Perhaps not the base, but is it possible that all that training at a young age may have produced physiological changes to the body that can later be tapped into even years or decades afterward?
We, the real Dr. Q and myself, had this discussion last night at dinner. She started on your side.
Here is my case.Take two swimmers, Q who swam in high school for a few year and is considered a decent, but never an exceptional, swimmer by most standards and P, who swam from knee high through a top division 1 program, swimming at the top levels of the sport for most of those years and suffered the training that went along with being at the top.
Q's maximum capacity for any of the physiological measurements that matter to swimming and can be adjusted by training would be less than P's.
Now P and Q are buds and train together at a typical masters team, getting in 3 or 4, 3-4k workouts a week. They are both fast for their team, the train in the same lane, but P is faster than Q, but Q is still not racing as fast as he did in high school.
Given that P and Q are doing the same workouts, and Q is racing below his high school peak, that would imply that Q is also conditioned below his maximum "physiological measures that matter to swimming" (PMTM).
If Q still has the capacity to improve PMTM, and P's PMTM maximums are greater than Q's, than that really just means P has more potential. Q is closer to the max already.
Is summary, elites might have more potential than non elites physiologically, but that doesn't matter because no masters are training at the level that would max out their full physiological potential.
First, thanks for the chat. It's appreciated.
In my mind, saying that college swimmers have some residual "base" after taking time off is applying too much real-world significance to a model parameter. We're moving to philosophical matters here.
I think it is important not to try and contain real-word significance within the boundaries of any of these models. The reason for this is that their authors (Banister, Coggan, Skiba) are the first to acknowledge that their models suffer from sever limitation in their ability to represent the complexity of this real world.
In other words, the fact that a model fails to acknowledge what we could call long term residual base training effect doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Bare with me until my next answer :)
This is why Lance can beat you after a year off his bike Few years ago, a famous researcher by the name of Edward Coyle made a comprehensive study on Lance Armstrong. The findings were manifolds. Some of these findings reinforced the fact that contrary to swimming, cycling technique contributes for very little to Cycling Economy in general. Economy for our friends cyclists is more conditioned by Internal factors (way your body handles heat regulation etc) than by External ones.
That's because the gesture of pedaling is way to simple to play a big role in the Economy equation.
That's for one. Secondly, the performance modeling applied to cycling nowadays take power as their main input. Power, not velocity. So even if Lance's incredible forward speed could be explained for example by a greater Cda, that doesn't explain the tremendous level of power he can sustain.
So for me, my former boss (who was at the time and still is a successful Olympic coach) was, in my opinion, dead right: Prolonged hard training regiments leave a training footprint that never really goes away. And the data to support this statement can probably be found in studies of this kind: www.springerlink.com/.../
Although I could not read it (not available for free). These studies cost a lot of money. Their number is probably very limited.
- - -
Ref: Pedaling technique. An issue yes or not? www.cyclingforums.com/.../233514-pealling-push-up-push-down.html
Note: this thread has around 2500 replies. No way you can read all of it. Basically most experts that contributed to this well known thread think that the best pedaling technique doesn't play a big role in the power one can apply on the pedals.
Ref: Study on Lance Armstrong jap.physiology.org/.../1630
Note: Full study pdf download link on the right hand side of the page
Ref: Quote by Andrew Coggan, father of the very first power based impulse-response model, namely: TSS
"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." www.cyclingforums.com/.../470381-tss-additive.html
We're moving to philosophical matters here.
No argument here, that's why I pointed it out.
Few years ago, a famous researcher by the name of Edward Coyle made a comprehensive study on Lance Armstrong.
I remember that article, and the controversy it sparked. The key finding from that article that is relevant to this dicussion -- that Lance's muscular efficiency increased due to training -- has been challenged. Part of the reason it's controversial is because it's anomalous -- most mortals don't change their muscular efficiencies with training.
But this is a red herring.
Prolonged hard training regiments leave a training footprint that never really goes away.
That's surely true. And maybe it makes sense to call that footprint a "base", depending on context. I was just pointing out that we're using the same word in several different contexts.
And the data to support this statement can probably be found in studies of this kind: www.springerlink.com/.../
Although I could not read it (not available for free).
