My Fastskin experiment

RE: My Fastskin experiment

knelson — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:36:41 GMT

Good observation with the shaved/unshaved thing, Lindsay. I think throwing on a technical suit for a random meet is akin to shaving in terms of the speed benefit one gets.

RE: My Fastskin experiment

Iwannafly — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:21:21 GMT

See you at Albatross! Maybe we'll be in the same heat for the 50 free! Unfortunately, I'm talking about breaking 30 seconds in a SCY 50 free. I am swimming at a small meet in Roanoke with the rest of my team. I was sad that Albatross and Mad Dog Masters was on the same weekend this year. Oh well. I will definitely see you at Zones though. I'm looking forward to some fast swims and good food.

RE: My Fastskin experiment

BillS — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:41:28 GMT

if you believe they justify the additional cost, go for it. Not me, I'm too cheap! Other than that, we agree completely. I get a particular kick out of correlative advertising. A claim that "9 out of 13 Olympic medals were won in the new SpeeTyrNike laser-etched body tattoo suit" means no more or less than that the athletes wore the suit while performing. I did break down and buy a legskin at Federal Way last year. My initial impresssions were that they were very buoyant compared to my jammers, and that my legs had a lot less feel for the water. I swam some prs in them there and since, but who knows whether and what effect the suits had?

RE: My Fastskin experiment

The Fortress — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:35:08 GMT

I have to disagree with that. They can engage in it until someone does something about it. Look at the class action lawsuit against Airborne. Their advertising made them a lot of money with unsubstantiated claims until somebody complained. And the claim they are paying is still less than their earnings. There is really no way to disprove Speedo's claim because, as has been said, there are factors other than drag that these technical suits affect (i.e., compression of less than streamlined parts) that are difficult if not impossible to test in a laboratory setting. I think that Speedo's unsubstantiated claims are safe for now. I agree with Chris in that I don't believe technical suits offer significant benefit for many swimmers. I do believe that they can have significant benefit for less than svelte swimmers like myself. However, I'm too cheap and slow to buy one for myself, so I'll just stick with whatever suit I have and perhaps shave for zones (only if I can manage to finally break 0:30 for the 50 free this Saturday). Well, they've got some "substantiation." And they're not making medical claims that require a higher or more precise level of substantiation. Look, as you note, companies will always push the limit while touting their products. Lawyers analyze risk exposure for most advertising claims. Do companies get away with iffy claims sometimes? Of course. Maybe you can alert the FTC? Then you don't have to wait for a class action, and the FTC can order corrective advertising. I can see it now ... "no, our uber expensive suits make no difference, but they have a nice placebo effect that you will enjoy and they compress fat and jiggly parts well." lol See you at Albatross! Maybe we'll be in the same heat for the 50 free!

RE: My Fastskin experiment

Chris Stevenson — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:39:39 GMT

They've got to have some substantiation for their claims. Yes, but usually the claims are along the lines of "30% reduction of drag compared to bare skin" and the like, rather than "5% reduction in time." The problem I've had with friction tests, or pulling swimmers behind a boat and measuring the drag, or similar things, is that it just doesn't translate that well to actual pool swimming in a race. I remember reading once about the MIT cycling team that used to run simulations and could predict performances with decent accuracy based on wind tunnel tests and the like. They would check the effects of different gear, positions on the bike, etc. Swimming isn't at that point but it would be nice (and I think it is harder because of the movement and different body types).

RE: My Fastskin experiment

Chris Stevenson — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:28:35 GMT

All of Speedo's claims of percentage reduction are referenced to its own FSII and training suits. The LZR development page simply outlines the various methods used in development (e.g., static flume testing, swim testing, computer aided body measurements, etc.) www.speedo80.com/.../ And Speedo points out how many records are set in Speedos. I don't see any false or deceptive advertising. False advertising? No; I agree with you there. Deceptive? Perhaps. The goal of advertising is to get you to buy the product, after all. Almost all advertising is deceptive in some way. A simple example that you yourself raise: correlation does not imply causation. The number of records is a measure of the suit's popularity among elite swimmers, not necessarily an indication that the suit made the records possible. My point is simply that Speedo is not going to be committed to discovering the scientific truth behind the question of how much (if any) performance enhancement their suits actually provide. And we should not expect them to do so. I'm not saying they are ogres. I am sure that they make (or attempt) improvements in their suits in many ways: fit, durability, lightness, hydrodynamics, compression, etc etc. These are genuine if incremental improvements; if you believe they justify the additional cost, go for it.

