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...
Ion really points out somethign important.
Looking at race speed vs training and even a distance swimmer when he sprints as in Perkins' case.
I've got the 9 meg video o fpopov training, the one that's runngin around the interent. It's in slow motion but appears that he's swimming at training speed. In it he has some catch up, maybe technically front quadrant but not to a large degree. I also have a video of him racig klim. Much less catch up, not really front quadrant.
I think you'll find the experience the same among other folks who work on front quadrant swimming. Training, nice catch up type strokes. But come race time much less of it.
This article points out that traiing with paddles tedn to make us swim with arms more in opposition.
(www.education.ed.ac.uk/.../ms.html)
My hypothesis is that in terms of performance the degree to which one exhibits front quadrant swimming is determined by whether you are trying to minimize resistance or maximize propulsion. Or rather where on the sliding scale of resistance vs propulsion you are. Shorter races tend more towards the efficient application of power; I'd expect to see less catch up. Longer races more so.
I also hypothesize that it depends on how much you have available. If you have much power available, then applying it efficiently gives a good speed boost. If however we don't have a large power reserve we will tend more toward cutting resistance.
But where does that leave us? We want to get faster and all this is really nice but does it get us anywhere. Perhaps not, we still have to train and how we should train doesn;t really need all this explanation.
If we've given a particular method the college try and have stopped improving well then it's probably time to try something else, perhaps that aspect is no longer what's holding you back. If you have worked on lowering resistance for two years and have hit a plateau maybe the resistance isn't what's holding you back any longer. Maybe it's a lack of power keeping you from your PR. Or vice versa. IN addition the same principle applies to the type of training we are doing during the workout. Maybe we don't need to work on endurance quite so much but need to work on speed more. Or the other way around, or maybe we need lactate threshold work.
When somethign quite working it's probably time to try something else. Not to say that some type of workout isn't right. It's probably not right, right now.
Ion really points out somethign important.
Looking at race speed vs training and even a distance swimmer when he sprints as in Perkins' case.
I've got the 9 meg video o fpopov training, the one that's runngin around the interent. It's in slow motion but appears that he's swimming at training speed. In it he has some catch up, maybe technically front quadrant but not to a large degree. I also have a video of him racig klim. Much less catch up, not really front quadrant.
I think you'll find the experience the same among other folks who work on front quadrant swimming. Training, nice catch up type strokes. But come race time much less of it.
This article points out that traiing with paddles tedn to make us swim with arms more in opposition.
(www.education.ed.ac.uk/.../ms.html)
My hypothesis is that in terms of performance the degree to which one exhibits front quadrant swimming is determined by whether you are trying to minimize resistance or maximize propulsion. Or rather where on the sliding scale of resistance vs propulsion you are. Shorter races tend more towards the efficient application of power; I'd expect to see less catch up. Longer races more so.
I also hypothesize that it depends on how much you have available. If you have much power available, then applying it efficiently gives a good speed boost. If however we don't have a large power reserve we will tend more toward cutting resistance.
But where does that leave us? We want to get faster and all this is really nice but does it get us anywhere. Perhaps not, we still have to train and how we should train doesn;t really need all this explanation.
If we've given a particular method the college try and have stopped improving well then it's probably time to try something else, perhaps that aspect is no longer what's holding you back. If you have worked on lowering resistance for two years and have hit a plateau maybe the resistance isn't what's holding you back any longer. Maybe it's a lack of power keeping you from your PR. Or vice versa. IN addition the same principle applies to the type of training we are doing during the workout. Maybe we don't need to work on endurance quite so much but need to work on speed more. Or the other way around, or maybe we need lactate threshold work.
When somethign quite working it's probably time to try something else. Not to say that some type of workout isn't right. It's probably not right, right now.
