Sex-Specific Accumulated Oxygen Deficit During Short and Middle-Distance Swimming Performance

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1439614/v2

Download PDF

Article

Sex-Specific Accumulated Oxygen Deficit During Short and Middle-Distance Swimming Performance

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1439614/v2

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 2

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Introduction: Since sex-specific accumulated oxygen deficit (AOD) during high-intensity swimming remains unstudied, this study aimed to assess AOD during 50, 100, and 200 m front-crawl performances to compare the responses between sexes and analyse the effect of lean body mass (LBM).

Methods Twenty swimmers (16.2±2.8 years, 61.6±7.8 kg, and 48.8±11.2 kg LBM) performed 50, 100, and 200 m to determine accumulated oxygen uptake (V̇O_2Ac). The swimmers also performed an incremental test from which five submaximal steps were selected to estimate the oxygen demand (V̇O_2demand) from the V̇O₂ vs velocity adjustment. V̇O₂ was sampled using a gas analyser coupled with a respiratory snorkel. AOD was the difference between V̇O_2demand and V̇O_2Ac, and LBM was assessed by dual-energy absorptiometry.

Results: A two-way ANOVA evidenced an AOD increase with distance for both sexes: 19.7±2.5 vs 24.9±5.5, 29.8±8.0 vs 36.5±5.8, and 41.5±9.4 vs 55.2±11.9 ml×kg^-1, respectively for 50, 100, and 200 m (with highest values for females, P<0.01). Inverse correlations were observed between LBM and AOD for 50, 100, and 200 m (r = -0.60, -0.38 and -0.49, P<0.05). AOD values at 10 and 30 s elapsed times in each trial decreased for both sexes, with higher values for female swimmers than males in the 200 m trial (2.6±0.6 vs 3.4±0.6 and 7.9±1.7 vs 10.0±1.8 ml×kg^-1, P<0.05).

Conclusion: Therefore, LBM differences between sexes influenced AOD values during each trial, suggesting that reduced muscle mass in female swimmers plays a role on the higher AOD (i.e., anaerobic energy) demand than males while performing supramaximal trials.

Pulmonary oxygen uptake

oxygen deficit

lean body mass

swimming performance

sex

AOD increasing from 50 to 200 m was higher for female than male swimmers in all trials when expressed per unit of body weight, which seemed to be an effect of the longest time to perform each trial for women.
AOD decreased from 50 to 200 m when analysed in a common unit of time elapsed during trials, with females showing higher values than males only in 200 m.
The observed inverse relationship between AOD and lean body mass suggests that the higher oxygen deficit for female than male swimmers while performing short and middle-distances races might be accounted for the gender-related differences in lean mass.
The main message is that the AOD is higher in female swimmers when performing short and medium distances in swimming, with differences observed both at the beginning (10 and 30 s) of the long (200 m) and at the end of the short events (50 and 100 m), which can be explained by the differences in muscle mass between males and females in view of the observation of the inverse association between AOD and lean body mass.

The energy demand during competitive swimming lasting ≤ 60 s (e.g., 50 and 100 m) is mainly supplied by anaerobic energy sources (60-80%), while the aerobic metabolism contributes decisively at efforts > 120 s (e.g., 200 m and longer) [1,2,3]. Earlier researches on anaerobic requirements in swimming reported an oxygen debt and peak blood lactate concentrations ([La^-]) attaining (respectively) 15-18 LO₂ and 12-18 mmol×L^-1during high-intensity performance [4,5]. Furthermore, latest assessment of energetics in high-intensity swimming performance, using the accumulated oxygen deficit (AOD) or other procedures, also supported the anaerobic metabolism as the fundamental source of energy supply in short- and middle-distances events [2,6,7].

In fact, for front crawl performance in 100, 200, and 400 m, respectively at 140, 127, and 108% of maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O_2max), the AOD contribution to the total energy demand attained 45-50, 30-35 and 15-20% (respectively), with higher conditioning level swimmers exhibiting the lower values in such range [8,9]. Complementarily, when swimming performance is limited to 30, 60, and 120-180 s (probably corresponding to the 50, 100, and 200 m events), the AOD contribution attained 65-70, 50-55, and 30-35% of total energy demand [10]. However, these AOD rates of contribution seems to be higher than those estimated for the 100 and 200 m trial performances [11], in spite of the alignment with the AOD contribution reported for similar time performances in running [12,13], as well as with the anaerobic contribution assessed with phosphagen and glycolytic responses during the 100 and 200 m in swimming [3,14].

Beside of the conflict between the results of AOD estimate, the eventual dissimilarities between male and female swimmers with regard AOD response have not yet been addressed, and therefore the lack of an AOD women-specific response in swimming has been precluding scientists and coaches to advance regarding the conditioning requirements to enhance high-intensity performance of women. The available information is limited to the swimming economy profile (e.g., Fernandes et al., [15]) and maximal anaerobic capacity estimated through the maximal value of AOD, with values attaining 53.3 vs 42.7 ml×kg⁻¹ (respectively) for male and female swimmers at 120 and 180 s exertions (approximately 200 and 300 m; Ogita et al., [16]).

