International Journal of Sport Studies.

ISSN (online) 2251-7502

Vol., 6 (9), 546-555, 2016 www.ijssjournal.com

The Impact of the Dolphin Kick on Physiological and Stroke

Factors in Elite Finswimmers

Kyung-Hun Yu, Min-Hwa Suk, Yun-A Shin*

Department of Kinesiology and Medical Science, Dankook University, Chungnam, Republic of Korea

*Corresponding author, Email: shinagel@dankook.ac.kr

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the dolphin kick on physiological
and stroke factors in elite finswimmers. The 14 elite fin swimmers were divided into 2
groups for a 12-week training program: resistant the purpose of this study was to
examine the impact of the dolphin kick on physiological and stroke factors in elite
finswimmers. The 7 elite fin swimmers were designed into 3 groups: finswimming,
butterfly, freestyle. The physiological variables measured by heart rate, rating of
perceived exertion (RPE) and lactate concentration. The mechanical variables measured
swimming velocity (SV), stroke rate (SR), and stroke length (SL). Finswimming is
higher than butterfly and freestyle in heart rate. Butterfly showed a higher RPE (p<0.05)
and lactate level (p<0.001). Finswimming (p<0.01) and butterfly (p < .01) produced a
faster SV than freestyle in swimming velocity. Freestyle showed a higher SR than
finswimming and butterfly (p<0.05) in stroke rate. Finswimming showed a longer SL
than freestyle (p<0.01) in stroke length. Finswimming showed high levels of muscle
fatigue. A training strategy that allows finswimmers to maintain a consistent SL during
EN and SP training, such as reducing the number of sets compared to general swimming
training programs, could be a way of preventing the reduction in SL due to muscle
fatigue.

Keywords: dolphin kick, physiological, stroke, elite, fin swimmer

Introduction

Finswimming is a competition in which athletes wear (Serifert, 2007).

a large fin of approximately 76 cm in length and width,
and propel themselves underwater or along the surface
of the water using only muscular strength (World
Underwater Ferderation [WUF], 2006). Events
include surface swimming over distances of 50 m, 100
m, 200 m, 400 m, 800 m, and 1,500 m, as well as
relays of 4 x 100 m and 4 x 200 m, while underwater
swimming events include 100 m and 400 m immersion
swimming with breathing apparatus, and 50 m apnea
swimming (WUF, 2006). The muscle function
required for each event is different, with muscle power
important for 50 m and 100 m races, power and
endurance important for 200 m and 400 m races, and
endurance critical for 800 m and 1500 m races
Finswimming records are usually 1.3 times faster than
freestyle swimming, and the movements are more
dynamic. During races, no other mechanical devices
can be used apart from the fin, goggles, and a snorkel,
while compressed air can only be used only for the
immersion swimming events for which breathing
apparatus is allowed (WUF, 2006). Due to the nature
of finswimming races, athletes have to overcome
considerable water resistance, which requires them to
use muscle strength to provide a powerful thrust,
pushing the arms and body forward (Seo, Lee, & Shin,
2005). In particular, finswimmers wear a large mono-
fin and usually perform repeated dolphin kicks to
generate fast speeds, which predominantly use the

