Observed Performance Outcomes of 2025-2026 Season
Based on non-solicited reports from collegiate coaches using 3S GEN2
Over the course of the 2025–2026 collegiate swimming season, a number of programs working within the 3S GEN2 framework reported massive improvements in athlete performance.
All these programs operate under different conditions — with different athletes, coaching styles, unique environments, and different competitive structures.
Yet across these independent settings, similar patterns of performance progression can be observed.
In many cases, improvement did not appear as isolated breakthroughs. Instead, it developed progressively over the course of the season, reflected in repeated personal-best performances and stable advancement across competition phases.
Improvement alone is not a distinguishing factor.
One thing that is important to note before we move forward into actual results. The reality is – any regular training produces improvement.
What differentiates the results 3S users demonstrated is how results evolve over time:
- at a higher rate
- with greater consistency
- and in alignment with a planned progression based on suggested training strategy
In other words, the results we discuss reflect not isolated success, but the effect of a structured and controlled training system.
An important clarification is how we interpret “performance.”
The primary goal of the 3S platform is to provide a reliable path to optimal performance. In this context, performance is reflected through competitive results — primarily time, and secondarily placement.
This means, that
Training does not produce performance directly. It prepares the athlete to realize the best attainable result at the required moment.
Observations Across Programs
Now, let us check what 3S coaches are reporting to us. Based on feedback from participating coaches, several consistent outcomes were noted:
- Athletes achieving multiple lifetime best performances within a single season
- Measurable and targeted progression maintained across the full training cycle
- Performance gains not limited to taper or isolated peak events
- Increased consistency in race execution and repeated starts
- Athletes who adhere closely to the defined training structure demonstrate more consistent progression rates
These observations were not limited to a single program or competitive level. They repeated across multiple teams, suggesting a broader and stronger relationship between 3S designed training structure and performance.
Program Examples
The following excerpts reflect reported outcomes from collegiate programs:
Derek Perkins
Eastern Michigan University
“We set more lifetime bests than ever — 83 total this season. A ridiculous number”.
- 29 lifetime best performances at MAC Championships
- 9 finalists compared to 1 in the previous season
Randy Horner
Florida International University
- 9 conference championships
- 14 consecutive NCAA appearances
- 5 Olympians developed within the program
Rickey Perkins
University of Sioux Falls
“12 of 14 swimmers achieved multiple personal-best performances.”
These programs differ in structure, resources, and competitive environment.
However, the pattern of progression described by coaches remains consistent.
Interpretation
These outcomes suggest that performance improvement is not solely the result of isolated training interventions or tactical adjustments at the level of training sets or specific workouts.
Instead, performance appears to evolve in relation to the structure of the training process that applied by design. In that case progression is driven by training design (at strategic level), leaving coaches to decide the proper application of suggested training loads (by Zone) in the format, that favors their athletes’ abilities.
When training is planed from a strategic level and organized as a sequential and controlled progression of training “stressors” — rather than a sequence of independent sessions — performance development becomes more stable and unavoidable.
Further Observation
To examine the relationship between progressive training structure and micro outcome it produces (in terms of normalized Power Capacity dynamics) in greater detail, a separate case study was conducted in rowing, where the actual training data and responses can be recorded.
👉 Read the case study: How Performance Progresses During the Season in Real Time
[link to Henry page]
Conclusion
The results observed during the 2025–2026 season are not representing isolated or random successes. They clearly suggest a recurring pattern across independent programs.
This pattern suggests a consistent relationship between structured training processes and performance progression over time — a relationship that continues to be explored and refined within the 3S framework.
