What does this measure - total effort over time, intensity of effort over time, total intensity?
It measures energy while throwing out the swimmer specific variables. Think of it as calories without the swimmer specific multiplier and that multiplier is what makes inefficient swimmers burn more calories than efficient swimmers.
Intensity is not a well defined physics term, so I think your intensity means points/time.
For example if I swim 4,000 points in an hour and my twin with an identical stroke swims 4,000 points in 4 hours. I swam a LOT faster than he did, but we burned the same calories. Without acknowledging the time factor, it might look like we are training equally hard.
Disregarding speed in races, do you think that an energy equivalent short, sprint workout would produce the same conditioning as a longer, slower more conventional workout?
I think it works one way. Sprint work can be substituted for aerobic work, but not the other way around. If you do 10x100s on 1:01 on 2:00 as a replacement for 15x1:15s on 1:20 (the example with the points calculated from a previous post) I think that will tax the aerobic system to a similar level, while taxing the anaerobic system more.
Now for sprints, there isn't a lot of strategy, and some would say there is no strategy. If you are a 800er let's say, and you use all sprints to train, using energy points to substitute typical training with sprint sets, will you have the same aerobic capacity? I say yes.
BUT there is more to swimming an 800 than being in shape. If you only train 100s in preparation for your 800, you might be conditioned to swim it, but you might lack experience on how to swim it best learned from training longer distances.
My idea behind points was just a substitute to GTD that had similar reward for fast sets with more rest as the short rest sets that churn out more distance. It is not a substitute for intelligent coaching.
What does this measure - total effort over time, intensity of effort over time, total intensity?
It measures energy while throwing out the swimmer specific variables. Think of it as calories without the swimmer specific multiplier and that multiplier is what makes inefficient swimmers burn more calories than efficient swimmers.
Intensity is not a well defined physics term, so I think your intensity means points/time.
For example if I swim 4,000 points in an hour and my twin with an identical stroke swims 4,000 points in 4 hours. I swam a LOT faster than he did, but we burned the same calories. Without acknowledging the time factor, it might look like we are training equally hard.
Disregarding speed in races, do you think that an energy equivalent short, sprint workout would produce the same conditioning as a longer, slower more conventional workout?
I think it works one way. Sprint work can be substituted for aerobic work, but not the other way around. If you do 10x100s on 1:01 on 2:00 as a replacement for 15x1:15s on 1:20 (the example with the points calculated from a previous post) I think that will tax the aerobic system to a similar level, while taxing the anaerobic system more.
Now for sprints, there isn't a lot of strategy, and some would say there is no strategy. If you are a 800er let's say, and you use all sprints to train, using energy points to substitute typical training with sprint sets, will you have the same aerobic capacity? I say yes.
BUT there is more to swimming an 800 than being in shape. If you only train 100s in preparation for your 800, you might be conditioned to swim it, but you might lack experience on how to swim it best learned from training longer distances.
My idea behind points was just a substitute to GTD that had similar reward for fast sets with more rest as the short rest sets that churn out more distance. It is not a substitute for intelligent coaching.
