No not at all. Not a matter of not believe he'd recommend such a radical approach, but rather that if he had done it, it would be explicit obviously. Bare in mind that this paper was NOT published to be read and interpreted by swimmers themselves, as it wouldn't be fair to assume that they know what Phosphocreatine is.
www.roble.net/.../rushall7.html
It would be fair to say that coach's may not know the terminology either, and the ATP-CP system is (briefly) covered in high school freshman biology. The concepts are definitely accessible to swimmers without official coaching organization certification (I was one of them).
After you've read a paper like this, how could one see any other form of training as valuable? If you buy that specificity matters, and you care about racing, why would one choose not to swim at race pace? As for "ultra short", the structure allows you to maximize racepace volume by letting the alactacid system recovery in between every round, optimizing the amount of useful work you are able to do...
It's pretty clear we're interpreting this substantially differently. Maybe you have some other data to suggest Rushall feels UST should be seen as just a part of an overall plan. OTOH, I'm taking what he's written in the article at face value. I believe he's advocating UST as the best form of training to use--not just some subset of the overall training plan. To me it's clear he's suggesting that UST covers all the physiological needs of training and doing anything else is in some way sub-optimal compared to UST--even including dry land conditioning and weights.
Right on point.
He has a point, effort matters more than distance, but distance is the most commonly tracked and discussed.
Specificity reigns above all else (even effort). If someone is "giving 100%" but they can't even approach their 50 pace for a 100 or 200, there is a problem with the set.
No not at all. Not a matter of not believe he'd recommend such a radical approach, but rather that if he had done it, it would be explicit obviously. Bare in mind that this paper was NOT published to be read and interpreted by swimmers themselves, as it wouldn't be fair to assume that they know what Phosphocreatine is.
Also, like I explained you earlier, *your* interpretation of this chart, I mean if you were a coach, what you're arguing about, would be the equivalent of putting an elite squad on severe volume diet, only made of HIT or UST, which obviously doesn't make any sense. It would, it if was the case, call for an explicit mention. The minimal session duration for a sprinter varsity level is 4.5k I'd say? So you'd be, if you were a head coach applying Rushall's theory shrinking this down by at least 30%, which calls for an explicit mention. 4.5 * 9 sessions = 40k, not excessive for a world class sprinter.
The other thing, like I also explained you, is that they train 2wice a day on a few days per week, whereas this paper suggests this approach for a daily basis. Again, if it was recommended to perform this 2wice a day, a mention would be explicit. And there he would have to demonstrate that it's good thing to book race pace work at 15 to 6 AM, and there (without having done any research), I think evidence must exist to suggest it wouldn't fit all your swimmers.
Bare in mind that in a squad of 40, you may have 1 or 2 contenders for Olympics selection, no more (well, sometimes more but you know what I mean). If these two aren't geared for hard work in AM, you'd be missing the boat. So these factors are far too important to be kept implicit.
Thanks for bringing this table to my attention.
By the way, Rushall is alive, and quite easy to reach I believe. Feel free to ask this question if you want. He's no evil. He pisses coaches off, but without crossing the line what would make him as a publisher, entirely irrelevant.
Here's anohter example of his works, again there. Not bad, not wrong, but it shakes things up for sure, and pisses coaches (at least those who swear on a Periodized approach) off.
www.roble.net/.../rushall7.html
I think you guys are making a very clear point that Rushall is dismissing most of these activities as being potentially good enough to influence performances at race pace. That said, let us put it this way.
Would you be kind enough to point to volume cut recommendation? Overall that is? I'm being very sincere here. Could you find me a place in the document where he'd recommend say, a volume of 24k per week for distance swimmers, as 2500 of main set + 1.5 kilo of irrelevant stuff (4k * 6 times per week) to beat Sun Yang?
Could you find a place where he'd recommend a volume cut for a mid distance, say.... 1500 + 1500 = 3k * 6 = 18k per week to beat Phelps over the 400m IM?
If this is really what you guys believe, no wonder why you'd be skeptical about his thoughts.
If you do find these mentions, I'd like to know. Cause I'm simply going to put the jerk on my black list and forget about this crap. Good luck to any head coach trying to prepare a distance swimmer for a world class qualification (even the Worlds Aquatics) on 24k per week.
I made clear in my very first post, I hate Rushall, and part of the reason why is that he's making several people wasting considerable time...
That's 1k * 6 times per week = 6kilo of significant work for preparing to beat the best sprinters in the world.... So to me, if it's really what he meant, he has no point at all. 2h per day * 6 = 12h * 52 = 624h of training for the year, that's still under Bompa's recommandation for reaching fair national level, regarless of the sport (since Bompa's work encompass all sports). In fact, this schedule is that of a serious Master Swimmer.
I think that 2.5 kilo of race relevant work per day would be more useful than 10 kilo of non-race relevant work per day, mainly because I'm not seeing a physiological mechanism by which experienced swimmers would benefit from an extra 7.5k of "general fitness" per day. On senior teams, can you predict who would win a race based on test set performance... there are numerous studies showing the difference in "fitness level" (lactate thresh, VO2 max, etc) is not a predictor of who would win a race at the elite level... the discriminator is technique, which is honed through training specifically at race pace.
