Broken swims

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Sean Riley, Sep 13, 2003.

  1. Sean Riley

    Sean Riley Guest

    Thanks for the feedback people gave me on my last query on the shave down. My next question is about
    broken times. I recently did a broken 400 metre freestyle. 8 x 50 @60 seconds. I held around the 33
    mark so my adjusted 400 time would have been a 4:27.

    My question is how would this equate to a straight 400 time trial.

    My best 400 is a 4:59 which I did in January I have been too scared to swim a full 400 since becuase
    I felt that was just a fluke and I didn't want to disappoint myself by swimming a slower time
    (Strange how the mind works.)

    Thanks in advance,

    Sean R
     
    Tags:


  2. Sean Riley wrote:
    >
    > Thanks for the feedback people gave me on my last query on the shave down. My next question is
    > about broken times. I recently did a broken 400 metre freestyle. 8 x 50 @60 seconds. I held around
    > the 33 mark so my adjusted 400 time would have been a 4:27.
    >
    > My question is how would this equate to a straight 400 time trial.
    >
    > My best 400 is a 4:59 which I did in January I have been too scared to swim a full 400 since
    > becuase I felt that was just a fluke and I didn't want to disappoint myself by swimming a slower
    > time (Strange how the mind works.)

    I know the feeling. There isn't a reliable way to convert one to the other. I suggest doing the same
    set once a week, but reduce the rest by 5 seconds each week - if you maintain the 33 average for the
    set. Then, when you get down to the 40 interval, maybe even the 45 interval, you can be reasonably
    assured that you will be way under 4:59 for a 400. If you get stuck for several weeks at the 50
    interval, for example, then change to doing 4 X 100 on 1:40 and try to hold the 1:06 average.

    martin

    --
    Martin Smith email: [email protected] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
    P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway
     
  3. Ross Bogue

    Ross Bogue Guest

    In <[email protected]> Sean Riley wrote:
    > Thanks for the feedback people gave me on my last query on the shave down. My next question is
    > about broken times. I recently did a broken 400 metre freestyle. 8 x 50 @60 seconds. I held around
    > the 33 mark so my adjusted 400 time would have been a 4:27.
    >
    > My question is how would this equate to a straight 400 time trial.

    Hard to say. 60 seconds is a pretty long interval, appropriate for 90+% effort. You couldn't hold
    that speed without the rest.

    Checking the results of the 2002 USMS national LCM meet, I see that the winning times for the events
    progressed as

    50m 25.32s 100m 54.89 200m 2:00.89 400m 4:21.13 800m 9:14.77

    So the winning time for 400m was about 10.3x the time for the 50m.

    If that proportion held true for you, you would expect to do the 400m in about 5:40.33. Since
    your PB is slower than that, you may have been training more as a sprinter and need to do some
    pace training.

    Ross
     
  4. Ross Bogue

    Ross Bogue Guest

    In <[email protected]> Donal Fagan wrote:
    >
    > ? He wrote, "My best 400 is a 4:59 which I did in January ..." only 9.06x his 50m repeats.

    Thanks. I misread it as 5:59.

    Actually, I'm having doubts about that proportion holding up anyway. 5: 40 seems awfully slow for
    someone capable of doing 50m in 33 seconds. Maybe the USMS statistics are skewed because there are
    so many more athletes entering the sprint events than the distance events?

    Ross
     
  5. Sean Riley

    Sean Riley Guest

    Wow. Thanks for all the feedback. I will try doing the intervals with a shorter rest period and see
    how i go. Thanks

    Sean R "Sean Riley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Thanks for the feedback people gave me on my last query on the shave down. My next question is
    > about broken times. I recently did a broken 400 metre freestyle. 8 x 50 @60 seconds. I held around
    > the 33 mark so my adjusted 400 time would have been a 4:27.
    >
    > My question is how would this equate to a straight 400 time trial.
    >
    > My best 400 is a 4:59 which I did in January I have been too scared to
    swim
    > a full 400 since becuase I felt that was just a fluke and I didn't want
    to
    > disappoint myself by swimming a slower time (Strange how the mind works.)
    >
    > Thanks in advance,
    >
    > Sean R
     
  6. Ross Bogue

    Ross Bogue Guest

    In <[email protected]> Jason O'Rourke wrote:
    >
    > That's not surprising to me - there is a danger is using a multipler of winning times at each
    > distance. The 50m winner is the best at the sprint. But most people don't get that much speed, so
    > their ratio will be shorter.

    Ok. Let's try those USMS statistics again, but only look at the longer events this time. This is the
    2002 USMS LCM nationals, men ages 45-49, in case I didn't mention before.

    Event Winning Time 200m 2:00.89 400m 4:21.13 800m 9:14.77 1500m 18:46.29

    If you plot these four points, they're not quite linear. As you might expect, the times for the
    longer distances are a little slower than a simple proportion would indicate. Adding the point (0,0)
    to the set to make 5 points, I took the liberty of fitting the set with a quadratic instead of a
    line. The fit was pretty good.

    t = M0 + M1*x + M2*x^2 M0 = -3.146 <-- essentially zero, to this accuracy. M1 = 0.627 M2 = 8.401e-5

    Projecting backward along the curve, a winning distance swimmer "should" be capable of doing 50m in
    about 28.22 seconds. So the ratio of 400m/ 50m "should" be about 9.25 for a distance swimmer.

    Now let's take that pseudo-information and apply it to the original poster. He said he could do 50m
    in 33.00 seconds. If he was training as a true distance swimmer, and if the above analysis was
    really significant, we'd expect him to be capable of doing 400m in 5:05. In fact, his personal best
    is pretty close to that.

