I confessed in another post on this blog to being an old-school coach. But according to my definition of what is old-school, I try hard to keep up with the new (meaningful) trends. One of such emerging trends is coach/athlete communication through... blog.
With an increasing number of athletes having a personal blog these days, it seems that the passive-aggressive attitude of sending little messages through blogs, for which I am as well guilty as charged, has invaded the coach/athlete universe. For a lot of athletes, the question pops in their mind: Should I email my coach or just write a blog and expect him/her to see it? And a lot of the times, the blog wins. The problem with this is that what athletes put on blogs is their version of things for public consumption. And what coaches need to hear is the real thing, the nitty-gritty, the straight dope.
There is an obvious difference in the type of information that you share with your coach and the information you share with the outside world. And the only way a coach can do a good job at coaching you is if he has the right information to work with, not a distilled, digested version of your training and your life.
So go and email your coach. You can blog later.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Getting the work done
Jonnyo “invented” that expression: “Getting the work done”. And slowly but surely, the expression and the attitude behind it was adopted by everyone in the posse. I use the word attitude because there really is an attitude behind “getting the work done”.
“Getting the work done" is about trusting what you are doing and focusing all your energy into execution, both in training and racing. The sport of triathlon is full of overthinkers. They overthink everything: nutrition, equipment and of course training. Proof of the existence of these overthinkers is the popularity of triathlon forums, with their endless pages of often pointless discussion. What makes overthinking an issue is that when athletes overthink, they lose focus. Focus on the truly important things: consistency, patience, long-term approach to development. This is a problem for many athletes, but I see it worse when coaches suffer from it. Too many coaches out there overthink their processes and “infect” their athletes with superfluous questioning of every step of the training process. The bottom line is that overthinking is synonym with underachieving.
“Getting the work done” is about consistency. Every athlete has days where it is hard to get out the door for the next workout. Most of the times this is a mental issue that is experienced by athletes at every level. One way of helping the athlete with these issues is to build the schedule around training sessions that do not need a lot of mental energy to accomplish. I like to call them “bread-and-butter” sessions. They are usually short in duration and low-intensity, but are still a very important part of the overall training program. They do not ask much from the athlete in terms of mental commitment and all he/she needs to do is to go out and get the work done.
“Getting the work done” is about expanding your personal boundaries. In order to do that, you have to go to your limit and then past it. You will be in a place where fatigue will cause you to doubt everything you are doing. And you are at that point, the only way is up and for that you need to get the work done.
Finally, “getting the work done” is about commitment to your goals. A lot of people have very lofty goals but hesitate when it is time to do the work that will allow them to accomplish those goals. For the large majority of athletes, what keeps them from achieving their goals is to get the work done.
Now get out there and just… get the work done!
“Getting the work done" is about trusting what you are doing and focusing all your energy into execution, both in training and racing. The sport of triathlon is full of overthinkers. They overthink everything: nutrition, equipment and of course training. Proof of the existence of these overthinkers is the popularity of triathlon forums, with their endless pages of often pointless discussion. What makes overthinking an issue is that when athletes overthink, they lose focus. Focus on the truly important things: consistency, patience, long-term approach to development. This is a problem for many athletes, but I see it worse when coaches suffer from it. Too many coaches out there overthink their processes and “infect” their athletes with superfluous questioning of every step of the training process. The bottom line is that overthinking is synonym with underachieving.
“Getting the work done” is about consistency. Every athlete has days where it is hard to get out the door for the next workout. Most of the times this is a mental issue that is experienced by athletes at every level. One way of helping the athlete with these issues is to build the schedule around training sessions that do not need a lot of mental energy to accomplish. I like to call them “bread-and-butter” sessions. They are usually short in duration and low-intensity, but are still a very important part of the overall training program. They do not ask much from the athlete in terms of mental commitment and all he/she needs to do is to go out and get the work done.
“Getting the work done” is about expanding your personal boundaries. In order to do that, you have to go to your limit and then past it. You will be in a place where fatigue will cause you to doubt everything you are doing. And you are at that point, the only way is up and for that you need to get the work done.
Finally, “getting the work done” is about commitment to your goals. A lot of people have very lofty goals but hesitate when it is time to do the work that will allow them to accomplish those goals. For the large majority of athletes, what keeps them from achieving their goals is to get the work done.
Now get out there and just… get the work done!
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Reflection
As some of you have noticed, I stopped posting on my blog for quite some time. It was for me a time of reflection. A time to look back and evaluate my coaching methods and my training philosophy. During this month, I have come to accept the shortcomings of my approaches to triathlon training, and be more open to what others have been using successfully for so long.
