50x400

[RhymeAndReason]

I think it is safe to say that Dara Torres is the exception, not the rule...

[PurpleKnight]

...really? that's what you are teaching your swimmers? that the work they do today pays of tonight? swimming at nationals is swimming at nationals, regardless of the age...unless you'd like to tell Dara Torres something else.

No, that is not what I am "teaching my swimmers", however if my swimmers, on a whole and as a general rule, are still getting faster 10 years after they have finished their collegiate career with me, I sure as hell better look at what I am doing with them, 'cause it ain't achieving what it should be for them!

[coachV]

This "aerobic base" that we're talking about is most-likely a result of the years of motor learning that has taken place. Conditioning and fitness fall off at predictable rates for everyone, but motor units can stay intact for years. The best illustration is when a retired college swimmer returns to the pool, and the stroke tends to be intact but the conditioning is way off. The advantage that long-time swimmers have is that the motor units (nerve pathways + muscle cells) tend to stay for years, and the "coordination" is still there. That's why incredibly fit non-swimmer athletes struggle to learn to swim, but a swimmer gets right back to it, and takes less time to get to swim fitness.

What years and years and miles and miles of swimming do is to create these motor units that take years to form and years to erode. That may be one reason that many coaches advocate training young swimmers on the 1650/400IM model: tons of yards to hammer in the technique. When I swam as a high schooler with a famous mileage-focused team back in the 80's, I likened the approach to rocks in a stream. Throw a jagged rock (novice swimmer) into a fast flowing stream (high mileage wrkts), and the end-result after years of high volume water is a smooth, slick river rock. The reason that swim workouts are so long, as opposed to running, is that the efficiency and technique always needs to be trained, wheras in running, everyone can run pretty efficiently. So much time is swimming is spent on "locking in" the stroke through repetition, even for races that last 18.5 seconds. A swimmer who has locked-in technique (ie, efficiency) is therefore able to get much more out of any practice (long or short), because that swimmer can spend more time on pure metabolic conditioning for the aspects of their races.

[TheRoboticRichardSimmons]

This "aerobic base" that we're talking about is most-likely a result of the years of motor learning that has taken place. Conditioning and fitness fall off at predictable rates for everyone, but motor units can stay intact for years.

i think this is an interesting point, and one that most of us can relate to. how rigid are these motor units? one thing i enjoyed the most about getting into the water after a long layoff was that my stroke was more malleable and it was easier to tweak it and get rid of bad habits.

another question is what value this has to a high school/college swimmer who is, presumably, swimming 10-11 months out of the year?

What years and years and miles and miles of swimming do is to create these motor units that take years to form and years to erode. That may be one reason that many coaches advocate training young swimmers on the 1650/400IM model: tons of yards to hammer in the technique. When I swam as a high schooler with a famous mileage-focused team back in the 80's, I likened the approach to rocks in a stream. Throw a jagged rock (novice swimmer) into a fast flowing stream (high mileage wrkts), and the end-result after years of high volume water is a smooth, slick river rock. The reason that swim workouts are so long, as opposed to running, is that the efficiency and technique always needs to be trained, wheras in running, everyone can run pretty efficiently. So much time is swimming is spent on "locking in" the stroke through repetition, even for races that last 18.5 seconds. A swimmer who has locked-in technique (ie, efficiency) is therefore able to get much more out of any practice (long or short), because that swimmer can spend more time on pure metabolic conditioning for the aspects of their races.

i agree that a swimmer needs to solidify the neuro pathways associated with good technique so they can repeat it consistently when racing. however, how much swimming does a swimmer have to do to accomplish this? can a swimmer do this in as little as 10,000 yards a week, or does it have to be much more (50-100k)? also, is it possible that swimmers that swim high volume are more likely to reinforce bad habits as well, either due to fatigue or because they've compromised their stroke to due long, relatively slow swimming?

