Next Article in Journal
Views and Experiences of LGBTQ+ People in Prison Regarding Their Psychosocial Needs: A Systematic Review of the Qualitative Research Evidence
Next Article in Special Issue
Prevalence and Impact of the Relative Age Effect on Competition Performance in Swimming: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
The Epidemiology of Benign Proliferative Processes of the Skeletal System in Children
Previous Article in Special Issue
Erratum: Hołub et al. Predicting Breaststroke and Butterfly Stroke Results in Swimming Based on Olympics History. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6621
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 17
10.3390/ijerph18179340
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Effects of Dry-Land Training Programs on Swimming Turn Performance: A Systematic Review

by
Francisco Hermosilla
1,2,
Ross Sanders
3,
Fernando González-Mohíno
1,2,
Inmaculada Yustres
1,4 and
José M González-Rave
1,*
1
Sport Training Lab, University of Castilla-La Mancha, 45008 Toledo, Spain
2
Facultad Ciencias de la Vida y la Naturaleza, Universidad Nebrija, 28248 Madrid, Spain
3
Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
4
Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, 28223 Madrid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(17), 9340; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179340
Submission received: 14 August 2021 / Revised: 25 August 2021 / Accepted: 1 September 2021 / Published: 3 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Health, Training and Performance in Aquatic Activities and Exercises)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Swimming coaches have prescribed dry-land training programs over the years to improve the overall swimming performance (starts, clean swimming, turns and finish). The main aim of the present systematic review was to examine the effects of dry-land strength and conditioning programs on swimming turns. Four online databases were scrutinised, data were extracted using the Preferred PRISMA guidelines and the PEDro scale was applied. A total of 1259 articles were retrieved from database searches. From the 19 studies which were full-text evaluated, six studies were included in the review process. The review indicated that plyometric, strength, ballistic and core training programs were implemented for improving swimming turn performance. Strength, ballistic and plyometric training focusing on neural enhancement seem to be effective for improving swimming turn performance. The data related to training of the core were not conclusive. Coaches should consider incorporating exercises focusing on improving the neuromuscular factor of the leg-extensor muscles into their daily dry-land training programs. More researches are needed to provide a better understanding of the training methods effects and training organisations for improving swimming turn performance.

1. Introduction

Swimming coaches and swimmers are continuously searching for the slightest improvement in each component of swimming events (starting, stroking and turning) to optimise their final performance in swimming events. In this endeavour, coaches have prescribed strength and conditioning training programs [1,2]. Swimming performance can be divided into four key phases: start, free swim, turns and finish [3]. Turns times contribute between 19–20% of the overall race time in 100 m events [4], reaching up to 36% in 1500 freestyle in long course events [5]. This influence is clearly greater in short course events with values between 44–45% in 100 m breaststroke [6,7]. Thus, small changes in the effectiveness of the turn can yield substantial improvements in the final event time [8,9]. The 15 m out time [4] and the time between 5 m in and 15 m out [10] might be the key-parameters which can influence to a large extent in the final event time and the turn performance. Results of some studies have indicated that turning times are reduced by maximising peak force exerted on the wall [11,12]. Jones et al. [13] affirmed that swimmers with fast turn times had significantly higher peak forces, reduced wall contact time and greater mean impulse than slower swimmers. Based on the stroke performed, the turns factors present several differences, open turns (butterfly and breaststroke) present greater impulse and longer time on the wall than tumble turns (backstroke and freestyle) [14]. In this sense, strength and power training have been shown to enable the application of increased force on the wall with a short period of wall contact [15,16,17]. Thus, coaches have prescribed strength and conditioning training programs in order to improve the swimmers muscle power and strength [1,2]. Sessions comprising high intensity and low repetitions are often performed to develop maximum strength [18]. Conversely, lower load exercises performed at higher velocities are performed to develop power [19]. Therefore, the strength training focus is to move the maximal weight as possible at a number of repetitions, power training should focus on displacing the load as fast as possible. Despite being a common practice, some coaches think that strength and power training can negatively affect the swimmer’s technical ability and consequently increase drag forces [20]. However, strength training can reduce the tumble turn time in contrast with endurance or concurrent training [15]. Additionally, acute effects obtained with protocols such as PAPE (post-activation performance enhancement) have positive effects on turn performance with an increase in the UUS (underwater undulatory swimming) kinetic variables [21].
The fundamentals of plyometric training are in line with the desirable swimming turn characteristics, in which a fast stretch-shortening cycle occurs when the muscles switch from a rapid eccentric muscle action (contact and approach to the wall) to concentric muscle action (separation from the wall). Hence, plyometric training has been used as a specific training method to increase the power output and force production on swimming turns [16,22].
Likewise, a proper control of the body position during the swimming approach to the wall and the separation from the wall in a streamlined glide position improves turn performance [23]. In this sense, Karpiński et al. [24] showed that core training could improve the control of body position and thereby reduce the time to reach 5 m lines after pushing off the wall.
The success of strength and conditioning programs on swimming turns depends on several factors including type of training, methods and duration of training, periodisation, the exercises performed and the level of the swimmer. However, further investigation is required to clarify the optimal combinations of these factors in order to improve the performance in swimming turns. Therefore, the aim of the present systematic review was to examine the effects of dry-land strength and conditioning programs on swimming turns. We hypothesised that strength and plyometric training would improve swimmers’ power and force production and, consequently, the performance of swimming turns.

2. Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

This systematic review was conducted following the guidelines provided in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [25]. A comprehensive search via three online databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science) was conducted on 20 September 2020 by two independent reviewers. The keywords used were ‘swimming’, ‘turns’, ‘training’, ‘performance’, and ‘plyometric, strength’.
Title, abstract and keyword search fields were searched using the following search strategy: Swimming AND turns AND performance, Swimming AND turns AND training, Resistance AND training AND swimming AND turns, Dry-land AND training AND swimming AND turns.
Searches were limited to studies involving trained human participants and published in English language. Two of the authors independently performed the identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion of studies, with any disagreements settled by consensus. All publications were examined by title and abstract to exclude irrelevant records. Data including the publication details, participants’ characteristics (performance level of swimmers), testing procedures, study design, description of intervention and results were extracted from all eligible studies.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies published in the English language were included in the present study. The last twenty five years of studies (1995–2020) published in peer-review journals were included in the systematic review. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed according to the PICO criteria for including or excluding articles in systematics reviews (Table 1).

2.3. Data Extraction

Two of the authors independently extracted characteristics of training protocols and results using a standardised form. Results were compared and discrepancies were resolved by consensus or by consulting the senior author. A total of 1259 studies were identified (Figure 1). Reference lists of papers were also examined for any other potentially eligible manuscripts and this yielded an additional six studies in the screening process. After removal of duplicates and elimination of papers based on title and abstract screening, 19 manuscripts remained, but only six studies were included in the systematic review [13,15,16,22,24]. The 14 studies that were not included in the review did not match the eligibility criteria based on full-text screening. For each study, the percentage of change between pre and post measurements of the outcome variables was calculated.

2.4. Quality Assessment

The quality of the studies included in the review was evaluated by two of the authors. The PEDro scale was used to rate the quality of the literature [26]. This scale has an acceptable reliability and validity and is widely used in the field of physiotherapeutic studies [27]. However, for controlled training studies, it is impossible to blind participants and in only very few studies were the therapists or investigators blinded. Hence, these three items of the PEDro scale were removed for this review (modified PEDro scale), resulting in a maximal score of 7 instead of 10, with adjusted ratings ranging from 6 to 7 “excellent quality”, 5 “good quality”, 4 “moderate quality” and 0–3 “poor quality”. Studies which obtain less than 3 points in the scale were excluded in the review because the methodology quality of the study was very poor.

3. Results

3.1. Search an PEDro Scale Results

A total of 1259 articles were retrieved from database searches. From the 19 studies which were full-text evaluated, six studies were included in the review process. PEDro scores for the six studies ranged from 4 to 6 out of a maximum 7 (Table 2), with a mean of 5.5 points. Out of the six studies analysed, only one utilised an uncontrolled pre- and post- test design, the remaining studies used a controlled trial design with an intervention and control group. The two statistical methods used in the studies included in the review were a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) [15,22,24] and T test [13,15,16]. Additionally, Bonferroni and Scheffe post hoc analyses were conducted by Karpiński et al. [24] and Bahadoran et al. [15] respectively.

