Languages
Subscribe to site feed
Energy Systems: 1-2-3 – let’s take a new look at an old (but still hot) topic.
By Wayne Goldsmith | In Hot Topics
OK, OK – another article about energy systems and training zones in swimming.
No – this is not just another energy systems article – this one is different….
Now, the real problem is not with the zones themselves – (although we could debate the accuracy and usefullness of some of the “landmark” training studies on which training zone theory is based) – the real problem is in the practicality of using training zones in their current forms in the coaching of age group swimming squads.
Take for example this typical, common swim squad scenario:
The coach of the local age group swim squad plans a workout for his team. He wants them to do a workout which includes a training set of 40 minutes at AT. He has 25 kids in the water doing the workout with ages ranging from 13 years to 19 years. The team completes the workout and he is confident they have all swum the main set at the precise speed he requires for them to stimulate a response and adaptation for AT enhancement.
He creates workouts using his training zones model of seven different zones:
- RECOVERY (60% max);
- AEROBIC ENDURANCE 1 (65% max);
- AEROBIC ENDURANCE 2 (70% max);
- AT 1 (80%) max;
- AT 2 (85%) max;
- VO2 (90%) max;
- SPEED DEVELOPMENT (max speed).
Here are just ten things that make this approach really questionable:
- Unless each swimmer is measured accurately and continuously throughout the training set, how can you know for certain they are training precisely in the right zone?;
- How do you know each swimmer has the ability to pace their training exactly, evenly and precisely through the set to ensure they are in the right training zone?
- If you are basing the intensity of this training session on a previous testing session, how do you know if the swimmer has improved or gone backwards since the test session thereby making the test results useless for this current workout?;
- Each individual swimmer will be at different stages of recovery from their previous workout and from other activities, e.g other sports, being at school;
- Each individual swimmer will have adopted a different nutrition and hydration strategy during the previous 24 hours;
- Each swimmer will have different levels of engagement with the current session and will execute the session differently;
- How accurately are you measuring intensity? Heart rate is increasingly suspect as a primary measure of exercise intensity – particularly with young age group swimmers. RPE is wide open to error and inaccuracy owing to its subjective nature and individual variations in perception. It is basically the good old stop watch if it is anything;
- If swimmer’s racing is about executing technique and skills at speed under fatigue and pressure, why limit the intensity prescription to fit a purely ‘physiological model?’;
- The incremental gaps between the training zones in this typical model are very small and very very difficult to measure accurately in the splash and dash chaos of an age group swim team training environment – honestly – can you really accurately measure the difference between 80 and 85% max in 25 kids in the middle of a swim set?
- The validity of the training zones model itself? Coaches and physiologists working with small squads of elite athletes can’t all agree on one training zone model, so what hope does an average part time age group coach working part time with large numbers of swimmers have?
Yet, in spite of all these complications and variables, we have waxed lyrical about how small variations in swimming speed at training are critical because you will be stimulating AT1 instead of AT2.
When you think about it, we are basing the training of swimmers on a theory which has more holes in it than a box full of broken sieves.
It is time we all took a more practical, realistic approach to the whole energy systems / training zones theory. Why not for example simplify things like this?
- TRAINING ONE: Low intensity for endurance and recovery;
- TRAINING TWO: High speed neural stimulation / speed development;
- TRAINING THREE: Race specific – i.e. at target race speed with race skills, stroke mechanics and strategies.
But most importantly, if the sport is going to progress, surely we must move beyond our current limited models of managing exercising intensity and strive to identify methods where each individual athlete within a squad is training at their own unique optimal intensity level every session: individualisation of preparation is critical for peak performance success.
Sure, the research might say things are more complex than this. I agree totally – things are probably a lot more complex than this at cellular level.
Sure, some coaches will say they know for sure that their training system using six, seven, eight or twenty two different training zones works and they have medals to prove it.
Sure the physiologists will all speak with confidence that the research tells us the body has multiple, complex, interacting energy systems. All this may be true.
However, in practical terms – (read that word again – Practical) it is next to impossible to accurately and precisely determine training zones for all the swimmers in a moderate to large size age group swimming team.
And therefore, you have to ask, why are so many coaches still doing it?
And you also have to wonder if there are much better ways of doing things?
I would love to hear your views.
Wayne Goldsmith
© 2012, Swim Coaching Brain. All rights reserved. This post can not be reproduced in full or in part without the expressed consent of the author Wayne Goldsmith.
