I think it's more like, a general recommendation as to where to look to get most of your gains from a particular sport. By saying concentrate on form with swimming, he's not saying ignore training intensity. He's saying improved form is the "low hanging fruit", even likely for experienced swimmers.

You will not find a swim coach that doesn't agree with that. The problem with your approach is that it is really not conducive to faster competitive swimming, but more to teaching swimming to adults. That is all fine, but once you are fairly proficient at swimming, let's say 25min for 1500m, your "teachings" are pretty useless.

---

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!

there might be benefit in reducing intensity to go longer, or more carefully etc etc

especially for a triathlete who will be training their cardio plenty anyway

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Also keep in mind that Jack Daniels knows what is economy. You either don't, or for the purpose of selling DVD's you're twisting the definition.

---

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!

Exactly - energy savings are always the low-hanging fruit in swimming. As well, it's not an Efficiency OR Fitness proposition. When you focus on Efficiency, BOTH happen - with the fitness you develop being exactly specific to the demands of the movement you're practicing.
When you focus on Fitness -- unless you're a high-skilled swimmer - Efficiency usually suffers.

Let me explain more fully

The current issue of Triathlete has a column providing a 4-week "train for Xterra" program with suggested workouts for Swim, Bike and Run.
A sample Swim workout from that article reads:
Swim 1 Hr Threshold - Main set: 15 x 100 on 20 sec rest, holding 1500 pace minus 2-3 sec.
The bike and run workouts listed read very similarly - distance, rest, pace.

That's a "fitness" workout. The majority of triathletes who follow it, unfortunately, will likely "practice inefficiency" while striving to keep pace with the one-size-fits-all numbers prescribed.

In an efficiency-focused version of the same practice, the key numbers would be SPL, Stroke Rate and general sense of ease or sustainability. These numbers, rather than prescribed arbitrarily, would relate specifically to the athlete's current best standards.

If the athlete had previously completed 15 x 100 with, say, an average of 17 SPL in a 25m pool, at an average Stroke Rate of 1.20 sec/stroke, they might aim to "raise the bar" by slightly reducing the average SPL -- perhaps holding 16 SPL for 75 m on the first 5 x 100, for 50m on the 2nd 5 and for 25m on the 3rd 5, while keeping SR and rest interval the same as previously.

Conditioning would still "happen" but it the metabolic activity - capillarization, production of muscle enzymes, secretion of myelin on desired neural pathways -- would be for improved-efficiency movements. I.E. The adaptation that allows you to RACE with that combination would be occurring.

Moreover the level of metabolic demand would be specific to THAT combination of SPL, SR and distance, not something extrapolated from an exercise physiology text. (And as I noted previously all those recommendations on how to attain Threshold, VO2max, etc. were generated in studies done on treadmills and exercise bikes, not while swimming.)

When you train as advocated in that article - focus purely on how far, how hard - where is your assurance that quality neural patterning takes place?

This is almost unique to swimming. You could do the suggested run and bike workouts in the article and probably get the outcome you're seeking, because as Jack Daniels notes,on land better physiology equals better performance. In swimming, it doesn't. Better economy (which he equates to "becoming more amphibian" equals better performance.

How do you get it? Practices that are DESIGNED to produce it.

---

Terry Laughlin
Head Coach & CEO (Chief Executive Optimist)
http://www.totalimmersion.net
See Terry in Open Water at http://www.youtube.com/...-jaWKjHus&fmt=18.

- In swimming, the big improvements come mainly from technique, especially with beginners.

This is true as far as it goes but it is a circular argument. What almost everyone ignores is the fact that improvements in techique very often come from gains earned through hard training like getting stronger and improving flexibility. You need physical tools to execute good technique. So, when swimmer X is faster than swmmer Y because of better technique, swimmer X may have that better technique because of training.

- Improvements in fitness have far less impact in the water: I have tested adolescent age-group swimmers who had the same VO2max as elite college women swimmers. But the women swam much faster because they were far more economical in swimming.

This is true, have been a very good swimmer, decent cyclist and pathetic runner, I can attest to the fact that the aerobic demands of swimming once you are good at it are quite a bit lower than the other two sports and less of a factor in success. However, see above for the reason that consistant hard training is actually more important in swimming than cycling or running.

