The energy expended to transport the body over a given distance (C, the energy cost) increases with speed both on land and in water. At any given speed, C is lower on land (e.g., running or cycling) than in water (e.g., swimming or kayaking) and this difference can be easily understood when one considers that energy should be expended (among the others) to overcome resistive forces since these, at any given speed, are far larger in water (hydrodynamic resistance, drag) than on land (aerodynamic resistance). Another reason for the differences in C between water and land locomotion is the lower capability to exert useful forces in water than on land (e.g., a lower propelling efficiency in the former case). These two parameters (drag and efficiency) not only can explain the differences in C between land and water locomotion but can also explain the differences in C within a given form of locomotion (swimming at the surface, which is the topic of this review): e.g., differences between strokes or between swimmers of different age, sex, and technical level. In this review, the determinants of C (drag and efficiency, as well as energy expenditure in its aerobic and anaerobic components) will, thus, be described and discussed. In aquatic locomotion it is difficult to obtain quantitative measures of drag and efficiency and only a comprehensive (biophysical) approach could allow to understand which estimates are “reasonable” and which are not. Examples of these calculations are also reported and discussed.

The energy cost of swimming and its determinants / Zamparo P.; Cortesi M.; Gatta G.. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY. - ISSN 1439-6319. - STAMPA. - 120:1(2020), pp. 41-66. [10.1007/s00421-019-04270-y]

The energy cost of swimming and its determinants

Cortesi M.;Gatta G.
2020

Abstract

The energy expended to transport the body over a given distance (C, the energy cost) increases with speed both on land and in water. At any given speed, C is lower on land (e.g., running or cycling) than in water (e.g., swimming or kayaking) and this difference can be easily understood when one considers that energy should be expended (among the others) to overcome resistive forces since these, at any given speed, are far larger in water (hydrodynamic resistance, drag) than on land (aerodynamic resistance). Another reason for the differences in C between water and land locomotion is the lower capability to exert useful forces in water than on land (e.g., a lower propelling efficiency in the former case). These two parameters (drag and efficiency) not only can explain the differences in C between land and water locomotion but can also explain the differences in C within a given form of locomotion (swimming at the surface, which is the topic of this review): e.g., differences between strokes or between swimmers of different age, sex, and technical level. In this review, the determinants of C (drag and efficiency, as well as energy expenditure in its aerobic and anaerobic components) will, thus, be described and discussed. In aquatic locomotion it is difficult to obtain quantitative measures of drag and efficiency and only a comprehensive (biophysical) approach could allow to understand which estimates are “reasonable” and which are not. Examples of these calculations are also reported and discussed.
2020
The energy cost of swimming and its determinants / Zamparo P.; Cortesi M.; Gatta G.. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY. - ISSN 1439-6319. - STAMPA. - 120:1(2020), pp. 41-66. [10.1007/s00421-019-04270-y]
Zamparo P.; Cortesi M.; Gatta G.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Zamparo2020MODIFICATO.pdf

Open Access dal 06/12/2020

Tipo: Postprint
Licenza: Licenza per accesso libero gratuito
Dimensione 1.3 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.3 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/740386
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 30
  • Scopus 69
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 66
social impact