See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/10796911

The effect of a resistance training programme on the grab, track and swing
starts in swimming

Article in Journal of Sports Sciences · March 2003

DOI: 10.1080/0264041031000071047 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

104 2,717

2 authors:

Ray Breed Warren B Young

Swinburne University of Technology Federation University Australia
13 PUBLICATIONS 392 CITATIONS 167 PUBLICATIONS 13,537 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Warren B Young on 19 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Sports Sciences, 2003, 21, 213–220

The effect of a resistance training programme on the

grab, track and swing starts in swimming
RAY V.P. BREED* and WARREN B. YOUNG
Department of Human Movement and Sport Sciences, University of Ballarat, PO Box 663, Ballarat, Victoria 3350,
Australia

Accepted 20 December 2002

The aim of this study was to establish the effectiveness of a resistance training programme, designed to improve
vertical jumping ability, on the grab, swing and rear-weighted track starts in swimming. Twenty-three female
non-competitive swimmers participated (age 19.9+2.4 years; mean+s). The diving techniques were practised
weekly for 8 weeks. The participants were randomly assigned to a control group (n = 11) or a resistance-training
group (n = 12), which trained three times a week for 9 weeks. The tests before and after the training programme
involved performing each dive technique and six dry-land tests: two countermovement jumps (with and without
arms), two isokinetic squats (bar speeds of 0.44 and 0.70 rad × s71) and two overhead throws (with and without
back extension). A repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance was used to show that resistance training
improved performance in the dry-land tests (P 50.0001). No significant improvements due to training were
found for any temporal, kinematic or kinetic variables within the grab or swing starts. Significant improvements
(P 50.05) were found for the track start for take-off velocity, take-off angle and horizontal impulse. The results
suggest that the improved skill of vertical jumping was not transferred directly to the start, particularly in the
grab technique. Non-significant trends towards improvement were observed within all starts for vertical force
components, suggesting the need to practise the dives to retrain the changed neuromuscular properties.

Keywords: diving, force, power, speed, vertical jump.

