Popov says quit whining about the LZR

Hi Chris: I agree that many posters on this board view swimming as just being another competitive sport like NASCAR (and subject to all the gimmicks of mechanization) without regard to the more sensual aspect of it being an aquatic athletic activity. By the way, here’s the way FINA should go about resolving the controversy over what kind of suit should be permitted: www.flickr.com/.../ Just cross out the word “bathroom” and write in the word “pool”. :lmao: If you ain't gettin' wet all over, you ain't really swimin'. :groovy: Dolphin 2 It's racing, not sex. I'll take speed over sensuality any day. Plus, the slippery lightweight feeling is cool.

I'm guessing these are number of world records per year. If so, notice the spikes in the Olympic years (with the exception of '96). According to the graph on p. 195 of "Breakthrough Swimming": year # 1976: 58 1977: 10 1978: 31 1979: 11 1980: 24 1981: 10 1982: 14 1983: 18 1984: 24 1985: 9 1986: 13 1987: 10 1988: 22 1989: 8 1990: 4 1991: 14 1992: 15 1993: 1 1994: 13 1995: 3 1996: 5 1997: 3 1998: 2 1999: 24 2000: 33 Some of these might be +/- 1, as I eyeballed the graph to get the numbers

I feel I get the best of both worlds in that I clip hair thats under the suit and shave exposed areas....and as it was today...slipping into the pool and pushing off with that shaved feel is unlike anything in the world of sports. I find the suit only adds to the sensation....much of that because of the tightness of the suit holding all this extra baggage in place! Chris....the FSII is a great suit...only good for about a dozen meets I've found before all the water repellency goes away and it becomes a lead weight. The FS Pro is closer to the Arena suit I love....like the old paper suits...very, very light. By the way, The UT team was doing some time trial today in the other warm up pool...testing suits so I'm told (apparently Hansen and 1 or 2 others got released from their Nike contracts and were testing LZR's so says JS). Pretty cool watching a half dozen guys cruising 1:38+/46+ in workout...its just a different sport!!

Fort and Paul, I've never worn anything but the FSII so maybe it would be different if I tried something else, I dunno. I've talked to the UR swimmers and have gotten various opinions about the tech suits but all agree that the FSPro feels better than the FSII. Fitting is an issue -- I have a long torso and short legs -- and I am in no particular rush. Some day I'll go to a meet where I can try on different sizes, if I feel the urge. Galen, I agree with you for myself but I would never presume to define what IS or ISN'T swimming for anyone else. If Fort and Paul say they like the feeling of the tech suits better, more power to them. What's the saying? Oh, yes...IT'S ONLY MASTERS...to each his own. Hi Chris: I agree that many posters on this board view swimming as just being another competitive sport like NASCAR (and subject to all the gimmicks of mechanization) without regard to the more sensual aspect of it being an aquatic athletic activity. By the way, here’s the way FINA should go about resolving the controversy over what kind of suit should be permitted: www.flickr.com/.../ Just cross out the word “bathroom” and write in the word “pool”. :lmao: If you ain't gettin' wet all over, you ain't really swimin'. :groovy: Dolphin 2

It's racing, not sex. I'll take speed over sensuality any day. Plus, the slippery lightweight feeling is cool. Hey The Fortress Now that you've brought up THAT analogy, now I know why many traditionalists refer to the body suits as "Swimming Condums". :eek: If you ain't gettin' wet all over, you ain't really swimmin'. :wine: Dolphin 2

I'm guessing these are number of world records per year. If so, notice the spikes in the Olympic years (with the exception of '96). Yep, LCM world records/year. I edited the original post. Thanks Syd!

