no.

untapped potential plus training = rate of improvement. one person could be super talented, but maybe they're closer to their potential than the untalented person. the first is going to find it harder to improve than the "untalented" one who has a lot of low hanging, easily accessible fruit to pick off.

I never said anything about training maximal hours. never. Its not always about training more. It is often about training well, figuring out what works and what doesn't, and ditching the stuff that doesn't.

when you tell that perennial 2:00/100 swimmer that they did a great job by becoming a 1:55/100 swimmer with their hard work, its simply about where they are vs where they were, and how they got there. No statements on "talent" anywhere, neither explicit nor implicit.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Then tell me - why arent all your athletes winning the overall in their races? Whey aren't they all Kona-qualified?

It's not just because they can't train 20+hrs/wk - quite a few folks qualify for Kona, even in highly competitive age groups, on 10-12hrs/week of training. So why can't your athletes do it?

Or put another way, if "talent" is the limiter, then what can you possibly offer them?

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

It might affect where they start off. It might affect where they wind up.

It's mostly irrelevant at all the points in between.

It might affect the maximal amount of workload they can handle. If they aren't at that maximal level, then it doesn't matter.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Almost all athletes have limiters well before talent is the biggest factor that I work with. And it’s my job to make sure that expectation is set or I don’t work with them,

I don’t have many athletes who set unrealistic expectations. I call these Santa clause prayers,

Want to win races and then do 60% of weekly work. I don’t have many athletes like that. Generally they put in the work and the results generally play out like they should.

I’m generally a 90% rule coach. Do 90% of the work and you’re pretty much going to accomplish your goal. I’m not a coach that will “gurantee” results. KQ or 1st AG etc, I’m more process oriented than saying hire me as you will KQ. You could Pr and miss KQ and that’s a better result imo than KQ by roll down on a meh result. So the extras I’m not much on guranteeing or worrying about. I’m worrying about doing the work and letting that take care of the extras.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Ha - now you're really dodging.

I kinda knew you'd bring this up. I could also bring up other variables as anybody could - nutrition, recovery or lack of, etc. I just two major factors (training+talent) to simplify things and because the two I'm highlighting are so important.

And, yes, you ABSOULTELY ARE making a statement when you tell that 2:00/100 'good job' to get to 1:55. For simplicity, let's assume what I said -they're PERENNIAL 2:00/100s (not totally new with completely untested potential). This is most AGers, very realistic. Year-round 2:00/100 swimmers, despite trying year after year. You are absolutely making a judgment and an implicit statement on their talent when you say 'good job at 1:55!" even if you never say the word talent.

You'd also look heavily into what they did to improve,as you said. If it took them a ton of work and a lot of schedule sacrifice just to get that 5sec/100, which honestly is pretty realistic for a lot of perennial 2:00/100 swimmers, you're not going tell them they'll be in lane 1 of masters by next year.

You don't have to say the word talent, but it's one of the biggest factors that you'll judge your athlete's workouts and goals by, and you know it.

And like I said - the reason they and you don't have unrealistic expectations is because you have included an assessment of their talent HEAVILY in your goals and plans. It's impossible to not do so, even if you go out of your way and twist yourself into knots to NOT give any judgements of talent, or ceiling potential, etc.

You as a coach might THINK your athletes have limiters well before talent, but even you know that isn't the case. If they had real, world-class talent, they would be crushing fields with little training. Tim Don recounts on youtube that coming from only swimming, he ran his first 10k on almost no run training - and ran a 33:xx. His rate of improvement was nuts. Even ajthomas above - he knows his son has a super high talent, from a super young age.

If talent (which includes rate of response to training, if not is the definition of this) is so NOT important to your athlete's results, ALL of your athletes should be going to Kona on 12hrs/week of training, because a good number of people have the ability to do just that.

The reason they can't is they're not as gifted. In fact, many/most of them aren't gifted enough to even make it with a LOT more training that that, and you know that too.

