ArticlePDF Available

Physiologic and Kinematical Effects of Water Run Training on Running Performance

March 2009
International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education 3:135-150

DOI:10.25035/ijare.03.02.05

Authors:

Leonardo Alexandre Peyré-Tartaruga

University of Pavia

Marcus PEIKRISZWILI TARTARUGA

UNICENTRO and UFPR

Marcelo Coertjens

Universidade Federal do Delta do Parnaíba

Show all 7 authorsHide

The purpose of this study was to analyze whether trained competitive runners could maintain running kinematics, cardiorespiratory performance (VO 2peak , ventilatory threshold, running economy) and on-land running performance by replacing 30% of conventional training with water run training during 8 weeks. Eighteen runners were divided in two groups: on-land run (OLR Group) and deep water run (DWR Group). The DWR Group replaced 30% of training volume on land with DWR, and the OLR group trained only on land (both groups undertaken workouts 6–7 d.wk −1 for a total of 52 sessions). No significant intra-or intergroup differences were observed for VO 2peak in the DWR Group and OLR Group. Similarly, ventilatory threshold second was unaltered in the DWR Group and OLR Group. Regarding running economy (at 14 km.h −1) also, no intra-or intergroup differences were found in the DWR Group (pre = 43.4 ± 5.0, post = 42.6 ± 3.85 ml.kg −1 .min −1) and OLR Group (pre = 43.9 ± 2.5, post = 42.6 ± 2.6 ml.kg −1 .min −1). Kinematic responses were similar within and between groups. Water running may serve as an effective complementary training over a period of 8 weeks up to 30% of land training volume for competitive runners. The lower limb injuries are extremely common in runners. Several epidemio-logical studies estimate that 24–65% of competitive runners present injuries due to overuse, during one year (Hoeberigs, 1992; Van Mechelen, 1992). With this high incidence of lower limb injuries incurred by runners, it seems prudent to pursue training techniques to relieve some running-related trauma but without compromising aerobic conditioning and movement pattern. In particular, a replacement is interesting if it can be made without affecting land running performance. The deep water running (DWR) is a popular mode of rehabilitation for ath-letes, mainly in competitive runners with overuse injuries in lowers limbs. In fact, the DWR have shown to be satisfactory as a rehabilitation program (Assis et al., 2006; Frangolias, Taunton, Rhodes, McConkey, & Moon, 1997; Thein & Brody, 1997). Many mechanisms of DWR benefits can be attributed to the hydrostatic The authors are with Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, School of Physical Education in Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Kinematical responses from economy running test, following 8 weeks for deep water running (DWR) group or on-land running (OLR) group (mean ± SD ).

…

Percent decrements of the horizontal velocity from 50 m to 450 m conditions during the 500 m tests for the DWR and OLR groups.

…

Training Workouts

…

Figures - uploaded by Luiz Fernando Martins Kruel

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Luiz Fernando Martins Kruel

Content may be subject to copyright.

135

International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education, 2009, 3, 135-150

Physiologic and Kinematical Effects

of Water Run Training on Running

Performance

Leonardo Alexandre Peyré-Tartaruga, Marcus Peikriszwili

Tartaruga, Marcelo Coertjens, Gabriela Lovis Black,

Alvero Reischak Oliveira, and Luiz Fernando Martins Kruel

The purpose of this study was to analyze whether trained competitive runners could

maintain running kinematics, cardiorespiratory performance (VO2peak, ventilatory

threshold, running economy) and on-land running performance by replacing 30% of

conventional training with water run training during 8 weeks. Eighteen runners were

divided in two groups: on-land run (OLR Group) and deep water run (DWR Group).

The DWR Group replaced 30% of training volume on land with DWR, and the OLR

group trained only on land (both groups undertaken workouts 6–7 d.wk−1 for a total

of 52 sessions). No signicant intra- or intergroup differences were observed for

VO2peak in the DWR Group and OLR Group. Similarly, ventilatory threshold second

was unaltered in the DWR Group and OLR Group. Regarding running economy (at

14 km.h−1) also, no intra- or intergroup differences were found in the DWR Group

(pre = 43.4 ± 5.0, post = 42.6 ± 3.85 ml.kg−1.min−1) and OLR Group (pre = 43.9 ± 2.5,

post = 42.6 ± 2.6 ml.kg−1.min−1). Kinematic responses were similar within and

between groups. Water running may serve as an effective complementary training

over a period of 8 weeks up to 30% of land training volume for competitive runners.

The lower limb injuries are extremely common in runners. Several epidemio-

logical studies estimate that 24–65% of competitive runners present injuries due

to overuse, during one year (Hoeberigs, 1992; Van Mechelen, 1992). With this

high incidence of lower limb injuries incurred by runners, it seems prudent to

pursue training techniques to relieve some running-related trauma but without

compromising aerobic conditioning and movement pattern. In particular, a

replacement is interesting if it can be made without affecting land running

performance.

The deep water running (DWR) is a popular mode of rehabilitation for ath-

letes, mainly in competitive runners with overuse injuries in lowers limbs. In fact,

the DWR have shown to be satisfactory as a rehabilitation program (Assis et al.,

2006; Frangolias, Taunton, Rhodes, McConkey, & Moon, 1997; Thein & Brody,

1997). Many mechanisms of DWR benets can be attributed to the hydrostatic

The authors are with Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, School of Physical Education in Porto

Alegre, Brazil.

136 Peyré-Tartaruga et al.

effect of water and their reduced mechanical load, for example, on the spine

(Dowzer, Reilly, & Cable, 1998) and principally in lower limbs. These factors

have proportioned an increase on interest in the effects that a DWR program may

have as an alternative training mode for maintaining the aerobic responses and

performance in healthy athletes (Bushman, Flynn, Andres, Lambert, Taylor, &

Braun, 1997; Eyestone, Fellingham, George, & Fisher, 1993; Wilber, Moffat,

Scott, Lee, & Cucuzzo, 1996). Both the popular (IAAF, 2004) and the scientic

(Reilly, Dowzer, & Cable, 2003) literature propose the DWR for runners recover-

ing from strenuous races and as a training complement.

Although, the effects of chronic DWR training supplement on the mainte-

nance of some cardiorespiratory parameters have been extensively investigated,

particularly among recreational runners (Eyestone et al., 1993; Wilber et al.,

1996), to our knowledge, the DWR effects on running kinematic and second ven-

tilatory threshold (Tvent) has never been measured in competitive runners. Wilber

and collaborators (1996) noted that DWR may improve stride biomechanics,

resulting in a more efcient stride and thus contributing to the maintenance of

running economy; nevertheless, the efcacy of such a strategy in maintaining the

running economy in endurance-trained runners remains to be rmly established.

Probably, the running simulated movement, in an environment 800 times denser

than the air, could favor an increase on muscle strength and, consequently, a

greater stride length, due to greater relative utilization of oxidative bers, which

contributes to maintenance of running economy. There were no experimental evi-

dences of this improvement on running biomechanic aspects. Otherwise, some

authors (Kaneda et al. 2007; Kruel, Peyré-Tartaruga, Larronda, Loss, & Tartaruga,

2002; Nilsson, Tveit, & Thorstensson, 2001) have stated that the movement pat-

tern of DWR is different from that of land-based running, but there is no empirical

data in relation to long-term kinematic effects. Specically, Nilsson et al. (2001)

did not nd signicant electromyographical activation of the lower limb muscles

during stretching phases (no eccentric contraction) on DWR. Taking into consid-

eration this observation and relating this to the effects of fatigue on stretching-

shortening cycle (Komi, 2000) and on running kinematics (Hardin, Van den

Bogert, & Hamill, 2004; Peyré-Tartaruga, Coertjens, Black, Tartaruga, Ribas, &

Kruel, 2003), we would expect differences on running kinematics during fatigue

stages of running after inclusion of DWR in a normal training program for run-

ners. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the

inclusion of DWR as part of an 8-wk training program on running kinematics

during economy test and 500 m race on the track and the parameters of cardio-

respiratory performance (VO2peak, Tvent, running economy) of competitive runners

and compare them with those from on-land training only.

