Today, I swam the 200 yards free in 2:09.11.
This beats my previous best of 2:09.54 from April 1994.
I challenged the 2:09.54 in the past 11 years, over 20 times, many times under what I learned the hard way to be the wrong preparation, and never came close.
My result will be posted officially in the USMS databse.
I won't be able to make the 2005 Short Course Nationals, but hopefully I will make the 2005 Long Course Nationals.
The reason that I bring this success here is that there are some lessons to learn from it:
1.) to pursue virtue and excellence by meeting the intrinsic requirements that come to having a worthwhile goal (in my case, the goal is to stay in my prime intellectually and physically, for longtime), that's intelligence and tenacious work;
I immigrated to U.S. and relocated within U.S. on job skills in science to live my lifestyle;
this lifestyle comprises now, over 39 weeks of the 2004-2005 season so far, of 1,093 kilometers of training (an average of 28.025 kilometers per week, or 30,828 yards per week, no matter the holidays, tapering or illness, that includes kicking, strokes, and technique quotas), the most mileage I slowly built my late starter physiology up to in life, mostly under a Masters club with primarly college and age group swimming expertise, which I searched for and choosed;
I also cross train consistently in weights and running;
2.) I scrutinize self-indulgence and greed (to an employer who was asking me to work overtime like his Japanese employees do, even though I was ahead in schedule in a project, and who thought that I am a slave to him giving me a work visa, I stated "You know, my life doesn't depend on you." and I walked away from a near six-figures salary because it was jeopardizing my swim training; I looked for and found another) and I scrutinize good intentions backed up by feelings without hard data.
2:09.11 and staying in my prime, that's a tribute to 1.) and 2.).
Parents
Former Member
Originally posted by Ion Beza
this is saying that you don't want to know the conditions under which an action is performed.
Okay you guys, I have to agree with Ion on this one. It is very important to know what conditions an action is performed under in controled scientific experiements (yes Ion, we do that in psychology... it isn't as soft as you think... and I must point out here too that your late bloomer thing is a 'soft variable', that would fit very well into a catageory of 'unquantifable things' psychology has been trying to quantify for many years) There are several problems with Ion's experiement. First, even though there appears to be a control group (swimmers who don't train as he does) the control group isn't controled enough. In true scientific research, everyone in the control group gets the same 'treatement.' The experimental groups get the same treatement but with a change (hopefully only in one variable so if significance is found, the significance can be attributed to the change in the variable). Second, an n of 1 in your experimental group? Come on Ion! Third, you haven't produced any true numbers that have come from statistically analysis that show what the 'control' group does isn't as effective as what you are doing.
Ion, I believe you are just the person, to do a study that could contribute a lot to the current knowledge about training... design an experiement, objectively define early bloomer, define, some sort of out come you wish to measure, define other variables, get participants to agree to several different training conditions, and start collecting data from Masters' programs all over the country. Then come talk to us when you have real hard, scientifically analized data.
Lainey
Originally posted by Ion Beza
this is saying that you don't want to know the conditions under which an action is performed.
Okay you guys, I have to agree with Ion on this one. It is very important to know what conditions an action is performed under in controled scientific experiements (yes Ion, we do that in psychology... it isn't as soft as you think... and I must point out here too that your late bloomer thing is a 'soft variable', that would fit very well into a catageory of 'unquantifable things' psychology has been trying to quantify for many years) There are several problems with Ion's experiement. First, even though there appears to be a control group (swimmers who don't train as he does) the control group isn't controled enough. In true scientific research, everyone in the control group gets the same 'treatement.' The experimental groups get the same treatement but with a change (hopefully only in one variable so if significance is found, the significance can be attributed to the change in the variable). Second, an n of 1 in your experimental group? Come on Ion! Third, you haven't produced any true numbers that have come from statistically analysis that show what the 'control' group does isn't as effective as what you are doing.
Ion, I believe you are just the person, to do a study that could contribute a lot to the current knowledge about training... design an experiement, objectively define early bloomer, define, some sort of out come you wish to measure, define other variables, get participants to agree to several different training conditions, and start collecting data from Masters' programs all over the country. Then come talk to us when you have real hard, scientifically analized data.
Lainey
