Content uploaded by Joseph Coyne
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joseph Coyne on Jan 20, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
MAXIMAL STRENGTH TRAINING IMPROVES SURFBOARD
SPRINT AND ENDURANCE PADDLING PERFORMANCE IN
COMPETITIVE AND RECREATIONAL SURFERS
JOSEPH O.C. COYNE,
1,2
TAI T. TRAN,
1,2
JOSH L. SECOMB,
1,2
LINA E. LUNDGREN,
1,2
OLIVER R.L. FARLEY,
1,2
ROBERT U. NEWTON,
2
AND JEREMY M. SHEPPARD
2,3
1
Surfing Australia High Performance Center, Casuarina, Australia;
2
School of Exercise & Health Sciences, Edith Cowan
University, Joondalup, Australia; and
3
Canadian Sport Institute-Pacific, Victoria, Canada
ABSTRACT
Coyne, JOC, Tran, TT, Secomb, JL, Lundgren, LE, Farley, ORL,
Newton, RU, and Sheppard, JM. Maximal strength training
improves surfboard sprint and endurance paddling perfor-
mance in competitive and recreational surfers. J Strength Cond
Res 31(1): 244–253, 2017—Upper-body (UB) strength has
very high correlations with faster surfboard paddling speeds.
However, there is no research examining the effects of improv-
ing UB strength has on surfboard paddling ability. This study
aimed to determine the influence that improvements in UB
closed–kinetic chain maximal strength have on surfboard pad-
dling in both competitive and recreational surfers. Seventeen
competitive and recreational male surfers (29.7 67.7 years,
177.4 67.4 cm, 76.7 69.9 kg) participated in a repeated-
measures, parallel control study design. Anthropometry; 5-, 10-
, and 15-m sprint; and 400-m endurance surfboard paddling
tests along with pull-up and dip 1 repetition maximum strength
tests were assessed pre- and postintervention. Subjects in the
training group performed 5 weeks of maximal strength training
in the pull-up and dip. Differences between the training and
control groups were examined postintervention. The training
group increased their speed over the 5-, 10-, and 15-m sprint,
whereas the control group became slower (d= 0.71, 0.51, and
0.4, respectively). The training group also displayed faster
endurance paddling performance compared with the control
group (d= 0.72). Short-term exposure to maximal strength
training elicits improvements in paddling performance meas-
ures. However, the magnitude of performance increases seems
to be dependent on initial strength levels with differential re-
sponses between strong and weaker athletes. Although a lon-
ger maximal strength training period may have produced more
significant paddling improvements in stronger subjects, practi-
tioners are unlikely to have any more than 5 weeks in an unin-
terrupted block with competitive surfing athletes. This study
reveals that a “threshold” level of maximal strength that if pos-
sessed, short-term maximal strength training may only provide
little improvement in paddling performance.
KEY WORDS surfing, paddle, testing, transfer
INTRODUCTION
Competitive surfing is an international professional
water sport that requires diverse physical abilities
to execute powerful wave-riding maneuvers.
Competitive surfing success is determined by
judging criteria that evaluates the surfer’s ability to catch
and ride the best waves in a series of heats normally lasting
20–30 minutes. The surfers are judged on their execution of
innovative and athletic maneuvers in the most critical parts
of the wave (i.e., closest to where the wave is breaking), and
their 2 most highest scoring waves are given a points total
out of 20 (i.e., 10 maximum each wave). Because of the
extreme nature of waves ridden in competitive surfing, an
exceptionally high physical level of sprint and endurance
paddling may be required to both negotiate and catch these
waves. Because of these factors, paddling efforts seem to
effect a competitive outcome despite not being judged (28).
Time motion analysis of both competitive and recreational
surfing reveals that paddling dominates the activity character-
istics of competitive surfing heats with around half of the
competitive heat spent paddling (15,24–26,28). Meanwhile,
actual time spent wave riding is surprisingly low comprising
between 3.8 and 8% of a competitive heat (15,24–26,28). The
majority of paddling efforts (;60% in Mendez-Villanueva’s
research (25) and ;80% in Farley’s research (15)) of the pad-
dling bouts are for less than 20 seconds. It should be noted
that different factors (e.g., type of waves such as reef, sand,
point, and beach-break and weather and tide conditions)
could affect competitive surfing activity profiles considerably
including the amount of time waiting for waves to arrive and
competitive tactics, such as judging which waves to catch to
maximize their heat scores. However, the large amount of
Address correspondence to Joseph O.C. Coyne, coach@josephcoyne.com.
31(1)/244–253
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
244
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
relatively short, repeated bouts of paddling is common, and it
suggests that surfing can normally be considered a sport
requiring a high number of repeated, short-duration, intermit-
tent paddle efforts (15,24–26,28).
Sprint paddling seems to be an important aspect of surfing
competitions. High paddling velocity enables surfers to gain
a positional advantage over other competitors during multiple
20- to 30-minute heats over a competition and ensures fast
entry speed into waves, enhancing the opportunity for the
execution of a greater amount of maneuvers that will increase
the judges’ score (23,25,27,29). This has been reinforced by
a number of studies demonstrating that sprint paddling speed
and power are significant and reliable discriminators between
both competitive and recreational surfers and between com-
petitive surfers of different ranks (3,11,14,27).
