The “Energy Sink”

Have you ever seen a fish that wasn’t horizontal while swimming? Fish and aquatic mammals are naturally designed for aquatic (i.e. horizontal) balance. Humans, as terrestrial mammals, are naturally designed for land (i.e. vertical) balance. Most of us recognize that the cost of imbalance in the water is more drag and fatigue, less speed. But the true cost is actually far greater.

Actually, few swimmers think of it as a balance problem. It feels more like a sinking problem which leaves most new swimmers feeling at least highly uncomfortable, and often at risk. Imbalance is the reason nearly every swimmer’s first attempt to cross the pool is a “near death experience.”

Usually, we’re not in real danger. But who can think clearly when it feels like your survival depends on churning furiously until you reach safety. The reason we feel threatened is a simple matter of buoyancy and gravity. Buoyancy pushes our air-carrying lungs up, while gravity pulls our dense lower body down. That has costs far beyond what most people realize.

1. A sagging lower body increases drag considerably.

2. The resulting survival strokes churn up a froth of bubbles—and can easily exhaust you within 30 seconds–but are utterly ineffective for propulsion.

3. However the costs in mental energy may be greatest of all, and have rarely been acknowledged.

Imbalance burns Mental Energy

Though the brain makes up just 2 percent of the body’s weight, it consumes 20 percent of its energy. Normally about 50 percent of the brain’s energy consumption goes to managing balance. But when the brain senses imbalance–and particularly when it thinks you’re sinking–it goes into critical mode and  nearly 100 percent of its energy is consumed with trying to fix that.

Until you fix ‘that sinking feeling,’ you have no chance of becoming comfortable or efficient.  And with that amount of energy waste, it makes no sense at all to try to ‘tough it out.’ Before tackling even the most rudimentary skills, we need to send the brain unambiguous signals that we’ve got control of body position. That frees up the mental energy to focus on skills that require some degree of calm focus.

That’s why all TI learning sequences start by teaching comfort and body control–as is the case with Lesson One of the Self-Coached Workshop.

Relax into Weightlessness

In terms of stroke mechanics, Lesson One exercises  teach you to position head, arms and legs in ways you’ll maintain in every drill (and stroke) that follows. But more importantly–by teaching you to relax into weightlessness–it frees you from the evolutionary legacy of being a land-dwelling species.

Like all terrestial mammals, we’re wired by evolution to keep the head above the surface, in a ’safe’ place. The head-lifting instinct just makes our balance problem worse. And our survival instincts also interpret gravity–at least in water–as a threat to well-being.  Bypassing that instinct and replacing it with an instinct to cooperate with gravity is a difficult, but utterly necessary, step.

Though Lesson 1 drills appear simple, they are essential in replacing an inborn reflex with a calmly considered choice.  They also free up the considerable mental energy required for skill-acquisition. For this reason, we recommend repeating Superman Glide as much as necessary to imprint a sense of support and stability.  We also recommend that you “tune up” for more advanced skills by starting reps with a few moments of Superman Glide, while working on more advanced lessons and skills.

Newer swimmers, anyone who still feels their legs are sinking, or find it difficult to relax the kick will benefit hugely from staying with Lesson One longer. All Lesson One exercises are Tuneups, designed for practice in short intervals–usually 10 yards or less.

Even after progressing to Lesson Two and beyond, use one or more of these– particularly Superman Glide–as tuneups as you begin a practice session . . . or anytime you feel yourself becoming tense or working too hard. Repeat Superman Glide or Laser Lead Flutter until you feel weightless and relaxed again, then maintain that as you resume practice.

Michael Sokolove (who also wrote a profile of Michael Phelps prior to the 2004 Olympics) published How a Soccer Star is Made in the June 6 edition of New York Times Magazine.  It contrasted the player development approach at Ajax Academy, the leading youth soccer program in the Netherlands, with how soccer players are developed in the U.S.  Below I’ve included several excerpts, between which I inserted in bold questions about swim coaching, mostly in reference to youth coaching but many of these questions could apply equally to those who coach adult swimmers.

The Netherlands, with about 6%  the population of the US, produce an outsize percentage of the world’s best soccer players. What do their player development methods tell us?

“One man, Ronald de Jong, said: ‘I am never looking for a result — which boy is scoring the most goals or who is running the fastest. That may be because of their size and stage of development. I want to notice if a boy runs on his forefeet, lightly? Does he have creativity with the ball? Does he really love the game? These things predict how he’ll be when he is older.’”

Do swim coaches more often pay attention to the fastest athletes  (and consequently slower swimmers receive less coaching)? How commonly do they take more notice of the details of each swimmer’s style?