The numbers are interesting, but I think that time progressions -- of WRs, of the 10th-ranked time, or whatever -- is probably the best way to get at this sort of thing. One reason is that raw numbers ignores the fact that some events have been added along the way (eg the non-free 50s) and that SCM records have become a little bigger deal. But even with time progressions, it is still difficult (though not impossible) to make causal connections. That's just the nature of this kind of study. One of the articles that Lindsay was probably referring to on Swimnews is www.swimnews.com/.../displayStory.jhtml Here is an excerpt: I took 450 performances of swimmers wearing the LZR Racer, including world record setters down to people finishing in the top 20 of their event. More than 400 of them were clustered in an approximate range from 1.6% to 2.3%. I called a professor and friend who spends his life looking at probabilities. I put the small test results to him. Statistically significant? "Without a shadow of a doubt ... if you have that kind of result in a medical experiment, you'd be looking at 'case proven.'" Setting aside the lack of specifics (the sort of thing that drives me bonkers...what was the comparison that was done? LZR vs previous years' performance? PRs with and without the LZR? LZR vs unshaved times?), what the stats guy was saying is that there is little likelihood that the difference -- whatever it was -- is due to random variation. But the mention of a medical experiment is misleading. There is a big difference between a typical medical experiment and the results here because other variables are not being controlled, so there is still the problem of attribution. In other words, what the stats guy is saying is "the difference is real" and what the author is saying is "the LZR caused the difference," and those are not at all the same. It is based on the critical assumption that the only real difference between the two sets of numbers is the suit. Since the other variables weren't controlled, you are at risk when you make that assumption ("correlation does not imply causation" and all that). This is a well known issue and is covered in any beginning text on epidemiology; google "Bradford-Hill criteria" if you are interested in knowing more. But that's just me as a scientist (you probably know the drill: accept the null hypothesis -- "The LZR does not improve performance" -- until rigorous/definitive peer-reviewed proof shows otherwise). Most people might want that level of proof for, say, product safety or drug effectiveness or to disprove an established scientific theorem. As a consumer, the bar need not be so high. Then it is about costs/risks and benefits (science can help quantify the latter, of course). This is why, despite lack of complete certainty, Schubert states that an elite swimmer would have to be crazy to give up what could potentially be a decisive advantage. If my livelihood depended on it, I would almost certainly wear the suit. As a masters swimmer, I think it is much more complicated. Fortress made the comment that only the overly-principled or under-funded would not get the suit, but I beg to differ. Maybe I am wrong, but I am not at all sure that my enjoyment of the sport would be greatly enhanced by, roughly, an additional $550 per year even if I gained an additional 1-2% on my times (and I am not sure that I would). The cost isn't just monetary. I read the thread about the FS Pro and the trials and tribulations in putting one on, the risk of ripping it, keeping it dry -- all things that may be worse with the LZR -- and all I think is, "thank God I don't go through all that before my races." The ONLY thing the suit potentially has going for it is speed, in ALL other respects it is worse than its predecessors. My enjoyment of the sport also depends on some balance. Travel to meets, practice time, etc: my wife puts up with this. I am sure she and I would appreciate the money for a longer/better vacation more than I would appreciate a LZR. Now if a technical suit existed that was comfortable, durable, reasonably priced AND was faster than briefs/jammers, you can sign me up for that! We'll probably get there at some point.

Regardless of all the issues of wearing one of these suits...the feeling it brings is unparalled. I don't need to go with the LZR yet, simply using my Arena and just recently the new FS Pro does the same thing. Regardless of what they say, the sensation of buoyancy is felt...add in shaving/clipping and a taper and the feeling is one of the more special things I've experienced as an athlete.

Note that we are now over 40 WRs for this year, and we haven't had US Olympic trials or the Olympics yet. Also note that the 1976 Olympics were where lycra suits were introduced. I think some people have alleged that there was some doping going on at those games as well... Of course, the number of world records set is just a convenient indicator of the value of interest which is drops in time. If you drop the record ten times each time by 0.01 it is still 10 world records while if you drop it by 0.5 in one go it is only 1 world record. What you really want to see is the progression of times over the years. Is that total? Not just LCM? Because, there are 20 listed in the current LCM records for this year from Hoffam's post. If you add the SCM records (34) from 2000 there were 67 records set that year and 52 (28 SCM) from 1999. I agree that "drops in time" is interesting, and breaks out this analysis to a finer granularity. Like, with the LCM records posted for this year, we see a glut of them (so far) in the 50/100 free and backstroke events. Given that, I think Ian's post brings up an important factor that's being buried by the great suit debate and hype machine -- sprinters are being trained differently.

Regardless of all the issues of wearing one of these suits...the feeling it brings is unparalled. I don't need to go with the LZR yet, simply using my Arena and just recently the new FS Pro does the same thing. Regardless of what they say, the sensation of buoyancy is felt...add in shaving/clipping and a taper and the feeling is one of the more special things I've experienced as an athlete. Yuck, that's not my experience, even in a wetsuit -- with all its buoyancy -- I don't appreciate the lack of connection to, or feedback from, the water. Hey, maybe its an acquired taste! I seem to recall vaguely that I disliked my first taste of beer too. Definitely not the case now, though.