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!
Leslie forgot one important reason for lifting. How else can I drag my fat ass out of the pool at the end of practice to make sure I get to the showers?
Excellent point.
Jimby, Jimby ... you are so easily snowed by the She Beast.
She Puff had her best season this summer LCM after swimming with USA-S kiddies and doing drylands/weights (uh, 1:03 high 100 meter fly). She is now focusing on running and, only now, claims to be swimming more slowly -- a statement of which I am highly suspect. But, then, I tend to accept the proposition that running doesn't help swimming much.
I am sure she wasn't doing any drylands when she swam and trained for her 25K ... totally different animal than pool swimming or sprinting.
Okay, I will offer two shiny quarters suitable for moob bouncing to anyone, anywhere, who can find so much as one even quasi-peer reviewed study that indicates even a slight advantage in swimming times following any kind of dry land weight lifting whatsover, even a VASA trainer (though that's pushing it).
Peer reviewed and current.
www.thefreelibrary.com/Combined strength and endurance training in competitive swimmers.-a0207644280
The 400m performance improved significantly (p
Okay, I will offer two shiny quarters suitable for moob bouncing to anyone, anywhere, who can find so much as one even quasi-peer reviewed study that indicates even a slight advantage in swimming times following any kind of dry land weight lifting whatsover, even a VASA trainer (though that's pushing it).
Ok, I haven't read your stupid essay, but what are you trying to accomplish, anyway? Making people slower by telling them not to do things that obviously work? Using boring details from scientific literature to entirely miss the point that's so easy to grasp that nobody other than you even argues about it?
Peer-reviewed blah blah blah. It doesn't matter. Show me a SINGLE PEER REVIEWED STUDY OMG that shows that eating five full-sized chocolate cakes every day makes people gain weight. Oh no! We may have to rely on basic common sense to figure out what happens.
Here's what I think,
When and only when your swim technique, efficiency and aerobic base is 100% maximized, will lifting help. This is likely the case for those with tremendous swimming pedigree, such as, but not limited to, 10+ years of age group experience, NCAA experience, olympic experience..etc.
In these cases, lifting can put the crowning touch an what is in all likelyhood crazy fast swim times.
If you lack any of the above experience(s), you may want to reconsider cutting out on any swim time to substitute for lifting.
A few exceptions to that might be someone who really lacks some real basic upper body strength. In those cases it might help in the 50 and 100 sprints.
When I started swimming I had a 300lb bench. Today, five years later, I swim the 50 free 8 seconds faster, the 100 free 13 seconds faster, and the 200 free 45 seconds faster. I have not lifted in five years, but was in a gym the other day and my bench is in the neighborhood of 185-205 lbs.
When my swim times plateu, I will reconsider lifting.
So you're saying because you got faster when you learned to swim that nobody should ever lift weights until they have "100% maximized" their aerobic capacity? That's so wrong it hurts to think about.
Jim, I've been over my arguments for lifting about a bazillion times. Not repeating again. You don't care because you seem to think that things can't be true unless some guy with a clipboard and a stats package says so.
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.
I just hope the article includes photos. Well, two of Leslie and none of Jim.
It's funny, because you are often one of the first people to question what is accepted as rarely-challenged dogma in this sport. Why not this as well?
Ok last Wikipedia logic link: en.wikipedia.org/.../Reductio_ad_absurdum
Premise: After several years of no improvement, I got a ton faster when I started lifting. This happened over several years (not, I might note, any amount of time that one of these studies has even come close to covering).
Premise: Lifting did not make me faster.
Premise: Magical pixies do not exist.
Conclusion: Magical pixies made me faster.
One of the premises must be incorrect, so either...
Lifting made me faster.
OR
Magical pixies exist.
I feel your pain. I'm not exactly used to being called conventional either, especially wrt my training.
I'd be curious as to how many "elite" (we'll let John Smith define this) masters swimmers don't do any drylands besides Jimby (who is a recent convert).
Why does it always have to revolve around elites...:snore:
I mean it's bad enough having to live with the fact that the water feels purer after they've been in there...:cake:
