Effects of Two Different Weight Training Programs on Swimming Performance and Muscle Enzyme Activities and Fiber Type
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of 2 different weight training programs incorporating bench press (BP) and pullover (PO) exercises on swimming performance, power, enzyme activity, and fiber type distribution were studied on 16 men (age = 23 ± 4 years). A 30-second group (n = 6) performed up to 20 repetitions of BP and PO in 30 seconds. The 2-minute group (n = 6) performed a maximum of 80 repetitions of BP and PO in 2 minutes. As participants reached the prescribed 20 or 80 repetitions, the weight was increased 4.5 kg. A third group (n = 4) served as nontraining controls. Exercise groups trained 3 times per week for 6 weeks. Maximal effort swims of 50 and 200 yd were performed before and after training. Training resulted in increases in work on both exercises in both groups pre- to post-training (BP 30 seconds, 722 ± 236-895 ± 250 kg; PO 30 seconds, 586 ± 252-1,090 ± 677 kg; and BP 2 minutes, 1,530 ± 414-1,940 ± 296; PO 2 minutes, 1,212 ± 406-2,348 ± 194, p ≤ 0.05). Swim performances of the 30-second group improved for both the 50-yd (32.0 ± 6.9 seconds, 30.0 ± 5.9 seconds, p ≤ 0.05) and 200-yd swims 200.0 ± 54 seconds, 182 ± 45.1 seconds (p ≤ 0.05), whereas 2-minute training improved only the 200-yd swim (198.3 ± 32.3 seconds, 186.2 ± 32.2 seconds). No changes in swim performance were observed for the control group. Triceps muscle succinate dehydrogenase activities increased (pre 3.48 ± 1.1 μmol · g(-1) wet weight per minute, post 6.25 ± 1.5 μmoles · g(-1) wet weight per minute, p ≤ 0.05) in only the 30-second training group, whereas phosphofructokinase activities and fiber type distribution did not change in either training group. This study has demonstrated that a 30-second 20-repetition weight training program, specific to the swimming musculature without concurrent swim training, improves swimming performances at both 50- and 200-yd distances.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".