546
 Intl. j. Sport Std. Vol., 6 (9), 546-555, 2016
muscles of the abdomen, waist, and upper leg. Since
finswimmers can easily injure their lower backs,
sufficiently strong muscle function is required to
support the range of muscular movements (Lee, 2011).
Although there are no restrictions on finswimming
styles, and any form of swimming is allowed, current
research on swimming styles reports that the
technique of dolphin kicks while wearing a mono-fin
produces the fastest times (WUF, 2009). Dolphin
kicks are named as such because they resemble the
swimming style of dolphins; while fish mostly swim
by undulating their tail from side-to-side, dolphins
move their tails up and down, similar to the
underwater swimming style used in finswimming
(Baek, 2009).
The underwater dolphin kick technique is also
reported to shorten race times in other swimmers,
being used in the start and turn actions for freestyle,
backstroke, and especially in butterfly. At the 2008
Beijing Olympics, the United States’ Michael Phelps
showed a superior dolphin kick to the other swimmers
and won 8 gold medals over the course of the meet
(Baek, 2009). During a race, swimmers are allowed 15
m underwater at the start and at each turn, and the
dolphin kick can minimize the loss of speed from the
start to the first stroke (Lyttle and et al., 2000). In
addition, because the water resistance is reduced in
this 15 m underwater interval, the efficiency of the
kick during this time is very important to the overall
race time (Willems et al., 2014).
When finswimmers perform a dolphin kick, they wear
a bi-fin or mono-fin on their feet, and hold their hands
together far enough in front of the head that they are
unrestricted by the snorkel and regulator, making a
reverse V shape. A single kick consists of a down beat
and an upbeat (Lee, 2011). Starting with the waist and
knees extended, the down beat involves raising the
waist and hips and simultaneously applying a force
through the upper leg to bend the knee slightly and
forcefully push the fin down. The up beat involves
extending the knees and raising the legs, applying a
force through the waist and hips to move down
through the water. At the end of the up beat, the
swimmer returns to the starting position, marking the
end of a single kick. By using the entire leg, from the
toes, through the thigh, up to the waist and hips, it is
possible to kick deeper through the water and obtain
stronger forward propulsion (Choi, 2013). In terms of
energy efficiency, this requires more oxygen (Goff et
al., 1956; Nomura & Matzuzaki, 1995; Hong et al.,
1991; Pendergast et al., 1996, 2003).
Moreover, the fins worn by finswimmers increase
resistance and energy consumption (Ogita et al., 1999),
and cause local muscle fatigue, resulting in an
elevated blood lactate concentration and increasing
lactate tolerance (Wells et al., 2001). For swimmers
who train 4,000–5,000 m per day, the increased local
contractor fatigue resulting from fin use (Kim, 2013)
can cause overtraining syndrome and injury. Moreover,
Telles et al. (2011) report that an increase in
underwater resistance increases swimming velocity
but reduces the number of strokes, and for a constant
stroke length, a decrease in the number of strokes has
a negative impact on swimming velocity (Keskinen &
Keskinen, 1999).
For swimmers to achieve the best times in competition,
in addition to outstanding natural talent, they need to
develop top class technique and physical ability,
which can be developed through scientific, systematic
training (Avlonitou et al., 1996). Consequently, it is
not only the race times of swimmers that need to be
evaluated, but also their technique and tactical ability.
Various factors contribute to successful race
performance such as physiological, psychological,
and mechanical factors. Physiological tests to analyses
and evaluate swimming performance include lactate,
heart rate, and maximal oxygen consumption
(VO2max), which are known to indicate the athletic
performance and training effects in athletes
(Maglischo, 2003). Mechanical tests include
strokes/min and stroke length, which have been
reported to determine swimming velocity (Stewart &
Hopkins, 1997).
Many previous studies have reported on stroke and
lactate concentration (Avlonitou, 1996), stroke
according to event (freestyle, butterfly, backstroke,
breaststroke) (Chengalur & Brown, 1992), and stroke
by age (Serifert, 2007; Vorontsov et al., 1999).
However, there is a severe lack of studies comparing
physiological and mechanical variables between
general swimming and finswimming. Moreover, a
study reporting on physiological and mechanical
variables when using swim paddles or fins (Kim, 2013)
only analyzed the freestyle technique, and not the
dolphin kick technique used in finswimming.
Therefore, there is still a lack of research comparing
physiological and mechanical responses to dolphin
kick training with other training techniques, indicating
that training for finswimmers continues to be planned
and managed in the same form as other swimmers.
This experiment aimed to compare changes in
physiological and mechanical factors in male
finswimmers, following training using freestyle
swimming, butterfly - which uses a similar technique
to dolphin kicks - and dolphin kicks with a fin. The
analysis of the data for finswimming dolphin kick
training is expected to provide supporting data for
planning and constructing training schedules with the
appropriate time, intensity, and distance for
finswimmers to achieve a similar level of distance
training as other swimmers.
Materials and Methods
Subjects
The participants for this study were recruited from
high-school age, men, finswimmers belonging to a
team that trains in Cheonan. Specifically, currently
active swimmers with at least 3 years of experience
were selected. The purpose and procedure of the
547
 Intl. j. Sport Std. Vol., 6 (9), 546-555, 2016

experiment were explained to all participants, and a consent to participate. The physical characteristics of
medical interview was conducted to verify health, the participants are shown in Table 1.
injury, and medication status before obtaining their

Table 1. Characteristic of subjects

Variable Finswimmer (n=7)
Age (years) 17.14±1.46
Height (cm) 173.00±4.04
Weight (kg) 69.43±13.45
BMI (kg/m) 23.08±3.71

Experimental equipment programs for finswimming apply a variation on the

The experiment was performed at swimming pool (10,
50 m lanes, indoor temperature 25 ± 1°C, water
temperature 27 ± 1°C). Twenty-four hours before the
experiment, participants were restricted from
excessive exercise, caffeine, smoking, and alcohol
consumption, and asked to get sufficient sleep. The
experimental method consisted of a crossover design
at 1-week intervals, with finswimming dolphin kicks,
freestyle, and butterfly training conducted in a random
order.
Swimming training methods
The majority of existing domestic studies on training
swimming training guidelines used by Maglischo
(2003) to improve endurance in swimmers (Song et al.,
2012). After a 1,000 m warm-up, participants
underwent three stages of endurance training: basic
endurance training (EN1) at a pace slower than their
anaerobic threshold, threshold endurance training
(EN2), and overload endurance training (EN3). This
was followed by three stages of sprint training: lactate
tolerance training (SP1), lactate production training
(SP2), and power training (SP3). Finally, the
participants performed race pace training (RP). The
freestyle and butterfly training followed the same
program as the finswimming training, but without the
use of a fin.

