In a previous issue of Swimming Research News (Volume 1-2, March 2004), we showed how significant cutbacks in "conventional training (sometimes called "tapers") could produce large enhancements of performance. In this article, we continue with that theme and also describe how upswings in swim intensity, rather than volume, can lead to faster times in the pool. As you are well aware, you have three basic tools at your disposal for making your swim training more difficult (and thus for inducing physiological adaptation and improved performance). INTENSITY Vs VOLUME DEBATE

You can increase your volume of training (the average distance you swim per workout), your frequency (the number of workouts you conduct each week or - if you don't like the weekly "system" of training organization - your average number of workouts per day), or your intensity ( your average swim speed while training, or else the percentage of your volume which is conducted at above lactate-threshold swim speed). Naturally, the relative emphasis on these three variable tends to vary from sport to sport. In running, a traditional preference for high volume at the expense of intensity (there is usually an inverse relationship between these variables; as volume rises, average speed tends to drop) is very slowly being eroded as athletes move to higher-quality (higher-intensity) work.

On the other hand, competitive swimmers have been remarkably faithful to the discipline of high volume, with some believing that if they are swimming 6000 meters per day they will be even better if they navigate 7000 to 8000 daily meters or more. In fact, some competitive collegiate swimmers in the United States swim 10,000 meters or so each day believing that such high quanities of work will produce peak performances. Not surprisingly, the frequencies of staleness and overtraining among competitive swimmers are very high. In addition to burning out countless swimmers, high-volume swim training flies in the face of relevant research.

 For example, in a study carried out at Ball State University in the United States, swimmers who doubled their training volume for a six-week period were unable to make any gains in aerobic or anaerobic capacity during that time frame. In contrast, a separate piece of research (also carried out at Ball State) showed that competitive swimmers who cut their volume roughly in half (from about 8750 meters per day to 4500 daily meters) were able to significantly upgrade swimming power and performance. INTENSITY Vs VOLUME DEBATE

To learn more about More News Concerning The Intensity vs. Volume Debate (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol.1 Issue 4 of Swimming Research News) and many more swimming related topics.

Over the last 20 years or so, athletes have become increasingly aware of the potential benefits of cross training, which can be defined as participating in an alternative training mode which is different from the one used in competitive efforts (1). Cross Training

he attractiveness of such training is based on the ideas that participation in a different sport (from one's main sporting pursuit) produces a cross transfer of training effects and adaptations which are beneficial (and perhaps unique), and that such participation may constitute a form of recovery from the primary sport (2, 3, 4, & 5). For example, various studies have shown that cycling workouts, strength training, and plyometric exercises can improve running performances, and that resistance sessions can enhance cycling capacity.

Swimming is in the cross-training mix, too, as studies have shown that in-the-water strength training can upgrade maximal swimming speed and distance covered per stroke, key predictors of swimming performance (6). However, it is not clear whether two very popular sports, running and cycling, can benefit swimmers in any way, nor is it certain whether swimming can help to boost running and/or cycling capacities. Studies have suggested that in order for one form of training to have a positive impact on another, it is important for the first activity to be specific in some way to the other pursuit (7 & 8). As an example of this, strength training carried out on land (using exercise machines, free weights, and devices such as the "Swim Bench") has never been linked with improved swimming performances, while strength training carried out in the water (using stroke-relevant movements) has been correlated with a variety of swimming benefits (6). Skeptics contend that the skilled movements of swimming are so dissimilar from the biomechanics of cycling and running that one should not expect fitness to "cross over" between swimming and the other sports, but there has been little research in this area.

To find out more about the relationships and cross-transfer-of-fitness effects between swimming, cycling, and running, French researchers recently worked with four elite triathletes (three females and one male) (9). Average age of the athletes was 32 years, and mean VO2max settled at a rather-lofty 71 ml kg-1 min-1. The subjects had been training for the triathlon for an average of 9.3 years and had accumulated a grand total (between them) of nine French-National-Championships titles, along with five top-three places in European or World Championships. The athletes' training was carefully monitored over a 40-week period, which commenced in November after a six-week break and ended with the last important competition of the season in early September of the following year. Cross Training

he four athletes recorded their heart rates during every swimming, cycling, and running session with a heart-rate monitor and downloaded the data to a computer after each workout. A training stimulus (called "W") was calculated separately for each sport and also for occasional, miscellaneous training (resistance work and cross country skiing). We won't go into the scary details of the calculation of W but will simply mention that it depended on Xj, where:

Xj= (HRj - HRrest)/HRmax-HRrest)

HRj was simply the heart rate recorded at one specific moment within a workout, while HRrest, as you have probably figured out, was the athlete's resting heart rate on the day of training. HRmax was the athlete's maximal heart rate, which was checked every three months during the study (yes, max heart rate can change in response to training).

To learn more about cross training for swimming (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol.2 Issue 1) and many more swimming related topics. Simply enter cross training, in the "search archives" box, or enter any subject you wish to learn more about. A subscription to Swimming Research News is another way to receive valuable information.
Click Now.