Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [saltman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Yes, but you are talking about micro changes, not macro changes. I don't believe it is possible for someone to have that significant of a change in V02 from one activity to another.

That being said, I believe I erroneously confused genetic ability with fitness, so I understand your point and appreciate the clarity.
Sure it is. VO2 simply reflects the amount of muscle mass that is exercising aerobically. I can assure you that DevPaul has a totally different VO2 when XC skiing than when cycling or running or swimming.

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [Corn] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hello Corn: there is a dive and underwater momentum before the breakout for actuall swimming. His rate was around 110/min.

Some sprinters train for rates close to 120/min. Distance swimmers at rates of around 80-100/min. In open water, one needs an arsenel of rates for the dynamic environment.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Gerry Rodrigues
http://www.tower26.com
twitter: @tower_26
FB: Tower 26
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [tigerchik] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
do you mind sharing your numbers from bike v run vo2? curious tiger-cat


Oh, no. I did the bike/run back in 2006 when I first started training for triathlon and will have to check my srtuff at home what the numbers were. Ever since I have only done treadmill and the last time last year it was 74.

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [Gerry Rodrigues] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:

I think much of this stroke rate confusion comes from the elegance and easy swimming taught by TI and others about total front quadrant swimming and massive rotation; this slows stroke rate, especially at the slower swimmer level, and those with weak or non-existant kicks. Also, to the swimmer without an extensive competitive background, which is the majority, they tend to misunderstand or be misled visually when watching great swimmers race. They see long, elegant, and sleek strokes above the water, being deceived by the rate of turnover (hand velocity) beneath the water, and the power/watts generated. That underwater stroke rate is what mystifies that observer as the arm velocity is significant relative to an average lap swimmer or aspiring triathlete, which is much of the TI audience to my understanding.

And that goes doubly so when it comes to kick. Go to any decent USS team practice in America and watch the senior group do a 500-1000 'recovery' kick set. The swimmers feet are barely moving; heart rates are low enough that the 14 year old girls can go two abreast and gossip loudly about that cute boy in Geometry class. By any visual measure, they're a bunch of light and ineffective kickers who are just barely getting themselves across the pool.

And then you look over at the pace clock, and notice that their kick technique is both so subtle and excellent that they're holding 1:30s on a 1:40/100 sendoff time even though it seems like they're putting no effort or movement into the kick at all.
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [FLA Jill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:

I think much of this stroke rate confusion comes from the elegance and easy swimming taught by TI and others about total front quadrant swimming and massive rotation; this slows stroke rate, especially at the slower swimmer level, and those with weak or non-existant kicks. Also, to the swimmer without an extensive competitive background, which is the majority, they tend to misunderstand or be misled visually when watching great swimmers race. They see long, elegant, and sleek strokes above the water, being deceived by the rate of turnover (hand velocity) beneath the water, and the power/watts generated. That underwater stroke rate is what mystifies that observer as the arm velocity is significant relative to an average lap swimmer or aspiring triathlete, which is much of the TI audience to my understanding.


And that goes doubly so when it comes to kick. Go to any decent USS team practice in America and watch the senior group do a 500-1000 'recovery' kick set. The swimmers feet are barely moving; heart rates are low enough that the 14 year old girls can go two abreast and gossip loudly about that cute boy in Geometry class. By any visual measure, they're a bunch of light and ineffective kickers who are just barely getting themselves across the pool.

And then you look over at the pace clock, and notice that their kick technique is both so subtle and excellent that they're holding 1:30s on a 1:40/100 sendoff time even though it seems like they're putting no effort or movement into the kick at all.

i had the opportunity to swim "with" (in the same pool) as the local varsity squad. It was truly embarrassing that they were doing their kick sets faster than I was swimming. And like you say, it was effortless.
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"I can tell you what definitely works for a beginner like me to get a lot faster, though. Swim 15,000k per week. For months. That DEFINITELY works, and is absolutely indisputable."

