Ultra Short Training At Race Pace

Stefen Nystrand 2007 100 SCM free (21.85) 46.48 (22.09) 45.83 His PB was 46.48 then three days later he takes the first 25 out less than before (less as in 2.4 tenths) but has more afterburner for the remaining 75 home for a world record, and first sub 46 swim ever.

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 think with this kind of training what you're describing can be done. I realized that a bit too late. For some reason starting this year I've really been slowing own my first 50 and swimming last 50 like a normal 50 free race.

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? It makes sense for people who want to pace their races properly. It is better to even split or negative split your races (accounting for the effects of starts & turns, which the table does). The main danger in even/negative splitting is that you get stuck in a "rut" and don't really put forth a complete effort (ie, after the race you still have energy to burn). That's why it is important to work on proper pacing and race-pace training so you can recognize the warning signs if you are taking it out too hard. Don't make the mistake of thinking Rushall or any other race-pace approach is just about physiological conditioning; you also need to develop a good sense of pacing. I believe one advantage of Rushall's UST approach (and I should mention that I'm not a fan of UST) is that you don't really break down in training, so you don't need to "re-train" your sense of pace during taper.

The main danger in even/negative splitting is that you get stuck in a "rut" and don't really put forth a complete effort (ie, after the race you still have energy to burn). 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.

Someone should make a race pace chart for all the other events as well! That chart seems so helpful. My first major experience with this type of training coming up this week. Also how do I tell weather or not I should move on to a faster pace? I heard Michael Andrew's dad say you should o it once you can complete the race 2 and a half times.

Ladies and Gentlemen, It's great to see a renewed interest in the USRPT (Ultra-Short Training at Race Pace) model amongst masters' swimmers. I'd like to take a moment to let you guys know that there's a USRPT Training Discussion Panel that was just launched very recently, in collaboration with SwimmingScience.net and Dr. Rushall himself. Here is the link if anybody is interested. Send a note to "cam@swimmingscience.net" if you'd be interested in taking part, with a brief description of who you are and why you'd be interested in discussing and learning about this form of training. It would be wonderful to have the perspective of masters swimmers testing this form of training, whether you're doing it solo (very much possible) or you're lucky enough to have a coach that tries new things! USRPT has been very slow to gain traction on a team basis at the competitive level at essentially every level of the sport in the US, but it's growing particularly amongst teams overseas (Australia, India, Netherlands, Spain). On the topic of splitting: Rushall derives his recommendations from a combination of basic principles of physics and and biology, as well as observations of patterns amongst elite swimmers. If something happens in the performance of many many elites, across multiple age groups and across both genders, most likely it is a behavior worth emulating. In the case of recommending "even splitting", that recommendation is substantiated on both fronts. (That said, it is observed that for various psychological reasons there is a consistent pattern of a "speedy finishing burst" in the last 25 of races across events from the 100 to the 1500.)

Someone should make a race pace chart for all the other events as well! That chart seems so helpful. My first major experience with this type of training coming up this week. Also how do I tell weather or not I should move on to a faster pace? I heard Michael Andrew's dad say you should o it once you can complete the race 2 and a half times. The guideline from Dr. Rushall is when you can complete ~75% of the target reps (say, 15 out of 20 25s without a failed rep) as specified in the chart on page 6 of Bulletin 40B, you should adjust the difficulty of the set. This can involve reducing the rest period, or increasing the goal pace. Which other events do you need charts for?

