Season end data
- This topic has 18 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
All,
Here is the data from season end for our Mid Distance group. I chose stroke, but free has roughly the same correlations .89 or higher. They are mainly strokers 100/200 or 2/4 IM.n x 25 are 1st 50 of 100
n x 50 on 2:00 are 2nd 50 of 100
n x 50 on 1:00 are the avg, of 2, 3 & 4 of 200above .9 in correlating training pace to race speed is, I’d say pretty good.
I really can’t believe that coaches don’t have data to report? It’s really sad.
Doc
? All that is not shared... is lost.The correlation between the training pace and end result is mind-boggling. More teams need to try this. Good work keeping track of everything and keeping organized!
Any data for the 50 FR and the other strokes? I’m still not sure how to train and write sets for 50s.
I’ve been tracking this for over 20+ years and truthfully, it’s not that hard. The tracking is really easy as long as you stay up with it and don’t get behind. I track about 14 standard sets and 42 swimmers. The majority of the correlations are .884 or higher, with most above .934. Kinda mind boggling that it’s that simple.
Here’s some data on our 50 freestyle kids. This is “n x 25 fr on 2:00”. They are done from a push and correlated to actual race performance. I get coaches all the time saying “well what about the start or what factor do you use for turns?” None! the data shows don’t really need to. Trying to keep it simple and yet correlate training to race performance.
I do have a couple of younger college coaches that send me data and they are tracking very close on their training to race speeds also.
? All that is not shared... is lost.Interesting, so you just split 50 goal time in half and start from there for training pace? e.i. Someone shooting for a 22.00 should be doing Nx25 @ 2:00 while holding 11.00? Do you have your swimmers duck under a second early and leave on the 0 or do you have them duck under on the 0? Sorry for the all the questions!
Any idea why some of the sets / events correlate better than others? Which events correlated the least? I’m curious as to why some correlate better than others.
Also, how often do you repeat sets throughout a week or month, and about how many of each 25,50,75 are most swimmers completing during one of the sets, not including the failed reps?
I read your post about prioritization of lifting and the similarities and differences of swimming. Do you think allowing more or less failure reps during different parts of the season will yield better performance? e.i. peak of season allow the swimmers to reach 5 failure reps then slowly “taper” down to only one failure per set right before a big meet. Just a thought.
No problem. Drop on the 9 and push-off on 00. I’m not going to tell you every swimmer adheres to this. Sure some cheat. Maybe in their mind when they hear the time that they’re some how “killing” it. But the funny thing is it really doesn’t change their performance. “It all comes out in the wash” 🙂
For “n x 25 on 2:00” I split GS in half and that’s were they start. Correct and it’s not easy.
I think the reason for higher/lower correlations is numbers done at speed. We’ll see the majority of the kids that have made 60% of the number offered achieve better reliability of that speed. Makes sense. Also it will have to do with events they swim. While you maybe in the Mid-Dist. Group and doing 25s on 2:00, they may only swim a 50 maybe one time in a season and that might be on a relay.
I repeat protocol sets 3 to 4 times a week. Now they maybe be in a different order, one workout might be “n x 25 stk on 1:00” as the first set and then they would go into “n x 50 stk on 2:00” working front half 50 and then back half 50. The third set might be “n x 100 :15/:30 ri” working back half of 200 free. The next workout might be 50s on 2, then 100s and then 25s. The reason for moving them around is to give the kids an opportunity to improve their numbers made. Example: If 100s are always the last set there is some accumulation of fatigue from the first 2 sets and they never get a chance to really see what the can do. I have a 4 week cycle that I follow and it’s worked very well with the collegiate program.
Completion of numbers. I have built in to the spreadsheet based off the current group average what the number made should be. Is it perfect, hell no. But it does give the kids something to strive for other than just swimming back and forth and “hoping”. If I can get them to at least achieve the group average great!
Allowing more reps to failure. My gut tells me that you’d be closer to a traditional style of training and using volume instead of speed to some out even out the equation.
I really don’t have a “peak season”. Sure about 4-6 weeks out I would like to have the kids doing high numbers. But If I’ve been doing my job, I’ve been adjusting speeds all season long. I may have some at new speeds and can’t get to higher numbers done. That’s a whole other topic of when to adjust speeds.
I’ve attached a couple of files. 1. Mid-Dist. Group data from 15-16 and 16-17. 2. Is thoughts of Traditional Model vs. Endurance thru Speed.
Just food for thought
? All that is not shared... is lost.@doc: care to answer your own questions there? 🙂
Also, I’d like to read more on the parametric system, but info is hard to find, could you help me with that?
Hey Kevin!
