[Matt]

I am prepping for our conference meet as well. We are 4 weeks out and just wrapped up back-to-back meets at the end of the 3 most intense weeks of training we’ll do all season.

Times at the first meet were pretty fast and a bit slower the second meet. Not unexpected and I was pretty pleased with the effort, execution and times. They were able to really attack the races at both meets. Their legs went away in nearly every event in the first meet. The second meet was worse, but it didn’t mess with race execution. The back half of their races were just slower.

I saw something like this last season. We ended up doing very well at champs, but very clearly the guys and the more built women needed more recovery. Getting the legs more completely rested was the #1 issue last year and I see it heading that way again.

Last season at this point the race pace intervals continued to go up to provide more rest. Number of reps came down a little. We would even split the race pace sets in the middle by a 2-3 min rest. The unload/taper phase was the 3-day plan I’ve seen here stretched across 5 days with 2-3 additional days inserted in between where we did no race pace, swam slower and stretched out. We were fast, but even with all that additional rest the leg were flat out cooked halfway through championships.

What I’d like to do is use the next 2-3 weeks to bring the legs back so they are more in line with the rest of the body. At that point the unload phase should be cleaner and easier to manage.
Our “normal” pattern for a week:

Mon – 3 RP sets
Tue – Full Event RP set (i.e. 15x100s on 5 mins, 10×200 on 7 mins, 4x500s on 12 mins, etc.)
Wed – 3 RP sets
Thu – Long meet warm-up, 300-600 total yards racing off the blocks
Fri – 2 RP sets

My thinking now has me considering the following:
– Reduce Wed to the point where it is a complete recovery day. This week go to 2 sets, next week 1 set, the following week just recovery
– Reduce the size of the Tue sets by 20-30% per week
– Limit the Thu off the blocks yardage to 200-300 max
– Increase the intervals on the RP sets each week by at least 10 seconds, keep the number of reps steady this week, drop by 10-15% per week after.

Part of me thinks this might be too much rest. On the other hand there I heard a big-time coach once say: If I’m going to screw up their season do I want it to be because I rested them too much or too little?

I would greatly appreciate any thoughts or insights!

[Matt]

The first video is worth a watch if only to hear Gary’s family cheer him on. Good stuff.

Here’s what jumped out at me: you have a really solid kick. Counter to what I usually see as your stroke lost power your kick got bigger. In the first 150 or so I noted how the kick would drop off in rhythm with your breathing. Not good but not uncommon. The legs/feet can do weird stuff during the breathing stroke to compensate for an arm that is placed wide or a head that’s moving out of line. Then as your stroke rate climbs and it looks like your losing power the kick gets bigger and more consistent. Not common at all and a great habit.

Watch your turns. Both your approach and your breakouts change a lot. The approach you look like you are eyeballing the wall more and more. You end up gliding more into the wall later in the race, thus losing momentum and having to really toss yourself into the flip by picking up your head, lunging and adding a fly kick. Those are the turns of a tired dude. Ironically they are slower and cost more and make the push/breakout harder. The breakouts are more stark. Note where your head breaks the surface off each wall. Toward the end it’s barely at the flags whereas earlier it’s well past the flags. Note the quality of the first breath. Earlier it’s smooth and doesn’t effect your speed much while later your head comes up a ton and your speed visibly stalls at the moment of your breakout.

Just the wall stuff could account for most of the added strokes. It also looks like – as you said – your losing DPS. Later in the race your hand is exiting the water closer to you hip instead of finishing the stroke down by your quad. It also looks like you have a nice powerful body rotation in your stroke early on and later much less. That would tend to make finishing the stroke harder to do. It was tough to see if you were rushing your catch as you got deeper in the race, but that is another common error that results in loss of DPS.

Overall I wouldn’t be too discouraged. Despite everything I saw you appeared to fight harder and harder throughout the race. That’s great! I would train to keep my turn mechanics – especially the push and breakout – better for longer and to keep that long rotation driven stroke longer. Switching to higher tempo, bigger kick isn’t bad if it’s on purpose and you aren’t shorting the bottom of your stroke. If you have the gas tank for that it’d be a killer way to finish the last 150 or so of a 400/500.

Hope that helps.

[Matt]

Were you able to get the wifi or Bluetooth to work while the gopro was underwater? I always had heard that couldn’t be done, but I’m hoping I heard wrong.

