This has been something I've wondered the last few years. I used to be a college swimmer, fit and trim, but the 10 years since then I've drank my fair share of beer and ate plenty of cheeseburgers. Just curious what peoples' take is on how much the extra baggage really effects swim races.
I don't really fit the swimmer mold anymore. I'm 31, 6'2", and 270lbs with a huge beer gut. I got some strange looks since the meet i was in recently was a USAS meet and I outweighed my competition by 100lbs in many cases. My first race in about 5 years i went 23.4 in the 50y free. I didn't expect to be that fast at this weight but at the same time I almost wonder if the added intertia is helping me more on the start and turns. Followed it up with a low 52 in the 100y free but I had a horrible reaction on the start and incorrect pacing. I think if i raced again today that'd be deep in the 51 range. For reference, typical non-taper times for me in college were in the low-mid 22 range at just a tick over 200lbs but I was obviously a lot stronger, younger, and doing a TON more yards at the time, that's why it makes me wonder just how much the weight is actually holding me back.
How much time do you think I stand to drop if i were 50lbs lighter? Could it be a measurable difference or something just slight? I guess I ask that to see if it'd be worth my while to drop that much weight quickly by dieting in addition to the swimming i'm doing. I don't really like dieting, and i generally eat what I want, when i want. Not gorging myself at every meal doesn't really seem to fit into my lifestyle :blush: Anyone have a similar story? "I dropped XX lbs and went XX seconds faster because of it."
Maybe it's an immeasurable, but I thought I'd ask for opinion anyway. I'm hoping it doesn't turn into a "to diet or not to diet" discussion though.
A further wrinkle to consider here.
We are talking about masters swimmers.
A wealth of studies seem to suggest that slow, steady accrual of body weight over the lifespan, even in those who train fiendishly, is not only inevitable but healthy. I am not talking about obesity here, just some weight gain from, say, your 20s to your 60s.
If, for the sake of argument, we stipulate that human beings are designed to gain some weight with the passing years, the question becomes would a 55 year old swimmer, who maybe outweighs his college morph by 20 lb., swim faster if he could somehow shed those 20 lb. and return to his collegiate fighting weight?
According to the lightweight boat, powerful engine (overly simplistic, in my opinion) model, the answer would be a clear yes.
However, this implies that the only considerations are strength and mass (with, perhaps, a bit of hull shape thrown in there as well.)
I would argue that there are many physiological processes going on inside of us, things that are not easily visible, from insulin and other hormonal changes with age, to sarcopenia of aging, that may, in fact, overwhelm the obvious external, easy-to-see items like body weight and stomach protrusion.
Losing this 20 lb. is not without consequences. You may well gain something vis a vis the lighter boat you will sport once the metamorphosis is complete. However, I would argue that you may lose even more in terms of these internal processes. The caloric deficit necessary to fight Mother Nature, for instance, may make it impossible for you to train as hard as you would if you were consuming the calories your body is telling you it needs. Your testosterone levels might be altered by the food deprivation, too, in such a way as to impact muscle mass. I am not saying this definitely takes place, just that there are a host of variables that might be negatively impacted and overwhelm the advantages of the lighter weight.
Swimming, because of water's buoyancy, is much more forgiving of body weight than land sports. I think it would be interesting to look at the World Record holders in masters age groups. My hypothesis: there are probably few highly overweight people who hold these. However, I would not be surprised that many, if not most, weigh more than they once did, and that this increase in BMI post college and high school probably creeps up steadily at least through the 60s.
My further hypothesis: world record masters holders do not allow themselves to go to fat. But neither do they consider body weight and fat percentage the most critical element of their training. They do not, in other words, squander too much effort, physical or emotional, obsessing about weight and trying to be much leaner than their bodies' set points have apparently established.
Could I be wrong about this?
I would like to say perhaps. But in good conscience I can't.
I am not wrong!
A further wrinkle to consider here.
We are talking about masters swimmers.
A wealth of studies seem to suggest that slow, steady accrual of body weight over the lifespan, even in those who train fiendishly, is not only inevitable but healthy. I am not talking about obesity here, just some weight gain from, say, your 20s to your 60s.
If, for the sake of argument, we stipulate that human beings are designed to gain some weight with the passing years, the question becomes would a 55 year old swimmer, who maybe outweighs his college morph by 20 lb., swim faster if he could somehow shed those 20 lb. and return to his collegiate fighting weight?
According to the lightweight boat, powerful engine (overly simplistic, in my opinion) model, the answer would be a clear yes.
However, this implies that the only considerations are strength and mass (with, perhaps, a bit of hull shape thrown in there as well.)
I would argue that there are many physiological processes going on inside of us, things that are not easily visible, from insulin and other hormonal changes with age, to sarcopenia of aging, that may, in fact, overwhelm the obvious external, easy-to-see items like body weight and stomach protrusion.
Losing this 20 lb. is not without consequences. You may well gain something vis a vis the lighter boat you will sport once the metamorphosis is complete. However, I would argue that you may lose even more in terms of these internal processes. The caloric deficit necessary to fight Mother Nature, for instance, may make it impossible for you to train as hard as you would if you were consuming the calories your body is telling you it needs. Your testosterone levels might be altered by the food deprivation, too, in such a way as to impact muscle mass. I am not saying this definitely takes place, just that there are a host of variables that might be negatively impacted and overwhelm the advantages of the lighter weight.
Swimming, because of water's buoyancy, is much more forgiving of body weight than land sports. I think it would be interesting to look at the World Record holders in masters age groups. My hypothesis: there are probably few highly overweight people who hold these. However, I would not be surprised that many, if not most, weigh more than they once did, and that this increase in BMI post college and high school probably creeps up steadily at least through the 60s.
My further hypothesis: world record masters holders do not allow themselves to go to fat. But neither do they consider body weight and fat percentage the most critical element of their training. They do not, in other words, squander too much effort, physical or emotional, obsessing about weight and trying to be much leaner than their bodies' set points have apparently established.
Could I be wrong about this?
I would like to say perhaps. But in good conscience I can't.
I am not wrong!
