Lynne Cox on "60 Minutes"

Larry Weisenthal said:

The Lynne Cox swim (in ZERO degree water!) of 2 Km to Antarctica was shown last night on "60
Minutes."

nb: Lynne's bio ishof.org00lcox.htmlOpen ↗

Anyway, for her Antarctic swim she gained a bit of weight ( 5'6" 190 pounds).

Still, her butt and thighs were way under water, even when her head was down. She had poor posture
(i.e. absence of lumbar arch).

I've seen lots of good women swimmers who don't kick (Lynne doesn't kick), but who keep their butt
and tops of thighs relatively dry. Lynne's are totally submerged. I have to think that she's
losing more heat to the water than she would lose if she had better posture and better body
position in the water. (Even Lynne gets cold, as was evident in the "60 Minutes" feature on her).

I think that she'd benefit from developing a good lower lumbar arch.

What did she have on her head? Whatever it was, I imagine she was trying to keep her head out of the
water to avoid brain freeze. Lumbar arch only takes you so far.

martin

--
Wesley Clark for President www.AmericansForClark.com

Martin Smith

[email hidden] (Larry Weisenthal) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

The Lynne Cox swim (in ZERO degree water!) of 2 Km to Antarctica was shown last night on "60
Minutes."

nb: Lynne's bio ishof.org00lcox.htmlOpen ↗

Anyway, for her Antarctic swim she gained a bit of weight ( 5'6" 190 pounds).

Still, her butt and thighs were way under water, even when her head was down. She had poor posture
(i.e. absence of lumbar arch).

I've seen lots of good women swimmers who don't kick (Lynne doesn't kick), but who keep their butt
and tops of thighs relatively dry. Lynne's are totally submerged. I have to think that she's
losing more heat to the water than she would lose if she had better posture and better body
position in the water. (Even Lynne gets cold, as was evident in the "60 Minutes" feature on her).

I think that she'd benefit from developing a good lower lumbar arch.

Larry Weisenthal

Certitude is poison; curiosity is life

Well, if nothing else, Larry, this proves you'll go to the ends of the Earth peddling a point once
you're convinced it's valid. I can hear you on the chase point shouting "encouragement", "Head pop
with the dominant side catch, arch that lower back ... you're never going to make that iceberg at
this rate".

I thought she swam head up the whole time, because she'd lose too much heat through her head. I
would say in theory you can keep your hips on the surface with head up, but it would take a lot of
strength and flexiblity in the lower back.

Eric

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What did she have on her head? Whatever it was, I imagine she was trying

to keep her head out of the water to avoid brain freeze. Lumbar arch only takes you so far.<<

Single layer latex cap..."legal"

When she first jumped in, she kept her head completely out of the water. Into the swim, she put her
head down and got into a normal stroke.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I thought she swam head up the whole time, because she'd lose too much

heat through her head. <<

And this transitions nicely into the issue of whether or not capital cases should be adjudicated
solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony.

Larry Weisenthal said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I thought she swam head up the whole time, because she'd lose too much

heat through her head. <<

And this transitions nicely into the issue of whether or not capital cases should be adjudicated
solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony.

I watched this intently and in fact, took my phone off of the hook. She swam really strangely, but
who can argue with what works?

She did swim head up most of the time, as far as we could tell from what they showed us--but this
being television, they emphasized things like when she was talking to her doctor friends, giggling
with a sense of triumph, etc.

I have a theory about her kick. I noticed when she first got in, she kicked two three-beat
mini-kicks on each time, never coming anywhere near the surface. After that, she seemed not to kick
much at all. I think this is to minimize blood circulation so as not to send water-cooled blood back
to the core. The theory about why she can even do this without dying is that she has somehow trained
her body to keep warm blood at the core and allow the peripheral blood to cool. Why kick if you can
float really well? This is more of an endurance event than a speed event (if no one else is swimming
with you, it is hard to lose, no?).

Having been frost-nipped in my Michigan childhood, I cannot imagine going into 32 degree water
after having some nerve damage in the feet after the 40 degree swim. I think the little kicks
are some kind of effort to keep some circulation in the feet, which are clearly the smallest
part of her body.

She seemed to keep her head up most of the time, but then to sort of dive in for more conventional
swimming now and again. It was really weird, almost like the opposite of coming up for air. I think
this is also determined by thermic effects.