3.2. Results Based on Training Method

Table 3 presents the main features of the studies selected. Four of the six studies showed improvements in a number of kinetic and kinematic variables related to swimming turn performance. Ballistic training improved the peak power per kg (62.1 vs. 66.1 W/kg, 6%) and time to 5 m (2.7 vs. 2.5 s, 8%) [13]. Strength training improved impulse (3.3 vs. 4.0 Ns, 21%) [13] and turn time (5 m RTT) (2.37 vs. 2.29 s, 4.5%, p < 0.05) [15]. However, strength training increased wall contact time (0.14 vs. 0.16 s, 9.4% p < 0.001) [15]. Core training improved time to 5 m after a flip turn (0.43 vs. 0.34 s, 28.6%, p < 0.001) and average velocity after the flip turn (11.77 vs. 15.34 m·s−1, 23% p < 0.001) between pre and post values [24]. Finally, plyometric training improved the maximal glide speed (2.28 vs. 2.41 m·s−1, 5.4%, p < 0.05) but this increment in speed also increased the magnitude of the average acceleration during the glide (between the beginning of the push off and the maximal speed) (4.81 vs. 6.80 m·s−2, 29%, p < 0.01) [16] (Table 3).

4. Discussion

The aim of this review was to examine the effects of dry-land strength and conditioning programs on swimming turns. The training modalities included dry-land strength [13,15], plyometric [16,22], ballistic [13] and core training [24]. Given that a swimmer’s training is predominantly pool-based, the ability to provide appropriate training time to modalities that improve leg extensor force–time curve characteristics is limited by both the weekly and yearly schedule, as well as the competing training priorities.

4.1. Plyometric Training Effects on Swimming Turn Performance

Plyometric training has been reported as one of the most relevant dry-land training methods in swimming [17]. It allows for an enhancement of muscle strength and power due to neural improvements, such as increases motor unit activation and changes in motor unit coordination, recruitment and firing [28,29]. Besides, plyometric training can improve muscle power without any significant change in body mass or volume [30].
Plyometric training has been used as a specific training method for improving the performance in swimming turns due to the similarities between the push-off and plyometric training characteristics [16]. However, a previous plyometric training research did not report any significant improvements on the turn performance after 20 weeks of training [22]. Besides, authors present the attendance rates of the swimmers during the 20 weeks and showed that there were no differences between swimmers who attended fewer plyometric sessions (<50%) and those who attended more plyometric sessions (<75%). This might be explained by the existence of a limit in which increasing the duration of the intervention or the number of sessions per week does not yield any further improvements in swimming turns. Supporting this interpretation, de Villarreal et al. [31] highlighted that plyometric interventions between 6 to 10 weeks with 3–4 sessions per week are more beneficial than similar programs of a longer duration. Nevertheless, six weeks of plyometric training (2–3 times per week, 20–25 min) did yield improvements in the glide phase subsequent to the turn, with an increment in the maximal speed but with increased acceleration [16]. In this way, it can be hypothesized that if the swimmer achieves higher velocity during the glide phase, this is a response of an increment in the force produced during the push-off. In this sense, the acceleration between the push off and the maximal speed is also increased, indicating that force production during the push off was enhanced with the plyometric training. Additionally, swimmers can obtain higher glide velocities and lower times after the push off (time to 1 or 2 m) with a hydrodynamic drag reduction [32].
Finally, plyometric training has several advantages relative to other dry-land training methods. These advantages include ease of incorporating this training into regular trainings sessions and limiting the financial cost because they do not require any specialized equipment [16]. However, plyometric training should be complemented with strength training depending on the training cycle or the season plan. In fact, the athletes are able to maximize the benefits of strength training incorporating specific training activities (i.e., plyometrics, ballistic exercises and complex or contrast training) designed to optimize power development [33]. Nevertheless, more studies are needed in order to clarify the training organisation combining plyometric and strength training in swimming and the effects of these programs in swimming turn performance.

