The Effect of Drag Suit Training on 50-m Freestyle Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little research has evaluated the effects of drag suit training in swimming; these effects need to be explored further to optimize their use in training. For this 5-week training study, 18 subjects were divided evenly into 2 groups: control group and drag suit-trained group. Both groups performed weekly training routines that included 3 sprint sets. These sprint sets were performed by both the groups; however, the drag suit training group wore the drag suit, and the control group wore their typical training attire. We evaluated the swimmers' 50-m performance using a test set of six 50-m sprints on a 10-minute interval before and after the training program. The test set was performed twice (on 2 different days) where the swimmers were tested once in the drag suit and once in their regular training attire; the order of testing was randomized. Final time, stroke rate, and distance per stroke were collected. We observed that the drag suit-trained group exhibited a statistically significant decrease in distance per stoke while wearing the drag suit and the control group showed a significant increase in stroke rate and decrease in distance per stroke (in both suits). It is suggested to include some amounts of drag suit training in periods where swimming volume may decrease. Sets that are short in distance and performed at high intensity with sufficient rest to allow swimmers to maintain high stroke integrity should help athletes maintain techniques. We suggest incorporating the drag suit into the training regimen and should be considered a valuable resistive training device for swimming.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".