HIT vs Traditional Training Study
April 19, 2014 at 12:04 pm #735
I am not completely surprised at these results. The results might have been different if the subjects served as their own control and/or if the observation period had been longer and/or if it had been conducted in non-elite swimmers and/or if the training stimuli had been different.
Nevertheless, while I can agree that performance was not necessarily improved with HIT, I think it equally important to note that performance did not deteriorate. Aren’t swimmers happier doing shorter workouts and less yardage?
I would love to see a study of:
Traditional Training (TT) > USRPT > TT
USRPT > TT > USRPT
Just my $0.02. Open for thoughts.
#USRPTApril 19, 2014 at 1:06 pm #737DenajKeymaster
I was reading that article this morning and I agree with you Greg. If you can get the same results with less yardage/time that is valuable in itself. And it would be great to this study done with USRPT protocol.
Honestly I haven’t read the entire thing, but I would like to know the rationale behind the resting intervals.
I’m sure somebody will read this and say USRPT doesn’t work…I’m waiting for that email 🙂
? P2Life - Performance NutritionApril 19, 2014 at 1:56 pm #740
But we know differently. #USRPT does work.
Here’s another piece on anecdotal, but impressive, info.
Boy HS swimmer. Breast and IM. Had an IT band issue, so we had him swim free with pull buoy in USRPT sets. He was still too injured at the end if the week to swim his main events in our big mid-year, mini-taper meet. We put him in the 50 free cause he did want to miss swimming with his team. Previous best was 23 mid in 50 free. Popped a 21 high. Has since swam 20 point on a 200 free relay. I don’t recall those types if things happening previously with traditional training.
Regarding the study I would love to see 36 week evaluation
USRPT > TT > USRPT
TT > USRPT > TT
With inter- and Intra subject testing.
#USRPTApril 19, 2014 at 6:30 pm #748RickParticipant
It’s great to see some current studies being done as it applies to swimming at “race pace.” It seems to me this was more like “swim every lap as fast as you can and do them all.” Maybe I missed something when I was reading it. I was lucky enough to work with a man at my school who was intimateley involved with some early race pace training work, and he was the one that helped me to put a program together for my then 12 year-old. We got great results, but it became highly frustrating for him to complete every rep at his max, regardles of whether or not he was swimming fast/goal times.
The key to me is the self-regulating aspect of true usrpt. It puts much more responsibility on the swimmer, and I think that is great. Now, when a swimmer misses a time, I have the chance for that quick conversation on how they can fix the problem. Plus, they don’t find themselves getting slower and slower as their rest time keeps decreasing because they aren’t completing their swims as fast as they were. Kind of a death spiral!
Do we know whether this study was true usrpt or just repeating sprint sets? To me, it is critical distinction. Having tried both types of swimming, I see usrpt as a much more sustainable approach. Either way, with only 75 minutes/5 days a week, I know our HS team can’t go back to the old way.April 19, 2014 at 7:23 pm #749
I am pretty sure this is repeat set training at high intensity, not USRPT.
#USRPTApril 19, 2014 at 11:39 pm #750RickParticipant
That’s my hunch, too. Huge difference, imo. The burnout is just too high without the self-regulating/recovery aspect that usrpt provides.April 24, 2014 at 12:07 pm #793
You are correct in that the “self-regulating” or “auto-regulation” is CRITICAL! If you don’t let them stop when they can no longer hold pace and have them swim out the set you might as well go back to the traditional approach.
Here is data over the past 24 years. It dropped the 200 fly and 200IM data ?? In 1990-2000, we were a very traditional program i.e. 11 workouts, kicked, pulled, you name it we did it.
You can see that after 2000, we have had a much better % improvement rate that was due to a gamble we took and dropped AMs, dropped weights, dryland and stretching. The only goal was to swim fast at each practice.
The numbers are percent improvements for just the short course seasons. I have LCM data but thought it a bit much to look at.
1990-2000 50fr 100fr 200fr 500fr 100ba 200ba 100br 200br 100fl
Avg % Imp 1.671 2.570 2.802 3.456 3.802 2.841 2.959 4.648 4.604
2000-2010 50fr 100fr 200fr 500fr 100ba 200ba 100br 200br 100fl
Avg % Imp 2.901 3.800 4.032 4.686 5.032 4.071 4.189 5.878 5.834
2010-2011 50fr 100fr 200fr 500fr 100ba 200ba 100br 200br 100fl 2.834 3.519 4.447 4.999 5.045 4.092 4.309 5.894 5.317
2011-2012 50fr 100fr 200fr 500fr 100ba 200ba 100br 200br 100fl 2.949 3.898 3.913 4.724 5.016 4.331 4.249 5.655 5.491
2012-2013 50fr 100fr 200fr 500fr 100ba 200ba 100br 200br 100fl 3.179 4.656 2.846 4.173 4.956 4.808 4.129 5.179 5.840
2013-2014 50fr 100fr 200fr 500fr 100ba 200ba 100br 200br 100fl 2.719 3.140 4.980 5.275 5.075 3.853 4.369 6.132 5.123
2010-2014 50fr 100fr 200fr 500fr 100ba 200ba 100br 200br 100fl
2.920 3.803 4.046 4.793 5.023 4.271 4.264 5.715 5.448
"Only in America. Dream in red, white and blue"April 24, 2014 at 12:12 pm #794
sorry for the mess. The forum needs a better email add-in to send data.
If you give me an email address I will send to you a much better file.
"Only in America. Dream in red, white and blue"April 24, 2014 at 12:21 pm #795
Here try this.
"Only in America. Dream in red, white and blue"April 24, 2014 at 12:24 pm #796
not sure why the file is not attached as it’s only 45kb
"Only in America. Dream in red, white and blue"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.