Table 2. Finswimming training program

Finswimming Program
Event Training Rep Set Cycle Swimming Intensity
(m) . Style
Warming 200m 1 Free
-up 400m 1 Bi-fin
400m 1 Mono-fin
Interval 100m 4 3 1‘30’‘00 Mono-fin EN1
Training 5 1'15"00 EN2
1'10"00
4 EN3
Sprint 15m 4 Mono-fin SP1
Training 25m 2 SP2
50m 1 SP3
Cool-Down 200m 1 Free EN1
Training Total mileage 5260m
Rep, Repetition

Analysis of physiological variables
Heart rate, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and
lactate concentration were measured as physiological
variables. Heart rate was analyzed by palpation of the
carotid artery for 10 seconds at the end of each training
stage, and converting the value to beats per minute.
RPE was measured by having the swimmers report
their perceived exertion after each training stage using
Borg’s scale from 6 to 20. Lactate concentration was

548
 Intl. j. Sport Std. Vol., 6 (9), 546-555, 2016

measured by the fingertip method at the end of each Statistical analysis

training stage using a lactate analyzer (Lactate pro,
Japan). After cleaning and sterilizing the fingertip,
blood was drawn with a painless needle and the lactate
concentration was measured immediately.
Analysis of mechanical variables
To analyze stroke by the swimming technique, the
swimming velocity (SV), stroke rate (SR), and stroke
length (SL) were calculated while swimming 50 m
under given conditions, using the methods of Costill
et al. (1985) and Maw & Volkers (1996). In counting
the number of strokes, 1 stroke was counted from the
moment the right hand entered the water until the
moment it entered the water again, and the distance
and time were measured over 3 consecutive strokes.
SR was measured in the interval of 5 – 25 m from the
end of the pool.
SV (m/s) = SR × SL
SR (stroke/min) = (60 × 3)/time per 3 strokes (s)
SL (m/stroke) = (SV (m/s) × 60)/SR (stroke/min)
Means and standard deviations were calculated for the
collected data using SPSS Win Ver. 18.0. Differences
according to technique were analyzed using a one-way
ANOVA. Tukey’s post-hoc test was used for
statistically significant results. A statistical
significance level of p = .05 was used for all tests.
Results
Differences in physiological variables according to
swimming technique
Differences in heart rate
The differences in heart rate according to swimming
technique are shown in Table 3. During the 1,000 m
warm-up, finswimming produced a higher heart rate
than butterfly (p < .05) or freestyle (p < .001).
Finswimming also showed a higher heart rate in the
EN1 interval than butterfly (p < .001) and freestyle (p
< .01), and in the EN3 interval (butterfly: p < .05;
freestyle: p < .05). In the SP 1-3 interval, finswimming
showed a higher heart rate than butterfly (p <.01).

Table 3. Differences in heart rate according to swimming technique

Event HR F p post-Hoc
Finswimming Butterfly Freestyle
Rest 67.71 69.29 65.57 1.067 .365
±5.44 ±5.38 ±3.16
Warm-up 91.71 75.43 66.86 3.891 .000 1>2*3***
(1,000m) ±10.80 ±8.38 ±9.44
En-1 150.00 103.71 117.4 13.014 .000 1>2***,3**
±18.97 ±14.58 3±7.63
En-2 198.00 179.14 174.00 1.619 .111
±30.20 ±15.27 ±14.28
En-3 216.00 185.14 187.71 4.325 .007 1>2*3*
±22.72 ±14.87 ±13.73
Sp 1-3 222.86 182.57 196.29 2.928 .007 1>2**
±29.28 ±19.24 ±10.23
Cool-down 168.00 175.71 181.71 .015 .327
(200m) ±23.49 ±16.14 ±4.54
1, Finswimming; 2, Butterfly; 3, Freestyle; *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Differences in RPE than finswimming (p < .001) and freestyle (p < .05) in
the EN2 interval, and a higher RPE than finswimming
Differences in RPE according to swimming technique (p < .05) in the EN3 interval.
are shown in Table 3. Butterfly showed a higher RPE

549
 Intl. j. Sport Std. Vol., 6 (9), 546-555, 2016

Differences in lactate concentration

Table 4. Differences in RPE according to swimming technique

Event RPE F p post-Hoc
Finswimming Butterfly Freestyle
Warm-up 6.40 6.42 6.56 .178 .838
(1,000m) ±0.55 ±0.53 ±0.53
En-1 11.29 11.14 9.71 .558 .582
±2.06 ±0.90 ±2.06
En-2 15.14 18.86 17.71 11.468 .001 2>1***3*
±1.07 ±0.38 ±0.95
En-3 16.57 19.00 18.57 4.135 .033 2>1*
±1.51 ±0.00 ±1.13
Sp 1-3 17.86 19.00 19.29 1.058 .368
±1.46 ±1.00 ±0.95
Cool-down 15.29 17.57 17.86 1.311 .289
(200m) ±2.87 ±2.51 ±2.41
1, Finswimming; 2, Butterfly; 3, Freestyle; *p<.05; ***p<.001