I've had periods when because of injury I couldn't run and my bike mileage was limited, so I increased my swim volume. Yes, I got noticeably faster in the water (although I was still dreadfully slow relative to most here). But I didn't retain the improvement in speed when my volume in all three sports returned to normal. In my mind that seemed to beg the question: Did I really get faster because I was becoming a better swimmer, or was it because I wasn't so energy-depleted during those periods from running and cycling?

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [MOP_Mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"That is a 55:41 IM swim pace. Granted, that's a lot faster than I can swim, but a lot slower than many here. How can that be a USMS record?"

Are USMS swims draft-legal?

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [Rob C in FL] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I would guess a little of both: fatigue from other sports can carry over to swimming, tired legs are no fun for kicking

you probably DID get faster, then didn't swim enough to keep it.

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [tigerchik] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What I was trying to do was discuss fitness while being careful not to confuse genetic talent with fitness and I agreed with you by the way. But that being said everything I have read measures V02max is a general number. It can be attained using a number of testing protocols, most commonly the bike or treadmill test, however I suspect some genious will come along and create a test someday that can measure pure aerobic capacity without the bias of a sport specific fitness.

A person that has a measured V02max of 85 while running, biking, xc-sking, or knitting is not going to have a V02max of 5 while swimming, it simply isn't going to happen. But is that because of "sport specific fitness" as you suggest or genetics? I think there is sufficient evidence to suggest that those that are able to excel at one endurance sport are genetically predisposed towards having success at another. Is there an ideal sport for each person? of course! But you are not going to have wild swings in V02max tests from sports that rely heavily on the human bodies ability to process oxygen. What you may see is a person that has a V02max of 85 under the riding protocol and 78 under the runnning protocol. Yes, I suppose that person is more fit as a cyclist than as a runner, but then again measuring fitness (whether sport specific or not) isn't an exact science is it??

Still many, myself included are guilty of using the V02max number as a measure of fitness when in reality its by and large more a measure of talent. Fitness I suppose would be better defined as a % of an individual baseline V02max number but again that would require a test to determine said baseline without a testing protocol bias.
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [saltman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I certainly don't have a dog in the fight in ANY fast swimming thread (this is my 1st post on ST). But, I am the poster who started the discussion on BT.

The original discussion had NOTHING to do with swimming speed. My Q (and HTFU reference) was.....as a beginner swimmer...do I need to just HTFU and fight through the discomfort I feel when I reach a certain point? CAN I? Or, do I need to NOT put myself in that postition in the 1st place.

That was it. It morphed.

I swam my 1st length in MANY years (I'm 45) a few weeks ago. Since then, I've been in the pool a total of about 30+X. ALL I'm after, at this point, is getting to 5-600yds, non-stop (my longest swim so far has been 200yds). That's it. Hence my Q, there (this epic thread).

I'll CERTAINLY not do anything except thank Terry for his effort to help me. I found it refreshing. I still do. He disagrees that I should have to encounter a lot of discomfort to reach my goal. Is he right? Or, do I need to HTFU? That's the Q. I don't know the answer. But I do think he's positive he does (for MY situation).

We'll see.
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [nc452010] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I certainly don't have a dog in the fight in ANY fast swimming thread (this is my 1st post on ST). But, I am the poster who started the discussion on BT.

The original discussion had NOTHING to do with swimming speed. My Q (and HTFU reference) was.....as a beginner swimmer...do I need to just HTFU and fight through the discomfort I feel when I reach a certain point? CAN I? Or, do I need to NOT put myself in that postition in the 1st place.

That was it. It morphed.

I swam my 1st length in MANY years (I'm 45) a few weeks ago. Since then, I've been in the pool a total of about 30+X. ALL I'm after, at this point, is getting to 5-600yds, non-stop (my longest swim so far has been 200yds). That's it. Hence my Q, there (this epic thread).

