2010 SCM Zone Championships

P.S. I invite anyone interested in the impact of suit changes on times to check out my most recent blog entry, "Grunion Data," which you can access by clicking here: forums.usms.org/blog.php

Using the word "degrading" is offensive to us older swimmers. I think just plain "f'n falling apart" is better. Degrade sounds like we are starting to smell like some rotting meat. My wife says I smell very sweet!!!! Seriously come to our "Super Sessions" in Seattle on Jan 29th (see PNA for info) or Denver in Feb (info soon) and Rich Abrahams will share all of his secrets and I will tell funny jokes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By the way I won't need a tech suit in Mesa (aging up to 65)- working with Caltech on a secret nano paint with fig leaf-very fast.

1. Others, Rich right here on this very thread, have wondered it perhaps the suit helped short axis strokes more than the long ones. 2. I asked a couple comments back if any of you have ideas on the impact of body suits on turns. Would, say, a 200 swum in a LCM pool (with a total of 3 turns) be more or less impacted by the suit change than a 200 swum in a SCM pool (with a total of 7 turns.) My personal anecdotal experience thus far is that the answer is YES--that the body suits helped more for short course than long course, probably because they really gave you a nice streamline-glide advantage off the walls (more walls, more advantage.) Any thoughts here? 3. For what it's worth, I don't mind (too much) slowing down with age. But I would very much like to come up with a fair way to compare this year's times in a jammer with last year's times in a B70. 4. It's one thing to accept the New Reality intellectually. But it's another thing to look at times you previously considered really, really horrible for you (and perhaps consider evidence that you are starting to get congestive heart failure or something similarly dire) and instantly feel okay about said new horrible times. 5. Please, mathematicians and swimming statistical scientists, won't you all join me in this noble quest? 6. Suits vs. Age 1. Agree, the lack of the suits impacts short axis strokes more. 2. There is some logic in saying that the suits helped the streamlines off turns in short course. But they also may have prevented core/leg sag and provided buoyancy over the distance of a long course pool. My own long course times in kneeskins were terrible this summer (all 1.5-2 per 50 slower), including 2 personal worsts, though admittedly I was not in terribly good shape from vacationing. 3. So far you're at a reported 5-1.0 per 50. After the SCM and SCY seasons end, you can perhaps nail down the time differential and percentage with somewhat further accuracy. 4. You shouldn't feel horribly, Jimby. The suits affect your times. No doubt, we are just trying to get enough data to be more precise about it -- though it could vary by person and stroke. I think more muscular types could suffer more. 5. I will have a fairly straight up comparison in SCM after this weekend. I will have swum 2 tapered SCM meets at BU in 2009 and 2010, though I believe I was in better shape in 2009. 6. No doubt age will slow us down, as Chris points out. But very incrementally and less, I believe, than the suits in a given year. (At 49 in a kneeskin, for example, I just swam my 2nd fastest 50 back ever.) Though I'm sure for many (including me) the suits did have an overall mental effect of a fountain of youth.

Though I agree that there is clearly an age effect across the population, I would argue that: 1) this is mitigated significantly by ongoing training 2) that when swimmers age up, they often--consciously or not--increase their training intensity in the hopes of doing really spectacularly when they become the new babies of the older age; thus the "age effect" is more likely to be seen, practically speaking, in the middle to later part of the age group, that most of us get a "motivational bump" in the first part Keep in mind that the "record curves" used to adjust for aging were derived from masters swimmers. Presumably record-holders train fairly regularly (or they generally wouldn't hold records, Paul Smith notwithstanding). So I think your first point is not correct. As to the second, that's going to depend on the individual of course. The "age effect" predicted by the record curves is clearly an average, it doesn't mean you can't temporarily reverse course on that famed downhill slide. I will point out one observation that probably won't make people feel all that good about aging: as you get older, the effect seems to snowball. I certainly see it all the time in the upper age groups (75+) where yearly increases of 1-2 sec per 50 are easily the norm. What's more, unfortunately, the *rate* of the increase is also seen to increase with age. Looking at the men's SCY 50 and 100 free (where there are lots of competitors and so the data will be better), for example, here are the predicted relative time increases per year as one ages: age 20: +0.05% for 50 free, +0.08% for 100 free age 30: 0.11%, 0.15% age 40: 0.20%, 0.26% age 50: 0.36%, 0.45% age 60: 0.65%, 0.77% age 70: 1.11%, 1.26% age 80: 1.81%, 1.94% age 90: 2.72%, 2.79% age 100: 3.72%, 3.68% So as stellar a physical example as Rich Abrahams is, I think it is quite questionable to completely disregard all effects of aging (sorry, Rich). But as I mentioned, the above are just *averages* and it is entirely possible that Rich momentarily swam against the onrushing tide of aging...

