Forrest, an experienced “channel conquerer,” set a Catalina record for a 2-way crossing with this swim. After swimming for just under 12 hours in the Tampa Bay Marathon on April 17, I have a real appreciation for the mental endurance Forrest displayed in swimming for just under 24 hours yesterday and today.

In a second post, Tang Siew Kwan,  TI Coach-Director for Singapore, Malaysia and Taiwan, reported, “I swam 7×300 on Osim on Sunday and did 100-200-300-400-500-400-300-200-100 with eyes half closed and focused on relaxation and coordination.”

Tang is training for his first marathon distance, a 20-km (12.5 miles) charity swim at Tioman Island, Singapore on Oct 3o.  (I’ll swim 10km in the same event.)

Tang’s practice method is one that few marathon swimmers consider, but can be critical in helping prepare for what four marathon swims–ranging from 10 to 28 miles–have taught me is the most demanding aspect of marathon swimming. Mental endurance is tested far more than physical endurance.

Coach Tang

One reason marathon swimming demands so much mental endurance is its solitude. In contrast to running marathons, during which you have the company of hundreds to tens of thousands of other runners, and the support of as many or more spectators,

Start of the 2009 NYC Marathon

it’s usually just you and your escort boat. I learned how powerful any human connection is during my English Channel relay last September. During my second leg, teammate Willie Miller came out of the cabin to sit on the foredeck. The mental and physical lift I gained from seeing him there was palpable — and I was only swimming for two hours at a time. Knowing how much I appreciated his presence, I sat there during Dave Barra and Willie’s final legs.

Fortunately open water marathoning strongly lends itself to meditativeness. Not only are you alone, but your field of vision is very limited. Between breaths, you see a field of murky green–or in tropic waters possibly blue. But during a swim of nearly 5 hours across Maui Channel last March, in relatively clear waters, I saw the bottom for only the first and last minute or so, and unvarying blue depths between.

Thus Tang’s strategy of swimming with eyes half closed is highly appropriate. I often find myself involuntarily closing my eyes at times when I focus more intently on a fine point of technique. In yoga, we often adopt a “blurred focus” to increase our inward gaze. Combining that with a focus on relaxation and coordination turns  endurance-building training into a ‘practice.’

The more of this training Tang does, the greater his chances of turning his 7+ hour charity swim into a meditation.

Still, it’s definitely a marathon. What’s a marathon? Well it could be 26.2 miles as in running, but not likely. FINA, the world governing body of swimming, defines any swim of 10km or longer as a marathon – applying the accepted 4-to-1 conversion of run-to-swim mileage. 400 meters of swimming is considered equivalent to a mile of running. Thus 10km of swimming equals 40km of running, which, conveniently, is about a mile short of the running marathon.

In 2002, I swam MIMS as healthful observation of having passed the half-century mark the year before. I set two explicit goals for the swim: (1) To complete an ‘ultra-endurance’ swim with distinctly ordinary training and feel no distress during or after the swim; and (2) To finish the swim in fewer than the estimated 27,000 strokes taken by TI Coach Don Walsh in swimming MIMS the previous year.

I trained for MIMS with no increase in the modest training volume I was doing at the time – averaging about 15km per week. Most other entrants were swimming two to three times as much. My focus was entirely on maximizing my ’swimming economy’ – not just stroke efficiency but profound relaxation. I seldom exceeded a HR of 110 in the 3+ months I trained – trying to ‘program’ my body to rely almost entirely on what was then an ample supply of body fat (I weighed about 20lbs more then, than now) for endurance fuel.

Though MIMS is a race, I swam it in 2002 as a ‘tourist’ – enjoying the sights and experience – pausing frequently to pose for photos with noteworthy landmarks in the background. I completed the swim in 8h53m, 18th of 21 individuals and relays, and – though I was severely dehydrated at the end – never felt significant fatigue and felt completely recovered the next day. Indeed, after drinking 64 oz of water on the 2 hour drive to New Paltz from Manhattan, I felt surprisingly fresh that night.

I swam MIMS again in 2006, with a slightly more competitive orientation. I had trained more intensively leading up to that swim — but had not trained in any particular way for a marathon distance, as my goals that summer were to win USMS national championships and break 55-59 age group records in 1 to 2 mile open water swims.  Again I felt good throughout and experienced little residual fatigue or soreness in the days that followed.

