There was some research done in the mid 80's I seem to remember that said 180 steps per minute irrespective of distance you are racing is roughly what elites will have, they just have shorter or longer stride lengths. Sure if you google it you will find it.

Well in swimming there is no gearing to make it easier for hiher cadence. I cover the same distance per stroke so higher cadence just means I swim faster.

Do a forum search on "pace 180" for running

or "stroke rate" for swimming. It's been discussed here a lot.

The goal for swimming stroke rate should be a decline in the amount of strokes per pool length. The less strokes per length the more efficient one is swimming and the less energy used. Swimming is the most technical aspect of the three disciplines. The more efficient one is the better. Work on bringing your stroke count down per pool length first. Then incorporate speed keeping the stroke count the same.

I see what you're getting at, but that's an incredibly simplistic assessment of SPL and SR.

That is true to a point. Eventually you reach a point where taking less strokes is counterproductive (unless you want to brag about taking 8 strokes per lap or something). For me that point is 15/16 strokes (15 with a flip turn, 16 on the last lap) per scy. I could do in the 11 or so range by exaggerating my stroke but its not any faster.

I consciously shortened the back half of my stroke last year and swam faster as a result. Trade off is the oxygen demand goes up a bit, but that was a sacrifice I was willing to make, races aren't judged by whose using the least oxygen.

---

---------------------------------------------------------
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. ~Gandalf

"cadence is a red herring" -rchung

Racing being the key word.

As people run faster their stride length increases and so does their cadence. When you run slower both of those decrease. On a side note, it's very interesting that stride length increases to a greater degree then cadence increases.

The overwhelming majority of people would be better off not worrying about these two things when heading out the door. 95+% of people will self select the cadence and stride length that is most economical for them no matter how fast or slow they run.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

That is not true. The goal is to get faster. Period. The less strokes per length is not more efficient. It's a fallacy, and
it certainly does not apply to triathletes who are often times, not very buoyant, have poor swim mechanics, and have
a bad kick.
You do want to be more efficient in the water. But more efficient does not mean less strokes.

Strokes per length is also somewhat related to wingspan, so its kind of a useless if you have a wingspan of a dwarf to try to get to the same strokes per length as Phelps. Check out videos of Janet Evans and her times vs strokes per length....really high stroke rate and that got her not shortage of Olympic medals

Regardless of wing span, lowering the number of strokes is a useless goal per se (unless you take 234 strokes per 50m).
Thorpe and Phelps can probably do a 50m taking 2 strokes, maybe less. Doesn't make them any faster.

Hey ,yeah, I can do a length with 1 stroke.....it's called kicking on one side for a length.....and basically that's what slow swimmers who brag about how few strokes they take are doing....a kick set with a few really floppy pulls with the upper body through the length!!!

Not that we should promote horrible technique, but with a good wetsuit and a high stroke rate, you can get by pretty good....if you have a soon to be banned desoto waterrover, its literally like paddling a boat. The good thing about high stroke rate is that you can also get more oxygen

Janet Evans 1988 400m Gold 4:03


http://www.youtube.com/...&feature=related

Sun Yang 2011 Shanghai FINA World's Gold 1500m in 14:34

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-ZMbiem-V8

Check out the delta in stroke rates. Evans did 61 second per 100m, Yang did around 58...both of them largely did a 2 beat kick (Sun Yang revs it up in the final 100m)

Less strokes equals less effort. If you're going to cover 100m in 100 strokes vs 100m in 75 strokes in the same amount of time, then fewer strokes is more efficient. If most triathletes have poor mechanics then maybe they should work on acquiring good mechanics by slowing down their stroke and concentrating on proper technique. Good technique should result in fewer strokes per lenght. Who cares about a kick, that's what the wetsuit is for, to keep your legs afloat. I don't kick at all in a race. I save my legs for the bike and run. I'm 53yrs old and can swim the 1500m in under 21mins. I don't think that's too bad.

the problem with focusing on stroke rate is that it undermines what is actually occurring during the stroke cycle. many people tend to look at the high level swimmers in a competition and are convinced that their stroke rates are consistently that high at all speeds, but that isnt true. just jacking up stroke rate for the hell of it can make you less economical in the water by creating more drag and the mechanic cost of taking the stroke. strong swimmers tend to have high stroke rates in competition because there is no way to lengthen the proper stroke, therefore you have take more of them.

Less strokes does not equal less effort. Fewer strokes is not more efficient. Good biomechanics does not equate to slowing down your stroke.
Good technique does not always yield less strokes per length. Swimmers should care about kick. You not kicking at all in a race does not
mean it's better. And although 21min is decent, it's not that fantastic either.
Either you did not understand what you read, or what your coach said, or, your coach doesn't know what he is talking about, or your book on
swimming technique is rubbish.

Anything else? :-)

all of this is true, but you COULD explain it to the guy :P.

Fair enough....but there are a ton of 1:10-1:20 Ironman swimmers with a really really low stroke rate and half decent stroke length and they actually don't look that bad from "above water" and their master coaches keep trying to make their strokes longer and longer.

On the other hand, someone like Janet Evans never looked particularly good from above water, but was doing pretty good under water. I know what you guys are saying, but a lot of the way swimming is taught in masters groups is based on the "hull architecture" of the 6'6" elite swimmer.

If one is more the size of some of the elite women, probably better stroke length and rate targets would be in line with what they do in a 1500m vs what Hackett or Yang do in the same distance event.

Dev

http://web.mac.com/...iles/mecheffMSSE.pdf

this is all true. but the last statement is likely due to limb length differences. if you have shorter arms, you have to take more strokes. it pays to be tall in swimming. i swam a 48 100yrd free back in high school but never pursued swimming in college because at best, i believe that i couldve brought that down to 46 with some change. being 5'10 puts me at a serious disadvantage.

So, if good technique does not always yield less strokes per length, what does it yield? Kicking really only counts in a swimming competition. When doing a tri the kick should only be used to keep your legs afloat. When your legs drop so do the hips and now you are causing drag. Regardless of all this, the most important fact is the amount of water displaced with each stroke. The more water displaced, the more efficient the stroke. I hope we can agree on that.

Interesting article. Too bad alot has changed in swimming technique since 1990.

Agreed about the limb lengths having the largest impact...so yeah, I have no excuse for swimming slow because I have really long arms...at Muskoka in 2006, Rappstar and I stood beside each other and put our arms shoulder to shoulder (he needed to crouch over), and the arm lengths were identical. He then recommeded the same QR Superfull wetsuit that he was using....except I am like 8 inches shorter!!!

Physics hasn't changed much though. The announcement that CERN scientists may have
sent neutrinos to travel faster than the speed of light shouldn't change the physics of swimming
in a fundamental manner.

Granted if it takes 50 gals of displaced water to do a race, then the person who displaces it the fastest wins. It does not mean they are the most efficient. The person to win the swim portion of the tri is not necessarily the person who wins the whole tri. Someone could win the swim portion and expend all their energy where a person finishing a few seconds back might only used half of that. Who is more efficient?

you could just glide downstream if it was a point to point river race and use hardly any energy, but would that win you a triathlon?

youre confusing pacing with an optimal stroke versus stroke rate.

I'll match your n=1: http://athlinks.com/...&courseid=175245

And I take 19-22 strokes per 25scy (and I'm 6' tall). A smaller number of strokes for the same speed means greater effort per stroke, just as in cycling (higher cadence => lower torque for the same speed).

I've found one of the biggest stroke flaws among triathletes is low turnover.

---

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

In my opinion, the main thing that has changed in swimming since 1990 are the turns and the underwaters, but that's a whole different topic.

The kick is likely what determines the stroke rate. You take a person who is used to having a 6 beat kick and they are going to have a slower stroke rate or longer stroke length than someone with a 2 beat kick. Trying to teach someone with a 2 beat kick to have a better kick or longer stroke is likely going to do nothing more than make them slower overall. Likely. It is not an absolute fact because if their stroke is total garbage and they are taking 30 strokes for 25 yards, then they can probably improve. But, I have seen some really good...as in front pack pros...who take 25 strokes per 25 when at race pace (1:12 or so for scm or 1:08 or so for scy). Should they go work on their 'efficiency'?

So, if you take someone who naturally has a higher kick rate (4 or 6 beat) and tell them not to kick in the race, they are 'probably' going to go a lot slower in open water. In short, just like an athlete is likely going to develop the most natural running cadence for them, they are naturally going to have a way of swimming that works 'best'. So, you have to tweak that for each athlete.

---

Brandon Marsh - Website | @BrandonMarshTX | RokaSports | 1stEndurance | ATC Bikeshop |

The biggest researcher of biomechanics in running has arguably been Dr. Peter Cavanagh, formerly of Penn State. Here is his most pivotal book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/...vanagh/dp/0873222687. It may not be as ell known as Dr. Ernie Maglischo's Swimming Fast, Swimming Faster, and Swimming Fastest series, but definitely a great reference tool to have in any tri coach's library.

One of the main research topics he did was taking runners and altering their stride length coupled with the cadence and comparing to speed based on PRE. They actually found that runners are at their optimum when they choose a self-selected cadence/stride length as mentioned above. If I have time, I'll try to find it on pubmed. I might still have a paper copy of the research. I only know because I interviewed with him for grad school and wasn't goal-oriented enough:)

---

______________________________________________________
Sub-9 IM. Navy SeaBee deep sea diver. Can Do!

Janet Evans had a pretty high stroke rate, which means her 2 beat kick was pretty frequent. Don't under estimate how much an efficient powerful 2 beat kick will improve swim speed

---

___________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eoesophageal_fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
2020 National Masters Champion - M40-44 - 400m IM
Canadian Record Holder 35-39M & 40-44M - 200 m Butterfly (LCM)

The fallacy in that argument is that you're assuming it takes the same amount of effort to reach peak swim speed as it does to maintain it. Simply put, the opposite is totally true- if you're extending the glide on the front end of your stroke with no kick, you create a huge 'dead spot' in the cycle where all you're doing is decelerating and it takes a lot of effort to then stop that deceleration and maintain speed overall.

The guys with the superlow stroke rates are all uterrly awesome kickers who use their kicks to fill in that dead zone. (and remember that an excellent and highly efficient kick doesn't always look like much, so you can't rally judge good kick efficiency by eyeballing it.) Even the elite guys who claim they can't kick can easily kick 1:15/100 yards.

See also Brooke Bennett and Laure Manaudou for what's probably a better stroke model for triathlon swimming than Ian Thorpe.

You proved my point exactly. Your swim time is very good. You must of expended way too much energy swimming as reflected in your bike and run times.

Actually, not: the day was brutally hot and many died on the run (as did I). http://www.dqtridu.com/vce10Results.htm is the next race I did. Although they didn't catch my swim split, trust me that I added them up and I had the fastest swim/T1, the #6 bike and the # 8 run. In fact, that was my fastest bike average time in my 25 years of triathlon.

---

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

I seem to remember some other STer saying that strokes per length one of the biggest red herrings in triathlon. I think I agree. If you are hung up on strokes per length you are hung up on the wrong thing. If you are taking a gazillion strokes per length its because you have some serious stroke flaws. Find out what those are and work on them. In my day (can't believe I'm writing that), most world class swimmers had no idea how many strokes they took per length. They probably don't care today either.

Wow...first of all, way to go assuming that the bike and run times are slow based on a couple of lines describing how ken swims. And second, you may want to read what -Tex and FlaJill (who both know a bit about swimming) have said...

Anyhow, looks like you want to be right, so, fine. The lower the stroke rate, the more efficient you are (at having a low stroke rate).

The people getting out of the very front of the race expended less energy then those swimming MOP or BOP. They happen to be better swimmers then the overwhelming majority of triathletes.

The people who are expending too much energy are those swimming middle to back of the pack. Their poor technique is robbing them of energy and costing them time.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

My bad, I was wrong. Excellent bike and run splits. It would be a pleasure and and honor to race against you at Nationals in Burlington next year. Hope you are able to attend!!!!

Here is a good post on stride rate in running: http://www.scienceofrunning.com/...stride-rate-and.html

Re: swim stroke rate. I believe that the magic number is strokes per minute. Not strokes per length.

Todd

---

Seen on ST: NOTSOSWUYD: None of the secrets of success work unless you do.

Why do you have cadence in quotes?

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8SEJpvZSOY
Watch video number 2 as well.

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

If anyone is still interested, Joe Friel in the Triathlete's Training Bible does a nice job explaining efficiency, stroke rate, stroke length and cadence. It starts on page 207 thru 214.

