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?"?
Parents
Former Member
If anyone is skeptical about the effect of expectation on athletic performance, I found a couple of studies on the subject. I bolded the important parts.
Does self-efficacy predict performance in experienced weightlifters?
Previous studies that have examined self-efficacy-performance relationships have used novice performers. It is unclear if these findings would generalize to "experienced" performers. Based on Bandura's self-efficacy theory, this study was designed to investigate (a) the effects of false information feedback on self-efficacy beliefs and subsequent weightlifting performance, and (b) whether self-efficacy or past performance is most related to subsequent weightlifting performance. Experienced weightlifters engaged in six performance sessions, each consisting of a one-repetition-maximum bench press. Male subjects (N = 36) were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: accurate performance information, false information that they lifted more than their actual lift, or false information that they lifted less than their actual lift. Before each session, subjects indicated the amount of weight they were 100%, 75%, and 50% confident they could lift. Results replicated existing research findings regarding deception and performance; false positive feedback increased future bench press performance. In addition, results indicated that past weightlifting performance accounted for nearly all of the variance in subsequent performance. This finding is discussed in light of the difficulty in extending the predictions of self-efficacy theory to sport settings where athletes have gained experience by undergoing repeated training trials.
Expectancy Effects and Strength Training: Do Steroids Make a Difference?
Although expectancy has been shown to play a role in the effect of Anabolic Steroids (AS) on behavior, little research has been completed on the potential for parallel effects on performance. This is an important area for investigation because if expectancy effects can be shown to operate by improvements in performance through the administration of a placebo, arguments against the use of AS may be more successfully advanced. Accordingly, the present investigation used the administration of a placebo (saccharine) with competitive power lifters, using false information about the nature of the drug to delineate expectancy effects. The pervasiveness of these effects was further examined by disclosing the true nature of the drug to half of the participants, midway through the investigation. Notable improvements in performance associated with the belief that AS had been administered largely dissipated when athletes were informed as to the true nature of the drug. Results indicated that expectancy played a notable role in performance enhancement. Implications for this work include more effective use of such investigations in the fight against doping in sport.
Both of these studies are like controlled experimental versions of what's happening right now with the LZR. A new element is introduced (false positive feedback, fake steroids) which causes experienced athletes to believe that they should perform better. Then they go ahead and perform better.
If anyone is skeptical about the effect of expectation on athletic performance, I found a couple of studies on the subject. I bolded the important parts.
Does self-efficacy predict performance in experienced weightlifters?
Previous studies that have examined self-efficacy-performance relationships have used novice performers. It is unclear if these findings would generalize to "experienced" performers. Based on Bandura's self-efficacy theory, this study was designed to investigate (a) the effects of false information feedback on self-efficacy beliefs and subsequent weightlifting performance, and (b) whether self-efficacy or past performance is most related to subsequent weightlifting performance. Experienced weightlifters engaged in six performance sessions, each consisting of a one-repetition-maximum bench press. Male subjects (N = 36) were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: accurate performance information, false information that they lifted more than their actual lift, or false information that they lifted less than their actual lift. Before each session, subjects indicated the amount of weight they were 100%, 75%, and 50% confident they could lift. Results replicated existing research findings regarding deception and performance; false positive feedback increased future bench press performance. In addition, results indicated that past weightlifting performance accounted for nearly all of the variance in subsequent performance. This finding is discussed in light of the difficulty in extending the predictions of self-efficacy theory to sport settings where athletes have gained experience by undergoing repeated training trials.
Expectancy Effects and Strength Training: Do Steroids Make a Difference?
Although expectancy has been shown to play a role in the effect of Anabolic Steroids (AS) on behavior, little research has been completed on the potential for parallel effects on performance. This is an important area for investigation because if expectancy effects can be shown to operate by improvements in performance through the administration of a placebo, arguments against the use of AS may be more successfully advanced. Accordingly, the present investigation used the administration of a placebo (saccharine) with competitive power lifters, using false information about the nature of the drug to delineate expectancy effects. The pervasiveness of these effects was further examined by disclosing the true nature of the drug to half of the participants, midway through the investigation. Notable improvements in performance associated with the belief that AS had been administered largely dissipated when athletes were informed as to the true nature of the drug. Results indicated that expectancy played a notable role in performance enhancement. Implications for this work include more effective use of such investigations in the fight against doping in sport.
Both of these studies are like controlled experimental versions of what's happening right now with the LZR. A new element is introduced (false positive feedback, fake steroids) which causes experienced athletes to believe that they should perform better. Then they go ahead and perform better.
