I swam in a 3-day USS meet this past weekend, prelims and finals, and did a small little experiment to test the effectiveness of wearing a FS II kneeskin on my swimming.
First an exercise. The following are SCY swims I performed in the past year when fully rested. Can you pick out which were done WITHOUT a fastskin? Answers appear towards the end of message.
100 fly: 51.35, 51.43, 51.52, 51.96, 51.99
200 fly: 1:56.38, 1:56.90, 1:57.43
100 back: 51.41, 51.72, 51.77, 52.05, 52.26
200 back: 1:53.99, 1:54.02, 1:54.23, 1:54.33, 1:54.87
Some background. Last year I began training swimming more seriously (changed coaches, did less cross-training, did lots of quality sets, started weights again) and dropped quite a bit of time. I also purchased an FSII kneeskin suit and wore it at all my rested meets. So naturally the question occured to me: how much of my improvement was "real" and how much was a result of the suit? I also very much disliked losing the feel for the water when wearing the suit, as well as the hassle of putting it on before races.
There have been numerous studies but very few (I didn't find any) under true meet race conditions, comparing a swim with the suit against a swim without it but still fully rested and shaved and with something significant at stake. It is a hard thing to ask a swimmer to do, to play around after months of training; as it turns out, I didn't complete my intended experiment either.
I have been swimming at the Virginia Senior Championships the last three seasons (SCY07, LCM07, SCY08). The following were my prelim/final swims in the past two seasons, all with the FSII (I swam other events too but scratched some at night for more rest).
200 free SCY07: 1:45.52p, 1:45.70f (+0.18)
100 fly SCY07: 51.35p, 51.99f (+0.64)
100 fly LCM07: 59.12p, 59.47f (+0.35)
100 back SCY07: 51.72p, 51.77f (+0.05)
100 back LCM07: 1:01.35p, 1:01.77f (+0.42)
200 back SCY07: 1:53.99p, 1:54.02f (+0.03)
200 back LCM07: 2:16.21p, 2:16.07f (-.14)
P/F difference: avg +0.22, std error 0.10
I'm a morning person and the difference in prelims and finals has grown greater with age. As a 43-year-old, I have a harder time swimming fast at 8pm than at 10am.
I swam 5 events at the meet this past weekend; the full results are here
www.virginiaswimming.org/.../index.htm
Taking them in the order that I swam them:
-- Fri: the 200 free I swam in the morning with the FSII and scratched at night. The time (1:44.40) was a 1 second improvement over my best time last year.
-- Fri: the 100 fly I swam in the prelims with Aquablade jammers and went 51.43. At night I put on the FSII and went 51.96 (+0.53).
-- Sat: the 200 fly I swam in the prelims with Aquablade jammers and went 1:56.38, half a second faster than my best time last year.
-- Sat: the 100 back I swam in the prelims with jammers and went 52.05. At night I put on the FSII and went 52.26 (+0.21).
-- Sun: the 200 back I swam with jammers both morning -- 1:54.33 -- and night -- 1:54.87 (+0.54).
A few notes:
(1) On the second evening, I swam the fly leg of the 'A' medley relay, spliting 51.13. I did this wearing the jammers. Add about 0.5 sec for the relay start and you get a time pretty consistent with the others.
(2) The difference in the 100 back was actually greater than it appeared. In the morning swim I slipped badly on the push off the first wall. I offer no excuses -- I was the one who misjudged and jammed the turn -- but I estimate I lost roughly 0.5 sec. I say this because my splits were 25.7/26.3, and I usually take out the 100 back in about 25.2 when rested. At night I took it out in 25.3 but faded more.
(3) The difference in the 100 fly may be slightly less than it appeared. In the evening my foot cramped off the first wall (it lasted only a 25) and it may have slowed me down some. Comparing splits for P/F somewhat confirms this. Again, I am not a person who likes to offer excuses for swims, but I am just adding it in the context of this experiment.
(4) I didn't wear the FSII in the 200 fly on the second morning on the basis of the apparent lack of effect on the 100 fly on the previous day. I really need oxygen on the last 50 and have never liked that the FSII somewhat constricts my breathing (I only notice it at the end of the 200 fly race). It didn't take much to convince me not to wear it in the 200 fly.
(5) I didn't wear the FSII in the 200 back finals on the third evening, although I had intended to at the beginning. In retrospect, I wish I had, but by this point in the meet I was convinced it didn't help much, and I was tired of mucking around with my swims at a rested meet. (Heck, I was just plain tired!)
