Ion, you are not following the argument. It is not when VO2Max is developed (age-wise), but your statement that it is the key to swimming. (I notice, in the thread just before this one, you are again trying to change the topic.)
Originally posted by Ion Beza
In contrast to your sentiment about anchoring in water without touching ground (which any boat materially cannot do) see Craig's last post that corroborates the fact that hard measurements do approach my theory.
Okay, I'll go back to the last post, which supports your statement (with hard evidence) that "VO2Max is the key"...
Originally posted by gull80
We know that many of the adaptations to exercise are lost when training stops. This begins within a few weeks, and it may take some time to regain what was lost. I'm not sure I understand physiologically how former collegiate swimmers are able to benefit from training that took place twenty years earlier.
Ummm... okay. :) As AquaGeek said, because the idea is intriguing on a theoretical level, is not hard evidence that it is true.
(I'll get back to you on "anchoring". There is a book I want to reference (ie. hard data), which is not here. I'll post this evening.)
Ion - all those balls in the air you are trying to juggle are starting to come down quicker than you can keep up with them.
I'm still unclear as to whether it was a witch doctor or a mortician who will perform the autopsy on a swimmer's body. Maybe it was a vet who you quoted in a previous thread to support V02Max.
Originally posted by Ion Beza
Focus on the data that I am talking about here:
"...it's my theory based on empirical data that approaches but not quite touches my claim...".
A theory requires definite, testable claims. Every time we point out a flaw, you add more qualifications to your theory. Maybe it would help if you pointed out:
- what does your theory predict
- what would you need to see, in order for the theory to be wrong
(If you say, "some late-bloomer who did not swim as a teenager", then your theory is still wrong. You state that VO2Max is the key for swimming. It should be modified to "VO2Max is the key for swimming for late-bloomers who did not swim as teenagers.)
Let's take your "facts" in order:
the window for best aerobic development in one's life is 13-19 for boys
You (or someone else?) keep mentioning some British study. Please point out where it is, so I can look at the source material. And do not reference newspapers or magazines, I'm talking about the original paper.
the three more cardio-vascular sports are in order -from highest down-, cross country skiing, swimming, marathon running
What kind of a fact is this? If you are saying that they are the "most" cardio-vascular, I disagree about it being a fact. If you are saying that they are "more" cardio-vascular than most sports, why bother ranking the list?
swimmers at the Olympic level, even sprinters, do overdistance training for developing their cardiovascular shape
Swimmers at the Olympic level also have much better technique than your average swimmer. They are not looking for TI-style changes, because they are already swimming that way.
the percentage that one gets from VO2Max in a sport is sports specific, with such an example as one triathlete being able to score in VO2Max 75 when running -thus physiologically running well- and 52 when swimming -and physiologically couldn't swim equally well-
This is not a fact either. I can believe that there is a low correlation between swimming and running, since they are very different motions. But I know of a swimmer in college, who only swam once or twice a week (weightlifted the other days), and had NCAA qualifying times. So I can think of an example of underdistance (for lack of a better word) and cross-training benefits.
Again, if you will point out specific source material, I can see if the claims are exaggerated or not. None of these "facts" prove that VO2Max is the key to swimming.
Although Ion has very low opinion of Swim magazine, they run several articles a year, showing Masters swimmers who are faster now than they were in high school/college.
This is what Connie's first sentence should have been:
Sore e eye-on, these state mint ease knot core act.
(I didn't use a Microsoft Word spell checker... please let me know if I made any errors.)
Originally posted by swim53
Yes, you can use "IGNORE" for just one person. I'd suggest it.
I.B. had been the only one on my IGNORE list for a long time.
I.B. is currently the only person on my ignore list Ignore works very well except that it doesn't screen out all the responses to I.B.
Originally posted by Ion Beza
as a late bloomer I am fast and I overtake a majority of lifelong USMS swimmers, but I would like to know and use more information to progress.
Ion - please let us know how you are able to track this data. You constantly demand data from us so please practice what you preach. What category do you find on meet results to identify that you are faster than the majority of lifelong USMS swimmers?
Again, let me remind you that USMS and all swimming organizations only track swimmers, not early blooming or late blooming. I do realize this late blooming idea of yours is actually your crutch to explain away poor results. And, your results from last years nationals in the 100 clearly and unequivocally show that the vast majority of individuals in USMS are substantially faster than you.
Also, please identify the medical professionals you have consulted on your theory. You have avoided this repeatedly.
Please use unqalifications in a sentence. You have avoided this repeatedly.
Your continue avoidance of substantiating your own claims futher nullifies their credibility. Maybe the 9 year old girls you hang with on usswim.org are more gullible.
House of cards falling apart.
Originally posted by mattson
...
He is expressing a sentiment ("the key in swimming is VO2Max"). I have yet to see data to support this point.
...
Like I pointed out in the thread on VO2Max that was deleted, the data that "the key in swimming is VO2Max" doesn't exist, it's my theory based on empirical data that approaches but not quite touches my claim.
The theory is consistent with facts like:
.) the window for best aerobic development in one's life is 13-19 for boys;
.) the three more cardio-vascular sports are in order -from highest down-, cross country skiing, swimming, marathon running;
.) swimmers at the Olympic level, even sprinters, do overdistance training for developing their cardiovascular shape;
(in 1976 sprinter John Naber (U.S.) did it, in 2004 sprinter Alex Popov (Rus.) does it, and in 2004 sprinter Pieter van den Hoogenband (Ned.) -ranked in in the 20s in the world in 400 free last year- does it in order to swim a 48.96 in 100 meter free a few days ago.)
.) the percentage that one gets from VO2Max in a sport is sports specific, with such an example as one triathlete being able to score in VO2Max 75 when running -thus physiologically running well- and 52 when swimming -and physiologically couldn't swim equally well-.
In this thread, gull did agree that this is possible.
I run my theory by a sports medicine doctor a few days ago and he thinks that this is possible providing that biopsies on athletes' muscles show that the muscles developed in that sport have cells with a greater absorption of oxygen developed during a certain age span.