I'll CERTAINLY not do anything except thank Terry for his effort to help me. I found it refreshing. I still do. He disagrees that I should have to encounter a lot of discomfort to reach my goal. Is he right? Or, do I need to HTFU? That's the Q. I don't know the answer. But I do think he's positive he does (for MY situation).

We'll see.
Well, your question goes back to the philosophy of running I learned at the Honolulu Marathon Clinic when I (and thousands of others) were trying to learn how to do a marathon. Not race a marathon but to do a marathon. The key, SLOW DOWN!!!. It is hard for the average male to do this as they don't think they are accomplishing anything unless they are going hard and fast. That is not a good way to learn how to run long. Beginners do not learn how to run a marathon by doing 400 repeats. I suspect it is also not a good way to learn how to swim long.

If you simply put the time in the water and stay within your aerobic limits you will soon be at your goal if you do this regularly. If you also pay attention to your technique while you are doing so you will also come out of this phase of your training faster and better off for the next phase than if you did not.

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [nc452010] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I certainly don't have a dog in the fight in ANY fast swimming thread (this is my 1st post on ST). But, I am the poster who started the discussion on BT.

The original discussion had NOTHING to do with swimming speed. My Q (and HTFU reference) was.....as a beginner swimmer...do I need to just HTFU and fight through the discomfort I feel when I reach a certain point? CAN I? Or, do I need to NOT put myself in that postition in the 1st place.

That was it. It morphed.

I swam my 1st length in MANY years (I'm 45) a few weeks ago. Since then, I've been in the pool a total of about 30+X. ALL I'm after, at this point, is getting to 5-600yds, non-stop (my longest swim so far has been 200yds). That's it. Hence my Q, there (this epic thread).

I'll CERTAINLY not do anything except thank Terry for his effort to help me. I found it refreshing. I still do. He disagrees that I should have to encounter a lot of discomfort to reach my goal. Is he right? Or, do I need to HTFU? That's the Q. I don't know the answer. But I do think he's positive he does (for MY situation).

We'll see.


While I'm no coach, based on your goals I'd say Terry's prgram is perfect.

________________
Blogging
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [nc452010] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Welcome to ST...you'll have to put your big boy pants on, but all is good.

TI may be perfect for a person in your position, but as others have indicated, once you achieve your first goal (not drowning while swimming 1,000 yards non-stop)...there are many other ways to accomplish the next goal - speed at the same 1K yards.

You'll be fine and up to a 55 min IM swim in no time, as this is the ST median and expected of all who post here.

"you know, aero trumps training ;-) "
R10C 10/09
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [nc452010] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Read up man....this thread is a wealth of knowledge. There are some seriously knowledgable peeps that posted some valuable information on this thread and I for one enjoyed the discussion.
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [Boudreaux] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'll play a while....lol.

Here's the thing. I can swim a 2:05/100......and be taxed (130+HR). I can also swim a 1:22/100 (all-out)....and, naturally, be spent. I can't seem to get past the 200yd threshold, because I at least "think" I'm not capable of going further. And, based on how I feel at that moment.....I'm not sure I am.

Now, to you guys who do this swimming thing....and have for a long time....this is laughable. I can assure you that to ME it is not. I've never sucked at anything athletic. I'm on the "suck" threshold, swimming.

Swimming slow seems VERY laboring to me. Swimming faster takes everything I have (both have my HR spiked, QUICKLY).

Now...I apologize. THIS thread had nothing to do with MY situation....lol.

I'm out.

jeff
Last edited by: nc452010: May 19, 10 13:31
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [saltman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
What I was trying to do was discuss fitness while being careful not to confuse genetic talent with fitness and I agreed with you by the way. But that being said everything I have read measures V02max is a general number. It can be attained using a number of testing protocols, most commonly the bike or treadmill test, however I suspect some genious will come along and create a test someday that can measure pure aerobic capacity without the bias of a sport specific fitness.

