Body shape affects the capacity and efficiency of swimming in fishes, and places constraints on foraging and reproductive performance. Hence, fitness components, such as aerobic swimming capacity and efficiency, can be determined from analysis of swimming energetics using active respirometry. In particular, body shape adaptations, such as streamlining, aim at reducing hydrodynamic drag (resistance), thereby increasing swimming efficiency in the presence of water flow, which is a principal contributor to resistance for fish inhabiting rivers. For two populations of bluegill sunfish, one from the Brazos River and the other from Moelman’s Slough (a Brazos River oxbow lake), the metabolic transport rate (MTR) was determined to evaluate differences in swimming efficiency. The standard cost of swimming (SCOS) was also determined to evaluate differences in swimming capacity, which represents the overall capacity of the skeletal muscles to generate mechanical power to overcome hydrodynamic resistance. The MTR and the SCOS describe holistic swimming performance, where the MTR specifies the hydrodynamic response due to swimming, and the SCOS specifies the physiologic response due to swimming. The differences in swimming performance are mainly attributed to factors affecting hydrodynamic resistance and could be predicted by morphology; because body shape, like water flow, is also a principal contributor to resistance. Multivariate body shape, from generalized Procrustes analysis, was used to assess the influence of multiple shape traits on swimming costs. This measure of shape related to swimming performance using partial least-squares analysis showed the two bluegill populations to be significantly different. The results were as follows: the shallow-bodied condition in bluegills was highly correlated with efficient swimming and low swimming capacities; whereas, deep-bodied bluegills were highly correlated with inefficient swimming and high swimming capacities. This is an empirical case of divergent natural selection. For convergence, however, the position of the caudal peduncle is consistent with optimal swimming speed (Um), which depends on standard metabolic rate (SMR), or metabolic maintenance. Bluegills with erect caudal peduncles have a high range of swimming speeds without suffering much cost of swimming ability compared to bluegills with prone caudal peduncles. The adaptive physiological response to high Um is due to a low SCOS because swimming efficiency is low and metabolic maintenance is high. In other words, bluegills that are inefficient swimmers and require a high energy intake cannot survive unless they gain the ability to increase their foraging capacity by thrust or metabolic power reduction. This is perhaps one of the most remarkable adaptive physiological responses due to the joint effects of shape and SMR.

Aim  The purposes of this study were to investigate if the load-velocity (L-V) profile parameters – force capacity and efficiency - differ between swimmers of different performance level, and to investigate if efficiency is the key performance indicator between international elite and national elite level swimmers.  Method  Fifty-four swimmers (27 female and 27 male) of either regional level, national elite or international elite level, participated in this study. The swimmers performed three 25 m semi- tethered maximum effort swims with ascending loads (1 kg, 5% and 10% of body mass). Mean velocity during three stroke cycles mid-effort was calculated and plotted as a function of the external added load. A linear regression was established, expressing the relationship between load and velocity, with the intercepts between the axes and the regression line being defined as the theoretical maximum velocity (V0) and load (force capacity, L0). The slope of the regression line (slopeLV) serves as an index of efficiency. Results A statistically significant difference was found between the three performance levels for all L- V profile variables for front crawl: V0 (F [2, 51] = 7.76, p<0.001), L0 (F [2, 51] = 5.18, p=0.009), and slopeLV (F [2, 51] = 3.36, p=0.043). A paired t-test revealed no difference in slopeLV between matched international elite and national elite level swimmers (t [9] = 1.42, p=0.188), but a near significant difference in L0 (t [9] = 2.11, p=0.064) . Both slopeLV and L0 for front crawl had a strong correlation with personal best in 100 m front crawl (PB100). Conclusion Efficiency was not found to be the key performance indicator between matched international elite and national elite swimmers in this study, and neither was force capacity. Nevertheless, a significant difference in all front crawl L-V profile parameters was found between performance level groups, but post hoc analyses indicated no difference between adjacent performance levels neither in L0 nor slopeLV. There was however a strong correlation between both slopeLV, and L0, to the swimmers’ PB100. All these findings imply that efficiency and force capacity seem to be of equal importance for high performance, but swimmers use different strategies to reach the high swim velocity. / Longitudinal development of performance determining factors in swimming (NIH)