I think the two could have their debates on run coaching without taking personal shots. Frankly, I hope Barry P does not quit posting because I enjoy the information, and we are smart enough to decipher what might work for us or not. But taking personal shots tends to discourage discussion, and that's not helpful to any of us.

I think calling someone an "idiot" and "jackass" is taking a personal shot. Saying that someone doesn't understand a principle isn't a personal shot in my book. But I guess I'm not that sensitive. If someone thinks that another poster has started a thread with some misinformation, is he supposed to just sit back and watch? This is why Paulo doesn't post here anymore. And I think it's too bad.

Jodi

I had this long message typed out pointing out how Barry almost sounds like a book report for Dr. Jack Daniels, but did not post it. I would give him an "A" on it. Obviously people appreciate it so I would not call it or him a disservice because it is beneficial to people that are part-time athletes or are new to the sport who are learning. It is good "free advice" many. The reverse-periodization does indeed exist...even if not referred to as such. Anyone who has coached high school and have athletes doing sports other than running have to be creative with the time they have to get those athletes ready and I'm assuming that is part of the running world.

"That's why you are the level of coach you are, and Joel is the level of coach he is."

Jodi, Don't you think this is a little personal and insulting? I just don't see why he had to go there.

Synergy made the point, rather crudely, that "[t]he man was just trying to share his experience in a constructive and helpful way." However, if someone is fundamentally wrong, then however noble his intentions, I will call him out. I will challenge him. And I actually expected that Barry would have done more to provide evidence contrary to the claims I made about energy systems. That's also part of being a good coach, having the knowledge to back up what you've said when people challenge what you write.

As an aside for synergy, we have a rule here about not having multiple identities. So that's the one downside about taking a dig at a forum admin. Because then I bother to check. So thanks for playing.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

By the way, I didn't even know they had state championships for triathlon, which I really don't mean as an insult. I'm just pointing out that that's a bit of an odd thing to hang your hat on. Given the nature of triathlon, especially in the US, most every championship level triathlete came into the game as a novice, unless they are racing on the ITU circuit.
====================================================================

Reply:

I had the impression that BarryP is/was a high school track coach, and is not a triathlon coach. You've assessed his "level" but don't know who he is? I don't care either way, but your post jumped out as nasty, and now an interesting thread is probably dead.

---

-------
Joe

Thanks for the response, and I don't want to spend any more time with this because it is unproductive. I'm not really one of the PC crowd so it is unusual for me to jump in on something like this. And of course you should correct or chime in with any information you feel is incorrect. However, it seems one way (trick) to end debate is to get a personal shot at someone rather than just sticking to the issues. Then, conversation ends. My point is=I enjoy the feedback from both of you, and don't see how anyone benefits by throwing out a debate stopper (rather personal insult).

That was a misread on my part. I misinterpreted "athletes" as "triathletes." Sorry, Barry. I do know that Barry is a track coach, but I don't think that would preclude him from coaching triathletes as well. But I do apologize. I will edit.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Point taken. My apologies.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

this personnel attack crap killed this thread for me .
what is with all the f bombs and ill feelings on ST ?






sad very sad

Thom

I'll keep this relatively brief since a few others have already made their points for me.


Well the your coach needs to work on his tact. His single contribution to this thread was his pet peve with the terminology I used. I respoded to him in an amicable manner describing exactly why such terminology was used. He was being stubborn and obtuse. At that point I thought it was only fair to point out that his phrase "general to specific" with regard to endurance periodization is equally inaccurate and intended to imply that he was being a hypocrite by attacking my terminology. You and I can sit here and argue about this, but then I'd be wasting my time arguing with a 20 something engineering student about coaching, wouldn't I? I normally wouldn't levy such a jab at you, but I figure we can go tit for tat, no? ; ^ )

Now that the insults are done with I'll address the rest of your post:


You and Joel are free to have a difference in opinion here. As I stated earlier, my position is not remotely based on a misundestanding of periodization. My problem with a description such as "general to specific" is that it doesn't make the message any more clear to the novice athlete. General, to me, can imply anything from an evenly balanced program that works all energy systems all the way to a program that involves weightlifting, eliptical training, step aerobics, and speed and agility training (maybe mix in some basketball and squash). Keep in mind that *I* no this isn't what Joel was referring to because I am an experienced and well read coach (relatively speaking), but I don't think the terminology explains anything to an athlete who doesn't already have a strong background. Do you see now? You sat there and felt that you needed to explain what it meant to someone with 20 years of experience. Do we always simply make the assumption that if the audience doesn't *understand* the "obvious" implications of the phrase, that we just blame the audience for not being of a certain level and continue to communicate using the same terms they don't understand?