I think he's a disciple of Terry Laughlin, as well as POSE.

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

in general, following friel does a great disservice to yourself.

Deja vu all over again:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=2533509

I'm still puzzled why you seem to be so against Daniels' thoughts in this area. Is your concern that there weren't studies to back up his writing?

I guess what you're saying might be valid if we assumed that 95+% of people were "experienced" runners.

To be clear, I'm not trying to call you out - a lot of your advice is great, so I'm trying to understand where you're coming from on this subject. To re-read that thread (wow, two years goes by fast), you implied that I wasn't understanding his take on this - I still don't think that's the case but would be happy to be set straight.

Do a search on the forums for Gerry Rodrigues. Very experienced and effective competitor and coach in OWS and long distance swimming, and he advocates a high turnover rate. He's got some excellent posts on the subject from a debate a year or so ago (IIRC), and answering other questions on here.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...=post_time&mh=25

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

Nice redirect. Maybe you can measure each others' genitalia while you are at it.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

You know, I don't see anything in there talking about stroke length.

Toussaint's work is pretty sweet in many regards, but I don't see what you want me to see here. Maybe I'm slow.

But on the other hand, work showing improved performance at lower stroke counts is not unknown. Unfortunately being biomechanics work, almost none of it is longitudinal.

These guys found lower strokes counts at a given speed to correlate well with performance. http://www.swimmingcoach.org/...ons/JSRVol172007.pdf (It's toward the back of the paper).

There's more around that looks at the stroke index, velocity x stroke length. Don't have any of those at my fingertips.

You're talking about the paper by d'Acquisto? It's funny because I discussed the paper with him. I was a faculty member at the school here he is until mid 2010.
Anyhow, you may want to read the top of page 37, because what you say is not what Leo says...

Actually, I'd read page 37 entirely, in particular the top part of the 'practical' section, and how this work should be used by coaches...

wait...you can read?!?

Huh...

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

Wait to see your training next week, jerk.

Timely article on Gerry Rodrigues in LAVA mag.

http://www.lavamagazine-digital.com/...0111011?pg=134#pg134

Some of the more interesting parts start on page 136.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

Agreed physics has not changed. In this article it talks about the movement of water in the opposite direction is waist. I would agree. This is why technique is so important and has a big impact on distance per stroke and efficiency. That being said, you can have the best underwater technique but fail to have the strength or conditioning to perform for extended duration. A higher turnover rate with a less efficient pull can compensate by using a more cardio approach rather than using strength, not unlike the difference in cycling cadence. The most efficient swimmers waist very little, move very little water backward by applying force using a slight scull motion throughout the stroke. This motion allows the hand and forearm to always push against still water and the path that the arm takes is considerably longer than a straight through pull. IMO the most efficient method for you is based on all the things you should consider, do you have the strength and conditioning and skill to handle a slower cadence or rely more on a cardio effort this time and work toward more efficiency over time.
.

---

.
Swimming is Tracking, Torque, Traction and Timing

I'm not against his thoughts. But I am against people taking his findings from race speed and applying those to themselves when they are out jogging along at 8:30 per mile.
Someone running 8:30 is going to have a slower turnover and shorter stride then when they are running 7:00 per mile.

Since you naturally increase both as you get faster, & since 95% of people self select the best cadence for themselves (which can change as they change velocities) I think asking people to go out and focus on a particular number across all velocities is kind of ridiculous.

At 8:30 pace he is going to be stutter stepping while at 7:00 pace he could be inhibiting his ability to go faster.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

thank god someone finally said this!!

I have been reading all the literature, emailed with bobby mcgee..."your cadence should be 180 or greater weather your doing 100m sprint or a marathon"...but no one ever addresses what it should be for JOGGING...slower than marathon pace. You do an IM your going slower than IM pace. I've tried running 180cadence for 9:30-10min pace (I'm 6'2), it gives me a stride length of maybe 3 inches...seriously. My wife running the same pace and cadence has a longer stride length (she's 5'4")

What cadence does ryan hall run at when he's jogging? It may be worth while to have your cadence up there for marathon pace and faster, but for going slower I'm not sure how much your mechanics get screwed up trying to keep it at 180. I just ran a half and for the last 5 miles I ran with a firend and we were doing 9:30 pace or slower. I tried to keep my cadence up and I have never been so sore after a run as I was for that

Funny you mention that. I always feel like I am putting a lot more stress on my lower legs when trying to keep a high cadence when running really easy. I am of the believe that you will self select your cadence. Definitely when you get to the end of a hard run and your are suffering. I swear I hurt my calf last year by trying to keep my cadence up when jogging.

I know that I remember reading a statistic that said something to the effect of...

The cadence of elite runners only varied by about 5% over a range that was roughly double the speed.

So, if they had a cadence of 95 steps per minute at a 5 minute mile, they would have a cadence of roughly 90 or so at 10 minutes per mile or so. But, that's just what I 'remember' and of course don't know where I saw that...could have been in the training bible or something!

---

Brandon Marsh - Website | @BrandonMarshTX | RokaSports | 1stEndurance | ATC Bikeshop |

Alex Hutchinson at the Sweat Science blog has had some interesting posts about running cadence in the last few weeks. Here's one of them:


http://sweatscience.com/...-some-personal-data/

---

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!

Thats really helpful. That about coorelates to what i run at a slower pace..about 85-87 cadence which is comfortable...but trying to get up to 90 is not at all

Yeah,

I read that part too. Faster swimmers had lower stroke rates at 1.5 and 1.7 m / s. Which is saying they had longer stroke length. The practical section says that tracking kinematic parameters can be useful.

I still don't see what in there agrees with your point that improving stroke length to improve speed is a fallacy. There are several shortcomings there for sure but it's a big jump from shortcomings to fallacy.

Because for the vast majority of triathletes (pretty much all the ones that don't come from a swimming background), the way to increase the length per stroke is to increase the glide phase. This is further buttressed by all the proponents of TI. All this does is produce dead spots in the stroke, and rather than maintaining a steady speed, it's tiny surges every time they take a stroke followed by a speed decrease as they glide.

If you increase stroke length by improving the form, you get some benefits, but until you can get rid of the stroke, glide............stroke, glide.......... adherence, you probably won't increase speed much, you'll just find it easier to do the same times.

