Stroke Rate & Stroke Length in OW

The first time I saw that video series it improved my self esteem. No more feeling bad because of my high stroke rate in the pool. When people approached me to offer some kind suggestions about my stroke, i just tell them that I come from the Janet Evans school of freestyle. One of the great things of open water is that no one can see how sloppy your stroke is from shore.

My issues with TI aside, the thread topic is "Stroke Rate & Stroke Length in OW." David linked to a video by "Swim Smooth" coach Paul Newsome, which argued that a shorter, punchier stroke can be efficient for some swimmers, and indeed may confer an advantage in open water. The following statement is, I believe, uncontroversial: For each individual, there's an ideal combination of SL and SR. All other combinations (SR+/SL- or SR-/SL+) are "inefficient." For the mathematically inclined, see this graph from Maglischo: dl.dropbox.com/.../SR.SL.png So in Maglischo terms, the idea is that in open water, the curve may shift slightly to the right. In other words: Sacrificing some SL in favor of SR may help in OW. I presented some suggestive evidence for this (video of elite OW swimmers), and offered a few potential reasons (more consistent velocity, balance, more efficient sighting). I'm still waiting for someone to engage in an evidence-based debate with me on this (or something besides "This has nothing to do with OW"). SR being =, the higher stroke length wins If you're referring to the video of Fran and Chip, it actually shows the opposite: SL being equal, the higher SR wins. Here's another video from yesterday's Crippen SafeSwim 10K, showing pros Andrew Gemmell (97 SPM), Sergiy Fesenko (86 SPM), and Chad LaTourette (81 SPM). Gemmell won. YouTube - Fran Crippen SafeSwim 10K Elite Men The video was taken at about the 8K mark. 97 SPM in the middle of a 10K! Interestingly, the lowest SR of the three (LaTourette) is the best pool swimmer.

the lesson is 2 parts. part 1 increase distance per stroke (one must usually slow down to do this) part 2 maintain distance per stroke while increasing SR I'm familiar with the lesson - and I think it's the right approach for novice swimmers. Is it the right approach for an expert swimmer? Maybe - but maybe not. A smart coach looks at both factors - SL and SR - and decides where the "low-hanging fruit" are. In some cases, SR might be the lower-hanging fruit. A coach shouldn't automatically assume that a catch-up stroke (higher SL) will be more efficient. I'm sure there were coaches who thought Janet Evans should be more "patient" with her catch. And those coaches would be idiots. Chaos, you're a TI coach, so I'll ask your opinion: I'm currently an 18:08 miler (unrested). In college I was about 16:30. My stroke count per 25 yards - then and now - is 14. The difference between my 19-year old self and my 31-year old self is the stroke rate I was capable of sustaining. At 14 SPL, I'm well below the suggested stroke-count range (16-19) for my height (5 ft 7 in), as suggested by Terry Laughlin. For an open-water 10K, my SR is typically 65-67 SPM. World-class OW swimmers - most of whom are 6-9 inches taller than me - are more like 80-90 SPM. Here's a video of me swimming 100 yards in a pool at my 10K effort (65-67 SPM): YouTube - 110310d 100FR d2-3 Given this information, would your advice to me be: "Evan, the best way for you to take your swimming to the next level is to do more of a catch-up stroke" ? Is my stroke length really the low-hanging fruit here? Sounds crazy, right? Well, that was the advice given to me by a TI coach.

I'd like to offer an observation, based only on my own personal experiences and some tenuous connections to physics. First, not all open water swimming is the same. Let's assume just for the sake of argument that in all cases a swimmer in a pool is faster if they lower their SPL. If we move that pool swimmer into a calm lake, and assuming there are no other swimmers around, then that swimmer should remain the fastest. So the question is: does the longer stroke being used by the swimmer become a disadvantage as the conditions worsen? If so, how bad do they have to get. Second, not all swimmers ultimately reach a magic SPL that guarantees success. Regardless of SPL, some swimmers simply will not make it to the top. So that means that there are other biomechanical & physiological issues that will determine maximum performance. So what does this mean? Frankly, I don't know other than comparing one swimmer to another by simply comparing SPL seems helpful but not definitive. If I understand Chaos he is saying they as to each individual swimmer, decreasing SPL makes them a faster pool swimmer. Not necessarily when they are working on the skill, but it does once they return to their previous SR. This seems to be a good common sense argument, but my question is: so what? (SARC INT) What I think EVMO is saying (and please guys correct me if I am wrong) that a higher SR allows the swimmer to adapt better to the conditions in a swim. If this is true, how bad do the conditions have to be for it to be a meaningful advantage. I don't know. However, what I do know (or believe, if you prefer) that a shorter stroke (i.e. higher SR) allows me to adjust my stroke to take advantage of the conditions - or at least not be dominated by them. If I have a low SPL and low SR then as I swim in rough water the wave, or waves if the the wind and deep swells are not identical in direction and period, will interfere with the rhythm of my stroke and cause me to lose momentum. If I switch to a higher SPL and higher SR this will minimize the negative effect of the waves. This is critical because it always requires less power to achieve a certain average speed if your speed is constant, than if you are constantly speeding up and slowing down. each stroke cycle.

Here's another video from yesterday's Crippen SafeSwim 10K, showing pros Andrew Gemmell (97 SPM), Sergiy Fesenko (86 SPM), and Chad LaTourette (81 SPM). Gemmell won. YouTube - Fran Crippen SafeSwim 10K Elite Men The video was taken at about the 8K mark. 97 SPM in the middle of a 10K! Interestingly, the lowest SR of the three (LaTourette) is the best pool swimmer. gemmel certainly looks smoother in this vid. he is out in front and the other two are catching a draft. that alone might account for the difference in SR... fesenko appears to expending a lot of energy looking at gemmell. i would think he could feel whats going on from such a vantage point. was there a sprint to the finish? or did they spread out?

