Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 1995, 92), 71-74 (© 1995 National Suength & Conditioning Assocation Relationship Between Isokinetic Strength, Flexibility, and Flutter Kicking Speed in Female Collegiate Swimmers Swapan Mookerjee’, Khalid W. Bibi’, Gregory A. Kenney’, and Lee Cohen ‘Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Dept. of Physical Education & Sport, State University of New York, College at Brockport, Brockport, New York 14420; "Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Bloomsburg University, Bloomsburg, Pennsyloania 17815; The Human Performance Center, Canisius College, Buffalo, New York 14208. Reference Data Mookerjee, S., K.W. Bibi, G.A. Kenney, and L, Cohen. Relationship between isokinetic strength, flexibility, and flutter kicking speed in female collegiate swim- mers. J. Strength and Cond. Res, 9(2):71-74. 1996. ABSTRACT The relationship between lower extremity isokineticstrength, flexility, and flutter kicking speed was investigated in 12 female collegiate swimmers. Isokinetic peak torques were determined at 3 selected velocities: 2.88, 6.28, and 7.85 rad sec". Flexibility measurements included ankle plantar flexion and dorsiflexion as well as hamstring and lower back flexibil- ity (sitand reach test). Flutter kicking times for 22.86 m (T;) and 45.72 m (T;) were obtained in a 22.86-m pool using a kickboard. Peak torque during knee extension at 628 rad 2c" correlated significantly with T; (r = 0.82) and T, (r 0.71). There appeared to be no relationship between ankle flexibility and flutier kicking speed in this group of subjects. ‘The sit and reach data correlated significantly (r = 0.70) only with T. Underwater film analysis on 6 subjects showed that ‘mean (£5D) angular velocity at the knee during the downbeat phase of the kick was 6.47 (#1.13) rad - sec". These results suggest that variables such as peak torque in the lower ex- tremities play a significant role in flutter kicking perfor- mance. In addition, velocty-specific isokinetic testing of the knees should be done in excess of 6.00 rad - sec" in order for the dynamometer to mimic limb angular velocities recorded luring actual flutter kicking performance. Key Words: swimming, isokinetic torque, front crawl Introduction The essential goal of efficient swimming performance is to minimize drag and optimally utilize propulsive force. In the front crawl stroke, the contribution of the legs to swimming speed has been studied indirectly by towing (@), by measuring the metabolic cost (I, 13), and by measuring active drag (12). The arms provide ‘most of the propulsion (1, 6, 12, 13), although kicking does provide a useful but smaller portion of the total propulsive force. Previous studies indicated that only ‘90% of maximal sprint stroke speed could be attained ‘when swimmers swam the front crawl stroke without kicking (2, 27). During the flutter kick the upbeat func- tions mainly as.a stabilizer while the propulsive forces are generated during the downbeat (20). The kick also contributes indirectly to propulsion by stabilizing the trunk and streamlining the body, accounting for 9% and 6% of the total stroke speed in females (27). Based on this interpretation, it appears that sprinters should, maximize the use of propulsive force from the kick since central limitations (eg,, cardiovascular, oxygen transport) do not seriously hinder performance in the shorter events (12, 17). While several studies have examined the relation- ship between upper body strength/power and sprint- ing speed (5, 11, 22), the information on kicking is limited. However, there seems to be renewed interest in its contribution toward propulsion (4). Kicking. is an integral part of any swimming stroke, regardless of whether it serves in a propulsive or stabilizing role. It is believed that kicking efficiency is determined to a great extent by flexibility in the ankles (8, 9, 14, 17, 23). However, there is little published data to confirm this belief. Furthermore, the forces generated are de- pendent on the joint groups involved and the strength Of the associated musculature. Hence itis also neces- sary to evaluate the torques generated in the lower extremities in addition to flexibility ‘The purpose of this study, therefore, was to exam- ine the relationships between isokinetic strength, flexi- bility, and flutter kicking speed. It is hoped that these findings will stimulate future studies to explore these issues in greater depth. Also, since most of the pub- lished research has not explored the area of kicking in detail, this area merits a more thorough investigation. Methods Subjects Twelve female collegiate swimmers from an NCAA Div. II team were involved in this study. Their mean (SD) 772 Mookerjee, Bibi, Kenney, and Cohen height, weight, and age were 170.50 (£4.69) cm, 64.40 (46.45) kg, and 19.75 (£1.14) years, respectively. All sub- jects completed informed consent forms prior to partic- pation. The testing was conducted in