Ultra Short Training At Race Pace

Anybody can do 10 x 100 on the 1:45 or the 1:50 or 2:00, I say, so what. What does that prove and what does that train you to do? It trains you to go 100 on the 1:45. I realize you are using the set that Syd gave you, but you're setting up a straw man. This is similar to what Rushall does when he rails against "conventional training" (whatever that is). You could just as easily say that USRPT trains you to do 25s on the 0:30, or any other of the USRPT sets. The value of the set depends entirely on what you do in the set. I agree with you that USRPT is significantly superior for most purposes than the "every set is garbage yardage" approach to training, but that is by no means the only alternative to USRPT. In any serious training program, every set should have a very specific goal in mind, even if the goal of a given set is recovery or drill or aerobic conditioning or whatever (instead of race pace training). See either Patrick Brundage's or Leslie Livingston's blogs to see what I mean. Every set has a purpose. I think any good coach crafts their workouts with similar care. I might do a set of 12 x 100 on 1:45 as four sets of 3 x 100, where 1-2 are aerobic/recovery swimming and the goal of #3 of each set is to hit 200 pace. Certainly that is a set that anyone can be proud of achieving even though it isn't a USRPT set. In point of fact, I believe there is value in doing 100s at 200 pace, and that is something missing from the USRPT sets I've seen. Or maybe someone wants to do "10 x 100 on 1:45" and work on some aspect of their technique (e.g. double the usual number of kicks off the walls). Or they simply want to build an aerobic base and not worry about race pace for one set. That's okay, as long as you recognize the set for what it is. The key point is purposeful training. People seem to be getting hung up on the failure part. Instead of thinking of the failure, think of the wonderful feeling of success you will have when you push to get that number 7 at your target time!! I agree with you, it requires an attitude adjustment to realize that "30 x 25" doesn't necessarily mean that you will do 30 25s. Personally I don't have a problem with the failure part, I just like to have a set number of repeats. I always really hated it when a coach would say something like "we'll do this until everybody gets it right" and doesn't specify how many we're doing. As long as you are at or near race pace I don't think it makes a significant difference whether you track progress by number of repeats or by average. Once you can hit race pace on all repeats then it is time to revise your goal pace (same as with USRPT). The main problem in doing a fixed number of repeats "at or near" race pace is that (a) you need to make sure you really are close to race pace, and (b) if you fall far off race pace then you are doing something wrong (goal is too ambitious or you are overtrained) and you should think about stopping anyway. I've done over 2,000 50s at race pace since September. My body knows what :31 per 50 feels like. I don't even need a clock anymore. When you get in a race and dive in, all you have to do is what you do everyday with race pace training! You don't have to try harder, you just have to recreate the feeling of what you do everyday and the excitment of a race and the racing suit and the competition will take care of the rest. Yes, that is a good advantage of USRPT. But I submit that it is also an advantage of ANY proper training method that uses race pace, ultra-short or not. Long before USRPT came around, I realized that there are two components to race pace training: - training at race *intensities* where you don't necessarily go right at race pace, sometimes not even close. This is where you do physiological training, getting your body and its energy systems adapted for racing. Rushall claims that USRPT is the optimum way to do this, but I'm not convinced yet. One of the things I do like about USRPT is that there are inherent guards against overtraining. If you are using race efforts (i.e. at race "intensity") but you are nowhere near your race pace, then there needs to be a reason. It might be that you are tired from previous sets or workouts, which may be okay. But if you can't hit race pace at the beginning of a workout, after a good warmup, then something's wrong. - learning your race pace and having good technique at that pace (not just stroke, but things like turns, underwaters, and breakouts). You need to be able to hit your desired pace in the race. USRPT does a good job with this but it is definitely not the only way to do so, people have been doing this for decades. But I do feel like many coaches don't realize that this is a valuable training goal.

Anybody can do 10 x 100 on the 1:45 or the 1:50 or 2:00, I say, so what. What does that prove and what does that train you to do? It trains you to go 100 on the 1:45. I realize you are using the set that Syd gave you, but you're setting up a straw man. This is similar to what Rushall does when he rails against "conventional training" (whatever that is). You could just as easily say that USRPT trains you to do 25s on the 0:30, or any other of the USRPT sets. The value of the set depends entirely on what you do in the set. I agree with you that USRPT is significantly superior for most purposes than the "every set is garbage yardage" approach to training, but that is by no means the only alternative to USRPT. In any serious training program, every set should have a very specific goal in mind, even if the goal of a given set is recovery or drill or aerobic conditioning or whatever (instead of race pace training). See either Patrick Brundage's or Leslie Livingston's blogs to see what I mean. Every set has a purpose. I think any good coach crafts their workouts with similar care. I might do a set of 12 x 100 on 1:45 as four sets of 3 x 100, where 1-2 are aerobic/recovery swimming and the goal of #3 of each set is to hit 200 pace. Certainly that is a set that anyone can be proud of achieving even though it isn't a USRPT set. In point of fact, I believe there is value in doing 100s at 200 pace, and that is something missing from the USRPT sets I've seen. Or maybe someone wants to do "10 x 100 on 1:45" and work on some aspect of their technique (e.g. double the usual number of kicks off the walls). Or they simply want to build an aerobic base and not worry about race pace for one set. That's okay, as long as you recognize the set for what it is. The key point is purposeful training. People seem to be getting hung up on the failure part. Instead of thinking of the failure, think of the wonderful feeling of success you will have when you push to get that number 7 at your target time!! I agree with you, it requires an attitude adjustment to realize that "30 x 25" doesn't necessarily mean that you will do 30 25s. Personally I don't have a problem with the failure part, I just like to have a set number of repeats. I always really hated it when a coach would say something like "we'll do this until everybody gets it right" and doesn't specify how many we're doing. As long as you are at or near race pace I don't think it makes a significant difference whether you track progress by number of repeats or by average. Once you can hit race pace on all repeats then it is time to revise your goal pace (same as with USRPT). The main problem in doing a fixed number of repeats "at or near" race pace is that (a) you need to make sure you really are close to race pace, and (b) if you fall far off race pace then you are doing something wrong (goal is too ambitious or you are overtrained) and you should think about stopping anyway. I've done over 2,000 50s at race pace since September. My body knows what :31 per 50 feels like. I don't even need a clock anymore. When you get in a race and dive in, all you have to do is what you do everyday with race pace training! You don't have to try harder, you just have to recreate the feeling of what you do everyday and the excitment of a race and the racing suit and the competition will take care of the rest. Yes, that is a good advantage of USRPT. But I submit that it is also an advantage of ANY proper training method that uses race pace, ultra-short or not. Long before USRPT came around, I realized that there are two components to race pace training: - training at race *intensities* where you don't necessarily go right at race pace, sometimes not even close. This is where you do physiological training, getting your body and its energy systems adapted for racing. Rushall claims that USRPT is the optimum way to do this, but I'm not convinced yet. One of the things I do like about USRPT is that there are inherent guards against overtraining. If you are using race efforts (i.e. at race "intensity") but you are nowhere near your race pace, then there needs to be a reason. It might be that you are tired from previous sets or workouts, which may be okay. But if you can't hit race pace at the beginning of a workout, after a good warmup, then something's wrong. - learning your race pace and having good technique at that pace (not just stroke, but things like turns, underwaters, and breakouts). You need to be able to hit your desired pace in the race. USRPT does a good job with this but it is definitely not the only way to do so, people have been doing this for decades. But I do feel like many coaches don't realize that this is a valuable training goal.