Swimming Research News And Events

TAPER FATTENS FAST-TWITCH FIBERS

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Mon, 17 May 2010 00:00:00 -0500

We know that muscle cells respond to the training that we do. Sadly, we don't know exactly how they react to our workouts, and thus we don't understand how to train.

Oh true, we know that endurance swimming enhance the "oxidative potential" of our skeletal muscles. Consistent training increases the number of mitochondria in our muscle fibers, spikes the levels of aerobic enzymes in our sinews, and advances the activities of those enzymes. As a result, our muscle cells can utilize oxyzen at higher rates and thus create ATP - the actual fuel that we need for swimming - at a higher clip.

We also know that endurance training, when carried out over an extended time period, can change our muscle-fiber types (1). For example, a steady diet of high-volume work can corrupt a swimmer's fast-twitch fibers, forcing them to edge toward the world of slow-twitch contractions (a change which leads to less-powerful swimming).

But what we don't understand very well is how training alters the contractile properties of individual muscle fibers. Yes, scientific investigations have shown that training has the potential to change the size, force production, shortening velocity, and power of single muscle cells, characteristics which should be of great importance from a performance standpoint.

Unfortunately, the research has not presented a clear picture of how these alternations are linked with different endurance training strategies. It may be shocking to you, in the year 2006, to hear that until very recently there has been a total lack of data available to describe how the contractile properties of swimmers' individual muscle cells respond to conventional swim training, but that is in fact the case. There has also been a complete lack of information concerning how swimmers' fibers respond to "sharpening" or tapering phases of training.

However, thanks to research carried out by Scott Trappe, Dave Costill, and Robert Thomas at Ball State University, breakthroughs have been made in these extremely important areas of research, and the results of the Ball-State inquires are extremely intriquing, to say the least. Trappe and colleagues followed six highly trained collegiate male varsity swimmers over a 21-day tapering period, just before a conference championship swimming meet (2). Average age of these subjects was 20 years, mean height was 73.6 inches, and percent body fat settled at a slim 7.8 percent. The athletes competed in events ranging in distance from 50 to 500 yards.

During the five months preceding the initiation of the taper, the athletes had been swimming about 6000 to 8000 meters per day. Within the three-week taper which followed this five-month period, the total distance swum per training session gradually decreased. During this "turn-down the-volume" phase, the swimmers decreased both their amount of daily interval training and also their quanity of non-interval-type, moderate intensity swimming. By the end of the taper, the athletes were swimming about 2000 meters per day, with half of this distance consisting of intervals (before the taper began, a typical day revolved around ~ 6400 meters, with ~ 1500 meters of interval work). Thus, you can see that intervals expanded from about 23 percent of daily training volume to 50 percent over the course of the taper - and that daily volume fell by approximately 69 percent over the 21 - day period. This decline in daily volume was gradual; on average, the swimmers swam about 200 fewer meters on each successive day of t he taper .

To understand what was happening to individual muscle cell during the taper, Trappe and colleagues obtained percutaneous, needle, muscle-biopsy samples from the posterior deltiod muscle of the swimmers one week before the start of the taper and again after the championship competition (the posterior deltoid is quite active during freestyle swimming and thus would be expected to respond to the dramatic changes in training associated with a taper). From these biopsies, single muscle cells were isolated and tested for single-fiber diameter, single-fiber cross-sectional area, peak active force, maximal shortening velocity, and peak power; in all, 206 fibers from the six swimmers were analyzed. As it turned out, about 64.5 percent of the athletes' muscle cell were of the slow-twitch (Type-I) variety, while 35.5 percent were the high-velocity, fast-twitch (Type-IIa) Fellows.

To learn more about Swimming Aganst Time's Currents (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol. 1 Issue 9) and many more swimming related topics. Simply click on the Back Issues link, select the volume and issue number from the drop-down menu, or enter any subject you wish to learn more about. Buy Now

SWIMMING AGAINST TIME'S CURRENT

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Mon, 17 May 2010 00:00:00 -0500

What impact does the ageing process have on swimming performances? Does ageing work differently for male and female swimmers? Is the age-related decline greater for the shorter competitive distance or the longer ones? For example, does performance fall off faster as a function of age in the 50-meter sprint or the 1500-meter event? What can be done to minimize any negative effects that ageing has on swimming capacity?

To answer these kinds of important questions, Hirofumi Tanaka and his colleagues from the University of Colorado at Boulder and the University Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver recently followed - over a 12 year period - the swimming performance times of 321 women and 319 men who were participants in the U.S. Masters Swimming Championships (1). As Tanaka and his co-workers noted, swimming is a particularly good sport with which to study age-related performance questions. After all, swimming is a "non-weight-bearing activity" and therefore is associated with a relatively low rate of overuse injury, compared with running, even among older athletes (2). This light incidence of injury enhances the ability of serious swimmers to continue to carry out their usual, consistent training as they get older. Thus, drop offs in performance are more likely to be the result of factors associated with ageing, rather than a consequence of losses in quality training associated with injury related lay-offs.

In addition, swimming is a sport in which older participants are nearly equally divided between males and females. This is unlike other activities such as running, in which older competitors are heavily biased toward the male condition, and it makes it possible to study gender-related differences in performance as a function of age without as much worry about confounding factors. When the number of older females participating in a sport are small, for example, observed differences between males and females might simply be due to the fact only the most-athletic females remain in the study population (whereas the males represent a broader sample). In addition, a small size of the female cohort per se can make if difficult to make statistically valid conclusions. To use an example from a different aspect of the aquatic world, if you sample 10 fish from a lake it is very unlikely that your small collection of animals give you a true picture of the average sizes and types of fish in the overall body of water; if you sample 1000, you can be considerably more confident in your estimates.

In the current study, free-style swimming times were collected from the United States Masters Swimming (USMS) database over the 12-year period from 1988 to 1999. All swimmers culled from the database placed in the top 10 in their age groups in either the 50-meter or 1500-meter free-style events over the course of the follow-up period. The age of the swimmers ranged all the way up to 85 years. The free-style events were chosen (as opposed to back-stroke, butterfly, and breast-stroke competitions) because they involved the largest number of competitors and underwent the smallest number of rule and technical changes over the chosen time period (thus, the chance that a performance alteration was related to a rule change or sampling error was minimized). Overall, 168 women were studied for age-related adjustments in 50-meter swim performances and 153 females were examined for 1500-meter times as a function of age. There was 164 men in the 50-meter analysis and 155 males in the 1500-meter portion of the study.

