Ask Yourself This

“We have always done it that way”, is a phrase I have heard uttered far too often by coaches in response to a challenge of their training methods. In a previous article I highlighted the importance of hanging a question mark over your strongest held beliefs; in this post, I challenge you to put it into practice.

I have posed a number of questions to you below and I would like you to answer them, however, I have one condition for this exercise – I would like you to assume that, whatever answer you provide, it is wrong. I want you to try and act as your own devil’s advocate. Find the flaws, the weaknesses, the limitations of your answer; assume that they exist – more often than not, if you look hard enough, you’ll find them. By becoming aware of the pitfalls in your programme you can refine, remove and replace the practices which do not stand up to this self-scrutiny.

Make yourself prove your answer. Don’t accept cop-outs such as “That’s what everyone else does,” or, “That’s what we have always done”. Instead, I would implore you to employ reason based on logic, science, scientific rationale and, evidence.

For each of the questions I have posed, I have included a potential ‘cop-out’ answer and, a possible alternative answer – a ‘devil’s probe’. Here goes.

Why are some of my* swimmers progressing and improving significantly better in comparison to other swimmers within the same lane?

Cop-out: Some swimmers work harder than others.

Devil’s probe: I have not created a programme which is sufficiently individualised for each athlete within the lane. I have not recognised the vast physiological and psychological differences which can exist between each athlete.

Why do I have swimmers who regularly become injured, particularly in the shoulder region?

Cop-out: It’s an excuse swimmer’s utilise when the going gets tough.

Devil’s probe: My programmes consist of vast swimming distances which are applying an unnecessarily large amount of pressure on the swimmer’s shoulders’. My dryland programme is having a detrimental effect on the swimmer’s performance in the water.

Why are my swimmers not meeting my performance expectations?

Cop-out: The athletes are not trying hard enough. They don’t listen.

Devil’s probe: I am overtraining my athletes. I am not communicating my technical instructions effectively. I am not creating an environment in which the swimmer’s wish to engage.

Why is it that during races my swimmers fail to replicate the technique we have worked on in training?

Cop-out: The athletes are not performing the technical movements enough.

Devil’s probe: I have been ignorant of the link between technique and velocity – I have prescribed paces slower than race-pace for my swimmer’s to practice their race technique.

Some of the club swimmers attend a session and always seem distracted – why are they not concentrating?

Cop-out: They don’t care enough about their swimming.

Devil’s probe: I am writing up a session on the whiteboard and I am not engaging with the swimmers – I mainly leave them to it. I expect them to get on with the session with minimal interaction.

Why do my age-groups swimmers appear to peak at age 16-17 followed by a decline in performance?

Cop-out: Young adult life catches up with them, they prioritise their social life over their swimming life.

Devil’s probe: The performance of those swimmers have relied on the improvements which come from growth during puberty; it shows the training programme has not been as effective as I thought it was.

Why do I struggle to retain swimmers between the ages of 16-18?

Cop-out: This is due to the external pressures experienced by teenage swimmers, e.g. academic pressures.

Devil’s probe: I have reduced my athletes to swimmers rather than appreciating their life outside of the pool. My programme does not accommodate for these other areas of life. I have placed a disproportional emphasis on quantity of swimming over quality.

Are all my training practices in line with current evidence and research?

Cop-out: I don’t care, all my practices have been learned from very successful coaches and from methods which everyone else uses.

Devil’s probe: No, I haven’t been equipped with the skills to carry out research of sport science so I avoid it. I am ignorant of the scientific process. Some of my practices conflict with scientific evidence and scientific rationale.

Should I allow my ideas to be challenged by colleagues and other coaches?

Cop-out: No, I’m a level 3 licensed coach!

Devil’s probe: Yes! It’s one of the best ways to find the weaknesses in my training programme. My beliefs and opinions are not infallible – I could be wrong.

This is not a post on how to improve your programme, instead, I hope it has revealed to you that your programme can be improved. If nothing else, employing the devil’s advocate and utilising self-evaluation can reassure you that you are on the right track IF your ideas, training and methods can stand up to thorough scrutiny.