Supposedly, the difference between sexes is justified by the larger active muscle mass in males, but basic statements about sex-related differences affecting AOD values (like lean body mass) are still lacking. However, when considering that AOD is assessed by subtracting the accumulated oxygen uptake (V̇O_2Ac) from the predicted O₂ demand (V̇O_2demand) in exercises performed at intensities higher than that corresponding to V̇O_2max (i.e., > iV̇O_2max, Bangsbo et al., [17]), then the AOD sex-specific response at such supramaximal intensities might be an effect of the limited oxygen (O₂) supply among those with reduced lean body mass, therefore a reduced V̇O_2Ac is expected for female swimmers.

This preliminary speculation is supported by the statements that females have limited capacity to deliver O₂to the working muscles at maximal V̇O₂ rates [18,19] and that blood volume and haemoglobin mass are closely related to lean body mass in young and healthy individuals [18], therefore such assumption as higher AOD values are expected for female swimmers during 50, 100, and 200 m front crawl, as a function of low lean body mass, allows us to hypothesise that lean body mass relates negatively to AOD.

In addition, another factor affecting AOD in swimming might be the effect of hydrodynamics on V̇O₂ vs velocity slope [1,15], since the alteration of this slope is the key factor modifying V̇O_2demand estimation between subjects and determining differences of AOD values in running and cycling [20]. Neverless, the hydrodynamics effect on V̇O₂ vs the linear velocity relationship in swimming relates to conditioning level and not a sex-based characteristic [9,15], and therefore the AOD sex-specific response (when observed) probably relies on the lower V̇O_2Ac in female than male swimmers. Thus, to address the effect of sex on AOD at the 50, 100, and 200 m front crawl performances, the current study aimed to estimate and compare AOD between male and female swimmers at the total and common partial time elapsed (i.e., isotimes), and also determine the relationship between AOD and lean body mass in short and middle-distance events.

Subjects

Twenty swimmers (10 males and 10 females) volunteered to participate in the current study. Their main body characteristics were: 16.9±2.1 vs 15.5±3.1 years old, 179.5±7.3 vs 161.6±7.5 cm in height, 69.3±8.1 vs 54.4±6.8 kg of body mass, 12.2±3.1 vs 23.3±4.0% of body fat, and 57.9±7.0 vs 39.7±5.5 kg of lean body mass. The swimmers best front crawl performances at the 50, 100, and 200 m freestyle achieved 582±91 vs 533±62, 616±92 vs 530±72, and 607±93 vs 552±93 FINA points for male and female swimmers respectively. All participants (and their legal guardians when under 18 years old) signed an informed consent. This research was approved by the local Ethics Committee of São Paulo State University (CAEE: 54372516.3.0000.5398), which therefore supported that the procedures adhered to international and national laws for ethics principles in research practice with human participants.

Study design

After being familiarised with the experimental procedures, and after a standard low-moderate intensity warm-up [3], the swimmers performed four testing sessions (separated by 24 h) in a 25 m indoor swimming pool (~28ºC water temperature and ~50% relative humidity) always at the same time of day. Firstly, they swum 50, 100, and 200 m maximal front crawl trials in randomised order, and afterwards performed an incremental intermittent protocol until exhaustion composed of 6 x 250 plus 1 x 200 m at 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 95, and 100% of the velocity corresponding to the previous 200 m trial, with 30 to 60 s intervals between steps [21]. Participants avoided exhaustive training and caffeine/alcohol ingestion 24 h before the tests and were well fed and hydrated.

Measurements

The 50, 100, and 200 m trials and the incremental protocol used in-water starts and open turns (without underwater gliding), with the swimming speed of the incremental protocol steps being controlled visually through an underwater LED line (Pacer2Swim^Ò, KulzerTEC, Aveiro, Portugal), previously applied to pace control in swimming [21,22]. Gas exchange was sampled breath-by-breath using a gas analyser (K4b^2® Cosmed, Rome, Italy) attached to a breathing snorkel (New AquaTrainer^®, Cosmed, Rome, Italy), ensuring oxygen uptake (V̇O₂) sampling accuracy [23]. Raw V̇O₂ data were smoothed every three breaths, aligned for time, interpolated second-to-second and averaged every 30 s [22,24]. The peak oxygen uptake (V̇O_2peak) was considered as the higher moving average attained during the incremental protocol and its velocity (e.g., vV̇O_2peak) corresponded to the step in which it was attained [15,22].

The V̇O₂ vs velocity relationship during the incremental protocol was adjusted with a linear function (y = ax +b, where y is V̇O₂, x is swimming velocity, a is the slope, and b is the intercept), a reliable procedure to estimate the V̇O_2demand [11]. For ensuring that each step lasted ~3-4 min, minimising extra V̇O₂ occurrence and the non-linearity between V̇O₂ response and velocity [20], only the five intermediate incremental protocol steps entered the model. This selection also aimed to elicit a V̇O₂demand close to an isocapnic condition to maintain V̇O₂aligned with the velocity increments [25] and a 10-35 s V̇O₂ kinetics time constant that is typical for moderate and heavy intensity domains [24]. The final V̇O₂ response in each step was obtained by the last 30 s moving average value [3].

