The 5 P’s for a successful 2010 by Jackie Lewis
1. Purpose-Know what the goal is!
2. Passion-Have a burning desire to achieve it!!
3. Planning-Determine how you will go about it!!!
4. Perspiration-Work hard and follow the plan!!!!
5. Perseverance-Don’t let anything get in your way!!!!!
The first step is to determine what your 2010 season goals are. Without goals it’s impossible to know what you are trying to achieve. You may plan to race in just one race or 15. Be realistic with how much time you have to devote to training while balancing your other responsibilities. Prioritize what races are important by assigning them an A, B or C. Now list three measurable goals for the season. It may be to overcome your fear of open water swimming by June, shave off 3 minutes on your 5k by July or participate in your first Olympic distance triathlon by Sept. You will then need to add short term obtainable training objectives to each of your three goals. Be specific in what you are trying to accomplish, know what your limiters are and set specific training objectives that will inch you towards accomplishing the overall goal. Keeping a training journal is a very effective way to measure your progress while keeping your sights on your long term objectives. If this sounds too daunting or confusing, solicit help from a coach. Certified coaches can help you set and achieve realistic goals without the worry of hurting yourself or wasting time. Several reputable certifications include: USAT, CSCS, ACSM and ACE… just to list a few. Don’t be afraid to ask for references and for their certification #, you can generally verify their certification online for each specific association. Sign up for group training sessions. The camaraderie and encouragement from others will help you stick with it and make it twice as rewarding as you start to accomplish your season goals. And just remember, any goal worth doing takes purpose, passion, planning, perspiration and perseverance!
Favorite inspiring quotes-authors unknown:
“It’s not the size of the dog in the fight; it’s the size of the fight in the dog.”
“Winners aren’t quitters and quitters never win.”
“Success is not a destination it’s a journey.”
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Lonestar Multisport Club meeting - Monday, February 15
Lonestar Multisport Club meeting
Monday, February 15
6:30pm
Buca Di Beppo in the Portofino shopping center located on 45N
http://www.bucadibeppo.com/
Ronnie Strange w/ RPM Sports (pro Cyclist) - Proper bike fit and cycling
Willie Fowlkes (CB&I Triathlon Race Director) will give away entries to CB&I Triathlon!
Monday, February 15
6:30pm
Buca Di Beppo in the Portofino shopping center located on 45N
http://www.bucadibeppo.com/
Ronnie Strange w/ RPM Sports (pro Cyclist) - Proper bike fit and cycling
Willie Fowlkes (CB&I Triathlon Race Director) will give away entries to CB&I Triathlon!
Friday, February 5, 2010
Submitted by Mark Tefft
The popular triathlon-related magazines have carried articles on what seat angle you ought to use. But has this subject been addressed in the not-so-popular magazines, that is, the scientific journals? Our sport’s glossy pubs have done a good job of presenting to the layman the "science" on hydration and hyponatremia and related subjects. It’s not overstating it to say that hundreds of studies have been carried out in each of those categories, with corresponding articles published in peer-reviewed publications.
But what about bike position? If Triathlete or Inside Triathlon has reported on what’s been published in the scientific journals, I haven’t seen it. What they’ve written is like what I’ve written, which is that according to the author and the mouse in his pocket, this seat angle or that one is better.
I’m not a real scientist; I just play one on the internet. But there have been real studies performed by real scientists on the subject of seat angles, and I thought I’d write about some of them. All the tests I’ll write about below had subjects riding on a modified bicycle ergometer, that is, a stationary bike with the ability to offer a range of seat angles. Not in every case could I find what the protocol was for handlebar alterations that accompanied a change in seat angles. Take for example, "Cardiorespiratory responses to seat-tube angle variation during steady-state cycling," by Heil, et al, (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 1995). This study had cyclists riding a bicycle ergometer at four angles ranging from 69 degrees to 90 degrees. We don’t know with any precision how the handlebars were altered to negate the ill effects of a bad-fitting bike. Just the same, the study showed that only at the shallowest of angles (69 degrees) did the respiratory system of a cyclist come under more stress than at any of the steeper angles.
