C.A LIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,
NORTHRIDGE
THE EFFECTS OF TWO TYPES OF TRAINING ON
'I
LUNG PARAMETERS RELATING TO SWIM
BUOYANCY IN HOMO SAPIENS AND THE
RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF
FAT AND AIR IN THIS REGARD
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in
Biology
by
David Oscar Anderson
./'
January, 1979
The Thesis of David Oscar Anderson is approved:
Marvin Cantor, Ph. D.
, Richard Potter, Ph. D.
California State University, Northridge
ii
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my wife,
who allowed me to be away from home
in the evenings to pursue this work.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am indebted to Drs. Richard Potter, Marvin Cantor,
and John
Kontogiannis~
writing this paper.
who read and provided helpful criticism in
In addition, Dr.
George Rich offered his
exercise physiology laboratory, which enabled me to gather the
necessary data.
Thank you all for your joint interest and help.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
iv
LIST OF TABLES .
vi
ABSTRACT . . .
viii
INTRODUCTION .
1
MATERIAL AND METHODS
9
RESULTS
16
DISCUSSION
34
SUMMARY
.
41
LITERATURE CITED
42
APPENDICES . • . .
47
A.
c.
Physical Characteristics of Subjects
48
Equations Used in Calculations
55
. . '. . .
58
Terms .
.
.
.
. -·
.
v
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Shows the differences within groups
in regards to FEV 1. 0 in liters (BTPS.)
per kg. body weight at Tl' T , and T
2
3
and changes within each group due to
training . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
. .
18
Notes the differences within groups in
regards to vital capacity in liters
(BTPS.) per kg. body weight at T , T 2 ,
1
and T and changes within each group
3
due to training
. . . . . . . .
22
Shows the differences within groups in
regards to residual lung volume per kg.
body weight at T , T , and T and changes
3
1
2
within each group due to training (using
helium dilution technique).
25
Shows the differences within groups in
regards to residual lung volume per kg.
body weight at T , T , and T and changes
1
3
within each group dui to trainmg (using
Wilmore method) .
27
Shows the percent body fat of the three
groups taken at T
3
29
Shows the buoyancy (in kg.) per kg. of body
weight for the three groups at T . •
3
31
Shows the FEV 1 . 0 per kg. of fat-free mass
for the three groups at T , expressed
3
in liters (BTPS.)
31
Shows the residual volume per kg. of fatfree mass between the three groups at T
3
using the helium dilution method,
expressed in liters {BTPS. ) . . . . .
32
vi
Table
9.
10.
11.
Page
Shows the difference between the three groups
in regards· to residual volume per kg. of
fat-free mass at T using the Wilmore
3
method, expressed in liters (BTPS.) . .
32
Shows the difference between the three groups
in relation to vital capacity per kg. of fatfree mass at T , expressed in liters
3
(BTPS.) . . . . .
33
Age, height, weight, and FEV 1. 0 for sprint,
distance, and control groups
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
.
.
.
.
49
Vital capacity and residual volume (He dilution
method) in liters (BTPS. ) for the sprint,
distance, and control groups
50
Residual volume (Wilmore method) in liters
(BTPS.) and o/o body fat for the sprint,
distance, and control groups
. . . .
51
FEV 1.
and vital capacity in liters (BTPS.)
0
per kg. body weight for the sprint, distance,
and control groups . . . . . . . . .
52
Residual volume (He dilution method) and
residual volume (Wilmore method) in liters
(BTPS.) per kg. body weight for the sprint,
distance, and control groups
53
Buoyancy
sprint,
percent
Helium
54
in kg. per kg. body weight for the
distance, and control groups with·
contribution of air using both
dilution and Wilmore methods . .
vii
ABSTRACT
THE EFFECTS OF TWO TYPES OF TRAINING ON
LUNG PARAMETERS RELATING TO SWIM
BUOYANCY IN HOMO SAPIENS AND THE
RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF
FAT AND AIR IN THIS REGARD
by
David Oscar Anderson
Master of Science in Biology
January, 1979
Over a period of three months of swim training, no signifcant increase in forced expiratory volume per one second (FEVL
0
and residual lung volume per kg. -of body weight occurred in
hu:man subjects.
However, the distance swim group {using long
workouts with relatively little rest) showed a significant increase
in vital capacity per kg. of body weight over a control group.
In
contrast, the sprint group showed no such effect using a workout
of less distance and more rest.
viii
Both the distance and sprint
)
swim groups had greater vital capacities per kg.
body weight and
higher residual lung volume (using Wilmore's predictive residual
volume formula) at both the mid and post seasons than the control
group.
This suggests that both swim groups might have more
buoyancy from internal air than the control group.
Single tests
done at the postseason only showed no differences between the two
swim groups and the control in regards to percent body fat,
buoyancy per kg. of body weight, FEV 1.
0
per kg. of fat-free
mass, residual volume per kg. of body weight (Helium dilution
method).
However, using Wilmore's predictive values for residual
volumes, the distance swim group had significantly higher values
than the control group.
This indicates that the distance group
might have some evidence for air buoyancy for its non-fat tissues
(bone and muscle).
ix
INTRODUCTION'
The static buoyant factors in man are fat and air.
of these contribute to man's floating ability in water.
Both
Because
the specific gravity of air is so much less than fat (. 001 compared to . 93), the force exerted by air upward is correspondingly
much greater.
By applying proper calculations, it can be deter-
mined that each liter of air supplies one kilogram of buoyant
force upward (personal communication with Dr. Caretta, Department of Engineering, CSUN 1978, Gee 1970).
On the other hand,
one kilogram of fat, which has a specific gravity of . 93 (Behnke
1953), supplies . 0753 kilograms of buoyant force upward (Dr.
Caretta 1978).
(See Appendix B for calculations)
Thus, a 60-
kilogram man with 25o/o· body fat, has 15 kilograms of fat which
exerts 1. 13 kg. of buoyant force upward.
If he also has one
liter of air in his lungs, his total buoyant force is 2. 13 kg. (consider intestinal gas negligible, although this is not the case in
careful calculations).
When a human subject is moving on the surface of the
water, another fa·ctor, "hydroplaning", causes him to rise out of
the water.
Since the "hydroplaning'' effect becomes less impor-
tant for distance swimmers because they swim at a slower rate,
the question can be asked if they have more buoyancy contributed
1
2
by fat and air when compared to the faster moving sprint swimmer; the sprinter relies on high speed· and "hydroplaning" to lift
his body out of the water.
Applying principles· of drag, it is to
man's advantage to swim as high out of the water as possible.
However, if this requires considerably more metabolic energy, he
might not swim as well for long distances.
Rapid ventilation would also be of advantage for buoyancy
control as this would allow aswimmer to exhale at the last possible moment.
Thus, he could maintain more of an air pocket
for a longer period of time and then make a rapid exchange.
As a person is swimming, he might be said to possess
two components to the amount of internal_ gas contained within his
body at any one instant.
The first component can be called his
static gas volume because it is relatively fixed and unchanged.
consists of his residual lung gas and his gastrointestinal gas.
It
The
second component can be called the dynamic component because it
is constantly increasing or decreasing.
It can be approximately
assessed by measuring his forced expiratory volume for one
seco:p.d (FEV 1.
0
) and his vital capacity (VC), the former indicating
how rapidly he can change his inte-rnal lung gas and the latter
indicating how much gas he can hold maximally.
Although earlier measurements fluctuated quite a bit for a
subject's intestinal gas depending on diet and time of last bowel
3
movement (Blair et al.
194 7, Keys and Brozek 1953, Marshall and
Dubois 1955), Bedell et al. (1956) found that if the bowel was evacuated (using an improved measuring technique with the body
plethysmograph), the mean value of 115 ml. (sd 127 ml.) was
determined for the volume of this gas.
This is roughly one tenth
or less of the volume of gas that would be found in the residual
lung volume.
Since this is relatively small in relation to lung
volwnes, it is not considered to be very important to total buoyancy.
However, recently the East Germans have been experi-
menting with adding gases via the rectum into the intestinal tract
to increase the performances of their swimmers by increasing
their buoyancy.
However, it has been observed by the author that
too much intestinal gas probably inhibits swimming speed because
of the pressure against the diaphragm during maximum respiratory efforts.
Behnke et al.
( 1942) recorded a specific gravity change
from 1. 056 to 1. 071 in one man over a seven-month period due to
careful diet and exercise.
The man lost a total of 8. 8 kilograms
and careful calculations verified that almost all of this was due to
loss of fat.
Again, it can be seen that fat changes can substan-
tially affect buoyancy.
Relatively few time-related studies have been done.
Andrew et al.
(1972) did a three-year study on lung parameters
4
in swimmers, but failed to give initial and final data in order to
note changes.
Bachman and Horvath (1965) found that the swim-
mers' vital capacity increased and their residual volume decreased significantly at the . OS level through training in a threemonth swimming season; no significant change in total lung capacity occurred.
Carey et al.
( 1956) found increases in expiratory
reserve at the . 10 level, vital capacity at the . OS level, total
lung capacity at the . 10 level and decreases in residual volume at
the . 10 level after a year of underwater training with naval divers
using twenty subjects.
They were compared with twenty non-
diving laboratory personnel.
A strand and Rodahl ( 1977) said that
any training during adolescence will eventually increase vital
capacity and total lung capacity.
Some consideration has been given to the effect of submerging the body in water on the various lung parameters mentioned in the literature.
water, the FEV
1.0
If the subject is placed in neck-deep
is affected by a 58% increase in flow resist.
ance (Agostoni et al.
1966 ).
Most studies indicate a significant
decrease in vital capacity from 4-11 o/o,. depending on the particular
·study (Agostoni et al.
1966, Beckman and Horvath 1961 1 Brozek
et al. 1949, Faulkner 1966, Holmer et al.
Faulkner 1967).
However, Carey et al.
( 1960) reported no significant changes.
1974, Magel and
(1956) and Hong et al.
This apparent controversy
-
-
·-
"·
-
-
5
might be alleviated by Agostoni 1 s explanation:
The decrease in
vital capacity might be accounted for by the hydrostatic force
counteracting the force of the inspiratory
shift of the blood into the thorax.
muscl~s,
and by the
The first factor is predicted
from the total relaxation-pressure curve of the lungs and thorax
(Agostoni et al.
1966 ).
Hamilton and Mayo ( 1944) contributed
evidence to support the second factor by demonstrating that a
decrease of the vital capacity of the immersed subject could be
partially prevented by the application of blood pressure cuffs
inflated to 70 mm. Hg.
With regard to residual volume in neck-deep water, some
studies have indicated no significant change when compared to
measurements out of water (C.arey et al.
1967, Prefaut et al.
1956, Craig and Ware
1976), while other studies have indicated
significant decreases as much as 16o/o (Agostoni et al.
Brozek et al.
1949, Hong et al.
1960).
1966,
Possibly the same expla-
nations that were given for vital capacity discrepancies might also
be presented here.
Since a swimmer is in a ventral down, horizontal position
the logical question raised is what "changes take place in the lung
parameters mentioned in this position?
have been done in this regard.
Unfortunately, no studies
.Astrand and Rodahl (1977) report
a 5-lOo/o decrease in vital capacity from standing to lying down
6
on land.
However, this is the position for backstroke only (dorsal
side facing down).
Therefore, no definitive statements can be
made about the changes in FEV
1.0
, vital capacity, and residual
volume going from land to the swimming position in water.
Many swim coaches have wondered what causes some
swimmers to swim higher in the water even though they are swimming at less than full speed, while other swimmers swim lower in
the water and thus have more drag.
This study attempted to
answer this question by studying the two components for total
buoyancy:
fat and internal air.
Comparisons were made at equiv-
alent body weights {per kg. of body weight) so that size differences
could be accounted for.
approach.
No previous studies have attempted this
Although it can be said that high amounts of fat are not
beneficial to highly trained athletes, buoyancy is beneficial to swimmers.
Thus, can a swimmer reach a proper compromise between
fat and internal air, utilizing them to their fullest advantage for
buoyancy and yet also maintain cardiovascular fitness?
Specifically, the design of this study was to investigate
the factors influencing the buoyancy of three populations:
sprint
swimmers, distance swimmers, and control (nonswimmers) at the
postseason (T -after three months of swimming).
3
In this sense,
this study was a survey in regards to total buoyancy (fat and air)
as this will be only calculated once (at T ).
3
However, in another
7
sense, it was an experimental study as the three groups had different types of training and changes in several lung parameters
were noted at times T ,
1
T
2
and T ; these lung parameters were
3
assumed to have an effect on the subject's internal air volumes.
The time-related changes in lung parameters were discussed in
terms of their effects on total buoyancy.
From this, different
types of training were assessed as to development of buoyancy.
From this design, the following null hypotheses were
formulated in relationship to the problem:
A.
There will be no significant differences between the
three groups at times T , T , or T on the
3
1
2
dependent variable:
I.
Forced expiratory volume for 1 second per
kg. body weight (FEV I.
0
/kg.)
2.
V_ital capacity per kg. body weight (VC/kg.)
3.
Residual lung volw-ne per kg. body weight
(RV /kg.)
B.
There will be no significant change within any one
group at the three testing periods (Tl' T ,
2
T )
3
for the three parameters mentioned.
C.
There will be no significant difference between the
three groups in regards to the following parameters
.
'
8
4.
Percent body fat
5.
Buoyancy in kg. per kg. body weight
{Buoy. /kg. body wt.)
6.
FEV L
0
(FEV l.
7.
0
in liters per kg. fat-free mass
/kg. FFM)
Vital capacity in liters per kg. fat-free
mass (VC/kg. FFM)
8.
Residual volume in liters per kg. fat-free
mass (RV /kg. FFM)
In all cases, the independent variables were the two
methods of training (See Material and Methods section).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The subjects used in this study were college and high
school swimmers.
The college swimmers were all members of
the NCAA Division II National Champion CSUN Men 1 s Swim Team
for 1978.
They were all personally selected for dependability and
because it was easy to classify them into sprinters or distance
swimmers.
The high school students were selected by Coach
Edward Buchanan at Granada Hills High School using the same
basic criteria.
Upon completion of the selecting procedure, the swimming
subjects were divided into two groups:
the distance swimmers
(those that would benefit most from high buoyancy) and the sprinters (those that would benefit least from high buoyancy).
A person
was classified as a distance swimmer if his past performances
were best in events of 200 yards or more and his current training
would be specific for postseason distance swimming.
Thus, typi-
cal workouts for distance swimmers would be continuous long
yardage swimming with little rest intervals.
On the other hand,
a person was classified as a sprinter if his past performances
were best in events of 100 yards or less and his current training would be specific for postseason sprinting.
9
Thus, typical
10
workouts for sprinters would be long rest intervals, moderate
yardage accumulation, and high intensity efforts.
On the basis of the above criteria, the distance swimmers
group consisted of seven CSUN students and three high school students, while the sprinters group was six CSUN students and four
high school students.
For a standard of comparison, a non-
swimming control group was also selected which consisted of nine
CSUN students and former athletes.
Table 11 in Appendix A
shows the basic physical dimensions of all subjects.
four tests were performed on each subject:
A total of
forced expiratory
volume for one second, vital capacity, residual lung volume, and
percent body fat.
All testing was done at one-month intervals so that equal
time periods existed in all three groups.
All three groups were
tested from start to finish in three months to minimize any maturation changes that might take place, especially in the high school
participants.
Since a control group was used, any improvement
in the test results due to learning should have occurred within
this group.
All testing done in the laboratory was assumed to relate
to what was actually going on in the swimming pool, although no
measurements were made in the pool.
For the determination of forced expiratory volume for
11
one second (FEV1. 0 ), the subject first took a deep breath and
inspired maximally.
The subject then exhaled as forcefully and
completely as possible with the kymograph drum moving at the
fastest speed (1900 mm. per second).
This procedure was
repeated three times and corrected to BTPS (body temperature
pressure saturated).
By constructing horizontal and perpendicular
lines on the kymogram, the amount of air exhaled per second was
determined.
The vital capacity and its subdivisions were measured
with the Collins 13 1/2 liter respirometer.
With the subject con-
nected to the respirometer via a rubber mouthpiece, any change in
lung volumes was reflected in a volume displacement in the kymo;..
graph.
The readings were taken in liters and corrected to BTPS.
Three separate vital capacity tests were conducted along with
three separate interspersed tidal volume measurements.
This
allowed three expiratory reserve volumes to be calculated which
could be used in the residual lung volume measurements.
The residual capacity was measured with the closedcircuit helium gas dilution method.
The respirometer was closed
with a small known amount of helium.
After a normal expiration,
the subject was connected to the respirometer and he rebreathed
from the system.
the baralyme.
The expired carbon dioxide was absorbed by
Oxygen was added to the circuit manually at a
12
rate to keep the volume at the end of expiration at a constant
level.
The concentration of the indicator gas fell in the respire-
meter and rose in the lungs.
The final· concentration was a
simple function of the added gas volume. for example, the functional residual capacity.
At this point of equilibration which took
3-7 minutes to reach, the drop in concentration of helium gas was
noted and residual. capacity was calculated.
(See Appendix B for
the equations used. )
As a back-up to the residual data taken using the helium
dilution method, predicted residual volumes were assessed for
each subject and assumed to be . 24 of the subject's vital capacity
as suggested by Wilmore (1969).
This was done because the
necessity of getting all the subjects in the laboratory in a relatively short time period (one week) for either the pre, mid, or
postseason test, allowed only one heliu:m. dilution test, thereby
increasing the chances of error with this technique.
Work by
Wilmore (1969) suggests that the predicted value for large groups
.of people can be used with reliability.
Percent body fat was measured in the following way:
after recording the subject's weight in air on a balance scale,
instructions were given for entering the weighing tank.
Before the
subject entered the tank, the water temperature and tare weight
were recorded.
The subject., wearing a swimming suit, lowered
13
himseU in the testing tank carefully.
Sitting cross-legged on the
suspended swing platform with water at approximately neck level.,
the subject held the bottom of the swing and bent forward until the
head was well below the water surface.
A complete forced expira-
tion was made before and during the submersion until the subject
could no longer expire.
Air left in the lungs in excess of residual
volUllle would result in a lighter reading than was "true"., and
result in lower body density, and higher percentage body fat.
Therefore, because of this small but significant (. 0 1) error in
body density being possible, each subject was encouraged to expel
all of the -air in the lungs.
During the underwater measurement., the investigator
damped the scales oscillation to less than 25 grams by lightly
hand-controlling the scale suspension cables.
Any air bubbles
noted adhering to the subject were wiped off before weighing.
least five trials were recorded.
At
The average of trials three,
four and five were employed as the "true" underwater weight., as
suggested by Rich ( 1972).
Each subject was requested to fast and
not take food or liquid for at least several hours prior to the test.,
and to empty the bowel and bladder before reporting to the laboratory.
Then. the remaining intestinal gas was assumed to be con-
stant at 115 mL as recommended by Bedell et al.
(1956).
calculations were made using the equation devised by Keys
All
14
and Brozek (1953).
Since the laboratory had no body plethysmograph, direct
assessment of intestinal gas was not possible.
As a buoyancy
factor, it was considered negligible since it is normally a fraction
of the amount found in the lungs.
It was, however, subtracted off
(see Appendix B) to increase the accuracy of the percent body fat
calculation.
A mean value of 115 ml. as computed by Bedell
et al. (1956) was used.
In the analysis of the data, the means, standard deviation, and standard error of each variable for each group were
calcUlated before {T ), at the midseason (T ), and after training
.
2
1
The difference between the groups at T , T , and T were
3
1
2
tested for significance by means of a two-way analysis of variance.
Any significant difference at the 95% level of confidence
was further tested using multiple comp.arison tests (Simple Effects
Test, Newman-Kuels Test, or Tukey Test) to see which group was
significantly different from which.
In addition, the variables percent body fat, buoyancy in
kg.
per kg. of body weight, buoyancy in kg. per kg. of fat-free
mass, FEV I.
0
pe;r kg. of fat-free mass, vital capacity in liters
per kg. of fat-free mass, and residual volume in liters per kg. of
fat-free mass were analyzed for each group at T
3
only.
15
(Hydrostatic tank was not available for T
1
and T
2
time periods.)
In each case, a one-way analysis of variance was. used followed
by multiple comparison tests when needed.
RESULTS
The first four tables compare the three groups at preseason~
midseason, and postseason and note duferences between
groups at each time period as well as changes that take place due
to training.
Thus, these data can be called time-related studies.
As Table 1 shows, the three groups are not significantly different
from each other at the . 05 level of significance at T , T , or T
2
3
1
in regards to FEV
1. 0
per kg. of body weight.
In contrast, other
studies have shown swimmers higher than nonswimmers with
regards to this parameter (Andrew et al.
1972, Astrand et al.
1963, Holmer and Astrand 1972, Newman et al.
et al.
1974).
1961, Shepard
The values ranged from 8% to 15% higher than the
predicted Il.Orms for the particular age, sex, and height of the
individual.
This apparent dtscrepancy can best be explained by
noting that the present study's control group consisted of former
athletes who also had higher values than would be predicted for
their age and height.
Also, this study compared each group per
unit body weight, which was not done in the other studies.
In
addition, Table 1 shows that none of the groups had any significapt change at the . 05 level in regards to this parameter between
any two of the time periods.
Shepard et al.
(1974) found that
distance swimmers had higher FEV 1. 0 than sprinters, but no level
16
17
of significance .was discussed nor was an attempt made to consider the relative differences in height and weight between the two
groups.
Their study revealed a mean difference in height of 2 em.,
distance swimmers being shorter.
Holmer and Astrand (1972)
studied two world class Swedish girl swimmers who were identical
twins.
Both started swimming competitively at age 14.
SI quit but LI continued swimming.
FEV 1.
0
At 17,
At 19, LI had a higher
(4. 36 liters compared to 3. 93 liters, suggesting that swim
training caused the change., not heredity.
As for this study, three
months may not have been long enough to produce significant
changes.
18
TABLE 1.
Shows the differences within groups in regards
to FEV
1.0
in liters (BTPS.) per kg. body
weight at T 1 , T , and T and changes within
2
3
each group due to training.
·>1,
-------
-·-- - -
-----
---
19
TABLE 1
Mean square
Degrees of
Freedom
total
0. 58123611
86
between
1. 61766092
28
groups
1. 71002451
2
error (Group)
1. 61055603
26
within
0.08089310
58
trials
0.1445630
Group by Time
F-ratio
Probability
1. 062
0.3616
2
1. 394
0.2562
0.04829353
4
0.588
0.6758
error (Time)
0.08210987
52
Group means
Sprinters
Distance
0. 06557667
0.06524000
0. 06113333
preseason
mid season
postsea:9on
0.06373103
0.06370690
0.06480690
midseason
postseason
Source
Time means
preseason
Group means
by Time periods
Control
sprinters
0.06560000
0.06445000
0.06668000
distance
0.06426000
0.06558000
0.06588000
control
0.06106667
0.06080000
0.06153333
20
Table 2 shows that the three groups are not significantly different from each other at T _ but both the sprint and
1
distance groups are significantly greater in vital capacity per kg.
body weight than the control group at T
2
and T .
3
This was veri-
fied by both the Simple Effects Test and Tukey 1 s Test.
Other
studies have shown vital capacities to be consistently higher in
swimmers than nonswimmers (Andrew et al.
1972, Astrand et al.
1963, Bachman and Horvath 1965, Faulkner 1966, Holmer and
Astrand 1972, Magel 1967, Newman et al.
1961).
Values ranging
from 6% to 13% above the normal values for age, height, and sex
have been recorded.
Underwater swimmers have also been shown
to have 15-25% higher than normal vital capacities (Craig and
Ware 1967, Song et al.
1963).
However, all these studies also
fail to relate their information per unit body weight, which was
done in my study ..
In addition, using the Simple Effects Test and Tukey' s
Test, this table shows that the distance group had a significant
increase in vital capacity per kg. body weight from T 2 (. 0820
liters) to T
3
(. 0850 liters) and from T 1 (. 0823 liters) to T 3 .
Bachman and Horvath (1965) found that swimmers increased vital
capacity significantly (. 05 level) through training in a three month
~wimming
season.
Carey et al.
(1956) found increases in vital
capacity (. 05 level) after a year of underwater training with
21
naval divers.
Holmer and Astrand (1972) found that a swimming
twin had a higher vital capacity (5. 40 liters) over her nonswimming sister (5. 34 liters}.
A few studies have shown distance
swimmers to possess larger vital capacities than sprinters
(Bloomfield and Sigerseth 1965, Cureton 1951, Shepard et al.
1974).
However, none of these studies show data on levels of
significance between the groups nor are relative weights and
heights taken into account except for Bloomfield, who says his
data is significant at the . 10 level.
22
TABLE 2.
Notes the differences within groups in regards
to vital capacity in liters (BTPS.) per kg. body
weight at Tp T , and T and changes within
3
2
each group due to training.
23
TABLE 2
Mean square
Degrees of
Freedom
total
0.85332088
86
between
2.46377365
28
groups
7.94710435
2
error (Group)
2.04197898
26
within
0.07586092
58
trials
0.24597358
2
error (Time)
0.06913060
52
Group means
Sprinters
Source
F-ratio
Probability
3.892
0.0324
3.558
0.3514
Distance
Control
0.08200667
0.08310000
0.07336667
preseason
midseason
postseason
0.07918966
0.07915172
0.08076552
preseason.
Group means
by Time periods
midseason
postseason
sprinters
0.08100000
0.08225000
0.08277000
distance
0.08231000
0.08198000
0.08501000
control
0. 07371111
0.07256667
0.07382222
Time means
24
In Table 3, it can be seen that the three groups are not
significantly different from each other (. 05 level) in regards to
residual lung volume per kg. body weight at Tl' T 2 , or T 3 .
The
helium dilution technique was used to determine residual lung
volume.
However, Table 4 shows that there were no significant
differences between the three groups as to residual lung volume
per kg.
(Wilmore method) at T 1 , but using the Simple Effects Test
and the Tukey Test (a multiple comparison test), both the distance
and sprint groups were found to be significantly higher than the
control at T 2 and T 3 .
Bachman and Horvath (1965) found that
swimmers had higher residual volumes when compared to wrestlers.
Both groups were compared at the start of their respec-
tive seasons.
Andrew et al.
(1972) found higher residual volumes
in young swimmers when compared to young nonathletes.
There-
fore, the Wilmore method for determining residual volume appears
to give data more consistent with previous work than the helium
dilution method.
Also, using the Simple Effects Test and Tukey' s
Test, no significant changes occurred from training in regards to
residual lung volume per kg. body weight (Table 3 and 4).
