Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1037
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3155
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Krajewski, KT, Beethe, AZ, Dever, DE, Johnson, CD, Nindl, BC, Lovalekar, MT, Flanagan, SD, and Connaboy, C. Hydrodynamic flow characteristics of a recirculating pool: examining the ecological validity for training and testing. J Strength Cond Res 37(10): 2023-2031, 2023-Recirculating swimming flumes (RSFs) with elliptical multifeature designs have grown in popularity due to their multifunctionality for rehabilitation and training. Because of their smaller footprint, laboratories have adopted their use to investigate swimming and underwater treadmill running. However, little is known about the hydrodynamic characteristics of these RSFs and how they might influence outcomes. The purpose was to determine hydrodynamic flow characteristics of an RSF at the manufacturers' set "speeds" around the centroid of flow projection. Hydrodynamic velocity profiles were collected through a 3D profiling velocimeter, sampling at 200 Hz in an RSF. Data were collected 0.5 and 1.5 m from the projection channel at designated flume "speeds" of 30-95 (+99) in 5-unit increments. Velocity data were collected for 1 minute per trial (location × speed) to determine mean flow velocity (MFV) for 10, 20, 30, and 40 cm2 cross-sectional areas (CSAs). A two-way ANOVA was conducted comparing CSAs from the surface by distance from the current channel (4 × 2). Separate ANOVAs were conducted to assess differences in MFV across each CSA. Significant differences between flow CSAs indicated that MFV is less for a larger area at the same speed, indicative of variable and turbulent flow characteristics across the respective CSAs. Mean flow velocity was further diminished by distance from the flow channel as supported by the main effect, thus exposing an individual to variant flow velocities simultaneously. Limited stability of the flow velocity centroid could affect swim mechanics making the movement pattern no longer analogous to traditional pool and open water swimming, rather resembling swimming upstream in a river with turbulent flow.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004500 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!