Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ajthomas wrote:
domingjm wrote:

Okay. For perspective, I'm a scientist by profession, and we just don't say things that we can't immediately demonstrate with measurable and repeatable data. We all have opinions, but masquerading them as fact is a habit that everyone should recognize as dangerous.


I mostly agree with this. But I also think you should recognize that there is a consensus among experts here. Take that for what it is worth.

But in your call for hard data, here you go. A month ago I swam with a watch. I wear a watch occasionally. On longer sets I can live with the imprecision. And as much as we joke the reason I am most likely to wear it is for Strava.

The data can be found below. The pool was SCM, not LCM. Here is the list of problems: THe

1) I did 2 600s warm up. Each 600 was 100 freestyle / 25 kick / 25 back x 4. The first 600 the data capture was good. The second 600 the data missed 50M. I get the watch misses kicking. I wish it was consistent. Miss all of it or none of it.

Next I did 8 x 100's on 1:26 (dont ask) with a goal to hold 1:14 on all of them. It went really well. So well that with 2 left I decided to add a 100 and drop down to 1:13. My times - without question - were 1:14 on the first 6, 1:13 on the last 3.

Yet my watch shows me says I went a 1:15 on two of them (I didn't) and has me at 1:14.9 on # 8 which was most certainly a 1:13

Because the watch records 25M splits, I can look a little deeper. Let's compare two of the 100's:

Number 6 / Number 7
19.9 / 19.2
18.6 / 18.8
19.1 / 18.4
17.9 / 17.3
1:15.4 / 1:13.6

According to the watch I was faster on the 2nd 25 on the slower one. That is wrong. In fact I went back and that is the fastest 2nd 25 for all the repeats. So not only is the data wrong, it isn't even user error (which is what I would have assumed). Another thing that is wrong is the first 25 split. This isn't a surprise because of the a fore mentioned problems of coordinating the start with a streamline. ALl the first 25 splits are wrong. I think that 19.9 was wrong by a lot. I doubt I did a single lead off 25 slower than 19.0. There is not consistency in the errors so the data is just...useless.

Now I think you want to make the argument that the data is good enough. A few 1-2% errors here or there don't mean that much. I coached for one season collegiality. I have swam competitively for the last 36 years. The difference between what I actually did and what the watch recorded is the difference between knowing the previous 6 week swim build had been effective vs ineffective (For those who remember, or care: I committed to doing a lot more race pace efforts about two months ago).

This discussion started because the guy who broke the KONA record by .35 seconds per 100M thinks these slight inaccuracies matter. So perhaps we can frame this discussion like this: A real swimmer doesn't rely on a watch because a real swimmer thinks .35 seconds per 100M matters.



laps Distance Time Best Pace 24 600 08:09.6 08:09.6 -- 0 0 00:30.8 22 550 08:22.9 17:03 -- 0 0 00:37.6 4 100 01:14.4 18:55 -- 0 0 00:11.6 4 100 01:14.5 20:21 -- 0 0 00:11.4 4 100 01:14.8 21:47 -- 0 0 00:11.3 4 100 01:14.4 23:13 -- 0 0 00:11.1 4 100 01:15.0 24:39:00 -- 0 0 00:11.4 4 100 01:15.4 26:06:00 -- 0 0 00:10.3 4 100 01:13.6 27:30:00 -- 0 0 00:12.6 4 100 01:14.9 28:58:00 -- 0 0 00:11.2 4 100 01:14.1 30:23:00 -- 0 0 00:20.1 12 300 04:12.1 34:55:00

Oh totally. I would absolutely no faith in swim tracker data for individual laps of a given set. There's going to be an obvious problem in determining when that lap ends and the next begins. So yeah, I'll definitely concede with your argument there. But if your watch is missing lap intervals (aside from sets where your arms aren't moving, obviously), I'd definitely be contacting the manufacturer.

And I'll also concede that I have little confidence in my ability to manipulate my watch in order to detect an improvement of .35s per 100m. But I'd never suggest replacing a timing mat with a swimming watch. Now are you really going to tell me you can get 0.35 from a wall clock? Because it's been stated prolifically here that a wall clock can do everything that a swim tracker can do, and it simply isn't true.

