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!
Parents
Former Member
Peer reviewed and current.
www.thefreelibrary.com/Combined strength and endurance training in competitive swimmers.-a0207644280
Being a true dullard, I read this article today. First, it's not an article about just strength training. It is also about the effects of high intensity training. The author's acknowledge that any conclusions are confounded - you can't tell whether improvements are from strength or high intensity training or the combination of the two. That also means the study is of greater interest to people who train that way.
That said . . .
In the 50, the test subjects improved 0.33 seconds. The control group improved 0.19.
In the 100, the test subjects improved 0.95 seconds. The control group improved 0.02.
In the 400, the test subjects improved 4.00 seconds. The control group slowed down by 0.32 seconds.
Which group would you rather be in?
The strength training seemed to be one exercise (after warmup) - a standing lateral pulldown with three sets of five reps at maximum rate, with two to five minutes rest between sets.
I would describe the interval training as 4 by 4 minutes at 90% - sounds basically like 100s at 90%+ of max heart rate, though the study is vague on that detail - followed by three minutes of easy swimming at 60% to 75% max heart rate.
Kind of interesting that the best improvement in times came at the distance closest to a four minute swim (the 400). There was one kid who saw a half-second drop in his or her time in the 50, but it was a couple of days after the study closed.
Finally, the study looks at teenage swimmers. Older swimmers may see a different result.
Peer reviewed and current.
www.thefreelibrary.com/Combined strength and endurance training in competitive swimmers.-a0207644280
Being a true dullard, I read this article today. First, it's not an article about just strength training. It is also about the effects of high intensity training. The author's acknowledge that any conclusions are confounded - you can't tell whether improvements are from strength or high intensity training or the combination of the two. That also means the study is of greater interest to people who train that way.
That said . . .
In the 50, the test subjects improved 0.33 seconds. The control group improved 0.19.
In the 100, the test subjects improved 0.95 seconds. The control group improved 0.02.
In the 400, the test subjects improved 4.00 seconds. The control group slowed down by 0.32 seconds.
Which group would you rather be in?
The strength training seemed to be one exercise (after warmup) - a standing lateral pulldown with three sets of five reps at maximum rate, with two to five minutes rest between sets.
I would describe the interval training as 4 by 4 minutes at 90% - sounds basically like 100s at 90%+ of max heart rate, though the study is vague on that detail - followed by three minutes of easy swimming at 60% to 75% max heart rate.
Kind of interesting that the best improvement in times came at the distance closest to a four minute swim (the 400). There was one kid who saw a half-second drop in his or her time in the 50, but it was a couple of days after the study closed.
Finally, the study looks at teenage swimmers. Older swimmers may see a different result.
