Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

Sojerz — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:12:17 GMT

Here are the pseudo-scientific conclusions I get from all of this: * Floaty full body tech suits were worth about a 1.5% performance gain give or take 0.5%. Maybe they help men with beer bellies more but that's a problem for a water tunnel. If you miss the old days, just divide your time by 1.015 and you should be good to go. * The suits helped men and women about the same. Might have helped short axis swimmers a little more than freestyle swimmers. Too little data to conclude much on that. * Taking away the suits hurt men a little more than women (relative to 2007). My theory on this is that suit manufacturers are learning a lot about what to compress and where/how much to compress it. With the lack of coverage on men, there's a lot less to improve upon. I'll be interested to see if women keep trending upward in the 2012 NCAAs while the men's times remain relatively flat. Peter, Thanks for raising an interesting question. A couple of thoughts on the statistical analysis. You might want to check the medians too, as one or two of the 16 swims could be skewing means. 1.5% is a small difference, and it's also possible that this is well within the typical deviations from one year to the next. The question is how random is the system from one year to the next, and is there really a trend or is this difference within typical deviations. Also, what about the palcebo effect and the reverse effect when the suits were removed from the scene? Also, because the consolation group each year is different, there could be other factors that are responsible for the differences. The comparison from one year to the next may be comparing apples and pears. I also agree that because men don't swim against women (except in HS dual meets), why care about that comparison? If the suit mfr's claims of a reduced drag coefficient were correct, and because drag is a function of surface area (and other factors too, including form and velocity) and women's suits have a larger surface area, the impact (if any) would be larger for women than men in proportion to the surface area difference. This is not rocket science, it's straighforward hydraulics and I'm sure was tested in a hydraulics lab or pool before making the claims. It would be very surprising to me and lot of engineers to find that the suits did not impact women to a greater degree, unless the mfr's claims of reduced drag c were bogus. As I think others mentioned, the number of other factors impacting masters swimmers (family, job, practice, etc.) is so large that it would seem almost inconceivable to make a comparison with enough control to prove/show a suit effect. My :2cents:

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

ande — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:10:41 GMT

Mens 100 LCM BR Breastroke: Year / 1st / 10th / 25th / 50th / 75th / 100th 2004 59.30 61.54 63.10 64.71 66.80 67.78 2007 59.59 60.83 61.50 62.44 63.02 63.73 2008 58.91 59.63 60.53 61.48 62.32 62.91 (olympic bump) 2009 58.58 59.40 60.31 61.02 61.72 62.41 (last year of full body tech suits) 2010 59.04 60.26 60.93 61.70 62.17 62.56 (first year of jammers) 2011 58.71 60.08 60.68 61.33 61.65 61.93 from FINA world rankings Year by year

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

pmccoy — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:48:36 GMT

PS I like the stereotype-reverse--using pink to chart the male changes, and blue to chart the female ones.Didn't think anyone would catch that. I intended it to be the opposite but realized my folly after spending way too much time messing with the chart. I tried to slip it past an unsuspecting public rather than go back and fix it. Masters are a trickier problem than NCAA D-I consolationists. I'll see what I can do. Maybe I'll have another slow night and a little time on my hands.

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

gobears — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:41:11 GMT

Suit changes affected: + breastrokers more than other types of swimmers Have to admit that I looked forward to racing a little more in 2010 because (as a tightwad and a masters swimmer just swimming to have fun) I knew I would be swimming against my competitors' breaststroke swimming abilities and not their "suit-aided" abilities.

