Though my form still needs a lot of work, I am considering starting strength training in the near future, since I have read about how it can help swimming speed, form, etc.
However, I am still struggling with the idea of why strength training is needed. Lets assume that lifting a certain weight in a certain way improves a core muscle, which will help steady my posture (?).
Now assuming I don't weight lift, but instead try to hold the proper posture (high elbow, etc.) for a long period of time, and gradually increase the time I do that over weeks and months, won't those muscle(s) automatically improve?
It seems to me that intuitively the proper muscles would gradually get stronger in order to adjust to the frequent usage - that way the exact muscles I need would get stronger, instead of having to train a large array of muscles that have a relation to swimming.
What am I missing?
Parents
Former Member
Grif, with all due respect, this idea that science is too contradictory and too behind the curve to do much good seems to me just a rationale used by anyone who wants to do his own thing and feel 100 percent righteous justification in so doing.
We can use science to back up our methods but it is difficult to find a study that purely shows that ones methods work.
For example, the study done by Hodges, shows the transvers abdominus (core) is the first muscle to fire in all movement. Since this muscle stabilizes the spine and is the first muscle to fire it is obviously important to train this muscle and the surrounding muscles to increase force production throughout the body.
The results from this study backs up the strength training philosphy practiced by many, including myself, that strengthening and training the core to stabilize and rotate is extremely important in allowing one to express optimal amounts of strength. At the sametime, this study or any other study does not specifically show if this type of strength training has a direct impact on performance.
Science gves us good information but not enough. If we wait on all the information to 100% validate our training then we will all be behind the curve.
Grif, with all due respect, this idea that science is too contradictory and too behind the curve to do much good seems to me just a rationale used by anyone who wants to do his own thing and feel 100 percent righteous justification in so doing.
We can use science to back up our methods but it is difficult to find a study that purely shows that ones methods work.
For example, the study done by Hodges, shows the transvers abdominus (core) is the first muscle to fire in all movement. Since this muscle stabilizes the spine and is the first muscle to fire it is obviously important to train this muscle and the surrounding muscles to increase force production throughout the body.
The results from this study backs up the strength training philosphy practiced by many, including myself, that strengthening and training the core to stabilize and rotate is extremely important in allowing one to express optimal amounts of strength. At the sametime, this study or any other study does not specifically show if this type of strength training has a direct impact on performance.
Science gves us good information but not enough. If we wait on all the information to 100% validate our training then we will all be behind the curve.
