Author(s): FARRELL, S., MCGIBBON, K., SAYERS, M., BUHMANN, R., Institution: UNIVERSITY OF THE SUNSHINE COAST, Country: AUSTRALIA, Abstract-ID: 939

INTRODUCTION:
Tapering is a key pre-competition strategy used in swimming, typically involving a planned reduction in training volume while maintaining intensity to optimise recovery and performance. Although generic tapering guidelines are well established, coaches may elicit improved performance gains through more athlete specific taper programming. Therefore, this study employed a randomised controlled trial design to determine whether an alternative tapering approach elicited greater performance improvements than a generic tapering strategy in competitive swimmers.
METHODS:
Thirty-nine state-level swimmers (n = 23 males, n = 16 females) completed a seven-week coach prescribed training period prior to a taper period leading into the 2025 Queensland and Victorian Short Course State Championships. Average training load across the preparatory period was calculated, and participants were then randomly assigned to one of three taper intervention: Group A (Generic Taper) - 40% volume reduction over 2 weeks with training intensity and frequency maintained; Group B (Volume Manipulation Group) - 60% volume reduction over 2 weeks with intensity and frequency maintained; and Group C (Time Manipulation Taper 2) - 40% volume reduction over 3 weeks with intensity and frequency maintained. ANOVA was used to determine differences in performance between groups.
RESULTS:
On average, group A completed 6.3% more, group B completed 29.6% less and group C completed 2.8% more volume than prescribed. Relative performance improved by 1.75 ± 2.36% in group A, by 3.22 ± 2.51% in group B and by 2.90 ± 1.86% in group C. After adjusting for event type, there was no statistical effect of intervention group on performance change following the taper (p = 0.26). Compared with group A, the performance change following the taper differed by 1.43% (95% CI [-0.95 to 3.81], p = 0.32) in group B and by 1.06% (95% CI [-1.52 to 3.65], p = 0.58) in group C. The difference between groups B and C was 0.37% (95% CI [-2.11 to 2.84], p = 0.93). Although between-group differences were not statistically significant, mean performance improvements in groups B and C were larger than group A.
CONCLUSION:
All taper strategies resulted in performance improvements, with only small numerical differences between the generic and alternative taper conditions. There was substantial inter-individual variation in performance change following the taper, which may have influenced findings. Practically, these findings suggest that maintaining intensity and frequency while reducing volume can support performance improvements. Notably, similar performance gains were observed in group B despite larger reductions in training volume, indicating that comparable outcomes may be achieved with substantially less overall training load. However, further work is required to determine whether more precise individualisation improves outcomes beyond a generic approach.