distance_usrpt
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks for the advice Marlin. I definitely struggled with the same thing for the first few weeks, and I ended up getting extremely broken down. I hard to learn it the hard way, but it’s definitely much better to just walk away if things aren’t going well. I’ll be sure to check out that finger stopwatch too, sounds like a cool idea.
I’d like to share the presentation on the forum, Kevin, but the file is too big. I’m happy to email it to you if you’d like, just drop your email and I’ll send it.
Doc,
I emailed the presentation to you, let me know if you get it.
Thanks for the attachment. I knew when I switched my training over to exclusively race pace that I was committing to “endurance through speed”, but it’s a tough mental hurdle to truly convert from how I’ve been coached for my entire swim career. After doing it for a season, it will be much easier to fully commit to staying on track and not deviate from here on out.
I’m actually from Oregon and I have a fond memory of talking with Alex on an age group zone trip. Very smart guy.
As far as the 10% change rule, I was in a tight spot. I had pretty much run myself into the ground and on a lot of sets wasn’t able to match previous bests, so I needed to make changes. The first thing to go was 50s on 2. It wasn’t ideal, but I figured it was better to do fewer sets and do well than run myself into the ground. I’ve seen in some of your posts you talk about how it doesn’t seem to take much to create adaptation, and even doing just 1, maybe 2, sets per workout I’ve seen steady improvements. I definitely changed more than 10 percent which was bad for the coach side of me, but it was day and night for the swimmer side of me. Looking back I think my sequencing of sets was the part that wasn’t ideal and not the number or which sets I was doing. Definitely a good learning experience.
The altitude thing was more of a thought experiment than anything and I wanted your take on it. It was based mostly on how it “feels” harder to do sets at similar intervals compared to swimming at sea level (not the most scientific of data). Guess it doesn’t matter. Always seems like it should be more complicated than it is. I guess that’s why so many coaches struggle with this stuff. The 100s on 2 for 400 pace came about before I was even thinking about the altitude, but I explain that in more detail in the email I sent.
Don’t apologize for getting on your soap box, you’re speaking truth. Truth I wish more people would take to heart. How can anyone argue with a .995 correlation from nx50s on 1 to 50s 2,3,4 of a 200??? It’s absurd if you ask me. I was a firm believer in “traditional” training, but as soon as I saw the research and the data I jumped ship and didn’t look back. Coaches are too caught up in “what works” (hint: it doesn’t for 60-70%) to make the changes that would be best for the swimmers.
Sorry for my long winded responses. I’m new, excited, have a lot to say, and a lot of questions to ask. I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions with such detail.
Doc,
Thanks for so many suggestions! I will be sure to check out all of those options you listed for self timing. I do my best to leave on 0s and judge what was under pace and what was over, but it’s really too much variance. As far as your first few thoughts, let me explain my logic behind my choices and see if you can poke holes in it (which I would love).
The 50s on :50 were originally from a presentation about parametric training from former Michigan coach Jim Richardson that I’m happy to email to you if you’d like to see it (file’s too big). He used nx50s on :45 (scy) for 500 pace -1, and that was the best data I had at the time. I adapted it to meters and made them on :50 instead of :45. Admittedly, I think nx75s on 1:10 would be a better set for the 400/500, but I was doing long course with the exception of 2-3 workouts/week so sticking with 50s and 100s seemed best. It’s funny that you should mention the 50s on :50 and 1:00 being essentially the same because that’s the thought I had originally. For the first couple months I wasn’t doing 50s on 1:00 because it seemed pointless while doing 50s on :50. Then around mid June I stopped doing 50s on 2:00 and started doing 50s on 1:00 instead. Why? Well two main reason: 50s on 2:00 were more fatiguing than they were worth (100 and 200 free aren’t a big focus) and I was mostly doing 50s on 2:00 to increase my speed reserve but my speed reserve is so low that 50s on 1:00 seemed to be enough. I know they look very similar on paper but cutting the reps in half and adding the extra bit of rest gave me TPs that were ~1.5 seconds different. My 50s on :50 improved substantially once I started doing the 50s on 1:00, but I changed other things as well so I can’t pinpoint that as the reason. I would love to hear your thoughts on this and have you point out any flaws in my thinking if you see them.
The 100s on 2:00. I should preface this by saying I train at roughly 4,500 ft altitude. I know that shouldn’t change how training paces transfer from practice to meets, but I think it changes the rest intervals. I know 100s on 2:00 are supposed to be for back 1/2 200, but maybe at my altitude it would more like a 1:30/1:40 type interval at sea level? That’s based on nothing more than personal experience and the differences I’ve noticed training at altitude and not. Any type of high intensity type stuff like this becomes much easier on the same rest intervals when doing them at sea level. Maybe I should have been doing my 100s back on 2:30 to compensate for this? Same as above, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the topic.
Sleep. You could say I’m famous (infamous?) among my friends for sleeping a lot. Seems like a no brainer to me since it’s the easiest thing to do to get better. I can also see the confusion with how I wrote out my schedule. My “AM” workouts were at 11, and my “PM” workouts were usually around 5. I was swimming on my own so hours were very flexible and didn’t have to wake up super early. My MINIMUM is 8 hours, I strive for 10, but usually fall in the middle around 9.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond
