Do Swimmers Pace Themselves Properly?

By Dr. G. John Mullen

Pacing is a vital element of most swim races, avoiding the slowdown and potentially damaging homeostatic disturbance. The brain or central governor also plays a role in regulating fatigue and is believed to prevent damage, limiting an athlete’s absolute physiological capacity.

Do Swimmers Pace Themselves Properly?

Skorski (2014) had 15 competitive freestyle swimmers (F=5, M=10; 14-23 y) completed three 400-m freestyle trials:

Self-selected pace
Fast pace (3% faster) during the first 100-m
Slow pace (3% slower) during the first 100-m

Swimming velocities were manipulated with either a flashing-light system or by acoustic signals.

Overall, the swimmers completed the slow pace trial at 4.5% slower on the first 100-m and 2.4% faster during the fast trial. The self-selected pacing strategy was likely to cause the fastest performances. However, 7 of the 15 subjects recorded the fasted time in the manipulated race (3 in the fast pace and 4 in the slow pace). On average, swimmers were 0.6% faster in the self selected pacing strategy.

In this study, the self-selected pacing strategy resulted in the most even split race strategy. The fast pacing condition had a lower stroke rate in end of the race, there were no differences in stroke rate in the slow and self-selected pacing strategy.

Overall, it seems the self-selected pacing strategy is best for most swimmers. However, a significant portion of swimmers do benefit from either a slower or faster pacing strategy.

One thing to keep in mind, this study informed the swimmers of their pace, letting them know if they were going at a fast, slow, or self-selected pace, but what would happen if you deceived the swimmers…

Deception Pacing in Swimming

Taylor (2014) had eight non-elite, competitive triathletes (M=7, F=1; ~40.5 years) with a weekly average training of 1.7 hours per week − 1 swimming, 2.3 hours per week − 1 cycling, 2.2 hours per week − 1 running and 1.3 hours per week− 1 strength and conditioning.

Then, each participant was misinformed about the purpose of the study, noting the reliability and validity of simulated sprint-distance triathlon performance and physiological responses.

The participants completed three separate simulated sprint-distance triathlons. These trials were performed at the same time of day and separated by a minimum of 3 days. The swim and bike were set at controlled paces, then the treadmill on the run was set at 3% faster, 3% slower, and normal conditions.

Physiological and psychological responses were monitored.

There were no significant differences observed between the individual triathlon disciplines, including the run. However, the fastest run (and overall triathlon) time to be achieved during the 3% faster trial.

No significant global effects of deception condition were found on HR, VO2, Ve or RER. However, significant distance effects were revealed for HR.

Although not significant, the correlation of fastest time with most deceptive training is interesting. This suggests expectations or beliefs play a key role in the brains regulation of exercise intensity.

Also, the lack of physiological correlations with different times suggest that these disturbances may be an indirect cause of self-selected exercise intensity.

Stone (2012) had nine trained male cyclist perform a 4000-m cycling time trial.

Then, each subject returned for four 4,000-m time trials at 70% VO2peak. The trials were:

1. Normal 4,000-m for familiarization

2. 4,000-m for baseline (BL)

3. 4,000-m with accurate representation of their baseline performance (ACC)

4. 4,000-m with the power output of the avatar at 102% of baseline (DEC)

Oxygen uptake (VO2) and respiratory exchange ratio (RER) were measured during each trial. RPE was requested on the completion of the cycling.

The results suggest a significant between-trials main effect for RPE. RPE after DEC was significantly greater than BL. No difference between trials for mean cadence, VO2peak, HRpeak, or RER.

DEC and ACC was completed in a significantly shorter time than baseline. Mean power output was greater for DEC than ACC or BL.

These results indicate performance in the DEC group resulted in a 1.7% improvement than the baseline and a 1.0% improved compared to the ACC group. This suggests “cyclists typically operate with a metabolic reserve even during maximal time trial performance and that this reserve can be accessed after deception (Stone 2012).”

Deception Pacing in Swimmers

Overall, we can only take so much away from the aforementioned deception trials as the Taylor and Stone articles did not look at swimmers. However, it seems most athletes have a physiological reserve and expectation of a result from a training pace. Therefore, if you can deceive the swimmer of the training pace, you might have swimmers exhaust their metabolic reserves and have the potential for swimming performance.

