See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259575196

Strength and Conditioning for Sprint Swimming

Article in Strength and Conditioning Journal · December 2013

DOI: 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000019

CITATIONS READS

35 32,128

6 authors, including:

Chris Bishop Paul Read

Middlesex University, UK Aspetar - Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital
142 PUBLICATIONS 1,122 CITATIONS 106 PUBLICATIONS 1,223 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Perry Stewart Shyam Chavda

15 PUBLICATIONS 301 CITATIONS

Middlesex University, UK
45 PUBLICATIONS 415 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Concurrent Training View project

Bilateral vs. Unilateral Training View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chris Bishop on 10 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Strength and
Conditioning for Sprint
Swimming
Chris Bishop, MSc,1 Jon Cree, MSc,1 Paul Read, MSc, CSCS,2 Shyam Chavda, MSc,1 Michael Edwards, MSc,1
and Anthony Turner, MSc, CSCS*D1
1
School of Health and Social Sciences, London Sport Institute, Middlesex University, London, United Kingdom; and
2
School of Sport, Health, and Applied Science, St. Mary’s University, London, United Kingdom

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided
in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj).

ABSTRACT and is often used as a complimentary concerning training strategies used to

CONSIDERABLE IMPROVEMENTS
CAN BE MADE FROM LAND-BASED
STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING
(S&C) FOR SPRINT SWIMMING. THE
BASIS OF TRAINING SHOULD AIM
TO ENHANCE PERFORMANCE,
WITH PARTICULAR FOCUS ON
THE START AND TURN, WHERE
THE S&C COACH CAN ATTEMPT
TO MAXIMIZE GROUND REACTION
FORCES. THE POTENTIAL FOR
INJURIES IN BOTH THE LOWER
AND UPPER BODY SHOULD ALSO
BE ADDRESSED, WITH SPECIFIC
ATTENTION ON THE KNEE AND
SHOULDER JOINTS. THEREFORE,
THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE
WAS TO PROVIDE S&C PROFES-
SIONALS WITH A REVIEW OF
EXISTING LITERATURE SUR-
ROUNDING THE BIOMECHANICS
OF STARTS AND TURNS AND HOW
ITS APPLICATION CAN ENHANCE
SWIMMING PERFORMANCE. FOR
A VIDEO ABSTRACT OF THIS
ARTICLE, SEE VIDEO, SUPPLE-
MENTAL DIGITAL CONTENT 1,
HTTP://LINKS.LWW.COM/SCJ/A130.
INTRODUCTION
trength and conditioning (S&C) is
training modality to in-pool condition-
ing. Swimming has unique demands as
a sport, but weight-room training can
offer considerable benefits to comple-
ment the swimmer’s performance.
There are a number of issues relating to
swimming that the S&C coach must take
into consideration. Rasulbekov et al. (18)
suggested that the drag of the water
acts as a natural decelerator, increasing
the likelihood of turbulence (unwanted
side-to-side movement during stroke pat-
tern). In addition, efficient stroke pattern,
eradicating muscle imbalances, and suffi-
cient agonist versus antagonist strength
ratios should also be considered before
embarking on program design (12–14).
However, more recent research has sug-
gested that the S&C coach is most likely
to make their greatest contribution by
influencing the moments the swimmer
has access to ground reaction forces
(GRFs), namely the dive and turn (4).
Therefore, the aim of this article will
focus on the importance of the start
and turn and the associated physical
components that enhance swimming
performance. The example training pro-
grams are aimed at enhancing perfor-
mance for the sprint swimmer.
IMPORTANCE OF S&C FOR
STARTS AND TURNS
enhance start/dive performance. Lyttle
and Benjanuvatra (11) (Table 1) identified
that a strong start can account for 30% of
a 50-m race and suggest that a strong
dive is essential to maximize perfor-
mance. The time spent on the blocks
to produce that force was measured at
0.79 second (10), highlighting the need
for both strength and power (including
rate of force development [RFD]).
Bishop et al. (2) assessed the effects of
plyometric training on block start perfor-
mance. The intervention consisted of 2
individual hour-long sessions using
a wide range of exercises starting with
low-intensity plyometrics, such as
ankling, progressing onto countermove-
ment jumps (CMJs), and squat jumps
(SJs), and finishing with a variety of drop
jump variations. Eight weeks of plyomet-
ric training provided a mean reduction of
0.59 second in start time, translating to
a significant improvement in start perfor-
mance. Not only did the swimmers show
a reduction in time but also an increase in
the distance covered from when the
head contacted the water.
Poole and Maneval (16) investigated
the effects of 10 weeks of depth jump
KEY WORDS:

S an essential aspect of performance

enhancement for sprint swimming
This section will provide the reader
with an insight into existing literature
sprint swimming; ground reaction
forces; dive; swimming turn

Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 1
Strength and Conditioning for Swimming

Table 1
Percentage of race distance
taken up by the start (0–15 m)
for various swimming
distances (11)
Distance (m) Percentage of race
time (approx.)
50 30
100 15
200 7.5
400 4 ond, which was a significant improve-
800 2 the blocks for the grab start. This trans-
1,500 1 lated to quicker take-off velocity (4.32
training and its effects on vertical jump
performance. Forty depth jumps were
performed either 2 or 3 times a week.
The results demonstrated significant
improvements in jump height for both
protocols but also identified that there
was no significant difference between
2- or 3-day training protocols. West
et al. (24) looked at strength and power
predictors of starts in international
sprint swimmers and their correlation
with 15 m time, peak vertical and hor-
izontal force (Table 2). They found sig-
nificant correlations between the 1
repetition maximum (1RM) back
squat, peak power, and jump height
(all specific to producing high GRFs).
They concluded that to improve swim
start performance, strength and power
exercises should be incorporated into
the programming.
In addition to the evidence presented
above, the S&C coach should be aware
of the different starts available to the
swimming athlete. Holthe and
McClean (6) and Lee et al. (10) studied
biomechanical analyses of 2 differing
starts using 2 digital high speed cam-
eras identifying block start time, flight
time, water angle entry, and time to
12 m. Both studies identified that the
track (split stance) start was superior,
allowing the athletes to dive further
with an increase in water entry speed.
Specifically, mean time spent on the
blocks for the track start was 0.79 sec-
ment from the 0.84 second spent on
versus 4.2m/s), greater entry velocity
(5.31 versus 5.24 m/s), higher water
angle entry (40.9 versus 37.68), and
reduced time to the 12 m distance
(5.45 versus 5.53 seconds) (10). In light
of the evidence presented regarding
plyometrics and its effects on the start,
the differences between the track and
grab start may provide the S&C coach
with useful insight into sport-specific
exercises to assist with this aspect of
the race. Figure 1A and 1B depicts both
the grab and track starts, respectively,
that Lee et al. (10) assessed.
The turn is the second point during
races that provides the athlete with
GRFs. It may be noted that in
a 50-m long course race, there will be
no turn, as opposed to a single turn in
a 50-m short course race. Potdevin
et al. (17) identified that time spent
on the wall for swimmers during the
turn was between 0.3 and 0.5 seconds
and represented 1.5% of the total race
time in a 50-m event. The positions
adopted by the swimmers during the
turn, as they apply GRF, are similar to
that of a CMJ. One may speculate that
much like the dive, improvement here
can be made by incorporating plyo-
metric training. The simulated pattern
of a CMJ is what the swimmers seem
to perform, and therefore, variations of
this exercise may help to produce
greater push-off distances.
Chow et al. (3) analyzed the turning tech-
niques of 19 elite swimmers. It was noted
that the average speed on approach to
the wall was greater in shorter distances,
as represented by 1.67 m/s covered in the
100-m events compared with 1.49 m/s in
the 400-m events. The distance covered
from push off decreased as race distance
increased as well. The 100-m event por-
trayed push off distances of 5.07 m in
comparison with 4.71 m in the 400-m
event (3). The explanation for this
decrease in push-off distance was logi-
cally suspected to be down to a less force-
ful thrust, which was deemed an
indication of energy consumption for
the longer distances.
Theoretically, the S&C coach would
also address the physiological issues
associated with the sport/event in
question. However, the physiology of
swimming, although important, would
seem not to affect the methods for
enhancing the start or turn. Therefore,
this section can be described as falling
out of the remit of the S&C coach.
TESTING AND TRAINING
POWER
Research has identified, both the SJ
and CMJ have been associated with
the start and the turn, respectively,

Table 2
Strength and power predictors of starts in international sprint swimmers and their correlations with 15 m time, peak
vertical and peak horizontal force (24)

Variable Jump height (cm) Peak power (W) RFD (N/s) 1RM back squat (kg)

15 m time (s) 20.69* 20.85** 20.56 20.74**

Peak vertical force 0.78** 0.79** 0.30 0.62*
Peak horizontal force 0.73* 0.87** 0.40 0.71*
*Significant at p , 0.05; **significant at p , 0.01.

RFD 5 rate of force development.

2 VOLUME 35 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2013

Figure 1. (A and B) Grab start and track start, respectively (10).
and are therefore deemed the most
appropriate power tests for sprint
swimmers (3,4,6,9,17). With the split
stance of the track start in mind (6),
imbalances in lower limb strength
and power may exist in swimmers;
therefore, single-leg jump tests (in
addition to 2-legged SJ and CMJ tests)
could provide some useful information
here regarding lower limb asymmetry.
Large differences will assist the S&C
coach with tailored program design
specific to the athlete.
LOWER BODY STRENGTH
West et al. (24) found that the 1RM
back squat was significantly corre-
lated with time to 15 m, peak vertical
force, and peak horizontal force.
Rodeo (20) also identified the domi-
nant use of the glute complex and
quadriceps group during the majority
of phases in the breaststroke, which
would support the notion that the
1RM back squat test may be the most
appropriate.
UPPER BODY STRENGTH
The breaststroke has unique demands
in comparison to the other 3 strokes.
Freestyle, backstroke, and butterfly
strokes require much greater mobility
and range of motion because of the
high demand for rotation in the shoul-
der joint. Although still prominent,
Rodeo’s kinesiological analysis (20)
stated that shoulder protraction,
adduction, and abduction were more
associated with the breaststroke. Nuber
et al. (15) provided supporting evi-
dence to the notion of less rotational
requirement in the breaststroke. A fine
wire electromyographical analysis of
the muscles used in and around the
shoulder during freestyle, breaststroke,
and butterfly strokes was analyzed.
The 8 muscles analyzed were biceps,
subscapularis, latissimus dorsi, pector-
alis major, supraspinatus, infraspinatus,
serratus anterior, and deltoid. The
results suggested that the freestyle
and butterfly are frequently associated
with impingement syndrome because
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
of the repetitive nature of rotation, but
this did not apply to the breaststroke.
What was of note was that the latissi-
mus dorsi and pectoralis major were
described as the “pull-through muscles,”
indicating their importance in the
“effort” phase of the stroke, whereas,
supraspinatus, infraspinatus, and serra-
tus anterior were predominantly “recov-
ery phase” muscles (15). This may
suggest that both push and pull tests
would be necessary for the breaststroke
swimmer. The current gold standard
field tests to measure upper body
strength are the 1RM bench press and
1RM pull-up. It is important to check
the ratio between these, as appropriate
levels may optimize movement accu-
racy throughout the stroke, potentially
reducing the drag effect. In support,
this balance ratio is associated with
increased power (1), limb speed, and
movement accuracy (7). It is important
to note that the majority of force (from
the upper body) being applied comes
from the back muscles (15). Excessive
3
Strength and Conditioning for Swimming
training of the chest muscle group could
be counter-productive as these muscles
are effectively producing force in the
wrong direction. Table 3 shows a pro-
posed testing battery for the sprint
swimmer.
INJURY ANALYSIS
LOWER BODY
Throughout the 2003–2004 National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
college season, Grote et al. (5) recorded
the results from a survey sent out by
Stanford University to the top 25
NCAA teams in that season. Two
hundred and ninety-six competitive
swimmers (198 male and 98 female
swimmers) provided feedback regarding
hip adductor injuries they experienced
that academic year. The male breast-
stroke swimmers swam a mean distance
of 9,017 6 7,162 m per week in compar-
ison with the individual medley swim-
mers who swam 5,853 6 1,961 m
(breaststroke) per week. Grote et al.
(5) noted that during the final phase
of the breaststroke kick, peak adduction
velocity of the femur can reach 2458 per
second, thus offering an explanation as
to the vulnerability of the hip adductor
complex during the breaststroke. The
hip adductor injuries experienced by
breaststroke competitors in this season
was significantly higher than individual
medley or nonbreaststroke swimmers.
These results are shown in Table 4.
Table 3
A possible testing battery for the
sprint breaststroke swimmer
Physical Test
parameter
Power Countermovement
jump
Squat jump
Lower body 1RM back squat
strength
Upper body 1RM bench press
strength
1RM pull-up
1RM 5 1 repetition maximum.
4 VOLUME 35 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2013
Literature on swimming has also
shown the knee joint to be at risk
of injury in addition to the hip adduc-
tor complex. Previous research by
Keskinen et al. (8) acknowledged
that a combination of high angular
velocities and excessive tibial external
rotation relative to the femur was a sig-
