Next Article in Journal
Motivation Profile of Youth Greco-Roman Wrestlers; Differences According to Performance Quality
Next Article in Special Issue
Blood Lactate and Maximal Lactate Accumulation Rate at Three Sprint Swimming Distances in Highly Trained and Elite Swimmers
Previous Article in Journal
Differences in Peak Knee Flexor Force between Eccentric-Only and Combined Eccentric-Concentric Nordic Hamstring Exercise
Previous Article in Special Issue
Which of the Physiological vs. Critical Speed Is a Determinant of Modern Pentathlon 200 m Front Crawl Swimming Performance: The Influence of Protocol and Ergometer vs. Swimming Pool Conditions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sports
Volume 11
Issue 2
10.3390/sports11020042
sports-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Reliability and Validity of a Flume-Based Maximal Oxygen Uptake Swimming Test

by
Elizabeth F. Nagle
1,*,
Takashi Nagai
2,
Anne Beethe
3,
Mita Lovalekar
4,
Meghan S. Tuite
4,
Meaghan E. Beckner
2,
Jacquelyn N. Zera
5,
Mary E. Sanders
6,
Chris Connaboy
7,
John P. Abt
8,
Kim Beals
4,
Scott M. Lephart
9,
Robert J. Robertson
1 and
Bradley C. Nindl
4
1
Department of Health and Human Development, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA
2
U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA 01760, USA
3
Kinesiology and Health Science, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA
4
Department of Sports Medicine and Nutrition, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
5
Department of Exercise Science, John Carroll University, Cleveland, OH 44118, USA
6
Reno School of Medicine & Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557, USA
7
Center for Lower Extremity Ambulatory Research (CLEAR), Rosalind Franklin University, North Chicago, IL 60064, USA
8
Children’s Health Andrews Institute for Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine, Plano, TX 75024, USA
9
School of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40536, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sports 2023, 11(2), 42; https://doi.org/10.3390/sports11020042
Submission received: 22 December 2022 / Revised: 1 February 2023 / Accepted: 1 February 2023 / Published: 8 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Health and Performance of Water Based Exercise and Sports)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A mode-specific swimming protocol to assess maximal aerobic uptake (VO2maxsw) is vital to accurately evaluate swimming performance. A need exists for reliable and valid swimming protocols that assess VO2maxsw in a flume environment. The purpose was to assess: (a) reliability and (b) “performance” validity of a VO2maxsw flume protocol using the 457-m freestyle pool performance swim (PS) test as the criterion. Nineteen males (n = 9) and females (n = 10) (age, 28.5 ± 8.3 years.; height, 174.7 ± 8.2 cm; mass, 72.9 ± 12.5 kg; %body fat, 21.4 ± 5.9) performed two flume VO2maxsw tests (VO2maxswA and VO2maxswB) and one PS test [457 m (469.4 ± 94.7 s)]. For test–retest reliability (Trials A vs. B), moderately strong relationships were established for VO2maxsw (mL·kg−1·min−1)(r= 0.628, p = 0.002), O2pulse (mL O2·beat−1)(r = 0.502, p = 0.014), VEmax (L·min−1) (r = 0.671, p = 0.001), final test time (sec) (0.608, p = 0.004), and immediate post-test blood lactate (IPE (BLa)) (0.716, p = 0.001). For performance validity, moderately strong relationships (p < 0.05) were found between VO2maxswA (r =−0.648, p = 0.005), O2pulse (r= −0.623, p = 0.008), VEmax (r = −0.509 p = 0.037), and 457-m swim times. The swimming flume protocol examined is a reliable and valid assessment of VO2maxsw., and offers an alternative for military, open water, or those seeking complementary forms of training to improve swimming performance.

1. Introduction

Competitive, fitness, and recreational swimming have grown in popularity with an increase in participation over the last 5 years [1,2]. The current areas of study among sport scientists and coaches dedicated to improving swimming performance include determinants of aerobic and anaerobic energy demands and/or capacity, in addition to a further understanding of fluid dynamics and associated drag [3,4,5]. A pool environment remains the most practical setting to examine these factors. Today’s swimming flumes are manufactured for commercial, residential, clinical hydrotherapy, and plunge pool usage. Furthermore, swimming flumes provide additional opportunities through the quantification of workloads for the advanced study of factors related to swimming performance. Furthermore, they provide opportunities to explore the development of accurate testing methodologies and novel training practices [3,6,7,8].
A swimming flume directs water circulation through a controlled closed loop system where a “test basin” receives laminar and constant water flow, enabling a swimmer to remain stationary at velocities controlled by the investigator [3]. By controlling for velocity, depth, and water temperature, a swimming flume can provide a standardized and more controlled testing environment [3,9]. Early research paradigms used swimming flumes to study swimming mechanics with less focus on swimming physiology [3]. However, more recent advanced studies have employed flume-based tests to both energetics and stroke mechanics in a temporal fashion [10,11,12]. A continuous graded swimming flume test protocol can assess cardiorespiratory and metabolic factors that determine maximal oxygen uptake, energy expenditure, as well as the economy of a swimmer’s stroke (i.e., stroke efficiency) [8,12,13].
Evidence to support validity of a maximal oxygen uptake test protocol in a swimming flume as it relates to actual pool-based performance is limited. This may be due, in part, to a lack of accessibility to a swimming flume, as well as the technical challenges associated with indirect calorimetry measurement in water [14]. Studies have used swimming flume protocols to examine relationships between maximal oxygen uptake (VO2maxsw; mL·kg−1·min−1) and other variables such as critical velocity to explore flume and swimming performance with mixed results. This was due, in part, to a lack of a standardized swimming protocol, as well as the criterion swimming distances chosen [8,9,15,16,17,18]. Despite its potential for test standardization, investigators have questioned a swimming flume’s utility and predictive validity due to a lack of uniform water flow and its effect on drag detected within the test basin [19]. These conditions may negatively influence stroke mechanics or ability to achieve a maximal swimming velocity and add concern for an ability to accurately measure physiological outcomes throughout a swimming flume protocol [20,21].To date, no study has examined both the reliability and validity of VO2maxsw using a continuous maximal oxygen uptake swimming flume test protocol that measures its relationship to swimming performance. A valid and reliable flume protocol could provide coaches and trainers with a better understanding of the bioenergetic demands of a swimming event greater than five minutes and, similarly, measure the estimated energy cost of submaximal swimming velocities. Therefore, the purpose of the present investigation was to determine the reliability and validity of a continuous graded intensity swimming flume protocol to measure VO2maxsw in a mixed sample of health-fitness and competitive masters swimmers. Understanding the metabolic cost of swimming could assist with individualized programs that target the most critical physiological objectives to improve performance and/or health.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Approach