Last year I swam an English Channel relay with training buddies Dave Barra and Willie Miller, mainly to enjoy a ’shared Channel experience’  and to know the Channel first-hand for an intended solo attempt this year.  (Read a series of blogs describing the Dover experience and my motivation for being there, starting with this entry.)

In February I relocated to San Diego for three months of training, in preparation for a planned series of four marathon-distance swims – Maui Channel, Tampa Bay, Catalina Channel and culminating in English Channel. I chronicled the training in a series of posts that started with this entry.

I swim Maui Channel on March 17. It was an absolutely joyful experience (complete with whale and dolphin sightings) shared with my English Channel relay mates Dave Barra and Willie Miller. We completed a 10-mile swim from Lana’i to Maui in rough seas (small craft warnings and alerts of ‘extreme’ surf conditions) in 4h55m. We swam virtually the entire distance 3-abreast, often synchronizing our strokes–something we’d practiced for countless hours in Minnewaska and Awosting lakes at home in New Paltz.  The focus required to synchronize that way makes the distance and time fly. We all felt great in the final mile.

On April 17, Dave and I swam the 24-mile Tampa Bay Marathon, which turned into the most difficult swim I’d ever attempted. I started with a queasy stomach, and had difficulty digesting my planned feeds (Hammer Nutrition’s Perpetuem) beginning in the fifth hour.  During the eighth hour I felt as if my tank was completely empty, an experience radically different from the way my MIMS had gone. This was extremely puzzling, inasmuch as this was the first marathon for which I’d done marathon training.  I finished the swim in 11h46m but was utterly drained in the final miles and felt on the verge of physical collapse afterward.

In the days that followed I understood why. When my queasy stomach, extreme diarrhea and fatigue continued unabated five days after the swim, I sought a diagnosis from Suzanne Atkinson, a TI coach and emergency room physician who was helping conduct a TI coach training session in Coral Springs FL that week. Suzanne told me I most likely had a stomach virus since the day of the swim.
Suzanne explained that during such a virus, the intestines don’t absorb fluids or nutrients as well as usual, meaning that I had most likely become dehydrated and depleted by the 8th hour. I felt better about my swim, particularly that I’d had the will and efficiency to complete the final five miles (in rough conditions) and nearly four hours in that state.

Even so, in the weeks that followed I felt a distinct lack of enthusiasm for continuing my marathon quest. Even before my energy gave out I had not been enjoying the Tampa Bay swim. In part because my stomach was unsettled, and occasionally nauseous, but also because of the lack of  sensory stimulus. The only two noteworthy features in that swim are two bridges, at 18 and 21 miles. Apart from that the only thing to look at all day is the boat accompanying you.

That day I discovered I lacked the particular kind of mental stamina that allows one to swim solo, next to a boat, for a very long day.  I hadn’t experienced that kind of – not boredom exactly, but absence of diversion – during MIMS because the scenery was highly visible, differentiated, engaging and constantly changing.  Besides the famed NY skyline, and countless other features, you pass under 13 bridges, 9 of them close together in the Harlem River, which is otherwise a pretty uneventful stretch, with mostly industrial  backdrops.

As well, for the final 18 or so miles of MIMS, I had an on-and-off experience of being in a race, with other individuals or relays close enough to pace with or try to pass. In Tampa Bay I had that experience for the first 3 hours or so, but the final 9 hours were lonely.

In early May, about three weeks after that swim, I decided that the Maui and Tampa Bay swims were going to be my full complement of marathons for 2010, and I’m undecided whether I might revisit my earlier ambition to swim the Catalina and English Channels in a future year. The initial and most compelling reason was that the TI business had taken a serious hit to revenues during my 3-month marathon sabbatical and it was clear we could not sustain further diversion of my energy, attention or physical presence to train for and swim two more marathons over the ensuing four months.

But the second reason, which became increasingly clear  as May gave way to June, was that I also lacked the appetite to continue marathon training for the additional 16 weeks needed to stay marathon ready for an English Channel attempt in late August.  And that self-discovery, I now recognize, has everything to do with the keen interest I’ve developed this year in how every aspect of swim training — indeed every aspect of life — has the potential to be impacted by conscious choices about cultivating  brain circuits.

In my next several posts I’ll expand on this idea and how it has come to influence so many aspects of where I devote my energy and attention.

Stay tuned.

