Gary P
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
In my opinion, your next step should be a :35 target time on the same :55 interval. I’m curious to know what’s your current 200 time? If you can do 24 50’s at :36 on a :55 interval, you should be close already.
I’m curious to know how do your swimmers self-time to such a high degree of precision. Are you using a touch-pad, an underwater display, or some other sort of technology? As someone who’s self-coaching with instruments only capable of displaying/alerting on the whole second, the finest unit I’ve presumed to be able to estimate a swim to is 1/4 of second and I’m honestly not even particularly confident in the accuracy of my estimations at that precision. In reality, I’m probably only accurate to a precision of 1/2 second.
As the “curve of improvement” is flattening for me, I find the lack of reliable precision beyond 1/4-1/2 second a potential hurdle to accurate tracking. I’m looking for affordable, technological solutions which could help.
I also happen to do Time-Speed-Distance Road Rallies and have a portable, battery-powered digital clock that’s precise to 1/10th second (or 1/1000th of a minute) and also has an input for an external “momentary switch” for splits. I’ve pondered some ideas to make a “personal touch pad” for the clock, but am concerned that the clock wouldn’t hold up to the water and humidity of the pool-side environment.
Low to mid 20s for 50s and high teens for 75s, puts us a little beyond 5X for the 200 free. Do you consistently train at the higher level of the 3-5X rule for your mid-distance swimmers?
I’m a self-coached Master training primarily for the 200M free. My personal experience is that the training:race correlation is indeed closer to 5X than 3X race distance for this event. Given that your athlete’s rest time is at the long end of the optimal range for 50’s, I suspect she needs to be at the high end of the repetition range, too.
You could work it backwards to check for yourself. She swam a 2:07. See how far she can get in a USRPT set of 50’s on :55 with an target time of 32 instead of 31. It will probably take a few practices to adjust to the slightly slower pace and not go too fast early in the set, but I bet within a week or two she’s getting to somewhere in the low 20’s.
One thing to remember: “USPRT training” and “aerobic training” are not mutually exclusive. USPRT sets do increase aerobic capacity.
“Low numbers ‘made’ means they probably don’t have mastery yet of the 31s.”
My first thought was that if they aren’t holding 31’s for 50’s past 13 reps on 24 seconds rest, I’m not surprised they’re failing to hold 31’s, or even 32’s, on the back half of a 200. More consecutive 50 reps at race pace is what they need, not “garbage yardage.”
I would increase the target time to 32 or 32.5 with the aim of getting in more reps before set failure. When they can consistently get into the low-mid 20’s before failing the set, start dropping the target. When the can do ~18 @ 31 without a rep fail, or ~24 without failing a set, you should see the back-half performance on the 200’s that you expect.
For the 75’s, you want to see mid-high teens for the # of reps before set failure, not 8-10. Increase the target time to the point where they can do that, then start shaving it.
When I get two consecutive performances of 4 1/2 times race distance without a failure, or beyond 6 times race distance before failing out, I’ve been moving to a faster pace (or shortening the interval).
Thought I’d post with an update. I took the advice and am keeping the workouts to one USRPT set for the time being. I did increase my frequency from 3-4 times a week to 5. I still have some issues with cramping towards the end of a set or on the cool-down exercise, but it is diminishing in frequency and intensity. I’ve also had some success at recognizing an oncoming cramp and “swimming out” of it by relaxing my foot, reducing the kick intensity slightly, and easing up a bit on any push offs.
I swam a SCM meet in early October, went 1:10 in the 100 free, and 2:47 in the 200 free. After 8 weeks of USRPT training, I did a “mock race 200” AFTER my regular workout and swam a 2:23 200 SCM Free….from an in-pool start…with the onset of a cramp in the 2nd 50 that I successfully swam out of.
That time correlated almost perfectly with my then-current USRPT 200 training pace times (50’s @ 36.0 on :55 interval and 75’s @ 55.0 on 1:20 interval).
I can’t believe how much progress I’ve made in this short a time swimming just 5-6 hours a week. Today, I dropped my 200 practice pace another second per 50 and made it to rep 19 before failing the set. My original goal was to get to 2:20 for the 200M free by Masters Long Course Nationals in August, 2015. Looks I’m gonna make it 8 months early and have to seriously recalibrate. I know there will eventually be some flattening of the progression, but so far the time keeps coming off in chunks. Can I get under 2:10 in the LCM 200 Free by August? That would be a “Top 10” time in the 45-49 age group most years. Jeez, this beats the hell out of the “swim until you’re exhausted, then swim about another 5000 yards; repeat daily” regimen I was on in high school.
I don’t care if you think “if” is hypothetical. His best time in 2013-14 was 19.76. he’d better be able to go 10.00 for 25s.
He is also not doing them with 10 seconds rest.
You seem to be arguing both sides of the question. If Andrew’s not doing 12-16 25s at 10.00 on 10 seconds rest, then the fact that he’s not swimming 41 in the 100 does NOT disprove the race predictive correlation of 4 X 25m training target time plus one second.
Because of the block start, going out under 10 in the front half of a 50 race is not the same as doing a it from a wall push off, and it’s not close to doing it from the wall repeatedly in a set on short rest. The elite athlete racing a short course 50 is usually .4-.5 seconds slower on the second half than the first half. Unless there was something way out of the ordinary, Andrew probably did just over a ten flat on the back half of that 19.76. Assuming you attribute that all to the structural differences in the two lengths (block start and flip turn vs. wall push off and hand touch) and not fatigue, the back half of a 50 pretty much represents the absolute fastest you can do a 25 from a wall push off with a hand touch. If he couldn’t do a ten flat on the back half of a 50 on a personal best race, I refuse to believe the hypothetical training example presented (12-16 25’s at 10-flat from a wall push off on 10 seconds rest) is supposed to be representative of his actual training regimen for the 100.
Gary P,
Why doesn’t your example for the 200s work for the 100?Because the 100 pace should be just below the threshold of “fast as possible” while the 200 pace is throttled back considerably. You simply can’t go faster than your 100 pace holding anything back from your training effort. You can go faster than your training pace on the opening 50 of a 200, even at a reserved effort. That’s my limited observation and reasoned guess why the rule-of-thumb for 200’s and 100’s is different. What are seeing from your swimmers?
I have guys that go 10.23 to 10.47 and are nowhere near MA capabilities or size. So why would 10.00 be a hypothetical time for MA?
Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying you have guys that hold under 10.50 for 16 repeats on a 30×25 on a 10 second rest USPRT set? If so, what are their actual 100 race times?
As for the 10.0, it seems pretty clear that it is presented as a hypothetical. The whole example is preceded by the word “if.”
For example, if Michael Andrew swims 3-4 times the 100 m/y freestyle race-distance at 10 seconds per 25, on race day he is expected to swim 40.00 for the 100 FR but a 41.00 is acceptable to account for the added turns.
For the 100, don’t forget that a block start is worth about 2 seconds compared to a wall push off. So you lose 3 seconds on 3 turns, but gain 2 seconds back on the first 25 because of the block; net adjustment is plus one second.
I think the 200 isn’t adjusted because it’s normal to go 3 seconds faster than training pace on the opening 50, ~2 seconds of that being the start off the block and one second just the fact that the first 50 is comparatively easy and you tend to go a little fast even if you’re trying to pace yourself. Even in training, I usually come in a second or two under the pace time on the opening few 50’s of a 30×50 set, even though I’m consciously trying to hold back. It usually takes me 3 or 4 to 50’s to lock onto the target pace.
As for the example cited, it’s presented as a hypothetical. I don’t think it’s meant to imply that MA is actually doing 10.00s in training.
