Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Impact of swim training loads on shoulder musculoskeletal physical qualities (PhD Academy Award)
  1. Matias Yoma
  1. Centre for Health Sciences, School of Health and Society, University of Salford, Manchester, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Matias Yoma, School of Health and Society, University of Salford, Manchester, UK; matiasyoma{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

What did I do?

I investigated the effects of swim training loads on physical qualities of the shoulder. The aim was to widen the knowledge of the interaction between training loads and potential risk factors for shoulder pain in competitive swimmers.

Why did I do it?

The aetiology of injuries is multifactorial including the dynamic interaction between multiple risk factors.1 Competitive swimmers are exposed to large training loads, swimming up to 14 000 m/day.2 Shoulder pain is the main reason for missed training,3 with up to 91% prevalence.3 Several modifiable risk factors for shoulder pain, relating to physical qualities of the shoulder (eg, range of motion (ROM), flexibility and strength), have been identified in swimmers.4 Although there is consensus that shoulder pain in swimmers is mainly caused by excessive training loads, research is lacking investigating its interaction with physical qualities of the shoulder.

How did I do it?

I performed four studies. Study 1 investigated the within-session and between-session (within-day and between-day) intrarater reliability of tests of shoulder function. The tests included shoulder rotation ROM, joint position sense (JPS), rotation isometric peak torque (figure 1), latissimus dorsi (LD) length, handgrip force (HGF) and combined elevation test (CET). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), SE of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC 95%) were calculated for each test.

Figure 1

Shoulder isometric peak torque: (A) internal rotation; (B) external rotation. Torque was measured using a handheld dynamometer (model Hoggan MicroFET2; Scientific, Salt Lake City, …

View Full Text


  • Contributors MY: PhD student, LH: Main supervisor and TM cosupervisor. LH designed the project with the support of TM and MY. MY collected and analysed the data. MY wrote the manuscripts with the support of LH and TM. LH and TM supervised the project and contributed to the interpretation of the results.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.