Training article - For everyone!

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Former Member — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:20:58 GMT

Way, way, way...way up the thread there was a discussion about the effects of a long layoff on performance. There was a study of Miguel Indurain on the effects of detraining. He was 25-30 lbs heavier and they tested him 14 years after his retirement. His measured oxygen uptake and power output numbers would favorably compare to current professional cyclists. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../22868823

RE: Training article - For everyone!

__steve__ — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:01:08 GMT

Regarding to the Indurain conclusion, "Larger declines in maximal and submaximal values relative to body mass (19.4-26.1%) indicate that body composition changed more than aerobic characteristics. " I would also like to know if the aerobic characteristics will change less in cases like this because of genes, because it was developed in early years of life (early teens), or because of both.

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Allen Stark — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:34:32 GMT

If I swam 200BR faster than 3:36.37 (LCM) or 3:38.16 (SCM) I'd be breaking the IPC world record for my disability classification. If I went faster than 3:42.68 (LCM) I'd have the Australian and Oceania record. I'm good, but I'm not that good! SDI: interesting. Thanks. I think SolarEnergy probably meant SCY,not LCM or even SCM.

RE: Training article - For everyone!

__steve__ — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 03:38:05 GMT

If I did the math correctly, for 50/100 fr, 30.1/112.1, my SDI would be 1.55?

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Sportygeek — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:19:03 GMT

With Master swimmers, a 200 breaststroke is taking what... 2:45 maybe? 2:50? If I swam 200BR faster than 3:36.37 (LCM) or 3:38.16 (SCM) I'd be breaking the IPC world record for my disability classification. If I went faster than 3:42.68 (LCM) I'd have the Australian and Oceania record. I'm good, but I'm not that good! SDI: interesting. Thanks.

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Karl_S — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 05:35:00 GMT

In an effort to deduce what represents a "good" value for the sprint distance index (SDI) I have carried out some analysis. According to: "Swim to Win: Train Like a Champion," By Ed Nessel; The racing formula for a 100 backstroke is: Let x = (best 50 time) 1st 50 = x + 1 2nd 50 = 1st 50 + 1.5 Similarly, the racing formula for a 200 backstroke is: Let y = (best 100 time) 1st 100 = y + 3 ...to... y + 4 2nd 100 = 1st 100 + 3.6 It follows that if x is your best 50 time in seconds, your best 100 time should be about 2x+3.5. It follows that if y is your best 100 time in seconds, your best 200 time should be about 2y+11. The "ideal" SDI for 50/100 backstroke is then: SDI(50/100) = (log(x/50))/(log((2*x+3.5)/100)) A graph of this function is shown in the attached file. The first thing we learn is that the "ideal" SDI depends on how fast you swim. For me, my best 50 back is 31.01 seconds, so my ideal SDI(50/100) = 1.13. My actual SDI(50/100) = 1.14. I'll take that. If you are faster, your ideal SDI is lower. If you are slower, your ideal SDI is higher. The "ideal" SDI for 100/200 backstroke is: SDI(100/200) = (log(y/100))/(log((2*y+11)/200)) A graph of this function is shown in the attached file. Again we see that the "ideal" SDI depends on how fast you swim. For me, my best 100 back is 65.89 seconds, so my ideal SDI(100/200) = 1.24. My actual SDI(50/100) = 1.22. Again, I'll take that. One could discuss whether Nessel has the best possible racing formulas. Others have advocated slightly different splitting for the 100 and 200. Using the approach taken above, one could generate a SDI curve for another racing formula. The best splitting is also stroke dependent. Again, the above analysis could be applied to other racing formulae for other strokes.

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Chris Stevenson — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 12:55:50 GMT

Does anyone have a working link to the original article? Yeah I was looking for that too b/c I calc'd my numbers but have little idea how to interpret them. Based on best times over the past two years: Back SCY: 50/100 is 1.11, 100/20 is 1.16 Back LCM: 1.09 and 1.13 Fly SCY: 100/200 is 1.19 (I have never done a shaved 50) Fly LCM: 50/100 is 1.15, 100/200 is 1.22 Free SCY: 200/500 is 1.09, 500/100 is 1.06 (I would expect these last numbers to be lower since they are longer distances; in other words, you take out a longer race at closer to your race pace for a race that's half the distance. Possibly also true a little bit for LCM races relative to SCY/SCM?)

