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.
Former Member
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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!
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?
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.
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.
