Total Immersion Forums  

Go Back   Total Immersion Forums > Freestyle
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-12-2018
WFEGb WFEGb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 1,104
WFEGb
Default

Hello Tomoy,

good Image to think about.
Quote:
1) Increase one, and hold the other the same, and you go faster. Yay!
2) Increase one at the expense of the other and it's an even trade.
3) Decrease both and it's time to call it a day ;-)
OK, (3) expands the area of your envelope. Very good! Otherwise you will get best area if you "design" your envelope with both sides equal-lengthed...

...Damned not everybody likes squared envelops, and damned, both sides don't have the same unit of measurement... :-))

Best regards,
Werner
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-13-2018
sclim sclim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,499
sclim
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WFEGb View Post
Hello Tomoy,

good Image to think about.

OK, (3) expands the area of your envelope. Very good! Otherwise you will get best area if you "design" your envelope with both sides equal-lengthed...

...Damned not everybody likes squared envelops, and damned, both sides don't have the same unit of measurement... :-))

Best regards,
Werner
Interesting that the concept of a mathematical value being the product of two factors can be easily related in our minds to the real world situation of area = side a x side b. In this real world case the units are the same (that is, linear dimensional distance) which makes the concept a little more concrete. But if you just extend the analogy a bit more and think abstractly, you can abandon your insistence that the dimensional units stay the same, and if you need an image to help anchor your mental visual construction, think of a graphic plot with the x and y axes being your two variables. The product will be the area of the rectangle formed on the graph, and the dimensional unit of the product will be xy (TT number x SPL, that is, duration per stroke multiplied by number of strokes per 25 metres = Time in seconds per 25m). To be truly accurate, I guess you have to also include the number of beeps during the push-off glide.

The equivalent of a nearly square envelope would be the sweet-spot point at which dropping the Tempo Trainer time by your smallest usual decrease interval results in an increase in SPL by one, and vice-versa, at which time you are very close to your optimum efficiency for that distance, and practicing and aiming for this point should in theory prepare you for the greatest likelihood of being able to swim at your current maximum efficiency.

Last edited by sclim : 04-13-2018 at 02:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-13-2018
John@NewPaltz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

While I love mathematical approaches (and due to my lack of skills in complex mathematical equations I also love simplicity), I need to disagree with optimizing in a 2-dimensional manner for the following reason (however, I tend to agree for sprint distance swimming like 25/50/100 m):
I am able to increase tempo and stroke length, but I won't be able to maintain it for more than 1-2 pool lengths. In other words, if I went with sclim's approach of finding the sweet spot, I would end up at a pace and SPL, that I cannot maintain. This is also the reason, why I tend to agree in case of sprint distance swimming: I don't need to maintain my pace for longer than the duration of my experiments in the pool.
For every other distance, I find my self left with an optimization dilemma:
Say, you're preparing for a 2.4 mile open-water swim: It is kinda obvious that "maximizing the envelope" based on a couple lengths in a 25m pool will not result in your efficiency optimum for your target distance. However, where is the optimum? It will be somewhere below your pool optimum. Is the only way to find out swimming 2.4 miles at a perfectly consistent SPM rate? And even if you did that, your stroke length might be dropping a lot over the course of the swim, because you didn't chose the optimal SPM. Averaging it out over the full length could trick you. This risk is way lower or even non-existent in sprint distance swimming.
Any suggestions?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-13-2018
John@NewPaltz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Little comment on the oxygen topic: Very interesting and I haven't spent enough thoughts on it, yet. Sun Yang started breathing on both sides (i.e. on every stroke) before the turns which definitely shows that oxygen demand is an issue when reducing SPM. If you're currently comfortably breathing every 3 strokes, you're still having headroom and could play with reducing SPM but breathing more often. In my personal case, I swam my fastest 2.4 miles with a 2-3-2-3 breathing pattern. But, if you're already at a 2-stroke breathing pattern, you might already hit a completely different (minimum) SPM boundary. Interesting....
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-14-2018
sclim sclim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,499
sclim
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John@NewPaltz View Post
Little comment on the oxygen topic: Very interesting and I haven't spent enough thoughts on it, yet. Sun Yang started breathing on both sides (i.e. on every stroke) before the turns which definitely shows that oxygen demand is an issue when reducing SPM. If you're currently comfortably breathing every 3 strokes, you're still having headroom and could play with reducing SPM but breathing more often. In my personal case, I swam my fastest 2.4 miles with a 2-3-2-3 breathing pattern. But, if you're already at a 2-stroke breathing pattern, you might already hit a completely different (minimum) SPM boundary. Interesting....
Your objections have less to do with the two-dimensional aspect of spl x TT analysis (which after all is just various subtle variations on arriving at the same time to complete a given distance) nor with reducing SPL alone per se. Remember, in my definition of "sweet spot" I included the condition "for that distance" -- i.e. you have specified sprint, long distance or whatever, and I stand by that.

O2 demand is very high not because Sun Yang is reducing stroke count. It is high because he is doing 1500m at world record pace. If anything, lowering his stroke count, if he has practiced it enough and played around with the spl x Stroke time interval equation enough to arrive at an appropriate sweet spot, should lower his O2 requirements at his given record pace.

Of course you would be correct that, below that "sweet spot", lowering the SPL would indeed slow your best time, likely because of poorer efficiency and higher O2 demand. But that is only at your current degree of practice and training. Who knows what the future might bring?

Last edited by sclim : 04-14-2018 at 01:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-15-2018
CoachStuartMcDougal's Avatar
CoachStuartMcDougal CoachStuartMcDougal is offline
coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,353
CoachStuartMcDougal
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John@NewPaltz View Post
While I love mathematical approaches (and due to my lack of skills in complex mathematical equations I also love simplicity), I need to disagree with optimizing in a 2-dimensional manner for the following reason (however, I tend to agree for sprint distance swimming like 25/50/100 m):
I am able to increase tempo and stroke length, but I won't be able to maintain it for more than 1-2 pool lengths. In other words, if I went with sclim's approach of finding the sweet spot, I would end up at a pace and SPL, that I cannot maintain. This is also the reason, why I tend to agree in case of sprint distance swimming: I don't need to maintain my pace for longer than the duration of my experiments in the pool.
For every other distance, I find my self left with an optimization dilemma:
Say, you're preparing for a 2.4 mile open-water swim: It is kinda obvious that "maximizing the envelope" based on a couple lengths in a 25m pool will not result in your efficiency optimum for your target distance. However, where is the optimum? It will be somewhere below your pool optimum. Is the only way to find out swimming 2.4 miles at a perfectly consistent SPM rate? And even if you did that, your stroke length might be dropping a lot over the course of the swim, because you didn't chose the optimal SPM. Averaging it out over the full length could trick you. This risk is way lower or even non-existent in sprint distance swimming.
Any suggestions?
Hi John,

You don't have to agree with the math, but it's really not binary as you make it out to be. The math offers choices in rate given distance and time. You have to factor perceived effort, i.e can a swimmer sustain that pace for 500m, 1.2 mile, 2.4 mile, 5k ,etc. A good test is 4x300 holding stroke length and tempo. If 2.4 mile IM swim, add on time for bottlenecks, sighting, some drift. I've been able to predict swimmers times within a minute on 1.2 mile swims and 3 mins on 2.4 mile IM swims. So it's just not time and distance, it's knowing your swimmer and using some math to help them hit their best time.

However, I've had many coaches argue with math and swear by pace clock. Pace clock is just another unit of time, elapsed time given some number of lengths. But the distance and time is generalized by lengths whether 25y or 50m and a 1 minute pace clock. Very few tools to determine potential speed.

So it's not whether you agree with the math or method of estimation, it's how it's used to help swimmers understand what they're capable of if time and distance in smaller units can be easily understood and achieved.

Stu
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-27-2018
Tom Pamperin Tom Pamperin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 712
Tom Pamperin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John@NewPaltz View Post
However, in my particular case I was experiencing something different and I call it "perceived exertion":
I'm able to get from say 10 down to 8 strokes per lane at the same exact lap time, BUT swimming with 10 strokes is way less exhausting. Squeezing out those last 2 strokes takes so much more energy, that it feels like a net loss in efficiency. Has anybody had the same experience?
John,

I know I'm late to this conversation, but I've had this exact same experience of increased perceived effort levels when I reduce my SPL. I've had the same discussion with Coach Stuart, who told me the same thing he told you: lower SPL (longer stroke) reduces effort.

Now, a lot of the best stuff I have learned on this forum comes direct from Coach Stuart, and I'm incredibly grateful for his generosity and insights. But his answer that lower SPL leads to lower exertion has not always been true in my experience--like you, it's been the other way around for me when I try to drop down to 12-13 SPL (25m) instead of 15-16 SPL, for example.

BUT--I think that's because when that happens, I have not REALLY been lowering my SPL the right way--core stability, balance, and relaxation. Or I have not developed the fitness to maintain core stability, balance, and relaxation (more a skill than fitness issue), and so get tired when really focusing on those things to lower SPL.