Twice a week I drive from Coronado, where I’ve been staying, to LaJolla Cove, where I swim. The trip is about 18 miles with 14 of that on I-5. The first few trips I drove  the interstate part at 70-75 mph. I noticed that my fuel consumption for those trips was 34-36mpg. When I reduced my speed to 60 mph, fuel efficiency improved to 44-45mpg. I reduced speed by about 17% and improved fuel efficiency by 25%. And my trip duration increased by just two minutes — from about 22 minutes to 24 minutes.

The reason why efficiency increases by 50% more than speed decreases is the geometric effect of wind resistance. A small reduction in speed can mean a significant reduction in energy cost.

There’s a corollary here for swimmers — particularly distance swimmers, and this goes double for triathletes. Because the primary cost of swimming is in overcoming water resistance, and resistance goes up far more than speed, it takes a LOT more energy to swim a little faster.

This means that you can save a LOT of energy by moderating your pace a little bit.  And the energy you save can help you hold that pace much longer. Or, in a triathlon, it could help you gain a lot more time on the run (or bike) than you give up on the swim, since – unlike swimming – it takes only a LITTLE energy to run a little faster.

And by practicing Total Immersion Swimming, you’ll probably recover the speed you sacrificed in short order.

I have become curious about the impact of speed on an English Channel swim.  At present
I am doing 1 to 2 miles a day in the pool at around 2.1mph (yes, I time myself each swim to make sure I am improving!).

After just 5 months of training I have already improved my times and I
am sure I will improve still further but my question is how important
is speed to a crossing?  I recall Michael Oram saying that so
long as you keep plodding away you will get there (I can plod away for
hours) but how much does this add to the difficulty?  I am not just
thinking of the extra time spent in the water but more the tidal
switch and whether there is a minimum speed to avoid getting stuck
out there for an extra 6 hours when the tide switches.

My reply to Simon:

All of us who are training for a Channel swim hope to reach France in the least time possible. As you say, if you can avoid getting caught in a tidal shift, you decrease your chances of getting stuck – swimming in place for hours – with the coast of France seemingly within easy reach . . . but making no headway . . . because the tide has turned against you . So improving your speed certainly improves your chances.

The most important question to ask yourself is what is your plan or strategy to improve your pace? Timing your swims gives you information on your speed, but does it improve it?

Here are some things to think about with regards to speed (I prefer the term “pace” since speed makes us think of velocity, which  means little to those of us who can’t think in terms of a sub-10 hr swim.)

1. To move forward in the water, the propulsive force you generate must exceed to resistive force of the water. To move forwardfaster you need to increase the difference between propulsive and resistive forces. Which takes more effort – increasing propulsive force or decreasing resistive? When you need to maintain your pace for 10-12-14 hours, you need to be very conscious of the energy cost of your intended pace.

2. I’d guess that the average Stroke Rate for Channel swimmers is around 60 spm. How long it takes you to cross will be purely a factor of how far you travel on each of those strokes. If you travel half a meter per stroke, it’ll take you about 76,000 strokes to cross. At 60 spm, 3600/hr it’s a 21 hr crossing. At .6m/stroke it’s 17.5 hrs. At .7m/stroke it’s 15 hrs. Etc.

This is why I previously suggested stroke counting in training is helpful. Suppose I take 40 SPL in the 50m pool. Subtracting 6m for the pushoff, that means I’m traveling 1.1 m/stroke the rest of the way. I KNOW I won’t travel that far in the Channel, but I figure it’s better to create muscle memory for 1.1m/stroke than for .9 m/stroke during those times I can measure my SL.

At this point I’m swimming 11x/week, 7-8 sessions in the pool and 3-4 in OW. I figure that 90% or more of the factors that will influence my pace are developed in the pool.

Monday Feb 15 0630 – 3500LCM at Coronado Pool

Set #1: 300 [50BK @ 39SPL 50FR @ 38 SPL ]– Focus on soft catch and streamlined/ legs on both.

Set #2: Swim 3 rounds of 1000m as  [4x50+3x100+2x150+1x200] with Tempo Trainer and SPL. Rest 10 beeps between swims within each round. Rest :30 extra after first round, :60 extra after second round.

Notes: Goal was to keep SPL constant for entire set, at an average of 40 strokes per 50 meters. On each repeat I swam1^st length at 39SPL, middle lengths at 40SPL, last length at 41SPL (I.E. 100 = 39+41; 150 = 39+40+41]

I set Tempo Trainer @ 1.10 sec/stroke on 1^st round, @ 1.09 on 2^nd round; @ 1.08 on 3^rd round.

