Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
New versus Old School (coaching)
Quote | Reply
i need a little help here. i'm trying to find an appropriate way to categorize (and help coaches self-categorize) along the gradient of old to new school. it occurred to me that you can't just lump everyone into one or the other. maybe there are 10 steps, or 7, or 12, or 5, that get you from altogether old to altogether new.

and i'm not trying to be cute here. i'm really looking for some help, and i think it might be easier for athletes to choose coaches who can have a numerical score, or a color coding, or something, showing where they are along the gradient.

i don't know who might be altogether old school, maybe molina. strictly old school, it seems to me, would be:

- no web interface workout log.
- no training software
- no workouts based on training with power
- no blood lactate analyzer
- no speaking in acronyms (WKO, TSS, LT, AT)
- uses easy/med/hard or % of max HR, but does not refer to zones like Z1, Z2, etc.
- may use a workout point score, but something home-grown instead of training peaks' TSS score
- believes in periodization, but would not be caught dead using that word.

strictly new school might be:

- subjects get their workouts via a web interface workout log, and use it log their workouts.
- uses training software to analyze, plot, plan.
- is an adherent of training with power on the bike
- subjects have portable blood lactate analyzers for use during interval sessions
- uses every acronym in the book
- after having been coached by this coach, subjects could teach intro to exercise physiology

furthermore, and perhaps most importantly:

- old school relies on and believes and trusts in experience over scientific evidence generated in a lab, that is, he believes that science will catch up to and validate training theories elite athletes already know through decades of experience.

- new school believes that what we read in scientific journals about training show us the way to better methods, allowing us to embrace what works, and to cast off the the mythic, the subjective, the anecdotal.

what am i missing? are there traits i'm omitting, or is there a better way to differentiate between old and new school that gets nearer the heart of the differences between them?

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Whats this newfangled workout point scoring thing you are talking about? Its not a football game. Periodization is when you go through your paper and make sure you have enough punctuation.

Strictly old school.
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Are you trying to bring Paulo out from lurking? ;-)
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Old School - JFT maggot!

New School - If it not too much trouble or an inconvenience, could you possibly increase your workload to Z2.5, please?

_________________________________
I'll be what I am
A solitary man
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
after having been coached by this coach, subjects could teach intro to exercise physiology

Or are so confused and burned out that they welcome the simple approach advocated by an Old School coach!!

Dan,

As for the lists - That's a good start.

No surprise - put me down in the Old School camp :)


Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [last tri in 83] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree with Last Tri. When I think of "Old School" I think of a trainer telling me to: 1) quick whining; 2) go out there are push your body to the limit every workout; 3) don't worry about those feedback gadgets; and 4) do really long, hard workouts that a New Schooler would think might irresponsibly blow you up.
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't see where using a web interface to communicate workouts is either old school or new school. The basis/ideas for creating the workouts might be old or new school, but using the web is just a communication device.
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OK - I am having a bit of a problem with the way this whole thing is stated. First off , by your list you are mostly defining "old school" by what they don't do, and not what they do. You might as well re-categorize this "luddite" and "geek" the way it is set up.

I am not sure what your intent is here, but I am guessing what you may be trying to do is list the sets of tools that various coaches may use, and then create some sliding scale of technological savvy. Who is to say a "old school" coach doesn't use LT somewhere to get an assesment. There could be some degree of not only how many gizmo's/physiological tests, but what dependence the coach puts on them (so effectively there is a weighting factor for where you show up on the scale).

So what actually are you trying to do here? I could see a simple wieghted cluster analysis based on "tools" and "dependency on tools" that would show a spectrum of coaching styles, but that is only one way to break it out.

And I really would like to see a better defnition of your "old school" based on what they actually do.

Jim
"In dog beers, I've only had one"
http://www.shakercolonial.com/
Creating custom made furnishing to your requirements
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's the argument of is coaching art or science. Experience/feel adds to the "art" grade and education/keeping current adds to the "science" grade

I would think that a report card style format would work for something of this magnitude--
with a statement of areas of focus and specialization, combined with the ability for the masses to grade the coach on their attention to different areas of technique focus, training schedule/record, objective testing, subjective assessment... As with any mass rating advisor, there will always be the digruntled client and the over-zealous sycophant chiming in, but the overwhelming opinion/comments on a coach might guide a person's ultimate choice...

Something like tripadvisor.com for tri coaches
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I personally would be leery of a coach who considered himself either Old school or New school. If I do the workouts Fleck did way back when but use a PM, am I Old School or New School?