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [domingjm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
domingjm wrote:
The59Swim wrote:
domingjm wrote:


Okay. For perspective, I'm a scientist by profession, and we just don't say things that we can't immediately demonstrate with measurable and repeatable data. We all have opinions, but masquerading them as fact is a habit that everyone should recognize as dangerous. Your 1/1,000% is flagrantly lacking any rigid support whatsoever. With the current US political administration, I'm getting really sensitive about people making shit up because it's their "feeling". So I apologize for beating a dead horse here in this thread, but providing a rigid number without any support is as bad as it gets.


I'm sorry my triathlon forum post doesn't meet the rigors of peer review /sort of pink
I'll walk back my 1/1000th of a percent comment to "virtually all" that I stated before and start designing the appropriate study parameters and statistical analysis.
I'd still stand by the point that virtually none (haven't checked with every single one) of the elite swimmers and olympians we see in swimming don't practice with a watch.


I get that you like your watch for swimming and have found it useful for pool swims, but I and most swimmers don't. It's a funny conversation that inevitably comes up during tri practices - someone always asks why I take my watch off before practice.
It ultimately boils down to the watch not offering enough benefit to offset the inconvenience.


Are you really okay, in any context, stating something as fact, when you actually have no evidence to suggest that you're correct? You're telling people things that they may believe and that will influence their decisions. That's not okay in any medium. If I could make any wish come true (outside of winning the lottery), it would be for people to appreciate that concept.

Edit: And for what it's worth, I'm sure you're right that many proficient swimmers don't use, and see no value in, a swim tracker.

Most of us can recognize hyperbole and don’t take it as literally true.

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [boobooaboo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
boobooaboo wrote:
I'm curious what everyone's technique is when it comes to pressing the button at the wall. When swimming freestyle, you should touch the wall with one arm completely outstretched, with your other arm in the complete opposite position, and your body should be on it's side. When trying to hit the stop button on a watch, both arms are outstretched and your body will be flat in the water.

Triathletes will say "I don't care, all my races are open water."

Only on slowtwitch can we all argue about watches and buttons for 4 pages.

I'll hit the wall and roll to the opposite side, bringing my hands together. I'll be honest, I can't confidently say how long this takes once the "timing mat" has been touched, but it's well under 0.5sec. But I also have incredible manual dexterity. That's the only thing my girlfriend likes about me.

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JasoninHalifax wrote:
domingjm wrote:
The59Swim wrote:
domingjm wrote:


Okay. For perspective, I'm a scientist by profession, and we just don't say things that we can't immediately demonstrate with measurable and repeatable data. We all have opinions, but masquerading them as fact is a habit that everyone should recognize as dangerous. Your 1/1,000% is flagrantly lacking any rigid support whatsoever. With the current US political administration, I'm getting really sensitive about people making shit up because it's their "feeling". So I apologize for beating a dead horse here in this thread, but providing a rigid number without any support is as bad as it gets.


I'm sorry my triathlon forum post doesn't meet the rigors of peer review /sort of pink
I'll walk back my 1/1000th of a percent comment to "virtually all" that I stated before and start designing the appropriate study parameters and statistical analysis.
I'd still stand by the point that virtually none (haven't checked with every single one) of the elite swimmers and olympians we see in swimming don't practice with a watch.


I get that you like your watch for swimming and have found it useful for pool swims, but I and most swimmers don't. It's a funny conversation that inevitably comes up during tri practices - someone always asks why I take my watch off before practice.
It ultimately boils down to the watch not offering enough benefit to offset the inconvenience.


Are you really okay, in any context, stating something as fact, when you actually have no evidence to suggest that you're correct? You're telling people things that they may believe and that will influence their decisions. That's not okay in any medium. If I could make any wish come true (outside of winning the lottery), it would be for people to appreciate that concept.

Edit: And for what it's worth, I'm sure you're right that many proficient swimmers don't use, and see no value in, a swim tracker.


