Nutrition Considerations for Open-Water Swimming

Author(s):  
Gregory Shaw ◽  
Anu Koivisto ◽  
David Gerrard ◽  
Louise M. Burke

Open-water swimming (OWS) is a rapidly developing discipline. Events of 5–25 km are featured at FINA World Championships, and the international circuit includes races of 5–88 km. The Olympic OWS event, introduced in 2008, is contested over 10 km. Differing venues present changing environmental conditions, including water and ambient temperatures, humidity, solar radiation, and unpredictable tides. Furthermore, the duration of most OWS events (1–6 hr) creates unique physiological challenges to thermoregulation, hydration status, and muscle fuel stores. Current nutrition recommendations for open-water training and competition are either an extension of recommendations from pool swimming or are extrapolated from other athletic populations with similar physiological requirements. Competition nutrition should focus on optimizing prerace hydration and glycogen stores. Although swimmers should rely on self-supplied fuel and fluid sources for shorter events, for races of 10 km or greater, fluid and fuel replacement can occur from feeding pontoons when tactically appropriate. Over the longer races, feeding pontoons should be used to achieve desirable targets of up to 90 g/hr of carbohydrates from multitransportable sources. Exposure to variable water and ambient temperatures will play a significant role in determining race nutrition strategies. For example, in extreme environments, thermoregulation may be assisted by manipulating the temperature of the ingested fluids. Swimmers are encouraged to work with nutrition experts to develop effective and efficient strategies that enhance performance through appropriate in-competition nutrition.

1982 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. G. Harrison ◽  
Trevor Platt ◽  
Brian Irwin

Phytoplankton biomass (chlorophyll a) and primary production rates in Baffin Bay during summer 1978 were comparable to levels reported for other open water arctic and subarctic regions. Values were moderately high ([Formula: see text] mg Chl∙m−2; 227 mg C-fixed∙m−2∙d−1) considering the low mixed-layer nutrient (nitrogen) concentrations, low ambient temperatures ([Formula: see text] euphotic zone = −0.2 °C), and variable and moderately low daily solar radiation ([Formula: see text] MW∙m−2). Biomass maxima were consistently found at or near the bottom of the euphotic zone, and were 6 times higher than surface values on the average. Nitrate and ammonium were assimilated in approximately equal proportions despite the relatively greater abundance of nitrate in the euphotic zone, particularly below the mixed layer. Average C:N assimilation ratios were slightly lower (5:1) than the chemical composition ratio of the particulate matter (7:1). High phosphate assimilation rates reflected the abundance of this nutrient in the euphotic zone and resulted in low C:P (22:1) and N:P (6:1) assimilation ratios. Growth rates computed from carbon and nitrogen (NO3− + NH4+) assimilation rates averaged 0.31 and 0.35 doublings∙d−1, respectively, for the euphotic zone, and were half the maximum expected growth rates for prevailing water temperatures and optimal conditions of light and nutrients. Baffin Bay phytoplankton populations exhibited no obvious signs of severe nitrogen limitation despite low euphotic zone concentrations of the nutrient. Furthermore, the strong correspondence between: (1) normalized primary production rates (photosynthetic index) and incident solar radiation and (2) growth rates and incubation temperatures suggests that nutrients may play a relatively less important role in controlling arctic primary production than previously considered.Key words: phytoplankton, primary production, nutrients, arctic, light, and temperature


2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 218-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian R. Rogers ◽  
Domhnall Brannigan ◽  
Amanda Montgomery ◽  
Nicole Khangure ◽  
Aled Williams ◽  
...  

HortScience ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (10) ◽  
pp. 1416-1422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giverson Mupambi ◽  
Stefano Musacchi ◽  
Sara Serra ◽  
Lee A. Kalcsits ◽  
Desmond R. Layne ◽  
...  

Globally, apple production often occurs in semiarid climates characterized by high summer temperatures and solar radiation. Heat stress events occur regularly during the growing season in these regions. For example, in the semiarid eastern half of Washington State, historic weather data show that, on average, 33% of the days during the growing season exceed 30 °C. To mediate some of the effects of heat stress, protective netting (PN) can be used to reduce the occurrence of fruit sunburn. However, the impacts of reduced solar radiation in a high light environment on light-use efficiency and photosynthesis are poorly understood. We sought to understand the ecophysiological response of apple (Malus domestica Borkh. cv. Honeycrisp) under blue photoselective PN during days with low (26.6 °C), moderate (33.7 °C), or high (38.1 °C) ambient temperatures. Two treatments were evaluated; an uncovered control and blue photoselective PN. Maximum photochemical efficiency of PSII, or photosystem II (Fv/Fm) was significantly greater at all measurement times under blue photoselective PN compared with the control on days with high ambient temperatures. Fv/Fm dropped below 0.79, which is considered the threshold for stress, at 1000 hr in the control and at 1200 hr under blue photoselective PN on a day with high ambient temperature. On days with low or moderate ambient temperatures, Fv/Fm was significantly greater under blue photoselective PN at 1400 hr, which coincided with the peak in solar radiation. ‘Honeycrisp’ apple exhibited dynamic photoinhibition as shown by the diurnal decline in Fv/Fm. Quantum photosynthetic yield of PSII (ΦPSII) was also generally greater under blue photoselective PN compared with the control for days with moderate or high ambient temperatures. Photochemical reflectance index (ΔPRI), the difference in reflectance between a stress-responsive and nonstress-responsive wavelength, was greater under PN compared with the control on the day with high ambient temperatures, with no differences observed under low or moderate ambient temperatures. Leaf gas exchange did not show noticeable improvement under blue photoselective netting when compared with the control despite the improvement in leaf-level photosynthetic light use efficiency. In conclusion, PN reduced incoming solar radiation, improved leaf-level photosynthetic light use efficiency, and reduced the symptoms of photoinhibition in a high-light, arid environment.


Kinesiology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose M. Saavedra ◽  
Ingi Einarsson ◽  
Damir Sekulić ◽  
Antonio Garcia-Hermoso

Sports ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jørgen Melau ◽  
Maria Mathiassen ◽  
Trine Stensrud ◽  
Mike Tipton ◽  
Jonny Hisdal

Low water temperature (<15 °C) has been faced by many organizers of triathlons and swim-runs in the northern part of Europe during recent years. More knowledge about how cold water affects athletes swimming in wetsuits in cold water is warranted. The aim of the present study was therefore to investigate the physiological response when swimming a full Ironman distance (3800 m) in a wetsuit in 10 °C water. Twenty triathletes, 37.6 ± 9 years (12 males and 8 females) were recruited to perform open water swimming in 10 °C seawater; while rectal temperature (Tre) and skin temperature (Tskin) were recorded. The results showed that for all participants, Tre was maintained for the first 10–15 min of the swim; and no participants dropped more than 2 °C in Tre during the first 30 min of swimming in 10 °C water. However; according to extrapolations of the results, during a swim time above 135 min; 47% (8/17) of the participants in the present study would fall more than 2 °C in Tre during the swim. The results show that the temperature response to swimming in a wetsuit in 10 °C water is highly individual. However, no participant in the present study dropped more than 2 °C in Tre during the first 30 min of the swim in 10 °C water.


2018 ◽  
pp. bcr-2018-225007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoffer van Tulleken ◽  
Michael Tipton ◽  
Heather Massey ◽  
C Mark Harper

2008 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 443-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
IKUMI KOBAYASHI ◽  
MAKOTO AYABE ◽  
DAICHI SUZUKI ◽  
HISASHI NAITO ◽  
JUNICHIRO AOKI

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (10) ◽  
pp. 1003-1013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Weitkunat ◽  
Beat Knechtle ◽  
Patrizia Knechtle ◽  
Christoph Alexander Rüst ◽  
Thomas Rosemann

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document