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.

Wed Feb 10 0800 AM at Coronado Pool        3500 LCM

Set #1 7 x 400 on 7:30 – “Tempo Pyramid”

Time, Tempo and Total Strokes

Notes: This was another example of what is becoming a favorite set – a “Tempo Pyramid” in which I (i) start with a faster tempo; (ii) slow tempo gradually, seeking to reduce SPL; then (iii) speed tempo again, intent upon minimizing SPL increase. As the chart shows, I took off 28 strokes, from #1 to #4 as tempo slowed. From #4 to #7, as tempo increased again, I added back only 9.

I calculated stroke count for each 400 by dividing time by tempo then subtracting 24 (I allow 3 beeps on the initial pushoff and all turns.)  My last 400 was 21 seconds faster than the first – though both were at the same tempo — because I took 19 fewer 1.1-second strokes.  (This improvement – multiplied by the approx 95 x 400 in an English Channel swim – converts into reaching France 32 minutes faster, in about 1800 fewer strokes.)

Most people know only one way to swim faster – stroke faster and work harder. By using the Tempo Trainer (combined with hundreds of hours of technique practice) I’ve learned to swim faster by traveling farther. The Tempo Pyramid has proven to be one of the most reliable ways to imprint that on my brain.

Experience has shown me that slowing my tempo (by precise amounts as the TT allows) dependably leads to a longer stroke. Not by accident but because I use the extra time to improve my streamline and stroke. A good outcome is when I stroke slower and swim the same time. A better outcome is when I stroke slower and swim faster, as I did here.

When I begin increasing tempo again, on the 2^nd half of the set, I concentrate on making it feel slow. Indeed the last 400 felt more leisurely than the first. I felt as if I had more time between beeps to extend my bodyline, trap water behind my hand, etc. Taking 19 fewer strokes shows that perception indeed had become reality.

This is also an illustration of how rapidly the brain and nervous system adapt when you give them the right kind of stimulus. Adaptation here was stimulated by (i) the intense focus I gave to each stroke; and (ii) the auditory stimulus from the Tempo Trainer beep. The nervous system adapts far faster than the aerobic system – and when it does adapt you sense it immediately. That’s motivating.

Set #2 8 x 50 @ 1.10 and 36 SPL, resting 10 beeps (11 sec.) at each wall.

Notes: I finished practice with a brisk set of 50s. I do these in hopes of improving Set #1 when I repeat it in the future. Finishing 50m in 36 SPL at a tempo of 1.1 (allowing 3 beeps for pushoff) gives a time of 42.9 sec, or a pace of 5:43 for 400. This set starts developing a neural program for traveling farther and faster in 1.1 sec than I did on the 400 (39 strokes per 50 and a pace of about 47 sec.). The more 50 repeats I swim with fewer strokes and seconds, the more robust that brain circuit becomes. Eventually, I hope, it will be strong enough to sustain that pace for a nonstop 400, during a set such as today’s.

Endnote: A comment described me as having a preference for scientific training. It’s more accurate to say I prefer empirical training. I train in ways that provide measurable feedback that allows me to link efforts to outcomes. I.E. That a particular combination of SPL and tempo allows me to hold a stronger pace at a more sustainable effort level. That tells me where to focus my training efforts. At age 59, training for 3 marathons, I don’t want to waste energy and time on ineffective – or unexamined – training.

Evening Swim – 2 Miles in the 57F Pacific along Coronado’s Silver Strand. I swam right along the breaker line for a bit more fun and challenge.

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.

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.

Today marks the “official” start of training for three swim marathons: Tampa Bay Apr 17, Catalina Channel June 7 and English Channel week of Aug 17. I swam sporadically Oct through Jan, averaging about 6000 yds/week, but I’m not concerned with my level of fitness. I’ve swum enough to keep my neural conditioning well tuned and have ample time (it’s still 10 week to Tampa) to get my aerobic fitness to marathon levels. I consider quality neural programs more critical to marathon success and so my training will focus more on practice tasks that require keen attention and strategy to complete successfully. This will  create new connections in my brain, and even new neurons.

I will record my training here regularly.