Yours in Swimming,

SwimCoachStu

Advertisements

The Dark Side of Time

Since the year dot of swimming, coaches have gauged the capabilities of athletes through their ‘personal best’ or PB. Time has remained the ‘golden’ measure of a swimmer’s success, i.e. it provides a coach with quantifiable feedback on whether the swimmer has swum faster or slower since their previous performance. Swimmers also utilise time in other ways as Sports Psychologist Professor Andy Lane (@AndyLane27) of the University of Wolverhampton recently suggested on social media, “striving for a PB can be really motivational in some contexts and with some people.” He went on to say, “if it motivates, then discuss and then focus on process”. However, beware, there is a dark side to emphasising time goals.

“Often accompanied by some tears.”

At competitions, athletes eagerly listen to their coach to discover whether they have ‘PB’d’ or not. Parents crowd around the results sheet on the wall to find out their child’s time. “Did they PB?” One of the first comments a swimmer makes to their peer after they have swum is, “did you PB?” The response will usually be one of modest satisfaction, elation or, conversely, one of deflation or, despondency – often accompanied by some tears. Besides, the time a swimmer achieves (or does not achieve) provides almost no other useful information to the athlete or coach in which to act upon, i.e., the time cannot tell you how the swimmer swam.

How did the swimmer perform technically in the race? How well did they execute the skills they have been rehearsing at training? Did they follow the race plan? None of these essential questions can be answered by observing the swimmer’s time. Indeed, it’s worth noting that the improvement of age-group swimmer can be attributed to growth as they begin and progress through puberty. Focusing on the time age-groupers achieve could provide a coach with a false sense of security with regards to the effectiveness of their training programme, in that, the swimmer’s improvement should be attributed to growth as opposed to the training they have undergone. It is also not unusual to expect an athlete’s time to increase (i.e. ‘put time on’) during periods of technique transition. If the athlete has not practised the new stroke movements at race pace for a sufficient number of repetitions before a race, it is reasonable to expect a slower swim than that of previous occasions; thus, time would be completely unhelpful as an indicator of progress.

The question to also ask yourself is, how can the swimmer utilise knowledge of their time in the event just swum to benefit their next event? Simply put, they can’t. Feedback should be restricted to small ‘snippets’ of information which can be easily consumed by the athlete and, which focuses only on pointers which can be carried forward into the remainder of the competition. For example, the coach may wish to remind the swimmer to avoid breathing in the last five metres prior to their tumble turn at the wall. Also, awareness of the time they have swum in the previous event could have an adverse impact on the athlete’s performance for the remainder of their current competition if the time was slower than was hoped for.

“Eventually, the swimmer fails to swim faster and they fall from a great height.”

An emphasis on achieving a personal best time can have a detrimental effect on a swimmer’s approach to the sport. In PB-orientated clubs, swimmers who regularly swim quicker than their previous time can be placed upon a pedestal by the coach. Each time the individual improves on their previous PB the pedestal grows higher. However, the swimmer eventually fails to swim faster and, they fall from a great height. This can be a very disheartening experience for a child or teenager who is familiar with regular success (with regards to time outcomes). After a series of percieved ‘failures’, these swimmers begin to attend sessions less and, not before long, they leave their club altogether. For those who stay, what implications could this mindset have on a teenager’s social and academic life? The culture created by the emphasis on time outcomes and the personal best is, at the very least, unhelpful and, at worst, it can have a detrimental impact on a swimmer’s psychology.

So what should we do?

Coaches need to move the focus away from discussing the time outcomes of a race; instead, we need to concentrate on the process that took place before and during the swim. Sports psychologist, Dr Karen Howells of the Open University (@mind4sportpsych), recently commented: “Post race reflection should focus on [process] goals – [it] allows for focus on improvement not distracted by failure (or success)”.

The “process” goals in a swimming competition include the technique and skills executed; however, any technical feedback which has no immediate bearing on the individual’s next event should be recorded and discussed back at the training pool – including time considerations. We should focus on other factors such as, motivating the team, instilling good sportsmanship and, ensuring the athletes enjoy themselves.

Yes, we should celebrate the success of those who achieve a personal best but do this in an informal setting away from the competitive environment. One forward thinking club I belong to spends 15-20 minutes every week sat around in a circle applauding the triumphs of the past few weeks. These achievements are not limited to personal bests, we share our academic successes, goals achieved in other sports, and any other pleasing moments a swimmer wishes to inform the team of.

