Stroke Rate & Stroke Length in OW

What I need to do is find a way that increases velocity without substantially increasing effort. If you do find it - please let us all in on the secret........or patent it, sell it and make millions:D

"better swimmers have a smaller max/min variation in velocity than swimmers that are slower And this is the key. To measure the amount of drag on an object in a fluid over time (or distance) you can not simply take the distance and divide it by the time. That works only when there are no drag forces involved. If you divide the distance by the time you do get an average speed but that is a different thing Specifically, drag in a fluid is proportional to the square of the velocity and, more importantly, the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. Thus even small fluctuations in speed can significantly increase the amount of power needed to cover a specific distance. Take 2 swimmers who swim a length of the pool: one holds a constant speed, while the other speeds up and slows down. If they both reach the other end of the pool at the same time, the one with the fluctuations in speed had to generate substantially more power than the swimmer who maintained a steady speed. We all know this from our own experience. We also know that any reduction in drag forces on the body reduces the power requirements necessary to maintain a constant speed. However, an analysis of the physics involves shows that simply gliding in a non-propulsive phase of your stroke only increases the total amount of power you need to maintain an average speed. From a pure layman's point of view, it appears that to maintain a specific speed and lower your stroke rate, you must do one or both of the following. First, you must have a strong enough kick to maintain a propulsive force during your glide, sufficient to maintain a constant speed. If your glide position is more hydrodynamical efficient, then the total amount of propulsive force required may be less, but if your arms are not generating the force during the glide then the legs must. (10 X 100 yd kick on the minute anyone?) Simply gliding in a streamlined position will only increase your total power requirements over time due to the relationship of speed to power as noted above. In the alternative, you can improve your streamlining during the entire time you are swimming, but you must continue to apply a constant force. Improving streamlining during the entire stroke cycle similarly lowers the total amount of power required to maintain a constant speed. Once again, simply gliding will only hurt you. One thing that I might add, is that the analysis of a deformable body (a swimmer) in a fluid is complex, and when you ignore the physiological issues that come in play, any such analysis is an oversimplification and subject to scrutiny. So which of the 2 options (kick more while gliding or better streamlining while swimming) require less power and presumably less energy of the swimmer? This is an entirely different question that requires a further analysis of the physiology of a swimmer, which I believe is more complex than the physics involved.

What I need to do is find a way that increases velocity without substantially increasing effort. A higher SR with less force per stroke may be that solution. Take a look at this. It requires a careful read, but it might help. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../15673549

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.

This is why I believe that talking about some arbitrary ideal in SR is misguided. Simply because an elite OW swimmer has been observed to stroke at 80 to 90 strokes per minute doesn't infer anything conclusive for other swimmers who may not match an elite's skill or fitness profile. Who is talking about some "arbitrary ideal" of SR? The issue under discussion is relative stroke rates between open water and the pool. I've had the test performed on my stroke, by Steve Munatones, in March 2010. On the same day he was testing another swimmer - a Marathon Hall of Famer. ... What's noteworthy though is that the other swimmer was stroking at a much higher rate - possibly 40 to 50 percent higher - and kicking much harder. That's noteworthy, for sure - but probably not for the reason you intended.

The point I was making is that a sample size of N = 10,000 is more likely to yield widely-applicable principles than a sample size of N=1. Or one of N=25-50 (the number of people in the world capable of remaining efficient in challenging conditions at SR of 80+ - and with the metabolic capacity to sustain it.) I understand what you intended now. But of course, it just establishes that if you have a validly selected random sample, where you observe objectively verifiable data, the conclusions you reach are more probably valid than a similarly selected and tested, but smaller sample. (That's assuming I remember my statistics correctly, which has a very high level of uncertainty) As for the word 'glide' - and countless other words and phrases, I've found it important to be as precise as possible when writing - as opposed to showing. When I use the term glide I mean all stroking movements cease. Usually with one arm forward and the other back. People sometimes do this in pursuit of more Stroke Length. Not a good practice -- and the reason I questioned introducing the concept of gliding. Pausing the lead hand, or being very patient about cultivating the catch, isn't gliding so long as the other hand is coming forward in recovery. I have never seen the word “glide” used as you have defined it. You might want to check on that or at least make sure you include your definition of the word in your discussions. In dozens of races I've found myself passing people who are stroking faster, when the water gets more choppy. Video example here. http://tinyurl.com/4x9aamv Yes I’ve seen this video before. Frankly I think it’s your goggles that make you faster. :-) Seriously though, my first thought when I saw that was that you had just caught and passed either a heat in front of yours, or just the nuts that went out too fast. I think what stands out the most though, is not your stroke rate so much as you excellent head position in comparison to the other swimmers around you..