Bearing in mind the repeated effort characteristics of
competitive surfing and prolonged nature of recreational
surfing activity, it is not uncommon for even recreational
surfers to spend 3 or more hours in the water during
a session in good environmental conditions (15,24,25);
endurance paddling ability is also very likely to be a highly
relevant physical quality when assessing paddling ability
(11,27). In paddling actions (surfboard, paddleboard, and
swimming) the athletes “pull” and then “push” their body
over and through the water surface. This means that their
distal segment (e.g., hand) is fixed. By definition, this makes
it a closed–kinetic chain (CKC) activity (12,21) or at the very
least a quasi-CKC activity when accounting for fluid move-
ment around the hand. Evaluating endurance paddling abil-
ity in the water (i.e., 400-m time trial) has been proven to
effectively discriminate between competitive surfers (d= 0.9)
and competitive and recreational surfers (d= 1.34) (8,11,30),
whereas lab-based stationary paddle ergometers (i.e., open
kinetic chain) used in earlier investigations could not
(23,24,27). This supports the concept that paddling endur-
ance in surfers may be better assessed with a water-based
paddling time trial rather than in a lab-based setting because
of contextual validity and the nature of the kinetic chain (e.g.,
open vs. closed) assessed in the test (11,30).
As surfing paddle speed (in both sprint and endurance)
seems to be important for competitive outcome, there is
a strong rationale to establish adequate levels of strength
before developing other power and speed qualities (5–7).
This is especially relevant considering the lack of formalized
strength training generally found in surfing (World Surf
League competitors en masse possess a very low strength
training age [e.g., ,1–2 years], if any at all) and a threshold
level of strength required for success in most activities. This
seems to give a sound rationale to examine the performance
benefits of researching the effects of strength training as
a priority as this is absent from the current strength and
conditioning practices of surfers.
To the authors’ knowledge, only 2 studies to date have
examined any potential relationship between upper-body
(UB) strength and surfboard paddling speed. Sheppard
et al. (29) found very high correlations between relative
UB strength (1 repetition maximum [1RM] pull-up) and
paddle speed over 5–15 m (r= 0.88–0.94) and high correla-
tions with peak velocity (r= 0.66) in competitive surfers. In
this study, UB relative 1RM pull-up strength was also found
to be superior when comparing a faster paddling group with
a slower paddling group (d= 1.88) (29). Likewise, Coyne
et al. (11) found a significant moderate correlation (r= 0.41–
0.43) between relative 1RM pull-up strength and sprint pad-
dling ability (5, 10, 15 m and Pvel) in a group of both com-
petitive and recreational surfers. However, when competitive
surfers were examined independent of recreational surfers in
the study by Coyne et al. (11), a significant correlation
between relative 1RM pull-up strength and sprint paddling
ability did not exist. This is dissimilar to the findings by
Sheppard et al. (29), although it should be noted that Shep-
pard et al. (29) found differences in competitive surfers
between faster and slower paddlers with relative 1RM pull-
up strength of 1.27 and 1.15, respectively. Because the cur-
rent average relative 1RM pull-up strength for competitive
surfers in the study by Coyne et al. (11) was 1.24, this may
indicate that once a certain level of relative pull-up strength
is reached (e.g., above 1.2), improvements in paddling speed
may not be necessarily associated with pull-up strength.
Another noteworthy observation from the study by Coyne
et al. (11) was that relative 1RM dip strength (which had not
been examined in the previous research) in competitive surf-
ers was very highly correlated with sprint paddling ability
(p,0.01). In their research, Coyne et al. (11) did not find
a significant correlation with 1RM pull-up or dip strength
and endurance paddling (400 m) ability. This may be
because of the fact that as with the initiation of any move-
ment (13), surfers must overcome a higher resistance to
begin with to accelerate their body and surfboard on the
water. Therefore, it is logical considering the associations
between acceleration and both UB and lower-body strength,
that correlations between UB strength and paddling speed
decrease as distance increases (2,29). It is also logical to
acknowledge that there is a consistently high correlation
between UB muscular strength and power and freestyle
swimming performance (16,34), bearing in mind the consid-
erable biomechanical similarities between freestyle swim-
ming and surfboard paddling (32).
However, despite the apparent strong correlation between
strength and sprint paddling performance, this still does not
indicate cause and effect. As yet, it remains to be investigated
whether improving strength qualities in the UB will in turn
improve surfboard paddling speed. As such, the purpose of
this study was to investigate the effect of 5-week UB
maximal strength training on surfboard sprint and endurance
paddling. A secondary purpose of this study was to analyze
how initial UB strength levels influenced maximal strength
training effects on surfboard paddling ability. The impact
that increases in UB maximal strength has on surfboard
paddling speed and endurance can be used as a theoretical
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2017 | 245
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
basis for the development of training interventions by
strength and conditioning coaches (Table 1).
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
A repeated-measures parallel control study design was used
to assess the impact of 5 weeks of short-term maximal
strength training on paddling performance. Postintervention,
anthropometric, paddling, and strength variables were
compared between the intervention (TRAIN) and control
(CONT) groups and within the TRAIN group.
Subjects
Seventeen competitive and recreational male surfers (29.7 6
7.7 years, age range: 18 to 48 years, 177.4 67.4 cm, 76.7 69.9
kg) were matched in the following order of importance for
paddling performance: mass, arm span, age, strength, and
competitive surfing ability to the greatest extent possible
and placed in a control (CONT) or training group (TRAIN).