I think we could learn a lot from Bruce Lee:

"I have not invented a "new style," composite, modified or otherwise that is set within distinct form as apart from "this" method or "that" method. On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds. Remember that Jeet Kune Do is merely a name used, a mirror in which to see "ourselves". . . Jeet Kune Do is not an organized institution that one can be a member of. Either you understand or you don't, and that is that. There is no mystery about my style. My movements are simple, direct and non-classical. The extraordinary part of it lies in its simplicity. Every movement in Jeet Kune-Do is being so of itself. There is nothing artificial about it. I always believe that the easy way is the right way. Jeet Kune-Do is simply the direct expression of one's feelings with the minimum of movements and energy. The closer to the true way of Kung Fu, the less wastage of expression there is. Finally, a Jeet Kune Do man who says Jeet Kune Do is exclusively Jeet Kune Do is simply not with it. He is still hung up on his self-closing resistance, in this case anchored down to reactionary pattern, and naturally is still bound by another modified pattern and can move within its limits. He has not digested the simple fact that truth exists outside all molds; pattern and awareness is never exclusive. Again let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back."

– Bruce Lee
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A coaches self-scored continuum 1-10: 1 We mold athletes to the training..... 10 We mold the model to the athlete.
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
<< what am i missing? >>

I wonder if this type of service could accurately identify a coach (or physician or politician) that relies heavily on both sources of knowledge and experience. It reminds me a bit of the political process in America. The greatest noise and rhetoric comes out of the most liberal and most conservative elements of our society. You would think they are in the majority. Once in office, they are generally more centrist than either of the extremes that, combined, represent only 20% of the population. Some 80% of the population is centrist, have a high degree of tolerance for both schools of thought and surround themselves with others whose strength supports areas where they are less expert. In the end, there is more agreement than disagreement. However, I think, sometime we fail to talk about that.

KP


Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [jriosa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"I really would like to see a better defnition of your "old school" based on what they actually do."

hence my post, asking for a better way of defining and differentiating. i would like to see other definitions as well. want to give it a try?


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"- new school believes that what we read in scientific journals about training show us the way to better methods, allowing us to embrace what works, and to cast off the the mythic, the subjective, the anecdotal."
- - As someone who regularly reads several of these journals, there is an old-school/new-school interface here. Many of the studies yield information that either sounds wrong or appears to support the contention that the studiers set out to prove, often times defying what I know from training, racing and coaching for nearly half a century. So I've discovered that it pays to really study the studies and look for the flaws. I often find that studies are too narrow, too short or too poorly controlled...
So as a third category, you can include new-school, anal-retentive, nit-pickers...


Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Old School- Train as much as possible. Go to the 6:00 am swim so that you have all day for the other 2 sports. Ride with some road riders- train at the track with runners.
Do all interval sessions all out.
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
- subjects have portable blood lactate analyzers for use during interval sessions
I'd move that one to 'old school'--seriously...
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowman. i agree with the above poster that you are defining old-school as more what they don't do, than by what they do. i have helped ( coached ?? ) many young cyclists purely old-school with some success. we do things like: hill-repeats. motorpace. hare-and-hound. show up and try to hang onto the fast group ride, and so on for our hard days. most of these have modern-day computerized equivalent workouts, i just teach how to do em analogue style. it might be good to describe what an old-school approach looks like, instead of just what it doesn't look like.
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [jriosa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Who is to say a "old school" coach doesn't use LT somewhere to get an assesment.

That's a key point. Just because a coach is Old School does not mean that they don't know what they are doing or are not up on what's going on in Human Physiology. The reality is that, the basics of human physiology and endurance training are pretty straight forward and the basic principals where established years ago! Not much has changed in the past 15 - 20 years.

And regarding LT, whether it be New School or Old School, it does not matter, it is perhaps THE most important physiological parameter when it comes to endurance sport performance. And again, it's very straight forward - however you do it, if you rasie LT, you should be faster at all range of intensities and distances.


Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Old School Coaching in running:
1. An old school coach has the art of coaching down. They can take one look at their athlete without using scientific data and know how the athlete feels. Often they detect the slightest limp before the athlete even knows he or she is injured.
2. An old school coach has a very generalized training plan for the season but everything is subject to change. They don't write down the plan either.
3. New school looks for scientific justifications to avoid volume. Old school doesn't care what the scientific justifications say because the race results say volume is important.
4. Old school doesn't mind repeating the same cycle over and over. They go through running workouts like 10x1000, 3x1.5 mi, 6 mile tempo run for weeks on end before moving on to the next thing. New school changes things up every week because some study says so.
5. Old school could care less about getting USA Track and Field or USA Triathlon coaching certificates. You won't find them at the coaches association meeting either.
6. Dan, if you want to go see a really good old school coach in action go visit Steve Scott at CSU San Marcos :)
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Old school coaches possibililties
-To hell with a USAT cert.
-Hanging out on internet message boards is a complete waste of time
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OK- I understand what you are asking now. What you really want to do is ocme up with a list of coaching methods first, then apply a simple wieghted cluster algorithm to see how coaches lump together - there may be no pure "old" or "new" school, so rather than defining the categories first and then trying to fit characters to them, define the characters first and see where that patterns lie after analysis. This is pretty classical taxonomic theory.

That said, and realizing I am very new to this sport let me try a few suggestions for defining the character list. There will be many holes that people could fill in.

Baselining the athlete.
  1. current mileage/hours per week
  2. documented timed results (5k, 40 k TT, best race times etc)
  3. LT
  4. VO2 Max
  5. HR by workout (average/peak)
  6. wattage by workout (average/peak)

Training the athlete
  1. Mileage/time increase
  2. "quality" workout - ie tempo work, cadence work etc
  3. train by HR
  4. train by power
  5. periodization
  6. nutritional analysis

Tools
  1. Workout logs
  2. HR history
  3. Power history
  4. POwer Cranks
  5. Basic cycle computer (speed/cadence)
  6. Pool Toys (fins, paddles, pull bouys)
  7. Altitude tent

Assesing the Athelete
  1. Race results
  2. Power curves
  3. LT/VO2 change
  4. mileage/hour workout delta

Any of these could be weighted as well - so a power meter could be used as a data source, but not used as a training paradigm. Further, you may need multiple profiles, so one for coaching elites, whereas a newbie like myself could be focused on building base and mileage before we ever see a power training regimen.

This could then be run through something like a MDA analysis or a Weighted pair group clustering analysis, and youcould see if there are major separations between coaching styles.

Others feel free to add to any of the categories, or add categories as you see fit.

Jim
"In dog beers, I've only had one"
http://www.shakercolonial.com/
Creating custom made furnishing to your requirements
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
New School Nutritional Supplements: [Don't know the names because I don't take any]

Old School Nutritional Supplements: A roll of Smarties before each workout/race
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What are you building in the lab Dr. Frankenstein?

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...rch_string=;#1605723

Brad

3SIXTY5cycling.com
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Fleck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Who is to say a "old school" coach doesn't use LT somewhere to get an assesment.

That's a key point. Just because a coach is Old School does not mean that they don't know what they are doing or are not up on what's going on in Human Physiology. The reality is that, the basics of human physiology and endurance training are pretty straight forward and the basic principals where established years ago! Not much has changed in the past 15 - 20 years.

And regarding LT, whether it be New School or Old School, it does not matter, it is perhaps THE most important physiological parameter when it comes to endurance sport performance. And again, it's very straight forward - however you do it, if you rasie LT, you should be faster at all range of intensities and distances.

i disagree with these statement. a lot has changed in our understanding of human physiology as it relates to endurance sports. many experiments and studies done years ago have been interpreted wrongly, incompletely or their true findings have been ignored. this combined with the ever increasing blurring of the line between science and marketing and the corruption of scientific research by financial interests has meant that we are not progressing well toward a better understanding of physiology as it relates to endurance sport.
of course the basics of training are probably as close as need be to 'optimal' and knowing more will not guarantee improved performance, just understanding it.


just an example i happen to have handy http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...w&indexed=google

and for the second statement, IMHO, LT is never ever the primary determinant of speed nor is raising it a necessity or guarantor of increased speed.

______________________________________
"Competetive sport begins where healthy sport ends"
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [LarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Old school doesn't mind repeating the same cycle over and over. They go through running workouts like 10x1000, 3x1.5 mi, 6 mile tempo run for weeks on end before moving on to the next thing."

I must have been coached by an "old school" coach because I have done those runs so many times! I'm sure my coach did the same workouts when he/she was still racing. I now give those workouts to the groups I coach.

Old School is sticking to what works. If it aint broke....
Last edited by: dominator: Dec 27, 07 9:32
Quote Reply

Prev Next