Introduction Adams (1986) maintained that lower body power is

An effective start is an essential part of competitive
swimming, particularly in the shorter sprint races. To
produce a fast entry, the take-off velocity must be high
and then a streamlined position underwater should be
maintained to minimize the loss of horizontal velocity
(Guimaraes and Hay, 1985). Maglischo (1993) stated
that the three requirements for a good start are a fast
reaction time, great jumping power and a low resistance
during underwater gliding. Although little can be done
to improve reaction time, the other two factors can be
improved by training. Some researchers have shown a
significant positive correlation between vertical jumping
ability and starting performance (Zatsiorsky et al., 1979;
Pearson et al., 1998). Thus, greater muscular leg power
and improved jumping ability may be important in
reducing the starting time and, consequently, overall
race time (Lyttle and Ostrowski, 1994).
* Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed.
e-mail: r.breed@ballarat.edu.au
Journal of Sports Sciences ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online # 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/0264041031000071047
essential for fast starts and turns in swimming.
However, research has been limited on lower limb leg
strength and power in relation to swimming start
performance. Miyashita et al. (1992) found a statisti-
cally significant correlation (P 50.05) between leg
extensor power and flight distance (r = 0.76) and
performance to 5 m (r = 70.68). Some researchers have
reported a significant correlation between standing
vertical jump and starting performance over a criterion
distance (Zatsiorsky et al., 1979; Counsilman, 1986;
Pearson et al., 1998). Counsilman (1986) also sug-
gested that vertical jump performance is an indicator of
the power that could be produced by the rest of the
body, including the arms, which provide most of the
propulsion in the freestyle stroke. Although relation-
ships have been observed in descriptive research, no
experimental research has determined if training to
increase vertical jumping improves starting perfor-
mance.
The contributions of the arms and of the trunk in the
vertical jump can help to increase the amount of
preload in the leg extensor muscles. Therefore, as a
214
result of pre-stretching during the preparatory phase,
the leg extensor muscles can better utilize the higher
force attained at the end of the stretch (Walshe et al.,
1998). Shierman (1979) found that the shape of the
force curve for the ‘gathering phase’ of the dive start was
similar to the shape of other vertical force curves elicited
when performing dynamic movements such as the
vertical jump. Research has found that the arms
contribute 10–15% of the height obtained in the vertical
jump (Khalid et al., 1989; Harman et al., 1990; Lees
and Barton, 1996). Through the use of modified
vertical jumps, Luhtanen and Komi (1978) examined
the segmental contributions to vertical jump perfor-
mance and found that knee extension, plantar flexion,
trunk extension, arm swing and head swing contributed
56, 22, 10, 10 and 2%, respectively. However,
Robertson and Stewart (1998) found that the contribu-
tion of the trunk segment was much higher (36.5% of
the total work) during the grab start in swimming than
during a vertical jump because of greater hip flexion.
Robertson and Stewart (1998) also found similarities in
the movement pattern of the vertical jump and the grab
start, in that both techniques involved the muscle
groups contributing simultaneously rather than sequen-
tially to the total work done. This observation suggests
that training to improve vertical jumping ability might
enhance grab start performance. There is a need for
more research to establish the relative usefulness of
land-based leg power training to starting performance,
to establish the value of including leg power exercises in
swimmers’ training programmes.
The grab and track starts are common techniques in
swimming races, whereas the swing start is widely used
during relay changeovers (Breed and McElroy, 2000).
All three starts have different starting mechanisms; thus
resistance training might have a different effect on each.
For example, since the swing start involves a pro-
nounced arm swing, it is conceivable that this technique
might benefit more than the other techniques from
training that targets the muscles producing the arm
swing. The aim of the current study was to determine if
a resistance training programme designed to increase
vertical jumping ability could enhance various perfor-
mance parameters in the grab, swing and track starts.
Methods
Participants
Twenty-three female students, studying physical educa-
tion/human movement courses, from the University of
Ballarat volunteered to participate in the study. The
mean age of the students was 18.9 years (s = 1.5); their
mean height and mass were 1.66 m (s = 0.07) and
64.9 kg (s = 5.2), respectively. The participants were all
Breed and Young
athletes from a range of sporting disciplines other than
competitive swimming. This was considered important,
as it was necessary for all participants to acquire equal
standards of the techniques in each of the starts to
minimize performance bias.
Procedures and equipment
Dive technique training
The participants were taught the techniques of three
dives: the grab, swing and rear-weighted track starts
(see Breed and McElroy, 2000). After an initial learning
phase, the participants practised by performing ten
dives of each technique for one supervised session a
week over 8 weeks. The participants were videotaped
during weeks 2 and 5 of training to assist with learning
and feedback.
Test protocols
The test sessions before and after the training pro-
gramme consisted of two parts: (1) six dry-land tests of
strength, power and jumping ability and (2) the
performance of three dive start techniques. The test
protocols were identical before and after the training
programme. Dry-land testing was performed 5 days
after the resistance training programme with the dive
start tests 2 days later.
After the pre-test, the participants were allocated at
random to a control group (n = 11) or a resistance
training group (n = 12). The two groups continued with
their normal daily activities; the resistance training
group also participated in a 9-week training programme
designed to enhance jumping ability.
Dry-land testing
Six tests of muscle function were included in this study,
two vertical jumping tests, two overhead throws and two
one-repetition maximum (1-RM) squat exercises. The
tests and the main qualities assessed are listed in Table 1
to help justify the inclusion of the tests. The six tests were:
. Countermovement jumps with and without arm swing.
For the countermovement jump with arm swing, a
Yardstick device (Swift Equipment, Lismore,
NSW) was used to measure the height of the
jump to the nearest centimetre. A standing double
foot take-off with a countermovement and arm
swing was adopted. For the countermovement
jump without arm swing, a 78 6 52 cm contact
mat (Young et al., 1995) linked to a computer was
used so that jump height could be recorded and
calculated from the flight time. Hands were placed
Effect of resistance training on swim starts
Table 1. Dry-land tests and the quality assessed
Test
Countermovement jump with arm swing
Countermovement jump without arm swing
Overhead throw without back extension
Overhead throw with back extension
Squat jump at 0.70 rad × s71
Squat jump at 0.44 rad × s71
on hips and the participants were instructed to
maintain the same body position when landing as
during the take-off (i.e. hip, knees and ankles in an
extended position).
. Overhead throws with and without back extension. A
2.73 kg metal shot, covered in magnesium chalk
powder, was thrown onto gymnastic tumbling mats.
The participants sat with their back facing the
direction of the throw, heels placed against the
front legs of the chair and holding the shot with both
hands. In the overhead throw without back
extension, the back was pressed against the chair
upright with the arms extended and forearms resting
on the thighs. In the overhead throw with back
extension, the hands rested on the ground between
the feet. The participants were instructed to throw
the shot over their head for maximum distance while
keeping their arms straight. Using a tape measure,
the distance was calculated to the lowest whole
centimetre by measuring from the back chair legs to
the nearest landing point. The trial was repeated if
there was any initial countermovement.
. Squat jumps at 0.44 and 0.70 rad × s71. An Ariel
5000 Computerized Exercise System (CES) was
used to measure peak isokinetic strength and peak
power during a squat at bar angular velocities of
0.44 and 0.70 rad × s71, respectively (Ashley and
Weiss, 1994). The participants lowered the bar
slowly until 908 knee flexion had been reached,
then held this position for 1.5–2.0 s before reacting
to a verbal ‘go’ signal by extending the legs as fast
as possible and finishing on the toes. A time delay
was imposed to remove most of the stretch–
shorten cycle effect (Wilson et al., 1991) and
make the test one of predominantly concentric
muscle function.
A standardized warm-up consisting of running and
stretching was performed, followed by the randomly
ordered tests. The participants practised before each of
the six tests until they were confident and produced
good, consistent techniques. A rest of 3 min was
allowed between tests. Three trials were performed for
215
Quality assessed
Standing vertical jumping ability
Leg extensor power, specific to standing vertical jump
Shoulder power
Back extensor and shoulder power
Leg extensor power, no jumping skill required
Leg extensor strength
each test with 30 s rest between each, with the best
performance of the three trials being used for analysis.
Dive testing
After a warm-up, which consisted of 5 min of light
swimming in the pool and three practice trials of each
technique, the participants were videotaped performing
two trials of each diving technique in random order. A
video recorder (Panasonic MS-5) was positioned
sagittal to the plane of the dive. Eleven anatomical
points were marked so that centre of mass calculations
could be made through digitizing. Dives were per-
formed on a modified starting block mounted with a
0.660.4 m waterproof Kistler force plate. Left and
right load cells were attached to a hand bar mounted at
the front of the block to allow hand forces to be
measured separately from the feet during the grab and
track starts (see Breed and McElroy, 2000).
Nine dive performance variables were selected for
statistical analysis between the grab, track and swing
starts. An average of the two trials for each variable was
used for analysis. These variables included the block
time, flight time, total time to entry, flight distance,
resultant take-off velocity, take-off angle, entry angle,
net vertical impulse and total horizontal impulse. Hand
forces were also measured and compared between the
grab and track starts. Flight distance was used as an
indicator of dive performance for correlation with the
dry-land tests. No underwater measure was performed,
as we believed that novice swimmers could have too
much variation between trials.
Resistance training
All participants had some experience and knowledge of
resistance training, but none had previously used
strength training programmes specific to their chosen
sport. Three training sessions per week were performed
for 9 weeks; participants were excluded from analysis if
more than four sessions were missed. The main aim of
the programme was to enhance vertical jumping
performance. The programme was periodized initially
216 Breed and Young

