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

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.

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

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

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