My practices put development and imprinting of Stroke Length first, because (1) acquisition and maintenance of Stroke Length is an exacting skill I can’t agree with you more on this. (2) because swimming speed is more closely related to Length than to any other factor. I think this is where I’d need to see the data. If what you are saying that at any given level of swimming, a swimmer's speed is more closely related to Length than to any other factor, than I might be on board on that one. Again, assuming we are only talking about in a pool or calm body of water. I think both need to be developed 'organically.' What Length are YOU capable of today? How can you increase or reinforce that capacity in the next hour? And at that Length, what Rates can YOU sustain without sacrificing excess efficiency, or spending too many heartbeats. How can you increase or reinforce that capacity in the next hour? I agree The method I've developed for doing so is based on establishing Length, then practice 'trading' a bit of Length for a bit of Rate in small, measured doses. I do this in practice with two kinds of sets: 1) Rate is implicit. These are timed swims in which I count strokes. Any change in pace or time, if SPL remains constant, implies a change in rate. 2) Rate is explicit. (Time is implicit.) These are (usually) untimed swims in which I set rate with the aid of a Tempo Trainer, and count strokes. Any increase in stroke count means I've swum slower. Any savings in stroke count means I've swum faster. So naturally I strive to keep SPL as low as possible at that rate. I've posted examples of pool practices designed to prepare for open water races here. My last two practices were Implicit Rate examples. Today I did two forms of descending sets 1) On the odd rounds descend without increasing stroke count. This requires increasing Stroke Rate while keeping Stroke Length constant. In fact I don't try to increase Stroke Rate. Rather I focus on doing a variety of things that combine to propel me faster - more attention to holding the water, a bit more precision in catch, small increases in hip drive, etc. 2) On the even rounds, descend by increasing stroke count. Both exercises are useful in wiring my nervous system with skills that I believe help me swim effectively in OW races. Because there's no way of monitoring Stroke Length - and because wind and chop can make that difficult - I try to practice in ways calculated to create durable efficiency habits. But though I think such sets put more arrows in my quiver for responding to a variety of situations, my stronger motivation for these -- and all the sets I do -- is to encourage, even demand, keen focus. It's good for a 60 y.o. brain. It also creates Flow States. In the end, it's my addiction to Flow States, more than competitive urges, that keeps me coming back to the pool. I think this is an interesting and helpful discussion (although I did not examine you example pool practices)

What I need to do is find a way that increases velocity without substantially increasing effort. A higher SR with less force per stroke may be that solution. You could try this test to find your optimum stroke rate/stroke length: www.swimsmooth.com/ramptest.html --mjm

Take a look at this. It requires a careful read, but it might help. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../15673549 I knew I shouldn't have avoided biochemistry. I was unsure. Is my takeaway that the key is that through the establishment of motor patterns at a higher stroke rate through repition, my efficiency will follow? Or is it that I am a mutant zebrafish and my deficits cannot be traced to my biochemistry?:)

I've posted examples of pool practices designed to prepare for open water races here. I did look at your pool practices, and here is my challenge which is why I started this thread in the first place: The two workouts you posted would produce very different results for me. I would find it a good workout, but not too challenging to complete the descending sets of 125's at the intervals and pace times you posted. Your last set is at about a 1:20 per 100 pace with 20 seconds rest between each 125. This I can do. But I would not be able to complete the ladder with the same pace times you posted. Swimming a 1:28 per 100 pace is sustainable for me, but I can't sustain a 1:23 pace for 1000 yards. I am looking at my stroke efficiency more closely. I mixed in some LC workouts last week. I found that my per 100 yard SC pace didn't convert as well to a 100m LC pace. I am learning I have fast powerful turns that expend a lot of energy which explains why I could swim a :50 100 in high school but never broke 5 minutes in the 500.