This set improves two neural circuits: (1) consistent pacing – sometimes called “clock in the head.” And (2) increase pace with mental, rather than physical, effort.

1) Consistent Pacing. This is one of two core competencies of successful distance swimming.  The best distance swimmers have a greater ability than other swimmers to maintain an unvarying pace. I prefer to improve my “pacing circuits” with this kind of set because it’s precise and process-oriented. I.E. 40 strokes at 1.1 seconds will always take 44 seconds. (Allowing 3 beeps [3.3 seconds] on pushoff results in a 50m pace of 47.3 sec.) So long as I synchronize with the beep and keep SPL at an average of 40, my pace for the 100s, 150s and 200 in each round will exactly match  my pace for the 50s.

2) Improved Pacing. At an average of 40 SPL, it took 800 strokes to complete 1000 meters in each round. (I actually saved 4 or 5 strokes in the 2^nd round and 2 or 3 in the 3^rd round). Increasing stroke frequency by .01 each round, converts into a time savings of 8 seconds in each round. So my final 1000 meters was 16 seconds faster than my first. (Note: If I added only 8 strokes (taking 808, instead of 800 for 1000m) then I would have swum slower at the faster tempo.)

The best part is I swam faster without “trying” harder. In fact, my focus when I increase tempo is to make each stroke feel as relaxed and unhurried as possible, as that’s the secret to not adding strokes (i.e. taking shorter strokes). So, with an intention of feeling as easy and leisurely as possible I swam at least 16 seconds faster (more when you factor in the strokes I saved) for 1000 meters at the end of the set, compared to the beginning. Over a full 38km English Channel swim that improvement would result in a time savings of over 10 minutes.

No Pace Clock Necessary – I especially like this approach to training because it renders the pace clock unnecessary. I never looked at the pace clock once during this practice, yet knew my pace exactly, on virtually every stroke.  If I do rely on the pace clock I don’t know my pace for sure until I stop swimming. But after years of stroke counting, I’ve developed an acute sense of how my stroke feels at different counts. This gives me the ability to adjust pace in the middle of a repeat – or even mid-pool. A couple of times during this set I slightly missed my turn, or felt a momentary loss of form in mid-pool and knew immediately that moment’s inefficiency would add a stroke (and 1.1 sec.) by the far end if I failed to lengthen my stroke in some way.  This gives me the awareness to maintain complete control over my pace the whole way.

The most important dividend of this approach to pace development is that it prepares me for the challenges I’ll encounter in the English Channel — or any swimming race for that matter. Runners can glance at their watch at any time in a race, but swimmers lack that option.  Therefore honing my internal sense of Stroke Length and Stroke Rate (the unfailing “math of pace”) provides me with an invaluable tool for smart, effective swimming.

Learn more about how to use a Tempo Trainer to improve distance swimming in my ebook, Outside the Box.

Download a free excerpt from Outside the Box.

I told Gila that I thought an athlete’s high pain threshold is more a function of their  ability to focus on other things. I don’t mean dissociation – I.E. purely distracting thoughts. I think the key is constructive concentration. Focus on process — things that positively impact your performance.

I also think that intention matters. In my previous blog I made note of the fact that, during a “quality” set, while increasing the setting of my Tempo Trainer, my brain and psyche had one keen focus – to keep my stroke under control, to feel relaxed, and even leisurely.

The effect of keeping my stroke long as Tempo increased was that I swam faster. But I wasn’t thinking “Swim Faster.” In fact I was thinking “Feel like you’re stroking slowly.”

The metabolic effect of swimming faster is that I was working harder. But I wasn’t thinking “Work harder.” Instead I was thinking “Feel as relaxed as possible.”

And I was indeed peripherally aware of an increasingly intense sensation as the tempo – and my pace – got faster. But that sensation, while intense, wasn’t unpleasant or uncomfortable.

So, it seems that — besides training yourself to focus your attention so keenly on constructive things that you block out awareness of things that could be uncomfortable if you dwelled on them – another element of a high pain threshold is being able to reframe an experience some might find unpleasant, into something positive because you associate it with performing near your peak capacity.

It’s frequently said that the psychological demands of swimming the English Channel are greater than the physical demands. If so, wouldn’t mental conditioning deserve at least as much thought and focus in your training as physical conditioning?

