Is It the Athlete or the Equipment? An Analysis of the Top Swim Performances from 1990 to 2010

Abstract

O'Connor, LM and Vozenilek, JA. Is it the athlete or the equipment? An analysis of the top swim performances from 1990 to 2010. J Strength Cond Res 25(12): 3239-3241, 2011-Forty-three world record swims were recorded at the 2009 Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) World Championship meet in Rome. Of the 20 FINA recognized long-course (50-m pool) swimming events, men set new world records in 15 of those events, whereas women did the same in 17 events. Each of the men's world records and 14 of the 17 women's records still stand. These performances were unprecedented; never before had these many world records been broken in such a short period of time. There was much speculation that full-body, polyurethane, technical swimsuits were the reason for the conspicuous improvement in world records. Further analysis led the FINA to institute new rules on January 1, 2010, that limited the types of technical swimsuits that could be worn by athletes. No long-course world record has been broken since then. We sought to understand this phenomenon by analyzing publicly available race data and exploring other possible causes including improvements in other sports, improvements in training science, changes in rules and regulations, gender differences, anaerobic vs. aerobic events, unique talent, and membership data.

Full text

ISIT THE ATHLETE OR THE EQUIPMENT?AN
ANALYSIS OF THE TOP SWIM PERFORMANCES FROM
1990 TO 2010
LANTY M. O’CONNOR AND JOHN A. VOZENILEK
Center for Simulation Technology and Immersive Learning, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago,
Illinois
ABSTRACT
O’Connor, LM and Vozenilek, JA. Is it the athlete or the
equipment? An analysis of the top swim performances from
1990 to 2010. J Strength Cond Res 25(12): 3239–3241,
2011—Forty-three world record swims were recorded at the 2009
Fe
´de
´ration Internationale de Natation (FINA) World Champion-
ship meet in Rome. Of the 20 FINA recognized long-course (50-m
pool) swimming events, men set new world records in 15 of those
events, whereas women did the same in 17 events. Each of the
men’s world records and 14 of the 17 women’s records still
stand. These performances were unprecedented; never before
had these many world records been broken in such a short period
of time. There was much speculation that full-body, polyurethane,
technical swimsuits were the reason for the conspicuous
improvement in world records. Further analysis led the FINA to
institute new rules on January 1, 2010, that limited the types of
technical swimsuits that could be worn by athletes. No long-
course world record has been broken since then. We sought to
understand this phenomenon by analyzing publicly available race
data and exploring other possible causes including improvements
in other sports, improvements in training science, changes in rules
and regulations, gender differences, anaerobic vs. aerobic events,
unique talent, and membership data.
KEY WORDS swimming, world records, swimsuits, performance
Forty-three world record swims were recorded at
the 2009 Fe
´de
´ration Internationale de Natation
(FINA) World Championship meet in Rome. Of
the 20 FINA recognized long-course (50-m pool)
swimming events, men set new world records in 15 of those
events, whereas women did the same in 17 events. Each of the
men’s world records and 14 of the 17 women’s records still
stand (6). These performances were unprecedented; never
before had these many world records been broken in such
a short period of time. There was much speculation that
full-body, polyurethane, technical swimsuits were the reason
for the conspicuous improvement in world records. Further
analysis led the FINA to institute new rules on January 1,
2010, that limited the types of technical swimsuits that could
be worn by athletes. No long-course world record has been
broken since then (Figure 1). We sought to understand why.
Although many people suspected that these technical suits
were performance enhancing, there was some genuine
uncertainty as to the extent of that effect. Now, with a full
year and a half of data since the new regulations have been
instituted, we are able to assess with some certainty the extent
to which these suits were responsible for the outstanding
performances of 2009 (Figure 2).
We first investigated the unique nature of the 2009
performances by looking at publicly available race data
(5,6) to see if similar sports experienced similarly dramatic
performance improvements. Track provides an effective
juxtaposition to swimming because both sports involve
athletes competing in individual or medley events of a similar
duration. These similarities allowed us to meaningfully
compare historical data between these sports and control
for energy systems (sprint vs. endurance events), perfor-
mance psychology, training methods, and relative popularity
of the sport. Additionally, track is free of similar equipment
controversies, so it allowed us to begin to isolate the
equipment variable.
Historically, world records in swimming have been broken
far more frequently than those in track. Since 1900, the world
record in the men’s 400-m dash (a track event) has been
broken 21 times; for a swimming event of a comparable
duration, the men’s 100-m freestyle, the world record has
been broken 48 times (5,6). Perhaps this frequency differ-
ence can be attributed to standardization and changes in
swimming regulations (depth of pool, types of lane lines used,
height and angle of starting blocks, water temperature, etc.);
improved swimming technique; improved training science;
increased access to the sport; and improved swimwear.
Address correspondence to Lanty M. O’Connor, lanty-oconnor@
northwestern.edu.
IRB: None required.
25(12)/3239–3241
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2011 National Strength and Conditioning Association
