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.

Determinants of Masters Swimming Performance: Part II

Take Home Points

1) Low volume/high intensity training block can sustain middle distance masters swimming performance after a base period.
2) Sprint master swimming performance can improve in this scheme
3) Be careful of drawing strong conclusions from studies lacking a control group where passage of time may be a driving factor for improvements

In a previous post on determinants of masters swim performance, we discussed biological qualities affecting masters swimmers. Based on recent research, we’ll now discuss training factors training factors may influence masters swimming performance. First, to recap the prior literature, findings have shown that relative age within an age group, limb length, and grip strength may be important factors biologically. However, other than grip strength, other biological qualities are fixed, meaning we can’t effect change through training in these areas. (Note, Dr. Barbosa recently published a study on the role of biomechanics in masters swimmers)

High volume versus high intensity is an ongoing debate, with modern research suggesting the value of high intensity training. As they note, some studies have suggested that overall training intensity may be more important than training volume for improving masters swimming performance. However, these studies were focused on very young subjects and/or the difference between high-volume and high-intensity training was blurred.

The most recent study (Pugliese 2015) applied a blocked periodization model to a group of masters swimmers. Now, masters swimming often lacks formal periodization, with many swimmers content to follow the same week-to-week routine throughout the calendar year. That’s not a critique of masters coaching, it is simply a fact of the culture, which is much different than the age group world. Periodization in masters swimming is often built more around kids’ school calendars, vacations, and triathlon season than optimizing master swimming performance.

In the study, subjects trained six weeks with low intensity, high volume training, followed by six weeks reduced volume with high intensity training. After the first block significant improvements were noted in O2 peak, 400m time trial performance, and anaerobic threshold. After the second six week block, speed at anaerobic threshold and 100m time trial masters swimming performance improved, but other performance variables did not.

What does this study contribute? First, as authors note, a period of reduced volume and higher intensity can enhance sprint performance after a high volume base period. Likewise it can sustain fitness for middle distance events after a lower intensity/higher volume base period. Generally, this research is consistent with the seminal work by Neufer (1987) and Costill (1991) in this area.

More practically, this is also a reminder to masters swimmers that even if commitments outside the pool force you away from your normal training regime, a low volume-high intensity regime can maintain your fitness so that you can resume quality training at a similar level in the future.

One weakness in this study is a lack of a control group. Yes, swimmers improved in the second condition (lower volume, higher intensity), but might they have also improved had they stayed on the same training program as the first six weeks? We simply don’t know that answer. Further, it is possible that middle and long distance master swimming performance would have been improved in the low volume-high intensity condition with a shorter taper period.

Conclusion on Determinants of Masters Swimming Performance

Overall, this research confirms what most would intuitively suspect. Most important is that we have more data on periodization in a masters population, which is lacking the research depth of age group swimming. Though cultural factors often make periodization difficult to apply in a masters setting, know that manipulating the schedule is one way to achieve gains in this setting.

References

1) Pugliese L, Porcelli S, Bonato M, Pavei G, La Torre A, Maggioni MA, Bellistri G, Marzorati M. Effects of Manipulating Volume and Intensity Training in Masters Swimmers. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2015 Feb 24. [Epub ahead of print]
2) Neufer PD, Costill DL, Fielding RA, Flynn MG, Kirwan JP. Effect of reduced training on muscular strength and endurance in competitive swimmers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1987 Oct;19(5):486-90.
3) Costill DL, Thomas R, Robergs RA, Pascoe D, Lambert C, Barr S, Fink WJ. Adaptations to swimming training: influence of training volume. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1991 Mar;23(3):371-7.

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 Determinants of Masters Swimming Performance: Part II appeared first on Swimming Science.