Therefore, I have made a list of measures that will become effective immediately for the athletes coached by me:
- From now on, all training should be done with a HRM. The use of a powermeter on the bike will no longer be encouraged. For those that, for curiosity, still want to keep their powermeter, I will instruct them to use power as just an auxiliary metric, with HR being their primary way of measuring intensity.
- The use of a Garmin and a motionbased account will be mandatory for all pstriathlon.com athletes.
- I will build personalized playlists for my athletes to listen on their iPod while running.
- I will have my own definition of lactate threshold. It will be based on a way of measuring your lactate through your breathing. I will call it pLT.
- I will create my own version of the basic concepts of exercise physiology. This is not totally developed yet, but I think that the next big thing after aerobic/anaerobic is going to be paraerobic.
- Having a long ride on Saturday followed by a long run on Sunday will be one of the staples of my program.
- Another staple of the program will be the mandatory weekly day off.
- Walk breaks during long runs will also be mandatory.
- I will discuss race strategy with my athletes solely based on bike pacing.
- I will stop asking my athletes to do “all-out” or “best average” sets.
- Everytime my athletes have a bad race, I will remind them that there isn’t such a thing as failure, just feedback.
- I will make an effort to read more books about training. When reading those books, I will look for what makes them unique and individual, instead of looking for their common points.
- I will watch Full Metal Jacket at least once a week, always searching for new ways to apply the teachings of the film to my coaching practice.
- I have come to realize that having myself reply to the emails I get from athletes is a practice that belongs in the 20th century. I will now have an apprentice coach to reply to the emails like it was me. Interested coaches should apply to the position and screening will go on until the position is filled. The tuition fees for this apprenticeship will be low, as to allow anyone to have the priviledge of learning from me.
- I will constantly remind myself that triathlon coaching is a business, and that as such, the customer is always right.
- I will take every opportunity to mention the names of the pro athletes I coach, only because it fills me with pride to work with such talented people.
- In order to fulfill the requirements to become an Elite Level Coach, I will write articles and post on Forums demonstrating this new approach to triathlon training.
This is just a small part of all the changes I will be making to my coaching in the following months. It will be a hard process, but I am sure a new, better Coach Paulo will emerge from this.
Therefore, I have made a list of measures that will become effective immediately for the athletes coached by me:
- From now on, all training should be done with a HRM. The use of a powermeter on the bike will no longer be encouraged. For those that, for curiosity, still want to keep their powermeter, I will instruct them to use power as just an auxiliary metric, with HR being their primary way of measuring intensity.
- The use of a Garmin and a motionbased account will be mandatory for all pstriathlon.com athletes.
- I will build personalized playlists for my athletes to listen on their iPod while running.
- I will have my own definition of lactate threshold. It will be based on a way of measuring your lactate through your breathing. I will call it pLT.
- I will create my own version of the basic concepts of exercise physiology. This is not totally developed yet, but I think that the next big thing after aerobic/anaerobic is going to be paraerobic.
- Having a long ride on Saturday followed by a long run on Sunday will be one of the staples of my program.
- Another staple of the program will be the mandatory weekly day off.
- Walk breaks during long runs will also be mandatory.
- I will discuss race strategy with my athletes solely based on bike pacing.
- I will stop asking my athletes to do “all-out” or “best average” sets.
- Everytime my athletes have a bad race, I will remind them that there isn’t such a thing as failure, just feedback.
- I will make an effort to read more books about training. When reading those books, I will look for what makes them unique and individual, instead of looking for their common points.
- I will watch Full Metal Jacket at least once a week, always searching for new ways to apply the teachings of the film to my coaching practice.
- I have come to realize that having myself reply to the emails I get from athletes is a practice that belongs in the 20th century. I will now have an apprentice coach to reply to the emails like it was me. Interested coaches should apply to the position and screening will go on until the position is filled. The tuition fees for this apprenticeship will be low, as to allow anyone to have the priviledge of learning from me.
- I will constantly remind myself that triathlon coaching is a business, and that as such, the customer is always right.
- I will take every opportunity to mention the names of the pro athletes I coach, only because it fills me with pride to work with such talented people.
- In order to fulfill the requirements to become an Elite Level Coach, I will write articles and post on Forums demonstrating this new approach to triathlon training.
This is just a small part of all the changes I will be making to my coaching in the following months. It will be a hard process, but I am sure a new, better Coach Paulo will emerge from this.
Monday, March 31, 2008
A little bit more about the constant fatigue “model”
I got an email from another highly respected coach (he asked to be called that!) asking me to elaborate a little on how to implement in a weekly routine he constant fatigue model that I talked about here, and how it differs from other ways of scheduling training.
In order to talk about this, it might be helpful to define a subjective, qualitative training stress score that I will call TRS, Training Response Score. For a simple definition of TRS, let’s say that the total training load that any athlete can handle in a week represents 700 TRS, which means that the average daily TRS is 100. With this average daily TRS defined, it is easier to qualitatively explain the constant fatigue level model, and even compare it wth other scheduling models. Given that TRS is a measure based on adaptation to training, it is closely linked to the state of fatigue/recovery of the ahlete. Therefore, constant fatigue levels should be obtained by aiming to have daily TRS’s of around 100.
Even though for the sake of simplicity, the time frame of one week was mentioned, we need to remember that adaptation to training occurs in periods of 6-8 weeks. So when we are talking about the 700 TRS an athlete can handle in a week, we really should be thinking of the amount of training load an athlete can perform in a 6-8 week block, 4200-5600 TRS. This training load is something that falls into a very narrow interval.
As we all know, specificity has, or should have, a big impact when designing the training plan. Therefore, specificity requirements might deviate us from the “perfect” implementation of the constant fatigue model. This is particularly true for Ironman training, where for specificity, it is often needed to schedule days which will bring a TRS in excess of 100. To give an example, a training session that is common for IM athletes to do, a 5 hour ride followed by a 40min run, is a session that might have a TRS of over 150 for some athletes.
So how do you couple the constant fatigue model with the specificity needs? I feel that the best approach is to have a hard day/easy day approach, where you seek recovery, hence adaptation, in the short term. In terms of TRS, this would mean that following a 150 TRS day, you would schedule a 50 TRS.
An alternative way to schedule training is to center microcyle planning around 2-3 “big days” in a week. Let’s try to see this with the help of the TRS. A “big day” might represent some 150-200 TRS and 2-3 days can mean a training load of 400-500 TRS. Because we have a “budget” of 700 TRS for the week (or more important 4200-5600 TRS for the block), and because such stenous sessions require significant recovery in the following days, a good part of the week is comprised of low TRS days. The practical consequences of what was stated above are pretty straightforward. There is only so much and athlete can handle inside 6-8 weeks. So if you are seeking adaptation to training, something that apparently is not a goal for some, if you are going to do “big days” or “big weeks” of training, they will be followed by small days or small weeks in order to balance out the adaptation equation. And this is the important detail that never makes it to athlete’s blogs.
Some of you must be asking right now this: What is the difference between the two approaches, providing you respect the same TRS during a 6-8 week block?
The main difference I find is the predictability in response to training that you get by using a constant fatigue/recovery model. By seeking to find the training load that induces a constant recovery timeframe, you can easily answer one of the more important questions when scheduling training: “Is the athlete recovered in order to be able to complete the goals of the next session?”
As mentioned in an earlier post, the training process can be loosely modeled as a series of sequenced processes composed of:
Training Load (session) -> Fatigue -> Adaptation(recovery) -> Performance
By trying to maintain constant the load/fatigue part of the process, we can more easily predict the effect that the scheduled sessions have in the overall training plan and hence the impact in performance.
In order to talk about this, it might be helpful to define a subjective, qualitative training stress score that I will call TRS, Training Response Score. For a simple definition of TRS, let’s say that the total training load that any athlete can handle in a week represents 700 TRS, which means that the average daily TRS is 100. With this average daily TRS defined, it is easier to qualitatively explain the constant fatigue level model, and even compare it wth other scheduling models. Given that TRS is a measure based on adaptation to training, it is closely linked to the state of fatigue/recovery of the ahlete. Therefore, constant fatigue levels should be obtained by aiming to have daily TRS’s of around 100.
Even though for the sake of simplicity, the time frame of one week was mentioned, we need to remember that adaptation to training occurs in periods of 6-8 weeks. So when we are talking about the 700 TRS an athlete can handle in a week, we really should be thinking of the amount of training load an athlete can perform in a 6-8 week block, 4200-5600 TRS. This training load is something that falls into a very narrow interval.
As we all know, specificity has, or should have, a big impact when designing the training plan. Therefore, specificity requirements might deviate us from the “perfect” implementation of the constant fatigue model. This is particularly true for Ironman training, where for specificity, it is often needed to schedule days which will bring a TRS in excess of 100. To give an example, a training session that is common for IM athletes to do, a 5 hour ride followed by a 40min run, is a session that might have a TRS of over 150 for some athletes.
