ISCA Coach Education Program

We are thrilled that after about a year of production and development, the ISCA Education Program has officially launched!

The program is available online internationally and features evidence-based curriculum developed by sport scientists specifically for swim coaches. Our modern education portal is easy to navigate and secure, with transcript tracking and interactive course content.

ISCA Certification is available for coaches that are ISCA members and also complete the six core science-based courses (Biomechanics 101 & 102, Physiology 101 & 102, and Sport Psychology 101 & 102). The science behind swimming is something that all coaches need to understand to be effective and successful–and we look forward to providing this crucial piece of education to coaches around the world.

Get started today on the ISCA Education Portal: https://isca.courselaunch.com/

Learn more about ISCA Education: https://swimisca.org/education/

Get the details on ISCA Certification: https://swimisca.org/education/certification/

Demo an ISCA course: https://swimisca.org/courses/demo18/content/

Masters Swimming: 2014 FINA World Top-10

Take Home Message on Masters Swimming Performance:
1. The aim was to compare the performance in some of the most popular events across different master´s age-groups and elite counterparts (50, 100, 200 and 400 LCM freestyle);
2. The average race speed decreases with age in the four selected events;
3. Elite swimmers are more homogeneous than remaining age-groups. The coefficient of variation (an index of how competitive is an event within an age-group) is rather low (i.e. highly competitive) till the 65-69y for the sprints and by 50-54y and 55-59y for long-distances events;
4. The partial difference between elite and master swimmers increases with the distance. Master swimmers are able to keep a difference up to 10% of elites´ performance till their 40-44 years-old. The sharp decreases happen from this age on.

Masters swimming competitions are increasingly popular these days. It is all about racing, competitions and bonding Not your typical masters swimmerfor a lot of middle-aged people (some are former competitive swimmers and others that never were). A little bit more of belly hiding the 6 pack, not as bulky as they used to be, but the same desire to touch the wall in the first place as 2-3 decades ago. The number of competitions in US, Australia, Europe and Asia is increasing at fast-pace. For instance, in Japan (and probably in other countries) almost every weekend is held at least one master competition. Checking the times posted by people in their 40s-50s one will be surprised how fast these guys still are. I will showcase with two swimmers in the 2014 FINA Master World top-10 ranking (LCM): (i) Brent Barnes (SIN, 55-59) ranked 1st in the 50 free with 25.83s; (ii) José Freitas (POR, 50-54) ranked 2nd in the 200 free with 2:07.64s. And yes, the nationalities were not chosen randomly, you are right…

Determinants of Masters Swimming Performance

As far as research concerns, there is a major drawback. Of the papers published on masters swimming, fitness-oriented and recreational subjects are often recruited for research on performance. It is just like assessing a saloon (some countries named it as “sedan”) to learn how to improve a GT car. The GT car resembles a sedan, have similar car body design, but completely different components under the bonnet. Well, that´s my two cents. Others are entitled to their opinion and I respect them. Only a few research papers share evidence on “competitive” masters swimmers, including those that retired as competitive athletes and shift to master swim (e.g. Mejias et al., 2014). There is a lot to learn on masters swimming. Probably this is one of the most interesting topics to carry out research and only now we started to gather some insights.

As happens with elite and young counterparts, master´s performance is related to the biomechanical and energetic profiles (Ferreira et al., 2014; 2015). You can always re-cap some of these factors referring to the pieces published here on the Swimming Science by Allan Phillips #1 #2. Today, though, I will focus on the main outcome: performance. My aim is to compare the performance in some of the most popular events (men´s 50, 100, 200 and 400 LCM freestyle) across different master´s age-groups and elite counterparts. Times were retrieved from the 2014 FINA master world top-10 rankings and 2014 FINA rankings for the top-10 elite swimmers.

Analysis of Masters Swimming Top-10

As expected the average race speed decreases with increasing age in the four events (Fig 1). Comparing elite swimmers with the 25-29 age-group we can see a sharp decrease, even though both are somewhere in their 20s. In an earlier piece I reported the same findings. In sport science, there is a discussion about nature and nurture. Here we have a clue that albeit nature is important, other factors play determinant roles. Age might have a significant effect, but something else is also involved in the performance impairment over time.

The vertical lines represent the data dispersion i.e., how competitive is an event within an age-group. Narrow vertical lines represent low dispersion (hence, times are very close together being a very competitive event). Overall, it seems that as the distance increase, likewise the dispersion also increases (i.e. less competitive). However in a given event, the competitive level is not homogeneous. For example, refer to the 400 free (red line): the 35-39 and 45-49 age-groups are less competitive than the 40-44 and following ones. With that said, the main trend is to the performance dispersion increase with age (e.g. 50 free, 100 free and 200 free). At least in these three events younger master swimmers deliver more consistent performances than the older counterparts. I am confident on that all the way till the 90-94y. From this age onwards we find less than 10 swimmers per event, therefore not so sure.