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2011 | 3239
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Certainly, track has experienced similar changes that have
collectively improved the performances of athletes, but it has
not seen the same degree of performance improvement that
swimming has seen over the last century. Could a continuing
evolution of these components explain the outstanding
swimming performances of 2009?
If training science had improved significantly, that could
help to explain the phenomenon. However, since 1990, there
have been no major changes
in the regulations for either
sport (2,4), yet sprint (anaero-
bic) swimming performances
have continued to improve at a
much more dramatic rate than
have sprint track performances.
From 1990 to 2010, men ran
2.85% faster in the 400-m dash
and swam 5.86% faster in the
100-m freestyle. This improve-
ment was not gender specific:
Women ran 3.29% faster in the
400-m dash and swam 5.57%
faster in the 100-m freestyle
(5,6). If progress in training
science were the explanation,
we would have expected to see
similar rates of improvement in
both sports because progressive
developments in training sci-
ence are quickly disseminated
and adopted across athletics.
Figure 1. Women’s 100-m freestyle best time in the world 1990–2011. annotated.
Figure 2. Considerations for this phenomenon.
3240
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Athletic Performance
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Instead, we note a significant difference between sports in the
rates of improvement with swimming demonstrating far
greater improvement.
We note similar trends with endurance (aerobic) events.
Men ran 3.59% faster in the 3,000-m run and swam 5.76%
faster in the 800-m freestyle. These percentages are highly
consistent with those of the sprint events, so the different
physiological demands of these 2 event types cannot explain
the phenomenon either.
Increased access to the sport of swimming could help to
explain the phenomenon. If more people entered the sport
and increased the competitive base of the sport, we might
expect to see improved performances as a result. Looking at
the membership trends for U.S. Swimming from 1990 to 2010,
we found that membership has risen at an average rate of 3%
per year with consistent and predictable spikes of 4–11% in
post-Olympic years (7). These steady increases in member-
ship would be expected to correlate with the steady
improvement in swim performances. However, this is not
the case. Swim performances have improved at rates greater
than those of membership.
Another consideration is the presence of some unique
talent that could account for the performances leading up to
and including the 2009 FINA World Championship meet.
Michael Phelps accounted for 3 of the 15 world records at the
2009 FINAWorld Championship meet. With the exception of
Phelps, no other single athlete at the 2009 FINA World
Championship meet broke .2 world records. Many athletes
broke many world records, and no one talent was responsible
for a bulk of the performances.
Having excluded these other possibilities, we were left to
consider technical swimsuits as the major reason for the
improved performances. Full-body, technical suits were worn
by all of the athletes who broke world records at the FINA
championship meet. These technical suits were able to reduce
drag, improve buoyancy, and enhance body compression
(3)—all of which could separately or jointly account for
improved performance. One anecdotal piece of evidence for
this hypothesis came from Michael Phelps’ coach, Bob
Bowman, who commented after Phelps’ surprising loss in the
200-m freestyle to Paul Biederman: ‘‘It took me five years to
get Michael from 1:46 to 1:42 and this guy has done it in 11
months. That’s an amazing training performance. I’d like to
know how to do that,’’ (1) suggesting that the suit was the
cause of the conspicuous performance improvement.
Since January 1, 2010, the FINA has changed the
requirements for technical swimsuits. The new rules prohibit
the use of the swimsuits that were worn to set all currently
standing world records. Since this change was implemented,
no long-course world record has been broken.
So what explains the unprecedented run of broken records?
It would be unfair to discredit the dedication and training of
these athletes and their coaches. This has certainly played
a role. We conclude that the upward trend in times (slower
times) since the end of 2009 is likely to be significantly linked
to the new regulation of technical swimsuits. The data
indicate that it was more than just hard work that allowed
these athletes to break an unprecedented number of world
records in a record period of time: The equipment played
a significant role, too.
The implications of this for the athletic community are far
reaching. As a community, we continue to make a strong
effort to protect our respective sports from the effects of
artificial enhancement. Swimming has provided us with
a vignette in which technical equipment has created an
iterative (Figure 1) artificial enhancement. Although much
focus is given to doping, it is important to be aware of other
sources of artificial enhancement as well.
REFERENCES
1. Associated Press. Coach threatens to pull Phelps. Available at:
sports.espn.go.com. ESPN.com, 2009. Accessed on June 12, 2011.
2. FINA. FINA swimming rules 2009–2013. Lausanne, Switzerland:
FINA, 2009.
3. FINA. Report from the FINA Dubai, UAE: Swimwear Approval
Commission. 2010. pp. 1–12.
4. IAAF. IAAF competition rules. Monaco: IAAF, 2010.
5. IAAF. IAAF top lists database. Available at: iaaf.org. Monaco: IAAF,
2011.
6. SwimNews. Best performances database. Available at: swimnews.com.
2011. Accessed June 10, 2011.
7. USA Swimming. USA Swimming 2010 Membership Demographics. Fort
Collins, CO, 2011. pp. 1–36.
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2011 | 3241
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.