Another interesting study:
Short-term sprint interval versus traditional endurance training: similar initial adaptations in human skeletal muscle and exercise performance
Abstract
Brief, intense exercise training may induce metabolic and performance adaptations comparable to traditional endurance training. However, no study has directly compared these diverse training strategies in a standardized manner. We therefore examined changes in exercise capacity and molecular and cellular adaptations in skeletal muscle after low volume sprint-interval training (SIT) and high volume endurance training (ET). Sixteen active men (21 ± 1 years, Graphic) were assigned to a SIT or ET group (n = 8 each) and performed six training sessions over 14 days. Each session consisted of either four to six repeats of 30 s ‘all out’ cycling at ∼250% Graphic with 4 min recovery (SIT) or 90–120 min continuous cycling at ∼65% Graphic (ET). Training time commitment over 2 weeks was ∼2.5 h for SIT and ∼10.5 h for ET, and total training volume was ∼90% lower for SIT versus ET (∼630 versus ∼6500 kJ). Training decreased the time required to complete 50 and 750 kJ cycling time trials, with no difference between groups (main effects, P ≤ 0.05). Biopsy samples obtained before and after training revealed similar increases in muscle oxidative capacity, as reflected by the maximal activity of cytochrome c oxidase (COX) and COX subunits II and IV protein content (main effects, P ≤ 0.05), but COX II and IV mRNAs were unchanged. Training-induced increases in muscle buffering capacity and glycogen content were also similar between groups (main effects, P ≤ 0.05). Given the large difference in training volume, these data demonstrate that SIT is a time-efficient strategy to induce rapid adaptations in skeletal muscle and exercise performance that are comparable to ET in young active men.
Full text
My proposal isn't proprietary, it is just stripped down physics.
Energy point (E) = (100/t)^3*t for meters
or E = (91.44/t)^3*t for yards
50s are half the points on the lookup table for half the time, and 200s are twice the points for twice the time on the look up table. A spreadsheet would do everything for you.
t is time. If I was doing 100 repeats on 1:20, and I was hold 1:10, t=70.
Energy points should be a fair reflection of practice intensity on the individual level. If you are practicing at a 4000 points/hour, and then jump up a few hundred points, you have increased your intensity by stepping up your program somewhere.
What does this measure - total effort over time, intensity of effort over time, total intensity? 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?
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.
Another interesting study: Shows why it's important to consider all training as part of one's Base.
Has anyone looked at this book edited by Joel Stager and David Tanner? No. If it was not that expensive, I would probably order it. Its cost though is such that I will wait to see a few positive reviews before ordering it.
Q, two things if you don't mind.
First, I'd like to challenge you a bit on the physiology side. I do not think that sprint can be considered as a substitute for aerobic work. Not with performance in mind. To a very narrow extent, it does for untrained subjects, as the study quoted earlier by Linsday tried to demonstrate, but that's about it. Not sure if it's what you meant in your previous statement though. I may have read it wrong (as usual).
Then, would you mind providing me (total dumb in physics) a practical example on how to apply your point system? It'd help me building my excel spreadsheet. I think I understand how to build the core function, but I have no clue on how to use your lookup table :confused:
*edit*
Ran a few calculations. Well done. It's holding the road in a lot of circumstances. I still do not know how to use the table though. That probably explains the following issue that I am getting. How would you input a single 1500 bout done in 20min? I tried 1*(91.44/1200)^3*1200, which doesn't work obviously. I am probably getting this 91.44 constant wrong? Is this where the lookup table comes in?
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.
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.
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.
I understand. This compares energy used during the actual swim portion of the workout and adjusts the energy used based on you speed in the sets. I assume from your examples that if you maintained 1:01's on 10 100s on a 3 minute interval, you would gain the same amount of energy points as if you had a 2 minute or even 1:10 interval - the difference would be that you had less time for the rest of your workout?
I think it is an interesting concept.
This is not a race pace set, hence the fact that I just qualified this final 50 as the desert. It's a pure aerobic capacity set which would allow a decent sprinter to log between 5-7 minutes (really fair guessed here) at max o2 peak. This is not a race pace set, it's a vo2max set which sprinters may see as something fun to perform, since the core of the set takes them gradually in their comfort zone.
What would be your suggestion as an aerobic capacity set? How would you approach this sort of work, if you thought it was important to address?
I'm not trying to pick on you, Solar. Just wondering if this set is really necessary for sprinters.
My lack of focus on aerobic capacity work in the pool is either my greatest strength or greatest weakness. :D I've had good luck with race pace work for 50/100s, and don't really have much desire to do conventional aerobic sets or 50K. If I do them, I usually kick. Everyone assumes they have to be swum, but not really. I get aerobic work from cross training as well (yoga, jump rope, tabata, cycle).
And this is where things become very interesting. For example, the balance achieved when using both Allen's 100/200 breaststroke events is perfectly inline with two aforementioned world class breaststroke events. However, the same calculation done with his 50/100 reveals lots of room for improvement. IOW, his 50 suggests that his aerobic/anaerobic balance is lacking on the higher end of the aerobic spectrum.
It's up to Fortress to perform the same exercise and see. It's certainly not up to me to issue any judgment on her position in regards to the importance of training aerobic capacity.
Allens swims 200s; I don't. I can't swim a good 200, and am very pace impaired. So my position is only wrt sprints. I don't think aerobic capacity work is utterly irrelevant and I work that energy system; it's just not my main focus.
Nothing is a good predictor of performance
Oh man I love it. An open door for one of my favorite quotes: Best predictor for performance, is performance itself (Andrew Coggan, 1980)