The first question that I anticipate from someone when using the phrase is, "Well then why does this coach have his IM athletes doing the opposite of what the marathoner does during the early phases when its basically the same race." Yes, *I* understand the answer, but this is the kind of confusion that I think "general to specifc" leads to.

So that's my issue with confusion. My second issue is with the inacuracy. Being "general" or "specific" has little to do with why certain energy systems are trained at certain times. Instead it has to do with the level of importance of a particular energy system with relation to that event, the length of time it takes to adequately and effeciently develop that system, and the long term benefits of training that system on a year to year basis. This is something that we could get pretty deep into, but as a quick (and very rough) example, a 5K athlete works on aerobic training in the early phases and adds in V02max training in the late phases because it takes a really long time to reap the benefits of aerobic training and a relatively short time to reap the benefits of V02max training. In the off season you aren't doing any sort of "generic" training. You are doing precicely what you need to be doing at that time, which is aerobic development. Oddly enough, most marathon prgrams follow EXACTLY the same model, only in different proportions. One might consider (depending on their perspective) these to be compleltely opposite events, yet the early phases are exactly the same.

I didn't really intend to write that much, but you asked for a refutation.


General how to manuals are written all the time by people who are a lot more credible than you, Joel or myself. They don't do as good of a job as a *good* coach, but for $25 they can get an athlete who isn't interested in dropping $2,500 a year on a hobby to learn and understand how to train a whole lot better.



And as I stated earlier, this is coming from an engineering student whose grades were not likely any better than my grades in engineering and who has yet to demonstrate any knowlege of the sport beyond being able to finish an event in a short period of time. And since the post is actually about running, I don't think you do that discipline much better than I do.

I've also yet to see where you've demonstarted an ability to asses my level of understanding of a subject via a short post on the internet. If you wish to hold me to such standards its only fair that you hold yourself to the same standards. For starters, maybe you can cite a source other than your coach who uses the phrase "general to specific" to describe periodization as it applies to distance running.




Ironically only a couple of posts later someone mentioned how he understood what I meant. Maybe the post wasn't about doing myself any favors, but rather getting a concept across to people with exactly his background.




"It" wasn't being criticized. You had levied personal attacks on me. If its not about "street cred" then why did you bring it up to begin with? Your entire post was riddled with ad-hominum attacks in an attempt to discredit me before approaching the issues. Specificaly you opened with an attack on what level coach I am and followed up with a conclusion that its because of a lack of knowlege on my part.

Now if you still want to hold firm that I don't know what I'm talking about, go back and address a specific point in the OP that you think is wrong and/or misleading and we can discuss it. So far the only issue you or your coach brought up was the use of a term that is commonly used....but then not comonly used....but then used often enough to be a pet peve...or whatever.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Barry, as a former high school coach (and maybe teacher) you have probably learned how not to let the unfortunate remarks of one kid ruin your day. Please don't think these unfortunate remarks are a reflection of all of ST, there not. I always gleen useful pieces of information from your posts and appreciate your willingness to openly and freely share "the good stuff" at least as you interpret it. It has made me a better runner and I know that I am not alone. Thanks again and hang in there buddy.

I think we all need to just take step back and agree it's Joe Friel's fault for using the term periodization to describe training cycles.

"General how to manuals are written all the time by people who are a lot more credible than you, Joel or myself. They don't do as good of a job as a *good* coach, but for $25 they can get an athlete who isn't interested in dropping $2,500 a year on a hobby to learn and understand how to train a whole lot better. "
Thank you very much for that statement, as one who has just started running i have read and reread all your posts on run training many times. in the beginning all was not clear to me but as i ran and ran again and started to get some data points things became clearer to me. in the next 2 years or so if my training stagnates or just levels off maybe i will become interested in a coach but any one i gave my money to now would basicly tell me to run in the zones you (thru the link to the mcmillian calculator) have shown me. now somebody who is racing for their livliehood should spend some dough for a coach but that is not the 100-500 lurkers that are probably soaking up all your advice. and while you did give it for free i would gladly buy you a beer, coke, dinner or something to that effect if you just happened to be in modesto ca (not likely) or if i happen to go to the east coast and see you at a race. one more time THANKYOU

---

ken
trying to act like a runner

Rather than replying to that whole long thing (and I can take the digs, no worries; except I would not that I'm not in college anymore, so I'm only a "student" in that I still study engineering), I'll simply acknowledge two points:

Being "general" or "specific" has little to do with why certain energy systems are trained at certain times. Instead it has to do with the level of importance of a particular energy system with relation to that event, the length of time it takes to adequately and effeciently develop that system, and the long term benefits of training that system on a year to year basis.

That's not a refutation. That's what I wrote. "The level of importance...with relation to that event" is what general to specific means; that's why an Ironman athlete can and should do hard trainer rides in the winter. That's EXACTLY why certain energy systems are trained at certain times. Of course, with triathlon, there are other factors such a sport-specific blocks, but I don't think we are discussing that here.