In
contrast, Bachman and Horvath ( 1965} found that swimmers
decreased residual volume significantly (. 05 level) through training
in a three month swim season.
However, as in past studies,
their data was not expressed per kg. body weight.
25
TABLE 3.
Shows the differences within groups in regards to
residual lung volume per kg. body weight at T ,
1
T z• and T
3
and changes within each group due to
training (using helium dilution technique),
expressed in liters (BTPS. ).
26
TABLE 3
Degrees of
Freedom
Source
Mean square
F-ratio
Pro ba bi.lity
total
0.23806707
86
between
0.44709647
28
groups
0.19322910
2
0.414
0.6704
error (Group)
0.46662473
26
within
0.13715632
58
trials
0.11665632
2
0.822
0.5513
Group by Time
0.08557036
4
0.603
0.6653
error (Time)
0.14191293
52
Group means
Sprinters
Distance
0.02382000
0.02360000
0.02513704
preseason
mid season
postseason
0.02485172
0.02399310
0. 023613 79
midseason
postseason
Time means
Group means
preseason
by Time periods
Control
sprinters
0.02550000
0.02319000
0.02277000
distance
·0. 02317000
0.02391000
0.02372000
control
0.02600000
0.02497778
0.02443333
27
'
TABLE 4.
Shows the differences within groups in regards to
residual lung volume per kg. body weight at T ,
1
T z~ and T
3
and changes within each group due to
training (using Wilmore method)# expressed in
liters (BTPS. }.
'
28
TABLE 4
.
Degrees of
Freedom
Source
Mean square
total
0.05364991
86
between
0.14817233
28
groups
0.49537097
2
error (Group)
0.12146464
26
within
0.00801839
58
trials
0.01332529
Group by Time
F-ratio
Probability
4.078
0.0281
2
1. 656
0. 1991
0.00502625
4
0.625
0.6500
error (Time)
0.00804444
52
Group means
Sprinters
Distance
o. 020'5366 7
0.02080667
0.01837778
preseason
midseason
postseason
0.01984828
0.01982414
0.02020690
midseason
postseason
0.02034000
0.02060000
0.02067000
distance
'0.02060000
0.02053000
0.02129000
control
0.01846667
0.01817778
0.01848889
Time means
preseason
Group means
by Time periods
sprinters
Control
29
The following six tables {Tables 5-10) involve no timerelated changes as they were only taken at the postseason.
They
only give comparisons between groups and are called single tests
because they were only taken once.
Table 5 shows no significant
difference between the three groups in regards to percent body fat
at T .
3
Most studies have indicated that swimmers have a lower
percent body fat than the general male population (Wilmore 1969
and 1974).
Pugh et al.
( 1960) found that distance channel swim-
mers were decidedly obese.
Since this study's control group had
a mean percent body fat of 13. 2 s. d.
5. 09. a value well below the
mean value for the general male population. this could account for
the differences in my data and others.
TABLE 5.
Shows the percent body fat of the three groups
taken at T .
3
Mean square
Df
total
1807.899015
28
groups
3874.815259
2
error
(Group)
1648.905457
26
Source
F-ratio
Group
sprint
2.350
p
Mean
9.156000
distance
11.419000
control
13. 178889
0. 1137
This study showed no· significant difference between the
three groups in regards to buoyancy (in kg.) per kg.
weight at T
3
(Table 6).
of body
30
In some early work comparing distance and sprint swimmers in regards to buoyancy, it was found that the former group
floated flatter horizontally and higher vertically in the water
(Cureton 1951).
It was also found that sprinters were relatively
higher on mosomorphy and middle distance swimmers relatively
higher on endomorphy (Cureton 1951).
A modified somatotyping
technique was used to evaluate the swimmers.
Later, Bloomfield
and Sigerseth (1965), found that there was a slight increase in
buoyancy for middle distance swimmers over sprinters, but it was
not significant.
Testing was done on one occasion only in both of
the preceding studies and no attempt was made to determine the
relative contribution of fat and air to the total buoyancy, nor were
actual residual lung volumes for each subject determined.
In other studies, Pugh et al.
(1960) found that distance
channel swimmers were decidedly obese.
It was felt that
increased fat not only gave ability to maintain body temperature,
but also increased buoyancy and possibly increased fuel reserves
f9r long swims.
However, none of these studies related their
data to a unit of body weight.
In my study, even though the total
buoyancy was not significantly different between groups, it can be
noted that the swim groups had higher contributions from air to
their buoyancy than from fat (Appendix A, Table 16).
31
TABLE 6.
Source
. Shows the buoyancy (in kg.) per kg. of body
weight for the three groups at T .
3
Mean square
Df
total
0.22789015
28
groups
0.53330762
2
error
(Group)
0.20439650
26
F-ratio
2.609
p
Group
· Mean
sprint
0.02967000
distance
0.03233000
control
0.03438889
0.0912
Since fat by itself is buoyant, calculations were made in
the following four tables assessing lung parameters per kg. fatfree mass instead of kg. body weight.
In Table 7, no significant
difference between the three groups was noted in regards to
FEV 1.
0
per kg. of fat-free mass at T .
3
TABLE 7.
Shows the FEV 1. 0 per kg. of fat-free mass
for the three groups at T , expressed in
3
liters (BTPS. ).
Mean square
Df
total
0.51651675
28
groups
0.31510504
2
error
(Group)
0.53200996
26
Source
F-ratio
0.592
Group
p
Mean
sprint
0. 07313000
distance
0.07418000
control
0. 07061111
0.5651
In Table 8, no significant difference between the three
groups was noted in regards to residual lung volume per kg. of
fat-free mass at T
3
using. the helium dilution method.
However,
using the Wilmore method, a significant difference occurred
32
between the three groups (Table 9).
A follow-up Newman-Kuels
multiple comparison test revealed that -the distance group was significantly higher than the control group in this parameter, but the
sprint group was not.
TABLE 8.
Shows the residuai volume per kg. of fat-free
mass between the three groups at T using
3
the helium dilution method, expressed in
liters (BTPS. ).
Mean square
Df
total
0.24759286
28
groups
0. 18627222
2
error
(Group)
0.25230983
26
Source
TABLE 9.
Shows the
in regards
free mass
expressed
Mean square
Df
total
0.04675246
28
groups
o.
17325837
2
error
(Grop.p)
0.03702124
26
Source
F-ratio
0.738
Group
Mean
sprint
0.02509000
distance
0.02667000
control
0.02787778
p
0.5082
difference between the three groups
to residual volume per kg. of fatat T 3 using the Wilmore method,
in liters (BTPS. ).
F -ratio
4. 680
Group
Mean
sprint
0.02271000
distance
0. 02396000
control
0.02125556
p
0. 0180
In Table ·10, it can be seen that there was a significant
difference between the three groups in relation to vital capacity
per kg. of fat-free mass !3-t T .
3
Using the Newman-Kuels test,
33
it was found that the sprint group as well as the distance group
were significantly higher in comparison to the control group.
TABLE 10.
Source
Shows the difference between the three groups
in relation to vital capacity per kg. of fatfree mass at T 3 , expressed in liters (BTPS. ).
Mean square
Df
total
0.89460985
28
groups
3. 79826792
2
error
(Group)
0.67125154
26
F-ratio
5.658
Group
p
Mean
sprint
0.09095000
distance
0.09541000
control
0.08286667
0.0092
In these last four tables, no previous work was found
that compared the lung parameters mentioned to each kg. of fat""
free mass.
DISCUSSION
Early work on human buoyancy showed it fluctuated drastically depending on the amount of air in the lungs (Howell et al.
1961, Mitchem and Lane 1967, Rork and Hellebrandt 1937,
Whiting 1964}.
In one of the more comprehensive studies, Howell
et al. (1961) tested 133 subjects and found that the mean specific
gravity varied from . 990 (full inspiration) to . 999 (normal inspiration} to 1. 040 (forced expiration).
Thus, considerable differences
in buoyancy can occur by simply varying the amounts of air in the
lungs.
Magel and Faulkner ( 196 7) found that the mean tidal
volumes of 17 swimmers was 2. 49 liters (sd . 44 1. ).
No differ-
entiation was made between distance and sprint swimmers.
Pugh
et al. (1960) got a range tidal volume from 2. 5 to 3 liters with
distance channel swimmers.
It has also been found that athletes,
in general, use about 50% of their vital capacity while doing hard
exercise (Astrand and Rodahl 1977).
These studies might imply
that large vital capacities would result in large amounts of air in
the lungs while swimming.
From these studies and the present
study's data showing the higher vital capacity of swimmers over
nonswimmers per kg. of body weight (with values of 0. 0820 and
0. 0831 to 0. 0733 1. /kg. respectively), this suggests that at any
instant,
swimmers have more air in their lungs which in turn
34
35
gives more buoyancy and less drag through the water.
results in faster swimming.
This
The apparent gain of the distance
swimmers in this parameter suggests that long but relatively
slower training might be the best way to increase this parameter.
