In threads where training philosophy comes up, discussions of TRIMPS and TSS and other training models occasionally intrude. These models are not very well known, and even more poorly understood, so probably SolarEnergy, qbrain and I are just talking to each other and killing threads in those conversations. In any case, I figured I would present a brief overview of what it is that we're talking about when this terminology starts showing up.
Best case, this will introduce these models to the subset of swimmers (or coaches) who would be interested enough to use them, but didn't previously know enough to do so.
Plus, even if you're not the type to be interested in quantifying your training, it can be useful to think about workouts in this general framework.
And, at the very least, this might serve as a place to discuss some of the details without worrying about driving those other threads too far off-topic.
Q. Would the energy expenditure for swimming a 400 back be the same as for swimming a 400 fly?
Since my 400 fly time would undoubtedly be slower than 400 back, there would be more "energy points" for the 400 back.
This system does not reward kick sets, drills, warm up or cool down.
Swimming efficiency is plainly not within the scope of the system; it is aimed at tracking adaptations like lactate tolerance. So it is probably appropriate that drills, wu and wd not be rewarded much. I think that is an improvement over the "a yard is a yard" approach, myself.
Kick sets, not so much. Oh well, nothing is perfect. An appropriate multiplier might help but would be hard to find. (I notice that most people don't work kick sets as hard as swim sets, at least in practices I frequent.)
The second purpose is to contribute towards training cycle planning (for injury prevention, peaking, taper, etc). I don't know enough yet to compare them to other alternatives for this purpose.
Some thoughts...
-- Q-points are not all that transferable between people of differing abilities. 1000 points for me will probably not represent the same amount of training as 1000 points for someone else. That might be okay if the time constants associated with the impulse response are a little more uniform. (They probably are, but I'm sure not everyone has the same time constants.)
-- Q-points are, obviously, for swimming only. Personally, I get a pretty substantial taper effect when I curtail cross-training activities, particularly weights.
-- It might not be all that difficult to set up comparable systems for other activities. For example, I usually do something like weight-lifting and cycling as my cross-training. If you had a power meter on your bike, cycling would be easy: integrate power output. (Without a power meter, a little more difficult: how incorporate the effects of hills or wind? I can see the value in a HR monitor here.) Weights might be something like total weight lifted or a similar proxy.
But regardless of any method used to quantify cross-training activities, I suspect the greatest uncertainty (by far) would be in quantifying the "cross-training effect" on swimming. A given energy expenditure on the bike will not yield the same effect on swimming performance as that energy expended in the water.
Q. Would the energy expenditure for swimming a 400 back be the same as for swimming a 400 fly?
Since my 400 fly time would undoubtedly be slower than 400 back, there would be more "energy points" for the 400 back.
This system does not reward kick sets, drills, warm up or cool down.
Swimming efficiency is plainly not within the scope of the system; it is aimed at tracking adaptations like lactate tolerance. So it is probably appropriate that drills, wu and wd not be rewarded much. I think that is an improvement over the "a yard is a yard" approach, myself.
Kick sets, not so much. Oh well, nothing is perfect. An appropriate multiplier might help but would be hard to find. (I notice that most people don't work kick sets as hard as swim sets, at least in practices I frequent.)
The second purpose is to contribute towards training cycle planning (for injury prevention, peaking, taper, etc). I don't know enough yet to compare them to other alternatives for this purpose.
Some thoughts...
-- Q-points are not all that transferable between people of differing abilities. 1000 points for me will probably not represent the same amount of training as 1000 points for someone else. That might be okay if the time constants associated with the impulse response are a little more uniform. (They probably are, but I'm sure not everyone has the same time constants.)
-- Q-points are, obviously, for swimming only. Personally, I get a pretty substantial taper effect when I curtail cross-training activities, particularly weights.
-- It might not be all that difficult to set up comparable systems for other activities. For example, I usually do something like weight-lifting and cycling as my cross-training. If you had a power meter on your bike, cycling would be easy: integrate power output. (Without a power meter, a little more difficult: how incorporate the effects of hills or wind? I can see the value in a HR monitor here.) Weights might be something like total weight lifted or a similar proxy.
But regardless of any method used to quantify cross-training activities, I suspect the greatest uncertainty (by far) would be in quantifying the "cross-training effect" on swimming. A given energy expenditure on the bike will not yield the same effect on swimming performance as that energy expended in the water.
