The effect of critical speed and exercise intensity on stroke phase duration and bilateral asymmetry in 200-m front crawl swimming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main aim of this study was to determine the absolute temporal relationship between the power and recovery phases of the stroke cycle in front crawl swimming in response to progressive changes in exercise intensity that occurred before and after critical speed. A second objective was to determine whether intensity-related changes in the power/recovery phase relationship affects the bilateral symmetry of the stroke. Stroke parameters were recorded for each 25-m length during a progressive 200-m interval training set, in which eight (2 males, 6 females) national-level swimmers swam at intensities below, above, and at critical speed. The results demonstrated that substantial increases in stroke rate (P < 0.01) occurred at critical speed, and that these increases were related to a greater decrease in the duration of the power phase than the recovery phase (P < 0.01). The results also show that the degree of bilateral asymmetry was greater for the power phase than the recovery phase, and was inversely related to intensity in both phases of the stroke cycle. The findings of this study suggest that critical speed-related increases in stroke rate are an indirect consequence of increased force production in the power phase of the stroke, and that bilateral asymmetry is both intensity- and stroke-phase dependent.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".