hello, I was swimmning with a pull buoy to work on arm placement etc.. w/ free style.. I was using a larger size buoy- swim was great. The following day, worked with a smaller size buoy and found the swim akward, could swimming with a smaller buoy negatively impact a swim? I found it easier to swim with the larger buoy this was the kind that are one piece..
KOS wrote: > hello, > I was swimmning with a pull buoy to work on arm placement etc.. w/ > free style.. I was using a larger size buoy- swim was great. The > following day, worked with a smaller size buoy and found the swim > akward, could swimming with a smaller buoy negatively impact a swim? > I found it easier to swim with the larger buoy this was the kind that > are one piece..
You're trying to get to a place where you can concentrate on your arms - just use whichever kind you like best and that's all there is to it.
On Dec 18, 10:10 pm, KOS <computerstu...@excite.com> wrote:
> hello, > I was swimmning with a pull buoy to work on arm placement etc.. w/ > free style.. I was using a larger size buoy- swim was great. The > following day, worked with a smaller size buoy and found the swim > akward, could swimming with a smaller buoy negatively impact a swim? > I found it easier to swim with the larger buoy this was the kind that > are one piece..
If the smaller one was awkward because it didn't hold your legs up, then use the bigger one. The purpose of the buoy is to keep your legs on the surface, so if it doesn't do that, it isn't useful. If it was awkward because it was hard to grip between your legs, again, use the bigger one. You hold it all the way at the top of your legs, not further down.
Another technique, not for the faint-hearted, is to use a rubber band cut from an automobile inner tube. You twist it and put one loop over each foot. Then you try to swim dragging your legs with no flotation at all. Hard work. I hated it, but I have to admit it did force me to find ways to make my pull more efficient.
> hello, > I was swimmning with a pull buoy to work on arm placement etc.. w/ > free style.. I was using a larger size buoy- swim was great. The > following day, worked with a smaller size buoy and found the swim > akward, could swimming with a smaller buoy negatively impact a swim? > I found it easier to swim with the larger buoy this was the kind that > are one piece..
I know this will sound like heresy, as coaches all seem to like anything that involves equipment, but I'd question the value of pull buoys at all. They don't increase drag in water much, so there's little if any strength training gain, and if you are using them for 'arm placement', surely you are developing an arm placement which will not apply when you start using your legs. I don't see the point of training for something you are not going to do (you don't race or even leisure swim with a pull buoy do you?) The only value I see in a pull buoy is to keep your legs afloat of you have an injury down there, so you can keep the rest of you training until your legal are ready to use again. I know this is an unorthodox thing to say, but so was 'The Emperor has no clothes on!', then everyobody realised he didn't. -- Duncan Heenan
On Dec 20, 9:15 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "KOS" <computerstu...@excite.com> wrote in message > The only > value I see in a pull buoy is to keep your legs afloat of you have an injury > down there, so you can keep the rest of you training until your legal are > ready to use again. > I know this is an unorthodox thing to say, but so was 'The Emperor has no > clothes on!', then everyobody realised he didn't.
That IS the purpose of the pull buoy, to keep the legs in the proper position when you aren't using them. But this isn't just for the injured. It also helps people whose legs are too deep because their form is bad. It can be very revealing to feel what it is like for your legs to be in the correct position, when you have been swimming for a time in the wrong position.
>They don't increase drag in water much,
Yes, but if you have a good kick, then swimming with a pull buoy subtractsthe thrust of your kick and increases the load on your upper body, which is the purpose for people with good kicks. On the other hand, I was always able to swim faster with a pull buoy than without, because my kick provides balance but no thrust at all.
Yes, but if you have a good kick, then swimming with a pull buoy subtractsthe thrust of your kick and increases the load on your upper body, which is the purpose for people with good kicks. On the other hand, I was always able to swim faster with a pull buoy than without, because my kick provides balance but no thrust at all. -------------------- Same here. -- Duncan Heenan
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 03:37:36 -0800 (PST), MW Smith wrote: > Yes, but if you have a good kick, then swimming with a pull buoy > subtractsthe thrust of your kick and increases the load on your upper > body
No.
Hollander et al showed that the force produced when swimming with a pull bouy averaged 12% less than with full stroke swimming.
On Dec 20, 2:20 pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 03:37:36 -0800 (PST), MW Smith wrote: > > Yes, but if you have a good kick, then swimming with a pull buoy > > subtractsthe thrust of your kick and increases the load on your upper > > body
> No.
> Hollander et al showed that the force produced when swimming with a pull > bouy averaged 12% less than with full stroke swimming.
On Dec 20, 2:20 pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 03:37:36 -0800 (PST), MW Smith wrote: > > Yes, but if you have a good kick, then swimming with a pull buoy > > subtractsthe thrust of your kick and increases the load on your upper > > body
> No.