Tanaka and friends found that performance times were completely maintained (with no drop-off) for both 50 and 1500 meter until the age of ~ 35, after which performance times expanded (average speeds slowed) in a steady, moderate, linear way until the age of 70 was reached. Beyond 70, there was a steep rise in times (that is, a major downturn in competitive speeds).

Performance as a function of age changed at different rates in the two different events. For example, between the ages of 35 and 70, the rate decrease in performance capacity was greater for the 1500-meter distance, compared with the 50-meter sprint. In fact, decreases in 50-meter free-style time were extremely modest until the 70-year mark was attained. Between the ages of 35 and 70, the rate of decline (compared with the world-record free-style time) was less than 1 percent per year for the 50-meter event: for the 1500-meter competition, the rate of decline was closer to 2 percent.

When the men and women were compared, it was found that declines in swimming performance were greater for females than for males in the 50-meter sprint, but not for the 1500-meter distance.

To learn more about Swimming Against Time's Currents (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol. 1 Issue 9) and many more swimming related topics. Simply click on the Back Issues link, select the volume and issue number from the drop-down menu, or enter any subject you wish to learn more about.

Buy Now

More News Concerning The Intensity Vs. Volume Debate

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0600

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.

Cross Training For Swimmers

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0600

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.

vVo2max TRAINING FOR SWIMMERS

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0600

Increasing your swimming-specific maximal aerobic capacity (VO2max) is an important way to improve your swimming performances (1). In addition, your actual swimming velocity at VO2max (your vVO2max), which is defined as the minimal swimming speed which causes you to attain VO2max, is believed to be an incredible good predictor of your swimming prowess (better than VO2max by it-self), since vVO2max combines both aerobic capability and efficiency of movement in one physiological term. In effect, vVO2max indicates both how much aerobic capacity you have and how much you can get from your aerobic capacity (how fast you can move for a given rate of oxygen consumption). vVO2MAX TRAINING FOR SWIMMERS

The v in vVO2max is of course a function of how economically you can utilize oxygen. If you have a huge VO2max but you need all of your aerobic capacity to paddle along at piddling speeds, your vVO2max will be low (despite the high VO2max) and your performances poor. In contrast, an impressive vVo2max means that you have a lofty aerobic reserve and that you are nonetheless stingy with how you use oxygen; as a result, you can attain very high swimming speeds during competitions, because those speeds lie within your oxygen-consuming domain.

Naturally, then, a key goal of swim training is to heighgten vVO2max to the greatest-possible extent. Pioneering efforts by the great French exercise scientist Veronique Billat have shown that training at vVO2max is the most powerful way to improve the key variable. Veronique has demostarted that the utilization of a weekly interval workout, in which the work intervals are conducted at vVO2max, can lead to substanial improvements in vVO2max (and overall performance) in just six to eight weeks. A potential problem for you as a swimmer, however, is determining your actual vVO2max in the water.

You need to know what it is in order to set up intervals, but how do you properly estimate it? As you might expect, vVO2max can be measured directly in the pool using graded work intervals and sophisticated oxygen-measuring equipment, but such tests are extremely expensive, and the laboratories which have the capcity to carry out such exams may be inaccessible to you. Runners have had an easy (and cheap) way to figure out vVO2max, thanks to Veronique, who was able to show that something called TlimvVO2max averaged six minutes during running. vVO2MAX TRAINING FOR SWIMMERS

TlimvVO2max (the "time limit at vVO2max") is simply the maximal amount of time a runner can keep going at vVO2max before falling over in a heap by the side of the track. Now, since TlimvVO2max averaged six minutes, this meant that a very simple test could provide a decent estimate of vVO2max. All a runner had to do was go to the track on a day when he/she was feeling good (and when environmental conditions were benign) and run at an all-out intensity for exactly six minutes.

The distance covered during the six-minute spurt could then be measured, and vVO2max could be reckoned. If a runner covered exactly 1600 meters in six minutes, for example, his/her vVO2max would be simply 1600m/360 secs = 4.44 meters per second. Often, the calculated vVO2max is converted to a tempo for practical use during training; in this case, 4.44 meters per second is the same as tempo of 90 seconds per 400 meters. But what about nanatorians? What is TlimvVO2max for an experience swimmer? This is the time that swimmers absolutely need in order to test themselves for vVO2max and then set up their vVO2max-enhancing work-outs.

Fortunately, a couple of scientific studies have looked at this very question, one of which was carried out by the redoubtable Veronique herself. In research completed in 1995, Billat and her coworkers directly measured TlimvVo2max in swimmers, as well as in cyclists, runners, and even kayak paddlers (2). Nine national-class swimmers were involved; their average age was 18 years, and their preferred competitive distance was 400 meters. Each swimmer performed two bouts of exercise to exhaustion, on separate days one week apart. vVO2MAX TRAINING FOR SWIMMERS

The first exam was designed to measure both VO2max and vVO2max; the second involved swimming for as long as possible at vVO2max in order to determine TlimvVO2max. The swimmers completed these tests in a flume in which the water-flow velocity could be adjusted by increments of .01 meters per second. Actual measurement of oxygen consumption was completed with a K2tm telemetric system.

To learn more about vVO2MAX training for swimmers (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol.1 Issue 6) and many more swimming related topics. Or enter any subject you wish to learn more about.

HIGH OCTANE CARBS FOR SWIMMING

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0600

During swimming workouts which last for about an hour or more, it is very important to ingest carbohydrate during the exertion. The ingested carbohydrate provides the fuel that muscles are looking for as they begin to run low on glycogen during the hour-plus effort, and research convincingly shows that such "exogenous carbohydrate" (carbs taken in during exercise) can increase the quality of the training session. With added carbs pouring into your system, you are simply able to swim faster: your muscles don't have to turn to speed slowing fat for energy as their internal carbohydrate stores diminish.