ON drilling: If you get tired of the swimming reading, here's his foray against baseball drills which also explains why they don't "improve technique" in swimmers either
www.pitching.com/.../
No not at all. Not a matter of not believe he'd recommend such a radical approach, but rather that if he had done it, it would be explicit obviously. Bare in mind that this paper was NOT published to be read and interpreted by swimmers themselves, as it wouldn't be fair to assume that they know what Phosphocreatine is.
www.roble.net/.../rushall7.html
It would be fair to say that coach's may not know the terminology either, and the ATP-CP system is (briefly) covered in high school freshman biology. The concepts are definitely accessible to swimmers without official coaching organization certification (I was one of them).
After you've read a paper like this, how could one see any other form of training as valuable? If you buy that specificity matters, and you care about racing, why would one choose not to swim at race pace? As for "ultra short", the structure allows you to maximize racepace volume by letting the alactacid system recovery in between every round, optimizing the amount of useful work you are able to do...
It's pretty clear we're interpreting this substantially differently. Maybe you have some other data to suggest Rushall feels UST should be seen as just a part of an overall plan. OTOH, I'm taking what he's written in the article at face value. I believe he's advocating UST as the best form of training to use--not just some subset of the overall training plan. To me it's clear he's suggesting that UST covers all the physiological needs of training and doing anything else is in some way sub-optimal compared to UST--even including dry land conditioning and weights.
Right on point.
He has a point, effort matters more than distance, but distance is the most commonly tracked and discussed.
Specificity reigns above all else (even effort). If someone is "giving 100%" but they can't even approach their 50 pace for a 100 or 200, there is a problem with the set.
No not at all. Not a matter of not believe he'd recommend such a radical approach, but rather that if he had done it, it would be explicit obviously. Bare in mind that this paper was NOT published to be read and interpreted by swimmers themselves, as it wouldn't be fair to assume that they know what Phosphocreatine is.
Also, like I explained you earlier, *your* interpretation of this chart, I mean if you were a coach, what you're arguing about, would be the equivalent of putting an elite squad on severe volume diet, only made of HIT or UST, which obviously doesn't make any sense. It would, it if was the case, call for an explicit mention. The minimal session duration for a sprinter varsity level is 4.5k I'd say? So you'd be, if you were a head coach applying Rushall's theory shrinking this down by at least 30%, which calls for an explicit mention. 4.5 * 9 sessions = 40k, not excessive for a world class sprinter.
The other thing, like I also explained you, is that they train 2wice a day on a few days per week, whereas this paper suggests this approach for a daily basis. Again, if it was recommended to perform this 2wice a day, a mention would be explicit. And there he would have to demonstrate that it's good thing to book race pace work at 15 to 6 AM, and there (without having done any research), I think evidence must exist to suggest it wouldn't fit all your swimmers.
Bare in mind that in a squad of 40, you may have 1 or 2 contenders for Olympics selection, no more (well, sometimes more but you know what I mean). If these two aren't geared for hard work in AM, you'd be missing the boat. So these factors are far too important to be kept implicit.
Thanks for bringing this table to my attention.
By the way, Rushall is alive, and quite easy to reach I believe. Feel free to ask this question if you want. He's no evil. He pisses coaches off, but without crossing the line what would make him as a publisher, entirely irrelevant.
Here's anohter example of his works, again there. Not bad, not wrong, but it shakes things up for sure, and pisses coaches (at least those who swear on a Periodized approach) off.
www.roble.net/.../rushall7.html
I think you guys are making a very clear point that Rushall is dismissing most of these activities as being potentially good enough to influence performances at race pace. That said, let us put it this way.
Would you be kind enough to point to volume cut recommendation? Overall that is? I'm being very sincere here. Could you find me a place in the document where he'd recommend say, a volume of 24k per week for distance swimmers, as 2500 of main set + 1.5 kilo of irrelevant stuff (4k * 6 times per week) to beat Sun Yang?
Could you find a place where he'd recommend a volume cut for a mid distance, say.... 1500 + 1500 = 3k * 6 = 18k per week to beat Phelps over the 400m IM?
If this is really what you guys believe, no wonder why you'd be skeptical about his thoughts.
If you do find these mentions, I'd like to know. Cause I'm simply going to put the jerk on my black list and forget about this crap. Good luck to any head coach trying to prepare a distance swimmer for a world class qualification (even the Worlds Aquatics) on 24k per week.
I made clear in my very first post, I hate Rushall, and part of the reason why is that he's making several people wasting considerable time...
That's 1k * 6 times per week = 6kilo of significant work for preparing to beat the best sprinters in the world.... So to me, if it's really what he meant, he has no point at all. 2h per day * 6 = 12h * 52 = 624h of training for the year, that's still under Bompa's recommandation for reaching fair national level, regarless of the sport (since Bompa's work encompass all sports). In fact, this schedule is that of a serious Master Swimmer.
I think that 2.5 kilo of race relevant work per day would be more useful than 10 kilo of non-race relevant work per day, mainly because I'm not seeing a physiological mechanism by which experienced swimmers would benefit from an extra 7.5k of "general fitness" per day. On senior teams, can you predict who would win a race based on test set performance... there are numerous studies showing the difference in "fitness level" (lactate thresh, VO2 max, etc) is not a predictor of who would win a race at the elite level... the discriminator is technique, which is honed through training specifically at race pace.
ON drilling: If you get tired of the swimming reading, here's his foray against baseball drills which also explains why they don't "improve technique" in swimmers either
www.pitching.com/.../
