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.
I am a 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?'
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:
Well, which leg did you put in first?
OF COURSE!!! :doh:
What can you expect? I'm male, NATURALLY I didn't read the instructions!
Proof of male stupidity: the invention of GPS navigators. We have to launch all those satellites, waste countless energy and money, JUST to avoid asking for directions...
Chris, you should repeat my experiment and see what you find for yourself.
This was just brought up by one of my training partners. We do test sets all the time (once a week at one point in the season) so it would be easy, though our usual test set does not allow for complete recovery between swims. It makes sense, too, because (a) it would be a way to get used to the suits and (b) the question could be settled BEFORE the big meet and leave the swimmer free to concentrate on other things.
I may do something something like this eventually (though in my mind the question is already settled for the time being).
But there are two significant differences between your experiment and what I did:
-- I was shaved and tapered.
-- I was competing in a real meet environment with something significant at stake for both swims (ie, concern over my time, trying to make the "A" champsionship heat, trying to move up places).
These are things that are just difficult to reproduce in a practice environment, even for good time trialists.
BUT your experiment does have the virtue of being able to generate lots of data -- meaning it can detect smaller differences -- and it can be specific to the swimmer. I'll think about it some and talk to my coach about it.
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.
I am a pretty upbeat guy, but even I am more cynical than that. The suit manufacturers are not interested in scientific truth at all, nor should they be: they are a business. It is in their interest to convince swimmers to buy their suits, period. Why should they be interested in participating in a test such as the one you describe, much less paying for it? They have little to gain -- they have already won the battle -- and potentially a lot to lose.
Regardless of the uncertainties of the suits and their advantages, the one thing I can say with absolute conviction is that the Speedo marketing department earns their keep.
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?
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!!
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!
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).
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.
