client (plural clients)
1. A customer or receiver of services.
2. (computing) The role of a computer application or system that requests and/or consumes the services provided by another having the role of server.
3. Person who receives help or advice from a professional person (ex. a lawyer, an accountant, a social worker, a psychiatrist, etc).
athlete (plural athletes)
1. A person who actively participates in physical sports, possibly highly skilled in sports.
Let's get one thing straight. Whores and lawyers have clients, coaches have ATHLETES.
As you were...
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
Can I borrow a bit of your credibility, please?
It seems that when it comes to triathlon coaching, name dropping is not just a bad habit, it’s a whole way of doing business. I have gmail, and those that have gmail know that it picks up on the keywords of the emails you get. So because I get lots of emails with the words “triathlon” and “coaching”, I also get a lot of sponsored links about triathlon coaching. I usually follow some of those links, because well, I am curious by nature. The other day, I followed one of those links that took me to a triathlon coaching website that I had never heard of before. Clicking on the “About Us” link got me to a page with a list of the coaches. Each coach had a small bio about themselves and their coaching philosophy. And next to the bios, they each had pictures of themselves next to a triathlon celebrity. One of them was with Mark Allen, another with Greg Welch, Dave Scott, etc. It was pretty obvious that the coaches didn’t have anything to do with those triathlon celebrities, they were just trying to cash in on the credibility that being next to the celebrities gave them.
Some coaches get their credibility from having studied under a famous coach. It’s like the triathlon version of the martial arts world. However, in the martial arts world, this usually means that someone spent years working with a master before going on his own. The triathlon version of this is that a coach goes and spends a weekend with a known coach, exchanges some emails occasionally and suddenly… he’s a disciple. Some former athletes of famous coaches also try to capitalize on the credibility of their former coach. However, the only thing they learned from the coach was what workouts to do, not why they had to do them. So in the end, they have a pretty good collection of workouts, without much knowledge on how to apply them to athletes other than themselves.
There are also those that pay to achieve that credibility. I am sure most readers are aware of the huge percentage (more that 50%) the large coaching outfits charge to their associate coaches. But there are also instances where coaches pay top athletes to just use their name. A couple of years ago, I heard the story of a triathlon coach that paid a multiple World Champion $10,000/year just to say that he was coaching the said athlete.
These examples illustrate a whole way of doing business. Instead of building a practice through hard work and most importantly, results, it seems most aspiring triathlon coaches go for the easy way. They think that, by name dropping, by using somebody else’s credibility as their own, they can quickly achieve the status of expert coach, without the knowledge and the experience to support that perception. All this at the expense of athletes of all levels.
Some coaches get their credibility from having studied under a famous coach. It’s like the triathlon version of the martial arts world. However, in the martial arts world, this usually means that someone spent years working with a master before going on his own. The triathlon version of this is that a coach goes and spends a weekend with a known coach, exchanges some emails occasionally and suddenly… he’s a disciple. Some former athletes of famous coaches also try to capitalize on the credibility of their former coach. However, the only thing they learned from the coach was what workouts to do, not why they had to do them. So in the end, they have a pretty good collection of workouts, without much knowledge on how to apply them to athletes other than themselves.
There are also those that pay to achieve that credibility. I am sure most readers are aware of the huge percentage (more that 50%) the large coaching outfits charge to their associate coaches. But there are also instances where coaches pay top athletes to just use their name. A couple of years ago, I heard the story of a triathlon coach that paid a multiple World Champion $10,000/year just to say that he was coaching the said athlete.
These examples illustrate a whole way of doing business. Instead of building a practice through hard work and most importantly, results, it seems most aspiring triathlon coaches go for the easy way. They think that, by name dropping, by using somebody else’s credibility as their own, they can quickly achieve the status of expert coach, without the knowledge and the experience to support that perception. All this at the expense of athletes of all levels.
Monday, August 4, 2008
All aboard the BS bandwagon!
