The Swim Session Framework: From Pedagogy to Practice (Part 1)

Introduction

“Warm-up, Main, Cool-down.”

It’s the one structure most teachers and coaches agree on. It feels intuitive—just the way it’s done. But have you ever asked why? Or where did it even come from?

Most of us haven’t. And in that gap, our coaching "Tower of Babel" was born.

We've all become experts at naming our sets (the what)—LT2 (second lactate threshold), Red Zone, Critical Speed—but in focusing on the jargon, we've often lost sight of the why and where or the fundamental structure they belong in.

This article argues that this shared structure is the common starting ground we need to move towards unlocking all the benefits of standardisation, from powerful AI analysis to clearer global collaboration.

In this issue—Part 1 of our series—we trace the little-known origins of this three-part session to bring back the foundations to build that common framework. The goal isn’t to change your coaching or teaching style—it’s to align on a structure that gives your sets a clear, purposeful home, improves analysis, and makes great coaching easier to share.

The Pool-Deck Tower of Babel

If you have spent time on different pool decks, you’ve experienced it. The team in lane one calls their threshold set Lactate Threshold 2, the team in lane two calls it Red Zone, and a mentor’s notes reference Critical Speed.

This terminology—our folksonomy—is a hallmark of the sport. It's powerful for building community, but this focus on the names for our sets has often overshadowed the more fundamental element of session structure.

We've become experts at naming the what (e.g., a Red Zone set) while often losing sight of the why and where (its specific physiological purpose and its sequence within the session).

This is a profound problem. When structure is diluted, best practices are lost.

A brilliant, high-skill set (technique development or pure speed) is only brilliant if it's performed while the athlete is fresh. When that set is shared as a recipe without structural context, another coach may place it at the end of practice, undermining or unintentionally altering its intended purpose.

This is the real "Tower of Babel" problem. It's not just that we use different words; it's that we've been sharing the words (the sets) without the shared grammar (the structure).

Finding Our Common Ground: The Opportunity

By establishing a clear, common framework, we solve this problem. We create a Rosetta Stone that gives all our sets and our jargon a proper home, unlocking critical benefits:

• For Coaches: Share Knowledge, Not Just recipes A common structure allows us to share practices with intent. A coach can show how their Main Part is built with a Skill Set followed by a Speed Set. This preserves the pedagogical logic, allowing for true global collaboration.

• For Athletes & AI: Enable True Personalisation A structured log (Warm-up, Main, Cool-down) tells an AI why a set was performed. The system can finally understand the difference between a Drill Set in the Warm-up (preparation) and a Drill Set in the Main Part (skill acquisition). This is the key to meaningful analysis and truly personalised plans.

• For Parents & Newcomers: Make the Sport Accessible Jargon is a wall. Structure is a map. First, we prepare (Warm-up), then we do the main work (Main), then we recover (Cool-down) is a simple, powerful, and welcoming way to explain the process, making the sport transparent for everyone.

To build this framework, we must start at the beginning. We need to stand on the one foundation we all share—the three-part session—and understand, perhaps for the first time, where it came from and why it works.

Foundations & Evolution of Session Structures

Historical roots across sports

The three-part session—Warm-up, Main, Cool-down—is widely recognised in sports training and exercise prescription across disciplines, including swimming (Ayers, 2011; Bompa & Haff, 2009; ACSM, 2022; Matveyev, 1981). While periodisation texts helped popularise the format, the deeper lineage appears to come from education, particularly the Soviet tradition of Physical Culture, and later carry into organised sport (Vaskov, 2012, 2022).

Soviet pedagogy and the three-part lesson model

In the Soviet context, Physical Culture spans rehabilitation, training, and education—not just school PE. Mid-20th-century didactics first define lesson structure and then converge on a three-part macrostructure:

• N. N. Efremov (1959) outlined lesson structure and described four parts (introductory, preparatory, main, final) (as cited in Vaskov, 2012).
• K. A. Kuzmina (1960) emphasised the number, purpose, sequence, and duration of parts; subsequent specialists standardised three parts (preparatory, main, final), integrating physiological, psychological, and pedagogical considerations (as cited in Vaskov, 2012).

Moskalenko’s macro- vs micro-structure framing (stages vs elements within a stage) underpins much of this terminology (summarised in Vaskov, 2012; reiterated in Vaskov, 2022).

Shiyan’s work-capacity zones and the logic of sequencing

Shiyan’s work-capacity zones (as cited in Vaskov, 2012) provide the physiological logic for lesson sequencing and map cleanly to the three parts:

• Pre-start readiness → psychological & physiological preparation (maps to the preparatory part);
• Training/activation zone → execution of the main tasks (maps to the main part);
• Relative stabilisation → temporary loss of working capacity → return toward baseline (maps to the final part).

A. N. Khan’s contribution (1975)

Khan clarifies external vs internal lesson structure and shows that part durations vary with age and lesson type, supported by empirical indicators and a grade-by-grade table (as cited in Vaskov, 2012). The directional pattern is consistent: with age, preparatory and final parts tend to shorten while the main part lengthens. The English reprint (Vaskov, 2022) reiterates these determinants but does not reproduce Khan’s detailed tables.

Transition to sports training: Matveyev’s adaptation

Matveyev (1981) explicitly applies the pedagogical structure to sport, noting that every session comprises preparatory (warm-up), main, and concluding parts, and that general lesson-structuring rules transfer to sports practice.

Why this history matters now

This history shows the three-part session isn't a new or arbitrary idea; it's a foundational framework that blends educational method with physiological logic. It appears that over time, as the folksonomy of creative set-naming grew, the visibility of this simple, underlying structure became obscured. This framework, however, remains a clear scaffold for progression, workload distribution, and recovery integration—principles that continue to support modern training (ACSM, 2022; Ayers, 2011; Bompa & Haff, 2009; Maglischo, 2003).

Before we discuss broader Session Context, we will first scan the literature to show how different sources label and organise a session today. Seeing this variety side-by-side makes the inconsistency clear and shows why a shared vocabulary helps.

Approaches in Practice: A Landscape of Divergence

The table below summarises how several well-known authors structure a training session. This sample focuses on reputable, published sources, but it only scratches the surface. In practice, coaches’ notebooks, spreadsheets, apps, and social posts show many additional variants. Those unofficial sources often add, merge, or omit parts without a clear rationale—making data collection and analysis inconsistent, and encouraging recipe-style reuse of sets without context.

Author / Reference	Session Structure
Riewald & Rodeo (2015) Science of Swimming Faster (Human Kinetics)	Warm-up – Prepares the body for main work. Main Set – Core training focus (freestyle-dominated example). Secondary Set – Additional drills or targeted adaptations. Wrap-up Set – Final portion to conclude the workout.
Newsome & Young (2012) Swim Smooth (Wiley)	Warm-Up – Includes most drills & stroke work, progressive intensity (easy → mid-pace). Build Set – Elevates heart rate & prepares for main set. Main Set – Varies (technique, speed, threshold, open water skills). Cool-Down – Reduces HR, clears lactate, loosens stroke.
Whitten (2012) The Complete Book of Swimming (Random House)	Stretching (Pre-Swim) – Focusing on legs, shoulders, and back. Warm-up – Easy swim to warm up muscles and get the body in motion; may include mixed strokes, kicking, or pulling. Kick, Pull, or Drill Set – Focuses on technique refinement, breathing pattern drills, and skill-specific drills. Major Set – Core focus of the workout, tailored to stroke specialty and training phase. Followed by an easy recovery swim. Timed Swim – An all-out effort, often a long-distance kick or pull. Performance is tracked to monitor progress. Sprints – Practicing race-pace swimming at least twice a week. Warm-down – Easy swimming to flush lactic acid, prevent muscle soreness, and aid recovery. Considered essential for post-workout health benefits.
Olbrecht (2007) The Science of Winning (F&G Partners)	Warm-up – Psychological & physiological prep. First Main Part – High technical/coordination work, sprint, stroke-rate, or anaerobic sets. Short Regeneration – Active recovery after an intense first part. Second Main Part – Often endurance-focused. Cool-down – Recovery, super-compensation, may include low-intensity exercise.
Evans (2007) Janet Evans’ Total Swimming (Human kinetics)	Warm-up – Easy pace, minimal effort, stretching out focus. Drill Set – Reinforce technique & motor patterns. Kick Set – Typically with kickboard, possible fins. Pull Set – Focus on upper-body technique using pull buoy/paddles. Main Set – Central heart of the workout (endurance or speed focus). Speed Set – Builds power and sprint capacity. Cool-down – Gradual intensity decrease, aids recovery.
Maglischo (2003) Swimming Fastest (Human Kinetics)	Warm-up – Stimulates oxygen delivery, elasticity, ROM. Technique/Drills – Early while fresh; late only to practice form under acidosis. Speed/Power (Sp-2/Sp-3) – Early for quality; if placed late, precede with 10–20 min low-intensity basic endurance/recovery. Endurance & Lactate Tolerance (En-3 / Sp-1) – Usually late in the session. Main set (long/intense) – Usually near the end; if early, follow with 10–20 min recovery before further fast work. Basic Endurance – High end = early; low-intensity = mid/late and can double as recovery. Recovery & Cool-down – Insert recovery between hard blocks; finish with ≥10 min easy swimming.
Sweetenham & Atkinson (2003) Championship Swim Training (Human Kinetics)	Flow – Warm-up → Main set → Secondary set → Cool-down; parts should flow into one another. Coach calls the main set once; swimmers record it and move directly from warm-up into the main set. Main set – Core focus aligned with training zones/HR targets. Secondary set – Stroke-mechanics progressions or specific goals. Cool-down – Swim-down protocol with HR guidance; may include short speed bursts (10–15 m). Recording – Use training logs/boards to capture repeat times, stroke counts, HR, and session details.