[Matt]

Long post, but really good post, Marlin. I think I agree with all of it – especially the notion that a fine-tuned “optimal” tempo is specific to the swimmer…I really like that. It’s something I’ve thought myself for a long time. I’m getting stuck on how stroke count isn’t important (or less important) than tempo/DPS. How can it be irrelevant/less important given one’s stroke count is the result of one’s tempo and DPS?

I tend to look at stroke count because it’s the only practical measurement a swimmer can accurately assess while training/racing. With the exception of using a tempo trainer how could a swimmer accurately measure their tempo? If they counted strokes they could make a relative assessment of DPS in some cases (i.e. rep time was same/slower & count went up = DPS down or vice versa). But say stroke count goes up and time gets faster or vice versa…DPS could have shifted either way. Assuming one could do the math there’s no reasonable way to do it in the moment during a set. It seems to me stroke count is all that’s readily available to help a swimmer self-assess.

I don’t think I’m arguing or, really, disagreeing I just got hung up on the notion that stroke count isn’t important. I had a thought that perhaps you meant that there isn’t a stroke count that, generally, we “should” be doing. Rather one’s ideal stroke count is specific to the swimmer. Which would parallel what you were illustrating with all the numbers.

Getting back to Gary…I’d say that I would’ve liked to see his 400 splits flatten out at a 38 mid or high, but it’s tough to be too definitive without seeing splits from other races. Maybe Gary is one of those bat-out-of-hell mid distance swimmers. I’d expect a split spread like that out of a good 200 swimmer who leans toward the sprinting, but got tossed into the 500. Not a bad race, really, but not the splits of a refined 400/500 swimmer (with no disrespect intended toward Gary).

Looking at the stroke counts themselves I’d toss out the 1st and last 50. The 1st includes the start and all the adrenaline…everyone is wicked low in the first lap. We should all see that effect rep to rep in a set much less a race. I didn’t see the video (where’s the link?), but I’m guessing the last 50 included some end-of-race spurt of speed which usually involves a big gear shift in tempo. So you went from 42 to 51…closer to a 20% rise which is probably not great but better than 25%. There seems to be a pretty consistent 0.40 second correlation per added stroke after the 2nd 50 which would tend to point to your mechanics staying stable. I keep ringing the bell on the walls, but is there a difference in your approach to the walls and/or the speed/distance you’re carrying off of them? So often I see an extra stroke force a glide into a wall or a weird half stroke to make the turn work and poof…there goes your turn momentum and distance on your push. Also, what are you doing in your breakouts? Where and how that first breath happens can make all the difference in the world. Easily enough to account for your splits and stroke counts.

On a slightly different but related topic whenever I work with sprinters on increasing tempo they usually dislike how it feels at first. Especially the larger power sprinters with smooth mechanics. They hate the feeling of rushing a stroke or pulling in a way that’s obviously slipping to some degree. I am always forced to go to the white board to show that if you normally take 12 strokes and get it up to 16 then you can lose up to a third of your DPS before you break even with your 12-strokes. Get that stroke count up to 18 and the math is even better. The first thing I have them try is to move their arm through the recovery quicker and change nothing else. Once they balance things out a bit there’s a tiny hit to DPS and instant gain of 2 strokes. Now if we’re smart about things and slowly add strokes then DPS doesn’t suffer much and we’re left with a buzz-saw of a sprinter. Hopefully.

Both in sprinting (raising tempo) and longer races (maintaining tempo) it’s all about the mechanical mistakes that creep in. Is the sprinter shorting their stroke to boost their tempo or are they forcing the proper mechanics and allowing their CNS to adapt to be able to fire their arms around faster? Is the mid distance swimmer shorting their stroke because that’s their personal tendency? Or is it body rotation. Or head position. Or hips & kicking. Or on and on. Sort that out, gain control and the swimmer should get a lot faster.

I had another thought pop in my head about stroke count and Gary’s race. How much rise is generally good or bad? Most of my experience is in 25 yard pools where (from a push) I usually start off with 10 strokes, then 11 for 50-75 yards and then stabilize at 12. From a start I’m sure I’d be 8 or 9 strokes the first lap then 10-11 and into my normal pattern. 10 to 12 is a 20% rise and really doesn’t strike me as bad at all. Food for thought.