Tuesday Feb 9 at Coronado Municipal Pool

Set #1 50+100+150+200+250 FR. EZ 50 BK between FR repeats

Notes: I held 36-37 SPL on FR repeats and 38-39 on BK lengths.  My goals on this set were to (1) begin practice by deepening my neural program for a long, relaxed stroke and (2) to test whether I was equally efficient on both breathing sides. I breathed right on one length and left the next. I was pleased that SPL was same on both.

Set #2 Swim  12 X 150 FR with Tempo Trainer, striving for best combination of SPL and Stroke Rate (or tempo).

1-4 @ 1.10-1.12-1.14-1.16

5-8 @ 1.16-1.14-1.12-1.10

9-12 @ 1.08-1.0-1.04-1.02

Notes: On the 1^st 150, with my Tempo Trainer set at 1.10 sec/stroke, I averaged 40SPL (38+41+41). My plan on #’s 1-4 was to slow tempo on each and try to subtract as many strokes as possible as tempo slowed. My plan on #’s 5-8 was to reverse tempo back to my starting point – while trying to avoid adding strokes.

On # 4 I averaged 38 SPL – or 6 fewer total strokes for 150. How does that convert into pace? I allow 3 beeps on each pushoff so my pace/50 on #1 was 43 x 1.10 or 47.3 sec. My pace on #4 was 41 x 1.16 or 47.5 sec.  My pace was .2 sec/50 slower BUT I felt materially more relaxed, meaning that pace would likely be sustainable for a longer distance.

The real benefit came when I begin increasing tempo again, (and seeking to avoid adding strokes.) When I got back to 1.10 on #8 my average SPL was 39, one stroke lower than when I started the set. This converted into a pace of 46.2 sec – which, though faster, actually felt a bit easier than #1 had.

I’d originally planned to swim only 8 x 150, but decided spontaneously to keep swimming 150s – and increasing tempo – until my stroke count reached the same level where I’d started – 40 SPL. That didn’t happen until I reached 1.02 sec/stroke on #12, At 1.02, 40 SPL converts to a pace of 43.8 sec. And how does this difference in pace convert over the estimated 38,000 meters (760 x 50m) of an English Channel crossing? 760 x 3.5 sec = 44 minutes saved.

As I’ve noted, every set I do in the pool has one of two objects: (1) to develop brain circuits that get me across the Channel more easily or (2) to develop circuits that get me across faster.

I don’t do any sets for conditioning purposes (Conditioning “happens.”) I don’t do any to get the yards in; over the next six months, there will be sufficient yards.

Set #1 was for the former. Set #2 was for the latter. But here’s the key takeaway from this set. While I swam much faster on #12, and worked harder, my brain wasn’t thinking “Work harder.”  It wasn’t even thinking “Swim faster.”  My focus was entirely on the difficult task of keeping my stroke long, effective — and feeling relaxed and leisurely — while the beep on my Tempo Trainer got faster.

An intention of “going harder” isn’t a realistic option in swimming the English Channel. That’s why my intention, my focus, is always on building or maintaining efficiency in training, — and will be the same while swimming alongside Lance Oram’s boat.

Mon Feb 8 3100 LCM at Coronado Municipal Pool plus 2+ miles at LaJolla Cove

Warmup Swim: 200 Free at 34-35 SPL

Set #1 3 rounds of [4 x 100 Free] on 1:55 interval – 100 EZ Back-Breast between rounds.

SPL: 34+35 (69 total strokes)

Times: 1:46-1:43

Notes: This was an economy-oriented set-intending to use as few strokes and as little energy as possible. I was pleased by the improvement over similar sets last week. I took 5 fewer strokes per 100 and my interval was 5 seconds faster than any set of 100s last week. I achieved the efficiency by focusing on making my recovery in each stroke as relaxed and unhurried as possible. My times improved in the 2^nd round, over the 1^st, and improved again on the 3^rd round, with constant SPL, demonstrating that your swimming can improve when more repetition helps your nervous system  learn to perform a task more efficiently.

Set #2 3 rounds of [4 x 100 Free] on 2:00 interval  100 EZ Back-Breast between rounds. 1^st round @ 1.13 sec/stroke; 2^nd round @ 1.14 sec/stroke; 3^rd round @ 1.15 sec/stroke

SPL: 36+38 (74 total strokes) on rounds 1 and 2; 73 and 72 strokes on 3^rd round.