Here is the answer to the exercise posed at the beginning of the message. The bolded swims were sans fastskin:
100 fly: 51.35, 51.43, 51.52, 51.96, 51.99
200 fly: 1:56.38, 1:56.90, 1:57.43
100 back: 51.41, 51.72, 51.77, 52.05, 52.26
200 back: 1:53.99, 1:54.02, 1:54.23, 1:54.33, 1:54.87
I do not pretend that this was a definitive experiment that will settle this question for all. BUT I do think this kind of experiment -- done "in the field,'' as it were -- is much to be preferred over ones that are done "in the lab.'' (They are also preferred to experiments done by Speedo, who obviously have a vested interest in the outcome.)
My general conclusion is that the FSII is not significantly more effective than the Aquablade jammers FOR ME. If they made a difference of 0.5 - 1 second per hundred, even this limited experiment would have shown it.
I also think that the effects of technical suits is dependent on body type. I am 5'10'' and weigh 170lbs, somewhat muscular with a long torso and short legs. I am about 10 pounds heavier than college when I trained 5 hours a day and had little excess fat. Some of the mass I've gained since then is muscle but after spending 3 days with teenagers who have no fat I am under no illusions: I am not as skinny as I once was.
I also think that the situation is much different for females than males. They HAVE to wear a full body suit and I can readily believe that a poorly made suit will add significant time to their swims. Whether a technical suit helps them significantly more than a good "regular" race suit, I cannot say.
Sorry for the long post and thanks for your patience.
Parents
Former Member
Chris,
You're right about the differences between the two test sets (yours vs mine). And, as you pointed out in one of your earlier posts, my results should not be taken to indicate that a swimmer will gain 3+% improvement in going from workouts to real meets. All it shows is that there is a significant difference between the kinds of suits swimmers train in and the top-end technical suits. The training suit issue was another uncontrolled factor in my tests. Some swimmers showed up in new lycra suits, such as ones that they might have competed in, while others (myself included) wore shabby suits that we probably wouldn't have worn even to low class meets.
All my results show is that there are clear differences between suit types. What I came away with is that I would always choose the top-end suit for competition.
While I was grilling a steak and drinking some wine tonight I was trying to devise an experiment that would measure real differences for tapered and shaved swimmers at meets that really counted. Your experiment probably is fairly valid since it would average out differences in how your body behaved from one meet to the next but it's hard to eliminate the fact that your swims were done in different meets where body response may come into play.
What I came up with was for a suit purveyor to get a bunch of elites together and offer a BIG cash prize. Then, at a single meet, have each one of them swim the same event 4 times - twice with a good meet suit and twice with the highest-performance suits available. That would eliminate all the longer distance events undoubtedly. The winners would be determined on the basis of current vs past performance. So, each swimmer would be swimming against his/her best previous time. All four swims would count and the sum compared to 4 X the best previous time would determine the winners. That is, the biggest improvement factor would determine the winner. That would remove the possible incentive to sandbag some of the swims for one reason or other. It would also prevent the Michael Phelps genre from simply running away with the prize money. The suit manufacturer could look at the data and see what, if any, improvement accrued as the swimmers changed suits.
My guess is that suit makers pay much less for drag tests and the like and might not be interested in this kind of experiment.
Chris,
You're right about the differences between the two test sets (yours vs mine). And, as you pointed out in one of your earlier posts, my results should not be taken to indicate that a swimmer will gain 3+% improvement in going from workouts to real meets. All it shows is that there is a significant difference between the kinds of suits swimmers train in and the top-end technical suits. The training suit issue was another uncontrolled factor in my tests. Some swimmers showed up in new lycra suits, such as ones that they might have competed in, while others (myself included) wore shabby suits that we probably wouldn't have worn even to low class meets.
All my results show is that there are clear differences between suit types. What I came away with is that I would always choose the top-end suit for competition.
While I was grilling a steak and drinking some wine tonight I was trying to devise an experiment that would measure real differences for tapered and shaved swimmers at meets that really counted. Your experiment probably is fairly valid since it would average out differences in how your body behaved from one meet to the next but it's hard to eliminate the fact that your swims were done in different meets where body response may come into play.
What I came up with was for a suit purveyor to get a bunch of elites together and offer a BIG cash prize. Then, at a single meet, have each one of them swim the same event 4 times - twice with a good meet suit and twice with the highest-performance suits available. That would eliminate all the longer distance events undoubtedly. The winners would be determined on the basis of current vs past performance. So, each swimmer would be swimming against his/her best previous time. All four swims would count and the sum compared to 4 X the best previous time would determine the winners. That is, the biggest improvement factor would determine the winner. That would remove the possible incentive to sandbag some of the swims for one reason or other. It would also prevent the Michael Phelps genre from simply running away with the prize money. The suit manufacturer could look at the data and see what, if any, improvement accrued as the swimmers changed suits.
My guess is that suit makers pay much less for drag tests and the like and might not be interested in this kind of experiment.