However, non-significant differences appeared in direct
measurement of the residual volume in the lung for the three
groups, using the helium dilution technique.
Only when Wilmore's
predictive residual values were used was there a significant
increase in this parameter over nonswimmers (control group).
Insufficient time to get duplicate measures of residual volumes
using the helium dilution technique may account for this discrepancy.
However, if the Wilmore predictive values are used, it is
easy to see that the total lung volume (residual + vital) is significantly higher in the swimmers (0. 0820
+
0. 0238 and 0. 0831
0. 0236 1. /kg. body weight) over the control (0. 0733
+
+
0. 0251
L /kg. body weight), giving more buoyancy to the former group.
In other studies, Bachman and Horvath ( 1965) found that swimmers
had higher residual volumes when compared to wrestlers.
Both
groups were compared at the start of their respective seasons.
Andrew et al.
{1972) found higher residual volumes in young swim-
mers when compared to young nonathletes.
Neither of these
studies makes any distinction between distance and sprint swimmers.
Generally, residual volumes increase slightly with age
36
while functional residual capacities stay the same (Bates and
Christie 1966 ).
Shepard et al.
(1974) used only six distance
swimmers and eight sprinters and found that their residual lung
volumes were very close (L 52 liter and 1. 51 liter respectively).
However, no levels of significance were discussed nor was an
attempt made to consider the relative differences in height and
weight between the two groups.
The study revealed a mean dif-
ference in height of 2 em., distance swimmers being shorter.
My
data confirms this claim when residual volume is calculated as
liters/kg. body weight.
In regards to FEV 1. 0 , few studies have been able to show
significant differences because the one-second time interval is
often too short to build up differences at the . 05 level of significane e.
Shepard et -al.
had higher FEV 1.
0
(1974) found that distance swimmers (n=6)
than sprinters (n=8), but no level of signifi-
cance was discus sed.
Thus, in the present study, even though
swimmers were higher., no significance was shown.
However., the
swimmer's need for increased air movement becomes quite apparent when it is realized that a 58% increase in flow resistance
occurs with water immersion to the neck (Agostoni et al.
1966).
In addition. since swimmers breathe rhythmically, it is important
to make as rapid exchanges as possible.
This, in turn, could aid
the swimmer's ability to maintain slightly hyper-inflated lungs
37
for a longer period of time which would aid his buoyancy
(DeVries 1946).
Thus, the swimmer would exhale quickly and at
the last possible moment.
Single tests comparing the three groups were insignificant
in all cases but two.
First, the distance group had a significantly
higher residual volume per kg. of fat-free mass if Wilmore's predictive values were used
(Ta~le
9).
This indicates that the dis-
tance group has more possible air buoyancy for each kg. of fatfree. mass than the sprinters.
That is, by removing all fat which
in itself is buoyant, the remaining body weight receives more air
buoyancy support for the distance swimmers.
Secondly, both the
sprint and distance groups had higher vital capacity per kg. of
fat-free mass than the control group.
Again, this indicates that
air buoyancy in swimmers is a factor to be reckoned with and can
offer much support to the fat-free tissues (bone and muscle).
One might ask why there was not a significant difference
between the groups in total buoyancy?
To answer this, one can
see from Table 5 that the control group had the highest percentage of body fat.
Since total buoyancy means the contribution of
fat and air, it is apparent that the control group picked up additional buoyancy from fat that the other groups didn't get.
This
made up for the smaller contribution from air to buoyancy for
the control group.
This is not to say that good swimmers
38
should be fat, although Holmer ( 1974) found that the main factor
that increased metabolic rate in human subjects was the amount of
fat-free tissue (correlated . 90 with oxygen uptake).
study was done at a very slow swimming speed.
However, this
The point here
is that swimmers should get a major contribution to their buoyancy from air and a lesser contribution from fat.
They should
carry enough fat to supply additional buoyancy and counteract
hypothermia, but they must not gain extra fat that would interfere
with the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, which would
result in poorer performances.
Besides contribution to the body's fuel needs, internal air
appears to give more buoyancy to swimmers over nonswimmers,
resulting in higher body position in the water and therefore less
drag.
Scholander and Elsner (1962) found that removing buoyancy
by adding body weights caused significant increases in oxygen consumption.
Indeed, laboratory rats, used in metabolic swim stud-
ies, have weights added to decrease buoyancy and consequently
swimming speed (Dawson and Horvath 1970).
Higher vital capaci-
ties for swimmers and possible higher residual lung volumes are
the contributing factors to this internal air.
Long, continuous,
slower type training appears to increase vital capacity best.
Fat
can be considered beneficial as a buoyancy aid if not in excess,
which would affect cardiorespiratory functioning.
In this regard,
39
within limits of cardiovascular health, it might be advantageous
for swimmers to have more fat than say, distance runners.
Most
studies indicated that swimmers have higher percent body fat than
distance runners (Cook and Brynteson 1973, Costill et al.
1970).
In swimming, for instance, it has been shown that women during
breaststroke swimming at a certain speed have a lower oxygen
uptake (greater mechanical efficiency) than men per kg. of body
weight (Holmer 1974b).
This may be explained by the fact that
the lower specific gravity in women, due to their greater fat content, reduces the effort to keep the body floating (Holmer 1974b).
In male breaststrokers, Cureton ( 1951) found that they had a
higher buoyancy as well as vital capacity when compared to swimmers that do other strokes (butterfly, backstroke, or freestyle).
Could this be related to the need for a breaststroke swimmer to
come higher out of. the water to breathe?
From this study, it appears that distance swimmers utilize and develop internal air for buoyancy to its maximum.
This
s·eems consistent with an earlier hypothesis that buoyancy would
help distance swimmers the most (DeVries 1946).
Also, from
this study, internal air should be considered an important and
often overlooked component to a swimmer's buoyancy.
Since in reality, swimmers do not exhale all their air
. while swimming, the next step is to determine how much air
40
the swimmers are holding in their lungs at the point of normal
swim exhalation.
This would be equal to the residual volume plus
part of. the expiratory reserve volume.
Measurement of speed of inhalation might be valuable
because different muscles are used than would be used for exhalation.
This would allow a swimmer to reach his "buoyancy level"
more quickly.
It would appear that the same equipment used for
measuring forced expiration could be used for forced inhalation.
Long-term swim studies might elucidate subtle changes
in buoyancy not determined in a three-month study.
SUMMARY
Ten distance swimmers, ten sprint swimmers, and nine
control nonswimmers were studied through a season of training
with two types of training for the swimmers and no swim training
for the control group.
An increase in vital capacity per kg.
body weight was noted for the distance group.
of
The swim groups
had significantly higher vital capacities and possibly higher residual volumes when compared to the control group.
This indicates
that the swim groups gain more buoyancy from their internal air
than does the control group.
41
LITERATURE CITED
Agostoni, E., G. Gurtner, G. Torri,. and H. Rahn.
1966.
Respiratory mechanics during submersion and negativepressure breathing.
Jour. Appl. Physiol. 21(10):251-258.
Astrand, P., B. Engstrom, B. Eriksson, P. Karlberg,
I. Nylander, B. Saltin, and C. Thoren.
1963.
Girl
swimmers--with special reference to respiratory and
circulatory adaptation and gynaecological and psychiatric,
aspects.
Acta Paediat. Suppl. 147:43-75.
A strand, P. and K. Rodahl.
1977.
Textbook of Work Physiology
2nd ed. McGraw Hill, Inc. , New York.
Andrew, G., M. Becklake, J. Guleria, and D. Bates.
1972
Heart and lung functions in swimmers and nonathletes
during growth.
Jour. Appl. Physiol.
32:245-255.
Areorelius, M., J. Balldin, B. Lilja, and C. Lundgren.
1972.
Hemodynamic changes in man during immersion with head
above water.
Aerospace Med.
43:592-598.
Bachman, J. and S. Horvath.
1966.
Pulmonary function changes
which accompany athletic conditioning programs ..
Res. Quart.
39:235-239.
Bates, D. and R.
disease.
Christie.
1964.
Respiratory function in
W. B. Saunders Co., Phil. and London.
Beckman, E., K. Coburn, R. Chambers, R. DeForest, W.
A ugerson, and V. Benson.
1961.
Physiologic changes
observed in human subjects during zero G simulation by
immersion in water up to neck.
Aerospace Med.
3 2: l 0 31 -1 041.
Bedell, G., R. Marshall, A. Dubois, and J. Harris.
1955.
Measurement of the volume of gas in the gastrointestinal
tract.
Values of normal subjects and ambulatory
patients.
Jour. Clin. Invest.
35:336-345.
42
43
Behnke, A., B. Feen, and W. Welham.
1942.
The specific
gravity of healthy men.
Jour. Amer. Med. Assn.
118:495-500.
Behnke, A.
1953.
The relation of lean body weight to metabolism and some consequent systematizations.
Ann. N. Y.
Acad. Sc. Art.
56:1095-1142.
Blair, H., R. Dern, and P. Bates.
1947.
The measurement of
volume of gas in the digestive tract. Amer. Jour. of
Physiol.
