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.
Parents
Former Member
I don't think wolf was comparing one person to another, but one person to him/herself.
Thanks Geek, but it is still crap. Paul's example is valid for someone who is out of shape. If I am out of shape, running will improve my 50 free times because my physical condition is so bad. Can we overgeneralize a little further and just say exercise is exercise?
Your 50 time does not have to improve for your 1650 to improve and vice versa. If I stop swimming aerobic sets completely and adopt 8x25 AFAP on 4:00 only workouts, what will happen to my 50 and my 1650? What happens if I only train distance endurance sets of repeats 400 or further after that sprint training? Will my fast twitch response decrease thus hurting my 50 performance at the benefit of my 1650?
This thread is specifically about sprint training vs. old school middle distance training. If Paul's overgeneralization is really true, then there is no problem training 10x100 to get faster at the 50. Being able to hold the shortest rest repeat possible would be great, or at least as good as 3x100 on 6:00 AFAP, because speed is speed.
I am calling Paul out for doing a drive by sound bite. I know what he meant, but that differs from what he posted.
I don't think wolf was comparing one person to another, but one person to him/herself.
Thanks Geek, but it is still crap. Paul's example is valid for someone who is out of shape. If I am out of shape, running will improve my 50 free times because my physical condition is so bad. Can we overgeneralize a little further and just say exercise is exercise?
Your 50 time does not have to improve for your 1650 to improve and vice versa. If I stop swimming aerobic sets completely and adopt 8x25 AFAP on 4:00 only workouts, what will happen to my 50 and my 1650? What happens if I only train distance endurance sets of repeats 400 or further after that sprint training? Will my fast twitch response decrease thus hurting my 50 performance at the benefit of my 1650?
This thread is specifically about sprint training vs. old school middle distance training. If Paul's overgeneralization is really true, then there is no problem training 10x100 to get faster at the 50. Being able to hold the shortest rest repeat possible would be great, or at least as good as 3x100 on 6:00 AFAP, because speed is speed.
I am calling Paul out for doing a drive by sound bite. I know what he meant, but that differs from what he posted.