Most of us can recognize hyperbole and don’t take it as literally true.

You may have missed that, but he wasn't being hyperbolic with his approximation. Furthermore, based upon the current political disaster in the US, it seems pretty clear that close to 50% of the population literally does not know how to distinguish truth from falsehood. Granted, that will depend upon the influence of the individual that's making the statement.

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [domingjm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You got data to support that?

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [domingjm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
domingjm wrote:
JasoninHalifax wrote:
domingjm wrote:
The59Swim wrote:
domingjm wrote:


Okay. For perspective, I'm a scientist by profession, and we just don't say things that we can't immediately demonstrate with measurable and repeatable data. We all have opinions, but masquerading them as fact is a habit that everyone should recognize as dangerous. Your 1/1,000% is flagrantly lacking any rigid support whatsoever. With the current US political administration, I'm getting really sensitive about people making shit up because it's their "feeling". So I apologize for beating a dead horse here in this thread, but providing a rigid number without any support is as bad as it gets.


I'm sorry my triathlon forum post doesn't meet the rigors of peer review /sort of pink
I'll walk back my 1/1000th of a percent comment to "virtually all" that I stated before and start designing the appropriate study parameters and statistical analysis.
I'd still stand by the point that virtually none (haven't checked with every single one) of the elite swimmers and olympians we see in swimming don't practice with a watch.


I get that you like your watch for swimming and have found it useful for pool swims, but I and most swimmers don't. It's a funny conversation that inevitably comes up during tri practices - someone always asks why I take my watch off before practice.
It ultimately boils down to the watch not offering enough benefit to offset the inconvenience.


Are you really okay, in any context, stating something as fact, when you actually have no evidence to suggest that you're correct? You're telling people things that they may believe and that will influence their decisions. That's not okay in any medium. If I could make any wish come true (outside of winning the lottery), it would be for people to appreciate that concept.

Edit: And for what it's worth, I'm sure you're right that many proficient swimmers don't use, and see no value in, a swim tracker.


Most of us can recognize hyperbole and don’t take it as literally true.


You may have missed that, but he wasn't being hyperbolic with his approximation. Furthermore, based upon the current political disaster in the US, it seems pretty clear that close to 50% of the population literally does not know how to distinguish truth from falsehood. Granted, that will depend upon the influence of the individual that's making the statement.


Are you blind to the irony of your own cognitive dissonance here? Where is the scientific study for your ridiculous "50% of the population literally does not know how to distinguish truth from falsehood" claim?
Last edited by: SH: Oct 25, 18 10:33
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [domingjm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
domingjm wrote:
JasoninHalifax wrote:
domingjm wrote:
The59Swim wrote:
domingjm wrote:


Okay. For perspective, I'm a scientist by profession, and we just don't say things that we can't immediately demonstrate with measurable and repeatable data. We all have opinions, but masquerading them as fact is a habit that everyone should recognize as dangerous. Your 1/1,000% is flagrantly lacking any rigid support whatsoever. With the current US political administration, I'm getting really sensitive about people making shit up because it's their "feeling". So I apologize for beating a dead horse here in this thread, but providing a rigid number without any support is as bad as it gets.


I'm sorry my triathlon forum post doesn't meet the rigors of peer review /sort of pink
I'll walk back my 1/1000th of a percent comment to "virtually all" that I stated before and start designing the appropriate study parameters and statistical analysis.
I'd still stand by the point that virtually none (haven't checked with every single one) of the elite swimmers and olympians we see in swimming don't practice with a watch.


I get that you like your watch for swimming and have found it useful for pool swims, but I and most swimmers don't. It's a funny conversation that inevitably comes up during tri practices - someone always asks why I take my watch off before practice.
It ultimately boils down to the watch not offering enough benefit to offset the inconvenience.


Are you really okay, in any context, stating something as fact, when you actually have no evidence to suggest that you're correct? You're telling people things that they may believe and that will influence their decisions. That's not okay in any medium. If I could make any wish come true (outside of winning the lottery), it would be for people to appreciate that concept.