I wish that they had gone into the studies that have been done on her in more detail.

It is, after all, not everyday you see obese atheletes giggling in triumph... Madelaine

A thought....

There have been a number of women, and a few men, who have accomplished simply amazing feats of
distance swimming and nothing should ever be taken away from those performances. That being said
they haven't all been 'great swimmers', well certainly not shining examples of technical perfection
at any rate. A couple of examples: neither Marilyn Bell (first person to ever swim lake Ontario) and
Vicki Keith-Munro (Swam many impressive openwater courses, including lake Ontario _butterfly_) were
said to have had great form. Marilyn's lack of form (and experience) was a large factor in her
underdog performance at the '54 CNE.

I think there comes a time when the swim simply becomes so long or so cold or so nasty for what ever
reasons (says the 50flyer who dreams of sanctioned dive 15's) that technique is a factor anymore.
Being born capable of the swim is all that matters. My POV is probably influenced largely by
memories of being so cold I could barely talk after less then an hour of workout in the outdoor pool
after a may rain. 2nd stage hypothermia in water that was prob no colder then ~ 15c leaves me with
little doubt that Lynne's swim would have, literally, killed me in a matter of minutes.

In a swim, attempted by one of prob a handfull of people who could ever hope to finish, does a
comparison to your average length swimmer or Olympic 100m medallist make sense? I have my doubts.

--Mike

You've got a point there Eric. Larry has previously complained that coaches would have treated Janet
Evan's stroke as a stroke fault that needed fixing, even though she was the best women's distance
swimmer to date. Yet when faced by a top cold water swimmer doing something different to what he
expects, Larry writes it off as a stroke fault that needs fixing.

"4precious" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Larry Weisenthal) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Lynne Cox swim (in ZERO degree water!) of 2 Km to Antarctica was

shown last

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

night on "60 Minutes."

nb: Lynne's bio ishof.org00lcox.htmlOpen ↗

Anyway, for her Antarctic swim she gained a bit of weight ( 5'6" 190

pounds).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Still, her butt and thighs were way under water, even when her head was

down.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

She had poor posture (i.e. absence of lumbar arch).

I've seen lots of good women swimmers who don't kick (Lynne doesn't

kick), but

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

who keep their butt and tops of thighs relatively dry. Lynne's are

totally

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

submerged. I have to think that she's losing more heat to the water

than she

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

would lose if she had better posture and better body position in the

water.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(Even Lynne gets cold, as was evident in the "60 Minutes" feature on

her).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think that she'd benefit from developing a good lower lumbar arch.

Larry Weisenthal

Certitude is poison; curiosity is life

Well, if nothing else, Larry, this proves you'll go to the ends of the Earth peddling a point once
you're convinced it's valid. I can hear you on the chase point shouting "encouragement", "Head pop
with the dominant side catch, arch that lower back ... you're never going to make that iceberg at
this rate".

I thought she swam head up the whole time, because she'd lose too much heat through her head. I
would say in theory you can keep your hips on the surface with head up, but it would take a lot of
strength and flexiblity in the lower back.

Eric

Larry,

You are the one who wanted to change Lynne's stroke (without considering why she does it that way).
Eric has offered a reason why it should not be changed. You claim that others wanted to change
Evan's stroke (without considering why she swam that way). You have offered a reason why Evan's
should not be changed.

Surprisingly enough I see an inconsistency ;-)

Colin

"Larry Weisenthal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

From: "Colin Priest"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yet when

faced by a top cold water swimmer doing something different to what he expects, Larry writes it
off as a stroke fault that needs fixing.<<

There's a difference, Colin. There is nothing in Janet's stroke which is obviously disadvantageous
for any specific reason ever stated. I have, in contrast, pointed out several reasons why Janet's
stroke is theoretically advantageous.

In the case of Lynne Cox, I offered a specific reason why her (at this

point,

Quoted message said:

only postulated) stroke "fault" may be disadvantageous...namely that when

her

Quoted message said:

butt and thighs are continuously underwater, she is, perhaps, losing more

body

Quoted message said:

heat via transfer to the cold water than she would if she kept some of

that

Quoted message said:

flesh above water (think of Kate floating on that wooden grate at the end

of

Quoted message said:

the movie "Titanic," while poor Leo perished down in the water).