Now if you're just talking about winning your AG at non-national smaller races, then yes, I'd agree with you and I've said this many times. I'm literally the living proof of that over many years now. The ability needed for that is attainable by just hard work for even the middle of the AG talent bell curve. But KQ and above? You better have at least some good genetic ability for SBR to have a chance.

You might be, but I would not. I....DONT...CARE.

and I would never promise outcomes like that. Why the hell would anyone? I've already said that some external measure is a lousy way to set goals, Process is far far more important.

In what way am I dodging? what did I dodge, I'll address it.

as for the hypothetical 2:00/100 swimmer, if thats where they are then they have significant low hanging fruit (assuming they aren't elderly, major mobility issues, etc..). Sorry, but there's no 2 ways about it. Neural pathways can be very hard to correct, so if someone improves 5s per 100 from their "perennial" level, thats significant. Its just that the issues of the 2:00 swimmer will be much easier to find, and less risky to correct, than someone who might be a 1:10/100 swimmer. But it's not a statement on talent, just where they are. It might be really easy, it might be really hard.

edit to add: i might go as far as saying something along the lines of: "If we can fix X Y and Z, then I think we can get you another NN seconds per 100 in your aerobic cruising pace", or something like that. But I'm not making any promises on that, or giving a timeline. It's about developing a plan for how to get there.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

We’ll just agree to disagree and that’s awesome. I’m a no body coach who works with athletes who generally have a like minded mindset. We don’t go after “outcome” goals. We achieve outcome goals through process focused training. So again I’m way more focused on committment level than I am on “talent”. Commit to the goal and generally it’ll happen. Which is why I think that’s likely the bigger obstacle (availability) for most people over “ I’m just not talented enough”…..

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Yes, but even you know you'll never be giving that perennial (let's say stuck at this pace for like 10 years despite regularly swimming year-round) 2:00/100 athlete a long-term goal of swimming 1:10/100, or even 1:20, or likely even 1:40 for distance, EVER.

You develop a plan, see how they respond, but you know by looking at their rate of improvement, it's not going to be a big jump given what they already did.

The fact they're stuck at 2:00/100 for 10 years despite regularly training and trying to improve in itself is a giant statement on their talent level, and you know it.

This is also a very realistic example. Lots of folks stuck in that range of times around 2:00/100 for years, despite coaching, video, etc. You temper the goal expectations on what you've seen them do - and that's literally making a judgment on their talent.

You'd do the same with a perennial 24 min 5k runner for like 10 years. Sure, better training will get them better possibly a lot better, like 22, if lucky, 21. But 17,18, even 19:xx? Vanishingly small possibility. Odds are if they get there, they've misrepresented their prior training which led to the incorrect asssesment.

He’s tallish. Maybe 5-7? I wouldn’t say he “grew early” but he wasn’t one of the kids who didn’t hit a growth spurt before 13.

Luka is a huge 14 yr old. But he’s also going to be a huge adult.

Look, I'm almost certainly the exact kind of athlete you would LOVE to coach.

I don't go after outcome goals either. Sure, it's great if I can win my AG at the local tris to repeat, but sometimes it doesnt' happen,a and sometimes I get blown all the way off the podium. It doesn't concern me the slightest. I'm a lot more interested in my USAT score for comparison, and as long as it's close to what I'm used to for my training, I consider it a great outcome.

I dont even set pace goals or target power for race day. I have a band of possibilities that I know could happen based on my training, but I've learned things vary so much on race day, you gotta just play the day and not your numbers.

I've already improved far in excess of what I ever thought was realistically possible, but now with the training I've done, I think I have an even better sense of what is possible for me, and what is not. You can pretend it's not a factor in your coaching, or training, but it's absolutely there, as I've pointed out. If it wasn't, you'd put everyone on the 12-hrs to Kona plan and be done with it!

Yet it doesn't take a genius to see that if I'm busting my tail 15hrs /week but can't even get CLOSE to a national-class AGer, its pretty fair to conclude, no I don't have the talent to for that kind of performance. I'd don't need to be pandered to like a child "yay you can do anything!" That's a bunch of bull, and we all know it.

