Now what do I do?
- This topic has 13 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
By now coaches should have compiled some data with regards to race splits and training paces. Do race splits correlate to what they are doing in practice and vise versa? “n x 25s” equal 100s or “n x 50s” equal 200s. Those that are doing 75s/100s. What are they lining up with back ½ 200 or 500s?
Could it be a combination of “n x 25” doubled that equals front ½ of 100 and “n x 50” equals back ½ of 100 or “n x 50” equaling first 50 of 200 and then “what the heck”? Those that are doing 75s/100s, is it “n x 50” equals first 50 and “n x 75” doubled equals back 150?
Maybe they don’t line up with race performances at all. Now what?
Thinking!
"Only in America. Dream in red, white and blue"
This is exactly what I am going to try and get a feel for over the next month. I have 3 boys who I’ve been working with and tracking every set with a stopwatch to avoid any cheating. I know they say it’s a waste of time to time your swimmers, but it’s easy to do with only 3 swimmers. None of the swimmers have experienced any growth spurts since last year.They are all between 16-18.
Our sets hve been fairly repetitive because 2 of the boys have the goal of making it to districts before they graduate. The other is a junior, and he is training for more events. Here is what we have been doing:
25/50/75 free sets. training 400% distance of the 100 free with 16 x 25. training 300% of 200 with 12 x 50, and only 16 x 75 for the 500 which isn’t even 300%.
25/50 breast. Same sets as the free
25 back. same set as the 25 free
50 fly/back. We swim 25 fly then 25 back to work the middle strokes of the 200 IM, and we swimm 300% race distance there, too. Hoping that the sets of free and breast will take care of the rest. Adding lots of back to breast turn work between sets. This is the one that I’m curious about. We did two weeks of this leading up to winter sr. champs, and got good results. Now, we will have a solid 6 weeks to work this.
I know it’s not a lot of variety, and I’ve just started doing some 75’s at 200 rp based on what some people have said, but it won’t be enough, I believe, to really be a factor.
All of my swimmers will get to race the events we have been training for at usa meets over the next month, and then I’m going to sit down and see how closely the training times equate to actual race performance.
I really do like the ideas of Dr. Rushall, but I also agree with another post of yours where you stated we have to be willing to experiment with this to find out what works best. My repeat numbers seem to be much lower than others here, but that’s just the approach I decided to take.
For both meets, I am going to do a 2 day (50% then 25%) rest/taper. I want to leave them feeling like they had a shot to swim well, but a full 3 day recovery and a shave will make them faster. Might sound silly, but these are sharp kids, and they know that this won’t be the full recovery/taper we will follow in March.
For better or worse, I will post as much data as I can after these meets. After all the help you’ve given me with your advice, oldschool, it’s the least I can do!
Rick,
Now you’re cooking with “peanut oil” (sorry Duck Destiny fan)! You are doing exactly what others should be doing! It’s called getting better! It is never a “waste of time” to time your swimmers it shows accountability! And you are not going to lower your “expectations to increase their chances of success”. I do it with 18-22 swimmers every day and still get technical work in. God damn right it’s hard and you go home exhausted. But you know you are not going to be the weak link. “Athlete centered and performance driven”“Repetitive” my kids have the same workout 3 times a week depending on the cycle; short to long or long to short. So, if we’re working stroke they will see the “exact” same workout 3 times during the week. It maybe M, T and then TH or some other combination and I have zero complaints. They accept the challenge “can I make more than I did the last time”.
Your sets are fine. They are distance appropriate. Just an FYI: I use to do 100s in stroke for kids that did the 200s of stroke and found speed were too slow and switched to 75s, because they could carry better speed and technical skill. Watch and see.
Rick, you have to remember that Dr. Rushall’s job doesn’t depend whether he’s right or not. Ours does, I’ve read every post on this site and not one coach has posted any numbers their kids are doing e.g. we are doing 20 x 25 and they did 16 or we make 90% of the number offered. Not happening! I believe they don’t record the number their kids made! My guess is your numbers are a lot closer to mine and you would be surprised.
