Introduction
Swimming is a type of sport that can be done by anyone, including disabled and non-disabled athletes, and data shows that swimming can have positive impacts such as helping develop endurance, strength (Carter & Koch, 2023), and fundamental movement skills (Sinclair & Rosco, 2023). Swimming is one of the competitive water sports that requires every athletes non-disabilities (Espada et al., 2022; Fone & van den Tillaar, 2022; Price et al., 2024), as well as disabilities to have high performance. Performance is an accurate predictor of success for elite athletes with disabilities (Dimyati et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2020). A lot of evidence in the previous literature recorded that elite swimming athletes must pay attention and develop performance related to physical fitness (Amara et al., 2022; Gani et al., 2023; Karpiński et al., 2020; Lopes et al., 2021), and technical (Amara et al., 2023; Chortane et al., 2022). Developing physical fitness in disabled or non-disabled athletes is important, because it has been proven to optimize several parameters such as strength, power and endurance (Ji et al., 2021; Makaruk et al., 2024), therefore the performance of swimming (e.g., freestyle, breaststroke, backstroke) shows quality enhancement (Hermosilla et al., 2021). As explained by Guo et al. (2022), that physical fitness especially muscle strength in the arms and feet affect the speed of swimming performance. Considering the increase in physical fitness and swimming performance is crucial factor for the success of swimming athletes (Cavaggioni et al., 2024), a proper training method is needed, namely dryland (DL).
Based on literature, DL can be interpreted as a type of training conducted by athletes in dryland (Selvamoorthy et al., 2024). DL training program involve several types of movements such as push-ups, lunge steps, high knee, which can be conducted with tools, such as dumbbell (Tsoltos et al., 2023), or rubber band. Previous studies have proven that DL provides many benefits, including to increased swimming performance (e.g., stroke depth, stroke rate, stroke depth) (Norberto et al., 2023). Recent DL research shows that 24 national level swimmers experienced performance improvement after participating the DL program for 6 weeks (Arsoniadis et al., 2024). Meanwhile, Zaras et al. (2022), revealed that 13 adolescent swimmers experienced improvement in freestyle swimming performance, due to the effect of DL treatment. DL training has advantages in focusing exercises to develop strength, muscle endurance, so that it has an impact on significantly improving swimming performance (Ozeker et al., 2020). Although the DL training provides many benefits for swimming elite athletes (Chalkiadakis et al., 2023), but there is still a lack of coaches who combine DL with aquatic exercise (AE). The term AE can be interpreted as a training condition carried out in water (Schinzel et al., 2023; Tang et al., 2022), and forms of exercise that can be carried out include jumping or kicking (Gani et al., 2023). Meanwhile, DL+AE is a conditioning training that begins with sessions in dryland then continuing in water. Combination of DL+AE is an appropriate strategy to develop athletes. However, current research pays little attention to the combination of DL+AE. Even though DL+AE can provide benefits, as revealed by a previous study, 20 national level tertiary swimmers showed improvements on swimming performance due to the impact of combination DL with AE (Lopes et al., 2021).
According to our best knowledge, there is still a lack of research in swimming that investigated the effect of a combination DL+AE on increasing physical fitness parameters and swimming performance in elite adolescent athletes with disabilities. In addition, previous research was only focused on researching on athletes non-disabilities (Liu & Wang, 2023). Thus, this study aims to investigate the effect of DL+AE increasing the selected physical fitness parameters and swimming performance.
Methods
Participants
First, G*Power analysis (version 3.1.9.4) was seletected to determine the needs of participants (samples) in this study. Based on the analysis of a G*Power that the effect of size f = 0.30, power (1– β err prob) = 0.80 and α err prob = 0.05, it shows that the minimum required participants were 24 athletes.
