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.