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?"?
it doesn't take a degree in statistics, only common sense to see that the LZR almost certaintly has an impact. It almost seems like some here are trying to convince themselves the LZR doesn't have an impact to avoid purchasing it. I wouldn't spend $550 on a swim suit either. But I'm not going to pretend that I don't believe the LZR has a positive impact on performance simply because it has not been proven in a rigorous manner.
One last try then I'm done, I swear.
"Common sense" is a spectacularly poor guide to truth. Experiments with surprising and unexpected results happen ALL THE TIME. That's partly why they do them.
In the sport of swimming, there have been many things that everyone KNEW was true that later turned out to be nothing of the sort. Beliefs about training, stroke mechanics, the value of kicking, etc etc have been rexamined based on more rigorous study: experiments and theory. It is great to see that the disciplines of exercise physiology and the science of swimming are getting more attention and respect.
This is one reason (the other being the conflict of interest) that I was so turned off by Schuberts statement that the LZR was worth 2% based on little real evidence and no systematic study. I simply cannot imagine Doc Counsilman making a similar statement using the same data.
Do the LZRs enhance performance? If I had to bet, I would probably say yes, although not nearly to the degree that many here seem to believe. But that is really just an educated guess and I may be wrong: maybe there is no effect, or maybe the effect is larger than I think. I still have a lot of questions and will keep an open mind.
That's all I'm advocating of any of you before you "close the books" on this and harden your opinions into irrefutable fact.
it doesn't take a degree in statistics, only common sense to see that the LZR almost certaintly has an impact. It almost seems like some here are trying to convince themselves the LZR doesn't have an impact to avoid purchasing it. I wouldn't spend $550 on a swim suit either. But I'm not going to pretend that I don't believe the LZR has a positive impact on performance simply because it has not been proven in a rigorous manner.
One last try then I'm done, I swear.
"Common sense" is a spectacularly poor guide to truth. Experiments with surprising and unexpected results happen ALL THE TIME. That's partly why they do them.
In the sport of swimming, there have been many things that everyone KNEW was true that later turned out to be nothing of the sort. Beliefs about training, stroke mechanics, the value of kicking, etc etc have been rexamined based on more rigorous study: experiments and theory. It is great to see that the disciplines of exercise physiology and the science of swimming are getting more attention and respect.
This is one reason (the other being the conflict of interest) that I was so turned off by Schuberts statement that the LZR was worth 2% based on little real evidence and no systematic study. I simply cannot imagine Doc Counsilman making a similar statement using the same data.
Do the LZRs enhance performance? If I had to bet, I would probably say yes, although not nearly to the degree that many here seem to believe. But that is really just an educated guess and I may be wrong: maybe there is no effect, or maybe the effect is larger than I think. I still have a lot of questions and will keep an open mind.
That's all I'm advocating of any of you before you "close the books" on this and harden your opinions into irrefutable fact.
