Center of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Porto Biomechanics Laboratory, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
J Strength Cond Res. 2019 Mar;33(3):801-810. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002087.
Zacca, R, Azevedo, R, Peterson Silveira, R, Vilas-Boas, JP, Pyne, DB, Castro, FAdS, and Fernandes, RJ. Comparison of incremental intermittent and time trial testing in age-group swimmers. J Strength Cond Res 33(3): 801-810, 2019-The aim of this study was to compare physiological and biomechanical characteristics between an incremental intermittent test and a time trial protocol in age-group swimmers. Eleven national level age-group swimmers (6 men and 5 women) performed a 7 × 200-m incremental intermittent protocol (until exhaustion; 30-second rest) and a 400-m test (T400) in front crawl on separate days. Cardiorespiratory variables were measured continuously using a telemetric portable gas analyzer. Swimming speed, stroke rate, stroke length, and stroke index were assessed by video analysis. Physiological (oxygen uptake, heart rate, and lactate concentrations) and biomechanical variables between seventh 200-m step (in which the minimal swimming speed that elicits maximal oxygen uptake-vV[Combining Dot Above]O2max was identified) and T400 (time trial/fixed distance) were compared with a paired student's t test, Pearson's product-moment correlation, Passing-Bablok regression, and Bland-Altman plot analyses. There were high level of agreement and high correlations (r-values ∼0.90; p ≤ 0.05) for all physiological variables between the seventh 200-m step and T400. Similarly, there were high level of agreements and high correlations (r-values ∼0.90; p ≤ 0.05) for all biomechanical variables and only trivial bias in swimming speed (0.03 m·s; 2%). Primary physiological and biomechanical responses between incremental intermittent and representative time trial protocols were similar, but best practice dictates protocols should not be used interchangeably to minimize errors in prescribing swimming training speeds. The T400 is a valid, useful, and easier to administer test for aerobic power assessment in age-group swimmers.
扎卡、R、阿泽维多、R、彼得森·席尔瓦、R、皮恩、DB、卡斯特罗、FAdS 和费尔南德斯、RJ。年龄组游泳运动员递增间歇和计时测试的比较。J 力量与调理研究 33(3):801-810,2019-本研究旨在比较递增间歇测试和计时测试方案在年龄组游泳运动员中的生理和生物力学特征。11 名国家级年龄组游泳运动员（6 名男性和 5 名女性）分别在 2 个不同的日子里进行了 7×200m 递增间歇测试（直到力竭；30 秒休息）和 400m 测试（T400）。使用遥测便携式气体分析仪连续测量心肺变量。通过视频分析评估游泳速度、划频、划距和划幅指数。在第七个 200m 步（在此步中，确定了产生最大摄氧量-vV[Combining Dot Above]O2max 的最小游泳速度）和 T400（计时测试/固定距离）之间比较了生理（摄氧量、心率和乳酸浓度）和生物力学变量，使用配对学生 t 检验、皮尔逊积差相关、通过回归和 Bland-Altman 图分析。所有生理变量在第七个 200m 步和 T400 之间都具有高度的一致性和高度的相关性（r 值约为 0.90；p ≤ 0.05）。同样，所有生物力学变量之间也具有高度的一致性和高度的相关性（r 值约为 0.90；p ≤ 0.05），仅在游泳速度上存在微小的偏差（0.03m·s；2%）。递增间歇和代表性计时测试方案之间的主要生理和生物力学反应相似，但最佳实践要求不应交替使用方案，以最大程度地减少游泳训练速度的误差。T400 是一种有效的、有用的、更容易管理的测试，可用于评估年龄组游泳运动员的有氧能力。