RE: My Fastskin experiment

BillS — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:55:52 GMT

RE: My Fastskin experiment

Former Member — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:49:03 GMT

I wonder if the earlier post that the positive effect of shaving was due to less sensory input might be confounding the comparison, i.e. shaving or wearing a suit makes you faster but doing both might not have a (fully) cumulative effect. If compression is a major factor then there might not be much difference between a low end tight suit and a high end suit. Since Chris was shaved the suit didn't cause a big improvement, while Mel's experiment involved unshaved swimmers wearing natty suits. Perhaps Mel can rerun his test and compare unshaved and shaved and the difference between workout suits, low end competition suits and high end competition suits. Also, it seem highly probable that women are going to benefit from a tight body suit that streamlines their curves to a greater extent than a lean male due to a larger decrease in form drag. Probably benefit is correlated with % body fat, esp. if not evenly distributed. Just some random conjectures.

RE: My Fastskin experiment

Former Member — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:45:09 GMT

...and if they think it makes them faster, then they will swim faster. How true. And not to get off track....but I have seen this on many occasions with the age group kids. For a ten year old...it's like putting on a superhero costume. They may as well call them lightning bolt skins. Cause that's what happens. and BTW ...that's some awesome swimming. Thanks for sharing the insights.

RE: My Fastskin experiment

Former Member — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:36:42 GMT

I don't think it's possible to truly test one swimsuit against another, because you can't control for the placebo effect. Swimmers obviously know what kind of suit they are wearing, and if they think it makes them faster, then they will swim faster. As a practical matter, though, if one suit were superior to all others, wouldn't distance swimmers gravitate to it? A suit that made you .05 faster in a 50 would make you 1.5 faster in a 1500, all else being equal.

RE: My Fastskin experiment

Former Member — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:28:33 GMT

How long do these suits really last anyway? I would like to know that. I have just gone by how it looked/felt when I wore it, but it was always easier with the aquablades to tell when it was time. I would like a general number but I know it really depends on how well the suit is cared for and the amount of damage (chlorine/sun) it is exposed to....but it would still be good to know what's expected.. I've also only ever worn for taper meets and after meet warmup, just to cut down on the amount of time i wear it, especially since the cost!!

RE: My Fastskin experiment

Former Member — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:54:24 GMT

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.

RE: My Fastskin experiment

Former Member — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:49:57 GMT

I have noticed significant difference between my times when taper/shaved with and without a technical (fastskin) suit. However, for me, I have learned it also significantly slowed my *** as it did not allow the hip rotation for my kick, which is much more powerful for me than my pull. But I know other people that it doesn't affect like that, so it goes back to the individual person. I had been swimming when aquablades came out, which were much cheaper for the kneeskins and noticed that they improved my swims some. After hearing everyone rave on the fastskins I decided it was a good gamble and believe it really paid off. Also, I have very muscular legs and it seemed to improve the efficiency of my legs moving as one unit, vs. before feeling the drag and excessive movement/turbulence. So each individual will have different benefits, but by in large it usually makes a positive difference!

RE: My Fastskin experiment

aztimm — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:40:41 GMT

According to this study, more expensive placebos have a greater effect than cheaper ones: www.kansascity.com/.../523092.html Funny, I just heard a story on NPR last week that echoed these same comments about generic-v-name brand drugs/placebos. Also, I'm just curious, how do these times relate to say a 'fast' practice time? Not that you'd be tapered/shaved, but I'm curious what the whole 'meet effect' is on your times.