Materials and Methods

Subjects

Eighteen middle-distance competitive runners (three subjects ran the 800 m, while

15 competed in 800–3000 m track events), 12 male, and 6 female participated in

this study, which was approved by the Ethics Committee of UFRGS. All subjects

provided written consent for their participation after the experimental procedures

Effects of Water Run Training 137

and the associated risks and benets of participation were explained. Subjects

were 22.2 ± 3.3 yr of age; weighed 59.1 ± 11.2 kg, 171.8 ± 10.4 cm tall; and had

an average running distance per week: 88.7 ± 8.1 km (see Table 1).

Design

Following preliminary screening, subjects were assigned to one of two training

groups matched by VO2peak, either on-land run (OLR) or DWR. The subjects were

studied in January and February following the preceding competitive season. The

subjects were all fully familiar with laboratory exercise testing procedures, having

previously participated in other studies.

Both groups were required to follow the same workout schedule, where the

OLR group performed the training program just on land, while the DWR group

replaced 30% of on-land training volume with in-pool DWR. The choice by 30%

is based in a practical proposal for competitive runners. Subjects participated in

their respective training programs, which consisted of workouts 6–7 days/wk−1 for

a total of 52 sessions supervised by the same instructor. The training time was 8

weeks with 6 sessions per week during the rst four weeks, and 7 sessions per

week during the last four weeks (Table 2). The training adherence was from ini-

tially 23 athletes and, at nal, 18 runners, all of which obtained more than 95%

attendance. All data are from the 18 runners. The Brennan Scale (Wilder & Bren-

nan, 1993), a 5-point perceived exertion scale, was used to set the workout inten-

sity. The scale has verbal descriptors ranging from very light to very hard. Each

level is also equated with OLR intensities as follows: level 1 (very light) corre-

sponds to a light jog or recovery run, level 2 (light) to a long steady run, level 3

(somewhat hard) to a 5–10 km road race pace, level 4 (hard) to a 400–800 m track

speed, and level 5 (very hard) to sprinting (a 100–200 m track speed). Bushman et

al. (1997) and Michaud, Brennan, Wilder, and Sherman (1995) also used this scale

to prescribe intensity for DWR exercise in healthy sedentary individuals and rec-

reational runners, respectively.

Preexperimental Procedures

Both pre- and posttraining measures, each runner completed a maximal oxygen

uptake (VO2peak) test, a running kinematic and economy test, and a 500 m race on

the track, with two days interval between each procedure and an interval of at least

Table 1 Physical and Training Characteristics of Deep Water

Running (DWR) Group or On-Land Running (OLR; mean ± SD)

DWR OLR

Body mass (kg) 61.7 ± 11.5 56.6 ± 11.0

Stature (cm) 172.5 ± 12.3 167.8 ± 12.7

Age (years) 22.9 ± 3.4 21.4 ± 3.2

Training years 4.8 ± 2.5 6.4 ± 5.3

Training distance (km.wk1) 85.0 ± 20.6 92.2 ± 16.4

138

Table 2 Training Workouts

Week Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

First 2  3  600m @

RPE 4

3km @ RPE 1

2  8  200m @

RPE 5

5km @ RPE 2

DWR

15  1 min. @

RPE 4 15 min.

@ RPE 1

2  8  200m @

RPE 5

5 km @ RPE 2

DWR

40 min. @

RPE 2

running technique

15  150m @

RPE 5

(uphill)

3 km @ RPE

REST

OLR

15  1 min. @

RPE 4 15 min.

@ RPE 1

OLR

40 min. @

RPE 2

Second 8  500m @

RPE 4

3km @ RPE 1

2  8  200m @

RPE 5

5km @ RPE 2

DWR

12 x 2 min. @

RPE 4 15 min.

@ RPE 1

2  8  200m @

RPE 5

5 km @ RPE 2

DWR

50 min. @

RPE 2

running technique

15  150 m

@ RPE 5

(uphill)

3 km @ RPE

REST

OLR

12  2 min. @

RPE 4 15 min.

@ RPE 1

OLR

50 min. @

RPE 2

Third 2  5  400m @

RPE 4

3km @ RPE 1

2  8  200m @

RPE 5

5 km @ RPE

DWR

20  30 s @

RPE 5

15 min. @

RPE 1

2 x 8  200m

@ RPE 5

5 km @ RPE 2

DWR

60 min. @

RPE 2

running technique

15  150m @

RPE 5

(uphill)

3 km @ RPE

REST

OLR

20  30 s @

RPE 5

15 min. @

RPE 1

OLR

60 min. @

RPE 2

(continued)

139

Table 2 (continued)

Week Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Fourth 2  3  600m @

RPE 4

3 km @ RPE 1

2  8  200 @

RPE 5

5 km @ RPE

DWR

15  1 min. @

RPE 4

15 min. @

RPE 1

2  8  200m @

RPE 5

5 km @ RPE 2

DWR

40 min. @

RPE 2

running technique

15  150m @

RPE 5

(uphill)

3 km @ RPE

REST

OLR

15  1 min. @

RPE 4

15 min. @

RPE 1

OLR

40 min. @

RPE 2

Fifth 2 x 4 x 400m @

RPE 4

running technique

6  50m @

RPE 5

strength train-

ing

10  120 @

RPE 5

(strides)

4 km @ RPE

DWR

10  2 min. @

RPE 4

15 min. @

RPE 1

running technique

6  50m @

RPE 5

strength train-

ing

10  120 @

RPE 5

(strides)

4 km @ RPE 1

DWR

50 min. @

RPE 2

15  150m @

RPE 5

(uphill)

40 min. @ RPE 2

OLR

10  2 min. @

RPE 4

15 min. @

RPE 1

OLR

50 min. @

RPE 2

Sixth 2  3  500m @

RPE 4

running technique

6  50m @

RPE 5

strength train-

ing

10  120 @

RPE 5

(strides)

4 km @ RPE

DWR

12  1 min. @

RPE 4–5

15 min. @

RPE 1

running technique

6  50m @

RPE 5

strength train-

ing

10  120 @

RPE 5

(strides)

4 km @ RPE 1

DWR

45 min. @

RPE 2

10  200m @

RPE 5

(uphill)

40 min. @ RPE 2

OLR

12  30s @

RPE 4–5

15 min. @

RPE 1

OLR

45 min. @

RPE 2

(continued)

140

Table 2 (continued)

Week Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Seventh 3  2  600m @

RPE 4

running technique

6  50m @

RPE 5

strength train-

ing

10  120 @

RPE 5

(strides)

4 km @ RPE

DWR

15  30s @

RPE 5

15 min. @

RPE 1

running technique

6  50m @

RPE 5

strength train-

ing

10  120 @

RPE 5

(strides)

4 km @ RPE 1

DWR

50 min. @

RPE 2

12  200m @

RPE 5

(uphill)

50 min. @ RPE 2

OLR

15  30s @

RPE 5

15 min. @

RPE 1

OLR

50 min. @

RPE 2

Eighth 2 x 4 x 400m @

RPE 4

running technique

6  50m @

RPE 5

strength train-

ing

10  120 @

RPE 5

(strides)

4 km @ RPE

DWR

10  2 min. @

RPE 4

15 min. @

RPE 1

running technique

6  50m @

RPE 5

strength train-

ing

10  120 @

RPE 5

(strides)

4 km @ RPE 1

DWR

40 min. @

RPE 2

10  150m @

RPE 5

(uphill)

40 min. @ RPE 2

OLR

10  2 min. @

RPE 4

15 min. @

RPE 1

OLR

40 min. @

RPE 2

Note. All workouts also included a 10-min warm-up and 5-min cool-down. RPE, Ratings of perceived exertion. Workouts are written in the following form: number

of  distance of repetition (on days of DWR, duration of repetition was used) @ exertion level (1–5 scale).

Effects of Water Run Training 141

two days before beginning the training program. Subjects were instructed to per-

form only a light workout one day before all tests to allow the maximal effort in

testing.

The VO2peak test consisted of a 30 s run at 10 km.h−1 and 1% elevation fol-

lowed by an increase of 0.5 km.h−1 every 30 s until physiological or volitional

fatigue. The VO2peak was considered to be the average of the two highest VO2

values in the series of 15 s VO2 values. Tvent was determined by plotting the venti-

latory equivalents (VE.VO2-1, VE.VCO2-1), using a computational algorithm

(Matlab, The Mathworks Inc., Natick, USA) and was dened as an increase in

VE.VO2-1 and VE.VCO2-1 with a coincident reduction on CO2 pressure. Two inde-

pendent evaluators who were provided with the data double-blind analyzed the

Tvent data. Running economy was determined from the relative oxygen cost (ml.

kg−1.min−1) of running at one submaximal workload (6-min workload at 14 km.

h−1, 1% grade). The xed velocity corresponded to 83% pretest VO2peak. The VO2

and the others ventilatory parameters were collected from MGC (Medical Graph-

ics Corporation, St. Paul, USA). The heart rate was monitored continuously via

heart rate telemetry. The kinematic variables were obtained from the running

economy test and 500 m test. The kinematic variables from the running economy

test were stride length (SLeco), relative stride length (stride length divided by

lower limbs length—RSLeco), support time (STeco), nonsupport time (NSTeco),

and stride frequency (SFeco). In the 500 m test, the kinematic variables were rela-

tive stride length (RSL500), stride length (SL500), support time (ST500), nonsup-

port time (NST500), stride frequency (SF500), knee angle at heel-strike

(KAHS500), knee angle at take-off (KATO500), 500m time, and horizontal veloc-

ity (HV500). The choice of these variables is related to (a) large inuence of these

variables on running performance and (b) more sensitive to fatigue effects during

500m test (Peyré-Tartaruga et al., 2003) of these variables between fatigue and

nonfatigue stages. The effects of DWR on OLR performance were examined

through a 500 m test performance one individual at a time. Although the runners

were, in general, from longer distance athletes than 500 m, we used this distance

because it was sensitive to kinematic variables and it was possible to analyze the

fatigue effects on running kinematics with only 1 cam (the methods are described

in detail by Peyré-Tartaruga et al., 2003; see supplementary material). A Punix

digital video camera with shutter time of 1.1000−1 s and 120 Hz sampling rate

lmed each runner at the 50 m and 450 m marks of the race. These two stages

were selected because of the need to lm the runners through a continuum of run-

ning patterns from nonfatigued to possibly fatigued states while also sampling

when the inuence of race tactics was minimal. The camera, secured on a tripod,

was positioned so that the focal axis was at left side to the plane of motion of the

runners. One complete running cycle (two steps) were recorded for each runner at

each of the two stages lmed. A calibrator of known length (to convert lm mea-

surements to real-life size) was lmed before the race in the line of motion of the

runners. We used a Peak Performance system (Peak Performance Technologies,

Englewood, USA) to follow markers that were specically placed on the subjects.

Retroreective markers were positioned on the following anatomic landmarks:

greater trochanter, the lateral epicondyle of the femur, lateral malleolus fth meta-

tarsophalangeal joint, and the acromion scapulae. Video images were selected and

digitized and x-y coordinates of different joint markers were obtained at 120 elds.

142 Peyré-Tartaruga et al.

The data for marker position were low-pass ltered by using a fourth-order zero-

lag Butterworth lter with a cutoff frequency of 5 Hz. The cutoff frequency was

determined by using residual analysis (Winter, 2005). Marker-position data were

used to calculate linear velocities and accelerations of the segments as well as

joint angles, segment angles, and segment angular accelerations. Each joint angle

was dened by using the marker on that joint and the two adjacent markers.

In addition, on pre- and posttests, subjects were measured for body composi-

tion. Skinfold thicknesses were measured to the 0.5 mm at ve sites (thigh, tri-

ceps, abdomen, suprailiac, subscapula) on the right side of the body by using

standard techniques (Heyward & Wagner 2004) and Lange calipers (Cambridge

Scientic Industries, Cambridge, USA). Body circumference measurements were

taken at the arm (midway between the acromion and the olecranon process),

midthigh (midway between the inguinal crease and the distal border of the patella),

and upper thigh (third-superior between the inguinal crease and the distal border

of the patella). The sum of the ve skinfold thicknesses and of the three body

circumferences are provided in Table 3. All pre- and postexperimental measure-

ments of body composition were made by the same investigator. The DWR train-

ing took place in a swimming pool measuring 25  16 m, and 2 m in depth, in

which the subjects used a oat belt, and the water temperature ranged between

28.5 °C and 29.5 °C.

The data are expressed as means ± SD (SD). Statistical analysis was carried

out using a two-way (group  time) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with

repeated measures in the Statistical Package for Social Sciences General Linear

Models procedure (version 11.0). The variables were divided into kinematic and

physiological variable groups for multivariated analysis. Univariate analysis also

was done. Sex and age were included as covariables/ covariates in all analyses. A

P value of < 0.05 was considered to indicate a signicant difference.

Results

Selected physical and training characteristics of the subjects are shown in Table 1.

Repeated measures GLM-ANOVA identied a nonsignicant interaction between

the training groups (DWR and OLR) and time (pre and post). Both kinematical

(SFeco, STeco, NSTeco, SLeco, RSLeco, SF500, ST500, NST500, SL500,

RSL500, KATO500, KAHS500, 500 m time, and VH500) and physiological

Table 3 Anthropometric Parameters, Following 8 Weeks for Deep

Water Running (DWR) Group or On-Land Running (OLR) Group

(mean ± SD)

Pre Post

DWR OLR DWR OLR

SBC (cm) 156.6 ± 11.5 149.7 ± 15.8 156.8 ± 12.1 147.0 ± 13.1

SST (mm) 57.6 ± 18.8 52.0 ± 10.3 57.5 ± 18.4 51.7 ± 10.5

Note. SBC: sum of body circumference; SST: sum of skinfold thickness.

Effects of Water Run Training 143

(VO2peak, Tvent and running economy) variables attained Ps greater than 0.05, indi-

cating that kinematical and physiological behavior responded similarly in the

DWR and OLR groups. There were no signicant intra- or intergroup differences

(p > .05) in VO2peak (Table 4) following 8 weeks of workouts. Preexperimental

treadmill VO2peak was 49.3 ± 8.3 and 54.0 ± 6.2 ml.kg−1.min−1 for the DWR and

OLR groups, respectively. Postexperimental treadmill VO2peak was 49.6 ± 8.7 and

53.4 ± 8.8 ml.kg−1.min−1 for the DWR and OLR groups, respectively. No signi-

cant changes were observed in maximal running velocity, maximal heart rate, and

maximal minute ventilation (VEpeak), within or between groups following 8 weeks

of workouts (Table 4). Similarly, Tvent was unaltered for the DWR group (pre =

44.4 ± 6.9, post = 45.0 ± 8.6 ml.kg−1.min−1) and the OLR group (pre = 48.2 ± 6.0,

post = 46.7 ± 8.0 ml.kg−1.min−1), nor were there any changes in VO2 at 14 km.h−1,

i.e., running economy in the DWR group (pre = 43.4 ± 5.0, post = 42.6 ± 3.8 ml.

kg−1.min−1 at 14 km.h−1), and the OLR group (pre = 43.9 ± 2.5, post = 42.6 ± 2.6

ml.kg−1.min−1 at 14 km.h−1).