A person that has a measured V02max of 85 while running, biking, xc-sking, or knitting is not going to have a V02max of 5 while swimming, it simply isn't going to happen. But is that because of "sport specific fitness" as you suggest or genetics? I think there is sufficient evidence to suggest that those that are able to excel at one endurance sport are genetically predisposed towards having success at another. Is there an ideal sport for each person? of course! But you are not going to have wild swings in V02max tests from sports that rely heavily on the human bodies ability to process oxygen. What you may see is a person that has a V02max of 85 under the riding protocol and 78 under the runnning protocol. Yes, I suppose that person is more fit as a cyclist than as a runner, but then again measuring fitness (whether sport specific or not) isn't an exact science is it??

Still many, myself included are guilty of using the V02max number as a measure of fitness when in reality its by and large more a measure of talent. Fitness I suppose would be better defined as a % of an individual baseline V02max number but again that would require a test to determine said baseline without a testing protocol bias.

Your notion that people should be similarly good at running / swimming without sport-specific training amazes me.

Even if you have a VO2 if 90, if your arms (or legs if running) are not conditioned enough to use it, you can't tap into it.

I can guarantee you that if Michael Phelps did a typical VO2 test for running, with no run training, he'd be quite underwhelming. Likely slower than myself, actually, and by a good bit. Put him in the pool though, and he'll put up monstrous numbers for a pool VO2 test. Yes, with run training, he will be able to get his run-tested VO2 closer to his swim-tested VO2, but it's almost certain that he won't be a world-class runner as he is a swimmer. He simply doesn't have enough miles in his legs as a runner to tap into his VO2 to put up a commensurate run performance.

You absolutely must have sport-specific conditioning regardless of your theoretical VO2max. Your notion that you should have similar ability across disparate sports without sport-specific training is completely wrong. In fact, it's very unusual for a triathlete to be good at all 3 roughly equally, particularly if they came from a single sport background.
Last edited by: lightheir: May 19, 10 13:58
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
apparantly I am speaking a different language to both you and tc, because I already said I agree......3 times now.....that being said V02max is not a measure of speed!

Furthermore I NEVER said similarly good and clarified that I was trying to be careful not to mistake talent with fitness. Of course, Lance did run a 2:59 marathon on essentially no run training. I wonder what he was relying on, oh yes his V02, but as I mentioned that is much more a measure of talent than fitness?? And I might put money on Michael Phelps over you in a 5K.
Last edited by: saltman: May 19, 10 14:07
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [saltman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
apparantly I am speaking a different language to both you and tc, because I already said I agree......3 times now.....that being said V02max is not a measure of speed!

Well if you're so correct, please explain away my scenario above where we decide to run-test Michael Phelps with a 5k run with no run training, and he clocks a 21:00 5k despite his obvious world-class VO2 per swimming results?

Your efforts to misdirect the relevant conversation above the obvious point we're making that SPORT-SPEFIC TRAINING IS CRUCIAL REGARDLESS OF VO2 are really painful to watch.

If the world worked as you claim, runners would jump in the pool and start ripping off 1:05s with no swim training, and swimmers would run 34:00 10ks with no mileage in their legs. I'd love to live in your world, but it's not a real one.

Michael Phelps should be able to beat me in a 5k - if he run trained. But I doubt he can go 17:50 with no training. I happen to know two local triguys who nearly qualified for the Olympics in swimming, and as I mentioned before - they're not catching me any time soon on the run, and they've been at it awhile. (WOW they can swim though!)

And because you brought it up - a 2:59 for Lance is NOTHING compared to his world-class performance as a cyclist. I've run sub-3, and I couldn't even hang with the slowest guy in a semi-pro US tour, let alone a world international tour. Even his 2:40 is way too slow to be considered anywhere remotely close to his accomplishments on the bike. Which further proves the point that sport specific training is crucial.

