Stroke Rate & Stroke Length in OW

The idea to focus on is reducing drag - not gliding. I've never heard anyone make a serious suggestion that gliding is a good strategy so including it in discussion takes us off-topic. There are a number of definitions of the word glide. I was using it in the way it is commonly understood. That being: to move forward as a result of potential/stored energy, without a further application of force. The potential energy can be in the form an objects height over the ground in a gravitational field such as the earth (the plane glided to the ground) , or in the form of linear momentum as in swimming or iceskating. Anytime there is no propulsive force being applied, you are gliding. Assuming for the sake of argument that we can disregard the propulsive power of your kick (which I believe is consistent with your thoughts on this matter), then whenever a swimmer is not applying a propulsive arm force he is gliding. Merely improving your streamlining does not make you glide faster at the beginning, but it does reduce the rate of decline of your speed over time. However, it is gliding nevertheless and you will slow down. Gliding in swimming does not have to be for a long time, but there have been some in the swimming world that have advocated certain stroke mechanics which result in periods of gliding. When I read your book a couple of years ago something stood out so much that I marked it. “The whole point, in fact, is to put off pulling with the extended hand until the other one is just about to reenter the water and take its place in front of your head.” p.92 If you are not replacing the lost propulsive force with kicking while you are ‘putting off pulling with your extended hand’, then you are, by definition, gliding. That is why I included it in my analysis. But if you think it is off topic, so be it. It just seems to me that to achieve a low SPL you advocate certain stroke mechanics which result in adding glide to a swimmers stroke. And from a purely physics analysis, increases the amount of power required to be produced by the swimmer over any given distance. How does that relate to Stroke Rate and Length? If you believe there are only two ways to minimize fluctuations in speed - a higher stroke rate or a stronger kick. Actually that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that to maintain a constant speed the swimmer must have a constant Net Propulsive Force. (Net Propulsive Force) = (Total Propulsive Force) - (Force of Drag). To reach a certain speed a swimmer must have a positive Net Propulsive Force. Once he reaches a certain speed, to maintain it he must have a Net Propulsive Force equal to zero. What is applicable to the discussion of pool vs OW is that you must maintain a Net propulsive Force equal to zero throughout your stroke cycle, and what is being suggested, is that this is easier to do with a higher stroke rate in rough water. (I refer you back to my earlier post). I was focused on keeping my bodyline long, minimizing wavemaking, using my extending arm to 'separate water molecules' and focusing far more on drag avoidance than propulsion with my kick. Which is precisely what I focus on while racing -- in a wide range of water conditions. Great! And I think the operative words here are “focusing far more on”. As an athlete with decades of experience, your body already knows how to apply force without you having to stay consciously focused on it. Your conscious efforts are focused more on reducing drag which I totally agree with. This is why I believe that talking about some arbitrary ideal in SR is misguided. I agree with you on this and with the fact that talking about an ideal SPL number is equally misguided. I do not think you advocate that, but there are others who believe that there is certain a SPL number that all swimmers should achieve. Unfortunately, my observation is that there are quite a few triathletes who take what you are teaching, misinterpret it, and conclude that pursuit of a specific SPL is the Holy Grail of swimming faster. On the other hand, what is absolutely beyond dispute is that if you take YOUR stroke and improve its streamlining qualities, you'll be able to swim the same speed with less effort -- and thus be able to maintain it longer. Absolutely. Simply, heedlessly, stroking faster is -- for the vast majority of non-elite swimmers -- virtually certain to increase drag, and therefore the energy cost of swimming a given speed. Agreed How did I learn this? Frankly, where and how you learn something is irrelevant. The thing that matters is, if it is true or not.

The idea to focus on is reducing drag - not gliding. I've never heard anyone make a serious suggestion that gliding is a good strategy so including it in discussion takes us off-topic. There are a number of definitions of the word glide. I was using it in the way it is commonly understood. That being: to move forward as a result of potential/stored energy, without a further application of force. The potential energy can be in the form an objects height over the ground in a gravitational field such as the earth (the plane glided to the ground) , or in the form of linear momentum as in swimming or iceskating. Anytime there is no propulsive force being applied, you are gliding. Assuming for the sake of argument that we can disregard the propulsive power of your kick (which I believe is consistent with your thoughts on this matter), then whenever a swimmer is not applying a propulsive arm force he is gliding. Merely improving your streamlining does not make you glide faster at the beginning, but it does reduce the rate of decline of your speed over time. However, it is gliding nevertheless and you will slow down. Gliding in swimming does not have to be for a long time, but there have been some in the swimming world that have advocated certain stroke mechanics which result in periods of gliding. When I read your book a couple of years ago something stood out so much that I marked it. “The whole point, in fact, is to put off pulling with the extended hand until the other one is just about to reenter the water and take its place in front of your head.” p.92 If you are not replacing the lost propulsive force with kicking while you are ‘putting off pulling with your extended hand’, then you are, by definition, gliding. That is why I included it in my analysis. But if you think it is off topic, so be it. It just seems to me that to achieve a low SPL you advocate certain stroke mechanics which result in adding glide to a swimmers stroke. And from a purely physics analysis, increases the amount of power required to be produced by the swimmer over any given distance. How does that relate to Stroke Rate and Length? If you believe there are only two ways to minimize fluctuations in speed - a higher stroke rate or a stronger kick. Actually that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that to maintain a constant speed the swimmer must have a constant Net Propulsive Force. (Net Propulsive Force) = (Total Propulsive Force) - (Force of Drag). To reach a certain speed a swimmer must have a positive Net Propulsive Force. Once he reaches a certain speed, to maintain it he must have a Net Propulsive Force equal to zero. What is applicable to the discussion of pool vs OW is that you must maintain a Net propulsive Force equal to zero throughout your stroke cycle, and what is being suggested, is that this is easier to do with a higher stroke rate in rough water. (I refer you back to my earlier post). I was focused on keeping my bodyline long, minimizing wavemaking, using my extending arm to 'separate water molecules' and focusing far more on drag avoidance than propulsion with my kick. Which is precisely what I focus on while racing -- in a wide range of water conditions. Great! And I think the operative words here are “focusing far more on”. As an athlete with decades of experience, your body already knows how to apply force without you having to stay consciously focused on it. Your conscious efforts are focused more on reducing drag which I totally agree with. This is why I believe that talking about some arbitrary ideal in SR is misguided. I agree with you on this and with the fact that talking about an ideal SPL number is equally misguided. I do not think you advocate that, but there are others who believe that there is certain a SPL number that all swimmers should achieve. Unfortunately, my observation is that there are quite a few triathletes who take what you are teaching, misinterpret it, and conclude that pursuit of a specific SPL is the Holy Grail of swimming faster. On the other hand, what is absolutely beyond dispute is that if you take YOUR stroke and improve its streamlining qualities, you'll be able to swim the same speed with less effort -- and thus be able to maintain it longer. Absolutely. Simply, heedlessly, stroking faster is -- for the vast majority of non-elite swimmers -- virtually certain to increase drag, and therefore the energy cost of swimming a given speed. Agreed How did I learn this? Frankly, where and how you learn something is irrelevant. The thing that matters is, if it is true or not.