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

ande — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:33:54 GMT

Suit changes affected: + men more than women + older swimmers more than younger swimmers + breastrokers more than other types of swimmers men more than women men in jammers have a lower percentage of their bodies coveraged than women in textile kneeskins older swimmers more than younger swimmers older swimmers tend to have looser skin and sometimes more fat the looser skin increases resistance + breastrokers more than other types of swimmers Breastroke has the most gliding, swimmers glided further and faster in full body rubber suits. The actual performance drop off varies for each swimmer. Also It's possible for swimmers to swim faster in textile suits than they ever did in full body rubber suits. To measure performance differences check FINA world rankings Year by year here's what the men's 100 freestyle LCM times were: Year / 1st / 10th / 25th / 50th / 75th / 100th 2004 48.17 49.08 49.73 51.06 51.52 52.20 2007 47.91 48.72 49.35 49.90 50.17 50.53 2008 47.05 47.77 48.43 49.09 49.59 50.04 (olympic bump) 2009 46.91 47.78 48.37 48.93 49.43 49.80 (last year of full body tech suits) 2010 47.98 48.54 48.83 49.41 49.83 50.16 (first year of jammers) 2011 47.49 48.24 48.69 49.11 49.44 49.69

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

jim thornton — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:11:22 GMT

Ok... last stab at this... I promise. I'm not trying to prolong this. Its just an interesting problem to me. I don't pine for the days to floaty suits. Mostly because I never owned one and only competed at one meet where the were around. I'd prefer that the suits not come back. I don't really care if women get more advantage from more suit coverage. Here's a pretty chart I made last night: www.usms.org/.../attachment.php This is the data I plotted from: Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Men 500 Free 0.00% 1.23% 0.23% 0.08% Men 50 Free 0.00% 1.88% 0.25% 0.51% Men 200 Br 0.00% 1.79% 1.54% 1.54% Men 200 Fly 0.00% 1.71% 1.14% 1.05% Women 500 Free 0.00% 0.35% 1.16% 0.92% 1.55% Women 50 Free 0.00% 0.40% 1.16% 0.40% 0.89% Women 200 Br 0.00% 0.60% 2.33% 1.95% 1.95% Women 200 Fly 0.00% 0.93% 2.20% 1.78% 1.52% Unlike the previous runs, I just made 2007 to be the baseline year. Here are the pseudo-scientific conclusions I get from all of this: * Floaty full body tech suits were worth about a 1.5% performance gain give or take 0.5%. Maybe they help men with beer bellies more but that's a problem for a water tunnel. If you miss the old days, just divide your time by 1.015 and you should be good to go. * The suits helped men and women about the same. Might have helped short axis swimmers a little more than freestyle swimmers. Too little data to conclude much on that. * Taking away the suits hurt men a little more than women (relative to 2007). My theory on this is that suit manufacturers are learning a lot about what to compress and where/how much to compress it. With the lack of coverage on men, there's a lot less to improve upon. I'll be interested to see if women keep trending upward in the 2012 NCAAs while the men's times remain relatively flat. Pete, I beg you! Keep this going! No need to apologize whatsoever to the churlish fellows and lasses out there who are sick of this topic. There is at least on non-churlish fellow who is the opposite of sick of it. This forum used to be a hotbed of amateur mathematical hobbyists with graphing calculators! Perhaps it is the profoundly anti-science ethos of our age, where a cold day in January proves global warming is a hoax, or a panda's thumb is cause to reject evolution out of hand! There are many of us former high Math SAT types out here who, because of advancing age, have largely forgotten what quadratic equations and regression analyses are. The problem is that we are by and large a quiet, controversy-avoiding, introverted lot. I am certain there are many shy lurkers just like me who find your analyses brilliant and fodder for endless ruminations! Keep it up, my good man! Keep it up. Next step: do some comparisons of masters times. What's a bit tricky here is the age change effect--where someone might make the TT in one age group, then age up to the next. There are other factors, certainly, too--harder training, perhaps, in the age-up year. But if you are looking for reasons to indulge your hobby, please, please know that one obsessive out here is enjoying the bejesus out of the fruits of your labors. PS I like the stereotype-reverse--using pink to chart the male changes, and blue to chart the female ones.

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

knelson — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:09:42 GMT

Last year I was able to wear a full body B70. I raced in 2 races during practice and hated the feeling the suit gave me. They do feel strange at first. I had the same reaction the first time I swam in a B70. Then I swam a 1000 free probably 15 seconds faster than I ever had in masters before and I quickly realized I could get used to that feeling!

