 35.3 vs. 157.35 ± 35.4, Swimming Group (SG) = 155.76 ± 33 vs. 136.41
Figure
±
4). (Control Group: = 40.2 ± 17.8 vs. 39.98 ± 15.4; SG =; 40.33 ± 7.9 vs.
156.34 ± 34.7 vs. 139.25 ± 35.8). Total Cholesterol in three groups decreased; SG:
35.9; Cycling Group (CG) = 154.93 ± 36 vs. 140.03 ± 21.8; Running Group (RG) 50.01±8.4; = CG = 40.46 ± 3.5 vs. 48.40 ± 3.2; RG = 42.84 ± 6.1 vs. 51.14 ± 9.6). HDL-c
12.42%, CG: 9.61%, RG: 10.93%. Comparison with Tukey test showed that no
BiomechanicsandmedicineinswimmingXi
156.34 ± 34.7 vs. 139.25 ± 35.8). Total Cholesterol in three groups decreased; SG: increased: SG: 24.00%, CG: 19.62%, RG: 19.37%). Comparison with Tukey test
significant
12.42%, CG:
differences
9.61%,
between
RG: 10.93%.
Control
Comparison
Group and
with
CG (p
Tukey
= 0.530)
test
so
showed
RG (p=
that
0.317);
no showed that no significant differences between Control Group and CG (p = 0.217) so
but
significant
there were
differences
significant
between
differences
Control
between
Group
control
and CG
group
(p = 0.530)
and SG
so
(p
RG
= 0.012).
(p= 0.317); RG (p= 0.191); but there were differences between control group and SG (p = 0.010).
but there were significant differences between control group and SG (p = 0.012).
TC content
HDL-c Content
mg/dl
mg/dl
250
200 250
150 200
100 150
100 50
TC content
1 WK
1 16 WKWk
16 Wk
80
mg/dl 60
40
20
1 WK
16 Wk
50 0
0
0 Control Swimming Cycling Running
Control Swimming Cycling Running
Control Swimming Cycling Running
Figure 1. 1. Comparison the the effect effect of swimming, of swimming, cycling cycling on subject’s on subject’s TC. TC.
Figure 1. Comparison the effect of swimming, cycling on subject’s TC.
Figure 4. 4. Comparison the the effect effect of swimming, of swimming, cycling cycling on subject’s on subject’s HDL-c.
HDL-c.
There were differences between the experimental group and and the the control group DISCUSSION
for
Triglyceride group
There were
for Triglyceride (P differences ≤ 0.05) (Figure between
(P ≤ 2). 0.05)
the (Control experimental
(Figure group 2). = (Control
group 146.1 ± and 29.9 group
the vs. control
= 144.4 146.1
group ± 2.1; SG for Several dIscussIon
= CHD risk factors are associated with obesity (Gregory et al, 2008). Physical
143.4 ±
Triglyceride
29.9 ± 26 vs. vs. 144.4
(P 126.3 ≤ 0.05)
± 2.1; ± (Figure 14.6; SG CG =
2).
143.4 = (Control 142.7 ± 26 ± group 24 vs. vs. 126.3
= 146.1 130 ± ±
14.6; 38.0; 29.9
CG
vs. RG= 144.4
= 145.1 142.7
± 2.1; ± 28. SG 3 activity Several = vs. can CHD reduce risk CHD factors mortality are associated (Thompson with et obesity al., 2003). (Gregory Many et studies al, have shown a
130.5 143.4
± 24 ±
vs. 41.4). 26 vs.
130 ± TG 126.3
38.0; in ± three 14.6;
RG= groups CG = 142.7
145.1 decreased; ± 24
± 28. 3 vs. SG: vs. 130
130.5 11.92%, ± 38.0;
± 41.4). CG: RG=
TG 8.89%, 145.1
in three RG: ± 28. 10.06%. 3 vs.
positive 2008). Physical effect of activity regular can physical reduce activity CHD on mortality blood lipid (Thompson metabolism, et al., especially aerobic
Comparison 130.5 ± 41.4).
groups decreased;
with TG Tukey in three
SG:
test groups
11.92%,
showed decreased;
CG:
that
8.89%,
no SG: significant 11.92%,
RG: 10.06%.
differences CG: 8.89%,
Comparison
between RG: 10.06%. Control exercise 2003). Many (Heyward, studies 2002). have There shown are a some positive studies effect that of showed regular TC physical decreased in exercise
Group Comparison
with Tukey
and CG with
test
(p Tukey
showed
= 0.380) test
that
so showed
no
RG
significant
(p= that 0.221); no significant
differences
but there differences
between
were differences between Control
Control
between
control Group
Group
group and CG
and CG
and (p
(p
SG =
=
(p 0.380)
0.380)
= 0.009). so RG (p= 0.221); but there were differences between
as activity in this on study blood (Merrill lipid metabolism, et al., 1990). especially Total aerobic cholesterol exercise reductions (Heyward, are associated with
control group and SG (p = 0.009). so RG (p= 0.221); but there were differences body 2002). weight, There are percentage some studies of body that fat, showed and TC dietary decreased fat reductions. in exercise (Bounds as in R et al., 200,
between control group and SG (p = 0.009).
Merrill this study et al., (Merrill 1990, et Gerald al., 1990). F., 1997. Total Tanaka cholesterol H. et reductions al., 1997, are Susanne associat- R., 2006). The rise
TG content
TG content
210
190 210
170 190
mg/dl 150 170
mg/dl 1 WK
130 150
1 WK
110 130
16 Wk
110 90
16 Wk
70
90
50 70
50
Control Swimming Cycling Running
Control Swimming Cycling Running
Figure Figure 2. 2. Comparison Comparison the effect of of swimming, swimming, cycling cycling on on subject’s subject’s TG. TG.