After Chrissie Wellington’s spectacular win at Ironman Hawaii last October (Veni, vidi, vici, for all you Asterix fans out there), it seems that a lot of people in the triathlon community are scrambling to get on the newest bandwagon: the Brett Sutton bandwagon. This bandwagon has been around for a while now, but before it was basically composed of those that merely model themselves after the master, but lack BS’ experience and, more importantly, results. Now there’s a mob of people trying to hop on the BS bandwagon.
Last week I was with some friends, and one of them had this month’s editions of the two tri-rags. They both had stories about BS, about his “secrets”, what makes him so special. The Inside Triathlon piece is the one that goes into more depth. In that piece, the writer noted that Chrissie Wellington was riding with a very low cadence, that might be the secret right there, let’s make a note of that! What surprised me more was that, some things that I assume that every coach would know, are presented as novelties, as secrets. I also had a coach friend of mine email me, asking about what I knew about BS’ approach. He wanted to know what swim workouts he prescribed, how a typical week was structured. Slowtwitch is publishing a two-part interview with BS (it’s got to be in two parts, there’s so much to learn!). Stay tuned for the second part, they’re going to talk about training! Hope everyone has their pencil and notebook ready!
What is funny about all this interest in BS is that here is a guy that’s been a high level triathlon coach for close to 20 years. Here’s the coach that produced such amazing athletes as Greg Bennett, Joanne King, Siri Lindley, Lorretta Harrop, Emma Snowsill and now Chrissie Wellington. And for the Kona-centered triathlon industry, because he coaches the current Ironman champion, it’s like he just arrived to the scene.
Even with all this interest in BS’ methods, the real question here is: All those that are jumping on the bandwagon, are they learning anything from the man? Are they going to go to a remote location and focus solely on training? Are they going to do the 50-60k swim weeks full of paddles and band swimming? Are they going to throw away the powermeters and GPS’? Are they going to remove the small chainring in their bike? It seems to me that they want the success, they want to hang out with Chrissie, Belinda and Erika, without having to put in the work and go through the sacrifices that are the reason for their success.
I have been a triathlon coach for close to 12 years now. I have learned a lot in these years, and many of the things I have learned are the same I was reading on that IT piece: The importance of squad training, of having little distractions outside training. The importance of strong leadership and trust in the work you’re doing. The importance of understanding the psychological makeover of each and every athlete you work with. I wrote about some of these things on this blog before. The things that make the true core of what coaching is.
When you’re solely interested in performance, in being the best you can be, the things that are the basis of BS’ approach are the things you need to focus on. And these are the things you learn as a coach when all it matters is to bring out the absolute best out of your athlete. These are the sort of things you learn when you coach athletes, not clients. These are the things you learn when you’re interested in performance, not keeping everyone happy and paying the monthly fee.
So what’s the downside of this approach? The downside is that everyone likes success, but very few are prepared to deal with failure. And when you search for absolute success, you have to have the abyss staring at you. You have to take risks and walk a fine line. And this makes for a terrible triathlon coaching business plan. And this is the reason why we have very few coaches like BS, but a lot of bs coaches.
Last week I was with some friends, and one of them had this month’s editions of the two tri-rags. They both had stories about BS, about his “secrets”, what makes him so special. The Inside Triathlon piece is the one that goes into more depth. In that piece, the writer noted that Chrissie Wellington was riding with a very low cadence, that might be the secret right there, let’s make a note of that! What surprised me more was that, some things that I assume that every coach would know, are presented as novelties, as secrets. I also had a coach friend of mine email me, asking about what I knew about BS’ approach. He wanted to know what swim workouts he prescribed, how a typical week was structured. Slowtwitch is publishing a two-part interview with BS (it’s got to be in two parts, there’s so much to learn!). Stay tuned for the second part, they’re going to talk about training! Hope everyone has their pencil and notebook ready!
What is funny about all this interest in BS is that here is a guy that’s been a high level triathlon coach for close to 20 years. Here’s the coach that produced such amazing athletes as Greg Bennett, Joanne King, Siri Lindley, Lorretta Harrop, Emma Snowsill and now Chrissie Wellington. And for the Kona-centered triathlon industry, because he coaches the current Ironman champion, it’s like he just arrived to the scene.
