Interpreting and Implementing the Long Term Athlete Development Model: English Swimming Coaches' Views on the (Swimming) LTAD in Practice

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The article by Melanie Lang and Richard Light provides interesting information related to the difficult task of adapting a swimming training programme to the general guidelines that the sport governing bodies impose to obtain funding support for the competitive programme. In general terms, a long term athlete development (L TAD) model is written by sport experts to define a general pathway of athlete development to achieve national or international performances in dif ferent sports or in a particular sport based on an interdisciplinary scientific knowledge. Numerous such models have been published and distributed for years in many countries and seek to guide the achievement of outstanding performances in many sports (see Canadian and English examples [1, 2]). The programme application entails a considerable ef fort on the part of the participants (swimmers, coaches and clubs), but unfortunately this ef fort seems absolutely necessary to obtain international performances. The problem arises when external guidelines based on LTAD may contradict, in some cases, the competitive rules that should stimulate participation in this long-term programme, as the cited article tries to demonstrate. However, I wish to deal with the conclusion of the article that concerned the impact of excessive volume upon development of technique. This led me to deal with the lack of attention that swimming-planning specialists devote to this highly influential factor in swimming performance.

Full text

Interpreting and Implementing the
Long Term Athlete Development Model:
English Swimming Coaches’ Views on the
(Swimming) LTAD in Practice
A Commentary
Raúl Arellano
Faculty of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences,
University of Granada, Carretera de Alfacar,
sn. 18011, Granada, Spain
E-mail: arellano@ugr.es
INTRODUCTION
The article by Melanie Lang and Richard Light provides interesting information related to
the difficult task of adapting a swimming training programme to the general guidelines that
the sport governing bodies impose to obtain funding support for the competitive programme.
In general terms, a long term athlete development (L TAD) model is written by sport
experts to define a general pathway of athlete development to achieve national or
international performances in dif ferent sports or in a particular sport based on an
interdisciplinary scientific knowledge. Numerous such models have been published and
distributed for years in many countries and seek to guide the achievement of outstanding
performances in many sports (see Canadian and English examples [1, 2]).
The programme application entails a considerable ef fort on the part of the participants
(swimmers, coaches and clubs), but unfortunately this ef fort seems absolutely necessary to
obtain international performances. The problem arises when external guidelines based on
LTAD may contradict, in some cases, the competitive rules that should stimulate
participation in this long-term programme, as the cited article tries to demonstrate.
However, I wish to deal with the conclusion of the article that concerned the impact of
excessive volume upon development of technique. This led me to deal with the lack of
attention that swimming-planning specialists devote to this highly influential factor in
swimming performance.
DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO THE LTAD MODEL
ALTAD swimming framework has been developed in recent years for dif ferent countries
such as Australia, England and Canada. Five phases or periods can be adapted to athlete
development and are broadly named as: FUNdamentals, SwimSkills, Training to Train,
Training to Compete and Training To Win. The first phases are in the beginning of the
swimmer’s sport participation periods (about 7 years old) and later phases are at the finishing
period of the swimmer ’s competitive life, about or a little later than 22 years old. In the
England, the LTAD is normally coordinated with a funding program such as “Swim 21”. It
is accredited and given public recognition (by Sport England in this case) that the club is
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 · Number 3 · 2010 413

“safe, effective and child friendly” [3, 4]. Their proposers consider it an important planning
tool because:
It is core to all we do; It is swimmer centred; It provides a clear pathway based on
sound principles of growth and development; It provides a simple framework for all
swimming providers and implementers; It provides guidelines for success on the
world stage; It is central to the re-engineering of coach education and; You can’t argue
with it!! [4]
Asample of a different models of LTAD is shown in the Table 1. The phases are similar, but
a different denomination is applied. Comments about “ef ficient technique” or “integration
of efficient biomechanics and physiology” are included, but not detailed, in the manual [5].
All models include basic recommendations about annual training volumes for every
period of development. Samples of these volumes are compiled in the Figure 1, where
different models from US Swimming, Russia and English Swimming L TAD are compared.
The volume path shows dif ferences between models in specific periods. However , all the
models posit a correct distribution of training loads, such as strength, cardiovascular
endurance, peak velocity and so on, during specific sensitive periods that will induce proper
functional adaptations.
414 Long Term Athlete Development Model in English Swimming: A Commentary
Figure 1. Comparison of US Swimming Workload Progression in Career
Training for Male Sprinters (km per year) with the LTAD Minimum and
Maximum Volumes and the Russian Swimming Model in 1998 [4, 6, 8]
A drastic increase of the training volume is observed in all the models
during the 12 to 15 year period. Higher differences can be observed
between the USA male sprinters trend and the British LTAD (maximum
volumes). But LTAD (max) differences were double the USA volume per
year at 13 and 15.

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 · Number 3 · 2010 415
Table 1. Swimming Sport Participation Categories and General training Objectives, Technical Focus and Training loads
(adapted from [5])
Sport Participation Category Training Objective(s) Biomechanical or Technical focus Training load imposed
(Development stage)
Reflexive awareness (0-2 years) Stimulation of body
Motor memory development (3-6 years) Motor pattern development Using appropriate stroke patterns
Sport participation (6-9 years) Stroke technique, aerobic development Efficient technique 2 x 3 per week, 1500-4000 m/wk
Sport delineation I (9-12 years) Technique development, aerobic base, Efficient technique 3 x 6 per week, 5000-40000 m/wk
muscular endurance
Sport delineation II (12-14 years) Aerobic maintenance, technique Efficient technique, integration of 6 x 10 per week, 30000-60000 m/wk
physiology and mechanics
Sport mastery (14-20 years) Integration of efficient biomechanics Efficient technique 8 x 12 per week, 40000-100000 m/wk
and physiology
Elite mastery (17-24+ years) Integration of efficient biomechanics Efficient technique Event-length specific
and physiology

LTAD MODELS AND SWIMMING PERFORMANCE
The workload progression models shown in Figure 1 all have in common a drastic increase
of the training volume during the 12 to 15 years period (i.e., the sensitive period for the full
development of cardiovascular endurance [6]). The correct application of the models should
result in a progressive improvement of the performances, as Figure 2 indicates. The
performance values in Figure 2 at age 1 1, however , shown an extraordinary mean value
(USA ten best times, 2010 long course) that may be a result of combining very skilled
swimmers, clever coaches and “very low volume of training”. Even basic knowledge of
swimming shows that this is impossible. What the models aim to do - namely a progressive
build-up of workload volumes from 8 to 12 years - is contradicted by the swimmers’
performances. In this way, the long-term objective is changed to a short-term aim. Another
explanation may be that the long-term progression is started at 7 and not at 10 as the models
proposed and the volumes are shifted to the left (related to age) in the figures. In this case,
the sampled performances shown in the Figure 2 could be achieved.
However, this “fast track” in the performances (modelled in Figure 3) contradicts the final
participation of elite swimmers as a study by US Swimming demonstrated:
Asmall number of elite swimmers from the Top 100 at age 17-18 were ranked in
the Top 100 at a younger age. Typically, a little over 10% were ranked as a 10 and
under, about the same figure as a 1 1-12 year old, a little over 30% as a 13-14 year
old, and a little over 50% as a 15-16 year old [male swimmers]. [7]
They concluded that most elite swimmers were unknown at young ages and about half the
elite swimmers listed in the Top 100 at age 17-18 are new swimmers who were never listed
in the Top 100 at any age.
416 Long Term Athlete Development Model in English Swimming: A Commentary
Figure 2. A Comparison between Training Volume Progression [6] and
100m Male Freestyle Performances (Average of Top Ten Age Group, USA
Age-Group 2010 ranking, Collected from www.usswimming.org)
A first glance demonstrates a clear relation between the increase in
training volume and the 100m times reduction during the critical phases of
male maturation (11 to 15 years). However, the initial average time at 11
years (about 61.5 s), suggests higher volumes of training than the
proposed model.

Table 2. Recommended Target Times to be Obtained by Future Age Group
Swimmers (12 years old male or female) to be Able to Participate in
National or International Competitions
This target or better times should be obtained with technically oriented
training and with the lowest training volume possible to have enough room
for improvement in the future (they can be considered medium or slow
track times, see Figure 3).
Event 100m 100m 100m 100m 200m 400m
Freestyle Backstroke Breaststroke Butterfly Individual Medley Freestyle
Tar get Times (min.s) 1.04 1.11 1.19 1.08 2.35 4.56
Based on these results, it would be appropriate to suggest criteria to define when an age-
group swimmer is able to initiate a progressive training programme to start the Training to
Train phase of the English L TAD. Vorontsov [8] recommended between a 85 and 100%
training attendance plus training performances as 400m freestyle under 5.30 min, 1500
freestyle under 22.30 min, 400m individual medley (IM) under 6.00 min or 200m butterfly
under 3 min. Age or sex does not matter and these training results can be achieved at age of
9 or 12, as the review of international age-group swimming rankings can confirm.
LTAD AND SWIMMING TECHNIQUE
Reviewing the dif ferent LTAD model guidelines, we find some general recommendations
about technique development in the first two periods. Later the technique is lost because
more importance is given to the physiological aspects of a swimmer’s planning. An example
can be found in the training loads proposed by US Swimming (Rec[reational], End[urance]-
1, End-2, End-3, Spr[int]-1, Spr-2 and Spr-3 [9]) where the technique is not incorporated and
quantified in the training plan. It is dif ficult to consider swimming technique as relevant
when it is omitted from the model.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 · Number 3 · 2010 417
Figure 3. Possible Patterns of Results Progression to Achieve the Planned
Goal (Adapted from [8])

Aclear definition of the technique training loads and exercises should help to resolve this
situation. An initial classification of the technical training will separate cyclic (stroke
technique) and no cyclic (start and turns) exercises. Later more specific technical loads can
be added to the plan (coordinative exercises, linking drills, feel-of-the-water drills, body-
position exercises, competitive exercises, etc.). All these ideas are developed in a recently
published (in Spanish language) book by Spanish Swimming Federation [10], of which I am
the author. In this case, a documented and specific model that includes the technical loads or
units in the training plan is developed. The technical load is defined, classified and included
in the training plan (micro-cycles, meso-cycles and macro-cycles).
Brent S. Rushall [1 1] proposed a curriculum for swimming stroke development that
includes skills competences adapted to each age group, swimmer ’s practice session
behaviours plus swimming coaches’ assessment forms oriented to observe the ef ficiency of
the coach’ s stroke-technique work. This model of stroke development could be easily
integrated in the different LTAD programmes.
Adifferent approach has been developed in Australia [12] where blocks of stroke
progressions are defined for every stroke, to be included as technical units (or loads) in the
training sessions. These stroke-ef ficiency progressions are finished with linking drills to
improve the whole stroke technique and are evaluated with the 8 x 50m progressive
efficiency test or observational stroke-checklists.
These arguments arrive at a similar point to the article by Lang and Light, who claim the
negative influence of high training volumes on stroke development. What should be taken
into consideration is that the general model of stroke development, ‘swim, swim and swim’,
is based on the belief that water feedback will naturally correct the swimmer’s mistakes, thus
making technique training unnecessary. I do not agree with this belief.
CONCLUSION
As an expert in swimming biomechanics, I have been concerned about the lack of
consideration shown by the training plans (long-term and short-term) to technique
development. Swimming drills [“loads”] are included, but not quantified or dif ferentiated
from the physiological water exercises. A similar situation is observed in LTAD models; i.e.,
they describe the technique development in an imprecise manner and fail to illustrate
different procedures to train and evaluate its progress. The early performances obtained by
young swimmers in most countries are based on overload rather than skill development
programmes that induce low rates of participation of early, top-ranked, age-group swimmers
in long-term elite swimming. Experts must pay serious attention to correct this fundamental
error in LTAD models.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank Antonio Oca (ex-Junior Spanish Swimming Coach), Iñigo
Mujika (Medical and Physiology Consultant of Spanish Senior Swimming Team) and Andrei
Vorontsov (former Head Coach of Russian Swimming Team) for providing me with the
relevant information for the development of this commentary .
REFERENCES
1. Balyi, I. et al., Long Term Athlete Development: Resource Paper , in: Robertson, S. and Hamilton, A., eds.,
Canadian Sport for Life, Canadian Sport Centres, Vancouver, 2005.
2. Grange, J. and Gordon, R., Success is Long T erm: Long Term Athlete Development Related to the Journey
Through Swimming, Amateur Swimming Association, Loughborough, UK, 2004.
418 Long Term Athlete Development Model in English Swimming: A Commentary

3. Lynn, A., Conditioning for Swimmers: A Guide to Land-Based Training, Crowood Press, Marlborough, UK,
2007.
4. Gordon, R., AShorter Guide to Long Term Athlete Development, Amateur Swimming Association, London,
UK, 2006.
5. Avischious, T., Herr, L. and Vanheest, J., Training, in: USA Swimming, eds., Progressions for Athlete and
Coach Development, USA Swimming, Colorado Springs, 1999.
6. Sokolovas, G. and Herr, L., Long-Term Training in Swimming, Coaches Quarterly, 2002, 8(2), 15-19.
7. Sokolovas, G., Participation of Elite Swimmers from USA Swimming’s All-Time Top 100 Times, Coaches
Quarterly, 2002, 8(2), 1-5.
8. Vorontsov, A.R., Development of Endurance in Young Swimmers, in: Congreso Internacional de la
Asociación Española de Técnicos de Natación, Asociación Española de Técnicos de Natación, Castellón,
España, 2002.
9. Vanheest, J., Training Categories Handbook: Metabolism and Training, in: USA Swimming, eds.,
Progressions for Athlete and Coach Development, USA Swimming, Colorado Springs, 1999.
10. Arellano, R., Entrenamiento Técnico de Natación, in: Navarro, F. and Gosálvez, M., eds., Colección de Alto
Rendimiento, Vol. 1. 2010: Real Federación Española de Natación, Madrid, 2010.
11. Rushall, B.S., Swimming Pedagogy and a Curriculum for Str oke Development, Brent S. Rushall, Spring
Valley, CA, 2006.
12. Sweetenham, B. and Atkinson, J., Championship Swim Training, Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, 2003.
Editor’s Note:
Raúl Arellano is Associate Professor of Swimming Biomechanics and Training at the
University of Granada. He was in char ge of biomechanics for the Spanish National
Swimming Team and participated with them at the recent European Summer Championships
in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 · Number 3 · 2010 419