I have also experienced exactly what Coach Stuart predicted when in a challenging 30 x 50m set (:45/50m pace, :20 rest), I focused on maintaining SPL of 16 or less. I found myself able to do it. Halfway through the set I was hitting 15 SPL. Then 14. I never got tired, and completed the whole set easily, and at lower SPL than planned. So, done correctly, Coach Stuart is right--lower SPL = lower exertion.
__________________
Tom
www.tompamperin.com
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-27-2018
sclim sclim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,499
sclim
Default

I followed what you said earlier -- you didn't necessarily agree that lower SPL gave rise to less exertion, or at least if you are achieving this the wrong way (by exerting more rather than by skill and cleverness -- I'm paraphrasing here) when you drop from 16 to 12-13.

But then you say...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Pamperin View Post
I have also experienced exactly what Coach Stuart predicted when in a challenging 30 x 50m set (:45/50m pace, :20 rest), I focused on maintaining SPL of 16 or less. I found myself able to do it. Halfway through the set I was hitting 15 SPL. Then 14. I never got tired, and completed the whole set easily, and at lower SPL than planned. So, done correctly, Coach Stuart is right--lower SPL = lower exertion.
So, exactly, how did you achieve this when you couldn't do it before? Obviously you were doing it correctly, with skill rather than more exertion. So was it

1) In the context of the "more challenging set"? i.e. you were distracted by the "more challenging" so, once you were comfortably tuned in, in mid task, you were able to relax and do the skillful adjustments necessary?

2) Because you dropped it gradually 16 to 15, so it didn't disrupt all the other nicely tuned elements of your relaxed efficient stroke, then similarly to 14.

or what???
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-28-2018
Tom Pamperin Tom Pamperin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 712
Tom Pamperin
Default

Ha! If I could answer that I'd be a much better swimmer and probably a TI Master Coach. It was one of those magical days that happen every now and then. A bit more about it:

I had been attempting that 30 x 50m set, but was finding myself at 18 SPL to make the :43 pace for each repeat. Coach Stuart encouraged me to try lowing my SPL. I was skeptical (actually quite certain I wouldn't be able to make the times at 16) but gave it a try, with the results described above.

Now, reflecting on how swimming has been going for me lately with my 2-beat kick really transforming my stroke, I wonder:

It may have been that I was using a faster SR in my desperation to make the times on that set, and thereby curing an over-gliding problem I hadn't even been aware of. Less acceleration/deceleration in each stroke, more continuous speed. That certainly seems to be what is happening to me now.

But that set was pretty magical that day. I wasn't even tired, and as I recall, I would have kept on for another 20 repeats except the pool was closing and I needed to leave.
__________________
Tom
www.tompamperin.com
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-28-2018
WFEGb WFEGb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 1,104
WFEGb
Default

Hello,

my 2ct...

think that's all very tight to the other EVF-thread. Reminds me a bit on a podcast from Mat "I'm not the same swimmer every day"... Most of us will know it, sometimes there are days when everything will fall into its place and we think, that's how Terry and Shinji might feel... and, sad enough, we don't find the grip to reproduce the same next day. And sometimes there is a day where we're not sure if anything is in the right place, and everything seems to go banana included (what should never happen! so we should better take a time out in the whirl pool...) the joy of swimming some laps. No, I won't suggest the whirl pool. Better will be being curious and swimming some "bad" laps to feel what's happening and finding some fun in all that "banana-stuff".

Preserving our joy of swimming for me is most important over all other things. And so I'm sure there are so many things that can not be put into numbers. RPE is a try but it's subjective and not the same every day.

In OW I can swim longer, much more relaxed and further than I only can think in a pool. That will brake down if no support-boats there or am too far from the beach... (Am a coward with that...)

Sometimes I swim my 1000s the same time as the other day by time and feeling RPE, but I swam with two SPL more or less, not being able to tell what changed.

Most times I swim my last two laps (LCM) with today least possible, slow and overgliding strokes; differs from 28 to 32, can't tell what happens today for that number... but swimming that way is not as effortless as swimming with 38 to 42 SPL...

When going for an (nearly) "all-out" the last 50-100m SR increases and SPL decreases (down to 4SPL). Strange, but that is my feel to get my momentary fastest.

Sometimes I focus in special things. FE kick-timing or more "aggressiv" breathing or more forceful spear, what shares 1-3SPL, but can't integrate it into my cruising-pace with the same result.

Most times when I ask my wife to have a look (videos are strongly forbidden), when working on a special FP. She says: No difference... but I do feel extreme differences.

And so many of our decisions where to work for improvement might be more a matter of feeling than a matter of pure calculation, but calculating may be a helpful tool sometimes, as goggles or a TT. Sad enough not having Terry's genius to find always the right things to improve in the right way. (Damned, missing him!)

Best regards,
Werner
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.