Take home points – ‘The good, the bad and, the ugly’:

  •  The Good – striving for time improvements can motivate the athlete;
  • The Bad – time doesn’t provide any useful information with regards to how the swimmer swam;
  • The Ugly – ultimately, an emphasis on time-based goals can drive an athlete out of the sport.

Yours in Swimming,

@SwimCoachStu

 

References 

Lane, A., ‘AndyLane27’ (2017) Twitter. Available at: https://twitter.com/AndyLane27/status/848535770499559425

Howells, K., ‘mind4sportpsych’ (2017) Twitter. Available at: https://twitter.com/mind4sportpsych/status/848520322521419776

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dehydration Myths: a Thirst for Knowledge

In the latest SwimCoachStu post, I have shared the work of a fellow coaching colleague, Coach J. Macpherson-Stewart (SwimCoachJM-S) – from Free Style Swimming Club, who debunks the prominent lore surrounding hydration in swimming and, more widely, sport. 

Over the weekend, at a local District Championship meet, I became very aware of the large volume of water bottles – filled with a variety of fluids and, of various sizes – that lay across the poolside. This is just one example of the many dogmatic practices which continue to exist within the swimming sphere. It is a belief-based habit which has the potential of having severely detrimental effects on an athlete’s performance and, health. SwimCoachJM-S continues…


I was once at a swimming presentation where the then Scottish Director of Coaching and Development implored his audience of coaches to “throw kids off the poolside” if they didn’t bring a water bottle with them. Continuing that afternoon on the poolside itself I watched as a member of that same audience stumbled over one of those very water bottles referred to earlier in the day and nearly came a cropper; I saw swimmers interrupting the focus on the set they were doing by the distraction of finding and then drinking from their water bottles; and then I watched the subsequent trail of the same swimmers leaving the poolside to go to the loo. Mmm…

The reason for my cynical “mmm…” is that all this flies in the face of science. With few exceptions, the prevailing requirement to bring a water bottle on to the poolside at each session and the encouragement swimmers then get to make sure they drink regularly from them is an unnecessary pre-occupation particularly knowing the kind of predictable consequences I witnessed that day.

The demand for every swimmer to bring a water bottle with them into the training pool has its roots in practices used in the running world which have in turn been driven by the commercial interests of the sports drinks industry. Tragically, the cost of this to the sport of running has been high indeed with over 1,600 reported cases and 12 deaths in the last 15 years (including two in separate London Marathons) from exercise-associated hyponatremia (EAH) – a condition brought about by drinking too much.

Despite these horrifying statistics, the mythology that supports the practice is still being widely repeated revolving as it does around three underlying beliefs: that dehydration will inevitably occur in all athletes who exercise for anything other than a short of amount time; that dehydration is the single most important factor explaining reduced performance levels during prolonged exercise; and that dehydration plays the central role in any instance of collapse and heatstroke there may be in endurance athletes. Since the development of the drink Gatorade in the late 1960’s, this faux science, for that is what it is, has been cynically, and very profitably, peddled by the sports drinks industry even though the wider published evidence paints a quite different picture. In his definitive text, Waterlogged*, Professor Tim Noakes has finally put the record straight to reveal the extent of this misinformation and to demonstrate quite unequivocally that the problem is a problem that would never have existed had there not been millions of dollars to be made. So what are the facts and how should they be interpreted specifically with respect to swimming training?

First of all, our unique evolution as a species has resulted in the human body being amazing well adapted to deal with periods of transient dehydration for up to as much as 8 hours. This evolutionary adaptation arose from the need of Homo sapiens to run long-distances in the heat to pursue and kill energy-rich animals for food. The result was a superior capacity to regulate body temperature when exercising in hot conditions which allowed our ancestors to even run antelope to ground in the heat of the middle of the day.

But let us return and consider each of those erroneous underlying beliefs in turn. Evidence shows that we carry a substantial fluid reserve that simply does not need acute replacement during exercise. This reserve takes the form firstly of metabolic water that is released in two ways: as a by-product of the cellular oxidation of carbohydrate, and as water molecules that are released from their chemical bond with stored glycogen as it is freed and used; and secondly as additional free fluid contained in the intestine. The water reserve referred to here is considerable and even conservative estimates suggest that this available reservoir is likely to easily be in excess of 2L in a mature adult. What this means is that during prolonged exercise (a 2 hour swimming training session, for example) losses of up to 2kg in body weight should not be immediately associated with dehydration and should not be expected to have any deleterious effects on performance. This reserve is easily replaced by drinking normally after the end of the session, often simply with the next meal.

