Formula for Energy points in yards = (91.44/t)^3*t assuming 100 yard repeats. Energy points is just physics energy with a bunch of variables thrown out that become constants when looked at for an individual swimmer.
Examples of the points idea, and the points idea really is an idea meant to compete with GTD not Skiba or other training models. But maybe it is valid to use in calculating base for Solar :)
Here is an example of 1 workout, with variations of the main set.
Assume that the workout includes 1500 yards of warm up, cool down, drill, kick, etc, that would be done on the same intervals at the same effort no matter what. So the only variable is the main set, and I am assuming the main set is going to last about 20 minutes. I am trying to make the best use of my workout time by maximizing how much energy I use during that time.
All these would require the same energy, but the yardage is significantly different.
Main Set option 1 (this would be typical short rest):
- 15x100 on 1:20 holding 1:15s
- 2039 points or 15*(91.44/75)^3*75
Main Set option 2 (this would be 1:1 work:rest):
- 10x100 on 2:00 holding 1:01s
- 2055 points or 10*(91.44/61)^3*61
- 33% less volume same points
Main Set option 3 (impossible)
- 5x100 on 4:00 holding :43s
- 2067 points or 5*(91.44/43)^3*43
- 66% decrease in volume is too much to over come by swimming faster
Taking more rest to do faster work wouldn't hurt using this model in place of a GTD model. Aka, collecting points instead of yardage.
The similarity of energy needs between sets 1 and 2 justifies using speed work as an acceptable alternative to typical short rest sets even if the goal is weight loss.
The 3rd option is considered impossible if Main Set 1 is a typical set.
Here is the look up table:
Yards time Meters
305 *50* 400
293 *51* 384
282 *52* 369
272 *53* 355
262 *54* 342
252 *55* 330
243 *56* 318
235 *57* 307
227 *58* 297
219 *59* 287
212 *60* 277
205 *61* 268
198 *62* 260
192 *63* 251
186 *64* 244
180 *65* 236
175 *66* 229
170 *67* 222
165 *68* 216
160 *69* 210
156 *70* 204
151 *71* 198
147 *72* 192
143 *73* 187
139 *74* 182
135 *75* 177
132 *76* 173
128 *77* 168
125 *78* 164
122 *79* 160
119 *80* 156
116 *81* 152
113 *82* 148
110 *83* 145
108 *84* 141
105 *85* 138
103 *86* 135
101 *87* 132
98 *88* 129
96 *89* 126
94 *90* 123
Here's a proposal for you guys.
Aerobic/anaerobic balance = Log(T1/T2) / Log(D1/D2)
Where T1 and T2 represent two different personal bests over two distances, D1 and D2.
Compute it for yourself. Compute it for your idols whoever they are. Then compare. That tells you about your Aerobic/anaerobic balance, thus instructing you about your need for more aerobic vs anaerobic work.
What about that?
SE:
OK, so I did this several ways:
100/200 back = 1.12
50/200 back = 1.10
50/100 back = 1.08
50/100 free ≈ 1.17
50/500 free ≈ 1.09
So what does this suggest to you? I'm not immediately gaining any significant insight. It it that I should be shooting for a ratio of 1.0, and if so I should be doing slightly more speed work to lower the ratio? -OR- is it that my longer swims are slightly better so I should focus a little more on that?
I'm not sure that I have any swimming "idols." Ryosuke Irie has a beautiful backstroke and is proof that it is possible to compensate for smaller stature with an excellent stroke. Laurie Manaudou is proof that it is possible to swim distance events competitively with a high turnover, which means a lot to me because every since I was a young age group swimmer my stroke count has been high in comparison to my competitors. Only in the past few years have I seen coaches that I respect acknowledging that a high stroke count is not necessarily a bad thing. I don't have data to compute the SE-ratio for Irie or Manaudou.
First thing that strikes me related to your back events, is the relatively slow times over your 50s, which suggests a lack in term of pure speed power.
That would be a masterpiece of understatement:) No doubt my admiration of successful svelte swimmers is related.