Differences in lactate production according to Table 5. Differences in lactate concentration

swimming technique are shown in Table 4. according to swimming technique.
Finswimming performed in the EN1 interval resulted
in a higher lactate concentration than that that during Differences in mechanical variables according to
butterfly swimming (p < .001). swimming technique

Differences in swimming velocity

Table 5. Differences in lactate concentration according to swimming technique

Event Lactate F p post-Hoc

Finswimming Butterfly Freestyle

Rest 1.50 1.48 1.54 .174 .842

±0.19 ±0.13 ±0.22
Warm-up 2.01 1.81 2.23 1.405 .268
(1,000m) ±0.48 ±0.32 ±0.55
En-1 2.64 1.70 1.93 4.458 .021 1>2*
±0.68 ±0.64 ±0.42
En-2 5.71 5.73 6.89 .216 .482
±1.63 ±2.13 ±2.30
En-3 7.23 5.61 6.19 1.066 .487
±2.02 ±2.55 ±2.87
Sp 1-3 8.34 4.96 6.81 3.043 .073
±2.30 ±2.59 ±2.81

Cool-down 9.53 7.36 7.43 1.413 .166

(200m) ±1.48 ±2.69 ±2.58

1, Finswimming; 2, Butterfly; 3, Freestyle; *p<.05

Differences in SV according to swimming technique intervals, finswimming (p < .01) and butterfly (p < .01)
are shown in Table 5. Throughout the 1,000 m warm- produced a faster SV than freestyle.
up, EN1, 2, and 3, SP 1-3, and the 200 m cool-down

550
 Intl. j. Sport Std. Vol., 6 (9), 546-555, 2016

Differences in stroke rate

Table 6. Differences in swimming velocity according to swimming technique

Event SV (m/s) F p post-Hoc
Finswimming Butterfly Freestyle
Warm-up 1.75 1.61 1.03 10.835 .00 3<1**2**
(1,000m) ±0.23 ±0.14 ±0.43 1
En-1 1.63 1.45 1.02 16.266 .00 3<1***2**
±0.14 ±0.07 ±0.29 0
En-2 1.58 1.41 1.02 11.342 .00 3<1**2**
±0.22 ±0.12 ±0.29 1
En-3 1.48 1.41 1.02 7.252 .00 3<1**2**
±0.19 ±0.14 ±0.33 5
Sp 1-3 1.59 1.54 1.05 9.250 .00 3<1**2**
±0.16 ±0.13 ±0.37 2
Cool-down 0.60 0.46 0.27 9.144 .00 3<1**2*
(200m) ±0.14 ±0.07 ±0.18 2
1, Finswimming; 2, Butterfly; 3, Freestyle; *p<.05; **p<.01

Differences in the SR according to swimming butterfly (p < .05).

technique are shown in Table 6. Throughout the 1,000 Table 7. Differences in stroke rate according to
m warm-up, EN1, 2, and 3, and the SP 1-3 intervals, swimming technique
freestyle showed a higher SR than finswimming and

Differences in stroke length

Table 7. Differences in stroke rate according to swimming technique

Event SR (stroke/min) F p post-Hoc
Finswimming Butterfly Freestyle
Warm-up 46.80 49.43 65.11 9.804 .001 3>1*2*
(1,000m) ±3.03 ±4.28 ±12.25
En-1 45.20 47.71 66.22 11.367 .001 3>1*2*
±4.15 ±3.35 ±13.40
En-2 44.40 47.43 65.78 11.245 .001 3>1*2*
±2.97 ±3.60 ±13.65
En-3 42.00 48.00 64.89 10.053 .001 3>1*2*
±3.74 ±4.90 ±14.25
Sp 1-3 46.40 54.00 67.56±14.5 8.135 .003 3>1*2*
±2.19 ±3.06 9
Cool-down 46.80 48.00 64.56±14.5 8.135 .003 3>1*2*
(200m) ±2.19 ±3.06 9
1, Finswimming; 2, Butterfly; 3, Freestyle; *p<.05

Differences in SL according to swimming technique and SP 1-3 intervals, as well as the 200 m cool-down,
are shown in Table 7. During the 1,000 m warm-up, finswimming showed a longer SL than freestyle
finswimming (p < .01) and butterfly (p < .05) showed (p <0.01).
a longer SL than freestyle. During the EN1, 2, and 3,

551
 Intl. j. Sport Std. Vol., 6 (9), 546-555, 2016

Table 8. Differences in stroke length according to swimming technique

Event SL (m/stroke) F p post-Hoc
Finswimming Buttefly Freestyle
Warm-up 2.23 1.96 1.59 10.981 .001 3<1**2*
(1,000m) ±0.18 ±0.90 ±0.35
En-1 2.17 1.83 1.59 8.805 .002 3<1**
±0.17 ±0.18 ±0.33
En-2 2.13 1.78 1.61 7.854 .004 3<1**
±0.19 ±0.09 0.31
En-3 2.07 1.75 1.58 7.119 .005 3<1**
±0.14 ±0.12 ±0.31
Sp 1-3 2.06 1.71 1.54 7.235 .005 3<1**
±0,16 ±0.15 ±0.32
Cool-down 2.05 1.71 1.50 6.384 .008 3<1**
(200m) ±0.19 ±0.26 ±0.32
1, Finswimming; 2, Butterfly; 3, Freestyle; *p<.05; **p<.01

