Swimming fast - probably a lot more than just technique (Page 2)

I can relate too.  I get told that my form looks good and only minor tweaks are ever suggested.  OK.  So then why is it a struggle to swim 100 meters in 2:30?  I thought that if I did faster strokes, that would make me faster, but you read all the time about trying to reduce your stroke count, so that can't be it. 

I did finally figure out that a harder pull make me go faster, but, you know what?  That's hard and I get tired faster.  I think that was my aha moment.  I was so totally caught up in trying to have the "right" technique that I thought that would magically turn into faster times.  So now I am trying to have a strong pull while maintaining my technique and work on endurance AGAIN.  You would think after swimming a couple times a week for years that I would have the endurance, but I don't, not for working hard. 

I agree that you have to have good form before anything else, but a coach standing on the deck can't really tell how hard you working or whatever.  They can basically just tell if your form is good.  So, for all my slow colleagues out that who are dutifully working on their form, but still are slow, I feel your pain and I guess we just have to work harder and harder. 

Something strikes me as odd for these speedsters who say that with zero swim fitness they can knock off 1:30s at an easy pace for a mile and beyond.

Swimming under 1:30/100m would put you in the top group of swimmers in a triathlon. Let's say you even pushed it, and thus got down to 1:20/100m for 1-2 miles. That's way up there. It's really hard for me to believe that average schmoe with minimal swim fitness and all technique would ever be able to achieve such speeds. 

If some of the ex-competitive swimmers are doing 1:30 easy pace and 1:20-1:10 hard pace with triathlon swim training, there's NO way that just with technique that I'd be able to pull similar paces. Especially with technique that's largely correct per the coach - I don't think little "tweaks" will drop my pace 30sec/100m per mile. I'd love to believe that, and will keep striving for it for sure, but there's got to be a power component at these speeds that I'm clearly lacking.


Of course, ex-competitive swimmers have already built that important swim power & endurance bace that I'm lacking, so they can come back to it really fast, if not instantly. However, if you've never had it like me, I don't think technique alone will get me to 1:30/100m.

Edited by agarose2000 2009-08-02 2:11 PM

If I read the thread properly the debate seems to be whether it's technique or practice that makes a fast swimmer.

I am probably stating the obvious, but I think technique makes you fast and training allows you to hold that 'fast' over long distances. Unfortunately I think swimming technique is much harder to develop than cycling or running if you don't have it.

I did competitive swimming as a kid. I stopped for 30 years. The only thing I did the last few years was running.

I got into a pool for the first time in January 09 and could swim 50m in 33 seconds. And then die. Dead, huffing and puffing. This despite being in ok shape from the running (sub 42min 10k).

I swam 3 hours a week for 3 months. I was then able to maintain 1:28/100y over a 1500m.

My buddy who is is incredible shape, swims that same 3 hours a week but has been doing it for 2 years, does 2:00m/100.

He is stronger than me, has more resistance both cardio , arms and shoulders.....the only thing I have going for me is some technique i picked up as a kid.

I suspect I had the technique, I had some cardio from the running, I just needed to redevelop a dormant muscle group.

I would guess a good measure of technique is how fast you can sprint 100m. A measure of fitness is how you can maintain that over distance.

A good swim coach makes all the difference in the world. We have 3 coaches. There is a huge difference in the ones that can help develop your technique. Some are better at pushing you, some are better at correcting you.

A Master's program, where you compete over short and long distances allows you to gauge how your technique on the sprints and endurance is progressing. It's fun, it pushes you and it mixes up the workouts so you aren't just doing boring sets. Yes, the breastroke drills have nothing to do with tri, but you develop lung capacity and other muscle groups. It kind of forces you to go on a schedule and swimming with others does push you. That person on your toes is annoying but motivation.

Just an opinion

Doesn't strike me as odd at all.  Many of these guys were swimming sub 1:00 100s in HS.  The prior poster is right on. 

I really don't think I had much of a training base from competitive swimming from Age 5-12. In my first race back into tris with minimal training I swam 300M in a pool with traffic in 4:20 (1:19/100y). My second race was open water. I didn't swim in open water once to practice and was 11/411 overall in the swim.


IMO, that's why it's so hard for people to improve in technique dominated sports like swimming and golf. Skiing is exactly the same. It's all technique and when you know it, the skis almost turn themselves effortlessly and without much fatigue. "Advanced" skiers would never believe it how easy it is for true experts without any fitness.

