Why would someone good at 50m not be good at 100m? or 200m?
| nubile depressive | 08/01/24 | | Smoky Theater Stage Dopamine | 08/01/24 | | red half-breed senate | 08/01/24 | | nubile depressive | 08/01/24 | | Gay exciting digit ratio dilemma | 08/01/24 | | avocado dashing fortuitous meteor locus | 08/01/24 | | red half-breed senate | 08/01/24 | | avocado dashing fortuitous meteor locus | 08/01/24 | | Spectacular Splenetic Telephone | 08/01/24 | | autistic whorehouse codepig | 08/01/24 | | boyish erotic theatre | 08/01/24 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: August 1st, 2024 1:29 PM Author: Spectacular Splenetic Telephone
It's exactly the same as track and field - aerobic capacity. It is the difference between running 100M and running 800M or 1600M. While it's not quite the difference between a sprint and a marathon there is a reason you have middle-distance specialists. And bear in mind that the pace of a one-miler and a marathon runner are not that different - about 40 seconds slower per mile. A 2-hour marathon time is the equivalent of running a 17-second 100M more than 400 times in a row.
In track and field, aerobic capacity is not nearly as important for 100/200M because the oxygen you breath as you start the race does not make it to your bloodstream until after the race is finished. It takes about 40 seconds, which is the reason you have 800M specialists - running top speed for 90 seconds is aerobically completely different than running 200M. At the 1600M distance it is more of a race against the pack.
So the same is true in swimming. Swimmers don't even really need to breathe for the 50M, but your pace and breathing for the 400/800/1600 are extremely important.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5568094&forum_id=2#47917685) |
|
|