Your ideas on your upcoming meets are “are not silly” You are trying to base it on the best data you have. Record data and evaluate. Rick, I have kids that have never swum under any other system and often remind me of protocols. That’s the problem with being 60
I will share what I have and if I don’t know I will tell you.
Personal email: recondoc@ionet.net
OldshoolC
"Only in America. Dream in red, white and blue"
OldSchoolC,
I had very helpful findings with a 100 butterflyer this long course season. The core of our training consisted of nx25s on :30 (SCY) done typically twice a week as well as nx50s on 2:00 (LCM) also done once or twice for about 10 weeks over the long course season. We used the same pace times each set the whole season while increasing the volume per set. After doubling his 25s on :30 pace and converting it to LCM his pace was .08 faster than his actual split. His 50s on 2:00 pace was .08 slower than his actual race split. Added together it equated to EXACTLY what he swam in the race.
We were swimming the same pace times throughout the season while increasing the volume per set. Each meet, as the numbers increased, the speed lowered. These findings tell me that it requires a certain number per set before those numbers equate to actual racing success. My swimmer reached the point where he could make ~18-20x25s on :30 before failure and 6x50s on 2:00. It should also be noted that we also swim 50s on 2:00 SCY for the first 4 weeks in the season and this pace time converted to significantly faster than his 2nd 50 race time.
My question is, have you found any peak numbers that equate to success? How do you know when it’s time to swim faster?
izSwimming
izSwimming,
Your approach is more Parametric System 1st strategy NICE!I have found something always gets lost in converting and can never get an exact match and I’ve tried just about every conversion table/formula out there. So .08 is really good! Just an FYI our correlations are “n x 25” doubled .996-.998 to front ½ 100 pace and “n x 50 on 2:00”, .997-.99939 to back ½ 100.
Thoughts on your questions:
On the “peak number” or we call “accumulation of potential” it appears to be in the 40% plus range of total number offered. That’s not to say that swimmers below that number are not going to swim fast it’s just that the reliability of performance can get a little inconsistent. I do have swimmers that may only achieve in the mid to high 20% and swim very fast each cycle. After 17 plus years of tracking this; I’m beginning to think it really doesn’t take much to create adaptation.
On “time to swim faster” I will use a couple of different indictors 1. Is performance “if you go faster, then you have to train faster”. It’s a double edge sword. The swimmers are all happy they went a best time and then they realize speeds are going to get faster at practice. 2. If they achieve max numbers two times in a row I’ll adjust speed and 3. Is how much time do I have until a peak performance meet?
If you use the 2nd strategy process of the Parametric System then you know that adjustment of speeds too late in the season/cycle may extend 2nd strategy and that has consciences with regards to lengthening that cycle and performance. That’s a whole other topic in itself.
Hope this helps
Oldschool"Only in America. Dream in red, white and blue"
Thank you! This absolutely helps.
In the past, I ran into the issue of adjusting the pace after making 100% of number offered in a single set but learned from that mistake very quick. I’ve been keeping the speed relatively constant but the individual differences in peak number is still something I simply need more data on.
But thanks again, and the correlations you have presented are extremely helpful. I wish everyone recorded data in that manner!
izSwimming
This is interesting stuff. Since I’ve taken the approach of changing pace times but keeping the distance the same, it will be interesting to see how the numbers look over the next month. I would like to hear more about the reducing goal time vs. increasing volume discussion over the course of this year.
Because of our training limitations and pool space for our high school, I will probably have to stick to 16 x 25’s and 12 x 50’s and keep dropping goal times.
Be nice to compare numbers.
Rick,
The only problem I have come into when keeping the distance constant is a little bit of “leveling off” after about 21-30 days at the same number. By that I mean they simply can’t swim any faster. The “miss 1 sit 1” approach while stopping after 3 failures tends to help alleviate those problems though as long as everyone understands they are expected to make less after the time has changed.