Which is why I generally say that TI is good for completing, but not competing, the swim.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

I think you're setting up a false dichotomy there of either longer strokes or slower swimming when it's not necessarily so.

Of course I see people who have misinterpreted recommendations of longer strokes to mean that they should glide in a sort of freeze frame position to get longer strokes.

But it's easy enough to keep that from happening, you can make sure that your communications on the matter make it clear that adding an extra 5 kicks underwater or using freeze frame swimming are not the proper way to increase stroke length. Ideally you would have seen the swimmer and can recommend specific changes.

But also sets of swim golf can get toward the proper things by adding time into it. But even more so descending sets at the same stroke count are something we have used to positive effect to train the long end of people's swim speed (anecdotally of course) and in fact I think this is the way the total immersion folks are going with their ongoing development; although they will have to speak for themselves.

To bring this all back to the original thesis though; in terms of stroke rate; my own impression is that lots of triathletes are swimming at stroke rates that are on the low side of optimal. I don't have a shred of data to support it, but I consider 63ish to 75ish to be the range of effective stroke rates depending on style and morphology. There are lots of people at the middle and back of the pack with turnover below 60 per minute who would benefit by simply raising their turnover. but that's not to say that they wouldn't benefit from some increased stroke length in conjunction.

Probably agreed on most points. But consider, how many "average" triathletes are getting swimming instruction? They simply hear "Well, you need greater distance per stroke", and the easiest way to get that is to simply increase the glide phase.

And for your optimal stroke rate, I'd refer you to the threads referenced in this one and the lava article on Gerry Rodrigues. I don't think you are far off the mark, but I think you are underestimating a bit. I also find interesting the references on different stroke rates per swimmer in various parts of the race, just like surges in running/biking. How many people train for that in swimming, especially once you take the ex swimmers out of the equation?

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...rch_string=;#2832663

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...rch_string=;#2832764

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

I think I still disagree. Why? Because everyone's stroke has a "glide" phase to it. Distance per stroke (DPS) makes the glide more important than speed. Also, you can do all sorts of crazy skulling to increase DPS and that also doesn't do anything for speed. But once again everyone's pull has some skulling in it. Same with a heavy kick. It increases DPS but may not be optimal for long open water swims.

My experience is that triathletes and DPS are not a good mix -- not much good comes of it.

Individuals are often most economical in their self selected method because it is what they are adapted to. With an appropriate change in technique it is not abnormal to see an initial decrease in performance followed by adaptation and better performance.

Elite runners run at fairly similar cadence regardless of velocity. This is not to say that their cadence doesn;t slow with velocity, but not as drastic as it is made out to be.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

awesome site. Thanks

Reading comprehension anybody?? I NEVER said that improving stroke length to improve speed was useless. I said that improving stroke length for the sake of improving stroke length is useless. You have been
constantly equating lower stroke count with efficiency (which is the fallacy here). I can get in the water, and do 2 strokes per 25yrs. Actually without cheating with longer underwater dolphin kick off the
walls etc. I can swim 13 strokes per 25yds. That said, my kick isn't very good, I'm not particularly buoyant, so I swim faster, with a lot more ease at 16-17 strokes per 25yds, because the stroke is long enough to
get momentum, but not so slow that I sink too deep in between strokes. A vast majority of triathletes would be in a similar situation.

Thus what many here have been saying: lowering your stroke count by itself does not mean you're more efficient, and certainly does not make you faster.

90% of the slow people I see have low cadence. 100% of fast people I see have high cadence. Coincidence? I think not.

---

http://jesse.centuries.com

Correlation =/= causation.

Yeah... maybe.

---

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!

No dog in this fight and don't suppose to know the answer. Just pointing out the flawed logic.

Swimming or running?

I assume swimming.... It seems to me that most pros who don't do sprint races use a low cadence/slow stroke rate.

In fact it's something that almost all the really good 1500m swimmers have in common. At the extreme is Sun Yang, he looks like he's barely moving.

If it were correlational you'd have some outliers. Point to me one fast runner that has a cadence in the low to mid 80's.

---

http://jesse.centuries.com

Huh. Visual fail.

Yang comes in right about a 70 stroke average per 100m. If he is the extreme on the low side, where are the others coming in?

(This was calculated by watching a couple of video's such as his 200m China nationals and his world record 1500m and counting strokes. He runs an average of 120 per 200m, with approx 7m of glide/push into and out of walls. So using 120 strokes for 172m gives a .697m/stroke, rounded to 70).

Given the numbers tossed around so far in this thread, I'd put a stroke rate of 70/100m on the low end of a high cadence. So, if the slowest rate among elite swimmers is 70 (Actually, it would be a touch higher, since his average 100m split is below 1:00), how can you justify saying that most pros/good 1500m swimmers have a low cadence?

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

Taking it to an extreme in the pool, there's the old Berkhoff blastoff. Somewhere around 7-10 strokes per 50M gets you a world record in the 100 back.

It also gets you into full on oxygen debt right quick.

dead on correct IMO

John Ngugi, 5 time world cross country champion. He'd be around 80-85 even when winning world XC titles.

(I assume you're talking about only when racing, not when warming up or cooling down)

Definitely one of the lowest cadences in elites runners, but still right up at 90
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAt_-EsAr0o

Very few spots where you can count, but you can between 7.06 and 7.16 and you get 15-16
strides in 10secs.

Depends on when you count him. I have him up to 90 there but below it on some of the long shots. And at the Boston World XCs even less. I actually own the video to that one but fortunately someone else had done some counting for me. Has him at... well 85.5

http://johnlvs2run.wordpress.com/.../strides-per-minute/

Interesting and I don't disagree with you, but...I'd love to see evidence to support this. I could believe their performance decreases and then returns to original, but to say that changing technique will eventually have "adaptation and better performance" can't possibly be true for all changes in technique, and possibly is only true for very few changes.

---

______________________________________________________
Sub-9 IM. Navy SeaBee deep sea diver. Can Do!

Dude, were you seriously that fast in highshool? I can only assume that you're quoting short course as that is pretty much an Olympic level time in a long course pool.