Edit: And for what it's worth, I'm sure you're right that many proficient swimmers don't use, and see no value in, a swim tracker.


Most of us can recognize hyperbole and don’t take it as literally true.


You may have missed that, but he wasn't being hyperbolic with his approximation. Furthermore, based upon the current political disaster in the US, it seems pretty clear that close to 50% of the population literally does not know how to distinguish truth from falsehood. Granted, that will depend upon the influence of the individual that's making the statement.


Getting super off-topic here, but I mean, you're right, I wasn't being hyperbolic, if anything I was probably overestimating the number who do wear watches. You also hit the nail on the head with "approximation" - it was a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the number, not a published figure. Nowhere did I ever represent that number as a rock-hard fact, it was just a random, arbitrary number higher than zero. The whole thing is analogous to stating that virtually no runners train in basketball shoes. Do I really have to go out to a statistically significant number of runners and survey them or collect observational data to say that they don't do their workouts in basketball shoes? It just seems like a bit of a derailment of the point, which is that the virtually no top-level swimmers wear watches during their pool practices.

And just to back that up, here's a training video of the Louisville swim team (a sample population), count the watches...
https://www.floswimming.com/...isville#.WT9CCoWVnYU


Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [Canuck1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Sorry - this just feels like some old school swim snobbery.

You think you see snobbery.
We know we see ignorance.

See the difference there?

Honestly, we're just trying to help. That's what you should see and feel -- us helping. Snobbery involves one party having something that the other party does not have -- like status or money -- and acting superior because of it. There are no barriers to entry for not messing with a garmin during swim practice.
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [SH] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SH wrote:
Are you blind to the irony of your own cognitive dissonance here? Where is the scientific study for your ridiculous "50% of the population literally does not know how to distinguish truth from falsehood" claim?

Scott: if you think about it, don't we agree the number is 50%? People just disagree who comprises that 50%!
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What I don't get is how you can be that inconsistent in hitting your lap button. I agree that the intermediate splits are worthless -- but my interval times where I hit my lap button to start and stop are spot on for the time between when I hit the button the first time and when I hit it the next time. Maybe its some kind of user error.
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [domingjm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
domingjm wrote:
ajthomas wrote:
I did 8 x 100's on 1:26 (dont ask) with a goal to hold 1:14 on all of them....

The difference between what I actually did and what the watch recorded is the difference between knowing the previous 6 week swim build had been effective vs ineffective


Now are you really going to tell me you can get 0.35 from a wall clock? Because it's been stated prolifically here that a wall clock can do everything that a swim tracker can do, and it simply isn't true.

1) I didn't claim I could perceive 0.35 from a wall clock**. I said the difference between the clock and the watch - or put another way the inaccuracy of the watch - is the difference between knowing the previous 6 week swim build was effective vs ineffective.

2) It has been stated prolifically here that a wall clock and an properly engaged brain processing data real time is BETTER that that a swim tracker with variable accuracy. You don't get to frame the arguments being made to fit your false narrative.

3) 0.35sec /100M is the difference between SUCCESS and FAILURE. The inaccuracy of the watch is greater than that SUCCESS/FAILURE parameter. This is fundamental. The devices percision tollerance is greater than the needed precision.

4) The watch had 2 x 1:15s that were 1:14s (off by 1 second) and 2 1:14s that were 1:13s. So it was off by 4 seconds in an 900M / 11 minutes set. That is 0.6%. YES: I am saying that is meaningful data to someone who actually cares about 13 seconds over 3800M. Feel free to think it doesn't matter. And chalk up the large performance gap between people who think it does not matter to whatever explanation you would like.
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JasoninHalifax wrote:

agree to disagree. I don't really care about stoke count (when I bother to count I'm typically about 14-16 strokes per length, a little less if I try and stretch it out or extend the underwaters). I know if my pace is falling off or picking up to a finer degree than a watch can tell me, and more importantly why its falling off / picking up. By the time you get around to looking at the data post workout, it's too late, becasue you won't remember what that felt like, and to me, linking the pace with what the pace feels like is critical to swim performance. That's stuff you need to know NOW, IMO. If you were able to link that data in RT to a display on deck, that might be useful to me. but until we get there, I don't see a heck of a lot of value.