[Matt]

I’ve never done what you’re suggesting, but I’ve definitely heard of it. In particular Bud Termin (who’s own flavor of race pace training has been around for 20+ years) ran race pace sets based on speed and stroke count. He was hyper analytical with it. Lots of math and DPS calculations to come up with an optimal stroke count. I’m not against that at all, but it seems like overkill for most swimmers. There are practical ways to leverage stroke count without getting crazy.

I’ve approached stroke count like this: swim a handful of 100s or 200s at a relatively high effort and note your stroke count for each lap for each rep. Typically the first lap will be low, then you’ll add 1-2 for the next lap or two (this is typically your current “best” stroke count), then you’ll add 1-2 more for the remainder of the swim. If I start out with 10 strokes per 25 yards I will end up with 12-13 by the end of a 200. If 12-13 mucks up my approach to a wall for a turn then I ought to train to keep that count at 11 or otherwise adjust my kick out/breakout so 12-13 strokes works with the wall on the other end. Whatever pattern your stroke count degrades in and whatever the undesirable effect is (bad wall timing, slow speed) it’s important to have a handle on it so you can plan how to improve it.

If my count becomes bonkers high in a longer swim, say, +5 or more stroke per 25, then I’d start training as you suggested…use stroke count as a failure condition. In this case I can recommend the Finis tempo trainer pro. Learn to let it drive when you take a stroke. As you reach the point where you’d add strokes you’ll start to get a feel for what mechanical defects are creeping in that force the extra strokes to be necessary. It’s always some mechanical defect…head/body position, poor catch, not finishing the pull, lack of body rotation, kick goes away, etc. Then it’s a matter of recognizing the defect has crept in and building the skill to prevent it from happening.

Hope that helps!

[Matt]

It sounds to me that the “race” part of the race pace set isn’t the problem. It’s the turn mechanics under duress and hypoxia. Move those skills forward and you’ll be able to focus on racing in the “get down the pool faster” sense. Referring back to some base principles we ought to recall that effective race pace training is highly dependent upon mechanical skill.

My suggestion: do at least 500 total yards/meters (or about 20% of your total) of hypoxic work per practice. A mix of go-far and go-fast, under waters and no-breathers, swim and kick. Build a habit of NEVER breathing off you walls before the third stroke. This is a tough and painful habit to build (takes 2-3 weeks if you’re diligent), but once built is relatively easy to maintain and absolutely will build lung capacity and capacity for speed under duress. I’d also take a hard look at where and when you breath in a race or race pace set. For example going nuts in the first 50 of a 100 and breathing 2-3 times is all beast mode and awesome, but kinda dumb if that puts you in such a hypoxic state that the last turn or two are garbage.

Turn work…just gotta do a lot of turns. Slower to build a foundation of skill. Under duress to build race skill. I’ve had a lot of success doing 100s or 200s at a middle to low aerobic effort, but pushing very hard from the flags into the wall through the turn and breakout. That shifting of gears is really taxing and the turns become difficult to execute very quickly. Sacrifice speed as necessary to force the turn mechanics to be perfect. Always perfect turns…no matter what. At the end of each rep you should be breathing pretty hard, but able to recover quickly. The bit between the flags will progressively get slower throughout the set. It doesn’t take more than a couple weeks (3-4 sets per week, 1000-1500 per set or 25-30% of the workout) before there is notable improvement.

I beat this drum long and loud because it is the easiest and best way to get much faster in short course racing: get better on your walls!

Hope these suggestions help.

[Matt]

I can relate to the frustration you’re feeling, but I suggest you try a couple of things before deciding 500s at 100 pace isn’t workable.

First, add a bit more wiggle room into your target time. You have clearly thought a lot about how to calculate an appropriate target time. Turns offer 4 major points to easily lose/gain a couple of tenths. Unless/until you’re convinced your entire wall sequence (approach, turn, plant, push, breakout) is super consistent and is not, in fact, the major reason your time tanks I say give yourself a little more room in your target. If your walls are super consistent then tighten the time up. Walls are almost always where I see time lost in race pace sets with 50/75/100s. Walls are wildly important in short course racing. Variability on the walls really messes with the effectiveness of race pace sets.

Second, failure on rep 3 isn’t good, but if you rested a rep and blah blah blah collected two more good reps before three total fails that would be 4 good reps or twice your race distance. Not awesome, but not a terrible starting point for what is arguably a very tough set. If you did that set 10 times over the next, say, 5 weeks could you get up to 8-10 good reps? I would expect my swimmers to progress at that rate (with all the caveats for how many times you’re training, etc.).

