前爬泳半系绳泳姿三种方法的比较:可靠性研究。

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES
Journal of Sports Sciences Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-19 DOI:10.1080/02640414.2025.2502894
Ryan Keating, Rodney Kennedy, Alan M Nevill, Carla McCabe
{"title":"前爬泳半系绳泳姿三种方法的比较:可靠性研究。","authors":"Ryan Keating, Rodney Kennedy, Alan M Nevill, Carla McCabe","doi":"10.1080/02640414.2025.2502894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The study compares three methods of evaluating semi-tethered performance in front crawl swimming using different velocity extraction techniques. Thirty Level 4 swimmers (17 males, 13 females) completed three protocols: Absolute (5 × 25 m, 1-9 kg for males; 1-5 kg for females), Modified (3 × 10 m, 1, 5, 9 kg for males; 1, 3, 5 kg for females) and Velocity-Restricted (device limited to 1 m/s), across three testing sessions, 7 days apart. Absolute and Modified protocols generated load-velocity (LV) and force-velocity (FV) profiles, while Velocity-Restricted produced an FV profile to determine maximal velocity (LV-V<sub>0</sub>, FV-V<sub>0</sub>), absolute and relative load/force (L<sub>0</sub>, F<sub>0</sub>, rL<sub>0</sub>, rF<sub>0</sub>) and slope (S<sub>LV</sub>, S<sub>FV</sub>). Reliability estimates for the Absolute method: ICC 0.74-0.83, CV% 2.4-9.0% for males; ICC 0.57-0.87, CV% 2.4-11.6% for females. Modified: ICC 0.51-0.85, CV% 2.8-13.7% for males; ICC 0.16-0.80, CV% 2.9-17.1% for females. Velocity-Restricted: ICC 0.50-0.84, CV% 2.6-8.5% for males; ICC 0.10-0.55, CV% 4.2-21.7% for females. FV-V<sub>0</sub> was significantly higher than LV-V<sub>0</sub> (<i>p</i> < 0.001), showing LV and FV outputs are not interchangeable. No statistical differences between Absolute and Modified protocols suggest that the latter (5 m analysis) is a more time-efficient method. Differences in reliability highlight the need for sex-specific considerations when interpreting results.</p>","PeriodicalId":17066,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sports Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"1425-1439"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of three methods of semi-tethered profiling in front crawl swimming: A reliability study.\",\"authors\":\"Ryan Keating, Rodney Kennedy, Alan M Nevill, Carla McCabe\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02640414.2025.2502894\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The study compares three methods of evaluating semi-tethered performance in front crawl swimming using different velocity extraction techniques. Thirty Level 4 swimmers (17 males, 13 females) completed three protocols: Absolute (5 × 25 m, 1-9 kg for males; 1-5 kg for females), Modified (3 × 10 m, 1, 5, 9 kg for males; 1, 3, 5 kg for females) and Velocity-Restricted (device limited to 1 m/s), across three testing sessions, 7 days apart. Absolute and Modified protocols generated load-velocity (LV) and force-velocity (FV) profiles, while Velocity-Restricted produced an FV profile to determine maximal velocity (LV-V<sub>0</sub>, FV-V<sub>0</sub>), absolute and relative load/force (L<sub>0</sub>, F<sub>0</sub>, rL<sub>0</sub>, rF<sub>0</sub>) and slope (S<sub>LV</sub>, S<sub>FV</sub>). Reliability estimates for the Absolute method: ICC 0.74-0.83, CV% 2.4-9.0% for males; ICC 0.57-0.87, CV% 2.4-11.6% for females. Modified: ICC 0.51-0.85, CV% 2.8-13.7% for males; ICC 0.16-0.80, CV% 2.9-17.1% for females. Velocity-Restricted: ICC 0.50-0.84, CV% 2.6-8.5% for males; ICC 0.10-0.55, CV% 4.2-21.7% for females. FV-V<sub>0</sub> was significantly higher than LV-V<sub>0</sub> (<i>p</i> < 0.001), showing LV and FV outputs are not interchangeable. No statistical differences between Absolute and Modified protocols suggest that the latter (5 m analysis) is a more time-efficient method. Differences in reliability highlight the need for sex-specific considerations when interpreting results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17066,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Sports Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1425-1439\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Sports Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2025.2502894\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sports Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2025.2502894","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究比较了使用不同速度提取技术评估前爬泳半系绳性能的三种方法。