The one area that I think a watch could be useful, maybe, is for a triathlete trying to manage overall training stress, but even then, if you are doing somewhat consistent workouts, it may not give you that much more than just plugging a TSS number into TP based on how long the practice was and the subjective intensity of the day.


I wear a Garmin Vivoactive. Like most swim watches it does not get kicking lengths, so it is usually off a bit since I will kick at least 100, usually more like 500 over the course of my 2x3,000 yard weekly swims. It does not particularly like the short axis (fly/breast) strokes either. It also seems that my 'swolf' score is off. And, it seems as if my paces are off also. I guess if you tracked the data and scores enough to know what to ignore then it would be somewhat useful for improvement metrics. I have it for 'exercise' time. I didn't really ever swim with a watch when training/racing seriously. Now, it's for shits and grins. I start it when I jump in, and I stop it when I get out and don't check it in between. If/when I wore a watch in serious swim training/racing it was for the same thing.

Re. TSS. I don't think that they are accurate enough, unless you can get a truly accurate heart rate. I tend to assign a TSS per 1,000 based on a swimmer's ability and/or how difficult the workout should be.

Really though, I am more in the camp that a watch is there to be used essentially as a pace clock, not as a hit the button at the end and beginning of every lap. Tim Floyd and I don't always agree, but he posted something on this or the other thread about paying attention to what you are doing...counting lengths/laps, stroke count, etc. I agree with this. #GrumpyMarsh thinks that athletes are relying too much on their digital toys and less on their brain. I guess what I'm saying is I agree with a lot of what you've said.

Real men don't eat quiche either...is there proof of that anywhere? It's a generalization, and one that you will find is 'generally' true on most swim teams and for most competitive swimmers. They aren't real swimmers because they wear or don't wear a watch...it's because they're freakin fast. I'd hazard a guess that most of the AGers worry more about their swim watch, power meter, run metrics, and they do about paying attention to what they're actually doing. #GrumpyMarsh out.

Edit. Went to check...no watch in the swim...




Brandon Marsh - Website | @BrandonMarshTX | RokaSports | 1stEndurance | ATC Bikeshop |
Last edited by: -JBMarshTX: Oct 25, 18 12:22
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [The59Swim] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The59Swim wrote:
I'd still stand by the point that virtually none (haven't checked with every single one) of the elite swimmers and olympians we see in swimming don't practice with a watch.

So are you saying that virtually all elite/olympian swimmers use a watch and by implication that the only real swimmers are the virtually none of the elite/olympian swimmers who don't use a watch????

BTW -- I am a never-was'er swimmer (made it to the state meet as a senior in HS, but that was in breast stroke (not really swimming), but couldn't break 1:00 in free) and I proudly wear my Garmin in training. I do use the pace clock for my send-offs and can get a sense of my pace when I can spot the pace clock while swimming (my vision sucks), but I am glad I have my watch for the times when I've not been able to see the clock for several laps and I have lost track of how far I've gone in the interval (yeah, I have to break streamline to get my watch in front of my face, but it lets me do the workout as designed). In the pool, I like being able to see my heart rate between intervals (I just have to get my Garmin and HR module out of the water). I have not yet done a set with send-offs based on HR rather than time, but it is on my list to try. I like looking at similar workouts I have done weeks/months/years apart to gauge my progress (or not) by comparing pace, HR, etc.

And I get that real swimmers want to make the finish of each interval to be in perfect form because they want that muscle memory for races in the pool. But I don't get that for good swimmers who no longer do pool swimming races. I don't criticize a swammer for finishing intervals that way (their welcome to the style points), but I do criticize those who criticize us watch wearing triathletes for giving up perfect finishes in order to get better split data.

