ArticleFrontiers in physiology2020
Proposal of a Conditioning Activity Model on Sprint Swimming Performance.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effects of Unilateral Conditioning Activity on Acute Performance Enhancement: A Systematic Review.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Post-activation performance enhancement does not occur following a large hand-paddles and parachute-resisted warm-up routine in collegiate swimmers.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2023Article
- Swimming Warm-Up and Beyond: Dryland Protocols and Their Related Mechanisms-A Scoping Review.Sports medicine - open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to propose a conditioning activity (CA) model to stimulate improvement on neuromuscular responses, mechanical parameters and for the 50-m freestyle swimming. Thirteen male swimmers (19 ± 3 years and performances of 77% in relation to World Championship records) performed four CA protocols followed by a maximum performance in the 50-m freestyle. In the first protocol (P1) swimmers performed a standard warm-up (∼15 min); in the second protocol (P2) lunges (3 × 85% of the one-repetition maximum); in the third (P3) pull-ups (3 maximum repetitions) and box jumps 40 cm high and 60 cm deep (1 × 5 with 10% of the corporal weight); and in the fourth protocol (P4) a combination of exercises from the second and third protocols. CA protocols had no effect on the standard warm-up. However, P2 performance (27.01 ± 1.25 s) was similar to P1 (27.01 ± 1.18 s) and presented higher positive effects in mechanical parameters for the swim start performance in comparison to other protocols, contributing to improvements in the 50-m freestyle. In addition, turnaround time also had a negative effect, mainly in P3 (3.12 ± 0.28 s), signaling the improvement of this variable in all protocols (P1: 3.30 ± 0.38 s; P2: 3.17 ± 0.30 s; P4: 3.17 ± 0.34 s). P2 (after: 80 ± 11%; before: 82.7 ± 9.9%) and P3 (after: 82.7 ± 9.9%; before: 85.1 ± 9.7%) presented a possible positive effect on the percentage of voluntary activation in relation to P1 (after: 79.3 ± 10.7%; before: 76.3 ± 12%). In conclusion, the proposed conditioning activity protocols were not efficient for performance improvement in the 50-m freestyle compared to the standard model and seem to specifically influence each phase of the event.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.