Here's a video of me swimming 100 yards in a pool at my 10K effort (65-67 SPM): YouTube - 110310d 100FR d2-3 Given this information, would your advice to me be: "Evan, the best way for you to take your swimming to the next level is to do more of a catch-up stroke" ? Is my stroke length really the low-hanging fruit here? Sounds crazy, right? Well, that was the advice given to me by a TI coach. i won't comment on what advice you were given as i don't know the context but, based on your swimming history and present shape, i would say that there may not be any low hanging fruit. since 14 SPL seems to be a comfortable i would try and design sets that help you test the hypothesis that a higher SPL will be faster.... but that isn't the only question. there may be a net gain even if there is no benefit to your speed and that would be if a higher SR felt easier, and more sustainable over long distances. i would assign sets like this: 12x 600 on 9:00 descend in sets of 3 1. 13 SPL breath every 3 2. 13 SPL breathe 2r / 2l 3. 13 SPL breath 25yds r / 25yds l 4 - 6 as above 14 SPL 7 - 9 as above 15 SPL 10 - 12 as above 16 SPL try to maintain the same effort throughout so you might determine how both SR and breathing pattern effect speed and sustainability. the next time... do the set in reverse. as a data junkie, i think (hope) sets like this would appeal to you and perhaps give you some of the feedback you're looking for. i would avoid giving any instruction as to how i think you might change things to hit the targeted SPL's but would say to try and keep the walls consistent. thats what i would do (and its why i don't have any friends)

If I have a low SPL and low SR then as I swim in rough water the wave, or waves if the the wind and deep swells are not identical in direction and period, will interfere with the rhythm of my stroke and cause me to lose momentum. If I switch to a higher SPL and higher SR this will minimize the negative effect of the waves. This is critical because it always requires less power to achieve a certain average speed if your speed is constant, than if you are constantly speeding up and slowing down. each stroke cycle. i think its important to have a range of SR's and breathing patterns at ones disposal to be able to establish peace with adverse conditions. sometimes i slow it down, sometimes i speed it up.

So the question is: does the longer stroke being used by the swimmer become a disadvantage as the conditions worsen? If so, how bad do they have to get. My intuition is "Yes" - but it's based only on the observation that the fastest pool swimmers are usually not the fastest OW swimmers - and the latter often have punchier stroke technique. Of course, the only way to know for sure is to do a controlled experiment. If I understand Chaos he is saying they as to each individual swimmer, decreasing SPL makes them a faster pool swimmer. Not necessarily when they are working on the skill, but it does once they return to their previous SR. "Once they return to their previous SR" is the key point. If you're already swimming at an efficient combination of SL & SR, increasing SL can only make you slower. If I have a low SPL and low SR then as I swim in rough water the wave, or waves if the the wind and deep swells are not identical in direction and period, will interfere with the rhythm of my stroke and cause me to lose momentum. This describes my experience exactly. was there a sprint to the finish? or did they spread out? From what I can tell, they were in pretty much the same orientation at the finish as during the 8K clip. since 14 SPL seems to be a comfortable i would try and design sets that help you test the hypothesis that a higher SPL will be faster.... i would assign sets like this: 12x 600 on 9:00 descend in sets of 3 ..... That's great advice - thanks. I've done similar sets a few times, but not quite as systematically as you describe. One wrinkle is that my hypothesis about SL/SR relates specifically to rough-water conditions, which makes it somewhat harder to test. thats what i would do (and its why i don't have any friends) I am your friend! While my physical effort felt very similar at both 15 SPL and 17 SPL, the 17 SPL 50's were much faster. However, I found I can't sustain 17 SPL at higher stroke rate for longer than 200 yards. My question would be, are you really holding your physical effort constant between 15 & 17 SPL? If you're getting tired sooner, it would seem to indicate that you're expending more energy. When I try to increase SR (keeping effort constant), I'm consciously trying to pull less water - letting my catch slide a bit, and perhaps not following through as far. Chaos has described this in a different thread as a "lighter touch." 25y may be too short a distance for me to experiment. To take that even further, the ideal place to experiment is in actual open water - preferably rough water. To me, having to deal with chop and navigation is where the higher SR really shines. I can't practice a "rough water stroke" in a 25-yard pool, either - it just doesn't feel right.

It's hard to run pool strokes to O W. Try a set in O W & the same distance with a diff. stroke # & compare times on what You

Therefore, he says, "Efficiency in the water cannot be measured by the number of strokes you take per length, by itself. That would be a gross oversimplification of the freestyle stroke." Keep in mind who we are talking about and possibly who we are talking t Or as I like to say, "how is what these people are saying correct?" In my triathlon class it is uncanny the degree to which strokes per length correlates with speed. Having seen it for years I am still sometimes very surprised. The slowest folks are at 22 to 27 strokes per length (25 yards), the next slowest are in the 19 to 22 range. The getting there folks are in the 16 to 19 range and the fastest are 13 to 16. Also that range will cover 2,000 paces of 2:25 per 100 down to 1:12 per 100. Across such a large variation, yes you will see the big differences. However, in studies looking at say, the final 8 swimmers at world championships there does not seem to be a relation between stroke count and speed. But also the speeds represented are very close together. Correlations on tightly grouped data are not obvious and sometimes don't show up. To that point, in my faster group of masters swimmers we have some people at 19 or 20, some at 14 and they swim roughly the same speed.