Also I’m pretty sure you can’t improve your swimming times with half an hour once a week.
I used to do low-key competitive swimming as a kid, and trained at most once a week. I didn’t improve fast, but I definitely improved. Same with pull-ups and jogging now that I’m an adult. I’ve noticed that once a week actually gives great returns when I’m new to something, and then seems to slope off to a very gradual improvement after a month or two.
So do my kids in swim team. I guess what I’m saying is that I can’t improve my swimming times by going once a week. Maybe if I wanted to improve my running times (something I’ve never done before) once a week would be sufficient.
This makes me think that one could probably graph result:time logarithmically. At the start, you get much higher results out of just a bit more time, but as you aim for higher goals, it takes progressively more time for each improvement.
Given the diminishing returns involved, it’d probably be a useful life skill to be aware of these curves, and able to work with them. I’d probably be much happier being decent at swimming and four other things, rather than a top competitor at swimming...
I’d probably be much happier being decent at swimming and four other things, rather than a top competitor at swimming...
That was basically the choice I made when I left competitive swimming at age 16. (In terms of times, especially in short-distance, I peaked at around 13-14 and was actually getting slower in several events despite swimming 6-7 times per week.) Quitting allowed me to coach kids and work part-time at the pool during my last year of high school, which in retrospect was a lot more valuable than one more year of competition. I’m still the fastest swimmer on the pool staff, and the fact that my 100-meter time is almost 20 seconds slower than it was has no practical effect on anything except my ego.
I don’t like quitting stuff, and I need to overcome a lot of inertia to start new things, but I’m attempting to this summer for that reason: I think doing something new, where I can see a rapid learning curve, could be really satisfying. (Swing dancing=random men asking me to dance and then touching me=pretty much my worst nightmare. But my boyfriend thinks it will be good for my social skills and he’s probably right.)
There’s almost always a surplus of women at dancing-lessons. If you really don’t want the men touching you—you can always volunteer to be the “man” to some of the other women. Plus you really get a better feel for how the dance works if you learn it from both sides. :)
That’s actually a really good idea! (Although in swing dancing, it’s a lot harder work being the man because you lead, while the woman follows.) Also, the touching thing is getting better with time. It bothered me less the second time I went.
it’s a lot harder work being the man because you lead
oh I agree—the same with Salsa, Tango and many other dancing styles. But doing that part sure gives you a better idea of what the dance is really like—and you can even better anticipate the man’s lead if you know how leading feels from the other side. :)
I guess what I’m saying is that I can’t improve my swimming times by going once a week. Maybe if I wanted to improve my running times (something I’ve never done before) once a week would be sufficient.
Ya, the 30 minutes a week scheme in Body By Science only makes sense if you’re doing their proposed exercises. Specifically, adjust the weights so you reach failure with one set of 90 seconds of time under load. With running or swimming, you can’t turn up the intensity enough to reach failure in 90 seconds.
I’m sure there’s a plateau, but I haven’t reached it yet. I’m gaining more slowly now after doing it for 5 months. I was having plateau (and injury) issues with a different weightlifting regimen at the beginning of those five months. The 90 second sets are great for reducing injury—with that much time per set, the weight is relatively light and the joints are happy.
I used to do low-key competitive swimming as a kid, and trained at most once a week. I didn’t improve fast, but I definitely improved. Same with pull-ups and jogging now that I’m an adult. I’ve noticed that once a week actually gives great returns when I’m new to something, and then seems to slope off to a very gradual improvement after a month or two.
So do my kids in swim team. I guess what I’m saying is that I can’t improve my swimming times by going once a week. Maybe if I wanted to improve my running times (something I’ve never done before) once a week would be sufficient.
This makes me think that one could probably graph result:time logarithmically. At the start, you get much higher results out of just a bit more time, but as you aim for higher goals, it takes progressively more time for each improvement.
Given the diminishing returns involved, it’d probably be a useful life skill to be aware of these curves, and able to work with them. I’d probably be much happier being decent at swimming and four other things, rather than a top competitor at swimming...
That was basically the choice I made when I left competitive swimming at age 16. (In terms of times, especially in short-distance, I peaked at around 13-14 and was actually getting slower in several events despite swimming 6-7 times per week.) Quitting allowed me to coach kids and work part-time at the pool during my last year of high school, which in retrospect was a lot more valuable than one more year of competition. I’m still the fastest swimmer on the pool staff, and the fact that my 100-meter time is almost 20 seconds slower than it was has no practical effect on anything except my ego.
I don’t like quitting stuff, and I need to overcome a lot of inertia to start new things, but I’m attempting to this summer for that reason: I think doing something new, where I can see a rapid learning curve, could be really satisfying. (Swing dancing=random men asking me to dance and then touching me=pretty much my worst nightmare. But my boyfriend thinks it will be good for my social skills and he’s probably right.)
Re: dancing.
There’s almost always a surplus of women at dancing-lessons. If you really don’t want the men touching you—you can always volunteer to be the “man” to some of the other women. Plus you really get a better feel for how the dance works if you learn it from both sides. :)
That’s actually a really good idea! (Although in swing dancing, it’s a lot harder work being the man because you lead, while the woman follows.) Also, the touching thing is getting better with time. It bothered me less the second time I went.
oh I agree—the same with Salsa, Tango and many other dancing styles. But doing that part sure gives you a better idea of what the dance is really like—and you can even better anticipate the man’s lead if you know how leading feels from the other side. :)
Ya, the 30 minutes a week scheme in Body By Science only makes sense if you’re doing their proposed exercises. Specifically, adjust the weights so you reach failure with one set of 90 seconds of time under load. With running or swimming, you can’t turn up the intensity enough to reach failure in 90 seconds.
I’m sure there’s a plateau, but I haven’t reached it yet. I’m gaining more slowly now after doing it for 5 months. I was having plateau (and injury) issues with a different weightlifting regimen at the beginning of those five months. The 90 second sets are great for reducing injury—with that much time per set, the weight is relatively light and the joints are happy.