Two years later two studies came out. The first of these was published in the same journal as the study above, and was entitled, "Influence of different racing positions on metabolic cost in elite cyclists" (Gnehm, et al). It did not specifically test seat angles, but the study is important to note. Its authors mention going in that, "The spectacular improvements of the 1-h world record in cycling in the last four years have highlighted the importance of aerodynamics in modern bicycle racing." In the early-to-mid ‘90s the record had been significantly lowered by Moser, Boardman and Obree, each of which used more and more exotic bikes and bike positions. This study tested 14 elite male bike racers in three positions: upright with hands on the tops, crouched with hands on the road bars, and laid out on the aero bars.
Gnehm looked at metabolic changes while riders were in these three positions, and noted that riders in the aero position paid a penalty of about 9 watts versus the other two positions. It also noted that this is minor compared to Gnehm’s estimate of 100 watts an aero positions saves by virtue of a lower wind resistance. This was an oft-cited study by cyclists in newsgroups and forums in the late ‘90s, but I doubt its relevancy. First, I doubt that an aero position saves 100 watts. That’s a huge number, and I would guess that 20 - 40 watts might be more like it. Second, it appears that Gnehm did not change the seat angle for his subjects when he flattened their backs and lowered their drag. What Gnehm’s study seems to indicate is that even if you put a rider in a fairly uncomfortable aero position, the power output doesn’t markedly diminish.
The second of the ‘97 studies was published in the Journal of Sports Sciences (Price and Donne) and was called, "Effect of variation in seat tube angle and different seat heights on submaximal cycling performance in man." The article stated that, "At a seat tube angle of 80 degrees, mean VO2 was significantly lower and power efficiency significantly higher compared with an angle of 74 degrees." Likewise, 74 degrees offered more efficiency than 68 degrees.
This study is interesting because it tests not only three different seat angles (68, 74, and 80 degrees) but variable seat heights at each angle. As the quote above suggests, 80 degrees is the most efficient angle at which to ride. But there is of course more to the story. What were the handlebar configurations? What were the stem heights, the hip angles? We’ll get to that.
Interestingly, Price, et al, noted that differences in seat angle preferences were specific to classes of athletes: "...in contrast, triathletes’ bicycles have steeper angles of 78 - 82 degrees." The author also references the Heil article (noted above) and suggested that one reason why Heil found that 68 degrees was the only angle in which his subjects performed poorly was in Heil’s choice of subjects, "80% of whom," Price noted, "were triathletes who normally ride at a steep seat tube angle.
" This particular study simply utilized a seat shifter, a nifty device once in relatively common usage by triathletes in the early '90s. It replaced the bicycle’s seat post, and with a lever on the handlebars you could change your seat angle on the fly. I’ve tracked down the study’s author and emailed him, asking him to verify that no changes were made to the handlebar set-ups as the seat angles were altered during his study. I’ve yet to receive a reply. I don’t, however, see any notation that any change in the bikes was effected other than a change in the seat angle provided by the seat shifter.
The results of this test are, to me, startling. These were road racers riding a road race bike, and they in general rode with considerable economy at 80 degrees versus their usual angle of 74 degrees. Oxygen consumption at the given rate of exertion was about 37 ml/kg/min at 80 degrees versus about 38.5 at 74 degrees (if you’re consuming more oxygen to do a given amount of work, you’re working harder, i.e., you’re less efficient).
Why did the authors achieve this result? "The mean shoe-pedal angle changes produced by altering the tube angle," opined the authors, "would result in a decreased effective force during the first half of the pedal stroke but an increased effective force during the second half. We speculate that increasing the tube angle improves effective force transfer during the second half of the pedal stroke.
" The authors also noted that this series of tests only related to riding on the flat, and to submaximal power outputs, often atypical of race conditions. Just the same, it’s an interesting result and may bear on the next and, for us, most topical study.
