Some quick numbers on the new suits

It's not just the world record breakers it is across the board improvements beyond anything seen in the last three decades. The camp that chooses to pitch the "other variables" argument (e.g. better training, nutrition, etc.) cannot articulate specifically why those variables would lead to such abberant stats now and not before. So they throw out that speed bump in the knowledge that one can't disprove a negative. Fine it's a theory. But it's has much more support than anything else. There has been extensive study done by Whitten/Lord analyzing the data that came up with 1.9-2.2% improvement on aggregate. Oh, a peer-reviewed extensive study in a reputable journal? Citation, please. I saw the USA Today article last week showing WRs in Olympic events in Olympic years. I don't have it handy, but I remember thinking that there have been similar bumps in the past 3 decades (1984 seems to stick in my brain, as well as 2000). But this year isn't over yet, either. I haven't seen the Whitten/Lord data analysis. But everything I have seen cannot be used to assign specific amounts to different causes. That's because no attempt has been made to control any variables either through clever sample selection or in controlled experiments. In the absence of such, suit-lovers sometimes seem to want to assign ANY and ALL improvement to the suit. Tonight no ARs or WRs were set, despite the fact that LZRs were everywhere. So I guess the US really stunk it up tonight, since without the LZRs we would have been more than 2% slower than we have been in the past. Let's take the simple statement that "the LZR improves times by 1.9-2.2%." But there isn't even a single LZR suit. I saw many breaststrokers and backstrokers wearing LZR legskins tonight. Are they just as effective as the full body suit? If they are, why stop there? I cannot believe that covering calves is really that critical, so why not go with the LZR jammers? I wouldn't think these suits are equally effective, at least by any mechanism that I can imagine. But if the full body LZRs are (say) worth 2% and the legskins only 1%, why does anyone wear the legskins? It also seemed to me that the female suits expose a lot more skin on the back then the male suit. Or maybe I just noticed it more. :) Why? Wouldn't you want to cover as much on the females as the males? Or maybe just TOUCHING a LZR suit, or glancing at one of their ads, before a race is good for 0.2%, no matter what you are wearing. Bottom line: please note that I am NOT saying these suits are ineffective. (Outrageously overpriced and prone to failure, perhaps.) But as far as I can tell this 2% number is a guesstimate, pure and simple. But on the positive side, no one is talking about PEDs anymore. Kudos to Speedo for taking THAT minor little "other variable" out of the picture.

It's not just the world record breakers it is across the board improvements beyond anything seen in the last three decades. The camp that chooses to pitch the "other variables" argument (e.g. better training, nutrition, etc.) cannot articulate specifically why those variables would lead to such abberant stats now and not before. So they throw out that speed bump in the knowledge that one can't disprove a negative. Fine it's a theory. But it's has much more support than anything else. There has been extensive study done by Whitten/Lord analyzing the data that came up with 1.9-2.2% improvement on aggregate. Oh, a peer-reviewed extensive study in a reputable journal? Citation, please. I saw the USA Today article last week showing WRs in Olympic events in Olympic years. I don't have it handy, but I remember thinking that there have been similar bumps in the past 3 decades (1984 seems to stick in my brain, as well as 2000). But this year isn't over yet, either. I haven't seen the Whitten/Lord data analysis. But everything I have seen cannot be used to assign specific amounts to different causes. That's because no attempt has been made to control any variables either through clever sample selection or in controlled experiments. In the absence of such, suit-lovers sometimes seem to want to assign ANY and ALL improvement to the suit. Tonight no ARs or WRs were set, despite the fact that LZRs were everywhere. So I guess the US really stunk it up tonight, since without the LZRs we would have been more than 2% slower than we have been in the past. Let's take the simple statement that "the LZR improves times by 1.9-2.2%." But there isn't even a single LZR suit. I saw many breaststrokers and backstrokers wearing LZR legskins tonight. Are they just as effective as the full body suit? If they are, why stop there? I cannot believe that covering calves is really that critical, so why not go with the LZR jammers? I wouldn't think these suits are equally effective, at least by any mechanism that I can imagine. But if the full body LZRs are (say) worth 2% and the legskins only 1%, why does anyone wear the legskins? It also seemed to me that the female suits expose a lot more skin on the back then the male suit. Or maybe I just noticed it more. :) Why? Wouldn't you want to cover as much on the females as the males? Or maybe just TOUCHING a LZR suit, or glancing at one of their ads, before a race is good for 0.2%, no matter what you are wearing. Bottom line: please note that I am NOT saying these suits are ineffective. (Outrageously overpriced and prone to failure, perhaps.) But as far as I can tell this 2% number is a guesstimate, pure and simple. But on the positive side, no one is talking about PEDs anymore. Kudos to Speedo for taking THAT minor little "other variable" out of the picture.