coachsci.sdsu.edu/.../ultra40a.pdf
There is a method, which is referred to as the Rushall method which Michael Andrew uses.
Was wondering if you had any critique about this. If this sort of training is a good idea and what are the problems.
Would this also be good for longer events? Like the 400 IM?
Thanks!
Glenn,
If you are training for the scm 400 free, why would you do 30x50's? If you are racing 8x50's, wouldn't make more sense to do 10x50 at goal pace on :50, do a recover swim, repeat the 50's, etc?
What is the reasoning for doing nearly 4 times the amount needed for the 400?
Rushall give 2 reasons: (1) repetition to build stroke mechanics and get your body conditioned to X race pace, (2) to build an oxidative base, i.e., convert fibers to those using oxygen for energy.
Well, according to the workshop even Rushall agrees that 15-20 seconds rest for AFAP is ludicrous!
I agree with Steve about LCM 50 pacing. I take almost the same number of strokes in a 50 LCM as I do in a 100 SCY. And I always crash and burn the last 10 meters if I start AFAP. But then I am really not a long course swimmer.
Well, according to the workshop even Rushall agrees that 15-20 seconds rest for AFAP is ludicrous!
I am going fast and hard on my USRPT repeats, but not AFAP. That is why I believe, for me, in training for the 400, this is ideal and so far it works. I have said from the beginning that I don't know if I could do this training if I was training for the 100 or maybe even the 200.
I am going fast and hard on my USRPT repeats, but not AFAP. That is why I believe, for me, in training for the 400, this is ideal and so far it works. I have said from the beginning that I don't know if I could do this training if I was training for the 100 or maybe even the 200.
For what it's worth, Glenn, Rushall told me that the difference between 100 percent effort and 95 percent effort is close to negligible because of the fact that resistance increases exponentially with speed. Personally, I have long marvelled at how much easier the first 50 in a 100 feels than an all out 50, even though the times (when you adjust for touching the wall with your feet in the first case, and your hand in the second case) is not terribly significant.
For what it's worth, Glenn, Rushall told me that the difference between 100 percent effort and 95 percent effort is close to negligible because of the fact that resistance increases exponentially with speed. Personally, I have long marvelled at how much easier the first 50 in a 100 feels than an all out 50, even though the times (when you adjust for touching the wall with your feet in the first case, and your hand in the second case) is not terribly significant.
Point taken. But I just don't see how I could do his workouts if I was training for the 100. That would mean 50s going 26 to a hand touch. And that would probably be 20 x 50 where I should be expected to do 12 - 14 including 4 failures. Not only could I not do those on a :20 rest, but I couldn't do them on a :30 rest and maybe not even 1:30.
Point taken. But I just don't see how I could do his workouts if I was training for the 100. That would mean 50s going 26 to a hand touch. And that would probably be 20 x 50 where I should be expected to do 12 - 14 including 4 failures. Not only could I not do those on a :20 rest, but I couldn't do them on a :30 rest and maybe not even 1:30.
Right; but if you're training for a 100 instead of a 200, 400, or longer, you would probably want to do interval 25s instead of 50s... that's the ultra-"short" concept. I do interval 100s now to train for 1500, 50s to train for 200-400, and 25s for the 100s.
Right; but if you're training for a 100 instead of a 200, 400, or longer, you would probably want to do interval 25s instead of 50s... that's the ultra-"short" concept. I do interval 100s now to train for 1500, 50s to train for 200-400, and 25s for the 100s.
I'm going by table 2 (page 12) of Rushall's bulletin #47 coachsci.sdsu.edu/.../47GUIDE.pdf In it he suggests 30 x 25 and 20 x 50 at race pace for training for the 100. Training for the 200 he suggests 40 x 25, 30 x 50 and 20 x 75. For the 400 he suggests the same as the 200 except 24 x 75. The 800 is 50 x 25, 36 x 50 and 30 x 75. Only in the 1500 does he go above 75 e.g., he suggests 40 x 50, 30 - 35 x 75 and 25 - 30 x 100.
Glenn,
If you are training for the scm 400 free, why would you do 30x50's? If you are racing 8x50's, wouldn't make more sense to do 10x50 at goal pace on :50, do a recover swim, repeat the 50's, etc?
What is the reasoning for doing nearly 4 times the amount needed for the 400?
I guess the best reason for the set of 30 x 50 is that is what Rushall suggests.
Beyond that, remember, even though the set is 30 x 50, You should not be able to do all 30 at race pace - and I can't. My best is 26 and that is with 4 failures. Meaning that I have done 22 x 50 at actual race pace. If I get to the point that I can do all 30 or even do 27 or 28 at race pace, I will move the interval doen to 31.
And no, doing 10 x 50 at goal pace then recover is not how USRPT is done. Rushall says that the first 5 of the set is essentially getting your body ready and adjusted to the interval, if you only do 10 x 50 and recover, you are starting the set all over again each time.
I was talking to an Olympian that works out at Rose Bowl where I swim and he was asking about USRPT. He told me that Ous Mellouilli (sp) who trains for the 1500 does not do any repeats over 100m. That is consistent with what Rushall suggests.
Glenn,
If you are training for the scm 400 free, why would you do 30x50's? If you are racing 8x50's, wouldn't make more sense to do 10x50 at goal pace on :50, do a recover swim, repeat the 50's, etc?
What is the reasoning for doing nearly 4 times the amount needed for the 400?
Understand that I think USRPT is intriguing and I've done similar sets in the past. But the following types of statements (from Becca Mann's blog) drive me a little crazy:
I think that in both cases Rushall is trying to say that his approach is primarily data-driven rather than conjecture derived from fundamental principles. Well and good. But I hate it when people -- especially scientists -- invoke science as some all-powerful and distant thing that can't be understood, much less practiced, by mere mortals. In most cases that's just a way to stifle debate.
I am a scientist, I work with scientists, and none of them talk like this. And when they report their work they do so in far more conservative fashion than this (sometimes almost comically so). Maybe sports science is different than chemistry, I dunno.
While I think Rushall has some valid points,this over use of the term "science" grates on me a little.I grant that his approach is much more science based than nearly all coaches ,but frankly the swimming science literature is not robust enough to say anything definitive(at least IMHO.)I'd think of USRPT as a series of hypotheses.I intend to test some of these(sprint,100 pace and 200 pace protocols) with a sample size of one(me).
