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.
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
Yeah, I remember that part of the book. It's the part with no evidence. I think a "serious" coach just means a coach who doesn't think for himself. By the way, Lezak did 15km/week when he split 46.0 in 2008.
Jazz, I'd be cautious in accusing Maglischo of bull shitting. He generally does his homeworks. If you really read this portion of the book, you may remember that he regularly throw statements like this one, found in this section you mention having read: "Some medalists in these groups have prepared for competition by swimming only 30 to 40k per week, and others have trained well in excess of those amounts."
Which is normal right? An avg is made of numbers that are lower and higher than this avg.
And are the above averages really even feasible for most masters swimmers No.
Unless you can swim at their speed, in order to make up an idea for yourself, you have to first convert the distance into time.
Definitely, your use of the word *most* implies I guess at least 50% of all masters. Right? Then I'd say that even the lower averages are not feasible at all for most masters.
do this kind of yardage or a workout that includes 5 x 500, 5 x 400, 5 x 300 etc. at "best average"? You didn't like that one. You get it wrong though, which doesn't help. In essence, the workout is 400 on 6min, 6min active recovery then 300 on 6min then 6min active recovery then 200 on 6min etc.... Principle is that you get a huge dose of overload during the first rep, and a smaller does as you progress into the set until you reach the 200 which is pretty much the minimal does that will elicit max o2 consumption.
This set was inspired by a very popular aerobic capacity set which consists of 5x5min at your best possible avg over the duration. I thought that all this pain may be unnecessary for a sprinter. But for a mid distance expert though, the 5x5 is desired. Their bread and butter I'd say.
Jazz, I'd be cautious in accusing Maglischo of bull shitting. He generally does his homeworks. If you really read this portion of the book, you should remembers that he regularly throw statements like this one, found in this section you mention having read: "Some medalists in these groups have prepared for competition by swimming only 30 to 40k per week, and others have trained well in excess of those amounts."
Which is normal right? An avg is made of numbers that are lower and higher than this avg.
High yardage isn't a fact of physiology, it's just a tradition. I bet you'll find that, on average, elite Hasidic swimmers wear funny hats. That does mean it's making them swim fast.
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?
Solar, I will read up on the physiology. It is a softer science than physics, and it is not as clear cut if what I am saying is valid. But to be clear, I am saying that 10x100s holding 1:01s on 2:00 will result in about the same aerobic benefit as 15x100s holding 1:15s on 1:20. Like I said, I will read up more on the aerobic and anaerobic systems to see if I am missing something obvious. There is still a good chance that science and reality are not quite in sync on the topic as well and someone could easily prove me wrong with empirical evidence.
91.44 is the constant for yards. You are in meters, right? The constant would be 100 for meters. But more explanation to come.
The look up table is for people not using a spreadsheet. :) The lookup table assumes you are doing 100s, and if you want to use it for 50s, you would divide the points and times in half. To scale up to 200s, you would multiple the points and times by 2. So you want to use the table for 1500s, multiple the points and times by 15. Obviously, we you start multiplying by large numbers, the times become less accurate
If you setup your spreadsheet like this:
A1: Distance in Meters, B1: Time in Seconds, C1: Energy Points
A2: 1500, B2: 1200, C3: =(A2/B2)^3*B2
If you were yards
A1: Distance in Yards, B1: Time in Seconds, C1: Energy Points
A2: 1650, B2: 1200, C3: =(.9144*A2/B2)^3*B2
I didn't realize what I was saying mathematically was so unclear. I will upload some example spreadsheets to play with.
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.
Lindsay, I believe it is impossible to train the anaerobic system without also training the aerobic system.
Points have limited value. They don't replace a season plan or well constructed workouts, but it could be used as a tool to convince yardage hounds to give up some distance in exchange for some speed work.
4. Me proposing to any reader a simple approach to determine if their aerobic/anaerobic balance is inline with that of their idols
Damn... sorry for quoting myself. I usually require several edits per posts. My Internet connection felt before I had the chance to add to this list this great proposal made by Q. This came as a wonderful surprise. Sorry for having skipped it while writing my post.
If I do the calculation for my 50/100/200 BR at Nationals (all PRs), I get
50/100 gives 1.135
100/200 gives 1.18 Not bad in my opinion. Compared to Allen, your 50/100 ratio is flatter, and your 100/200 ratio, as you mention, may indicate that you'd benefit from more aerobic capacity work, if you want to get closer to that of your idol of course :)
Here's a interesting question: how much individual variation is there in this coefficient? At this point, I am not sure. I am kind of at the beginning of all this. I ran a random test with two different breaststrokers having done world records at both events during the same weekend. The American did it first, then the Japanese. Both had an almost identical SDI (or aerobic/anaerobic balance). I was astonished to see that Allen was fairly close to these guys. This to me, indicates that he must be doing something very right. There's just this strange balance between the 50 and the others that doesn't quite add up. I'd have to compare it to other world class athletes but it ain't easy to find data on the 50 ***.
The thing that may answer your question somehow. Riegel did not bet on an Individual fatigue decay at all. So
@Fortress, I am a coach who's used to be challenged. I learn my job working in a University. Bunch of students learning sports. No hard feeling whatsoever. I think it's clear that you don't commit to any vo2max work and I definitely respect this. At the end of the day, we swim for fun aren't we?
Here are a couple of example spreadsheets to play with.
The workout example is a recent team workout I did where I just made up times and intervals, but it should be a decent example of an example of what I am talking about.
