Monday, February 18, 2008

Discussing training, discussing coaching

Recently I was asked to write a little piece about Sergio’s run training. Sergio is unarguably one of the best runners in Ironman, and the interest in what makes him a fast runner is normal. As I was writing the piece, it occurred to me that from all the things that I have written about training, all the discussions I have had about training, I never used one of my athletes as validation to my training methods.

Regarding this subject, I have two interesting stories.

Story #1: Some weeks ago there was a training discussion on the men’s forum of Slowtwitch about training theory and methodology. As the discussion “evolved” (not a good application of the term “evolved”, but I digress), a coach that will remain anonymous here felt he needed to validate the point he was making by quoting the “great results” a pro athlete he coaches had obtained at a recent Ironman race using his particular approach. After some googling, I found out that the said athlete was 23rd overall on that race. More interestingly, an athlete I coach was 2nd on that race, almost half an hour in front. My first thought was, my goodness, how much better are my training methods? More amusingly, the said coach was arguing with another coach that has had an athlete win that particular race in the past, and that over the last season alone had 4 ITU World Cup wins. How much better are his methods?

Story #2: A few years ago, I remember this coach, another anonymous soul, talking about his “8:20 guy”. The reference to his “8:20 guy” was generally given at the beginning of the articles, so as to lend credibility to what he was about to write. I remember at the time following what he wrote carefully, as I was impressed that a coach with less than 5 years experience had a “8:20 guy”. This “guy” was also pretty young at the time and had a bright future ahead of him. A few years later, the “8:20 guy” has fallen off the (triathlon) world. No longer you see his name on result sheets. What, at the time, was fed to us as amazing tales of heroic training, are in hindsight sad tales of misguided training that ended in full-blown overtraining syndrome. And I guess because it is said that “hindsight is 20/20”, now the said coach tells us how the athlete was responsible for destroying himself. Wait… the athlete? What happened to his “8:20 guy”?

These two stories nicely ilustrate the point I want to make. Too many times you see coaches using their own “n=1” examples in order to attempt to validate their methods and practice. This is especially used by coaches with limited experience, that anxiously want to market themselves as high-level coaches. Some, like the coach in story #1, have bright headlights and expect their future clients to behave like deer. Some, like the coach in story #2, are fully successful coaches because they suffer from the type of selective memory that only remembers success. In common, they share a way of conducting business that is fast becoming the norm in the industry. To the detriment of the athletes that end up hiring these coaches.


Danny Montoya said...

Very good and true!!

What about the "coach" that tries to impress potential clients with their own previous results?!

I guess like in any market, "let the buyer beware" ;-)

JorgeM said...

My favorites are those “coaches” who use their personal racing results to validate their training methods!

Trigirlpink said...

Did my coach say anything bad about me? I hope you are giving him some PS tips on training his athlete for IM. ;-)

Blake Becker said...

Nice job in hiding the identity of these coaches ;)

I agree with you in the n=1 theory that is out there. "n" should equal success in all athletes that are coached under whatever protocol....and since all athletes are different, there is no "n."

Good stories.

Dr. Philip Skiba said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paulo Sousa said...

I am glad we agree. It is not indeed a question of placings.

Dr. Paulo Sousa