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.).
Former Member
Originally posted by gull80
A personal best is impressive at any age. Your "process" seems to work. But look at it this way. In eleven years you've improved your 200 time by .43 seconds. Yes your results are impressive for someone joining the sport late. But .43 seconds can be lost (or gained) in a single turn or on the start. The fact that you've gained ground while the aging process is pulling in the other direction is not insignificant. I can relate to that. However, isn't it possible that you've already acquired the aerobic base and strength you need, and now you need to focus more on technique? There are seven turns in a 200. Shave off a second on each turn and you've qualified for nationals. Without swimming any more yardage. As for your stroke, I've never seen you swim, but as *** Jochums said, build a Porsche. Changing your stroke may require that you miss some intervals at first, but so what? It took me about three months to change to a four beat kick, now I'm swimming faster in practice.
You don't get it, Craig.
11 years were mostly wasted in the wrong masters programs across U.S..
The ones that have the likes of Scansy here say that they are 35 years old and a lazy 50 year old is faster than them.
My process is not either aerobic or turns.
My process is all of them.
Read the list that I put up for Lindsay.
Carefully.
It's a work in progress to hit the perfect race.
It's just that old dog and company had and have unqualified advice.
Beware of unqualified advice.
Former Member
I am interested in the hormonal argument that Ion posed for the reason that the ten year old girl is faster than he is in the 200 free. As an endocrinologist, I am not aware of the facts behind this post. Could you please point me to the data on this from the literature? (This means peer-reviewed scientific publications on pre-teen hormonal levels equating to improved athletic performance)
Former Member
Look, it's obvious that you're in great shape. And I'm not critiquing your process. I'm just proposing that you focus on technique. You don't have to drive a Volkswagen (and he wasn't referring to VO2max--he was referring to technique). It's possible that your times could drop significantly.
Former Member
Originally posted by Mary
I am interested in the hormonal argument that Ion posed for the reason that the ten year old girl is faster than he is in the 200 free. As an endocrinologist, I am not aware of the facts behind this post. Could you please point me to the data on this from the literature? (This means peer-reviewed scientific publications on pre-teen hormonal levels equating to improved athletic performance)
Sure.
Hormones during pre teen training that allow for striatic tissue development while swimming.
One window of opportunity in life.
Former Member
Re-read my post. What you posted is common knowledge. What I asked for was a scientific reference that equates the different hormonal levels in childhood to improved athletic performance. There are variations in multiple hormones between children and adults but this occurs in all children not just those that are good swimmers, runners, etc. I was interested in the published data to support your specific claim. Thanks
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
Former Member
Originally posted by Ion Beza
Hormones during pre teen training that allow for striatic tissue development while swimming.
Actually, muscle development can be achieved at any age. Which is why weight lifting is now recommended for the older population (in addition to the favorable effects on osteoporosis).
Former Member
Originally posted by gull80
...
I'm just proposing that you focus on technique.
...
You are still wrong, Craig.
The focus is on all the points I put out for Lindsay.
The points complement each other.
It's a process.
You are talking to me about technique, you don't know my technique except from reading luminaries like Dorothy or old dog (who never saw my technique), and you don't grasp that the whole program has points complementing each other.
Former Member
Originally posted by gull80
Actually, muscle development can be achieved at any age. Which is why weight lifting is now recommended for the older population (in addition to the favorable effects on osteoporosis).
Not striatic tissue.
Only pre teen training in swimming does it.
I got this from coach Mark Schubert.
Former Member
No, I've never seen you swim--I said that. I do know that in the 70s the emphasis was on yardage with very little if any technique work (at least in the programs where I swam). I still have a tendency to associate yardage with success. I just think you might be able to improve a lot more than .43.