Even with all this interest in BS’ methods, the real question here is: All those that are jumping on the bandwagon, are they learning anything from the man? Are they going to go to a remote location and focus solely on training? Are they going to do the 50-60k swim weeks full of paddles and band swimming? Are they going to throw away the powermeters and GPS’? Are they going to remove the small chainring in their bike? It seems to me that they want the success, they want to hang out with Chrissie, Belinda and Erika, without having to put in the work and go through the sacrifices that are the reason for their success.
I have been a triathlon coach for close to 12 years now. I have learned a lot in these years, and many of the things I have learned are the same I was reading on that IT piece: The importance of squad training, of having little distractions outside training. The importance of strong leadership and trust in the work you’re doing. The importance of understanding the psychological makeover of each and every athlete you work with. I wrote about some of these things on this blog before. The things that make the true core of what coaching is.
When you’re solely interested in performance, in being the best you can be, the things that are the basis of BS’ approach are the things you need to focus on. And these are the things you learn as a coach when all it matters is to bring out the absolute best out of your athlete. These are the sort of things you learn when you coach athletes, not clients. These are the things you learn when you’re interested in performance, not keeping everyone happy and paying the monthly fee.
So what’s the downside of this approach? The downside is that everyone likes success, but very few are prepared to deal with failure. And when you search for absolute success, you have to have the abyss staring at you. You have to take risks and walk a fine line. And this makes for a terrible triathlon coaching business plan. And this is the reason why we have very few coaches like BS, but a lot of bs coaches.
Friday, July 25, 2008
What is it good for?
In the last post, I presented P_TRIMP, a power-based version of TRIMP for durations larger than 1 hour. The fact that it is directly based on TRIMP makes it a considerable improvement over other approaches, since it is directly based on the scientific evidence on this subject.
It is ironic that some people that have never done any studies on this subject, besides being the Internet champions of the “evidence-based” methods, choose to ignore the scientific evidence in favor of their own beliefs. It seems that science only exists when it serves their interests, and that their ego-driven pseudo-science is more important than the peer-reviewed real science. If you add to this the public ad-hominem attacks, it all amounts to a classical case of intellectual dishonesty.
But all these metrics, the impulse-response models, training load quantification, what is it good for? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Very often, the ones that see using the impulse-response model based training load quantification as the absolute right way of coaching, operate under the assumption that those that do not use these methods, do so because they have a difficulty in understanding them. With this series of posts, I tried to show that there are a number of coaches (because I am not only not alone, but belong to a large “silent” majority) that understand the subject to the point to know how useless it is for training and racing.
Using training load quantification tools has very little to do with coaching. It might be a curiosity for some that are not interested in performance, or maybe a way to distinguish themselves from a marketing point-of-view, but it is certainly not the way the top endurance coaches operate.
All this emphasis in meaningless “metrics” forgets the most important part of the equation: the athlete. Athletes are not simple systems that can be modeled by a few variables. This is something that good coaches have identified throughout the years as the main aspect of coaching. And while those coaches work to prepare their athletes for the biggest stages in endurance sports, the pseudo-scientists post away on Internet fora.
It is ironic that some people that have never done any studies on this subject, besides being the Internet champions of the “evidence-based” methods, choose to ignore the scientific evidence in favor of their own beliefs. It seems that science only exists when it serves their interests, and that their ego-driven pseudo-science is more important than the peer-reviewed real science. If you add to this the public ad-hominem attacks, it all amounts to a classical case of intellectual dishonesty.
But all these metrics, the impulse-response models, training load quantification, what is it good for? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Very often, the ones that see using the impulse-response model based training load quantification as the absolute right way of coaching, operate under the assumption that those that do not use these methods, do so because they have a difficulty in understanding them. With this series of posts, I tried to show that there are a number of coaches (because I am not only not alone, but belong to a large “silent” majority) that understand the subject to the point to know how useless it is for training and racing.
Using training load quantification tools has very little to do with coaching. It might be a curiosity for some that are not interested in performance, or maybe a way to distinguish themselves from a marketing point-of-view, but it is certainly not the way the top endurance coaches operate.
