ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Effects of oxygen uptake kinetics on 100-m and 800-m front crawl performance in pubertal swimmers.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study assessed the effect of oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]) kinetics on swimming performance on 100-m (V100) and 800-m (V800) races.
methodIn male pubertal swimmers trained competitively for 4–5 years, pulling force (Fave) and [Formula: see text] kinetics were measured in tethered swimming, and [Formula: see text] amplitude ([Formula: see text] and time constant (τ) were calculated. Biological age (BA) and such physical characteristics as body mass (BM), skeletal muscle mass of body segments, fat-free mass (FFM), and total body length (TBL) were considered in mutual interdependence and in the context of their influence on swimming performance.
resultsDepending on the significant differences in BA, swimmers were divided into early maturing and late maturing, and these groups presented differences in [Formula: see text] kinetics and in Fave in relation to [Formula: see text] and BM. Considering all swimmers, [Formula: see text] in the subsequent 10-s periods was positively related to Fave, muscle mass of particular body segments, TBL, and BA. The same was observed between subsequent Fave in 10-s periods and [Formula: see text] and body physical indicators: muscle mass, TBL, and BA. Longer τ was not positively related to V100 or V800; e.g., the indicator of [Formula: see text] kinetics ([Formula: see text] 31–60) was strongly related to FFM (0.60; p < 0.001), Fave1-60 (0.72; p < 0.001), and, though to a lesser extent, to TBL (0.44; p < 0.001). The collected physiological and anthropometric data mostly strongly influenced V100 and mostly moderately influenced V800; TBL was a weaker (did not reach the significance threshold) predictor of swimming performance.
conclusions[Formula: see text] kinetics constitutes an appropriate indicator of well-trained physiological predispositions, which translate into skillfully performed front crawl races (V100, V800). The results indicate that physiologically more mature pubertal swimmers—typically characterized by greater muscle mass and higher strength—tend to achieve better front crawl performance over 100 m and 800 m.
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.