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?"?
Former Member
I think it's very possible that part of the benefit of these suits is psychological, but does it matter? The bottom line is people are swimming faster.
It's true that psychological effects contribute to the bottom line like anything else, but they are uniquely fragile. If the power of the LZR is its drag reduction, then it will always make you faster. But any placebo effect would be entirely dependent on the mindset of the swimmer. If you lose faith, you lose the edge.
I also notice: "Pre-Order Now >> Men | Women | Kids"
of course, speedo knows that people will buy them. You can't blame them. Coaches should limit their kids to what they can wear.
Something else I noticed is that the fs2 jammer is still $150. Are they ever going to drop the price?!? It has dropped on swimoutlet though. It would be dumb to buy something from speedousa.com.
Here's a question for you. Up to this point I have not worn a racing swimsuit, i.e. I've been pretty much wearing normal swim shorts. They're not particularly tight. Does anyone here have experience in how much their time drops per a given distance when wearing their tight speedo (or other brand) suits versus normal swimming shorts?
I don't think the boost from the new gen suits is mental
the new gen suits makes swimmers bodies more aquadynamic
allowing them to move faster through the water
allowing them to take their swims out faster and bring them home
the 2 key components of swimming speed are the:
1) shape and characteristics of the swimmers body like the hull of a boat and
2) swimmers ability to apply power to propel themselves through the water.
the times hoch posted don't lie
times in just about every event dropped
1999 49.43 0.743%
2000 49.15 0.566%
2001 49.31 -0.326%
2002 49.32 -0.020%
2003 49.07 0.507%
2004 49.07 0.000%
2005 49.02 0.102%
2006 48.94 0.163%
2007 48.63 0.633%
2008 47.83 1.645%
it ain't placebo,
it's physics.
Ande
Placebo. Swimmers put up big performances in the suit because the suit makes them feel like big performers. As knelson pointed out, that doesn't mean the suit is useless, it just means that it's useful in a different way than most people think it is.
We don't need proof to validate personal experience, and it is unreasonable to think that the swimming elite has been tricked into buying more suits. Each single person had to evaluate the benefit for themselves, and they made a conscious decision as to which suit they would wear. Phelps could have worn briefs in that 200 free, and that's all the proof I need.
I agree, that's why I made a distinction between "scientific proof" and the amount of evidence needed to make a purchasing decision.
Look, I am not trying to say that Speedo is evil or anything, and I don't think they "trick" anyone any more any other company that is hawking a product. (Last I checked, drinking beer didn't make me more attractive to bikini-clad twentysomethings, despite the advertisement!)
I don't have a bone to pick here, really and truly. The only thing I am against is reading more into the data than is really there.
Gaash...of course it is about probabilities. That is the entire basis of hypothesis testing, which is what we are really talking about. The bar for "scientific certainty" is commonly taken to be 95% probability, meaning a 5% chance of a false positive (in this case, incorrectly assuming the LZR has an effect when it really doesn't).
As far as what I would bet, well I've already "bet" with my wallet, haven't I? I will never purchase the current version of the LZR because I don't believe it is cost-effective (too expensive and fragile) but I bought a B70 at about half the price, it is supposedly more durable, and I think it is roughly as effective.
the new gen suits makes swimmers bodies more aquadynamic
allowing them to move faster through the water
allowing them to take their swims out faster and bring them home
...
the times hoch posted don't lie
times in just about every event dropped
No one is arguing about the times, just about attributing the cause.
Ande, your explanation does not tell me why the LZR is supposedly 2% better than the FS-Pro at doing these things or especially why legskins seemingly gave time drops comparable to the full body suit.
You're in a position where you can ask some of the competitors (or Eddie Reese) why they chose to compete in legskins instead of the body suits. Were they worried about the zipper? Or something else?
The NBC video player isn't working for me. And with the semester starting, I don't have a lot of free time. But it would be interesting to compare the performances of the top eight men in each event, legskins vs full body. My recollection is that only the freestyles had predominently full-body.
There's nothing special about the 5%, really. You're referring to a p-value, right? That doesn't give you the probability of a false positive, it gives you the probability that, due to random variation, an effect size as large as the one found in a sample would occur if the actual effect size were zero.
Not a p-value, an alpha-value. The alpha-value is chosen without regard to the data; the p-value value is calculated from the data and gives a quantitative measure of the weight of the evidence in favor of the null hypothesis.
For the null hypothesis to be rejected, the p-value needs to be smaller than alpha.
I know there is nothing special about 5%, it is just a value commonly used in hypothesis testing. Other values can be chosen, depending on how much the tester wants to avoid false positives (eg falsely accusing a doper of using PEDs) or false negatives (eg incorrectly concluding someone doesn't have HIV when s/he does).
Alpha is the probability of type I error. And the bolded portion in your response is a typical definition of a false positive (type I error).
en.wikipedia.org/.../Type_I_and_type_II_errors
1999 49.43 0.743%
2000 49.15 0.566%
2001 49.31 -0.326%
2002 49.32 -0.020%
2003 49.07 0.507%
2004 49.07 0.000%
2005 49.02 0.102%
2006 48.94 0.163%
2007 48.63 0.633%
2008 47.83 1.645%
it ain't placebo,
it's physics.
That's not physics, that's arithmetic. There is nothing in those numbers proving that the LZR is more streamlined than a regular suit. This is just another assertion without real evidence.
Chris,
First, let me congratulate you on the new LCM 100 back WR that you set. I look forward to seeing your continued results, and just like you are motivated by the 60+ group, I am strongly motivated by people like you.
Also, I really like your writing style, it is very scientific and obviously educated, hence your credentials as a teacher.
However, you're asking for scientific evidence, a proof for the merit of the LZR. Fair enough, but that is entirely different than a good degree of reasonable plausibility.
We don't need proof to validate personal experience, and it is unreasonable to think that the swimming elite has been tricked into buying more suits. Each single person had to evaluate the benefit for themselves, and they made a conscious decision as to which suit they would wear. Phelps could have worn briefs in that 200 free, and that's all the proof I need.
I'd love to hear a plausible reason. No one here has offered one.
