Swim smooth has an interesting pair of videos that makes the argument that minimizing strokes per length isn't the same thing as maximizing efficiency. Janet Evans and Laure Manaudou are cited as examples of swimmers with high strokes per length and a faster turnover. Elite triathletes with shorter strokes are also cited. The idea is not to advocate everyone use a shorter stroke but just to say that if a shorter stroke works for you don't throw that away in pursuit of lower strokes per length.
I wonder if swimming with a shorter stroke and higher turnover is analogous to using a lower gear when cycling (spinning versus grinding). People generally acknowledge that the optimal gear to use will vary from individual to individual. Extrapolating from that line of reasoning, perhaps elite swimmers using longer strokes do so because they have greater strength/more power that allows them to use a longer stroke/higher gear rather than because they worked on lengthening their strokes (although the two are clearly related).
YouTube- Swim Smooth: What Is An Efficient Freestyle Stroke? Part 1
YouTube- Swim Smooth: What Is An Efficient Freestyle Stroke? Part 2
Parents
Former Member
So how does one measure efficiency? Fewest strokes, fastest time for a given distance-- like swim golf? It it 1. or 2. below?
1. If it takes me 80 seconds and 50 strokes to swim 100 yards, it is more efficient if I take 48 strokes and still maintain that 80 second pace?
2. Or is it more efficient if I take 50 strokes and improve my time to 78 seconds for 100 yards?
Neither. The only way to measure true efficiency is via testing oxygen/energy usage at a given speed for a given distance.
Examples (non-exhaustive) of why each of the above can be misleading:
1. I can swim 25 yards in 14 strokes pretty readily for most paces. I could also do that 25 yards with 11 strokes at most of those speeds if I really concentrate. However, it takes me more energy/effort to do so. Therefore, I am
less efficient at 11 strokes since it took me the same amount of time but more energy/effort.
2. You may be able to hold the same stroke count and drop time by maintaining the same effort with the arms, but adding a stronger kick. (I can't - my kick is worthless.) The energy used for the arms is the same, but you've also added energy with a more vigorous kick and so calling it more efficient is misleading.
My own rule-of-thumb for efficiency is that if I can cover a given distance at a given pace with less fatigue than I have previously, then I have become either biomechanically or biochemically more "efficient."
-LBJ
So how does one measure efficiency? Fewest strokes, fastest time for a given distance-- like swim golf? It it 1. or 2. below?
1. If it takes me 80 seconds and 50 strokes to swim 100 yards, it is more efficient if I take 48 strokes and still maintain that 80 second pace?
2. Or is it more efficient if I take 50 strokes and improve my time to 78 seconds for 100 yards?
Neither. The only way to measure true efficiency is via testing oxygen/energy usage at a given speed for a given distance.
Examples (non-exhaustive) of why each of the above can be misleading:
1. I can swim 25 yards in 14 strokes pretty readily for most paces. I could also do that 25 yards with 11 strokes at most of those speeds if I really concentrate. However, it takes me more energy/effort to do so. Therefore, I am
less efficient at 11 strokes since it took me the same amount of time but more energy/effort.
2. You may be able to hold the same stroke count and drop time by maintaining the same effort with the arms, but adding a stronger kick. (I can't - my kick is worthless.) The energy used for the arms is the same, but you've also added energy with a more vigorous kick and so calling it more efficient is misleading.
My own rule-of-thumb for efficiency is that if I can cover a given distance at a given pace with less fatigue than I have previously, then I have become either biomechanically or biochemically more "efficient."
-LBJ
