https://www.selleckchem.com/products/otx008.html
4% lower SF, 14.3% smaller IdC, and 30.8% higher η F in front crawl than backstroke in the 3D motion analysis (all p less then 0.01), which suggest that front crawl is more efficient than backstroke. Backstroke had 25% larger D A at 1.2 m⋅s-1 than front crawl (p less then 0.01) in the MRT trial. A 4% difference in UWV body (p less then 0.001) between the two techniques in the 3D motion analysis also indirectly showed that the pressure drag and friction drag were probably larger in backstroke than in front crawl. In conclusion, front craw
Like
Comment
Share