The TRAIN group possessed 4 competitive surfers out of 11
subjects (36%), whereas CONT possessed 2 competitive
surfers out of 6 subjects (33%). Subjects were excluded if
they had a recent history of UB orthopedic disorders or
were unable to complete the tests as prescribed. Informed
consent forms were signed by all subjects as per ECU
Human Ethics Committee compliance. Approval for this
investigation was granted by the Human Ethics Committee
at Edith Cowan University (Perth, Australia), and proce-
dures conformed to the Code of Ethics of the World Medical
Association (Declaration of Helsinki).
Procedures
Assessments. The testing procedures involved 5 distinct
sections that were completed in the following order by all
subjects: (a) Anthropometry, (b) Sprint Paddle, (c) 1RM Pull-
Up, (d) 1RM Dip, and (e) Endurance Paddle Test. The
anthropometric variables assessed were height, mass, and the
sum of 7 skinfolds (Sum7). Sum7 was determined after
the measurement of the triceps, sub-scapulae, biceps, supra-
spinale, abdominal, quadriceps, and calf skinfold using a Har-
penden skinfold caliper (Baty International, West Sussex,
England, United Kingdom). All the tests were conducted by
a practitioner certified by the International Society for the
Advancement of Kinanthropometry, whose Typical Error of
Measurement was 2.4% for skinfold measurements and 0.3%
for all other measures.
Subjects performed a warm-up consisting of 2 sets of
specific callisthenic and dynamic stretching exercises
emphasizing UB and trunk activity, lasting 10 minutes in
total. After the warm-up, subjects commenced the sprint
paddle testing in a procedure that has been validated with
surfboarding paddling in a pool and proven to have high
measures of reliability (intraclass correlation [ICC] 0.82–
0.99, typical error [TE] 0.01–0.11, typical error as CV [%
CV] 0.52–2.99) for all 4 measures (9,30). Subjects performed
a paddling-specific warm-up involving 200 m of low-
intensity paddling followed by 4 315-m sprint paddling
TABLE 1. Five-week upper-body maximal
strength training schedule.
Day Workout Reps Tempo Rest (s)
1 A1: pull-up 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 4010 180
A2: dips 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 4010 180
2 A1: dips 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 4010 180
A2: pull-up 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 4010 180
Figure 1. Horizontal position transducer (attached to boardshorts) and
computer set up for data collection.
Figure 2. Outline of 400-m timed endurance paddle test.
Strength Training Improves Paddling Performance
246
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
efforts at 60, 70, 80, and 90% volitional effort on approxi-
mately 2-minute intervals. The subjects then rested for 2 mi-
nutes before completing 2 maximal-effort sprint paddling
time trials (i.e., 2 315 m) with a purpose-built horizontal
position transducer (I-REX, Southport, Australia) attached
to the back of each subject’s boardshorts (see Figure 1).
The position transducer noted the time stamps for every
0.02 m of displacement, which determined sprint times at
5, 10, and 15-m splits. The best of the 2 trials determined the
subjects’ final result, and all sprint paddle efforts were com-
menced from a stationary, prone-lying, floating position.
After the sprint paddle test, athletes commenced the pull-
up testing procedure. To ensure reliability of testing results,
both the 1RM pull-up and 1RM dip testing procedures were
performed using the same
anthropometric, tempo, and
range of motion standards as
in the study by Coyne et al.
(10). This involved 5 repeti-
tions with bodyweight fol-
lowed by 4, 3, 2, and 1
repetitions with an increasingly
greater external load. The
external load was increased by
suspending certified plate
weights from a standard lifting
belt worn around the waist for
every decrease in repetitions.
After these repetitions, the ath-
letes performed only single rep-
etitions with additional external
load attached to their waists
with 2–3 minutes of rest pro-
vided between repetitions.
External load was increased by
1.25–10 kg between sets depending on the strength level of the
subject, speed of concentric movement, and relative body mass.
This testing procedure was then repeated in the exact same
manner for the 1RM dip test. The subject’s results were deter-
mined by adding the subject’s body weight to the external load
lifted (absolute load 1RM) and then dividing that total load by
bodyweight (relative 1RM). The heaviest successful weight
lifted within the anthropometric, range of motion, and tempo
standards outlined by Coyne et al. (10) were recorded as the
subject’s1RM.Whenassessedinthismanner,therelativepull-
up (ICC 0.96, TE 0.03, and %CV 2.22) and relative dip (ICC
0.97, TE 0.04, and %CV 2.41) seem to be highly reliable (10).
The last test was the endurance paddle test. This was
performed over a 20-m up-and-back course in the same
pool, using 2 pool lane widths,
so that nonstop paddling of
400 m could be accomplished.
The paddling test was con-
ducted with small buoy
markers at both ends of the
20-m distance. This meant sub-
jects paddled 20 m and com-
pleted a 1808turn at each end
around the buoy, until 400 m
was completed, 10 laps up and
back (see Figure 2). This 400-m
timed endurance paddle test
seems to be highly reliable (ICC
0.99, TE 9.21, %CV 2.01) (8).
It should be noted that both
pre- and postsprint and endur-
ance paddle testing were per-
formed in the same outdoor
25-m swimming pool. This
Figure 3. Change in sprint paddling performance between the training and control groups over 5 weeks. UB =
upper body.
Figure 4. Change in endurance paddling performance between the training and control groups over 5 weeks.
