December 8, 2017 at 12:22 am #3309
Not sure why I just thought of this now. But to those that what to know more about the Parametric System. Think Reverse Periodization. It’s about as close as you can get to the Parametric System. It’s not going to give you all the answers and you will have to think about it for a while. But it does work.
I know for a fact that the Aussie where thinking about this back in the late 80s and early 90s. I’m not sure why they gave it up. I do have an a pretty good idea why.
? I child proofed my house and they still get in 🙂December 12, 2017 at 4:42 pm #3314
Interesting. very interesting. This research:
Unfortunately, the researchers didn’t address the fact that the reverse group did ~3x more high-intensity training and half the low-intensity volume. The only way this would show RP was better is if the HIT volumes were the same. In this case, I’m not sold that RP drove the improvement.
Also, consistent with most studies I’ve seen, stroke distance decreases throughout the training period for both groups. I typically view this as a lack of technical focus by the coaching staff. Ideally, you want the decrease in time to come from a maintenance of the stroke rate and an increase in distance.
But, it’s great to see that swim power increased 20% (versus 5%) when more HIT was programmed.
Is table 2 inconsistent? for TP stroke rate went up, stroke distance down and time stayed the same (checks out). But for RP stroke rate and distance went down and time went down 4 seconds. This doesn’t make sense.
RyanDecember 13, 2017 at 12:36 am #3315
As I read the study. I had to convert strokes/minute to cycles/second. We use c/S.
The TP group had lower SR (1.33 c/S) and greater SL = slower time.
The RP group had higher SR (1.23) and lower SL = faster times.
My best SWAG is the old saying “stay long and finish your stroke” maybe isn’t the best way to go? That the RP group is in a more normal stroke rhythm? Plus, they probably train at that SR/SL everyday. I know when I take c/S in practice during RP sets. They are VERY close to what they do in a meet. We do computerized race analysis on every swim at dual and invites. So I can compare RP to actually race and watching the 1650/1000, again is Soooo exciting. But it has to be done and “it’s a small price to pay to be one of America’s finest” 🙂
I know that s/M & c/S are factors of strength and maybe TP with all the focus on endurance training (high volume) trained the fast out of them from a neuromuscular/CNS stand point? In other words they trained the “cat” right out of them or like riding donkeys instead of thoroughbreds.
There is also a difference large difference in MDC and we know that a reduction in drag is the best and easiest way to go faster. So you’re comments on technical skill maybe spot on.
That’s my thoughts.
? I child proofed my house and they still get in 🙂December 13, 2017 at 9:10 pm #3316
Hmm, I’m not reading it that way. In the change column, TP has rate go up and DPS go down almost equally for no change in time. In RP both decrease which would mean a decrease in velocity and a slower time. Must be a typo or they didn’t explain it correctly.
The MDC test is weird. It says it’s a drag test but they loaded weight which wouldn’t have anything to do with the typical drag components. I threw that one out.
Reduction in drag is the best way to go faster but that shows up in the DPS, which decreased in both groups. I’m just picking on the study. It was translated into English so I’m guessing there are some translation issues.
As for the relationship between DPS and SR this is my favorite study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5636248_The_influence_of_stroke_mechanics_into_energy_cost_of_elite_swimmers
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.