disobeys the rule "a simple as possible but no simpler" on the latter account. Gees my favorite quote. Things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler, Albert Einstein
Now speaking about quotes, here's one that you'll probably like. Comes from Andrew Coggan, father of what is believed to be one of the most reliable scoring model available out there...
"A greater limitation to the entire concept, though, is that the
basic premise – i.e., that you can adequately describe the training load
and the stress it imposes on an individual based on just one number
(TSS), completely ignoring how that “score” is achieved and other
factors (e.g., diet, rest) – is, on its face, ridiculous...Nonetheless, I believe
that TSS (and IF) should prove useful to coaches and athletes for
evaluating/managing training."
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? Not in my mind. Easier to talk about the Base in general, since for me Base simply refers to your ability to do work. Then from there, you can hopefully (and it's the case for most models) further analyze your data to see the composition of your base. How much of this, how much of that.
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 guess it's just semantic then. But yes, I'd say it's fun to see graphs representing your overall training composition by intensity levels. This is how Coggan's model was implemented in the software most people use to play with it ( home.trainingpeaks.com/.../analysis-software-for-training-files.aspx )
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. The way I see it, in chap12, all that Maglischo is trying to do is to inform you about the sort of volumes that other serious coaches seem to embrace.
For the benefit of those who don't yet own the book:
80-85k / w for distance swimmers
60-70k / w for mid
40-50k / w for sprinters
He then mentions Costill (1986), converts the running based propose volume into swimming volume (30-50yd or m) but then questions the validity of such a conversion
He finally settles for a propose mileage of 50-70k. Used to be higher but not anymore nowadays. Again for sprinters, it could be lower.
disobeys the rule "a simple as possible but no simpler" on the latter account. Gees my favorite quote. Things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler, Albert Einstein
Now speaking about quotes, here's one that you'll probably like. Comes from Andrew Coggan, father of what is believed to be one of the most reliable scoring model available out there...
"A greater limitation to the entire concept, though, is that the
basic premise – i.e., that you can adequately describe the training load
and the stress it imposes on an individual based on just one number
(TSS), completely ignoring how that “score” is achieved and other
factors (e.g., diet, rest) – is, on its face, ridiculous...Nonetheless, I believe
that TSS (and IF) should prove useful to coaches and athletes for
evaluating/managing training."
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? Not in my mind. Easier to talk about the Base in general, since for me Base simply refers to your ability to do work. Then from there, you can hopefully (and it's the case for most models) further analyze your data to see the composition of your base. How much of this, how much of that.
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 guess it's just semantic then. But yes, I'd say it's fun to see graphs representing your overall training composition by intensity levels. This is how Coggan's model was implemented in the software most people use to play with it ( home.trainingpeaks.com/.../analysis-software-for-training-files.aspx )
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. The way I see it, in chap12, all that Maglischo is trying to do is to inform you about the sort of volumes that other serious coaches seem to embrace.
For the benefit of those who don't yet own the book:
80-85k / w for distance swimmers
60-70k / w for mid
40-50k / w for sprinters
He then mentions Costill (1986), converts the running based propose volume into swimming volume (30-50yd or m) but then questions the validity of such a conversion
He finally settles for a propose mileage of 50-70k. Used to be higher but not anymore nowadays. Again for sprinters, it could be lower.
