Ultra Short Training At Race Pace

There are a few problems with research in swimming i.e. the sample sizes are sometimes too small or the wrong age ( can you extrapolate results from age groupers to 60 year old Masters swimmers) and there are so many variables that it is very difficult to isolate what it is you are testing for. Absolutely it is a hard thing to do; to your list I would add that there is a big problem with scale. For example, many studies I see about the benefits (or lack thereof) of weight training will do testing on a scale of weeks, maybe even 6-8 weeks. But many coaches think about much longer time scales: often season-long but sometimes (at least for elites) even longer than that. More than that, sometimes benefits of a particular activity such as cross-training or heavier training loads, might have a significant lag effect (i.e. appearing some time after the activity ceases). Moreover, elite swimmers are sometimes understandably unwilling to serve as guinea pigs for season-long experiments. Then there is the problem of applying lessons learned for high-level swimmers to those of lesser ability or training level. Somewhat ironically, masters swimmers are often great for this sort of work: hopefully we have lots of seasons "to burn" and (comparatively speaking) there is little at stake so people are more willing to devote a season or two to a different type of training. I can vouch for High intensity in general for sure....and'l say continual volume overload ala much of the swimming world (back then) didn't do any swimmers justice. The genetically gifted rise above it, but lose out on even faster performances cause of being hampered by the unnecessary volume. ... If your training for a 4min event, cranking 6000-9000yd workouts is a crock. Totally agree that race-pace/high-intensity training is the way to go, and day after day of long aerobic work is not a good way for most swimmers to train. One of the big problems with swimming at the age group level is that often everyone gets lumped together: sprinters with distance types, IM'ers with freestylers, etc. Sometimes this is simply an issue of logistics of course. But it is something of a leap to go from saying "race-pace training is great" (for which I think there is substantial evidence) to saying "USRPT is the best way to do race-pace training for everyone." Not to mention other assertions made as part of the USRPT package (about tapering, lactate tolerance, cross-training, drills, etc) that I am skeptical about. And while I think day after day after day of mind-numbing aerobic training isn't suitable for most swimmers, that doesn't mean I think it should NEVER be done. That's a bit of a leap too, though I admit that I don't really see much value for drop-dead sprinters (except maybe general health/fitness?). Finally: ANY type of exercise/training is better than none. Masters athletes need to choose a form of training that they can do over the long haul, one that they enjoy and maintain and that doesn't cause injuries. For people who get jazzed about USRPT or any other "system" of training, the mere fact that they are enthusiastic about it (and thus more likely to follow it rigorously) is a powerful argument in its favor. It is sort of like the arguments over which diet is best.

There are a few problems with research in swimming i.e. the sample sizes are sometimes too small or the wrong age ( can you extrapolate results from age groupers to 60 year old Masters swimmers) and there are so many variables that it is very difficult to isolate what it is you are testing for. Absolutely it is a hard thing to do; to your list I would add that there is a big problem with scale. For example, many studies I see about the benefits (or lack thereof) of weight training will do testing on a scale of weeks, maybe even 6-8 weeks. But many coaches think about much longer time scales: often season-long but sometimes (at least for elites) even longer than that. More than that, sometimes benefits of a particular activity such as cross-training or heavier training loads, might have a significant lag effect (i.e. appearing some time after the activity ceases). Moreover, elite swimmers are sometimes understandably unwilling to serve as guinea pigs for season-long experiments. Then there is the problem of applying lessons learned for high-level swimmers to those of lesser ability or training level. Somewhat ironically, masters swimmers are often great for this sort of work: hopefully we have lots of seasons "to burn" and (comparatively speaking) there is little at stake so people are more willing to devote a season or two to a different type of training. I can vouch for High intensity in general for sure....and'l say continual volume overload ala much of the swimming world (back then) didn't do any swimmers justice. The genetically gifted rise above it, but lose out on even faster performances cause of being hampered by the unnecessary volume. ... If your training for a 4min event, cranking 6000-9000yd workouts is a crock. Totally agree that race-pace/high-intensity training is the way to go, and day after day of long aerobic work is not a good way for most swimmers to train. One of the big problems with swimming at the age group level is that often everyone gets lumped together: sprinters with distance types, IM'ers with freestylers, etc. Sometimes this is simply an issue of logistics of course. But it is something of a leap to go from saying "race-pace training is great" (for which I think there is substantial evidence) to saying "USRPT is the best way to do race-pace training for everyone." Not to mention other assertions made as part of the USRPT package (about tapering, lactate tolerance, cross-training, drills, etc) that I am skeptical about. And while I think day after day after day of mind-numbing aerobic training isn't suitable for most swimmers, that doesn't mean I think it should NEVER be done. That's a bit of a leap too, though I admit that I don't really see much value for drop-dead sprinters (except maybe general health/fitness?). Finally: ANY type of exercise/training is better than none. Masters athletes need to choose a form of training that they can do over the long haul, one that they enjoy and maintain and that doesn't cause injuries. For people who get jazzed about USRPT or any other "system" of training, the mere fact that they are enthusiastic about it (and thus more likely to follow it rigorously) is a powerful argument in its favor. It is sort of like the arguments over which diet is best.