Myth #7: When it comes to getting oxygen in freestyle, breathing every cycle is as good as it gets.
In almost every other sport but swimming (freestyle, fly, breaststroke), we get the luxury of breathing whenever we want. Typically, with maximal exertion, that means we are inhaling at a respiratory rate of between 50 and 65 times per minute. Not so in swimming.
Most swimmers breathe every cycle and to one side only (a cycle is two arm strokes, or hand entry to hand entry). Since many swimmers turn their arms over slowly (say 35 to 55 strokes per minute), that means the respiratory rate while swimming is 18 to 28; hardly what one would do voluntarily, if one had the choice. (try running or biking with that respiratory rate and see how you do!)
But you do have a choice...sort of. First, you can learn to swim with a higher stroke rate and second, you can try a different breathing pattern. Specifically, I am referring to a 2:3 pattern rather than a 1:2 pattern of breathing. What that means in the Left Stroke Breath Right (LBR), Right Stroke Breathe Left (RBL) Left Stroke no breath (L), Right Stroke no breath (R) terminology is the following:
LBR, RBL, L, RBL, LBR, R, LBR, RBL, L etc
So, as is so common in swimming, this too presents compromise. What are the pros and cons?
Pros: You get 27% more oxygen than if you breathe every cycle, and with oxygen you'll produce 15 times more ATP than without it, and hopefully produce less lactate. You get the associated benefit of breathing more...less fatigue. You get to see the scenery on both sides of the lake or pool.
Cons: Most swimmers feel awkward breathing to their weak side. The act of breathing slows the stroke rate. Breathing often results in the arm being pulled too far under the body, creating more drag. In open water swims, if there is a nice swell on one side, breathing to that side may lead to swallowing more water.
So this begs the question, if this 2:3 pattern is so good, why aren’t world-class distance swimmers using it? A few have on occasion, like Kieren Perkins. It may be that it is yet an undiscovered technique...or, more likely, in the world of superbly conditioned, oxygen deprived distance swimmers, it may be that the cons outweigh the pros. But for this almost-60-year-old-not-so-superbly-conditioned swimmer, who enters an ocean swim once or twice a year and dislikes any pool race over 100 meters, I love the 2:3 pattern, especially on those long aerobic sets. And for those swimmers who dare to try it (and it takes some getting used to), you may not actually swim any faster than by breathing every cycle, but, barring swallowing more water, I'll bet you will feel a lot better afterward.
Gary Sr.
Parents
Former Member
And why not?
Garry Hall Sr. himself talks about this as a technique for distance swimmers. From an energy systems prospective, since only a small percentage of energy for races under 1 minute comes from aerobic energy, the increased energy produced from the 2:3 breathing can't offset the cost of increased drag. This is verified by the fact that I don't think any elite swimmers breath every cycle for 50 free and most breath less then once a cycle for 100 free.
200 free is a bit less obvious. Most elite 200 free swimmers do breath every cycle and aerobic energy plays a larger role. I still believe at this point the increased drag is not worth the extra aerobic energy.
At higher speeds the increased drag is more costly then at the slower speeds of distance events. Distance events are almost 100% aerobic so increased aerobic energy will increase the total energy available by a more noticeable percent.
The amount of extra energy available I think also needs to be examined. If you swam at 60 strokes per minute a 1:2 cycle would give you 30 breaths and 2 seconds between breaths. The 2:3 cycle would give 40 breaths and an average of 1.5 seconds between breaths. This increases the available oxygen by 33% but each exhale will contain a significant amount of oxygen. The increase in oxygen consumed could be less then 10% but I am just guessing.
And why not?
Garry Hall Sr. himself talks about this as a technique for distance swimmers. From an energy systems prospective, since only a small percentage of energy for races under 1 minute comes from aerobic energy, the increased energy produced from the 2:3 breathing can't offset the cost of increased drag. This is verified by the fact that I don't think any elite swimmers breath every cycle for 50 free and most breath less then once a cycle for 100 free.
200 free is a bit less obvious. Most elite 200 free swimmers do breath every cycle and aerobic energy plays a larger role. I still believe at this point the increased drag is not worth the extra aerobic energy.
At higher speeds the increased drag is more costly then at the slower speeds of distance events. Distance events are almost 100% aerobic so increased aerobic energy will increase the total energy available by a more noticeable percent.
The amount of extra energy available I think also needs to be examined. If you swam at 60 strokes per minute a 1:2 cycle would give you 30 breaths and 2 seconds between breaths. The 2:3 cycle would give 40 breaths and an average of 1.5 seconds between breaths. This increases the available oxygen by 33% but each exhale will contain a significant amount of oxygen. The increase in oxygen consumed could be less then 10% but I am just guessing.