4.2. Strength Training Effects on Swimming Turn Performance

Strength training is the most common dry-land training protocol implemented for improving swimming performance [34,35,36]. Swimmers must train with resistances high enough to engage higher threshold motor units associated with the type II muscle fibres [37], because higher peaks of force and velocity are related to better turn performances [38]. In this sense, strength training programs with lower volume (low number of sets and repetitions) and high intensity (high velocity/force) induce greater strength and neuromuscular improvements than high volume and low intensity programs [33]. Work at high intensities between 85% to 100% RM has a positive effect on the force and power produced during the wall contact phase and reduces the time to 5 m. When intensity was reduced (80–90%) there was only a slight improvement in impulse [13]. In the same line, Strass [39] also showed gains between 20% and 40% of dry-land muscular strength working at 90–100% RM. Hence, training at near-maximal and maximal loads appears to be the most effective training intensities for improving swimming turn performance.
Apart from the intensity, the training volume needs to be organized focusing on neuromuscular enhancement. As mentioned previously, strength training programs with lower volumes reported greater strength and neuromuscular improvements. Programs with low repetition ranges (1–6 repetitions) with 4–5 sets have been used for improving swimming turn performance [13,15]. Therefore, due to the power required in swimming turns, the strength training programs should be focused on the development of the neuromuscular factor with lower volume and high intensities.
Swimming training is not only focused on the development of strength, endurance and velocity improvement, it is also a training priority. Concurrent training may benefit swimming performance. The ‘crossover’ effect gained from endurance and strength intervention may positively influence swimming performance [35]. However, in swimming turns, strength training was shown to be more effective than endurance or concurrent training for improving swimming turn performance [15]. This result needs to be clarified for future studies, as swimming plans are never designed only with a strength program, in-water training also has a part to play in swimmers daily training. Future studies should establish the optimal distributions between strength training and water training in order to improve the swimming turn performance.

4.3. Core Training Effects on Swimming Turn Performance

Core training is commonly practiced in elite sport [40]. Core training can be defined as systematic exercises focusing on the body centre muscles and aiming to protect and improve the body balance by strengthening these muscles [41]. In swimming, core stability is essential due to the unstable nature of the water [17]. Hence, core training programs have demonstrated significant improvements in swimmers’ core function and swimming performance [42].
In turns, core muscles help to maintain a streamlined position to avoid linear deviations [23]. Thus, if the swimmers maintain a straight line during the subsequent turn phases, they can minimise the active drag and could improve velocity [43,44,45]. In this line, a recent research indicated that implementing a core training protocol can improve the velocity achieved in the first 5 m subsequent to wall contact and; therefore, time to 5 m [24]. These effects might be related to the linearity of the posture during the glide, which depends on the orientation at push-off and adopting the streamlined position [23,46].

4.4. Limitations and Future Considerations

The main limitation of this research is the number of articles included in the review, thus, there are no clear evidences of swimming turn training only a few recommendations provided from the studies analysed. Additionally, because this research was focused on the dry-land training effects on swimming turn performance, other factors such as positions, depths or hips and knee angles at wall contact were not analysed. More investigations are needed in the field that indicate the effectiveness of the training method and the training organisations. Future researches could be focused on determining the adequate training distribution between dry-land and in-water training, and which training methods need to be developed in dry-land conditions to maximize swimming turn performance. Similarly, researches are needed that aim to understand the role of core muscles during the push-off and glide phases and the effects of better core stability during these phases in swimming turns.

