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?
Aneareobic training stimulates the production of natural HGH in your body. It slows muscle loss.....some perceive this as a good thing.
But I could get that (and do) from lifting weights, making better use of my time. Swimming isn't an efficient means to slow muscle loss.
Clyde Hart says that the 400...basically a one minute effort has a bigger aerobic component than all previously thought.
www.denverpost.com/.../ci_5884473
I therfore submit that in swimming everything above a 50 requires significant aerobic training while the 50 alone can be trained for in a completely different way. But who wan'ts to just do a 50's??
I therfore submit that in swimming everything above a 50 requires significant aerobic training while the 50 alone can be trained for in a completely different way. But who wan'ts to just do a 50's??
ME!!!!!!
What is the ideal way to train for the 50? Sure it helps to be strong but you also need to have near-perfect technique. How should improvements or changes in technique be practiced? Also, I still maintain that you need to throw some aerobic training in there since Benardot asserts that 20% of the energy source for an event under 30 seconds is aerobic.
The problem I see in training swimming like you train track is that while both use legs and arms, swimming uses a lot of arms - which are smaller muscle groups. That would seem to be a big difference.
I do think a lot of swimmers over train but due to water temps we probably aren't burning quite as many calories so I'm willing to be a large part of the training is too look good. It's also mental.
I also like the taper effect (though not a huge fan of tapering itself) so I know to feel good at my big meets I need to feel beat-up prior to the taper.
There are a lot of swimmers that train both ways - low yardarage swimmers include: Natalie Coughlin, Emily Silver, and Gary Hall Jr - McKeever, Salo, and Bottom all favor lower yardage/higher intensity workouts.
High yardage coaches: Reese, Bowman, Troy - athletes include Peirsol, Crocker, Hansen, Weber-Gale, Phelps, Vendt, Vanderkkay, Lochte, Burckle, Schmitt ...
Just naming the Olympians ...
Clyde Hart says that the 400...basically a one minute effort has a bigger aerobic component than all previously thought.
www.denverpost.com/.../ci_5884473
I therfore submit that in swimming everything above a 50 requires significant aerobic training while the 50 alone can be trained for in a completely different way. But who wan'ts to just do a 50's??
Not me. I want to do 100s as well. Anthing 200 plus is distance to me. I think my 100s are inferior to my 50s due to lack of sufficient aerobic training. However, for the short course season, I would still join an experiment with a 100 as the focus event. I'd be fine cutting out weights for the experiment.
First, aerobic work has huge health benefits and should be done by everyone.
This is one of the dumbest things that people keep saying about training fast versus slow. Lower intensity does not mean you will be healthier or more physically fit. Sprinting can and does result in the same adaptations of aerobic metabolism as distance training. Sometimes it's even better, because the increased intensity outweighs the lack of volume.
Here are a few of the studies supporting the concept of sprint training for aerobic adaptation:
Muscle performance and enzymatic adaptations to sprint interval training
A short training programme for the rapid improvement of both aerobic and anaerobic metabolism
Skeletal muscle metabolic and ionic adaptations during intense exercise following sprint training in humans
We need to learn, sprinting is aerobic work.
Also, I still maintain that you need to throw some aerobic training in there since Benardot asserts that 20% of the energy source for an event under 30 seconds is aerobic.
Perhpas yes and no. Yes, you may be right about the 20% component, but the oxygen needed for the 20% aerobic component is already stored in the blood/lungs since real fast swimmers don't breathe. No, you may not need to train the aerobic system in the classic sense, but a good aerobic base may help establish that blood/lung capacity for the 50's, so I wouldn't completely ignore it. This is probably where periodization comes in. Working long to short during the year.
This makes no sense. It very nearly makes the opposite of sense. If X amount of energy for a sprint comes from aerobic metabolism, then in training the very same sprint will stimulate aerobic adaptation at the level of X. So, really, X doesn't matter. If it's low, then you don't get much aerobic work from sprinting and you don't need it. If it's high, then you need aerobic power for sprinting but you are also training yourself to produce a lot of aerobic power every time you sprint.
Conclusion: If you want to do anything well in competition, practice it! Energy systems are extremely overrated in swimming.
So are you saying that after a warm-up, one should just practice the 50 over and over again as if one were racing?
One should at least do that. As you said, technique work is necessary. That usually means shorter distances, slower speeds, and drills.
Oh, and increase muscle size with weight training and diet. No one wants to actually do that, though.
Is it good for the body to do race-pace 50s each time we work out or should there be a day or two a week devoted just to that? On the days you don't do race-pace 50s, isn't it worth it to keep the HR in the mid-zone of what would be considered aerobic? In other words, for the 50, you do have to keep the aerobic system in shape. I don't know if it is good to do this day in and day out with race-pace efforts. It seems like a good way to get injured.