Think of it this way, because I have better technique than most, and swimming at a 1:40/100y pace is so easy for me, it's difficult for me to understand why others can't do it. So, I watch slow swimmers to try to pick out their inefficiencies. It's actually pretty easy to see if you look closely. At my stroke knowledge level, it really ain't all that complex. Be as hydrodynamic as possible and push water back only.

Then think about those with much better technique than me. They probably feel the same way, wondering about why others can't swim a 1:20/100y pace because it's so easy for them.

But hey, training beliefs are personal and IMO that's what makes it a race.

i found it hard to believe as well.  luckily for me, i'm fairly dumb when i comes to this stuff, so when someone who has a good to great background in swimming suggests it, I tend to believe them over my gut instinct on the subject.

I could swim in the sense that I wouldn't die if I jumped in a lake end of summer 2008...first OWS was 400 yards and it took me around 13-14 minutes, and the whole time I kept thinking death would come before I got to shore.  trorugh this forum I found lots of help, and took an open viewpoint from lots of people who know how to swim.  in about 6-7 months I was doing 1:30s and nnow I'm at 1:30 per 100 on a fairly solid basis, "easy" no, but I'll get an olympic swim done at 1:30/100 and nail the bike/run.

I think thats good improvement on little swim fitness and i tell you this not to brag (well, maybe a little) but to suggest I highly doubt I built some sort of ex-college athlete swim fitness in 6-7 months.

when I first started timing myself in the pool, I was over 2:00, and all I wanted was 1:50.  Soon enough, that wasnt good, and 1:40 was all I wanted.  Once I hit 1:30, I thought, well 1:20 must be possible.....not there yet, but I imagine when I get there, 1:10 is where I'm going to want to go next.

so, yes its a bit odd, but I agree with breckview 100%....1:30 is achiveable in very little time and you do not need a lot of swim fitness. 

and I agree that 1:30 will put you FOP, or top 1/3.

Sounds good then. I'll take y'all word for it. 1:30 by technique - will definitely keep plugging away at it, and will get a video analysis as well to further fine-tune it all.

agarose- DO you also post on Runnersworld??

well, i'm not saying you should only focus on your technique

just that you DO NOT need an ex-collegiate swim history/fitness to do it.

6 months you can get it done, if you have are an average person at best....

just swim, some days hard, some days easy some days drills....

i think the most important piece is to constantly take the attitude that you can swim :10/100 yards faster than you currently do...its only 2.5 seconds per length....

Correct.

Yeah, I think at my peak I was swimming maybe 6,000-7,000 yards a week, which I'm fully aware isn't enough to see big improvements. I guess my point was that just as there are natural runners who are "fast" right from the get-go and non-runners who feel like they'll never hit 10-min-miles, there are folks who are going to have to work their butts off to get good at swimming, and I do believe it's more than just a technique thing. Technique is obviously a huge factor -- when I was first learning I saw huge improvements by working on lifting my legs and staying balanced in the water and rotation and a whole bunch of things. But once I had the basics down it becamse obvious that I was still going to be a super-slow swimmer unless I put in a whole lot of yardage (yes, like 20,000 yards a week). And frankly, I didn't have the time or motivation to do that. I'll be the first to admit it. I made a conscious decision to do just enough swimming so that I was comfortably covering the distance and wouldn't blow up the rest of my race.

swimming 20k a week is not putting in a "ton" of yards.

if you cant/wont due that due to life/friends/family, thats a perfectly fine choice, and one many of us make.

but that does not mean there are people who are just going to be slow.

same with running. for most people, 7 or 8 min miles, or 1:30 per 100yrds is not a hard number to hit if you simply put in the work, and i dont think that is a hard place to be with a bit of smart training, hard work, some intervals, and a bit of time.

Well, when you figure it takes me more than an hour to swim 2,000 yards, that's 10 hours a week of *just* swimming -- and I'm assuming I'd be looking at months and months (if not years and years) at that level. So to me, 20,000/week does actually feel like a "ton" of yards.

But yes, I agree -- it's a choice I made (and just to emphasize -- I feel like kind of an a$$ posting here at all since I basically gave up on swimming quite some time ago). I also made another choice, to focus on running and shoot for the 7/8-min-mile. I'm perfectly willing to put in the work there because I enjoy running and, more important, I'm reasonably good at it. If I was naturally slow at running I might not want to make that commitment. All I'm trying to say is that swimming is more than just technique -- like the other disciplines, it's putting the work in too. And like the other disciplines, there are in fact some of us who are just naturally slow and who are in fact going to have to put in a lot more work than others to see the same improvements.



Edited by Fielding 2009-08-02 8:27 PM