I bet I could convince even the coolest of the cool on my team to wear a watch during practice and sync it with their computer if it would further swimming research.As the self-proclaimed coolest of the cool, I'm not even with geek ...
Hmmm, I'll take that bet. I suspect you could get a few to do it for a practice or two but long term die hard swimmers will not wear watches, as a general statement...
... because I wouldn't even wear a watch for one workout because I'd fear that the imbalance would screw with my technique ... which brings me to Dr. Q:
...What would logically explain this? ...
No, it is technique. Swimming is like riding a bicycle. You get a little rusty, but you never forget. Better technique is what allows them to become elites in the first place.
... where I am in wholehearted agreement. Where the analogies/comparisons between swimming and running fall down is the environment in which we compete and the relative impact of technique on performance. While I know technique matters in running, I posit that it matters way more in swimming because of the fluid and the resistance we compete in.
People who had good technique in the past have a far shorter hurdle to clear than people who had poor technique. Go to any triathlon swim leg and you can not only see that, in general, the better technique'd swimmer wins, but, often, the better technique'd swimmers exit the water looking far more refreshed.
But, I disagree that base doesn't matter, particularly for any event over a 50 or even 50 events in LCM. Like JimRude ...
...
But the give-away, for me, is that I am much closer to my "all-time bests" in short events; the longer the distance, the further away I am.
...I have swim (B70-adjusted!) lifetime best in the 50, close to it in the 100 ("now base" not the "20 year ago base" matters now for mid-distance to distance performance.
... There may be some exceptions to this rule, but I think they are exceptions. Unless they were distance swimmers to begin with and have stayed in shape (Jeff Erwin)I don't know Jeff's best times, but, I would hazard that even his mile is off more than his 500. Maybe not, but, if so, he's in a very small group with guys like Kostich (whose 15:50-something 1650 this year blew my mind).
Hmmm, I'll take that bet. I suspect you could get a few to do it for a practice or two but long term die hard swimmers will not wear watches, as a general statement. Now, give the watch to a bunch of tris and they will strap one on their nose for you, heck, they will want to wear two, maybe three watches, but only if combined with a man-kini, heart rate strap, paddles, pull buoy, and fins.
My team is almost entirely tris and fitness swimmers and no long term die hard swimmers.
I fall into the fitness swimmer group.
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, which makes it fairly complete (as a training program I mean).
Hmmm, I'll take that bet. I suspect you could get a few to do it for a practice or two but long term die hard swimmers will not wear watches, as a general statement. Now, give the watch to a bunch of tris and they will strap one on their nose for you, heck, they will want to wear two, maybe three watches, but only if combined with a man-kini, heart rate strap, paddles, pull buoy, and fins.
:rofl:
Do you think this "base" hangs around for 20+ years though? 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.
Of course, not every swimming having swam a lot at early age can expect reaching Ross' level. Other factors such as genetic have their weight too.
I also agree about the importance of staying Master Swimmer specific on such a discussion forum. The reason why I jumped in this thread holding an Elite Swimmer sort of speech is that most if not all articles quoted in the thread pertains to elite level swimming. I am not reacting against these articles anyway, just against the fact that none of them could issue any suggestion in term of what the base should be.
try to hold 40kmh (25mhp) for an hour. These old guys can do this, with minimal training.
Define "minimal." It isn't "no training." The amount I train now compared to college is "minimal" and yet I can hold my own with most fast age groupers in practice. But it isn't because of what I did 20 years ago, it is because of what I've done in the last five.
I sometimes ride with a 65-yo who can hold that kind of pace; he is an amazing cyclist (when he goes, usually in the top 3 bike splits in his age group at Kona) but his training is far from minimal, though certainly less than what a pro cyclist would do.
Are you telling us a former pro can get on a bike after 20 years of not riding, and hold that kind of pace with absolutely no prior training?
By the way, this has been a great thread, one that I'm sure I'll re-read more carefully this weekend.
Do you think this "base" hangs around for 20+ years though?
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.
Of course, not every swimming having swam a lot at early age can expect reaching Ross' level. Other factors such as genetic have their weight too.
I also agree about the importance of staying Master Swimmer specific on such a discussion forum. The reason why I jumped in this thread holding an Elite Swimmer sort of speech is that most if not all articles quoted in the thread pertains to elite level swimming. I am not reacting against these articles anyway, just against the fact that none of them could issue any suggestion in term of what the base should be.
I see no basis for this statement. Fat old elite swimmers who havn't done more than lift a beer for 20 years can hop in the pool and swim a couple fast 50s or 100s. Fast being relative to a typical trained non-ex-elite master.
What would logically explain this? They are completely out of shape, but can still attain above average speeds. Would this be base developed years ago that they are still drawing from?
No, it is technique. Swimming is like riding a bicycle. You get a little rusty, but you never forget. Better technique is what allows them to become elites in the first place.
Josh Schneider is a current elite, and his base is tiny, almost non existent in the world of D1 collegiate swimming. Yet he beat Nathan Adrian and slew of others in the 50 free. I bet his technique is pretty good, especially his starts and turns.
So those of us who are trying to catch up with the elites, we really don't need to worry to much about trying to catch up with the 15 years of 5 hours per day workouts these guys spent in the pool building a base, but we do need to worry about the bazillion hours they have used to fine tune their start, turn, streamline, kick, pull, pace and everything else that goes into getting from the beginning of the race and the finish.
You did say that Base meant pretty much anything, so maybe Base includes technique? :)
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.
Agree 100%. The 12,000+ meters per day in college have been swamped by 20+ years of (relative) inactivity. Some technique remains, which may make it easier to regain some semblance of aerobic and anaerobic fitness.
But the give-away, for me, is that I am much closer to my "all-time bests" in short events; the longer the distance, the further away I am. There may be some exceptions to this rule, but I think they are exceptions. Unless they were distance swimmers to begin with and have stayed in shape (Jeff Erwin).
Otherwise, fatty can always bust a 50, but a 200 is another story altogether..
Such an interesting topic and we haven't even gotten to the importance of how much time in a workout should be devoted to technical skill acquisition. The amount of time a swimmer needs to improve stroke patter efficiency varies from athlete to athlete but forming a habit also has scientific do's and dont's. I've found many artlcles showing timelines required to change a habit. What do you guys think about starting a thread devoted to habit / skill acquisition? Coach T.
