How do you determine whether you would be better off training and racing sprints or distance events?
I'm back into competitive training this winter after ~2 decades since high school. I used to coach age group, and I've been hitting some master's practices, so I'm not without direction for what I should be doing to get back in shape. I am, however, clueless about distance swimming.
I have no exposure to distance racing or training so I am starting to read up on it (Maglischo). In high school, with the longest event being the 500 free, everyone was a "sprinter" whether they were suited to it or not.
Since I'm basically rebuilding myself from the ground up, I am wondering whether I might give distance a try? What sorts of physiology, technique or psychology lend themselves to doing distance as opposed to sprinting? Or does this not really matter for a nearly 40-year-old masters swimmer that's been out of the pool for nearly forever?
Parents
Former Member
For getting back in shape, train middle distance or distance. It is quicker to build endurance than speed and volume burns more calories, so the combination of those two should provide the most rewarding return to swimming. You should see steady improvement.
I'm not sure I agree with this. A former swimmer with reasonable technique can probably swim a fast 50 or 100 much easier with little training than a fast 200 or 500.
I have been swimming Masters for five years now (after a 25+ year no-swim period) and it is painfully obvious to me that improving my aerobic fitness is very difficult.
My 100 IM time is about what I swam when I was 22. My 200 IM time is 10 seconds slower.
As for the OP's basic question - I don't think you need to be too scientific to determine sprinter vs. distance. I think you can tell by how you swim in practice.
Example:
Let's say you can swim 15x100 "upper moderate" (aerobic threshold pace) on an interval that gives you 5-10 secs rest and your repeats are 1:20. If your "best" 100 on a long rest set in practice is about 1:10 I'd say you are not likely to be a sprinter. If on the other hand your best 100 in practice is much faster - such as 1:05 or better - you may be a sprinter.
One of our guys can do 15x100 @ 1:15. He repeats them between 1:12-1:08. His best 100 in practice however is a 1:02. He is a triathlete and has fantastic endurance.
The best I can realistically do 15x100 is @ 1:25, maybe 1:20 if my life depended on it. My best 100 from a push is 1:00-1:01. My race time is 54+.
For getting back in shape, train middle distance or distance. It is quicker to build endurance than speed and volume burns more calories, so the combination of those two should provide the most rewarding return to swimming. You should see steady improvement.
I'm not sure I agree with this. A former swimmer with reasonable technique can probably swim a fast 50 or 100 much easier with little training than a fast 200 or 500.
I have been swimming Masters for five years now (after a 25+ year no-swim period) and it is painfully obvious to me that improving my aerobic fitness is very difficult.
My 100 IM time is about what I swam when I was 22. My 200 IM time is 10 seconds slower.
As for the OP's basic question - I don't think you need to be too scientific to determine sprinter vs. distance. I think you can tell by how you swim in practice.
Example:
Let's say you can swim 15x100 "upper moderate" (aerobic threshold pace) on an interval that gives you 5-10 secs rest and your repeats are 1:20. If your "best" 100 on a long rest set in practice is about 1:10 I'd say you are not likely to be a sprinter. If on the other hand your best 100 in practice is much faster - such as 1:05 or better - you may be a sprinter.
One of our guys can do 15x100 @ 1:15. He repeats them between 1:12-1:08. His best 100 in practice however is a 1:02. He is a triathlete and has fantastic endurance.
The best I can realistically do 15x100 is @ 1:25, maybe 1:20 if my life depended on it. My best 100 from a push is 1:00-1:01. My race time is 54+.