With respect to the second underlying belief, evidence shows that dehydration has little effect on body temperature response during marathon running, for example, and drinking more does not necessarily contribute to better performance. There is no direct evidence that exercise performance is impaired in those who lose weight during exercise provided they drink to the dictates of thirst (I shall come back to this later).

Finally, there is no evidence that dehydration plays any role in the causation of heatstroke. Rather it appears to be increasingly the case that a complex combination of factors contribute to its occurrence the discussion of which goes beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that it is associated with moderate to high intensity exercise of relatively short duration often undertaken in unkind environmental conditions.

What emerges from this is that the natural behaviour modification mechanism that has evolved, that of thirst, is a very sophisticated and perfectly adequate means through which we can maintain our levels of hydration within safe limits. When you reach a point of about 2% dehydration, you will begin to feel thirsty and start looking out for something to drink. Even if there’s nothing available, it’s not the end of the world – in a normal training or racing context there is plenty of time to rehydrate once you’ve finished. At this level of dehydration there are no untoward effects or dangers, and should your levels of hydration continue to decrease, so your desire for water will increase – in other words you will know when you absolutely need to stop to get a drink. The best advice is quite simply, drink according to your thirst – you need do no more than this.

If now, however, we turn our attention to how this applies to swimming training in particular, there are several additional factors that clearly distinguish it from most other popular sports and these need first, to be identified and then to be considered in the light of the above. Perhaps the most significant difference lies in the fact that swimmers are water-cooled. Typical pool temperatures of 28-30°C and the relatively high specific heat of water mean that convective/conductive heat transfer from a moving swimmer to the water is substantial, the faster the swimmer’s speed through the water the greater the heat loss. Body heat is actually lost some 25-30 times faster during swimming than during cycling or running at equivalent ambient temperatures, the greater the temperature gradient between the skin and environment, the greater the rate of that heat loss.

Secondly, the normal major avenue of human heat dissipation during exercise, sweating, is compromised in water since without evaporation no heat can be lost from the body via this mechanism though limited evaporation from wet body parts above the water will still take place. Sweating does certainly occur in the water during training but is unlikely to account for amounts anywhere near the 2% thirst threshold level mentioned above. Thirdly, the total muscle mass involved in swimming is less than in many other non-aquatic sports and consequently the metabolic heat produced is likely to be proportionately less. Fourthly the age and maturity of the swimmers involved needs to be taken into account: because of their larger surface area-to-body mass ratio, children lose heat more readily than adults in the same situation. The thickness of the subcutaneous fat layer also plays a significant role with the result that swimmers who are small and lean are likely to lose body heat more rapidly.

Finally, we need to add one more factor to the mix: immersion diuresis. Explained simply, a combination of cold and the external water pressure brings about a rapid increase in plasma volume which the body then attempts to correct by increasing urine production. The natural consequence of this is an increase in the frequency of trips to the loo though the effect has been shown to be significantly less in trained swimmers when compared with sedentary controls.

Well, dear reader, it may well be that it is your head that is now swimming! We are faced with a series of seemingly conflicting influences which ultimate combine to determine our individual levels of hydration during training. The key word here is individual. There is no fluid replacement protocol that is going to suit even one single member of any particular swimming squad. There is however, a single individual solution….

No-one at Free Style is expected to bring a water bottle with them to training and they certainly will not be thrown off the poolside if they don’t! Not that water bottles are banned, but once swimmers have a better understanding of the whole area, they find out for themselves what best suits their needs. An odd water bottle sometimes turns up (probably more as a result of parental concern) and we have no problem with that providing the swimmer only drinks from it if they become thirsty – sip-aholics are given short shrift! Should anyone during a session become thirsty then they are quite at liberty to return to the changing room at an appropriate point to get a drink. It has been a few years now since anyone has even done this. In fact the real problem for us, and I suspect for many other Scottish swimmers, the younger ones in particular, is actually quite the opposite from the non-existent problem that water bottles presume to address and that is, how to stay warm enough in the water to train effectively. The water cools us so effectively on occasions that body heat loss is greater than its heat production. Some of our leaner, mainly younger, swimmers have had to be encouraged to wear close-fitting thermal tops in training and on occasions we have been known to take warm showers between sets rather than end up uncomfortably cold in the water and consequently losing focus.