Now, Eric thougthfully suggested that the disadvantage of having her butt

and

Quoted message said:

thighs and calves completely underwater might be counteracted by the

advantage

Quoted message said:

of keeping her entire head and face up out of the water continually (I

disputed

Quoted message said:

the "continual" nature of what she did, ... and I basically agree with Madelaine's report of
this...but that's not germane to the main point of

this).

Quoted message said:

So, do you see, we are really having a nice, thoughtful discussion of the

pros

Quoted message said:

and cons of various body positions in ultra-cold water?

None of which is in any way inconsistent with previous statements I have

made

Quoted message said:

concerning Janet Evans or anyone else.

- Larry

Perhaps we DO need to split this newsgroup as you suggest, because you don't seem to think that it
is appropriate for me to post an observation about inconsistencies between your posts to this
newsgroup. Am I being too controversial for YOU? ;-) In defence of my posted observation of
inconsistency, I'll choose to quote you: "When I publicly raise points such as this on the
newsgroup, it is obvious (to most people, at least, I hope) that I make observations such as this
for the purpose of stimulating thought and debate."

But wait - it seems that I've just raised another inconsistency in your postings: Larry is
allowed to post observations that stimulate debate. Colin should NOT post observations that
stimulate debate.

Hmm - we're starting to get a pattern here...

"Larry Weisenthal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

From Colin:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are the one who wanted to change Lynne's stroke (without considering

why

Quoted message said:

she does it that way). Eric has offered a reason why it should not be changed. You claim that
others wanted to change Evan's stroke (without considering why she swam that way). You have
offered a reason why Evan's should not be changed.<<

I am confused about what you feel is or is not appropriate for discussion

on

Quoted message said:

this newsgroup.

Is it inappropriate for me to note that virtually every coach in the world

now

Quoted message said:

teaches 10 year old girls to keep their heads down in the water and to

note

Quoted message said:

(accurately) that the best swimmers in the world do not always swim this

way?

Quoted message said:

When I publicly raise points such as this on the newsgroup, it is obvious

(to

Quoted message said:

most people, at least, I hope) that I make observations such as this for

the

Quoted message said:

purpose of stimulating thought and debate.

Likewise, was it inappropriate for me to make the (accurate) observation

that

Quoted message said:

Lynne Cox swims with her butt and thighs completely submerged and to offer

the

Quoted message said:

suggestion that her cold water performance might be even better if she did

not

Quoted message said:

keep them submerged (again, for the purpose of sparking consideration and debate, which is what
indeed successfully ensued)?

Are you suggesting that either my obsevations about Evans or my

observations

Quoted message said:

about Cox were not appropriate for this newsgroup? If we are not to

discuss

Quoted message said:

such matters, what are we to discuss? Maybe we should divide this

newsgroup

Quoted message said:

into two parts:

(1) Non-controversial aspects of swimming
(2) Controversial aspects of swimming

Larry Weisenthal

Certitude is poison; curiosity is life

my point was "inconsistency"

I like some of your ideas about swimming (e.g. I agree that asymmetry has been curiously overlooked
in research). But I don't like how you justify your points using inconsistent logic, depending upon
which way suits your argument. I think that your dogma / idealism / enthusiasm for your own ideas
sometimes overcomes your enquiring mind.

I posted in this thread showing examples of this in action because it was relevant to the
discussion.

Is that simple enough?

"Larry Weisenthal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Larry is allowed to post observations that stimulate debate.

Colin should NOT post observations that stimulate debate.<<

Colin, good grief. What on earth are we now debating. I still can't

begin to

Quoted message said:

understand your original point. What exactly was it about my post about

Lynne

Quoted message said:

Cox with which you disagree? I made a point. Eric had a specific point

of

Quoted message said:

disagreement, which he stated. Whether it's a bigger disadvantage to have

your

Quoted message said:

butt and thighs underwater or your head underwater in very cold water is,

don't

Quoted message said:

you think, a worthwhile topic for discussion?

Likewise, was it not a worthwhile topic for discussion to note that the greatest women's distance
freestyle swimmer in history lifted her entire

head

Quoted message said:

out of the water with every stroke, despite current coaching to the

contrary?

Quoted message said:

So what is your point? I don't mean to be either contentious or

insulting

Quoted message said:

but, truthfully, what exactly is your original point? I'm stupid. I'm

dense.

Quoted message said:

I don't get it. I'd like to respond, but I can't because I don't

understand

Quoted message said:

your point. Just explain it to me and then we can have a worthwhile discussion. Until then, we are
both just engaged in a hissy fit.