The V̇O_2Ac values over the 50, 100, and 200 m trials were obtained by integrating V̇O₂ vs time response for each distance using Equation 1 [7]:

where t₀ and t_Lim refer to each front crawl trial onset and final times. AOD was estimated by subtracting V̇O_2Ac from V̇O_2demand, considering 9% of O₂ stores in blood and muscle [26]. From Equation 1, AOD was also calculated at 10 and 30 s isotimes for each 50, 100, and 200 m trial, considering t₀ ® t_Lim10s and t₀ ® t_Lim30s to determine V̇O_2Ac over the first 10 and 30 s, respectively. V̇O_2demand was estimated by extrapolation of the linear function between V̇O₂ and velocity to the respective velocity at 50, 100, and 200 m trials, considering V̇O_2baseline as a fixed intercept. The V̇O_2demand for each isotime was estimated by limiting V̇O₂ projection to 10 and 30 s elapsed during 50, 100, and 200 m trials. Blood was sampled (25 ml) during rest, at every interval of the incremental protocol (at 1, 3, 5 and 7 min of the recovery after each effort) for assessing [La^-] values (using a YSL analyser, 2300 STAT, Yellow Springs). Dual-energy absorptiometry (DXA, Hologic^Ò, QDR Discovery Wi^Ò) was used to assess body composition, with APEX^Ò software providing whole-body values for lean body mass (LBM, i.e., not including bone mineral content), and body fat percentage (%F).

Statistical Analysis

The Shapiro-Wilk and Mauchly tests verified data normality and sphericity. An independent t-test (2-tailed) compared sexes regarding body composition, V̇O_2max, and vV̇O_2max, with the corresponding effect size being calculated using Hedges g: <0.19 [trivial], 0.20–0.49 [small], 0.50–0.79 [medium], 0.80–1.29 [large], and >1.30 [very large] [27]. Two-way ANOVA (with Sidak as post-hoc) compared the effect of sex and exercise distances on AOD. The effect size was calculated using Partial eta squared (η²_p), considering 0.0099 [small], 0.0588 [medium], and 0.1379 [large] [28]. The correlations between AOD, V̇O_2demand, V̇O_2Ac, slope, and lean mass were analysed by Pearson’s coefficient (r), with and without sex as a control variable, and classified as 0–0.29 [negligible], 0.3–0.49 [low], 0.5–0.69 [moderate], 0.7–0.89 [high], and 0.9–1.0 [very high] [29], with significance level being set at P ≤ 0.05.

Table 1 displays the values of the variables obtained from the incremental protocol and the 50, 100, and 200 m maximal trials. The V̇O_2peak relative to body weight did not differ between male and female swimmers (P=0.34, g=0.42 [small]), although a higher vV̇O_2peak was observed in the males (P=0.01, g=1.18 [large]). The values of the constants (e.g., slope and intercept) for the V̇O₂ vs velocity adjustment during the incremental protocol were similar between sexes (P=0.36, g=0.44 [small]) and P=0.975, g=0.01 [trivial], respectively). Complementarily, this adjustment showed a high linear coefficient (R²) (0.99 ± 0.006) for the steps encompassing the longest time (258.0 ± 20.7 s) and lowest exercise rate (63.4 ± 8.6%V̇O_2peak) to the shortest time (208.4 ± 15.8 s) and highest exercise rate (91.2 ± 6.4%V̇O_2peak). The 50, 100, and 200 m exertions were conducted at 128.3±11.6 vs 126.3±9.2, 114.2±6.2 vs 117.3±7.5, and 98.6±5.9 vs 100.4±6.0% of the vV̇O_2peak for male and female swimmers, without differences between sexes (P=0.42, η²p = 0.042 [small]).

Table 1: *** insert here***

Figure 1 illustrates the AOD profile at a given period of time and for the entire distance in 50, 100, and 200 m maximal front crawl trials. It is observed that there is a tendency to attain high AOD values as an effect of both the intensity and duration of the performances, i.e., AOD is greater at higher swimming speeds (50 and 100 m) due to the greater deficit at the beginning of the performance, but at long distances (200 m) there is greater accumulation with time. The effect of body mass on AOD values is depicted for each trial in Figure 2 (Panel A), revealing differences (P=0.04, η²p = 0.190 [large]) between: (i) distances, with AOD increasing from 50 to 100 m, 50 to 200 m, and 100 to 200 m in both male and female swimmers (all for P<0.01); and (ii) sexes, with higher values for female swimmers in 50 m (P=0.01), 100 m (P=0.05), and 200 m (P=0.01). The variability of the AOD estimates for the entire sample at 50, 100, and 200 m demonstrated low heterogeneity for the group (Table 1).

