Journal of Applied Physiology Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Appl Physiol 48: 232-235, 1980;
8750-7587/80 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bonen, A.
Right arrow Articles by Belcastro, A. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bonen, A.
Right arrow Articles by Belcastro, A. N.

Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol 48, Issue 2 232-235, Copyright © 1980 by American Physiological Society

ARTICLES

Maximal oxygen uptake during free, tethered, and flume swimming

A. Bonen, B. A. Wilson, M. Yarkony and A. N. Belcastro

The purpose of this study was 1) to compare the maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) obtained in swimmers during tethered swimming, free swimming, and flume swimming, and 2) to determine whether an arm-ergometer test would provide comparable results. In the first experiments the VO2max for tethered swimming (2.67 +/- 0.26 l/min) and flume swimming (2.62 +/- 0.26 l/min) were not different (P greater than 0.05) and were highly correlated (r = 0.99). However, with arm ergometry a significantly lower VO2max (2.36 +/- 0.24 l/min) occurred from those found in the two swimming tests (P less than 0.05). Other experiments demonstrated that the tethered swimming VO2max (3.53 +/- 0.27 l/min) and the free swimming VO2max (3.55 +/- 0.28 l/min) also provide results that were similar (P greater than 0.05) and highly correlated with each other (r = 0.99). Differences between tethered and flume swimming, and tethered and free swimming were small, being 1.2 +/- 1.6% and 0.6 +/- 0.9%, respectively. Differences between tethered swimming and arm ergometry VO2max were large, 14.7 +/- 2.4%, despite the high correlation (r = 0.97) between these measurements. Predictions of a swimming VO2max from the arm-ergometer data yielded a considerable error (+/-7.1% and +/-7.4%). The present results indicate that flume swimming, free swimming, and tethered swimming yield essentially identical VO2max results.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Occup Med (Lond)Home page
T. Reilly, C. Iggleden, M. Gennser, and M. Tipton
Occupational fitness standards for beach lifeguards. Phase 2: the development of an easily administered fitness test
Occup. Med., January 1, 2006; 56(1): 12 - 17.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
J. H. Wilmore
The assessment of and variation in aerobic power in world class athletes as related to specific sports
Am. J. Sports Med., March 1, 1984; 12(2): 120 - 127.
[PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online