For the last 15 years or so, individuals who are knowledgeable about sports drinks have been saying that the practicalities of carb intake during swimming are no big problem. You simply find a good sports drink, a quaffable with a 5 to 9 percent carb concentration ( a drink with a less-than 5 percent content won't speed enough carbs to your muscles; at the other end, a beverage checking in at more than 9 percent might drag water into your tummy and increase the risk of gastric distress). You take in about eight to 10 ounces (eight to 10 "regular swallows") of the stuff 10 minutes before you begin to swim, and you ingest five to six regular swallows every 12 to 15 minutes during your exertion. As a result, the carbs are absorbed at a steady rate and stream amply through your blood to your muscles, keeping them as happy as possible during your strenuous effort.

The eight- to 10-ounce pre exertion bolus is part of an effort to solve what has been believed to be the key limiting factor associated with carbohydrate intake during exercise: the limited rate at which fluids can pass from the stomach into the small intestine. Remember that no carbohydrate can be absorbed across the wall of the stomach, so getting sports drinks from the gullet into the small intestine is an essential part of moving carbs from their starting point in a sports-drink bottle to their demolition site in your muscles. Research has shown that the movement rate from tummy to intestine is dependent on the amount of fluid in the stomach; the more liquid present, the faster the movement rate. However, too much aqua in the stomach can produce gastric distress, so eight to 10 ounces has been viewed as an advantageous "load" to which most swimmers can become adapted.

The eight- to 10-ounce bolus also serves another purpose: it kick-starts the breakdown of exogenous carbohydrate. Some reports have indicated that the carbohydrate in the liquid bolus can begin to be metabolized for energy by muscles within five minutes after ingestion. In other words, the exogenous carbohydrate will start furnishing fuel for your muscles before your long workout even begins. This of course is great from the standpoint of glycogen-depletion prevention, and it is also "insurance policy" in case you begin your workout at too-fast a pace. Buzz-saw beginnings to long workouts tend to have a severely negative effect on muscle-glycogen stores, but this can be counteracted if the muscles are gulping sown exogenous carbs.

Until now, many scientists interested in carbohydrate intake during exercise believed that the bolus-plus-six-swallows-every 15 minutes strategy had solved the final problem associated with sports-drink ingestion, ensuring that the best-possible rate of carbohydrate delivery could be achieved. Now, however, there is an exciting new development in carbohydrate intake research. Outstanding investigator Asker Jeukendrup and his colleagues in the Human Performance Laboratory at the School of Sport and Exercise Science at the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom have noted that another key limiting factor (for carbohydrate absorption during exercise) may be related to what are called intestinal transport mechanism. As you are probably aware, glucose, fructose, sucrose, and other carbohydrates can not move willy-nilly across the wall of the small intestine. Their movement from inside the hollow, coiled tube which call the small intestine into the small blood capillaries which will carry the carbs into the general circulation and thus to the muscles depends on "transport proteins" embedded in the walls of the small intestine. These proteins in effect help give carbohydrate molecules an inward directed "ride" through the wall of the gut and thus into the circulatory system (this process is a "transport mechanism").

Glucose absorption, for example, depends on a sodium-dependent glucose transporter called SGLT1 (sodium-dependent means that sodium must be present for SGLT1 to do its job, which is one key reason why sports drinks contain, sodium). Fructose, another simple sugar, seems to depend entirely for its absorption on something called GLUT-5 transporter, which is quite different from SGLT1. Somewhat surprisingly, the mechanism underlying the absorption of sucrose (aka table sugar), which is a disaccharide composed of one part glucose and one part fructose, is controversial. Some gutsy scientists argue that sucrose is simply hydrolyzed to glucose and fructose at the small-intestine's inner membrane, followed by absorption of the two constituents using SGLT1 and GLUT-5 transporters. However, there is some evidence that disaccharides-related transporters which are independent of SGLT1 and GLUT-5 (1).

Why go into all of that? Of course, there are not an infinite number of SGLT1 transporters lying around in the inner walls of the small intestine, nor is there a stupendous quantity of GLUT-5 carriers. In fact, the densities of these carriers appear to be rather moderate - good enough for the sofa spud who is watching the game of the week on television but perhaps not ample enough for the endurance athlete who wants to maximize the carb exit rate from the gut and subsequent entry into circulatory system during exercise. What may happen if a swimmers sports drink contains only glucose, for example, is that all of the SGLT1 carriers may become "busy" (i.e., attached to glucose molecules) as the swimmer moves along during his/her long workout. Other glucose molecules wait impatiently in the gut, nervously looking forward to their speedy passage to the muscles, but they can't move in because all of the transport "vans" in the intestinal wall are fully booked.

If this truly happens, then a drink which contains glucose and an additional carbohydrate (and thus which relies on both SGLT1 and a different type of transporter) Should work better (remember that the idea with sports drink ingestion is to maximize the rate, the higher the intensity of exercise which is permitted and the lower the risk that intramuscular glycogen depletion will hurt performance). A sports drink with two different types of carbohydrate might permit a much-speedier passage of carbs into the blood (since an increased number of transporters would be available). In theory, a beverage with three different types of carbohydrate would be better still.

To learn more about High Octane Carbs For Swimming (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol. 1 Issue 6) and many more swimming related topics. Simply click on the Back Issues link, select the volume and issue number from the drop-down menu, or enter any subject you wish to learn more about. Click Now.

Are "Two-A-Days" Good For Competitive Swimmers?

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0500

Many experienced swimmers train two times a day, and the basic argument supporting such twice-a-day training has been that it is a practical way to boost total training volume. The extra volume is then supposed to improve "strenght" in some unspecified way and lead to upswings in aerobic capacity.

Such pro-double-workouts contentions have been strictly theoretical in nature, of course. Until recently, no scientific research had ever detected special benefits associated with two-sessions per day training.

But that is all changed now: There is solid, scientific evidence that two-a-days can be beneficial - thanks to a unique physiological mechanism. Brand-new, about-to-be published research indicates that the strategy of conducting two workouts per day can activate special genes in an athlete's muscles, genes which cause the production of proteins which fight fatigue and prolong endurance during high-quality exertions. As the investigation reveals, higher performances are the end result.