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

swimshark — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:47:01 GMT

Oh well. I still have my ballet career to work on. It's coming along rather nicely. I never wore a tech suit. Not worthy of one. Not of that caliber swimmer. I have no pride. I can admit this. I still like to race. Enjoy those tondus and attitudes. :) As for the tech suits, I have never worn anything newer than the Fusion except in practice. Last year I was able to wear a full body B70. I raced in 2 races during practice and hated the feeling the suit gave me. I guess I'm so used to feeling like I'm in more control that the suit didn't sit well with me.

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

knelson — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:42:07 GMT

The Univ of Richmond team ordered them, tried them on, and are leaving them home in favor of the older suits. Not a single person liked them. They clearly only tried on the suits and not the entire SYSTEM including the cap and goggles! :banana: I'm in the market for a new suit to use for the upcoming championship season. At this point I'm leaning toward the Blue Seventy Nero TX, but I'll be interested to see what swimmers are wearing at NCAA Champs, etc. I'm not opposed to trying one of the high waist models.

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

pmccoy — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:33:32 GMT

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

jim thornton — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:15:19 GMT

Maybe you should write a tip on this! Or a special one for Jimby entitled "Overcoming the Nocebo Effect." I propose calling this form of nocebo effect suitdoo, short for "suit vodoo." I think it's also a good term for what Speedo stock holders are likely to be feeling soon when thousands of aspiring elite high school swimmers in Virginia with rich parents wake up and realize that $595 is a lot of money to waste on the FS3. Remember that you heard this first here from me when you read a stock analyst report in the Wall Street Journal soon: "Shares of Speedo took an absolute thrashing today as investors dumped their holdings in response to worldwide rejection of the company's latest 'miracle suit.' The FS3 was supposed to let swimmers go faster in an era where FINA has mandated swim suit technology can't provide anyone an advantage. The good news for Speedo: their suit fully complied with this mandate. The bad news: the suit fully complied with this mandate. 'My portfolio is in deep suitdoo,' complained one ruined investor as he headed out of the stock exchange, hoping to locate a cardboard box wherein to live out the rest of his life."

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

The Fortress — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 02:07:55 GMT

Also It's possible for swimmers to swim faster in textile suits than they ever did in full body rubber suits. Maybe you should write a tip on this! Or a special one for Jimby entitled "Overcoming the Nocebo Effect."

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

Former Member — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:14:07 GMT

Jim...work on establish EVF through a deeper hand entry rather than clutching at straws...this may aid the swimming! :banana:

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

Former Member — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:16:34 GMT

I answered, of course, that I was 90. The sad thing is that she sort of believed me, Let me assure you that, on the internet, you don't look like you're 90. On the internet, you look the same way everyone else on the internet does - like a 47 year-old dude living in his mother's basement. ("Hi! I'm Mandy! Do you like 8th grade?")

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

Former Member — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:15:40 GMT

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

Former Member — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:09:35 GMT

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

Former Member — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:18:57 GMT

The bodysuit was worth 8 seconds per 100m to me. What annoyed me most about the ban was that it also applied to masters swimmers. We are hardly going to pose a threat to Phelps and Lochte's records. I tend to go along with the thinking that if we don't see many (or even any) world records at the London Olympics, worldwide interest in swimming will decrease dramatically. This could even result in the reintroduction of the suits. Where other sports, especially cycling, embraces technology by accepting... aero-dynamically designed frames, one-piece skin suits, helmets, handle-bars, disc wheels, spokes, smooth nylon socks, taped over shoe laces. Not forgetting filling the front tire gap at the rim - what can swimming offer? A lack of desire to move the sport forward.

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

orca1946 — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:38:56 GMT

I have said a lot that men should be able to wear the same coverags as women to make the new suits equal.

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

knelson — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:20:40 GMT

Where other sports, especially cycling To me you've stated the crux of the matter right there. The sport is called cycling. It involves propelling a bicycle. Obviously you want the fastest bicycle possible. Swimming, on the other hand, is all about the swimmer propelling himself through the water with no mechanical contraption for assistance. In swimming the suit is considered a costume, not a piece of equipment.

