What can the The Montgolfier Brothers teach us about swim science?

The Montgolfier Brothers were pioneers in the lighter than air balloon field.  These brothers showed the world that by lighting a fire, and then holding a balloon over that fire that one could ‘float’ or ‘lift’ objects off of the ground.  Their first public display rose to over 1000 meters and traveled over a mile before falling to the earth.  It was then that local peasants destroyed it, believing that it was the moon fallen from the sky.  Soon thereafter they had displays witnessed by the King of France and Benjamin Franklin himself.  These men were geniuses and were hailed by the scientific community as such.  They proclaimed that they had discovered ‘Montgolfiere gas’, which was produced by burning wood and straw and was present in the smoke.

So how does this story apply to modern swimming?  Well, you see, the Montgolfier Brothers had successfully flown a balloon.  They had the market cornered on lighter than air science, and were poised to lead the world into a new age of travel by air.  What fell apart was the science behind the ‘lift’.  That’s where the comparison to modern swimming comes in.  We have programs and coaches around the world that parade out their ‘successes’ as proof of their programs validity.  They point to gold medals and championships, just like the Montgolfiers pointed to their smoke. 

What we have is nothing more than success with very little reason ‘why’.  Swim practices and training programs use hit and miss approaches at training athletes.   What’s worse, these practices are handed down to youth programs in an effort to prepare young swimmers for the tough training world ahead.  These practices are implemented by well meaning, but even less educated adults.  The result?  Injured kids.  Kids who leave the sport because it’s boring.  Kids who leave because they don’t see results.

You see the problem the Montgolfiers had was that their ‘science’ was wrong and it would lead to no further advances.  Thankfully the world of science has generally embraced the idea of testing theories instead of just accepting them.  The trouble the swim world has is that when big name athletes or coaches have success, challenging the ‘why’ behind it can get you ostracized.  Forget the elite level, try questioning a youth swim coach about why a practice is shaped the way it is.  Many (NOT ALL) will give generous amounts of ‘evidence’ that aerobic base building and repeated, long, slow swims help a swimmer become faster.  They can even point to USA Swimming who suggests that young swimmers begin long sets in order to build that ‘capacity’ for later in the sport.  With so much swimming success in the United States, they must be right.  We dominate the world swimming scene and therefore we must be doing something right.  I mean, right?

In 2008 and 2012 the USA won 31 medals at the Olympics.  The Japanese and Australian teams only won 21 and 20 combined.   (Japan won no medals in 2008)

In 2008 the USA had 304 million people.  The population of Japan was 128 and Australia had 22 million.  Combine those and they have roughly 150 million citizens.

So why does this matter?  For a country that points to it’s victories as ‘proof’ of program success, I point out that two countries that comprised less than half of our population brought home 2/3’s of the medals.  That doesn’t sound like we have the magic wand of swimming. 

Are we running our swim programs the right way, or just the other guy’s way?

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”

― Bertrand Russell

 “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

― Michael Crichton

“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”

― Leo Tolstoy