Much has been written about the use of a wetsuit in the swim segment of triathlon and the potential performance benefits it can provide. In this small article we show you the data of a small comparative study carried out with a group of young triathletes.
–
Article published in Sportraining magazine nº 100 (January/February 2022). Author: Jose Enrique Quiroga
–
The use of the neoprene suit in the swimming segment of the triathlon is determined by the federal regulations, and may be allowed, prohibited or optional, depending on the temperature of the water and the distance of the swim, although there are also modifications in the regulations depending on the temperature. environmental; and on the other hand, there is also a differentiation between whether the competition is for elite categories or age groups, also taking into account that those over 50 are always allowed to use neoprene.
The water temperature is measured both in the middle of the course and at two other points of the swimming segment, at a depth of 60cm and 1 hour before the start. The lowest temperature of those taken will be considered as the official one.
Another regulation established by the FETRI Competition Regulations is about the characteristics that the neoprene suit must have: they cannot exceed 5mm in thickness in any area; they cannot incorporate propulsion devices such as vortex panels or forearm pads; they cannot incorporate any other material that is less flexible than the neoprene itself (except the zipper); may cover any part of the body except the face, hands, and feet; when its use is mandatory it must cover at least the torso.
Discover here the best Orca brand wetsuits
–
–
I swim with neoprene and performance
There are many published studies that conclude about the effects produced by the use of a neoprene suit on performance, among them: hydrodynamic elevation, buoyancy, better body alignment, less resistance to water… In general, the studies affirm that the benefits on the swimming speed are determined largely by the improvement of buoyancy and elevation. Of course, for this it is essential that the design and quality of the neoprene are optimal and also suitable for the morphological and movement characteristics of each triathlete.
–
–
Comparing times with/without neoprene
Taking advantage of the periodic time measurements that we carry out to control the improvement of performance in a triathlon school, we have made a small comparison at a quantitative level (times in the 400m test) to a group of young intermediate level triathletes. These tests were carried out within the basic general period of their season planning.
The group that participated was made up of 12 school triathletes, all boys, and aged between 14 and 18 years. First, they took a time without neoprene, and two days later, with neoprene. In a 25m pool and with exit from out of the water (without starting block, from the curb).
Table 2 shows the marks of the first test (without neoprene), compared with their personal best marks previously obtained (some of them improved their previous best mark in this test, so the same time is shown in both columns).
–
Table 3 shows the comparison of time and percentages of improvement between the test without neoprene and the test with neoprene (both tests are carried out 2 days apart). In the last column the neoprene model they were wearing has been added.
–
And finally, in table 4 we can see a comparison between the position obtained in the group, with and without neoprene.
–
–
–
conclusions
Of course, any conclusion drawn from this comparison is exclusively applicable to this group of young triathletes and the particular characteristics of this test; however, the data obtained always have a certain degree of extrapolation and can be used together with those from other comparisons when evaluating results.
As we can see in the tables, 100% of the triathletes improved their times in 400m when using neoprene, this improvement varying between 1.7% and 9.1%, with an average of 5.6%.
Although the highest percentage of improvement was obtained by the triathlete with the lowest level, we cannot establish a relationship between the greater or lesser improvements and the swimming level of the triathlete, since the rest of the data obtained does not reflect this possible relationship. Nor does age seem to be an affecting factor.
Comparing the times they completed between them, that is, making a classification (table 4), we see that the positions obtained are similar with and without neoprene, except in the case of the IM triathlete, who improved no less than 9% from 6th ranked 1st in the ranking.
What is very useful in this type of comparison is to carry out a more qualitative analysis, that is, to assess the percentages of improvement based on individual technical characteristics in swimming. To do this, we must relate the theoretical improvements produced by the use of neoprene (according to published studies) with the percentages of improvement that each triathlete has had, thus identifying in a more objective way some of the limitations in their performance, in order to influence later in the work of improvement of these. In the qualitative analysis, from objective results (the times) we can extract more practical information on certain technical aspects, such as that the triathletes who have obtained a greater percentage of improvement are possibly those who have (swimming without neoprene) a worse hydrodynamic alignment of the body, worse buoyancy, greater resistance to water…
However, all data must always be taken “with tweezers”. As we can see in table 3, not all the triathletes used the same model and quality of neoprene, even some of them were a little too big. But although with this type of study, as it is carried out, it is not possible to establish a comparison between the different neoprene models and their influence on performance, this detail must be considered by the coach when making the assessment/analysis, taking into account take into account the knowledge you have about all the aspects that identify the performance of each of your triathletes individually.
On the other hand, it would be very interesting to also take times in both a shorter distance (eg 100m) and a longer distance (eg 1000m), in order to establish correlations between the percentages of improvement according to the distance.
As the most important conclusions of this comparison: a) all the triathletes improved their time in 400m when swimming with neoprene, and b) we can use the results to identify some of the limiting factors of performance, especially in the triathletes who obtained a higher percentage of improvement .
–