Either way, your point about height seems valid. Swimmers are getting taller & taller. Phelps is now one of the smallest on the US relay teams and I think he's around 6'4".

there are many posts about swimming and so i want to focus on that. obviously stroke rate is measure of efficiency in the sense
that a person who does not have a good swimming technique will do the same distance in less strokes once he improves his technique
if he applies the same effort.
that said, that is not the subject of my question... (i'm the one who posted the original question)

take a swimmer whose swimming technique is just perfect.
now this swimmer has to decide on what is the best stroke rate for him.
suppose the swimmer wants to finish a distance in X minutes no matter what stroke rate he chooses.
(keep the legs out of this question or assume that this person has no legs or does not use his legs or uses them equally effectively)

so as i see it, the swimmer can choose a high stroke rate and use less effort stroking,
or choose a low stroke rate but for that he must put more effort forcing each stroke.
so theoretically this swimmer can swim the distance in the same amount of time, but wouldn't he be less tired doing a high stroke count?

Suppose swimming was a magical race by which your body was magically suspended over the bottom of the pool, and each time you extended
your arm you wrapped it around an actual barrel and you had to push and roll the barrel underneath you, then reach with the other arm to grab the next barrel. the winner is the one who pushes a total of 50000 lbs the fastest. so you can choose to do this with 100 lbs barrels or 50 lbs barrels or 25 lbs.
i think you can push a 25 lbs barrel faster than you can push a 100 lbs barrel. maybe 4 times faster....
do all these people that advocate "lower number of strokes is better" would absolutely say choose the highest weight barrel you can push?

what if had an endurance race by which people simply lift weight. the first one to lift a total of 50000 lbs wins and each person can choose
how much they want to lift per repetition. would the best strategy be "do as few repetitions as you can"?

The use of a high turnover stroke is, in my opinion, much like using a small gear on the bike. Sometimes choosing a lower turnover is appropriate for an individual, just as for some it might be appropriate to go 75 RPM on the bike. But I don't know if anyone is going 60 RPM on the bike for a long distance. Similarly, I don't think there are any elite, or even semi-elite swimmers who take longer than 1 second per stroke (2 seconds per cycle) in any swimming race of any distance (I may have already linked this in this thread for all I know: http://www.findingfreestyle.com/?q=node/47 ).

My $0.02,
r.b.

---

Bringing you Tweets @ http://twitter.com/findfreestyle and Not just a bunch of drills - A Process.

He said yards, which implies scy... since that's what everyone swims in hs.. don't think there are too many long course yards pools anywhere.

---

___________________
Twitter | Kancman | Blog

Our masters coach,Mike Burton, who has gold in the 1500 in 68 and 72 was at a large swimming conference and was asked this question. "What is the biggest difference between the swimmers today and then?" He said he simply stood up. Took awhile for everyone to get it. He is about 5' 9

Simplistic and not always true. You are assuming facts not in evidence.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

Thanks for the note clearing that up. Lets put it down to cultural differences - I'm an Aussie and we haven't measured in yards for 40 years + almost all our swimming is L/Course. The lack of S/C is one of the reasons you guys (Americans I'm assuming) used to be so dominant at the technical aspects (starts/turns) of swimming in the 80s/90s. There are S/C champs here now but pretty much everyone speaks in terms of L/C in my experience. Hence, my amazement at the times.

pete

1) should we then try to get to a cadence of 1 sec per stroke or less (increase cadence)?
2) how can we increase our cadence?

Or read the most recent issue of LAVA, where Gerry Rodrigues has an article.

Edit: Nevermind, late to the party. This is what I get for posting after a race.

This is a hard question, although I am always tempted to say "yes most definitely". That said, I work with an athlete who had another coach who took that approach, and well, in my opinion it was a really wrong one. But still, for about 90% of adult onset swimmers out there, I would guess that it is a good piece to focus on, probably better than working on DPS.

How do you do it? WEll, sprint 25s are one easy way to do it, and passively, so that your not "changing your stroke" dramatically, but giving it stimulus to evolve. Learning to reduce glide is another one, swimming head up is a third.

Regards,
r.b.

---

Bringing you Tweets @ http://twitter.com/findfreestyle and Not just a bunch of drills - A Process.

no. the most important factor is the water displaced in a given time in the most efficient manner.
if you don't swim w/high elbow you would probably displace 2x more water (because you're displacing water with your upper arm as well)
and it probably doesn't take you double the time, so "low elbow" results in more water displaced in given time but it's not a good technique...
so the "in the most effcient manner" applies to 2 things 1) reducing drag 2) usage of optimal muscles and/or optimal divisionof work among muscles

I cannot understand all this debate by people who don't know what they are talking about. Swim mechanics are different from run mechanics. You don't need a fast turnover and for distance swimming you should absolutely focus on distance per stroke versus wasting energy by thrashing about in the water. Good swimmers look like they are going slow even when they are going fast. You should achieve this without going crazy with your kick, irrespective of height or reach, and I wouldn't suggest trying to mimic the bizarre stroke of a rare Olympian until you can hold your 100x free times under 50 seconds for long distance. At that point you get street cred to debate this.

You are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about. That is when we are talking about people trying to swim under an hour in an IM when they did not grow up being forced to swim by their parents. None of them will be holding sub 50 and likewise they will not benefit from trying to work on 'swim golf'. Sometimes pre-existing knowledge is a hindrance. Adult swimmers need to work on being able to maintain their high stroke rate for long periods. It's much easier to achieve than a highly effective kick.

---

You are right there and all these folks need to stop comparing pool swimmers to what we do which is open water.Two different animals..

---

I think the controversy on this debate on ST stems more from the level of swimmer being considered than anything else.

Here on ST, where there a lot of really excellent swimmers chiming in, you can't deny the role of stroke rate. It HAS to be relatively high to swim that fast, even with near-perfect technique.

For most MOPers, and definitely BOPers (who tend to not chime in as much on ST), stroke efficiency is probably a higher yielding fruit than stroke rate since these swimmers are certain to have significant wasted energy in their stroke. Not to say they shouldn't gradually ramp up their stroke rate through training, but to focus on it at the cost of efficiency would be universally agreed as a bad move.

I think when folks talk about increasing stroke rate for higher speeds, it's understood that they're holding essentially correct form. It might not be pool-perfect, but it's nowhere near breaking down and getting god-awful from the fatigue. That changes the equation a lot with that assumption, which is nearly universally true for strong fast experienced swimmers, and nearly universally false for slow, BOP or BOMOP swimmers.

