May 10, 2014 at 12:16 am #933
Tonight was prelims for our League meet, HS boys. Among individual swims for fully tapered boys we had 42/56 PR swims.
#USRPTMay 11, 2014 at 11:39 am #951billratioParticipant
What kind of results did you have with traditional training at your fully tapered meets?
"Most people have the will to win. Few have the will to prepare to win."May 11, 2014 at 11:40 am #952billratioParticipant
And congrats on the 42/56. Just curious how much better that is that TT for you.
"Most people have the will to win. Few have the will to prepare to win."May 11, 2014 at 1:00 pm #953
Don’t know. I am new to team this year. I will try to find out. While pretty impressive, we do need a comparator.
We also had 21 State cuts, most in school history. Several seniors who had never achieved a cut before got one this year with USRPT.
#USRPTMay 14, 2014 at 9:25 am #1336kevinParticipant
I don’t want to sound rude, but I don’t like the way you state “it works”. Such statements are exactly what Rushall fights, it’s not very scientific. You could perfectly well say “it works” about traditional training, since (almost) all high-level athletes use that to achieve their level.
Many factors contribute to the results you and your swimmers achieved. How old are they? Which level did they attain before the meet? How old where their previous personal bests?
If you take a group of young kids, medium level and have them swim events they haven’t been entered in for a while, chances are very high you get a high percentag of PR’s. Simply because they grew, became older and more mature, have better technique…
What really matters is whether the percentage of PR’s would have been lower with other training forms. I (and many people here) would like to see a scientific study on that.
May 15, 2014 at 9:30 pm #1384
- This reply was modified 6 years, 11 months ago by kevin.
Fair points, Kev. As mentioned, I will look at results from previous year where TT was used.
One other marker of success, higher ratio of state cuts to swimmers than previous year. Two kids that were seniors got cuts in their final year of training.
Yes , I advocate a study as well. What’s your preferred design?
#USRPTMay 17, 2014 at 5:25 pm #1387oldschoolcParticipant
Here is some data from 1990 to 2000, when we used a very traditional approach. The % improvements are for SCY seasons only. I have LCM data for the same time frames.
2000-2010, we switched over too a much more directed, race pace and higher volumes of RP training.
2010-2014 data is even a little better that 2000-2010
Wish the site handled attachements better. It’s a lot easiler to read in EXCEL format.
"Only in America. Dream in red, white and blue"May 18, 2014 at 4:22 pm #1388
Old school, first, where ya been? Welcome back. Thanks for the quantitative data. I’m going to start working in ours today now that State Meet is over.
One question? I assume these are average percentage improvements. If so, over how many
Would live to see your spreadsheet? Gregtucker21@gmail.com
All the best.
#USRPTMay 18, 2014 at 6:20 pm #1389oldschoolcParticipant
On average there are 14 to 6 per event, does vary by year (right now I’m loaded with girl 100/200 Breaststrokers and boys 100/200 Freestylers, just the cycle?) and that they have to swim that event at least 4-6 times in a season. Minimum number of swimmers in an event is 4, have to have at least that to be included in the data. I don’t included events that have an “N” of only one or two as it’s not really valid like 400IM or mile. My kids just aren’t that keen on swimming those events or at least not very often. It would make the stats look better with improvement rate of 15% or better with a “N” of one. But again, would not be very truthful. That’s why I posted no data on 400IMs/miles.
I’ve been researching data on biological maturity and most of what I can find (limited at best) is 1.2% up to 3% per year (that might be a stretch). So I may just figure the average an add that into the data and see what it looks like. Thinking there is to try and remove or at least account for things like growth (PHV) and increases in strength. The organism we deal with is so unstable most of the time and a teenager’s body doesn’t know whether it’s “on foot or horseback” Do I grow? grow really fast for a while then slow? then fast again. Gain strength, then gain weight. Now the “boat” changes shape? Now what do you do?
Guess I think too much.
"Only in America. Dream in red, white and blue"June 1, 2014 at 4:43 am #1645
We are at our first LC meet of the season. Out of 11 races, we have had one slight gain of .32 in a 200 Free. I will post full details Monday, but so far they are doing great.
200 IM – one drop of 9% and one of 7%
200 Free – 3% drop
100 Fly – 12.5% drop
200 BR – 9% drop
100 BK – 8%
100 BR – 6% & 2% drops
50 BK – 4% drop
50 Fly – 4%
100 Free – 5% & 3%
They kids also say they do not feel as tired. I am excited to see what happens tomorrow!June 3, 2014 at 4:45 pm #1653
We ended up with PB times in 19/22 swims in our first LC meet of the season. We had 2 DQs for false start on fly and underwater finish on back. Both races would have also been significant drops. We dropped a total of 190 seconds in the 19 races. I am in the process of compiling a comparison of season to season drops for the last three years. We had a coaching change in between 2012-2013, but both were traditional training. Another coaching change in Oct of 2013 and switch to USRPT in March of 2014. I am not sure how those changes would impact the evaluation of how well USRPT works. Thoughts?June 3, 2014 at 5:38 pm #1654wordofmouthParticipant
Great job Cmejean!
Now about that .32 in the 200 Free…….. Just kidding. I sounds like a good weekend keep it up!June 9, 2014 at 9:09 pm #1669
We averaged over 8% drops from last season. This is how the last three seasons have compared:
13 yo – 2011-2012 = 8.63%, 2012-2013 = 1.2% drop, 2013-2014 = 7.5% drop
10 yo – 2011-2012 = 15.6%, 2012-2013 = 7.4% drop, 2013-2014 = 9.25% drop
10 yo – 2011-2012 = 12.4%, 2012-2013 = 4% drop, 2013-2014 = 8.8% drop
We had a coaching change after the 2012 LC season and again in October of 2013. When I look back at the history, the 2011 and 2012 seasons showed steady improvement. 2012-2013 did not show as much. During the 2013 season the 13 year old gained in more events than he dropped. It was all traditional training until March of 2014. How much does the coach contribute to the improvement? Are the higher numbers for the ten year olds in 2011-2012 because they had been swimming just a year and dropping in greater amounts? I think these numbers support our switch to USRPT. Will it be better to look at our 2014 seasonal drops? What numbers do you all compare?June 9, 2014 at 9:11 pm #1670
Perhaps I should also note that the 13 year old was given the award for the hardest worker during the 2012-2013 season. His performance was not a lack of effort.June 16, 2014 at 12:09 pm #1679drpaulParticipant
Had our first LC meet this past weekend. I’ve worked with only 3 of our teams swimmers this summer on 100% USRPT for 6 weeks (4 days/week, 3-4sets each practice).
the 14yo boy had a good meet & dropped time in almost everything BUT, I’m not sure if it’s just because his hormones are in full effect or because this is only his second year of swimming & some technique changes are helping him.
the 2 girls (13yo & 10yo….13yo being my daughter) swam like they’ve been out of the pool for 6 months. Now they both have been in traditional programs for 7 & 5 yrs respectively & I know it’s going to take some time but it was disheartening to see. I felt the blame & obviously questioned everything I was doing, even though I believe in USRPT. They looked “de-conditioned” if that’s a word.
oh well….not going to say it’s not working but not sure at this point what to change if anything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.