All this emphasis in meaningless “metrics” forgets the most important part of the equation: the athlete. Athletes are not simple systems that can be modeled by a few variables. This is something that good coaches have identified throughout the years as the main aspect of coaching. And while those coaches work to prepare their athletes for the biggest stages in endurance sports, the pseudo-scientists post away on Internet fora.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The Death of TSS
Like I mentioned in this post, although TSS is inspired on Dr. Eric Bannister's heart rate-based training impulse (TRIMP), it has the downside that, unlike TRIMP, it has not been validated in any scientific studies.
The biggest downside of TRIMP is that it is heart rate based, which means that in the context of quantifying training load in the impulse-response model of training adaptation, the input is itself a response and not a direct measure of the stimulus.
TRIMP is calculated as
TRIMP= Duration (min) x fraction of heart rate reserve x exp(1.92 x fraction of heart rate reserve)
Now if we equate the fraction of heart rate reserve, an indirect measure of intensity, with IF, a direct measure of intensity, we will have as input on TRIMP a direct measure of the stimulus in the impulse-response model.
Given that under controlled conditions heart rate will vary linearly with power, we can assume that IF=1 will correspond to a percentage of heart rate reserve. In the following discussion, it was assumed that IF=1 corresponds to 90% of heart rate reserve. This was a number thrown around frequently back in the days when the “Karvonen formula” was used for the heart rate corresponding to what we call now Functional Threshold (IF=1). Also some of the assumptions made are only valid for durations over one hour.
By equating heart rate reserve to IF, we can define a power-based training impulse as
TRIMP_IF= Duration (min) x 0.9 x IF x exp(1.92 x 0.9 x IF)
In order to compare it to TSS, we can use the value of TRIMP_IF that corresponds to FTP, i.e.,
TRIMP_IF(FTP) = 60 x 0.9 x 1 x exp(1.92 x 0.9 x 1) ~ 303.99
in order to scale what we called TRIMP_IF. So we can define a new training load stress score, that we are calling P_TRIMP, for Power_TRIMP:
P_TRIMP = TRIMP_IF/ TRIMP_IF(FTP)
P_TRIMP has the advantage that is directly based on TRIMP, which means it is strongly correlated to the considerable amount of scientific evidence that supports TRIMP. Furthermore, it uses a direct measure of intensity as the input on the impulse-response model of training adaptation.
Figure 1 shows the curves for P_TRIMP =1, 2 and 3 respectively. For comparison, curves for TSS/100=1, 2 and 3 are plotted, as well as a universal Power vs Duration curve.
As we can see, the P_TRIMP-constant curves differ considerably from the TSS-constant curves, with the difference being greater for longer durations.
Figure 2 shows a comparison between P_TRIMP and TSS, using as input the above mentioned approximation for the Power vs Duration curve. Therefore, what is shown are the curves for the maximum TRUMP and TSS possible for a given duration.
It is clear from the comparison that TSS overestimates the training load for increasing durations. This somewhat agrees with the sentiment by those that use TSS to quantify training load that it puts an excessive weight in duration vs intensity.
Conclusion: A new training load estimator directly based on TRIMP was presented. Further validation through scientific studies is needed in order to warrant its use. However, the fact that it is directly based on TRIMP means it is already a considerable improvement over TSS.
The biggest downside of TRIMP is that it is heart rate based, which means that in the context of quantifying training load in the impulse-response model of training adaptation, the input is itself a response and not a direct measure of the stimulus.
TRIMP is calculated as
TRIMP= Duration (min) x fraction of heart rate reserve x exp(1.92 x fraction of heart rate reserve)
Now if we equate the fraction of heart rate reserve, an indirect measure of intensity, with IF, a direct measure of intensity, we will have as input on TRIMP a direct measure of the stimulus in the impulse-response model.
Given that under controlled conditions heart rate will vary linearly with power, we can assume that IF=1 will correspond to a percentage of heart rate reserve. In the following discussion, it was assumed that IF=1 corresponds to 90% of heart rate reserve. This was a number thrown around frequently back in the days when the “Karvonen formula” was used for the heart rate corresponding to what we call now Functional Threshold (IF=1). Also some of the assumptions made are only valid for durations over one hour.
By equating heart rate reserve to IF, we can define a power-based training impulse as
TRIMP_IF= Duration (min) x 0.9 x IF x exp(1.92 x 0.9 x IF)
In order to compare it to TSS, we can use the value of TRIMP_IF that corresponds to FTP, i.e.,
TRIMP_IF(FTP) = 60 x 0.9 x 1 x exp(1.92 x 0.9 x 1) ~ 303.99
in order to scale what we called TRIMP_IF. So we can define a new training load stress score, that we are calling P_TRIMP, for Power_TRIMP:
P_TRIMP = TRIMP_IF/ TRIMP_IF(FTP)
P_TRIMP has the advantage that is directly based on TRIMP, which means it is strongly correlated to the considerable amount of scientific evidence that supports TRIMP. Furthermore, it uses a direct measure of intensity as the input on the impulse-response model of training adaptation.
Figure 1 shows the curves for P_TRIMP =1, 2 and 3 respectively. For comparison, curves for TSS/100=1, 2 and 3 are plotted, as well as a universal Power vs Duration curve.
As we can see, the P_TRIMP-constant curves differ considerably from the TSS-constant curves, with the difference being greater for longer durations.
Figure 2 shows a comparison between P_TRIMP and TSS, using as input the above mentioned approximation for the Power vs Duration curve. Therefore, what is shown are the curves for the maximum TRUMP and TSS possible for a given duration.
It is clear from the comparison that TSS overestimates the training load for increasing durations. This somewhat agrees with the sentiment by those that use TSS to quantify training load that it puts an excessive weight in duration vs intensity.
Conclusion: A new training load estimator directly based on TRIMP was presented. Further validation through scientific studies is needed in order to warrant its use. However, the fact that it is directly based on TRIMP means it is already a considerable improvement over TSS.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
It’s not hard work
Those that work with Excel know that it’s not that hard to make a plot of a set of data points. So that was what I just did this morning with the world famous Endurance Nation set of “data”. I confess that I was a bit disappointed with it, since it only consists of about 20 data points, with 1/5th of it generated by one single athlete. Interestingly, this single athlete is also the person that subjectively decided about which races were successful or not, but I digress…
For those that are looking for an effort budget, which really means an energy budget, to race the bike leg in a triathlon, you would think that the average work performed would be the first candidate. As we know
Work = Power x Duration
If we define a reduced work (Wr) by scaling it with FTP, we’ll have reduced work as a function of IF
Wr x 3600=W/FTP= IF x Duration (h)
Figure 1 shows curves of constant Wr as a function of IF and Duration, along with a typical Power vs Duration curve.
Figure 2 shows the EN “data”, along the above mentioned typical Power vs Duration curve and the now shown useless TSS=300 curve. The thing that is curious about the “data”, and that a very small number of the readers of this blog might find interesting, is that it falls along a curve of constant Wr. So it would appear those athletes were all spending the same energy (scaled with individual FTP) during an Ironman bike leg.
Unfortunately, the reduced number of data points along with the subjectivity in picking the data set, renders this “conclusion” virtually useless. It is very likely that this constant-work hypothesis is just the result of this particular set of data points.
For those that are looking for an effort budget, which really means an energy budget, to race the bike leg in a triathlon, you would think that the average work performed would be the first candidate. As we know
Work = Power x Duration
If we define a reduced work (Wr) by scaling it with FTP, we’ll have reduced work as a function of IF
Wr x 3600=W/FTP= IF x Duration (h)
Figure 1 shows curves of constant Wr as a function of IF and Duration, along with a typical Power vs Duration curve.
Figure 2 shows the EN “data”, along the above mentioned typical Power vs Duration curve and the now shown useless TSS=300 curve. The thing that is curious about the “data”, and that a very small number of the readers of this blog might find interesting, is that it falls along a curve of constant Wr. So it would appear those athletes were all spending the same energy (scaled with individual FTP) during an Ironman bike leg.