Hrm, if the stroke is ineffective, they are thrashing no matter the cadence. And while distance per stroke is a Total Immersionism, Gerry Rodriguez would majorly disagree with you on the fast turnover for OWS.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

Read this blog post by Helle Frederiksen (former national team swimmer, now Olympic triathlete)

http://hellefrederiksen.blogspot.com/2011/06/training-in-triathlon-part-1.html

---

Group Eleven – Websites for Athletes / mikael.racing / @mstaer

Even though *he* pretty much suggests people taking his findings from race speed and applying those to themselves when they are out jogging along at 8:30 per mile? ;)

I realize people tend to take his "findings" and then boil them down to a simple sound bite and things get lost in translation.

But if you go back and reread the DRF section, he doesn't suggest running a particular number across all velocities - he acknowledges that cadence varies (although in his words "doesn't vary much" and "little change") at different speeds.

I think it's clear he doesn't agree with the "95% of people" part though - he's pretty clear that for less-experienced runners (again, not sure how he defines that) they *don't* self select well.

To me, it always seemed like good generic advice that got people headed in the right direction. Like "pay yourself 10% first". That's not the be all and end all of financial planning, but it generally works better than saying "people self select sound financial planning".

Thanks for the thoughts, and thanks Paulo for the links - interesting reading.

Ken Lehner has more strokes per length than 95% of the good swimmers here (maybe 99%) and very few would beat him at 1500m, including you. I can't do that, but I wouldn't mind if I could--stroke that many or swim that fast.

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

Lower stroke count is better and is absolutely the result of better technique. If your stroke lacks power, then you have to turnover more to keep your speed up. But you will eat up a lot of energy. This is probably a bad idea for distance events when you have to bike and run afterwards. Also, I completely agree about the wetsuit and kicking.

You sound like an expert, please expand on what you're saying. Start out by explaining what is "eat up a lot of energy." Is this a battery-powered athlete?

One thing folks are forgetting is we are concerned only with open water swimming in triathlon. OWS, while sharing similar aspects of the sport, is quite different than pool swimming. You have the effects of the environment and equipment you are in. Often in OWS, you will decelerate with low stroke count due to motion of the water/waves, shorten the stroke because of swimming on someone's toes or being surrounded by others, etc. This was discussed at the 2010 Art & Science of Triathlon seminar & the presenters/experts agreed that for open water swimming a higher turnover rate for OWS was better. We do not race in a pool in 99% of triathlons. That said, I noticed in my own racing that I tend to have faster swims relative to my competition when I use a higher turnover on the swim than not--although will be first to claim I pretty much stink at swimming although I'm still working at it.

If your stroke "lacks power" & eats up a lot of energy why is that? Answer...? Because your mechanics stink. Sounds like you're saying bag working on getting a solid underwater pull & scratch the long stroke/low stroke count in exchange for faster turnover if your stroke lacks power. Totally the backas*wards way of going about it. Working your stroke/pull focused on a few basic fundamentals will take you a lot further than the trade-off you suggest. One of the most common mistakes of age group swimmers is they swim too flat. Take care of that (and lose the "dropping of the elbow") & you will see much more improvement. OWS is a lot like mountain biking, you will need to adapt to the "terrain" and conditions throughout the swim so you can't just work on getting your count down to 11 or whatever in the pool. It just doesn't apply well in the open water. This isn't even taking into account a wetsuit either--that's an entirely different thread.

No, I'm saying that's what you DO need to work on, the underwater pull. That's where the business end of all your strokes is! It's not flailing your arms around and splashing about. I don't like the faster turnover stuff. Distance Per Stroke is one of the most important aspects of every stroke, not just freestyle.

Open water swimming can promote terrible technique. But it's just not worth talking about how to swim with and without waves. If you know how to swim properly, you just adjust to the conditions of the open water. Guys who are fast in a pool are also fast in open water because they know how to swim correctly. Adjusting to the waves is a mental game, too, for swimmers who are used to glass like conditions of a pool.

The entire flailing arms comment made me think of something a co-worker said.
Management: "So & so must be a good worker because they are ALWAYS really busy, non-stop!"
Another worker to management: "Yeah, so is a drowning person!"

Just about lost it after that one I laughed so hard (true story!)

The other important aspect is Stroke Rate. It's as important as DPS.



No, OWS promotes OWS technique.

Have you ever tried to train an adult triathlete with no lap swimming background to become a good OWS (not occupy wall street)? The advice you are giving is great for child lap swimmers, but is totally the wrong advice for adults. ' The long glide, reach for the top shelf, pause then pull' just slows you down if you did not grow us swimming laps. Especially in the open water when you can never get a good catch anyway. I spent 3 years working on that stuff and only got faster when I left my swim squad, and got away from the (well-meaning) pool swim coach drilling that stuff into me three times a week - he was a lovely guy and had coached kids to the Olympics, but had no idea about adult triathletes. I now work on karate-chopping the water and 'spearing the fish' and keeping my turnover high and did 53 in Roth earlier this year.

The advice I'm giving is proper swim advice regardless of age. If adults have more problems following it, then they are going to have a problem. And the main problem I have with most people's stroke technique and teaching them to swim is that they are impeded by lack of power. It's difficult to hold form is you don't have muscle for it. So you have to do drills until you can hold it together...and even then you should always do drills to keep yourself honest about technique.

I remember starting out swimming when I was five and having to do drills. I thought they were a time for being lazy and floating around. But fact is they are the base for technique. If you do enough drills, then all you have to do thereafter is put in the yardage and you will be fast enough.

Interesting you see the problem adults have, but kind of disregard it in your teaching.
Then you say power is the issue and address it with drills.
There is a difference in child and adult coaching. Lets just say that a child can be easier shaped into doing something than an adult .

Last week, I did a pool 1000scy TT in 11:59. I took between 19-21 strokes per length, and used a weak two beat kick. That's about 800 strokes over twelve minutes, or more than one stroke per second. If you think the ability to do that is related to power and not to endurance, you are incorrect. It was all about grabbing water efficiently during whatever pull I had, and recovering rapidly into the next stroke. I have particular physiological reasons for the stroke I employ, particularly shoulder stiffness that restricts a good glide.