Based on the calculation of a priori power, 48 elite adolescent athletes with disabilities (deaf type) in swimming sports from the Indonesian deaf sports union were involved in this study. Participants who involved in this study should meet inclusion criteria, namely: (i) not injured, (ii) male, (iii) has a minimum 6 years experience in competitive swimming, (iv) adolescent athletes with elite levels (Ericsson et al., 1993; Ericsson & Ward, 2007), and (v) athletes with hearing impairment disability. Participants and their parents should sign the agreement letter after understood the rules of this study. In addition, the entire series of activities from this experiment research has followed the Helsinki Declaration (2013). Participants were divided into groups DL+AE (n = 24) and control (n = 24) (Table 1). This study was carried out at the Jakarta State University which had been approved with Code Number: 1527/UN39.6.Ps/Lt/Lt/2024.
Table 1
Characteristics of the participants.
| PARAMETER CHARACTERISTICS | DL+AE (n = 24) | CONTROL GROUP (n = 24) |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 16.40 ± 0.77 | 16.30 ± 0.81 |
| Body height (cm) | 159 ± 2.57 | 159 ± 2.23 |
| Body weight (kg) | 57.20 ± 2.45 | 58.10 ± 2.33 |
| Body mass index (kg·m–2) | 21.70 ± 1.05 | 22.0 ± 1.32 |
| Competitive swimming experience (years) | 6.71 ± 0.69 | 6.63 ± 0.65 |
| DL+AE experience (years) | 3.08 ± 0.58 | 3.17 ±0.48 |
[i] Note: DL+AE = Dryland+ aquatic exercise.
Measurements
Physical Fitness
Muscular strength: Handgrip strength (HGS)
HGS (Takei Kiki Kogyo, Tokyo, Japan) was used to measure hand muscle strength (kg) in disability athletes (Kurtoğlu et al., 2022). Participants stood straight by holding the HGS tool in the right or left hand. After an instruction, the participants squeezed HGS as hard as possible (Oskarsson et al., 2023). Each participant had 3 times opportunity. The highest score of 3 experiments was used as the final data for analysis.
Power: Counter movement jump (CMJ)
CMJ was used to measure the leg muscle power of athletes with disabilities (Sammoud et al., 2021). This test can be done inside or outside with a non-slippery floor surface (Prieto-González & Sedlacek, 2022). First, the participants stood upright, when there were instructions, the participants quickly bent the knee 90°, then as hard as possible to jump vertically. Participants had 3 times opportunity and the best results of vertical leap (cm) was recorded to be used as data analysis.
Endurance: Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1 (YYIRTL1)
Based on previous studies, YYIRTL1 was an appropriate instrument to measure the durability of athletes non-disabilities (Villaseca-Vicuña et al., 2021), but in this research YYIRTL1 had been modified for athletes with disabilities. For this, a green light was used when the audio bleep sounds to give a sign or instruction for running. First, participants stood on the star line (cone B). When the green light was on, the participants ran to cone C (the distance between cone B to C was 20 m) and ran back to cone B. Then the participant runs to cone A to recover for 5 seconds (cone A is located behind cone B), runs back to cone B. This activity was carried out continuously until the participant felt tired and was unable to keep on running. Running distance (m) was recorded for statistical analysis.
Swimming Performance
Swimming performance which includes freestyle, breaststroke, backstroke was assessed through a 50-meter swimming speed test recorded in seconds (s) using a stopwatch (Seiko S120–4030, Tokyo, Japan) (Amara et al., 2021). First, participants stood in the star block. When the signal was on, the participants swam as fast as possible towards the finish line. The time duration was recorded and analyzed statistically.
Design and Procedures
This study adopted the experimental method with a random controlled trial design for 7 weeks. At the first meeting (02/04/2024), all participation carried out pre-tests including physical fitness (HGS, CMJ, YYIRTL1), and swimming performance (freestyle, backstroke, breaststroke) from 08.00 to 10.00 am. The second meeting (09/04/2024), participants were divided into two groups DL+AE (n = 24) and control (n = 24) based on the Random Group Generator (RGG) application. The DL+AE and control program was carried out until (23/05/2024). In the last meeting (28/05/2024), all participants held a post-test including physical fitness (HGS, CMJ, YYIRTL1), and swimming performance (freestyle, backstroke, breaststroke) from 09.00–11.00 am. Design and program DL+AE is presented in Figure 1 and Table 2.
