Much has been discussed on this topic but i wanted to revisit it after watching the track & field championships and remembering debates about how much pool training time swimmers put in relative to a runner competing in the equivalent event (a 400m runner to 100m swimmer).
What got my attention on this again was a recent article in Men's Fitness about Jeremy Wariner, specifically his training week during mid-season:
M= 200's: 8 x 200's two minutes followed by 40 yd sprints w/20 seconds rest
T= 350m: 2 x 350's followed by 1 x 300, one minute rest then a 100m to simulate the end of the race
W= 450m: 2 x 450's each under 1:00 with 9 minutes rest between each
Th= 90m: Recovery day each run in an "X" pattern
F= 100m: last run of the week is multiple 100m sprints
That's an insanely lower amount of training time than even i put in....Ande & Jazz come to mind.
More of this in an excellent article:
"Elite coaching special - Clyde Hart coach to Michael Johnson and Jeremy Wariner"
Here's are a couple of excerpt:
Clyde believes the principles of training are the same for many events: "I trained Michael Johnson like I trained a four minute miler. A four minute miler was doing a lot of the same things Michael Johnson was - a lot of the same things in training but more of them.
"The longest workout we have ever done - not counting warm up and warm down - would be under 20min, I think we have never worked more than 20min. That's not counting the Fall phase.”
So here's my challenge...I'm going to pick one of the next seasons (either SCM this fall or SCY in the spring) and try and adapt to this regime...anyone else game?
So if a 100/200 track sprinters main set is say 10x200 (exculding say a 1 mile warm up and drills) and you take the 4:1 ratio, should a swimmer do four 50's and go home?
I wouldn't think so, as in that case you're dividing both the distance (200 -> 50) and the number (10 -> 4) so you're reducing it by much more than a factor of 4.
At any rate I have a few theories on why some people may benefit from a 'less is more' approach:
1) It's more event-specific. After all, if my events are 50's and 100's, why do I spend hours training? If my cumulative race times in a meet are sub 2:30 (two and a half minutes), isn't it odd that I would spend hours training a day? Since intensity and duration are diametrically opposed, you can't go really really really fast for very long. So if I'm training thousands of meters a week, I'm probably spending very little time training the energy system that I rely on most during my events. However, if I concentrate on some really really really fast swims during a practice session, then my mileage for the hour-long session is really low as I spend so much time recovering.
2) Even if it's not permanent, it would probably be beneficial to most as it 'shakes things up'. The human body is extraordinarily adaptable - way more than we give it credit for. It adapts well to diet and exercise patterns - both physiologically and mentally. This is exactly the thing that Rich is talking about when he says that we don't swim hard/fast enough during the tough workouts, and we don't swim easy/slow enough during the light workouts. If all our workouts converge in the middle (moderate intensity), then we're too tired to go all out for the tough ones and we're never satisfied with our progress and accomplishments so we go too hard on the easy days. The end result is that all workouts are alike, and mentally and physically our bodies adapt in order to get by with the least amount of effort and impact. We don't stress it enough and don't let it recuperate enough, so it's in a gradual state of decline.
3) Many swimmers are currently over trained. Therefore, spending some time doing less mileage will automatically benefit them as it gives them a chance to heal and recover. Complete recovery takes more and more time as we age, and many of us have probably forgotten what that even feels like!
4) Lastly, every body is different and some really do well with short bouts of intense exercise. Not everybody needs to do double digits when it comes to hours/week in the pool. I'm sure it would benefit distance swimmers, but as a sprinter I don't know much about that sort of thing!
Nick
So if a 100/200 track sprinters main set is say 10x200 (exculding say a 1 mile warm up and drills) and you take the 4:1 ratio, should a swimmer do four 50's and go home?
I wouldn't think so, as in that case you're dividing both the distance (200 -> 50) and the number (10 -> 4) so you're reducing it by much more than a factor of 4.
At any rate I have a few theories on why some people may benefit from a 'less is more' approach:
1) It's more event-specific. After all, if my events are 50's and 100's, why do I spend hours training? If my cumulative race times in a meet are sub 2:30 (two and a half minutes), isn't it odd that I would spend hours training a day? Since intensity and duration are diametrically opposed, you can't go really really really fast for very long. So if I'm training thousands of meters a week, I'm probably spending very little time training the energy system that I rely on most during my events. However, if I concentrate on some really really really fast swims during a practice session, then my mileage for the hour-long session is really low as I spend so much time recovering.
2) Even if it's not permanent, it would probably be beneficial to most as it 'shakes things up'. The human body is extraordinarily adaptable - way more than we give it credit for. It adapts well to diet and exercise patterns - both physiologically and mentally. This is exactly the thing that Rich is talking about when he says that we don't swim hard/fast enough during the tough workouts, and we don't swim easy/slow enough during the light workouts. If all our workouts converge in the middle (moderate intensity), then we're too tired to go all out for the tough ones and we're never satisfied with our progress and accomplishments so we go too hard on the easy days. The end result is that all workouts are alike, and mentally and physically our bodies adapt in order to get by with the least amount of effort and impact. We don't stress it enough and don't let it recuperate enough, so it's in a gradual state of decline.
3) Many swimmers are currently over trained. Therefore, spending some time doing less mileage will automatically benefit them as it gives them a chance to heal and recover. Complete recovery takes more and more time as we age, and many of us have probably forgotten what that even feels like!
4) Lastly, every body is different and some really do well with short bouts of intense exercise. Not everybody needs to do double digits when it comes to hours/week in the pool. I'm sure it would benefit distance swimmers, but as a sprinter I don't know much about that sort of thing!
Nick