RE: My Fastskin experiment

Chris Stevenson — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:32:08 GMT

I guess the placebo effect matters if the question is whether it is truly the suit alone that makes one swim faster. However, I think most of us want to swim faster regardless of the cause. If part of it is just "in our head" then so be it. I agree completely. Swimming is such a mental sport and "feel" is important. That's sort of why I did this little expt: the suit didn't feel good for me but everyone says how fast it is. I wanted to answer that question for me, under race conditions, when it mattered (otherwise I could have done this in practice with time trials). I'm not trying to persuade anyone who is already convinced that the high-end suits make them faster; if they are convinced that it is so, then they probably do. But there are probably some fence-sitters out there, and this is just something more for them to ponder.

RE: My Fastskin experiment

Former Member — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:11:32 GMT

Mel, I had already seen that article. The amount of improvement you measured -- 3.4% for a 100 -- just seemed way too good to be true for my own swimming. Last season in 100 back I went 53.0 unrested in a NC meet (with nylon briefs) then went 51.4 at Federal Way after tapering and shaving. A 3.4% drop would have meant a 51.2 time, meaning that the difference between the meets had nothing to do with the taper and everything to do with the suit. I simply know that is not the case for me, based on 36 years of competitive swimming. I typically drop 1-2 seconds per hundred when I rest/shave. I am not trying to doubt your expt, just its applicability to me. Or maybe I'm just not using the suit properly...:confused: Chris, you should repeat my experiment and see what you find for yourself. What amazed me was that it was pretty independent of who the swimmer was - with one exception. The one exception (and this put most of the dispersion into the results) was a college swimmer who just couldn't get comfortable in the suit. She kept tugging at various parts and, in the end, swam a SLOWER time than with her training suit and complained afterwards that the suit just didn't fit. When I first tried out the suits, I found them to be extremely uncomfortable (still do, actually) but was able to put aside the feeling that I couldn't get a breath and just swim. This was at a LC Nationals in Minneapolis. The results were astounding and I've been hooked ever since. I have just tried to urge others to duplicate what I did to see for themselves what happens. Anyone with one of the technical suits can do this easily in a practice. I'm surprised that there seems to have been no takers.

RE: My Fastskin experiment

knelson — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:56:06 GMT

RE: My Fastskin experiment

Chris Stevenson — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:54:36 GMT

Thanks for the results, Chris! It is hard to control all variables, including the placebo effect. But probably not as much difference from one race suit to another. I've noticed that FS I - FS Pro doesn't seem to make much difference in a sprint for me. I still think, without solid concrete evidence, that bodyskins are preferable to regular recordbreakers. Were your fastskins wet when you jumped in from warming up? Could make a slight difference. I'm way too old to swim prelim-final meets. You must be exhausted! But great job!! Thanks, Fort. Yes, quite tired! Thanksfully today is the first day of Spring Break and my son is home from school with a fever, so I get to recover and do some leisurely grading. Even the kids were showing the effects of the meet by the end, I think: I moved up 2 places in the 200 back even though I added time. On the plus side, it makes timed final meets seem like a breeze by comparison. The first meet I used the FSII (Sr Champs one year ago) I did not wear it during warmup. The first time I EVER wore one was in a race, diving in for the 200 free. It was incredibly disconcerting but I did a good time. Ever since that meet, I wear them during warmups and then dry them as best I could. "Feel for the water" is very important for me and I need to establish it with the suit during warmup so it isn't a distraction in the race. I also like to warm up as long as possible before swimming without having to worry about putting on a suit while wet. (I heard Mark Gill's story about Duffy Dillon hurting his back attempting it...I can believe it!) Of course, the point is largely moot for backstroke and I think the effect is minor, at best. In my mind, a suit that makes you change your pre-race routine and has minimal if any effect isn't worth the effort. I'm not sure if you are referring to the Aquablade jammers as a "race" suit, but it is a marginal one at best. I like them because they are fairly cheap and I don't notice them when I swim. I bought some briefs for the meet but chickened out when I saw the psych sheet; I almost dropped the expt altogether. I figured the jammers were a good compromise. Interesting that you say that "without solid evidence" the bodyskins are preferable to the "record breakers" (I'm not sure what those are). I would say that the burden of proof should be upon those who introduce these new, expensive suits...but that's just me.