- Larry

No that is not what I said - read what I actually posted and reread what you posted. I am not
commenting on the conclusions that you have drawn, just the process by which you have reached those
conclusions.

The inconsistency is between saying that:

* coaches are wrong for wanting to make Evan's stroke more normal, when they should be asking why
she swims that way (and you have hypothesised on a quite plausible reason)
* Cox should make her stroke more normal, but not asking why she swims that way (n.b. your original
post did not mention warmth at all - that is a recent inclusion subsequent to my post, and it did
not question why she swam that way)

Can't you see an inconsistency in logic and approach here?

"Larry Weisenthal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I posted in this thread showing examples of this in action because it

was

Quoted message said:

relevant to the discussion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is that simple enough?<<

I still don't get it. I really don't. I've probably posted close to 10,000 messages to r.s.s. on
virtually every topic related to swimming (and

sometimes

Quoted message said:

unrelated, as well). So it's hard (and not productive) to respond to some general statement.

But here we actually have the opportunity to be specific. You said that

my

Quoted message said:

observation that Cox might stay warmer by raising her butt and thighs was inconsistent with my
observation that Evans might swim fast because of (as opposed to in spite of) the fact that she
lifts her head clear out of the

water

Quoted message said:

coincident with the catch and early pull of her breathing side hand.

How is one inconsistent with the other? I still don't get it. I'm truly sorry; but I don't.

Larry Weisenthal said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What did she have on her head? Whatever it was, I imagine she was trying

to keep her head out of the water to avoid brain freeze. Lumbar arch only takes you so far.<<

Single layer latex cap..."legal"

When she first jumped in, she kept her head completely out of the water. Into the swim, she put
her head down and got into a normal stroke.

In my own case, I would not be able to keep my head in even 10 degree water with only a latex cap,
let alone 0 degrees. I don't know what kind of training she has been doing in recent years, but
maybe she has become overly stiff and muscular. Cold like that would make it very difficult (for me
at least) to relax the muscles opposing the lumbar arch.

martin

--
Wesley Clark for President www.AmericansForClark.com

Martin Smith

Larry Weisenthal said:

The Lynne Cox swim (in ZERO degree water!) of 2 Km to Antarctica was shown last night on "60
Minutes."

nb: Lynne's bio ishof.org00lcox.htmlOpen ↗

Anyway, for her Antarctic swim she gained a bit of weight ( 5'6" 190 pounds).

Still, her butt and thighs were way under water, even when her head was down. She had poor posture
(i.e. absence of lumbar arch).

I've seen lots of good women swimmers who don't kick (Lynne doesn't kick), but who keep their butt
and tops of thighs relatively dry. Lynne's are totally submerged. I have to think that she's
losing more heat to the water than she would lose if she had better posture and better body
position in the water. (Even Lynne gets cold, as was evident in the "60 Minutes" feature on her).

I think that she'd benefit from developing a good lower lumbar arch.

Larry Weisenthal

Certitude is poison; curiosity is life

Larry, I really question your reasoning here. I don't see how she would stay warmer with her legs at
the surface. If the water temperature is 32 degree Ferhenheit (sp), the air temp could be as low as
-10 to 10 degrees. Even if the air temperature is 20 degrees, it would still be warmer under the
water. My point is that the air temperature is probably quite a lot below the water temperature,
since it takes water longer to heat up or cool down than air.

Also, further chilling from bringing wet skin in contact with dry (Antartica is a desert), cold air
could result in tissue injury which would move blood from the core, where it is staying to stay
warm, and move it to the peripheral circulation.

Madelaine

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the water temperature is 32

degree Ferhenheit (sp), the air temp could be as low as -10 to 10 degrees. Even if the air
temperature is 20 degrees, it would still be warmer under the water. <<

Madelaine raises an interesting point...

Heat transfer (loss) is obviously much greater in the water than in the air.

I'm pretty certain that you could spray me with a garden hose while wearing my Speedos only and it
was 10 degrees outside and I could remain alive for at least an hour, doing a lot of shivering. But
put me in water 30 degrees warmer than that (say 40 degrees) and I'm reasonably certain that I'd be
pretty dead well before the hour was up.

But I don't know how many degrees below a given water temperature air becomes equivalent in terms of
efficiency in draining heat from the human body.