January 1993 when the swimmers were in their peak training phase, Testing Kicking Tests. Testing was conducted in a22.86-m (25- yard) pool. Water temperature was maintained at 256°C. The swimmers performed a 1,371.6-m (1,500- yard) warm-up prior to data collection. Testing order (Ge., 22.86 m, 45.72 m) was randomized. In both tests the swimmers used a kickboard and were instructed not to push off the wall during the start and the turn. The test began with a verbal command. Three timers, using electronic stopwatches, recorded kicking times to 1/10th of a second. The average of the three times for 22.86 m (T,) and 45.72 m (T,) was used. After 30 min of seated rest on the pool deck, the second test was administered. Flexibility. Following a warm-up period, two flexibility tests were administered. Hamstring and lower back flexibility were measured using the sit and reach test. The best of the three trials was recorded. ‘The swimmers were then tested for ankle flexibility using a goniometer. The ankle joint was stabilized at 90°, after which the swimmers were instructed to plan- tar flex (point) the ankle. The final position was noted and the angle was recorded. The dorsiflexion angle was recorded in a similar manner. The best of three trials was recorded for each ankle. Iokinetic ‘Testing. Angular limb velocities in many physical activities are reported to exceed 5.24 rad - sec" (10). In addition, the test movement velocity of dynamometers should be similar to the velocity of the sport movement and should include the highest possible velocity as well as a relatively lower velocity to allow for comparisons (16). Based on these recom- mendations, three test velocities were selected: 2.88, 6.28, and 7.85 rad » sec". Isokinetic testing was con- ducted on a Biodex Model 890900 dynamometer (Bio- dex Corp., Shirley, NY). Subjects were restrained at the waist and thigh with a seat belt, while the axis of the dynamometer was aligned with the axis of rotation of the knee joint. The lever arm was adjusted according to the subject's leg length and strapped just above the medial malleoli, Prior to testing, the subjects were briefed about testing protocol and allowed 5 warm-up repetitions at 2.88 rad - sec’ Starting with the right leg, they performed 15 maximal concentric flexion and extension trials at each speed. A 30-min rest interval ‘was allowed between trials at each velocity. Peak torques (newton meters) generated during flexion and extension of the right and left knees are reported in Table 1. Underwater Filming. It has been suggested that sport-specific velocity patterns can be derived from film analysis, thereby providing information for test Table 1 Isokinetic Peak Torques (Nm) 288 rad-sec"! 628rad sec"! 7.85 rad - sec" Movement Right Left Right Left Right Left Extension Mean 108.18 99.25 7200 66:72 73.17 66.15 sD 1227 121 1063-720 oad 751 Flexion Mean 6681 63.79 60.97 6209 6593 65.39 sD 1106-852 1139 900 9.26781 speed selection on the dynamometer (16). Six swim- mers were filmed underwater to determine actual an- gular velocities at the knee during flutter kicking. The videotape was analyzed frame by frame using a Peak Performance V Motion Measurement System (Engle- wood, CO) Statistical Analyses Pearson product moment correlational analyses were conducted to determine the association between isoki- netic strength, flexibility in the lower extremities (ie., hamstring and lower back, ankle), and flutter kicking speed. Isokinetic torque values were analyzed using an ANOVA for repeated measures (right and left knee x three velocities). A Scheffé post hoc analysis was used to test for significant differences between means. ‘The significance level of p < 0.05 was selected a priori for all analyses. Results Kicking Tests and Flexibility ‘The mean (4SD) times for T, and T, were 19.83 (41.73) sec and 45.66 (43.80) sec, respectively. ‘The correlations did not reveal any significant re- lationships between flutter kicking times and plantar and dorsiflexion. Sit and reach data correlated moder- ately (r = 0.71) with T; but not with T,. Correlational data are presented in Table 2. Isokinetic Testing Knee Extension. Torque values at 2.88 rad - sec? did not correlate significantly with either T, or Ta. Torques generated at 6.28 rad - sec”! correlated highly with T, (r = 082), explaining 67.24% of the variance. At the 45.72-m (Th) distance this relationship was moderate (r= 0.70), explaining 49% of the variance. None of the correlations at the higher testing speed, 7.85 rad - sec", reached statistical significance. The peak torques gen- erated during right and left knee extension at the three test velocities are reported in Table 1. Statistical analy- ses revealed significant differences between peak torques generated at 2.88 and 6.28 rad - sec’, and 2.88, and 7.85 rad - sec", for both knees. There were noTable 2 Flutter Kicking Times (p value) Presi yy Correlations Variable Mean 4180 T, 286m 7, =45.72m Plantar flexion Right 82.08 0.25 ~.1480 (646) ~0467 (885) Left 8192 1705 2512(431) 3420277) Dorsitlexion Right 11.50 355 ~1899(554) 1679 (602) Left 1125 314 .4178.