* * * *

Anyway, Jan Sibbersen had a great swim (esp. for a middle aged guy). I am OK with having a different category of fast swim (e.g., fastest swim by a top 10 finisher), but Jan does and should have the record for best swim split (which wouldn't have counted had he not legally finished the race).
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [hugoagogo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
To me, the easiest way to answer this question is by asking who wears watches when swimming: swimmers or triathletes? I'd wager that the majority of the time, the answer is going to be triathletes. Not swimmers, triathletes!


Brandon Marsh - Website | @BrandonMarshTX | RokaSports | 1stEndurance | ATC Bikeshop |
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [hugoagogo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
hugoagogo wrote:
The59Swim wrote:

I'd still stand by the point that virtually none (haven't checked with every single one) of the elite swimmers and olympians we see in swimming don't practice with a watch.


So are you saying that virtually all elite/olympian swimmers use a watch and by implication that the only real swimmers are the virtually none of the elite/olympian swimmers who don't use a watch????

Bit of a typo there, I'll start looking for a new copy editor.


****

I'm still in awe of Jan's ability to hold that 1:12 consistently and I'll definitely be trying his 10x400 as a test set.
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JasoninHalifax wrote:
You got data to support that?

Are you being hyperbolic? I don't care, this is a fun one! Okay, in two parts.

1. donald trump lies. A lot. And it's annotated for you here:
http://projects.thestar.com/...ld-trump-fact-check/

2. People believe his lies:
http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/...hodology5.2.2018.pdf
Summary: Of the conservative survey respondents, 76% believe he tells the truth either all or most of the time; 22% believe that he tells the truth only some of the time or less. Very disappointing and a good reason to hold people accountable for the things they say.
You can read commentary of the survey here:
https://www.nbcnews.com/...-approve-him-n870521

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [The59Swim] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And just to back that up, here's a training video of the Louisville swim team (a sample population), count the watches...
https://www.floswimming.com/...isville#.WT9CCoWVnYU



"Round 3- Naked"
---

Lies!!






Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [SH] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SH wrote:
domingjm wrote:
JasoninHalifax wrote:
domingjm wrote:
The59Swim wrote:
domingjm wrote:


Okay. For perspective, I'm a scientist by profession, and we just don't say things that we can't immediately demonstrate with measurable and repeatable data. We all have opinions, but masquerading them as fact is a habit that everyone should recognize as dangerous. Your 1/1,000% is flagrantly lacking any rigid support whatsoever. With the current US political administration, I'm getting really sensitive about people making shit up because it's their "feeling". So I apologize for beating a dead horse here in this thread, but providing a rigid number without any support is as bad as it gets.


I'm sorry my triathlon forum post doesn't meet the rigors of peer review /sort of pink
I'll walk back my 1/1000th of a percent comment to "virtually all" that I stated before and start designing the appropriate study parameters and statistical analysis.
I'd still stand by the point that virtually none (haven't checked with every single one) of the elite swimmers and olympians we see in swimming don't practice with a watch.


I get that you like your watch for swimming and have found it useful for pool swims, but I and most swimmers don't. It's a funny conversation that inevitably comes up during tri practices - someone always asks why I take my watch off before practice.
It ultimately boils down to the watch not offering enough benefit to offset the inconvenience.


Are you really okay, in any context, stating something as fact, when you actually have no evidence to suggest that you're correct? You're telling people things that they may believe and that will influence their decisions. That's not okay in any medium. If I could make any wish come true (outside of winning the lottery), it would be for people to appreciate that concept.

Edit: And for what it's worth, I'm sure you're right that many proficient swimmers don't use, and see no value in, a swim tracker.


Most of us can recognize hyperbole and don’t take it as literally true.


You may have missed that, but he wasn't being hyperbolic with his approximation. Furthermore, based upon the current political disaster in the US, it seems pretty clear that close to 50% of the population literally does not know how to distinguish truth from falsehood. Granted, that will depend upon the influence of the individual that's making the statement.


Are you blind to the irony of your own cognitive dissonance here? Where is the scientific study for your ridiculous "50% of the population literally does not know how to distinguish truth from falsehood" claim?

