Women's Swimming is the only endurance sport where you get old at an extremely young age.

Most swim events are sprints or middle distance events in terms of heart rate and requisite endurance. I bet if people cared to they could swim the mile and up at a world class level at a higher age.

moanswers wrote:

Scorpion_runner wrote:

Yep. pretty much. Missy Franklin was in the Olympic Trials at the age of 13, and she stated that her body went through a drastic change when she turned 19-20, and she just couldn't get the strength and speed up anymore. She retired at the age of 22. She said her body became more dense, and it was hard to maintain a certain weight , which is no good in swimming

Missy Franklin retired because of a back injury.

That wasn't all that was too it. She stated that her body was different and that it was not performing like it used to perform.

"In 2015, I decided to go home and train in Colorado with Todd Schmitz and the Colorado Stars, and work with my weight trainer Loren Landow. I've been very open about what I went through as I prepared for the Olympics in 2016 and talked openly about the struggles I endured, which included shoulder pain whenever I tried to train or compete, depression, anxiety and insomnia. It was also the year when I began to fully accept the fact that something was wrong with my body and it wasn't working the way it was supposed to work. "

Her body started changing, which is the point of the subject.

Scorpion_runner wrote:

Plus you burn more fat running than you do swimming, so women can maintain their lean muscle mass a lot easier in track and field. It's much harder in gymnastics and swimming.

It's amazing how many thing you don't know that you speak about with confidence.

Swimming burns more fat. Just being in the water you use calories to maintain body temperature.

Dur wrote:

Scorpion_runner wrote:

Plus you burn more fat running than you do swimming, so women can maintain their lean muscle mass a lot easier in track and field. It's much harder in gymnastics and swimming.

It's amazing how many thing you don't know that you speak about with confidence.

Swimming burns more fat. Just being in the water you use calories to maintain body temperature.

Wrong. Your intensity is going to be a lot greater, and you are going to be able to further, and different muscle groups will be worked

Moderate Intensity Swimming: 214 calories

Running at 5mph: 298 calories

Vigorous Swimming: 344 calories

Running at 10mph: 632 calories

malmo wrote:

YMMV wrote:

I suspect that another huge driver in swimming is economics. The pro ranks in swimming must be even thinner than in running. Assuming that is the case, then it would be the goal for EVERY swimmer to lifetime peak by age 16-17 and nail down a choice scholarship offer to get into the top college programs.

Think about it this way. Swimming is a time-intensive sport in which your entire childhood is spent swimming back and forth every day for years. Wouldn't you think that it would be natural to finally desire something else after doing that?

That was the other aspect I was going to mention: mental burnout. Talk to any number of decent endurance event swimmers who did it in their teens, and they scarcely ever want to see a pool ever again, after spending 2-6 hours/day in the chlorinated water for the better part of a decade. The lack of impact stress actually becomes a negative at that level, since you must keep up with those willing to grind out more than you.

Scorpion_runner wrote:

right at 22, they basically fall off a cliff, like we are seeing with Katie Ledecky at the age of 22 compared to her ability at 16

Scorpion runner: You have in the past observed some results achieved by some groups then you make sweep broad scientific statements.

Katie Ledecky has not lost an 800m freestyle race or a 1500m freestyle race in a long time. What is it with falling off a cliff? Has Ledecky lost an 800 or 1500 at Pan Am, World Championship or Olympics? It is not natural for females to have a massive upper body. Female freestyle swimmers have shoulder over-use discomfort, pain or injuries. Some women swimmers, swim through shoulder tears, some get surgery and continue and some quit due to shoulder injuries. The difference between Nordic skiiing, running and swimming is gravity. Nordic skiers sometimes fight gravity, runners always fight gravity and swimmers never fight gravity. High school swimmers have a larger B.M.I. than high school runners usually. College age swimmers nearly always have larger B.M.I. than college age runners. Size does not slow women swimmers. Following the black line offers little variety. Elite swimmers have been club swimming for a long time. Psychological burnout is real in swimming. Lastly, there are two to three times more women NCAA D-1 college T&F programs than women NCAA D-1 college S&D programs. Many female swimmers are forced to stop at an early age because one has to be near great to continue to swim in college.

Exactly my point. She is 22 now, and has become slower. That is what I mean by falling off a cliff at the age of 22:

"Ledecky had won the last six major international 400m frees among the world championships, Pan Pacific Championships and Olympics dating to 2013. But she swam her slowest time of her seven major finals on Sunday and her 18th-fastest 400m free overall."

She just swam her SLOWEST times of her seven major finals! That is falling off a cliff. Out of all of her finals throughout her career she just put in her slowest, bro. As stated, women swimmers peak at an early early age. She isn't going to get faster, bro. And there is a scientific study on it which I pasted.

But she has been swimming since she was six. How much more could she possibly improve after 16 years of intense training?

malmo wrote:

YMMV wrote:

I suspect that another huge driver in swimming is economics. The pro ranks in swimming must be even thinner than in running. Assuming that is the case, then it would be the goal for EVERY swimmer to lifetime peak by age 16-17 and nail down a choice scholarship offer to get into the top college programs.

Think about it this way. Swimming is a time-intensive sport in which your entire childhood is spent swimming back and forth every day for years. Wouldn't you think that it would be natural to finally desire something else after doing that?

Yep. I run now and again with a former swimmer who was good enough to get into olympic trials. She likes to run; has no desire to ever get back into a pool.

moanswers wrote:

Could it also be that because great swimmers started when they were < 6 years old, that they peaked 10 years after they started?

Yeah, there has to be something to this.

My kid just started competitive swimming over the summer. He was training twice a day and racing at B meets once a week.

He is 5.

We let him do it because he seems to enjoy but I am fairly certian he will be bored or burnt out in a few years.

If you are good enough to qualify for the Olympics then I guess you keep on going but I can’t imagine it is sometime you will be doing for life.

Scorpion runner: Making an issue of Katie Ledecky's 400m is like someone commenting on Sebatian Coe's 400m performances in mid-1980's. You ignored my shoulder injury statements. Shoulder injuries for swimmers, specifically female swimmers has absolutely nothing to do with hormones and has absolutely nothing to do with flexibility. I stated there is psychological burnout. Showing data that women 800/1500 swimmers peak earlier than womem 800/1500 runners is not proof of hormones. Most women runners are not racing T&F meets every other month from age of 6. Female club swimmers who go on to NCAA D-1 have had a different level of intensity from runners. If you follow swimming, every day is a workout day: 50 yard repeats, 100 yard repeats, 150 yard repeats. That occurs everyday in swimming.

Some people float better for swimming .

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

Here a list of the fastest 5k times and the age in brackets at which they ran it:

Everything drops off by mid-20's. What makes you think that has any more to do with vo2max than flexibility? besides which vo2max is weight-dependent and people gain weight in their 20's - though some don't.

Here's another hypothesis: too many years on the track makes a runner lopsided and destroys their biomechanics.

Bad Wigins wrote:

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

Here a list of the fastest 5k times and the age in brackets at which they ran it:

Everything drops off by mid-20's. What makes you think that has any more to do with vo2max than flexibility? besides which vo2max is weight-dependent and people gain weight in their 20's - though some don't.

Here's another hypothesis: too many years on the track makes a runner lopsided and destroys their biomechanics.

Some events have more to do with VO2MAX, where the drop-off is most severe than others. Mostly events very close at velocity at VO2MAX, which are mile-5k. You see old people destroy younger ones with higher VO2MAX in Ironman's and marathons.

Older runners become more efficient, so they operate at a higher % of their VO2MAX, even if the max is lower. This doesn't help much in a 3k for example, where everyone is running at roughly 100% VO2MAX.

It's not uncommon for someone to start running in their 30's (Steve Way, Priscilla Welch, Jack Forster, etc...) and become world-class marathoners. However, in a mile or 5k it's impossible, they simply don't have the VO2MAX anymore they could have had. That's why Steve Way often questions how fast he could have been in a 3k or something had he started doing sports earlier in his life.

I agree with you that flexibility might even drop earlier than VO2MAX (gymnasts peak around 15-19), but in running isn't nearly important as VO2MAX.

Swim coach talking here, and you are wrong. Katie was not beaten because she is old, she was beaten because her coaches at Stanford misjudged her taper. Ledecky went faster at a meet just a couple of months ago.

Swimming and gymnastics are completely different. Ledecky does not lack flexibility, and that has nothing to do with her poor swim.

Missy Franklin was badly overtrained and overstressed, I suspect, causing her physical breakdown. Nothing to do with her getting old.

I don't believe older runners lose vo2max, except the ones that get heavier. I don't even believe vo2max is a useful concept.

the main point is that it's not just flexibility that track runners lose, it's body structure. The constant left turns result in increasing asymmetry, and eventually that starts killing performance.

someone posted a video of a woman masters runner in her 60's a while back who broke a record. Both her feet pointed left.

Swim dad wrote:

moanswers wrote:

Could it also be that because great swimmers started when they were < 6 years old, that they peaked 10 years after they started?

Yeah, there has to be something to this.

My kid just started competitive swimming over the summer. He was training twice a day and racing at B meets once a week.

He is 5.

We let him do it because he seems to enjoy but I am fairly certian he will be bored or burnt out in a few years.

If you are good enough to qualify for the Olympics then I guess you keep on going but I can’t imagine it is sometime you will be doing for life.

Im shocked by the number of kids who will never be elite or even scholarship swimmers, that train like Olympians. Grinding day in, day out. What a waste of time, $$, opportunity to do other things..

My kid is a decent swimmer. 3-4 hours a week training. Would doubling that lead to improvement? Sure. Enough to justify it? No way.

Swim dad 2 wrote:

Im shocked by the number of kids who will never be elite or even scholarship swimmers, that train like Olympians. Grinding day in, day out. What a waste of time, $$, opportunity to do other things..

My kid is a decent swimmer. 3-4 hours a week training. Would doubling that lead to improvement? Sure. Enough to justify it? No way.

Not any different in running. Just join a Strava group - people are grinding 90-120 mpw to run a 17 min 5k. Why they do it? They know they won't be world-class. They follow their passion, and want to maximize their potential. Nothing wrong with that.

If you could run 100 mpw and 17 min 5k, or 60 mpw and 18 min 5k you would do the 60 mpw. But true runners and competitors go for the 100 mpw, even if it takes more hours.