[Sepulveda]

That may be one reason that many coaches advocate training young swimmers on the 1650/400IM model: tons of yards to hammer in the technique.

I strongly disagree

[fz1]

None of your fast twitch fibers will survive repeated 400 sets. They simply shut down. You actually end up building the wrong motor pattern. This simple fact is not fully appreciated by many coaches. This is why Dave Salo's method is better. You have to swim at race pace to reenforce the correct neural pattern required for the race. Unless you are a distance swimmer with 90% slow twitch muscle fibers, you cannot hold the race pace without proper recovery swims in between. 50x400 will do little good for most swimmers.

[dman70]

I strongly disagree

Same here. I see coachV's point, but to me it seems like swimmers are at least as likely to hammer in BAD technique as good, especially when they get tired and their strokes begins to break down. Many times the emphasis is placed on completing the set over anything else.

[sirhc221]

Its really not that big of deal, there is only 6,400yds of quality work in this set out of 20,000 yds. On any given set in practice I give about 4,000yds quality work out of 8,000yds, so in reality this marathon set is 2,400yds more than a normal practice. Factor in that this set took about 6 hours to complete (if you avg 1:30 per 100 for an hour you will do 4,000yds), then asking a swimmer to do 6,400yds of quality work is no big deal, this set was meant to be a mental set and a 'pride' set, something that when you were done you could go..."wow I thought I would never be able to do that". So when the race is on the line and you feel like you have nothing left in your tank, you will think back to this 20,000yd set and say "if I can do that I can do anything".

I had 50's day in high school one day

50 x 100's
50 x 75's
50 x 50's
50 x 25's

and I remeber that day like it was yesterday!

[Sepulveda]

Its really not that big of deal, there is only 6,400yds of quality work in this set out of 20,000 yds. On any given set in practice I give about 4,000yds quality work out of 8,000yds, so in reality this marathon set is 2,400yds more than a normal practice. Factor in that this set took about 6 hours to complete (if you avg 1:30 per 100 for an hour you will do 4,000yds), then asking a swimmer to do 6,400yds of quality work is no big deal, this set was meant to be a mental set and a 'pride' set, something that when you were done you could go..."wow I thought I would never be able to do that". So when the race is on the line and you feel like you have nothing left in your tank, you will think back to this 20,000yd set and say "if I can do that I can do anything".

I had 50's day in high school one day

50 x 100's
50 x 75's
50 x 50's
50 x 25's

and I remeber that day like it was yesterday!

And let me guess what 6400yds in that practice you are referring to. 2 sets of 6X400's RACE and 1600 yards of butterfly RACE in the end?
You, my friend, know nothing about swimming.

[swimpop]

I am not a coach but I am really enjoying this discussion and hearing the different viewpoints. Thanks! With that said and with some trepidation because I am only a parent, isn't it likely that some swimmers may benefit from a lot of intense yards while others may not. One thing that I have observed in various clubs in our local area is that they "appear" to use a single approach for all their swimmers. I don't know if it is feasible or effective to try to tailor the yardage and intensity of the workouts to each swimmer. However, that does seem to be a reasonable approach to me.

[Sepulveda]

I am not a coach but I am really enjoying this discussion and hearing the different viewpoints. Thanks! With that said and with some trepidation because I am only a parent, isn't it likely that some swimmers may benefit from a lot of intense yards while others may not. One thing that I have observed in various clubs in our local area is that they "appear" to use a single approach for all their swimmers. I don't know if it is feasible or effective to try to tailor the yardage and intensity of the workouts to each swimmer. However, that does seem to be a reasonable approach to me.

You are absolutely right and your point of clubs not doing that is unfortunately true for the majority of the teams. Coaches run into problems with this however. There is often some jealousy and/or complaints that others don't do as much and why do I have to do it when he/she doesnt. Parents don't help the matter either because let's face it, most of them have no idea what they are talking about but they act and talk as if they do. We have to move away from the training approach that was popular in 70's and 80's and start coaching our swimmers for the events they swim and not coach them all for 1650 race. There are also different ways to practice for the same event based on the individual, as you mentioned. I know that it's hard to have 3 different workouts going on at the same time but it can be done; it take some effort, creativity, and planning.

