Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

Former Member — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:36:29 GMT

Well, I'm pretty sure that the one single thing that really helped my times in 100 yard and longer events a few seasons ago was training for and participating in a charity stair climb event (roughly 100 stories). I prepared over several weeks in my own building (11 stories) by going from ground to 11th floor, which took about a minute, then getting plenty of rest riding the elevator back to the ground, getting a drink of water, and waiting for my heart rate to recover. I'd repeat this 6-8 times in a typical workout. The actual event was about one month prior to my big taper meet for the season. I haven't done this the last two years and my times in 50-yard races are reasonably close, but anything 100 or longer I have slowed down.

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

chowmi — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 11:06:12 GMT

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.

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

bowyer954 — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 10:54:07 GMT

I have been swimming in the masters for about four years. In the summer I train with a team and their 3K-4K practices kill me--not for speed but for distance. I am 58 yrs old and my longest event is the 200 FS but my strongest events are the 50 and 100 Fly. Doing thousands of yards breaks me down and limits my ability to practice going fast. Also in these events the starts, turns and underwater kicks usually detemines the winners. I always laugh/get frustrated when swimmers world puts out its favorite workouts at 5K-6K yds. I can only speak for myself but I can't manage that distance and maintain any type of competitive speed. I would love to see 2K--2.5K yds. workouts that maximize speed.

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

Ahelee Sue Osborn — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:07:24 GMT

One thing not being discussed much on this thread is the need to practice at speeds FASTER than your goal race pace times...I think its s critical part of training and something we use fins and paddles for along with bungee cords. PS THIS is the secret to drawing in the triathletes, distance, OW and other speed wary athletes. Make it fun - give times so they can measure their progress - race and rest so they can swim FAST! Doing it on a regular (weekly) basis erases any need for a whole lot of explanation. Athletes who do it just get faster than those who don't. LOVE FAST FRIDAY!

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

Allen Stark — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:28:50 GMT

Something I was thinking about yesterday in my workout was that it is easier for me to focus on technique adjustments and how effective they are during sprints.If I am trying a major change,of course I start slow until I get a feel for it,but when I am tweeking my stroke I really like to focus on it during sprints.One reason,of course,is that I have a short attention span and it is easier for me to focus for a 25 than a 100,but another is that it is easier for me to see if a change really helps.In a 25 I am going all out, so if something is faster or results in lower SPL the results are likely accurate.While I have a pretty good idea of 100 and 200 pace I can't be as sure that I am giving duplicate effort as I can in an all out sprint.

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

knelson — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:43:09 GMT

Most energy charts show levels above EN3. EN3 is usually considered a mix of aerobic and anaerobic. Anything above this relies primarily on the anaerobic system. Charts I've seen label these zones as SP1, 2 and 3. SP1 and 2 are what most of us would consider "speed work" and SP3 is very short, explosive type sprints, like 15 meter blasts, maybe 25s tops. For example: www.teamunify.com/.../Energy Zones in Swimming.pdf

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

smontanaro — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:10:32 GMT

I've been out of the water for nearly two weeks, and decided I needed to get wet this morning. I decided to try and apply a little of what I've read here. By the time I finished gabbing with the lifeguard I had 50 minutes of my hour left. Here's what I did. Warning: IANAS. While I didn't completely make up the workout on-the-fly (there was no fly, btw), I had really only decided on the warmup and 75s before I got to the pool. 200/100/200 S/K/P warmup 8X75 @ 1:30 - quick odds, cruise evens, descend the odds - went 1:05, 1:04, 1:03, 1:02 on the odds, evens were all 1:07 or 1:08 8X50 @ 1:00/2:00 - 2 X {ez/fast, fast/ez, build, fast} - the two fast 50s were :37, :36, more like :41-:42 for the ez/fast 50s, around :39 for the build 50s 8X25 @ 1:00 - all fast - last was :16, rest were :17 200 ez cool down At the end I was reminded of the Rodney Dangerfield (or was it Henny Youngman?) joke: "I just flew in from New York. Man are my arms tired!" As you can tell from the times I am clearly not a sprinter. I would have rated the 75s as EN2, the fast 50s and all the 25s as EN3. I found the 75s easier than the 25s, certainly physically, probably mentally as well. I guess that's to be expected. So short workout, but definitely different than my usual workouts.