...address a specific point in the OP

I think you are fundamentally wrong about endurance periodization (your graphs of aerobic/LT/VO2Max). I don't think you understand periodization because if you did, you would not hang your hat on the model that you showed. Basically, I think the majority of your original post is wrong. I don't think you grasp periodization because if you did, you would never have written the article you did. I'll agree to disagree on this though, as I have already spent enough time in this thread. I won't say "wasted," because I think it was worthwhile to read and think about why you are wrong.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

"Well the your coach needs to work on his tact. His single contribution to this thread was his pet peve with the terminology I used. I respoded to him in an amicable manner describing exactly why such terminology was used. He was being stubborn and obtuse."

Go back and re-read what I wrote, hardly stubborn and obtuse. You seemed to take my criticism of your terminology very personally right from the beginning (which wasn't even written in response to one of your posts). Heaven forbid someone criticize what you write on YOUR thread, eh?

"At that point I thought it was only fair to point out that his phrase "general to specific" with regard to endurance periodization is equally inaccurate and intended to imply that he was being a hypocrite by attacking my terminology."

Just because you don't understand what those terms mean doesn't make them inaccurate. Anyway, you aren't the first, nor will be the last on the "reverse periodization" bandwagon. Its really not that important...

this place is the pits
just to many are posting to line their pockets

my coach bla bla bla
my bike co.
my bike fit store
my clothing
bla bla bla
i know more bla bla bla
by my book
my graphic art bla bla bla
my power meter bla bla bla
my coach is better bla bla bla
my training bla bla bla


i hope you all get coal for Christmas

Not even for a middle-distance runner?

I'm one of the recreational triathletes who lurks on threads like this. Or perhaps more accurately, maybe I should say I am one of the audience. As is typical here, after initially thinking I found a nugget of information that I can apply to my own training, I find that nugget challenged by other experts. I can't help but think that there are virtually no accepted scientific principles in the field of endurance training, and I sometimes wonder if all training related threads belong in Tibbs' room as apparently it's all about what religion you belong to anyway. I wish someone would come up with a new plot for these threads.

For us recreational triathletes (please accept that the vast majority of us will not get professional coaches), could you please offer your opinion on the following two questions: (1) would you recommend that we disregard the original post in planning our training, and (2) is there any published training guide that you'd recommend we quickly put on our Christmas list? Thanks.
.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Thank you. LOL. I wish I saw that before I posted. Your content, tone, and message were exactly what this thread needed.
.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day...

This is a problem I've run into with endurance coaches. Many of them seem to have an obsession with a particular method of training, or method of organising training over the course of a year. Many of them will cite one or two studies using a single outcome measure (such as mitochondrial density or VO2max) that they feel support their method of training. Never mind that these studies typically have nothing to say about an athlete's adaptation or performance over a period of years or a career.

There's nothing wrong with believing in your own coaching methods, particularly if they've been proven to work over the course of years on a number of athletes. What is wrong is the belief of many coaches that, because their methods/concepts/sessions/plans work, the methods of other coaches can't possibly work.

The fact is that many training methods have been used successfully by endurance athletes, and there are a number of methods that will work for any one athlete. Base your training on solid principles that you believe in and that have been proven to work in the training of other athletes, and make sure you enjoy your training. Apply the training principles consistently over a period of years, monitor performance-based outcomes, and make adjustments based on your performance. Don't get caught up in wondering whether one coach has the magic secret that will lead to big improvements.

"just to many are posting to line their pockets..."

Except Joel doesn't coach any private clients. I can promise you he doesn't post here to line his pockets.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

HH,

I'm afraid the "debate" on this thread has maybe given you the wrong impression. I didn't read much disagreement over the principles involved, just over how those principles should be explained. That just obscures the actual information provided, which is too bad. The original post puts an abstract periodized training plan into a nicely comprehensible graphical format, and if that gives us some leverage in thinking about what coaches and coaching books are recommending, it's priceless (and I think it does).

Brad

1) Yes. I think planning your own training is tremendously difficult. I'd say either get a coach and do a detailed plan. Or relax and focus more on enjoyment than absolute performance.

2) Tough to say. I think it depends on how much time you want to spend learning. The internet is a great resource. I think what you need to consider are you own goals, your own limitations, and all of that. This sport is supposed to be fun. I think that is where "general to specific" is really very understandable. It means, at a simple and applicable level, that you should be active and doing something in the offseason, and then as you get closer to your race, do training that simulates that race. Long rides and runs before Ironmans, shorter/faster stuff before sprints, etc. I think a lot of people need to spend more time doing bike races, running races, swim meets, hikes, adventure races, etc. Get a good group together and challenge yourself. That's what I'd recommend.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp