Interval timing

We have batted around a couple of different ways to measure the work to rest ratio. There are pluses and minuses to either. I think the real key should be matching the work:rest ratio (how ever you measure it) to your goal for the set. There is an old Emmett post that goes into this in great detail; it is worth the search if you have not read it. To sum it up: if you have a very low rest interval (e.g. 100's on 1:30 and you're finishing the 100 on about 1:25), you are working on aerobic endurance. If you increase the ratio of rest, I think it's at about the 1:1 point, you are working on your ability to tolerate higher levels of lactate acid, i.e. process it out of your system, for longer periods of time. If you get up to lots of rest to work, say 6:1 (i.e. sprint a 50, rest a few minutes, sprint another), you are working on your ability to tolerate high levels of lactate acid and still perform. Finally, outside of the conditioning realm, there are stroke technique sets. Here the goal is to NOT push yourself, but to have your attention focused on doing precise technical skills. You can measure rest any way you like, but the first question in your mind should be, what am I trying to do with this set. Some folks like to chase the fastest swimmers, and will insist on using their interval whenever they can, even if it is touch-and-go, hang on by their fingernails. You can do that, but you may be turning what is supposed to be a higher quality set, or a drill set, into an aerobic set. Focus on your goal, and let the interval follow. Matt

davido - I may be wrong here, but I interprete start to start to be exactly what you described. In the case of your example (8*50), it would be 50 seconds till the start of the next 50. I have never heard it called "start to start", but I have been out of competitive swimming for a while. I think the other person is just talking about rest intravel swimming. No matter how slow or fast you swim, you still take a set amount of rest. Again, I could be wrong, but this makes the most sense to me. HTH, ~CB

The benefit of writing rest interval (8X50 with 20 seconds rest on each) instead of start to start times (8X50 on :50) in that the coach does not need to know each swimmer’s ability in order to convey the intent of the set. Typically an on-deck coach knows the ability of their swimmers and when the give the 8X50’s set, they know about what to expect from the swimmers and how much rest they will get. 8X50’s on :50 for swimmers holding :28’s could be considered a high intensity medium rest set, while a swimmer holding :45’s could be considered a low rest survival set. If the actual intention of the coach was for a low rest interval survival set, then the faster swimmers would be getting too much rest on :50 seconds, but by saying 8X50 with 5 seconds rest, all swimmers would be working towards the same set objective. With on deck coaching, and swimmers in lanes based on ability, the coach may have one lane doing the set on :35, another lane on :45 and another on 1:00.

Rob is exactly right. There is a broad range of athletes who read this board and listing start to start intervals can be discouraging to some and "what - that is too easy" to others.

David, I have been swimming Masters in Canada for over 6 years. In my experience, the vast majority of intervals have been of the "start to start" type. Further, I suspect that the more experienced the swimmer, the more likely they are to use the "start to start" type. However, I would suggest that there are certain situations which lend themselves to a rest interval much better than the "start to start" type. Further, there will more than likely be some very experienced Masters swimmers who predominantly use rest intervals.

Well, Matt is right with age the old fashion interval doesn't count as well. As an 18 year old I image that a lot of times I could do 10x100's freestyle at 1:20 and swim many of them between 1:10 and 1:15. Not so today. My free is about 4 to 5 seconds slower in the 50 than then.