Freestyle sprinting

I don't think you should pace a 50. The mechanisms that give the muscles energy change during the race but at each moment you should put in as much effort as possible while maintaining proper form. It looks the the pros don't even really pace 100s: " The fastest sprinters in the world do not really pace the 100. The first 50 split is within a second of their best 50 time. When you take away the time it takes to turn you are looking at only a couple tenths of a second slower. That means the first 50 is approximately 98% effort so you definitely need endurance to finish off the race." - Jason Lezak If you look at the 2009 world championships, Cesar Cielo Filho's 100m free 50 split was 22.17 seconds and his 50 free was a bit over a second faster at 21.08. www.omegatiming.com/.../C73A1_Res1Heat_127_Finals_1_Men_50_Free.pdf www.omegatiming.com/.../C73A1_Res1Heat_119_Finals_1_Men_100_Free.pdf

Good luck with "pacing" your 50 free Thank you. A well thought out plan has served me fine. The first 50 split is within a second of their best 50 time. When you take away the time it takes to turn you are looking at only a couple tenths of a second slower. That means the first 50 is approximately 98% effort so you definitely need endurance to finish off the race." - Jason Lezak This is my point. By golly I'm not talking about a 1500. Why not go 100% on the first 50? Because you are going to meet Mr. Piano. The same rule applies to the 50.

It would be interesting to compare the number of breaths in the first 50 of the 100 versus the 50 for the elite swimmers.

However my contention is that the 50 free isn't an anerobic event. ALL OUT can't be sustained for that long. Stillwater, please do not miss this great occasion to update your knowledge of exercise physiology. The only reason why the human machine slows down during a 50m swim event is because there's a switch from ATP/CP to anaerobic mebabolism. Then once the anaerobic metabolism kicks in, a huge bunch of H+ are being released in the blood altering his PH. Then the body slightly slows down. The aerobic contribution to a 50m event is next to null. It is absolutely not significant. Of course, like it is always the case when the anaerobic metabolism is operating at max rate for a significant period of time, O2 accumulated deficit goes up. But the rate at which the energy needs to be delivered is just way to high for any of it to be metabolized in presence of oxygen. In other words, 02 accumulated deficit always climb parallel to blood lactate accumulation. That doesn't mean that the effort is aerobic. A 50m even must be swam as hard as one can from top to finish. If you are not fit enough to perform this, it just means you lack training (although I know nothing about your age, gender, training habits and past record). Apples to apples. Running performance can not be compared to a swimming performance. These are two very different animals.

Solar, I kind of understand your message.The anaerobic to aerobic isn't a switch, and the 50 uses both. However: Then the body slightly slows down. As I have said, it's a 50. Slightly is, to some a blink of an eye, or to others a medal. Delaying the inevitable slow down till the end might be a good thing for a competitor. A 50m even must be swam as hard as one can from top to finish. If you are not fit enough to perform this, it just means you lack training (although I know nothing about your age, gender, training habits and past record). Agreed, as must a 1650. I am old, male, lazy, and slower than I used to be (which wasn't too fast). Apples to apples. Running performance can not be compared to a swimming performance. These are two very different animals. Sure they can. I am a big proponent of specificity of sport yet the human body still reacts in the same way. Or perhaps you can educate me. How long can a human perform at 100%? 26 seconds? 18 seconds? Or about five to six seconds?

It may be that mortals like ourselves lose some time with flip turns while the pros cut time? Your turn would have to be very very wrong for SC performances to be slower than LC performances. Even an open turn is faster than no turn at all. All strokes usually benefit from a turn, *** and fly included. If it can give you some clue. I've seen master newbies having a strong talent for sprinting. This talent is mostly explained by the fact that they are fast twitched. These masters can swim very fast with a perfectible technique. This poor technique means that their swim efficiency is rather limited. Typically, these guys can be bloody fast over 12.5m, fairly fast over 25, but their technique doesn't allow them to maintain that speed over 50m. for these fast twitched newbies, duration/velocity curve (personal best times) from 25m to 100m could easily look as follow: 025m = 12.2 050m = 32.5 100m = 1:13.something These times would not make sense for a swimmer having an efficient sprinting technique. Not saying it's your case since we haven't seen any of your footage yet.

There is pacing in a 50. There is pacing in the 100 in track, which lasts 9 seconds. You can't go 100% for 18 seconds, much less 26. That being said, it sure feels like 100% the entire time, but that is an impossible feat.

There is pacing in a 50. There is pacing in the 100 in track, which lasts 9 seconds. You can't go 100% for 18 seconds, much less 26. That being said, it sure feels like 100% the entire time, but that is an impossible feat. Semantics. Yes, a 50 free is ALL OUT, Run what you Brung, 1/4 Mile Drag, lay it all out there, etc. There is no pacing. Some don't even take a breath.

To further add to this. I made the mistake of comparing swim with track cycling once, I won't make it twice. In swimming, a 50m all out begins with a dive. That dive doesn't require that much energy and immediately after the dive, the body flies in the air then enter the water at peak velocity. Most energy that the swimmer expand consists of maintaining as much velocity as possible. A running or cycling track event begins with a traditional start. A tremendous amount of energy must be expanded there just to reach peak velocity. That said, I don't believe that a 100m run is paced. Slight slow down may occur near the end but this is a consequence of having emptied the ATP/CP pool. Again, the runner does need to allocate much more of this fuel upon start, compared to the swimmer. Pacing an event involves keeping some reserve during the first half in order to finish stronger during the second half. I don't believe that runners *save some* during the first 50m. In fact they need to accelerate during the first half. As a result, they probably expand more energy there, not less. If by some magic, a runner could start his event at full speed after having invested minimal energy expenditure (similar to that a swimmer has to invest on a dive), the splits over 100 would probably be very even.

How long can a human perform at 100%? 26 seconds? 18 seconds? Or about five to six seconds? You seem to be in danger of confusing various meanings of 100%. It may well be that you perform at a higher level for some period less than the length of the race, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you get any finish time benefit from holding back in the early part of the race. Perhaps someone will chip in with whether there is some level of fitness or speed below which 100% effort doesn't apply. Perhaps when people get to the age of 95 or their 50 goes over a minute pacing is a good idea? If so, I wonder where the line is drawn.