The 200 distance seems to be the dividing line for most sprinters. Long distance swims may have a positive side in terms of providing recovery from all out efforts (but perhaps that's about it).
The reason for me mentioning about the 400 is that it is the purest aerobic capacity swim event of all.
Takes a good 2 minutes before reaching your max o2peak.
One of the most popular vo2max training approach nowadays is the famous 5x5. 5 times 5 min at highest possible speed over the duration.
In swimming world, such a workout goes as follow:
5 x 400 on 10min. All out effort over the distance (that is best possible avg).
It sucks I know, sprinters probably hate this, but the reason why it is still on their menu lies down to the fact that anaerobic capacity is highly dependent on this fitness component. In other words, 100 specialists who spend time (earlier in the season) on developing their best 400 are probably not wasting their time.
Here. This is just one little example among hundreds. In the article above, anaerobic capacity is measured by tracking the max o2 accumulated deficit. To the best of my knowledge, an capacity is almost always tested this way.
bjsm.bmj.com/.../45.abstract
If you improve your max o2 peak, without neglecting your training for the sprint events, that increases your an capacity by delaying the o2 deficit. Very simple yet widely accepted little equation.
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.
That is pretty interesting. Especially when you consider that cardiac output = heart rate x stroke volume, and our maximum heart rate declines with age.
That's the reason I don't worry about "base."
I suspect you already have a well developed aerobic base. And since you don't compete in distances greater than 100 yards, I'm not sure I see the benefit of doing a lot of aerobic work in the pool.
So..... Michael Phelps and his coach had it all wrong? And for that matter, most of the Olympians? As did all the folks who chose to leave their native lands to train in the USA?
Studies are great, and may, over time prove themselves.
But can someone start citing elite level performances (say at the Olympic or Pan-Pac level) where the multi-kilometer model was not used during the competitor's lifetime?
But can someone start citing elite level performances (say at the Olympic or Pan-Pac level) where the multi-kilometer model was not used during the competitor's lifetime?
Cameron van der Burgh? www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/.../20932.asp
(No idea if he didn't do aerobic training "during his lifetime;" that's rather broad.)
On the masters front, quite a few elite masters emphasize race pace training and don't do much aerobic work.
Base: using my current understanding from SolarEnergy has said, is anything. If someone wants to train just 25s all out efforts, they can and will build a base. I don't think this is what he meant, just what resulted from thinking about his previous statements.
You build on a base of what you have already accomplished. If you have never trained, or have become untrained from a long break, then you have no base. Doing anything will build a base. Since the quality of your base depends on your goals, there isn't a good general way to build a base.
Aerobic Base: I do not believe you ever need to train at an aerobic level to build more aerobic base. All training efforts end up using the aerobic system. If you only ever do 2 second sprints, you still work your aerobic system. Assume you are working directly from CP, ATP or lactic acid fermentation with 0% of your energy coming from aerobic sources. Upon completion of this energy expenditure, the free energy used will need to be restored, and this requires the aerobic cycle. Train however you want, the aerobic system will always end up getting used. The harder you work, the harder it will be used.
If I am a 50/100 specialist. Elite level. Should I bother doing any aerobic work at all? The author of the article quote a volume of 6k per day as being too much, without proposing any alternative.
Maybe the answer is that someone concentrating on truly anaerobic events shouldn't be paying attention at all to what their volume is in terms of distance. Instead they should be concentrating on how much race paced training they are doing.
Base: using my current understanding from SolarEnergy has said, is anything. Yip. That is pretty much what I meant thanks.
This yields the question then why the heck even talking about it. Base can now be quantified. So lots of people now care about. it.
If I ask you how much work can you achieve per week. I'm probably going to get an answer expressed in term of volume which is fine, given that I assume that your training composition is pretty much similar as mine. That's ok. Good enough.
So yip. A base is basically how much work, how much of anything you can perform routinely, hence the term *Chronic* training load.
You build on a base of what you have already accomplished. Nothing could be closer from the truth. Though the default settings of the software give much more weight to what you've done in the last 42days, it is a never ending story. The last 42 are a consequence of the 42 before etc...
If you have never trained, or have become untrained from a long break, then you have no base. Doing anything will build a base. Since the quality of your base depends on your goals, there isn't a good general way to build a base. In total agreement. Different goals call for different approaches.
At the end of every single workout cyclists download their training data to a computer. This data is recorded at a rate of one data sample per 1.26sec. It includes RPM, Speed, HR, Torque, Elevation, Power etc... Charts then get generated. One of them shows you your Base. It also shows you your peaks. You then get to learn to interpret this data and after a while, you end up having a fair idea of what your Base should be, given the goals, time available, strengths and weaknesses etc.
Building Base also builds fatigue. It is also shown on the graphs. Then people, (lots of them) start to wonder at which rate should I grow my base, or up to which point should I tolerate high fatigue curve values etc.....
Aerobic Base: I do not believe you ever need to train at an aerobic level to build more aerobic base. All training efforts end up using the aerobic system. In agreement here again. That's why I called it the aerobic base early in the thread.
As a coach and swimmer, you can simplify the seemingly complex training strategies designed to make swimmers faster by understanding and following progressive adaptations to stress. As complex as scientific principles may seem, if you apply stress to your body and allow it to adapt to that stress you will swim faster. When you record important baseline fundamentals (kicking, sprints, pain tolerance, edurance, pace, stroke rate efficiency / technical efficiency, breakouts, starts and turns) and have a plan to objectively evaluate and improve upon them, you will get faster. Use the scientific information that is valid and use it to train smarter. This information is fantastic but unless it helps you to train more effectively, it's not really helping you. I think all this information comes down to applying it so you train smarter and not just harder. Good luck, Coach T.
