English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The aim of this research was to develop a path-flow analysis model to highlight the relationships between buoyancy and prone gliding tests and some selected anthropometrical and biomechanical variables. Thirty-eight young male swimmers (12.97 ± 1.05 years old) with several competitive levels were evaluated. It were assessed the body mass, height, fat mass, body surface area, vertical buoyancy, prone gliding after wall push-off, stroke length, stroke frequency and velocity after a maximal 25 [m] swim. The confirmatory model included the body mass, height, fat mass, prone gliding test, stroke length, stroke frequency and velocity. All theoretical paths were verified except for the vertical buoyancy test that did not present any relationship with anthropometrical and biomechanical variables nor with the prone gliding test. The good-of-fit from the confirmatory path-flow model, assessed with the standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR), is considered as being close to the cut-off value, but even so not suitable of the theory (SRMR = 0.11). As a conclusion, vertical buoyancy and prone gliding tests are not the best techniques to assess the swimmer's hydrostatic and hydrodynamic profile, respectively.

How Informative are the Vertical Buoyancy and the Prone Gliding Tests to Assess Young Swimmers' Hydrostatic and Hydrodynamic Profiles?