Figure 1: *** insert here***

Figure 2: *** insert here***

Inverse relations were observed between AOD and LBM for 50, 100, and 200 m trials (r = -0.60 [moderate], -0.38 [low] and -0.49 [low], all for P≤0.05), but when adjusted for sex no relationship was found. Since LBM values differed between male and female swimmers (IC_95%: 52.9–62.9 vs 35.8-43.7 kg; P<0.01), the previously observed correlation to AOD showed to be an effect of the differences in LBM between sexes.

Before controlled for sex, LBM inversely related with V̇O_2demand in 50, 100, and 200 m trials (r = -0.56[moderate], -0.51 [moderate] and -0.45 [low], P≤0.05) and slope (r = -0.44[low], P=0.03). After controlled for sex, LBM vs V̇O_2demand relations at each distance (r = -0.51[moderate], -0.46 [low] and -0.40 [low], respectively for the 50, 100, and 200 m, P≤0.05) presented small reductions, while for LBM vs slope the correlation increased (r = -0.49 [low], P=0.03). There were relationships between LBM and V̇O_2Ac only when adjusted for sex (r = -0.41[low], -0.70 [high] and -0.53 [moderate], respectively for the 50, 100, and 200 m, P≤0.04).

By comparing AOD values at 10 (P = 0.81, η²p = 0.011 [medium]) and 30 s (P = 0.82, η²p = 0.011 [medium]) elapsed times during the 50, 100, and 200 m trials, it was possible to illustrate the effect of exercise intensity at each distance per sex (Figure 2 Panel B and C). Both sexes reduced AOD values at 10 and 30 s from 50 to 100 m, 50 to 200 m, and 100 to 200 m (with P<0.01 for all comparisons). No differences between sexes were observed at 10 and 30 s for 50 and 100 m trials. However, male swimmers presented lower values than females at 10 and 30 s in the 200 m (P=0.02 at both isotimes).

The anaerobic energy contribution in short and middle-distance swimming is fundamental for higher level performances, but its analysis per sex remains unstudied. Thus, we have determined the AOD of male and female swimmers at the 50, 100, and 200 m front crawl distances, probably some of the most relevant events of the Olympic Games. The current study reported three unique findings: (i) absolute and relative AOD values increased from 50 to 200 m front crawl trials for both sexes, with female swimmers exhibiting higher values than males; (ii) AOD values at 10 and 30 s elapsed times in each distance-trial decreased for both sexes (concurrently with velocity reducing as distances increased), with higher values for female swimmers than males in the 200 m trial; and (iii) LBM and AOD values are inversely related for all distances, probably due to the differences in body composition between sexes.

Both groups showed time dependence for the AOD profile from 50 to 200 m front crawl trials, which is aligned to previous studies reporting AOD for swimming performances at 140, 127, and 108% V̇O_2max [8] and for bouts lasting 30, 60, and 120 s [6,10]. In these pioneer studies, conducted only with male swimmers, the AOD profile reaches its maximal hypothetical value of 3.2 LO₂ when performing at 108% V̇O_2max [8] or either during exhaustive trials performed at 100 – 110% vV̇O_2max lasting 120 - 180 s [10]. In the current study, the mean absolute AOD values (in litres) for both sexes during the 200 m are close to the aforementioned maximal reference, and therefore, we evidenced that male and female swimmers only differed in AOD response when body mass differences are not taken in account.

Regarding the differences between sexes for AOD, only Ogita et al. [16] reported the maximal AOD was higher for male (53-61 ml×kg^-1) than female swimmers (43-53 ml×kg^-1), and stated that AOD reaches its maximum value in swimming performances lasting 2-3 min, at a metabolic rate of 110% V̇O_2peak. Although these results for maximum AOD values between sexes are unique in swimming, they are in line with the trend of values presented in other sports [12,30,31]. Despite the maximal AOD assessment is not in the scope of the current study, the AOD values for male and female swimmers during 200 m correspond to an overall energy demand approaching 107% V̇O_2peak and 115% V̇O_2peak (respectively), therefore the current data suggest that the 200 m might be an adjustable distance to demand the maximal AOD in female swimmers, while for males a longer distance at such metabolic rate would be advisable.

However, AOD increases over time, but its contribution to total V̇O_2demandreduces as the period of swimming time is elongated, with values lower for male swimmers than females respectively in the 50 (65 vs 73%), 100 (47 vs 53%), and 200 m (32 vs 39%). These observed AOD rates of contribution are close to those for 30, 60, and 120-180 s reported by Ogita et al. [10] and for 30 s tethered swimming bouts reported by Peyrebrune et al. [6]. Curiously, those rates for AOD contribution are also similar to those observed in cycling during 30, 60, and 120 s (60, 50, and 35%, respectively; [32], and running the 400 (59% and 55%) and 800 m events (40 and 30%) for male and female participants [13]. Hence, these reports support the notion that the balance between AOD and V̇O_2Ac in swimming is attained between 100 to 200 m, regardless of sex.