Actually, that study doesn't say anything for (or against) the idea of permanent changes from early training. They just find that body type determines aerobic/anaerobic work capacity, rather than the other way around. None of the subjects in the longitudinal study did any training. I'll send you a copy.
In addition to the letter at the link you provided, see Gore et al, "Delta efficiency calculation in Tour de France champion is wrong", J Appl Physiol 105 1020 '08; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.90459.2008.
Summary here: www.sportsscientists.com/.../coyle-armstrong-research-installment-2.html for those who can't access the journal article.
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 would define a schedule involving 5-10 hours of riding per week as being minimal. 11-15 as being avg and over this as being more of a serious commitment. I coached a pro triathlete in the past. His first years of triathlon (with me) his schedule topped over 25hr/week.
He now work as a doctor, father of 4 children. Has minimal (5-10) time to train, spend it solely on bike. He can hold extremely fast pace. In the pool his best 1500 is probably around 17 race fit, now probably little under 20 with no more than 3 hours of swimming per week.
You talented folks, have a very hard time understanding this concept of genetic limitation. With all due respect of course Chris. I have seen several other talented folks (anyone who scores a national record has an exceptional talent, not only discipline and will and all). They all claim being like anyone else you know, the "anyone can do what I do" sort of stuff.
What I am simply suggesting here is that what you do at early age (certainly between 10 and 21) probably pushes your genetic limitation. At later age, aerobic capacity potential will be higher, mental strength (which can often confused with genetic limitation) too, everything.
Base established between age 10 and 21 becomes part of your athletic legacy. Belongs to you forever. What you did in the last five years contributes a lot to your actual performances, I agree with you. But what you did in the first 5 years also contributes to it, still today.
Absolutely awesome discussion folks. Thanks a whole lot. sjsstuarts, you rocks if you can send me this whole study, and cheers for your commitment to evidence based training. You can easily do so by sending it to cgcouturier at gmail dot com
In exchange, I am happy to submit the following thread to your attention. It talks about the rebirth of a very old concept applied to performance prediction. An other of my former bosses created a set of equations to predict swim performances. We found out that these already existed in the past, but in a slightly different format. Anyway, if you are interested in a model that can easily compete with CSS model, especially for predicting times over short duration events, here's the first post within a big thread where I expose the concept. www.tritalk.co.uk/.../viewtopic.php
We've covered a lot of ground and we're essentially acknowledging the same things. We managed to keep the discussion in the right direction by being extra careful in defining semantics the best we could.
I intend to perform a full swim season using Skiba Swim Score model. I will use usms blogging features to share my findings with whoever is interested.
My two key events for 2011's nationals are the 1500 and the 200fly. So as you may expect, a very large portion of my season will be about building the base required to cut 3min off my 1500 time, which qualifies me for a possible podium (my goal). Most of this Base will be made of Maglischo's en2 and en3 volume (or sub-threshold and threshold work). My goal would probably be to grow it to an equivalent of 2k/d (14k per week) which may sound low for most of you, but it piles up on top of other triathlon specific training which I am not willing to give up upon (even if a gold medal at the nationals was at stake).
Thanks again, and happy Base training! :D
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.
As a proponent of TRIMPs and other similar models, you surely realize this is an oversimplification.
From the point of view of building a "base" -- i.e. physiological adaptation of aerobic energy systems -- the training has a limited half-life. Decay times are typically ~45 days for the fitness side of your fitness-minus-fatigue models, so all of the (aerobic) effects of your training are gone within 6 months. My mitochondria certainly don't remember how much I swam 20 years ago.
I won't argue that college swimmers don't retain something after 20 years, but it's not "base" in a TRIMPs sense. Whether it's technique, or genetics, or some permanent physiological change induced by training in formative years doesn't really matter. They have it, and I don't. They won't lose it, and I'll never find it, at least not until I match their 30 million yards in the pool.
But that ancient history just provides the bounds on performance. We all build our base in the same way, we just return to different baselines once we lose it.
As a proponent of TRIMPs and other similar models, you surely realize this is an oversimplification. Well yes and no. These models leave plenty of room for individuality.
Take Chris, put him on Skiba model. Take me and do the same, after 1 year doing nothing (probably enough to reset any model's value).