Differences in 50 m times

Differences in 50 m times according to swimming < .01), while freestyle showed faster times than
technique are shown in Table 8. Finswimming showed butterfly (p <0.05).
faster times than butterfly (p < .001) and freestyle (p

Table 9. Differences in 50 m times according to swimming technique

Performance F p post-Hoc
Finswimming Butterfly Freestyle
50m(s) 21.95 30.32 26.92 15.167 .000 1<2***3**
±0.94 ±2.18 ±3.34 3<2*
1, Finswimming; 2, Butterfly; 3, Freestyle; *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Discussion and Conclusion

In order to provide supporting data for the planning
and composition of training schedules with the
appropriate exercise intensity, time, and distance for
finswimmers, this study compared differences in both
physiological and mechanical factors according to
finswimming and other swimming techniques. The
results of the study can be discussed as follows.
In terms of differences in heart rate according to
swimming technique, finswimming produced a higher
heart rate than butterfly or freestyle in the warm-up,
EN1, EN3, and Sp 1-3 intervals. Since EN1 is a form
of long-distance training to improve endurance and
muscle mass, it should be performed at a submaximal
intensity and speed that maintains a heart rate of 120
– 150 beats/minute and does not exceed a lactate
concentration of 3 mmol/L (Maglischo, 2003). The
heart rates for butterfly and freestyle in the EN1
interval were 103.71 ± 14.58 and 117.43 ± 7.63
beats/minute, respectively, which were slightly lower
than the recommended heart rate. Meanwhile,
finswimming showed a heart rate of 150.00 ± 18.97
beats/minute, which was at the upper limit of the
recommended intensity. However, since the lactate
concentration of 2.64 ± 0.68 mmol/L did not exceed
the recommended levels, this suggests that the EN1
training program for finswimmers was appropriate.
EN2 is a form of endurance training that aims to
increase the anaerobic threshold, and it is
recommended to train at an intensity that maintains a
heart rate of 130 – 170 beats per minute (Maglischo,
2003) and a lactate concentration of 3 – 5 mmol/L
(Song et al., 2012). In the EN2 interval, butterfly and
freestyle showed heart rates of 179.14 ± 15.27 and
174.00 ± 14.28 beats/minute respectively, which was
a little higher than the recommended level. However,
finswimming showed a heart rate of 198.00 ± 30.20
beats/minute, which was clearly higher than the
recommended intensity. Nevertheless, there was no
significant difference according to swimming
technique. The reason that finswimming showed a
higher trend than the other techniques is likely because
the longer SL induced by wearing the fin leads to
larger movements, and the increase in water resistance
results in an increase of approximately 25% in energy
consumption (Pendergast et al., 2003). Lactate
concentration was 6.89 ± 2.30 mmol/L for freestyle,
5.73 ± 2.13 mmol/L for butterfly, and 5.71 ±
1.63mmol/L for finswimming, meaning it was slightly
higher than the recommended levels. There was no
difference in lactate concentration between the