If you were on my team I’d say we shouldn’t be happy with how you did, but certainly not upset. It’s a starting point. Deconstruct it, get super-consistent on the walls, do the set again and again and again and see how it progresses.

[Matt]

We do a “last good rep before 1st fail” and “total good reps”. The first ignores any fail-reps within the “grace” or “gimmie” reps on the front end. The second value takes everything into account and is straightforward: how many reps were you at goal time or faster.

My team took a while to wrap their heads around these concepts. The first value above is worded oddly and can certainly be done more easily. “First fail rep” is probably easier to understand as long as they know we mean “after the gimmies”. It’s the same number as what we do now plus 1. Easy to normalize in a spreadsheet.

The second value we collect is easily grasped, but they struggled at first to remember that with 25s a fail rep actually means you take 3 reps off (except for a 3rd fail or 2nd consecutive fail) and 50s it’s only 2 and so forth. They all worked backwards from the number of reps offered or the rep number they failed out of the set on. The concept of the value we’re collecting is easy, but calculating the number this way seems to require taking a moment or two to recall the fail reps in one’s head. On the upside I liked how little operational details like this made the swimmers engage their brains just a bit more.

Matt

[Matt]

My $0.02. Traditional training, in general, creates more longer-term injuries than what I’ve seen with pace-pace dominant training. I have one season of RP based training with my team. 7+ using traditional training.

The emergence of an injury seems to happen more quickly and sharply in RP training. One day/set everything is fine. Perhaps a small annoyance. Next day…boom. Real injury pain. In traditional training I think the injured state creeps up more slowly. Much easier to ignore or not even notice the small delta day-to-day. I believe this creates a tendency to not give legit injury pain the weight it deserves and thus I have this conversation:

Coach my shoulder is killing me.
Ok. How long has it been hurting?
Well…over a week, but it got really bad today.
Why didn’t you say something earlier?
*shrug*Didn’t seem that bad.

By the time the swimmer’s injury threshold is crossed they have been in a “worse than good” state for a much longer period of time as compared with RP training. This season using RP it seems more likely I’ll hear that injury pain has been there for a day or two at most.

I feel like injuries go away more quickly this season too, but I don’t have any stats or even a good anecdote for that. It makes sense that if injuries are being identified earlier they’ll heal more quickly, but take this with a grain of salt.

Outright mechanical skill has a huge effect too. No great insight here. The worse the technique the more likely I’ll see an injury. Here again I see a common characteristic of RP training where consequences occur more quickly and sharply than with traditional training. On the up side this forces the need to change earlier. On the down side those that don’t have enough ability to overcome bad muscle memory tend to get stuck and don’t progress at nearly the rate of their counterparts. Again, nothing super insightful here. The difference I’ve noted is those who can’t correct technique appear to suffer the consequences to a greater degree with RP than with traditional training.

Matt

[Matt]

I’m finding that race pace sets are outing the swimmers who like to “hide” within the sets in a TT format. Those who don’t eat/sleep properly also stick out more. Given the nature of college living those who are out making social choices that conflict with training are easier to see. I like this. For the bad actors it’s a meritocracy operating perfectly. For those poor performers who had to cram for a test or don’t eat/sleep properly it’s a big factor in motivating them to get their sh*t together.

Of course this isn’t 100% black and white, but in large part the RP sets are really good diagnostics of their behavior outside the pool.

Those who don’t engage with the spirit of the sets…I don’t know. Either they trust you or not. If they do then they need to act on that trust and just step on the gas in these sets. Not just todayIf they don’t trust then that’s the end of it for me if they aren’t actively seeking to build that trust.

A constant refrain for me and i’m sure most coaches: what’s you’re goal? Everything flows from that.

[Matt]

Thanks. I figured whatever measure I use will have to take the general success of the set into account. There are at least a couple statistically sound ways to do that (average, median, ect.) However one slices it there would still be a Total Yardage number and a Race Pace number and thus a Percentage at RP value.

However one measures it there needs to be a goal or guideline. Depends on how far down the USRPT rabbit hole one wants to go, for sure, but hearing from others on what their guidelines and goals are with respect to RP volume would be interesting and helpful.

On days that we do 2 longer RP sets (900+ offered in each) percentage volume RP offered can get over 30%. For a week it’s closer to 20-25%.

