Hypothesis on specialized training models
*Warning* this may bore some
members, please privately message
me to find the solution for you.
With 18 swimming events, fulfilling
the maximum potential in each discipline
requires specific training models.
Also, with the variety of body types,
the training program needs to vary
from person to person. For example,
Dara Torres might not have the
same level of success in a program
designed for Michael Phelps, and
vice versa. So, in order to maximize
either side of the spectrum, a
multi-faceted approach is required.
The point is, one program works very
well for a particular type of person,
and not so good for another. So which
program is better? Neither, that answer
depends on the athlete in question.
So you see, a coach can have success with
either program, and the athlete with a
predisposition for that type of training
will rise to the top.
I need to dispel any myths that one program
is better than another. This only makes
arguable sense when talking about a
particular athlete. So please, the traditional
methods do have merit when training particular athletes.
Although, the Nystrand versus Popov debate is another
example for the need towards flexible technique
analysis. Ultimately, it comes down to the
specific strength and weaknesses of each
particular athlete.
The point is, the depth of potential may
be a higher number than we previously assumed,
and that my friends, is an opportunity.
Happy Swimming,
Jonathan R. Miller:wave:
Not boring, I kind of like my swimming high brow in small doses. (Although I do not keep up with current research in exercise physiology and all that, so my thinking is probably oh so 1980's).
If I'm reading your hypothesis correctly, you are simply stating that there are a lot of variables in training and that there are many paths to success. Am I understanding you correctly?
I don't know many who would disagree but I still think there are some universal truths in training that apply broadly. Otherwise where does that leave us? All training must be completley individualized to a particular person and event? Not always very practical, though it can certainly be done to some degree; sprinters have been wimping out of -- excuse me, "pesonalizing" -- workouts for decades, after all.
Still, there are going to be incompatibilities, such as the 20K/day vs the quality/technique schools of thoughts. Or disagreements on the importance of kicking.
Your thoughts?
Not boring, I kind of like my swimming high brow in small doses. (Although I do not keep up with current research in exercise physiology and all that, so my thinking is probably oh so 1980's).
If I'm reading your hypothesis correctly, you are simply stating that there are a lot of variables in training and that there are many paths to success. Am I understanding you correctly?
I don't know many who would disagree but I still think there are some universal truths in training that apply broadly. Otherwise where does that leave us? All training must be completley individualized to a particular person and event? Not always very practical, though it can certainly be done to some degree; sprinters have been wimping out of -- excuse me, "pesonalizing" -- workouts for decades, after all.
Still, there are going to be incompatibilities, such as the 20K/day vs the quality/technique schools of thoughts. Or disagreements on the importance of kicking.
Your thoughts?