Table 1. Comparison of different approaches to structuring a swimming training session from various sources.

Common threads

Two elements are consistent across all authors:

• A preparatory phase. Every author begins with a Warm-up (some pair it with Stretching beforehand). The shared purpose is psychological and physiological preparation (e.g., Sweetenham & Atkinson, 2003; Newsome & Young, 2012; Whitten, 2012; Evans, 2007; Olbrecht, 2007; Maglischo, 2003; Riewald & Rodeo, 2015).

• A concluding phase. Every author ends with a Cool-down / Swim-down / Wrap-up / Recovery segment (same sources as above).

The Main part is where uniformity ends. All sources include a central stimulus, but labels, contents, and structures vary widely.

Points of divergence

• Single vs multiple main blocks. Some split the main work (e.g., Olbrecht’s First/Second Main Part). Others include several primary components in the middle (e.g., Maglischo sequences speed/power, endurance/lactate-tolerance, and basic endurance in one session).

• Menu layouts. Whitten (2012) and Evans (2007) present Drill, Kick, Pull Buoy, Main, Speed, Timed as parallel blocks rather than one monolithic main set.

• Drill placement. Newsome & Young place most drills in Warm-up; Maglischo uses drills early when fresh, or late to practise form under acidosis; Evans and Whitten list Drill as its own set.

• Internal recovery. Some list only a final cool-down; others insert recovery within the session (e.g., Olbrecht’s Short Regeneration; Maglischo’s recovery blocks between hard sets).

Key takeaway: Main set is just one component label, not the entire Main part. A standard hierarchy—Session Part → Set → Repeat (→ Segment)—is needed to describe these structures consistently.

Implications for data & AI

The problem isn’t just synonyms (Cool-down vs Swim-down); it’s structural. Many logs are a flat list of sets, which hides intent and relationships:

• Ambiguous main section. Whitten’s menu (Drill, Kick, Pull, Major) and Olbrecht’s First/Second Main Part can both represent the main body, but a flat log won’t capture that equivalence.

• Lost context. Drill + Main doesn’t show whether drills were preparatory or a primary technical focus. Maglischo’s early/late drill guidance encodes that context.

• Inconsistent grouping. One coach logs Short Regeneration as its own block; another buries comparable recovery in a main set. Naïve comparisons treat them as different workouts.

• A shared model—Parts contain Sets, with clear labels and purpose tags—fixes this without forcing one coaching style.

In Part 2, we’ll turn this structure into a concrete data model—Parts → Sets → Repeats (→ Segments)—with alias mapping and tags for intent and intensity.

The Core 3 Parts: Framework Foundations

A structured session has three main parts: Warm-up, Main part, and Cool-down. Each has a distinct purpose and can contain one or more sets—blocks of work with a specific objective (technique, speed, endurance, recovery). Keep parts and sets separate:

• The Main part may include several sets (e.g., a technique set followed by a speed set).
• The Warm-up may be split into multiple sets that gradually increase intensity.
• The Cool-down can also include more than one set (e.g., easy swim plus a short static-stretching set).

Whether a set is called the main set or a secondary set depends on priority. The main set delivers the central objective of the day—but it is still only one component of the Main part. Making this distinction clear improves planning, communication, and analysis.