The definitive article is now passing its second anniversary since its publication. The "Effects of bicycle frame ergonomics on triathlon 10-km running performance," by Ian Garside and Dominic Doran, appeared in the Journal of Sports Sciences in June 2000. As was the case with all the studies on this subject, the tests were performed in strict lab conditions, with gas analyzers and all that stuff. All subjects rode stationary ergometers.
Unlike Price et al above, Garside utilized triathletes, but: "All participants were naive to training and racing on bicycles with steep seat tube angles (>76-degrees); all participants used a 73-degree frame geometry as standard."
As opposed to most of the testing up to this point, Garside’s protocol called for the tests to be conducted, "as fast as possible under race-like conditions." The test called for triathletes to ride a 40km simulation on both a 73-degree set-up and then on an 81-degree set-up, each followed immediately by a fast-as-possible 10km run on a treadmill.
The authors noted the improved bike/run performance in the field, "based on anecdotal testimony from athletes purporting to have experienced improved performance." But, they noted that prior to this study, "No empirical evidence exists."
Frankly, the results were groundbreaking, for three reasons. First, these triathletes absolutely blew away their "duathlon" performances in the steeper configuration. The average time it took subjects to complete the 40km/10km "brick" was about 1:50 at 73 degrees of seat angle, and it was a full 5+ minutes faster at 81 degrees.
Second, as this test was performed in England, the triathletes there were (as previously noted) "naive" to steep seat angles, that is, they all normally rode shallow. Imagine their surprise at the result! (For a further explanation of the tendency of UK triathletes to ride shallow, consider our 2001 Kona Bike Survey on UK-based entries).
And finally, these tests only measured the physiological responses to the biomechanical change generated by a steeper seat angle. As this test was performed in a lab on stationary equipment, the aerodynamic benefit one derives from the ability to achieve a lower frontal profile with a steeper seat angle was not part of the equation.
Where in this 40km/10km exercise did the time savings occur? There were some time savings achieved during the bike leg. Average 40km times were 1:04:10 in the 73-degree configuration and 1:02:54 for the riders when at 81 degrees. But it was in the first half of the run that the big time savings occurred. It took riders 24:15 to complete the first 5km off the shallow set-up, and only 21:41 after riding the steep bike (and remember, these triathletes had never run off a steep set-up before).
The time savings continued during the second half of the run, but the gap narrowed. The subjects ran 22:01 and 21:14 in the second half of the 10km after riding in shallow and steep configurations respectively.
There is one curious element to these results which is not addressed in the study. It is odd to me that as a group there was such a marked tendency to negative-split the run. While this is not as pronounced in the steep test (21:41 to 21:14) it is severe in the shallow test (24:15 to 22:01). This one element gives me pause when considering the parallel between this test and what happens at triathlons I attend.
As the authors discuss the results they say, "Unexpectedly, the time to completion of the 40km cycle section was faster under the 81-degree 'steep' than the 73-degree 'shallow' condition." This underscores the tendency, I think, for the traditional view to hold sway in the UK, which is that if steep is faster, it’s only because it helps during the run. Obviously the authors were forced to rethink that position, especially as there is still the untested (by them) issue of wind resistance to consider.
The authors only guess at the causes for the enhanced ability to perform with the steeper seat angle, and posit about the,
"greater contribution of the hamstrings and gluteus muscles (Heil et al., 1995). Although muscle recruitment cannot be determined from the present results, alterations in muscle recruitment or activation patterns can have the effect of distributing muscular work over a greater muscle mass (increased contribution of the hamstring and gluteus muscles) that would theoretically reduced the work rate per individual muscle fiber (Coyle et al., 1988)."
Juxtapose that statement, in which the operative phrase is "distributing muscular work over a greater muscle mass," with what Price says in the study above: "We speculate that increasing the tube angle improves effective force transfer during the second half of the pedal stroke." It seems that both authors feel that steep seat angles might distribute work over a greater range of the pedal stroke and in so doing lessen the peak torque that must be applied if should that power application be concentrated over a shorter arc.