A multiple observation, within subject, counter-balanced design was employed. Subjects were familiarized with the experimental trials via an orientation session. On separate days, two continuous swimming flume maximal aerobic uptake trials (VO2maxswA and VO2maxswB) and a criterion measure 457-m swimming trial were administered. The three experimental trials were separated by a minimum of two but not more than seven days.

2.2. Participants

Nineteen male (n = 9) and female (n = 10) participants (mean +/− SD; 28.5 +/− 8.3 years) were recruited from Pittsburgh and surrounding communities. The descriptive characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1. Participants were included if they satisfied the following criteria: (1) 18–45 years old; (2) comfortable swimming in shallow water; (3) intermediate level swimmer or higher defined as able to complete a 182-m freestyle swim using rhythmic breathing in under 4 min; and (4) currently physically active. Following initial communication, potential participants were screened using a medical history and physical activity readiness questionnaire (PAR-Q) [22]. If eligible, participants were notified of benefits and risks, provided consent, and were scheduled for the orientation. All procedures were approved by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board.

2.3. Procedures

Upon laboratory arrival, standing height (cm) was measured, and body composition was assessed using air displacement plethysmography (Bod Pod; Cosmed, Chicago, IL, USA) [23]. Swimming flume tests were conducted using the SwimEx swimming flume (5.96 m long × 6.11 m wide × 1.76 m deep) (Warren, RI, Model SwimEx 600T2) with velocities ranging from zero to approximately 1.51 m∙s−1. The pool test was conducted in the University of Pittsburgh’s indoor pool at a depth of 1.3 m with a measured performance distance of 22.9 m in length. The pool temperature was maintained at 27.5 °C for swimming flume and pool trial. The purpose of the orientation trial was to control for test familiarization bias that may have transpired in participants who had not previously undergone a VO2maxsw test in a swimming flume environment.
For the orientation trial, subjects were provided a description of the test protocol that included a video depicting the flume-based VO2maxsw test. Participants were fitted with a telemetry heart rate (HR) monitor (Kempele, Finland) and Cosmed Aquatrainer (Rome, Italy) (i.e., respiratory mouthpiece and nose clip) to become familiar with test procedures. Participants were encouraged to experience swimming at different velocities by self-selecting three continuous 2-m stage velocities perceived to represent low (50%), moderate (70%), and high (90%) intensity efforts. In order to establish speed for the initial stage of the experimental trial, a flume velocity that corresponded to 85% of the subject’s age predicted maximum heart rate was identified [17]. Expired ventilatory volume (VE) (L∙min−1; standard conditions of temperature, pressure, and dry (STPD)) and respiratory O2 consumption (L∙min−1) and CO2 (L∙min−1) produced were determined by 15-s intervals using the Cosmed K4b and Aquatrainer (Rome, Italy) respiratory-metabolic unit throughout the orientation and subsequent experimental trials. The portable Aquatrainer and metabolic unit were suspended in a position that required a stationary freestyle stroke while providing an in-flume, continuous measure of VO2 and respiratory exchange ratio (RER). To assist with maintaining a stationary body position, underwater light sensors signaled participants to remain in the same position relative to the length and width of the flume throughout each stage. Subjects were also habituated to the Aquatic OMNI (0–10) rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale. The OMNI scale uses verbal, numerical, and pictorial categories representing equal intensity intervals with zero being extremely easy and 10 being extremely hard. The OMNI Scale is used by exercise physiologists and coaches to objectively evaluate an individual’s perceived level of effort, strain, discomfort, and fatigue felt during aerobic or resistance exercise [24,25].
A standardized series of OMNI scale rating guidelines and procedures were explained during orientation to assist with self-selection of velocities that corresponded to specific intensities. The OMNI scale was also used as a post-test rating of effort immediately following all VO2maxsw flume tests and the performance swim trial.
Within one week, VO2maxsw trials were administered. First, participants were fitted with the telemetry heart rate monitor, facemask, and mouthpiece described previously. Subjects swam in a stationary position against progressively increasing flow rates in the SwimEx flume [17]. The continuous graded swim test protocol began with a two-minute stage at a flow rate that produced 85% of the participant’s age predicted maximal heart rate (220-participant’s age), i.e., as observed during the orientation swim. Following the initial two-minute Stage 1, each succeeding test stage was 30 s in duration. Beginning with Stage 2, flume velocity increased by approximately 0.09 m·s−1 at the beginning of each stage until the participant achieved VO2maxsw or was unable to maintain a stationary position due to fatigue. VO2 maxsw was identified as a change in VO2 of <2.1 mL∙kg−1∙min−1 with increased exercise intensity and/or the highest VO2 reached at maximal swimming intensity. Secondary VO2maxsw test criteria included one or more of the following: 1) a respiratory exchange ratio (RER) > 1.10 (defined as ratio of (CO2): (O2)); (2) HR ± 5 b·min−1 of the age-predicted maximum; (3) a RPE (OMNI scale) > 9; (4) volitional test termination due to exhaustion, and (5) blood lactate > 8.0 mmol∙L−1 [13,26,27]. When the test was terminated (i.e., unable to maintain stationary position in the swimming flume), the participant lifted their head out of the water, whereby investigators immediately stopped the swimming flume and removed the mouthpiece and nose clip.
To determine secondary VO2maxsw test criteria, immediate post-exercise blood lactate (IPE (BLa)), immediate post-exercise RPE (IPE-RPE), HR, and RER were measured for each VO2maxsw experimental trial. A 5μL plasma lactate capillary sample was obtained prior to warming-up and immediately post-test for the two experimental swimming flume trials and performance swim using a Lactate Pro (Arkray Inc., Kyoto, Japan) monitor. After the metabolic equipment was removed, subjects completed a cool-down by swimming for three minutes at a low intensity flume velocity or until heart rate decreased to <110 b∙min−1. Experimental Trial B procedures were identical to those for Trial A.
Within seven days, subjects completed the 457-m freestyle performance swim in a 22.86-m pool. Immediately prior to the performance swim, resting heart rate and blood lactate measures were obtained. Next, a swimming warm-up distance of 250–450 m of freestyle swimming at self-selected speeds began at 50% and gradually increased to 80–90% of maximal velocity. Following a rest period of 2–3 min, subjects were instructed to perform the swimming distance at 100% of their maximal velocity. Performance time was assessed using an Accusplit digital stopwatch (Pleasanton, CA, USA) and documented to the nearest 100th of a second. Immediate post-exercise (IPE) measure of post-exercise blood lactate (IPE [BLa]), heart rate, and RPE were obtained following the performance trial. The cool-down at an ad libitum swimming pace occurred until recovery HR was to <110 beat∙min−1.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

