Reply To: Season end data

Home Forums General USRPT Topics Season end data Reply To: Season end data

#3252
doc
Participant

This is going to be a long reply,

With regards to the correlations. Yes we should expect it.

Some history. Over 17+ years ago correlations of training to race speeds didn’t exist. The old way was to test each protocol set which usually took 2-3 weeks to accumulate the data. Let’s just take 6 x 50 on 1:00, which was the standard number for the 50s on 1:00 and you run the test after (writing each time down) you had to figure the average and stdev (average + stdev became training pace at that time). Now you have to do that for every swimmer in the group for all 6 protocol sets and that’s just for freestyle add in another 6 for stroke. I did that for the first 6 years working in the system. I figured there had to be a better way, with only 1 coach and 30 swimmers, I was going to die doing this. So one day at the office I was looking at my split book from a meet we’d just gone to and I noticed the numbers looked familiar. So I checked them against the protocol sets and they lined up. So that’s where using split times + a little extra (avg of stdev) came from. Saved a boat load of time! It has evolved from there.

I started running the correlations more as a validator for myself than anything else. Making sure that what we did in practice was actually helping improve performance and nothing more. I just wasn’t going to work off anecdotal data. Our jobs are in time and distance all of which are recordable.

% offered made. Truthfully that’s there to show coaches that the swimmer is NOT going to make 80 to 90% of what you have written down and can still have great performances. It’s also a CYA against “Why didn’t I swim fast” The question I will ask is “well lets look at the numbers and you were at 23%”. I then usually ask “if you only did 23% of your school work would you expect an A?” that usually ends the conversation. It’s holding them accountable for their training. But the coach has to know the data. It is a two-way street.

The “shifts” and where do they roughly occur. I used lower level of improvement numbers for this and there are at least 2-3 “shift” for most of the sets. Longer sets just 2.
n x 25 on 1:00 between 6-8
n x 50 on 1:00 between 11-12
n x 50 on 2:00 between 6-7ish maybe 8
n x 100 between 6-7
n x 200 between 6-7
n x 400 between 4-5


? All that is not shared... is lost.