To learn more about Are "Two-A-Days" Good For Competitive Swimmers? (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol.1 Issue 7 of Swimming Research News) and many more swimming training topics, simply enter two a days good for competitive swimmers in the "Search-Archives" box to the right. A subscription to Swimming Research News is another way to receive valuable information about swimming. Two-A-Days

DOES POSITIVE SPLITTING GIVE SWIMMERS MORE POP IN THEIR PERFORMANCE

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0500

Negative splitting (completing the second half of a race more quickly than the first half) seems to produce the best-possible performances in running and cycling competitions, but is this also true for swimming? Many successful swimmers "positive split" their races, completing the first half of the race more swiftly than the second, suggesting that perhaps negative-splitting does not work effectively in the water. One analysis indicated that split times at the half-way points of swim races are often two to three seconds faster than the times for the second halves of the competitions (1). Another study revealed that national and international 100- and 200-meter breast-stroke swimmers utilize a faster velocity over the first halves of their races, compared to the second halves (positive splitting) (2).Does Positive Splitting Give Swimmers More Pop In Their Performances?

Nonetheless, scientific evidence seems to be tipped in favor of negative splitting. The scientific foundation for the strategy was firmly laid slightly more than 10 years ago at the Sinai Samaritan Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where Carl Foster and his colleagues put nine well-trained athletes through their paces (3). In Foster's work, the athletes took part in five different 2000-meter time trials, completing the first kilometers of the test at different percentages of their 2-K personal-record paces. They tried covering the initial kilometer at 56, 53, 51. 50, and 48 percent of the average clocking per kilometer established during their 2-K PRs; of course, the 56-, 53-, and 51-percent beginnings represented relatively slow starts (negative splitting), the 50-percent start represented an attempt at even pacing, and the 48-percent outburst was a fast start (positive splitting). In all cases, the second kilometer of the trial was completed as quickly as possible; the overall times were compared after all of the tests were performed.

As it turned out, the moderately slow start - the 51- percent stratagem - produced negative splits for the 2-K trials and the best average performance times, beating the other techniques by about 2 percent! In addition, out of nine new 2-K PRs set during the test, five were associated with the 51-percent beginning, and none were the result of a fast start (48-percent strategy), even though rapid starts are extremely popular among endurance athletes in general. In the Foster study, even splitting (completing a 50-50 race) also appeared to be better than positive splitting.

It is important to note, though, that although starting a bit slowly was good in the classical Foster work, overly slow beginnings were decidedly sub-optimal. Beginning the time trials at 53 or 56 percent of the PR one-kilometer clocking often produces mediocre finishing times (although truthfully they were no lousier than the 48-percent start), probably because it was just too difficult to make up the time "lost" during the first half of the trial. Slightly slow (51-percent) starts were best - far better than the rapid (48-percent) initial surges.Does Positive Splitting Give Swimmers More Pop In Their Performances?

Why do fast starts work rather abysmally in cycling and running? No one knows for certain, but logical theory is that very intense running or cycling at the beginning of a race or workout - carried out before the cardiovascular system has a chance to flood the muscles with oxygen - may lower the pH inside leg-muscle cells and spike inorganic phosphate levels enough to heighten fatigue and thus harm performance. This early fatigue seems to linger into the final portion of a competition or intense workout, even when an athlete slows down appreciably. In contrast, slower beginnings allow muscle cells to take in huge volumes of oxygen before the really hard work begins, attenuating the decline in pH and increasing fatigue-resisting, aerobic energy production.

The potential deplorability of fast starting was demonstrated in Sid Robinson's classic research carried out in the 1950s. Sid simply asked a group of experienced runners to cover 1245 meters in two different ways: In one case, they ran at the sizzling pace of 13.9 miles per hour (4:18 per mile) from the get-go, simply holding that pace until the 1245- meter point was reached - in a time of about 3:20. On a different occasion, the runners started more cautiously, cruising along at only 13.5 mph (4:27 per mile) before turning on the jets and running at 14.9 mph to reach the 1245-meter finish line in the same time - 3:20. Although the total time spent running was the same in the two cases, the slower-start strategy produced a key advantage - a diminished average rate of oxygen consumption (that is to say, better average running economy). Had the runners been able to compete with themselves, using the slow vs. sizzling starts in the races lasting from 1500 to 3000 meters or so, the improved economy would have given the slow starts (potential negative-splitters) faster times (it's likely that the enhanced economy would have limited fatigue, down-graded perceived exertion, and permitted the slow starts to continue running at a fast pace for a longer period of time).

On yet another occasion, Robinson let his runners start at 14.9 mph and then slow down to 13.5 (remember that he had also tried the reverse - a 13.5 start and then a 14.9 follow-up). This fast-starting scheme led to real disaster, with oxygen consumption going through the roof and performances plummeting (4). Does Positive Splitting Give Swimmers More Pop In Their Performances?

To learn more about Does Positive Splitting Give Swimmers More Pop In Their Performance (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol.1 Issue 10 and many more swimming related topics. Simply click on the Back Issues link, select the volume and issue number from the drop-down menu, or enter any subject you wish to learn more about. Swimming Research News .

Swimming's AnT and AT

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0500

A key transition point in swimming has often been called the "anaerobic threshold." In fact, you can't be a real swimmer until you have used the term "anaerobic threshold" in a sentence at least once. And-you can't be a truly hip swimmer until you have advised a swimming friend that the concept of an "anaerobic threshold" is hopelessly out of date. Swimming's AnT and AT

f you are a regular reader of Swimming Research News, you know that - back in the dark, early days of exercise science - the phrase "anaerobic threshold" was minted to denote an exercise intensity at which there was a systematic rise in blood lactate. It was thought that this was the result of hypoxia (low oxygen) in the muscles, and thus the word "anaerobic" (without oxygen) seemed appropriate.

A lackadaisical anaerobic threshold (i.e., a case in which blood lactate began to pile up at a slow swimming speed) was viewed as a bad thing, and the remedy was usually thought to be high-volume training, which was supposed to enhance the functioning of the cardiovascular system and improve the delivery of oxygen to the muscles (and the utilization of oxygen once it got there). As you can see, this seemed to make sense: If anaerobic threshold occurred because of a lack of oxygen, then swimmers should do things which ensured that lots of oxygen would be flowing toward their muscles. What could be better for the heart and the oxygen-delivering blood capillaries than swimming for tons of meters?

