Janet Evans just swam a 4:22 for her 400 free

Don't all of those factors go into overall fitness? And I'm not sure pain is relevant. I cannot buy that the word sprint can be associated with the 400 free. I would agree that pain is not relevant to fitness. I really meant to keep the two concepts separate in my last post. I also meant to hint that if you look at all measures of fitness, can we be so sure that Dara would come out more fit than Janet? Sure Dara is in fabulous shape, but does she have the VO2 max or flexibility that Janet does? I doubt it, because if I recall correctly, it was Janet's VO2 max and flexibility that made her the freak of nature able to hold on to world records for an awfully long time. What is impressive about the 400 as opposed to the 50 is that one has to have the ability to tolerate pain over a greater time period. As to whether the 400 is a sprint or not, think about the one mile in running. Compared to a 5k (which is like the 1500 in swimming), doesn't the mile involve more sprinting ability? Anybody over 30 that can make the cuts for Olympic Trials is super impressive. I do have to admit, however, I am a little bit more impressed with Janet's endeavor of making the 400 as opposed to somebody making it in the 50. The 400 just plain old hurts. There is no way around it. Anybody that can tolerate that kind of pain is awesome.

Re: Dara vs. Janet, I think a cage match would settle this argument. If you simply equate this "fitness" concept to OT cuts (i.e if you make OT cuts you are officially "fit"), Dara made cuts last month by almost a second in the 50 free. Janet has not made cuts yet. Thus, Dara is more fit than Janet. lol :worms:

I think there is more than enough evidence despite not being purely scientific that sprinting is easier to maintain speed at a later age than distance swimming. (This may actually not be the case w/running for some reason) Just take a look at the top swimmers ages/event and all the comebacks etc. What are the odds that it is all coincidence? Possible, but unlikely.

Most long distance runners are still entering their prime in their 30's. And the shorter distance runners usually peak at age 27. The same might hold true in swimming. It's difficult to say since there are very few examples other than Dara. Either way, Janet turns 40 in a few weeks and her current times are simply outstanding.

OT cuts are still tremendously hard to make, and ultimately the number of spots on the Olympic team remains constant. I don't mind opening up OT to a wider number of participants...

For next year's Olympic trials, roughly predict the times it will take just to make the finals in the women's 400/800.Sub 4:07 for Top 8 in the 400 and 4:04 low makes the team. Sub 8:28 makes Top 8 in the 800, #1 will be sub 8:20, #2 will be 8:20+/8:21-.

One thing we over 40 year old swimmers can thank Dara for is the idea that we aren't washed up at 40. Because of her, exercise physiologists started considering the idea that athletes don't decline with age as much as was previously thought. If Janet can make the team or place at OT, I think she will make execise physiologists reexamine the theory that aerobic capacity declines with age or at least does not decline as much as they previously thought. One thing I hope the exercise research gurus consider is that as one ages, there may be less time available to train and recover as there was at say age 18. If an individual at 40 training for a distance event has the same amount of time to train and recover (maybe a tiny bit less training and a little bit more recovery due to age), maybe there is not as much of a decline. I think one of the biggest factors in endurance type events is the mental factor. I think you see marathon runners and triathletes peaking in their thirties instead of their twenties because athletes in their thirties are simply mentally tougher than younger athletes. Life has tested them more. So, the time factor may really be the reason why we see more folks over 30 making the time cut for OT in the sprints as opposed to middle distance and distance events. It may not be due to there being a marked decline in aerobic capacity. How can exercise physiologists really test a decline in aerobic capacity anyway? You would have to take an athlete at 18, test them, and keep them in the same shape doing the same thing for 12 years to see if his/her aerobic capacity has declined. Has this been done? If anybody knows it would be great to see the study posted.

Interesting answers/discussions- thanks all. For next year's Olympic trials, roughly predict the times it will take just to make the finals in the women's 400/800.

This article http:/.../p1212.pdf also finds that sprint performance declines less rapidly with age in both running and swimming (though it is only interested in decline post-35). Why this is (physiology, training volumes etc) isn't explored.

As far as time, distance and age for women, I looked at the USMS records page to get an estimate. I thought that would lead to a clear answer. I was wrong about the clarity. I got conflicting results. I just looked at LCM records (because I'm lazy). FIRST, I looked at what age has the fastest record. 50 yd ' records. On the other hand, some of the discussion here is Torres vs Evans. Torres's masters worlds records at age 44 are the fastest times for any age. Evans Age 40-44 record for 800 LCM is 11.62 seconds off the best time. Another is that, in the second method, I am comparing best times vs post menopausal times. (I think. I'm a little fuzzy on that.) Where perhaps what is being discussed are peak times vs late pre-menopausal times. *** My inclination to believe the second method and think older folks will do better at distance. This is strictly due to statistical considerations, and has nothing to do with the fact that I'm a 58 year-old distance swimmer.