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

Former Member — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:20:06 GMT

Everyone's gotta swim the first 50. One day, we will teach you about relays.

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

Chris Stevenson — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:46:59 GMT

Everyone's gotta swim the first 50. If you don't have a fast first 50, you won't have a fast 100. If you don't have a fast 100, you won't have a fast 200. If you don't have a fast 200....and so on! Different types of Sprinting - pure power generation vs. easy speed vs. reducing your rate of decreasing speed! Very well put. Endurance means a low rate of speed decrease. The faster you are, the more speed you have to lose. You can get better in endurance races by being a faster sprinter. 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).

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

knelson — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:57:37 GMT

Based on energy systems, most of my training is firmly in EN2 territory with some in EN3 and a little at EN1, but mainly just recovery swims in between the harder work. I never do a day of EN1, for example. The place I seldom venture is anything with a rest to work ratio of greater than 1:1. I feel like even at 1:1 you really can't open it up and go all-out. Maybe for a repeat or two, but then you're toast. Because of this there's a tendency to hold back. I think distance swimmers have a natural tendency to hold back, anyway. We're always thinking about the end of the set, not the next repeat!

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

tjrpatt — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:35:29 GMT

I think it's too late for the short course season (although I'll definitely be adding more quality stuff in the next month), but I may experiment this summer with doing some true speed work. Maybe devote one workout per week to this. Does anyone have an opinion on what kind of distance these quality sets should be? One week, do a set of 50s on 3:00 or 4:00 Another week, do a set of 100s, 6:00 then, a set of 200s, on 8:00 Maybe the 4th week, do 2 or 3 rounds of a fast 50 a fast 100 a fast 200 When you get closer to you taper, do some broken 500s, 100s, etc once a week.

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

aquageek — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:19:09 GMT

I think it's too late for the short course season (although I'll definitely be adding more quality stuff in the next month), but I may experiment this summer with doing some true speed work. Maybe devote one workout per week to this. Does anyone have an opinion on what kind of distance these quality sets should be? When we do straight up speed work we tend to go 4:1 or 5:1 EZ:speed. A lot of our speed sets will begin with drill round, then an EZ/cruise round, then the speed, then EZ, then another speed, then EZ, repeat a few times.

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

knelson — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:02:35 GMT

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

aquageek — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:09:05 GMT

Very well put. Endurance means a low rate of speed decrease. The faster you are, the more speed you have to lose. You can get better in endurance races by being a faster sprinter. In limited circumstances this might be true. However, if I devote much time to being a faster sprinter there is almost zero chance it will improve a 1650 or, especially, a longer endurance event. If endurance is defined as a 500 or 1000, then I probably agree with this, as long as you don't sacrifice training for your endurance events.

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

Chris Stevenson — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:15:36 GMT

Where I think I differ, though, is for folks who really want to train for the 1000 and 1650: for those, I think the training to race philosophy is pretty well matched by high intensity (not all out), low rest sets. For example, if I want to be getting well under 10:00 in my 1000, I'd better be doing lots of repeat 100s on a 1:05 or even 1:00 interval ... doing 10 x 100 on 4:00 all-out, IMHO, is not going to benefit my 1000 time. I agree with your larger point but disagree with two specifics: -- I think the 500 and 400 IM benefit some from training such as you describe. (Even the 200s but to a much lesser extent.) -- I think that 10x100 on 4:00 (a lactate tolerance set) would indeed benefit your 1000 time. It just shouldn't be the only type of training you do, the low-rest stuff is needed (think of these basically as broken race-pace swims). Though my own days of doing more than 2 or 3 10s on 1:00 are long gone...

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

Patrick W. Brundage — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:04:58 GMT

I just wanted to make one point about your last post, Patrick. From my perspective, if you trained differently in college (i.e. with an emphasis on sprints) your recent 22.1 might be a whole lot slower than your best college 50. You were able to match that time because you didn't approach your speed potential in colleege due to the way you trained then. Make any sense?Yes, it does. I trained almost exclusively for the 500-1650 in high school in a very high volume yardage club; we did more quality work at Texas, but the distance guys (where I trained all except for my senior year) still did some pretty decent volume of training. I will say this, my best 400 free / 400 IM (and subsequent 500 free / 400 IM) times came when I trained one summer in the IM lane ... but, then my 1000 and 1650 were well off previous bests. I am a firm proponent of training to race and I think that most Masters swimmer will do better (since most race 50 - 200 distances) by adding in a lot more quality than they do today. Where I think I differ, though, is for folks who really want to train for the 1000 and 1650: for those, I think the training to race philosophy is pretty well matched by high intensity (not all out), low rest sets. For example, if I want to be getting well under 10:00 in my 1000, I'd better be doing lots of repeat 100s on a 1:05 or even 1:00 interval ... doing 10 x 100 on 4:00 all-out, IMHO, is not going to benefit my 1000 time. Anyway, looking forward to meeting you in person in Mesa. I've always enjoyed reading your posts. RichThanks, and me to to meeting you.