Nobody likes to talk about talent, but it's real, and factors HEAVILY into all our training and planning decisions, as well as the results.

I mean no duh talent matters. I just don’t put it on the level you do. I put it in the right context, so if you are talking about normal run of mill AG athlete, imo maxed talent isn’t anywhere close to having occurred.
Far more often it’s lack of availability to do said training that is the bigger factor.

If you can truly say you’ve maxed out your training and potential ok let’s then factor in talent.

But having been a coach for now over 15 years, maxed training potential is generally no where close to maxed out for AG athletes. For the most part AG athletes can’t “max” put their potential to where talent truly is the limiter imo. But no duh this generally is a fun activity that they generally just want to finish in and do their best while having a job, family and social life. Far more are in it for completion than “competing” so talent really doesn’t even matter for most.

So if you want to say talent is the default factor, cool. I just don’t see it that way in our sport.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Again ad nauseum - your limited definition of talent is incorrect.

It is incorrect to say talent only = your potential top ceiling, and ignore the reality that if your top ceiling is very high, your rate of improvement is going to be super high as well.

It's this rate of improvement that's the issue for non-maxxed AGers. And in triathlon, it's likely an issue even for the top pro-elites as well, since they have to distribute effort amongst S-B-R, and thus even they never 'max' any one of the sports. They have to judge their talent (rate of improvemenet for work) in all 3 and find the best combo for the specific race that gives them the best outcome.

There are no ubertalents that has a normal rate of improvement. You have to be a high responder to training to ultimately have a high ceiling.

Rate of improvement (talent) is a fundamental determiner of that outcome you get from the training you put in. Yes, there are other factors, but talent is so big that no coaches, including you, ignore it when you make their training plans and set goals. You can tell me all you want that you ignore it, but when you're not giving your average-joe AGer the 12-hr-to-KQ plan, you're taking heavily into account their talent level regardless of what you say.

I'm generally saying that your top ceilihng has way more to do with your willinginess to put in the work than the "talent capability" that you inherently have or don't have. And back to LS- I think he's ultimately now at a point of this swim either working out or it not. I remember working with a D1 runner turned ITU athlete. He had a specific weakness in the swim that I gave him the same workout for 42 straight days and said until he gets this fixed, nothing else mattered. On the 42nd day he texted me "I feel the HE catch now"....and we moved on to other aspects. That was just the reality of where he was and what he needed to do. Atleast with LS he can have "meh" resaults on World class level and still race some B level events to make a living; So maybe he needs that, but luckily non-draft has enough prize purses to where guys can race well in all races outside of championship level events and still make a living.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Thought experiment.

Swimmer A can hold 1:40/100 for 1500m

Swimmer B can hold 1:20/100 for 1500m

In what meaningful way does that impact training beyond adjusting their base sendoffs appropriately?

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

this makes no sense if you are talking about trained athletes.

Michael Phelps had a pretty high top ceiling. He didn't set a single PB for the last 7 years of his career.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Nontextile suits.

Though Lochte did (drop after ‘09)

Yeah, I know. But the larger point remains. If you’re at the super pointy end, improvement is ridiculously hard regardless of talent level

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

How is this not in the official Lionel thread?

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

And that's ultimately what LS's faces. He's not *that* far off, and so whether that issue is a talent issue / stroke development issue / time investment issue, it really doesn't matter what the actual reason is, because at the end of the day at that level....you either make the chase group or you don't in his case. It's all the more frustating that he's on what "swim discovery 3.0" LS but in the same light, atleast he's tinkering to get better.

And again I think in early years his "poor" swim was overcome by his "uber" biking in world class fields. The sport has evolved and now more than ever other athletes are filling the gaps so to speak and basically forcing LS to figure it out. So I can kinda see why it wasn't the biggest deal breaker 10 years ago (or however long he's been in the elite pro side of sport) that it is currently now for him.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Well, duh, thanks Mr. Obvious!

Yes, it should be!