So where does that leave us then? During land training the correct advice is quite clear: listen to your body and only drink when you are thirsty from an available source of water which may or may not be your own water bottle, and at the same time understand as well that any other advice is the result of targeted manipulations by industries whose principal focus is their own commercial well-being and not necessarily yours. In swimming sessions leave your water bottle at home if you find that generally you do not get thirsty and in the unlikely event that you do, wait until you have finished the set you are doing and then take a few gulps from the nearest water fountain, or simply wait until the session is over – you’ll have plenty of time and opportunity to rehydrate then and you will come to no harm nor will your performance be affected in the interim. That’s it – the mythology has been exposed!

From,

SwimCoachJM-S

References
*Noakes, Tim (2012) Waterlogged: The Serious Problem of Overhydration in Endurance Sports. Champaign, Il: Human Kinetics.

Youth Swimming: Communication

The way a coach communicates to a swimmer is the single most important element of swimming. Regardless of how much a coach thinks he or she knows, swimmers will not succeed unless they have a coach who is an effective communicator.

Communication: the imparting or exchanging of information by speaking, writing, or using some other medium. The successful conveying or sharing of ideas and feelings.

Breaking up the above definition of communication, we can see that it involves various “mediums” to communicate messages or instructions and involves “successful” strategies to deliver them.

The most obvious form of communication is verbal. The key elements of successful verbal communication can be memorised through the use of the acronym RSVP:

Rhythm – Develop a natural rhythm, which is broken down to emphasise key points. Take a pause at the end of each important point you make, and before making one;

Speed & Clarity – Your voice can be as loud as a Drill Sergeants but without a suitable speed and clear voice it won’t be understood by anyone. Take the time to think about the sentence you’re next about to say; this will slow your sentence down. Aim to speak a little slower than your normal conversation pace. You should take the time to pronounce each word correctly, don’t rush. Programme time into the set to allow for discussion and instruction, this will stop you from trying to cram everything in, as quickly as you can;

Volume – In a group environment, your voice must be projected to all swimmers. The key is to speak at a volume that can be heard beyond the furthest athlete from you. Imagine you have an extra line of swimmers at the other end of the pool from you and attempt to have your voice reach them.

Project from your stomach rather than your throat. Using your abdominal muscles will prevent you from losing your voice by the end of the session. A good practice, often adopted in the military, is to lie on the floor and place a book on your stomach. Attempt to project your voice using your stomach muscles, while keeping the book flat i.e. it is not allowed to move up and down;

Pitch – Increasing the pitch of your voice can often help your listeners make you out clearer. Increase your pitch slightly if your voice tends to be deep; however, there is no need for any Sopranos!

To grab your swimmer’s attention or to emphasise particular points, you can vary the above in different ways. A conspiratorial whisper can draw your swimmers in; a loudly spoken exclamation can make them sit up and listen. Changing the rhythm can add tone to your instructions. A slightly faster section might convey enthusiasm; slightly slower may add emphasis or caution. You may also, raise the pitch of your voice when asking a question and lower it when you want to increase the severity of a point.

An excellent example of playing with the volume of your voice is when highlighting a particular word. For example, when taking swimmers through the steps on how to take-off from the starting block, you can explain the position they should take on to the block in a normal voice, lower it when you’re getting closer to explaining the ‘take your marks’ position and, finally, loudly express the word “EXPLODE” as you explain how they should leave the block.

Remember your voice is a flexible and powerful tool, use it!

However, using your voice is not the only way to convey a message in swimming. Non-verbal communication is an umbrella term which includes, hand gestures, demonstrations and also, your body language. Sound verbal and effective non-verbal communication, when used together, create a highly successful communicator.

Hand gestures – These can be used in a variety of ways, many are often not consciously noticed by the person receiving them, nor the user. For example, a coach congratulating a swimmer on a swim well done may give them the thumbs-up. Think of the difference if he/she had said “well done” without the gesture…adding the thumbs up created a much greater message than without.