The biggest issue I've seen with triathletes in the water is their turnover sucks. I don't care how "efficiently" they pull, if their arms aren't moving they ain't going anywhere fast. Yes, they can do 4000yds without breaking a sweat, but racing is about speed, not who expends the least energy. I'm fine after sprint and Olympic distance swims: up and running through T1, and I'm at speed as soon as I get my feet in the shoes on the bike. And short triathlons, like long distance triathlons, are almost entirely aerobic.

And as Gerry Rodrigues has said many times, the best OWSers have a higher turnover than me, for a number of good reasons.

(edit)

I'm 53, and started swim training when I was 26.

As usual, YMMV.

---

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

Asking adults to do drills is the way to solve the problem with swimming. The Problem with adults is they are too hard headed to listen to advice. They want to find an easy way, or "their" way. It's just not the way to do things. You can lead a horse to water...

Ken you'd go faster if you did things correctly. You are clearly elite among non swimmers, but you probably could be better. Not sure what else to say about your posts. If it works for you and you refuse to change, good on you. And please disregard my advice if you're shorter than 5'5", lol.

I guess you missed this part: " I have particular physiological reasons for the stroke I employ, particularly shoulder stiffness that restricts a good glide". Not sure that "refuse to change" is the appropriate response.

I recently watched the video of my 1989 Y Nats Masters championship 50 free. 16 strokes off the blocks, and 20 strokes back in 23.17 seconds. At least 20 spl for the 200 and 1:53.xx.

Non-fish who focus on distance per stroke are taking the wrong path, IMNSHO.

And I'm 6'.

---

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

Totally agree. Please read & heed everything that Gerry Rodrigues has to say on this subject.

Someone please tell Janet Evans her high cadence stroke was all wrong when she was setting records.

This is not complicated. Swim Speed = Stroke Rate * Stroke Length. If you have high SR but low SL (which usually means shitty technique), you will be slow. If you have high SL but low SR (like what Total Immersion teaches), you will also be slow, though you will use less energy doing so.

Fast swimmers have (relatively) high SR *and* (relatively) high SL. Occasionally, either SR or SL will predominate over the other in an individual swimmer. Janet Evans has good SL but incredible SR. Sun Yang has good SR but incredible SL. Usually, this is the result of the swimmer adapting to his/her body type. Janet is 5'4'' so a high-tempo technique suits her perfectly. Sun Yang is 6'6'' so a long stroke suits him perfectly. (It's a little more complicated than just height, but height is important.)

For anyone even marginally familiar with open-water swimming at the elite level, it will be obvious that higher-SR swimmers tend to do better than their lower-SR competitors, compared to pool swimming. Thomas Lurz can't break 15:00 in the 1500m Free, but he's the best OWS in the world at the 5K/10K distances. Not coincidentally, his typical SR is between 95-100 SPM for 10K. Grant Hackett (75 SPM) was the best pool miler of his generation, but couldn't even make the Aussie Olympic team in the 10K OW. David Davies of the UK is another prime example of a high-SR swimmer who is elite in the pool, but absolutely transcendent in open water. Erik Vendt (low SR) was an amazing pool miler but could never seem to break through in OW. The list goes on...

By easier shaped into something i primarily meant that its much easeir to teach stroke patterns to kids due to less muscles, softer joints and generally being more flexible before puberty, than adults vs the 30 something triathlete with a rugby or american football background....

Of course your point is valid and if i can say so , with your one system fits all aproach, you almost seem to fall in the stubborn category you descriped ;-) Right now you are repaeting your point without much substance. I would like you to show some papers that support your point (for open water triathlon that is ).

People who stand to benefit from this thread are not at the elite level.

Sorry ken, missed that stuff. Trying to respond while traveling.

The advantages of higher stroke rates in OWS don't suddenly cease to apply at the sub-elite level. Is DPS the lower-hanging fruit for the average age-grouper? Absolutely. Do those same age-groupers stand to benefit by developing a slightly faster catch to use in OW settings? Yes, they do. Faster turnover is not equivalent to "flailing your arms around and splashing about."

You nailed it in both of your posts. Great stuff.

Hello efesefes7 and All,

For running many sport watches give cadence output info.

For swimming stroke rate from http://www.swimsmooth.com/slowsr.html



There are many articles on Swimsmooth about stroke rate.

Also they sell metronome so you can acutally have metrics for a particular stroke rate.

And Finis also sells a couple of different models of metromones that you can use for swimming and running if you are not self-selecting or want to experiment.





Develop consistency and avoid lulls with a personal pace coach, the Tempo Trainer Pro. The small, waterproof device easily secures under a swimmer’s cap and transmits an audible tempo beep. Athletes use the beep to train smarter and discover their perfect pace. Now with the option to replace the battery, the Tempo Trainer Pro will last multiple lifetimes. The advanced unit also has a new Sync button and a new mode in strokes/strides per minute for increased functionality. The Tempo Trainer Pro includes a clip for dry land exercise.

Cheers,

Neal

Francois,
I have a very self-specific question I know you'll have an answer to. I've heard from a coach-friend that in the off-season he likes to swim slower and focus on technique, and dps. Then closer to the season, about 8 weeks away, he raises his cadence back up to where it used to be, and this is how he went from a 20 minute 1500 to an 18 minute 1500. Besides the obvious fact that he swam during the off-season and built fitness, is there some validity to what he is saying? Or is it better to keep the high cadence? I currently swim about 18 strokes per length in a 25 yard pool, and do not stay under water much past the flags.

I doubt very much that the focus on swimming slower and dps is responsible for a 2min improvement. As discussed before dps per se is
not a cure-all. What matters is getting faster. Focusing on technique is always useful. To some extent. After that, you still need to do sets etc.
There isn't really a secret. It's all about hard work.

Hey john, you cant thrash about if you are swimming properly with a deliberate, efficient, powerful stroke. Just sayin'.

Lotte Friis has a decidedly thrashy/ugly recovery going on here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdlAoQW_0L4

But utterly perfect motion under the water. I'm guessing about 44-45 stroke per 50, which ain't Brooke Bennett, but is still a lot higher than most of the elite men.

And she's arguably the best 800/1500 woman in the world over the past three years. One of those cases where she's got the rhythm to her stroke and can utterly crush the competition.

Earlier I mentioned a German swimmer named Thomas Lurz, who is probably the best open-water swimmer in the world right now.

Here is a video of him (purple cap) racing in the RCP Tiburon Mile:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_GfYzBLCg0

100 strokes per minute, super-thrashy stroke. Chuck would probably advise him to lengthen out his DPS, to be more "smooth" and "deliberate." LOL.

There is more than one way to swim well.

Is anybody actually advocating swimming longer strokes to artificially bring down your stroke count. Having a look at the swim link http://www.swimsmooth.com/slowsr.html if I swim 60 strokes per 50 metre lap and swim at 60 strokes per minute. I am looking at about a 2 minute hundred.

Sounds like a lot of effort for a 2 minutes hundred and not much to be gained by turning over even faster which might well make me even more stuffed than I was at 60.

Ian Thorpe ranged 27-32 strokes per length and at a rate of 72 to 76 per minute. Richard stannard did about 88 spm at the London tri and shelly taylor smith 88 spm for a 70 K open water swim.

the very best swimmers seem to have very good DPS and high turn over. The top triathlon guys and OWS seem to just smash the arms in.

60 strokes per minute to go 2 min hundred would indicate some serious stroke problems however and maybe there is a compromise

Here's a measuring stick: If it takes you more than 18 strokes to do 25 yards, you need to work on your stroke a lot. If you can then do that in under 10 seconds without needing to take more strokes, you're on your way to being an okay swimmer. So yeah, combining fast turnover and good dps is the way to go fast. You shouldn't separate them.

I don't understand why my advice isn't getting through to you guys but I'm going to shift my attention to reading other threads. Good luck, fellas!

I don't know anything about swimming. From what I can see of Popov, Thorpe Hackett etc, they all have greta DPS and a great SPM. No surprise they are the very best and are very good at all aspects of the sport.

Richard Stannard a very good tri swimmer was rate at 88 SPM at the London OD tri on the back of an 18 min swim (over the years he has been a pretty good OWS in tris).

This stroke rate for his time converts to a high 40's DPS which by your metric says he needs to work on his stroke. Now as I said I know nothing about swimming. My swim coach who does, like you tries to get my stroke count down and when focussed I can get this to 35. She also tries to get rid of dead spots and is not preaching long and smooth, so maybe I just suck at both DPS and stroke count.

The evidence of some of the very best open water swimmers, Stannard, Taylor Smith and Ky Hurst (at the high 30's) suggest that a much higher turnover is used in the open water.

I don't know why as their numbers transferred to the pool would suggest appalling stroke. Figure that with rough choppy conditions in the open water (especially oz surf life saving real waves) that you are better of just getting the arms in as fast as possible and pulling whatever water you can

So that's another thing you don't understand.

I admit to not understanding, would these good OWS reduce thier stroke rate in the pool?

Yes. You have to learn proper stoke technique, first. Then you can incorporate faster, less efficient stroke as required to deal with waves. Go watch Andy Potts swim...he has long strokes and a decent glide when he can. He also doesn't do anything too weird like Ian does. I mean, nobody swims like Ian, lol.

I was an above average pool swimmer (AA cuts in distance events) despite having essentially zero athletic ability. Somewhere around 18-19 strokes per 25 yards was my 'sweet spot' in terms of max speed in the pool. Two beat kick, which, while pretty efficient, meant that I couldn't afford to glide on the front end because I'd get deceleration.

Open water, it varies. If it's choppy or if I'm going into the current, I shorten stroke and increase turnover even more to maintain constant forward propulsion. If I'm with the current, I'm actually glide a little bit because I can get away with it if the current's going to be helping me maintain forward propulsion.

Tried some things today at the pool. During the main set I focussed on making sure the stroke rate was up, not counting just making sure there were no dead spots.

I found that by doing this my time per 100 was better and more consistent and that when I was paying attention it also resulted in an increase in DPS ending up with 34 to 35 strokes per 50.

There does appear to be a downside to spm as when I was getting tired focussing on spm ended up with me going no where, but this could be my fittness

back to the pool today to see what happens when I keep the count up but ensure that I don't forget about catching and pulling. Yesterday's workout suggested that by raising the SPM from a lousy 45 to an equally lousy 50 I swam faster (no surprise) but also had an increased DPS, without wasting anytime gliding.

Gliding logically would only help if the momentum that could be achieved gliding was better than it was by just getting on and pulling some water (leave this one to the physics and swim types).

Anyhow will see how this thing goes but forgetting all off the DPS SPM stuff upping your swimming from 6000 to 15000 metres per week really makes a difference

you need to go read brett sutton new post on http://www.teamtbb.com looking for clues: Hold the line. triathlon swimming is complete different than pool swimming.

also, riding at higher cadence isn't for everyone...find what works best for you.

good luck

Hi Brett, thanks for reading ST, we feel honored.

That advice was for those racing primarily in wetsuits, yes? Mine don't, so I guess I have no good reason to grab for the buoy...

no...it goes for non wetsuit swims as well.
i was 3rd out the water at wc 70.3 non wetsuit swim (45-49) without even trying.
you every reason to grab the buoy mate! :)
i did get to spend 3 days with brett on my swim. he knows his triathlon, thats for darn sure.

where i live, i get see struggling 3rd tier pros with bad swims, practice their swim drills and perfect strokes go backwards for the last 3-4 years. it's really sad.

In that vein, here's my nomination for most unintentionally revealing swimming article of the year:

http://www.swimwellblog.com/archives/1485

On one level they fairly reflect the training I’ve done in the past two months, relatively leisurely, more focused on efficiency than speed. They also reflect that I’m a year older. But my most valuable perspective was to view them, essentially, as a math problem that I could spend the next several months solving, and from which I expect to derive many hours of enjoyment.
You see, my time of 13:42 represents a particular combination of SPL (stroke count per 25-yard pool length) and Stroke Rate–a combination that could only result in that time. As the phrase goes: “It is what it is.”


class article ! thanks for sharing.

Chuck, any feedback? Where I struggle with just do it is if and I do/did have severe technical flaws that were holding me back. Ie arm flapping out to the side.

Option 1 keep doing it and up stroke rate to 60 which I probably want to do anyway, but will require significant training and adaptation

Option 2 do some proper squad training with drills technique, count DPS and swim 37 strokes per 50 within 2 weeks and 6 sessions improving my 100 time from 1:54 to 1:32

Now time to raise the stroke count