Modelling of optimal training load patterns during the 11 weeks preceding major competition in elite swimmers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Periodization of swim training in the final training phases prior to competition and its effect on performance have been poorly described. We modeled the relationships between the final 11 weeks of training and competition performance in 138 elite sprint, middle-distance, and long-distance swimmers over 20 competitive seasons. Total training load (TTL), strength training (ST), and low- to medium-intensity and high-intensity training variables were monitored. Training loads were scaled as a percentage of the maximal volume measured at each intensity level. Four training periods (meso-cycles) were defined: the taper (weeks 1 to 2 before competition), short-term (weeks 3 to 5), medium-term (weeks 6 to 8), and long-term (weeks 9 to 11). Mixed-effects models were used to analyze the association between training loads in each training meso-cycle and end-of-season major competition performance. For sprinters, a 10% increase between ∼20% and 70% of the TTL in medium- and long-term meso-cycles was associated with 0.07 s and 0.20 s faster performance in the 50 m and 100 m events, respectively (p < 0.01). For middle-distance swimmers, a higher TTL in short-, medium-, and long-term training yielded faster competition performance (e.g., a 10% increase in TTL was associated with improvements of 0.1-1.0 s in 200 m events and 0.3-1.6 s in 400 m freestyle, p < 0.01). For sprinters, a 60%-70% maximal ST load 6-8 weeks before competition induced the largest positive effects on performance (p < 0.01). An increase in TTL during the medium- and long-term preparation (6-11 weeks to competition) was associated with improved performance. Periodization plans should be adapted to the specialty of swimmers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".