How much effort to spend on the swim?

Radioactive Man <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I've read most of the advice here about not wasting too much effort on the swim. One certainly
cannot argue with that on the long distance triathlons (longer than olympic distance) where there
is a high probability of "bonking" (running out of glycogen). But if you're used to swimming long
distances, but only doing a sprint or olympic distance triathlon, I think the optimal level of
effort on the swim would only be slightly less than you'd use if swimming is all you're doing -
maybe 1 - 2 % slower than an all-out effort, mainly because you don't sprint at the end of the
swim in a triathlon. The reason for this is that swimming uses primarily upper body muscles. So
what if you tire your arms a bit, which is all you'll do if don't kick too hard. As long as you
haven't fatigued your legs too much or [censored] away your glycogen, you should be in good shape for
the bike ride and run, right?

While yes, you are using primarily your upper body muscles in the swim, I think you'd be surprised
at both how much you use your lower body, as well as how much your upper body effort takes it's toll
on your total performance. If you go all-out on the swim (or the bike, for that matter), you are
going to finish the leg feeling trashed, and unable to put much into the next leg(s). Since we DO
have other legs to do, we need to find that "optimum" zone where we can get the max time while
sapping our strength for the other legs as little as we can. Finding this point is one of the key
challenges in being successful - there is no "correct" spot for everyone - it depends on your
strengths, training, muscle composition, fitness level, etc.

As for swimming, we will all have a point where we can go out moderately hard, yet still be able to
maintain that speed for a long distance. Once we cross that point and go faster, we start to enter
the red zone, and we can't maintain the extra speed for long. The more you train and the better of
a swimmer you are, this point will be fairly close to your all-out effort, while for those with
less training and ability, it will be a decent bit slower. One way to find this point is by doing
descending intervals in the pool - do say 4x100 on a time, where you can make the time fairly
easily, and then do 4x100 5 sec faster, then 4x100 5 sec faster, until you can no longer make the
time. After a while doing this, you will likely notice a pace where your HR and breathing will be
moderate, but you can make the pace without really pushing. Going faster, however, really taxes
you, and you HR starts to climb rapidly. That, then, would probably be your optimal pace. Going at
this speed would be definitely faster than "not wasting too much effort", but slower than
"all-out". Yet, given enough training, the time difference over a mile will likely be 30 sec - 1
min. In other words, you should be able to easily make up the difference with the extra strength
that you have left.

The way that most tris are set up makes swimming the best leg to do this on. Most tris are heavily
weighted towards the run, and swim lengths are relatively short, bike lengths somewhat short, and
runs longer. Even with an olympic distance, you see the effects - 98% of the swimmers will finish
within 10 min of each other (most will be much more closely grouped), while there may be as much as
a 30 min gap in run times among the same 98%. In other words, a crummy swimmer with a great run leg
will likely destroy a great swimmer with a crummy run leg. A moderate swim effort may be only 1-2
min slower overall, while a moderate bike effort might well be 1 min A MILE slower, and even more
on the run.

"Radioactive Man" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've read most of the advice here about not wasting too much effort on the swim.

You should never really "work" the swim unless it is pretty short. Swimming is more skill than
athletic ability. Speed on the swim comes from proper technique far more than from working harder.
Most good swimmers find that if they go "all out" on the swim that their technique falls apart and
they go slower.

James

(topdog) said:

Radioactive Man <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I've read most of the advice here about not wasting too much effort on the swim. One certainly
cannot argue with that on the long distance triathlons (longer than olympic distance) where there
is a high probability of "bonking" (running out of glycogen). But if you're used to swimming long
distances, but only doing a sprint or olympic distance triathlon, I think the optimal level of
effort on the swim would only be slightly less than you'd use if swimming is all you're doing -
maybe 1 - 2 % slower than an all-out effort, mainly because you don't sprint at the end of the
swim in a triathlon. The reason for this is that swimming uses primarily upper body muscles. So
what if you tire your arms a bit, which is all you'll do if don't kick too hard. As long as you
haven't fatigued your legs too much or [censored] away your glycogen, you should be in good shape for
the bike ride and run, right?

While yes, you are using primarily your upper body muscles in the swim, I think you'd be surprised
at both how much you use your lower body, as well as how much your upper body effort takes it's
toll on your total performance. If you go all-out on the swim (or the bike, for that matter), you
are going to finish the leg feeling trashed, and unable to put much into the next leg(s). Since we
DO have other legs to do, we need to find that "optimum" zone where we can get the max time while
sapping our strength for the other legs as little as we can. Finding this point is one of the key
challenges in being successful - there is no "correct" spot for everyone - it depends on your
strengths, training, muscle composition, fitness level, etc.