Figure 1
Experiment study design.
Table 2
Dryland+aquatic exercise (DL+AE) program.
| WEEK | 1 DAY (TUESDAY) | 2 DAY (THURSDAY) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week | Work: Rotations with a rubber band in dryland (5 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec | Work: Plank to push in dryland (5 × 3 sets) Rest: 20 sec |
| Work: Romanian deadlift with a rubber band in dryland (5 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec | Work: Ball Crunch in dryland (5 × 3 sets) Rest: 20 sec | |
| Work: Both hands rotations in water (5 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec | Work: Front kick in water (5 × 3 sets) Rest: 20 sec | |
| Work: Rotatios with a rubber band in water (5 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec | Work: Swimming technique training (5 × 3 sets) Rest: 20 sec | |
| 2 weeks | Work: Lunge step with a rubber band in dryland (10 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec | Work: Hanging knee raise in dryland (10 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec |
| Work: Push-up to burpee-streamline in dryland (10 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec | Work: Side to side twist in dryland (10 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec | |
| Work: Lunge step with a rubber band in water (10 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec | Work: High knee in water (10 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec | |
| Work: Pulling the tire in water (10 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec | Work: Swimming technique training (10 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec | |
| 3 weeks | Work: Streamline-squat jump in dryland (10 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | Work: Burpee in dryland (10 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec |
| Work: Push-up in dryland (10 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | Work: Burpee+walk out in dryland (10 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | |
| Work: High knee in water (10 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | Work: Jumping with dumble in water (10 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | |
| Work: Jumping jack in water (10 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | Work: Jogging with dumble in water (10 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | |
| 4 weeks | Work: Plank in dryland (15 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | Work: Rapid lunge in dryland (15 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec |
| Work: Dumbbell side bend in dryland (15 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | Work: Mt. Climber in dryland (15 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | |
| Work: Kick to the left and right side in water (15 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | Work: Lunge step with a rubber band in water (15 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | |
| Work: Swimming technique training (15 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | Work: 3D knee swing in water (15 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | |
| 5 weeks | Work: Squat+toe touch in dryland (15 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec | Work: Streamline lunge in dryland (15 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec |
| Work: Walk out in dryland (15 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec | Work: Lunge Steps in dryland (15 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec | |
| Work: 3D knee swing in water (15 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec | Work: Medicine ball chest pass in water (15 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec | |
| Work: 3D calf stretch in water (15 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec | Work: Swimming technique training (15 × 2 sets) Rest: 20 sec | |
| 6 weeks | Work: Spider man in dryland (20 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | Work: Left side lateral raise in dryland (20 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec |
| Work: Reverse crunch dryland (20 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | Work: Glute ham raise in dryland (20 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | |
| Work: Horizontal arm sweeps in water(20 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | Work: Side kick in water (20 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | |
| Work: Straight leg kicks in water (20 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | Work: Pulling the tire in water (20 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | |
| 7 weeks | Work: Side to side twist in dryland (20 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | Work: Sit-up in dryland (20 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec |
| Work: Prone plank in dryland (20 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | Work: Jackknife in dryland (20 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | |
| Work: Jooging in water (20 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | Work: Swimming technique training (20 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | |
| Work: Swimming technique training (20 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec | Work: Barrier jump 5 m in water (20 × 3 sets) Rest: 30 sec |
DL+WT and control program
The DL+AE program session was conducted in a 25 m a swimming pool with a water temperature of 26.1 °C, an air temperature 27.9 °C, and a relative humidity of 65%. The program took 7 weeks with details of two meetings in a week (Tuesday, Thursday). Before DL+AE begins, all participants were required to carry out warm-ups (3 min). DL+AE program was carried out in 2–3 sets and 5–20 repetitions (Table 2). While the control group carried out standard training programs (e.g., push-up [5 × 2 sets, rest: 20 sec], dumble [5 × 2 sets, rest: 20 sec], burpee [5 × 3 sets, rest: 20 sec], high knee [10 × 3 sets, rest: 30 sec], plank to push-up [15 × 3 sets, rest: 30 sec]). After all the exercises had been carried out, all participants were required cooling-down (3 min).
