Fortress' impressive three world record performance over the weekend made me think of this topic. Obviously the things she's doing are working well for the events she likes to swim. She concentrates on SDKs, fast swimming with lots of rest and drylands to aid in explosiveness. Long aerobic sets just aren't a part of her training regime, from what I've seen.
Almost every organized training group I've swum with, on the other hand, focuses on long aerobic sets, short rest, not a whole lot of fast stuff, etc. Basically the polar opposite of how Fortress trains. In my opinion this probably works pretty well for those who swim longer events, but really does very little for sprinters. The sprint events are almost always the most popular events at meets, so why do people choose to train aerobically? I think there are a number of factors at play. There's the much maligned triathletes. There's those who don't compete and "just want to get their yardage in." There's a historical precedent of lots of yardage being the way to go.
So what do you all think? How does you or your team train? I know lots of regular bloggers here DO train differently than my perception of the norm. Examples include Ande, Chris S. and Speedo. Are too many masters teams stuck in a training regime that is not at all what many of their swimmers need to get faster?
I agree with the sentiment that distance swimmers can usually benefit from a little more speed. Heck, you look at the top elite milers and most of them have a pretty decent max speed. (The converse is probably not true, but most sprinters I know should work on their lactate tolerance more.)
At the same time, I have have known quite a few excellent distance swimmers who do not have a fast 50, or even a very fast 200 (Jeff Erwin is a masters swimmer around my age who fits this bill). Many of the best ones never lifted seriously either and aren't that strong; they just never, ever seem to get tired.
Pure speed and aerobic endurance are not one and the same, and in fact focusing on one too much can be to the detriment to the other. It is a dangerous oversimplification to imply otherwise, IMO. The best distance swimmers I know do not "reduce their rate of speed reduction" at all, in fact they seem to get faster and stronger as the race progresses. I have lost many a race to Erwin on the last 100, and my splits were not getting slower. His top speed at the beginning of the race can't match mine...but at the end of the race it's a different story.
BUT getting back to the original question: distance swimmers certainly need to practice race-pace regularly, it is just that those practices may look quite different than those of sprinters or mid-D types. And to repeat: yes, I do think that distance swimmers need to work on their top speed. Just not nearly as much as a 50 specialist (which I hope is obvious).
I see where you may have misinterpreted my meaning - I forgot a key word "first" - so meaning within an event, rather than saying one should have a fast 50 event in order to have a fast 1500 event.
And while we all can specifically cite first hand observation (or even own one's own experience), for the vast majority of swimmers, me being one of them, we typically don't hold steady pace, get faster, or negative split in races. So for us......
Take my 100 free as an example. And because i'm going to use a 50 free from the same meet, i'll use the Chesapeake ProAm. 54.72, split as 25.87 and 28.85. If I want to improve, and looking at it on paper, here is what I mean:
1. Generate more power only? - so 25.2/28.8; (probably not! i'm already going as fast as I can on that first 50 and just hoping I have enough in the tank to hold off the field!)
2. Go faster overall?; being able to swim faster without spending more energy on the first 50 (easy speed) with about the same spread 1st and 2nd 50: ex. 25.5 28.2
3. Reduce rate of speed decrease? - so go out the same, but bring it home faster. 25.8 27.8 - for me, #2 and #3 are quite obvious.
The girl I tied with for 10th in the 50 got 9th in the 100 at 52.40. I was 42nd at 54.72! The B consol heat, which you could argue is my "relative" heat, was signifantly faster than me. They were about .5 second faster on the first 50, and on average, about 1.5 faster on the 2nd 50!!
So to your point, being able to go top speed (having one mode of "sprinting") certainly isn't the determining factor in a race (over 50! or my case, even for a 50!), however, I would also say that most pool events, compared to any other sport, are all "sprint" in the sense that they are over within a matter of minutes. To be really fast, you are sprinting, but not perhaps not the gut busting arms flailing feet churning action that characterizes the 50 events. In your example, Erwin "outsprinted" you at the end, even if that mean holding a steadier pace or even speeding up. In those race cases, maybe a #4 of Speeding up (even more) at the End. (I don't think i'll ever make it that far down the list.)