The scientists quoted above uttered statements that are not unlike what I wrote a couple of months ago in my Intro to training with power: "I’m convinced that the bane of the triathlete during the bike segment is the peak power one puts out, and not only in terms of too many watts now and then during the ride, but peak power inside the pedal stroke as well." The difference, of course, between what I wrote and what the scientists wrote above is that I was simply writing from the seat of my pants, while Price and Garside had actual data they themselves generated to back up their hypotheses.
The demonstration that steeper seat angles (and not for tri bikes, but for road race bikes) is better is not knew. Gonzalez, et al, (Journal of Biomechanics) demonstrated in 1989, in "Multivariable optimization of cycling biomechanics" that the optimal seat angle for his subjects averaged 76 degrees (as is the case with all of these studies, however, this relates to riding on the flats). But Gonzalez’ study also demonstrated that riding with a cadence of 115 bpm was optimal, and this corresponds only roughly to a real-world race situation.
Though these studies were all conducted inside four walls, and took place on the "flats" and were only sparsely conducted with race-specific exertions, evidence is piling up in favor of steeper seat angles. And that is especially true when one considers the post-cycling run in triathlon, at least up through the International Distance.
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/What_science_says_of_seat_angles_222.html
The popular triathlon-related magazines have carried articles on what seat angle you ought to use. But has this subject been addressed in the not-so-popular magazines, that is, the scientific journals? Our sport’s glossy pubs have done a good job of presenting to the layman the "science" on hydration and hyponatremia and related subjects. It’s not overstating it to say that hundreds of studies have been carried out in each of those categories, with corresponding articles published in peer-reviewed publications.
But what about bike position? If Triathlete or Inside Triathlon has reported on what’s been published in the scientific journals, I haven’t seen it. What they’ve written is like what I’ve written, which is that according to the author and the mouse in his pocket, this seat angle or that one is better.
I’m not a real scientist; I just play one on the internet. But there have been real studies performed by real scientists on the subject of seat angles, and I thought I’d write about some of them. All the tests I’ll write about below had subjects riding on a modified bicycle ergometer, that is, a stationary bike with the ability to offer a range of seat angles. Not in every case could I find what the protocol was for handlebar alterations that accompanied a change in seat angles. Take for example, "Cardiorespiratory responses to seat-tube angle variation during steady-state cycling," by Heil, et al, (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 1995). This study had cyclists riding a bicycle ergometer at four angles ranging from 69 degrees to 90 degrees. We don’t know with any precision how the handlebars were altered to negate the ill effects of a bad-fitting bike. Just the same, the study showed that only at the shallowest of angles (69 degrees) did the respiratory system of a cyclist come under more stress than at any of the steeper angles.
Two years later two studies came out. The first of these was published in the same journal as the study above, and was entitled, "Influence of different racing positions on metabolic cost in elite cyclists" (Gnehm, et al). It did not specifically test seat angles, but the study is important to note. Its authors mention going in that, "The spectacular improvements of the 1-h world record in cycling in the last four years have highlighted the importance of aerodynamics in modern bicycle racing." In the early-to-mid ‘90s the record had been significantly lowered by Moser, Boardman and Obree, each of which used more and more exotic bikes and bike positions. This study tested 14 elite male bike racers in three positions: upright with hands on the tops, crouched with hands on the road bars, and laid out on the aero bars.
Gnehm looked at metabolic changes while riders were in these three positions, and noted that riders in the aero position paid a penalty of about 9 watts versus the other two positions. It also noted that this is minor compared to Gnehm’s estimate of 100 watts an aero positions saves by virtue of a lower wind resistance. This was an oft-cited study by cyclists in newsgroups and forums in the late ‘90s, but I doubt its relevancy. First, I doubt that an aero position saves 100 watts. That’s a huge number, and I would guess that 20 - 40 watts might be more like it. Second, it appears that Gnehm did not change the seat angle for his subjects when he flattened their backs and lowered their drag. What Gnehm’s study seems to indicate is that even if you put a rider in a fairly uncomfortable aero position, the power output doesn’t markedly diminish.
