Ultra Short Training At Race Pace

Hey Glenn - Kathleen here, from swim camp. Nice to hear you are swimming so fast! Your workouts sound intense! Congrats on your hard work and results. I am trying to get back in shape after having a baby. Its slow going, but Im inspired and will try some very modified versions for the shorter distances that I am inclined to race. (:

Day two of Becca Mann's blogging of USRPT training (day one posted above by Wookiee) swimswam.com/.../

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.

What age groups are we talking about? A lot of the high intensity stuff is great for masters and college sprinters, but does not translate to age group learning to swim. For that, I like high volume aerobic training up to senior level.good for developing aerobic capacity. It rewards technique development, which is crucial for developing swimmers. A lot of this is true for new swimmers regardless do their biological age. If the training age is young, masters included, I would emphasize a lot of below threshold training. If you already have a stroke, go for the sprint based workouts. That's the way to drop time!

rtodd: Dr. Rushall agrees with you when it comes to swimmers still learning the fundamentals - drills, aerobic swimming, fins, bouys, etc are all OK. But these days there are many 10 and unders who already have the fundamentals. There are 10 and unders going under 1 min. for 100 scy free. Drills and toys and garbage yardage would only hurt these top-notch young age groupers.

Ideally, I should have made that time another half second to a full second faster to allow for the flip turn. When we do broken swims, we'll do the broken bits ending with a flip to make it more life-like. So if we do a 200 broken at each 50 for 15, 3 will end with a foot touch (for free or back), then the last touch will be a normal hand touch. Have you tried this? It's these kind of blanket unsupported statements that make Rushall seem rather cult-like ... I agree, I stumble into this thread about every week, and noticed a blogger doing training like this. It definitely seems cult-like. Personally, my body couldn't handle more than 1 or 2 days/week of training like this. When our coach gives one of these sets, he tries to explain a little about it. But at a typical masters practice, you have some swimmers who have never swum in a meet, so they need to estimate what a race-pace is. Even those of us who have done meets may not have done every distance, especially if we're doing LCM one day.

A question for Glenn and the others who are doing USRPT. If you are failing to reach your target times, do you: a) reduce the number of repeats (for example, settle for 10 and call it a day)? or b) lower your time so that you can do more repeats? The first option seems to go against the whole idea USRPT which I interpret as conditioning your body to get used to racing by doing large numbers of repeats at race pace. However if I choose the second option, am I not conditioning my body to get used to a pace which maybe a second or two slower than actually want to race? Surely that is not conditioning my body for success? And another related question? What if my stroke is starting to fall apart early on in the set? Do I call it a day even if I am still making the target time or do I stop for fear of reinforcing bad habits? I tried a set of 30x50 on Thursday. I took my best 200 time, divided it by 4 and set that as my target time. By the time I got to the tenth repeat I had failed three times and was breathing so hard it was scary. The whole task seemed insurmountable. And that would only train me to equal my best recent time. I wasn't even accounting for the hand touch, either. Ideally, I should have made that time another half second to a full second faster to allow for the flip turn. What are your thoughts?

Fortress: I have read so much of his stuff that maybe sometimes I speak like him, with his occasionally abrasive tone toward everything that he doesn't explicitly endorse. As a result, I want to change "would" to "might" in my statement. His last bulletin had the words "impostors" and "ignorance" in just the first paragraph. He went on to claim that literally anything other than USRPT training is "irrelevant" and that high intensity training "must" be practiced only within the USRPT format. Sounds like Scientology, not science to me. I've been doing my own "research" along the way. And, at this juncture without actual science, I'm not convinced, though I am a race pace training advocate. So your use of "might" is appreciated. Is it possible to dabble in USRPT or do some sets regularly and get a training effect?

Read the article and a few comments. It implies if this training is done correctly, it can be done more frequently than every 48 hrs. I question this as the central nervous system can be overtaxed. I don't think you can train like this day after day. Where does that leave us? What do we do all the other days? Training at or below threshold. Where does this fit into a progression? A 45-60 second effort is 40% aerobic. You need this training as we'll. http:/.../c_hart.pdf

I tried a set of 30x50 on Thursday. I took my best 200 time, divided it by 4 and set that as my target time. By the time I got to the tenth repeat I had failed three times and was breathing so hard it was scary. The whole task seemed insurmountable. And that would only train me to equal my best recent time. I wasn't even accounting for the hand touch, either. Ideally, I should have made that time another half second to a full second faster to allow for the flip turn. Is the 30 x 50 the first time you have tried USRPT set? If so, you may want to start with 20 or even 10 to get the idea. When I started this in September, my target time was 32. But I did not start doing the sets at 32. I started at 35. That was too easy so I went to 34 which was also too easy. I spent 2 or 3 weeks at 33 then finally to 32. The fact that you failed three by the time you got to the tenth repeat tells me your target time is too fast. You want to be able to get in at least 10 before your first failure. That is always my goal. Take me through the set you did. What was the interval and what were your times on each 50 including the ones after a rest.