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

Rich Abrahams — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:50:29 GMT

Chris, very good points. And, Paul, while I agree with general sentiment that d-folks need to work more on speed than they typically might they need to do, I'll offer a counter-point (n=1) from my own experience. I can sprint as fast now in the 50 as I did back in my younger days (e.g., my 22.1 in 2008 was faster than I ever went in my teens or 20s) I was almost as fast in my 100 (e.g., 48.1 vs. 47-mid in my late teens/20s) By the time you get to my 200, though, my best time was 3 seconds slower now than then ... 500 was close to 20 seconds slower ... 1000 was 40 seconds and mile was 76 seconds slower. I really didn't want to get caught up in this thread because once I got started it'd be hard for me to stop. This topic is the core of Bob Strand and my Super Session clinics and I've been writing a column on this topic quarterly for our LMSC newsletter entitled "Training to Race." I just wanted to make one point about your last post, Patrick. From my perspective, if you trained differently in college (i.e. with an emphasis on sprints) your recent 22.1 might be a whole lot slower than your best college 50. You were able to match that time because you didn't approach your speed potential in colleege due to the way you trained then. Make any sense? Anyway, looking forward to meeting you in person in Mesa. I've always enjoyed reading your posts. Rich

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

Patrick W. Brundage — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:21:08 GMT

...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....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.Chris, very good points. And, Paul, while I agree with general sentiment that d-folks need to work more on speed than they typically might they need to do, I'll offer a counter-point (n=1) from my own experience. I can sprint as fast now in the 50 as I did back in my younger days (e.g., my 22.1 in 2008 was faster than I ever went in my teens or 20s) I was almost as fast in my 100 (e.g., 48.1 vs. 47-mid in my late teens/20s) By the time you get to my 200, though, my best time was 3 seconds slower now than then ... 500 was close to 20 seconds slower ... 1000 was 40 seconds and mile was 76 seconds slower. As a Masters swimmer, if I really want to get my 500/1000/1650 anywhere near the times I did in the past, I think the answer is going to be two-fold: more volume, more high intensity / short rest aerobic style sets. The energy systems, stroke rate, stroke length, kick are completely different for me in a 50/100 vs. a 500-1650. I happen to be doing probably close to 100% more sprint style work over the last few years than I ever did back in my prime training days, but I am under no illusion that that kind of training is helping my 500 to 1650. Put it this way: to get back to my best ever 500 time, I need to be able to hold a 53 pace per 100. I did a set of 20 x 50 recently on 2:00, with most of the freestyles being 24+/25- and a few 26s, all well under what would needed to be a 53 500 pace ... but I don't think that helped my 500 at all ... of course, if I do end up swimming the 500 on Sunday at Paul's pool and do something miraculous, I will stand corrected ;)