Kinematic variables from the running economy test are shown in Figure 1,

and the 500 m test are shown in Table 5. In both kinematic tests (economy running

and 500m test), no signicant differences identied between the DWR and OLR

groups in all kinematic variables. Furthermore, the present data suggest a cross-

over effect from DWR to land based running on kinematic variables: DWR train-

ing for eight weeks did not modied the kinematic prole on land, even in the

fatigue stage (450 m of the 500 m test). This is conrmed by the absence of gen-

eral effects and interactions (p > .05). Furthermore, there were no differences

between the groups in terms of body composition parameters (Table 3); however,

the support time on running at 14 km.h−1 (running economy test) after training

period decreased 35.6 ms for OLR versus 58.9 ms for DWR. Although not statisti-

cally signicant, this modication is 65% greater for DWR. In the same way, the

percent decrement on the horizontal velocity from 50 m (nonfatigued) to 450 m

(fatigued), or fatigue index, presented an increase between pre and post test equal

Table 4 Physiological Responses Following 8 Weeks for Deep

Water Running (DWR) Group or On-Land Running (OLR) Group

(mean ± SD)

Pre Post

DWR OLR DWR OLR

VO2peak (ml.kg~1.min~1) 49.3 ± 8.3 54.0 ± 6.2 49.6 ± 8.7 53.4 ± 8.8

Velocity at VO2peak (m.s~1) 5.1 ± 0.6 5.3 ± 0.5 5.2 ± 0.6 5.4 ± 0.5

HRpeak (beats.min~1) 187.4 ± 12.7 189.1 ± 17.2 186.2 ± 7.3 193.8 ± 15.5

VEpeak (L.min~1) 119.5 ± 38.2 114.6 ± 29.2 130.9 ± 35.1 121.0 ± 35.1

Tvent (ml.kg~1.min~1) 44.4 ± 6.9 45.0 ± 8.6 48.2 ± 6.0 46.7 ± 8

Velocity at Tvent (m.s~1) 4.3 ± 0.6 4.5 ± 0.6 4.2 ± 0.3 4.5 ± 0.4

Running economy (ml.kg~1.

min~1)

43.4 ± 5.0 43.9 ± 2.5 42.6 ± 3.8 42.6 ± 2.6

Note. VO2peak: maximal oxygen uptake; HRpeak: maximal heart rate; VEpeak: maximal ventilation; Tvent:

ventilatory threshold.

144 Peyré-Tartaruga et al.

to 3.0% for OLR group, while for DWR was only 0.7% (Figure 2). Others decre-

ments or increments for kinematical variables can be found in supplementary

material.

Statistical power was calculated for all kinematic and physiological variables.

All dependent variables were seen to have powers greater than 0.75. Therefore,

we may state that the experiment provided adequate power to test the null

hypothesis.

Discussion

This study is the rst to investigate competitive runners in terms of their kinematical

adaptations to the inclusion of DWR within a normal training program. The

running kinematics was not changed after the 8 week training program. Our

kinematical results refutes the following idea proposed by Wilber et al. (1996): “It

is possible that hydrostatic resistance encountered during water run exercise

Figure 1 — Kinematical responses from economy running test, following 8 weeks for deep water

running (DWR) group or on-land running (OLR) group (mean ± SD).

145

Table 5 Kinematical Responses During 500 m Test, Following 8 Weeks for Deep Water Running (DWR) Group

or On-Land Running (OLR) Group (mean ± SD)

Pre Post

DWR OLR DWR OLR

SF500 (strides.min−1) at 50m 104.0 ± 7.7 97.9 ± 4.8 105.5 ± 6.8 102.8 ± 4.4

SF500 (strides.min−1) at 450m 94.6 ± 5.2 91.2 ± 3.7 92.5 ± 4.5 92.1 ± 2.9

ST500 (ms) at 50m 121.1 ± 32.6 137.8 ± 36.0 121.1 ± 26.7 120.0 ± 29.6

ST500 (ms) at 450m 154.4 ± 47.5 154.4 ± 40.0 153.3 ± 20.6 151.1 ± 34.1

NST500 (ms) at 50m 580.0 ± 45.5 476.7 ± 37.1 571.1 ± 37.9 464.4 ± 39.7

NST500 (ms) at 450m 635.6 ± 33.2 505.6 ± 47.2 650.0 ± 30.8 496.7 ± 36.4

SL500 (m) at 50m 4.2 ± 0.4 4.1 ± 0.4 4.3 ± 0.4 4.1 ± 0.3

SL500 (m) at 450m 3.7 ± 0.4 3.7 ± 0.3 3.9 ± 0.4 3.8 ± 0.3

RSL500 at 50m (m.m−1)4.7 ± 0.4 4.7 ± 0.5 4.8 ± 0.4 4.7 ± 0.5

RSL500 at 450m (m.m−1)4.1 ± 0.4 4.3 ± 0.4 4.9 ± 0.7 5.0 ± 0.7

KATO500 at 50m (degrees) 148.5 ± 9.9 156.2 ± 7.2 145.9 ± 9.0 151.1 ± 13.0

KATO500 at 450m (degrees) 151.1 ± 8.3 158.5 ± 8.4 150.5 ± 11.1 153.0 ± 9.0

KAHS500 at 50m (degrees) 151.0 ± 5.6 156.0 ± 3.9 155.1 ± 7.0 155.6 ± 4.3

KAHS500 at 450m (degrees) 147.4 ± 7.5 155.7 ± 4.6 153.5 ± 6.7 152.5 ± 3.8

HV500 at 50m (m.s−1)7.3 ± 0.9 6.7 ± 0.8 7.5 ± 0.9 7.1 ± 0.7

HV500 at 450m (m.s−1)5.8 ± 0.7 5.7 ± 0.6 5.9 ± 0.6 5.8 ± 0.5

500m time (s) 83.6 ± 12.3 80.6 ± 8.0 81.4 ± 12.0 78.6 ± 6.4

Note. SF500: stride frequency; ST500: support time; NST: non-support time; SL500: stride length; RSL500: relative stride length; KATO500: knee angle at take-off;

KAHS500: knee angle at heel-strike; HV500: horizontal velocity; 500m: T500 performance.

146 Peyré-Tartaruga et al.

favorably modied the water runners’ stride mechanics, resulting in a more

efcient stride (e.g., reduced overstriding). In turn, improvements in stride

biomechanics may have contributed to the maintenance of running economy

among water runners. . . ”. A satisfactory answer is still lacking in relation to the

running economy’s improvement mechanisms.

As expected, the physiologic results collectively indicate that DWR and OLR

groups exhibit largely similar responses. The physiological responses to DWR

and OLR training in this study are in accordance with those from previous studies

(Bushman et al., 1997; Eyestone et al., 1993; Morrow, 1995; Wilber et al., 1996).

Bushman and coworkers (1997) reported that trained runners attained the follow-

ing VO2peak: 63.4 and 62.2 ml.kg−1.min−1 before and after 4 weeks of DWR,

respectively. In that study, the runners substituted 100% of training volume on

land; therefore, the maintenance of physiologic prole in the current study, in

which 30% of training volume on land was substituted by aquatic exercise, was

expected. Both studies reported similar running economy and ventilatory thresh-

old before and after the inclusion of DWR in the training. Eyestone et al. (1993)

analyzed trained runners (VO2peak = 57.4 ± 1.7 ml.kg−1.min−1) and stated that

VO2peak on treadmill was not different between the DWR group (100% DWR) and

OLR group; however, both decreased the VO2peak by about 4% during training.