The second of the ‘97 studies was published in the Journal of Sports Sciences (Price and Donne) and was called, "Effect of variation in seat tube angle and different seat heights on submaximal cycling performance in man." The article stated that, "At a seat tube angle of 80 degrees, mean VO2 was significantly lower and power efficiency significantly higher compared with an angle of 74 degrees." Likewise, 74 degrees offered more efficiency than 68 degrees.
This study is interesting because it tests not only three different seat angles (68, 74, and 80 degrees) but variable seat heights at each angle. As the quote above suggests, 80 degrees is the most efficient angle at which to ride. But there is of course more to the story. What were the handlebar configurations? What were the stem heights, the hip angles? We’ll get to that.
Interestingly, Price, et al, noted that differences in seat angle preferences were specific to classes of athletes: "...in contrast, triathletes’ bicycles have steeper angles of 78 - 82 degrees." The author also references the Heil article (noted above) and suggested that one reason why Heil found that 68 degrees was the only angle in which his subjects performed poorly was in Heil’s choice of subjects, "80% of whom," Price noted, "were triathletes who normally ride at a steep seat tube angle.
" This particular study simply utilized a seat shifter, a nifty device once in relatively common usage by triathletes in the early '90s. It replaced the bicycle’s seat post, and with a lever on the handlebars you could change your seat angle on the fly. I’ve tracked down the study’s author and emailed him, asking him to verify that no changes were made to the handlebar set-ups as the seat angles were altered during his study. I’ve yet to receive a reply. I don’t, however, see any notation that any change in the bikes was effected other than a change in the seat angle provided by the seat shifter.
The results of this test are, to me, startling. These were road racers riding a road race bike, and they in general rode with considerable economy at 80 degrees versus their usual angle of 74 degrees. Oxygen consumption at the given rate of exertion was about 37 ml/kg/min at 80 degrees versus about 38.5 at 74 degrees (if you’re consuming more oxygen to do a given amount of work, you’re working harder, i.e., you’re less efficient).
Why did the authors achieve this result? "The mean shoe-pedal angle changes produced by altering the tube angle," opined the authors, "would result in a decreased effective force during the first half of the pedal stroke but an increased effective force during the second half. We speculate that increasing the tube angle improves effective force transfer during the second half of the pedal stroke.
" The authors also noted that this series of tests only related to riding on the flat, and to submaximal power outputs, often atypical of race conditions. Just the same, it’s an interesting result and may bear on the next and, for us, most topical study.
The definitive article is now passing its second anniversary since its publication. The "Effects of bicycle frame ergonomics on triathlon 10-km running performance," by Ian Garside and Dominic Doran, appeared in the Journal of Sports Sciences in June 2000. As was the case with all the studies on this subject, the tests were performed in strict lab conditions, with gas analyzers and all that stuff. All subjects rode stationary ergometers.
Unlike Price et al above, Garside utilized triathletes, but: "All participants were naive to training and racing on bicycles with steep seat tube angles (>76-degrees); all participants used a 73-degree frame geometry as standard."
As opposed to most of the testing up to this point, Garside’s protocol called for the tests to be conducted, "as fast as possible under race-like conditions." The test called for triathletes to ride a 40km simulation on both a 73-degree set-up and then on an 81-degree set-up, each followed immediately by a fast-as-possible 10km run on a treadmill.
The authors noted the improved bike/run performance in the field, "based on anecdotal testimony from athletes purporting to have experienced improved performance." But, they noted that prior to this study, "No empirical evidence exists."
Frankly, the results were groundbreaking, for three reasons. First, these triathletes absolutely blew away their "duathlon" performances in the steeper configuration. The average time it took subjects to complete the 40km/10km "brick" was about 1:50 at 73 degrees of seat angle, and it was a full 5+ minutes faster at 81 degrees.
Second, as this test was performed in England, the triathletes there were (as previously noted) "naive" to steep seat angles, that is, they all normally rode shallow. Imagine their surprise at the result! (For a further explanation of the tendency of UK triathletes to ride shallow, consider our 2001 Kona Bike Survey on UK-based entries).