552
 Intl. j. Sport Std. Vol., 6 (9), 546-555, 2016
different swimming techniques. However, since the
lactate levels were a little higher than the
recommended range in EN2, it is thought that the
appropriate intensity for finswimming could be
maintained by adjusting the velocity or number of sets.
The aim of EN3 and Sp 1-3 training is to increase the
anaerobic threshold and the VO2max of fast twitch
type-b (FTb) muscle fibers (Madsen et al., 1983). This
requires high intensity exercise exceeding the
anaerobic threshold, while Sp training to increase
lactate tolerance also requires a distance, intensity, and
duration that allows the athlete to reach maximum
speed (Vasile, 2014). However, the ability to
overcome the pain and fatigue of high intensity
training in this interval differs according to the
individual athlete’s ability and preferred event. For
short and mid-to-long distance athletes, repeated
training over short distances can induce more muscle
pain and make it more difficult to adapt. Furthermore,
although training to increase lactate tolerance
improves the ability to overcome muscle pain, it has
been suggested that persistent excessive training could
actually decrease performance by up to 15% (Madsen
et al., 1983).
In this study, heart rates in the EN3 interval for
butterfly and freestyle were 185.14 ± 14.87 and
187.71 ± 13.73 beats/minute, respectively, reaching 91%
and 93% of the maximum heart rate. In the Sp 1-3
interval, butterfly and freestyle showed heart rates of
182.57 ± 19.24 and 196.29 ± 10.23 beats/minute,
equivalent to 90% and 97% of the maximum heart rate.
Although these results showed a high intensity of
exercise, the heart rates for finswimming were 216.00
± 22.72 and 222.86 ± 29.28 beats/minute for EN3 and
Sp1-3, respectively, demonstrating an even higher
exercise intensity of 110% of the maximum heart rate.
In particular, although it did not show a significant
difference against the other swimming techniques,
finswimming produced lactate concentrations of 7.23
± 2.02 mmol/L and 8.34 ± 2.30 mmol/L, which are
higher than the recommended levels, meaning that the
level of exercise in the EN3 and Sp1-3 training
programs needs to be reduced compared to freestyle
and butterfly swimmers.
In terms of energy systems, when elite athletes swim
50 m in 24 – 26 seconds, is has been reported that 65%
of the energy for musculoskeletal contraction is
provided by the ATP-PC system, 30% by glycolysis,
and 5% by the aerobic system (Bonen et al., 1997;
Maglischo, 2003). In this study, the 50 m times for
each swimming technique were 21.95 ± 0.94 seconds
for finswimming, 30.32 ± 2.18 seconds for butterfly,
and 26.92 ± 3.34 seconds for freestyle, therefore it is
thought that the majority of the energy for swimming
will have been provided by the ATP-PC system and
glycolysis, as reported in previous studies. Since
freestyle showed a higher SR than finswimming over
a given training interval (p <.05), a higher exercise
intensity for finswimming is likely because it demands
larger movements than the other techniques due to the
size and mass of the fin (Pendergast et al., 1996, 2003).
Nevertheless, this high intensity during training is a
cause of training-related fatigue and injury in
finswimmers, and when it persists for a long time, it
can have a negative impact on performance (Lee, Lee
et al., 2003; Ohkuwa & Miyamura, 1986). When the
training programs applied to other swimmers are used
for finswimmers, the intensity, duration, and amount
of training needs to be adjusted so that overtraining
does not lead to accumulated fatigue and eventually, a
decrease in performance.
When RPE was analyzed for each of the swimming
techniques, RPE was higher with butterfly than with
finswimming (p < .001) or freestyle (p < .05) in the
EN2 and EN3 intervals, irrespective of exercise
intensity. The EN2 and EN3 intervals require the
participants to swim approximately 1,500 m and 1,200
m at high speeds, and it is thought that the difference
seen in RPE is because butterfly, which involves a
similar dolphin kick to finswimming without
additional apparatus, had a shorter SL (1.78 ± 0.09 m)
than finswimming (2.13 ± 0.19 m), but a higher SR
(butterfly: 47.43 ± 3.60 strokes/minute; finswimming:
44.40 ± 2.97 strokes/minute), meaning that the
participants perceived a higher exercise intensity.
Meanwhile, in spite of the exercise intensity reaching
110% of maximum heart rate, finswimming did not
show a high RPE, which is thought to be because the
participants were all finswimmers, and were therefore
more familiar with this technique.
Measuring blood lactate concentration is one method
of evaluating swimming ability (Sharp et al., 1984),
and lactate production in the last part of a race is
closely related to maintenance of a high velocity
(Elliot & Haber, 1983). Blood lactate concentration
has also been suggested as a way of ascertaining
lactate levels for the optimal SV (Greenwood et al.,
2008; Pyne et al., 2001). Blood lactate concentration
increases with an increase in swimming distance
(Avlonitou, 1996) and velocity (Keskinen et al., 2007).
In this study, finswimming showed a higher lactate
concentration than butterfly in the EN1 interval, but
there were no significant differences in any other
intervals. Maintaining a high lactate concentration