So how do you couple the constant fatigue model with the specificity needs? I feel that the best approach is to have a hard day/easy day approach, where you seek recovery, hence adaptation, in the short term. In terms of TRS, this would mean that following a 150 TRS day, you would schedule a 50 TRS.
An alternative way to schedule training is to center microcyle planning around 2-3 “big days” in a week. Let’s try to see this with the help of the TRS. A “big day” might represent some 150-200 TRS and 2-3 days can mean a training load of 400-500 TRS. Because we have a “budget” of 700 TRS for the week (or more important 4200-5600 TRS for the block), and because such stenous sessions require significant recovery in the following days, a good part of the week is comprised of low TRS days. The practical consequences of what was stated above are pretty straightforward. There is only so much and athlete can handle inside 6-8 weeks. So if you are seeking adaptation to training, something that apparently is not a goal for some, if you are going to do “big days” or “big weeks” of training, they will be followed by small days or small weeks in order to balance out the adaptation equation. And this is the important detail that never makes it to athlete’s blogs.
Some of you must be asking right now this: What is the difference between the two approaches, providing you respect the same TRS during a 6-8 week block?
The main difference I find is the predictability in response to training that you get by using a constant fatigue/recovery model. By seeking to find the training load that induces a constant recovery timeframe, you can easily answer one of the more important questions when scheduling training: “Is the athlete recovered in order to be able to complete the goals of the next session?”
As mentioned in an earlier post, the training process can be loosely modeled as a series of sequenced processes composed of:
Training Load (session) -> Fatigue -> Adaptation(recovery) -> Performance
By trying to maintain constant the load/fatigue part of the process, we can more easily predict the effect that the scheduled sessions have in the overall training plan and hence the impact in performance.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Run like Sergio
Wim de Doncker asked me to write a little piece about Sergio's run training. You can read it here.
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
There is life after the end of this season
That is an obvious title. For most competitive athletes, there is no doubt in their minds that they will be training and racing in the next season and beyond. There is also little doubt in the minds of competitive athletes about the need to improve from year to year. However, very little is said by most triathlon training gurus about the need for a multi-year plan. Instead, we get narrow views of athlete development, like the one-size-fits-all 24-week plans for Ironman training, or the athletes and/or coaches that see multi-year development kind of like “Groundhog Year”, with every season starting at the tune of Sonny and Cher.
The first requirement for a continuous performance improvement over several years is to establish at an early stage a multi-year plan. This plan should delineate, in broad terms, the building-up of conditioning over several years.
In order to elaborate the multi-year plan, it is essential to access:
- a profile of the athlete’s weak and strong characteristics
- the athlete’s ability to adapt to the various training methods
The multi-year plan sparingly needs to readjusted according to the physiological development of the athlete. This requires an ongoing observation of the evolution of the athlete’s conditioning level, based on training feedback, test results and racing. In order to benefit from the long-term guidelines that the multi-year plan contains, not too many changes should be made to it.
So what training information should be stated in a multi-year plan?
- Long-term racing objectives (e.g. win a determined race).
- Long-term motivational goals (e.g. participate at a competitive training camp).
- Long-term training load goals (e.g. achieve a determined training load necessary to achieve the long-term racing goals).
- Laboratory and field tests to evaluate the evolution of conditioning.
In order for us to achieve our goal, it is not sufficient to just have a clear picture of the goal. It is also necessary to have a picture of the path to the goal. Only through the clear picture for athlete development that the multi-year plan provides, we can expect for the continuous performance improvement we all want to achieve.
The first requirement for a continuous performance improvement over several years is to establish at an early stage a multi-year plan. This plan should delineate, in broad terms, the building-up of conditioning over several years.
In order to elaborate the multi-year plan, it is essential to access:
- a profile of the athlete’s weak and strong characteristics
- the athlete’s ability to adapt to the various training methods
The multi-year plan sparingly needs to readjusted according to the physiological development of the athlete. This requires an ongoing observation of the evolution of the athlete’s conditioning level, based on training feedback, test results and racing. In order to benefit from the long-term guidelines that the multi-year plan contains, not too many changes should be made to it.
So what training information should be stated in a multi-year plan?
- Long-term racing objectives (e.g. win a determined race).
- Long-term motivational goals (e.g. participate at a competitive training camp).
- Long-term training load goals (e.g. achieve a determined training load necessary to achieve the long-term racing goals).
- Laboratory and field tests to evaluate the evolution of conditioning.
In order for us to achieve our goal, it is not sufficient to just have a clear picture of the goal. It is also necessary to have a picture of the path to the goal. Only through the clear picture for athlete development that the multi-year plan provides, we can expect for the continuous performance improvement we all want to achieve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)