And finally, these tests only measured the physiological responses to the biomechanical change generated by a steeper seat angle. As this test was performed in a lab on stationary equipment, the aerodynamic benefit one derives from the ability to achieve a lower frontal profile with a steeper seat angle was not part of the equation.
Where in this 40km/10km exercise did the time savings occur? There were some time savings achieved during the bike leg. Average 40km times were 1:04:10 in the 73-degree configuration and 1:02:54 for the riders when at 81 degrees. But it was in the first half of the run that the big time savings occurred. It took riders 24:15 to complete the first 5km off the shallow set-up, and only 21:41 after riding the steep bike (and remember, these triathletes had never run off a steep set-up before).
The time savings continued during the second half of the run, but the gap narrowed. The subjects ran 22:01 and 21:14 in the second half of the 10km after riding in shallow and steep configurations respectively.
There is one curious element to these results which is not addressed in the study. It is odd to me that as a group there was such a marked tendency to negative-split the run. While this is not as pronounced in the steep test (21:41 to 21:14) it is severe in the shallow test (24:15 to 22:01). This one element gives me pause when considering the parallel between this test and what happens at triathlons I attend.
As the authors discuss the results they say, "Unexpectedly, the time to completion of the 40km cycle section was faster under the 81-degree 'steep' than the 73-degree 'shallow' condition." This underscores the tendency, I think, for the traditional view to hold sway in the UK, which is that if steep is faster, it’s only because it helps during the run. Obviously the authors were forced to rethink that position, especially as there is still the untested (by them) issue of wind resistance to consider.
The authors only guess at the causes for the enhanced ability to perform with the steeper seat angle, and posit about the,
"greater contribution of the hamstrings and gluteus muscles (Heil et al., 1995). Although muscle recruitment cannot be determined from the present results, alterations in muscle recruitment or activation patterns can have the effect of distributing muscular work over a greater muscle mass (increased contribution of the hamstring and gluteus muscles) that would theoretically reduced the work rate per individual muscle fiber (Coyle et al., 1988)."
Juxtapose that statement, in which the operative phrase is "distributing muscular work over a greater muscle mass," with what Price says in the study above: "We speculate that increasing the tube angle improves effective force transfer during the second half of the pedal stroke." It seems that both authors feel that steep seat angles might distribute work over a greater range of the pedal stroke and in so doing lessen the peak torque that must be applied if should that power application be concentrated over a shorter arc.
The scientists quoted above uttered statements that are not unlike what I wrote a couple of months ago in my Intro to training with power: "I’m convinced that the bane of the triathlete during the bike segment is the peak power one puts out, and not only in terms of too many watts now and then during the ride, but peak power inside the pedal stroke as well." The difference, of course, between what I wrote and what the scientists wrote above is that I was simply writing from the seat of my pants, while Price and Garside had actual data they themselves generated to back up their hypotheses.
The demonstration that steeper seat angles (and not for tri bikes, but for road race bikes) is better is not knew. Gonzalez, et al, (Journal of Biomechanics) demonstrated in 1989, in "Multivariable optimization of cycling biomechanics" that the optimal seat angle for his subjects averaged 76 degrees (as is the case with all of these studies, however, this relates to riding on the flats). But Gonzalez’ study also demonstrated that riding with a cadence of 115 bpm was optimal, and this corresponds only roughly to a real-world race situation.
Though these studies were all conducted inside four walls, and took place on the "flats" and were only sparsely conducted with race-specific exertions, evidence is piling up in favor of steeper seat angles. And that is especially true when one considers the post-cycling run in triathlon, at least up through the International Distance.
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/What_science_says_of_seat_angles_222.html
Free Air: How to Breathe Easier by Terry Laughlin
Submitted by Mark Tefft
If I ask new swimmers what their biggest challenge is, most say it’s breathing. Many report experiencing one or more of the following symptoms of “airlessness.”
If this describes you — or even if you can swim a mile but feel your breathing technique could be better — this blog’s for you. This stepwise series of focal points focus on breathing easier:
1. Blow bubbles. Exhale steadily and strongly enough that you can hear bubbles streaming from your mouth and nose anytime your face is in the water.