30名4级游泳运动员(17名男性,13名女性)完成了三个方案:绝对(5 × 25米,男性1-9公斤);雌性1-5公斤),改良(3 × 10米,雄性1、5、9公斤;1、3、5公斤(女性)和速度限制(设备限制在1米/秒),跨越三个测试阶段,间隔7天。绝对和修改方案生成负载-速度(LV)和力-速度(FV)剖面,而速度限制方案生成FV剖面,以确定最大速度(LV- v0, FV- v0),绝对和相对负载/力(L0, F0, rL0, rF0)和斜率(SLV, SFV)。绝对方法的可靠性估计:男性的ICC 0.74-0.83, CV% 2.4-9.0%;女性的ICC 0.57 ~ 0.87, CV% 2.4 ~ 11.6%。修正:男性ICC 0.51 ~ 0.85, CV% 2.8 ~ 13.7%;雌性的ICC 0.16-0.80, CV% 2.9-17.1%。速度限制型:男性ICC 0.50 ~ 0.84, CV% 2.6 ~ 8.5%;雌虫ICC 0.10 ~ 0.55, CV% 4.2 ~ 21.7%。FV-V0显著高于LV-V0 (p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparison of three methods of semi-tethered profiling in front crawl swimming: A reliability study.

The study compares three methods of evaluating semi-tethered performance in front crawl swimming using different velocity extraction techniques. Thirty Level 4 swimmers (17 males, 13 females) completed three protocols: Absolute (5 × 25 m, 1-9 kg for males; 1-5 kg for females), Modified (3 × 10 m, 1, 5, 9 kg for males; 1, 3, 5 kg for females) and Velocity-Restricted (device limited to 1 m/s), across three testing sessions, 7 days apart. Absolute and Modified protocols generated load-velocity (LV) and force-velocity (FV) profiles, while Velocity-Restricted produced an FV profile to determine maximal velocity (LV-V0, FV-V0), absolute and relative load/force (L0, F0, rL0, rF0) and slope (SLV, SFV). Reliability estimates for the Absolute method: ICC 0.74-0.83, CV% 2.4-9.0% for males; ICC 0.57-0.87, CV% 2.4-11.6% for females. Modified: ICC 0.51-0.85, CV% 2.8-13.7% for males; ICC 0.16-0.80, CV% 2.9-17.1% for females. Velocity-Restricted: ICC 0.50-0.84, CV% 2.6-8.5% for males; ICC 0.10-0.55, CV% 4.2-21.7% for females. FV-V0 was significantly higher than LV-V0 (p < 0.001), showing LV and FV outputs are not interchangeable. No statistical differences between Absolute and Modified protocols suggest that the latter (5 m analysis) is a more time-efficient method. Differences in reliability highlight the need for sex-specific considerations when interpreting results.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Sports Sciences
Journal of Sports Sciences 社会科学-运动科学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
147
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sports Sciences has an international reputation for publishing articles of a high standard and is both Medline and Clarivate Analytics-listed. It publishes research on various aspects of the sports and exercise sciences, including anatomy, biochemistry, biomechanics, performance analysis, physiology, psychology, sports medicine and health, as well as coaching and talent identification, kinanthropometry and other interdisciplinary perspectives. The emphasis of the Journal is on the human sciences, broadly defined and applied to sport and exercise. Besides experimental work in human responses to exercise, the subjects covered will include human responses to technologies such as the design of sports equipment and playing facilities, research in training, selection, performance prediction or modification, and stress reduction or manifestation. Manuscripts considered for publication include those dealing with original investigations of exercise, validation of technological innovations in sport or comprehensive reviews of topics relevant to the scientific study of sport.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信