Author(s): ZHOU, Z., YANG, C.K., CAI, B.R., CHAINOK, P., KERNLUEA, S., LIN, J.Z., Institution: NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY OF SPORT, Country: TAIWAN, Abstract-ID: 1097

INTRODUCTION:
Swimming is a highly streamlined sport requiring complex movement control, and performance enhancement relies on systematic strength training and effective fatigue monitoring strategies. These approaches need to be integrated within a periodized training framework to allow athletes to reach peak performance during the competition phase and to inform training planning and adjustments throughout the annual training cycle (1). Therefore, this study aimed to examine changes in in-water explosive performance across different training phases under varying resistance load conditions, to providing scientific support for periodized resistance training and performance monitoring in swimming.
METHODS:
This study recruited 18 male collegiate swimmers. Performed 25-m front crawl sprint tests at three time points of an annual training cycle: preparation phase (T1), competition phase (T2), and transition phase (T3). Trials were conducted under three resistance conditions corresponding to 1%, 3%, and 5% of the swimmers’ body mass using a semi-tethered system (1080 Sprint 2). Maximal velocity, peak force, peak power, and velocity decrement rate were analyzed from 5 to 20 m segments. Two-way repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to determine the effects of training phase and resistance load on sprint performance under water.
RESULTS:
The results showed a significant interaction between training phase and resistance load for maximum velocity (p = .038). Simple main effects analysis indicated that maximum velocity under the 1% and 3% loads was significantly higher in the preparation phase than in the transition phase. For peak power, a significant main effect of training phase was found, with both the preparation and competition phases demonstrating higher values than the transition phase (p = .006). Similarly, peak force exhibited a significant main effect of training phase, with higher values observed during the competition phase compared to the transition phase (p = .045).
CONCLUSION:
Results indicate that swimming velocities at 1% and 3% of maximal velocity were higher in the preparatory phase than the transition phase, attributing high-speed performance maintenance to accumulated technical stability and neuromuscular capacity. Peak power output (preparation and competition phases) and peak force (competitive phase) were significantly higher than in the transition phase, suggesting that systematic training stimuli effectively sustain power and force. Additionally, both metrics increased with external load, demonstrating the utility of higher resistance in differentiating performance characteristics. Therefore, integrating underwater resisted swimming with periodized training enhances annual monitoring of in-water explosive performance.