MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7065504132

Evaluation of a rotating swim bench as a surrogate for freestyle swimming

2024· article· en· W7065504132 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueUlster University Research Portal (Ulster University) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle Detector Development and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTorsoKinematicsBench pressElbowStroke (engine)BiomechanicsShoulder joint
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The swim bench is an isokinetic ergometer designed for competitive swimming training and is used in research as an accessible alternative to in-water data collection. However, limited literature addresses the biomechanical fidelity of the swim bench relative to in-water swimming. The lack of body roll on a conventional fixed swim bench may limit realistic simulation of the freestyle stroke pull. Accordingly, the KayakPro SwimFast swim bench includes a rotating bench setting; yet specific changes to a competitive swimmer’s kinematics and muscle activity on a rotating bench compared to a fixed bench or in-water swimming are unknown. <br/>The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of swim bench setting on freestyle stroke 3D kinematics and muscle activity and evaluate the similarities between the swim bench and pre-existing in-water kinematic data [1]. The rotating bench setting was expected to produce greater shoulder angles and shoulder roll, narrower elbow angles, and less torso flexion than the fixed. Further, the rotating bench setting was expected to generate greater muscle activation of the shoulder prime movers, rotator cuff and scapular stabilizers. In comparison to the in-water data, the stroke length, elbow flexion, total shoulder roll, and length of entry phase were expected to differ on the swim bench.<br/><br/>Methods: Fifteen, male, right-handed, collegiate and national level competitive swimmers [20.4±1.18 yrs., 1.81±5.11 m, 78.5±6.01 kg] recruited from local varsity swim teams participated. Upper limb and torso kinematics were collected bilaterally, and surface electromyography (sEMG) collected on 12, right, upper limb muscles. Participants performed 8 sets (4 rotating &amp; 4 fixed) of 30 seconds freestyle stroke pulling on a KayakPro SwimFast swim bench (KayakPro USA LLC, Florida, USA) at 55 stroke cycles/minute.<br/>Kinematic data was filtered with a low-pass Butterworth filter at a 4 Hz cut off, and time normalized to percent stroke cycle (%SC). sEMG data was filtered with a band-pass Butterworth filter between 30 to 500 Hz, amplitude normalized to maximum voluntary isometric contraction and time normalized to %SC. Swim bench setting continuous joint angles and muscle activations were compared using statistical non-parametric mapping, one-tailed, paired t-tests. In-water measures were compared to the swim bench using mixed one-way ANOVAs via JMP 17 software (SAS Institute, North Carolina, USA).<br/>Results &amp; Discussion: Contrary to the hypotheses, few kinematic and sEMG differences existed between the rotating and fixed swim bench settings. Significant differences were found in the right shoulder elevation (p = 0.021) (Fig. 1), posterior deltoid activation (p = 0.015) (Fig. 2), and infraspinatus activation (p = 0.026). However, the fixed bench produced greater activations and angles rather than the hypothesized rotating setting. Regardless of bench setting, participants laterally flexed the torso, potentially as compensation for the lack of roll allowance on the swim bench overall. The similarities between the settings indicate that the rotating swim bench may not substantially augment the realistic simulation of the underwater freestyle pull. Thus, swimmers can choose the more comfortable setting for training. <br/>Compared to in-water swimming, both swim bench settings produced similar elbow flexion ranges; however, the stroke length decreased (p&lt;0.0001), total shoulder roll decreased (p&lt;0.0001), and entry phase duration decreased (p&lt;0.0001) significantly. Despite the difference in shoulder roll magnitude, the movement pattern aligns with current literature, indicating at least partial replication of in-water swimming [2]. The reduction in stroke length may relate to the lack of entry phase on the swim bench because swimmer’s commonly glide further forward during entry and elevate the shoulder to facilitate a longer moment arm for the catch [3]. The reduction in stroke length, total shoulder roll, and entry phase duration with the addition of the lateral torso flexion are notable considerations for long term use. Swimmers could develop associated habits that reduce swimming economy and increase drag when translated to in-water training. <br/>Significance: This study provides novel findings for coaches and researchers to consider for the use of the swim bench for training and research purposes.<br/>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUlster University Research Portal (Ulster University)Same topicParticle Detector Development and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207