A priori sample size calculation showed that 19 subjects would result in at least 80% power at a 0.05 significance. Descriptive statistics (mean ± standard deviation) were calculated. Shapiro–Wilk tests were conducted for normality. Significance was set a priori at p < 0.05, two-sided. The test–retest reliability of the flume-based variables was assessed with an intraclass correlation (ICC (2,1)). A paired t-test was also conducted in order to examine differences between trials. The validity of the flume-based tests was assessed using Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients as appropriate. VO2maxsw A trial data was only used to simulate application where little to no practice/orientation would typically occur for a participant prior to a swimming flume trial. Bland–Altman plots were graphed to assess concordance between VO2maxsw A and B trials including systematic bias, patterns of error, and 95% limits of agreement [28].

3. Results

3.1. VO2maxsw Protocol: Test Reliability

Nineteen participants finished the VO2maxswA and VO2maxswB trials. The test–retest reliability results for physiological responses measured during the VO2maxswA and VO2 maxswB flume trials are presented in Table 2.
This sample was comprised of an approximately equal number of men and women and represented a distribution of the general population. Therefore, findings are reflected as a mixed sample of males and females to better reflect the general population. ICCs revealed moderate to strong reliability for VO2maxsw (ICC = 0.628, p = 0.002), O2pulse (ICC = 0.502; p = 0.014), VEmax (ICC = 0.671; p < 0.001), IPE-RPE (ICC = 0.539; p < 0.006), RERmax (ICC = 0.559; p < 0.002), IPE [BLa] (ICC = 0.716; p = 0.001), and final test time (ICC = 0.608; p < 0.004) determined by the two swimming flume experimental trials (Table 3). In addition, VO2 (mL∙kg−1∙min−1) measures were reliable for Stages 2 through 6 (ICC = 0.465 to 0.669); p < 0.05).
The paired t-test showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) between Trials A and B for physiological and perceptual variables except for RERmax and IPE-RPE (p < 0.05). Bland–Altman analyses showed that the VO2maxsw tests reflected a systematic error with a slightly positive mean bias (1.21 mL∙kg−1∙min−1), which specifies that participants had a slightly higher value during test 2 as compared to test 1; however, this difference did not demonstrate statistical significance. The 95% limits of agreement were (−13.34 mL∙kg−1∙min−1; 15.76 mL∙kg−1∙min−1), suggesting moderate reliability (Figure 1).

3.2. VO2maxsw Protocol: Validity

Validity of the VO2maxsw test’s physiological responses were correlated to the 457 m PS time (Table 4). The participant completed both VO2maxswA and PS time trials. Moderately strong negative correlations were found between the 457-m PS time and VO2maxswA (r = −0.648; p = 0.005), as well as O2pulse (r = −0.623, p = 0.008) and VEmax (r= −0.509; p = 0.037). No significant correlations were found between 457-m PS time and IPE [BLa], HR max, RERmax, and IPE-RPE (p > 0.05).

