From an email conversation with a friend who's a CTS cycling coach:
From April: With the triathlon coaches I've had, I've never felt that confident in their coaching because it doesn't seem like they're paying that close of attention - I'm not wanting (much) more time on their part, but just a closer eye.
I think that is more a psychological issue, specifically with motivation, and not particular to me. It comes back to this idea that people in general function "optimally" in terms of focus, productivity, creativity, etc. when they know they have a secure base to fall back on. The analogy used is a soldier feeling confident going out far on their own due to the knowledge that they can retreat back to their base when needed. It's referred to as the dependency paradox - a person's appearance of independence is actually statistically-dependent upon their dependency-needs being accepted by a secure base. In motivation terms, when an athlete hands over and gives up their autonomy, they are also relinquishing the vital part of optimal functioning/intrinsic motivation that autonomy possesses. The motivation then becomes extrinsic, but with the right relationship, the person can identify with the task and reach internalized-motivation, and with an even better relationship, the person can completely internalize the motivation and approach intrinsic motivation.
There are several ways a coach can accomplish that, and I'm sure you understand those methods better than me, and I'm interested in hearing your take. A pretty simple approach is a coach using something like TrainingPeaks and adjusting the future training loads based on current training performance so that the athlete can see that the coach is paying close attention and has their back. To date, I've tried working with coaches, and they aren't doing that and while I trust their knowledge, I don't feel the cookie-cutter workouts provided are actually tapping that knowledge - not compared to if I were there in person training under them. So, I planned out my own future TSS while updating with current TSS to plot CTL, providing that confidence and in the mean time, taking back the autonomy needed for intrinsic motivation..
From Today: Building on that Coach-Athlete framework in my last email, what's a very interesting concept that I'm building into a theory paper I'm working on is the co-constructed regulation between, for the purpose of our conversation, the Coach-Athlete (though I'm looking at the workplace Leader-Follower interpersonal dyadic relationship in my paper). So first, you have the point that self-regulation, emotion regulation and physiological regulation, really aren't separate and once you dive in, they're inseparable. So, that being said, when you have an athlete's training and racing depending so heavily on their ability to regulate physiological limits that are being approached, exceeded, avoided, and that training and racing depending on regulating emotions - working through/re-appraising negative thoughts; what is very interesting is the research that shows that self-regulation does not exist independent of the coach, but the athlete's self-regulation is co-constructed with the coach (integrated regulation). The coach is most often existing in the form of a schema (as are our memories of parental and guiding figures), but the coach is still very much present via that schema that is developed based on the athlete's perception of the coach's availability, encouragement and non-interference.
The coach's feedback (verbal, written, non-verbal) provides feedback to the athlete and that feedback shifts the athlete's regulation on a continuum from being too integrated, a phase needed when the athlete needs assurance and needs their ego 'repaired' (in attachment theory, called safe haven support), and then shifts to very near solely self-regulated where the athlete is extremely autonomous and highly functioning, but is at greater risk for experiencing distress or setback - this is a phase where the athlete's schema of the coach provides what, in attachment theory, is called secure base support (see previous email). Some will say that optimal is the middle of this continuum, but I'm arguing that the ebb and flow from one extreme to the other represents real-life [leader-follower] coach-athlete engagement, while extended periods of time at the extremes of the continuum represents preoccupation-related issues (anxiety, depression, insecure-attachment related behaviors). Because we as humans develop within and not outside of a framework as described by attachment theory, it is impossible for an individual to be 100% autonomously self-regulating - no matter how ruggedly individualistic that person is (or how much Ayn Rand they've read), their cognitive and emotional development was influenced by support or lack of support and the schema(s) of attachment figures are life-long, so self-regulation is always happening somewhere along a continuum of co-constructed regulation, even if that regulation is primarily happening via past-event produced schemas.