The data from Morrow (1995) indicate the DWR and OLR groups attained similar

changes in VO2peak. The VO2peak increased 5.6% in the DWR group and 7% in the

OLR group. With a similar experimental design, Wilber and coworkers (1996)

found a decrease of about 2% in VO2peak after 21 days of training for both groups,

Figure 2 — Percent decrements of the horizontal velocity from 50 m to 450 m conditions

during the 500 m tests for the DWR and OLR groups.

Effects of Water Run Training 147

with an increase of 3% at the 42nd day; however, these nonsignicant differences

probably reect a normal daily variation of maximal aerobic capacity (Katch,

Sady, & Freedson, 1982). On the other hand, Quinn and colleagues (Quinn,

Sedory, & Fisher, 1994) reported that DWR training (4 days/wk−1 and 30 min/

day−1) after OLR for 10 wks was ineffective in maintaining the VO2peak of seden-

tary female students (VO2peak= 39.9 ± 3.6 ml.kg−1.min−1). To be effective, how-

ever, cross-training should consist of an equivalent training pattern in terms of

load intensity and volume. Quinn and coworkers (1994) also stated that the inten-

sity used during the DWR training was not sufcient to maintain the VO2peak.

The Tvent is considered a strong predictor of middle and long distance running

performance (Farrel, Wilmore, Coyle, Billings, & Costill, 1979; Powers, Dodd,

Deason, Byrd, & McKnight, 1983). In the current study, both experimental groups

obtained high Tvent. In the DWR group the Tvent, expressed in terms of velocity,

was 15.6 and 15.1 km.h−1 in the pre and post period, respectively, while in the

OLR group it was 16.2 and 16.3 km.h−1. The Tvents expressed as a percentage of

VO2peak were in the range of 87–90% VO2peak. These results demonstrate that the

athletes are aerobically well trained.

As with VO2peak and Tvent, running economy has an important role as a predic-

tor of middle and long distance running performance (Basset & Howley, 2000;

Conley & Krahenbuhl, 1980; Daniels, Yarbrough, & Foster, 1978; Foster, Daniels,

& Yarbrough, 1977; Williams & Cavanagh, 1987). In addition, the 8 weeks of

DWR complementary training did not modify running economy, conrming the

possibility of DWR as a cross-training modality. Several factors inuence the run-

ning economy, such as running style, stride frequency, and length (Cavagna, Fran-

zetti, Heglund, & Willems, 1988; Cavanagh & Williams, 1982; Martin & Morgan,

1992;Williams & Cavanagh, 1987). In the current study, these variables were also

unchanged. Concerns have been raised regarding the dissimilarities between run-

ning styles in the water and on land. Kruel et al. (2002), when comparing the

kinematics between deep water running and on-land running at different intensi-

ties, showed that stride frequency and length are shorter in DWR than in OLR.

Furthermore, at intermediary paces (consistent with long distance racing), the

range of shank and thigh motion in DWR was greater than in OLR. The eccentric

action of lower limb muscles, as well their stretch-shortening cycle during the

support phase in on-land running, are absent in DWR (Nilsson et al., 2001). The

activity of soleus and gastrocnemius during DWR are lower than in OLR (Kaneda,

Wakabayashi, Sato, & Nomura, 2007). Town and Bradley (1991) observed that

the increased O2 pulse (HR/VO2) during DWR suggests that this movement is

inefcient compared with OLR. These factors should hinder the transferability of

DWR training effects to OLR performance. The reasons are the viscosity friction

of the water medium and the non-weight-bearing aspect of DWR. Despite the

cardiorespiratory, neuromuscular, and mechanical differences between the activi-

ties, the general kinematic pattern of OLR was not modied with the inclusion of

DWR as a training supplement. Therefore, it may be stated that such acute differ-

ences between exercise modes seems not to signicantly affect the transferability

of DWR training benets to OLR performance. This argument is also based on pre

and post mechanical responses obtained during the fatigue stage of the 500 m test,

which show that the inclusion of the DWR training did not adversely or positively

affect the running kinematics. To our knowledge, with the exception of the current

148 Peyré-Tartaruga et al.

study, the kinematical effects of the inclusion of DWR on OLR have not been

investigated.

Furthermore, several epidemiological studies suggest an annual prevalence of

overuse injuries between 24% and 65% among competitive runners (Hoeberigs,

1992; Van Mechelen, 1992). With this high incidence of lower limb injuries

incurred by runners, it seems prudent to pursue training techniques to relieve some

running-related trauma but without compromising aerobic conditioning and

movement pattern. It is an interesting thought that the incidence of these injuries

may be reduced, or that recovery from injuries may be improved, by replacing a

part of the land running by water training. In particular, a replacement is interest-

ing if it can be made without affecting land running performance. It is relevant to

mention that competitive runners run about 2 hours per day while, e.g., elite

cyclists cycle 5–6 hours per day. Theoretically, this could mean that runners can

improve if they can add some kind of training that is different from actual running

so that it does not result in overtraining and injuries. A future study design could

be to add DWR training instead of just replacing a part of the land running. In the

current study, in which 30% of land-based training was substituted by DWR, the

main physiological and kinematical parameters of running remained substantially

unaltered.

The present ndings suggest that the inclusion of DWR for a reasonable per-

centage on normal training has functional implications for the training of com-

petitive runners. Particularly, the maintenance in running kinematics and perfor-

mance, and the previously reported maintenance in running economy, VO2peak and

Tvent (Bushman et al., 1997; Wilber et al., 1996) indicate that even in high intensi-

ties, the DWR training can be used. This indicates that training programs for com-

petitive runners in the preseason period should include the DWR not only for the

aerobic training but also on anaerobic training. Therefore, the present results

extended previous suggestions (Bushman et al., 1997; Wilber et al., 1996) that the

DWR inclusion can to serve not only to maintain the physiological prole, but

also to maintain the running mechanics.

In terms of training, the DWR inclusion theoretically can be a strategy for

increasing the training time diary and increasing the physiological load on the

mechanical overload on lower limbs joints, the principal site of injuries in runners.

This also provides further support to previous popular and scientic literature that

proposed the use of DWR in training programs for competitive runners.

In conclusion, the present results showed that the kinematic variables were

not modied with the inclusion of DWR. Furthermore, there are no signicant

alterations in fatigued running kinematics. Therefore, for competitive runners, the

replacement of 30% of land-based training by DWR over an 8-week period may

be of use. The proposition of the stride mechanic improvement in water runners

when compared with on-land running from literature (Wilber et al., 1996) is par-

tially refuted in the current study. Further research is necessary to test the hypoth-

esis of decreased frequency of injury with DWR inclusion. Possible practical

implications include the following: (a) although there are mechanic differences

between the modes of exercise (deep water and on-land running), the deep water

running helps to maintain or even to improve the on-land running performance

and mechanics in both nonfatigued and fatigued situations on competitive run-

ners; (b) the replacement of land-based training by deep water running (≈30%) is

Effects of Water Run Training 149

an approach and a possibility to coaches for decreasing the mechanical load in

lower limbs and, consequently, for reducing the risks of overuse on competitive

runners; (c) the deep water running training can be undertaken even in high

intensities.

References

Assis, R., Silva, L.E., Alves, A.M.B., Pessanha, A.P., Valim, V., Feldman, D., et al. (2006).

A randomized controlled trial of deep water running: Clinical effectiveness of aquatic

exercise to treat bromyalgia. Arthritis Rheumathoides, 55, 57–65.