> Hollander et al showed that the force produced when swimming with a pull > bouy averaged 12% less than with full stroke swimming.
I think I see what you mean, but the lower force would be due to lower speed. So my point still stands. The load on your upper body is increased because of the dead weight of the legs. When the legs are no longer providing thrust, the upper body works harder to do the same amount of work. Otherwise, elite swimmers with good kicks would be breaking world records while using a pull buoy during training, which they aren't doing, as far as I know.
MW Smith wrote: > On Dec 20, 9:15 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> > wrote: >> "KOS" <computerstu...@excite.com> wrote in message >> The only >> value I see in a pull buoy is to keep your legs afloat of you have >> an injury down there, so you can keep the rest of you training until >> your legal are ready to use again. >> I know this is an unorthodox thing to say, but so was 'The Emperor >> has no clothes on!', then everyobody realised he didn't.
> That IS the purpose of the pull buoy, to keep the legs in the proper > position when you aren't using them. But this isn't just for the > injured. It also helps people whose legs are too deep because their > form is bad. It can be very revealing to feel what it is like for your > legs to be in the correct position, when you have been swimming for a > time in the wrong position.
>> They don't increase drag in water much,
> Yes, but if you have a good kick, then swimming with a pull buoy > subtractsthe thrust of your kick and increases the load on your upper > body, which is the purpose for people with good kicks. On the other > hand, I was always able to swim faster with a pull buoy than without, > because my kick provides balance but no thrust at all.
I started off that way - my front crawl kick gave me no forward movement by itself whatsoever, just churned up the water.
I think, in most things, it is beneficial to be able to isolate and work on some part of the whole - not that this is necessary or desirable for everyone, but I found it very educational, a kind of poor man's swimming teacher. I would use buoys along with paddles and work on a slow, powerful stroke and a good glide - this helped me get hands and arms into the best position, again it taught me many things I wouldn't have figured out otherwise. I also used to do kick-only laps to work on that, and it was really rude at first, and only somewhat less rude years later, but it was good for me.
In other words, buoys are a tool and, like any tool, they can used well or poorly, and not needed in some situations. There is no simple answer to be had here, IMHO, as just they're "good" or "not good."
KOS wrote: > hello, > I was swimmning with a pull buoy to work on arm placement etc.. w/ > free style.. I was using a larger size buoy- swim was great. The > following day, worked with a smaller size buoy and found the swim > akward, could swimming with a smaller buoy negatively impact a swim? > I found it easier to swim with the larger buoy this was the kind that > are one piece..
Depending on your skill level, you might try using a kick board instead.
My 12 yr old son's coach has him pulling with a kick board held between his thighs with the long direction vertical as he swims. You want the majority of the board underwater like a sail boat keel. This has helped his axial rotation of his hips and shoulders. His 'catch' of the water after hand entry has improved dramatically and so have his times.
The pull buoys tend to make some swimmers flat in the water probably due to the lack of hip action when there isn't a flutter kick going.
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:45:12 -0800 (PST), MW Smith wrote: > On Dec 20, 2:20 pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> > wrote: >> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 03:37:36 -0800 (PST), MW Smith wrote: >>> Yes, but if you have a good kick, then swimming with a pull buoy >>> subtractsthe thrust of your kick and increases the load on your upper >>> body
>> No.
>> Hollander et al showed that the force produced when swimming with a pull >> bouy averaged 12% less than with full stroke swimming.
> I think I see what you mean, but the lower force would be due to lower > speed.
No.
a) it is not what *I* mean, it is what the facts mean; and
b) lower speed results from the lower force exerted - you confuse cause and effect.
> So my point still stands. The load on your upper body is > increased because of the dead weight of the legs.
_ wrote: > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:45:12 -0800 (PST), MW Smith wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 2:20 pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> >> wrote: >>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 03:37:36 -0800 (PST), MW Smith wrote: >>>> Yes, but if you have a good kick, then swimming with a pull buoy >>>> subtractsthe thrust of your kick and increases the load on your >>>> upper body
>>> No.
>>> Hollander et al showed that the force produced when swimming with a >>> pull bouy averaged 12% less than with full stroke swimming.
>> I think I see what you mean, but the lower force would be due to >> lower speed.
> No.
> a) it is not what *I* mean, it is what the facts mean; and
> b) lower speed results from the lower force exerted - you confuse > cause and effect.
>> So my point still stands. The load on your upper body is >> increased because of the dead weight of the legs.
> No.
> A pull bouy floats; the legs are supported.
This is all semantics and nothing more. All other things being equal, if one's kick provides forward propulsion, not using it will mean, yes, less force is being produced because, duh, you're not kicking. If you attempt to maintain the same speed then, yes, the load on your upper body will be increased. This is all way obvious sort of stuff, MW was right, and you disagreeing with him serves no one.
I killfiled you once before - time to do that again, I see. <sigh>
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:55:31 -0500, Steve Freides wrote: >>>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 03:37:36 -0800 (PST), MW Smith wrote: >>>>> Yes, but if you have a good kick, then swimming with a pull buoy >>>>> subtractsthe thrust of your kick and increases the load on your >>>>> upper body
>>>> No.
>>>> Hollander et al showed that the force produced when swimming with a >>>> pull bouy averaged 12% less than with full stroke swimming.
>>> I think I see what you mean, but the lower force would be due to >>> lower speed.
>> No.
>> a) it is not what *I* mean, it is what the facts mean; and
>> b) lower speed results from the lower force exerted - you confuse >> cause and effect. > This is all semantics and nothing more. All other things being equal, > if one's kick provides forward propulsion, not using it will mean, yes, > less force is being produced because, duh, you're not kicking. If you > attempt to maintain the same speed then, yes, the load on your upper > body will be increased. This is all way obvious sort of stuff,
Such is too simple a view of swimming. The kick and pull are not independant actions, and the inter-relationship between them not only varies with speed but with the individual.
Did you even read the study? If not, you should have; there is an inportant and relevant point there that you seem to have missed.
On Dec 22, 7:46 pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote:
> a) it is not what *I* mean, it is what the facts mean; and
> b) lower speed results from the lower force exerted - you confuse cause and > effect.
Which lower force? Why not just answer the question?
Answer: Because you know that if you answer the question you will be seen to be off point.
> A pull bouy floats; the legs are supported.
What you are saying is the kick provides no thrust for a swimmer with a good kick. You are also saying that an elite swimmer can swim faster with a pull buoy than he can without one. I've never seen an elite swimmer whose personal bests were swum with a pull buoy. Have you?
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:25:26 -0800 (PST), MW Smith wrote: > On Dec 23, 1:53 pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> > wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:03:51 -0800 (PST), MW Smith wrote: >>> On Dec 22, 7:46 pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> >>> wrote:
>>>> a) it is not what *I* mean, it is what the facts mean; and
>>>> b) lower speed results from the lower force exerted - you confuse cause and >>>> effect.
>>> What you are saying is the kick provides no thrust for a swimmer with >>> a good kick.
>> No.
>> I am reporting study results that show that the force is lower, not higher, >> when a pull-bouy is used. You claim the opposite:
> WHAT FORCE? Until you specify what force you are talking about, I > can't respond. So my point stands.
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:25:26 -0800 (PST), MW Smith wrote: > > On Dec 23, 1:53 pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> > > wrote: > >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:03:51 -0800 (PST), MW Smith wrote: > >>> On Dec 22, 7:46 pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> > >>> wrote:
> >>>> a) it is not what *I* mean, it is what the facts mean; and
> >>>> b) lower speed results from the lower force exerted - you confuse cause and > >>>> effect.
> >>> What you are saying is the kick provides no thrust for a swimmer with > >>> a good kick.
> >> No.
> >> I am reporting study results that show that the force is lower, not higher, > >> when a pull-bouy is used. You claim the opposite:
> > WHAT FORCE? Until you specify what force you are talking about, I > > can't respond. So my point stands.
> Force exerted by the arms.
That means two things:
1. Even in elite swimmers, the kick provides no thrust;
2. Elite swimmers can swim faster with a pull buoy than with their kick.
I don't believe either of those, so I'm guessing you interpreted the study wrong.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:13:44 -0800 (PST), MW Smith wrote: > On Dec 23, 7:56 pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> > wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:25:26 -0800 (PST), MW Smith wrote: >>> On Dec 23, 1:53 pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:03:51 -0800 (PST), MW Smith wrote: >>>>> On Dec 22, 7:46 pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> a) it is not what *I* mean, it is what the facts mean; and
>>>>>> b) lower speed results from the lower force exerted - you confuse cause and >>>>>> effect.
>>>>> What you are saying is the kick provides no thrust for a swimmer with >>>>> a good kick.
>>>> No.
>>>> I am reporting study results that show that the force is lower, not higher, >>>> when a pull-bouy is used. You claim the opposite:
>>> WHAT FORCE? Until you specify what force you are talking about, I >>> can't respond. So my point stands.
>> Force exerted by the arms.
> That means two things:
> 1. Even in elite swimmers, the kick provides no thrust;
No.
> 2. Elite swimmers can swim faster with a pull buoy than with their > kick.
No.
> I don't believe either of those, so I'm guessing you interpreted the > study wrong.
No.
"The mean force produced during full stroke swimming was, on average, approximately 12 percent greater."
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:52:42 -0800 (PST), MW Smith wrote: > > On Dec 23, 8:47 pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> > > wrote:
> >> "The mean force produced during full stroke swimming was, on average, > >> approximately 12 percent greater."
> > I understand. I think you misinterpreted the results of the study, > > because what you just said doesn't contradict my point.
> Your point was:
> "...swimming with a pull buoy subtracts the thrust of your kick and > increases the load on your upper body..."
> wich is directly contradicted by the results of the study, which showed > that the force exerted by the arms was LESS, not MORE, when pulling.
Your statement of what the study showed is at best incomplete. I'll stick with my claim that you are misrepresenting the results of the study. In the first place, you are the one who is fond of saying "It's not that simple," but here you are reducing the results for ALL swimmers to a single number. For ALL swimmers, no matter what their size, shape, efficiency of kick, weight, (it just doesn't matter), their arms work 12% less when they have a pull buoy than without one. It beggars belief. You don't even say what the fixed point is. Is the fixed point time a swimmers personal best for a particular distance? Let's use that. You are saying that ths study shows that Michael Phelps can pull 1:51.51 for the 200 fly.
I don't believe that. I believe that when a swimmer with an efficient kick pulls the best time he can swim, his arms have to work harder to generate that same speed.
"the force exerted by the arms was LESS, not MORE, when pulling."
Force exerted for what? You still refuse to specify what you mean. What is the comparison and why won't you say what it is? Can Michael Phelps pull 1:51.51 for 200 fly or 1:42.96 for 200 free? I say he can't, so the study could not have made such comparisons. If Michael Phelps can pull those world record times, then ok, but I assume he can't. If he can't pull that fast, what is being compared?
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:40:32 -0800 (PST), MW Smith wrote: > On Dec 24, 6:31 pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> > wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:52:42 -0800 (PST), MW Smith wrote: >>> On Dec 23, 8:47 pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> >>> wrote:
>>>> "The mean force produced during full stroke swimming was, on average, >>>> approximately 12 percent greater."
>>> I understand. I think you misinterpreted the results of the study, >>> because what you just said doesn't contradict my point.
>> Your point was:
>> "...swimming with a pull buoy subtracts the thrust of your kick and >> increases the load on your upper body..."
>> wich is directly contradicted by the results of the study, which showed >> that the force exerted by the arms was LESS, not MORE, when pulling.
> Your statement of what the study showed is at best incomplete. I'll > stick with my claim that you are misrepresenting the results of the > study.
You'll have to do more than "I say so".
Reading the research might be a good thing to do first.
> In the first place, you are the one who is fond of saying "It's > not that simple," but here you are reducing the results for ALL > swimmers to a single number.
No.
You did this simplification by asserting that "...swimming with a pull buoy subtracts the thrust of your kick and increases the load on your upper body..."
Yes, 12% is a single number, but you apparently missed the word "mean" in the quote above. The full treatment of the data shows that that is a good summary.
> For ALL swimmers, no matter what their > size, shape, efficiency of kick, weight, (it just doesn't matter), > their arms work 12% less when they have a pull buoy than without one.
No.
That is the "mean"
> It beggars belief.
No.
It requires that you understand simple statistical terms.
MW Smith wrote: > On Dec 24, 6:31 pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> > wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:52:42 -0800 (PST), MW Smith wrote: >>> On Dec 23, 8:47 pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> >>> wrote:
>>>> "The mean force produced during full stroke swimming was, on >>>> average, approximately 12 percent greater."
>>> I understand. I think you misinterpreted the results of the study, >>> because what you just said doesn't contradict my point.
>> Your point was:
>> "...swimming with a pull buoy subtracts the thrust of your kick and >> increases the load on your upper body..."
>> wich is directly contradicted by the results of the study, which >> showed that the force exerted by the arms was LESS, not MORE, when >> pulling.
> Your statement of what the study showed is at best incomplete. I'll > stick with my claim that you are misrepresenting the results of the > study. In the first place, you are the one who is fond of saying "It's > not that simple," but here you are reducing the results for ALL > swimmers to a single number. For ALL swimmers, no matter what their > size, shape, efficiency of kick, weight, (it just doesn't matter), > their arms work 12% less when they have a pull buoy than without one. > It beggars belief. You don't even say what the fixed point is. Is the > fixed point time a swimmers personal best for a particular distance? > Let's use that. You are saying that ths study shows that Michael > Phelps can pull 1:51.51 for the 200 fly.
> I don't believe that. I believe that when a swimmer with an efficient > kick pulls the best time he can swim, his arms have to work harder to > generate that same speed.
> "the force exerted by the arms was LESS, not MORE, when pulling."
> Force exerted for what? You still refuse to specify what you mean. > What is the comparison and why won't you say what it is? Can Michael > Phelps pull 1:51.51 for 200 fly or 1:42.96 for 200 free? I say he > can't, so the study could not have made such comparisons. If Michael > Phelps can pull those world record times, then ok, but I assume he > can't. If he can't pull that fast, what is being compared?
|