Recall the thread question is, are most masters teams training wrong? So to tie this story in with the thread, it goes back to communicating with your coach about your goals and to even look at it on paper! This is a great opportunity to customize within the same set. For instance, if the set is 10 x 50 on the 1:30 sprint, then for ME means to work the back half of the 100 free (which is profoundly deficient!). And it could mean something completely different to everyone in the lane - like work in/out the turn/ work every other, time to do a stroke set, etc.
I agree with the sentiment that distance swimmers can usually benefit from a little more speed. Heck, you look at the top elite milers and most of them have a pretty decent max speed. (The converse is probably not true, but most sprinters I know should work on their lactate tolerance more.)
At the same time, I have have known quite a few excellent distance swimmers who do not have a fast 50, or even a very fast 200 (Jeff Erwin is a masters swimmer around my age who fits this bill). Many of the best ones never lifted seriously either and aren't that strong; they just never, ever seem to get tired.
Pure speed and aerobic endurance are not one and the same, and in fact focusing on one too much can be to the detriment to the other. It is a dangerous oversimplification to imply otherwise, IMO. The best distance swimmers I know do not "reduce their rate of speed reduction" at all, in fact they seem to get faster and stronger as the race progresses. I have lost many a race to Erwin on the last 100, and my splits were not getting slower. His top speed at the beginning of the race can't match mine...but at the end of the race it's a different story.
BUT getting back to the original question: distance swimmers certainly need to practice race-pace regularly, it is just that those practices may look quite different than those of sprinters or mid-D types. And to repeat: yes, I do think that distance swimmers need to work on their top speed. Just not nearly as much as a 50 specialist (which I hope is obvious).
I see where you may have misinterpreted my meaning - I forgot a key word "first" - so meaning within an event, rather than saying one should have a fast 50 event in order to have a fast 1500 event.
And while we all can specifically cite first hand observation (or even own one's own experience), for the vast majority of swimmers, me being one of them, we typically don't hold steady pace, get faster, or negative split in races. So for us......
Take my 100 free as an example. And because i'm going to use a 50 free from the same meet, i'll use the Chesapeake ProAm. 54.72, split as 25.87 and 28.85. If I want to improve, and looking at it on paper, here is what I mean:
1. Generate more power only? - so 25.2/28.8; (probably not! i'm already going as fast as I can on that first 50 and just hoping I have enough in the tank to hold off the field!)
2. Go faster overall?; being able to swim faster without spending more energy on the first 50 (easy speed) with about the same spread 1st and 2nd 50: ex. 25.5 28.2
3. Reduce rate of speed decrease? - so go out the same, but bring it home faster. 25.8 27.8 - for me, #2 and #3 are quite obvious.
The girl I tied with for 10th in the 50 got 9th in the 100 at 52.40. I was 42nd at 54.72! The B consol heat, which you could argue is my "relative" heat, was signifantly faster than me. They were about .5 second faster on the first 50, and on average, about 1.5 faster on the 2nd 50!!
So to your point, being able to go top speed (having one mode of "sprinting") certainly isn't the determining factor in a race (over 50! or my case, even for a 50!), however, I would also say that most pool events, compared to any other sport, are all "sprint" in the sense that they are over within a matter of minutes. To be really fast, you are sprinting, but not perhaps not the gut busting arms flailing feet churning action that characterizes the 50 events. In your example, Erwin "outsprinted" you at the end, even if that mean holding a steadier pace or even speeding up. In those race cases, maybe a #4 of Speeding up (even more) at the End. (I don't think i'll ever make it that far down the list.)
Recall the thread question is, are most masters teams training wrong? So to tie this story in with the thread, it goes back to communicating with your coach about your goals and to even look at it on paper! This is a great opportunity to customize within the same set. For instance, if the set is 10 x 50 on the 1:30 sprint, then for ME means to work the back half of the 100 free (which is profoundly deficient!). And it could mean something completely different to everyone in the lane - like work in/out the turn/ work every other, time to do a stroke set, etc.