Republished by Blog Post Promoter
June 26, 2012
Tags: Swim, Swimmers, Swimming, Swimming Coaching, Swimming Science, Swimming Technique, Swimming Training Tips
Comments
6 Responses to “Energy Systems: 1-2-3 – let’s take a new look at an old (but still hot) topic.”
Leave a Reply
Nice post Wayne- the beauty of a simplified approach to energy systems is the athletes need to know only three (approximate) effort levels for any given distance or duration.
The coach can then target a dominant energy system by adjusting the distance of the intervals and recovery time to the desired training effect.
Thanks for this!
Alan
a know I think you are right with regards to this stuff. Another problem that I’ve often noticed how a workout is interpreted differently by different kids. If you have 25 different kids reading the same workout; you may get 25 different things going on in that practice. You may write down one thing, but what you get is something entirely different. Kids may decide to sprint the warm up and then become toast for the rest of practice. Kids may want to “save up” until the last one of a set that is suppose to be best average. Even when giving kids paces to hold, if a buddy of theirs pace is faster, they think to themselves, “Ya know, I can beat Bobby.” So one kid is at threshold and the other kids is a VO2max, while the third kid is floating at the end of the land swimming aerobically. It can be very difficult.
Thanks Kelton.
I know what you are saying. To me, we have to evolve our thinking to much more than the physiological view of the world.
Every training set should be written in terms of what I call the P.E.T. principle: Physical aspects (including speed, load, volume, intensity); Emotional aspects (including level of engagement, mental skills involvement, learning to manage pressure etc); Technical aspects (including race techniques, swimming skills – dives, starts, turns and finishes, biomechanics, stroke techniques, underwater techniques etc).
Writing the old “16 x 50 on 2 minutes holding PB plus 5 seconds” is an outdated, overly simplistic model which has got to be improved on if we are going to take the sport to another level. Our training models have to incorporate the physical, emotional and technical aspects of performance for a more rounded, holistic approach to preparing swimmers to realise their full performance potential.
Thanks again for the great comment.
WG
Thanks Alan.
I think my three levels approach has lots of holes in it but I want to start the debate and get people thinking about doing things differently.
In a “perfect” swimming coaching world, where coaches worked with two-three athletes only and where athletes had access to high quality sports science support every session, sure – let’s use far more sophisticated models for managing training intensity.
But as I have said several times in the article, for most coaches, the game is about working with large numbers of young swimmers in a crowded, noisy pool with little or no sports science support so it is almost a different sport to the “perfect world”.
Let’s keep it simple, practical and effective.
Thanks again,
WG
Hey Wayne, I think most coaches are gearing their workouts towards more race pace stuff. I still think there is room for threshold type work but it seems that a lot of coaches are thinking race pace for the other workouts through their weekly cycle. The type of race pace work may change between a miler and a sprinter but the idea I think is the same.
I love the P.E.T. concept. It’s hard to keep kids engaged during long aerobic sets however. I’ve learned that some kids can easily wrap their minds around a threshold set that is about 3,000 meters, other ones you may have to break it up a bit and try to keep them entertained some sort of way.
Thanks Kelton.
I am not a big fan of the “training set design is the answer to all problems” approach. I have seen some brilliant coaches working with the advantages of having daily sports science support, create carefully crafted, individualised training sets for world class athletes and not get a medal result in competition.
And similarly I have seen brilliant coaches working by instinct, experience, creativity and the ability to engage their athletes fully in their program get great results….and everything in between.
Never ceases to amaze me that everywhere I go coaches will ask me about “heart rate sets” as if there is a secret Australian method to success that is hidden in our mysterious training set construction. It’s like saying Michael Schumacher wins Formula One races because he has great tyres. Training set design is just one aspect of the overall performance puzzle which requires the balance of physical, mental, technical, tactical, cultural and emotional factors to achieve the optimal performance outcome.
Having watched many of Australia’s top swimmers over the past 15 years in action first hand actually training, my view is that it is the way they train, their consistency, their attitude, their professionalism, some quality coaching, their toughness and their speed – (don’t forget even Perkins was a sub 50 100 metre swimmer) – plus the training set design that all contributed.
With a 100 metre of 49 – holding 58.5 / 59 is not that tough – providing you have done the other work. With a 100 metre of around 54 / 55 seconds, you will never hold 58.5 / 59 no matter how much hard work you put in.
Don’t underestimate this speed reserve as a critical aspect of the overall puzzle!
I think the heart rate set theory has some application for some but not all, male, mature, middle and long distance swimmers with a good training background, the right mental attitude and abundant speed reserve. I don’t think it works as well for sprinters, females or medley swimmers. I don’t think it is relevant for most age groupers.
Good luck with your research – my advice is to think broadly, think inclusively, think multi disciplinary – P.E.T. Physical, Emotional, Technical.
WG