Do you think you derive the same performance benefit doing it twice a week as opposed to every day?
More is not possible due to the fact that I have to follow the sets from the coaches, besides that, other work is also needed for me to go to better times.
Also the sets you are mentioning are usefull and effective I guess.
Then you're going to explain them that you are following Rushall therefore they will swim minimal volume, no morning... Hey, it better work, other wise you could get replaced before the end of your contract.
You're right about that. It's a heck of a gamble. But it's perfect for a masters swimmer to try out. Someone must be willing to give it a try!
Charles and Knelson,
Thanks for the very lively debate. I am thinking I might try to track down Dr. Rushall and ask him to answer some of the questions posed in this discussion if I can find an email address for him.
If you have some questions you'd like me to add, please list them!
In the meantime, what do you think of the following armchair analysis by an admitted layman of the first, most amateurish rank?
1) exercise physiologists have known for decades about the specificity of training effects. Classic studies, for example, where volunteers train one leg on an stationary bike have shown that VO2 Max increases substantially when tested on the trained leg, but shows no improvement when tested on the untrained leg. Similarly, a wealth of research has revealed that being in great shape for sport A doesn't translate much to sport B--the reason why so many extremely fit marathon runners can so quickly run out of gas when first taking up swimming.
2) even as this move towards extreme specificity of training has been gaining momentum in some coaching circles, there is a flip-side phenomenon emerging as well, as perhaps best exemplified in strength training. Here, machines like Nautilus, which may be good at targeting very specific muscles, seem to have become increasingly less popular with purists, who favor free weights and ever odder approaches like balancing on a Swiss ball with one foot while juggling kettle weights. I joke, a bit, with the latter example, but I do think there has been much recognition that training large muscle groups at the expense of little balancing ones and other connectors in the kinetic chain can turn your body into an archipelago of islands of great strength separated by lagoons of weakness, compromising your ability to perform whole body motions optimally (or even safely).
Over the past couple years, I had the great opportunity to watch both Dara Torres and Ryan Lochte train in the pool and on dry land, and both were huge advocates of a remarkably varied approach in each of these domains. For what this is worth...
So, we have two not completely opposite but nevertheless somewhat incongruent trends going on here: extremely specific training vs. a much more well-rounded, touch-as-many-bases-as-possible approach.
Would it be crazy to suggest that Rushall's contribution, in its most reductive form, is the ultimate crystallization of the former?
And advocates of the Pilates, free weight training, yoga, swim toys, cross training, multiple types of different swim sets, and Strong Man kitchen-sink-hoisting approach to swimming glory represent the epitome of the latter?
Count me somewhere in between, a devotee of Horace and Plautus, who said, respectively:
There is a mean in all things; and, moreover, certain limits on either side of which right cannot be found.
In everything the middle course is best: all things in excess bring trouble to men.
I am thinking I might try to track down Dr. Rushall and ask him to answer some of the questions posed in this discussion if I can find an email address for him.
brushall@cox.net
For those of you who want more background on his theories and have half an hour time, I found this article on the net:
www.swimmingcoach.org/.../Rushall.pdf
It seems to me that he has done proper analysis from existing research and build his own theory upon that.
But, it could very well be the case that he started with his paradigm and looked for supporting research and quoted that. Research that shows the opposite will also be readily available, but I do not fing it in his articles.
But nevertheless, I will try the UST out for a couple of months, hopefully twice a week.
A week ago:
"It's important in reading and making our own sense out of such a text to better understand who Brent Rushall is.
His texts aren't always easy to accept among coaches, because he's been consistent over the decades in questioning how *we* (since I'm a coach) train our swimmers. And he's right I believe. As time goes by, stuff he's written a long time ago hasn't made as much sense as it does now.
. . .
My opinion (which is worth nothing compared to Rushall's) is that they're still a need to fully train the anaerobic capacity.
On a more philosophical note, I don't think US swimming world needs Rushall as much as the Canadian swimming world does."
Today:
"No but seriously, he really lost all his credibility now, as far as I'm concerned.
. . .
How can you could claim yourself a *scientist* poluting the web with your works full of flaws, and miss such a crucial aspect of his performance, especially that you have 60 lengths of the pool to notice it!!! And yet, you take a position in regards to drills or swim technique in general? Come on.... Swimming is too complex for you I believe.... First learn, then teach!"
“He keeps questioning our works, our relevance, our ability to apply evidence based practices, he can't even count up to 4. So put yourself in my shoes...”
* * *
Quite a turnaround!
Quick? I've been bugged by his theories and often ending up defending them since 2004. I was just waiting for a clear, clear example of his incompetency. 2bk vs 4bk, over 60 laps of the pool is one clear example, irrefutable. 1500 LCM is 30 lengths of the pool. If you can't even count, all credibility lost, etc :)