I’ve done enough to be convinced that 60+% volume at RP per week is feasible. We haven’t done a 3-set practice yet, but that’s coming. Performance and numbers will ultimately point the way, given what i’ve seen I think 60%, while big, isn’t too crazy.

Anyone else?

[Matt]

Oldschoolc,

Thanks for the response. I completely agree with your closer: the on-the-deck experiences are super valuable to me and I’m sure to everyone else. Thanks to those who are sharing.

The “regardless of their times” means if the set was 20x50s they did 20. I called these sets “full RP set” or “calibration RP sets”. “Exit conditions” is my shorthand for the “miss your goal time twice in a row or three total times” part of a standard USRPT set.

Doing the calibration sets definitely will have the effects you describe. I expected this and figured I had 5 weeks at most before the accumulated fatigue would impede training and/or run a risk of creating injuries. During week 4 the signs started to point to having to make the switch. This was intentional. Just a touch risky, perhaps, but pretty easy to see where the line needed to be drawn with the data I was gathering.

We’ve switched over to standard RP sets with the exit conditions at this point. What I liked about the full sets was the swimmers all now have a very clear notion of the scale of the sets we’re working toward. It frames things out and I felt that was important given the large change in training style. As mentioned in my previous post their awareness of their race level mechanics has vastly improved. Overall I view these first few weeks as heavy “shock to the system” phase and now we reset a bit and come at it in a much more standard manner and in a much more focused manner.

The data gathered for the “full” RP sets was different because the analysis is different from a standard RP set. The data you’re suggesting is exactly what we’re gathering for the standard RP sets. In both modes we’re collecting 4 numbers for each person for each set. In a past professional life I did a lot of this type of thing. Collect, collate and analyze tons of data. Data collection is always more time consuming at the outset compared with a few weeks into the process. My swimmers write their numbers on the whiteboard, I write them on the practice sheet and then enter them into a spreadsheet that is then printed & posted on the wall. I’m not sure how it will get quicker, but these things usually do. We’ll see how it plays out. If anyone has better technique in this area I’m all ears.

I hear you on the building volume and speed separately or beware the consequences. No worries on that count.

Specifically with your 3-day protocol: the numbers you are reducing are…total volume of the workout? Volume of the RP sets? Reps of the RP sets? Maybe all three? Within TT formats I’ve seen that general pattern (stretched out to, say, 7-10 days) work with first reducing overall volume, but keeping quality volume (the faster/intense sets) the same and then dropping the quality volume the last half of the taper period. I’m not sure there can be that sort of distinction within a USRP context if your non-RP volume is only around 20-30% of your total, but what sort of distinctions are you making with your 25% drops?

I like the notion of an improvement RP set, a “steady Freddy” RP set and a “half-volume” RP set. I get the first two in terms of how the expectations can be set with the swimmers. How are you doing that for the third set? Are you shifting their focus to specific facets of the race (breakout, tempo, breathing, etc.) within the context of hitting their time for the reduced reps?

Matt

[Matt]

Hi Rob,

I’ve been seeing a spike of poor-technique related issues cropping up. For many of them the things that fall apart in a RP set are almost exactly the things that fell apart in their first meet. I’m seeing a big increase in their awareness of the translation between RP set mechanics and meet mechanics. Around two thirds of those had their light bulb come on made relatively significant changes in their focus in their RP sets the next week. I hear a lot more “oh yeah, I felt that…” than before when mechanical issues are pointed out. It seems a bit obvious now, but the time spent in practice going at race pace is amplifying their ability to feel mechanics in actual races.

Ideally each will have 2-3 specific mechanical points to focus on in a RP set. They will note when the focus mechanic becomes difficult to control and progresses on to “impossible” to control. All the while doing everything in their power to correct the defect. They (should) keep mental track of when the difficult and impossible points occur and see if they can progress things the next time around. Honestly it’s difficult to get too many of them to pay this level of attention to the details, but – in a surprise to exactly nobody – the better/more motivated ones to do it without much fuss.

I’m also seeing a medium to large drop in their RP set performances after the first set. To be completely fair we’re doing full RP sets regardless of their times; what I’m calling: calibration mode. I wanted to have a more simple format to allow them to build certain skills: getting granular times (low, mid, high, flat) off the clock, documenting their numbers, navigating a practice with multiple RP sets. We gathered the following data: goal times, number made, average time of reps they made, average time of reps they missed. These numbers have been great indicators of their fitness and of their ability to maintain consistency within a RP set.