As Lou Tharp, the swim coach for West Point Tri Team wrote on one thread: "Never chase speed in swimming; let it come to you."

Those who wait for swim speed wait in vain. Swimmers who swim fast work very hard and they get faster because they fight for a second or two at a time, every day, all day.

a fat smoker with half a lung and no athletic background has the physical tools to swim efficiently.

swim efficiency isn't (primarily) coming from practice and physiological adaptation like in running

it comes from learning to move your body properly in the water

that is the point being made.

learning to swim properly is the biggest factor in getting faster, not making your swimming muscles stronger or cardio better.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Empty rhetoric: Instead of sound bites, please present specific examples of things TI teaches that hinder speed development beyond a 25 min pace per 1500.

At age 56, I swam 3200m (USMS 2-Mile Cable Swim Championship 2007), without a wetsuit, in 46:20, which is a pace of 21:30 for 1500m. Same race TI Coaches Steve Shtab and Dave Barra swam 44:48 and 44:54 - which translates to 1500 pace of sub-21 min.

Nicholas Sterghos of West Point Tri Team improved from unable to complete 1500m to 20 min in two years.

Put up or shut up, as the saying goes.

---

Terry Laughlin
Head Coach & CEO (Chief Executive Optimist)
http://www.totalimmersion.net
See Terry in Open Water at http://www.youtube.com/...-jaWKjHus&fmt=18.

Jack has written an excellent book, Daniel's Running Formula, which you can have for a worthwhile investment of $19.95.

Unfortunately, in your formulation, any advice he may offer -- for free -- on a public forum must be viewed with suspicion.

---

Terry Laughlin
Head Coach & CEO (Chief Executive Optimist)
http://www.totalimmersion.net
See Terry in Open Water at http://www.youtube.com/...-jaWKjHus&fmt=18.

it comes from learning to move your body properly in the water

that is the point being made.

learning to swim properly is the biggest factor in getting faster, not making your swimming muscles stronger or cardio better.


We're kind of saying the same thing. My point is that a big part of "swimming better" comes from gaining swim specific strength. I'm not discounting techinique at all, I am just suggesting that you can not simply "learn" to execute great technique any more than you can "learn" to do one armed pushups. One armed push ups involve quite a bit of technique and you do have to learn that technique to do them but you won't be able to go right from the book to the floor and execute that technique. And, even if I "learn" to do one one armed push up. If my goal is to do 5, hitting the books harder is not going to get me there.

Why do you think that lowered SPL is more efficient than higher SPL? Is not the same work being done (assuming equal hydrodynamics)?

This is coming from someone who last week did 15x100 scy on 1:20, holding 1:11 or 1:12 (last one was 1:08 or so), and typically taking 20-21 SPL. And I'm 51.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Umm . . . I'm nearly old enough to be their grandparent . . . and have a job and family limiting me to training about 20% of what they do . . . and did that swim in open water without a wetsuit . . . and was answering a post that claimed TI is useless beyond a pace of 25 min. , . .

What exactly was your point?

---

Terry Laughlin
Head Coach & CEO (Chief Executive Optimist)
http://www.totalimmersion.net
See Terry in Open Water at http://www.youtube.com/...-jaWKjHus&fmt=18.

I'm interested in hearing how Terry measures economy in the pool...


(Swimmers x course fee) - (pool rental + instructor pay) + DVD & Book sales.

That was kind of mean but I couldn't resist ;-)

A lower SPL isn't necessarily or always more efficient. The point isn't to get the lowest SPL but to find the optimal. The optimal isn't one nuimber - even for the same athlete. It's whatever produces the lowest energy cost for the distance and pace.

However, please keep in mind this is a triathlon forum. How many triathletes have already achieved their optimal SPL. Given that, am I on fairly safe ground, giving a set example that includes - as one element - a goal of moderately improving SPL.

And in that sample set I didn't ONLY specify lower SPL. I also included a stipulation to maintain SR -- if you were exaggerating SL you wouldn't be able to do that -- and sense of ease, which would clearly indicate efficiency.