However, such conceptions ignored the simple and unavoidable facts that anaerobic threshold occurs at just 50 percent of max aerobic capacity in many untrained individuals and at 85 percent of max aerobic capacity in a large number of elite swimmers - in other words in situations in which oxygen is quite plentiful and the oxygen-delivery-and-utilization system has not been taxed to its limit. It's clear that the anaerobic threshold is not caused by a lack of oxygen in the muscles, and thus we shouldn't call our transition point an "anaerobic" threshold. The term "lactate threshold" is a much-more appropriate descriptor of the swimming intensity above which lactate begins to accumulate; it carries with it no inappropriate implications about a lack of oxygen. Swimming's AnT and AT

ecent research suggests that the real "problem" which produces the lactate threshold actually is unrelated to oxygen delivery and in fact resides in the "shuttle systems" which exist in the walls of muscle-cells' mitochondria. To understand how this works, it is important to know that within muscle cells molecules of an important chemical called NAD work as "carriers". The job of these NAD carriers is to pick up high-energy hydrogens (which have been stripped away from carbohydrate molecules, for example) and then carry them to the "shuttle mechanism" in the walls of the mitochondria. The hydrogens can then say good-bye to the NAD which brought them, shuttle through the mitochondrial walls, and move inside the mitchondria.

In the presence of oxygen, the energy contained in these hydrogens is then transformed into ATP, which furnishes the actual energy the muscles must have in order to contract and thus perform the work of swimming, if the shuttle mechanisms are operating too slowly during exercise, NAD takes some of the hydrogens which should have been dropped off at the mitochondrial walls and instead donates them to a chemical called pyruvate, thus forming lactic acid. As lactic acid accumulates, it can begin pouring out of the muscles into the blood. If this outpouring of lactic acid is not balanced by increased uptake by other muscles and the heart, blood-lactate levels increase, and a lactate threshold has been crossed.
To learn more about swimming's AnT and AT (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol.2 Issue 2) and many more swimming related topics. Simply enter swimming's AnT and AT, 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.

SECRETS OF SWIMMING THE 10K

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0500

Many runners, both at the elite and recreational level, think nothing of training for and competing in a 10-K run. Until recently , however, swimmers avioded the 10-K swim distance, thinking of it as too lengthy for serious consideration. SECRETS

Historically, long distance swimming has been viewed as an act of individual courage and determination, rather than a competitive event. 130 years ago, endurance swimming captivated the imaginations of large numbers of individuals in Europe and the United States, and many persons were not afraid to take on the challenge of swimming solo in the water over extended distances. In 1875, Captain Matthew Webb made the first successful swim across the 34-K-(21-mile-) wide English Channel, and in the same year Agnes Beckwith swam six miles in the Thames River. Since then, many athletes have attempted to establish new distance-swimming records, breaking previous times and crossing different bodies of water around the world while swimming alone. In fact, swimming across the English Channel has been attempted thousands of time - and completed hundreds of times - since 1875.

In very recent times, open water swimming and racing over substantial distances have become organized sports and are becoming much more "mainstream." The 10-K competitive swim will be introduced for the first time at 2008 Olympics in Beijing. In the United States in 2006, the 5-K, 10-K, and 25-K Open Water Championships were held in Fort Myers, Florida in the beginning of June, and the Masters' Open Water Championships were completed inAugust and September in Colorado and Illinois, respectively. Internationally, there are calendars of open-water races at assorted distances throughout the year.

According to definitions created by FINA (the Federation Internationale de Natation, which is the international governing body of competitive swimming), long-distance swimming in any distance in open water up to 10 kilometers, whereas marathon swimming is defined as any open-water competitive swimming event which is longer than 10K (please see http://www.fina.org) . For many open water races, especially those at longer distances, escort crafts (usually kayaks or other small boats) are mandatory and are assigned to each racer for safety, as well as support. In organized, FINA-sanctioned races, there are many rules for swimmers to follow. Here is a short breakdown of the rules: SECRETS

(1) Wetsuits are not allowed.

(2) Swimmers are not permitted to draft or pace off of their safety crafts or other swimmers.

(3) Swimmers can not intentionally make contact with their escort boats or with craft crew member.

To avoid violations and potential disqualifcation, the escort craft crew as well as the swimmers themselves must be familiar with the rules. The following are some general guidelines:

(1) The escort crew should be aware of signs and symptoms of potential dehydration, exhaustion, and hypothermia.

(2) The crew must avoid paddling in front of the swimmer and thus creating a slip stream.

(3) In order to give a swimmer food and drink, crew members should attach such items to a string and throw them to the swimmer (in order to avoid direct contact).

(4) Craft crew are allowed to give the swimmer instructions and verbal feedback.

Clearly, long-distance and marathon swimming races require lots of planning and forethought, from logistical standpoint as well as from a training perspective. One of the key problems in preparing for a 10-K race is estimating an appropriate goal speed. Such an estimation will boost training preparations for the event (because long swims can be conducted at the appropriate, race specific intensity) and will also permit the establishment of an appropriate swimming speed (not too fast, not too slow) during the actual competition.

In 1981, Pete Riegel wrote a fascinating article in which he presented an equation which produced extremely accurate predictions of pace in competitions lasting from 3.5 to 230 minutes (1). What was unique about Riegel's approach was that he found linear relationships between the logaithms of time and distance in multiple endurance sports, including running, swimming, cycling, Nordic skiing, race-walking, and endurance skating. Riegel based his work on world-record performances, and the equation he developed is as follows:

T=axb

T stands for the time in minutes, x is the distance of the competition in kilometers, and a and b are constants which are unique to each activity and are different for age groups in running. SECRETS

Although Riegel's equation for endurance swimming was only based on records within the range of 3.9 to 16 minutes, it is accurate for longer distances as well. Utilizing this equation to predict a 10-K swim performance, the proposed constants (a = 9.936 for men and 10.578 for women; b = 1.02977 for men and 1.03256 for women) should work in cases in which swimmers are attempting to set world records. In the 2005 FINA Championships (also known as the World Aquatic Championships), the men's winner of the 10-K swim, Chip Peterson, finished in a time of 1:46:38, while the women's champion, Edith van Dijk, had a 1:56:00 finish. These are very close to the Riegel- equation predictions of 1:46 for men and 1:54 for women.

