To quote Gull: What is the right mix of technique and endurance for a Masters athlete (who wants to be competitive, say, at Nationals) with a finite amount of time to train?
Amen, brother. Its one lap, baby!
Speaking of open water, I just registered for the Chesapeake Bay 4.4 mi Swim Lottery. Here's hoping I get in!
Muppet:
Good luck getting in! Those 5 x 500 sets will help you in the OW! Does everyone automatically get into the 1 mile race?
Allen:
50 LC is my favorite race too!! Then you don't have to count or turn. :agree: You just swim fast.
T*Law of Finite Attraction*
Even after carefully explaining the efficiency and effectiveness of an ideal stroke rate, within 3 minutes swimmer will invariably lose the ability to count strokes and think about any related concept. See similar anomaly under Law of Acceleration.
Good joke, Fortress. Good response too. People tend to get testy when they're dissed. Better to make light of it if possible. Sometimes it's not, of course. I bet your shoulders are hurting just reading about those 5 x 500s of "recovery." And you didn't even mention them ... decent of you. :rofl: (There, I even used an emoticon.)
The above joke explains why one should seek the open water. No counting.
To be more specific: I'd like to swim in the range of 5:30-11:30-19:00 for 500-1000-1650 free four months hence. Proving that I can push myself through a set of 5 x 500 on 6:45, descending 6:30 to 6:20 will do little to prepare me swim at those speeds. But cruising a longish set like that, in a non-fatiguing way at 13-14 SPL, on Tuesday night, could help me be ready for a set of 100s at 1:10 or under and 15SPL on Wed or Thurs night that trains the neural patterns it requires to swim my goal times.
As I do the 5 x 500 I'm not after aerobic conditioning. I'm thinking of physical recovery and further imprinting some small but critical skill -- perhaps a firm anchor with elbow slightly above wrist -- that I hope will hold up when my stroke rate and HR increase one or two nights later.
OR after doing the 5 x 500 one week I may conclude that 500 repeats compromise the recovery and imprinting
First, I want to commend you on the goals you have set for the distances above. What I would like to know is why you don't think that pushing yourself on 6:45 with descending times of 6:30 and 6:20, would not benefit your 500? Isn't the objective to swim it faster but with more comfort, so wouldn't working it harder eventually provide that for you? As we work harder, would it not make sense that it won't feel or be as difficult to reach 6:30 and 6:20? And how would you then train to reach these times if you choose to not push yourself through them? If you have a magic bullet, please share.
And one more question if you don't mind: what is restorative/recovery about 5x500s? That seems a bit like an oxymoron to me for that is 2,500 yards of more shoulder roation (extra volume), unless a swimmer is swimming an average of 10,000 yds a day, only then would 5x500s be recovery and that is even a stretch.
Thanks,
Donna
He referenced the 400m in Track and Field as a comparison to the 100m in swimming. While the two events use identical energy systems, T&F training is radically different. They spend a much greater percentage of training time replicating the neural programs used in the race and -- after a base phase of 8 weeks or so -- use their aerobic conditioning mainly to promote restoration for the race-replicating stuff. He points out that aerobic conditioning changes little in a trained athlete beyond the first 8 weeks of stimulus in a new season.
To quote Skinner: "Just training 'hard' won't cut it; training should be very rate (neural) oriented and complement the exact neural function athletes wish to achieve in competition. The athlete should be primed to train the exact neural function without having to shed any lasting fatigue from the cardiovascular loading period. Cardiovascular loading shouldn't be at a level that compromises technique and efficiency."
Reading this made me take stock of how I trained -- specifically to question the sets that felt good emotionally (i.e. validating my ability to "tough out" challenging sets) and endorphinally -- but fall far short of the speeds at which I hope to race. Unquestionably I get satisfaction from descending a set of 5 x 500 on 6:45 from 6:30 to 6:20, but the motor recruitment patterns occurring at that speed aren't close enuf to the patterns needed to put together a string of three 5:45s in a 1650.
Some swimmers think they can condition their way to a faster time. My thinking is more aligned with Jonty's.
I will first say that I do believe that we all agree technique and hard training is the best way to achieve faster swim times. And, I don't know of any swimmers who think they can condition their way to a faster time; at least I have never met any. So maybe "some" is a handful.