nificant contributor to overuse move-
ment patterns in hip adduction and the
knee joint. Stulberg et al. (22) and
Rovere and Nichols (21) addressed
the associated risk factors and treat-
ment of the breaststroker’s knee and
identified that patella-femoral osteoar-
thritis was a prominent by-product of
the breaststroke kick and reduced
internal rotation of the hip. It was sug-
gested that the treatment should
involve working on technical aspects
of the breaststroke kick (21,22). For
the S&C coach, ensuring the hip
adductors can work dynamically in
a full range of motion would seem an
important part of program design to
compliment this aspect of the breast-
stroke kick. That said an exercise
such as lateral lunges would provide
good use of gluteal activation on one
side while simultaneously offering
flexibility to the opposing adductor
complex.
UPPER BODY
Richardson et al. (19) studied the shoul-
der in competitive swimming at U.S.
training camps leading up to an Olympic
Games. It was reported that shoulder
pain was the most common injury in
competitive swimming. In addition, the
severity of the problem was claimed to
increase with the caliber of the athlete
Table 4
Results from the 2003–2004 season of 296 swimmers from 25 NCAA teams
regarding hip adductor injuries for the breaststroke, individual medley,
and nonbreaststroke events (5)
Stroke
Breaststroke (n 5 130)
Individual medley (n 5 80)
Nonbreaststroke/non-IM (n 5 86)
NCAA 5 National Collegiate Athletic Association.
and be more associated with sprint
events as opposed to distance swimming
(19). During the freestyle, Richardson
et al. (19) reported that a common trait
among swimmer is for their elbows to
“drop” when fatigued. This causes
increased external rotation of the shoul-
der joint during the “pull-through” phase
of the stroke, which is deemed to cause
a mechanical disadvantage. Training the
adductors of the shoulder and internal
rotators is thought to assist in the pre-
vention of this common flaw in tech-
nique (19) and thus may assist in the
strength and stability of the joint.
Wolf et al. (25) addressed injury pat-
terns in NCAA Division 1 swimmers
from 2002 to 2007 at the University of
Iowa. It was suggested that the highest
injury incidence was reported in the
freestyle but that this may have been
because of it being the most common
stroke swam. Fifty of 94 swimmers
swam freestyle, with 58% reporting
injuries throughout this period. The
highest injury percentage (90%)
occurred in the breaststroke but only
10 swimmers from this stroke took
part in this study. It was also suggested
that there was no significant associa-
tion of stroke swam and time missed,
or body part injured. However, Wolf
et al. (25) did report that the shoulder
and upper arm were the most com-
mon injury site with 78 of 94 swim-
mers reporting injuries and time off
from training.
APPLICATION TO S&C
The purpose of this section was to out-
line specific strategies that the S&C
Injury rate (2003–2004) Injury rate (ever)
43% 66%
22% 39%
6% 17%
 Table 5 CONCLUSION
Example strength and power programs The basis of dry-land training should
be centered around symmetry and
Example strength session for the breaststroke sprint swimmer aiming to enhance strength and
power to improve performance for
Exercise Sets Repetitions Load Rest
the dive and turn. Existing research
Squat clean 3 3 85% 1RM 3 min has demonstrated that plyometric
training has proven to be a viable
BB back squat 4 5 87.5% 1RM 4 min
training method for enhancing both
Box jumps 4 5 B-W (perform in rest) these aspects of a race. For strength
training, developing lower body
Bent-over row 4 5 87.5% 1RM 4 min
strength through exercises such as
DB lateral lunge 3 6 each leg — (perform in rest) back squats has also been shown to
have positive results on start perfor-
BB push press 4 5 87.5% 1RM 4 min
mance. Strengthening the adductor
BB rollouts 3 10 — (perform in rest) complex must also be considered
in program design for injury preven-
Example power session for the breaststroke sprint swimmer
tion purposes. Exercises such as lateral
Exercise Sets Repetitions Load Rest lunges will not only offer the adductor
complex strength but also simulta-
Hang clean 4 2-3 75% 1RM 4 min
neously increase their range of motion.
Split broad jump 4 4 B-W (perform in rest) Because of the nature of having no real
“off-season”, periodization for swim-
BB back jerk 4 2-3 75% 1RM 4 min
ming can be considered a challenge.
CMJ 4 4 B-W (perform in rest) That said concurrent training for
strength and power may be the most
BB back squat 4 3 90% 1RM 4 min
appropriate forms of training to maxi-
Bent-over row 4 3 90% 1RM (perform in rest) mize performance.
1RM 5 1 repetition maximum; BB 5 barbell; B-W 5 body weight; CMJ 5 countermovement Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:
jump; DB 5 dumbbell. The authors report no conflicts of interest
and no source of funding.

