If you want to continually improve, read this article about the possibilities how to achieve it. It’s not just our fitness that determines our performance.
When we break down sports performance (e.g. in a race) we find that it depends on three main criteria:
- current fitness
- movement execution technique (swimming stroke, running stride, cycling pedaling, …)
- movement frequency
(I’m not taking other components like a quality warm-up, proper pace distribution, hydration, glycogen stores, … into account now, although they are also important)
Most endurance athletes see fitness as a priority. They work on volume, intensity. But is that enough?
What are we aiming for in a race? To use our fitness to 100%.
How do we achieve that we use our current fitness at 100%?
- quality technique of movement execution and
- ideal frequency (economy) of movement
1. technique of movement execution:
Swimming: minimal resistance, quality grip, feeling for water, correct engagement of appropriate muscles, …
Cycling: correctly adjusted posture, correct rotation of cranks in a circle, correct aero position, …
Running: correct body position, correct position of the center of gravity, foot impact and other important aspects of running technique
2. frequency
I formulate it as ideal frequency
of a given movement, when the body can work most economical, i.e. most advantageous for achieving the best possible performance in a given time.
Let’s take into account the observation of the best athletes in the world in the given disciplines. (there are also individual deviations)
Swimming: let’s start with the ideal frequency for 1500m crawl.
From observing several elite swimmers, I found that one crawl cycle takes on average about 1.3-1.5 seconds when swimming at a pace of 1:00 min/100m (1500 in 15:00 in a 50m pool)
With this performance, the average was 31 strokes per 50m (including the rebound after the turn in a 50m pool). Even with slower performances, the average frequency was just as high. Slower times, more shots per 50m, but the average frequency was still just as high!
Cycling: the best cyclists spin at high effort at a high frequency of 95-110/min, even on harder climbs they go above 80/min.
In time trials, but also in triathlons, the rule is that the shorter the distance, the higher the frequency. Short time trials are ridden above 100-110/min, 180 km in an Ironman already around 90/min, but it is still quite a high frequency.
Running: When running 5-10km, elite runners go 80-85/min (Little Africans even 100/min). Regardless of speed and time achieved, high frequency is still a priority.
Runners with shorter legs and swimmers with shorter arms have a frequency even higher than the already quite high average.
What does this mean?
When running and cycling, the correct frequency is paramount. Only then do we focus (while maintaining an appropriate frequency) on the quality of the movement execution, but only to the extent that we achieve the desired intensity (controlled, for example, by heart rate – depending on fitness).
For example, when running, runners with shorter lower limbs have the advantage that they can maintain a high frequency with the correct technique even at lower speeds without the need to shorten the stride length.
Examples:
Running:
- If I have trouble achieving a high frequency of my running stride, I have to teach my body to do it. It is not appropriate to run with a long, economically inefficient stride with a low frequency.
- On the contrary, if I can run with a high frequency without any problems (over 180 for fast runs), I can focus on a better execution of the running stride with a high-quality bounce.
- If I have a quality running stride and I want to maximize the use of my current fitness, I must increase the frequency to the recommended value even if it means shortening the running stride, since frequency is paramount! Only in this way can I use my current fitness to the maximum</str