200m - 400m SWIMMING EVENTS

Training for the 200m-400m Events
It is extremely safe to state that the majority of UK swimmers and their coaches will focus upon the number of hours spent in the pool as the main ingredient of swimming success at the 200m/400m distances.

It will also be safe to state that distances of up to 6,000 meters per practice session are common in UK swimming circles. But, is this really the key to success, or is there an alternative approach that can produce faster times and improved performances? I am suggesting that the traditional distance orientated model of training will not optimise performance, especially for the 200m-400m swimmers.

I say this in the light of research carried out on swim training, the scientific analysis of the demands of competitive swimming, and athletic track training methods that have been shown to optimise performance.

The research into the effects of distance based swim training on performance throws forth a new paradigm… that there is no advantage to just piling on the distance covered in training.

Legendary American sports physiologist Dave Costill has undertaken extensive research on swim training over the past thirty years. In one of his many studies, his team of sport scientists followed two groups of swimmers over a 25-week training period. Both of these groups began with one session per day in the training pool, but one group moved to training twice a day for five weeks in weeks 10-15, reverting to once daily for the rest of the study period.

At no stage of the 25-week training period did this group show any enhanced performance or an increased aerobic capacity as the result of their extra training. Basically, it was a waste of time.

In another study, Costill tracked the performance of competitive swimmers over a four-year period, that tracked and compared a group of swimmers averaging 10,000m per day with a group that averaged only 5,000m per day to evaluate them in relation to changes in competitive performance time over 100, 200, 500 and 1600 yards.

The results showed Improvements in swim times were identical for both groups at around 0.8% per year for all events. Again, even though one group did double the amount of training, both groups benefited to the same extent in the long term.
To quote Costill directly: ‘Most competitive swimming events last less than two minutes. How can training for 3-4 hours per day at speeds that are markedly slower than competitive pace prepare the swimmer for the maximal efforts of competition?’
Research from France supports Costill’s conclusions. A team of sport scientists analysed the training and performance of competitive 100m and 200m swimmers over a 44-week period. Their findings were as follows:

• Swimmers trained at five specific intensities. These were swim speeds equivalent to 2, 4, 6 and a high 10 mmol/l blood lactate concentration pace and, finally, maximal sprint swimming;’
• Over the whole season the swimmers who made the biggest improvements were those who performed more of their training at higher paces. The volume of training had no influence on swim performance.

Feeling at ease is not the point:
The only conclusion that I can draw from this research is that faster velocities and not longer training is the key to swimming success. Nevertheless, the high-volume, low-intensity training model probably remains the most common practice among UK swimming coaches, with even sprint swimmers focusing on clocking up the aerobic kilometers rather than more race pace- specific training.

One of reasons for this high-volume bias as I understand it, is that it has become an unwritten law that has been handed down from coach to swimmers that swim technique, efficiency through the water and the ‘feel’ of the stroke are only truly optimized through covering large aerobic distances in the pool.

I have even heard Masters’ swimmers say they do not feel as comfortable in the water and confident about their technique unless they complete high doses of training.
As a coach I acknowledge that swim technique is extremely important. However, the idea that high-volume training equates to a far superior race technique has no logical or physiological basis especially in the 200m-400m events.

If UK swim coaches were ever to take charge of a 200m -400m runner and told them that the best way to improve their technique at maximum velocity would be to complete many miles a week at 10,000k pace, they would be laughed off the track!
Track coaches who train sprinters focus on workouts and technical drills that are performed at high intensities and they verdantly avoid the low intensity/high volume training because it inhibits power development.

The same rules that track coaches adhere to must be also true for swimming; if a swimmer wants to increase their stroke efficiency and technique during a competition, surely the best way to do this is to train at target race pace? The more training time is spent at target race pace, the more comfortable it will feel in competition.

Dave Costill states that:

‘Large training volume prepares the athlete to tolerate a high volume of training but likely does little to benefit actual performance’.
When I hear UK coaches and their swimmers talking of ‘feeling comfortable’ in the water, I am convinced that they are referring to the sub-maximal speeds that they swim at in the training pool and not the maximal efforts required in competition.
Not only does high-volume training offer no benefit for swim performance over the 200m-400m distance, I believe it has negative effects on the swimmer.
Two known consequences of high-volume training are the depletion of the swimmers glycogen muscle stores and the fatigue of their fast twitch muscle fibers, both of which will reduce the effectiveness of high-intensity race pace training sessions and severely compromise any competitive performance.

Research has also shown that periods of high-volume training will greatly reduce the force production in the fast twitch muscle fibers, which are essential for attaining high velocities.

High-volume training will do nothing for these fibers: indeed it will dampen their production of force by reducing the velocity at which the muscle can shorten and contract.
.
The metabolic demands of swimming 200m-400m

The 200m and 400m swim events place a greater demand on the swimmers anaerobic system resulting in lactic acid as a by-product.

The highly anaerobic nature of these two events supports the argument for a greater focus on high-intensity and less high-volume training.

Swimming coaches get it wrong by assuming it is far better to do training that will reduce blood lactate concentrations. This philosophy is based on the idea that high lactate is bad and will have a negative impact on performance. (A statement I have heard time and time again) This leads to the employment of training programmes that focus on ‘lactate threshold’ training to improve the turnover of the swimmers lactate and enhance the ability of the aerobic systems to produce more of the energy required for the event.

There are two problems with this training paradigm:

1. Swim coaches need to be careful about assuming high lactate levels are a bad thing. What they need to remember is that lactic acid is the by-product of the anaerobic breakdown of glycogen. Lactic acid splits into the H+ ion and the lactate ion. It is the acidic H+ ion that is the bad guy, interfering with force production in the muscles and reducing the rate of glycolysis, thus slowing the swimmer down. The lactate ion simply diffuses through the muscle and into the bloodstream, with no evidence to suggest it has any negative impact on muscle function or energy production. In fact, this lactate ion can be recycled in the energy production cycle and used positively to help produce energy. So a high level of lactate in the blood is not bad in itself: it simply is just an indicator that a lot of anaerobic energy production is occurring. The training adaptation that should be sought after is not a reduction in lactate production, but rather an increase in the buffering of the H+ ion. Training at high velocities and therefore generating high levels of lactic acid helps the swimmers body adapt to the increase in H+ in the muscles and improve its ability to buffer the acid;

2. Anaerobic glycolysis involves the fast breakdown of glycogen into energy-giving phosphates, while aerobic glycolysis involves a much slower breakdown. Without the anaerobic energy systems, maximal power and high velocities would be impossible, as the swimmers muscles would not get a fast enough supply of energy. If a swimmer wants high power they have to have high levels of anaerobic energy supply.
For the 200m-400m distance, anaerobic capacity is the good guy and it needs to be developed. If an event places great demands on the swimmers anaerobic system, the swimmer needs to become more anaerobic!
This may seem odd and from the ‘Dark Side of the Moon’ to those of you with established traditional beliefs about training for these two events, but it is true. Through focusing on high-volume aerobic training to reduce lactate levels you are in fact compromising your anaerobic fitness, which is the most important attribute for competitive success in swimming 200m-400m events. For swimmers who compete at these distances, lactate-threshold training which is geared to keeping their lactate levels low is, I would argue, totally irrelevant. For the 200m-400m events, the accumulation of high levels of lactate does not matter: indeed it is probably a good thing as it reflects a good anaerobic capacity. For longer events, such as the 800m and 1500m, where the aerobic system is much more important, lactate-threshold training would be relevant, as these swimmers need to maintain intensity levels for much longer thus, relying on their aerobic energy system.