Author(s): JONES, A., DEIGHAN, M., GODLEY, J., DE STE CROIX, M., Institution: UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE, Country: UNITED KINGDOM, Abstract-ID: 2475

INTRODUCTION:
Swing dance is an unchoreographed leader and follower dance, characterised by high-tempo dynamic movements. Despite its popularity, the physical demands of swing dance have not been systematically investigated. Swing dance communities are predominantly composed of middle-aged and older adults, suggesting that participation may represent a meaningful and enjoyable way to increase physical activity, reduce sedentary behaviour, and support healthy ageing. In line with the World Health Organisation and NHS priorities for physical activity across the lifespan, understanding the physiological demands of swing dance is warranted. This study quantified heart rate (HR) zone distribution, total steps and distance covered in Leads and Follows during social swing dance.
METHODS:
19 dancers (Leads n=11, 68 ± 9 years; Follows n=8, 67 ± 7 years) participated in a 3-hour social dance event. Heart rate monitors (Polar, H9) were used to assess cardiovascular load. Time spent in five HR zones, defined as a percentage of maximal heart rate (HRmax), expressed as a percentage of total session duration, was recorded: Zone 1 (very light, 50-60% HRmax), Zone 2 (light, 60-70% HRmax), Zone 3 (moderate, 70-80% HRmax), Zone 4 (hard, 80-90% HRmax) and Zone 5 (maximum, 90-100% HRmax). Total step count and distance covered based on individual stature was determined using an Actigraph accelerometer placed on the hip. Independent samples t-tests compared mean percentage time, step count and distance covered between roles (p= 0.05).
RESULTS:
Leads demonstrated a predominantly low-intensity cardiovascular profile, spending 36% of total time in very light intensity, compared with 21% in Follows (p =0.057). Time in light intensity was similar between groups at 27% and 26% (p=0.43), respectively. However, Follows accumulated significantly (p= 0.047) more time in moderate-to-hard intensity zones (48% vs 33%), including 29% in moderate and 19% in hard intensity zones. Minimal time was spent in maximal intensity for both groups (4% vs 5%). Although Follows appeared to cover a greater distance, there was no significant role difference in both step count (6365 vs 5383) (p=0.13) or distance covered (4.17km vs 3.76km) (p= 0.24). Significant variability within groups was evident (based on the range of data in each HR zone).
CONCLUSION:
Distance covered during social swing dancing, combined with the % time spent in moderate to hard cardiovascular loading, indicates that swing dancing should be considered as a viable physical activity with potential health benefits in older adults. Descriptive trends suggest that Follows may experience a higher cardiovascular intensity profile than Leads, highlighting role-specific physiological differences within partnered swing dance.