[JustinPollard]

The approach that my club coach took was this: I'll train everyone for middle distance races. I think that this is an excellent approach for a single coach trying to create an effective environment for 40-60 swimmers at a time.

Here's my reasoning (I think this may be what my former coach would say too): young swimmers can not specialize because their bodies are not developed yet. For that reason, it is more beneficial to give them the general training that will allow them to be successful in the largest array of events possible. Training for middle distance races (or perhaps middle distance through the shorter long distance races) allows younger swimmers to swim fast 100's and 200's (the bulk of swimming events), but still gives a swimmer the ability to swim up to the 400im/500 free and down to the 50 with a reasonable chance of success. And, if later on the swimmer discovers that he/she enjoys the longer races more, then he/she is able to move up in yardage without a workout makeover that is too extreme. The converse may also be true (a swimmer, who, when developed, tends to enjoy the shorter races, is able to cope without too much struggle to sprint program in college).

When a swimmer eventually moves on to higher level high school and college swimming, that swimmer has a better chance to be successful where his/her team needs them to be successful. Using myself as an example, I was a successful sprinter in high school (50 free/ 100 fly), but was able to move up to the 200 fly/500 free with quite a bit of success for my skill level in college.

[Swimwhammy]

This is a great discussion. Coach Chuck's set has sparked some of the most lively debate out there in the swimming world.

Kudos to Chuck for creating a path towards a certain level of success for his swimmers. And to those that agree with Chuck and his approach (get'em so mentally and physically tough that they can't help but rise above others) -- I guess I can see where you are coming from on some level.

But really, let's stop talking about how great it is to do all this BS and consider the facts.

Fact 1: Bluefish has produced Beisel, who is an Olympian. (That is outstanding. Most teams would do anything to have that sort of success at the club level.) Beisel was a great 12-13 year old swimmer when she started with Chuck. National record holder in a few events if I'm not mistaken.

Fact 2: Beisel is the only swimmer they have ever produced to make it even close to the Olympic level. They have produced Laura Sogar who is fast, but she's not really fast enough to be remembered as one of swimming's greats. They've basically got her and Beisel. Sogar and Beisel are about the same age, so for a while they had two good women training together. Not exactly Santa Clara Swim Club!

Fact 3: There are at least two New England "area" teams with multiple National Jr Team swimmers this year, and Bluefish isn't one of them. Bluefish has zero members of the National Jr Team, Agua has 3, and Long Island has 2.

I think it's great that Coach Batchelor has had some level of success with his swimmers, don't get me wrong -- but I think it's just plain incorrect to think that what the Bluefish do on those days out of school gets them ready to swim fast. They definetely are tough.


Is the Bluefish team really the team that is on the right track? Who do they have coming up behind Beisel, really? Just because they train crazy meters I think there are people who give them undue credit.

[imhappy]

I don't think we'll ever get to the point of knowing what is best for club swimming. There are way too many variables with swimmers of club age, and way too many opinionated adults to sift through the information. At the club level, it's mostly a matter of who walks in the door. A coach is lucky when they have an ultra talented athlete who is willing to make some commitment to swimming walk in and stay with their club. Those club swimmers you see at the very top, maybe the top few dozen or so, would be at the top no matter where they swam as long as they keep swimming. Who would ever be able to know if they would be faster at one club over another? The club they swim at gets the credit for them if they can keep them and keep them faster than the less talented kids.

[aidsmth22]

This is a great discussion. Coach Chuck's set has sparked some of the most lively debate out there in the swimming world.