Ken that is certainly an impressive set for a 51 y.o. I couldn't come close to matching it right now, though I did some similar sets at 55 and 56 when I was prioritizing performance. With one key difference. I did them with an SPL of 15 or so.

We may be different heights -- I'm 6' and that SPL is "right" for my height.

But more to the point is that I wasn't training for pool performance, but for OW performance.

Jonty Skinner, while Performance Science Director for USA Swimming did a study comparing the technique of swimmers who did better in 25 yd pools with those who performed better in 50m pools.

His conclusion was the the SCY specialists had shorter, higher turnover, strokes with higher arm forces. The LCM specialists used longer, lower rate strokes that relied more on weight shifts for power.

Why the difference? In SCY -- particularly with the long underwater dolphin pushoffs - you can spend up to 40% of the race "not swimming." I.E. Giving your hard-working arms a rest as you push off. It's work hard, generate speed, for a relatively short burst, then recover enuf to do it again.

In LCM, you spend only some 12% to 15% of the race not-swimming. So a style that leads to arm fatigue becomes non-viable.

How much of an OW race can you spend "not swimming?'

I've made a choice to practice OW form at all times. It means I can't keep up with Masters teammates on many occasions when the coach has us doing 25 yd sprints.

But I'm glad to have done so when racing in OW.

What you might want to consider is whether -- for the sake of better OW racing -- you might be better off swimming those sets in fewer strokes, even if you swim them slower and need to take a longer rest interval.

---

Terry Laughlin
Head Coach & CEO (Chief Executive Optimist)
http://www.totalimmersion.net
See Terry in Open Water at http://www.youtube.com/...-jaWKjHus&fmt=18.

Why the difference? In SCY -- particularly with the long underwater dolphin pushoffs - you can spend up to 40% of the race "not swimming." I.E. Giving your hard-working arms a rest as you push off. It's work hard, generate speed, for a relatively short burst, then recover enuf to do it again.

Another possiblity (and it supports your point) is that SCY swimming does not penalize less efficient swimmers as much as long course swimming those allowing for more folks with higher turnover/shorter stroke to excel.

The problem with the stroke per length metric is not in the theory but in the application. IMHO too many folks spent too much time counting strokes instead of counting seconds on the pace clock. SPL without factoring in time becomes meaningless at some point.

Well, this suspicion that anything I post here has cynical commercial intent seems pretty pronounced. If people think the fact that TI publishes self-help materials and offers coaching and tries to operate in a business-like manner -- i.e. make enough to keep the doors open -- necessarily taints the credibility of anything I post, I'll make myself scarce.

Just curious: Are the people who mfr, some of those costly goodies that take a few grams off the weight of your bike equally suspect for the sin of being in business?

Or Mr Slowman , who derives revenue for the service of exposing your eyeballs to the ads on each page of this site . . . making it possible for people to express suspicion for my motivation?

I couldn't resist asking.

---

Terry Laughlin
Head Coach & CEO (Chief Executive Optimist)
http://www.totalimmersion.net
See Terry in Open Water at http://www.youtube.com/...-jaWKjHus&fmt=18.

"I'll make myself scarce"

They chased away Gary Hall Sr., so you're in good company!

Which is precisely why - in the set example I provided -- I include SR as a corollary.

If you take 17 SPL at an SR of 1.2 sec, that lap -- allowing 3 beep intervals for pushoff -- takes 24 sec. If you reduce to 16 SPL, while maintaining 1.2 sec/stroke, you not only save 1 stroke, you also save 1.2 sec. (Which, over 1500m saves 72 seconds! Not shabby)

If you think about it, this set kinda makes the pace clock meaningless. The pace clock only REPORTS your time. Your movements have to PRODUCE it. And more efficient movements, completed at the same frequency REDUCE your time.

The set I described is 100% focused on actions that positively impact your pace. The alternate, fitness-focused, set produces only some abstract and unknowable aerobic effect. (Do they give podium places for a higher threshold?)

---

Terry Laughlin
Head Coach & CEO (Chief Executive Optimist)
http://www.totalimmersion.net
See Terry in Open Water at http://www.youtube.com/...-jaWKjHus&fmt=18.