UB = upper body.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2017 | 247
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
allowed for a simple outline of distances for the subjects and
control for the potential effect of ocean conditions such as
tides and currents. Each subject performed the paddling tests
on their own surfboard and wore the same surfing board-
shorts pre- and postintervention to control for factors, such
as buoyancy and drag. Subjects were also asked to refrain
from resistance training 48 hours before both tests.
Training Intervention. Subjects allocated to the TRAIN group
underwent a 5-week period of 3 UB strength training
sessions per week, which were conducted with at least 1-
day rest in between each session (i.e., nonconsecutive days).
In these sessions, subjects performed a general warm-up
consisting of 5 minutes light skipping and a dynamic
flexibility warm-up (which is
similar to warm-up procedures
before competitive surfing
heats). After 2- to 3-minutes
rest, 2 submaximal preparatory
warm-up sets (2–4 reps) were
performed for pull-ups and
dips. Subjects then executed
the training protocol outlined
in Table 1 alternating between
day 1 and day 2 for 18 exercise
sessions.
This 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 repetition
loading scheme used a training
load that was appropriate for
each repetition and speed of
execution (tempo). The tempo
prescription is written in a 4-
digit sequence with the first
number representing the eccentric contraction period, the
second number the pause before beginning the concentric
contraction, the third number the concentric contraction
period, and the last number the pause before beginning the
eccentric contraction. The alternation of the pull-up and dip
between days was designed to overcome any preferential
learning effects between the 2 strength exercises. It should be
noted that this loading scheme was not an actual RM for
each set (i.e., not true to failure training). For each repetition,
it was a load that could be lifted with excellent technique at
the correct tempo and was close to the maximum training
weight for the subject at that particular time. The external
loading scheme for the pull-ups and dips required the
subjects to add a small load (choice of 1.25 or 2.5 kg) to
each working set’s weight from
day 1 to day 1 sessions and day
2 to day 2 sessions. For
instance, if the subject com-
pleted 15-, 20-, 25-, 30-, and
35-kg external loads for 5, 4,
3, 2, and 1 repetitions, respec-
tively, on the previous day 1,
they would then attempt
16.25, 21.25, 26.25, 31.25, and
36.25 kg on the next day 1. If
the athletes could not com-
plete all 15 repetitions success-
fully, they stayed at this load
until they could. This scheme
allowed the subjects to pro-
gressively overload the resis-
tance used and become
accustomed to near-maximal
loads. It also conformed to
the well-established criterion
for improving relative strength
Figure 5. Change in sprint paddle performance between the STRONG and WEAK groups within an upper-body
maximal strength intervention group over 5 weeks.
Figure 6. Change in endurance paddle performance between the STRONG and WEAK groups within an upper-
body maximal strength intervention group over 5 weeks.
Strength Training Improves Paddling Performance
248
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
with low repetitions (i.e., 1–6 repetitions) and multiple sets
(3–10 sets) (35). Three-minute recovery was provided in the
alternation between the pull-ups and dips. It should be noted
that the pull-up and dip were chosen as the most relevant
strength tests and primary training intervention exercises
because of previous research on strength and surfing and
the joint angles and CKC nature relating to surfboard pad-
dling (11,29).
Subjects were also instructed to undertake normal surfing
activity levels and normal total activity levels with this being
monitored using activity logbooks. This was so both total
activity level volume (minutes) and surfing activity level
volume (minutes) could be compared between groups. At
the onset of the study, subjects were also asked to provide
a recall of total surf volume (minutes) leading up to the study
for the previous fortnight to identify if there may be any
interference effect on initial testing results.
After the 5-week training period, the subjects were retested
in the anthropometric, UB strength, and paddling tests as
outlined previously. Differences between Paddling, Strength,
and Anthropometric data between the TRAIN and CONT
groups and within the TRAIN group were then assessed.
Statistical Analyses
Because of the number of subjects and the involvement of
high-level athletes who perform a tremendous volume of
paddling in surfing, reference change of likelihood data using
Hopkin’s methods (18,20) was calculated to give meaningful
information on the practical effect of the strength training
intervention. The precision of change in the measurements
was based on the typical error of measurement from published
reliability studies and the smallest worthwhile change ex-
pressed as likelihoods. These likelihoods were classified
as “unlikely,” “possibly,” and “likely” with the probabilities
being ,25, 26–74, and .75%, respectively (20). The probabil-
ities that the differences in variables tested were substantial and
worthwhile were calculated using 0.23between-subject SD
and expressed in absolute units, using practical inferences
(19). Cohen’s effect sizes (d) were also calculated to reflect
the magnitude of any changes observed between pre- and
postintervention within and between groups. The Cohen’s
dvalues were considered with 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 values demon-
strating small, moderate, and large effect sizes, respectively (4).