I’ll work backwards with your questions. Understanding the Parametric System. The Russians I learned from really don’t do much with it any more. The only place that has any information that’s current is the 3S System and Dr. Beliaev. Who I believe was a student of Dr Sergei Gordon in Russia. I’ll tell you right now in less you are willing to pay they ain’t sharing any information and I don’t blame them. I will go on their blog on occasion and see what the Dr. was written and because I know a little more background information I understand what he is talking about. The problem with the system is you have to be a record keeper or you can pay for 3S to keep the data. If you ask questions I will help you with what I know and have data for. If I don’t I’ll tell you.Now on to the WORD doc. questions:
1. It’s pretty simple. Are you getting done what needs to be done or are you a babysitter? Because practice is from 4-6, and god forbid they get out early. What’s the objective of workout? Occupy 2 hours or get something done.2. 4 x 25 (ATP-PC) and 20 x 25 (Zone III or MaxVO2) the same? Think about it. This is a speed that has a 0.979 correlation to first 50 of 100 and the swimmer can do 20 of them. Something has happened to how the body handles that effort. The swimmer moved from only being able to do 100 (4×25) to 500 (20×25) at first 50 of the 100 pace. “Endurance thru Speed”
3. 6 x 50 on 1:00 (Zone IV) to 16 x 50 on 1:00 (Zone III-II), again you are holding a speed that has a 0.966 correlation to 200 pace out to 800. “Endurance thru Speed”
4. 100s question 4 x 100 is roughly Zone III (500 pace) and you can now take that out to 1600-2000 (Zone IIish)total y/m. Again “Endurance thru Speed”.
Hope this helps
? All that is not shared... is lost.The 3S website seems to have died, so no more info there.Edit: I was looking at the wrong website, it’s now: http://supersportsystems.comOn the correlation between training and competition: since you/we are asking a swimmer to swim at a certain pace, derived from competition times and make them stop if they cannot make it, isn’t it expected to have high correlation between training and competition times?
Also, % of total offered is a not a particularly interesting stat, no? I could ask them to do 50 reps each time and they would never make 50% of that. Not trying to be annoying, just asking 🙂
I get that there is a transition between energy systems in a set. Where do you think this transition is make for sets like nx25@1, nx50@1, nx25@30 etc?
This is going to be a long reply,
With regards to the correlations. Yes we should expect it.
Some history. Over 17+ years ago correlations of training to race speeds didn’t exist. The old way was to test each protocol set which usually took 2-3 weeks to accumulate the data. Let’s just take 6 x 50 on 1:00, which was the standard number for the 50s on 1:00 and you run the test after (writing each time down) you had to figure the average and stdev (average + stdev became training pace at that time). Now you have to do that for every swimmer in the group for all 6 protocol sets and that’s just for freestyle add in another 6 for stroke. I did that for the first 6 years working in the system. I figured there had to be a better way, with only 1 coach and 30 swimmers, I was going to die doing this. So one day at the office I was looking at my split book from a meet we’d just gone to and I noticed the numbers looked familiar. So I checked them against the protocol sets and they lined up. So that’s where using split times + a little extra (avg of stdev) came from. Saved a boat load of time! It has evolved from there.
I started running the correlations more as a validator for myself than anything else. Making sure that what we did in practice was actually helping improve performance and nothing more. I just wasn’t going to work off anecdotal data. Our jobs are in time and distance all of which are recordable.
% offered made. Truthfully that’s there to show coaches that the swimmer is NOT going to make 80 to 90% of what you have written down and can still have great performances. It’s also a CYA against “Why didn’t I swim fast” The question I will ask is “well lets look at the numbers and you were at 23%”. I then usually ask “if you only did 23% of your school work would you expect an A?” that usually ends the conversation. It’s holding them accountable for their training. But the coach has to know the data. It is a two-way street.
The “shifts” and where do they roughly occur. I used lower level of improvement numbers for this and there are at least 2-3 “shift” for most of the sets. Longer sets just 2.
n x 25 on 1:00 between 6-8
n x 50 on 1:00 between 11-12
n x 50 on 2:00 between 6-7ish maybe 8
n x 100 between 6-7
n x 200 between 6-7
n x 400 between 4-5
? All that is not shared... is lost.Just reporting some data for 11-14 year old A-B-C level swimmers for this current long course season. We have 1 meet to go this weekend (our state meet).
Attendance is not ideal with age groupers, therefore I don’t look at how many reps are offered, rather how many reps are attempted (when they are in the water).
Enjoy 🙂
Doc,
Thanks for the help! Currently typing up workouts and cycles to test out in the fall season. Here are the basic sets I’ve picked to test out in the fall. It’s funny how I used to do a bunch of these before USRPT even came about.
50s
Nx25@2:00 – goal time in half100s –
Nx25@2:00 – 1st 50 time in half
Nx25@1:00 – 2nd 50 time in half
Nx50@2:00 – 2nd 50 time200s
Nx50@2:00 – 1st 50 time
Nx25@0:30 – 2->8th 25 me
Nx50@1:00 – 2->4th 50 Time
Nx75@1:30 – End of race
Nx100@2:00 – End of raceWhere can I find information on the Parametric System you spoke of?
JMorgan,
Crazy time drops! It’s obvious the system you have in place works quite well. Quick question, I noticed some of the sets the swimmers only attempted <10 times. I’m just curious when you decided to offer certain sets like before or meet? That seems low compared to some of the others which had 50+ attempts.
Also,
What was your practice schedule like? (how many practices a week, how long was the season, and how long were practices?)
Thanks!
Hi there, I have a stupid question
in these set you posted that i pasted below, are you doing 25s on the 2:00 interval where it says “Nx25@2:00”. seems like a lot of rest but wanted to clarify
50s
Nx25@2:00 – goal time in half100s –
Nx25@2:00 – 1st 50 time in half
Nx25@1:00 – 2nd 50 time in half
Nx50@2:00 – 2nd 50 time200s
Nx50@2:00 – 1st 50 time
Nx25@0:30 – 2->8th 25 me
Nx50@1:00 – 2->4th 50 Time
Nx75@1:30 – End of race
Nx100@2:00 – End of race
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