“One element of the academy’s success is that the boys are not overplayed. Through age 12, they train only three times a week and play one game on the weekend.  By age 15, the boys are practicing five times a week. Training consists of drills in which players move quickly and kick the ball to each other at close range. In the U.S., this kind of activity would be a warm-up, with the coach paying scant attention and maybe talking on a cellphone. At Ajax, these exercises — designed to maximize touches, or contact with the ball — are the main event. “

How often and why do swim coaches, like soccer coaches, seem disinterested in what’s happening in the pool?

“Drawn from a nation of fewer than 17 million, the Dutch national team relies on players who know what they want to do with the ball before it reaches them and can move it on without stopping it. David Winner calls this ‘physical chess.’  Watching the U.S. national team play the Dutch . . .  the Dutch zipped the ball from player to player and from side to side of the field, while the Americans ran and ran, chasing the ball but rarely gaining control. When the Americans did get the ball, their passes too often flew beyond reach or out of bounds. The Dutch style demands the highest order of individual skill: players with a wizardlike ability to control the ball with either foot, any part of the foot, and work it toward the goal through cramped spaces and barely perceptible lanes.”

“How the U.S. develops young players is not just different from what the Netherlands and most elite soccer nations do — it is diametrically opposed.  Even at the Pee-Wee level, Americans put together teams built to win. The best soccer-playing nations build individual players with superior technical skills who later come together on teams the U.S. struggles to beat.”

“The balance between games and practice in the U.S. is skewed when compared with the rest of the world . . . a teenager in the U.S. can play 100 or more games in a season, for two or three different teams, leaving little time for training . . .  our best players tend to be fast and passionate but underskilled and lacking in savvy compared with players elsewhere. “

How much of swim practice is typically devoted to targeted skill development, and how much to swimmers simply racing each other repeatedly?

“I watched for 30 minutes as a coach tutored Florian Josefzoon. Bryan Roy, a former member of the Dutch national team, demonstrated a series of stutter-steps and pirouettes, then kicked the ball to Josefzoon, on the right wing, who trapped it and tried to match Roy’s moves. It was as if Roy were teaching him a dance. When Josefzoon mastered one set of steps, Roy showed him something new. “

Is it common for swim coaches to introduce a new, more advanced skill, as soon as a simpler one has been mastered?

“Ruben Jongkind, who mainly works with track athletes, was altering the posture and gait of a 15-year-old. Jongkind told me that while the boy was actually quite fast, he ‘was running like a duck, shuffling,’ Jongkind said. ‘That takes more energy, which is why we have to change his motor patterns, so he can be as fast at the end of a game as the beginning.’”

Which is more common: Trying to improve swimmers’ end-of-race speed by improving their motor patterns to increase energy-efficiency? Or with more conditioning?

“Jongkind said the player had progressed to ‘consciously able but not subconsciously able’ to run with the desired form, meaning that in the heat of competition, he reverted to his old form. I pointed out that a fast but flawed runner in the United States would likely be left alone. ‘Everything can be trained,’ Jongkind said. ‘You should always try to make an improvement if it’s possible.’”

Is it common for swimming coaches to follow a plan for improving everything in a swimmer’s makeup—stroke, turns, sense-of-pace, savvy?  Or mainly their fitness?

I hope someone can help. I feel I have the TI technique down EXCEPT the two beat kick (2BK). For some reason my leg goes to a 90 degree angle at the knee when I kick. I know this is creating drag and want to correct it. I’ve tried everthing. I have even thought about tieing my feet together in a shallow pool. Any suggestions?

I replied:

I’ve spent years on my own 2BK “project.” But even before giving the 2BK much attention, I had spent over a decade focused pretty narrowly on the many ways in which one can reduce drag.

I began a shift toward efforts to improve propulsion around 2000, thinking mainly about my armstroke for a few years. In 2004 I began to focus on my kick.

Since then my efforts have been organized as follows:
1) Make my legs more passive to save energy and reduce turbulence
2) Get them to “draft behind my torso.”
3) Synchronize leg beats with hand-spear.
4) Use less muscle to accomplish #3 – shifting the work from quads to core.
5) Focus again on streamlining the kick – using toe-flick rather than leg-drive.

Eliminating a scissors — or other leg-splaying habits — falls into #2. The most helpful thing I did to streamline my kicks was improving lateral stability – i.e. controlling rotation. Besides imprinting controlled rotation in Skate and SpearSwitch, I also focused on keeping my elbows as high and wide as possible as I completed extension.

I’ve described my 2BK process and project in detail in Chapter 7 “How to Kick in Open Water” of the Outside the Box ebook.

Streamlined Legs - and Body - in SpearSwitch

Legs Draft Behind Torso in Whole Stroke

This morning was my second EP practice since installing a pool at home. Not having used the EP in over a year, I’m reacquainting myself.  This morning I decided to focus on improving how I hold water with the extended hand while breathing.