149:688-707.
_J
Bloomfield, J. and P. Sigerseth.
1965.
Anatomical and physicdifferences in sprint and middle distance swimmers at the
University level. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 5:76-81.
Brozek, J., A. Henschel, and A. Keys.
1949.
Effect of submersion in water on the volume of residual air in man.
Jour. Appl. Physiol.
2:240-246.
Brozek, J.
1961.
Techniques in underwater weighing, from
Buskirk, Underwater weighing and body density: a review
of procedures.
Carey, C., K. Schaeffer, and H. Alvis.
1956.
Effect of skin
diving on lung volumes.
Jour. Appl. Physiol. 23:423-425.
Cook, B. and P. Brynteson.
1973.
Effect of a season of collegiate swimming competition and training on selected
responses.
Res. Quart.
44:63-70.
· Costill, D., R. Bowers, and W. Kammer.
Skinfold esti1970.
mates of body fat among marathon runners.
Med. and
Sci. in Sports 2:93-95~
Cotes, J. E.
1965.
Lung Function.
Oxford 540 pages.
Blackwell Scientific Pub.,
Craig, A. and D. Ware.
1967.
Effect of immersion in water
on vital capacity and residual volume of lungs.
Jour.
Appl. Physiol.
23(4):423-425.
Craig, A. and M. Dvorak.
1975.
Expiratory reserve volume and
vital capacity of the lungs during immersion in water.
Jour. Appl. Physiol.
38( 1 ):5-9.
44
Cureton~
T.
1951.
Physical Fitness of Champion Athletes.
U. of Ill. Press~ Urbana, Ill.
·Dawson, C. and S. Horvath.
1970.
Swimming in small laboratory animals.
Med. and Sci. in Sports· 2:51-78.
DeVries, H.
1946. A study of the relationship between specific
gravity and speed and endurance in swimming.
Unpublished Master's thesis U. of Texas.
Faulkner, J.
1968.
Physiology of swimming and diving, from
Exercise Physiology, H. Falls (ed.) Academic Press
p. 415-446.
Gee~
J.
1970. Adjustment of buoyancy in blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus.
J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can.
27:119-127.
Hamilton, W. and J. Mayo.
1944.
Changes in vital capacity when
the body is immersed in water.
Amer. Jour. Physiol.
141:51-53.
Hong, S., E. Ting~ and H. Rahn.
ent depths of submersion.
15-550-553.
1960.
Lung volume at differJour. AppL Physiol.
Howell, M., J. Moncrief£, and W. Moreford.
1961.
Relationship
between human buoyancy measures, specific gravity, and
estimated body Jat in adult males.
Res. Quart.
33:400-404.
Holmer, I. and P. Astrand.
mum oxygen uptake.
1972. Swimming training and maxiJour . .Appl. Physiol. 33(4):510-513.
Holmer, I.
1974.
Physiology of swimming man.
logica Scand. Suppl.
407:5-46.
Keys,. A. and J. Brozek.
Reviews 33:245.
Magel, J. and J. ·Faulkner.
college swimmers.
1953.
Acta Physio-
Body fat in adult man.
Physiol.
1967. Maximum oxygen uptake of
Jour. Appl. Physiol.
22:929-938.
Marshall, A. and G. DuBois.
1955.
Measurement of functional
residual capacity and of abdominal gas by a plethysmographic method.
Amer. Jour. Physiol.
183:642 ..
45
Mitchem, J. and E. Lane.
196 7.
Buoyancy of college women
as predicted by certain anthropometric measures.
Res. Quart.
39:1032-1036.
Newman, F. , B. Smalley, and M. Thomson.
1961. A
comparison between body size and lung function of
swimmers and normal school children.
Jour. of
Physiol. Lond.
156:9.
Prefaut, C., E. Lupi-H, and N. Anthonisen.
1976.
Human
lung mechanics during water immersion.
Jour. Appl.
Physiol.
40:320-323.
Pugh, L., 0. Edholm, R. Fox, H. Wolff, G. Hervey, W.
Hammond, J. Tanner, and H. Whitehouse.
1960.
A physiologic study of channel swimming.
Clin. Sci.
19:257-273.
Reddan, W., J. Burpee, P. Reuschlein, J. Gee, and J. Rankin,
1966.
Pulmonary adaptation to strenuous training in
competitive swimmers.
Fed. Proc. Abstr.
25:325.
Rich, G.
1972. An effective and efficient laboratory method
of measuring body density.
Unpublished paper presented
at Southwest District American Assn. of Health, P. E.
and Rec.
Las Vegas.
Rork, R. and F. Helle brandt.·
women.
Res. Quart.
193 7.
The floating ability of
8:19-27.
Scholander, P. and P. Elsner.
1962.
The work of maintaining
flotation in water.
Physiologist 5:36.
Shepard, R., G. Godin and R. Campbell.
1974.
Characteristics of sprint, medium, and long distance swimmers.
Europ. Jour. Appl. Physiol.
32:99-116.
Whiting, H.
1964.
the female.
Variations in floating ability with age in
Res. Quart.
36:216-218.
Wilmore, J.
1969.
The use of actual, predicted and constant
residual volumes in the assessment of body composition
by underwater weighing.
Med. and Sci. in Sports
1:87-90.
46
_ _ _ _ _ , 1969. Anthropometric estimation of body density
and lean body weight in young men.
Jour. Appl..
. Physiol.
27:25.
APPENDICES
47
APPENDIX A
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF SUBJECTS
48
49
TABLE 11.
Name Age
20
21
BB
15
16
JC
CD
19
AG
16
20
JN
Je.W 21
Jo.W 21
17
JZ
Mean 18.6
2.37
SD
SE
0. 748
7
182.9
175.3
174.0
182.9
175.3
182.9
181.6
181.6
170.2
177.9
4.92
1. 55
LC
TH
PH
EH
CK
19
20
18
15
20
MR
20
20
ES
KS
15
SSi
19
SSp
16
Mean 18.2
SD
2.09
0.663
SE
188.0
184.2
190.5
172.7
176.5
177.8
176.5
186.7
180.3
181. 0
181.4
5.78
1. 83
80.9
81.8
79.5
60.5
71.4
75.0
68.2
90.5
77.3
65.9
75. 1
8.81
2.79
80.0
80.0
78.0
60.5
70.5
73.2
68.6
89. 1
75.0
65.9
74. 1
8.25
2.61
80.0
80.9
77.7
.59. 1
70. 1
74.5
67.3
89. 1
75.0
61.3
74. 1
8.52
2.69
33
26
sc
MF
21
RF
24
23
CJ
SLi
23
22
SLo
22
JRe
23
JRi
Mean 24. 1
SD
3.62
1. 21
SE
179. 1
171.5
177.8
175.3
167.6
179.1
.!62. 6
177.8
191.3
175.8
8.26
2.75
81. 8
75.0
63.6
67.3
65.9
72.7
58.2
67.3
115. 9
74.2
17. 1
5.64
84. 1
72.3
6.06
68.3
65.5
73.3
58.2
67.8
113.6
74. 1
16.5
5.50
8.36
72.3
61. 8
68.2
65.7
78.4
58.2
61.3
111.4
73.6
15.9
5.22
DA
KB
p
r
i
n
t
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
DA
c
0
n
t
r
0
1
Height
Weight (kg. )
FEV1 n (liters) '
.
··~
T1
T3
T2
T3
T1
. T2
67.3
67.3
66. 1
5.10
5. 13 4.95
77.3
77.4
77.4
5.01
5.00 5.27
64.5
64.5
64.3
4.64
4.75 4.75
65.0
65.0
62.7
4.26
3.78 3.91
75.0
74.9
75.0
5. 13
5.24 5.53
63.6
64. 1
65.5
3.55
3.55 2.84
75.0
77.3
75.0
4.51
4.60 4.58
73.6
70.5
72.3
4.20
4.22 4.88
71.8
71. 8
73.2
4.22
4. 12 4.68
53.6
55.5
54. 1
4.22
3.79 4. 15
68.7
6.88
68.6
4.48
4.43 4.56
7.26
6.91
7.25 0.502 0.605 0. 743
2.30
2. 18
2.29 0. 159 0. 191 0.235
(yr.)
s
Age, height, weight, and FEV1. 0 for sprint,
distance, and control groups.
(em.)
172~
5.00
5. 10
5.24
4.33
4.25
4.30
4. 15
4.87
5.80
4.91
4.80
0.531
0. 168
5.00 4.50
5.37 5.21
5.24 5.45
4.32 4.32
4.35 4.41
4.48 4.30
4. 19 4. 64
5.00 4.96
5.87 5.57
4.59 5. 10
4.83 4.85
0.556 0.474
0. 176 0.150
4.35
4.41 4.40
3.90
4.36 4.15
4.50
4.32 4.51
4.23
4. 14 4.03
4.48
4.51 4.55
4.56
4.43 4.50
3.56
3.58 3.52
4.73
4.64 4.66
5.62
5.30 5.80
4.44
4.41 4.46
0. 572 . 0.451 0.614
0. 191 0. 150 0.205
50
TABLE· 12.