5. Conclusions

Coaches should implement a strength- and power-based training program which targets development of the leg extensors to increase both peak force and rate of force development during turning. Plyometric training can be a useful training method to develop the neuromuscular factor required during the push-off in turns; programs with 2–4 sessions per week, around 20–25 min, during 6–10 weeks seem to be effective in order to improve swimming turn performance. Additionally, it is recommended for age group swimmers who normally have less experience in strength training to have fewer sessions and sessions of shorter duration. Strength or ballistic training would be prescribed at high intensities (85–100%1 RM) to improve neuromuscular function in leg extensor muscles. There is no clear evidence about the effects of core training on swimming turns due to the validity of the data provided by Karpiński et al. [24]. However, this study only provides some training recommendations based on the studies analysed. Due to the limited studies carried out in the field, it is not possible to provide specific recommendations. More studies are needed to understand the effects of different training methods, the training distributions and the interaction with pool training in which swimmers perform a great number of turns each day.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization J.M.G.-R., F.H.; database search; F.H., F.G.-M., writing original draft preparation; J.M.G.-R., F.H., I.Y., writing—review and editing; J.M.G.-R., F.H., R.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Barbosa, T.; Costa, M.; Marinho, D. Proposal of a deterministic model to explain swimming performance. Int. J. Swim. Kinet. 2013, 2, 1–54. [Google Scholar]
  2. Folland, J.P.; Williams, A.G. The adaptations to strength training: Morphological and neurological contributions to increased strength. Sports Med. 2007, 37, 145–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Chakravorti, N.; Slawson, S.; Cossor, J.; Conway, P.; West, A. Swimming turn technique optimisation by real-time measurement of foot pressure and position. Procedia Eng. 2012, 34, 586–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Morais, J.E.; Marinho, D.A.; Arellano, R.; Barbosa, T.M. Start and turn performances of elite sprinters at the 2016 European Championships in swimming. Sports Biomech. 2019, 18, 100–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Morais, J.E.; Barbosa, T.M.; Forte, P.; Bragada, J.A.; Castro, F.A.S.; Marinho, D.A. Stability analysis and prediction of pacing in elite 1500 m freestyle male swimmers. Sports Biomech. 2020, 2020, 1810749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sánchez, L.; Arellano, R.; Cuenca-Fernández, F. Analysis and influence of the underwater phase of breaststroke on short-course 50 and 100m performance. Int. J. Perform. Anal. 2021, 21, 307–323. [Google Scholar]
  7. Olstad, B.H.; Wathne, H.; Gonjo, T. Key factors related to short course 100 m breaststroke performance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lyttle, A.; Benjanuvatra, N. Optimising swim turn performance. Available online: http://www.coachesinfo.com/article/281 (accessed on 2 September 2021).
  9. Ling, B.; Blanksby, B.; Elliott, B.; McElroy, K. Force-time characteristics of the butterfly turns by age-group swimmers. J. Hum. Mov. Stud. 2004, 47, 429–445. [Google Scholar]
  10. Veiga, S.; Roig, A.; Gómez-Ruano, M.A. Do faster swimmers spend longer underwater than slower swimmers at World Championships? Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2016, 16, 919–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Blanksby, B.; Gathercole, D.; Marshall, R. Force plate and video analysis of the tumble turn by age-group swimmers. J. Swim. Res. 1996, 11, 40–45. [Google Scholar]
  12. Pereira, S.; Araujo, L.; Freitas, E.; Gatti, R.; Silveira, G.; Roesler, H. Biomechanical analysis of the turn in front crawl swimming. Biomech. Med. Swim. X 2006, 6, 77–79. [Google Scholar]
  13. Jones, J.V.; Pyne, D.B.; Haff, G.G.; Newton, R.U. Comparison of ballistic and strength training on swimming turn and dry-land leg extensor characteristics in elite swimmers. Int. J. Sports Sci. 2018, 13, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lyttle, A.; Mason, B. A kinematic and kinetic analysis of the freestyle and butterfly turns. J. Swim. Res. 1997, 12, 7–11. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bahadoran, M.R.; Mousavi, S.H.; Beni, M.A.; Kavandi, M.; Sadri, M. The Effect of the Sequence of Concurrent Strength and Endurance Training on the Freestyle Flip Turn. World Appl. Sci. J. 2012, 17, 1120–1124. [Google Scholar]