Basset, D.R. Jr., & Howley, E.T. (2000). Limiting factors for maximum oxygen uptake and

determinants of endurance performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exer-

cise, 32, 70–84.

Bushman, B.A., Flynn, M.G., Andres, F.F., Lambert, C.P., Taylor, M.S., & Braun, W.A.

(1997). Effect of 4 weeks of deep water run training on running performance. Medi-

cine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 29, 694–699.

Cavagna, G.A., Franzetti, P., Heglund, N.C., & Willems, P. (1988). The determinants of

the step frequency in running, trotting and hopping in man and other vertebrates. The

Journal of Physiology, 39, 81–92.

Cavanagh, P.R., & Williams, K.R. (1982). The effect of stride length variation on oxygen

uptake during distance running. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 14,

30–35.

Conley, D.L., & Krahenbuhl, G.S. (1980). Running economy and distance running perfor-

mance of highly trained athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 12,

357–360.

Daniels, J.T., Yarbrough, R.A., & Foster, C. (1978). Changes in VO2peak and running per-

formance with training. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational

Physiology, 39, 249–254.

Dowzer, C.N., Reilly, T., & Cable, N.T. (1998). Effects of deep and shallow water running

on spinal shrinkage. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 32, 44–48.

Eyestone, E., Fellingham, G., George, J., & Fisher, A.G. (1993). Effect of water running

and cycling on maximum oxygen consumption and 2-mile run performance. Ameri-

can Journal of Sports Medicine, 21, 41–44.

Farrel, P.A., Wilmore, J.H., Coyle, E.F., Billings, J.E., & Costill, D.L. (1979). Plasma lac-

tate accumulation and distance running performance. Medicine and Science in Sports

and Exercise, 11, 338–344.

Foster, C., Daniels, A., & Yarbrough, R.A. (1977). Physiological and training correlates of

marathon running performance. Australian Journal of Sports Medicine, 9, 58–62.

Frangolias, D.D., Taunton, J.E., Rhodes, E.C., McConkey, J.P., & Moon, M. (1997). Main-

tenance of aerobic capacity during recovery from right foot Jones fracture: A case

report. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 7, 54–57.

Hardin, E.C., Van den Bogert, A.J., & Hamill, J. (2004). Kinematic adaptations during run-

ning: Effects of footwear, surface, and duration. Medicine and Science in Sports and

Exercise, 36, 838–844.

Heyward, V.H., & Wagner, D.R. (2004). Applied body composition assessment (2nd ed.,

pp. 27–65). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hoeberigs, J.H. (1992). Factors related to the incidence of running injuries. A review.

Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 13, 408–422.

IAAF. (2004). Deep water running. IAAF Global Athletics, 1.

Kaneda, K., Wakabayashi, H., Sato, D., & Nomura, T. (2007). Lower extremity muscle

activity during different types and speeds of underwater movement. Journal of Physi-

ological Anthropology, 26, 197–200 [DOI: 10.2114/jpa2.26.197].

150 Peyré-Tartaruga et al.

Katch, V.L., Sady, S.S., & Freedson, P. (1982). Biological variability in maximum aerobic

power. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 14, 21–25.

Komi, P.V. (2000). Stretch-shortening cycle: A powerful model to study normal and

fatigued muscle. Journal of Biomechanics, 33, 1197–1206.

Kruel, L.F.M., Peyré-Tartaruga, L.A., Larronda, A.C.C., Loss, J.F., & Tartaruga, M.P.

(2002). Kinematic analysis of middle-distance runners during treadmill running and

deep water running. In: Gianikellis K. (Ed.), Proceedings of the XXth International

Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports. Cáceres: Universidad de Extremadura Press,

ISBN: 84-7723-499-X, pp. 88-91.

Martin, P.E., & Morgan, D.W. (1992). Biomechanical considerations for economical walk-

ing and running. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 24, 467–474.

Michaud, T.J., Brennan, D.K., Wilder, R.P., & Sherman, N.W. (1995). Aqua running and

gains in cardiorespiratory tness. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 9,

78–84.

Morrow, M.J. (1995). Effects of ten weeks of deep water running or land based run train-

ing. Doctoral Dissertation. University of North Texas, Denton.

Nilsson, J., Tveit, P., & Thorstensson, A. (2001). Running on land and in water – a com-

parative biomechanical study (abstract). Proceedings of the XVIIIth Congress of the

International Society of Biomechanics. Zürich, Switzerland: Laboratory for Biome-

chanics, Switzerland, ISBN 441-238-445, pp. 117.

Peyré-Tartaruga, L.A., Coertjens, M., Black, G.L., Tartaruga, M.P., Ribas, L.R., & Kruel,

L.F.M. (2003). Effects of fatigue on running kinematics. Brazilian Journal of Biome-

chanics, 6, 39–44.

Powers, S., Dodd, S., Deason, R., Byrd, R., & McKnight, T. (1983). Ventilatory threshold,

running economy, and distance running performance of trained athletes. Research

Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 54, 179–182.

Quinn, T.J., Sedory, D.R., & Fisher, B.S. (1994). Physiological effects of deep-water run-

ning following a land-based training program. Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport, 65, 386–389.

Reilly, T., Dowzer, C.N., & Cable, N.T. (2003). The physiology of deep-water running.

Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 959–972.

Thein, J.M., & Brody, L.T. (1997). Aquatic-based rehabilitation and training for the elite

athlete. The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 27, 32–41.

Town, G.P., & Bradley, S.S. (1991). Maximal metabolic responses of deep and shallow

water running in trained runners. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 23,

238–241.

Van Mechelen, W. (1992). Running injuries. A review of the epidemiological literature.

Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 14, 320–335.

Wilber, R.L., Moffat, R.J., Scott, B.E., Lee, D.T., & Cucuzzo, N.A. (1996). Inuence of

water run training on the maintenance of aerobic performance. Medicine and Science

in Sports and Exercise, 28, 1056–1062.

Wilder, R.P., & Brennan, D.K. (1993). Physiological responses to deep water running in

athletes. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 16, 374–380.

Williams, K.R., & Cavanagh, P.R. (1987). Relationship between distance running mechan-

ics, running economy, and performance. Journal of Applied Physiology, 63, 1236–

1245.

Winter, D.A. (2005). Biomechanics and motor control of human movement (3rd ed., pp.

42–50). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

The Relationship Between Running Economy and Biomechanical Variables in Distance Runners

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2024

EFEITOS DO TREINAMENTO DE CAMINHADA EM ESTEIRA SOBRE O EQUILÍBRIO E SINTOMAS MOTORES DE PESSOAS COM DOENÇA DE PARKINSON: UMA REVISÃO DA LITERATURA

Article

Mar 2022

A doença de Parkinson (DP) apresenta prejuízo no equilíbrio e piora de sintomas motores, os quais podem aumentar o risco de quedas. O exercício físico tem se mostrado uma estratégia eficaz para combater os sintomas e o avanço da DP. A caminhada parece ser uma das estratégias mais utilizadas dentro da reabilitação na DP. Além disso, a caminhada realizada em esteira parece ser segura e eficaz para o tratamento da DP. No entanto, para nosso conhecimento, não foi realizada uma revisão abrangente da literatura que aborde os efeitos do treinamento físico de caminhada em esteira sobre o equilíbrio e sintomas motores de indivíduos com DP. Diante disso, o objetivo do presente estudo foi comparar os efeitos do treinamento físico de caminhada em esteira sobre o equilíbrio, medido por meio da escala de equilíbrio de Berg (EEB) e sintomas motores, medido por meio da escala UPDRS-III ou UPDRS-M (Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale – III ou motor scale) em indivíduos com DP. Foi realizada uma busca na literatura nas bases de dados PubMed e SciELO utilizando as seguintes palavras-chave: “Parkinson disease”, “Walking” e “Exercise”. Um total de 11 artigos foram incluídos para leitura na íntegra. Ao fim do processo de leitura, foram incluídos oito artigos para extração dos dados. Foi observado que existem diferentes modelos de treinamento físico de caminhada em esteira, sendo que o mais utilizado é com a suspensão do peso corporal, aparecendo em cinco artigos. Além disso, um estudo investigou os efeitos da caminhada nórdica em esteira, e outros dois investigaram os efeitos da caminhada convencional em esteira com modelo de prescrição baseado na velocidade autosselecionada. Todos estudos demonstraram efeito positivo do treinamento físico de caminhada, demonstrando melhora no equilíbrio funcional e sintomas motores de indivíduos com DP quando comparados a um grupo controle.