Demonstrations – These can hugely influence a swimmer’s movements, and therefore, they must be conducted in the correct manner. Swimmers have gone years, hearing about what they are meant to do but are never actually shown. Suddenly, it is demonstrated to them, and they get it – “a picture paints a thousand words”, as they say.

Demonstrations can come in different forms. The primary source, tends to be, the coach. These can be conducted either on land or in the water. An important point to raise for dry land demonstrations is that water is much denser than air, this must be compensated for when conducting movements in the air! A great way of making a movement look more like it is in the water is for the coach to imagine custard surrounds them and show the swimmers their muscles straining through the “custard” – as if in the water. Take a butterfly pull demonstration, many coaches make the desired shape to the swimmers; however, their arms are at their sides in a flash of the time that it would actually take in the water. This will create a skewed image for the swimmer, and you are unlikely to get swimmers to achieve the ideal movement.

Bringing in high level/ elite swimmers is a great way to give younger, less experienced, swimmers a role model and is a highly effective way of introducing and reinforcing movements. It is important to note that ‘copying’ the elite athlete is not what the goal is.

Body Language

If you were to stand to speak to your swimmers with your arms folded, a somewhat negative body language, it is unlikely they will take your message as being very positive; even it is intended that way! Using ‘open’ and positive body language will help reinforce your message as more swimmers will be inclined to listen and will response more positively to your message. A great way of ensuring you have a positive image is to imagine you are in a fish bowl and the swimmer’s parents are looking in. They should, just by looking at you, tell that you are acting positive and are approachable to your swimmers.

Examples of poor body language are:

– Arms folded;
– Hands in your pockets;
– Leaning on a wall.

Examples of positive body language include:

– Open palms;
– A smile on your face;
– Good posture.

Successful communication is one of the most important aspects of coaching, without it, you’re doomed to fail your swimmers. Encourage your colleagues to develop your communication skills on the poolside for the benefit of your swimmers, and remember practice makes perfect!

Yours in Swimming,

SwimCoachStu

Streamlining and Submarines

Reducing resistance in a swimmer should be a top technical priority for all coaches, taking precedence before any changes to improve propulsion. Although, the former will have the consequence of improving the latter. The most fundamental way to reduce drag is through streamlining. A streamlined body is one which is horizontal in the water – this includes the head and body; the flatter, the less resistance created.

– Streamlined swimmer = greater velocity and distance per stroke.

Submarines

Let’s start with an analogy to highlight this point. Take a submarine on the surface of the water; no need to imagine it, here is a picture:

20140225-151632.jpg

Here you see the front of the submarine minimally disturbing the water, in fact, it is slightly underwater. Now take a look at the structure protruding from the submarine; here you see a great amount of drag being created – evident from the white water.

Frontcrawl

This white water effect occurs similarly (not to such a scale of course) from the head of a swimmer breaking the surface of the water. Ideally, the frontcrawl stroke needs to replicate the front of the ‘sub’. Here are the instruction points which should be communicated to the swimmer in order to achieve this position:

– Look directly down at the bottom of the pool;
– The tip of the swimmers’ buttocks should be at a level height to that of the top of the swimmer’s head;
– There should be some water which travels over the swimmer’s cap.

Backstroke

These principles are much the same in the case of backstroke, apart from the obvious difference.

– Head should be back, looking up at the ceiling;
– Water should travel over the face;
– Both ears should be submerged;
– Top of hips will be in line with the top of chest and face.

Breaststroke and Butterfly

During breaststroke and butterfly, it is not possible to remain in a streamlined position at all times; however, it is important to continue in the latter position for as long as possible. When a breath is needed, the athlete should be trained in movements which will cause the least amount of disruption to the water.

Firstly, butterfly. There are two main factors in the stroke which should be considered:

– Increasing size of kick = increased resistance:

Bigger kicks tend to cause greater movement at the hips, which both create a fairly slow kick rate; this reduces the opportunities to initiate a propulsive action. The increased drag eventually outweighs any propulsion.

– Increase in vertical height = increase in resistance:

Frontal resistance is substantially increased when a swimmer’s head and shoulders are lifted vertically out of the water, whether he/she is breathing or not. There is also the added resistance which comes from the swimmer returning from this high position and often ‘slaps’ down on the water.