Warm-up

A structured warm-up prepares the body and mind. It typically begins with general low-intensity movement to raise physiological readiness, followed by a specific phase targeting the muscles and movement patterns used in the session (Ayers, 2011; Bompa & Haff, 2009). In swimming, this is stroke-specific low-to-moderate work—technical swimming/drills, easy kick, and short controlled repeats—so technique is set before fatigue (Maglischo, 2003).

Benefits include increased blood flow and muscle temperature, more efficient neuromuscular activation, improved oxygen delivery and range of motion, and a possible reduction in musculoskeletal injury risk (Ayers, 2011; Bompa & Haff, 2009; ACSM, 2022). Warm-ups also support psychological readiness—focus, motivation, engagement (Ayers, 2011).

Duration and intensity scale with the athlete and the session. General programmes: brief, light-to-moderate using the same muscle groups; advanced or complex sessions may justify a longer, more specific preparation (ACSM, 2022; Bompa & Haff, 2009). Current guidance favours dynamic mobility and movement preparation before strength or explosive work; prolonged static stretching is best reserved for after the session as it can temporarily reduce force (Bompa & Haff, 2009; ACSM, 2022).

Main

The Main part delivers the core work—targeted adaptations in endurance, strength/power, speed, or technical skill—matched to the athlete and plan (Ayers, 2011; ACSM, 2022). Training texts emphasise keeping the focus narrow to protect quality and adaptation (Bompa & Haff, 2009). One or more sets in the Main part must address the session goals.

Sequencing matters!

• Place high-skill/high-speed work early while athletes are fresh (e.g., sprinting, stroke-rate, technical execution) (Bompa & Haff, 2009; Olbrecht, 2007; Maglischo, 2003).
• Follow with endurance or lower-coordination tasks so fatigue does not erode skill quality (Bompa & Haff, 2009; Maglischo, 2003).

Swim-specific guidance (Maglischo, 2003): speed/power sets are usually early; if sprinting late, precede with 10–20 min low-intensity basic endurance/recovery. Endurance and lactate-tolerance sets are usually late. A long or intense main set is usually near the end; if early, follow with 10–20 min recovery before further fast work. Insert recovery blocks between hard sets as needed.

Across weeks, apply progressive overload (gradually advancing intensity, volume, or complexity) and align session content with the broader periodisation plan (ACSM, 2022; Bompa & Haff, 2009). Structurally, authors vary: a main set + secondary set (Sweetenham & Atkinson, 2003) or two main parts with Short Regeneration (Olbrecht, 2007). The Main part can contain one or more sets; the main set is the highest-priority set inside this section—not the section itself (Sweetenham & Atkinson, 2003; Olbrecht, 2007).

Cool-down

A cool-down is a brief, low-intensity phase that helps the body drift back toward resting levels. Recent consensus notes that its effects on many psychobiological recovery markers are limited, yet it remains useful for hemodynamic stability (a safer HR/BP drop), autonomic down-shift (calming the nervous system), and providing a practical mental transition to reflect and reset (ACSM, 2022; Fletcher et al., 2013). In swimming, this usually means easy, continuous or broken swimming with simple drills (Maglischo, 2003).

What the Evidence Says (In Short) Active cool-downs are largely ineffective for improving most same-day/next-day performance or soreness measures. However, they do speed blood lactate clearance, can speed up cardiovascular/respiratory normalisation, and may partly blunt transient immune depression. A key warning: they can also interfere with glycogen resynthesis if too long or intense (Van Hooren & Peake, 2018).

From a teaching standpoint, this phase also fulfils the final part of a lesson—brief consolidation and an orderly return to baseline—so athletes leave physiologically steadier and conceptually clear about the session’s takeaways (Vaskov, 2012/2022; Matveyev, 1981).

Quick Cool-Down Tips:

• Duration & Intensity: Aim for ~5–10 minutes of low-intensity aerobic work for most sessions (ACSM, 2022; Fletcher et al., 2013). After hard sets, many swim texts use ≥10 minutes of easy swimming (Maglischo, 2003).
• Purpose over Duration: Keep it under ~30 minutes to avoid compromising glycogen resynthesis—especially if you’ll train again soon (Van Hooren & Peake, 2018).
• Movement: Use the same primary muscles as the session but with a low metabolic and mechanical load (i.e., easy swimming/drills) to boost flow without adding fatigue (Van Hooren & Peake, 2018).
• Finish on Land (Optional): This is the ideal time for static stretching. Do it after the water work, ideally out of the pool, while muscles are warm (ACSM, 2022).