to improve strength and power, with more specific
exercises for vertical jumping being included in the
latter part of the programme while maintaining general
lower and upper body strength and power (see Table
2). The main muscle groups used in vertical jumping
were trained, which included the knee extensors, lower
trunk and shoulders (Luhtanen and Komi, 1978;
Khalid et al., 1989).
Statistical analysis
Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated for
the pre-test variables to identify any relationship
between jumping ability and dive performance. A
262 (group by time) repeated-measures (dry-land
tests) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
was conducted to establish if there was a training effect.
Nine separate 262 (group by time) repeated-measures
(dive technique) MANOVA tests were conducted
across each diving technique for all dependent dive
start variables at a 95% level of confidence.
Results
We addressed three questions. First, is vertical
jumping ability related to the three dive techni-
ques? Second, would resistance training improve
vertical jumping ability and other tests of muscle
function? Third, would aspects of diving perfor-
mance of the three starting techniques improve
after training?
Correlation coefficients between the countermove-
ment jump with arm swing, countermovement jump
without arm swing and flight distance for all three
diving techniques before training are presented in Fig.
1. The flight distances of all three dives were
significantly correlated with both jumping tests
(P 50.01), but not with either of the isokinetic squat
tests (P 40.05).
The results indicated that resistance training im-
proved performance in the dry-land tests (F = 10.3,
P 50.0005). Univariate analyses showed a significant
group by time effect for the countermovement jump
with arm swing, countermovement jump without arm
swing and squat jump test at 0.70 rad × s71. The results
and percentage changes for both groups in each dry-
land test are presented in Table 3.
The significant dive start variables are presented in
Table 4. No significant group by time differences were
found for any variable within the grab or swing starts
(P 40.05). There were no significant group by time
differences in any temporal variable for each of the three
techniques (P 40.05). A significant group by time
effect was found within the track start for total
horizontal impulse (P 50.05), an increase that was
most probably due to the significant improvement of
hand impulse (P 50.01).