Warmup: Swim 100 Relaxed and Easy

Set # 1 Swim 100 – 200 – 300 – 400 – 300 – 200 – 100 on interval of 2:00/100

Times (w/pace-per-100m): 1:46 – 3:28 (1:44/100) – 5:05 (1:42) – 6:38 (1:39) – 4:50 (1:37) – 3:09 (1:34) – 1:33

Notes: After taking 36+38 strokes on my warmup 100 I decided to swim a “pyramid” from 100 to 400 then back down to see how close I could stay to that  SPL (Strokes Per Length) as distance increased. I also kept track of my times, hoping to keep both SPL and pace consistent as repeat distance increased and perhaps improve pace as distances decreased. I did hold SPL reasonably well, going to 39 SPL only on the final 50 of the 300 and 400 on the way up. However on the way down I was taking 37 SPL on the first length of each repeat, 39 through the middle and 40 on the last lap. In part this was due to lack of fitness, I could feel both streamline and stroke effectiveness was slightly affected by a creeping edge of fatigue that accumulated slowly throughout the set. However, though I didn’t measure or control it with Tempo Trainer on this set, my Stroke Rate must have increased a fair bit throughout the set as my pace/100 got faster on each successive swim – even as distance was increasing.  I attribute this to the warmup effect at the beginning and relatively consistent stroke efficiency throughout. As my fitness improves my goal will be to avoid the increase in SPL I saw here. If I succeed, my pace/100 should improve even more.

Set #2 “Tempo Pyramid” set of [2 x 12 x 50] with Tempo Trainer and Stroke Count

1-12  – 2 each at 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.14, 1.15, 1.16 sec/stroke          SPL began at 38, improved to 37 at 1.14 and improved again to 36 at 1.16.

13-24  – 2 each at 1.16, 1.15, 1.14, 1.13, 1.12, 1.11 sec/stroke        SPL began at 36 and remained steady until 1.12 when it increased to 37 at 1.14 where it remained til the end of the set.

Notes: This is another “pyramid” set of sorts. Rather than increasing/decreasing repeat distance, I decreased, then increased tempo with the aid of the Tempo  Trainer. I decided to do this set after seeing my SPL increase to 40, because of accumulating fatigue in Set #1. I guesstimated that an initial tempo of 1.1 sec/stroke would result in an SPL of 38. I would slow the tempo incrementally until my SPL decreased to 36. I then repeated that set in reverse. As I increased tempo my goal was to avoid adding strokes, trying to maintain 36 SPL for as long as possible. I allowed 3 beeps on pushoff to keep breakout time consistent. As has happened previously when I did a “tempo pyramid” set I was more efficient when I returned to the 1.11 tempo than I had been at the start of the set. Here’s the “math of speed” for this set. My time at the beginning of the set was 45.5 sec. (38 strokes [41 beeps including pushoff] at 1.11 sec.). My time at the end of the set was 44.4 sec. My fastest 50s were the combination of 36 strokes and a tempo of 1.13  or 44.0 sec. This lets me know that a tempo of 1.13 is, for the moment a “sweet spot” for combining stroke length and stroke rate effectively. Over time I’ll try to move my sweet spot to gradually faster tempos.

Cooldown: 300m as 2 x [50 Back (41 SPL), 50 Breast (21 SPL), 50 Free (37 SPL)]

Standard marathon swim training calls for long hours, long repeats, and long sets. I will do some lengthy training sessions — up to six hours in open water — but I think there’s also a place for short, acutely-targeted, practices and sets that aim more for precise execution than tedious repetition.

In fact, for me this is a necessity. Because of a neurological condition – arthritic narrowing in my lumbar spine – I tend to get foot and calf cramps after less than an hour of swimming. So I need to program my pool practice to wring maximal value out of minimal time. The best way I know to do so is with a focus on training my nervous, rather than aerobic, system.

Traditional swim workouts include standard ingredients, such as a warmup, kick set, pull set, main set, sprint set, perhaps a “technique” set. What they have in common is a focus on how far and how hard. Often, there’s filler – included to “get the yards in.” Sometimes, without much irony, it’s even called garbage yardage. A leading goal of this kind of training is to “grow new capillaries” which are microscopic blood vessels.

My practices are explicitly designed to grow new brain cells instead. “Capillary beds” still get improved, but that’s just incidental. What’s explicit in my practice planning is a series of tasks that build the skills or habits that make a difference in my open water races. I also design most sets to include a means of measuring how efficiently I complete each swim. Finally, my sets or tasks require strategy to be completed successfully.

The key to training this way is to design training sets as empirical experiments in efficiency. This requires at least two kinds of data on each swim to measure how effectively I swam. A combination of SPL (Strokes Per Length) and time; of SPL and SR (Stroke Rate, with the aid of a Tempo Trainer), or SR and time.

Most swimmers only know the final time for a repeat – by looking at the pace clock when they finish swimming. I always know how I constructed that time.