Statistical analysis
Data from the measurement of dependent variable was presented in mean and standard deviation. Normality tests (Shapiro-Wilk’s) and homogeneity (Levene’s) were carried out. Paired sample t-test was used to verify whether there were differences between groups in the pre-test and post-test using. The size of the effect (ES) was calculated by Cohen’s d: large (0.80 >) medium (0.50–0.79), small (0.20–0.49) and trivial (0-0.19) (Cohen, 1988). Meanwhile, to verify the effect of the “group” (DL+AE vs. control), “time” (pre-test vs post-test), and “interaction” on physical fitness variables and swimming performance was carried out in 2-Way Anova Repeated Measures. The time, group and interaction effect was tested with formula ηp2: large (0.138 >), moderate (0.059 >) to small (0.01 >). The percentage of delta (%Δ) was calculated as follows: (posttest-pretest/pretest) × 100. This study involved the Spearman (r) correlation to find out the relationships between data obtained in this study. In addition, the reliability value of all dependent variables was tested to find the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Finally, we determined the level of significance was p < 0.05, and statistical analysis was carried out with Jamovi v. 2.3.28.
Results
Table 3 presents the results the ICC, normality, and homogeneity of the physical fitness and swimming performance variables.
Table 3
Results of intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), Shapiro-Wilk’s (SW) and Levene’s- test (LT).
| PARAMETER | ICC | 95% CI | SW | LT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HGS (kg) | 0.983 | 0.97–0.99 | 0.242 | 0.326 |
| CMJ (cm) | 0.988 | 0.98–0.99 | 0.061 | 0.470 |
| YYIRTL1 (m) | 0.925 | 0.84–0.95 | 0.129 | 0.339 |
| Freestyle (s) | 0.920 | 0.80–0.93 | 0.102 | 0.394 |
| Backstroke (s) | 0.897 | 0.79–0.95 | 0.397 | 0.242 |
| Breaststroke (s) | 0.896 | 0.76–0.94 | 0.121 | 0.188 |
[i] Note: HGS = Handgrip strength, CMJ = Counter movement jump, YYIRTL1 = Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1, ICC = intra-class correlation coefficient, CI = Confidence interval, SW = Shapiro-Wilk’s, LT = Levene’s- test.
Effect of DL+AE and control on physical fitness
Based on the results of the Paired sample t-test (Table 4), we observed an increase in the pre-test at DL+AE related to physical fitness in the HGS parameter (p < .001, d = –2.19 [large], %Δ = +13.6), CMJ (p < .001, d = –2.05 [large], %Δ = +17.1), YYIRTL1 (p < .001, d = –1.49 [large], %Δ = +10.2). At the same time, there was an increase in physical fitness in the HGS parameter (p < .001, d = –1.43 [large], %Δ = +5.4), CMJ (p < .001, d = –1.24 [large], %Δ = +8.6), dan YYIRTL1 (p = 0.015, d = –0.53 [medium], %Δ = +4.1) in the observed control group.