This highlights a question I have had for some time. I've noticed that I am more competitive in non-sprint events and usually focus on those. Given my death of "pure speed power" would I get more benefit out of concentrating on building "pure speed power" or from building "speed endurance"? My current strategy is to do a mix of both in training, but sometimes I wonder if I should just concede that I will never have raw speed so I can focus more on speed endurance, which seems to be something more consistent with my physiology.
You are right about the free data btw, it's less reliable because it is collected over a variety of venues over a number or years. (I don't race free much.)
Isn't this the best thread ever,formulas,logs;how cool is that(I am not being sarcastic,I really love this stuff.)As to the question of whether a distance swimmer should do power work,I have no real data,except that when I first started consistently doing weights the first race that I started really seeing improvement in was the 200 BR.
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...
Was just an aerobic capacity set guys, in response to Lindsay's question.
How do you approach aerobic capacity training? Fortress I do remember that you do none which is cool.
Again Allen, this is NOT a race pace set. And besides, the 200m event is mostly aerobic so...
Here's a simple proposal guys.
Your aerobic/anaerobic balance =
Log(T1/T2) / Log(D1/D2)
Where T1 and T2 are two personal best times expressed in seconds for two different distances, D1 and D2.
Compute yours, and compare it with what it was last year, next year, later in the season etc.... Then compare it to your idols'.
An example that will speak to Allen.
US brewed Brendan Joseph aerobic/anaerobic balance in 2004, based on his two world records over 100 and 200 *** Long Course Meters can be computed as follow
Log(59.5/129.1) / Log(100/200) = 1.116
His two records later got beaten by Hitajima whos computed Aerobic/Anaerobic Balance = 1.117, which makes him a little more of a sprinter.
Note that I choose to call the fatigue decay resulting from this simple equation "Anaerobic/Aerobic" balance for the sake of this thread. The creator of this equation originally called this coefficient the Sprint/Distance Index (SDI).
Also note that an SDI of 1.10-1.12 has been shown over the years to correspond quite closely to an optimal SDI for a 50/100/200 specialist. If you're goes to the roof (e.g. 1.25-1.30 or something), this may indicate that you are under training the aerobic component.
Allen, I played a little computing your SDI based on results obtained during 2008 State Games of Oregon. The balance between your 100 and 200 comes up to 1.111, which is very good. I like your 10x200 set.
Fortress, I understand your position very clearly. No aerobic capacity development for you. Fine. That kind of goes against what most physiology experts would recommend, but we live in a free world don't we. I'll quote one of these experts in the next reply...
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.
How do you approach aerobic capacity training?
If you swim slow, you use the aerobic system directly as the majority of your energy needs come from the aerobic energy system.
If you swim fast, you use the aerobic system indirectly. Recovering from the anaerobic work taxes the aerobic system, plus unavoidable direct use of the aerobic system.
I do not see a reason why you would need to train just at a aerobic level. There is no avoiding the aerobic system becoming trained unless you do no training at all. But there is a need to train anaerobically.
Let me propose a different volume model. Instead of yardage, worry about energy expenditure. Energy demands increase exponentially as speed increases linearly, and this is obvious to everyone who has tried to go just one second faster and noticed that it is so much harder than the previous second was.
This is much more difficult to track I am afraid.
Training Suggestions that pertains to Sprinters (50/100)
Physiologically, sprinters must possess a high rate of anaerobic metabolism and an enhanced ability to buffer lactic acid to be successful in their short events. Still, they need a high level of aerobic capacity. Research suggests that successful sprinters who specialize in successful sprinters who specialize in the 100 and 200 yd of m events have a maximal ability to consume oxygen that is much greater than that of less successful sprinters (Olbrecht, 2000).
...
This circumstance is advantageous because recent research suggests that aerobic metabolism contributes a minor but substantial amount of energy for muscular contraction during sprint events. For example, estimates are that aerobic metabolism contributes between 18% and 29% of the total energy for 50 sprints (Ring et al., 1996), between 25% and 35% of the energy for 100 events, and between 35% and 45% of the energy for 200 events (Trappe, 1996). Obviously, aerobic metabolism makes substantial contribution to sprint events. Sprinters with above average ability to consume oxygen as well as above average anaerobic power and muscular power are certainly blessed.
Ernest W. Maglischo, Swimming Fastest, 2003.
