In my most recent blog entry, "One Man's Garbage..." forums.usms.org/blog.php , I asked my fellow swimmers their respective opinions on the impact long, slow, continuous swimming has on meet performance.
The expression "garbage yards" (and the pejorative overtones such a phrase conjurs) has become so embedded in the forum lexicon that many, I suspect, now consider as indisputable truth swimming this way is a waste of time for anyone with competitive ambitions.
Such a view appears particularly well-entrenched among the many non-credentialed exercise physiology pontificators here on the forums who also have a fondness for sprinting and dry land exercise.
But is the concept of garbage yards truly valid--or a kind of urban legend made up largely by sprinters who would rather be doing something other than spending 90 minutes without stopping in the pool?
I don't mean only practicing this way. But if you are, like me, inclined to enjoy swimming, once or twice a week, long, slow, relatively relaxing, continuous yards, do you believe (and more importantly, perhaps, have any evidence to bolster said belief) that so-called "garbage yards" can have some value for actual racing?
Or do these only teach your body to swim slow?
I invite you to read my recent blog forums.usms.org/blog.php and post your thoughts advice there or here.
At the risk of provoking censure by the forum authorities, I furthermore ask you to leave all civility by the wayside.
Feel free to trash talk and smack upside the head of any and every one who disagrees with your personal bias here!
It's been way too long since these forums have had a good, old-fashioned range war of opinions run amuk and ad hominem attacks!
Go at each other tooth and claw. It will only stir the blood of us all, I say--something we garbage yard enthusiasts probably need a bit more of, I will admit.
a regular part of my training consists of long sets... 3000 - 9000 yds @ x (100 - 200 yds) on an interval that allows me 5-10 seconds rest.
additionally, i'll impose a strict SPL to be maintained throughout.
no, this isn't going to help me swim a fast 50, but it does wonders for the 1650 (which is still a sprint in my book)
The part about 1650 being a "sprint" made me do a bit of a double-take. But then I thought about it and realized that - on a much smaller scale - my own perception of what's a "long" swim has changed as a result of doing long slow distance (LSD) swims. When I was younger, racing a 500 seemed nuts. I never dared try it. But more recently, before changing things up in preparation for racing, I was doing an LSD day each week - a 45 minute continuous swim, also focusing on SPL and keeping my technique decent. As a result, I'll be trying the 500 in that upcoming meet - and it doesn't seem like such a big deal. I probably won't be swimming it very fast - but the point is that maybe another benefit of LSD swims is that they change your relative sense of "distance."
Not that I ever expect to call a 1650 a "sprint," though...!
a regular part of my training consists of long sets... 3000 - 9000 yds @ x (100 - 200 yds) on an interval that allows me 5-10 seconds rest.
additionally, i'll impose a strict SPL to be maintained throughout.
no, this isn't going to help me swim a fast 50, but it does wonders for the 1650 (which is still a sprint in my book)
The part about 1650 being a "sprint" made me do a bit of a double-take. But then I thought about it and realized that - on a much smaller scale - my own perception of what's a "long" swim has changed as a result of doing long slow distance (LSD) swims. When I was younger, racing a 500 seemed nuts. I never dared try it. But more recently, before changing things up in preparation for racing, I was doing an LSD day each week - a 45 minute continuous swim, also focusing on SPL and keeping my technique decent. As a result, I'll be trying the 500 in that upcoming meet - and it doesn't seem like such a big deal. I probably won't be swimming it very fast - but the point is that maybe another benefit of LSD swims is that they change your relative sense of "distance."
Not that I ever expect to call a 1650 a "sprint," though...!