Table 4
Changes in physical fitness between pre- and post-test after the 7 week intervention period.
| PARAMETER | DL+AE (n = 24) | CONTROL (n = 24) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRE | POST | %Δ | PS T-TEST (p) | COHEN’S d | PRE | POST | %Δ | PS T-TEST (p) | COHEN’S d | |
| HGS (kg) | 32.3 ± 1.59 | 36.7 ± 1.95 | +13.6 | <.001 | –2.19 [large] | 31.5 ± 1.61 | 33.2 ± 1.63 | +5.4 | <.001 | –1.43 [large] |
| CMJ (cm) | 20.5 ± 1.41 | 24.0 ± 1.05 | +17.1 | <.001 | –2.05 [large] | 19.7 ± 1.30 | 21.4 ± 1.24 | +8.6 | <.001 | –1.24 [large] |
| YYIRTL1 (m) | 1219 ± 149 | 1343 ± 117 | +10.2 | <.001 | –1.49 [large] | 1061 ± 205 | 1104 ± 207 | +4.1 | 0.015 | –0.53 [medium] |
| 2-WAY ANOVA REPEATED MEASURES | ||||||||||
| TIME (F, p, ηp2) | GROUP (F, p, ηp2) | INTERACTION (F, p, ηp2) | ||||||||
| HGS (kg) | F(1.46) = 163.2 p < .001 ηp2 = 0.780 | F(1.46) = 23.8 p < .001 ηp2 = 0.341 | F(1.46) = 34.8 p < .001 ηp2 = 0.431 | |||||||
| CMJ (cm) | F(1.46) = 136.8 p < .001 ηp2 = 0.748 | F(1.46) = 40.6 p < .001 ηp2 = 0.469 | F(1.46) = 18.7 p < .001 ηp2 = 0.289 | |||||||
| YYIRTL1 (m) | F(1.46) = 49.5 p < .001 ηp2 = 0.518 | F(1.46) = 16.7 p < .001 ηp2 = 0.266 | F(1.46) = 11.4 p = 0.002 ηp2 = 0.199 | |||||||
[i] Note: HGS = Handgrip strength, CMJ = Counter movement jump, YYIRTL1 = Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1, DL+AE = Dryland+aquatic exercise, %Δ = Delta percentage, PS t-test = Paired sample t-test, ηp2 = Partial eta-squared, *significant differences (p < 0.05).
According to the results of the 2-Way ANOVA repeated measures test between DL+AE and control, we observed a significant “time” effect on physical fitness in the HGS parameter (F(1.46) = 163.2, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.780), CMJ (F(1.46) = 136.8, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.748), dan YYIRTL1 (F(1.46) = 49.5, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.518), there is effect “group” on physical fitness on HGS parameters F(1.46) = 23.8, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.341), CMJ (F(1.46) = 18.7, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.469), and YYIRTL1 (F(1.46) = 16.7, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.266). At the same time showing the effect of “interaction” on physical fitness in the HGS parameter (F(1.46) = 34.8, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.431), CMJ (F(1.46) = 40.6, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.289), and YYIRTL1 (F(1.46) = 11.4, p = 0.002, ηp2 = 0.199) (Table 4).
Effect of DL+AE and control on swimming performance
Based on the results of the Paired sample t-test in Table 5, we observed an increase in the pre-test at DL+AE related to swimming performance in the freestyle parameter (p < .001, d = 1.98 [large], %Δ = –25.4), backstroke (p < .001, d = 2.05 [large], %Δ = –17.0), breaststroke (p < .001, d = 2.02 [large], %Δ = –20.0) At the same time, there was an increase in the control group in swimming performance in the freestyle parameter (p < .001, d = 1.50 [large], %Δ = –4.8), backstroke (p < .001, d = 0.91 [large], %Δ = –3.9), breaststroke (p = 0.003, d = 0.67 [medium], %Δ = –4.7).
