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?
Former Member
Your comment brings up a great point. If we waited for science to prove training methods we would be 20 years behind the curve. The bottom line is that for every research study that proves something we have another one that contradicts it. Well, in the case of weights, you won't find many contradictions. Science has been fairly consistent in questioning its direct benefits on endurance sports performance.
As far as I am concerned, I explain this fact by the inability to design significant protocols. Science has, over time, missed the target in evaluating training means in general.
Weights are worth giving a 'try and see'. Do not wait for science, make your own evidence, it ain't that difficult.
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 But I don't think scientists are nearly as out of date as Grif suggests.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.
Chris Stevenson: Olympian in swimming; Olympian in persuasion.
Your above synopsis is so perfectly stated and logically unassailable that I suspect Fox News will very soon be calling for your job at the University. This kind of clear-headed thinking is a threat to America as we have come to know it!
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.
Ok, I think I found the study you're talking about, from 1997:
physicaltherapyjournal.org/.../132
Yes? This is about leg movements that happen when people are standing. That's not "all movement", and it's not swimming.
I don't know if anybody mentioned bodyweight exercises. Pushups, pullups, chinups, dips, squats, crunches and so on can easily be done at home and are just as effective as weights.
I don't know if anybody mentioned bodyweight exercises. Pushups, pullups, chinups, dips, squats, crunches and so on can easily be done at home and are just as effective as weights.
That's what we do for dry land. It's just as intense as actual weights and it works well. I definitely feel more in shape and feel faster in the water when I'm able to get to my team's afternoon practices and doing dry land.
My simplistic reply: because, all other things being equal, anything that makes you stronger will make you faster.
That works for me! :applaud: Have you seen the posts on some of the other threads lately? :afraid: I'm a college graduate with a decent amount of intelligence, but sheeeeeeesh! Some of our Forumites must be rocket scientists or something similar. Trying to follow their scientific debates is waaaaay more complicated than I care to make swimming for me. :confused:
That works for me! :applaud: Have you seen the posts on some of the other threads lately? :afraid: I'm a college graduate with a decent amount of intelligence, but sheeeeeeesh! Some of our Forumites must be rocket scientists or something similar. Trying to follow their scientific debates is waaaaay more complicated than I care to make swimming for me. :confused:
I know of at least one that is a rocket scientist. And some are right there along side him. :) Oh and they are super fast, too. Brains and speed.. amazing.