Top 5 takeaways

1. Adopt the 3-Part Hierarchy: The most crucial step is to build your session log around the three high-level parts: the Warm-up, the Main, and the Cool-down. This simple hierarchical shift—from a flat list of sets to a structured session—is the foundation for a clearer data analysis.
2. Distinguish "Parts" from "Sets": Avoid using Main Set to mean the entire middle of your workout. The Main Part is the container; a Main Set is just one component inside it. Your Main Part can (and often should) contain multiple sets that address the session's primary goals.
3. Prioritise and Sequence for Quality: Use this core structure to make better coaching decisions. As the literature shows, high-skill, high-speed, and complex technical work should be placed early in the Main Part when the athlete is fresh. Endurance, lactate tolerance, and lower-coordination work should follow.
4. Warm-Up: General to Specific: Start with light, general movement, then shift to stroke-specific preparation so that technique is established before fatigue sets in (Ayers, 2011; Bompa & Haff, 2009; Maglischo, 2003). Reserve prolonged static stretching for after the session; use dynamic mobility beforehand (ACSM, 2022; Bompa & Haff, 2009).
5. Cool-Down: A Purposeful Transition: Finish every practice with 5–10 minutes of an easy swim-down (aim for ≥10 minutes after hard sets), followed by a brief static stretch out of the pool. This allows heart rate to settle, aids physiological recovery, and provides a mental transition out of the workout.

Note: This article was originally written in English. It has been translated into other languages using automated AI tools to share this information with a wider audience. We have tried to ensure the translations are accurate, and we encourage community members to help us improve them. If there are any differences or errors in a translated version, the original English text should be considered the correct version.

References

American College of Sports Medicine, Liguori, G., Feito, Y., Fountaine, C. J., & Roy, B. (2022). ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. Wolters Kluwer.

Bompa, T. O., & Haff, G. (2009). Periodization: Theory and methodology of training. Human Kinetics.

Evans, J. (2007). Janet Evans’ total swimming. Human Kinetics.

Fletcher, G. F., Ades, P. A., Kligfield, P., Arena, R., Balady, G. J., Bittner, V. A., Coke, L. A., Fleg, J. L., Forman, D. E., Gerber, T. C., Gulati, M., Madan, K., Rhodes, J., Thompson, P. D., & Williams, M. A. (2013). Exercise standards for testing and training: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 128(8), 873–934. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e31829b5b44

Maglischo, E. W. (2003). Swimming fastest. Human Kinetics.

Matveyev, L. (1981). Fundamentals of sports training. English translation of the revised Russian edition, Progress Publishers.

Newsome, P., & Young, A. (2012). Swim smooth: The complete coaching system for swimmers and triathletes. Fernhurst Books.

Olbrecht, J. (2007). The science of winning: Planning, periodizing and optimizing swim training. F&G Partners.

Physical Best (Program), Smith-Ayers, S. F., & National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2011). Physical education for lifelong fitness: The Physical Best teacher’s guide. Human Kinetics.

Riewald, S. A., & Rodeo, S. A. (Eds.). (2015). Science of swimming faster. Human Kinetics.

Sweetenham, B., & Atkinson, J. (2003). Championship swim training. Human Kinetics.

Van Hooren, B., & Peake, J. M. (2018). Do we need a cool-down after exercise? A narrative review of the psychophysiological effects and the effects on performance, injuries and the long-term adaptive response. Sports Medicine, 48(7), 1575–1595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-0916-2

Vaskov, Y. V. (2012). Структура уроків фізичної культури в загальноосвітніх навчальних закладах [Structure of physical education lessons in general education institutions]. Pedagogika, Psykholohiia ta Medyko-Biolohichni Problemy Fizychnoho Vykhovannia i Sportu, 2012(4), 17–20. https://www.sportpedagogy.org.ua/html/journal/2012-04/12vyvgee.pdf

Vaskov, Y. (2022). Defining the structure of physical education lessons in secondary schools: A didactic problem and its solutions. Physical Culture, Recreation and Rehabilitation, 1(2), 34–37. https://doi.org/10.15561/physcult.2022.0204

Whitten, P. (2012). The complete book of swimming. Random House Publishing Group.