2. Inhale like you sing. If you sing at all, even in the shower, you’re familiar with how you often have to grab a quick, sharp inhale between phrases. You don’t have time to fill your chest, so you just take a “quick bite” to get through the next phrase. That’s how you inhale between strokes. The exhale is strong, conscious, sustained. You hardly notice the inhale.
3. Follow your shoulder. If you’re breathing to your left, move your chin in synch with your left shoulder as that arm strokes. Your chin follows the shoulder back, then leads it forward again.
4. Hang your head. Focus on feeling a weightless head, resting on the water, as you follow your shoulder to breathe. Keep your “laser” aimed in the direction you’re going, as your mouth clears the surface.
5. Swim “taller.” With each stroke focus on using your hand to lengthen your body-line, rather than to push water back. Then give particular attention to lengthening with one hand as your chin follows the other shoulder back.
To learn more about breathing skills – in all strokes – check out our O2 in H2O DVD.
http://www.swimwellblog.com/archives/255
If I ask new swimmers what their biggest challenge is, most say it’s breathing. Many report experiencing one or more of the following symptoms of “airlessness.”
They’re out of breath after a lap or two
They hold their breathing, because their stroke falls apart during a breath.
They’re concerned with taking in water, instead of air.
If this describes you — or even if you can swim a mile but feel your breathing technique could be better — this blog’s for you. This stepwise series of focal points focus on breathing easier:
1. Blow bubbles. Exhale steadily and strongly enough that you can hear bubbles streaming from your mouth and nose anytime your face is in the water.
2. Inhale like you sing. If you sing at all, even in the shower, you’re familiar with how you often have to grab a quick, sharp inhale between phrases. You don’t have time to fill your chest, so you just take a “quick bite” to get through the next phrase. That’s how you inhale between strokes. The exhale is strong, conscious, sustained. You hardly notice the inhale.
3. Follow your shoulder. If you’re breathing to your left, move your chin in synch with your left shoulder as that arm strokes. Your chin follows the shoulder back, then leads it forward again.
4. Hang your head. Focus on feeling a weightless head, resting on the water, as you follow your shoulder to breathe. Keep your “laser” aimed in the direction you’re going, as your mouth clears the surface.
5. Swim “taller.” With each stroke focus on using your hand to lengthen your body-line, rather than to push water back. Then give particular attention to lengthening with one hand as your chin follows the other shoulder back.
To learn more about breathing skills – in all strokes – check out our O2 in H2O DVD.
http://www.swimwellblog.com/archives/255
How Far Should You Swim? by Terry Laughlin
Submitted by Mark Tefft
Triathletes and fitness swimmers often rely on swim workouts published on websites or in magazines. Virtually all of those workouts prescribe some arbitrary number and distance of repeats – like 10 x 50 – as if there’s a formula for improvement.
There is no formula: You improve at the rate your brain and nervous system can encode and memorize new skills or tasks. Swimming 500 yards (or even 10 x 50) with consistent efficiency and pace IS a skill, and a quite advanced one at that.
Therefore your lap regime should be organic, not arbitrary. To make it organic, base it on “mojo” rather than some formula. Keep swimming as long as you feel you are doing what you want to do. Stop as soon as you’re not.
I use “mojo” to refer to a feeling you’re striving for. The feeling could be as simple and general as ease. Or it could be slightly more specific– like “weightless legs.” Or it could be highly specific such as Feel your hand pause for a nanosecond on catch. (For more examples see How to Breathe Easier in which I suggested five focal points or sensations to improve breathing technique.)
For new or untrained swimmers, I usually recommend that they start a swim routine, or any set, with a single pool length — usually 25 yards. Pick a stroke thought – one thing you’d like to do really well the entire lap. When you reach the end, take 5 deep slow “cleansing” breaths – but keep thinking your stroke thought, because thinking it activates the same brain cells as doing it. Repeat.