A common error associated with freestyle breathing is that the lead hand collapses (in aggravated cases) or strokes prematurely because the rotation to air, plus a tendency to lift the head, loads the lead arm. When either happens, the next stroke (left hand if you breathe right) is less effective: The hand moves back more than you move forward.

In recent years I’ve improved that aspect of technique a great deal, with most of that improvement coming from EP practice. In recent weeks, I’ve been aware of a slight “slipping” sensation in my right hand when breathing left so I thought it was time to refocus on it.

I started with a very low current speed, stroking as slowly and gently as possible. On each stroke I paused my hand for a moment at full extension. I could see my hand in the bottom mirror so I checked that it was (i) still for a moment, (ii) on a Wide Track and (iii) hanging relaxed with fingers separated and palm back.

I took 10 right breaths (20 strokes), 10 bilateral breaths (30 strokes) then 10 left breaths. I used this breathing sequence to pinpoint my right hand. Because of bad habits acquired and ingrained during millions of “pre-TI” strokes from 1965-1988, when I was mainly a left-side breather, my right hand has been more stubborn about learning patience. It’s much better than it used to be, but still not as good as my left hand during a right side breath – because that was still a relatively  blank slate when I began TI practice 21 years ago.

When breathing right, it’s easy to imprint a patient right hand. Breathing bilaterally I get 5 strokes in every 6 in which I can hold that patience fairly easily. When I breathe left, I really have to focus to avoid right-hand slippage.

After each sequence of 30 breaths, I turned up the current slightly, and returned my focus to keeping that “moment of stillness”  before stroking.  I continued that for about 20 minutes.

In my final 10 minutes, with the current flowing a bit faster (yet still probably in a leisurely 27 min for 1.5k range) I alternated 20 bilateral breaths with 20 left-side breaths, taking a break of 5 cleansing breaths after each sequence of 20 breaths/100 strokes.

My focal point here was to feel (1) a slightly-exaggerated overlap between my hands while breathing; and (2) a sense of lightness and absence of pressure in my extended hand as I breathed.

I’m not sure my right hand was improved after 30 minutes of practice. I am sure I was more sensitized to it and that way lies improvement.

These three screen shots,  from Lesson 6 of the Easy Freestyle DVD show a patient right hand–relaxed and on-track with palm back–just before my face emerges to breathe. 2nd image shows same moment, from the surface. 3rd image shows a split-second later. I’m just about to return my face to the water, left hand about to enter, and right arm still extended.

Related blog on breathing skills: Free Air: How to Breathe Easier

TI Breathing Skills DVD

Related thread on TI Forum.

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.

“A starter’s gun fired, and Davis sprinted off in the 1,000 meters, one of two distances at which he holds the world record, atop blades that were 17½ inches long and just one-sixteenth of an inch wide where they met the ice. Speed skating is a highly technical sport in which competitors want to be able to ‘feel’ the ice and therefore have as little as possible between its surface and the nerve endings of their feet. Davis’s boots, like those of most elite speed skaters, were custom made from molds taken of his feet and surprisingly low-cut — not much higher on his ankles than a pair of Converse canvas sneakers. He wore no socks. He was skating, essentially, on two long knives fastened to a pair of snug-fitting slippers.

I stood at the first turn of the 400-meter oval, just on the other side of the protective wall, as Davis whooshed down the straightaway. His knees were bent, his upper body low and still and his left arm wrapped behind his back as he leaned into the counterclockwise turn. Movement in the torso robs a skater of speed, while ‘force delivered to the ice and not going up into the air is what creates maximum velocity,’  as one of the U.S. national-team coaches explained it to me.

The scoreboard in the arena registered the speeds of skaters from a small chip attached above their boots. Davis hit 56 kilometers per hour (35 miles per hour) on the corner, which might have been terrifying to watch if he were not in such perfect balance. A young Canadian skater, Anastasia Bucsis, stood at the turn with a cluster of competitors, all of them watching intently as Davis blew by. I asked what in particular she was focused on. ‘Everything,’ she said. ‘Shani is the prototype. He’s as efficient as it is humanly possible to be.’ “

I’m always drawn to descriptions of how efficiency is viewed and achieved in a wide range of sports. Speedskating has at least one obvious parallel to swimming – both involve water which is not particularly cooperative to creating propulsion, because traction is far harder to achieve than on land. I dare say that the traction of a skate blade, on the foot of a high-skilled skater is far greater than that achieved by the hand of a high-skilled swimmer. And swimmers encounter far more resistance – water is 880 denser than air. The skater’s top speed of 35 mph compared to the 5 mph achieved by a world-class 50-meter sprinter is evidence enough of that.