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

isobel — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:03:52 GMT

Potentially proving true idiocy, but I am waiting for the tech suit advantages to "older swimmers" (women with boobs) such as myself to get the QTs for nationals to be a bit slower. I am assuming that this year's SCY nationals QT times are still much faster than they were when I was dreaming of being old enough to actually qualify, pre-tech suits. I may be terribly, terribly wrong, because there are so many more very fast women racing now. At any rate, I had anticipated qualifying in distance events, only to see the times are at least a minute (and sometimes more) faster than they were a few years ago. I do not wish to disclose my age. I did say today at the Store 24 that I remembered when President's Day was actually on G. Washington's B-day, and switched around, like the 4th of July. This of course caused the clerk to ask me, if I didn't mind her asking, how old I was. I answered, of course, that I was 90. The sad thing is that she sort of believed me, though wondered what insane amount of work I had had done to look under 50. I like telling people I am 90 but I don't like the fact that they consider it a possibility, with plastic surgery. Main point, I am hoping the times for the somewhat older women swimmers, for distance in particular, are still being skewed toward fastness as a result of the averaging in of the years tech suits made a difference. Which I do believe they did, for the distance events. Now it appears I may qualify for the 50 and 100 *** sprints, which I have never raced. TBD. I know I can enter without qualifying, but I want to qualify in my distance events, and had looked forward to qualifying when looking ahead a few years ago. Oh well. I still have my ballet career to work on. It's coming along rather nicely. When I get feedback from my editor (digression re other post on moisturizers) and article is either deemed insane or funny and is either printed or ditched, I will post it on that thread. Great stuff, guys. Please ignore this paragraph and continue debating tech suit time differences. I never wore a tech suit. Not worthy of one. Not of that caliber swimmer. I have no pride. I can admit this. I still like to race.

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

The Fortress — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:29:39 GMT

You are cherry picking again! My best time in the suits is actually 27.9 in 50 back SCY; I just swam 28.2 last October. But my 50 back appears to be impacted less than any other 50 or stroke. If you want to cherry pick 50s, I was a whopping 1.9 seconds slower in the 50 fly in LCM last summer than with the suits. And even in backstroke, my 50 time was .6 slower than with the suits (31.9 vs. 32.55). My 50 free was an abysmal 1.2 seconds slower last summer. Perhaps LCM is more effected by the suits, and perhaps I just had a crappy meet (true). But (and cherry picking again) even if you look at SCY, my 50 free goes from 24.9 to 25.7, another .8 -- which is worse than Spock. So your coefficient needs correcting, Stanford acceptee! In fact, my times have been worse without the suits in every single event in every single course except the 50 and 100 back SCM, which were the result of one day where everything went perfectly. Women are definitely effected by the rule change. Best not to dwell on it and just worry about jammer/kneeskin times.