(177) 1260 (696) Sit & reach (cm) 36.50 9.23 5197083) 7130 (009) significant differences in peak torque production dur- ing knee extension between 6.28 and 7.85 rad - sec for both knees. This suggests that a leveling off occurred in the force-velocity curve for the knee joint at a velocity exceeding 6.28 rad - sec" Knee Flexion. Torque values generated atall three testing speeds did not yield any correlations of statisti- cal significance. Underwater Filming It was determined that the average angular velocity during the downbeat (knee extension) phase was 6.47 + 1.13 rad : sec’ (see Figure 1). This information provided supporting evidence for the test velocity selection (.e., testing velocities should be in excess of 5.24 rad - sec") Discussion Limb velocities in many athletic movements exceed 5.24 rad - 5", and the present study provides support- ing evidence that using a similar testing velocity yields isokinetic peak torques that correlate significantly with flutter kicking speeds. The angular velocities deter- mined from underwater filming support the pre- viously reported information pertaining to. limb velocities during sport movements (10). This suggests Figure 1. Angular velocities at the knee during the down- beat phase of one kick cycle (1 = 6). Flutter Kicking Speed in Swimmers 73 that velocity-specific testing and training should be doneat high speeds. However, due toa lack of informa- tion on lower extremity training at high velocities and their impact on swimming performance, lttleis known about the efficacy of such training regimens. Significant increases in peak torque at both slow and fast speeds have been reported when training was conducted at 5.24 rad - sec (7), Other studies support the notion of specificity of exercise speed in isokinetic training (3, 15, 24). However, studies have shown no significant improvements in swimming performance due to dry-land resistance training (22, 25). This lack ofa positive transfer may stem from a lack of training specificity, Other than the fact that these forms of resis- tance training may not be specific to power generation in swimming, itis also possible that the dry-land train- ing protocols were not velocity-specific in nature. In the present study the testing velocities were 2.88, 6.28, and 7.85 rad - sec”, respectively. There ap- pears to be a dearth of normative information on peak torques at these velocities in females, particularly in swimmers. Meaningful comparisons with previous studies are difficult due to population, test velocity, and equipment differences. The problem is further compounded by the fact that some isokinetic dyna- mometers are incapable of testing at speeds compara- ble to those seen in competitive swimming. The biokinetic swim bench provides a means for upper body testing and training in swimming. However, lacking any dynamometer or training device that mim- ics swimming leg kicking movement patterns and speeds, it remains to be seen whether lower extremity training can significantly improve performance. ‘The decrementin peak torque output with increas ing velocity has been well documented (18, 21, 26, 28). Our data suggest that a plateau in isokinetic peak torque was reached somewhere between the middle and fastest test velocities (i.e, 6.28 and 7.85 rad - sec") A previous study also suggests that this plateauing effect occurs at higher velocities (21). Other factors such as speed of shortening, motivation levels, and the nature of the muscle itself may be influencing torque outputs. It may be that at faster test velocities a greater portion of the inertia encountered due to the mass of the leg was overcome during knee extension, thus altering the torque-velocity curve. It has been sug- gested that the shape of the torque curve must be considered in relation to contraction speed when eval- uuating muscular performance (18). ‘There were no significant differences between right and left knee peak torque values at all three speeds. Since kicking in swimming is an ambidextrous activity, it is possible that there is more uniform strength development in comparison to other skills, such as kicking in soccer, where limb dominance plays a more important role. It is believed that ankle flexibility does play an important part in kicking speed (8, 9, 14, 17,23), but the74 Mookerjee, Bibi, Kenney, and Cohen above results do not seem to corroborate this notion. A previous investigation showed that a swimmer does not need great lower extremity flexibility to swim the whip kick in the breaststroke (19). Although the sit and reach data correlated significantly with Ts, it is difficult to explain why the relationship was weaker with T,, These results indicate that other variables (eg., anthropometric, biomechanical) may be influencing kicking speed significantly. Efficient kicking ability not