Unfortunately, the reduced number of data points along with the subjectivity in picking the data set, renders this “conclusion” virtually useless. It is very likely that this constant-work hypothesis is just the result of this particular set of data points.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Final notes on the use of TSS for triathlon bike leg pacing
In the last post, through the use of two very simple examples, it was explained why TSS should not be used as an effort budget and it was shown the reason why TSS-constant curves appear to yield IF’s that translate into correctly paced Ironman bike legs.
The post generated quite a bit of discussion, and I feel that some of it was useful. Among the useful bits was the evidence on the exact shape of the Power vs Duration curve. Figure 1 shows the Power vs Duration curves for constant percentage drop-off for double the duration, i.e., log(t) curves for 11, 9 and 7% drop-offs, respectively. To those curves, within which the vast majority of the individual Power vs Duration curves falls, the TSS=300 curve was added.
As we can see yet again in this example, the TSS-constant curves “cut” across the possible intensity levels, with an obvious "disregard" for the Power vs Duration curve. Even for the durations that served as basis for the development of the “method”, the 5-6h range, the “TSS method” gives IF ranges for the cap or the starting point or whatever anyone wants to call it that are simply too big for such a small variation in duration (0.71 < IF < 0.77).
So how did TSS get involved in pacing strategies? Likely, just because it was there (Another "metric" that happens to be there is VI - another metric that is nothing more than a curiosity). Those that think that looking at numbers is the same as producing relevant data noticed that TSS fell into a nice range for triathletes that were subjectively considered to have “ran well”. While doing that, they forgot that TSS is used to quantify training load in the rather simplified impulse-response model of training adaptation, used to model training-induced changes in performance. This obviously has nothing to do with pacing strategies for a triathlon.
It should be self-evident to all that when we are talking about pacing strategies for triathlon, the only overall metric that makes sense to use is IF. On top of being an overall measure of exercise intensity, only IF is directly related to the Power vs Duration curve.
The use of IF is also very intuitive. In order to be able to run well off the bike, a triathlete reduces the intensity, IF, of her effort on the bike from the level of effort she could do in a maximal effort, given by the Power vs Duration curve. Only the Power vs Duration curve is “real”, in the sense that it relates to a maximal effort for a given duration. A triathlete uses a fraction of that effort in order to be able to access her running fitness, with the ultimate goal of minimizing the overall race time.
The post generated quite a bit of discussion, and I feel that some of it was useful. Among the useful bits was the evidence on the exact shape of the Power vs Duration curve. Figure 1 shows the Power vs Duration curves for constant percentage drop-off for double the duration, i.e., log(t) curves for 11, 9 and 7% drop-offs, respectively. To those curves, within which the vast majority of the individual Power vs Duration curves falls, the TSS=300 curve was added.
As we can see yet again in this example, the TSS-constant curves “cut” across the possible intensity levels, with an obvious "disregard" for the Power vs Duration curve. Even for the durations that served as basis for the development of the “method”, the 5-6h range, the “TSS method” gives IF ranges for the cap or the starting point or whatever anyone wants to call it that are simply too big for such a small variation in duration (0.71 < IF < 0.77).
So how did TSS get involved in pacing strategies? Likely, just because it was there (Another "metric" that happens to be there is VI - another metric that is nothing more than a curiosity). Those that think that looking at numbers is the same as producing relevant data noticed that TSS fell into a nice range for triathletes that were subjectively considered to have “ran well”. While doing that, they forgot that TSS is used to quantify training load in the rather simplified impulse-response model of training adaptation, used to model training-induced changes in performance. This obviously has nothing to do with pacing strategies for a triathlon.
It should be self-evident to all that when we are talking about pacing strategies for triathlon, the only overall metric that makes sense to use is IF. On top of being an overall measure of exercise intensity, only IF is directly related to the Power vs Duration curve.
The use of IF is also very intuitive. In order to be able to run well off the bike, a triathlete reduces the intensity, IF, of her effort on the bike from the level of effort she could do in a maximal effort, given by the Power vs Duration curve. Only the Power vs Duration curve is “real”, in the sense that it relates to a maximal effort for a given duration. A triathlete uses a fraction of that effort in order to be able to access her running fitness, with the ultimate goal of minimizing the overall race time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)