Kudos to Chuck for creating a path towards a certain level of success for his swimmers. And to those that agree with Chuck and his approach (get'em so mentally and physically tough that they can't help but rise above others) -- I guess I can see where you are coming from on some level.

But really, let's stop talking about how great it is to do all this BS and consider the facts.

Fact 1: Bluefish has produced Beisel, who is an Olympian. (That is outstanding. Most teams would do anything to have that sort of success at the club level.) Beisel was a great 12-13 year old swimmer when she started with Chuck. National record holder in a few events if I'm not mistaken.

Fact 2: Beisel is the only swimmer they have ever produced to make it even close to the Olympic level. They have produced Laura Sogar who is fast, but she's not really fast enough to be remembered as one of swimming's greats. They've basically got her and Beisel. Sogar and Beisel are about the same age, so for a while they had two good women training together. Not exactly Santa Clara Swim Club!

Fact 3: There are at least two New England "area" teams with multiple National Jr Team swimmers this year, and Bluefish isn't one of them. Bluefish has zero members of the National Jr Team, Agua has 3, and Long Island has 2.

I think it's great that Coach Batchelor has had some level of success with his swimmers, don't get me wrong -- but I think it's just plain incorrect to think that what the Bluefish do on those days out of school gets them ready to swim fast. They definetely are tough.


Is the Bluefish team really the team that is on the right track? Who do they have coming up behind Beisel, really? Just because they train crazy meters I think there are people who give them undue credit.

so, swimwhammy, since you know OH so much about swimming, why dont you take into consideration that yes, SCSC, LIAC, and AGUA are all great teams, but why didnt they produce an olympian in 2008? hmm. also, on your point about SCSC, that team has been around for DECADES. bluefish was brand new just a few years ago (chucks branch) so yeah id doubt bluefish would have many olympians, but please tell me about a team that in its FIRST 2 YEARS it had an olympian, ESPECIALLY someone like beisel being the youngest member, making it in 2 EVENTS. not too shabby for a 15 year old huh? that has quite a lot to say about her coaching as well...

beisel has been an outstanding swimming since she was 9 breaking NAG records and chuck took over bluefish around 2005 so when she made her first pan pac team. chuck has CONTINUED to keep her on the national team, and has brought alex forrester, laura sogar, and kaia simmons on to the jr national team stage. you say that chuck has only produced teenage girls? what about david russell who continued on to cal berkeley who got second at NC's last year? or eric nillson who continued on to northwestern and was one of the top freestylers in the country?

WHO CARES about the amount of "jr. national swimmers" a program has. its not a competition. as far as im concerned bluefish is the best program up there in new england and one of the best on the east coast, closely following NBAC.

WHO CARES about the way chuck trains his kids. if you dont agree with it, fine, that is your opinion. but CLEARLY what he is doing with his kids is MORE than working and he is still extremely young compared to most coaches so i only see more coming from him. and yes maybe after beisel goes off to college he wont have the best program, but does every program, every season, every year have their best line up? no of course not, unless it is a group of professionals like FAST or NBAC. bluefish is a CLUB TEAM with HIGH SCHOOLERS. people are going to come and go through the program and go off to college. i do not know chuck personally but i do know a lot of people up north and many people on the national team that have worked with him, and i hear nothing but positive remarks. its not like they do this set everyday; it is a once a year tradition. coaches should take pride in reading what chuck does with his swimmers and strive to one day be able to have kids that can complete such a set.

also, just some food for thought. everybody on this blog is freaking out over chuck doing tons of yardage? bear in mind that bluefish does not do doubles, and they practice what, 2-3 hours a night? honestly, that is not difficult training at all, it is just that chuck makes the best out of the time schedule he has and works with it. i know NOVA virginia does doubles 4 days a week and does VERY similar sets to bluefish, but bluefish gets labeled as the "over-working" team just because of a difficult set?

just another fact. look at how great chucks swimmers are long course. they train short course all year round. tell me a coach that can do that?