4. Discussion

The present study found that a continuous graded intensity VO2maxsw flume protocol demonstrated moderately strong test–retest reliability for both a health-fitness and competitive masters swimming sample of males and females. Results also established “performance validity” for swimming events of >6 min in duration. A standardized flume-based testing protocol can provide measures that, over time, reflect physiological adaptations of a prescriptive training program. Furthermore, our study’s results provide a robust application for those desiring to pursue a home-based swimming flume program (i.e., fitness, cross-training) in addition to those undertaking aerobic training for vocational purposes or competitive swimming events.
The ICCs ranged from r = 0.502 to 0.716 for VO2maxsw, HRmax, VEmax, O2 pulse, and IPE [BLa]. These findings were somewhat lower than previous protocols that employed a self-regulated intensity strategy using both pool- and land-based settings [29,30,31]. Nevertheless, with the exception of IPE-RPE and RERmax, paired t-tests between Trials A and B for the physiological measures revealed no significant differences (p > 0.05), supporting the swimming flume protocol’s reproducibility. The ICC values from Stages 2 through 6 were statistically significant (ranging r = 0.465 to 0.669). The ICC for Stage 1 was not statistically significant. However, these results were not unexpected owing to wide variability and mode inter-individual differences in previous exposure and personal comfort at the beginning of the flume test protocol. When examining the overall test–retest reliability additional factors related to individual responses induced by the flume’s turbulent flow, as well as the protocol employed, must also be considered. The stage velocities were individualized for each participant, and intensity progression was intended to prevent excessive amounts of peripheral fatigue and/or disorientation associated with turbulence at greater flume velocities. Still, the overall findings should be considered statistically reproducible for the population tested.
Our findings also reveal the VO2maxsw flume protocol demonstrated “performance validity” in health-fitness and masters competitive swimmers. The majority of participants had former age group and college competitive swimming experience. Therefore, these results may not be generalizable to a novice-level swimming population. Since maximal/peak physiological responses in water are comparatively different than land-based (i.e., cycle or treadmill) measures [13,18,30,31], an alternative paradigm was employed presently that utilized freestyle swimming performance time to establish “performance validity” as predicted by the swimming flume protocol. It was also expected that physiological responses to maximal swimming efforts in both the flume and pool were likewise controlled by the rate limiting links within the oxygen kinetic chain [30,31].
Results indicated that the current VO2maxsw flume protocol was a valid assessment of maximal aerobic power. This was demonstrated by a moderately strong R-value observed between VO2maxsw A (r = −0.648; p < 0.005), O2pulse (r = −0.623; p < 0.05), VEmax (r = −0.509; p < 0.05), and the 457-m performance swim. These results are more robust compared to previous studies using flume protocols and similar to VO2 measures obtained in pool settings [6,17,32,33,34]. The IPE-RPE, RERmax, and IPE [BLa] were not related to the 457-m performance swim (p > 0.05). However, using established physiological criteria, the mean values for RERmax (1.2) and IPE [BLa] (9.3 mmol∙L−1) confirmed a maximal effort at the point of test termination. Furthermore, the VO2maxsw Trial A and Trial B difference (1.21 mL∙kg−1∙min−1) was lower than established endpoint criteria (<2.1 mL∙kg−1∙min−1) for VO2max. In the present study, the secondary criteria, which reflected attainment of maximal aerobic power, were consistent with two previous studies of shallow water running and pool swimming [30,31].
For the majority of participants, the point of exhaustion occurred between the fifth and sixth flume stage. This proposes a predominant aerobic energy pathway contribution consistent with previous studies examining an association between aerobic power and swimming performances greater than 400 m [35]. While it appears that a greater capacity for oxygen transport and utilization plays a role in middle distance swimming performance, the present results do not fully explain all bioenergetic effects. Specifically, anaerobic energy contribution to a 400-m swim (>5 min) was shown to be as great as 20%, as well as additional anaerobic factors that include lactate dynamics [30,36]. Considering these factors, coaches should consider the inclusion of anaerobic or power training for middle and longer distances swimmers. The 457 m swimming criterion measure was also consistent with the experimental design of a larger overarching trial investigating military combat swimming performance. Regardless of the nature of the swimming event (i.e., vocational or competitive), future studies should also measure the metabolic demands for swimming bouts greater than 5 min in duration.
The regulatory functions of a swimming flume are to some degree standardized and should be viewed as analogous to a treadmill when used in a controlled laboratory environment. In the present study, the average time of flume test termination was greater than 7 min. The characteristics of the present study’s flume protocol allowed for systematic increases in velocity (aggressiveness and duration) similar to supramaximal paradigms that are shorter in duration and more aggressive. Such protocols have exhibited similar VO2max values compared to protocols with more conservative, graded, or ramped characteristics [31,37,38,39]. However, as a result of shorter test stages, identification of a metabolic steady state and precise individual swimming velocities by stage were not possible. Thus, swimming economy and corresponding energy cost could not be estimated for a given swimming stage. Still, the investigators recognize that the ability to externally regulate velocity using a swimming flume should expand beyond measuring VO2maxsw.. The flume protocol would be advantageous to measure energy cost and swimming economy at submaximal velocities since it was shown to be a clear indicator of performance across a range of swimming distances [8]. Recent studies using poolside and flume protocols have identified critical velocity and measures of swimming economy as accurate determinants of swimming performance. Although not a priority focus of the present investigation, these measures can accurately predict aerobic capacity and may demonstrate a greater utility and ability to assist with training program design than VO2maxsw alone [13,18,40,41,42].
The VO2maxsw flume protocol and experimental design did present several limitations. Although participants practiced swimming in a stationary position at higher flume velocities, they occasionally became disoriented by water turbulence during near maximal intensity efforts of 90% and greater. Furthermore, measurement technicalities involving use of indirect calorimetry in a swimming flume environment should also be considered. Flow characteristics from a swimming flume are also known to change stroke mechanics in swimming, particularly upper body stroke parameters [19,43]. Although it appeared the suspended hose and metabolic mouthpiece did not impede the freestyle stroke, participants were occasionally unable to execute their natural swim stroke. Finally, it should be noted that constraints surrounding flume accessibility can be considered a drawback to this form of training.
In lieu of indirect calorimetry, a cost-effective approach to assessing swimmers in a flume would also involve accelerometry or other performance analysis metrics (i.e., wearable technology) in water that could assist with the development of statistical models to predict swimming performance [6,19,44,45]. Such specific models could identify characteristics of the swimming performance (i.e., open water, military training and operations, etc.) and also have application in a pool setting [46]. Exploring flume protocols that incorporate practical forms of technology applicable to a pool setting can assist with efforts to determine the energy cost associated with swimming performance and support new approaches to both testing and training. Furthermore, exploring this methodology in a swimming flume may provide application to pool performance swims, since similarities in measures of acceleration as a function of stroke mechanics (i.e., stroke rate and stroke count) were previously identified when comparing pool to flume swimming [19,47]. This study was not intended to elucidate the influence of stroke mechanics or fluid dynamics on the 457-m swim performance. However, investigating these variables could be particularly advantageous for the study of open water swimmers, triathletes, and military personnel since changes in velocity and fluid dynamics of a flume would simulate waves in open water conditions or close opponents during competition [7,48,49].