only enhances body position in the water but also provides a portion of the total propulsive force. Since reduction of drag and generation of optimal propulsive force are the two main elements in attaining peak speeds in the water, itseems appropriate to focus on lower extremity speed strength testing and training that is velocity-specific, Further investigations are needed to shed light on the determinants of kicking speed. Practical Applications From a training standpoint, lower extremity isokinetic testing and training for the front crawl should be done at higher velocities, above 6.00 rad - sec". This appears to bea higher speed of movement than the 4.19 to 5.24 rad - sec" velocity-specific training recommended for sprinters (20). However, these’ findings are in agreement with previously reported information that ‘most physical movements in sport involve velocities above 5.24 rad - sec (10), References |, Adrian, Mj, M. Singh, and PV. Karpovich, Energy cost of leg kick, arm stroke, and whole craw stroke. J. App. Physiol 21763-1766. 1966 2. Bucher, W. The influence ofthe leg kick and the armstroke on the total speed during the craw stroke. In: Swimming TL Lewilieand }P.Clarys, eds. Baltimore: University Park ress, 1975, pp. 180-187, 3. Caioezo, VJ, J. Perrine, and VR Edgerton. Training-induced alterations ofthe ia vivoforce-veloity relationship of human muscle. J. Appl. Physiol 51:750-754. 1981 4. Costll, DLL, EW. Maglscho, and AB, Richardson. Handbook of Sports Matizine and Science: Swimming. Oxford: Blackwell ‘Scientific, 192 5. Costll DLL, R. Sharp, and J. Troup. Muscle strength: Contribu- tions to sprint swimming. Switming Word 21:29-38, 1960. 6. Counsilman, J. The Science of Swimming. Englewood Clif, NI Prentice Hall, 1968 7. Coyle, EF, DC. Fering, TC. Roths, RW. Cote, FB. Roby, W: Lee, and ).H. Wilmore. Specificity of power improvements through slow and fast isokinetic training. J. Appl. Psa 71437-1482. 1981, 8. Cureton, TK Mechanics and kinesiology of swimming —The ‘rae fatter kick: Res, Q.p. 112. Des 1950 10, n, 2 18 14 18, 19, a, n. 24. 28 Engesvik, F. The importance of leg movements in the frestyle Swimming Ten. 29C):14-16, 1992 Fleck, SJ, and WJ. Kraemer. Designing Resistance Tnining Pro- ‘grams. Champaign, Il: Human Kinetics, 1987. Hawley, J.A., and MM. Williams, Relationship between upper body anaerobic power and freestyle swimming performance. Int, J Sports Med. 121-5. 1951. Hollander, AP. G. DeGroot, GJ. Ingen Schenau, R. Kahman, and HLM. Toussaint. Contebution ofthe leg fo propulsion {in font crawl swimming In: Sting Science V. BLE, Unger- cechts, K, Wilke, and K. Reischle, eds. Champaign, Il: Human, Kinetics, 1988, pp. 32-43, Holmer, L Energy cost of arm stroke, leg kick and the whole stroke in competitive swimming. | Appl. Physio. 33:105- 18.1976 Holl, M, Flexible ankles: Faster swimming, Swimming Techn, 276)23-24. 1990 Kanchishs, H, and M. Miyashita. Specificity of velocity in ‘strength training. Er. J. Appl Physiol. 582-101-106. 198. MacDougall, 1D, H.W. Wenger, and HJ. Green, Physilogical “Testing ofthe High-Performance Athlete. Champaign, TL: Human, Kinetics, 191, Moglscho, EW. Swimming Even Faster, Mountain View, CA: Mayfcld, 1983. Motiroid, M, R. Whipple J. Hofkosh, E, Lowman, and H. Thistle 'A sudy of isokinetic exercise. Phys. Ther. 49.734-746, 196, INimz, RU. Rader, K. Wilke, and W. Skipka, The relationship ‘of anthropometric measures to diferent types of breaststroke kicks. In: Swimming Science VBE, Ungerechts, K, Wilke, and K_ Reischle, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1988. pp 115.119. (O'Shea, P, K.O'Shea, and C.Chay. The -meter freestyle sprint. NSCA Journal 13(5:9-10. 1991 (Osternig, LR. Optimal isokinetic loads and velocities producing muscular power in human subjets. Arc. Phy. Med. Rab. 56152158. 1975, Roberts, A, B. Termin, MF. Reilly, and DR. Pendergast. Etfec- tiveness of biokinetic training on swimming performance in collegiate swimmers. J. Stir, Res. 75-11. 1991 Robertson, DF. Relationship of strength of selected muscle groups and ankle flexibility tothe flutter Kick in swimming Master’ thesis, State University of lowa, 1960. Sale, D, and D. MacDougal. Specificity in strength training: A eview for the couch and athlete. Can. J. Appl Sport Sci. 687 92.1981 ‘Tanaka, H, DLL. Cost, R Thomas, WJ. Fink. and JJ, Windrick ‘Dryland resistance training for competitive swimming, Med. Sei. Sports Exere, 25952959, 1988, ‘Thorstensson, A. G. Grimby, and J. Karlsson. Force-velocty relations and fiber composition in human knee extensor me- cles. J Appl. Psil.4:12-16. 1976. Watkin, J, and T.W. Gordon, The effects of eg action on perfor ‘mance in sprint front era stroke, In Biomechanics en Mad cine in Seimming. PA. Hollander, P.A. Huijing, and C. deGroot, eds. Champaiga, IL: Human Kinetics, 1983. pp. 310314 ‘Wyatt, MP, and A.M. Edwards. Comparison of quadriceps and hamstring torque values during isokinetic exercise. J. Orthop. Sports. Phys. Ther. 302)48-55 198.