Figure 1 with legend

To have a deeper insight I will report three basic statistics to quantify the changes (table 1): (i) the mean; (ii) the median – it splits the data into lower and upper half. If I report that the median income in a country is 2,000 dollars it means that at least half of the population earns that much and the other half more than 2k. Hence, if in a group of 10 swimmers the median is 2.00m/s it means that at least 5 swimmer race at that speed or faster; (iii) coefficient of variation – it is a standardized measure of dispersion. It enables us to learn how competitive the swimmers are within an age-group. The parameter ranges between 0 and 100%. If theoretically all the 10 swimmers have exactly the same time this is extremely competitive and the coefficient returns the value of 0%. So, lower the coefficient of variation, more tightly and close together are the performances (0% means very competitive; 100% not so competitive).

Now, I will explain how to interpret the data for the 45-49 age-group in the 400 free event and then you can do it yourself for the remaining events and age-groups (table 1). On average, the 2014 top-10 45-49y swimmers raced at 1.63m/s (mean), half of them at least at 1.52 m/s (median) and there is a data dispersion of 19.83% (coefficient of variation). Obviously elite swimmers are more homogeneous than remaining age-groups. The coefficient of variation is rather low till the 65-69y for the 50 and 100 free, by 50-54y and 55-59y for remaining events.

tabe 1 with legend

Another way to do the analysis is comparing the partial difference (i.e. %) instead of the absolute values (i.e. m/s). So, we must consider that elite swimmers show the best performances (100%). From here I did the calculation of how much does represent the performance at a given age-group in percentage. The top panel are the average values and the bottom is the same data after modelling it. When we read a good textbook most of the times we find nice, smooth and beautiful graphs because it is data modeled. It is easier to understand a concept having the “smoothed” data, there is little variance and random noise in the dataset. Today I am providing both ways to depict the performance change over time.

The partial difference is higher in the 400 free and lower in the 50 free. So, the partial difference increases with the distance. According to the model (Fig2, bottom) master swimmers are able to keep a difference up to 10% till the 40-44y. At 80-84 and 85-89y the swimmers deliver 50% of the elites´ performances. Between mid-20s and late 40s swimmers are able to keep a fairly stable performance (i.e. slight decrease over these 15-20 years). The sharp impairment happens from this age on; despite there is no clear inflection point. Hence, we cannot set a milestone as “this is the age when everything shifts so we must pay extra attention”.

figure 2 with legend
As shared at the beginning, energetics is a major player. For instance in one of our research projects, aerobic metabolism was the major contributor to total energy expenditure in the 200 free in both genders, albeit the partial aerobic contribution was higher in women and the partial anaerobic contribution greater in men (Ferreira et al., 2014). It is not clear if this is completely due to the gender or the performance level. Because men posted were better times than women. So it might be a gender effect, a performance effect or an interaction between gender and performance level. However, in masters swimming it is very challenging to improve the energetics if they are already in shape. To build-up further these parameters one must increase the external training load i.e., train more often or for longer to increase the training volume, intensity and elicit such energetic pathways. This is a big challenge for a masters swimmer that has to juggle work and family commitments. If one manages to train a little bit more and harder, on the flip side of the coin are the overuse injuries due to the increase in the external training load. With aging, the odds of an injury increase significantly. Another strategy might be to preserve the energetics as much as possible and concurrently improve the technique (Ferreira et al., 2015). However, at least “young” masters that were former elite swimmers showed to be able to have the same swimming efficiency (Mejias et al., 2014). In comparison to elite swimmers, these masters clearly impaired the energetics (V4, vVO2max, peakVO2, total energy expenditure), but kept the stroke length and propelling efficiency.

It seems that there are several ways to enhance the performance in masters swimming and one should tailor a solution that best fit his/her specific characteristics, background and goals. Nevertheless, we are still in an early stage of gathering knowledge on masters swimming. Research is eagerly needed so that we are in conditions to design more effective and efficient training programs to these swimmers.

References:
1. Ferreira, M. I., Barbosa, T. M., Neiva, H. P., Vilaça-Alves, J., Costa, M. J., & Marinho, D. A. (2014). Changes of the energetic profile in masters swimmers over a season. The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness. Online-first.
2. Ferreira, M. I., Barbosa, T. M., Neiva, H. P., Marta, C. C., Costa, M. J., Marinho, D. A. & Bolama, R. M. D. A. (2015). The effect of gender, energetics and biomechanics on swimming masters performance. Journal of strength and conditioning research. Online-first.
3. Mejias, J. E., Bragada, J. A., Costa, M. J., Reis, V. M., Garrido, N. D., & Barbosa, T. M. (2014). “Young” masters vs. elite swimmers: comparison of performance, energetics, kinematics and efficiency: original research article. International SportMed Journal, 15(2), 165-177.

By Tiago M. Barbosa PhD degree recipient in Sport Sciences and faculty at the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

The post Masters Swimming: 2014 FINA World Top-10 appeared first on Swimming Science.

Finishing the Freestyle Swimming Stroke

Take Home Points
1) Several factors determine the optimal exit point in the stroke.
2) Coaches should rethink the old adage of “finish the stroke mid-thigh”.
3) Proper cuing may help swimmers organize individual factors.

One of the old adages in stroke pedagogy is that the hand should finish all the way to mid-thigh during the freestyle swimming stroke. This makes logical sense, as you would not want to cheat a swimmer out of any propulsion during the stroke. But is it optimal for swimmer to attempt to finish the stroke as far down the leg as possible? Though once thought to be gospel in swimming, this cue has been increasingly challenged in modern stroke teaching. (For additional discussion see How to Swim Freestyle)

Despite a lack of published evidence on the topic, high speed motion capture has allowed leading stroke analysts to dissect the realities underwater. As Russell Mark of USA Swimming recently posted,

“The hand finishes at the hip not the thigh. Lead the finish with your elbow. Keeps forearm and palm pushing water back. It’s ok to release water early. Snapping the hand out the back is easy to freestyle swimming strokedo, but can lead to over-rotating and compromise the catch. Most importantly it can also put the shoulder at injury risk.”

As to the injury component, a fully outstretched arm at the finish of the freestyle swimming stroke can put the shoulder in a position of internal rotation, adduction, and extension. This is not the most dangerous position for the shoulder, but with repetitive use it can contribute to injury, especially when paired with suboptimal trunk and hip movements.

The “thumb to thigh drill” remains popular for many in stroke teaching, though has fallen out of favor with some. Remember that both the freestyle swimming stroke length and stroke rate matter. Extending the finish may improve stroke length but may cost too much in stroke rate. One theory is that practicing this drill may cause motor confusion, as it bears very close resemblance to the full stroke.

Another potential factor is interference drag, which is the turbulence caused by different parts of the body upon one another in the freestyle swimming stroke. Prolonging the finish to the stroke may cause drag between the arms, trunk, and legs. As Maglischo writes, “It seems reasonable to assume that unnecessary, vigorous, forceful movements of any body parts should retard forward speed through the mechanism of interference drag.” Though the arms obviously have a job to do and can’t exit the water too early, excessive time in proximity to the thigh could cause unnecessary drag.

Both Maglischo and Prins recognize this factor remains hypothetical based more on theory than firm evidence. Yet in an interview for this site, Prins offered two non-freestyle examples noting “ Soni’s breaststroke pull (rounding out early) could be one way to minimize interference drag. Lochte’s arms exiting the water sooner in backstroke may be another way to minimize interference drag.”

Finally, if the goal is to extend the finish in the freestyle swimming stroke, one strategy may be to cue the swimmer about the result, but let him/her self-select a movement strategy. Going back to the idea of External Focus cues, the cue of “push the water back longer” may be a better cue than telling the swimmer to “brush the thumb to the thigh.” The former reminds the swimmer to maximize propulsion at the finish; the latter focuses on body parts and may force the swimmer into a suboptimal pattern for his/her own body.

Conclusion on the Finish of the Freestyle Swimming Stroke

Remember too that lengthening the freestyle swimming stroke at the finish inevitably has consequences elsewhere. As both Russell Mark and Dr. Prins have observed, excess rotation is another common flaw tied to traditional adages (“swim on your side”). Lengthening the finish, as Mark notes, may contribute to excess trunk and hip rotation. Yet despite these critiques, remember that most of these concepts remain unproven at the highest levels of evidence. Still, coaches should be reminded to not accept adage as gospel and can utilize technology evaluate stroke changes as underwater motion capture becomes more commonplace in the field.

Reference:

  1. Maglischo, E. Swimming Fastest. 2003

Written by Allan Phillips is a certified strength and conditioning specialist (CSCS) and owner of Pike Athletics. He is also an ASCA Level II coach and USA Triathlon coach. Allan is a co-author of the Troubleshooting System and was selected by Dr. Mullen as an assistant editor of the Swimming Science Research Review. He is currently pursuing a Doctorate in Physical Therapy at US Army-Baylor University.

The post Finishing the Freestyle Swimming Stroke appeared first on Swimming Science.