I don’t always begin a set with a specific goal in mind. Usually I just do the first swim moderately, then use my time and SPL as a benchmark on subsequent repeats. I always set a strategy for improving on the benchmark throughout the set. Measurable results and a strategy for improving them are the key elements to effective training and to growing brain cells as well as capillaries.

In a series of posts I’ll share examples from my practice.

Friday Dec 11 2200 yards in 38 minutes
This was my first pool practice in 10 days, a week of which was spent in San Francisco – where I swam in the 52-degree Bay but not in a pool. So I was feeling a bit rusty as I started. Also only 38 minutes remained of open swim when I got in, so I decided to swim a single set of 7 x 300 on 5:00.

Doing a practice which consists of only one extended set isn’t unusual for me/ As noted above, I can only last about an hour in the pool, so I try to spend every minute on activities that directly aid improvement. I usually start with a gentle pre-set, but because I started right in on the main set, the first few 300-yard repeats effectively became the warmup.

Starting directly with the main set helps reveal the details of how a swimmer’s body responds to warmup. Physiologists say warmup prepares the circulatory system to deliver more oxygen to the muscles and the muscles to consume more oxygen. But that doesn’t convert automatically into faster swimming. The only guarantee of faster swimming is to improve Stroke Length and/or Stroke Rate. So I’m curious about what happens to those during warmup.

I swam #1 in 4:22 (4 min, 22 sec). I hoped to maintain 14SPL but within 100 yards was taking 15SPL then 16SPL near the end. My stroke felt slightly ragged (an effect of “neural rust”?) and thus not resistant to the slight increase in fatigue that follows the first few lengths of any swim.

On #2, I swam no harder — in fact I felt a bit easier - but my time improved to 4:17 and I held 14SPL for the first 200 yards. Why did my Stroke Length hold longer and why did I swim faster? Mainly my stroke felt a bit more “tuned” – I felt noticeably more precision in my movements and timing. That allowed me to cover 300 yards in 5 fewer strokes. And since each stroke takes about a second, I saved 5 seconds from #1.

On #3, again I didn’t increase effort, but held 14 SPL for the entire distance and improved another 3 seconds, to 4:12. Again I saw a direct link betweenstrokes saved and seconds saved;- it took 3 fewer of each to complete the 300. Once again, I experienced a bit more “mojo” in my swim, reflected mainly in a slight, but noticeable, improvement in my sense of integration – arms, legs and torso more in synch.

The takeaway from the first 3 x 300 is that the primary benefit of the warmup period might be more in neural tuning than in the physiological effects that usually get the credit. At least that seems to be the case for me, a reflection of my focus on creating neural adaptation with my practice.

After improving my times while lowering my stroke count over the first 3 x 300, I sensed I had wrung all the improvement I might get out of that strategy, and decided to go the other way – increasing stroke count — on the final 4 x 300. On #s 4 to 6, I would start at 14SPL, then allow myself one more SPL at a pre-selected point.

On #4 I held 14 SPL for the first 250, then increased to 15SPL on the final 50. My time was 4:09, improving by 3 seconds while adding 2 total strokes.

On #5 I held 14 SPL for the first 200 and increased to 15SPL on the final 100, adding 2 more strokes, and again improving by 3 seconds to 4:06.

On #6 I held 14 SPL for the first 150 and 15SPL on the final 150, adding 2 strokes once again – and again I improved by 3 seconds to 4:03.

Over 3 x 300s, I had, in essence, “traded” 6 strokes for a 9-second time improvement. In fact, over the first 6 x 300, I had dropped a total of 19 seconds – but my stroke count was still lower than it had been on #1! At no time had I consciously tried to either “go harder” or “swim faster.” At all times, my instructions to myself were process-oriented – a focus on how I executed my strokes. This is what I mean by a strategic approach to swim training.

On #7, I took 13 SPL on my first length, then held 15SPL for the next 11 lengths. I also switched from bilateral breathing, which I had done up to that point, to breathing left all the way, as I usually do at the critical point in my races. My time was 3:58. This was also the first 300 on which I felt physically taxed. It took enormous discipline to hold 15 SPL on the last few lengths.

How does this very brief practice – 2200 yards and 38 minutes– relate to the 22 miles, and possibly 14 hours it may take to cross the English Channel? Though my practice was brief, for the entire time every cell in my body was organized around getting as much as possible out of each stroke, with the least possible effort. The exacting nature of the task I set myself – and the unblinking focus required to complete it – are also good training for the mental stamina which I believe is even more important than physical endurance in Channel swimming.