RE: My Fastskin experiment

Former Member — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:52:47 GMT

Or maybe I'm just not using the suit properly...:confused: Well, which leg did you put in first?

RE: My Fastskin experiment

Chris Stevenson — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:41:34 GMT

you can't control for the placebo effect Perhaps. In my case, to the extent that there IS one, it would tend to work in the opposite direction. I feel faster (in warmup) without the suit; I feel isolated from the water with the suit. But I think the effect would be very small. I certainly had all kinds of motivation to swim fast both morning (just to make finals or consols) and evening (to place as high as possible). Once I start swimming I'm thinking about the race, not the suit.

RE: My Fastskin experiment

Iwannafly — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:07:47 GMT

Still can't engage in false advertising. They've got to have some substantiation for their claims. I have to disagree with that. They can engage in it until someone does something about it. Look at the class action lawsuit against Airborne. Their advertising made them a lot of money with unsubstantiated claims until somebody complained. And the claim they are paying is still less than their earnings. There is really no way to disprove Speedo's claim because, as has been said, there are factors other than drag that these technical suits affect (i.e., compression of less than streamlined parts) that are difficult if not impossible to test in a laboratory setting. I think that Speedo's unsubstantiated claims are safe for now. I agree with Chris in that I don't believe technical suits offer significant benefit for many swimmers. I do believe that they can have significant benefit for less than svelte swimmers like myself. However, I'm too cheap and slow to buy one for myself, so I'll just stick with whatever suit I have and perhaps shave for zones (only if I can manage to finally break 0:30 for the 50 free this Saturday).

RE: My Fastskin experiment

Former Member — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:04:49 GMT

I was just going to seek out that article Mel. I could not recall who the coach was so your timely posting has saved me some grief! Good timing!

RE: My Fastskin experiment

Former Member — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:51:18 GMT

I am a true believer in the technical suits, based on my own experience and upon tests I ran on a cross-section of swimmers in Flagstaff, where I used to coach the master's group part time. I have written up the results and posted them on my personal web site (see link below my signature) under the title 'How Fast Is Your Suit?' There may indeed be a placebo effect but I doubt it since some of the swimmers recruited for the experiment had never competed and weren't told why they were using the suits (not quite a double blind experiment). I have also had the same experience as you, Chris, in not being able to differentiate strongly among the various suits. At one point, after I had lost 30 pounds, I tried the training suit vs performance suit tests described in my writeup but using my original Victor suit which, at the time, fit like a loose tee shirt. Needless to say, my (placebo) expectation was that there would be no improvement with the sloppy-fitting old suit. I was flabbergasted to find that the improvement factor was the same as for the newer and better fitting Speedo suits used in our master's experiment. I don't know why this should be the case but there must be more to the suit than just the tight fit. It also convinced me that I could wear these suits until I could begin to see through them. I have also used a variety of suits right down to the full leg FSII which I now use even in the breaststroke. I find no loss of feel with the water (again an inverse placebo effect, since I had been told that breaststrokers NEVER wear full leg covering). My times have continued to improve and are now better than they were when I competed in college some 50 years ago!

RE: My Fastskin experiment

The Fortress — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:48:02 GMT

RE: My Fastskin experiment

The Fortress — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:19:41 GMT

The suit manufacturers are not interested in scientific truth at all, nor should they be: they are a business. Still can't engage in false advertising. They've got to have some substantiation for their claims. Only 2 meets with a fastskin in masters?!?! Yikes. I've worn my Pro for 4-5 meets already. I retired my FS I after probably a dozen meets, although I wore it for a 50 free in Dec. and it seemed fairly fine. How long do these suits really last anyway?