RESUMO
The time sustained during exercise with oxygen uptake (VÌO2) reaching maximal rates (VÌO2peak) or near peak responses (i.e., above second ventilatory threshold [t@VT2) or 90% VÌO2peak (t@90%VÌO2peak)] is recognized as the training pace required to enhance aerobic power and exercise tolerance in the severe domain (time-limit, tLim). This study compared physiological and performance indexes during continuous and intermittent trials at maximal aerobic velocity (MAV) to analyze each exercise schedule, supporting their roles in conditioning planning. Twenty-two well-trained swimmers completed a discontinuous incremental step-test for VÌO2peak, VT2, and MAV assessments. Two other tests were performed in randomized order, to compare continuous (CT) vs. intermittent trials (IT100) at MAV until exhaustion, to determine peak oxygen uptake (Peak-VÌO2) and VÌO2 kinetics (VÌO2K). Distance and time variables were registered to determine the tLim, t@VT2, and t@90%VÌO2peak tests. Blood lactate concentration ([La-]) was analyzed, and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) was recorded. The tests were conducted using a breath-by-breath apparatus connected to a snorkel for pulmonary gas sampling, with pacing controlled by an underwater visual pacer. VÌO2peak (55.2 ± 5.6 ml·kg·min-1) was only reached in CT (100.7 ± 3.1 %VÌO2peak). In addition, high VÌO2 values were reached at IT100 (96.4 ± 4.2 %VÌO2peak). VÌO2peak was highly correlated with Peak-VÌO2 during CT (r = 0.95, p < 0.01) and IT100 (r = 0.91, p < 0.01). Compared with CT, the IT100 presented significantly higher values for tLim (1,013.6 ± 496.6 vs. 256.2 ± 60.3 s), distance (1,277.3 ± 638.1 vs. 315.9 ± 63.3 m), t@VT2 (448.1 ± 211.1 vs. 144.1 ± 78.8 s), and t@90%VÌO2peak (321.9 ± 208.7 vs. 127.5 ± 77.1 s). VÌO2K time constants (IT100: 25.9 ± 9.4 vs. CT: 26.5 ± 7.5 s) were correlated between tests (r = 0.76, p < 0.01). Between CT and IT100, tLim were not related, and RPE (8.9 ± 0.9 vs. 9.4 ± 0.8) and [La-] (7.8 ± 2.7 vs. 7.8 ± 2.8 mmol·l-1) did not differ between tests. MAV is suitable for planning swimming intensities requiring VÌO2peak rates, whatever the exercise schedule (continuous or intermittent). Therefore, the results suggest IT100 as a preferable training schedule rather than the CT for aerobic capacity training since IT100 presented a significantly higher tLim, t@VT2, and t@90%VÌO2peak (â¼757, â¼304, and â¼194 s more, respectively), without differing regards to [La-] and RPE. The VÌO2K seemed not to influence tLim and times spent near VÌO2peak in both workout modes.
RESUMO
Purpose: to compare different methods to assess the arm stroke efficiency (?F ), whenswimming front crawl using the arms only on the Measurement of Active Drag System (MADSystem) and in a free-swimming condition, and to identify biophysical adaptations to swimming onthe MAD System and the main biophysical predictors of maximal swimming speed in the 200 mfront crawl using the arms only (?200m). Methods: fourteen swimmers performed twice a 5 × 200 mincremental trial swimming the front crawl stroke using the arms only, once swimming freely, andonce swimming on the MAD System. The total metabolic power was assessed in both conditions.The biomechanical parameters were obtained from video analysis and force data recorded on theMAD System. The ?F was calculated using: (i) direct measures of mechanical and metabolic power(power-based method); (ii) forward speed/hand speed ratio (speed-based method), and (iii) thesimplified paddle-wheel model. Results: both methods to assess ?F on the MAD System differed (p< 0.001) from the expected values for this condition (?F = 1), with the speed-based method providingthe closest values (?F~0.96). In the free-swimming condition, the power-based (?F~0.75), speedbased(?F~0.62), and paddle-wheel (?F~0.39) efficiencies were significantly different (p < 0.001).Although all methods provided values within the limits of agreement, the speed-based methodprovided the closest values to the "actual efficiency". The main biophysical predictors of ?200mwere included in two models: biomechanical (R2 = 0.98) and physiological (R2 = 0.98). Conclusions:our results suggest that the speed-based method provides the closest values to the "actual ?F" andconfirm that swimming performance depends on the balance of biomechanical and bioenergeticparameters.