Times: 1:33 on Rounds 1&2;  1:32-1:30 on Round 3.

Notes: I repeated Set #1, but this time with a Stroke Rate set by a Tempo Trainer. I set the TT at 1.13 sec/stroke on the 1^st round. My strokes/100 increased by 5, but my times improved by over 10 seconds from Set #1. On the 2^nd round I slowed tempo by .01 sec to 1.14 sec/stroke. I took the same number of strokes and kept my times the same. This raises the question: If my total strokes were the same but my tempo was .01 slower, how did I keep my times the same? I should have swum nearly a second slower (74 strokes x .01 sec = .74 sec).

Though the change in tempo was slight I used the extra  in each stroke to improve my hold on the water slightly and thus travel slightly farther on each stroke. In Round 1, I had to stretch and glide a bit to reach the wall after 74 strokes.  At a tempo of 1.14, my 74^th stroke took me strongly to the wall, saving enough time to offset the .7 sec that slower tempo should have added.

On the 3^rd round, I slowed tempo again to 1.15. Again, taking 70+ strokes at a slower tempo should have slowed my times. Instead, I used the extra time to improve  my grip again and reduced my SPL on the first 50 to 35, saving 1.15 seconds on that lap. This improved my times to 1:32 – and 1:31 when my I was able to finish stroke, rather than glide on my 73^rd stroke. On the last 100, I cut a stroke from the 2^nd 50, resulting in improving in time again (since cutting a stroke also saved 1.15 sec) for a time of 1:30. In this case, slower strokes yielded faster times – because my efficiency improved more than my stroke slowed – a great outcome for long-distance endurance.

Swimdown 100 Easy Long-Axis Combo

Open Water I finished this practice at 6:10 am, climbed out and drove directly to LaJolla Cove to swim 2+ miles in 57F water, taking just over an hour to complete the swim. Last week I also swam twice a day with an afternoon open water swim usually following my morning swim by about 8 hours.  This week I’ll begin doing some of these “daily doubles” back to back to see how I tolerate them. This morning my energy was a bit low toward the end of my Cove swim.

Set #1 4 x 50 + 2 x 100 + 1 x 200 + 2 x 100 + 4 x 50 on interval of 1:00/50

SPL: 50s – 37; 100s – 37-38; 200 — 37-38-38-38

Times: 50s: 52-51-50-50;  100s: 1:40-1:38   200: 3:14   100s: 1:34-1:33        50s: all :45

Notes: My goal was to use the SPL from the first four 50s as a basis for the rest of the set, and let the “tuneup effect” improve my times throughout the set.  I descended the first 4 x 50, swam a faster pace on the 2 x 100, improved my pace again on the 200,  improved it again on the 2^nd set of 2 x 100 (these were 5-6 seconds faster than the 1^st set of 100s) and held a constant pace on the final set of 50s (average of 5+ seconds faster than the initial set of 50s. This set illustrates what I call the “tuneup” effect.

When your training focus is physiological you start workout with a warmup. This is designed to have physiological effects – increased heart and respiration rate, increased body  temperature, decreased muscle viscosity (i.e. they “loosen up.”)

When your training focus is neural, you start practice with a  tuneup – sending signals along brain circuits both for keen attention and for skilled movement. As these circuits are tuned, the body also experiences the physiological effects of warmup. The difference is that while the swimming is relatively easy, the skill elements require exacting focus and precise, consistent execution.

As the tuneup and warmup effects took hold, I was able to improve pace, even while increasing swim distance, with no change in Stroke Length.

Set #2 12 rounds of [effortful 100 + recovery 50] on 3:00. The effortful 100s averaged 1:30 @ 75 strokes. The active-rest 50s were Backstroke, averaging 75 seconds, which left 15 seconds of passive rest before starting the next 100.

Notes: I plan to swim an “effortful” set twice a week, usually Tues and Fri morning. Virtually all other pool training will be designed to imprint efficiency – i.e. to help me get across the Channel more easily. The effortful sets are intended to increase pace-holding capacity – i.e. to help me get across the Channel faster. These sets will be 30 to 45 minutes in duration, and include an approximately equal ratio of work-to-rest. The rest will mostly be active – i.e. recovery-pace swimming.