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Tchaik — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 08:40:57 GMT

Does anyone have a working link to the original article?

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Kevin in MD — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 07:05:07 GMT

Does anyone have a working link to the original article? web.archive.org/.../0952.htm

RE: Training article - For everyone!

__steve__ — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 05:20:20 GMT

What were the actual times for one of the equations (50/100bk) so I can piece together the math

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Karl_S — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 04:35:13 GMT

On 12 June 2010 SE suggested that we investigae our SDI: Your aerobic/anaerobic balance = Log(T1/T2) / Log(D1/D2) I replied: SE: OK, so I did this several ways: 100/200 back = 1.12 50/200 back = 1.10 50/100 back = 1.08 Yesterday I recomputed: 100/200 back = 1.21 50/200 back = 1.39 50/100 back = 1.14 Since I last posted, I have improved my time in all three bk events; 50, 100 & 200. The changes in SDI suggest that my anerobic ability has improved relative to my aerobic ability. This is rather surprising to me. While I have been attempting to do more race-pace work in practice, my workouts still contain a lot of 100s and 200s on short rest, (the stuff sprinters like Fort and chowmi won't go near). I'm wondering if what the results shown above really mean is that I haven't reached my current potential in the 200.

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Former Member — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:51:35 GMT

Hey Wookie, Geek trounced me and out trained me, but PWolf was the one who the bet was with. He trounced me and under trained me. I did drop 7 seconds in my 200 free and 2 in my 100 free in the last year, so the old way wasn't horrible, but you are right, I would like to do better. Relax Q, just messin with ya. Those are good time drops. Congrats.

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Former Member — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:47:31 GMT

Is that what you were doing before geek trounced you in the 200? If so, I wouldn't go back to training the old way. Hey Wookie, Geek trounced me and out trained me, but PWolf was the one who the bet was with. He trounced me and under trained me. I did drop 7 seconds in my 200 free and 2 in my 100 free in the last year, so the old way wasn't horrible, but you are right, I would like to do better.

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Former Member — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:39:52 GMT

Ok, 200 posts later, I think it is time for more experimentation and less postulation. qbrain is actually going to start training again and stop talking so much. Is that what you were doing before geek trounced you in the 200? If so, I wouldn't go back to training the old way.

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Former Member — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:24:49 GMT

Ok, 200 posts later, I think it is time for more experimentation and less postulation. qbrain is actually going to start training again and stop talking so much.

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Former Member — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:22:27 GMT

I'm not so sure. In fact, the article posted by Rich Abrahams in post 44 says the opposite. Interval training improved VO2max by 5-7%, while threshold training improved it by only 2%. That's better than purely LSD training, at least, which actually resulted in a 0.7% decrease in VO2max. All I was saying sjstuart is that anaerobic metabolism is always active and working. If it's true that during a purely anaerobic capacity effort, the aerobic metabolism is working, it's also true that during a purely aerobic effort, the anaerobic metabolism is also contributing. As for the magnitude at which the vo2max will be improved relying on threshold work solely, it depends on where you start from at the first place. Untrained subject would see a boost, trained subject may see a regression etc... For example, a 200 breaststroke specialist ending his season in July, resuming it in august with lower level endurance work only (

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Former Member — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:14:08 GMT

In the end, if it's true that mostly anaerobic work still gets the aerobic metabolism going, the opposite is also true. I'm not so sure. In fact, the article posted by Rich Abrahams in post 44 says the opposite. Interval training improved VO2max by 5-7%, while threshold training improved it by only 2%. That's better than purely LSD training, at least, which actually resulted in a 0.7% decrease in VO2max.

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Former Member — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:09:30 GMT

Really sorry Jazz, if you have any question, I'll really try my best to provide with understandable answers. I knew that this physiology talk would not please everyone, but I feel it was necessary. Besides, I hope it helped correcting perceptions such as these.... I think a "serious" coach just means a coach who doesn't think for himself. High yardage isn't a fact of physiology, it's just a tradition.

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Former Member — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:05:31 GMT

Can somebody change the topic to "Training article - For nerds!"? No, the title is correct, the article is for everyone. The discussion that has ensued is for nerds. Glad to see you stop by ;)

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Former Member — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:27:38 GMT

Can somebody change the topic to "Training article - For nerds!"?

RE: Training article - For everyone!

aquageek — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:37:26 GMT

qbrain is actually going to start training again and stop talking so much. Any chance we can get a guarantee on that?