Table 2. Nine-week resistance training programme

Sessions 1 and 3 Sets6reps (load) Session 2 Sets6reps (load)

Weeks 1–3
Clean pull 465 (8-RM)* Barbell jump squat 565 (10–15 kg)
Barbell press (behind neck) 368 (10-RM) Back extension 3610–15
Parallel squat (Smith mach) 368 (10-RM) Prone hold 3620–30 s
Back extension 3610–15
Prone hold 3620–30 s

Weeks 4–6
Barbell jump squat 464 (15–20 kg) Weighted belt jump 565 (9 kg)
Dumbbell overhead press 466 (6-RM) Back extension 268 (5–10 kg)
Barbell half squat 466 (6-RM) Twisting crunch 26max
Back extension 268 (5–10 kg)
Twisting crunch 26max

Weeks 7–9
Drop jump 565 (45–60 cm) Barbell half squat 465 (5-RM)
Cable arm drive 565 (8-RM) Barbell jump squat 465 (17–25 kg)
Weighted belt jump 565 (9–13.5 kg)
Dumbbell arm drive 565 (5-RM)
Side hold 36max

* RM = the maximum load attainable for the repetitions stated.

Effect of resistance training on swim starts 217

FD actions involving the ankle, knee, hip, elbow and

0.74** grab 0.60*
shoulder joints. In the present study, both counter-
movement jumps were significantly correlated with the
flight distance of all three techniques (P 50.05). These
0.69** FD 0.63*
CMJ
track
CMJ results suggest the possibility of a commonality between
with without
vertical jumping and diving (Lyttle and Ostrowski,
1994; Pearson et al., 1998; Robertson and Stewart,
0.84** FD 0.65* 1998).
swing The isokinetic squat tests of power (0.70 rad × s71)
and strength (0.44 rad × s71) were not significantly
0.71** correlated with flight distance for any start technique
(P 4 0.05). This could be because isokinetic testing is
Fig. 1. Relationship between countermovement jumps and
non-specific to the accelerative nature of the dive start,
flight distance. CMJ with = countermovement jump with arm
swing, CMJ without = countermovement jump without arm and that the squat tests measured only concentric
swing, FD = flight distance. *P 50.01, **P 50.001. muscle function. This is in contrast to the pre-loading
or stretch–shorten cycle of the muscles that occurs
during the jumping tests and dive starting. Also, diving
Table 3. Descriptive data for the dry-land tests before and involves more skill than the squat tests, as it requires
after the training programme (mean+s) greater muscle coordination and finding an optimal
take-off angle combined with forward rotation of the
Resistance-trained body.
Test Control group group

