Training for 200 freestyle
Home › Forums › General USRPT Topics › Training for 200 freestyle
- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 7 months ago by oldschoolc.
October 11, 2014 at 8:11 pm #1952Greg TuckerParticipant
1) typical training week?
2) you do 100s?
3) mix in traditional distance training?
I haven’t been here in a while. HS preseason has started. We are doing 9 x 75 on 115 on M, F. 12-14 x 50 on 55 on W. Usually do a second set on M, W, F. 12 X 25 on 30.
One USRPT stroke set on T, Th.
All Input appreciated especially on 2) and 3) above
#USRPTOctober 11, 2014 at 9:06 pm #1953
Attached is a cycle that I use during the HS season for my club kids. You’ll see that I don’t make 200s of the stroke a primary emphasis (pri) as they don’t swim 200s of the stroke in HS. It’s not rocket science. I have from second week in November to mid/end of March to get them ready for 200s, if I can’t get them ready in that amount of time then I’m doing something wrong.
100s. I don’t have any correlations on 75s to 200 race performance. I do have back ½ 100s to 200s race performance and that’s .987 – .95673. I can see the logic doing 75s early in season. They carry better speed and probably technical skill until fitness levels come up. But I would be careful making performance predictions off that without any data.
Mix. Why? So you can fill 2 hours plus/minus of practice time? Spend the time on starts, turns, underwater work, breakouts and surface swimming skills.etc. will pay greater dividends than whatever “traditional distance training” is.
"Only in America. Dream in red, white and blue"October 11, 2014 at 9:07 pm #1954
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.
"Only in America. Dream in red, white and blue"October 20, 2014 at 9:08 pm #1973Greg TuckerParticipant
Thanks. Only reason I said “mix’ was the Rushall slide that looked at men sprint, women sprint, men distance and women distance and the only possible correlation showed that women distance may be beneficial to add to USRPT.
What do you mean by 0.987 – 0.957 on back half correlations to 200? I am not sure I followed you.
Thanks for training program.
#USRPTOctober 24, 2014 at 4:14 pm #2005
Sorry for very late reply. Daughter’s getting married and busy as hell.
Ok I get it now. That was a study done in 2000 at OT by Genadijus Skolovas, which did show that women distance swimmers where the only ones that benefited in performance from increase in volume. There is a way to skin that “cat” and stay within the USRPT system, kinda :). We’ve used 200s and 400s. Start with 200s and you can do this one of two ways. 1. use 500 race splits and use the last 200 split or if you want a little tougher use 100s 3 and 4 added together as “target pace” time, this is down, dirty and the quick way. 2. Test. which is 3 x 200 on short rest say less than 30 seconds, record each time, figure average and that becomes “target pace” and you do the same with 400s. Just use 1000/1650, somewhere in the middle of the race take a snapshot of a 400, it will get you close. It at least gives you race focused distance work and I can tell you now you want to hear a bunch of whinning. Trot out the first time say 4 x 200 or a 3 x 400 with 15 rest at target pace and stand-by. After I’d done this type of work with my distance kids 3 times in one week they stopped swimming distance and decided to swim 200s. Funny as heck!
The correlations are how close their training pace was to actual race splits. So, .987 to .957 is how close their pace time/target pace 100s was to actual race back 1/2 100.
Hope this helps
"Only in America. Dream in red, white and blue"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.