coach may be able to use to enhance
performance for various components
of a race. To specifically target the
start, plyometric exercises, such as
split broad jumps or split SJ (exercises
that work on improving both horizon-
tal and vertical power), would be
appropriate for complimenting the
split stance seen in the track start.
However, the countermovement associ-
ated with the turn would imply that
plyometric exercises, such as CMJs
and drop jumps, may be a more appro-
priate training method for this section of
the race. In addition, the requirement for
high levels of RFD (for the start) would
support the notion for weightlifting,
namely the clean & jerk and snatch.
Both weightlifting and plyometric train-
ing are believed to be a very viable train-
ing method for enhancing both the start
and the turn. Before the Olympic-style
lifts can be taught safely and effectively,
there is a requirement for a large foun-
dation of strength training to be under- Chris Bishop is
taken (23). the lead strength
With respect to the lower body, lifts and conditioning
such as the back squat and deadlift coach for Opti-
mum Elite Fitness
will provide the necessary foundation
and a lecturer on
for developing the gluteal complex
the BSc Sport &
and quadriceps in preparation for
Exercise Science
progressing on to weightlifting. Lifts
Program at the
that support upper body develop-
London Sport
ment should include push presses,
Institute, Middlesex University.
bent-over rows, and pull-ups. Collec-
tively, these lifts will promote higher
GRFs and upper body postural Jon Cree is
strength, providing a solid base for a strength and
progressing onto higher velocity conditioning
lifts/movement patterns, such as coach and a lec-
weightlifting and plyometrics. Table 5 turer in Sport &
provides example strength and power Exercise Science
programs that the S&C coach may and Sport &
consider for enhancing swimming Exercise Rehabilitation at the London
performance. Sport Institute, Middlesex University.

Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 5

 Strength and Conditioning for Swimming
adolescents. J Strength Cond Res 23:
Paul Read is 2137–2143, 2009.
a senior lecturer in
3. Chow JW-C, Hay JG, Wilson BD, and
strength and con- Imel C. Turning techniques of elite
ditioning at St swimmers. J Sports Sci 2: 241–255, 2007.
Mary’s Univer- 4. Fig G. Why competitive swimmers need
sity, London. explosive power. Strength Cond J 32: 84–
86, 2010.
5. Grote K, Lincoln TL, and Gamble JG.
Shyam Chavda Hip adductor injury in competitive
is an academy swimmers. Am J Sports Med 32: 104–108,
strength and 2004.
conditioning 6. Holthe MJ and McClean SP. Kinematic
coach for British comparison of grab and track starts in
Fencing and swimming. Proceedings of Swim Sessions:
QPR Football XIX International Symposium on
Biomechanics in Sports. University of San
Club and the
Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 31–34,
sport technician
2001.
and weightlift-
7. Jaric S, Radovanovis S, Milanovic S,
ing coach at the London Sport Institute,
Ljubisavljevic M, and Anastasijevic R. A
Middlesex University.
comparison of the effects of agonist
and antagonist muscle fatigue on
performance of rapid movements. Eur J
Michael Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 76: 41–47,
Edwards is a ses- 1997.
sional lecturer 8. Keskinen K, Eriksson E, and Komi P.
and strength and Breaststroke swimmer’s knee: A
conditioning biomechanical and arthroscopic study. Am
coach at the J Sports Med 8: 228–231, 1980.
London Sport 9. Latt E, Jurimae J, Maestu J, Purge P,
Institute, Mid- Ramson R, Haljaste K, Keskinen KL,
dlesex University. Rodriguez FA, and Jurimae T. Physiological,
biomechanical and anthropometrical
predictors of sprint swimming performance
in adolescent swimmers. J Sports Sci Med
Anthony
9: 398–404, 2010.
Turner is the
10. Lee C-Y, Huang C-F, and Lee C-W.
program leader
Biomechanical of the grab and track
for the MSc in swimming starts. Paper presented at the
strength and 30th Annual Conference of Biomechanics
conditioning at
in Sports. Melbourne, Australia. 2012.
the London Sport Available at: https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/
Institute, Middlesex University. cpa/article/view/5337/4908. Accessed:
January 24, 2013.
11. Lyttle A and Benjanuvatra N. Start right? A
REFERENCES biomechanical review of dive start
1. Baker D and Newton RU. Acute effect on performance. Available at: http://www.
power output of alternating an agonist and coachesinfo.com/category/swimming/
antagonist muscle exercise during complex 321. Accessed: January 22, 2013.
training. J Strength Cond Res 19: 202–
12. Mookerjee S, Bibi KW, Kenney GA, and
205, 2005. Cohen L. Relationship between isokinetic
2. Bishop DC, Smith RJ, Smith MF, and strength, flexibility, and flutter kicking
Rigby HE. Effect of plyometric training on speed in female collegiate swimmers.
swimming block start performance in J Strength Cond Res 9: 71–74, 1995.
6 VOLUME 35 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2013
View publication stats
13. Newton R. Resistance training for sprint
swimmers. NSCA Performance Training J
1: 17–31, 2002.
14. Newton RU, Jones J, Kraemer WJ, and
Wardle H. Strength and power training of
Australian Olympic swimmers. Strength
Cond J 24: 7–15, 2002.
15. Nuber GW, Jobe FW, Perry J, Moynes DR,
and Antonelli D. Fine wire
electromyography analysis of muscles of
the shoulder during swimming. Am J
Sports Med 14: 7–11, 1986.
16. Poole WH and Maneval MW. The effects
of two ten-week depth jumping routines
on vertical jump performance as it relates
to leg power. J Swim Res 3: 11–14,
1987.
17. Potdevin FJ, Alberty ME, Chevutschi A,
Pelayo P, and Sidney MC. Effects of
a 6-week plyometric training program on
performance in pubescant swimmers.
J Strength Cond Res 25: 80–86, 2011.
18. Rasulbekov RA, Fomin RA, Chulkov VU,
and Chudovsky VI. Does a swimmer
need explosive strength? Strength Cond J
8: 56–57, 1984.
19. Richardson AB, Jobe FW, and Collins HR.
The shoulder in competitive swimming. Am
J Sports Med 8: 159–163, 1980.
20. Rodeo S. Swimming the breaststroke—A
kinesiological analysis and considerations for
strength training. Strength Cond J 4: 74–76,
80, 1984.
21. Rovere GD and Nichols AW. Frequency,
associated factors, and treatment of
breaststroker’s knee in competitive
swimmers. Am J Sports Med 13: 99–104,
1985.
22. Stulberg SD, Shulman K, Stuart S, and
Culp P. Breaststroker’s knee: Pathology,
etiology and treatment. Am J Sports Med 8:
164–171, 1980.
23. Turner AN. Training for power: Principles and
practice. Prof Strength Cond J 14: 20–32,
2009.
24. West DJ, Owen NJ, Cunningham DJ,
Cook CJ, and Kilduff LP. Strength and
power predictors of swimming starts in
international sprint swimmers. J Strength
Cond Res 25: 950–955, 2011.
25. Wolf BR, Ebinger AE, Lawler MP, and
Britton CL. Injury pattern in Division I
collegiate swimming. Am J Sports Med
37: 2037–2042, 2009.