while swimming rapidly is a training method capable
of improving lactate tolerance (Aujouannet et al.,
2006; Keskinen et al., 2007), and therefore it should
be used appropriately in training programs.
In swimming, SL and SR are important factors in
determining SV (Wakayoshi et al., 1995; Kjendlie et
al., 2004).
In this study, SV was slower for freestyle than for
finswimming and butterfly (p < .01). The fact that SV
was lower for freestyle despite a higher SR (p < .05)
is thought to result from the differences in SL. As elite
swimmers maintain a consistent SL to the end, SV can
usually be increased by increasing SR (Kim, 2005;
Laffite et al., 2004). However, because the dolphin
kicks in butterfly and finswimming require force from
a larger number of muscle groups (Seo et al., 2005),
553
 Intl. j. Sport Std. Vol., 6 (9), 546-555, 2016
increased muscle fatigue has been suggested as a
factor that can reduce SL (Hwang et al., 2012). In this
study, there was almost no change in SR for freestyle
and finswimming from EN1 to Sp1-3. Conversely,
between EN1 and Sp1-3, freestyle showed a 3.2%
decrease in SL from 1.59 ± 0.33 m to 1.54 ± 0.32 m,
while finswimming showed a decrease of 5.3%, from
2.17 ± 0.17 m to 2.06 ± 0.16 m, meaning that
finswimming showed a larger decrease in SL over the
course of training.
Meanwhile, butterfly showed a decrease in SL of 6.5%,
from 1.83 ± 0.18 m to 1.71 ± 0.15 m, between EN1
and Sp1-3, but this was compensated for by a large
increase in SR from 47.71 ± 3.35 strokes/minute to
54.00 ± 3.06 strokes/minute. For finswimming and
butterfly, which use dolphin kicks, more fatigue in the
leg muscle groups as training progressed led to a
reduction in SL, and increasing SR is a means of
maintaining or increasing SV. Although SV is related
to SR at the beginning of training, or over short
periods of time, increases in speed up to the anaerobic
threshold are affected by SL, while SR has been
reported to be a factor in increasing SV at a constant
SL (Keskinen & Keskinen 1999).
Therefore, the reduction in SL for finswimmers over
the course of training could have a negative impact on
performance, and so in a long-term training plan, we
recommend that training should be performed within
a range that allows the athlete to maintain SL.
This study observed changes in physiological and
mechanical factors, in order to provide data for the
composition of training schedules with the appropriate
exercise intensity, duration, and distance for
finswimmers. Overall, finswimmers showed high
heart rates and lactate concentrations. In addition,
compared to other swimming techniques,
finswimming showed a larger decrease in SL relative
to SR, meaning that it induced high levels of muscle
fatigue. A training strategy that allows finswimmers to
maintain a consistent SL during EN and SP training,
such as reducing the number of sets compared to
general swimming training programs, could be a way
of preventing the reduction in SL due to muscle
fatigue.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest
References
Aujouannet YA, Bonifazi M, Hintzy F, Vuillerme N,
Rouard A. H, 2006. Effects of a high-intensity
swim test on kinematic parameters in high-
level athletes. Applied physiology, nutrition,
and metabolism. 31(2):150-8.
Avlonitou E, 1996. Maximal lactate values following
competitive performance varying according to
age, sex, and swimming style. J Sports Med
Phy Fitness. 36:24-30.
Baek SH, 2009.The Analysis of the Record of the
Underwater Dolphin Kick & Body
Composition & Healthy Fitness According to
the Core Stability Exercise and Circuit Weight
Training. Kookmin University, Master thesis.
Bonen A, Baker SK, Hatta H, 2007. Lactate transport
and lactate transporters in skeletal muscle.
Canadian journal of applied physiology.
22:531-52.
Chengalur SN, Brown PL, 1992.An analysis of male
and female Olympic swimmers in the 200-
meter events. Can J Sports Sci. 17:104-9.
Choi, SY. The comparison of Dolphin Kick
movements between excellent and non-
excellent swimmer. The Research Institute of
Physical Education & Lifetime Sports Science
Chungbuk National University. 2013; 24:172-
81.
Costill DL, Kovaleski J, Porter D, Fielding R, King D.
Energy expenditure during front crawl
swimming: Predicting success in middle
distance events. Int J Sports Med. 1985;6:266-
70.
Elliot M, Haber P. Estimation of the peak performance
in the 100m breastroke on the basis of serum
lactate measurement during two submaximal
test heats at different velocities. Hollander,
Huijing & deGroot (Eds.), International Series
on Sports Sciences. 1983;14:335-8.
Goff LG, Frassetto R, Specht H. Oxygen requirements
of underwater swimming. Journal of Applied
Physiology. 1956;9:219-221.
Greenwood JD, Moses GE, Bernardino FM, Gaesser
GA, Weltman A. Intensity of exercise
recovery, blood lactate disappearance, and
subsequent swimming performance. Journal of
sports sciences. 2008;26(1):29-34.
Hong SK, Henderson J, Olszowka A, Hurford WE,
Falke KJ, Qvist J, Radermacher P, Shiraki K,
Mohri M, Takeuchi H, Zapol WJ, Ahn DW,
Choi JK, Park YS. Daily diving pattern of
Korean and Japanese breathhold divers (ama).
Undersea Biomedical Reserch. 1991;18(5-
6):433-443.
Hwang JI, Eo SJ, Kim HS. Effects of upper limb
muscle strength and stroke parameters on
swimming velocity in competitive swimmers.
Journal of Korean society of sports Science.
