Reproducibility of an aerobic endurance test for nonexpert swimmers

Abstract

Adalberto Veronese da Costa,1,2 Manoel da Cunha Costa,3 Daniel Medeiros Carlos,1 Luis Marcos de Medeiros Guerra,1,2 Antônio José Silva,2 Tiago Manoel Cabral dos Santos Barbosa2,41Department of Physical Education, Bioscience Laboratory of Human Kinetics, Rio Grande do Norte State University, Mossoró, Brazil; 2Sport Sciences Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro University, Research Center in Sport, Health and Human Development, Vila Real, Portugal; 3Superior School of Physical Education, Human Performance Laboratory, Pernambuco State University, Recife, Brazil; 4National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, SingaporeBackground: This study aimed to verify the reproduction of an aerobic test to determine nonexpert swimmers' resistance.Methods: The sample consisted of 24 male swimmers (age: 22.79 ± 3.90 years; weight: 74.72 ± 11.44 kg; height: 172.58 ± 4.99 cm; and fat percentage: 15.19% ± 3.21%), who swim for 1 hour three times a week. A new instrument was used in this study (a Progressive Swim Test): the swimmer wore an underwater MP3 player and increased their swimming speed on hearing a beep after every 25 meters. Each swimmer's heart rate was recorded before the test (BHR) and again after the test (AHR). The rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and the number of laps performed (NLP) were also recorded. The sample size was estimated using G*Power software (v 3.0.10; Franz Faul, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany). The descriptive values were expressed as mean and standard deviation. After confirming the normality of the data using both the Shapiro–Wilk and Levene tests, a paired t-test was performed to compare the data. The Pearson's linear correlation (r) and intraclass coefficient correlation (ICC) tests were used to determine relative reproducibility. The standard error of measurement (SEM) and the coefficient of variation (CV) were used to determine absolute reproducibility. The limits of agreement and the bias of the absolute and relative values between days were determined by Bland–Altman plots. All values had a significance level of P < 0.05.Results: There were significant differences in AHR (P = 0.03) and NLP (P = 0.01) between the 2 days of testing. The obtained values were r > 0.50 and ICC > 0.66. The SEM had a variation of ±2% and the CV was <10%. Most cases were within the upper and lower limits of Bland–Altman plots, suggesting correlation of the results. The applicability of NLP showed greater robustness (r and ICC > 0.90; SEM < 1%; CV < 3%), indicating that the other variables can be used to predict incremental changes in the physiological condition of swimmers.Conclusion: The Progressive Swim Test for nonexpert swimmers produces comparable results for noncompetitive swimmers with a favorable degree of reproducibility, thus presenting possible applications for researching the physiological performance of nonexpert swimmers.Keywords: swimming, physical evaluation, resistance training, health