Dr. R. has made a number of tweaks since his big paper came out, often in response to feedback from the teams and solo swimmers who were brazen enough to put his methods to the test. Ande, Rich, Allen, and everyone else out there who harbors an honest interest, think about joining the panel mentioned in the above post. After all, USRPT is nothing if not about efficiency. And who should be more concerned with that than those of us who are now stingily having to parcel out our aging energy reserves? This is cutting edge stuff, based in science and especially attractive to persons with an open, scientific bent of mind, who look to science cut through the tangles of pseudo-scientific superstition. The only legitimate way to rebut USRPT is to rebut the science behind it, and no one that I can find has been able to do that—unless you seriously think that studies on lab rats and untrained volunteers can apply to trained athletes. What we see instead is evasion. Somewhat in frustration, after striking out with entreaties to ASCA, Swimming Science Journal, and a well known swimming scientist, I wrote the following letter to John Leonard (which I suspect will put the nix on further speaking invitations): Dear John, Can there be a better means of fortifying one’s own coaching ideology than of laboring to understand the thinking of a worthy opponent? Ignoring an adversary, however, as though he doesn’t exist or is too outlandish to be taken seriously, is the laziest form of intellectual evasion. It’s a dodge that’s irresistible, itseems, when the opponent puts his ideas in a daunting, 55 page treatise that even Dr. Maglischo calls “imposing.” I refer of course to Dr. Rushall’s “Swimming Energy Training in the 21st Century, the Justification for Radical Changes,” Swimming ScienceBulletin, 39. Rushall—no shrinking violet he—makes the case for straight sets of short, race-pace repeats on short rest-intervals. He calls this format “ultra-short training at race pace,” and it is highly counterintuitive. Try to imagine how 30 x 25 meters at 100 meter race pace, on a rest interval of 20 seconds, can avoid lactacid fatigue and glycogen depletion while optimally training race-specific technique and race-specific aerobic and anaerobic endurance! Sidestepping Rushall is now even less defensible. He has written an abridged version of the energy paper, using language merciful to coaches, and I have written an introductory synopsis. These can be found at coachsci.sdsu.edu/.../ultra40a.pdf and coachsci.sdsu.edu/.../ultra40b.pdf. Rushall is anyone’s tough read. But a determined effort to grasp his science and his concepts, even if one is already invested against them, will help to buttress one’s own standards—and to preserve one’s integrity as a thinking person. Best wishes always, Dan

just a few MIchael Andrew updates from this summer LCM Age 14 50 FR 23.38 (13- 14 NR) 100 FR 52.00 100 BK 58.18 200 BK 2:07.56 100 BR 1:05.59 100 FL 54.98 200 IM 2:05.13 (13-14 NR ) He turns 15 in April 2014, so he has plenty of time to grow, train, improve & break more NRs Several NR's has a shot at are: 100 FR 51.59 vs his 52.00 100 BK 57.39 vs his 58.18 100 BR 1:04.74 vs his 1:05.59 100 FL 54.80 vs his 54.98 LCM NRs Times will Tell.

Hey Dan, nice to see you here, hope to see you more. Are you now in Keller? I would love to see more simple english versions of Rushall's points along with more sample workouts and or season plans. Also somewhere I heard Rushall said or wrote that strength training for swimmers was unnecessary? Is that true? Has he changed his position on this? Curious on your thoughts about this. Ande Dr. R. has made a number of tweaks since his big paper came out, often in response to feedback from the teams and solo swimmers who were brazen enough to put his methods to the test. Ande, Rich, Allen, and everyone else out there who harbors an honest interest, think about joining the panel mentioned in the above post. After all, USRPT is nothing if not about efficiency. And who should be more concerned with that than those of us who are now stingily having to parcel out our aging energy reserves? This is cutting edge stuff, based in science and especially attractive to persons with an open, scientific bent of mind, who look to science cut through the tangles of pseudo-scientific superstition. The only legitimate way to rebut USRPT is to rebut the science behind it, and no one that I can find has been able to do that—unless you seriously think that studies on lab rats and untrained volunteers can apply to trained athletes. What we see instead is evasion. Somewhat in frustration, after striking out with entreaties to ASCA, Swimming Science Journal, and a well known swimming scientist, I wrote the following letter to John Leonard (which I suspect will put the nix on further speaking invitations): Dear John, Can there be a better means of fortifying one’s own coaching ideology than of laboring to understand the thinking of a worthy opponent? Ignoring an adversary, however, as though he doesn’t exist or is too outlandish to be taken seriously, is the laziest form of intellectual evasion. It’s a dodge that’s irresistible, itseems, when the opponent puts his ideas in a daunting, 55 page treatise that even Dr. Maglischo calls “imposing.” I refer of course to Dr. Rushall’s “Swimming Energy Training in the 21st Century, the Justification for Radical Changes,” Swimming ScienceBulletin, 39. Rushall—no shrinking violet he—makes the case for straight sets of short, race-pace repeats on short rest-intervals. He calls this format “ultra-short training at race pace,” and it is highly counterintuitive. Try to imagine how 30 x 25 meters at 100 meter race pace, on a rest interval of 20 seconds, can avoid lactacid fatigue and glycogen depletion while optimally training race-specific technique and race-specific aerobic and anaerobic endurance! Sidestepping Rushall is now even less defensible. He has written an abridged version of the energy paper, using language merciful to coaches, and I have written an introductory synopsis. These can be found at coachsci.sdsu.edu/.../ultra40a.pdf and coachsci.sdsu.edu/.../ultra40b.pdf. Rushall is anyone’s tough read. But a determined effort to grasp his science and his concepts, even if one is already invested against them, will help to buttress one’s own standards—and to preserve one’s integrity as a thinking person. Best wishes always, Dan