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!
Charts kinda confusing o_O
I could see where confusion could come in.
If for example you want to go 1:06 in the 100 free as your pace, the chart says you need to go 34.0 for a 50. That is correct, but it assumes that with a dive your first 50 is a 32.0. So this chart is really for the second 50 of a 100 ( and all the other 50's if you are going farther than 100).
If you like you can get more nuanced than just dividing your ideal time by 4. The coaches here came up with a race pace chart:
forums.usms.org/attachment.php
Paces are only for 50s and 100s, but just divide the goal 50 pace by 2 to get the 25 pace. Free & back are different than fly & brst because they are foot touches for the first splits.
Keep in mind though that if you want to REALLY be going at true race pace then you need to factor in the time for a turn. For free and back, add about 0.5 sec to get those feet around; for fly & brst, add about a second for the time between the hand touch and the push off (really it is about 0.7-0.8 if you have good turns).
Charts kinda confusing o_O
USRP is also about doing 25s and not 50s. The 50s only apply to the 400s and maybe, sometimes , the 200.
Well, yes it's about 25's and also 12.5's and burst and cruise's. I was responding to the pace chart which showed the pace for 100's and 200's.
Makes sense but this only makes sense for even splitters. Does Rushall urge us to split evenly? Or do we train this way and pace our own way?
Yes, he would suggest that you even split. Most people, and I have done it myself, go out too fast and pay the price at the end. My third all time Masters best 100 free was split 27.12 and 27.19. With the dive that is actually a negative split.
I could see where confusion could come in.
If for example you want to go 1:06 in the 100 free as your pace, the chart says you need to go 34.0 for a 50. That is correct, but it assumes that with a dive your first 50 is a 32.0. So this chart is really for the second 50 of a 100 ( and all the other 50's if you are going farther than 100).
USRP is also about doing 25s and not 50s. The 50s only apply to the 400s and maybe, sometimes , the 200.
I could see where confusion could come in.
If for example you want to go 1:06 in the 100 free as your pace, the chart says you need to go 34.0 for a 50. That is correct, but it assumes that with a dive your first 50 is a 32.0. So this chart is really for the second 50 of a 100 ( and all the other 50's if you are going farther than 100).
Makes sense but this only makes sense for even splitters. Does Rushall urge us to split evenly? Or do we train this way and pace our own way?
Yes, he would suggest that you even split. Most people, and I have done it myself, go out too fast and pay the price at the end. My third all time Masters best 100 free was split 27.12 and 27.19. With the dive that is actually a negative split.
I negative split hard. I always find negative splitting the best pacing option. Sort of like James Magnusson he'll be 7th off the wall and on the way back he'll destroy his opposition. So I can do this training and still negative split?
I would contend that in a 100 the bare minimum your 50 splits should be apart is one second and your first 50 split should be within a second of your fastest 50 time. If you can do this then you will be an outstanding 100 swimmer. If taking it out that fast means your second 50 suffers (let's say more than a three second drop-off) then you might consider backing off a tad on the first 50. I think very few people have the conditioning to pull off an ideal 100--especially long course.
I agree. You shouldn't be thinking before a race "I'm going to hold back on the first half." If you feel like you are pushing the first half and still are able to even split that's great, but otherwise you're probably leaving something on the table. And I know this from plenty of experience. I'm notorious for being close to dead last at the halfway point.
My back end speed is always awesome, I always get pretty good split, but I suppose I don't put enough into the front end. I suppose you're right that the first half is important as well. This is a major lesson I've learned in the past few meets >_>