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Former Member — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 06:25:14 GMT

Ok, 200 posts later, I think it is time for more experimentation and less postulation. I realized that I'm not done just yet. Just had a very exciting discussion in private. Here's my proposal. All non free style specialists, that have an interest at really improving the 200, consider yourself as sprint/mid distance swimmers. Coach on the clip is kind of positive on that. 200/400, pretty much the same animals. With Master swimmers, a 200 breaststroke is taking what... 2:45 maybe? 2:50? Well that is a full 50sec at max o2 peak (max hr). Requires a solid aerobic capacity development program. Not even talking about 400/300/200/100/50 like proposed for the 100 specialists, but rather about real vo2max sets, with all the progressive overload that comes before during the Base build up. It's not the distance that places an event in this or that category, it's the time it'll take you to complete the event. Now, no more physiology hard core talk, unless someone wants to continue challenging the concepts that were brought forward so far. If anyone wants to try and propose aerobic capacity development sets, be my guess.

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Former Member — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 06:01:39 GMT

Few interesting quotes "Everybody know what everybody is doing, but how you implement it....."(referring to the X factor) "Not everything about the 'old' is bad, and not everything about the 'new' is good" "The energy system is not... clear. It's like a rainbow. There's no line between the rainbow colors" "You shouldn't wait until your last meet to test to see if you get it right". (there, he's talking about his rewarding system which is aimed at giving each swimmer a mission at every meet, even low key ones).

RE: Training article - For everyone!

knelson — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 01:15:41 GMT

Garrett McCaffrey interviewed Jon Urbanchek for the Morning Swim Show at the Meet of Champions in Mission Viejo last week. Urbanchek has always been a pretty forward thinking coach in terms of using science to assist in training his swimmers. He's been thinking in terms of energy systems for a long time and was an early adopter of using blood lactate testing. He doesn't get into anything real technical in this interview, but it's always great to hear him speak. He always has something interesting to say. blip.tv/.../hI8Ogeb7dgI

RE: Training article - For everyone!

Former Member — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:10:30 GMT

Based on Lindsay and SolarEnergy's encouragement, I did some more reading on respiration to see if my beliefs that training anaerobic at equivalent energy levels would work the aerobic system just as hard. I think I was wrong, anaerobic interval training alone will not tax the aerobic system optimally for a swimmer. No math, promise. Here is some of what I learned. Energy production is localized. For example, the muscles in your arms can become more efficient, while your legs do not. The adaptions caused by training happen on a per cell level, and if a cell isn't being worked, it has no reason to adjust. This is obvious every time one of us who is in shape goes and does something new, and is quickly winded and sore the next day. The "but I thought I was in shape" phenomenon. If a muscle is getting any anaerobic energy, then it is at 100% aerobic capacity. If a muscle has oxygen, it is going to use it. Sugar is converted to anaerobic energy much less efficiently than aerobic. If you drive a car in aerobic mode and get 20 miles to the gallon, anaerobic mode is about 1 mile to the gallon. Lactate is a waste product to anaerobic energy production. Lactate is recycled after oxygen becomes available. The recycling process requires energy that is provided aerobically. Lactate recycling takes about 3x as much energy as it provided originally, so there is a lot of post exercise aerobic work being done. Although a lot of aerobic energy is needed to convert lactate back to sugar, this process isn't done in your swimming muscles, and does not benefit your aerobic swimming at all. Taxing the lactate recycling system (that happens in the liver) will help you recover faster as your liver adapts to processing larger volumes of lactate. The aerobic benefits caused by anaerobic energy production are really next event benefits, not this event benefits. In another thread, Rich Abrahams mentioned that Michael Mann told him to do a controlled 30 minute swim at an aerobic level. I didn't understand why at the time but I think I understand now. Interval training gives the aerobic system in the swimming muscles a break. An occasional long slow swim (I think Rich said he did it weekly) would encourage adaption of the aerobic system specifically in the swimming muscles. If Rich or Michael wants to explain the real justification, I would love to hear it. Here are my opinions on training right now Long uninterrupted swims are probably the best for improving aerobic conditioning where it matters. The majority of training time should be devoted to anaerobic work. I don't see any benefit to swimming intervals at aerobic pace over swimming aerobic pace continually. I don't see what beneficial adaption would occur when extreme over distance training (>x4 target event).