*Ginn, E. (1993), "The application of the critical power test to swimming and swim training programmes", National Sports Research Centre
45 out of the 57 athletes re-tested improved their CSS pace with the training intervention, 42 out of the 57 improved their 400m times and 40 out of the 57 improved their 200m times. The greatest improvement was seen by Alen Pezzin dropping his CSS time by an amazing 13.62%! Well done Alen - sensational result!
- Alen Pezzin, 13.62%
- Bill Carmody, 9.92%
- Lorraine Driscoll, 8.82%
- Michael Serich, 8.25%
- Chris Foley, 7.80%
- Ian Murray, 7.46%
- Caroline Claydon, 7.05%
- Trevor Magee, 7.02% (a sensational bounce-back from a horrific shoulder injury from cycling!)
- Craig Jameson, 6.27%
- Chris Jameson, 6.11%
- Nicole Klemm, 5.88%
- Jess Huston, 5.76%
- Bill Moody, 5.29%
- Belinda Bennett, 5.12%
- Lindsey Shepherd, 4.98%
- Anne-Marie D'Arcy, 4.63%
- Amy Callow, 4.58%
Gillian Evans - lane 1 to 2
45 out of the 57 athletes re-tested improved their CSS pace with the training intervention, 42 out of the 57 improved their 400m times and 40 out of the 57 improved their 200m times. The greatest improvement was seen by Alen Pezzin dropping his CSS time by an amazing 13.62%!
*this is a super simplified way of describing the drop-off in times between the 200m and 400m swims.
...really this has to be the case or the fastest 100m sprinter in the world would also be the best at 400m and 1500m – when in fact these three distances need different athletes with different physiologies. The sprinter needs pure power and a strong anaerobic system. The middle-distance swimmer needs a compromise between anaerobic and aerobic and the distance swimmer needs a great aerobic system.
- A swimmer's CSS pace can improve despite their 200m speed in particular decreasing due to the slope of the extrapolated line essentially become more gradual. This can show one of two things: 1) more focus has been on CSS and endurance type work (as per the 10 Week Program); 2) the swimmer was too tired from the 400m exertion and correspondingly did not perform well over the 200m. This becomes particularly evident if the 200m time is more than half of the 400m time and can lead to erroneous results as in theory it's impossible for a swimmer's speed to not be at least as fast over 200m as it is over 400m as at some point within the 400m test the swimmer must have swum 200m as fast as (or faster than) half the 400m time. This occurred with 8 out of the 57 swimmers (Jon Turner, Anne Murrell, Suzi Scarff, John Edwards, Sally Steffanoni, Kim Annear, Roxanne Garven and Annette van Hazel). As such, for the purposes of the analysis, their 200m times were doctored to 50% of their 400m time less 2".
- It is possible for a swimmer to get slightly faster over 400m but a lot faster over 200m and for his / her CSS pace to appear to decrease or be exactly the same as it was at the start of the 'experiment'. This occurred with 3 out of the 57 swimmers (Michael Japp, Adam Wheeler and Sally Howe). It can be explained by either the swimmer not performing as well on the 400m swim (possibly due to pacing) or typically from having some time off, i.e. endurance drops off but freshness increases and over short distances the swimmer is able to knock out a pretty quick time. It can also occur if the swimmer's training has been skewed much more towards shorter, faster intervals well above CSS pace, i.e. sprinting.
- How consistently were you swimming 2-3 times per week and attending the Fresh 'n' Fruity Test Set each week?
- Could you have just had an 'off day' (we all have them!) - if you felt like you've been progressively well recently, it would be worth re-testing next week and see if you can have another go at it.
- Have you been on holiday during this last 10 week period, or been sick / injured? Obviously the program was cut in half by the Rottnest Channel Swim - some of you would have taken a few weeks off after this - could that explain it?
- Are you already swimming pretty quick (i.e. lane 4 or 4.5) - could you already be nearing your ceiling of improvement? Was 0.5% per week simply too much to ask?