Reps have also been steadily climbing. By now everyone has done a full set of 25s and 50s (i.e. 30×25 to support the 100s, 30x50s to support 200s, etc.) for two of their main distances. I wanted them to have a feel for the volume of the sets we’re aiming to use as “base” training for a particular distance.

So far it appears to be working reasonably well. All their set-related skills are up to speed. I’m starting to see performances leveling off or getting worse, but I expected that by this point (maybe even a little sooner). Can’t demand full RP sets 6-8 times a week and not accumulate some real fatigue.

We’ll be adding in exit conditions very soon. My instinct is to dial back the number of reps offered – say, 20×25 and 12x50s for 100s; 30×25 and 20x50s for 200s – keep the goal times steady and build the number of reps up as they succeed with the lower numbers. The smaller sets should allow them to shake off most/all of the accumulated fatigue and get into a rhythm that doesn’t beat them up.

Addressing the point on low reps being made in the 2nd and 3rd RP sets: Oldschoolc had a pattern where the goal of the 2nd and 3rd set was to made the same number as the last time versus doing more (Sept 10th post in this thread). Seems like a reasonable way to account for the performance drop-off and avoid the negative implications of not “progressing” in the 2nd and 3rd set. He’s pretty active on the board so hopefully he can add some depth to this.

Matt

[Matt]

Thanks old school. I’m enjoying this too. Wouldn’t be nearly as confident going into this season with this scale of change to the program without the experiences from this forum. Looking forward to posting data in the next few weeks!

[Matt]

Thanks for the reply oldschoolc and the breakdown on your numbers. It’s interesting stuff.

With the filtering I didn’t mean “bad” as in get rid of results for those who didn’t swim well. I meant cases where the swimmer’s results – fast, slow, anything – would not be viable for use in judging the efficacy of the training: a non-data-point. If a swimmer missed 40% of the practices there is nothing that could be legitimately concluded about the training program from those results. Same with an injured swimmer. Or someone with a nasty flu 1 week out from champs. You know your swimmers: do you think your numbers would take a significant jump if the non-data-point results were removed?

Regarding the 200 vs 160 pound swimmer. First: 200 is arbitrarily larger than 160. Make it 190 if that fits better. I personally think even 15 pounds would equate to a distinct increase in speed, however, this is a thought experiment and I wanted to present a difference large enough to create a conclusion without being absurd. To wit: all else being equal it is patently obvious the 200 pounder is faster than the 160 pounder, therefore, size matters. I don’t see this as a contentious statement.

I think I am using “size” and “strength training” too interchangeably. I’d agree that strength training is not determinant, but size absolutely is. Genetics largely control size and coaches can’t control genetics (I can’t at any rate) thus I’m looking at how size can/should be best controlled. When considering a swimmer with genetics that wrap things up at the smaller end the spectrum (whether it’s short, scrawny or both) do we conclude there is no rationale for them to improve their size? That doesn’t make sense, so, how does one effectively address size if strength training –nominally the most effective way to build size – has no effect?

Understand that I *still* take the science at face value and do not doubt what you’ve documented in your program. Science has a solid track record for, say, a few hundred years so I’ll buy in and I’m sure you’re seeing what you’re seeing in your program. I’m trying to reconcile that science with what is patently obvious in the thought experiment and what is easily observed in champs meets across a wide range of levels (i.e. size matters). It doesn’t fit together, therefore, there are pieces missing to the narrative that “strength training doesn’t help.”

This goes directly back to the notion of adoption. There is not enough information or nuance to explain away strength training. Everything about the in-water portion of USRPT flows intuitively and its implications hang together well despite the large departure from what we’re all used to. The gaps in the strength training narrative change the nature of how the in-water portion is viewed. Skepticism and doubt flood in. Adoption becomes more difficult.

I’ve seen this repeatedly when presenting USRPT ideals to both swimmers and other coaches. I’m aware of how difficult change of this magnitude is. Anyone who’s read Rushall’s papers knows just how acutely aware he is given the repeated directive to “let go of what we think we know.” That’s all well and good, but people are only capable of those mental gymnastics to a point. From what I’ve seen the dryland/strength training end of it is a leap too far. If the dryland part of the narrative can be fleshed out to bridge the gap then the bar for adoption will be significantly easier to clear.

Thanks for your thoughts and replies.

[Author]

Posts