After seeing a woman break 24 seconds and I think we can stop the discussion of "IF" the LZR suit is faster and start thinking "how much faster".
The previous line of suits (Fastskin and so on) were pretty similiar to a shaved swimmer. Sure - they do feel like they make you float, but overall the times seemed to move along "in line" with what I would expect to see in terms of improvements in the sport. If the previous suits would have been that much faster than shaving, you would have never seen people just using the legskins. By the way - for us Masters swimmers there was always the added benefit of keeping in all the "extra layers of skin".
So how much faster are the LZR suits ?
If I had to guess based on the results so far, I would say 0.25 to 0.30 per 50 and double that for the 100. I can see the Bernard going 48 low in the 100 and I can see Sullivan getting close or just breaking the 50 record. It makes sense that Libby Lenton would swim a 24.2 or so in the 50.
I think one of the top regular teams out there should do a test - you need a good amount of world class swimmers training together to be able to do a test. Here is the test I would propose:
8-10 swimmers
2 days of testing
4x50 on 10 minutes all out
Day 1 - swim 2 with a Fastskin2 followed by 2 with the LZR
Day 2 - swim 2 with the LZR followed by 2 with the Fastskin2
Get the averages of all 10 swimmers - maybe drop the high and low and there you go.
Why do the test ? I would HAVE to know. Swimming is a big part of your life and you just set a massive PR using this new technology - my very first question would be " How much was me and how much was the suit?"?
I am not even sure what there is to argue...
Hey, I wore a B70 at nationals because I thought it might help. I am not trying to convince anyone not to wear these suits, but here is what I argue against:
-- presenting uncontrolled experiments as definitive proof of the effect...or even that there is one. It just isn't proof. I have very bright colleagues who spend inordinate amounts of time and effort trying to tease out the effects of strongly correlated variables. Then there is the Mark Schubert 2% and the "case closed" people.
-- not keeping an open mind and ignoring data that doesn't jibe with what you "know" is true. I apologize for not always holding my tongue about it, but critical thinking is always a good thing and when I don't see it in the forums it bothers me as much as in a classroom. (Besides chemistry I also teach environmental studies classes...so I see a lot of emotional and uncritical thinking!)
Look, the bar for "scientific proof" is much higher than your decisions as a consumer. Buy all the suits you want and use them. I have.
But there are a lot of superstitions that exist in swimming and I don't like to add to them with unsupported "2%" garbage, or even "it is a huge effect." There have been such claims in the past that have been proven false. The data you cite is suggestive but not at all definitive.
People like Jonty Skinner make a living doing scientific study of swimming: stroke counts, stroke rates, metabolism, blood chemistry, etc etc. If we are talking about something that could potentially be so important, why aren't they doing well designed experiments on them? They aren't easy to do but they should be done.
And ultimately it should be using swimmers that are tapered and shaved, with and without the suits...looking for effects of body types, stroke mechanics, etc.
I am not even sure what there is to argue...
Hey, I wore a B70 at nationals because I thought it might help. I am not trying to convince anyone not to wear these suits, but here is what I argue against:
-- presenting uncontrolled experiments as definitive proof of the effect...or even that there is one. It just isn't proof. I have very bright colleagues who spend inordinate amounts of time and effort trying to tease out the effects of strongly correlated variables. Then there is the Mark Schubert 2% and the "case closed" people.
-- not keeping an open mind and ignoring data that doesn't jibe with what you "know" is true. I apologize for not always holding my tongue about it, but critical thinking is always a good thing and when I don't see it in the forums it bothers me as much as in a classroom. (Besides chemistry I also teach environmental studies classes...so I see a lot of emotional and uncritical thinking!)
Look, the bar for "scientific proof" is much higher than your decisions as a consumer. Buy all the suits you want and use them. I have.
But there are a lot of superstitions that exist in swimming and I don't like to add to them with unsupported "2%" garbage, or even "it is a huge effect." There have been such claims in the past that have been proven false. The data you cite is suggestive but not at all definitive.
People like Jonty Skinner make a living doing scientific study of swimming: stroke counts, stroke rates, metabolism, blood chemistry, etc etc. If we are talking about something that could potentially be so important, why aren't they doing well designed experiments on them? They aren't easy to do but they should be done.
And ultimately it should be using swimmers that are tapered and shaved, with and without the suits...looking for effects of body types, stroke mechanics, etc.