A ‘see-saw’ movement is observed in many swimmers. They drive their head and shoulders down into the water, the hips lift as a consequence, and the feet kick down. The swimmer expends a significant amount of energy swimming like this. This movement is also caused by an arm recovery which travels, unnecessarily, high on exit.

In butterfly, to create an optimal streamlined position, the following points should be adhered to:

– Breathing should be low and forward;
– Reduce the vertical movements of the arm entry, exit and the kick where possible;
– Keep the body in a streamlined position for as long as possible.

In breaststroke, the breathing action very much determines the amount of streamlining which is achieved. A ‘see-saw’ is sometimes also seen in the breaststroke. The points below, govern what breaststroke technical points should be followed to achieve the most streamlined position possible; which are almost identical to the fly stroke:

– Breathing should be low and forward;
– Any ‘see-saw’ movements should be completely discouraged – this includes downward movement of arm or raising of hips;
– Keep the body in a streamlined position for as long as possible.

If changes in other elements such as arm action, kick or breathing are required to improve streamlining, these should be instructed separately, not all at once.

Improvements can be verified through stroke counting, as improved streamlining should account for greater distance per stroke.

A final point to make is that all these instructions should be conducted at race-pace velocities as soon, after the movement has been established at less-than-race-pace speeds, as possible. Technique is closely related to velocity. Technique at slow speeds will unlikely be reproduced at race-pace.

Yours in Swimming,

SwimCoachStu

The Body in Swimming: Anaerobic Metabolism

Anaerobic Metabolism

Also known as anaerobic glycolysis, involves the process of glucose converting to lactic acid. ATP recycling during this period is much slower than the previously described ATP-CP system, this will mean that once this anaerobic metabolism becomes the main energy source athletes will be unable to maintain maximum speed. Anaerobic Metabolism, during Intense Swimming, occurs almost immediately, however, it does not become the main contributor of energy until the ATP-CP system depletes. Both anaerobic metabolism and ATP-CP energy source are both equal from approximately 3 to 10 secs of maximum effort. Thereafter, the creatine phosphate-ATP recycling ceases and anaerobic metabolism becomes the primary energy source – usually for the last 20 secs of maximum effort. During this transition, there is a decline in the swimmers power of approximately 10% (Newsholme etal. 1992).

Training Anaerobic Metabolism

Training does appear to increase both the quantity and activity of enzymes of anaerobic glycolysis (Costill, Fink, and Pollock 1976; Costill 1978; Jacobs et al. 1987). However, there is a contradiction to this. Sprint training provides an ideal platform to bring about improvements anaerobically, endurance training, on the other hand, seems to hinder this effect. This is the hardest hurdle to tackle when considering this form of training as many swimmers strive to improve both their endurance base and speed, however, the former seems to reduce the rate of anaerobic metabolism. It has been suggested that the anaerobic system is at it’s optimum when athletes are untrained – evidence cited from the fact many swimmers experience their best sprint performances after long breaks.

Other than those training solely for 50m events, all that swimmers training for greater lengths can hope for is to maintain their innate level of providing energy from anaerobic metabolism, although, large volumes of endurance work will most likely decline the swimmers level of anaerobic metabolism.

Taper may allow middle distance and distance swimmers to counter this effect, although, this may not be long enough and the swimmers innate ability may not return until endurance training has been significantly reduced or ceased for several weeks. Swimmers who have seen great improvements in their endurance, may see good performances despite the loss in speed. Sprinters on the other hand will not produce a good result if they cannot regain their speed.

In conclusion, anaerobic metabolism influences a swimmers speed more significantly than ATP-CP system, which only accounts for the first few seconds in a race. Developing a swimmers anaerobic ability should not be seen as a high priority in athletes who train for events greater than 50m as endurance training hinders and may even cause a decline in anaerobic metabolism, although, sprint training may maintain the swimmers innate ability. Sprinters must take great care in the volume of endurance training they do as it can take very long periods for a swimmer to regain his/hers innate ability. It could be argued that a sprinter’s training would be more effective if it had a greater focus toward improving muscular contraction and anaerobic metabolism rather than improving any aerobic capacity; if any at all.

Yours in Swimming,

SwimCoachStu