CMJ with arm swing (cm) Dry-land tests

Before 40.2+5.0 37.8+6.9 There was a significant group by time interaction of
After 40.7+4.8 43.1+6.2 resistance training (P 5 0.0001), resulting in improved
% change +1.2 +12.3**
performance in the dry-land tests. Performance im-
proved due to the training in three of the six tests
CMJ without arm swing (cm)
Before 26.7+3.9 27.3+4.8 (countermovement jump with and without arm swing,
After 26.9+2.8 30.6+4.7 squat jump at 0.70 rad × s71) (see Table 3). The 5.3 cm
% change +0.7 +10.8** (12.3%) increase in height of the countermovement
jump with arm swing for the training group was similar
Squat jump at 0.70 rad × s71 (kg) to the increases reported by Bauer et al. (1990),
Before 112+14.7 113+19.8 Holcomb et al. (1996) and Lyttle et al. (1996), all of
After 114+8.8 132+19.9 whom trained male participants for 8–10 weeks.
% change +1.6 +13.8* The two overhead throw tests were not improved by
training. As these tests involved a high amount of skill
Squat jump at 0.44 rad × s71 (kg)
and a relatively unfamiliar movement pattern for the
Before 127+17.3 136+26.9
participants, they might not have been sensitive to
After 130+14.7 148+22.2
% change +2.7 +8.1 training improvements of the upper body. It is also
possible that variations in the angle of release influenced
Abbreviation: CMJ = countermovement jump. *P 50.05, **P 50.001. the results. In contrast, the two countermovement jump
tests were quite specific to many movement patterns
involved in the training exercises (i.e. jump squats,
weighted jumps).
Discussion
Relationship between dry-land tests and dive Dive start performance
performance
Flight distance is a very important performance variable
During a vertical jump, the muscle groups are recruited in dive starting, particularly as the body can travel
simultaneously rather than sequentially (Hudson, 1986; considerably faster through the air than in water (Miller
Lees and Barton, 1996). Robertson and Stewart (1998) et al., 1984; Robertson and Stewart, 1998). Resistance
reported a similar contribution of joint moments and training did not improve the flight distance of any
coordination patterns for the grab start in swimming. starting technique (P 40.05). This finding was un-
Both the vertical jump and swim starts include complex expected, as vertical jumping ability, which improved
218 Breed and Young

after training, was significantly correlated (P 50.01)