Just curious, how often do you adjust their pace times?
izSwimming and Rick,
Parametric 1st strategy approach is “distance is increasing and speed constant” so at 21-30 days you should have had an increase in numbers offered and numbers made from 12 x distance to 16-20 x distances (roughly). They can swim faster longer. Now if it’s early in the season that they are able to accomplish this then yes you adjust speed. If it’s later in the season then you have to be careful about adjusting speeds as this may have an effect on 2nd strategy which is “distance is constant and speed in increasing”Any time you adjust speed faster there will be a reduction in numbers made and that’s to be expected.
"Only in America. Dream in red, white and blue"
Wanted to keep this thread at the top. Going to try and post observations/data from past meet this coming weekend, just need to get my ducks in a row. Can say there seems to be a very strong correlation between the back half of 200 events and the goal times in 50 sets. Results were very predictable based off goal times. Also, very positive. Want to look a little more at the 100 times and my 25 sets.
Also, going to start a new topic on the personality/psychological characteristics of different swimmers. I would be very interested in seeing how this approach to training works for different types of swimmers.
to Oldschool
you often mention the parametric system. There is not that much of information I can find about this method when I google. Where can I find this?
Rob,
Sorry for the late reply. The Parametric System was developed in the late to mid 60s by former USSR researcher S. Gordon, et al. I was very fortunate to develop a relationship with one of the students of the system in the early 80s and was privileged to gain real insight into the system. I did have to learn how to word recognize and translate Russian and Lithuanian as most of the information I received was in those languages.The best thing to try and gain more insight into the system would be to go to 3s (Super Sport Systems) or Makrotone and you can read more about it. These guys are very sharp!
I can tell you this; it is race pace before USRPT. That’s why I have a lot of data that coaches starting with USRPT what to know or have questions about. I’ve done it for 17 plus years and tracked every year. No brag, fact.
I’m not trying to be short. But this post would be 3 pages long if I went into detail of: sets, how to determine development and relationship of systems, etc.
Oldschool
"Only in America. Dream in red, white and blue"
Had our first meet, so I thought I’d post some observations:
I continue to see in my small group of swimmers a strong connection between successfully completing a 12 x 50 set with no misses and actual race time. For example, swimmer’s last successfully completed 12 x 50 breast set with no misses was under :33.75. Accounting for an extra turn at the end of each 50 in a race, I was looking for around a :34.75 for last 150 of race. Splits were 30.43 1:04.73 (34.30) 1:39.60 (34.87) 2:14.72 (35.12). That gives me :34.76 average for the last 50’s.
My other 2 swimmers are only about 6 weeks into training. Results were similar until last 50 of their 200 free. Saw a definite fatigue factor kick in.
The difference between the first swimmer and the other 2 swimmers is that the first swimmer worked hard throughout the summer, and the other 2 didn’t. Oldschool, you had mentioned an accumulation of potential earlier. I wonder if this is what I’m seeing in my swimmers?
During last year’s high school season, I noticed it took about 10-12 weeks to see any improvement in “good” swimmers who showed up out of shape at the start of the season. For my “average,” non-district swimmers, it took about 6 weeks to see improvement. My definition of “improvement” was a personal best. This year, I will have about 6 or so who are ready to hit the ground running. This will actually be an improvement over last year.
Rick,
NOW we’re getting somewhere, Hot damn! It’s outstanding that you’re posting actual numbers and starting to make a correlation to training paces! Nice Job!!!!!You are dead on about “accumulation of potential”! Think about it, the better/longer you can replicate something (mastery) the easier it becomes and more reliable.
What I know from research is that it takes 10-12 weeks for the untrained regardless of skill to achieve aerobic capacity and 6-8 weeks for in-shape swimmers to achieve aerobic capacity. Makes you think why programs spend 20 weeks “getting in” shape aerobic.
Now I have a loaded question for you. Where did the first 50 of the 200 breast come from?
I’ve posted this numerous times “Let the numbers start talking to you” and that’s what’s happening.
Great job!!!!
Oldschool
"Only in America. Dream in red, white and blue"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