    Given all the uncertainties, that's not bad agreement.

    Ross
     
  7. Donal Fagan

    Donal Fagan Guest

    On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:08:27 +0000 (UTC), Ross Bogue <[email protected]> wrote:

    >So the winning time for 400m was about 10.3x the time for the 50m.

    >If that proportion held true for you, you would expect to do the 400m in about 5:40.33. Since your
    >PB is slower than that, ...

    ? He wrote, "My best 400 is a 4:59 which I did in January ..." only 9.06x his 50m repeats.

    Donal Fagan AIA [email protected]'Fagan.com (Anglicise the name to reply by e-mail)
     
  8. Donal Fagan <[email protected]'Fagan.com> wrote:
    >>So the winning time for 400m was about 10.3x the time for the 50m.
    >
    >>If that proportion held true for you, you would expect to do the 400m in about 5:40.33. Since your
    >>PB is slower than that, ...
    >
    >? He wrote, "My best 400 is a 4:59 which I did in January ..." only 9.06x his 50m repeats.

    That's not surprising to me - there is a danger is using a multipler of winning times at each
    distance. The 50m winner is the best at the sprint. But most people don't get that much speed, so
    their ratio will be shorter.

    Example in point - I ran longer distance in track - mostly the mile and 2. I might have been able to
    do a 60sec 400, but my 100 wasn't that much faster - maybe 14. I could only move so fast, but could
    do it as long as my endurance allowed. Whereas a 100m sprinter trains to go balls out at a level
    where the muscles fatigue very quickly.

    As for swimming, I can do a reasonably fast 100 on the few times I've checked, but my 400 speed is
    pretty much the same as my 2400 speed, minus the occasional 15-30 second breaks.

    --
    Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
     
  9. Mike

    Mike Guest

    >>? He wrote, "My best 400 is a 4:59 which I did in January ..." only 9.06x his 50m repeats.
    >
    > That's not surprising to me - there is a danger is using a multipler of winning times at each
    > distance. The 50m winner is the best at the sprint. But most people don't get that much speed, so
    > their ratio will be shorter.

    mmm, though there is the International Point Chart which should provide a more accurat means by
    which to compare performances in different events

    GL Mike
     
  10. "Sean Riley" <[email protected]>wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > Thanks for the feedback people gave me on my last query on the shave down. My next question is
    > about broken times. I recently did a broken 400 metre freestyle. 8 x 50 @60 seconds. I held around
    > the 33 mark so my adjusted 400 time would have been a
    > 4:27.
    >
    > My question is how would this equate to a straight 400 time trial.
    >
    > My best 400 is a 4:59 which I did in January I have been too scared to swim a full 400 since
    > becuase I felt that was just a fluke and I didn't want to disappoint myself by swimming a slower
    > time (Strange how the mind works.)
    >
    > Thanks in advance,
    >
    > Sean R
    >
    >

    I used to do sets similar to this leading up to major meets. Instead of doing 8x50 on a set interval
    go 8x50 taking exactly 10 seconds rest inbetween each 50. At the end subtract your rest from your
    total time and you should have a good idea of how you would do in a race.

    --
    Derek derekm at mceachernfamily dot com
     
  11. Derek McEachern wrote:
    >
    > "Sean Riley" <[email protected]>wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    > > Thanks for the feedback people gave me on my last query on the shave down. My next question is
    > > about broken times. I recently did a broken 400 metre freestyle. 8 x 50 @60 seconds. I held
    > > around the 33 mark so my adjusted 400 time would have been a
    > > 4:27.
    > >
    > > My question is how would this equate to a straight 400 time trial.
    > >
    > > My best 400 is a 4:59 which I did in January I have been too scared to swim a full 400 since
    > > becuase I felt that was just a fluke and I didn't want to disappoint myself by swimming a slower
    > > time (Strange how the mind works.)
    > >
    > > Thanks in advance,
    > >
    > > Sean R
    > >
    > >
    >
    > I used to do sets similar to this leading up to major meets. Instead of doing 8x50 on a set
    > interval go 8x50 taking exactly 10 seconds rest inbetween each 50. At the end subtract your rest
    > from your total time and you should have a good idea of how you would do in a race.

    That's a good set. The problem the original writer described is a
    psychological one. Psychology is a big part of swimming. One's mind can become an obstacle.
    Swimmer's block. Sometimes, you need to sneak up on a good time by tricking your mind into not
    paying attention while you work hard. The short rest set and the technique of reducing the
    interval while maintaining a fixed average time are good ways to do this.

    For some individuals, it is hard not to fret about things.

    martin

    --
    Martin Smith email: [email protected] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
    P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway
     
  12. Mike

    Mike Guest

    <snip>

    > psychological one. Psychology is a big part of swimming. One's mind can become an obstacle.
    > Swimmer's block. Sometimes, you need to sneak up on a good time by tricking your mind into not
    > paying attention while you work hard. The short rest set and the technique of reducing the
    > interval while maintaining a fixed average time are good ways to do this.
    >
    > For some individuals, it is hard not to fret about things.
    >
    > martin

    very good point - in fact I've known coaches that like to throw in the odd, well, odd broken swim.
    Example, 100's broken as 30/30/40m or 200's broken at the 125. If you don't swim those often it's
    tough to 'feel' how fast that was simply from the pace clock. You could do a little mental math, and
    it should be hard to guess where a desired pace will put you but the point is that it's not
    automatic like a 100 pace would be.

    GL Mike
     
Loading...
Loading...