Bear in mind, however, that Riegel's equation is not applicable to those of us who are not contending for a world record, primarily because our fatigue indices (the constants a and b) are greater, compared with those of world-record setters. Fortunately, other methods of predicting performance times have been created. SECRETS

vVO2max in the Water

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0500

For the last 10 years or so, fitness-minded runners have profited tremendously by carrying out vVO2max workouts, but swimmers have been loathe to try them. That's a shame, because vVO2max sessions can have a tremendously positive impact on overall swimming fitness and swimming performances. vVO2max workouts are also easy to plan: Simply swim as far as you can in five minutes, and measure the distance traveled in five minutes. For subsequent workouts, you can swim one-minute intervals over one-fifth of the distance covered during the five-minute test or 2:30 intervals over half the distance. Every four to six weeks or so, take the five-minute test again to determine your new vVO2max. Full details and updates about vVO2max training, including how to supplement it with other kinds of work, are now provided in the pages of Swimming Research News.

SHOULD YOU USE SETS OF SWIM INTERVALS?

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0500

Let's say you have scheduled an interval workout for yourself which consist of 10 100 meter work intervals, with equal-in-time-duration recoveries. Is it better to carry out those work intervals one after another, with no break at all, or would it be perferable to break the session down into two sets of five intervals, with a nice break in between?

There is good arguments for each strategy. For example, taking a break in the middle of the workout might allow the final intervals to be carried out with higher quality. On the other hand, not using the break might lead to higher overall rates of oxygen consumption (because the rate of oxygen consumption would not fall during a break) and loftier lactate levels (which could stimulate greater enhancements of lactate threshold). What does research say?

Investigations carried out with swimmers on this topic are non-existent, so we'll have to turn to an excellent recent study with runners carried out by Dr. Magaly Tardieu-Berger and colleagues from the Motricity, Interactions, and Performance Laboratory in Nantes, France and the Physiology and Biomechanics of Exercise Laboratory at the University of Rennes in France. In the new piece of research, 11 endurance-trained subjects aged 15 to 18 tried out the two interval-training techniques (1). The average VO2max of the athletes was 62.6 ml'kg-1 min-1, and mean max heart rate was 196 per minute.

First, the young runners were tested for MAV (maximal aerobic velocity), as follows: Cones were placed at 50-meter intervals along a track (inside the first line), and a required running pace was established by one of the researchers, who was equipped with a whistle and a chronometer. The researcher made a brief whistle each time a subject had to pass by a cone in order to maintain a specified speed.

A longer whistle signaled to each runner the need to increase pace. Before the MAV test begun, each athlete warmed up with 10 minutes of continuous jogging and then carried out five minutes of stretching activities. The initial speed for the MAV exam was 12 kilometers per hour (a tempo of two minutes per 400 meters), and the running velocity was increased by 1 km per hour every two minutes. Naturally, the runners eventually became too exhausted to complete a two-minute stage, and the speed associated with the last completed stage was judged to be MAV. However, if the velocity at exhaustion was maintained for at least one minute (within the final two-minute stage), then MAV was judged to be equal to the velocity during the previous stage plus .5 kilometers per hour (a "half-step" in speed).

For more information about this MAV-measuring technique, please see references 2 & 3 below. Here is a table of the speeds used in the test:

VELOCITY (km/hour) TEMPO (seconds per 400)

12 120

13 111

14 103

15 96

16 90

17 85

18 80

19 76

20 72

The workout under consideration (to compare the two basic strategies) was a basic one: The runners were asked to hit (after a warm-up, of course) 30 second work intervals at a speed of 110 percent of MAV, with 30-second recoveries at a jogging pace of about 50 percent of MAV.

In one case, the athletes simply kept on going, without any break, completing as many work intervals as they could before exhaustion set in (or before they could no longer maintain 110 percent of MAV for the required 30 seconds).

On another occasion, the runners completed six work intervals, with 30-second recoveries (the first series), and then enjoyed a nice four-minute "mixed" recovery (jogging, walking, resting) before embarking on a second series of 30-30 intervals. This pattern continued, with four-minute recoveries occurring after every sixth rep until the athletes decided they could not continue (or they were unable to hold 110-percent-of-MAV tempo).

The order of these two key workouts (the no-set workouts vs. the set-of six-reps sessions) was randomized, and a similar warm-up (consisting of 10 minutes of jogging at eight-minute per mile pace (12 km/hour), five minutes of stretching, three short "strides," and two minutes of rest) was conducted prior to each session.

To learn more about Should You Use Sets of Swim Intervals for swimming (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol. 2 Issue 1) and many more swimming related topics. Simply click on the Back Issues link, select the volume and issue number from the drop-down menu, 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.

Improved Swimming Economy in 20 Nights

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:00:00 -0500

Improving your swimming economy is a fool-proof way to up grade both the quality of your training and your over all swim performances.

Your swimming economy, of course, is simply the rate at which you utilize oxygen in order to swim at a specific speed; decreasing this rate of oxygen utilization at a particular speed constitutes an improvement in economy. As economy is enhanced, your performances are upgraded, because you can either swim for a longer time at a very desirable speed (because the oxygen cost associated with that speed is lower) or else you can swim significantly faster with the same oxygen accountability which was previously associated with a slower speed.

There are three basic mechanisms which can account for economy improvement: (A) The amount of energy (ATP) created for each unit of oxygen that you consume might increase, an effect which would reduce the oxygen "bill" when you swim at a specific speed. (B) The amount of energy (ATP) actually needed to swim at a specific speed might decrease, which would place a lower demand on your oxygen-utilization system. This might happen, for example, as a result of improved coordination while swimming. (C) Of course, A & B might occur simultaneously.