Name
s
p
r
i
n
t
e
r
s
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
c
0
n
t
r
0
1
*
Vital capacity and residual volume (He dilution
method) in liters (BTPS. ) for the sprint,
distance and control groups.
Vital Capacity
T1
T2
T3
Residual Volume (He)
T3
T2
T1
DA
KB
BB
JC
CD
AG
JN
Je.W
Jo.W
JZ
Mean
SD
SE
6.27
5.69
5.61
5.35
. 6. 15
4.31
5. 19
5.89
6. 18
4.76
5.54
o. 6450.204
6.35
5.86
5.77
5.44
6.44
4.40
5.48
5.92
5.92
4.90
5.65
0.625
o. 198
6.35
5.93
5.80
5.33
6.51
4. 17
5.54
6.03
6.01
4.88
5.66
0.707
0.224
75
42*
61
08
80
2.28
I. 95
1. 90
2.30
1. 34
1. 75
.394
. 124
LC
TH
PH
EH
CK
MR
ES
KS
SSi
SSp
Mean
SD
SE
DA
7. 12
5.30
6.64
5.20
5.61
6.36
6. 16
6.03
6.70
6. 18
6. 13
0.620
0. 196
5.62
5. 19
5.07
5.56
5.44
5.63
3.95
5.31
6.55
5.37
0.681
0.227
7. 14
5.22
6.70
5.28
5.62
6.07
6.00
6.03
6. 16
5.59
6.04
0.542
0.205
6.82
6.46
6.84
5.54
5.46
6.03
6.07
5.96
6.91
6.27
6.25
0.297
o. 171
5.63
4.91
4.98
5. 11
5.50
5.66
3.97
5. 16
6.77
5.25
0.846
0.282
5.75
5. 10
5.04
5. 15
5.55
5.67
4.02
5. 10
6.87
5.36
0.762
0.254
1. 50
2.26
1. 50
1. 62
1. 51
1. 81
1. 98
1. 24
1. 66
1. 93
1. 70
0.281
0.0938
2. 10
1. 80
2.18
2.00
l. 65
1. 05
1. 29
2.09
1. 64~~
1. 87
0.294
0.0478
sc
.MF
RF
CJ
SLi
SLo
JRe
JRi
Mean
SD
SE
Substituted value
1.
I.
1.
1.
I.
1. 46
I. 30
1. 47
1. 04
I. 83
1. 80
1. 96
1. 52
2. 10
1. 44
1. 59
0.324
0. 102
1. 76
1. 52
1. 50
1. 37
1. 09
1. 61
1. 75
1. 51*
1. 50*
1. 76
1. 54
0.206
0.0651
I. 77
2.24
2.04
I. 80
1. 66
1. 83
1. 44
1. 70
1. 24
1. 85
1. 76
0.320
0.0888
1. 70
1. 62*
1. 92
1. 62
1. 37*
1. 39
1. 48
1. 78
2.25
2.26
1. 74
0.320
0. 101
1. 75
1. 94
1. 81
1. 87
2.27
1. 59
1. 29
1. 56
2.24
1. 81
.317
. 106
1. 34
1. 65
1. 86
1. 77
2.00
2.07
1. 49
1. 58
1. 94
1. 74
.247
. 0823
51
TABLE 13.
Residual volume (Wilmore method) in liters
(BTPS.) and o/o body fat for the sprint,
distance and control groups.
Name
p
r
i
n
t
e
r
s
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
c
0
n
t
r
0
1
o/o Fat
T 3 only
Tl
T2
T3
JN
Je. W
Jo.W
JZ
Mean
SD
SE
1. 57
1. 42
1. 41
1. 33
1. 53
1. 08
1. 30
1. 47
1. 55
1. 19
1. 39
0. 161
0.0508
1. 59
1. 47
1. 44
1. 36
1. 61
1. 10
1. 37
1. 48
1.48
1. 23
1. 41
0.156
0.0494
1. 58
1. 48
1. 45
1. 33
1. 63
1. 04
1. 39
1. 51
I. 50
1. 22
1. 41
1. 177
0.0559
5.95
3.95
9. 14
11.43
4.07
15.96
13.09
1 I. 18
12.54
4. 15
9.16
4.36
1. 38
LC
TH
PH
EH
CK
MR
ES
KS
SSi
SSp
Mean
SD
SE
1. 78
1. 33
1. 66
1. 30
1. 40
1. 59
1. 54
1. 51
1. 68
1. 55
1. 53
0.155
0.0490
1. 79
1. 31
1. 68
1. 32
1. 41
1. 52
1. 50
1. 51
1. 69
1.40
L 51
0. 163
0.0514
1. 71
1. 62
1. 75
1. 39
1. 37
1. 51
1. 52
1. 49
1. 73
1. 57
1. 57
o. 135
0.0428
8.71
11.63
9.38
8.37
12.85
16. 12
11.08
13.98
12. 19
9.93
11.42
2.46
0.778
DA
1. 41
1. 30
1. 27
1. 39
1. 36
1. 41
0.99
1. 33
I. 64
1. 34
0. 170
0.0567
1. 41
1. 23
1. 25
1. 28
1. 38
1. 40
0.99
1. 29
1. 69
1. 33
0.188
0.0627
1. 44
1. 28
1. 26
1. 29
1. 39
1.42
1. 01
1. 28
1. 72
1. 34
0. 190
0.0633
22.74
11. 11
3.95
13.50
10.92
9.58
7.66
14.79
19.36
13. 18
5.04
1. 68
DA
s
(Wilmore)
KB
BB
JC
CD
AG
sc
MF
RF
CJ
SLi
SLo
JRe
JRi
Mean
SD
SE
'I
52
TABLE 14.
N a me
T3
JN
Je.W
Jo.W
JZ
Mean
SD
SE
0.0758
0.0648
0.0719
0.0646
0.0684
0.0558
0.0601
0.0571
0.0588
0.0787
0.0656
0.796
0.252
0.0762
0.0647
0.0736
0.0582
0.0699
0.0554
0.0595
0.0599
0.0588
0.0683
0.0645
0.718
0.227
0.0749
0.0681
0.0736
0.0624
0.0737
0.0449
0. 0611
0.0675
0.0639
0.0767
0.0667
0.942
0.298
0.0932
0.0736
0.0870
0.0823
0.0820
0.0678
0.0692
0.0800
0.0861
0.0888
0.0810
0.846
0.267
0.0943
0.0758
0.0895
0.0837
0. 0859
0.0686
0.0709
0.0840
0.0825
0.0883
0.0823
0.822
0.260
0.0961
0.0766
0.0899
0.0850
0.0868
0.0637
0.0739
0.0834
0.0821
0.0902
0.0828
0.935
0.296
LC
TH
PH
EH
CK
MR
ES
KS
SSi
SSp
Mean
SD
SE
0.0618
0.0623
0.0659
0.0716
0.0595
0.0573
0.0609
0.0538
0.0750
0.0745
0.0643
0.729
0.231
0.0625
0.0671
0.0667
0.0714
0.0616
0.0612
0. 0611
0.0561
0.0783
0.0697
0.0656
0.641
0.203
0.0563
0.0644
0.0701
0.0731
0.0629
0.0577
0.0685
0.0557
0.0743
0.0758
0.0659
0.760
0.240
0.0880
0.0644
0.0835
0.· 0860
0.0786
0.0848
0.0903
0.0666
0.0867
0.0938
0.0823
0.964
0.305
0.0893
0.0648
0.0852
0.0873
0.0797
0.0829
0.0875
0.0677
0.0901
0.0848
0.0820
0.872
0.276
0.0853
0.0653
0.0900
0.0937
0.0779
0.0809
0.0902
0.0669
0.0921
0.0932
0.0850
0.860
0.272
DA
0.0532
0.0520
0.0708
0.0629
0.0680
0.0627
0.0612
0.0703
0.0485
0.0611
0.819
0.273
0.0524
0.0603
0.0679
0.0607
0.0689
0.0604
0.0615
0.0684
0.0467
0.0608
0.74$
0.248
0.0526
0.0574
0.0730
0.0591
0.0690
0.0613
0.0605
0.0688
0.0521
0.0615
0.736
0.245
0.0687
0.0692
0.0797
0.0826
0.0825
0.0774
0.0679
0.0789
0.0565
0.0737
0.872
0.291
0.0669
0.0679
0.0783
0.0749
0.0840
0.0772
0.0682
0.0761
0.0596
0.0726
0.745
0.248
0.0688
0.0705
0.0816
0.0755
0.0842
0.0772
0.0691
0.0758
0.0617
0.0738
0.700
0.233
DA
p
r
i
n
t
e
r
s
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
c
0
n
t
r
0
1
Vital Capacity
FEV 1 0
Tz
T1
s
FEV1. 0 and vital capacity in liters (BTPS.)
per kg. body weight for the sprint, distance
and control groups. ·
KB
BB
JC
CD
AG
sc
MF
RF
CJ
SLi
SLo
JRe
JRi
Mean
SD
SE
T1
Tz
T3
53
TABLE 15.
