This thread is reminiscent of the recent thread 'Stroke Length versus Rate' by Bill White, if I recall well.
In another recent thread -'Distance per stroke'-, it appeared that slowing down the stroke -which easily increases the distance per stroke-, is a benefit.
It is a benefit to some degree, but it is not an absolute benefit.
To slow down the rate just to increase the length, that's detrimental overall in speed.
An absolute benefit is when an optimum rate to length ratio is found for each swimmer.
For my improvement now, with my current length, I need a higher rate, or cadence.
At the beginning of today's workout, the approximate following discussion took place between me and a teammate, who used to swim in age-group swimming at Mission Viejo, California.
Me: "Look at that swimmer. He is my height, takes one or two strokes per 25 yards more than I take (i.e.: takes 16 or 17 strokes per 25 yards) , yet he is faster than me."
She: "It's not in the Stroke Length that he gets you. Your Stroke Length is fine. It is with a faster cadence that he gets you."
Me: "There are people posting in the Masters Swimming Forum and there is the Total Immersion book, that emphasize to slow down the cadence only, and therefore to increase the stroke length."
(My note: the Total Immersion book does this emphasis only, by dismissing the benefits of cadence, starting in page 31; it wrongly believes that in time it is more worthy to work on stroke length than on the quickly declining stroke cadence).
She: "I never bought into Total Immersion."
Me: "Neither did I. In 1990, when I was in Canada at my peak, and being coached in a club by a coach who is now coach of the Canadian Olympic Team, when swimming the 100 meters freestyle, he was urging me to increase my arm cadence. Since that peak, I lost in cadence, because I lost alertness."
Me: "How do I increase the cadence?
Isn't this higher cadence obtained with VO2Max (i.e.: oxygen fueling the swimming muscles), with fast-twitch swimming muscles and striated tissue that are developed best when a swimmer has a teenager growing body, and obtained also by physical conditioning?"
She: "It's the mental that commands the physical conditioning.
Think of the rhythm: tak_tak_tak... (type 1, like Matt Biondi is),
as opposed to: tak___tak___tak... (type 2),
as opposed to: tak_____tak_____tak... (type 3),
and as opposed to: tak_______tak_______tak... (type 4).
In distance swimming, you are a type 4 in the arms.
(My note: in the 2002 Long Course Nationals, I think that I was prepared by another coach -a neglectful coach-, as a type 4 in the arms).
When swimming distance, force yourself mentally to turn your arms in the rhythm tak_____tak_____tak... (type 3), and when swimming sprints, force yourself mentally to turn your arms in the rhythm tak____tak____tak... (type 2)."
After today's workout, the approximate following comments took place between me and the coach.
Me: "Kelly says that I have a type 4 cadence in the arms.
How do I quicken my cadence?"
Coach: "What we can do is to slow down your aerobic base send-offs, so that with more rest you can increase the quality in each swim, and develop more gears for speeds."
Me: "What I don't understand is how come I have a quick cadence in kicking, and a slow cadence (type 4) in the arms."
(My note: there were days around Christmas 2002, training Long Course, when I was kicking with a kickboard, 50 meters repeats leaving every 55 seconds while coming in 50 seconds. This is a very fast kicking for the Masters Swimming level. Overall, swimming in Masters Swimming in my age group, I am not very fast, but in long endurance swims I rank higher than in sprints).
Coach: "Are you coming tomorrow at UCSD, and watch the dual meet between UCSD and UC Santa Cruz? I have a late starter in swimming like you, who can kick fast and cannot move her arms quickly. Late starters in swimming are like that."
(My note: the coach is also coaching the middle-distance and the distance group of swimmers for the UCSD college team).
Me: "Isn't this because of VO2Max (i.e.: oxygen fueling the swimming muscles), and because of fast-twitch swimming muscles and striated tissue that are developed best when a swimmer has a teenager growing body?"
I think so.
I started to swim in public swim at age 25, and joined my first swimming club at age 28.
Under these conditions, what I did is very good, and now what I hope for, is to restore my own level from mid-90s and go from there...
Parents
Former Member
I got bored, so I had time to turn this post in my head:
Originally posted by valhallan
Ion,
...
I am curious to see what some of the others would have to say about stroke rate,...
...
Thanks, Val.
I think this answer:
Originally posted by Ion Beza
...
An absolute benefit is when an optimum Stroke Rate to Stroke Length ratio is found for each swimmer.