And to add to the endless bad information you've posted on this forum - a marathon is NOT a heavily VO2 dependent race. VO2-dependent races are 5k distance length races. Marathons are not run anywhere near that pace. To say his 2:59 was due mainly to his VO2 is also hugely incorrect.

I'm done arguing these obvious points with you - I'm obviously not going to convince you. But fortunately, nobody else is buying your false info as well, it seems.
Last edited by: lightheir: May 19, 10 14:15
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dude, I fucking conceded the point. Learn to read.

What you are not understanding is my distinction between talent and fitness. I am not going to debate something in theory, I have no idea what Michael Phelps V02max is.

Nowhere did I say that one person can easily crossover from WC in one sport to another. Nice strawman.
Last edited by: saltman: May 19, 10 14:17
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I happen to know two local triguys who nearly qualified for the Olympics in swimming, and as I mentioned before - they're not catching me any time soon on the run, and they've been at it awhile. (WOW they can swim though!)

Maybe that is less an indication of their lack of running ability and more and indication your inability to swim? Maybe swimming doesn't take a huge aerobic engine? Maybe it really is about technique!! Maybe "fitness" for swimming should be defined as having superior technique. My point from the beginning of this conversation is that your heart and lungs are not your limiters for swimming fast. I admitted numerous times I did a poor job of explaining that.
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [Rob C in FL] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
"That is a 55:41 IM swim pace. Granted, that's a lot faster than I can swim, but a lot slower than many here. How can that be a USMS record?"

Are USMS swims draft-legal?


I think they are, but I'm not sure. But for sure there's no bike/run afterwards...and not many IM's that I know of have a sighting cable.

(Though I have done one HIM with a sighting cable (Grand Columbian) and I have to say that it's awesome not having to sight -- you just put your head down and hammer.) :-)


"100% of the people who confuse correlation and causation end up dying."
Last edited by: MOP_Mike: May 19, 10 14:32
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [saltman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Don't call me a strawman when this is the crap IN THIS VERY THREAD you yourself posted that I'm referring to:

From Saltman:

"Let me be clear, I am not an expert, but I don't believe the term "fitness" is sport specific. "

"The fact that you think it takes "fitness in your arms"....whatever that is, shows you haven't a clue what you are talking about. "

"Read any of the running guru posts around here and they will tell you speed sessions aren't necessary for "most" people to improve running fitness."

"If your problem is the fact that he is exploiting his "mediocre" skills for personal gain....I gotta say tough shit. If you have superior knowledge and a better record as an athlete, take a fucking business class and make some money, it just sounds a bit like sour grapes I guess. I expected more from some of the folks here. "

"Of course, Lance did run a 2:59 marathon on essentially no run training. I wonder what he was relying on, oh yes his V02"

"Maybe swimming doesn't take a huge aerobic engine?"

I don't even have to explain these to show how off-base they are.
Last edited by: lightheir: May 19, 10 14:42
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is ridiculous. I think you do need to explain how those comments are off base other than perhaps the first one which BY THE FUCKING WAY I ADMITTED TO BEING OFF BASE NOW 6 TIMES after I admitted that I wasn't an expert. jesus christ man...you are a real piece of work.
Last edited by: saltman: May 19, 10 15:25
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [tigerchik] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
VO2 max is not fitness.

fitness is resistance to fatigue, and is sport specific, so you've got that part right.

but VO2 is not fitness, it is the engine that causes the fatigue. Resistance to fatigue is something else altogether. This is why elite athletes with the same VO2 (or me for that matter, a slow guy with a high VO2) can get such different race times.

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”
Quote Reply
Re: Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion in a fascinating debate on BT [ericM35-39] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
VO2 max is not fitness.


This is where I made a mistake early on and what I have been tragically trying to clarify. I don't know if "resistance to fatigue" is the textbook definition of fitness, but is seems like the best one I have heard yet.
Last edited by: saltman: May 19, 10 15:27
Quote Reply

Prev Next