BMS Figure XI 2. Comparison Chapter the effect 6. Medicine, of swimming, Rehabilitation cycling and Prevention on subject’s TG.
ed with body weight, percentage of body fat, and dietary fat reductions.
(Bounds R et al., 200, Merrill et al., 1990, Gerald F., 1997. Tanaka H. et
al., 1997, Susanne R., 2006). The rise in plasma TC among apparently
healthy young men and its fall in the elderly are significantly associated
with similar trends for obesity (Wilson P et al., 1994). Triglyceride has
relationship with activity (Ritakari et al., 1997). TG decreased in three
groups but SG had a greater decrease. Our data indicated that swimming
effected TC and TG more than cycling and running.
LDL-C decreased significantly for exercise in SG, CG and RG;
however, it was significant compared to the control group. This finding
agrees with others (Tanaka H. et al., 1997) and against some other
(Bounds et al., 2000). Widely believed that training increases HDL-c
13
(Andersen et al., 1996, Susanne R. et al., 2006), but some studies have
not shown this result (Kantor et al., 1987). A 2-year study also showed
There were no differences between experimental groups for LDL-C a slight increase in HDL cholesterol levels with exercise (king et al.,
There (P > 0.05) were (Figure no 3). differences (Control group between = 124.1±40.6 experimental vs. 124.8±49.5; groups SG = for LDL-C 1995). Those studies that do show increased HDL generally involved
(P 123.53±37.9 > 0.05) (Figure vs. 102.33±39.0; 3). (Control group CG = = 125.6±36.8 124.1±40.6 vs. vs. 107.24±16.5; 124.8±49.5; SG RG = 123.53±37.9 more rigorous training regimens, although there is some disagreement
vs. 124.7±36.2 102.33±39.0; vs. 101.18±28.3). CG = 125.6±36.8 LDL-C decreased vs. 107.24±16.5; in swimmers RG (17.16%), = 124.7±36.2 on this vs. point as well (Barr S. et al., 1991). Among exercisers, the increase
101.18±28.3). Cyclist (14.61%) LDL-C and decreased runners (18.86%), in swimmers but in (17.16%), comparison Cyclist with (14.61%) control and runners in HDL-c cholesterol concentrations was significantly greater in men
(18.86%), group there but were in comparison no differences. with control group there were no differences. with low HDL than in those with normal-to-high HDL at entry (Williams
P. et al., 1994). The key determinants of a decline in HDL-C are
LDL-c Content
an increase in obesity and advancing age itself in HDL with swimming,
cycling and running training. There was a greater increase for the SG
200
than the CG and RG. Our data and data from other studies (Smutok,
1993) suggest that aerobic training of sufficient intensity and duration is
150
mg/dl
100
50
1 WK
16 Wk
effective in elevating HDL levels.
conclusIon
In this study after aerobic training, HDL-c increased and LDL-c de-
0
Control Swimming Cycling Running
creased; so TC and TG decreased. The findings suggest that moderate
training performed over many weeks induces positive changes in the
plasma lipid and lipoprotein concentration in youth. However, there
Figure 3. 3. Comparison the effect the effect of swimming, of swimming, cycling cycling on subject’s on subject’s LDL-c. were differences between the three groups. Swimming, running and cy-
LDL-c.
cling are best type of exercise for health, although this study suggested
Following 16 week of swimming, cycling and running, there were significant that they are not the same.
differences
Following 16
between
week of
the
swimming,
experimental
cycling
groups
and
and
running,
control
there
group
were
for HDL-c
signif-
(P ≤ 0.05) (
Figure
icant differences
4). (Control
between
Group:
the
=
experimental
40.2 ± 17.8 vs.
groups
39.98
and
±
control
15.4; SG
group
=; 40.33
for
± 7.9 reFrences
vs.
50.01±8.4;
HDL-c (P
CG
≤ 0.05)
= 40.46
( Figure
± 3.5 vs.
4).
48.40
(Control
± 3.2;
Group:
RG =
=
42.84
40.2
±
6.1
17.8
vs.
vs.
51.14
39.98
± 9.6). HDL-c Andersen. L. B., et al. (1996). Coronary heart disease risk factors, Physi-
increased: SG: 24.00%, CG: 19.62%, RG: 19.37%). Comparison with Tukey test
± 15.4; SG =; 40.33 ± 7.9 vs. 50.01±8.4; CG = 40.46 ± 3.5 vs. 48.40 ± cal activity and fitness in Young dances, Med Sci Sports Exerc 27, 158showed
that no significant differences between Control Group and CG (p = 0.217) so
3.2; RG = 42.84 ± 6.1 vs. 51.14 ± 9.6). HDL-c increased: SG: 24.00%, 163.
RG (p= 0.191); but there were differences between control group and SG (p = 0.010).
CG: 19.62%, RG: 19.37%). Comparison with Tukey test showed that Barr S., Costill D., Fink W., et al. (1991) .Effect of increased training
no significant differences between Control Group and CG (p = 0.217) volume on blood lipids and lipoproteins in male collegiate swimmers.
so RG (p= 0.191); but there HDL-c were Content differences between control group and
SG (p = 0.010).
80
Med Sci Sports Exerc, 23, 795-800.
mg/dl 60
358 40
20
0
1 WK
16 Wk