Stay with one thought and one-length-at-a-time for 7 to 10 minutes. In fact, if you “lose your mojo” before the end of the pool, you don’t have to complete the length. Stop and take your breather anywhere. You’ll learn faster by progressing incrementally from 5 easy strokes to 7, then 9, etc, than doing 5 easy strokes followed by 15 barely-hanging-on strokes. And if you start to feel breathless, rest for more than 5 breaths.
When should you introduce your next mini-goal or focal point? The recommendation I make above for 7 to 10 minutes is a general guideline. Continue with the same thought so long as you feel you’re still improving your awareness or skill on that point. Introduce a new stroke thought when you feel the original one is as good as you can make it right this moment, or when you feel eager for new stimulus.
When should you increase the distance of your practice repeats? Step up to 2-length, or 50-yard, repeats when one length is consistently good and you feel no fatigue – physical or mental – when you complete it. Because 2 lengths is really 2 x 1 length with no rest, you could gradually decrease the number of “cleansing breaths” you take before pushing off again. When you can complete 5 to 8 successive lengths with consistent mojo, taking just 2 or 3 cleansing breaths between, you’re ready to step up to a continuous 50 yards. And when the 2nd length of your 50 matches the mojo and ease of your 1st length, you can add a 3rd.
Call this an organic rather than arbitrary way to increase your distance.
Happy laps!
http://www.swimwellblog.com/archives/260
Triathletes and fitness swimmers often rely on swim workouts published on websites or in magazines. Virtually all of those workouts prescribe some arbitrary number and distance of repeats – like 10 x 50 – as if there’s a formula for improvement.
There is no formula: You improve at the rate your brain and nervous system can encode and memorize new skills or tasks. Swimming 500 yards (or even 10 x 50) with consistent efficiency and pace IS a skill, and a quite advanced one at that.
Therefore your lap regime should be organic, not arbitrary. To make it organic, base it on “mojo” rather than some formula. Keep swimming as long as you feel you are doing what you want to do. Stop as soon as you’re not.
I use “mojo” to refer to a feeling you’re striving for. The feeling could be as simple and general as ease. Or it could be slightly more specific– like “weightless legs.” Or it could be highly specific such as Feel your hand pause for a nanosecond on catch. (For more examples see How to Breathe Easier in which I suggested five focal points or sensations to improve breathing technique.)
For new or untrained swimmers, I usually recommend that they start a swim routine, or any set, with a single pool length — usually 25 yards. Pick a stroke thought – one thing you’d like to do really well the entire lap. When you reach the end, take 5 deep slow “cleansing” breaths – but keep thinking your stroke thought, because thinking it activates the same brain cells as doing it. Repeat.
Stay with one thought and one-length-at-a-time for 7 to 10 minutes. In fact, if you “lose your mojo” before the end of the pool, you don’t have to complete the length. Stop and take your breather anywhere. You’ll learn faster by progressing incrementally from 5 easy strokes to 7, then 9, etc, than doing 5 easy strokes followed by 15 barely-hanging-on strokes. And if you start to feel breathless, rest for more than 5 breaths.
When should you introduce your next mini-goal or focal point? The recommendation I make above for 7 to 10 minutes is a general guideline. Continue with the same thought so long as you feel you’re still improving your awareness or skill on that point. Introduce a new stroke thought when you feel the original one is as good as you can make it right this moment, or when you feel eager for new stimulus.
When should you increase the distance of your practice repeats? Step up to 2-length, or 50-yard, repeats when one length is consistently good and you feel no fatigue – physical or mental – when you complete it. Because 2 lengths is really 2 x 1 length with no rest, you could gradually decrease the number of “cleansing breaths” you take before pushing off again. When you can complete 5 to 8 successive lengths with consistent mojo, taking just 2 or 3 cleansing breaths between, you’re ready to step up to a continuous 50 yards. And when the 2nd length of your 50 matches the mojo and ease of your 1st length, you can add a 3rd.
Call this an organic rather than arbitrary way to increase your distance.
Happy laps!
http://www.swimwellblog.com/archives/260
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)