Dr. Hab., Professor G.A. Gilev^{1, 2}
V.V. Vladykina¹
Associate Professor A.A. Pleshakov²
V.V. Belyaev³
PhD, Associate Professor E.A. Zubko³
¹Moscow State Pedagogical University, Moscow
²Moscow Polytechnic University, Moscow
³ Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow

Keywords: swimming sprint, women, fitness peak, age, body length, body mass.

Background. Key barriers for competitive progress in different swimming events are sensitive age periods, body lengths and masses [1, 3, 4].

Objective of the study was to profile the age-, body-length and mass-specific variations in the women’s swimming sprint elite by events, swimming styles and fitness stages.

Methods and structure of the study. We analyzed for the purposes of the study the relevant study reports to generalize the theoretical materials, plus reports of the top national and international swimming events, with a special analysis of the women’s swimming sprint elite’s anthropometrics by the swimming styles, events and fitness periods for the last few decades. Subject to analysis were also the elite swimming sprint (including the 200m event) swimmers’ ages, body masses and lengths versus the competitive progresses in the top-ranking events (including the 2012/ 2016 Olympic Games finals). The latest data were compared with the relevant historical elite swimming sprint data and supported by questionnaire surveys of the top-class swimming sprint elite coaches.

Results and discussion. It should be noted that the 50m female freestylers are the last to enter the sport elite – normally since 18 years of age – versus, for example, the 100m female breaststrokers that come to elite since 15 years of age. As for the retirement times, the 50m freestylers and 200m butterfly/ backstroke competitors are the last to retire from elite (normally by 33-39 years of age). Given in Table 1 is the age grouping of the world strongest female swimming sprint competitors in the 2012/ 2016 Olympic Games. Based on the V.N. Platonov’s [2] classification, we age-grouped the Olympic Games competitors into the fitness peak period, fitness keeping period and fitness sagging period: see Table 2.

Table 1. Women’s swimming sprint elite fitness age periods: top-16 competitors to the 2012/ 2016 Olympic Games

Table 2. Fitness stages of  the top-16 competitors to the 2012/ 2016 Olympic Games

Note: fitness periods were grouped as recommended by V.N. Platonov (2012)

It should be mentioned that the V.N. Platonov’s fitness time groups show no clear margins for the Olympic Games elite sample [2]. For example, the three fitness stages merge for the 200m freestyle and 200m backstroke groups. It is not unusual that the fitness stages merge in different combinations for the other events as well.

Having analyzed the data, we would emphasize that lately the women’s swimming sprint elite fitness periods has expanded to 15-39 years that may be due to the growing commercialization of the sport, with the financial and reputational benefits of wins and medals growing year to year to force the athletes continue their competitive careers by all means. Note that the elite entrance (fitness peak) ages for the 100m freestyle, backstroke, breaststroke, butterfly and medley have dropped by 1-2 years. Given on Figure 1 hereunder is the V.N. Platonov’s fitness age periods for 1986-2011 versus the top-16 2012/ 2016 Olympic Games competitors’ fitness stages.

Figure 1. V.N. Platonov’s fitness age periods for 1986-2011 swimming sport elite versus the top-16 2012/ 2016 Olympic Games competitors’ fitness stages

For the last decade, as demonstrated by Table 1, the elite fitness ages have contracted for some events (save for the 200m freestyle) and grown for the others. Given in Table 3 are the body masses and heights of the top-16 2016 Olympic Games competitors (finalists and semi-finalists). Note that the top-16 sample anthropometrics for every event is actually characteristic of the swimming sprint elite’s body masses and heights.

Table 3. Body masses and heights of the top-16 2016 Olympic Games female swimming sprint competitors

Note: bolded are the significantly different figures (p <0.05)

Having analyzed the elite’s anthropometric averages by events and styles, we would note the high degree of homogeneity. Thus, the variation ratios for every event never exceed 4.5%. As for the body mass, the variation is higher and comes to 11% for the 100m butterfly. Leading on the individual body length scale is the 190cm tall Victoria Andreeva, 2016 Olympic Games medley semifinalist from Russia; and the shortest on this scale is the 159cm tall 100m butterfly competitor Daniela Marsal from Brazil. On the individual body mass scale, the sample is quite consistent, without extremes. Thus the heaviest is Edlo Gustafdotir (Iceland), a 82kg heavy and 187 tall 100m backstroke competitor; and the lightest is Runa Imai (Japan), a 50kg heavy and 163cm tall 200m medley competitor. On the whole, the body masses and heights show a good correlation for the elite swimming sprint sample, i.e. the higher is the body length average for some event the heavier are the swimmers.

