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
Former Member
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."
I like this. It follows that the ultimate measure of efficiency is race speed. If you have made a technique change that might be more efficient, test it by going all out for time. Since, with more efficiency, a given pace takes less out of you, you'll go faster at the limit of fatigue.
If i take 14 strokes, i am super slow. I am usually at about 16. if going fast wow, 18. I am not a freestyler. for breasstroke- super slow (like practice 8). realistically more if pushing it.
I always heard, less strokes, more efficient but the people faster than me in practice take 20 or more. go figure.
worst stroke- back for me, is like 19 eek
Kicking seems to be a big part of it. Manaudou and Evans both used light two-beat kicks. Swimmers who appear to glide more are actually coasting on a powerful kick. Ian Thorpe is a good example.
And very few people are able to develop a kick like thorpe, hackett, biedermann. The rest of us probably shouldn't focus on trying to glide the way those guys do.
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?
I always thought it was 2 and I don't have any basis for that other than an old post by Paul Smith wherein he described how he descends 25 yards while maintaing the same SPL:
So after all the endless discussions on this topic....and the challenge in trying to "coach" in writing I actually found myself helping out a local pro triathlete last week with just this thing.
As is the case on this forum and other times I've attempted to explain; catch, rotation, lengthening of stroke, maintaining stroke while accelerating, etc. I found again that some folks have a "natural" sense of feel for this stuff....its VERY hard to coach feel.
So.....I spent yesterday breaking down my stroke wit assistance from Jane Scott (Boulder Coach) and trying to better explain what it is I do unconsciously that others have to think about...some observations:
- In a series of 25's (all from a push) I tasked myself with keeping 11 strokes per lap and to descend each 25 till I added a stroke.....my goal to see what changed.
- First observation....I can literally slip my hand/forearm/arm thru the water without feeling any sense of "pressure" and take 11 strokes as slow as 25 seconds.....I can accelerate and descend down to 12+ keeping the same 11 strokes....faster than that my kick "kicks in" and I add another stroke and get to the low 11 range.
- What was different? First thing I noticed is that although it seems my hand track stayed the same on each 25 there was an ever increasing sense of "pressure" I could feel as I got faster. I would equate the sensation change as dramatic as moving my hand thru air on the easiest 25 to literally feeling the sensation I would feel pushing on the wall to climb out of the pool.
- So what happened? First I was able to discern a "tensioning" of my arm...but further examining this with Janes help it became apparent that this "coiling like a spring" as she described it was coming from my core....very interesting to really focus on this and realize how much that changed everything.....from there it extended to my catch....and ultimately the entire stroke movement thru the water.
- What next? We asked a few other swimmers to work on this as well and t change their focus to their core and it was amazing that all of them said the same thing....they could not feel anything in that area...when we asked to try and tense it resulted in other parts of the stroke falling apart...
- Thoughts for now; I really do think that to change these things takes an incredible amount of breaking down the stroke via drill work as has been discussed over and over here...the difference is really taking the time to think specifically how these drills translate to actually swimming...so many people I see do drills without a real sense of their purpose.
I think the key drills for me at this stage continue to be variations of sculling, the "arrow" drill shown on a link in an earlier thread that U of A uses and head up swimming (tarzan).
Any drastic improvement in times, that are not attributable to drastic improvement in fitness can be considered as an improvement in swimming Efficiency.
SolarEnergy may be right. However, the 1500 time improvements by the triathletes may be a result of an increase in BOTH efficiency and conditioning. How would you possibly separate the two?
The point brought up by LindsayNB and the videos is a good one--min. strokes per length does not necessarily mean max efficiency or produce max speed. The Swim Smooth videos and SolarEnergy suggest that everyone has an optimum and unique stroke rate/distance per stroke. Stroke counting helps find it.
I would suggest that it's not a static number but subject to change due to better swim technique and/or better conditioning.
The videos are fascinating. Thanks to the OP for posting. Paul Newsome is one of the top coach in the world for teaching/training triathletes. He founded and operate SwimSmooth. He is, among other thing, responsible for this great technological breakthrough which he called: Mr.Smooth. He developed this concept in collaboration with an extremely talented engineer called Adam Young.
ref. Swimsmooth's website: www.swimsmooth.com
ref. Mr.Smooth: www.swimsmooth.com/console.php
ref. Wetronome: www.swimsmooth.com/wetronome.html
Besides, Paul is extremely kind, and pretty affordable too.
The videos are fascinating. Thanks to the OP for posting.
I am suspicious that hand size, or more correctly the
cross-sectional area of the hands and forearms is closely
related to stroke count; smaller hands => more strokes.
To support this hypothesis, I note that with hand paddles
stroke count often goes down. If you have small hands
you simply have to condition yourself to be able to
maintain a higher stroke count if you want to swim fast.
Neither. The only way to measure true efficiency is via testing oxygen/energy usage at a given speed for a given distance. I know what you mean here. I have to agree to a very large extent here.
However, there's an other very simple and logical way to assess improvement in Swimming Efficiency for beginners to intermediate swimmers. Any drastic improvement in times, that are not attributable to drastic improvement in fitness can be considered as an improvement in swimming Efficiency.
I'm currently helping a bunch of intermediate level triathletes to improve over 1500. Most sets are designed to improve technique/pure speed. Most candidates have improved by more than 2min so far. Most report being able to swim much faster with less efforts. That is improvement in Swimming Efficiency. No need for lab testing here. Lab testing would only be required to Quantify this improvement.
- - - -
That said, in order to better assess your improvement in Swimming Efficiency, you have to count your strokes. How many of you can claim being aware all the time, no matter the set duration and intensity and complexity, including racing situations, how many can claim being aware of the stroke count?
Then once you are used to be aware of your stroke count (at any time in any situation), you have to evaluate the change in DPS by assessing the duration of the glides prior turns. Then you're set. You're in a position to find your DPS/Stroke Rate optimal balance.
- - - - -
Lindsay, yes this paradox can be compared with Cycling Gear/Ratio. However, we have to bare in mind that swimming is a Glide based cyclic activity. We (like speed skater, or skiers) benefit a lot from overgearing whilst training (that is, swimming most slowish volume on a stroke count diet).
Performing base mileage on a severe stroke count diet remains the best way to develop race pace specific muscle attributes whilst booking lower intensity mileage. I don't think that this approach is an option for cyclist or runners (these guys don't glide).
