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?
The potential problem with waiting for things like repeatable controlled experiments is being behind the curve. But I don't think scientists are nearly as out of date as Grif suggests.
The problem with not waiting is that you run the risk of accepting unproven hype as gospel. As long as you realize what you are doing and maintain a healthy degree of skepticism, it isn't such a bad thing. I definitely try things on my own in an "uncontolled" manner and try to learn from the experience.
A major problem with this approach, however, is that you can get too attached to what you "know" is true. When scientists repeatedly fail to prove the value of a particular training method or philosophy, it is too easy to dismiss this with statements like "those scientists are 20 years behind the times." It is a rare individual (especially coaches) who can honestly evaluate his/her own training philosophy and realize there may be some problems with it.
In my opinion, there are far more people who perpetuate false training myths than there are people who are "behind the curve" because they await scientific proof, or at least serious systematic scrutiny.
The potential problem with waiting for things like repeatable controlled experiments is being behind the curve. But I don't think scientists are nearly as out of date as Grif suggests.
The problem with not waiting is that you run the risk of accepting unproven hype as gospel. As long as you realize what you are doing and maintain a healthy degree of skepticism, it isn't such a bad thing. I definitely try things on my own in an "uncontolled" manner and try to learn from the experience.
A major problem with this approach, however, is that you can get too attached to what you "know" is true. When scientists repeatedly fail to prove the value of a particular training method or philosophy, it is too easy to dismiss this with statements like "those scientists are 20 years behind the times." It is a rare individual (especially coaches) who can honestly evaluate his/her own training philosophy and realize there may be some problems with it.
In my opinion, there are far more people who perpetuate false training myths than there are people who are "behind the curve" because they await scientific proof, or at least serious systematic scrutiny.