The results also showed that LBM related negatively to AOD (for each distance), V̇O_2demand, and to the slope of V̇O₂ vs velocity adjustment. While the LBM correlation to AOD reduced when controlled for sex-specific body composition, the V̇O_2Ac, V̇O_2demand,and the slope remained unchanged, enhanced, or became evidenced. These correlations suggest that swimmers with the greatest LBM can perform each distance with the highest oxidative energy release, which is supported by the lower V̇O_2Ac and higher AOD for female swimmers when compared to males in each distance.

Studies relating muscle tissue mass to metabolic response also consider that the largest is the muscle mass engaged in exercise, the lowest is the intensity of fibre activation, reducing the glycolytic demand and increasing the oxidative energy supply [33]. Regarding sex-specific lean mass regionalisation, larger upper-limb muscle mass provides less peripheral restriction and higher O₂ muscle extraction, increasing V̇O_2Ac [31]. Therefore, the current study corroborated the influence of muscle mass on AOD values, considering that sex-specific response is mandatorily lower among swimmers with greater LBM while performing trials at similar %vV̇O_2peak during the same distance.

However, the findings that the maximal AOD values differed between males and females in running and cycling have been attributed to the specificity of sport demand and conditioning level, with reduced interference (4%) accounting for the sex difference regarding active muscle mass [30]. Nevertheless, the sex-specific amount of active muscle influences peak oxygen deficit in leg-cycling [34]. Furthermore, large muscle mass engagement also supports the findings that anaerobic capacity measured by the Wingate (30 s “all-out”) test with leg and arm ergometers differed between sexes only for upper-limbs, supporting the statement that body weight does not account for sex differences, exceptionally for body regions with distinct LBM distribution [31].

For the current study, both statements suggest that differences in body weight and LBM between sexes were associated with AOD increase in 50, 100, and 200 m. However, body composition differences between sexes neither constraints the absolute AOD values nor the rate of oxygen deficit (e.g., AOD measured at fixed elapsed times) during each bout, suggesting that female swimmers have higher AOD demand than males while performing supramaximal trials regardless of the distance and duration of the effort.

Regarding the slope, which is a rate relating V̇O₂ to submaximal velocities, it is an index of the oxygen cost for the increment in exercise intensity [25,35], which accounts for more than half of the variance in the AOD estimation [26]. In the current study, the difference between sexes for the slope was about 8.8%, with female swimmers showing higher values than males. The observed difference in slope between sexes might be considered not too large, when comparing with other studies in swimming that reported slopes differing from 13 to 25% between sexes [15,25].

In general, male swimmers possess higher slope values than females when reported in absolute terms (i.e., ml×min^-1), which is a feature of high hydrodynamics drag during higher velocity for men [15]. However, the current slope values were presented relative to body mass, and hence best aligned to the notion that higher cost for female swimmers might suggest a premature demand upon less economical fibre types while exercise intensity increases [25], and therefore also aligned to the increased oxygen deficit and reduced exercise tolerance at such a high intensity condition [31]. Notwithstanding, the effect of low LBM on O₂ availability to muscles at high-intensity exercise [18] is also aligned to the notion of the earliest recruitment of fast-type fibres, and hence explains the inverse relationship of slope and V̇O_2Ac with LBM observed in the current study. In addition, the difference between sexes regarding body lean mass was also reported to have an effect on energy cost of swimming during middle-distance maximal performance [7].

A limitation could be related to the number of trials applied to the AOD assessment, which is not similar to the former AOD assessment. However, studies with similar procedures have been applied satisfactorily for submaximal steps during incremental tests for the assessment of AOD in swimming, running and kayaking [11,13,36]. Also, the number of trials and the exercise intensities (e.g., %V̇O_2peak) applied in the current study is in accordance with the recommendation to avoid the non-linearity of the slope and affect the robustness of the extrapolation of the V̇O_2demand [20]. The use of the New Aquatrainer® to measure the V̇O_2Ac might be considered another limitation to reproduce physiological demand ecologically if considering the delays of the actual swimming velocity as an effect of turning and gliding constraints [23]. However, the swimmer is enabled to stroke at a maximum rate when required, and therefore, task impairments with the New Aquatrainer® would not affect the muscle mass engagement, as well as the level of exertion while swimming [7,21].