Leading in the average body length is the 100m backstroke group, whilst on the average body mass scale it is ranked second (-0.2 kg) to the 100m freestyle group. The latter is found second tallest with -0.7 cm versus the 100m backstroke group. Note that these differences are insignificant in fact. The 200m butterfly group was found significantly shortest (170cm on average) and lightest (58.9 kg) in the sample. Of particular interest was the body mass versus length analysis for the same event and style; and it showed the event/ distance groups being virtually the same on both scales.

The 100/ 200m backstroke, breaststroke and medley groups were tested with virtually the same anthropometrics; whilst the 200m butterfly group was tested significantly lighter than their 100m peers, plus some differences were noticeable albeit statistically insignificant on the body length scale. The 200m butterfly event is known to require special high endurance which appears to be easier achieved by the relatively lighter swimmers.

Given on Figure 2 are the women’s swimming sprint elite’s average body lengths for the 50m to 200m events and swimming styles. The data make it possible to analyze the typical specialized groups in the modern swimming sprint elite. Thus the body length averages show the sample being classifiable, on a significant basis, into group 1 including the backstroke and freestyle competitors and group 2 of the butterfly, breaststroke and medley ones. The grouping may be due to the swimmers style-specific movement hydrodynamics with the relatively smooth (freestyle and backstroke) or intermittent (breaststroke, butterfly) movements in every elementary cycle.

Figure 2. Women’s swimming sprint elite average body lengths for the 50m to 200m events and different swimming styles

100m backstroke 200m backstroke 50m freestyle 100m freestyle 200m freestyle 100m butterfly 200m breaststroke 100 m breaststroke 200m medley 200m butterfly

The same typological groups were found on the body mass scale, with the intermittent-style group 1 (breaststroke, butterfly) tested lighter than the smooth-style group 2. Having comparing the modern body mass and length data with that of prior to 2011, we found modern group 1 being 10cm taller and 5-7kg heavier on average. Butterfly competitors were the shortest prior to 2011 irrespective of the distance, and nowadays this holds true only for the 200m butterfly competitors.

Conclusion. Based on the study data and analyses, we found and analyzed the age, body length and body mass groups in the sample of 50m, 100m and 200m female sprint swimmers versus their swimming styles. The age-, body-mass and length-group correlations of the modern swimming sprint competitors specialized in different events and swimming styles may be beneficial for designers of theoretically grounded training systems for the world-class swimming sprint elite.

References

1. Abramova T.F., Nikitina T.M., Kochetkova N.I. Labile body weight components - criteria for general physical fitness and control of current and long-term adaptation to training loads. Method. recommendations. M.: Skyprint publ., 2013. 132 p.
2. Platonov V.N. Sport swimming: way to success. M.: Sovetskiy sport publ., 2012. 480 p.
3. Platonov V.N. Sports training system in Olympic sport. General theory and its practical applications. Kiev: Olimpiyskaya literatura publ., 2004. 808 p.
4. Statkyavichene B.V. Morphological and functional characteristics of elite swimmers and their role in selection and further sports improvement (women). PhD diss. abstr.. M., 1986. 202 p.

Corresponding author: ga.gilev@mpgu.edu

Abstract

Objective of the study was to profile the age-, body-length and mass-specific variations in the women’s swimming sprint elite by events, swimming styles and fitness stages.

Methods and structure of the study. The authors analyzed for the purposes of the study the relevant study reports to generalize the theoretical materials, plus reports of the top national and international swimming events, with a special analyses of the women’s swimming sprint elite’s anthropometrics by the swimming styles, events and fitness periods for the last few decades. Subject to analyses were also the elite swimming sprint (including the 200m event) swimmers’ ages, body masses and lengths versus the competitive progresses in the top-ranking events (including the 2012/ 2016 Olympic Games finals). The latest data were compared with the relevant historical elite swimming sprint data and supported by questionnaire surveys of the top-class swimming sprint elite coaches.

Results and discussion. Modern women’s swimming sprint elite was found significantly different on the active age, body length and body mass scales from their peers of the last decades. The fitness ages of the elite were found to either expand or contract depending on the styles and events. We age-grouped the 2012/ 2016 Olympic Games competitors by the performance records into the fitness peak period, fitness keeping period and fitness sagging period. The key anthropometrics of the top-16 competitors in the 2016 Olympic Games by the styles and events may be conservatively used as benchmarks for the swimming styles and events analyzing purposes.