These statistical procedures were also repeated for further
analysis to investigate the effect of subject’s initial strength
levels on the UB maximal strength intervention group’s pad-
dling performance. The UB maximal strength intervention
group was separated into stronger (.1.2 relative pull-up)
and weaker (,1.2 relative pull-up) groups. For all means-
based testing, minimum statistical significance was considered
to be achieved when p#0.05, with a 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
The results of the UB maximal strength training intervention
are displayed below. Stronger and weaker subject’s results
TABLE 2. Between-group comparisons of the TRAIN and the CONT groups over a 5-week training period.*†
TRAIN (n= 11) CONT (n=6)
Between-group differences in variable
change pre-post chances that the true
differences are substantial
Pre Post Change (%) Pre Post Change (%) Effect size % Qualitative
Body mass (kg) 75.79 613.0 76.55 612.9 1.00 77.5 62.38 77.34 62.36 20.20 20.63 100 Likely
Sum7 (mm) 108.99 639.67 98.46 634.73 29.66 67.55 625.51 65.87 624.33 22.49 1.23 100 Likely
5 m (s) 4.32 60.97 4.19 60.53 22.95 4.14 60.39 4.26 60.34 2.90 0.71 87 Likely
10 m (s) 7.61 61.57 7.5 60.86 21.47 7.25 60.56 7.43 60.62 2.41 0.51 74 Likely
15 m (s) 11 62.34 10.89 61.25 20.95 10.4 60.79 10.66 60.89 2.48 0.4 87 Likely
400 m (s) 455.05 6121.63 428.82 684.92 25.77 416.35 639.64 413.5 645.27 20.68 0.72 89 Likely
Rel 1RM pull-up 1.17 60.15 1.24 60.16 6.17 1.29 60.13 1.35 60.14 4.13 20.42 59 Possibly
Rel 1RM dip 1.33 60.18 1.44 60.19 8.28 1.39 60.31 1.42 60.31 2.11 21.32 88 Likely
*Sum7 = sum of 7 skinfolds; 5 m = time taken to sprint paddle 5 m; 10 m = time taken to sprint paddle 10 m; 15 m = time taken to sprint paddle 15 m; 400 m = time taken to
paddle 400 m; Rel 1RM pull-up = relative 1RM Pull-Up; 1RM = repetition maximum; Rel 1RM dip = relative 1RM dip.
†Data are mean 6SD.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2017 | 249
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
from the UB maximal strength training intervention group
are also presented. There were no significant differences
between total activity volume (minutes) or total surfing vol-
ume (minutes) between the groups.
Anthropometry
TRAIN subjects demonstrated an increase in body mass and
reduction in Sum7 with moderate and large effect sizes,
respectively. Within the TRAIN group, WEAK subjects
demonstrated a greater body mass increase compared with
the stronger group. Conversely, STRONG subjects had
a greater reduction in Sum7 skinfolds.
Paddling Performance
The TRAIN group increased their speed over 5, 10, and 15 m,
whereas the control group got slower. The odds that these
were substantially true differences were 87, 74, and 87% over 5,
10, and 15 m, respectively, between the groups with a mod-
erate effect size for the 5 and 10 m and a small effect size for
the 15-m sprint paddle (Figure 3). The TRAIN group also
displayed a faster endurance paddling performance compared
with the control group. The 89% likelihood of difference in the
400-m endurance paddle with a moderate effect size between
the groups indicates a practically meaningful difference in this
instance (Figure 4). Within the TRAIN group, WEAK subjects
increased sprint paddling speed, whereas STRONG subjects
actually exhibited slower performances with a large effect size
for all distances (Figure 5). WEAK subjects also improved
endurance paddling performances greater in comparison with
the STRONG group with a 92% chance of practically mean-
ingful differences and moderate effect size (Figure 6).
Upper-Body Maximal Strength
The improvement in relative 1RM pull-up demonstrated by
the TRAIN group compared with the CONT group was
determined to have a 59% chance of practically meaningful
difference with a small effect size. There was an 88% chance
that the increase in 1RM dip strength by the TRAIN subjects
was a practically meaningful difference (Table 2). There was
no difference between the WEAK and STRONG subjects
within the TRAIN group in terms of the change in relative
1RM pull-up performance over the 5 weeks. There was
a slight improvement by WEAK in relative 1RM dip perfor-
mance that was determined to have a 55% chance that the
difference was meaningful with a small effect size (Table 3).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of
a short-term, 5-week, maximal strength training intervention
on UB maximal strength levels, anthropometric variables,
and surfboard paddling ability. Because of the high volume
of both sprint and endurance surfboard paddling that occurs
naturally within surfing activity and an apparent lack of
formalized maximal strength training by surfers, an UB
maximal strength training intervention seemed to offer the
greatest opportunity to improve surfboard paddling ability.
TABLE 3. Between-group comparisons between the STRONG and WEAK groups in the TRAIN group over a 5-week training period.*†
STRONG (n= 5) WEAK (n=6)
Between-group differences in variable
change pre-post chances that the true
differences are substantial
Pre Post Change (%) Pre Post Change (%) Effect size % Qualitative
Body mass (kg) 73.88 65.39 74.19 64.84 0.42 77.38 617.56 78.51 617.43 1.45 0.61 100 Likely
Sum7 (mm) 94.84 617.57 82.36 610.96 213.16 120.78 650.34 111.88 642.91 27.37 0.39 100 Likely
5 m (s) 3.76 60.55 3.87 60.33 3.14 4.79 61.02 4.46 60.54 26.93 21.05 98 Likely
10 m (s) 6.71 60.76 6.94 60.51 3.43 8.37 61.72 7.97 60.83 24.74 20.92 98 Likely
15 m (s) 9.67 60.95 10.05 60.72 3.93 12.10 62.64 11.59 61.18 24.20 20.83 100 Likely
400 m (s) 395.82 637.16 383.80 642.25 23.04 504.42 6148.49 466.33 696.33 27.55 20.62 92 Likely
Rel 1RM pull-up 1.32 60.08 1.39 60.08 5.88 1.05 60.04 1.12 60.10 6.47 0.00 59 Possibly
Rel 1RM dip 1.49 60.09 1.59 60.14 6.64 1.20 60.12 1.32 60.13 9.98 0.37 55 Possibly
*Sum7 = sum of 7 skinfolds; 5 m = time taken to sprint paddle 5 m; 10 m = time taken to sprint paddle 10 m; 15 m = time taken to sprint paddle 15 m; 400 m = time taken to
paddle 400 m; Rel 1RM pull-up = relative 1RM pull-up; 1RM = repetition maximum; Rel 1RM dip = relative 1RM dip.