In conclusion male and female swimmers performed 50, 100, and 200 m with similar relative pacing above maximal aerobic velocity, but required different AOD values. The higher relative AOD values per unit of body weight in female rather than male swimmers might be explained by the sex-specific LBM content, since LBM has shown an inverse effect on all estimates for the assessment of AOD (i.e., V̇O_2demand, V̇O_2Ac, and slope). Although LBM plays a role in distinguishing the AOD response between sexes, future studies should better understand the influence of body composition on anaerobic conditioning after training planned to increase regional and total lean mass, and hence also addressing whether these adjustments on energetic profile and muscle mass might account to supramaximal exercise tolerance and time-performance improvements.

accumulated oxygen deficit (AOD)

maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O_2max)

exercise intensity corresponding to V̇O_2max (iV̇O_2max)

the accumulated oxygen uptake (V̇O_2Ac)

oxygen (O₂)

predicted O₂ demand (V̇O_2demand)

oxygen uptake (V̇O₂)

peak oxygen uptake (V̇O_2peak)

velocity at peak oxygen uptake (vV̇O_2peak)

lean body mass (LBM)

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thanks the swimmers and the team staff to the participation. DMPF would like to thank São Paulo Research Foundation - FAPESP (PROCESS 2016/04544-3 and 2018/16706-3) for the partial financial support, and ME to the Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P. Grant/Award Number UIDB/04748/2020. AGM acknowledges the fellowship from Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES) (Finance Code 001). The collaboration of T.A.F.A. was possible thanks to the scholarship granted from the Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES), in the scope of the Program CAPES-PrInt, process number 88887.310463/2018-00, Mobility number 88887.580265/2020-00.

Authors Contribution Statement

TAFA, JFR, FJBA and DMPF conceived and designed the research. DAM, AGM, TAFA and DMPF conducted the experiments. DAM, AGM, TAFA, JFR, MACE, FJBA, RJPF and DMPF reviewed and analysed the data. DAM, AGM, TAFA, JFR, MACE, FJBA, RJPF and DMPF wrote the first drafted of the manuscript and MACE, JFR, FJBA, RJPF and DMPF commented previous versions and wrote the final manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

The he local Ethics Committee of São Paulo State University (CAEE: 54372516.3.0000.5398) approved the procedures and supported the adherence to international and national laws for ethics principles in research practice with human participants.

Consent for Publication

All participants consented in publishing the results.

Competing interest statement

The authors above declare no competing interests.

Danilo A. Massini - ORCID: 0000-0003-1088-0040

Tiago A. F. Almeida - ORCID: 0000-0001-8558-8509

Anderson G. Macedo - ORCID: 0000-0001-7076-0900

Mário A. C. Espada - ORCID: 0000-0002-4524-4784

Joana F. Reis - ORCID: 0000-0003-2906-3665

Francisco J. B. Alves - ORCID: 0000-0002-1317-155X

Ricardo J. P. Fernandes - ORCID: 0000-0002-5811-0443

Dalton M. Pessôa Filho - ORCID: 0000-0003-3975-9260

Data availability

Data information was available under request.

Author details

São Paulo State University (UNESP), Human Development and Technology Graduate Program. Rio Claro, Brazil (Danilo A. Massini, Anderson G. Macedo; Dalton M. Pessôa Filho)

São Paulo State University (UNESP), Department of Physical Education, School of Sciences. Bauru, Brazil (Tiago André F Almeida, Dalton M. Pessôa Filho)

CIPER, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, University of Lisbon (Joana F. Reis, Francisco J.B. Alves)

Polytechnic Institute of Setúbal, Department of Science and Technology, Setúbal, Portugal (Mário A.C. Espada)

Quality of Life Research Centre, Rio Maior, Santarém, Portugal (Mário A.C. Espada)

Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal; (Joana F. Reis, Francisco J.B. Alves)

Centre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal (Ricardo J.P. Fernandes)

Funding

São Paulo Research Foundation - FAPESP (PROCESS 2016/04544-3 and 2018/16706-3).

Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P. Grant/Award Number UIDB/04748/2020.

Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES).

1. Zamparo P, Cortesi M, Gatta G. The energy cost of swimming and its determinants. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2020;120(1):41-66 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-019-04270-y

2. Zacca R. Azevedo R, Ramos Jr, VR, Abraldes JA, Vilas-Boas JP, de Souza Castro FA, et al. Biophysical follow-up of age-group swimmers during a traditional three-peak preparation program. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34:2585-2595 https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002964

3. Almeida TAF, Pessôa Filho DM, Espada MAC, Reis JR, Simionato AR, Siqueira LOC, et al. V̇O₂ kinetics and energy contribution in simulated maximal performance during short and middle distance-trials in swimming. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2020;120:1097-1109 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-020-04348-y

5. Vescovi JD, Falenchuk O, Wells GD. Blood lactate concentration and clearance in elite swimmers during competition. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2011;6:106–117 https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.6.1.106

6. Peyrebrune MC, Toubekis AG, Lakomy HK, Nevill ME. Estimating the energy contribution during single and repeated sprint swimming. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2012;24:369–376 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2012.01517.x

7. Massini DA, Almeida TA, Vasconcelos CM, Macedo AG, Espada MA., Reis JF, et al. Are young swimmers short and middle distances energy cost sex-specific? Front. Physiol. 2021; 12:796886 https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.796886

8. Troup J, Hollander A, Bone M, Trappe S, Barzdukas A. Performance-related differenced in the anaerobic contribution of competitive freestyle swimmers. In: MacLaren D, Reilly T, Lees A (ed) Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming VI. E & FN SPON, London, pp 271–278 (1992)