As for swimming, we will all have a point where we can go out moderately hard, yet still be able to
maintain that speed for a long distance. Once we cross that point and go faster, we start to enter
the red zone, and we can't maintain the extra speed for long. The more you train and the better of
a swimmer you are, this point will be fairly close to your all-out effort, while for those with
less training and ability, it will be a decent bit slower. One way to find this point is by doing
descending intervals in the pool - do say 4x100 on a time, where you can make the time fairly
easily, and then do 4x100 5 sec faster, then 4x100 5 sec faster, until you can no longer make the
time. After a while doing this, you will likely notice a pace where your HR and breathing will be
moderate, but you can make the pace without really pushing. Going faster, however, really taxes
you, and you HR starts to climb rapidly. That, then, would probably be your optimal pace. Going at
this speed would be definitely faster than "not wasting too much effort", but slower than
"all-out". Yet, given enough training, the time difference over a mile will likely be 30 sec - 1
min. In other words, you should be able to easily make up the difference with the extra strength
that you have left.

That makes sense, it seems to me that I can always shave few seconds off a distance kicking harder,
but the downside is that I might be increasing the effort by 25% to get a 5% increase in speed,
something that would be fine in a swim meet, but a killer in a triathlon.

Quoted message said:

The way that most tris are set up makes swimming the best leg to do this on. Most tris are heavily
weighted towards the run, and swim lengths are relatively short, bike lengths somewhat short, and
runs longer. Even with an olympic distance, you see the effects - 98% of the swimmers will finish
within 10 min of each other (most will be much more closely grouped), while there may be as much as
a 30 min gap in run times among the same 98%. In other words, a crummy swimmer with a great run leg
will likely destroy a great swimmer with a crummy run leg. A moderate swim effort may be only 1-2
min slower overall, while a moderate bike effort might well be 1 min A MILE slower, and even more
on the run.

I just did the Chattanooga dam triathlon over the weekend (2:32:??, slightly longer than olympic
distance because of the 43k bike ride). I swam at a pace that would put me ~2 mins slower than an
all-out effort at that distance and it was easy enough that it didn't cause problems later in the
race. I really didn't even feel warmed up until the second half of the swim. My swim split was
roughly 28 minutes, so I suspect the course may have been shortened a little or I was getting pulled
by the mass of other swimmers. I know that I didn't burn myself out too badly on the swim or the
bike, since I was able to do the 10k run in 44:30, which is a pace I've typically done in 15k runs
and shorter duathlons.

But, for the sprint triathlon I've got coming up in three weeks, I feel confident enough now to go
ahead kick harder and do the 800M swim at only 15 - 20 seconds slower than an all out effort, since
I've only got a 17 mile ride and 3 mile run afterwards.

Anyway, thanks for the info.

Quoted message said:

That makes sense, it seems to me that I can always shave few seconds off a distance kicking
harder, but the downside is that I might be increasing the effort by 25% to get a 5% increase in
speed, something that would be fine in a swim meet, but a killer in a triathlon.

The longer the distance, the less bang for your buck you will get out of the kick. In sprints (swim
sprints, not a sprint tri), a big, strong kick is critical, but over 1/2 mi or so, you'll get more
for your energy putting it into the stroke (or holding it in reserve for the next legs).

Quoted message said:

I just did the Chattanooga dam triathlon over the weekend (2:32:??, slightly longer than olympic
distance because of the 43k bike ride). I swam at a pace that would put me ~2 mins slower than an
all-out effort at that distance and it was easy enough that it didn't cause problems later in the
race. I really didn't even feel warmed up until the second half of the swim. My swim split was
roughly 28 minutes, so I suspect the course may have been shortened a little or I was getting
pulled by the mass of other swimmers. I know that I didn't burn myself out too badly on the swim
or the bike, since I was able to do the 10k run in 44:30, which is a pace I've typically done in
15k runs and shorter duathlons.

Yes, you clearly will get pulled, especially if you do it right. 2 min off your all-out effort, yet
it was fairly easy - sounds like you found a very good balance between speed and effort. You might
try practicing the distance with a little faster pace, and seeing how that works - do you go faster
with little noticeable tiring, or do you die without going much faster? It's always a hard balance
to make, but that's where training comes in.

Quoted message said:

But, for the sprint triathlon I've got coming up in three weeks, I feel confident enough now to go
ahead kick harder and do the 800M swim at only 15 - 20 seconds slower than an all out effort,
since I've only got a 17 mile ride and 3 mile run afterwards.

Anyway, thanks for the info.

If this isn't an important race, by all means try it out! There's no place better to test race
tactics than in a race! Either way, if you do well or if you blow, you'll know better for next time.
My guess is that 2 sec per 100m slower than max effort is going to put you closer to the
tired-and-not-much-faster end. I'd also guess is that if you're in solid swimming shape (and it
sounds like you may well be!), 4-5 sec might be closer to where you want to be. But again, that's
only a guess! And of course, if you find that you're not being able to maintain the fast pace, you
can always back it off a bit.