The difference between effortful sets and efficiency sets is that I’ll aim to maintain a more challenging combination of Stroke Length and pace or tempo. These sets will be more metabolically demanding, leaving me somewhat more fatigued and possibly with sore muscles. Thus (because of the overall volume of my training, and my age) I have to be careful not to overdo and to allow sufficient recovery between them.

I swam this set 1 SPL higher than Set #1 – a minimal difference moving from tuneup to effort. My first 100 was 1:30, the next two 1:32, then a long string at 1:30 with one at 1:29. The last two were 1:29 and 1:27. In the middle, on two consective 100s I took 74 and 76 strokes. The other ten were all at 75 strokes.

Swimdown: 200 [50 Back @ 42 SPL + 50 Breast @ 21 SPL]

I am interested in your accent of SPL in your training program. I understand that to be strokes per length of the pool, and a stroke being counted on each individual arm’s cycle. I tend to count by revolutions of ONE arm. In other words: right hand entry to right hand entry. It is just easier for me to count that way as I think I would go nutty doing what I consider to be a double count. I am striving to make as low (as comfortably possible) the number of strokes per length. I average 16 to 18 strokes per 50 meter length of this pool, and I do not do tumble turns at each end. I do not think my back would tolerate that many flips in an average training session of 3 to 5000 meters as I believe many of us do have some degree of spinal stenosis. The other point is that there are not many tumble turns to do in swimming the EC.

I would be interested in your comments on how you determine SPL whilst swimming in open water.

My Reply:

Otto

I have some spinal stenosis as well, possibly arthritic in nature. One consequence is that I can no longer do back bends in yoga without getting back spasms afterward. I can still do flip turns quite well but did find my lower back quite stiff in late October when I returned to pool swimming after doing only open water for six months. It took a few hours of turning somewhat stiffly for things to loosen up. Part of the aging process I guess – even with yoga practice.

My SPL is higher than yours, possibly because the need for air after a flip turn results in a somewhat shorter pushoff. I don’t think the kind of turns one does are critical to achieving a degree of specificity in pool training for a Channel swim. After all, there are no turns in a Channel crossing. However in a way I think the flip turn may more closely resemble OW swimming in one minor respect – less interruption in stroke rhythm.

As for the difference in your stroke counting method all, that really matters is that you have a consistent way of measuring  efficiency.

I don’t try to calculate an “SPL for OW.” I know my stroke length will be considerably less in OW than in the pool. When I have had a chance to measure my Stroke Length in OW – Mirror Lake, in Lake Placid, has cables marked by buoys at 25m intervals — at maximum efficiency I’ve counted 22-23 strokes per 25m. Even allowing for the lack of pushoff, this is still about 40 SPL in a 50m pool – and that’s in water much calmer than in the Channel. I’ve also noticed that the slightest inattention causes my 25m stroke count to increase to 25 or more — I.E. 10% less efficiency than when my focus is keen. With the multiplier of great distance in the Channel, the consequences of small changes in efficiency are sobering.

E.G. In a best case scenario I estimate it will take me 40,000 strokes to swim the Channel. If my attention to stroke details slackens even slightly – or if my neural program for stroke efficiency isn’t sufficiently durable – during 12 to 14 hours of swimming, that could add an extra 4000 strokes! Having to swim another 4000 strokes to the end of the swim — where I may be cold and tired – could spell  the difference between success and failure.

Though I won’t count in the Channel, the reason I count in the pool is noted at the top of my prior post: My foremost training goal is to maximize the formation of new pathways in the brain – neuroplasticity – and the creation of new brain cells – neurogenesis.

Stroke counting is a simple mechanism for staying attentive. And striving to keep a consistent count as I swim farther forces me to think even harder, indeed strategically. Both of these mental demands have been documented in brain research as contributing to neurogenesis and neuroplasticity.

Further practicing mindfulness in the pool also strengthens my “concentration muscle” for the far greater demands of Channel swimming.  (A study at the University of Wisconsin showed that Buddhist monks had increased infrastructure in the area of the brain we use for concentration through regular meditation practice. It literally IS a muscle.) I already know, from the Channel relay I did last Sept, that the potential for distraction and the intrusion of self-doubt is greater in the Channel — even in a 2-hour relay leg — than in any other OW swimming I’d done in nearly 40 years. Swimming around Manhattan was a stroll in the park by comparison.

Some of the circuits I build in my pool training will be responsible for unblinking focus. Some will be responsible for unvarying efficiency. I want both to be as highly developed as possible seven months from now when I set out for France.