9. Fernandes RJ, Billat VL, Cruz AC, Colaço PJ, Cardoso CS, Vilas-Boas JP. Does net energy cost of swimming affect time to exhaustion at the individual's maximal oxygen consumption velocity? J Sports Med Phys Fit. 2006;46:373–380 PMID: 16998440

10. Ogita F, Onodera T, Tamaki H, Toussaint HM, Hollander AP, Wakayoshi K. Metabolic profile during exhaustive arm stroke, leg kick, and whole-body swimming lasting 15 s to 10 min. In: Chatard, J-C (ed) Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming IX, University of Saint-Etienne, pp 361-366 (2003)

11. Reis VM, Marinho DA, Policarpo FB, Carneiro AL, Baldari C, Silva AJ. Examining the accumulated oxygen deficit method in front crawl swimming. Int J Sports Med. 2010;6:421–427 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1248286

12. Spencer MR, Gastin PB. Energy system contribution during 200-to 1500-m running in highly trained athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33:157-162 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-200101000-00024

13. Duffield R, Dawson B, Goodman C. Energy system contribution to 400-metre and 800-metre track running. J Sports Sci. 2005;23:299-307 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410410001730043

14. Figueiredo P, Zamparo P, Sousa A, Vilas-Boas JP, Fernandes RJ. An energy balance of the 200 m front crawl race. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011;111:767-777 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-010-1696-z

15. Fernandes RJ, Billat VL, Cruz AC, Colaço PJ, Cardoso CS, Vilas-Boas JP. Has gender any effect on the relationship between time limit at V̇O₂max velocity and swimming economy? J Hum Mov Studies. 2005;49:127-148 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-199608000-00016

16. Ogita F, Hara M, Tabata I. Anaerobic capacity and maximal oxygen uptake during arm stroke, leg kicking and whole-body swimming. Acta Physiol Scand. 1996;157:435–441 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-201x.1996.490237000.x

17. Bangsbo J, Michalsik L, Petersen A. Accumulated O₂ deficit during intense exercise and muscle characteristics of elite athletes. Int J Sports Med. 1993;14:207–213 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-1021165

18. Falz R, Fikenzer S, Hoppe S, Busse M. Normal values of hemoglobin mass and blood volume in young, active women and men. Int J Sports Med. 2019;04:236-244 https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0826-9235

19. Koons NJ, Suresh MR, Schlotman TE, Convertino VA. Interrelationship between sex, age, blood volume, and V̇O₂max. Aerospace Med Hum Perform. 2019;90:362-368 https://doi.org/10.3357/amhp.5255.2019

20. Noordhof DA, de Koning JJ, Foster C. The maximal accumulated oxygen deficit method a valid and reliable measure of anaerobic capacity? Sports Med. 2010;40:285-302 https://doi.org/10.2165/11530390-000000000-00000

21. Almeida TAF, Pessôa Filho DM, Espada MC, Reis JF, Sancassani A, Massini DA, et al. Physiological responses during high-intensity interval training in young swimmers. Front. Physiol. 2021;12:662029 https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.662029

22. Monteiro AS, Carvalho DD, Azevedo R, Vilas-Boas JP, Zacca R, Fernandes RJ. Post-swim oxygen consumption: assessment methodologies and kinetics analysis. Physiol Meas. 2020;6:105005 https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6579/abb143

23. Ribeiro J, Figueiredo P, Guidetti L, Alves F, Toussaint H, Vilas-Boas JP, Baldari C, Fernandes RJ. AquaTrainer® snorkel does not increase hydrodynamic drag but influences turning time. Int J Sports Med. 2016;37:324-328 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1555859

24. Reis JF, Alves FB, Bruno PM, Vleck V. Millet GP. Effects of aerobic fitness on oxygen uptake kinetics in heavy intensity swimming. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112:1689-1697 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-011-2126-6

25. Pessôa Filho DM, Siqueira LO, Simionato AR, Espada MA, Pestana DS, DiMenna FJA rapidly-incremented tethered-swimming test for defining domain-specific training zones. J Hum Kinetics. 2017;57:117-128 https://doi.org/10.1515/hukin-2017-0053

26. Medbo JI, Mohn AC, Tabata I, Bahr R, Vaage O, Sejersted OM. Anaerobic capacity determined by maximal accumulated O₂ deficit. J Appl Physiol. 1988;64:50-60 https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1988.64.1.50

27. Rosenthal JA. Qualitative descriptors of strength of association and effect size. J Soc Serv Res. 1996;21:37-59 https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v21n04_02

28. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1988)

29. Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012;24:69–71 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3576830/

30. Hill DW, Vingren JL. Effects of exercise mode and participant sex on measure of anaerobic capacity. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2014;54:255-63 (2014) PMID: 24739287

31. Weber CL, Chia M, Inbar O. Gender differences in anaerobic power of the arms and legs-a scaling issue. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38:129-137 https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000179902.31527.2c

32. Medbo JI, Tabata I. Relative importance of aerobic and anaerobic energy release during short-lasting exhausting bicycle exercise. J Appl Physiol. 1989;67:1881-1886 https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1989.67.5.1881