Table 4. Dive start variables before and after the training with flight distance in all three techniques. This would
programme (mean+s) suggest that improvements in jumping ability were not
transferred directly to the skill of diving. Even though
Resistance-trained similarities exist in the timing and muscle segmental
Start Control group group contributions of the vertical jump and grab start
(Shierman, 1979; Robertson and Stewart, 1998),
Velocity (m × s 71)
improvements in jumping ability might not be observed
Grab start
Before 3.16+0.3 3.13+0.2 in dive performance due to the extra skill involved in
After 3.07+0.3 3.16+0.3 starting. For example, dive starting requires changes in
% change 72.9 +0.9 body position during flight and the need to find an
Track start optimal take-off angle for maximum performance. The
Before 3.46+0.3 3.42+0.3 small number of participants in each group (control,
After 3.33+0.3 3.48+0.3 n = 11; experimental, n = 12) might have reduced the
% change 73.9 +1.7* possibility of reaching significance. As the partial eta-
Swing start squared value of 0.13 indicated a moderate to large
Before 3.12+0.3 3.21+0.2 effect size (Cohen, 1988), non-significant trends will
After 3.11+0.4 3.34+0.4 also be discussed.
% change 70.3 +3.9
When comparing the control and experimental
Take-off angle (8) groups, a trend towards non-significant improvements
Grab start in flight distance was found for the track and swing
Before 75.2+8.5 78.1+6.1 starts, with no change for the grab start. Similar values
After 75.1+7.6 77.6+6.2 were found for both resultant take-off velocity and flight
% change +2.0 +6.6
distance, confirming that take-off velocity is the main
Track start determinant of a projectile’s range. The resultant take-
Before 710.8+7.3 713.3+7.4 off velocity of the track start increased significantly
After 710.2+7.6 710.1+5.6
(P 50.05) after training. No temporal variable changed
% change +5.9 +31.7**
after training (P 40.05).
Swing start Kinetic analyses showed that improvements
Before 76.8+7.3 79.3+7.1
After 76.2+6.9 77.6+6.9
(P 50.05) due to training were transferred only to the
% change +9.7 +22.3 track start in the horizontal direction of force produc-
tion. Horizontal impulse was broken down into foot and
Total horizontal impulse (N × s) hand impulse for the grab and track starts and analysed
Grab start separately. No improvements in foot horizontal impulse
Before 177+14.0 185+17.0
were found for either start. However, the hand
After 164+10.1 176+16.0
% change 77.9 74.9 horizontal impulse of the track start increased by about
30% (P 50.01) after training, which would explain the
Track start
significant improvements in total horizontal impulse
Before 202+26.7 198+35.2
After 198+33.6 221+39.0 and resultant take-off velocity. This further shows that
% change 71.9 +10.3* the arms have a large role in providing horizontal
Swing start
momentum of the body in the rear-weighted track start,
Before 188+15.9 206+22.8 particularly during the early part of the movement.
After 181+13.8 196+21.6 As vertical velocity of the centre of gravity at take-off
% change 73.7 74.7 determines the height of a vertical jump (Oddson,
1989), it is logical that an improvement in vertical jump
Horizontal impulse of hands (N × s)
performance could lead to an increase in resultant take-
Grab start
Before 8.6+7.3 4.3+13.3 off velocity in a dive start. However, much smaller
After 5.9+7.5 6.0+7.3 increases in resultant take-off velocity were seen after
% change 745.8 +28.3 training compared with jump height. When the force
data for the dives were analysed, a non-significant trend
Track start showed that training might have improved the vertical
Before 75.3+20.6 65.6+32.7
After 77.0+19.9 94.0+41.2
impulse in all three starts. This finding would help to
% change +2.2 +30.2** account for the increased take-off angles of the starts,
particularly in the track technique. When the hands were
*P 50.05, **P 50.01. analysed separately, an improvement in hand vertical
Effect of resistance training on swim starts
impulse was noted in the track and grab starts after
training. This might further support the concept that the
role of the arms in the vertical direction is to pre-tense
the leg extensors and increase the loading of the leg
muscles (Cavanagh et al., 1975; Guimaraes and Hay,
1985). The improvements in vertical force components
for all starts suggest that the improved skill of jumping
was not transferred directly to the start, particularly in
the grab technique, which showed no improvements in
flight distance or resultant take-off velocity.
No significant results or trends were observed for the
entry angle of any start due to training. Although a similar
trend was found for all starts, in that take-off angle
increased after resistance training, only the track start
increased significantly (P 50.01). This would also help
to account for the increase in flight distance. The higher
take-off angle could have been due to an increase in
vertical velocity during the start, also responsible for
improved vertical jump performance. An increase in
vertical velocity, and hence take-off angle, might indicate
a need for practising the dives to retrain the changed
neuromuscular properties due to the resistance training.
Bobbert and Van Soest (1994) used a model to
simulate vertical jump squats. When the input data were
increased (representing greater strength) and timing
remained the same, jump height decreased. This is a
possible explanation for the very small improvements in
diving performance when compared to the increases in
vertical jump height. Therefore, it is possible that larger
improvements would have been observed in aspects of
dive performance if the participants had practised the
dives throughout the resistance training period, so as to
adapt the timing of the neuromuscular system to
account for the increased muscle force capability.
A possible reason for the minimal skill transfer from
resistance training to diving could be the slower speed of
muscular contraction, particularly during the eccentric
phase of the dive (Harman et al., 1990). This slower
contraction speed is needed to allow for forward
rotation of the body to move into its line of push.
Training effects for the track start might be greater than
those for either the grab or swing start, as the track start
uses a different mechanism for starting, with the body
being pulled directly forwards rather than ‘dipping’ or
lowering the body’s centre of mass (Breed and McElroy,
