I have been following a few training logs here and I note a heavy emphasis on "race-pace" training with ample recovery time. I have to assume this works well since the people posting are swimming far faster than I. so here is the question: when performing a high intensity set like that, is the emphasis on maintaining the speed, taking as much recovery time as you need to keep up the speed, or should you maintain the selected turn-over time and struggle to maintain the speed in the face of increasing fatigue? If you are finding a pace too steep to maintain the speed, do you slip to a slower pace, or should you just take a break and restart the set at the same pace after a bit of recovery? I am specifically refering to speed sets done at 90 percent of race-pace or better.
The same question should be applied to stroke technique: as I fatigue my stroke tends to break-up a bit (Ok: a lot). In training should I select paces that allow me to always maintain a "perfect" stroke, or should I push into the "red zone" where I am fatigued enough that my stroke is getting ragged? BTW: my "ragged" stroke is quite a bit faster than my technical stroke, but it really is quite "splashy". My daughter actually calls me "Dr.Splashy" when she teases me.
at some point you need to have a good aerobic base, which equates to more yards in my book.
I do my fair share of aerobic work; there are even times I'll jump in with the age-groupers and do a 7k-8k workout. I think it is valuable, but generally I think of aerobic work as mostly important for (active) recovery.
I certainly do not think of these types of workouts as "building my base." My aerobic base is just fine for the races I swim, and even longer races. As proof, I never have trouble making even the most challenging long AG workouts, which in my mind proves that my aerobic base is just fine. (I'd have more trouble doing them 10X a week...but I think that ability is almost meaningless for pool races).
If I were training for something like 10K open water swims, maybe I would think differently.
Bottom line: doing high-intensity repeats up to the distance of your chosen race DOES improve your aerobic base. There have been all sorts of studies to show that. It isn't like doing (say) race-pace 100s stresses ONLY your anaerobic system, even though you are well above lactate threshold.
To address the OPs question, I think there are basically two reasons to do "race-pace" or "race-intensity" sets (the difference between these two is subtle).
-- To work on your technique at the speeds you will be using in a race. You want to make sure that your efficiency doesn't drop as (say) turnover increases. Also you need to do things like turns and breakouts at race speeds. Working on these things at slower speeds is good when making a change and building "muscle memory" but eventually you need to do them at race speeds.
-- To spur physiological adaptations to high lactate levels. (There may be other adaptations but I don't know enough about this field to say.)
For the first reason, you need to take as much rest as needed to achieve race pace. You don't necessarily need to do it over the whole race distance (if you can do a race at goal race-pace in practce...you need to set new goals!).
For the second reason, though, you could theoretically produce LA levels similar to what you get in a race without quite getting at race-pace; I call this "race intensity." I'll give you an example: in our practice we will often do the following two sets:
-- 10 x 100 on 2:00 from a push, go for best average; work:rest ratio is about 1:1
-- 5 x 100 on 4:00 from the blocks, go for best average; work:rest is about 1:3
Certainly I can hold a significantly better avg on the second set. But by the end of the first set I am hurting pretty badly, and I am sure that my LA levels are as high as they get in races even though I wasn't going quite race-pace.
If you plotted LA profiles over the course of the sets, I bet you would find greater spikes in the second set but that the overall levels were pretty similar. Both sets have similar (tho not identical IMO) phsyiological effects in producing LA-tolerance.
One caveat: the less rest you get, and the longer the set, the harder it is to push yourself well beyond lactate threshold. At some point you are no longer training for 100s & 200s but for longer races (400IM, 500 free, and longer).
Anyway, all this is my :2cents:. Ignore as you see fit!
at some point you need to have a good aerobic base, which equates to more yards in my book.
I do my fair share of aerobic work; there are even times I'll jump in with the age-groupers and do a 7k-8k workout. I think it is valuable, but generally I think of aerobic work as mostly important for (active) recovery.
I certainly do not think of these types of workouts as "building my base." My aerobic base is just fine for the races I swim, and even longer races. As proof, I never have trouble making even the most challenging long AG workouts, which in my mind proves that my aerobic base is just fine. (I'd have more trouble doing them 10X a week...but I think that ability is almost meaningless for pool races).
If I were training for something like 10K open water swims, maybe I would think differently.
Bottom line: doing high-intensity repeats up to the distance of your chosen race DOES improve your aerobic base. There have been all sorts of studies to show that. It isn't like doing (say) race-pace 100s stresses ONLY your anaerobic system, even though you are well above lactate threshold.
To address the OPs question, I think there are basically two reasons to do "race-pace" or "race-intensity" sets (the difference between these two is subtle).
-- To work on your technique at the speeds you will be using in a race. You want to make sure that your efficiency doesn't drop as (say) turnover increases. Also you need to do things like turns and breakouts at race speeds. Working on these things at slower speeds is good when making a change and building "muscle memory" but eventually you need to do them at race speeds.
-- To spur physiological adaptations to high lactate levels. (There may be other adaptations but I don't know enough about this field to say.)
For the first reason, you need to take as much rest as needed to achieve race pace. You don't necessarily need to do it over the whole race distance (if you can do a race at goal race-pace in practce...you need to set new goals!).
For the second reason, though, you could theoretically produce LA levels similar to what you get in a race without quite getting at race-pace; I call this "race intensity." I'll give you an example: in our practice we will often do the following two sets:
-- 10 x 100 on 2:00 from a push, go for best average; work:rest ratio is about 1:1
-- 5 x 100 on 4:00 from the blocks, go for best average; work:rest is about 1:3
Certainly I can hold a significantly better avg on the second set. But by the end of the first set I am hurting pretty badly, and I am sure that my LA levels are as high as they get in races even though I wasn't going quite race-pace.
If you plotted LA profiles over the course of the sets, I bet you would find greater spikes in the second set but that the overall levels were pretty similar. Both sets have similar (tho not identical IMO) phsyiological effects in producing LA-tolerance.
One caveat: the less rest you get, and the longer the set, the harder it is to push yourself well beyond lactate threshold. At some point you are no longer training for 100s & 200s but for longer races (400IM, 500 free, and longer).
Anyway, all this is my :2cents:. Ignore as you see fit!