How to Deceive Swimmers

Coaches have been deceiving swimmers for years. In practices, telling them incorrect times, letting them feel faster than they actually performed. Also, at meets asking swimmers to go faster when they are already going fast. These used methods are two possible options.

Another possible method is with an Endless Pool. In this option, the coach can set the pace for a swimmer without them knowing, allowing them to train at a greater pace.

Another option is to have a coach set a tempo trainer for a 12.5 or 25 pace, then have the swimmer perform at this pace.

These are two methods of training deception. Unfortunately, competition deception is much harder. However, if you can train harder, hopefully the swimmer will compete better.

One item not discussed is the ethics of deception training. As a coach, you must truly analyze how you’ll use deception training and how to use it as a beneficial aide. There is not simple answer for this use, so good luck and use deception training wisely, if you dare…

References:

Taylor D, Smith MF. Effects of deceptive running speed on physiology, perceptual responses, and performance during sprint-distance triathlon. Physiol Behav. 2014 May 10. pii: S0031-9384(14)00257-1. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.002. [Epub ahead of print]
Stone MR, Thomas K, Wilkinson M, Jones AM, St Clair Gibson A, Thompson KG. Effects of deception on exercise performance: implications for determinants of fatigue in humans.Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012 Mar;44(3):534-41.
Skorski S, Faude O, Abbiss CR, Caviezel S, Wengert N, Meyer T. Influence of pacing manipulation on performance of juniors in simulated 400-m swim competition. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2014 Sep;9(5):817-24. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2013-0469. Epub 2014 Jan 15.

If you liked this review, consider purchasing the Swimming Science Research Review: The influx of online information makes it difficult to stay up-to-date with informative, accurate research studies. The Swimming Science Research Review brings you a comprehensive research articles on swimming, biomechanics, physiology, psychology, and much more! This monthly publication keeps busy coaches and swimming enthusiast on top of swimming research to help their programs excel, despite being extremely busy. Click here to purchase!

Name*

Email*

Welcome to our community. We invite you to join our discussion. Our community guidelines are simple: be respectful and constructive, keep on topic, and support your fellow commenters. Commenting signifies that you agree to our Terms of Use

Name*

Email*

1 Comment

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Richard Piotrowski

9 years ago

Dr. Mullen

We have begun to collect some interesting evidence to support your assertions – evidence that was obtained by using our LED training product (LumaLanes) – which confirms the evidence that was collected 20 years ago using an earlier iteration of a light pacing product. If you would like more detailed information – please contact us for further information.

1) We have on our website a video of Coach Jeff Dugdale (Director of High Performance of Team Elite in Charlotte NC, and also Head Coach of Queen’s University Charlotte), who describes the performance of an elite swimmer who swam 4 x 200 butterfly – and obtained some incredible results while she was using our lights. In this case, the swimmer knew what pace she was trying to achieve – and did it. (Another well know D1 College coach was on deck, and can verify her results).

2) A second result was obtained with deception. We delivered a beta version of LumaLanes to these groups of elite and college swimmers last May. On the first day, coach Dugdale dropped our lights into the water, and then proceeded to set up 4 x 100 m freestyle sets. One of his female swimmers (a breaststroker) had never swam a sub-1 mim 100 m free. The coach didn’t tell the swimmer the times that he set the lights (1:05, 1:03, 1:01 and then 0.59). The swimmer only knew that the lights were getting faster. On the fourth 100, she swam sub one minute – for the first time in her life.

When we communicated these results to Dr. David Pendergast, a professor of Physiology at the University of Buffalo (he is one of the patent authors), he told us that this happened frequently with their older system 20 years ago. They attributed the results to psychological breakthroughs directly attributable to following the pace of the lights (swimmers reserve energy in the middle of a race hoping to finish strong, but cannot make up the time at the end that they reserved in the middle). We have also listed all the scholarly articles published by Dr. Pendergast on our website ( About Us > Academic Research).

With respect to deception: the User Interface on our software application allows the coach to easily adjust the pace. In other words, the swimmer would be told that the sets are being comprised of one thing, and after swimming one or two at that pace, the coach can surreptitiously increase the pace (make a minute less than a minute).

With respect to competition deception, we also have some interesting evidence to share here as well.

We would be happy to participate in any other research on pacing that you wish to pursue.

Richard Piotrowski
Co-Founder