Posted above. But you're right. If we extrapolate from the poll and assume republicans constitute approximately 50% of the population, and assume that zero democrats believe any of his lies, it's more like 40% of the US population doesn't know how to distinguish truth from falsehood. It's disappointing that I'm not more wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [The59Swim] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm still in awe of Jan's ability to hold that 1:12 consistently and I'll definitely be trying his 10x400 as a test set.
At what pace and interval?? I think this would be a great set for anyone trying to figure out what they could swim on a legit non wetsuit ironman swim. If you look at his 1;10 average over the 4k set, plug in the minute rest, account for no turns in the ocean, but the higher flotation in that really salty water, it is basically spot on as a predictor set for him..
And everyone looking at this set, no doubt he did it LCM..
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [monty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
monty wrote:
I'm still in awe of Jan's ability to hold that 1:12 consistently and I'll definitely be trying his 10x400 as a test set.
At what pace and interval?? I think this would be a great set for anyone trying to figure out what they could swim on a legit non wetsuit ironman swim. If you look at his 1;10 average over the 4k set, plug in the minute rest, account for no turns in the ocean, but the higher flotation in that really salty water, it is basically spot on as a predictor set for him..
And everyone looking at this set, no doubt he did it LCM..

Not entirely sure - maybe try starting somewhere between 1:25-1:28/100m and adjusting from there. I like the 45s-1min rest between 400s, since I tend to do lots of 100s and 200s that give me 10s or less of rest. Hardest thing might be finding the pool time/space for it or convincing the coaches of the tri club that we should try it.
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [-JBMarshTX] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I swam in a pool for the four year cycle from London to rio that almost every gold medal winner in London swam in, at least once per year

The pool was open to the public whilst many international teams were on camps and it held the short course worlds

I never saw a swimmer with a watch

I did see, and wrote about it on here, a guy rock up with a lane to himself and swim 100 lcm unimaginably quickly for 60 minutes that watching him prevented me from swimming it was so captivating to watch

Swimmers don't need watches any more than MO fatah needs one. He will know give or take seconds his marathon mile pace irrespective of heat, incline, descent, or terrain in the same way professional cyclists will understand effort and power

Who needs a watch
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [hugoagogo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
hugoagogo wrote:
What I don't get is how you can be that inconsistent in hitting your lap button. I agree that the intermediate splits are worthless -- but my interval times where I hit my lap button to start and stop are spot on for the time between when I hit the button the first time and when I hit it the next time. Maybe its some kind of user error.


So you touch the wall with the same hand every time regardless of pace?
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [monty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
monty wrote:
I'm still in awe of Jan's ability to hold that 1:12 consistently and I'll definitely be trying his 10x400 as a test set.
At what pace and interval?? I think this would be a great set for anyone trying to figure out what they could swim on a legit non wetsuit ironman swim. If you look at his 1;10 average over the 4k set, plug in the minute rest, account for no turns in the ocean, but the higher flotation in that really salty water, it is basically spot on as a predictor set for him..
And everyone looking at this set, no doubt he did it LCM..

Yeah it was LCM.

Just a side note: the last day of training camp my college does the "set". It is 10 x 400 LCM best average. Seniors go first on the first one and set the goal/average for the lane. Everyone except the freshmen know we are only doing one. Our coach then gives this speech to the freshmen about growing up, being a leader, being a man. He tells them 9 more to go. And we aren't getting back onto the vans until they are all done. The freshmen take off like bandits, we follow then get out at the 50 until they figure out, yeah, were not actually expecting a 200 breaststroker hold 4:30s for a set of 400s.
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ajthomas wrote:
hugoagogo wrote:
What I don't get is how you can be that inconsistent in hitting your lap button. I agree that the intermediate splits are worthless -- but my interval times where I hit my lap button to start and stop are spot on for the time between when I hit the button the first time and when I hit it the next time. Maybe its some kind of user error.


So you touch the wall with the same hand every time regardless of pace?

