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.
There are many ways to skin a cat. I wonder, though, if they'd be even faster if they skipped the long distance sets and focused on sprint sets? Sprinting is fairly neuromuscular, after all. I admit I am not remotely well-rounded in my training, but it works for me. And though I am not doing distance or aerobic sets, I am working damn hard.
With 21 lanes of swimmers and 50+ per session, it is not possible to go off the reservation and hog a lane doing your own thing, nor would it make you much of a teammate. Plus, the sheer boredom of only doing one type of swimming would not appeal to a big group as a whole. We have plenty of top 10 sprinters on our team.
Something like 8-10 x 50 AFAP @ 2-3:00 will help your 100 and sprint endurance more than 10 x 100 @ 1:30 or, even worse, 10 x 200 @ 3:00.
I'd probably agree that 10 x 50s AFAP will help your race 100 a little more than 10x100, but they both help, and in different ways. What's more, it isn't exactly an either/or choice: the sets aren't mutually exclusive.
In terms of training for sprinting (or any distance really), another facet is that it isn't just about training to be good for one 50 or 100, but to recover between races and be strong even on the last day of the meet. Besides how one designs particular sets, this might involve doing back-to-back(-to-back) quality workouts on occasion.
Swimming without purpose is garbage yardage.(1)...(1) credit for this definition goes to The FortressOn this point, Leslie, That Guy and I are in perfect agreement.
However, I think there is belief that "garbage yard = long, aerobic sets" and vice-versa. I can and will continue to do sets that are long, with little rest but high intensity possibly for a single set that totals 3K or 4K. To some people, that might seem like garbage yardage, but it absolutely prepares me for my key races (400 IM and 500 free, sometimes the 800 and 1000). What bugs me is that there is such a thing as "garbage short yardage" where people do short sets with long rest under the guise of training for speed (Fortress -- I KNOW this is not you), but really aren't pushing themselves to really train for speed. They are training without purpose or without dedicating themselves to the purpose of the set.
Fortress, I hate to publicly point out errors you have made since I admire you so much, but I'd hate to have your reputation besmirched, so I have corrected these statements ...
1. That Guy is a smart guy and remembers my definition correctly.
...
3. Patrick tends to be one of those mentally deranged animal lane swimmers, and so must be ignored when posturing as above.
to read more accurately,
1. That Guy must be ignored when posturing as above, but remembers my definition correctly.
...
3. Patrick tends to be one of those mentally deranged animal lane swimmers, and so is a smart guy
If your sole reason for swimming is to improve your race performance, then yes.
Correct. I consider "training" to mean training for an event of some kind, not merely fitness swimming.
I'd probably agree that 10 x 50s AFAP will help your race 100 a little more than 10x100, but they both help, and in different ways. What's more, it isn't exactly an either/or choice: the sets aren't mutually exclusive.
In terms of training for sprinting (or any distance really), another facet is that it isn't just about training to be good for one 50 or 100, but to recover between races and be strong even on the last day of the meet. Besides how one designs particular sets, this might involve doing back-to-back(-to-back) quality workouts on occasion.
I agree with you and Geek that there are many ways to train successfully.
I agree with you that doing back to back quality sessions has some value, though back-to-back-to back is a really contra-indicated for sprinters (and perhaps many masters who need more recovery).
I agree with Geek that sprinters can't disrupt a practice, though I don't see why there can't be a dedicated sprint lane in a large team practice once in awhile.
I agree with Patrick that long aerobic sets aren't garbage yards for those training for his events, though I do wonder if even swimmers in the animal lane should do more quality work and not periodize it until near the end of the season.
But do you agree that you can train successfully for sprints without doing any classic aerobic work or "distance oriented" sets?
In terms of training for sprinting (or any distance really), another facet is that it isn't just about training to be good for one 50 or 100, but to recover between races and be strong even on the last day of the meet. Besides how one designs particular sets, this might involve doing back-to-back(-to-back) quality workouts on occasion.
I'm done after a 1650 for the day, finito.
Oh, and I root for communist baby seal killers over Dook.
But do you agree that you can train successfully for sprints without doing any classic aerobic work or "distance oriented" sets?
This is a really good question. I'd most likely say the answer is yes, of course.
You know you're a masters swimmer when LSD is long slow distance.
Admittedly I'm not a sprinter or near any Top 10's. I do early morning LSD because I have Type II diabetes and have found that if I swim at least 5000 meters a day (plus diet plus medication) I can normalize my blood sugar all day long. When I add sprinting I tend to get hurt, have to take days off, and my blood sugar goes up.
I stand in awe and and want to cheer on all of you amazing sprinters.
This is a really good question. I'd most likely say the answer is yes, of course.
Maybe the question was too rhetorical since you said "of course." Maybe the real question is -- Can sprinters race even faster if they don't do classic aerobic sets?
Maybe the question was too rhetorical since you said "of course." Maybe the real question is -- Can sprinters race even faster if they don't do classic aerobic sets?
I was just adamantly agreeing with you, nothing subversive. But, now you have asked another question and while I also say "yes," it is with a little less gusto and maybe a hint of doubt in my head.
