Strength for swimming: methods, studied protocols and limits
On this page
Keep the training families separate
Fone and van den Tillaar's 2022 review includes 27 studies and separates three main groups. Its literature search ran to March 2021; the findings are not a final ranking of methods.1
| Family | Examples studied | What it does not imply |
|---|---|---|
| In-water resistance | Bands, parachutes, paddles and fixed push-off devices | More resistance does not always mean more transfer to racing |
| Stroke-like dry-land work | Swim benches and ergometers reproducing parts of the pull | Similar movement does not reproduce feel for the water |
| General dry-land strength | Heavy loads, hypertrophy work, core training and plyometrics | More gym strength does not guarantee a faster pool time |
The review generally describes maximal-strength training with loads above 80% of 1RM, low repetitions and several sets; hypertrophy work uses different loads and repetitions. These describe families, not interchangeable doses or personal targets. Core work, jumps and pulls address different aims: stability, explosive actions and force production.1
What the 2022 review shows
Interventions last 3–16 weeks, about 8 on average. Participants are competitive swimmers above 13 years of age and at least regional level; the review excludes masters, non-swimmers, triathlon and open water. Most tests concern front crawl and short or middle distances. Studies devoted only to starts and turns were also excluded.1
Many interventions show changes around 1–3%, but some do not improve swimming performance. Combined swimming and strength appears useful compared with swimming alone; no single method is clearly best for everyone. A 2–3% improvement cannot be promised to an individual reader: these are changes in different groups and tests, not a forecast.1
A protocol read in the original paper: Aspenes 2009
Twenty competitive swimmers complete the study: 11 in the intervention group and 9 controls, recruited from different teams. This is not a randomized comparison of one strength variant against another. For 11 weeks the intervention group adds strength work and swimming intervals to regular practice.2
| Part | Protocol described in the paper |
|---|---|
| Planned frequency | About 2 combined sessions/week; between 1 and 3 around holidays, competitions and a camp. Actual adherence: 1.8 strength and 2.0 interval sessions/week. |
| Strength warm-up | 5–10 general minutes, then 10–15 specific repetitions at 50–80% of 1RM. |
| Strength work | Bilateral cable pull resembling the butterfly pull: 3 sets of 5 maximal repetitions, maximal concentric force intent and slow return. Rest 2–5 minutes between sets. Load increased by 1 kg when 5 repetitions were completed. |
| Swimming intervals | After 20–40 minutes of warm-up: 4×4 minutes at 90–95% of individual maximal swimming heart rate, with 3 moderate minutes between intervals and 3 moderate minutes at the end. These are not running heart-rate percentages transferred to swimming. |
The original paper describes the working sets as five maximal repetitions, not a fixed percentage of 1RM. The 50–80% belongs to the warm-up and should not be moved to the working sets. All strength work was supervised.2
Arithmetic example, not a suggested session
Three sets of five mean 15 working repetitions. The two between-set rests total 4–10 minutes, excluding execution and warm-up. In the pool, 4×4 minutes = 16 hard minutes. Three 3-minute recoveries = 9 minutes, plus 3 final minutes: 28 minutes after warm-up, or 48–68 minutes including the initial 20–40 minutes. This example explains the structure, not loads to copy.
Results and limits
The intervention group's average 400 m time changes from 290.43 to 286.43 seconds: 4 seconds faster, about 1.38%. There are no significant improvements in 50 or 100 m time, swimming economy or peak oxygen uptake. Controls change from 290.08 to 290.40 seconds over 400 m.2 The sample is small, there are dropouts and heterogeneous groups, and strength and swimming intervals change together. The full effect cannot be assigned to one exercise or extended to a triathlon swim.
A sprint example: Girold 2012
The original study assigns 24 national-level swimmers to dry-land strength, electrical stimulation or control for 4 weeks. The strength/control comparison concerns 8 people per group. The 2022 review reports 3 weekly sessions, 3 sets of 6 repetitions of pull-ups and pulling exercises for the back, with loads stated at 80–90% of 1RM. These details come from the review table, not from a full original paper.13
The strength group improves 50 m front-crawl performance. The abstract reports increased swimming velocity and arm-extension torque, and increased stroke length in the strength group. This is a short protocol in competitive swimmers, not evidence that six heavy repetitions fit every swimmer. Electrical stimulation is a study arm, not a product recommendation.3
What the 2026 evidence adds
The abstract of Mou et al.'s meta-analysis includes 37 studies and 829 developmental competitive swimmers: core, plyometric and resistance training. It finds positive average effects on swimming-specific performance, with different statistical stability across methods and outcomes. The authors call the dose-response patterns exploratory: they should not be converted into fixed thresholds or doses.4 This is not new direct evidence in adult masters or triathletes. Review samples may overlap, so their participants are not added as independent evidence.
How to use this information
- Define the outcome first: 50 or 400 m time, starts, turns and gym strength are different measures.
- Keep strength, core, plyometrics and in-water resistance separate. Record sets, reps, loads, rests and the swimming work performed alongside them.
- Do not replace pool technique with gym work, or transfer a runner's or cyclist's program automatically to swimming.
- Maximal loads, pulls, jumps and resisted swimming require skill and progression. Shoulder pain or limitations are not managed by copying a study protocol.
- This is not a personal routine. For the swimming context see training methods; for different sports see strength for running and strength for cycling.
Sources
- Fone and van den Tillaar, 2022: systematic review, full text.
- Aspenes et al., 2009: combined intervention, full text.
- Girold et al., 2012: sprint study, abstract; protocol details from the 2022 review.
- Mou et al., 2026: meta-analysis in developmental swimmers, abstract.
Sources checked on 29 October 2026. The 2022 review and Aspenes paper were read in full; Girold and the 2026 update are limited to abstracts and the details stated.