If you would like to read more of this article (Vol.1-10), simply enter swim economy in the "search archives" box on the right, or enter any subject you wish to learn more about. SWIMMING

HANDLING FATIGUE DURING SWIMS

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:00:00 -0600

Seemingly crippling fatigue may strike during an intense workout, a prolonged swim, or a race. A swimmer�s natural tendency is to reduce swim velocity when fatigue occurs, but new research suggests that fatigue is to a large extent a neural phenomenon, rather than a crisis in the muscles. As a result, swimmers can develop effective strategies
which thwart fatigue-related reductions in speed. HANDLING FATIGUE

If you carry out challenging interval workouts during your swim training, you are studying the true nature of fatigue, without being aware that you are doing so. After all, you have probably had the following experience: You decide on a workout, say 10 X 100 meters in 80 seconds each (we�ve selected a familiar type of training session and an arbitrary time for each work interval). Your warm-up goes well, and you�re off and swimming! The pace you have
chosen is an ambitious one, but you are feeling great the first time through the pool, and you cover the initial 100 in 77 seconds. The second one is 78, the third 79, and from thefourth one on you are struggling a bit to hit your target of 80. For the most part, you stay on track, but one interval, we�ll say the eighth, slides up to 82.

The ninth feels really tough, but you hang in there and produce an 80. You have reached the point in the workout at which fatigue should be close to maximal. After all, you are a believer in the traditional concept of fatigue. You know that as you continue to swim quickly, for one work interval after another, your intramuscular pH is dropping fast, reflecting the tide of hydrogen ions which are flooding your muscle cells (1). That devastating fall in pH is interfering with the release of calcium ions into your muscles� sarcoplasmic areas (2), making it much-more difficult for your muscle fibers to contract forcefully (3). As a result, adhering to planned pace is becoming a major undertaking.

And then, something magical happens! At the point when muscular fatigue is greatest, when pH has bottomed out, when calcium ions have been locked away for the day, when muscle contractility has ebbed, you uncork your best 100 of the day � a 75! Who said that swimming does not have its magical moments? HANDLING FATIGUE

Huh? If muscle fatigue is truly a function of metabolic events inside muscles, that last 100 should have been the slowest, not the fastest interval of the day. Our views of fatigue � and of what determines swimming pace during workouts and races � must be wrong!

Indeed, that is what recent research carried out at the University of Cape Town, the University of Stellenbosch, and the Sports Science Institute of South Africa is telling us. In this new investigation, eight healthy males (average age = 22 years) completed �anaerobic-capacity� tests in the laboratory on a Monark friction-braked cycle ergometer (4). To gain a better understanding of the nature of fatigue and of pacing strategies during high-power exertions, the South-African researchers used an element of deception with the subjects. Specifically, the young men were informed that they would be completing four 30-second maximal trials, as well as one 33-second and one 36-second maximal effort on the bike. In reality, they completed two trials of 30 seconds, two tests of 33 seconds, and a duo of 36-second exams.

The deception took place in the following way: Prior to one of the 33-second tests, the cyclists were told that it was actually a 30-second exertion, and the same was true for one of the 36-second affairs. The researchers hoped to determine whether the subjects would subconsciously alter pace or strategy during the �informed� 36-second trial (when they were told that the trial would last for 36 seconds), for example, compared with the �deception� 36-second trial, when the cyclists thought they would only be cycling for 30 seconds. The cyclists were allowed to watch a clock during all of their maximal exertions, but � ingeniously � the scientists had programmed the clock to run more slowly during the deception 36- second trial, so that it would tick off 30 �seconds� during what was really a 36-second time frame.

You might expect that the cyclists would ride with more power, at least initially, during the deception-36 trial, compared with the informed-36 trial (since they thought that the deception-36 trial was going to be shorter in duration), but the results were more interesting than that. As it turned out, power output was exactly the same in the informed and deception 36-second trials, right up until the 33-second point, but then power fell significantly over the last three seconds of the deception trial! HANDLING FATIGUE

How should we interpret that? Since the cyclists were able to perform more work when they were reliably informed about the duration of exercise, compared with when they had been deceived, some internal factor, not located in the muscles, must have controlled power output. If �peripheral fatigue�(fatigue centered in the muscles, as according to traditional theory) was the true factor controlling performance, then power outputs should have been exactly the same in the informed and deceived 36-second trials (because the extent of muscle fatigue would have been the same in these two trials of equal duration).

Ordinarily, a fall-off in performance during short-term, high-power tests such as the ones used in this study would be attributed to the selective fatiguing of fast-twitch muscle fibers, the ones used for such high-intensity efforts (5). We hear this constantly in the world of swimming � the notion that fatigue of fast-twitch fibers is what causes significant slow-downs during intense exertions. But this can not be the explanation for the fatigue displayed during the last three seconds of the deceived 36-second trial, since it was the same duration as the informed 36-second trial, and power output up until the 33-second mark had been the same in the two cases.

Furthermore, the drop in power after 33 seconds in the deceived 36-second test had to be solelythe result of a drop in cadence on the bike (6). As you know, muscles are not smart enough to say �Heyfellahs � we�re getting tired. Let�s slow down our rate of firing!� That rate of firing, which determines rpm on the bike (and the rate of stroking in swimming), is controlled by the nervous system, not the muscles, suggesting � again � that an internal mechanism was at work to control power and make it look as though muscular fatigue was occurring. What seems to happen is that the brain - on an unconscious level - anticipates the effort which willbe appropriate during an exertion before the exercise actually begins and then modulates effort during the activity to make sure it does not rise above the subconsciously chosen, �appropriate� intensity (7). This probably has a kind of survival value, protecting the integrity of the muscles, which might otherwise be seriously damaged during very strenuous exertion (8).

However, the �appropriate� intensity can be re-set subconsciously by the brain during exercise if something changes. In the South-African study, for example, the brains of the cyclists realized � via a process which was definitely below the level of conscious thought - that the informed 30-second duration had been exceeded, even though the clock on the wall said otherwise. Once this realization occurred (apparently about three seconds after the announced 30-second duration had been surpassed, indicating a kind of �lag effect�), the cyclists� brains re-set the intensity (to a lower level) for the longer-duration effort, and power dropped off, not because of problems in the muscles but because of this nervoussystem re-setting. HANDLING FATIGUE

Indeed, during exercise there appears to be a pre-programmed, neural �end point� which may be quite different from the true muscle-fatigue end point. Once the anticipated end point is reached, power output will fall dramatically (as it did after the 33-second mark in the deceived cyclists).

This kind of thing takes the mystery out of what appeared to be the paradoxical results obtained in other scientific investigations which examined neuromuscular activity during all-out efforts. Such results showed that a significant part of the drop-off in power at the ends of such exertions was caused by a decline in iEMG activity, in other words by a decrease in the extent to which muscles were stimulated by nerves (9 & 10).