Residual
residual
(BTPS.)
distance
KB
BB
JC
CD
AG
JN
Je.W
Jo.W
JZ
Mean
SD
SE
T1
0.0264
0.0184
0.0250
0.0166
0.0240
0.0358
0.0260
0.0258
0.0320
0.0250
0.0255
0.560
o. 177
He dilution
T2
0.0217
0.0168
0.0228
0.0160
0.0244
0.0281
0.0254
0.0216
0.0292
0.0259
0.0232
0.436
0.138
T3
0.0266
0.0196
0.0233
0.0219
0.0145
0.0246
0.0233
0.0209
0.0205
0.0325
0.0228
0.473
0. 149
T1
0.0238
0.0184
0.0219
0.0205
0.0204
0.0203
0.0173
0.0170
0.0216
0.0222
0.0203
0.220
0.0696
Wilmore
T2
0.0236
0.0190
0.0223
0.0209
0.0215
0.0172
0.0177
0.0210
0.0206
0.0222
0.0206
0.206
0.0650
LC
TH
PH
EH
CK
MR
ES
KS
SSi
SSp
Mean
SD
SE
0.0185
0.0276
0.0189
0.0268
0. 0211
0.0241
0.0290
0.0137
0.0227
0.0293
0.0232
0.516
0. 163
0.0221
0.0280
0.0260
0.0298
0.0235
0.0250
0.0210
0.0191
0.0165
0.0281
0.0239
0.428
0. 135
0.0213
0.0200
0.0247
0.0274
0.0195
0.0187
0.0220
0.0200
0.0300
0.0336
0.0237
0.507
0. 160
0.0220
0.0163
0.0209
0.0215
0.0196
0.0212
0.0226
0.0167
0.0217
0.0235
0.0206
0.239
0.0757
0.0224
0.0164
0.0214
0.0218
0.0200
0.0208
0.0219
0.0169
0.0225
0.0212
0.0205
0.218
0.0688
0.0214
0. 0200 .
0.0225
0.0235
0.0195
0.0203
0.0226
0.0167
0.0231
0.0233
0.0213
0.217
0.0686
DA
0.0257
0.0240
0.0343
0.0293
0.0250
0.0282
0.0222
0. 0311
0.0142
0.0260
0.580
o. 193
0.0208
0.0268
0.0285
0.0274
0.0347
0.0217
0.0222
0.0230
0.0197
0.0250
0.479
0. 160
0.0160
0.0228
0.0301
0.0260
0.0303
0.0282
0.0256
0.0235
0.0174
0.0244
0. 511
0.170
0.0172
0.0173
0.0200
0.0207
0.0206
0.0194
0.0170
0.0198
0.0142
0.0185
0.218
0.0725
0.0168
0.0170
0.0196
0.0188
0. 0211
0.0194
0.0170
0.0190
0.0149
0.0182
0. 189
0.0630
0.0172
0.0177
0.0204
0.0189
0. 0211
0.0193
0.0174
0.0190
0.0154
0.0185
0.175
0.0584
Name
DA
s
p
r
i
n
t
e
r
s
Di
s
t
a
n
c
e
c
.0
n
t
r
0
1
volume (He dilution method) and
volume (Wilmore method) in lite.rs
per kg. body weight for the sprint,
and control groups.
sc
MF
RF
CJ
SLi
SLo
JRe
JRi
Mean
SD
SE
T3
0.0239
0.0191
0.0225
0.0212
0.0217
0.0159
0.0185
0.0209
0.0205
0.0225
0.0207
0.232
0.0734
54
TABLE 16.
Name
s
p
r
i
n
t
e
r
s
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
c
0
n
t
r
0
1
Buoyancy in kg. per kg. body weight for sprint,
distance and control groups with percent contribution
of air using both Helium dilution and Wilmore methods
He dilution
Buoyancy
o/o Air
Contribution
·Wilmore
Buoyancy
· o/o Air
Contribution
D.A
KB
BB
JC
CD
.AG
JN
Je. W
Jo. W
JZ
Mean
SD
SE
0.0312
0.0226
0.0301
0.0305
0.0176
0.0366
0.0332
0.0293
0.0299
0.0357
0.0297
0.00573
0.00181
85.4
86.9
77.3
71.7
82.6
67. 0
70.3
71.2
68.5
91.2
77.2
8.69
2.75
0.0284
0.0221
0.0293
0.0298
0.0240
0.0279
0.0284
0.0293
0.0299
0.0257
0.0275
0.00267
0.000843
84.0
86.5
70.7
71. 1
87.6
56.8
65.3
71. 2
68.5
87.8
75.6
1. 07
3.39
LC
TH
PH
EH
CK
MR
ES
KS
SSi
SSp
Mean
SD
SE
0.0278
0.0288
0.0318
0.0337
0.0292
0.0307
0.0303
0.0305
0.0395
0.0410
0.0323
0.00449
0.00142
76.6
69.5
77.7
81.4
66.8
60.7
72.5
65.4
76.0
81.9
72.9
1. 10
2.24
0.0279
0.0288
0.0296
0.0299
0.0292
0.0323
0.0309
0.0272
0.0325
0.0308
0.0299
0.00175
0.000552
76. 7
69.5
76. 1
79.0
66.8
62.7
73. 1
61. 3
70.9
75.8
71.2
6.08
1. 92
DA
0.0331
0.0313
0.0369
0.0361
0.0385
0.0385
0.0313
0.0349
0.0320
0.0344
0.00259
0.00086
48.4
73.0
81.6
72.0
78.7
79.6
81.9
67.2
54.3
70.7
12. 1
4.04
0.0343
0.0261
0.0272
0.0290
0.0294
0.0266
0.0230
0.0305
0.0301
0.0285
0.00321
0.00107
50.2
67.8
75.0
65.2
71.6
72.8
75.4
62.4
51. 3
65.7
9.55
3. 18 .
sc
MF
RF
CJ
SLi
SLo
JRe
JRi
Mean
SD
SE
'
APPENDIX B
EQUATIONS USED IN CALCULATIONS
55
EQUATIONS FOR CALCULATIONS
1.
FEV
1.0
= actual value x BTPS correction factor
2.
Vi.tal capacity
V. C. = actual value x BTPS correction factor
3.
Residual volume (Helium dilution method)
total volume = Helium added in ml.
first Helium meter reading
Functional R. V.
= total volume x
initial He - final He - 100 ml.
final He
100 ml. represents subject's absorption of He in his tissues
Residual volume= BTPS factor x F. R. C. - BTPS
factor x E. R.
4.
Residual volume (.Z.tvital capacity)
R. V. =.21-vital capacity x BTPS correction factor
5.
o/o Body Fat
where :MA = mass of person in air
MW = mass of person in water
DW = density of water
VGI = volume of gas in the
· gastrointestinal tract = . 115 l.
R. V.
= residual lung volume
56
57
5.
o/o Body Fat (continued)
Db = specific gravity of person
Db= .....;_....;_--,.-MA
MA-MW
- (R. V.
+ . 115)
DW
%fat= 4.570- 4.142 x 100
Db
6.
Fat-Free Mass (FFM)
Fat = % fat x weight of subject
FFM
7.
= weight
of subject - weight of fat
Buoyant force of air in water
sp. gravity of air at 37° C and saturated
= . 00118
total" density = 1.181 gram per liter
Force
= Mass a1r
.
{.!_
- 1)
Sp. Gr. of air
Force = no. of liters x 1. 18 g. I 1.
Force = no. of liters (. 999)
8.
-
= no.
(!.
- 1)
. 00118
of liters
Buoyant force of fat in water
Force = Mass fat
(.!_
- 1)
Sp. gr. of fat
. 0753 (weight of fat)
where sp. gravity of fat
= . 93
=
APPENDIX C
TERMS
58
DEFINITION OF TERMS
1.·
Forced expiratory volume for one second (FEVj_.
0
) - the
volume of gas that can be forcefully expelled from the lungs
in the first second commencing after a maximal inspiration.
2.
Functional residual capacity (FRC) - the volume of gas
remaining in the lungs following a normal expiration.
3.
Residual volume - the volume of air remaining in the lungs
after a forced expiration.
4.
Vital capacity - the maximal volume of gas that can be
expelled from the lungs by a forceful effort following a
maximal inspiration.
5.
Total lung capacity (TLC) - the volume of gas in the lungs
after a maximum ·inspiration.
6.
Inspiratory capacity - the maximal volume of gas that can
be inspired from the resting expiratory level.
7.
Tidal volume - is the depth of breathing; it is the volume
gas inspired or expired during each respiratory cycle.
8.
Inspiratory reserve volume - the maximal amount of gas
that can be inspired from the end-inspiratory position.
59
60
9.
Fat-free mass (FFM) - the mass of the body after the
weight of fat has been subtracted.
This would consist of
bone, muscle, nerves, cartilage, and water mainly.
10.
Percent body fat - the percentage of the body that is fat.