(topdog) said:

Quoted message said:

That makes sense, it seems to me that I can always shave few seconds off a distance kicking
harder, but the downside is that I might be increasing the effort by 25% to get a 5% increase in
speed, something that would be fine in a swim meet, but a killer in a triathlon.

The longer the distance, the less bang for your buck you will get out of the kick. In sprints (swim
sprints, not a sprint tri), a big, strong kick is critical, but over 1/2 mi or so, you'll get more
for your energy putting it into the stroke (or holding it in reserve for the next legs).

Quoted message said:

I just did the Chattanooga dam triathlon over the weekend (2:32:??, slightly longer than olympic
distance because of the 43k bike ride). I swam at a pace that would put me ~2 mins slower than an
all-out effort at that distance and it was easy enough that it didn't cause problems later in the
race. I really didn't even feel warmed up until the second half of the swim. My swim split was
roughly 28 minutes, so I suspect the course may have been shortened a little or I was getting
pulled by the mass of other swimmers. I know that I didn't burn myself out too badly on the swim
or the bike, since I was able to do the 10k run in 44:30, which is a pace I've typically done in
15k runs and shorter duathlons.

Yes, you clearly will get pulled, especially if you do it right. 2 min off your all-out effort, yet
it was fairly easy - sounds like you found a very good balance between speed and effort. You might
try practicing the distance with a little faster pace, and seeing how that works - do you go faster
with little noticeable tiring, or do you die without going much faster? It's always a hard balance
to make, but that's where training comes in.

From my recent experience (mostly in a 25 yd pool, unfortunately), it takes a great deal more effort
to shave 30 seconds off 1000 yds. Granted, my times are still coming down pretty regularly, but it
always makes for a moderately easy workout to do 1000 yds at 30 seconds slower than my latest PR,
unless I'm extremely fatigued from biking and/or running the day before.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But, for the sprint triathlon I've got coming up in three weeks, I feel confident enough now to
go ahead kick harder and do the 800M swim at only 15 - 20 seconds slower than an all out effort,
since I've only got a 17 mile ride and 3 mile run afterwards.

Anyway, thanks for the info.

If this isn't an important race, by all means try it out! There's no place better to test race
tactics than in a race! Either way, if you do well or if you blow, you'll know better for next
time. My guess is that 2 sec per 100m slower than max effort is going to put you closer to the
tired-and-not-much-faster end. I'd also guess is that if you're in solid swimming shape (and it
sounds like you may well be!), 4-5 sec might be closer to where you want to be. But again, that's
only a guess! And of course, if you find that you're not being able to maintain the fast pace, you
can always back it off a bit.

And I'll also plan on getting in a good 25 min. warmup in the water for this one like I usually do
in training, since bonking is not a concern at this distance. I always do this on my swim practice
sessions, but often don't get enough warmup in the actual races because of logistical issues, not
getting there early enough, not being able to find everything I need, etc.

Quoted message said:

From my recent experience (mostly in a 25 yd pool, unfortunately), it takes a great deal more
effort to shave 30 seconds off 1000 yds. Granted, my times are still coming down pretty regularly,
but it always makes for a moderately easy workout to do 1000 yds at 30 seconds slower than my
latest PR, unless I'm extremely fatigued from biking and/or running the day before.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But, for the sprint triathlon I've got coming up in three weeks, I feel confident enough now to
go ahead kick harder and do the 800M swim at only 15 - 20 seconds slower than an all out
effort, since I've only got a 17 mile ride and 3 mile run afterwards.

Anyway, thanks for the info.

If this isn't an important race, by all means try it out! There's no place better to test race
tactics than in a race! Either way, if you do well or if you blow, you'll know better for next
time. My guess is that 2 sec per 100m slower than max effort is going to put you closer to the
tired-and-not-much-faster end. I'd also guess is that if you're in solid swimming shape (and it
sounds like you may well be!), 4-5 sec might be closer to where you want to be. But again, that's
only a guess! And of course, if you find that you're not being able to maintain the fast pace,
you can always back it off a bit.

And I'll also plan on getting in a good 25 min. warmup in the water for this one like I usually do
in training, since bonking is not a concern at this distance. I always do this on my swim practice
sessions, but often don't get enough warmup in the actual races because of logistical issues, not
getting there early enough, not being able to find everything I need, etc.

The best way to learn good race tactics is in an actual race. If it's not the race you are really
preparing for, don't be afraid to try out things, such as going at a faster\slower pace to see what
effect it will have.

My guess is that if you can do the 1000 as you mentioned - moderately, and still finish but 30sec
off your all-out 1000 time, this is where you want to be. 30 seconds is NOT that big of a
difference, especially in a race that's long enough to have a 1000m swim! By keeping your HR down
and conserving energy, you should be able to more than make up the difference in your next two legs,
whereas if you went all-out in the swim, you'd almost certainly go a lot slower after you got out of
the water.