And of course the South-African findings explainwhat happened in your 10 X 100 swim-intervalworkout (described above). Your amazing surge during the last 100 of the day did not occur because muscular fatigue suddenly vanished, with intramuscular pH rising, calcium ions doing their thing again, and basic muscle contractility restored. No, your nervous system decided: �Hey, there�s just one more interval to go. It�s safe to loosen things up a little bit and swim according to our true abilities!� And so, instead of stroking conservatively along within your cerebral-dictator's, overly restrictive, subconscious, protective noose, you swam like a tropical cyclone, temporarily freed from your nervous-system�s shackles.

By the way, the short (close-to-30-second-induration), maximal exertions engaged in by the cyclists in this South-African study were basically �Wingate Anaerobic Tests.� For the past 30 years orso, exercise scientists have used Wingate Tests as a way to quantify an athlete�s �anaerobic capacity� from the standpoint of power output. Conventionally, a Wingate Test utilizes a 30-second protocol on the bike, during which subjects are asked to cycle as intensely as they can for the full 30 seconds. HANDLING FATIGUE

This test was thought to measure anaerobic capacity because it was believed that 30 seconds was too short a time for �aerobic processes� to play a significant role. Interestingly enough, conventional wisdom also held that all the energy utilized during the first five to 10 seconds of a Wingate Test came solely from the alactic, phosphagenic energy pathway (i. e., entirely from ATP and creatine phosphate). The energy used for muscle contractions in the final 20 seconds of the 30-second Wingate was believed to come exclusively from anaerobic glycolysis (the breakdown of glucose to pyruvate and lactic acid, without the participation of oxygen). Today, most swimmers and swimming coaches would still agree that this is quite-reasonable thinking.

However, research has shown that such beliefs are incorrect. Notably, lactate accumulation occurs within the first 10 seconds of a Wingate Test, revealing that anaerobic glycolysis is operating during that initial time frame (11). In addition, investigations reveal that aerobic metabolism (mitochondrial oxidative ATP synthesis) is turned on in the first few seconds of the Wingate Test (12). This of course calls into question the view that the Wingate Test is a measure of �anaerobic capacity.�

The Wingate Test, originally designed merely to measure �anaerobic power� (13), has instead become a kind of mini-lab in which one can study fatigue (it�s clear that it is not really measuring anaerobic power, since aerobic processes are in play during the 30 seconds of activity). Careful analyses of Wingate performances reveal that falls in power over the 30-second period are almost entirely the result of a decline in cadence (stroke rate in swimming); to put it another way, the nervous system is re-setting intensity of effort as the Wingate proceeds (as mentioned previously, muscles can not regulate cadence). Indeed, iEMG recordings have demonstrated that the nervous system stimulates the muscles to a lesser degree toward the end of a Wingate, compared with the beginning.

What does this mean for your swim workouts and competitions? First, don�t �give in� to fatigue during your interval sessions and tough, sustained swims (not to mention your races). Remember that fatigue is to a large degree a mental construct, rather than a point beyond which muscles are truly incapable of continuing (studies show that significant fatigue can occur even when only 20 percent of the fibers within a muscle are being recruited; it is hard to imagine that true muscle fatigue is taking place when 80 percent of a muscle�s cells are not even being utilized). So, when fatigue occurs, thank the fine fellow (for attempting to protect you), but remember that your muscles are still OK, and remain relaxed and very focused on achieving your target pace. You can over-ride your internal regulator and overcome fatigue by focusing fiercely on making your muscles work. This is what you routinely do during the last high-quality segment of a very tough interval workout, and you can routinely pulloff this fatiguefighting magic once you have understood the true nature of fatigue. HANDLING FATIGUE

In a race, for example, when your arms, shoulders, and legs begin to feel either rubbery or fence-post-like, avoid the defeatist attitude which often comes along with such sensations. Instead of thinking that you�re in trouble, instead of internalizing the message that your possible PR is lost, remind yourself that much of that rubberiness is related to a reduced iEMG � your nervous system is not stimulating the muscles fibers in your legs, shoulders, and arms as much as it did when the race began. So, fire up your brain, settle right back into your planned pace, relax, and hang in there. Yes, you won�t feel so good (your brain will try to protect you by making quicksilver paces feel too tough), but as you relax and continue to hold the desired speed, the protective portion of your brain will unwind and you will find it much easier to keep going.

The new research also suggests that famed Hungarian running coach Mihaly Igloi was a genius � or not. Igloi, who coached such stand-outs as Lazlo Tabori, Jim Grelle, and Bob Schul (the only U.-S.runner to every win an Olympic gold medal at 5000 meters), was somewhat famous for not revealing to his athletes the full extents of their workouts at the beginnings of the sessions. This may have created a situation in which Mihaly�s runners treated eachinterval or sustained surge in isolation; thus the sole mental goal may have been to finish the fiery blast at as high an intensity as possible, without concern for what followed (no internal regulator in the nervous system tried to dampen the level of effort). But � it�s also possible that the runners held back a bit during early stages of their workouts, knowing that Mihaly had probably dreamed up a huge assortment of thingsfor them to do.

The bottom line for you? Don�t be a traditionalist: Remember that the fatigue you are feeling usually does not represent some kind of crisis in your muscles. In most cases, a significant portion of your fatigue is simply the result of your nervous system�s attempt to act like a �mother hen.� Deal with the fatigue objectively, and don�t view fatigue as an inescapable blockade which will inevitably thwart your efforts. When fatigue strikes, relax, tell yourself that you are going to be OK, and swim hard. ©

To learn about Handling Fatigue During Rugged Swims, or Secrets Of Swimming The 10K (the full articles can be read by purchasing Vol. 2 Issue 4 of Swimming Research News) and many more swimming related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu, or type in another topic of interest. A subscription to Swimming Research News is another way to receive valuable information about swimming. BUY NOW.

OPTIMIZING SWIMMING POWER

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:00:00 -0500

What are some of your training techniques for optimizing swimming power?

TRAINING WITH FINS

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:00:00 -0500

Does it make sense to do some training with fins

TECHNIQUES FOR IMPROVING YOUR SWIMMING SPEED

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:00:00 -0500

What techniques have you used to improve your swimming speed?