The complete citation for the Costill study comparing training twice a day at 10,000m or more to once a day at 5,000m or less and finding no advantage is:
Costill, D.L., R. Thomas, R.A. Robergs, D.D. Pascoe, C.P. Lambert, S.I. Barr, and W.J. Fink. 1991. Adaptations to swimming training: Influence of training volume. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 23: 371-377.
It's unclear whether these volume levels have much relevance to most masters swimmers...
My opinion? This study is pretty old. I did not read it entirely, maybe I'd find treasures in it. I donno. But based on the abstract alone, it really comes short I find. It presents itself like most scientific attempts at studying training.
Science best express itself when several irrefutable measures get taken. Then it becomes safer to draw conclusions out of a single study.
Otherwise I prefer to read experts' interpretation of ALL the data available. Of course, I got Maglischo in mind, but there are others. They kind of synthesize, or summarize all data available in conjunction with their own coaching experience. Then this data becomes interesting, because it can be put in context.
BTW, I do not count pponline website administrators as *experts*. Not at all. Too many of these little toxic statements "Basically, it was a waste of time." Way too big of a statement coming out of the mouth of someone that doesn't know a thing about swimming.
The thing that doesn't add up in this study is that the proposed volume for the short group, 1.5hr per week is WELL under the typical volume of any senior club level or varsity level athlete, no matter the discipline. Calculated on a 50week of training per year basis, that gives you around 500 hours of training in total.
You buy that guys? I certainly don't. Not as is.
The article does a fantastic job in raising concerns, bringing people to question, identify some abusive coaches etc... I also salute the fact that they try to periodize the protocol, including tapers and stuff. But modeling performance is very difficult at this level. Anyway, I do not think that you'd build a successful Olympic program on a 10.5h per week of training basis. And don't be mislead by the large volumes. It's the number of hours that count. 10.5h per week is too low, 21h per week (of swimming) may be little to high for certain specialty types. Most swimmers in the team where I used to coach were relaxing off 1:20. Not surprising that they can reach higher volume given their swim pace.
And as for your question that relates to master swimmers, I think 10.5hr although little too high for most, seems like a good schedule for the serious master swimmer who is hunting podiums, records this sort of stuff. Certainly doesn't sound excessive to my ears. But we all know very successful masters getting away with their share of glory with 6-7 hours per week.
The complete citation for the Costill study comparing training twice a day at 10,000m or more to once a day at 5,000m or less and finding no advantage is:
Costill, D.L., R. Thomas, R.A. Robergs, D.D. Pascoe, C.P. Lambert, S.I. Barr, and W.J. Fink. 1991. Adaptations to swimming training: Influence of training volume. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 23: 371-377.
It's unclear whether these volume levels have much relevance to most masters swimmers...
My opinion? This study is pretty old. I did not read it entirely, maybe I'd find treasures in it. I donno. But based on the abstract alone, it really comes short I find. It presents itself like most scientific attempts at studying training.
Science best express itself when several irrefutable measures get taken. Then it becomes safer to draw conclusions out of a single study.
Otherwise I prefer to read experts' interpretation of ALL the data available. Of course, I got Maglischo in mind, but there are others. They kind of synthesize, or summarize all data available in conjunction with their own coaching experience. Then this data becomes interesting, because it can be put in context.
BTW, I do not count pponline website administrators as *experts*. Not at all. Too many of these little toxic statements "Basically, it was a waste of time." Way too big of a statement coming out of the mouth of someone that doesn't know a thing about swimming.
The thing that doesn't add up in this study is that the proposed volume for the short group, 1.5hr per week is WELL under the typical volume of any senior club level or varsity level athlete, no matter the discipline. Calculated on a 50week of training per year basis, that gives you around 500 hours of training in total.
You buy that guys? I certainly don't. Not as is.
The article does a fantastic job in raising concerns, bringing people to question, identify some abusive coaches etc... I also salute the fact that they try to periodize the protocol, including tapers and stuff. But modeling performance is very difficult at this level. Anyway, I do not think that you'd build a successful Olympic program on a 10.5h per week of training basis. And don't be mislead by the large volumes. It's the number of hours that count. 10.5h per week is too low, 21h per week (of swimming) may be little to high for certain specialty types. Most swimmers in the team where I used to coach were relaxing off 1:20. Not surprising that they can reach higher volume given their swim pace.
And as for your question that relates to master swimmers, I think 10.5hr although little too high for most, seems like a good schedule for the serious master swimmer who is hunting podiums, records this sort of stuff. Certainly doesn't sound excessive to my ears. But we all know very successful masters getting away with their share of glory with 6-7 hours per week.