Serious interval training enables a swimmer to chart improvement but more importantly, it develops sense of pace and with a sharp sense of pace (a built-in speedometer so to speak), a swimmer can guage the speed they are traveling at any point in a race. Without it, you can't be sure of yourself or your strategy in tough competition.
Swimming hard for 100 meters is like running fast for a quarter of a mile, and it requires an endurance that has been carefully built up over a long period of time, not 8 weeks. In training, probably the most important single factor is building endurance to sustain race day.
I am worried that people may think that recovery repeat 500s = endurance. I think that higher intensity interval training 500s= endurance and/or shorter distance repeats: those 100s, 50s, 200s, etc.
Like I had mentioned several threads ago, all these studies even by Champions seem to be in great disagreement with one another and I would just hate to see a new fad begin based on study after study after study which is primarily opinion even if they are being written by people in the field of biomechanics. I took a look at some of the tests, and was shocked that one of them was for 1.07 meters. Sometimes, this reminds me of the Apollo 13 Nasa mission and they had all these life-threatening problems, one after the other, and all of those scientists had answers on paper, but had not tried them.
My bottom line is: no junk yardage, good technique, don't need mindful swimming, intensity interval sets, and some very long swims each week. And I truly believe based on experience, that a swimmer who pushes past the pain barrier, well it is right there that separate the great competitors. No amount of technique will save me at that point because we all already have it, but a solid endurance base built up over time, with intensity intervals in practice will give me a much better chance at being a great competitor. I believe training should be 50/50. And I believe that strength training is a must, but not necessarily ditching swim practices for other types of training. Swim training is different from running training; just stop swimming for awhile and try it; a lot of swimming aerobics is lost. It's an entirely different type of training because of the lack of gravity.
Do I want to do this today at almost 60? Nope. Been there, done that.
Donna
TTo quote Skinner: "Just training 'hard' won't cut it; training should be very rate (neural) oriented and complement the exact neural function athletes wish to achieve in competition. The athlete should be primed to train the exact neural function without having to shed any lasting fatigue from the cardiovascular loading period. Cardiovascular loading shouldn't be at a level that compromises technique and efficiency."
Yes, this makes some sense. I've also seen neural training discussed at www.xtri.com/article-p.asp?id=277
Is 5 x 500 really a recovery set?
It can be--it depends on how you swim it.
Terry's point, which is a good one, is that it's very difficult to swim race pace 500s in practice. And if your recovery sets are too fast, you'll be depleted going into the race pace sets.
I will first say that I do believe that we all agree technique and hard training is the best way to achieve faster swim times. And, I don't know of any swimmers who think they can condition their way to a faster time; at least I have never met any.
all these studies even by Champions seem to be in great disagreement with one another and I would just hate to see a new fad begin based on study after study after study which is primarily opinion even if they are being written by people in the field of biomechanics.Do I want to do this today at almost 60? Nope. Been there, done that.Donna
It is interesting that you bring up the "fad" phenomenon. GoodSmith started a thread on this topic some time ago. In in, he opines that "technique" is the subject of "fads" (everyone copies the latest greatest fast person), but that truly fast swimming is based on talent, genetics, aerobic capacity, workout intensity, etc.
forums.usms.org/showthread.php
When a certain technique is employed by the vast majority of world-class swimmers; is that a fad?
Well, Dave, as you might have noticed if you actually read (rather than just reacted to) my post, I wasn't claiming anything was a "fad." I was just referencing GoodSmith's thread and his opinion. Nothing more. So you might answer your own question and educate us all.
Having not thought deeply about this topic, I would say off the top of my head that some things are more fad-y than others. I'm sure all world class swimmers are good streamliners, and streamlining has been around forever. But other things are a bit faddish, like breaststroke. First it's flat, then it's wave action, then it's windshield wiper, then it's high like Amanda Beard, then it's low like Leisel, then the dolphin kick is added, etc. I seem to recall a discussion in the GoodSmith's thread that front quadrant swimming might be a bit faddish or more suitable for some distances than others. Butterfly has gone from undulating to flat. The debate about the relative importance of propulsion vs. drag reduction continues to evolve.
I also thought GoodSmith was discussing changes over time, not just your question of "when a certain technique is employed by the vast majority of world-class swimmers; is that a fad?" I guess theoretically it could be if the next generation of world-class swimmers were employing a different technique.
