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.
Parents
Former Member
I can spend some quality time in a squat rack and prove to myself that the more weight I lift, the more damage I do, the longer it takes to recover. Again Q, I believe that this confusion may be caused by some study results conducted among untrained subjects.
The muscle damage (and doms that follow) experimented untrained subjects committing to a weight resistance training can almost be considered as an injury. It can sometimes take weeks before it completely fade out. That, I agree (see anecdote below)
If you search for most available data on trained subjects though, you'll end up with a different opinion.
Take this one for example www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../12663352
They did not even bother testing passed this famous 72hr time frame. Because after this period (I'm not inventing all this, be reassured), most believe that most negative training effect disappeared.
Anecdote: Once I was coaching a master squad. That day, a master asked me about dry land exercises, so I mention well pushup, situps etc until I get disrupted by one master who was challenging pretty much all I was saying. He'd state that push ups and sit ups were very effective and that he could perform dozens of them. I therefore conducted a dryland session during which I used my 5 position pushup set. Position 1, very close to the ground, but the belly doesn't touch it. Position 5, arms extended. The set involves me calling positions. Subjects need to hold the position until the next call. So you'd go Position3, then 1 (keep it for 10sec) then 2, then 5, then 1 again.
2 weeks after, the same master was asking me if he should go to hospital since he would still feel the DOMS. So Q, I'm in a good position to know that muscle tissue damage can take a lot of time to heal, but not under normal training circumstances with carefully trained subjects. For that, we rather use the 36-72hr principle, which is often used in Maglischo's book anyway (so it should sound familiar to you). This principle is referred to in the pponline article, and you'll often see it used in study protocols too.
If you look at the graph on page 392 of your book, you'll see that from a base level of 160mmol/kg muscle mass prior the set, glyco levels were up to only 120mmol after 48hour of recovery, which tends to indicate that there again, the magical 72hours were required to go back to pre-training levels.
Not pulling this out of nowhere, it's documented this way pretty much everywhere. Do not get mislead by those study results on untrained subjects though. When you get to the taper (that's what you've been arguing about after all), you're assumed to be a trained subject hopefully.
I can spend some quality time in a squat rack and prove to myself that the more weight I lift, the more damage I do, the longer it takes to recover. Again Q, I believe that this confusion may be caused by some study results conducted among untrained subjects.
The muscle damage (and doms that follow) experimented untrained subjects committing to a weight resistance training can almost be considered as an injury. It can sometimes take weeks before it completely fade out. That, I agree (see anecdote below)
If you search for most available data on trained subjects though, you'll end up with a different opinion.
Take this one for example www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../12663352
They did not even bother testing passed this famous 72hr time frame. Because after this period (I'm not inventing all this, be reassured), most believe that most negative training effect disappeared.
Anecdote: Once I was coaching a master squad. That day, a master asked me about dry land exercises, so I mention well pushup, situps etc until I get disrupted by one master who was challenging pretty much all I was saying. He'd state that push ups and sit ups were very effective and that he could perform dozens of them. I therefore conducted a dryland session during which I used my 5 position pushup set. Position 1, very close to the ground, but the belly doesn't touch it. Position 5, arms extended. The set involves me calling positions. Subjects need to hold the position until the next call. So you'd go Position3, then 1 (keep it for 10sec) then 2, then 5, then 1 again.
2 weeks after, the same master was asking me if he should go to hospital since he would still feel the DOMS. So Q, I'm in a good position to know that muscle tissue damage can take a lot of time to heal, but not under normal training circumstances with carefully trained subjects. For that, we rather use the 36-72hr principle, which is often used in Maglischo's book anyway (so it should sound familiar to you). This principle is referred to in the pponline article, and you'll often see it used in study protocols too.
If you look at the graph on page 392 of your book, you'll see that from a base level of 160mmol/kg muscle mass prior the set, glyco levels were up to only 120mmol after 48hour of recovery, which tends to indicate that there again, the magical 72hours were required to go back to pre-training levels.
Not pulling this out of nowhere, it's documented this way pretty much everywhere. Do not get mislead by those study results on untrained subjects though. When you get to the taper (that's what you've been arguing about after all), you're assumed to be a trained subject hopefully.