5. Conclusions

The continuous VO2maxsw swimming flume protocol examined was found to have moderately strong test–retest reliability when measuring maximal oxygen uptake and provided a valid measure of the 457-m swim. The current flume protocol can be adopted as a valuable alternative method to pool protocols when evaluating aerobic fitness. Furthermore, with frequent assessments, an accurate swimming flume protocol can provide important feedback for those who train to improve health-related fitness and/or to enhance competitive performance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.F.N., T.N., C.C., J.N.Z. and R.J.R.; methodology, E.F.N., M.E.S., R.J.R., J.N.Z., A.B. and T.N.; validation E.F.N. and M.L.; formal analysis M.L.; investigation, E.F.N. and T.N.; resources; B.C.N.; data curation, M.S.T.; writing—original draft preparation, E.F.N.; writing—review and editing, M.E.S., R.J.R., M.L. and E.F.N.; visualization, E.F.N., J.P.A. and T.N.; supervision, E.F.N., M.S.T., J.N.Z., T.N., K.B., A.B. and B.C.N.; project administration, M.S.T., M.E.B., E.F.N., A.B. and T.N.; funding acquisition, S.M.L. and J.P.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the Office of Naval Research: N00014-14-1-0022/N00014-15-0069.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee)of University of Pittsburgh Approval Code: # PRO14100138. Approval Date: 10 December 2014.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained for all participants in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request due to restrictions around privacy. The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to the sensitive nature of the design and participants studied.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Center for Disease Control. Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/guidelines/adults.html (accessed on 21 November 2022).
  2. Available online: https://resources.fina.org/fina/document/2021/06/03/fb8fc7e9-260a-49f0-b8d0-e00f1cb05970/ActionFINA_03_Technical_Committees.pdf (accessed on 16 January 2023).
  3. Holmer, I. Oxygen uptake during swimming in man. J. Appl. Physiol 1972, 33, 502–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Morais, J.E.; Silva, A.J.; Marinho, D.A.; Lopes, V.P.; Barbosa, T.M. Determinant Factors of Long-Term Performance Development in Young Swimmers. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2017, 12, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pelarigo, J.G.; Fernandes, R.J.; Ribeiro, J.; Denadai, B.S.; Greco, C.C.; Vilas-Boas, J.P. Comparison of different methods for the swimming aerobic capacity evaluation. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 3542–3551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nordsborg, N.B.; Espinosa, H.G.; Theil, D.V. Estimating energy expenditure during front crawl swimming using accelerometers. Procedia Eng. 2014, 72, 132–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Scurati, R.; Gatta, G.; Michielon, G.; Cortesi, M. Techniques and considerations for monitoring swimmers’ passive drag. J. Sports Sci. 2019, 37, 1168–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Unnithan, V.; Holohan, J.; Fernhall, B.; Wylegala, J.; Rowland, T.; Pendergast, D.R. Aerobic Cost in Elite Female Adolescent Swimmers. Int. J. Sport. Med. 2009, 30, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Astrand, P.O.; Englesson, S. A swimming flume. J. Appl. Physiol. 1972, 33, 514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. McLEAN, S.P.; Palmer, D.; Ice, G.; Truijens, M.; Smith, J.C. Oxygen uptake response to stroke rate manipulation in freestyle swimming. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 2010, 42, 1909–1913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Narita, K.; Nakashima, M.; Takagi, H. Developing a methodology for estimating the drag in front-crawl swimming at various velocities. J. Biomech. 2017, 54, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sokołowski, K.; Strzała, M.; Stanula, A.; Kryst, Ł.; Radecki-Pawlik, A.; Krężałek, P.; Rosemann, T.; Knechtle, B. Biological Age in Relation to Somatic, Physiological, and Swimming Kinematic Indices as Predictors of 100 m Front Crawl Performance in Young Female Swimmers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bestard, M.A.; Rothschild, J.A.; Crocker, G.H. Effect of low-and high-carbohydrate diets on swimming economy: A crossover study. J. Int. Soc. Sport. Nutr. 2020, 17, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Chaverri, D.; Schüller, T.; Iglesias, X.; Hoffmann, U.; Rodríguez, F.A. A new model for estimating peak oxygen uptake based on postexercise measurements in swimming. Int. J. Sport Physiol. Perform. 2016, 11, 419–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ribeiro, J.; Figueiredo, P.; Sousa, A.; Monteiro, J.; Pelarigo, J.; Vilas-Boas, J.P.; Toussaint, H.M. VO2 kinetics and metabolic contributions during full and upper body extreme swimming velocity. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2015, 115, 1117–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Costill, D.L.; Maglischo, E.W.; Richardson, A.B. Handbook of Sports Medicine and Science, Swimming; Blackwell Publishing: Boston, MA, USA, 1992; pp. 129–131. [Google Scholar]