...
fits the statistics from the articles in these links:
www.usswim.org/.../power_search.pl
(Gary Hall (US) versus Anthony Ervin (US))
www.usswim.org/.../power_search.pl
(Jim Montgomery (US) versus Pieter van den Hoogenband (Ned))
(Note: in this article disregard the comment "His cycle rate and distance per cycle were almost identical to van den Hoogenband's,..." as non-sense:
55.1 and 49.8 for Montgomery's 'Tempo', and 2.32 and 2.27 for Montgomery's 'Distance per Cycle', are not at all "...almost identical..." to 55.1 and 51.1 for van den Hoogenband's 'Tempo', and 2.54 and 2.39 for van den Hoogenband's 'Distance per Cycle'; they are different).
www.usswim.org/.../power_search.pl
(Michael Phelps (US) versus Erik Vendt (US))
In each article, I am focusing on the table with statistics only, and within the table, on the parameters 'Tempo/Rate', 'Time', and 'DPC (M/C)' (i.e.: 'Distance per Cycle (Meters/Cycle)').
(Note: the first link has an 'Explanation of Race Analysis Terms', but me I noticed it after I did figure out the meanings of the terms without the explanation help).
1) Looking at the statistics of the first link, show a 59.7 cycles per minute 'Tempo' of Ervin, higher than 59.0 'Tempo' of Hall.
Also, the statistics show a lower 'Distance per Stroke' 2.17 for Ervin, than 2.18 for Hall.
Ervin was left behind Hall at the start of the race, meaning that in the swim part of the race, Ervin swam faster than Hall in order to tie him in 21.98 seconds for 50 meters freestyle.
In the swim part of the race, Ervin defeated Hall with a higher 'Tempo' or Cadence, and shorter Stroke Length.
2) Looking at the statistics of the second link, show 51.1 in the first 50 and 49.8 in the second 50 cycles per minute 'Tempo' of Montgomery, lower than 55.1 in the first 50 and 51.1 in the second 50 'Tempo' of van den Hoogenband.
Also, the statistics show a lower 'Distance per Stroke' 2.32 in the first 50 and 2.27 in the second 50 for Montgomery, than 2.54 and 2.39 for van den Hoogenband.
In 100 meters free, 47.84 by van den Hoogenband in the year 2000, defeat 49.99 by Montgomery in the year 1976, with a higher 'Tempo' or Cadence, and with a higher Stroke Length.
3) Looking at the statistics of the third link, for the first 50 meter butterfly splits, show 48.6 cycles per minute 'Tempo' for Phelps, lower than 54.6 'Tempo' for Vendt.
Also, the statistics show a higher 'Distance per Stroke' 2.19 for Phelps, than 1.86 for Vendt.
Phelps swimming in 26.16 defeats Vendt swimming in 27.45 for the first 50 meter butterfly split, with a lower 'Tempo' or Cadence, and with a higher Stroke Length.
4) Looking at the statistics of the third link, for the first 50 meter butterfly split, show a 54.6 'Tempo' for Vendt, and for the second 50 meter butterfly, show a 51,1 'Tempo' for Vendt.
Also, the statistics show for Vendt, a lower 'Distance per Stroke' 1.86 for in the first 50, than 1.88 in the second 50.
Vendt swimming in 27.45 in the first 50, is faster than Vendt swimming in 31.12 for the second 50 meter butterfly, with a higher 'Tempo' or Cadence, and with a lower Stroke Length.
5) When Erik Vendt trains by cruising in 1:12 per 100 meters in 24 cycles (and Masters swimmers cruising in 1:12 per 100 yards in 12 strokes per 25 yards -which is 24 cycles per 100 yards-, relate to this) , he has a 'Tempo' of 18 cycles in 60 seconds, and a Stroke Length of 4 meters per cycle.
When Erik Vendt races, he quickens his 'Tempo', and shortens the Stroke Length to what numbers the third link show:
51.1 'Tempo' and 1.88 meters per cycle.
So, in the five examples, what wins is:
.............................................................
1) higher cadence, shorter length; (Ervin over Hall);
2) higher cadence, higher length; (van den Hoogenband over Montgomery);
3) lower cadence, higher length; (Phelps over Vendt);
4) higher cadence, shorter length; (Vendt against himself in race);
5) higher cadence, shorter length; (Vendt in race, against Vendt in training).
A particular consideration for 4) and 5) (i.e. "higher cadence, shorter length") is deserved due the fact that in 4) and 5) I compare a competitor, with his own height and reach, against himself.
I think the statements "SL (i.e.: Stroke Length) is skill-oriented.", and "SR (i.e.: Stroke Rate) is training-oriented.", are wrong.
Stroke Length and Rate are both very training-oriented from building the swimmer VO2Max, best when one is a growing teenager.
What is important in the statistics I comment on, is the peak Stroke Rate or Cadence, which can quickly decline due to lack of physical conditioning and aging.
I got bored, so I had time to turn this post in my head:
Originally posted by valhallan
Ion,
...
I am curious to see what some of the others would have to say about stroke rate,...
...
Thanks, Val.
I think this answer:
Originally posted by Ion Beza
...
An absolute benefit is when an optimum Stroke Rate to Stroke Length ratio is found for each swimmer.
