“Traditional v.s. ultra short race pace training…….. mileage, usrpt or both?” (Section 3)

Swimming traditional training practice has recently come under fire from Dr Brent Rushall with his new theory of Ultra-short Race-pace Training also known as USRPT. The differences between the two as claimed by Dr Rushall is that the traditional system is not specific to the swimmers needs when comparing the distances in training (around 10km) and the distances sprint swimmers swim (50,100meters). It is also argued by Dr Rushall that when such milage is hit (that of 10km daily) a lot of it is low quality, here referring to having a low intensity, low speed and less than perfect technique.

So what is the buck? Traditionally swimming coaches build up their swimmer’s daily milage from around 4km to 10km or even up to 11km, this generally split in two sessions daily. This notion of training twice a day has already been under some fire in recent years as when looking at studies such that of Mujika et al., (2015) and Stewart et al., (2000) the difference between swimmers that swam twice daily to those that swam only once was not significant. Longitudinal studies around this particular area are still a few and none that cross multiple seasons, therefore further studies are needed to clarify this argument.

The main critical argument against traditional swimming, is that the intensity of such high milage is generally being swam at 60-70% of maximum effort and thus does not elicit neurological adaptations which are transferable to the nature of the sport (Nugent, Comyns, & Warrington, 2017). Fifty and hundred meter races in sprint swimming take from 20.91seconds up to 1.12.79seconds, this depending on which of the four strokes is being swam (Mason, & Cossor, 2000). The times at which an event is completed in is imperative, as for practitioners it gives which energy system to focus most on in training, hence which energy system is dominant during the event. The ATP-CP (lactate) (6-10 seconds) and the anaerobic glycolysis (30-60 seconds) which both are anaerobic systems vary in dominance depending on the stroke swam (Bompa, 1994). In practice when traditional intensity is around 60-70% of maximum the aerobic (glycolysis) system is the dominant energy system. Therefore this line of reasoning has led Dr Rushall to develop USRPT, to formulate a system which trains more specifically the energy system most specific to the swimming sprint event. For the USRPT method Dr Rushall suggests around less than half of what swimmers traditionally swim. The latter is expected, if a swimmer is maxing out his neuromuscular system everyday, the swimmer would not be able to maintain this for so long due to neuromuscular fatigue (Fittz, 1994).

“Get them off the Internet and stop them from looking for shortcuts. The human body does not adapt any faster than it did 30 years ago, so why should we expect performance gains to be accomplished faster today?”

― Vern Gambetta, Athletic Development: The Art & Science of Functional Sports Conditioning

Let us take a closer look at the traditional system and why has it been used for so many years and so far offering the fastest times on record in sprint swimming. Something which always has struck me is how Dr Rushall fails to mention that throughout a swimming season when training is preplanned and well organised the swimmers goes through phases. Different coaches use different systems the following is a general season plan starting with aerobic development, to aerobic capacity, with a transition phase towards race specific power with a recovery period leading to race pace training which is tapered prior to the event (Olbrecht, 2015). Therefore when observing traditional swimming, USRPT is within the mesocycles of a swimmer’s season at a certain extent and at a very specific time which generally occurs close to competitions. Also essentially eliminating the aerobic development component of a season, likely reduces the ability of the swimmer to recover between effort bouts and this coupled up with high neuromuscular demand, over training and burning out which are effects USRPT is prone to.

Before using USRPT a coach should take into consideration the biological age and the gender of a swimmer and also the level. The biological age is essential for a coach to take note as through different developmental stages adolescents and adults have different requirements to rest such as adolescents need more frequent breaks but less in duration when compared to adults . A study by Billaut and Bishop (2009), concluded how females have a higher resistance to fatigue when performing multiple sprints and the reasoning behind it is that males have increased muscle mass and therefore the neuromuscular and energy systems are stressed more than if they were woman as highlighted by Falk and Dotan (2006). Lastly it is also important to consider the level of swimmer at hand, if a swimmer is swimming a 50free in 20.91seconds, the ATP-PCr energy system of such swimmer is more dominant than the anaerobic glycolysis energy system when compared to a swimmer swimming a 50 freestyle in 35/40 seconds (Spencer & Gastin, 2001; Faulkner, 1966).

It is important to look at a swimmer's season from a holistic approach and not just a one point specific area. All the fitness components are there for a reason, they have been trained in the past for a reason. All the energy systems and everything else which form a swimmer such as strength, neuromuscular efficiency, psychology and most importantly technique are all components to be implemented by the coach within a swimmer's career.

Reference

Billaut, F., & Bishop, D. (2009). Muscle fatigue in males and females during multiple-sprint exercise. Journal of Sports Medicine, 39(4), 257-278.

Falk, B., & Dotan, R. (2006). Child-adult differences in the recovery from high-intensity exercise. Journal of Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 34(3), 107-112.

Faulkner, J. A. (1966). Physiology of swimming. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 37(1), 41-54.

Bompa, T. O. (1994). Theory and methodology of training: the key to athletic performance. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.

Spencer, M. R., & Gastin, P. B. (2001). Energy system contribution during 200-to 1500-m running in highly trained athletes. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 33(1), 157-162.

Mason, B., & Cossor, J. (2000). What can we learn from competition analysis at the 1999 Pan Pacific Swimming Championships?. In ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive (Vol. 1, No. 1).

Fitts, R. H. (1994). Cellular mechanisms of muscle fatigue. Journal of Physiological Reviews, 74(1), 49-94.

Olbrecht, J. (2015). The science of winning: planning, periodising and optimising swim training. F&G Partners.

Mujika, I., Chatard, J. C., Busso, T., Geyssant, A., Barale, F., & Lacoste, L. (1995). Effects of training on performance in competitive swimming. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 20(4), 395-406.

Stewart, A. M., & Hopkins, W. G. (2000). Seasonal training and performance of competitive swimmers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18(11), 873-884.

Nugent, F. J., Comyns, T. M., & Warrington, G. D. (2017). Quality Versus Quantity Debate in Swimming: Perceptions and Training Practices of Expert Swimming Coaches. Journal of Human Kinetics, 57(1), 147-158.