  17. Nagle, E.F.; Zoeller, R.L.; Robertson, R.J.; Chiapetta, L.B.; Goss, F.L.; Moyna, N.M. Prediction of Performance Using Physiological and Stroke Variables in a Sample of Adult Competitive Swimmers. J. Swim. Res. 2004, 16, 31–37. [Google Scholar]
  18. Demarie, S.; Chricio, E.; Billat, V. Which of the Physiological vs. Critical Speed is a Determinant of Modern Pentathlon 200 m front crawl swimming performance: The influence of protocol and ergometer vs. Swimming pool conditions. Sports 2022, 10, 201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Espinosa, H.G.; Nordsborg, N.; Thiel, D.V. Front crawl swimming analysis using accelerometers: A preliminary comparison between pool and flume. Procedia Eng. 2015, 112, 497–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lomax, M.; Mayger, B.; Saynor, Z.L.; Vine, C.; Massey, H.C. Practical considerations for assessing pulmonary gas exchange and ventilation during flume swimming using the MetaSwim metabolic cart. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2019, 33, 1941–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hay, J.C.; Carmo, J. Swimming techniques used in the flume differ from those used in a pool. In Proceedings of the XV International Society of Biomechanics Congress, Jyvaskyla, Finland, 2–6 July 1995; Hakkinen, K., Ed.; S.I. International Society of Biomechanics: Jyvaskyla, Finland, 1995; pp. 372–373. [Google Scholar]
  22. Thomas, S.; Reading, J.; Shephard, R.J. Revision of the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q). Can. J. Sport Sci. 1992, 17, 338–345. [Google Scholar]
  23. Mccrory, M.A.; Gomez, T.D.; Bernauer, E.M.; Mol, P.A. Evaluation of a new air displacement plethysmograph for measuring human body composition. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 1995, 27, 1686–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Robertson, R.J.; Goss, F.L.; Rutkowski, J.; Lenz, B.; Dixon, C.; Timmer, J.; Razee, K.; Dube, J.; Andreacci, J. Concurrent validation of the OMNI perceived exertion scale for resistance exercise. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 2003, 35, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Robertson, R.J. Perceived Exertion for Practitioners: Rating Effort with the OMNI Picture System; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  26. Duncan, G.E.; Howley, E.T.; Johnson, B.N. Applicability of VO2max criteria: Discontinuous versus continuous protocols. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1997, 29, 273–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Edvardsen, E.; Hem, E.; Anderssen, S.A. End criteria for reaching maximal oxygen uptake must be strict and adjusted to sex and age: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e85276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Bland, J.M.; Altman, D.G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 1, 307–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Lim, W.; Lambrick, D.; Mauger, A.; Woolley, B.; Faulkner, J. The effect of trial familiarisation on the validity and reproducibility of a field-based self-paced VO2max test. Biol. Sport 2016, 33, 269–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nagle, E.F.; Sanders, M.E.; Gibbs, B.B.; Franklin, B.A.; Nagle, J.A.; Prins, P.J.; Johnson, C.D.; Robertson, R.J. Reliability and Accuracy of a Standardized Shallow Water Running Test to Determine Cardiorespiratory Fitness. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016, 31, 1669–1677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nagle, E.F.; Nagai, T.; Beethe, A.Z.; Lovalekar, M.T.; Zera, J.N.; Connaboy, C.; Abt, J.P.; Beals, K.; Nindl, B.C.; Robertson, R.J.; et al. Reliability and validity of a pool-based maximal oxygen uptake test to examine high-intensity short-duration freestyle swimming performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2019, 33, 1208–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kalva-Filho, C.A.; Zagatto, A.M.; Araújo, M.I.; Santiago, P.R.; da Silva, A.S.; Gobatto, C.A.; Papoti, M. Relationship between aerobic and anaerobic parameters from 3-minute all-out tethered swimming and 400-m maximal front crawl effort. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 238–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rodríguez, F.; Keskinen, K.; Keskinen, O. Oxygen uptake kinetics during front crawl swimming. Arch. Sport. Med. 2008, 25, 128. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wakayoshi, K.; Ikuta, K.; Yoshida, T.; Udo, M.; Moritani, T.; Mutoh, Y.; Miyashita, M. Determination and validity of critical velocity as an index of swimming performance in the competitive swimmer. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 1992, 64, 153–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zamparo, P.; Bonifazi, M.; Faina, M.; Milan, A.; Sardella, F.; Schena, F.; Capelli, C. Energy cost of swimming of elite long-distance swimmers. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2005, 94, 697–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Laffite, L.P.; Vilas-Boas, J.P.; Demarle, A.; Silva, J.; Fernandes, R.J.; Billat, V. Changes in physiological and stroke parameters during a maximal 400-m free swimming test in elite swimmers. Can. J. Appl. Physiol. 2004, 29, S17–S31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Astorino, T.A.; White, A.C.; Dalleck, L.C. Supramaximal testing to confirm attainment of VO2max in sedentary men and women. Int. J. Sports Med. 2009, 30, 279–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Roffey, D.M.; Byrne, N.M.; Hills, A. Effect of Stage Duration on Physiological Variables Commonly Used to Determine Maximum Aerobic Performance During Cycle Ergometry. J. Sport Sci. 2007, 25, 1325–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Da Costa, A.V.; Da Cunha-Costa, M.; Barbosa, T. Applicability of an Indirect VO2max test: Its association with the 400-meter freestyle performance. Mot. Rev. Educ. Física 2016, 22, 304–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Reis, J.F.; Alves, F.; Bruno, P.M.; Vleck, V.; Millet, G. Oxygen uptake kinetics and middle distance performance. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2012, 15, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zacca, R.; Fernandes, R.J.P.; Pyne, D.B.; Castro, F.A.D.S. Swimming training assessment: The critical velocity and the 400-m test for age group swimmers. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016, 30, 1365–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zacca, R.; Sousa, M.; Fermandes, M.L. Can aerobic power (VO2max) be assessed by backward extrapolation in swimming? J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 130. [Google Scholar]
  43. Wilson, B.; Takagi, H.; Pease, D. Technique comparison of pool and flume swimming. In Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming VIII: Proceedings of the International Symposium On Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming; University of Jyväskyla: Jyväskyla, Finland, 1998; pp. 181–184. [Google Scholar]
  44. Beanland, E.; Main, L.C.; Aisbett, B.; Gastin, P.; Netto, K. Validation of gps and accelerometer technology in swimming. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2014, 17, 234–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Guignard, B.; Rouard, A.; Chollet, D.; Bonifazi, M.; Vedova, D.D.; Hart, J.; Seifert, L. Coordination Dynamics of Upper Limbs in Swimming: Effects of Speed and Fluid Flow Manipulation. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2020, 91, 433–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Beethe, A.Z.; Nagle, E.F.; Lovalekar, M.; Nagai, T.; Nindl, B.C.; Connaboy, C. Improvement of Flutter-Kick Performance in Novice Surface Combat Swimmers With Increased Hip Strength. Int. J. Sport. Physiol. Perform. 2018, 13, 1392–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ruiz-Navarro, J.J.; Morouço, P.G.; Arellano, R. Relationship Between Tethered Swimming in a Flume and Swimming Performance. Int. J. Sport. Physiol. Perform. 2020, 15, 1087–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Baldassarre, R.; Bonifazi, M.; Zamparo, P.; Piacentini, M.F. Characteristics and Challenges of Open Water Swimming Performance: A Review. Int. J. Sport. Physiol. Perform. 2017, 12, 1275–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Guignard, B.; Rouard, A.; Chollet, D.; Ayad, O.; Bonifazi, M.; Vedova, D.D.; Seifert, L. Perception and action in swimming: Effects of aquatic environment on upper limb inter-segmental coordination. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2017, 55, 240–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sports 11 00042 g001 550
Figure 1. Bland–Altman plot for VO2maxsw test reliability. The difference between VO2maxswA and VO2maxswB is shown on the y-axis. The gray line shows the mean of the differences.