...
fits the statistics from the articles in these links:
www.usswim.org/.../power_search.pl
(Gary Hall (US) versus Anthony Ervin (US))
www.usswim.org/.../power_search.pl
(Jim Montgomery (US) versus Pieter van den Hoogenband (Ned))
(Note: in this article disregard the comment "His cycle rate and distance per cycle were almost identical to van den Hoogenband's,..." as non-sense:
55.1 and 49.8 for Montgomery's 'Tempo', and 2.32 and 2.27 for Montgomery's 'Distance per Cycle', are not at all "...almost identical..." to 55.1 and 51.1 for van den Hoogenband's 'Tempo', and 2.54 and 2.39 for van den Hoogenband's 'Distance per Cycle'; they are different).
www.usswim.org/.../power_search.pl
(Michael Phelps (US) versus Erik Vendt (US))
In each article, I am focusing on the table with statistics only, and within the table, on the parameters 'Tempo/Rate', 'Time', and 'DPC (M/C)' (i.e.: 'Distance per Cycle (Meters/Cycle)').
(Note: the first link has an 'Explanation of Race Analysis Terms', but me I noticed it after I did figure out the meanings of the terms without the explanation help).
1) Looking at the statistics of the first link, show a 59.7 cycles per minute 'Tempo' of Ervin, higher than 59.0 'Tempo' of Hall.
Also, the statistics show a lower 'Distance per Stroke' 2.17 for Ervin, than 2.18 for Hall.
Ervin was left behind Hall at the start of the race, meaning that in the swim part of the race, Ervin swam faster than Hall in order to tie him in 21.98 seconds for 50 meters freestyle.
In the swim part of the race, Ervin defeated Hall with a higher 'Tempo' or Cadence, and shorter Stroke Length.
2) Looking at the statistics of the second link, show 51.1 in the first 50 and 49.8 in the second 50 cycles per minute 'Tempo' of Montgomery, lower than 55.1 in the first 50 and 51.1 in the second 50 'Tempo' of van den Hoogenband.
Also, the statistics show a lower 'Distance per Stroke' 2.32 in the first 50 and 2.27 in the second 50 for Montgomery, than 2.54 and 2.39 for van den Hoogenband.
In 100 meters free, 47.84 by van den Hoogenband in the year 2000, defeat 49.99 by Montgomery in the year 1976, with a higher 'Tempo' or Cadence, and with a higher Stroke Length.
3) Looking at the statistics of the third link, for the first 50 meter butterfly splits, show 48.6 cycles per minute 'Tempo' for Phelps, lower than 54.6 'Tempo' for Vendt.
Also, the statistics show a higher 'Distance per Stroke' 2.19 for Phelps, than 1.86 for Vendt.
Phelps swimming in 26.16 defeats Vendt swimming in 27.45 for the first 50 meter butterfly split, with a lower 'Tempo' or Cadence, and with a higher Stroke Length.
4) Looking at the statistics of the third link, for the first 50 meter butterfly split, show a 54.6 'Tempo' for Vendt, and for the second 50 meter butterfly, show a 51,1 'Tempo' for Vendt.
Also, the statistics show for Vendt, a lower 'Distance per Stroke' 1.86 for in the first 50, than 1.88 in the second 50.
Vendt swimming in 27.45 in the first 50, is faster than Vendt swimming in 31.12 for the second 50 meter butterfly, with a higher 'Tempo' or Cadence, and with a lower Stroke Length.
5) When Erik Vendt trains by cruising in 1:12 per 100 meters in 24 cycles (and Masters swimmers cruising in 1:12 per 100 yards in 12 strokes per 25 yards -which is 24 cycles per 100 yards-, relate to this) , he has a 'Tempo' of 18 cycles in 60 seconds, and a Stroke Length of 4 meters per cycle.
When Erik Vendt races, he quickens his 'Tempo', and shortens the Stroke Length to what numbers the third link show:
51.1 'Tempo' and 1.88 meters per cycle.
So, in the five examples, what wins is:
.............................................................
1) higher cadence, shorter length; (Ervin over Hall);
2) higher cadence, higher length; (van den Hoogenband over Montgomery);
3) lower cadence, higher length; (Phelps over Vendt);
4) higher cadence, shorter length; (Vendt against himself in race);
5) higher cadence, shorter length; (Vendt in race, against Vendt in training).
A particular consideration for 4) and 5) (i.e. "higher cadence, shorter length") is deserved due the fact that in 4) and 5) I compare a competitor, with his own height and reach, against himself.
I think the statements "SL (i.e.: Stroke Length) is skill-oriented.", and "SR (i.e.: Stroke Rate) is training-oriented.", are wrong.
Stroke Length and Rate are both very training-oriented from building the swimmer VO2Max, best when one is a growing teenager.
What is important in the statistics I comment on, is the peak Stroke Rate or Cadence, which can quickly decline due to lack of physical conditioning and aging.