Chris, I looked again at your comparisons, and I can see why these would lead you to believe that the body suit did not make a huge difference in your personal performances. There are probably all sorts of factors, from the GVF coefficient (gelatinously vibrating flab) to the MSFF Buoyancy Factor (muscle sinks, fat floats). Your observation that the effect may not scale linearly is a good one, too. Others, Rich right here on this very thread, have wondered it perhaps the suit helped short axis strokes more than the long ones. I asked a couple comments back if any of you have ideas on the impact of body suits on turns. Would, say, a 200 swum in a LCM pool (with a total of 3 turns) be more or less impacted by the suit change than a 200 swum in a SCM pool (with a total of 7 turns.) My personal anecdotal experience thus far is that the answer is YES--that the body suits helped more for short course than long course, probably because they really gave you a nice streamline-glide advantage off the walls (more walls, more advantage.) Any thoughts here? For what it's worth, I don't mind (too much) slowing down with age. But I would very much like to come up with a fair way to compare this year's times in a jammer with last year's times in a B70. For example, I got my lifetime best 200 SCY freestyle last spring, the first and only time in my life I have broken 1:55. This year, my best time (admittedly in a much worse pool) was a hair under 2:00. A 1:54.89 in a B70... followed four months later, after similar training, but in a much worse pool, untapered, etc., by.... A 1:59.81 in a jammer... I suppose I am just looking for some sort of succour here! If the difference in suits is 1 second per 100, then my high 1:59 is equivalent to a high 1:57. If the difference is 1.5 seconds per 100, then it becomes a high 1:56... It's one thing to accept the New Reality intellectually. But it's another thing to look at times you previously considered really, really horrible for you (and perhaps consider evidence that you are starting to get congestive heart failure or something similarly dire) and instantly feel okay about said new horrible times. On the other hand, if said new horrible times can be objectively shown to be, well, reasonably good, all things considered, then joy once again reigns unfettered in the Jimcentric Universe! Really, that's all I am hoping for. Happy days again in Jimcentricity. Please, mathematicians and swimming statistical scientists, won't you all join me in this noble quest? There are an incredible number of parameters involved in relating tech swims one year to standard suit swims the next.That said I think 1 sec/50 is probably a good number for most Masters at distances up to 200 M.Even at that the SC vs LC turn effect needs be factored in.Also it matters which suit.My experience with the pre-2008 tech suits was about 1/2 sec/50 in free and fly faster and about 0.2 sec./50 slower in BR.The LZR and B-70 about the noted 1 sec/50 in free and fly and not as much,maybe 0.7 sec/100 in BR.The Jaked was unbelievable in BR,probably 2 sec/100 or more,but since it kept ripping I only got one real taper race out of mine ,and that was in a relay, so I can't be sure(though I did swim a 100 SCM BR 15 min after said relay and came with in 0.36 sec of my best LZR time,I have been anti-tech suit,but I really wish I had gotten one ,tapered 100 M BR swum in my Jaked,my relay split was 1:13.15 for 100 SCM BR,my LZR time for the previous year was 1:14.66,my very tired Jaked 100 was 1:15.00.my jammer 100 this year was 1:15.30,but I was really psyched up for that swim.)