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

jim thornton — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:18:08 GMT

You crack me up, Jim. I miss the suits. It was nice going 21.2 again. But, like Fort, I move on. Your moving on, by my analysis, requires more psychological adjustment, Mr. Spock, than Leslie's moving on. Let us compare your respective best events--50 free for you, 50 back for the Fortress. 2011 Short Course Yards--jammers 2 M45-49 50 Free Spock 46 WMAC Wisconsin 21.91 2010 Short Course Yards--body suit 2 M45-49 50 Free Spock 45 WMAC Wisconsin 21.24 differential: +.67 You slowed down fairly substantially; I would argue, however, if your jammer time had crept up into the 22's, you would have been more distressed. You benefit from whole integer integrity, i.e., you are still swimming 21s! Believe me, the calculus changes when the whole integers change! 2011 Short Course Yards--current legal women's suits, which don't seem like much of a change, if any, to me! 4 W45-49 50 Back Leslie C Livingston 49 GMUP Potomac Valley 28.19 2010 Short Course Yards--full body suit 3 W45-49 50 Back Fortress 48 GMUP Potomac Valley 28.29 Differential: -.10 Leslie actually improved by .10 in her 50 back with the new suit! I must say it is a lot easier to move on when the change not only doesn't slow you down, but you improve! Q.E.D. --Jim Thornton, former Stanford acceptee (who opted not to go because my parents would not pay for me to come home for Christmas vacations.) Proposal so that the rest of us can move on: Given the preeminence of Mr. Spock and the lovely Fortress as swimming gods in our sport, I suggest that forevermore (or at least till someone will do my much prayed for regression analysis) that all men can legitimately subtract the Spock Coefficient of .67 per 50 from their jammer times to get an approximation of what the same time would have been in a body suit. Thus my recent 2:00.07 200 free would benefit by subtracting 4 x .67, or 2.68 seconds, giving me an apples to apples comparison time of 1:57.39, which is cause for some personal celebration, I must say! Now we simply factor in the American and Finnish formulae for age grading to compare a 1:57.39 at age 59 to what it would have been last year when I was a year younger: 1:56.04 ( 1:56.28) Note: Finnish formula in parentheses. Women, on the other hand, should use instead the Fortress Coefficient of Negative .10 per 50. Leslie's 2011 50 backstroke, once one factors in this, was therefore chronologically identical to her previous year's performance. However, she also has aged a year, so let us factor in the same American and Finnish formulae that have helped me swim so magnificently through mathematics: 0:27.98 ( 0:28.00) Thus Leslie's 28.19 done at age 49 actually does represent an American and Finnish formulae improvement of sorts, this representing a 27.98 or 28.00 had she swum it identically in the same newly legalized cheating suit but one year of bodily decay earlier! Thus, a win-win for us all, though perhaps a wee bit more of a win for men since the Spock Coefficient actually complements the Finnish formulae, whereas the Fortress Coefficient works mildly at a cross purposes. My work here, as a former Stanford University acceptee, is done.

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

pmccoy — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:00:16 GMT

Jim, I ran a quick analysis of some Men's NCAA D-I finals. There are some problems in doing this so I limited the data to the consolation round only. That should give a fairly consistent dataset of very good swimmers giving their all without having to average in the genetic anomaly that pops up and blows everyone away regardless of what he is wearing. The biggest problem is that while the data is available, it isn't really in a format ready for use. Compiling the data is a pain in the neck and I don't see myself being patient enough to run more data for more events... or even for women. Well... maybe... if there's enough interest beyond what I found so far. For each year, I have 16 datapoints: 8 consolation swims and 8 prelimnary swims for the swimmers that made the consolation. The only exception is 2008 where I couldn't readily find the prelim data. 2008 only uses the consolation data. I averaged the swims for each year and then compared the years. Here's what I found: 50 Free (Average over 5 years - 19.53s) 2007 - 19.63s (.51% Slower) 2008 - 19.65s (.61% Slower) 2009 - 19.26s (1.38% Faster) 2010 - 19.58s (.26% Slower) 2011 - 19.53s (.00% Slaster) 500 Free (Average over 5 years - 258.7s) 2007 - 259.6 (.35% Slower) 2008 - 259.1 (.15% Slower) 2009 - 256.4 (.89% Faster) 2010 - 259.0 (.12% Slower) 2011 - 259.4 (.27% Slower) Some notes: * I didn't use a lot of datapoints - error could be off the charts * Error would be even worse for masters swimmers for reasons too numerous to get into Hope this helps. I know it isn't comprehensive enough to answer the gender question or address the bulging waistline effect.

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

aztimm — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:56:54 GMT

Have you contacted the swimmers in your lists to see if their training was the same year over year? No injuries, illness, or other issues that could have caused them to slow down? Even so, as you age I've heard eventually you get slower. Not sure when that starts, but perhaps it is between 55 and 60?

RE: Suit changes, gender, and regression analyses?

Rich Abrahams — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:54:11 GMT

Jim, Perhaps the answer to your prayers: www.swimbrief.net/.../neverwet-product-that-could-ruin-2012.html Some of the videos are amazing.