This approach is very safe and conventional. You grew your work capacity up to a certain extent, then lost a bit of it in favor of more quality work. Was validated way back then by Bompa, and it still applies today in my humble opinion.
Yes, the approach worked but I think the main key is having a program and sticking to it. If you can do that, combined with a quality program, results will follow.
This approach is very safe and conventional. You grew your work capacity up to a certain extent, then lost a bit of it in favor of more quality work. Was validated way back then by Bompa, and it still applies today in my humble opinion.
But is this what you recommend for 50s & 100s?
I don't think dryland has been "disproved;" perhaps drylands are more idiosyncratic. And that was very odd wording, indeed, Lindsay.
This now yields a question for Fortress: Can you really manage to perform more than the half of every of your workout targeting anaerobic capacity?
My point really is that even the biggest proponents of race pace training will have a lot of difficulty bringing their Anaerobic/Aerobic ratio to 50/50 without dying real soon after the start of the season.
No, it would never even occur to me to do that.
My point is I don't spend much time intentionally "base building" (which is not to say I don't have a base) and I don't do much hard aerobic work on short rest intervals. I do plenty of technique work and recovery swimming in addition to anaerobic efforts.
Just bare in mind, in case that your coach might schedule some hard aerobic work on tight intervals that these will also greatly help your performances over 100. Anaerobic capacity is highly dependent on Aerobic capacity. Like Q mentioned, passed a certain point, these two may conflict with each other but very few members here will ever reach this point in my opinion.
How can this be read and understood? Simple. Your 200free will help your 100free. Like you may guess, the 200free does so by allowing you to finish your 100 stronger. Training isn't that complicated after all. It all depends on the angle from which we look at it.
I train 95% solo except for a couple months in the summer. I'd rather do the nastiest lactate set than do hard short rest intervals on my own.
I swam one 200 this year, and retired from that distance.
The "train 200 for the 100" is too conventional for me ... And I sort of train the opposite way you suggest. I work on fast 25s for my 50s and fast 50s for my 50s and 100s. I almost never swim fly in practice and 100 fly was my best event at Nats. Different strokes ...
journals.lww.com/.../Aerobic_High_Intensity_Intervals_Improve_V_spacing.12.aspx
This link is to a study that relates to the current discussion. Four groups of randomly selected moderately trained subjects in their 20’s performed four distinct running exercise protocols that ranged from long slow distance (70% max HR for approx 45 minutes); lactate threshold (85% max HR for 24-25 minutes); 15 seconds @ 95% alternating with 15 seconds of recovery (47 repetitons; and 4 minutes @ 95% HR alternating with 3 minutes of recovery (4 repetions). All four protocols were designed to result in similar total oxygen consumption and were performed 3 X/ week for 8 weeks.
Bottom line, the high intensity groups increased aerobic capacity significantly more than the less intense groups (5.5% for the 15/15 group and 7.2% for the 4 x 4 minute group. What I found to be of particular interest was the huge increase in stroke volume (amount of blood pumped per heart beat) in the high intensity groups compared to the moderate aerobic groups.
My point in referencing this article is about how to improve your aerobic capacity. I’m not addressing anaerobic capacity at all. So, if you’re more of the endurance type athlete, this is something to consider when working on your “aerobic base.”
BTW, I do believe that at least one day a week you should do an aerobic recovery day never getting your heart rate higher than 40 beats less than your max. Current research supports that this will enable higher levels of anaerobic work capacity in training.
I also believe that the physiological research in track, cross country skiing and cycling is more advanced than research in swimming.
The Base here is defined as this good old cliché pyramid analogy saying that if you want to grow higher peaks over shorter distances, you got to first build strong aerobic foundation.
Well, does that idea make any sense at all? (Hint: no)
journals.lww.com/.../Aerobic_High_Intensity_Intervals_Improve_V_spacing.12.aspx
Bottom line, the high intensity groups increased aerobic capacity significantly more than the less intense groups (5.5% for the 15/15 group and 7.2% for the 4 x 4 minute group. What I found to be of particular interest was the huge increase in stroke volume (amount of blood pumped per heart beat) in the high intensity groups compared to the moderate aerobic groups.
My point in referencing this article is about how to improve your aerobic capacity.
Jazz has cited similar (or perhaps the same) article(s). That's the reason I don't worry about "base." What I do will build a base. I like tabata drylands for that purpose as well.
Well, does that idea make any sense at all? (Hint: no) Looking forward to read about your thoughts on this topic.
Doesn't make sense to you in other words? This concept that you need to build a strong Base to later build other fitness components on it?