Table 5
Changes in swimming performance between pre- and post-test after the 7 week intervention period.
| PARAMETER | DL+AE (n = 24) | CONTROL (n = 24) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRE | POST | %Δ | PS T-TEST (p) | COHEN’S d | PRE | POST | %Δ | PS T-TEST (p) | COHEN’S d | |
| Freestyle (s) | 51.2 ± 5.65 | 38.2 ± 2.92 | –25.4 | <.001 | 1.98 [large] | 50.4 ± 5.41 | 48.0 ± 5.93 | –4.8 | <.001 | 1.50 [large] |
| Backstroke (s) | 50.3 ± 4.73 | 41.5 ± 3.93 | –17.0 | <.001 | 2.05 [large] | 51.5 ± 4.79 | 49.5 ± 5.50 | –3.9 | <.001 | 0.91 [large] |
| Breaststroke (s) | 49.6 ± 6.59 | 39.7 ± 4.48 | –20.0 | <.001 | 2.02 [large] | 48.8 ± 4.96 | 46.5 ± 5.74 | –4.7 | 0.003 | 0.67 [medium] |
| 2-WAY ANOVA REPEATED MEASURES | ||||||||||
| TIME (F, p, ηp2) | GROUP (F, p, ηp2) | INTERACTION (F, p, ηp2) | ||||||||
| Freestyle (s) | F(1.46) = 124.7 p < .001 ηp2 = 0.731 | F(1.46) = 12.0 p = 0.001 ηp2 = 0.207 | F(1.46) = 59.4 p < .001 ηp2 = 0.564 | |||||||
| Backstroke (s) | F(1.46) = 120.1 p < .001 ηp2 = 0.723 | F(1.46) = 13.0 p < .001 ηp2 = 0.220 | F(1.46) = 47.1 p < .001 ηp2 = 0.506 | |||||||
| Breaststroke (s) | F(1.46) = 100.5 p < .001 ηp2 = 0.686 | F(1.46) = 4.11 p = 0.048 ηp2 = 0.082 | F(1.46) = 39.8 p < .001 ηp2 = 0.464 | |||||||
[i] Note: DL+AE = Dryland+aquatic exercise, %Δ = Delta percentage, PS t-test = Paired sample t-test, ηp2 = Partial eta-squared, *significant differences (p < 0.05).
According to the results of the 2-Way ANOVA repeated measures test between DL+AE and control, we observe a significant “time” effect on physical fitness in the freestyle parameter (F(1.46) = 124.7, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.731), backstroke (F(1.46) = 120.1, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.723), dan breaststroke (F(1.46) = 100.5, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.686), there was an effect of “group” on physical fitness in freestyle parameters (F(1.46) = 12.0, p = 0.001, ηp2 = 0.207), backstroke (F(1.46) = 13.0, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.220), and breaststroke (F(1.46) = 4.11, p = 0.048, ηp2 = 0.082). At the same time shows the effect of “interaction” on physical fitness in the freestyle parameter (F(1.46) = 59.4, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.564), backstroke (F(1.46) = 47.1, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.506), and breaststroke (F(1.46) = 39.8, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.464) (Table 5).
Figure 2 presents the relationship between performance parameters and demographic characteristics of the DL+AE group. Accordingly, there was a positive correlation between the height of the participants and HGS-post (r = 0.47, p = 0.020) and a negative correlation between breaststroke-post (r = –0.43, p = 0.035). There was a negative correlation between the participants’ weight and breaststroke-pre (r = –0.042, p = 0.041) and breaststroke-post (r = –0.048, p = 0.038) (Figure 4).
Figure 2
Pearson’s heatmap of DL+AE.
Figure 4
Repeated measures correlation analysis results between demographic characteristics and performance parameters of DL-AE group.
In Figure 3, the relationship between the performance parameters and demographic characteristics of the control group was analyzed. Accordingly, there was a positive correlation between the participants’ BMI values and breaststroke-post values (r = 0.048, p = 0.032) (Figure 5).
Figure 3
Pearson’s heatmap of control group.
Figure 5
Repeated measures correlation analysis between BMI and breaststroke-post value.
Discussion
Current research aims to investigate the effect of DL+AE program for 7 weeks towards physical fitness parameters and swimming performance in elite adolescent athletes with disabilities.
