Author(s): BARROSO, R., BARBOSA, A.C., TOMASELLO, L., LOURENÇO, T.F., Institution: UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE CAMPINAS, Country: BRAZIL, Abstract-ID: 2451

INTRODUCTION:
Detailed knowledge of training volume and intensity distribution in Paralympic swimming is essential to inform evidence-based programming and optimize high-performance outcomes.
METHODS:
Six elite Paralympic swimmers (3 men, 3 women), all finalists at World Championships and/or the Paralympic Games, were included. Training data were retrospectively obtained from athletes’ training journals across two competitive seasons (culminating in National Trials and a World Championship, referred to as seasons 1 and 2, respectively). Sessions were extracted to quantify total training volume and intensity distribution across three predefined training zones. Competition performance at the end of each season was expressed as a percentage of the athlete’s personal best (PB) prior to the start of the respective season. The seasons were structured according to the time remaining until the main competition. The Taper phases (T1 or T2) comprised the final two weeks before the main competition of each season. The preceding phases were defined as Short (three weeks before taper; S1 and S2), Medium (three weeks before Short; M1 and M2), and Long (three weeks before Medium; L1 and L2). L1 included four weeks, whereas L2 comprised only one week. Training volume represented the sum of all weekly volumes within each phase.
RESULTS:
Total training volume was highest in L1 (~41 km) and M2 (~35 km), and lowest in L2 (~8 km). A progressive reduction in volume was observed from L1 to T1 (~41 to 18 km) and from M2 to T2 (~35 to 18 km), reflecting a structured taper. Three swimmers improved performance (~1%), while three showed a slight decrease (~1%) relative to their pre-season PB. Across all phases, training was predominantly performed in Z1 (~53–71%), whereas Z2 consistently accounted for less than 5% of total volume. During M2 and S2, the proportion of Z3 was higher compared to M1 and S1. Weekly internal training load was highest in M2 (1807 AU), M1 (1705 AU) and S2 (1733 AU), and lower values were observed during Long and Taper phases.
CONCLUSION:
Overall, elite Paralympic swimmers demonstrated a periodized training model characterized by high volume in earlier phases, progressive volume reduction toward competition, and a predominance of low-intensity training. The minimal contribution of Z2 and the relative increase in Z3 during specific mesocycles suggest a polarized-oriented intensity distribution combined with a structured taper, consistent with established training principles in elite swimmers and endurance athletes (1–3). These findings provide practical benchmarks for coaches and practitioners, supporting evidence-based periodization strategies in Paralympic high-performance contexts.
1. Hellard, P. J Sports Sci Med. 2013;12(4):668–78.
2. Mujika, I. et al. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;13(5):538–61.
3. Seiler, S. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2010;5(3):276–91