†Stronger subjects are defined as having an initial relative 1RM pull-up .1.2 and weaker subjects are defined as having an initial relative 1RM pull-up ,1.2. Data are mean 6SD.
Strength Training Improves Paddling Performance
250
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Upper-body maximal strength training seemed to signif-
icantly decrease body fat as measured by Sum7 and to
a much lesser extent increase body mass. Bearing in mind
the high negative correlation with Sum7 and paddling speed
(especially endurance bouts) from Coyne’s research (8),
these anthropometric changes are of noteworthy potential
for surfing athletes. To analyze where surfing performance
may be improved in an athlete’s profile, it may be worth-
while to compare a surfing athlete’s body mass and Sum7
with norms for elite surfers (e.g., World Surf League). This
may be especially important if the athlete’s Sum7 is above
those norms. Upper-body maximal strength training (poten-
tially alongside a nutritional intervention) may be an effec-
tive and efficient way of reducing body fat levels to optimal
levels for performance.
On the other hand, considering the high negative
correlation between mass and paddling speed in both sprint
and endurance efforts in competitive surfers in Coyne’s pre-
vious research (8), there may need to be monitoring of ath-
letes’ mass (especially if the athlete is already very lean)
when undertaking UB maximal strength training. This is to
make sure they do not broach a “threshold” weight for fat-
free mass above which performance may be hampered. This
may be less of a concern in situations where strength training
is not a novel stimulus for athletes (e.g., experienced trainees)
or the athlete is undertaking high levels of endurance train-
ing concurrently (33).
Relative UB maximal strength performance measures in
the pull-up and dip seem to have increased after the 5-week
training period. There seemed to be a greater improvement
in relative dip strength (d=21.32, 88% likelihood of sub-
stantial true difference) compared with relative pull-up
strength (d=20.42, 59% likelihood of substantial true dif-
ference) in the TRAIN group compared with the CONT
group.
Regardless of these differences, these improvements in
strength seem to be valuable for surfing athletes. Considering
the previous research correlating greater relative pull-up
strength to sprint paddling speed (8,29), the improvements
in pull-up strength garnered from the intervention can be
seen as desirable. Furthermore, the improvements in relative
dip strength from the training may be even more valuable for
competitive surfers considering the high significant correla-
tions with relative dip strength and sprint paddling ability
over 5, 10, and 15 m (p,0.01) found with competitive
surfers in previous studies (8).
It should be noted the a 5-week strength training period is
a very short intervention in terms of a strength stimulus
compared with the majority of the research on strength
training. This brief study time will significantly decrease the
probability of finding worthwhile change in any type of
maximal strength results. However, because of the nature of
competitive surfing and the travelling demands placed on
surfing athletes, it is very rare that a competitive surfer will
have a greater than a 5-week period at any one time at any
one place to concentrate on improving a physical quality. It
is encouraging for the surfing population that there seems to
be positive adaptations in maximal relative strength in
a period of time that will fit into a competitive surfer’s
schedule.
The main hypothesis of the study proposed that the
TRAIN group would improve surfboard paddling ability to
a greater extent than the CONT group, particularly in sprint
paddle performance. The paddling kinematics assessed
demonstrated likely substantial true differences between
the TRAIN and CONT groups with moderate to large
effect sizes. When discussing these results, it must be
remembered that CONT were still exposed to regular bouts
of paddling during the study period as part of their normal
week-to-week surfing activity.
Interestingly, although the TRAIN group seemed to
improve in all aspects of paddling ability, it was the
endurance paddle performance measure (400 m) that
seemed to improve the most with the strength training
stimulus when compared with CONT. Although initially
surprising, this is in line with previous research on the
positive effects of strength training on endurance activity and
performance (17,31). The increase in strength may have
increased the subject’s paddling stroke economy, which the-
oretically would enable them to operate at lower levels of
cardiorespiratory function at the same paddling speed, i.e.,
enhanced economy (17,31). Another possible reason for the
greater development in endurance paddling ability may be
the effect that maximal strength training had on the fat mass
of the subjects. The most significant effect of the strength
training intervention when comparing the TRAIN and
CONT groups seemed to be a reduction in the training
groups’ fat mass (d= 1.23, 100% likelihood of substantial
true difference). As a lower fat mass was significantly corre-
lated (p,0.01) with 400-m endurance paddle performance
in both competitive surfers and the whole cohort in previous
research (8), this reduction in fat mass may be an unexpected
cause of improvement in the endurance paddling perfor-
mance measures.
When splitting the STRONG and WEAK groups, there
were many interesting observations. The first was that from
pre- to postintervention, WEAK subjects seemed to gain
more body mass but had a lower reduction in fat mass (e.g.,
Sum7) than STRONG subjects. The STRONG group did
not seem to gain any body mass but had a greater reduction
in fat mass than WEAK. This may indicate maximal strength
training had a more hypertrophic effect on the WEAK
group. Again, this corresponds with the notion that weaker
or inexperienced athletes are much more likely to accumu-
late fat-free mass in the initial stages of maximal strength
training as it is a novel stimulus.