Our main finding shows that the combination exercise between DL+AE generated a better effect on increasing physical fitness parameters (HGS, CMJ, YYIRTL1) and swimming performance (freestyle, backstroke, breaststroke) compared to the control group. This is because the adaptation obtained during the DL+AE training with a duration of 2 times a week for 7 weeks. Related to these results, a previous study that was reviewed extensively and supported by experimental findings reported that training conducted on dryland before aquatic exercises promoted positive benefits for the development of physical performance in elite athletes (Arsoniadis et al., 2024). Basically, the main advantages of the DL+AE program was provided exercises that focus on increasing strength, power, and muscle endurance (e.g., push-up, squat) (Amara et al., 2023) which carried out dryland before aquatic exercise (Kim et al., 2018; Gani et al., 2023). Another study had proven and reported similar results, for example Lopes et al. (2021), involved 14 men and 6 women athletes at the national level (elite), and the results showed that DL combined with swimming exercises (AE) had a positive increase in the physical fitness component related to strength and development of swimming performance quality. Therefore, in our research, improvement in arm strength, limb power and endurance were observed clearly and performance improvement in 50 m was identified. Nevertheless, the results of our study showed different results from other studies that reported the dryland combined with swimming exercises was not improved performance of competitive swimmer athletes (Sadowski et al., 2020). In addition, Raineteau et al. (2023), reported the perception of several swimming trainers who commented that the exercise from DL to AE could cause problems to the achievement and they emphasized that (i) strength can only develop after certain activities, (ii) water could not provide sufficient resistance to develop high strength level for adaptation. However, these statements were denied by the previous study which reported that by conducting training in water continuously for 14 weeks had an effect to improve several aspects such as the strength of the upper body, muscle mass, flexibility, and aerobic capacity (Martínez-Rodríguez et al., 2022). In addition, several previous studies showed that combination between DL and aquatic exercises could help to obtain positive results (Lopes et al., 2021). In this study, we also found that the improvement in arm strength, power and endurance was clearly visible and swimming performance of 50 m was perceived after the DL to AE program. All the presented results support the evidence that the DL+AE program is a starting point in increasing physical fitness and contributing to swimming performance improvement. One of the other important findings in our research is the detection of the relationship between performance parameters and demographic characteristics of DL+AE. In addition, we found a relationship between performance parameters and demographic characteristics of the control group.
The advantages of this study include (i) a combination of DL and AE session training for elite adolescent athletes with disabilities, (ii) creating DL and AE programs that were easy to carry out daily for elite adolescent athletes with disabilities. Nevertheless, this study has several limitations. First, the number of participants (athletes) are relatively small. Second, this study only involved male. Third, participants only came from one club in the Jakarta city (Indonesia). Fourth, this study only involved elite adolescent athletes with hiearing impairment disabilities. Thus, future research is needed to involve more participants, both from male and female athletes from several swimming clubs in Indonesia. In addition, it is expected that the DL+AE program can be applied in the future to elite adolescent athletes with other types of disabilities.
Conclusion
We emphasize and highlight the importance of the combination DL and AE which has proven effective in increasing physical fitness parameters (HGS, CMJ, YYIRTL1) and swimming performance (freestyle, backstroke, breastroke) among elite adolescent athletes with hearing impairment disability for 7 weeks. This study contributes to the development of swimming training methods specifically for elite athletes with disabilities to improve achievement in competitive swimming sports. In addition, it is expected that the DL+AE program that we designed in this study can be used by practitioners, trainers and elite adolescent athlete with disability in Indonesia or other countries.
Data Accessibility Statement
All data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks the participants who have been involved and committed to participating in this research activity. The author would like to especially thank the State University of Jakarta for providing facilities to carry out this research.
Competing Interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Author Contributions
All authors had access to the data used in this study and are responsible for the integrity of the data. This study was designed by BFA, ES, and AS. BFA was responsible for data analysis. All authors are responsible for data interpretation and manuscript preparation. Final approval of the manuscript was granted by all authors.