The relationship between running economy and biomechanical variables in distance runners

Article

Sep 2012

In this study, we analyzed the relationship between running economy (RE) and biomechanical parameters in a group running at the same relative intensity and same absolute velocity. Sixteen homogeneous male long-distance runners performed a test to determine RE at 4.4 m.s⁻¹, corresponding to 11.1% below velocity at the ventilatory threshold. We found significant correlations between RE and biomechanical variables (vertical oscillation of the center of mass, stride frequency, stride length, balance time, relative stride length, range of elbow motion, internal knee, ankle angles at foot strike, and electromyographic activity of the semitendinosus and rectus femoris muscles). In conclusion, changes in running technique can influence RE and lead to improved running performance. © 2012 by the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.

Effect of Plyometric Training Conducted in Aquatic Medium on Speed and Explosive Strength of the Athletes

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2023

Background: Plyometric training (PT) are performed in different hard surfaces like dry land, hard court or grassy turf which is at the same time susceptible to muscle and joint injury of the lower limbs. To avoid this risk Aqua-based training gradually has become popular to the trainers. Therefore, in the present study the PT were conducted in an aquatic medium. Objective: The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of Aquatic plyometric training on speed and explosive leg strength ability of the young Indian athletes. Method: This study was quasi-experimental in nature. Twenty-four (N = 24) athletes aged between 14-16 years were selected. They were equally grouped into two: i) Aquatic Plyometric Training Group (APTG, N=12), and ii) Control Group (CG, N=12). Both the groups were involved in regular physical activity as usual in their academy which was not under the control of the researchers, however, in addition to that APTG underwent an aqua-based Plyometric training for fourteen weeks. The dependent variables were speed and explosive leg strength. Baseline (pre) and post intervention mean values for APTG and CG were analyzed through ANCOVA. The F-values were tested at p0.05 level of significance. Results: The APTG improved significantly with respect to the CG in speed (F = 70.890; p 0.00001) and explosive leg strength (F = 32.553; p 0.00001). Conclusion: Aquatic Plyometric Training was found as an effective training means for the development of speed and explosive leg strength of the athletes belongs to the age group of 14-16 years.

EFEITOS AGUDOS E CRÔNICOS DO TREINAMENTO EM HIDROGINÁSTICA NO PERFIL LIPÍDICO E NA ENZIMA LIPASE LIPOPROTÉICA DE MULHERES PRÉ-MENOPÁUSICAS DISLIPIDÊMICAS

Book

Full-text available

Jan 2014

Rochelle Rocha Costa

Swimming in New Waters: Profiling K-12 Aquatic Physical Activity in Florida as a Viable Lifesaving Force in Physical Education

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2011

Hr, Vo2 And Rpe Relationships In An Aquatic Incremental Maximum Test Performed By Young Women

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2016

The purpose of the study was to verify the relationship between oxygen uptake (V̇O₂), heart rate (HR), rate of perceived exertion (RPE), and cadence (CAD) in an aquatic incremental maximum test performed during a water-based stationary running exercise. The study also verified the best adjustments for these relationships (linear or polynomial). Thirteen young college women (mean ± SD: 23.15 ± 1.72 years, 21.43 ± 2.09 body mass index) participated in the study. They performed an aquatic incremental maximum test during a water-based stationary running exercise. The experimental protocol started at an initial CAD of 80 b·min, and it was followed by increases of 10 b·min every minute until exhaustion. V̇O₂, HR, and RPE were measured along the test. Linear and polynomial regression analysis were performed to determine the relationship among the percentage of peak V̇O₂ (%V̇O₂peak), percentage of maximal HR (%HRmax), RPE, and CAD to determine the best adjustment for each analysis (α = 0.05). The polynomial regression showed the best adjustments for all analysis. Data revealed a significant relationship (p < 0.001) between %V̇O₂peak and %HRmax (r = 0.858), %HRmax and RPE (r = 0.823), and %V̇O₂peak and RPE (r = 0.871). Regarding the relationship between these above-mentioned variables and CAD, all of them were significant (p < 0.001), with r = 0.848 for CAD and %HRmax, r = 0.877 for CAD and %V̇O₂peak and r = 0.878 for CAD and RPE. It was concluded that all analyzed variables are associated and their relationships are in a polynomial quadratic form. Based on the findings, instructors may use the positive relationships between %V̇O₂peak, %HRmax, and RPE to efficiently prescribe water-based training sessions

EFEITOS AGUDOS E CRÔNICOS DO TREINAMENTO EM HIDROGINÁSTICA NO PERFIL LIPÍDICO E NA ENZIMA LIPASE LIPOPROTÉICA DE MULHERES PRÉ-MENOPÁUSICAS DISLIPIDÊMICAS

Thesis

Full-text available

Oct 2011

Rochelle Rocha Costa

Water aerobics is followed by short-time and immediate systolic blood pressure reduction in overweight and obese hypertensive women

Article

May 2016

One exercise training session such as walking, running and resistance can lead to a decrease in blood pressure in normotensive and hypertensive individuals, but few studies have investigated the effects of exercise training in an aquatic environment for overweight and obese hypertensive individuals. We aimed to assess the acute effects of a water aerobics session on blood pressure (BP) changes in pharmacologically treated overweight and obese hypertensive women. A randomized crossover study was carried out with 18 hypertensive women, 10 of them were overweight (54.4±7.9 years; BMI: 27.8±1.7 kg/m2) and eight obese (56.4±6.6 years; BMI: 33.0±2.0 kg/m2). The water aerobics exercise session consisted of a 45-minute training at the intensity of 70-75% of maximum heart rate adjusted for the aquatic environment. The control group did not enter the pool and did not perform any exercise. We measured systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) before, immediately after and every 10 minutes up to 30 minutes after the aerobic exercise or control session. Overall (n=18), DBP did not change after the water aerobic exercise and control session, and SBP decreased at 10 and 20 minutes post-exercise compared to the control session. Among overweight women, SBP decreased at 10 and 20 minutes post-exercise. In contrast, among obese women, SBP decreased only at 10 minutes post-exercise. SBP variation was –2.68 mm Hg in overweight and –1.24 mm Hg in obese women. In conclusion, the water aerobics session leads to a reduction in SBP, but not in DBP, during 10 and 20 minutes post-exercise recovery. Thus, it may be safely prescribed to overweight and obese women.

