# Relationships Between Dry-Land Load—Velocity Parameters and In-Water Bioenergetic Performance in Competitive Swimmers

## TL;DR

This study explores how dry-land strength and speed metrics relate to swimming performance, finding that power and speed correlate with aerobic capacity while strength relates to anaerobic capacity.

## Contribution

The study establishes distinct relationships between upper-body load–velocity parameters and aerobic/anaerobic swimming capacities in competitive swimmers.

## Key findings

- Maximal power and velocity correlate strongly with critical velocity (aerobic capacity).
- Maximal strength is strongly linked to anaerobic capacity.
- Regression models show F0 explains 71% of anaerobic capacity variance, and V0 explains 48% of critical velocity variance.

## Abstract

Background: Neuromuscular determinants such as maximal force, maximal velocity, and upper-body power are recognized as key contributors to competitive swimming performance. However, despite the relevance of these dry-land qualities, their relationships with the physiological mechanisms underpinning in-water performance, particularly aerobic and anaerobic capacities, remain insufficiently established. Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the relationships between upper-body load–velocity profile parameters (theoretical maximal force: F0; theoretical maximal velocity: V0; and maximal power: Pmax), aerobic capacity expressed through critical velocity, and anaerobic capacity in trained swimmers. Methods: Thirty competitive male swimmers (age = 16.50 ± 0.31 years) completed an upper-body load–velocity profile test using the bench press exercise to determine F0, V0, and Pmax. Swimming performances in the 100, 200, and 400 m freestyle events were used to calculate critical velocity and anaerobic capacity based on a linear distance–time model. Pearson correlation coefficients and linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between variables. Results: Pmax (r = 0.493, p = 0.006) and V0 (r = 0.697, p < 0.001) showed moderate to strong correlations with critical velocity, whereas F0 showed no significant association (r = 0.152, p = 0.422). Conversely, anaerobic capacity was strongly correlated with F0 (r = 0.842, p < 0.001) but not with V0 (p = 0.119). Regression models indicated that F0 explained 71% of the variance in anaerobic capacity, while V0 explained 48% of the variance in critical velocity. Conclusion: The findings demonstrated distinct contributions of neuromuscular qualities: speed and power-oriented parameters are associated with critical velocity, whereas maximal strength strongly associated with anaerobic capacity. Monitoring the upper-body load–velocity profile appears to be a relevant tool for individualizing dry-land training according to the aerobic and anaerobic demands of swimmers.