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

aquageek — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:14:12 GMT

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

Paul Smith — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:04:01 GMT

Right, but my question is how much all-out swimming per session? I would guess somewhere between 50-1000 yards or meters would be a good starting point? Below is a VERY simplified overview of what we are discussing....although the 1:1 ratio they mention for EN3 to me should be anywhere from 3:1 to 10:1 depending on a number of factors. One thing not being discussed much on this thread is the need to practice at speeds FASTER than your goal race pace times...I think its s critical part of training and something we use fins and paddles for along with bungee cords. PS Minimum Endurance Pace (EN1) - almost any distance, with very low rest (less than :30 seconds) between repeats, swum at a sustainable, fairly easy pace. This kind of work set takes 15 to 60 minutes (or more). It helps to build base yardage and promotes recovery. An example: 6 x 500 yards at EN1 pace with :15 seconds rest between repeats or 6 x 500 @ :15 rest, EN1 pace. Threshold Endurance Pace (EN2) - usually distances less than 500 yards with up to :60 seconds rest between repeats, swum at a pace faster than EN1 (we'll look at how much faster a little bit later). This type of set take between 20 and 45 (or more) minutes to complete and should increase your ability to perform aerobic work without causing a build-up of waste products in the muscles, but should still be followed by a day of easy work to restore muscle glycogen stores. An example: 8 x 175 @ :20 rest, EN2 pace. VO2Max Endurance Pace (EN3) - usually distances less than 300 yards with rest somewhere between :20 seconds up to a time equal to the amount of work completed (a 1:1 work to rest ratio) at a pace faster than both EN1 and EN2 (be patient - we'll get to it). You will probably not be able to hold this pace for much longer than 30 minutes. This kind of work can simulate the same overall affects of a race. It's very hard work and should also be followed by some type of recovery workout to restore muscle glycogen stores. An example: 8 x 100 @ :45 rest, EN3 pace.

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

That Guy — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:20:28 GMT

Right, but my question is how much all-out swimming per session? I would guess somewhere between 50-1000 yards or meters would be a good starting point? I generally do no more than one race-pace event per workout. Lactate sets like 5x200 on 8:00 are not race-pace, though they're close to it. You can do lactate sets more often than once a week. In college we'd repeat a cycle roughly like this every 2-3 weeks: Lactate set #1 this Tuesday Distance swimmers do 4x500 on 12:00 Stroke/Mid-D swimmers do 5x200 on 8:00 Sprinters do 5x100 on 6:00 Lactate set #2 this Thursday Distance swimmers do 5x200 on 8:00 Stroke/Mid-D swimmers do 5x100 on 6:00 Sprinters do 5x50 on 4:00? Lactate set #3 next Tuesday Distance swimmers do 5x100 on 6:00 Stroke/Mid-D swimmers do 5x50 on 4:00? Sprinters do 5x25 on 3:00? I don't really remember what the intervals were for the 50's and 25's since I was in the distance lane for 4 years. It was a tradition for at least one of the sprinters to reappear on the pool deck fully clothed while we still had swimming to do. Towards the end of each set, we did get to spread out into the empty lanes... :badday:

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

knelson — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 02:07:09 GMT

One week... Right, but my question is how much all-out swimming per session? I would guess somewhere between 500-1000 yards or meters would be a good starting point?

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

Former Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:10:18 GMT

And, again, race pace work is NOT just for sprinters. For example, while I understand Salo's sprinters do zero distance work and long aerobic sets, his D swimmers don't do that much short rest stuff either. Paul's program sounds great to me. I wish my team trained that way. Yesterday I missed the morning workout so I had to come in later and train alone. I chose to ignore what was on the board, which was a bunch of typical zero rest "garbage" stuff like 50s on :45, 100s on 1:30, etc. I'm training for the 500 free, 50 fly, and 100 free, so I did the following: Warm up: 400S, 300P, 200K, 100IM Set 1: 3 x 500 free, broken at the 100 with 10s rest #1 swim with paddles, #2 swim with fins, #3 swim naked medium hard, try to pace consistently. I took as much rest as I wanted between 500s. It was probably about a minute and a half to two minutes, and it felt like a guilty pleasure. When our coach gives us 500s they're usually on an interval that allows 10 to 20 seconds of rest, if that. Set 2: 2 X 25 back flutter kick, 2 x 25 backstroke swim. 2 X 25 fly kick, 2 X 25 fly 2 x 50 back kick, 2 X 50 back swim (fins) 2 x 50 fly kick, 2 X 50 fly (fins) 25s were on 1:00, 50s on 1:30. Then I did 2 more 50s fly, finless, to work on technique. No interval on those, just focused on getting my head down early, shoulder shrug, and undulation. Cooldown was an easy 400 pull with paddles. Focus on body roll, hip snap, and symmetry. This ended up being a pretty long workout but I felt much better at the end than I do during the typical no-rest stuff. My technique felt consistent throughout, even though I was tired. I guess I am a lazy sprinter at heart.

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

Former Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:57:58 GMT

None of what you or Thrashing Slug listed is necessarily garbage - it's aerobic swimming. Garbage yardage is swimming without purpose.* my definition of garbage yardage involves flotsam and jetsam (and maybe a few warm spots too)

RE: Are Most Masters Teams Training Wrong?

Former Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:20:41 GMT