In relation to the comments by JimRude and PWB about the lack of physiological testing at their universities, the Rushall paper posted by Q seems to indicate that such testing has no predictive value. He goes into particular detail with respect to lactate testing.
I found a more straight-forward statement than the one I posted earlier:
The following are implied from Noakes' considerations and those of others cited in this paper.
...
It should be noted that training with auxiliary activities, such as weight training, will not produce adaptations that transfer to competitive performances in experienced athletes.
Unfortunately the Rushall paper does more to debunk pseudo-scientific approaches than to provide training guidance. The paper Rich cites is more interesting in that regard. One can actually design a workout based on 4 minutes at 95%, 3 minutes recovery time, four times through.
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?
You are taking things a little far. The article says that if you want to get faster in the 100, you don't need to train twice a day, you don't need huge volume.
It doesn't claim that Michael Phelps isn't training correctly to get faster and be conditioned to swim and win 20 races in 6 days (or whatever it was). It doesn't claim that Bob Bowman doesn't know what he is doing.
But it does claim, if you want to get faster at the 100, 10k isn't better than 5k, twice a day isn't better than once a day. And it makes no claims about being competitive swimming a full line up at a prelims finals meet.
It is hard to determine the exact articles being cited, but one of the articles that looked like it was being cited made it pretty clear. When studying swimmers, improvement was correlated to training intensity and not training volume. I think that is a pretty logical conclusion.
None of the studies were conducted on low volume training plans. The average workout was 90 minutes or 5,000 yards depending on the study, 5 or 6 times a week. Not 3x50s on 10 minutes and call it a day :)
How much aerobic capacity do you need for any sub-minute bout? For a 100y/m specialist (still defined as a sprinter), E.W.Maglischo found out that the relative contribution of each phase of Energy Metabolism goes as follow:
- ATP/CP = 10%
- Anaerobic Mebolism = 55%
- Oxidative Glucose Metabolism (that is your aerobic metabolism here) 35%
(Source: Nomura, Wakayoshi, Miyashita and Mutoh, 1996; Ring, Mader, Wirtz and Wilkie, 1996; Serresse et al. 1998; Trappe 1996)
- - - - - - - - -
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. Your opinion, would a Base building phase be required for these specialist, or are we looking at all year round anaerobic capacity focus?
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.
long term die hard swimmers will not wear watches, as a general statement.
What about once long-term die hard swimmers who now just swim for fun? I wear a watch when I swim. It has come in handy a number of times when the pace-clock is on the fritz.
What sort of Base should an Elite sprinter carry? At least 5k/d in my opinion, with Peaks during the Base building phase that will probably go over 6k/d.
I still think that a strong endurance base is required, even for sprinters (50/100).
Just to play devil's advocate, one of the best masters sprinters in the world, Mike Ross, typically does 3500 yards per workout with mostly race pace and recovery swimming. Can't argue with his results.
I tend to hesitate to validate training/racing theories using fast master swimmers. These folks carry with them a training legacy that usually involve much more mileage (Base) done at earlier age.
That is why my hypothesis (5k/d base for sprinters) pertained to Elite Club or Varsity swimmers, which I believe is probably the sort of Base that made this grand champion at the first place.
As for his *race pace*, the guy seems to specialize from 50 to 200, which means that some of this race pace work targets aerobic capacity (the component that is missing from your program, in my opinion).
How do you know for sure if you don't read my blog? hahaha :bolt:
Since this is a masters forum, I tend to think it terms of applicability to masters. Many of us who swam as age groupers or in college were given a dose of mega training, whether welcome or not. Do you think this "base" hangs around for 20+ years though?
Just sayin' what Mike has told me about his training. Not sure he's that fond of 200s ...
Unfortunately for me, and fortunately for them, my answer is a definite yes. Especially if this base was built at young age, that is while the body is still growing.
Training regiment of this sort leave a permanent footprint.
I just don't see it. I am 45 and my last year of "serious" competitive swimming was at age 21, over half my life ago. No base remains from that.
I think you defined base as something like, the volume of work one can do in one week (I'm going from memory). If someone spent 20 years as a coach potato, I don't care how much he trained as a teenager, he won't have the base of almost any masters swimmer who practices regularly.
As Q pointed out, that doesn't mean he couldn't throw down a respectable 50 or even a 100 (though I bet the latter would hurt a lot), but it isn't due to any lingering base.
As far as some sort of permanent physiological footprint...maybe. But not a base as I understand you defined it, that will have a shelf-life unless actively maintained.