Chris, when this topic has come up in the past, i.e., the effect of age on just plain "f'n falling apart", one of the main questions has been this: Are the predictions based on the same people as they move longitudinally through the different age groups (i.e., you base the data on Chris Stevenson's times at 20, 21, 22,...107, 108, 109....) or are you looking at different cohorts (i.e., average top times in the current 20-24, 25-29, 30-34...65-69, 70-74, etc. age groups.) If the latter, than you aren't factoring out cohort effects that could bias things pretty widely. Most 70 year old swimmers today did not benefit from the early training, technique advances, etc. of most 20 year old swimmers today. I would venture to guess that when the latter hit their 70s, their times will be a LOT faster than the current crop of septuagenarians can go. Thus the "degradation" or "disintegration" or "let's call it what it is, rotting away" of human speed would not seem nearly so severe.

I swam faster at 63 in SCM (world records) in all the breastrokes and set a new national record in the 100 at 64 breaking my record when I was 60. Now cutting right to the chase I was training harder and drinking a lot more. More drinking is the key to enhanced older performance in all areas.

Are the predictions based on the same people as they move longitudinally through the different age groups (i.e., you base the data on Chris Stevenson's times at 20, 21, 22,...107, 108, 109....) or are you looking at different cohorts (i.e., average top times in the current 20-24, 25-29, 30-34...65-69, 70-74, etc. age groups.) If the latter, than you aren't factoring out cohort effects that could bias things pretty widely. Most 70 year old swimmers today did not benefit from the early training, technique advances, etc. of most 20 year old swimmers today. I would venture to guess that when the latter hit their 70s, their times will be a LOT faster than the current crop of septuagenarians can go. Thus the "degradation" or "disintegration" or "let's call it what it is, rotting away" of human speed would not seem nearly so severe. Yes, different cohorts, and I'm aware of the potential problem. But it is much less work to do it based on a "snapshot" of records, and this isn't my day job... It is actually more of a (potential) problem on the men's side, because on the women's side we have a fewer number of people -- the Laura Vals, KPNs, Susan von der Lippes -- who have been dominating the records across the events and over multiple age groups for quite a bit of time. Another problem is just that there are fewer and fewer data in the upper age groups, so the variability is greater in the records at the upper (and even the very lowest) age groups. I usually cut off the fitting range at the 75-79 age group, if memory serves, and extrapolate the fit to make predicts. Extrapolation also magnifies uncertainty. Maybe I'll work up some data one summer, though; it would be interesting. I will say that there is definitely some anecdotal evidence of "snowballing." I am in charge of maintaining records in my LMSC, and since there are fewer people in the 75+ age groups and the same ones tend to hold all the records, I tend to notice their time increases.

I swam faster at 63 in SCM (world records) in all the breastrokes and set a new national record in the 100 at 64 breaking my record when I was 60. Now cutting right to the chase I was training harder and drinking a lot more. More drinking is the key to enhanced older performance in all areas. :rofl:

James, in all fairness, I think your comment is a bit misleading in that it suggests that world records continue to fall despite the outlawing of the high tech body suits. Though this is true, it doesn't tell the whole story. With a small handful of exceptions, all the world records were set by people who aged up this year--Rich Abrahams (just turned 65) being a notable example in our mutual neck of the chronological woods. When you age up, you are competing against the previous record holders. You are not competing against yourself from the year before. Rich, for example, did a 25.80 this year, setting the WR in the 50 free. He did not swim it last year, but when he was 63, his time was 24.93. This year, he did a 58.68 for the 100; again, he did not swim it last year, but when he was 63, he did a 56.63. It is possible that two years took a toll on his speed, but judging from his times at SCY this past spring, I don't think it's terribly likely. Much more probable, from my point of view, is that the loss of the tech suit caused him to "slow down" by about 1 second per 50 and 2 seconds per 100. Jim, I'd say your analysis is pretty accurate. In '09 at the Ron Johnson meet I went a 25.1 for the 50 and a 57.3 for the 100 which may be a bit more comparable in terms of the suit effect (for me more like .7 per 50 and 1.3 for the 100). It's about the same for my LCM times. I think the lack of the tech suit has a bigger effect on my fly times. Rich