Chris will be able to carry on with greater ATL line, or negative TBS until he gets closer to the CTL he can really manage, the one that can get him to troubles.
Or, he is better off setting initial CTL/ATL high enough for this not to happen. Or to change the decay params of the ATL curve (making it less than 7 days), something like that.
In other words, if you don't mind me using an extreme example. Take Lance, put him off bike for a full year. Using Coggan's TSS. The numbers would actually start making more sense as he gets back to a CTL that is getting closer to what his Base can allow. And that, is wayyyyy over 100tss/d
That said I understand your point.
Here, let me phrase it otherwise, using Lance once again. These models put a lot of emphasis on what you've done in the last 45 days. Take a newbie rider, an avg rider, and Lance. Let both the newbie and the avg rider start building their Base say.... 5 months in advance. Their Base once they reach this point will certainly be way lower than Lance who haven't started training yet.
Again here, for semantic purpose, I define Base as being the amount of work that one can routinely perform (Chronic Training Load). That is because like you said, Lance's baseline is well over the maximal Base that most avg Joes can even dream of.
PS - If you like these models, I added some link to Alejandro Martinez's blog earlier in the thread, where you can download excel apps that compute data using several of these, including Skiba's if I am not mistaking. Skiba model is far better adapted to swimming, since it will give much much more weight to any short race pace training.
Since cycling isn't as much of a technique sport as swimming, shouldn't there be a greater ease in switching sports for the swimmer Lance?
I have a question, since it keeps coming up that cycling isn't as technique dependent as swimming.
How much air resistance is experienced by a cyclist over the Tour de France?
We are comparing fundamental training methods between a sport where the biggest race is close to 90 hours long and a sport where the biggest event is currently under 21 seconds for the winners. This seems silly to me, but this might explain that triathletes typically have very strong swim legs or very weak swim legs when compared to their entire race. If you train for all 3 legs using the same methodology, you are training incorrectly for at least one of the legs.
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.
You did say that Base meant pretty much anything, so maybe Base includes technique? :)
I think technique is part of it, but a more important factor is natural ability-genetics. Previous elite swimmers rose to their elite status over a multitude of others who worked as hard and had excellent technique. There are some people who are able to do things that the rest of us can't. I think this is true in any sport. Hard work can help you achieve your potential, but I think everyone has a different potential. There are some people that I swim with/against that will never swim as fast as me - there are many people that I swim with/against that I will never be able to keep up with (at least not consistently).
I trained with elite swimmers when I was in college and I think I put in as much or more effort than they did at work-out. But it was not hard for me to tell, that I would never reach their level.
I don't find this depressing - I enjoy the exercise and the competition, but I know that I am not going to beat Rich Abrahams' 100 free time now, when I'm 60, when I'm 65 nor could I beat it when I was 25.
I have a question, since it keeps coming up that cycling isn't as technique dependent as swimming.
How much air resistance is experienced by a cyclist over the Tour de France?
A lot. I won't bring up the models used to estimate such things, because such details have already scared away many of the participants in this thread. But on a flat road, at race speed, roughly 75% of the rider's (prodigious) power output goes towards cutting a hole in the air.
But I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at.
Is swimming more technique-dependent than cycling?
The standard answer is yes, because water is so much denser than air.
But, air/water resistance is the limiting factor in both sports -- racers get up to speeds where their power output can't overcome the resistance to moving any faster through the medium.
Therefore, minimizing cross-sectional area is crucial in both sports. This could be called "technique" in both cases.
On the other hand, it's much easier to learn to ride "low" than to swim "flat".
Furthermore, there is a propulsive side to "technique". Swimmers need to maximize surface area when pushing water (EVF, catch, etc). Cyclists need only push (& pull) the pedals.
Thus, swimming is definitely more technique-dependent than cycling.
That issue is independent from the fact that the TdF is long and the 50 free is short. For apples to apples we could compare track cycling to sprint swims, or stage races to channel swims. Swimming is more technique-dependent in each case (although less dramatically so at shorter distances).
Duration of the event affects how you partition your training between base & interval work.
Technique-dependence of the sport affects how you partition your training between technique & pace work.