Therefore I’m struck by that phrase of “force delivered to the ice and not going up into the air” and the degree to which speedskaters and their coaches dedicate themselves to the fine details of skating technique to maximize the force delivered to the ice.

This brought to mind an article published in Popular Mechanics in Nov 2007 which reported that a group of engineers who studied human vs dolphin swimming reported that typical human swimmers manage to apply only 3% of their force  toward creating forward motion, with 97% being diverted to something else. Dolphins, by comparison are 80% efficient. (A study by USA Swimming in the 1990s found that elite swimmers are less than 10% efficient, but that still means they’re 300 percent more efficient than the average human.)

If you watch any of the speedskating over the coming week, look for even the slightest variation from that “upper body low and  still” form. You’ll need an exceptionally keen eye to discern even the subtlest individual idiosyncrasy in technique. Indeed, watch other sports – alpine or nordic skiing, figure skating, etc. and note the profound uniformity of technique.

For me, this raises the question: If the entire speedskating community has arrived at universal agreement on the best way to deliver force to the ice and not into the air, why do we see so much individual idiosyncrasy in swimming form – when we face monumentally greater challenges in delivering force to the water?

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.

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]

As this is my first week of concentrated training, after 4 months of relative inactivity, I’ll be conservative on both volume and effort this week. The goal in this practice was to swim as well as possible by maximizing mental effort while minimizing physical effort.

Set #1 Swim 8 x 200 on 4:00. Maintain constant SPL. Aim for “effortless” increase in pace.

SPL: 36-37-37-37 on most 200s

Times: Descended 3:43-3:35-3:27-3:22-3:21-3:16-3:16-3:12

Notes: I intended this to be an “open-ended” set. Rather plan a specific # of 200m repeats I would continue the set so long as my repeat times improved and my SPL remained steady. My SPL target would be whatever it was on the 1^st 200. I didn’t do a formal warmup so the first few repeats would serve as warmup.

In addition I decided to swim with no overt kick and the lightest possible pressure on my armstroke – aiming for a truly effortless descending set. This would create two benefits: (1) Replace physical, with mental, effort; and (2) Aid in recovery from residual soreness from yesterday’s practices. (I swam 3200m in the pool in the am and 2400m in the ocean in the pm.)

I managed to continue improving my 200 times, without increasing my initial SPL, for the first six 200s. On #7 I had both an increase in SPL (to 38 on the 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th 50s) and failed to swim faster. So I did one more 200, adding a light compact “toe flick” to the non-overt 2BK I’d been using to that point. My SPL returned to where it had been before and my time improved by 4 seconds.

A key question is how did I swim faster without adding strokes. I traveled a constant distance on each stroke throughout the set (1180 total strokes for the numerically inclined). To swim faster I would need to increase Stroke Rate since I kept Stroke Length constant. However I never tried to stroke faster. Another way of looking at this is that I traveled the length of each stroke faster as the set went on. Still, I never tried to swim faster. I swim sets like this – swimming faster without “trying” regularly – My conclusion is that my nervous system gets “tuned up” with more repetitions of the same task, which results in improvements in the mechanics of both active streamlining and propulsionn.

This suggests a clear benefit for neutrally-focused training: While more repetitions tend to fatigue the body, they can have the opposite effect on a well-trained brain.

Set #2 Swim 3 rounds of [50+100+150+200] on an interval of 1:00/50.

Task: Increase SPL by one stroke per 50 in each repeat 50 @ 37SPL; 100 @ 37+38; 150 @ 37+38+39; 200 @ 37+38+39+40

Notes: While the task in Set #1 was to keep SPL constant, in Set #2 the task was to increase SPL in a closely calibrated way. It is an exacting skill to choose a stroke count, swim 50 meters and hit that count precisely. It is even more demanding to set a new SPL on each successive length – in this set there were no consecutive lengths on which SPL remained the same. – and be able to adjust your stroke to hit a new count, on the nose, in each length.

The goal of this kind of set is twofold: (1) Use its mental and coordinative demands to strengthen the neural pathways for stroke adjustment; and (2) Add effortless speed by increasing stroke count – I.E. More strokes should always result in more speed.

My 200 times in the three rounds were 3:16-3:14 and 3:11 – though my total stroke count for each 200 was the same.  This indicates again that my nervous system “learned” the particular task I gave it as I repeated the basic set of 50+100+150+200 three times. As well, my 200 pace in each round was faster than the 100 pace in that round, indicating that I converted more strokes into more speed.

Swimdown: 400    [50 BK @ 41SPL - 50BR @ 21 SPL]

Swimdown: 400 50 BK @ 41SPL – 50BR @ 21 SPL.