lactate testing as a measure of swimming efficiency

Just trying to figure out my biggest shortcoming so I can focus on it, or at least be aware of it. Not sure if it is conditioning, technique or a combination of both. I'm talking primarily free here. Ande and others, Do you ever compare heart rate and heart rate recovery with your lanemates during a workout? What would your peak heart rate be and how quickly does it recover. I would assume the higher the heart rate the better and the quicker the recovery the better. In our sport, it's about efficiency. I hate to compare it to golf. (Don't care much for golf...at all.) But technique means a lot. You could be fit as anything, but it won't translate to speed unless the correct mechanics can harness the energy. Like ande said in building a better vessel. Two swimmers going the same time for the 100 free may have a completely different combination of skills and/or level of conditioning. Swimmer no. 1 might be better in handling lactic acid build up while having technique only at a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10. Swimmer no. 2 other could have less than ideal conditioning...but his technique is more like a 9 on a scale of 1 to 10. It's a good question ...but not so easy to pin point the answer. Take the same 2 and try a 200 free. The better conditioning might weigh in more heavily and have a slight favor over the technique.

I don't see that lactate testing will answer any questions about a swimmers "efficiency"...I know many swimmers/triathletes who are extremally fit and have achieved a high level of lactate "tolerance" but are still extremally inefficient...these are usually the folks who complain that they go the same times for say a 100 "fast" with 10 seconds rest as they do with 3:00 rest. To which I usually reply by asking if they ride their bikes in the same gear at the same speed for an entire ride... Bottom line is I like to use hard speed work to help point out to these types of swimmers how important it is to work on technique...far to often as the effort increases the "faults" in ones strokes are exposed, getting people to slow down and work on technique is the challenge. Having said all that...I think all athletes benefit from LT training. Some interesting discussion about it here: www.beginnertriathlete.com/.../article-detail.asp

Do you ever compare heart rate and heart rate recovery with your lanemates during a workout? What would your peak heart rate be and how quickly does it recover. I would assume the higher the heart rate the better and the quicker the recovery the better. Your weaknesses can't be determined by comparing to others. Weaknesses worth working on are the ones that pay off when you give them attention. You can't really know in advance if your aerobic capacity needs improvement unless you know that, for example, you had better recovery or lactate stats previously when you were doing more aerobic training. For example, I'm very fast-twitch dominant (just a guess). I get tired easily even when I'm in top shape. When I was a teenager on a USS club, we did "heart rate goal/go" sets, in which send-offs were based on heart rate coming back down to a certain baseline. I would be sitting on the walls for minutes while my lanemates were taking 30 seconds rest. I didn't bother me, because I knew that I made more power and I needed more recovery than most swimmers.

To which I usually reply by asking if they ride their bikes in the same gear at the same speed for an entire ride.. You're close - many of them probably do try to ride and run at the same heart rate all the time. To complete an Ironman, a popular strategy is to try to remain at the target heart rate (for most people, 140 to 150 bpm) for pretty much the entire race, aside from hill climbs and (hopefully) a sprint to the finish. And a common method for creating a training base for running is to spend three months running at a low heart rate (maybe 120 to 130 bpm; over time, running speed at that heart rate will increase). This is why many endurance athletes are slaves to their HRM's, and will even wear them in the pool, regardless of how ridiculous they look or how often the HRM's slip off in the water. You're quite right to challenge them to swim faster, because while the steady-eddie training approach will indeed get them to the finish line of a challenging event, they need to mix things up in all 3 disciplines if they want to improve.

You're close - many of them probably do try to ride and run at the same heart rate all the time. To complete an Ironman, a popular strategy is to try to remain at the target heart rate (for most people, 140 to 150 bpm) for pretty much the entire race, aside from hill climbs and (hopefully) a sprint to the finish. And a common method for creating a training base for running is to spend three months running at a low heart rate (maybe 120 to 130 bpm; over time, running speed at that heart rate will increase). This is why many endurance athletes are slaves to their HRM's, and will even wear them in the pool, regardless of how ridiculous they look or how often the HRM's slip off in the water. You're quite right to challenge them to swim faster, because while the steady-eddie training approach will indeed get them to the finish line of a challenging event, they need to mix things up in all 3 disciplines if they want to improve. The problem with that type of thinking/strategy is that it doesn't factor in the need to "shift gears". I've coached and trained these folks and have repeatedly asked them if they ever have to climb, pass or sprint to the finish of a race...all of which throws this "comfort zone" strategy out the window if you have not done LT training...everything is about "speed" regardless of the distance even for people only interested in fitness and fail to reconize that the body adpapts rapidly to routine.