Medical Question to a Doctor regarding Supplements.
Former Member
When competing last week in Hawaii, I read in the Honolulu Star Bulletin newspaper from Saturday May 18, in page A5, an advertisement promoting a product stimulating the release of the Human Growth Hormone by the body.
I read in it: "Practically EVERYONE over the age of 40 has a Growth Hormone deficiency.". I am age 43, and even though I trained more than ever for the past year, I swam slower in Hawaii in 100 free and 200 free than I did last year, which was slower than in 1998, which was slower than in 1996, which was slower than in 1994 when I peaked in yards competitions. Because of this, I kept reading:
by taking the product advertised in the newspaper "In the FIRST MONTH: You should expect: Improved stamina;...".
My question for a Medical Doctor familiar with competitions, regards one specific side effect of such a product, not approved by FDA. I remember reading in the Swimming World magazine in mid-90s, when Chinese Olympic swimmers were being caught on illegal products, that a possible side effect of Human Growth Hormone stimulants given to adults, was an increase of extremities like nose, hands, ears and forehead. A picture of the swimmer Massimiliano Rosolino (Ita.) who in the 2000SydneyOlympics won gold, silver and bronze medals, picture published in 2000 in www.nbcolympics.com, semmed to me to show the increase of the nose. www.nbcolympics.com didn't mean to imply anything like this, this is my interpretation of Rosolino's face. It is publicly documented now, that Rosolino took Human Growth Hormone stimulants before the Olympics.
My question is:
The product advertised in Honolulu Star Bulletin as being a Human Growth Hormone stimulant, does increase the nose?
If so, what safer supplements achieve "...improved stamina..."?
San Francisco Chronicle did mention once before the 2000Olympics, two Olympians who were achieving with legal supplements the outcome of illegal products.
Parents
Former Member
If you have stroke counts from those races, it might tell you a lot. Your initial description of your races leads me to believe that your perceived turnover rate was either the same, or possibly a bit faster on average during the most recent race, owing to your improved conditioning level.
Lets assume, for a moment, that you swam with precisely the same turnover rate in the two meets in question. Lets assume that all the non-swimming aspects - starts, turns finish are, at worst, unchanged technically from your earlier race to the most recent race. What's left as the big variable is the effectiveness of your stroke technique. Your 200m (I'm assuming long course) took you 133+ seconds compared to your earlier 129+ sec. We'll drop 6 seconds out for your start and another 8 seconds each out for three turns. That leaves roughly 100 seconds of pure swimming. If your strokes were 4% less effective (ie you traveled 4% less distance with each one) in your most recent swim over your earlier swim, that would account for your 4 seconds increase in time. I'll assume you have average stroke length for a person unschooled in TI type stroke efficiency - somewhere in the 50-70% of wingspan range - lets call it 60% in your case. Assuming you are a 6' tall person your palm to palm wingspan is likely around 5.5 feet or 1.66 meters and your stroke length is likely more like 1.0 meters. If we figure you are actually swimming 165 of those 200 meters (as opposed to turning and starting) then you are likely taking in the neighborhood of 165 strokes to cover those 165 meters (roughly equivalent to swimming 18 SPL in a 25yd pool).
So if you took just 7 strokes more in the most recent 200 (remember we're assuming the same turnover rate you had during the earlier swim) then that's where your four extra seconds came from.
Here's the good news: if you can figure out how to trim just 7 strokes OFF your most recent swim without losing any turnover rate then you can get your 4 seconds back. And you are actually likely to be able to trim a lot more than 7 strokes off without losing turnover rate.
Will it take time? Yup. But it'll take less time than simply working harder to get there. And, perhaps, working hard will NEVER get you there. Assuming you expect to be doing this sport a few years from now, don't let short-term goals get in the way of your long-term improvement goals and strategy.
Of course any or all of the assumptions I made above might be wrong, but you should be able to fill in some of the numbers more accurately and do the math.
If you do not get a response from your coach, don't discount the self-teaching opportunities available - videos, clinics, books etc. More than a few Masters swimmers have improved their technique without much help from coaches. Yes, it is a tougher row to hoe, but you don't impess me as one to shy away from a challenge.
If you have stroke counts from those races, it might tell you a lot. Your initial description of your races leads me to believe that your perceived turnover rate was either the same, or possibly a bit faster on average during the most recent race, owing to your improved conditioning level.
Lets assume, for a moment, that you swam with precisely the same turnover rate in the two meets in question. Lets assume that all the non-swimming aspects - starts, turns finish are, at worst, unchanged technically from your earlier race to the most recent race. What's left as the big variable is the effectiveness of your stroke technique. Your 200m (I'm assuming long course) took you 133+ seconds compared to your earlier 129+ sec. We'll drop 6 seconds out for your start and another 8 seconds each out for three turns. That leaves roughly 100 seconds of pure swimming. If your strokes were 4% less effective (ie you traveled 4% less distance with each one) in your most recent swim over your earlier swim, that would account for your 4 seconds increase in time. I'll assume you have average stroke length for a person unschooled in TI type stroke efficiency - somewhere in the 50-70% of wingspan range - lets call it 60% in your case. Assuming you are a 6' tall person your palm to palm wingspan is likely around 5.5 feet or 1.66 meters and your stroke length is likely more like 1.0 meters. If we figure you are actually swimming 165 of those 200 meters (as opposed to turning and starting) then you are likely taking in the neighborhood of 165 strokes to cover those 165 meters (roughly equivalent to swimming 18 SPL in a 25yd pool).
So if you took just 7 strokes more in the most recent 200 (remember we're assuming the same turnover rate you had during the earlier swim) then that's where your four extra seconds came from.
Here's the good news: if you can figure out how to trim just 7 strokes OFF your most recent swim without losing any turnover rate then you can get your 4 seconds back. And you are actually likely to be able to trim a lot more than 7 strokes off without losing turnover rate.
Will it take time? Yup. But it'll take less time than simply working harder to get there. And, perhaps, working hard will NEVER get you there. Assuming you expect to be doing this sport a few years from now, don't let short-term goals get in the way of your long-term improvement goals and strategy.
Of course any or all of the assumptions I made above might be wrong, but you should be able to fill in some of the numbers more accurately and do the math.
If you do not get a response from your coach, don't discount the self-teaching opportunities available - videos, clinics, books etc. More than a few Masters swimmers have improved their technique without much help from coaches. Yes, it is a tougher row to hoe, but you don't impess me as one to shy away from a challenge.