2012;21(4):1079-88.
Keskinen K, Keskinen OP, 1999. Performance test for
swimmers a new approach utilizing pacemaker
light a pilot study. Biomechanics and medicine
in swimming VIII. 245-248.
Keskinen OP, Keskinen KL, Mero AA, 2007. Effect
of pool length on blood lactate, heart rate, and
velocity in swimming. International journal of
sports medicine. 28(5):407-413.
Kim HS, 2013. The Effects of Swim Paddle and Fin
on Stroke Parameter, Swim Velocity and
Lactate Concentration in Elite Swimmers by
554
 Intl. j. Sport Std. Vol., 6 (9), 546-555, 2016
Age International Journal of Applied Sports
Science. 24(3): 436-44.
Kim HS, 2005. The Same Swimming Velocity-
Associated Changes on Heart Rate, Stroke
Rate and Stroke Length in Elite Swimmers and
Modern Pentathletes. Journal of Sport and
Leisure Studies. 25(11):331-8.
Kjendlie PL, Stallman RK, Stray-Gundersen J. Adults
have lower stroke rate during submaximal
front crawl swimming than children. European
journal of applied physiology. 2004;91(5-
6):649-655.
Laffite LP, Vilas-Boas JP, Demarle A, Silva J,
Fernandes R, Louise Billat V. Changes in
physiological and stroke parameters during a
maximal 400-m free swimming test in elite
swimmers. Canadian Journal of Applied
Physiology. 2004;29(S1):S17-S31.
Lee IH, Lee MC. Training and fatigue. Journal of
coaching development. 2003; 5(2): 103-15.
Lee YJ. The development and application of muscle
strength training program for finswimming
player. Soongsil University, Master thesis.
Lyttle AD, Blanksby BA, Elliott BC, Lloyd DG. Net
forces during tethered simulation of
underwater streamlined gliding and kicking
technique of the freestyle turn. Journal of
Sports Science. 2000;18(1): 801-807.
Madsen O, Olbrecht J, Mader A, Liesen H, Hollmann
W. Specifics of aerobic training. World Clinic
Yearbook.1983.
Maglischo EW. Swimming fastest. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics. 2003;317-652.
Maw M, Volkers I. (1996). Measurement and
applicationof stroke dynamics during training
in your own pool. Australian Swimming
Coach. 1996;12(3):34-38.
Nomura T, Matsuzaki Y. Present studies on modern
swimming (fin swimming and underwater
swimming). Annals of Physiologycal
Anthropology. 1995;4(3):267-271.
Ogita F, Onodera T, Tabata I. Effect of hand paddle
on anaerobic energy release during
supramaximal swimming. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise. 1999;3(5):729-
735.
Ohkuwa T, Miyamura M. Plasma LDH activity and
LDH isozymes after 400 m and 3,000 m runs
in sprint and long distance runners. Journal of
sports medicine and physical fitness.
1986;26(4):362-368.
Pendergast DR, Mollendorf J, Logue C, Samimy S,
2003. Evaluation of fins used in underwater
swimming. Journal of the Undersea
Hyperbaric Mdeical Society. 30(1):57-73.
Pendergast DR, Tedesco M, Nawrocki D, Fischer
NM, 1996. Energetics of underwater
swimming with SCUBA. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise. 28:573-580.
Pyne DB, Lee Hamılton, Swarwick KM, 2001.
Monitoring the lactate threshold in world-
ranked swimmers. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise. 33(2):291-297.
Seifert L, Chollet D, Rouard A. Swimming constraints
and arm coordination. Hum Mov Sci
2007;26(1): 68-86.
Seo JY, Lee KS, Shin HS. The Affects of Unilateral
Muscular Training for the Record
Improvement in swimming. Journal of Korean
society of sports Science. 2005;14(2):729-35.
Sharp RL, Vitelli CA, Costill DL, Thomas R.
Comparison between blood lactate and heart
rate profiles during a season of competitive
swim training. J Swim Res. 1984;1:17-20.
Song HS, Kim KJ, Kim JH. Changes of Physical
Fitness and Records for 12 Weeks with
Modified Periodization Training Program in
High School Fin Swimmers. International
Journal of Applied Sports Science.
2012;23(3):691-701.
Stewart AM, Hopkins WG. Swimmers' compliance
with training prescription. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 1997;29(10):1389-1392.
Telles T, Barbosa AD, Campos MH, Junior OA.
Effect of hand paddles and parachute on the
index of coordination of competitive crawl-
strokers. Journal of Sports Sciences.
2011;29(4):431-438.
Vasile, L. Endurance Training in Performance
Swimming. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences. 2014;117: 232-237.
Vorontsov AR, Dyrco VV, Binevsky DA, Solomatin
VR, Sidorov, NN. Patterns of growth for some
characteristics of physical development,
functional and motor abilities in boy-
swimmers 11-18 years. In: Biomechains and
Medicine in Swimming VIII. 1999. (Eds:
Keskinen, K. L., Komi, P. V., Hollander, A.
P.), Gummerus Printing, Jyvaskyla.
Wakayoshi K, D'Acquisto LJ, Cappaert JM, Troup JP
(1995). Relationship between oxygen uptake,
stroke rate and swimming velocity in
competitive swimming. Internationaljournal of
sports medicine. 1995;16(1):19-23.
Wells G, Duffin J, Plyley M, 2001. A model of
swimming economy during incremental
exercise. In: Abstracts book of the XIXth
international symposium of biomechanics in
sports. San Francisco, University of San
Francisco, 127-130.
Willems TM, Cornelis JAM, Deurwaerder LEP,
Roelandt F, Mits SD, 2014. The effect of ankle
scule strength and flexibility on dolphin kick
performance in competitive swimmers. Human
Movement Science, 36:167-76.
World Underwater Federation, 2006. In finswimming
international rules. world underwater
federation.
555