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.
Former Member
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.
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.
Maybe you missed that I subjected myself to the test and came to a different conclusion to the articles you are referring.
I also pointed out that lifting at or below 80% max for as many reps as possible results in a glycogen depletion failure and not muscle failure.
You have convinced me that I can recover from glycogen depletion in 36 hours. Thanks.
You have convinced me that I can recover from glycogen depletion in 36 hours. Thanks. You're welcome, as always.
If you could find meaningful data that goes in line with the results of your 1n study, I would appreciate. Thanks in advance.
There's a reason that the time constant for acute fatigue is 7-15 days in these models. It's because that's what has been found to fit the rate of recovery in the athletes these models were fitted to. And this is just a decay constant -- not the time required for full recovery!
In my field, the rule of thumb is often 5 time constants for a process to be considered "complete." So we're talking 5-10 weeks for full recovery from acute fatigue. Are we equating this with "overtraining" or "normal training?"
I know people who were severely overtrained who needed months to recover (unfortunately they often didn't rest completely during the recovery...after all, these are people with a tendency to overtrain...)
I don't understand what this means. Could you explain it or point me to an explanation? I don't even understand it enough to google an explanation.
I assume the impulse response model is using an exponential response of the form
y = y_0*exp(k*t)
The "time constant" is 1/|k|; it is related to the "half-life" by a factor of ln(2).
If the exponential function is the solution to a differential equation (a common case), then k is the constant of proportionality in the DE:
dy/dt = k*y
Like Q mentioned though, what makes all this difficult to model is that the fatigue rate (duration/speed) whilst swimming the Fly isn't parallel to that of Backstroke or BreastStroke.
I think the problem with fly is that the recovery part of the stroke requires both arms to be elevated above the water at the same time - which takes a lot of energy.
The problem is that your fitness fades with a different decay constant (28-45 days). So (according to the model) you are still getting incrementally less fatigued after 3, 4, 5 weeks. But you're also getting less fit. Only for the first 2-3 weeks is the recovery from fatigue more than enough to make up for the loss of fitness.
Yes, I understood that, I was just trying to give a scale for the difference between a "time constant" and the process time. But you are talking about two opposing process so there will be an optimum performance time.
My formula is train hard during the season, taper 3-4 days at most for minor meets, taper 8-10 days for the major meets.
That's fine, but the problem is that many (most?) people use inappropriate markers (ie, total yardage) for determining how hard you are training and how much to rest.
But this is certainly mostly an academic exercise. Although I am intrigued to try applying (a modified version of) Q's point system when I have some time to set it up, I generally go by "train hard with lots of race-pace work" and "use performances in practices/meets to gauge the effect of training and taper, and adjust accordingly."
It is still interesting to hear about theory that supports a certain taper length, and why. And as I don't know much about physiology, it is nice to absorb some concepts.
I agree with qbrain that tapering is definitely about repairing something at the muscular level, NOT about restoring glycogen. If it were just glycogen, then tapers would consist of 3 days off.
Repairing muscle microtrauma may not be the same healing a scraped elbow, but it's also not the same as restoring creatine kinase activity.
There's a reason that the time constant for acute fatigue is 7-15 days in these models. It's because that's what has been found to fit the rate of recovery in the athletes these models were fitted to. And this is just a decay constant -- not the time required for full recovery!
That said, I do think it's dangerous to trust these models to plan your taper. The impulse-response models all say you should completely stop training 2-3 weeks out, as soon as each lap will earn you more fatigue than fitness on race day. That's obviously a little bit simplistic, and goes against lots of real-world experience.
Would you really want more points as form falls apart?
Definitely not. I wasn't proposing a tweak, just pointing out why it happens.
Maybe if your only goal was to burn calories, then you'd want to reward poor form. But if your goal is to swim better, then you shouldn't get any bonus when your form falls apart. Instead, the points act as an incentive to only swim fly for as long as your form holds together, since it becomes too painful to earn points with longer reps.
I agree with qbrain that tapering is definitely about repairing something at the muscular level, NOT about restoring glycogen. If it were just glycogen, then tapers would consist of 3 days off. I do agree with this too (since it's quite far from what I originally stated) I think that muscle tissue damage recovery time goes parallel to time to replenish glycogen levels.
"Some experts have suggested that the taper effect may be due to surcompensating effects of other physiological mechanisms that are similar to those of glycogen loading. Although this explanation is vague, it may nevertheless be the best one currently available" (E.Maglischo, 2003).
That is what I originally stated, before even reading Maglischo's take on the topic, which can be read at page 655 that deals with tapering. It's a must read by the way, for anyone that wants to draw evidence based conclusions about this mysterious topic.
Parallel to Glyco unload/load curve. Just like fatigue related mechanisms go parallel to blood lactate concentration.
There are far too many, several too many many physiological changes that are taking place during the tapering process to explain performance enhancement solely on 1 of them. Sure, a significant decrease in creatine kinase is at the heart of it, but like I said previously, this marker could drop much more rapidly if swimming at high velocity was not part of the tapering process. Because swimming over one's anaerobic threshold also cause some tissue damage.
A taper is called a taper because it's designed to let fatigue fades out progressively. It could fade out rapidly if we could afford for instance 4 days off in a row. But that wouldn't be a good tapering strategy. Persisting in *micro-injuring* ourselves during the taper provides the best explanation for prolonged duration, that goes well over the recovery time imposed by any of these physiological changes. That's why it's called a Taper, and not a Sudden Break or something.