No, it would be closer to touching the wall with both hands (or more often, neither hand because both elbows are bent while I hit the lap button). These days I am swimming at about a 1:25/100 yds pace (I know that's slow, but I am pleading age as my defense), so if I accidentally hit the lap 6 inches early, I've only exaggerated my lap time by about a 0.1 second. I start each interval underwater, both feet on wall with both hands in front of me, finger on lap button, hit lap button, hands in streamline, push off wall. So for whatever the delay is from hitting lap button to starting push off, my interval is that much faster than I measure. Ultimately, I care a little bit less about accuracy than precision. I think my lap button hitting is very consistent, so a comparison of one interval to another is meaningful (interval measurements are "precise"). If my accuracy is always off by the same amount (even by a second or more) in the same direction, it is not really relevant to me. I have no accurate way to convert a SCY, SCM, or LCM to open water times, so accuracy of my timing doesn't matter. Similarly, it doesn't matter to me that I don't have a good one hand finish at the wall. I know that would be a little quicker, but if I finish each interval the same way, I have a good apples to apples comparison from interval to interval and a good one hand touch is irrelevant to triathlon (unless one is going for best swim split in a triathlon with a pool swim -- which I never am).

BTW, the pool I usually swim in has one smallish pace clock on the deck near one end of the pool. If I were doing a good one hand finish with my right hand, I would finish with my body facing away from the clock; with left hand toward the clock -- it seems that would introduce a lot of variability in measurement using the pace clock -- maybe more than from using my watch. Anyway, in no point in my life were my freestyle times anywhere close to making me a real swimmer (and I wear a jammer), so I am not really the point of this conversation ;).
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ajthomas wrote:
domingjm wrote:
ajthomas wrote:
I did 8 x 100's on 1:26 (dont ask) with a goal to hold 1:14 on all of them....

The difference between what I actually did and what the watch recorded is the difference between knowing the previous 6 week swim build had been effective vs ineffective


Now are you really going to tell me you can get 0.35 from a wall clock? Because it's been stated prolifically here that a wall clock can do everything that a swim tracker can do, and it simply isn't true.


1) I didn't claim I could perceive 0.35 from a wall clock**. I said the difference between the clock and the watch - or put another way the inaccuracy of the watch - is the difference between knowing the previous 6 week swim build was effective vs ineffective.

2) It has been stated prolifically here that a wall clock and an properly engaged brain processing data real time is BETTER that that a swim tracker with variable accuracy. You don't get to frame the arguments being made to fit your false narrative.

3) 0.35sec /100M is the difference between SUCCESS and FAILURE. The inaccuracy of the watch is greater than that SUCCESS/FAILURE parameter. This is fundamental. The devices percision tollerance is greater than the needed precision.

4) The watch had 2 x 1:15s that were 1:14s (off by 1 second) and 2 1:14s that were 1:13s. So it was off by 4 seconds in an 900M / 11 minutes set. That is 0.6%. YES: I am saying that is meaningful data to someone who actually cares about 13 seconds over 3800M. Feel free to think it doesn't matter. And chalk up the large performance gap between people who think it does not matter to whatever explanation you would like.

I read all of this and it still sounds like you're saying you can finish your interval, look up at the pace clock, and read a precise enough time to distinguish .35 seconds. There's no way you can read fractions of a second precisely on a pace clock. Hell, the digital pace clocks I've seen don't even have fractions of a second. The only way this argument works is if there's a coach on deck timing you.

I get pretty damn repeatable data from my watch. Am I likely adding time to the interval at the beginning and end pushing buttons? Absolutely. But if I add that same time to every interval then it doesn't really matter. Every once in awhile I will "miss" hitting the button and add a little time to an interval but that's rare.

And you do get instantaneous feedback from the watch after every interval. Finish the interval, hit the lap button, see what your time was (as well as pace/100 if longer interval). Watch is also counting the rest interval for you as well as the send off interval, use whichever you want.

IMO all this talk about the watch being distracting is garbage. It's a great training tool when used properly. If you need something more accurate than the watch, the pace clock just isn't going to do it for you either. You'll need someone on deck timing you.

If real swimmers prefer using the pace clock because that's how they've always done it, fine. But the watch is just as good, with the benefit of also recording your data for you.
Quote Reply

Prev Next