The effects of maximal strength training on paddling
velocity seemed to be profoundly influenced by the initial
strength levels of the subjects. When comparing the
STRONG and WEAK groups, the WEAK group seemed
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2017 | 251
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
to have much greater improvements in both sprint and
endurance paddling performance. WEAK group’s improve-
ments compared with the STRONG group had large effect
sizes and a high likelihood that these differences were true
and substantial for all paddling measures. Of interest is
a comparison of the STRONG group with the CONT group.
The STRONG group’s sprint paddling measures in the
follow-up testing were very similar to those of the CONT
group. However, the STRONG group did display “possibly”
greater improvement in the 400-m endurance paddle with
a moderate effect size compared with the CONT group.
These results support the contention that there may be
a certain level of relative maximal strength (i.e., 1.2 relative
1RM pull-up) that once achieved, any further gains in
relative maximal strength may not produce appreciable
performance gains in surfboard paddling performance,
especially sprint paddling. If so, it may be warranted for
athletes who possess the necessary quantities of relative
maximal strength to focus their available training time on
more specific methods (e.g., resisted sprint paddling) and in
developing other physical or mental qualities that may
influence performance.
It should be noted that this diagnosis and training
intervention is solely based on a 5-week maximal strength
training intervention and the experiences of the authors.
More investigation may be warranted to establish if a longer
bout of maximal strength training changes the initial
strength level used for diagnosis and training intervention.
Strength and conditioning coaches should also be aware that
as maximal strength improves, the rate at which perfor-
mance improves decreases and any further improvements
may be brought about through other training methods (1).
Nonetheless, improving maximal strength beyond a “thresh-
old” level may result in performance enhancements that are
not a direct result of strength training. For example, maximal
strength training may aid in soft tissue resiliency (22), which
may allow an athlete to complete the necessary volume of
training that is required for further performance enhance-
ment without injury.
The outcome of this study was that short-term exposure
to maximal strength training elicits improvements in pad-
dling performance measures. However, the magnitude of
performance increases seems dependent on initial strength
levels with differential responses between the strong and
weaker athletes over the course of a short maximal strength-
training program.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
This study seemed to reveal a “threshold” level of maximal
strength that if possessed, there seem to be little transfer to
paddling performance with improvements in maximal
strength. As such, thorough investigations into the point this
maximal strength “threshold” is reached for other sports
would be important to determine for strength and condition-
ing practitioners working in those sports. Although a longer
maximal strength training period may have produced more
significant paddling improvements, the nature of profes-
sional surfing means that strength and conditioning practi-
tioners are unlikely to have any more than 5 weeks in an
uninterrupted block to work with a surfing athlete. There-
fore, for these athletes who have attained “threshold”
strength, explorations of the effects other forms of training
(e.g., UB ballistic or plyometric training) have on paddling
performance could be warranted. Other studies comparing
surfboard paddle training and maximal strength training
could also be undertaken.
In regard to assessing the effect surfboard paddling training
could have on paddling performance, further diagnostics
based on the existing paddling tests could be developed to
aid the strength and conditioning coach. These could include
investigating whether average velocity in 15-m sprint com-
pared with average velocity in the 400-m endurance paddle is
a valid discriminator between athletes or is correlated with
performance. Research into how this paddling ratio could be
used to guide paddling training interventions for athletes, e.g.,
whether they perform sprint or endurance paddling training
to enhance performance, could also be warranted.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was completed as part of collaboration
between Surfing Australia and Edith Cowan University.
Without the work of Surfing Australia staff including Dr.
Jeremy Sheppard and the staff at Coyne Sports Injury Clinic,
this study would not have been able to be completed.
There are no people involved in the study where pro-
fessional relationships will benefit from the results of the
study. As mentioned, there was no funding received for this
study. Lastly, the results of the present study do not
constitute endorsement of any product by the authors or
by the National Strength and Conditioning Association.
REFERENCES
1. Baker, DG and Newton, RU. Adaptations in upper-body maximal
strength and power output resulting from long-term resistance
training in experienced strength-power athletes. J Strength
Conditioning Res 20: 541–546, 2006.
2. Blazevich, T. Resistance training for sprinters (part 1): Theoretical
considerations. Strength and Conditioning Coach 4: 9–12, 1997.
3. Cámara, J, Maldonado-Marti
́
n, S, Fernández, JR, and González, M.
Paddling performance and ranking position in junior surfers
competing at the association of surfing professionals: A pilot study.
E-balonmanocom: Revista de Ciencias Del Deporte 7: 147–156, 2011.
4. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
5. Cormie, P, McGuigan, MR, and Newton, RU. Adaptations in
athletic performance after ballistic power versus strength training.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1582–1598, 2010.
6. Cormie, P, McGuigan, MR, and Newton, RU. Influence of strength
on magnitude and mechanisms of adaptation to power training. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1566–1581, 2010.
7. Cormie, P, McGuigan, MR, and Newton, RU. Developing maximal
neuromuscular power: Part 2-training considerations for improving
maximal power production. Sports Med 41: 125–146, 2011.
