For the sake of provoking further discussion I would like to assert that reducing training down to a single number, whether you call it base, or points, or volume, disobeys the rule "a simple as possible but no simpler" on the latter account. It seems to me that the aerobic and anaerobic energy systems and their level of training can not be meaningfully combined into a single factor because they can be varied independently. It's possible to have a great aerobic base and a limited anaerobic base and vice versa.
Wouldn't it make more sense to talk about an aerobic base and an anaerobic base and then say that an LSD set will contribute to the former while a sprint set will contribute to both?
Then you could talk about how much aerobic base and how much anaerobic base you need while training for such and such a distance or for a meet where you will swim such and such a set of events?
I have to say that the whole discussion of training frequency, durations, and intensity in Swimming Fastest chapter 12 is somewhat frustrating in its lack of differentiation between training for different events and the frequency with which it equates maximizing aerobic capacity and endurance with performance in its reasoning. Admittedly, training for different events is covered in chapter 15.
On page 508 there are are some interesting quotes:
Metabolically, athletes who specialize in 50 races should focus on improving sprint speed and muscle buffering capacity. The role of endurance training in their performance is inconsequential.
and
... although a an increase in aerobic capacity is important for improving the performance of sprinters in 100 races, training for that purpose is secondary to maintaining and, if possible, improving their sprint speed. Consequently, 100 sprinters need to make sprinting speed the top priority in their training. Endurance training is important only to the extent that it improves their ability to increase aerobic capacity without interfering with their efforts in sprint training. Sprinters should try to improve their aerobic capacity without maximizing it because that attempt may lead to a loss of sprint speed and buffering capacity.
which appears to me to contradict much of his reasoning back in Chapter 12, at least with respect 50/100 specialists.
For the sake of provoking further discussion I would like to assert that reducing training down to a single number, whether you call it base, or points, or volume, disobeys the rule "a simple as possible but no simpler" on the latter account. It seems to me that the aerobic and anaerobic energy systems and their level of training can not be meaningfully combined into a single factor because they can be varied independently. It's possible to have a great aerobic base and a limited anaerobic base and vice versa.
Wouldn't it make more sense to talk about an aerobic base and an anaerobic base and then say that an LSD set will contribute to the former while a sprint set will contribute to both?
Then you could talk about how much aerobic base and how much anaerobic base you need while training for such and such a distance or for a meet where you will swim such and such a set of events?
I have to say that the whole discussion of training frequency, durations, and intensity in Swimming Fastest chapter 12 is somewhat frustrating in its lack of differentiation between training for different events and the frequency with which it equates maximizing aerobic capacity and endurance with performance in its reasoning. Admittedly, training for different events is covered in chapter 15.
On page 508 there are are some interesting quotes:
Metabolically, athletes who specialize in 50 races should focus on improving sprint speed and muscle buffering capacity. The role of endurance training in their performance is inconsequential.
and
... although a an increase in aerobic capacity is important for improving the performance of sprinters in 100 races, training for that purpose is secondary to maintaining and, if possible, improving their sprint speed. Consequently, 100 sprinters need to make sprinting speed the top priority in their training. Endurance training is important only to the extent that it improves their ability to increase aerobic capacity without interfering with their efforts in sprint training. Sprinters should try to improve their aerobic capacity without maximizing it because that attempt may lead to a loss of sprint speed and buffering capacity.
which appears to me to contradict much of his reasoning back in Chapter 12, at least with respect 50/100 specialists.