Figure 1. Bland–Altman plot for VO2maxsw test reliability. The difference between VO2maxswA and VO2maxswB is shown on the y-axis. The gray line shows the mean of the differences.
Sports 11 00042 g001
Table
Table 1. Descriptive Characteristics (mean ± SD) of Participants.
Table 1. Descriptive Characteristics (mean ± SD) of Participants.
CharacteristicTotal (n = 19)
Age (yrs)28.5 (8.3)
Height (cm)174.7 (8.2)
Mass (kg)72.9 (12.5)
BMI (kg·m−2)23.7 (2.6)
Bodyfat (%)21.4 (5.9)
Fat Free Mass (kg)57.3 (11.8)
457 m swim (seconds)469.4 (94.7)
VO2maxsw (mL∙kg−1 ∙min−1)46.7 (8.6)
Flume Stage Termination5.7 (0.8)
Flume Time Termination (seconds)477.76 (108.3)
HR max (beats·min−1)172.0 (18.1)
Percent HR Max (%)89.4 (9.0)
O2pulse (mL·beat−1)0.3 (0.1)
RER Max1.2 (0.3)
VEmax (L·min−1)103.5 (20.2)
IPE-RPE (OMNI, 0–10)8.5 (1.1)
IPE [BLa] (mmol·L−1)9.3 (3.8)
Table
Table 2. Test–Retest Reliability of VO2maxsw Flume Protocol (n = 19).
Table 2. Test–Retest Reliability of VO2maxsw Flume Protocol (n = 19).
VariableVO2maxsw
Trial A		VO2maxsw
Trial B †		ICC (95% CI)p-ValueSEMMD
VO2maxsw (mL∙kg−1 ∙min−1)46.7+/−8.647.9+/−8.5 ^#0.628 (0.25, 0.83)0.0025.2514.55
HRmax (beats∙min−1)172.0+/−18.1174.8+/−11.8 ^#0.403 (−0.05,0.71)0.04111.8632.87
O2pulse (mL·beat−1)0.3+/−0.10.3+/−0.1 ^#0.502 (0.06,0.77)0.0140.050.13
RERmax1.2+/−0.31.1+/−0.2 ^0.559 (0.16,0.80)0.0020.160.44
VEmax (L·min−1)103.5+/−20.2111.6+/−25.3 ^#0.671 (0.32,0.85)<0.00112.4934.62
IPE-RPE (OMNI, 0–10)8.4+/−1.08.8+/−0.8 ^0.539 (0.101,0.808)0.0060.581.59
IPE [BLa](mmol·L−1)9.3+/−3.810.4 +/−2.5 ^#0.716 (0.346,0.894)<0.0011.644.55
Final test time (s)477.8+/−108.3451.3 +/−54.5 ^#0.608 (0.201,0.841)0.00452.66145.97
VO2maxsw values reported as mean ± s; ICC Values reported as r (95% CI). SEM—standard error of measurement; MD—minimal differences needed to be considered real. † Comparisons of VO2maxsw Trial A and Trial B; # = indicates no significant paired t-test difference; ^ = p < 0.05 indicated significant test–retest reliability of Trial A vs. Trial B.
Table
Table 3. Test–Retest Reliability of VO2 (mL∙kg−1∙min−1) By Flume Stage.
Table 3. Test–Retest Reliability of VO2 (mL∙kg−1∙min−1) By Flume Stage.
Test ProtocolVO2 Trial AVO2 Trial BICC (95% CI)p-ValueSEMMD
Stage 1 (50% effort) (n = 17)28.5+/−5.435.7+/−24.20.000 (−0.49, 0.42)0.57717.9949.86
Stage 2 (70% effort) (n = 17)31.6+/−5.931.3+/−5.20.469 (−0.01, 0.77)0.0294.1111.39
Stage 3 (90% effort) (n = 17)34.8+/−6.735.4+/−4.80.465 (−0.01,0.76)0.0304.3211.98
Stage 4 (100% effort) (n = 17)40.0+/−6.841.2+/−6.80.669 (0.30, 0.86)0.0013.9210.85
Stage 5 (100% effort) (n = 15)44.0+/−7.844.3+/−7.50.588 (0.13, 0.83)0.0085.0013.86
Stage 6 (100% effort) (n = 9)46.6+/−6.950.1+/−9.30.606 (0.01, 0.89)0.0144.3512.05
VO2 values reported as mean +/− s; ICC values reported as r (95% CI). SEM—standard error of measurement. MD—minimal differences needed to be considered real.
Table
Table 4. Performance Validity of VO2maxsw Flume. Protocol: Trial A vs. Performance Swims.
Table 4. Performance Validity of VO2maxsw Flume. Protocol: Trial A vs. Performance Swims.
Variable457 m Swim Time
VO2maxsw (mL∙kg−1 ∙min−1)−0.648 (0.005)
HR max (beats∙min−1)0.039 (0.881)
O2pulse (mL·beat−1)−0.623 (0.008)
RERmax−0.125 (0.633)
VEmax (L·min−1)−0.509 (0.037)
IPE-RPE0.322 (0.224)
IPE [BLa] (mmol·L−1)−0.494 (0.061)
(n = 18; correlation coefficient (p value)).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nagle, E.F.; Nagai, T.; Beethe, A.; Lovalekar, M.; Tuite, M.S.; Beckner, M.E.; Zera, J.N.; Sanders, M.E.; Connaboy, C.; Abt, J.P.; et al. Reliability and Validity of a Flume-Based Maximal Oxygen Uptake Swimming Test. Sports 2023, 11, 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports11020042

AMA Style

Nagle EF, Nagai T, Beethe A, Lovalekar M, Tuite MS, Beckner ME, Zera JN, Sanders ME, Connaboy C, Abt JP, et al. Reliability and Validity of a Flume-Based Maximal Oxygen Uptake Swimming Test. Sports. 2023; 11(2):42. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports11020042

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nagle, Elizabeth F., Takashi Nagai, Anne Beethe, Mita Lovalekar, Meghan S. Tuite, Meaghan E. Beckner, Jacquelyn N. Zera, Mary E. Sanders, Chris Connaboy, John P. Abt, and et al. 2023. "Reliability and Validity of a Flume-Based Maximal Oxygen Uptake Swimming Test" Sports 11, no. 2: 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports11020042

APA Style

Nagle, E. F., Nagai, T., Beethe, A., Lovalekar, M., Tuite, M. S., Beckner, M. E., Zera, J. N., Sanders, M. E., Connaboy, C., Abt, J. P., Beals, K., Lephart, S. M., Robertson, R. J., & Nindl, B. C. (2023). Reliability and Validity of a Flume-Based Maximal Oxygen Uptake Swimming Test. Sports, 11(2), 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports11020042

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop