My great friend, the charming ignoramus Leslie "the Fortess" Livingston, and I recently had the opportunity to bandy about a debate topic in the November issue of Swimmer magazine.
Leslie has asked me to create a poll to see which of us had the more persuasive arguments vis a vis the usefulness of weight lifting to behoove swimming performance.
I tried to talk Leslie out of such a poll, because I wasn't sure her delicate albeit manly temperament could take the likely beat down she would get, vote wise.
After all, her teenage daughter had already proclaimed, in uncertain terms, that she was best off pleading Nolo contendere here (see en.wikipedia.org/.../Nolo_contendere if your legal skills are as atrophied as Leslie's). In her daughter's own words, "He totally owned you, Mom! Like totally! It was so awesome! He's so totally funny, and you are so totally uptight, Mom! I mean, it was like so totally embarrassing how much he owned you! Please tell me I'm adopted! Please tell me Jim Thornton is my real mother!"
Unfortunately, this kind of advanced rhetorical argument on my part fell on deaf ears, just as my advanced rhetorical argument--in which actual studies were cited!--also fell on deaf ears. Evidently, the dear girl has overdone the neck thickening machine, and in the process, mastoid muscle processes seem to have overgrown her ear canals!
I know that not everyone has received their copy of Swimmer yet. Rumor has it that those of us who live in the higher class zip codes get the extra virgin pressed copies, with the rest of you having to wait to the ink starts getting stale.
You will get your copies one day, I assure you! Just as you will get your H1N1 swine flu vaccines dosages when me and my friends at Goldman have had our third inoculations!
But I am getting a bit off the track here.
If you've read our Inane Point (Leslie) - Brilliant Counterpoint (Jim) *** for tat debate, Leslie asks that you vote in this poll for the person you think was RHETORICALLY superior.
Note: this does not mean which of us was right.
Hell, I have already conceded Leslie was right, and have begun weight lifting myself thrice weekly!
I am one bulked up monstrosity of a girly man at this point, and I don't plan to stop till you can bounce quarters off my moobs.
So. Forget all aspects of actual rational correctness here, and certainly forget all aspects of who is more popular.
And vote with your pitiless inner rhetoritician calling the shots.
Leslie, I warned you: Nolo contendere was the smart plea. But no, you just wouldn't hear of it!
I certainly have my opinion on the matter but I won't vote on who is more persuasive until I see the two essays (I don't have my magazine yet). I doubt that either one will convince me to change my training routine, which evolves over time but for the moment includes lifting.
There's no specific training routine suggested. I simply argue that weight training can make you faster and help prevent/reverse loss of muscle mass and bone due to aging. I've been doing fairly traditional strength training for 1 1/2 years, with some changes around the margin. And I've changed my routine fairly significantly since I drafted that short essay to include plyometrics.
I certainly would never say that all my improvements (or Geek's or anyone else who lifts) are due exclusively to weights. I'm sure race pace training or technique corrections or SDK work can all yield improved times as well, and, in fact, contributed in part to time drops in my case.
And I do agree with Geek on one key point: I like be be fit and in good overall shape. I think it likely helps my swimming, but, even if it didn't, I'd still persist in cross training. (That's why Jazz rags on me for being somewhat tempted by aspects of Cross Fit.) Swimming alone a zillion times a week would not further that goal IMHO.
It seems difficult to create a lengthy well-designed, well-controlled study for swimmers who are in the middle of competing and growing older and stronger naturally. Maybe masters swimmers would be better test fodder.
I certainly have my opinion on the matter but I won't vote on who is more persuasive until I see the two essays (I don't have my magazine yet). I doubt that either one will convince me to change my training routine, which evolves over time but for the moment includes lifting.
There's no specific training routine suggested. I simply argue that weight training can make you faster and help prevent/reverse loss of muscle mass and bone due to aging. I've been doing fairly traditional strength training for 1 1/2 years, with some changes around the margin. And I've changed my routine fairly significantly since I drafted that short essay to include plyometrics.
I certainly would never say that all my improvements (or Geek's or anyone else who lifts) are due exclusively to weights. I'm sure race pace training or technique corrections or SDK work can all yield improved times as well, and, in fact, contributed in part to time drops in my case.
And I do agree with Geek on one key point: I like be be fit and in good overall shape. I think it likely helps my swimming, but, even if it didn't, I'd still persist in cross training. (That's why Jazz rags on me for being somewhat tempted by aspects of Cross Fit.) Swimming alone a zillion times a week would not further that goal IMHO.
It seems difficult to create a lengthy well-designed, well-controlled study for swimmers who are in the middle of competing and growing older and stronger naturally. Maybe masters swimmers would be better test fodder.