  16. Potdevin, F.J.; Alberty, M.E.; Chevutschi, A.; Pelayo, P.; Sidney, M.C. Effects of a 6-week plyometric training program on performances in pubescent swimmers. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2011, 25, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Amaro, N.; Morouco, P.; Marques, M.; Batalha, N.; Neiva, H.; Marinho, D. A systematic review on dry-land strength and conditioning training on swimming performance. Sci. Sports 2019, 34, e1–e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Crewther, B.; Keogh, J.; Cronin, J.; Cook, C. Possible stimuli for strength and power adaptation. Sports Med. 2006, 36, 215–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Andersen, L.L.; Andersen, J.L.; Magnusson, S.P.; Suetta, C.; Madsen, J.L.; Christensen, L.R.; Aagaard, P. Changes in the human muscle force-velocity relationship in response to resistance training and subsequent detraining. J. Appl. Physiol. 2005, 99, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Newton, R.U.; Jones, J.; Kraemer, W.J.; Wardle, H. Strength and power training of Australian Olympic swimmers. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2002, 24, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Crespo, E.; Ruiz-Navarro, J.J.; Cuenca-Fernández, F.; Arellano, R. Post-Eccentric Flywheel Underwater Undulatory Swimming Potentiation in Competitive Swimmers. J. Hum. Kinet. 2021, 79, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cossor, J.M.; Blanksby, B.A.; Elliott, B.C. The influence of plyometric training on the freestyle tumble turn. J. Sci. Med. Sport 1999, 2, 106–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Salo, D.; Riewald, S.A. Complete Conditioning for Swimming; Human Kinetics: Champain, IL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  24. Karpiński, J.; Rejdych, W.; Brzozowska, D.; Gołaś, A.; Sadowski, W.; Swinarew, A.S.; Stachura, A.; Gupta, S.; Stanula, A. The effects of a 6-week core exercises on swimming performance of national level swimmers. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0227394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Group, P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Maher, C.G.; Sherrington, C.; Herbert, R.D.; Moseley, A.M.; Elkins, M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys. Ther. 2003, 83, 713–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Macedo, L.G.; Elkins, M.R.; Maher, C.G.; Moseley, A.M.; Herbert, R.D.; Sherrington, C. There was evidence of convergent and construct validity of Physiotherapy Evidence Database quality scale for physiotherapy trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2010, 63, 920–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ozmun, J.M.A.; Surburg, P. Neuromuscular adaptations following prepubescent strength training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1994, 26, 510–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ramsay, J.A.; Blimkie, C.; Smith, K.; Garner, S.; MacDougall, J.D.; Sale, D.G. Strength training effects in prepubescent boys. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1990, 22, 605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Sedano, S.; Vaeyens, R.; Philippaerts, R.; Redondo, J.C.; de Benito, A.M.; Cuadrado, G. Effects of lower-limb plyometric training on body composition, explosive strength, and kicking speed in female soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2009, 23, 1714–1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. de Villarreal, E.S.; Requena, B.; Cronin, J.B. The effects of plyometric training on sprint performance: A meta-analysis. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2012, 26, 575–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Ruiz-Navarro, J.J.; Cano-Adamuz, M.; Andersen, J.T.; Cuenca-Fernández, F.; López-Contreras, G.; Vanrenterghem, J.; Arellano, R. Understanding the effects of training on underwater undulatory swimming performance and kinematics. Sports Biomech. 2021, 2021, 1891276. [Google Scholar]
  33. Haff, G.G.; Nimphius, S. Training principles for power. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2012, 34, 2–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Girold, S.; Maurin, D.; Dugue, B.; Chatard, J.-C.; Millet, G. Effects of dry-land vs. resisted-and assisted-sprint exercises on swimming sprint performances. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2007, 21, 599–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Aspenes, S.; Kjendlie, P.-L.; Hoff, J.; Helgerud, J. Combined strength and endurance training in competitive swimmers. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2009, 8, 357. [Google Scholar]