Strength Training Improves Paddling Performance
252
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
8. Coyne, JOC. Influence of anthropometric and upper body strength
qualities on surfboard paddling kinematics. In: Faculty of Health,
Engineering & Science. Perth, Australia: Edith Cowan University, 2015.
9. Coyne, JOC and Sheppard, JM. Assessing sprint paddle ability in
competitive surfers. In: Australian Strength & Conditioning Association
International Conference on Applied Strength & Conditioning. Gold
Coast, Australia, 2011.
10. Coyne, JOC, Tran, T, Secomb, JL, Lundgren, L, Farley, ORL,
Newton, RU, and Sheppard, JM. Reliability of pull up & dip
maximal strength tests. J Aust Strength Conditioning 23: 21–27, 2015.
11. Coyne, JOC, Tran, T, Secomb, JL, Lundgren, L, Farley, ORL,
Newton, RU, and Sheppard, JM. Association between
Anthropometry, upper Extremity strength and sprint & endurance
paddling performance in competitive and recreational surfers. Int J
Sport Sci Coaching 11, 2016. Epub ahead of print.
12. Ellenbecker, TS and Davies, GJ. Closed Kinetic Chain Exercise: A
Comprehensive Guide to Multiple Joint Exercises. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, 2001.
13. Enoka, R. Neuromechanics of Human Movement. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, 2000.
14. Farley, OR, Harris, NK, and Kilding, AE. Anaerobic and aerobic fitness
profiling of competitive surfers. J Strength Conditioning Res 26: 2243–
2248, 2011.
15. Farley, OR, Harris, NK, and Kilding, AE. Physiological demands of
competitive surfing. J Strength Conditioning Res 26: 1887–1896, 2011.
16. Hawley, JA, Williams, MM, Vickovic, MM, and Handcock, PJ.
Muscle power predicts freestyle swimming performance. Br J Sports
Med 26: 151–155, 1992.
17. Hoff, J, Gran, A, and Helgerud, J. Maximal strength training
improves aerobic endurance performance. Scand J Med Sci Sports 12:
288–295, 2002.
18. Hopkins, WG. Probabilities of clinical or practical significance.
Sportscience 6, 2002.
19. Hopkins, WG. Spreadsheet for analysis of controlled trials with
adjustment for a subject characteristic. Sportscience 10: 46–50, 2006.
20. Hopkins, WG, Marshall, SW, Batterham, AM, and Hanin, J.
Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise
science. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 3–12, 2009.
21. Kibler, WB. Closed kinetic chain rehabilitation for sports injuries.
Phys Med Rehabil Clin North America 11: 369–384, 2000.
22. Leahy, PM. Improved treatments for carpal tunnel. Chiropractic
Sports Med 9: 6–9, 1995.
23. Loveless, DJ and Minahan, C. Peak aerobic power and paddling
efficiency in recreational and competitive junior male surfers. Eur J
Sport Sci 10: 407–415, 2010.
24. Meir, R, Lowdon, BJ, and Davie, AJ. Heart rates and estimated
energy expenditure during recreational surfing. Aust J Sci Med Sport
20: 70–74, 1991.
25. Mendez-Villanueva, A and Bishop, D. Physiological aspects of
surfboard riding performance. Sports Med 35: 55–70, 2005.
26. Mendez-Villanueva, A, Bishop, D, and Hamer, P. Activity profile of
world-class professional surfers during competition: A case study.
J Strength Conditioning Res 20: 477–482, 2006.
27. Mendez-Villanueva, A, Perez-Landaluce, J, Bishop, D, Fernandez-
Garcia, B, Ortolano, R, Leibar, X, and Terracios, N. Upper body
aerobic fitness comparison between two groups of competitive
surferboard riders. J Sci Med Sport 8: 43–51, 2005.
28. Sheppard, J. Activity profile of professional surfers using micro-
sensors. In: Presented at Surfing Australia Annual Coaching Conference.
Gold Coast, Australia, 2011.
29. Sheppard, JM, McNamara, P, Osborne, M, Andrews, M, Oliveira
Borges, T, Walshe, P, and Chapman, DW. Association between
Anthropometry and upper-body strength qualities with sprint
paddling performance in competitive surfers. J Strength Conditioning
Res 26: 3345–3348, 2012.
30. Sheppard, JM, Nimphius, S, Haff, GG, Tran, TT, Spiteri, T,
Brooks, H, Slater, G, and Newton, RU. Development of
a comprehensive performance testing protocol for competitive
surfers. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 8: 490–495, 2013.
31. Storen, O, Helgerud, J, Stoa, EM, and Hoff, J. Maximal strength
training improves running economy in distance runners. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 40: 1087–1092, 2008.
32. Toussaint, HM and Beek, PJ. Biomechanics of competitive front
crawl swimming. Sports Med 13: 8–24, 1992.
33. Wilson, JM, Marin, PJ, Rhea, MR, Wilson, SM, Loenneke, JP, and
Anderson, JC. Concurrent training: A meta-analysis examining
interference of aerobic and resistance exercises. J Strength
Conditiioning Res 26: 2293–2307, 2012.
34. Zampagni, ML, Casino, D, Benelli, P, Visani, A, Marcacci, M, and
De Vito, G. Anthropometric and strength variables to Predict
freestyle performance times in elite Master Swimmers. The J Strength
Conditioning Res 22: 1298–1307, 2008.
35. Zatsiorsky, VM and Kraemer, WJ. Science and Practise of Strength
Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2006.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2017 | 253
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