33. Beneke R, Leithäuser R, Hütle RM. Dependence of the maximal lactate steady state on the motor pattern of exercise. Br J Sports Med. 2001;35:192–196 https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.35.3.192

34. Weyand PG, Cureton KJ, Conley DS, Higbie EJ. Peak oxygen deficit during one- and two-legged cycling in men and women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993;25:584-591 PMID: 8492686

35. Green S, Dawson BT. The oxygen uptake-power regression in cyclists and untrained men: implications for the accumulated oxygen deficit. Eur J Appl Physiol Occupat Physiol. 1995;70:351-359 https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00865033

36. Li Y, Niessen M, Chen X, Hartmann U. Method-induced differences of energy contributions in women’s kayaking. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;13:9-13 https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2016-0491

4. Holmér I. Physiology of swimming man. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1979;7:87–123 PMID: 399467

Table 1: Mean ± SD and standard error of measure values of the main variables obtained in the front crawl incremental protocol and 50, 100, and 200 m trials. Data is depicted by sex and for the total sample. ^{a , b , c} differences between 50, 100, and 200 m trails (respectively) and ^* differences between sexes (P ≤ 0.05).

	Men (n = 10)			Women (n = 10)			Total (n = 20)
	Mean ± SD	IC_95%	SEM	Mean ± SD	IC_95%	SEM	Mean ± SD	IC_95%	SEM
Step protocol
V̇O_2peak(ml×kg^-1×min^-1)	58.8±5.5	54.8-62.7	1.7	56.1±6.7	51.1-60.9	2.1	57.4±6.2	54.5-60.3	1.38
vV̇O_2peak(m×s^-1)	1.29±0.07	1.24-1.34	0.02	1.21±0.07	1.17-1.25	0.02	1.25±0.08	1.21-1.29	0.02
Slope (ml×kg^-1×m^-1)	0.49±0.08	0.43–0.55	0.03	0.54±0.13	0.45–0.63	0.04	0.51±0.11	0.46–0.56	0.02
Intercept (ml×kg^-1)	12.6±4.6	9.3±15.9	1.45	12.6±2.9	10.5±14.7	0.92	12.6± 3.7	10.9±14.4	0.82
50 m
Velocity (m×s^-1)	1.66±0.17*^bc	1.54–1.78	0.05	1.52±0.08*^bc	1.46–1.57	0.03	1.59±0.15^bc	1.52-1.66	0.03
AOD (L)	1.37±0.24^bc	1.19–1.54	0.08	1.33±0.24^bc	1.16–1.50	0.07	1.35±0.24^bc	1.24–1.46	0.05
V̇O_2Demand(L)	2.07±0.24*^bc	1.90–2.25	0.08	1.81±0.26*^bc	1.62–1.99	0.08	1.94±0.28^bc	1.81–2.07	0.06
V̇O_2Ac(L)	0.57±0.15*^bc	0.47–0.68	0.47	0.34±0.11*^bc	0.27–0.42	0.03	0.46±0.17^bc	0.38–0.54	0.04
100 m
Velocity (m×s^-1)	1.48±0.12^ac	1.39–1.56	0.04	1.41±0.07^ac	1.36–1.46	0.02	1.44±0.10^ac	1.40-1.49	0.02
AOD (L)	2.08±0.67^ac	1.60–2.55	0.21	1.97±0.29^ac	1.76–2.18	0.09	2.02±0.50^ac	1.79–2.26	0.11
V̇O_2Demand(L)	4.32±0.54*^ac	3.94–4.71	0.17	3.69±0.49*^ac	3.34–4.04	0.15	4.00±0.57^ac	3.73–4.28	0.13
V̇O_2Ac(L)	2.04±0.32*^ac	1.81–2.27	0.10	1.52±0.28*^ac	1.32–1.72	0.09	1.78±0.40^ac	1.60–1.97	0.09
200 m
Velocity (m×s^-1)	1.27±0.09^ab	1.21–1.34	0.03	1.21±0.08^ab	1.15–1.26	0.02	1.25±0.09^ab	1.20-1.28	0.02
AOD (L)	2.87±0.74^ab	2.34–3.40	0.24	2.99±0.68^ab	2.50–3.48	0.22	2.93±0.70^ab	2.60–3.26	0.17
V̇O_2Demand(L)	9.00±1.12*^ab	8.20–9.80	0.35	7.60±1.07*^ab	6.83–8.36	0.34	8.30±1.28^ab	7.70–8.90	0.29
V̇O_2Ac(L)	5.85±0.60*^ab	5.42–6.28	0.19	4.31±0.74*^ab	3.78–4.83	0.23	5.08±1.03^ab	4.60–5.56	0.23

No competing interests reported.

AODPaperfinal.xlsx

Download PDF

Version 2

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Sex-Specific Accumulated Oxygen Deficit During Short and Middle-Distance Swimming Performance

Status:

Version 2

Abstract

Figures

Highlights

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 2