  36. Girold, S.; Jalab, C.; Bernard, O.; Carette, P.; Kemoun, G.; Dugué, B. Dry-land strength training vs. electrical stimulation in sprint swimming performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2012, 26, 497–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mujika, I.; Chatard, J.-C.; Busso, T.; Geyssant, A.; Barale, F.; Lacoste, L. Effects of training on performance in competitive swimming. Can. J. Appl. Physiol. 1995, 20, 395–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lyttle, A.; Blanksby, B.; Elliott, B.; Lloyd, D. Investigating kinetics in the freestyle flip turn push-off. J. Appl. Biomech. 1999, 15, 242–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Strass, D. Effects of maximal strength training on sprint performance of competitive swimmers. Swim. Sci. V 1988, 18, 149–156. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hibbs, A.E.; Thompson, K.G.; French, D.; Wrigley, A.; Spears, I. Optimizing performance by improving core stability and core strength. Sports Med. 2008, 38, 995–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Eskiyecek, C.G.; Gül, M.; Uludağ, B.; Gül, G.K. The Effect of 8-Week Core Exercises Applied to 10–12 Age Male Swimmers on Swimming Performance. Int. J. Appl. Exerc. Physiol. 2020, 9, 213–220. [Google Scholar]
  42. Weston, M.; Hibbs, A.E.; Thompson, K.G.; Spears, I.R. Isolated core training improves sprint performance in national-level junior swimmers. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2015, 10, 204–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Lyttle, A. Hydrodynamics of the Human Body during the Freestyle Tumble Turn. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  44. Cortesi, M.; Gatta, G.; Michielon, G.; Di Michele, R.; Bartolomei, S.; Scurati, R. Passive Drag in Young Swimmers: Effects of Body Composition, Morphology and Gliding Position. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Cortesi, M.; Gatta, G. Effect of The Swimmer's Head Position on Passive Drag. J. Hum. Kinet 2015, 49, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Patil, D.; Salian, S.C.; Yardi, S. The effect of core strengthening on performance of young competitive swimmers. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2014, 3, 2470–2477. [Google Scholar]
Ijerph 18 09340 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Ijerph 18 09340 g001
Table
Table 1. PICO criteria used to develop the research question and include and exclude studies.
Table 1. PICO criteria used to develop the research question and include and exclude studies.
ParameterInclusion CriteriaExclusion CriteriaData Extraction
(P) PatientsYouth and adult competitive swimmers Master swimmers, swimmers had previous injuries or disabilities; swimmers did not specialise in swimming events in pools (e.g., water polo, diving, surf, triathlon)Sex, number of participants, level of the participants, age (years) and anthropometrics
(I) InterventionStrength training programs on land related to the goal of improving swimming turn performanceNot detailed the training program organisationType of turn measured (open or tumble), type of strength training, duration of the intervention and dry-land training protocol.
(C) ComparatorOnly swimming training (groups without strength training) Measures of the different groups established in the study
(O) OutcomesKinetics and kinematics swimming turn performance variables (5 m roll over time, 15 m time after push off, wall contact time, peak of force during the push off, impulse, partials velocities)Not reported any variable related with swimming turn performancePre-post measures and p-values
Table
Table 2. Quality of the intervention studies as assessed on the modified Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale.
Table 2. Quality of the intervention studies as assessed on the modified Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale.
ReferencesPEDro Ratings
Eligibility Criteria Are SpecifiedRandom Group AllocationConcealed Group AllocationGroups Had Similar Baseline85% Obtained OutcomeIntention-to-Treat Methodbetween Group ComparisonPoint Measure and VariabilityPEDro Score
Jones et al., (2018)Yes00110114
Potdevin et al., (2011)Yes10111116
Bahadoran et al., (2012)No10111116
Cossor et al., (1999)No00111115
Karpinski et al., (2020)Yes10111116
Pupišová et al., (2019)No00111115
Note: PEDro = Physiotherapy Evidence Database; “1” indicates fulfilled requirements, “0” indicates non-fulfilled requirements.
Table
Table 3. Dry-land intervention studies carried out focusing on swimming turn performance.
Table 3. Dry-land intervention studies carried out focusing on swimming turn performance.
ReferenceParticipant (Sex); Level of the ParticipantsAge (Years); Anthropometrics (Mean ± sd)Type of TurnType of Strength TrainingDuration of InterventionDry-Land Training Intervention ProtocolTurn Key Performance MeasuresResults
KineticsKinematics
Jones et al., 201812 male swimmers (6 ST; 6 BT)Age: ST: 19.4 ± 1.1; BT: 18.9 ± 0.9Tumble and openStrength and ballistic6 weeksST: Bench press, leg press, bench pull, shoulder press, chin ups, and squats (Sets: 4–5; Rep: 5–8; Load: 85–90%; Rest: 3–4 S/w: 3) BT: Power cleans, push press, jump squats, box jumps and medicine ball throws (Sets: 4–5; Rep: 3–5; Load: 80–100%; Rest: 2–3; S/w: 3)Impulse (n) ST:↑21.0%, N.S
BT: ↑5.0%, N.S
Turn time (s)ST:↑1.3%. N.S
Cm: ST: 179.1 ± 8.6; BT: 178.0 ± 10.4 BT: Not change
World level swimmers Time to 5 m (s)ST: ↓4.3%. N.S
Kg: ST: 78.9 ± 12.3; BT: 77.1 ± 10.2 BT: ↑8.0% N.S
Peak power per kg (W/kg) ST: ↑5.8%. N.S
BT: ↑6.0%. N.S
Potdevin et al., 201123 swimmers. EG: 7 F, 5 M. CG: 6 F, 5 MCm: EG: 1.61 ± 0.12; CG: 1.58 ± 0.12Tumble turnPlyometric training6 weeksEG group, 2 plyometric session per week (standing jumps, lateral hops, depth jumps). CG only performing on water session Max Speed (m/s−1)EG: ↑5.4 *#
CG: Not change
Level not specifiedKg: EG: 50.03 ± 9.04; CG: 50.85 ± 12.81 Average accel (m/s−2)EG: ↑29.0% **
CG: ↑21.3% **#
Cossor et al., 199938 adolescents swimmers: 19 Experimental group (EG) and 19 control group (CG).Mass (kg): EG: 47.4 ± 10.8; CG: 154.7 ± 8.4Tumble turnPlyometric training20 weeks: Measures in week 0 (pre), week 8 (mid), week 20 (post)The CG swam three times per week for 1.5 h (including on-land warm up) while the EG swam three times for 1.25 h per week and performed plyometric exercises for 30 min before each session. Fifteen exercises were carried out and two sets of 10–15 repetitions completed at each session.Impulse (n) EG:↓26.3%. N.S
CG:↓21.0%. N.S
Wall contact time (s)EG:↑16.7%. N.S
CG: ↑22.5%. N.S
Height (cm): EG: 159.1 ± 7.8; CG: 154.7 ± 8.4 5 m RTT (s)EG:↑7.3%. N.S
CG: ↑10.2%. N.S
Level not specified 2.5 m RTT (s)EG: ↑8.3%. N.S
CG: ↑11.4%. N.S
Age: 11.7 ± 1.16Peak force (Bw) EG: Not change
CG: ↑5.2%. N.S
Vel off wall (m/s)EG: ↑36.6%. N.S
CG: ↑34.1%. N.S
Karpinski et al., 202016 male swimmers: 8 experimental group (EG) and 8 control group (CG)Mass (kg): EG: 74.9 ± 10.67; CG: 75.4 ± 6.27Tumble turnCore training6 weeksEG group performing 3 core muscle training sessions per week: Flutter kicks (scissors), single leg V-ups, prone physio ball trunk extension, Russian twists. Time 5 m after flip turn (s)EG:↑26.0% *** CG:↑13.5% **
Height (cm): EG: 183.0 ± 6.57; CG: 182.1 ± 3.18
At least 800 FINA points in any swimming event. Average velocity (m·s−1)EG: ↑23.9% ** CG:↑10.8% **
Age: EG: 20.2 ± 1.17; CG: 20.0 ± 1.9
Bahadoran et al., 201240 male swimmers in five groups: strength (ST), endurance (ET), strength endurance (SE), endurance-strength (ES) and control (CG)Mass (kg): 62.82 ± 7.78Tumble turnStrength and endurance8 weeksST: Foot press with foot press machine, squat, half squats and sit-ups. Week 1: 2 rounds, 10 rep and 50% of 1 RM Week 8: 2 rounds, 6 rep and 80% of 1 RM. ET: Running, week 1: Running for 16 min with 65% of MHR. Week 8: 30 min with 80% MHR. SE performed the strength-endurance exercise. ES: Performed the endurance-strength exercise 5 m RTT (s)ST: ↑4.5% *
ET: Not change
SE: Not change
Height (cm): 175.62 ± 7.11 ES: Not change
CG: Not change
Level not specifiedAge: 11.7 ± 1.16 Rolling time (s)ST: Not change
ET: Not change
SE: Not change
ES: Not change
CG: Not change
Pupišová et al., (2019)12 M and 8 F. 10 experimental group (EG), 10 control group (CG)Mass (kg): 65.80 ± 9.20
Height (cm): 174.20 ± 7.5		Open turnPlyometric8 weeksEG group: 3 sessions per week, 20 min: Jump–leap (30 cm box), skipping rope (alternate feet), multiple jumps over obstacles, triple jump and Abalakov Glide distance (m)EG: ↑14.9%
CG: ↑4.1%
Level not specifiedAge: 17.3 ± 1.46Glide distance after 25 m max swim (m)EG: ↑22.7%
CG: ↑11.0%
Notes: M: Male, F: Female, ST: Strength training, BT: Ballistic training, ET: Endurance training, SE: Strength-endurance training, ES: Endurance-strength training, C: Control, EG: Experimental group, CG: Control group; RM: Repetition maximum; MHR: Maximal heart rate N.S: Not significant differences, * indicates p < 0.05, ** indicates p < 0.01, *** indicates p < 0.001 between pre and post significant differences. # Indicates p < 0.05 between groups significant differences.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hermosilla, F.; Sanders, R.; González-Mohíno, F.; Yustres, I.; González-Rave, J.M. Effects of Dry-Land Training Programs on Swimming Turn Performance: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9340. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179340

AMA Style

Hermosilla F, Sanders R, González-Mohíno F, Yustres I, González-Rave JM. Effects of Dry-Land Training Programs on Swimming Turn Performance: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(17):9340. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179340

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hermosilla, Francisco, Ross Sanders, Fernando González-Mohíno, Inmaculada Yustres, and José M González-Rave. 2021. "Effects of Dry-Land Training Programs on Swimming Turn Performance: A Systematic Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 17: 9340. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179340

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop