One of the swimmers I help loves to ask questions. Her name is Alex and she is a triathlete. She has read my three books on swimming. Unfortunately in her case these appear to have raised more questions than they have answered. For an author who wrote the books intending to provide answers you can imagine my concern. Did Alex’s unsatisfied curiosity mean 100,000 words had been written in vain?

Today, for example, Alex asked whether, in a freestyle sprint, big kicks were more important that fast kicks or the other way around. Should a swimmer focus on improving the size of their kick and then move on to the kick tempo, or should it be the other way around?  I hate to think how many times I have been asked these “either/or” questions. Just about every swimming rule can be turned into an “either/or” question. Are big arm strokes more important than turnover? Is high intensity interval training more important than distance conditioning? Is technique more important than speed? In the gym, is form more important than the weight lifted? For a curious mind, like Alex, the range of “either/ors” knows no limit.

The reality is the answer to “either/or” is almost always “both”. When I was coaching Toni Jeffs she would frequently get frustrated at my call for bigger strokes at a faster rhythm. I could understand her annoyance. She already had one of the biggest stokes in New Zealand and at 0.90 there was not much to complain about with her turnover.

Occasionally she would grumble, “What do you want – bigger strokes or faster arms?”

Cautiously I would explain, “The answer is both. One stroke less at 0.85 is where you need to be.” Interestingly when she won a bronze medal at what were then the World SC Finals (wouldn’t Gary Francis love one of those this week) Toni swam the first 25 meters of her 50 meter race one stroke less in 0.85. It was a terrific swim that reflected the ability of a very good swimmer to combine size and turnover; in other words both.

Probably the most widely debated “either/or” question is the dispute between supporters of high intensity interval training and long distance conditioning. Now this really is a dumb exercise in academic futility. Dave Salo is the high priest of high intensity believers. The first chapter of his first book centres on tearing apart the benefits of distance conditioning. For example he says:

But I’ve known two high priests of distance conditioning – Arch Jelley and Arthur Lydiard. Never have I heard either of them say that the only way to prepare for a running race is to exclusively run around the Waitakere Ranges every day. Sure there is a time and place for twenty mile runs but that needs to be balanced by a time and place for race preparation speed training. In fact I’ve heard both coaches use expressions like “a balanced program” and if pushed to select one, most important, type of training would come down in favour of race preparation speed training.

The reality of these “distance conditioning” master coaches is a balanced program of distance, anaerobic and speed preparation dispensed as a 40% distance, 20% anaerobic and 40% speed training diet. Do you know what those ratios mean? They mean the answer to the high intensity or distance conditioning debate is “both”.

And, of course that makes sense. Each type of training provides the swimmer with unique skills not provided by the other types of training. By doing both the swimmer arrives at his or her competition with a package of skills not available to swimmers who have only done sprints or have only done a never ending program of 100 kilometres a week of 3000 meter swims.

Sadly sprint coaches and swimmers who prefer a Salo diet often distort the balance of “both”. When I arrived in Saudi Arabia Hayley Palmer was coaching Eyad. She let him know, in very graphic terms, that all he should expect from my coaching was a relentless diet of over-distance slow swims. That, of course, simply wasn’t true. The 40/20/40 mix of “both” meant there was a liberal dose of 8×25 fast swim and 8×25 fast kick sets. Sure there were also a few long swims. Eyad’s training this morning was 1000 warm-up followed by 2×3000 timed swims; a Waitakere Ranges session. But to say that’s all Eyad, Rhi, Toni, Skuba or Jane ever did is simply not true. Their programs were very much “both”. Palmer should have known that before distorting the truth.

So there you have it. Good training and good technique is so often about balance. Balance that is needed because winning big races requires fine speed and deep reserves of fitness and strength. The training that provides each of these qualities is different. Salo is right you can’t develop speed by swimming 2×3000. But you can’t train good fitness by swimming 25 sprints all day. You need “both”. That’s why both is the answer and is so often is the case.

I do hope this explanation has not raised another ten questions in the Alex brain. If it has the answers will usually be “both”.