Influence of the allometric scale on the relationships between running economy, mechanical efficiency and performance in long distance runners : running efficiency and long-distance performance prediction

Article

Dec 2013

Marcus Peikriszwili Tartaruga

The aim of this thesis was to use allometric models to analyze the relationship that running economy(ECO) and mechanical efficiency (Ef) have on the performance of middle- and long-distance runners.Based on the results of three original studies, we concluded that allometric scaling can improve therelationship between ECO and performance in recreational middle- and long-distance runners, mainlydue to morphofunctional aspects. Similarly, the mechanical works, especially the external mechanicalwork, may be considered to be predictive of running performance and a specific allometric exponentcan improve these predictions. The results also showed that Ef is an important predictor of theperformance of long-distance runners. However, when the specific allometric exponents were applied,there was no improvement in the prediction of this performance. The results also showed that it isimportant to consider the contribution of anaerobic energy expenditure when calculating Ef, becauseotherwise the results may be overestimated, as already reported in other studies. In general, when theobjective is to predict the performance of middle- or long-distance runners through metabolic ormechanical powers, it is useful to adopt a specific allometric exponent of the group investigated.However, when this prediction is performed considering the Ef, particularly in high-performance longdistancerunners, the allometric application is not necessary.

Physiological and training correlates of marathon running performance

Article

Full-text available

Jan 1977

Kinematic analysis of middle distance runners during treadmill and deep water running

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2005

Effects of fatigue on the kinematics of runners

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2003

Changes VO2max and running performance with training

Article

Full-text available

Nov 1978
Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol

This study was undertaken to determine the response of

\dot V

O2 max and of running performance (805 and 3218 m) to the onset of training in untrained individuals and to an increase in the volume and intensity of training in well trained individuals. In series A,

\dot V

O2 max and performances of 12 previously untrained individuals were determined before and after 4 and 8 weeks of training. In series B, performances,

\dot V

O2 max and

\dot V

O2 submax of 15 previously well trained runners were determined before and after 4 and 8 weeks of controlled training. In series A,

\dot V

O2 max increased during the first 4 weeks of training but failed to increase further even in the presence of an increased training load (80 total km for the first 4 weeks, 130 total km for the second 4 weeks). Running performances improved throughout the training period. In series B, neither

\dot V

O2 max nor

\dot V

O2 submax changed but running performance improved throughout the experimental period. The results indicated that not all of the improvement in running performance subsequent to training is attributable to changes in

\dot V

O2 max. Further the results indicate that changes in running economy are not a likely explanation for performance improvement among previously well trained runners. It is suggested that physiological adaptations not integrated in the test of

\dot V

O2 max, or improvement in pacing contribute to training induced improvements in running performance.

Ventilatory Threshold, Running Economy and Distance Running Performance of Trained Athletes

Article

Feb 2013

The purpose of this study was to assess the relationships among ventilatory threshold T(vent), running economy and distance running performance in a group (N=9) of trained experienced male runners with comparable maximum oxygen uptake ([Vdot]O2max). Maximal oxygen uptake and submaximal steady state oxygen uptake were measured using open circuit spirometry during treadmill exercise. Ventilatory threshold was determined during graded treadmill exercise using non-invasive techniques, while distance running performance was assessed by the best finish time in two 10-kilometer (km) road races. The subjects averaged 33.8 minutes on the 10km runs, 68.6 ml · kg -1 · min -1for [Vdot]O2max, and 48.1 ml · kg -1 · min -1for steady state [Vdot]O2running at 243 meters · min -1. The T(vent) (first deviation from linearity of [Vdot]E, [Vdot]CO 2) occurred at an oxygen consumption of 41.9 ml · kg -1 · min -1. The relationship between running economy and performance was r = .51 (p>0.15) and the relationship between T(vent) and performance was r = .94 (p < 0.001). Applying stepwise multiple linear regression, the multiple R did not increase significantly with the addition of variables to the T(vent); however, the combination of [Vdot]O2max, running economy and T(vent) was determined to account for the greatest amount of total variance (89%). These data suggest that among trained and experienced runners with similar [Vdot]O2max, T(vent) can account for a large portion of the variance in performance during a 10km race.

Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement, Fourth Edition

Article

Sep 2009

David A. Winter

Figure A.1 Walking Trial—Marker Locations and Mass and Frame Rate Information Table A.1 Raw Coordinate Data (cm) Table A.2(a) Filtered Marker Kinematics—Rib Cage and Greater Trochanter (Hip) Table A.2(b) Filtered Marker Kinematics—Femoral Lateral Epicondyle (Knee) and Head of Fibula Table A.2(c) Filtered Marker Kinematics—Lateral Malleolus (Ankle) and Heel Table A.2(d) Filtered Marker Kinematics—Fifth Metatarsal and Toe Table A.3(a) Linear and Angular Kinematics—Foot Table A.3(b) Linear and Angular Kinematics—Leg Table A.3(c) Linear and Angular Kinematics—Thigh Table A.3(d) Linear and Angular Kinematics—½ HAT Table A.4 Relative Joint Angular Kinematics—Ankle, Knee, and Hip Table A.5(a) Reaction Forces and Moments of Force—Ankle and Knee Table A.5(b) Reaction Forces and Moments of Force—Hip Table A.6 Segment Potential, Kinetic, and Total Energies—Foot, Leg, Thigh, and ½ HAT Table A.7 Power Generation/Absorption and Transfer—Ankle, Knee, and Hip

Aquarunning and Gains in Cardiorespiratory Fitness

Article

May 1995

The primary purpose of this investigation was to determine the effects of deep-water run training on treadmill exercise (TM) and deep-water running (DWR) maximal oxygen consumptions ([latin capital V with dot above]O2). Ten (8 F, 2 M) healthy sedentary subjects participated in randomly assigned TM and DWR [latin capital V with dot above]O2max tests both pre- and posttraining. Treadmill [latin capital V with dot above]O2max was assessed using either the Bruce protocol or a modification of it. Each deep-water running [latin capital V with dot above]O2max test began at a warm-up cadence of 48 cycles [middle dot] min-1, a cycle consisting of two steps. Thereafter intensity was increased by increasing leg cadence (66, 72, 76, etc.) every 3 min. Participants also underwent an 8-wk progressive, aerobic, interval deep-water running program. The sessions were conducted 3 days a week at 63 to 82% heart rate max for 16 to 36 min. Deep-water running produced gains in [latin capital V with dot above]O2max of 10.6 for TM and 20.1% for DWR. Posttraining [latin capital V with dot above]O2max values for TM and DWR were significantly greater than pretraining values. Thus deep-water run training improved the cardiorespiratory fitness of sedentary adults, produced greater gains in deep-water running [latin capital V with dot above]O2max than in treadmill exercise [latin capital V with dot above]O2max, and resulted in a training carryover effect to treadmill exercise. (C) 1995 National Strength and Conditioning Association

The effect of four weeks of deep water run training on running performance /

Article

May 1996

Barbara Ann. Bushman

Typescript. Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Toledo. "A dissertation [submitted] as partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Education." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 56-63).

Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement / D.A. Winter.

Article

Jan 1990

David A. Winter

The classic book on human movement in biomechanics, newly updated. Widely used and referenced, David Winter's Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement is a classic examination of techniques used to measure and analyze all body movements as mechanical systems, including such everyday movements as walking. It fills the gap in human movement science area where modern science and technology are integrated with anatomy, muscle physiology, and electromyography to assess and understand human movement. In light of the explosive growth of the field, this new edition updates and enhances the text with: Expanded coverage of 3D kinematics and kinetics. New materials on biomechanical movement synergies and signal processing, including auto and cross correlation, frequency analysis, analog and digital filtering, and ensemble averaging techniques. Presentation of a wide spectrum of measurement and analysis techniques. Updates to all existing chapters. Basic physical and physiological principles in capsule form for quick reference. An essential resource for researchers and student in kinesiology, bioengineering (rehabilitation engineering), physical education, ergonomics, and physical and occupational therapy, this text will also provide valuable to professionals in orthopedics, muscle physiology, and rehabilitation medicine. In response to many requests, the extensive numerical tables contained in Appendix A: "Kinematic, Kinetic, and Energy Data" can also be found at the following Web site: www.wiley.com/go/biomechanics.

Applied body composition assessment

Article