2000). The improvement of the track start is probably
due to the large increase in total horizontal impulse of
the arm pull, rather than improved jumping ability.
Conclusions
Jumping ability was significantly correlated to the flight
distance of all three starting techniques (P 50.01). The
resistance training programme significantly improved
219
leg power and jumping ability. The results indicated
that improved jumping ability increased the vertical
force components of all three starting techniques.
However, no significant improvements in flight distance
were found for any start, suggesting that there was no
direct transfer of skill to the swim starts. This finding
further supports the need to adapt the control mechan-
isms of the diving techniques by practising them during
resistance training (Bobbert and Van Soest, 1994).
It is recommended that swimmers experiment with
different start types to find their preferred technique.
The swimmer’s preferred dive technique should be
practised throughout resistance training to re-optimize
the skill and control mechanisms of the neuromuscular
system. Testing should also be performed throughout
training so that it can be monitored when a plateau is
reached in both dry-land and diving skills.
References
Adams, T. (1986). Jumping into strength training. Swimming
Technique, January, pp. 25–27.
Ashley, C.D. and Weiss, L.W. (1994). Vertical jump
performance and selected physiological characteristics of
women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 8, 5–
11.
Bauer, T., Thayer, R.E. and Baras, G. (1990). Comparison
of training modalities for power development in the lower
extremity. Journal of Applied Sport Science Research, 4, 115–
121.
Bobbert, M.F. and Van Soest, A.J. (1994). Effects of muscle
strengthening on vertical jump height: a simulation study.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26, 1012–1020.
Breed, R.V.P. and McElroy, G.K. (2000). A biomechanical
comparison of the grab, swing and track starts in
swimming. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 39, 277–
293.
Cavanagh, P., Palmgren, J. and Kerr, B. (1975). A device to
measure forces at the hands during the grab start. In
Swimming II, International Series on Sport Science (edited by
L. Lewillie and J.P. Clarys), pp. 43–50. Baltimore, MD:
University Park Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural
Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Counsilman, J.E. (1986). The importance of power. Swim-
ming Times, February, pp. 1–8.
Guimaraes, A.C.S. and Hay, J.G. (1985). A mechanical
analysis of the grab starting technique in swimming.
International Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 1, 25–35.
Harman, E.A., Rosenstein, M.T., Frykman, P.N. and
Rosenstein, R.M. (1990). The effects of arms and
countermovement on vertical jumping. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise, 22, 825–833.
Holcomb, W.R., Lander, J.E., Rutland, R.M. and Wilson,
G.D. (1996). The effectiveness of a modified plyometric
program on power and the vertical jump. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 10, 89–92.
220
Hudson, J.L. (1986). Coordination of segments in the
vertical jump. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
18, 242–250.
Khalid, W., Amin, M. and Bober, T. (1989). The influence
of the upper extremities movement on take-off in vertical
jump. In Biomechanics in Sports V (edited by L. Tsar-
ouchas, J. Terauds, B.A. Gowitzke and L.E. Holt),
pp. 375–380. Athens: Hellenic Sports Research Institute.
Lees, A. and Barton, G. (1996). The interpretation of
relative momentum data to assess the contribution of the
free limbs to the generation of vertical velocity in sports
activities. Journal of Sports Sciences, 14, 503–511.
Luhtanen, P. and Komi, P.V. (1978). Segmental contribu-
tion to forces in vertical jump. European Journal of Applied
Physiology, 38, 181–188.
Lyttle, A. and Ostrowski, K. (1994). The principles of power
development for freestyle sprints. Strength and Conditioning
Coach, 2(4), 23–25.
Lyttle, A.D., Wilson, G.D. and Ostrowski, K.J. (1996).
Enhancing performance: maximal power versus combined
weights and plyometrics training. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 10, 173–179.
Maglischo, E.W. (1993). Swimming Even Faster. Mountain
View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
Miller, J.A., Hay, J.G. and Wilson, B.D. (1984). Starting
techniques of elite swimmers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 2,
213–223.
Miyashita, M., Takahashi, S., Troup, J.P. and Wakayoshi,
K. (1992). Leg extension power of elite swimmers. In
Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming: Swimming Science
VI (edited by D. MacLaren, T. Reilly and A. Lees),
pp. 295–301. London: E & FN Spon.
Breed and Young
Oddson, L. (1989). What factors determine vertical jumping
height? In Biomechanics in Sports V (edited by L
Tsarouchas, J. Terauds, B.A. Gowitzke and L.E. Holt),
pp. 393–401. Athens: Hellenic Sports Research Institute.
Pearson, C.T., McElroy, G.K., Blitvich, J.D., Subic, A. and
Blanksby, B.A. (1998). A comparison of the swimming
start using traditional and modified starting blocks. Journal
of Human Movement Studies, 34, 49–66.
Robertson, D.G.E. and Stewart, V.L. (1998). Power
production during swim starting. Communication to the
Sixteenth Congress of Biomechanics and Medicine in Swim-
ming, Jyväskylä, Finland, 28 June–2 July.
Shierman, G. (1979). The grab and conventional swimming
starts: a force analysis. Journal of Sports Medicine and
Physical Fitness, 19, 171–180.
Walshe, A.D., Wilson, G.J. and Ettema, G.J. (1998).
Stretch–shorten cycle compared with isometric preload:
contributions to enhanced muscular performance. Journal
of Applied Physiology, 84, 97–106.
Wilson, G.J., Elliot, B.C. and Wood, G.A. (1991). The
effect on performance of imposing a delay during a
stretch–shorten cycle movement. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 23, 364–370.
Young, W.B., Pryor, J.F. and Wilson, G.J. (1995). Effect of
instructions on characteristics of countermovement and
drop jump performance. Journal of Strength and Condition-
ing Association, 9, 232–236.
Zatsiorsky, V.M., Bulgakova, N.Z. and Chaplinsky, N.M.
(1979). Biomechanical analysis of starting techniques in
swimming. In Swimming III: Proceedings of the Third
International Symposium of Biomechanics in Swimming,
pp. 199–206. Edmonton, Alberta: University of Alberta.
View publication stats