Some interesting tidbits: non-verbally, when a person tilts their head to the side or self-soothes through touching of their limbs, they allow themselves to exist at both ends of the continuum nearly simultaneously, but this is not optimal and they are not fully engaged in the current task, whether it be an athletic activity, or interacting with another person. Think of athletes, or yourself, tilting your head to the side during a hard effort: this has been show to be an emotional 'escape' from the duties related to regulation. I've been playing with this and forcing myself to keep my head straight, posture good and to remain fully engaged and avoid "escaping", keeping regulation a the forefront of my responsibilities as a form of preparation for race-day.
final thought: I'd say that a good coach knows consciously or intuitively how to keep this ebb and flow of co-constructed regulation optimally timed and tended to and how to keep the athlete highly engaged and not trying to 'escape' the regulation duties. Thoughts?
wovebike.com | Wove on instagram
From April: With the triathlon coaches I've had, I've never felt that confident in their coaching because it doesn't seem like they're paying that close of attention - I'm not wanting (much) more time on their part, but just a closer eye.
I think that is more a psychological issue, specifically with motivation, and not particular to me. It comes back to this idea that people in general function "optimally" in terms of focus, productivity, creativity, etc. when they know they have a secure base to fall back on. The analogy used is a soldier feeling confident going out far on their own due to the knowledge that they can retreat back to their base when needed. It's referred to as the dependency paradox - a person's appearance of independence is actually statistically-dependent upon their dependency-needs being accepted by a secure base. In motivation terms, when an athlete hands over and gives up their autonomy, they are also relinquishing the vital part of optimal functioning/intrinsic motivation that autonomy possesses. The motivation then becomes extrinsic, but with the right relationship, the person can identify with the task and reach internalized-motivation, and with an even better relationship, the person can completely internalize the motivation and approach intrinsic motivation.
There are several ways a coach can accomplish that, and I'm sure you understand those methods better than me, and I'm interested in hearing your take. A pretty simple approach is a coach using something like TrainingPeaks and adjusting the future training loads based on current training performance so that the athlete can see that the coach is paying close attention and has their back. To date, I've tried working with coaches, and they aren't doing that and while I trust their knowledge, I don't feel the cookie-cutter workouts provided are actually tapping that knowledge - not compared to if I were there in person training under them. So, I planned out my own future TSS while updating with current TSS to plot CTL, providing that confidence and in the mean time, taking back the autonomy needed for intrinsic motivation..
From Today: Building on that Coach-Athlete framework in my last email, what's a very interesting concept that I'm building into a theory paper I'm working on is the co-constructed regulation between, for the purpose of our conversation, the Coach-Athlete (though I'm looking at the workplace Leader-Follower interpersonal dyadic relationship in my paper). So first, you have the point that self-regulation, emotion regulation and physiological regulation, really aren't separate and once you dive in, they're inseparable. So, that being said, when you have an athlete's training and racing depending so heavily on their ability to regulate physiological limits that are being approached, exceeded, avoided, and that training and racing depending on regulating emotions - working through/re-appraising negative thoughts; what is very interesting is the research that shows that self-regulation does not exist independent of the coach, but the athlete's self-regulation is co-constructed with the coach (integrated regulation). The coach is most often existing in the form of a schema (as are our memories of parental and guiding figures), but the coach is still very much present via that schema that is developed based on the athlete's perception of the coach's availability, encouragement and non-interference.
The coach's feedback (verbal, written, non-verbal) provides feedback to the athlete and that feedback shifts the athlete's regulation on a continuum from being too integrated, a phase needed when the athlete needs assurance and needs their ego 'repaired' (in attachment theory, called safe haven support), and then shifts to very near solely self-regulated where the athlete is extremely autonomous and highly functioning, but is at greater risk for experiencing distress or setback - this is a phase where the athlete's schema of the coach provides what, in attachment theory, is called secure base support (see previous email). Some will say that optimal is the middle of this continuum, but I'm arguing that the ebb and flow from one extreme to the other represents real-life [leader-follower] coach-athlete engagement, while extended periods of time at the extremes of the continuum represents preoccupation-related issues (anxiety, depression, insecure-attachment related behaviors). Because we as humans develop within and not outside of a framework as described by attachment theory, it is impossible for an individual to be 100% autonomously self-regulating - no matter how ruggedly individualistic that person is (or how much Ayn Rand they've read), their cognitive and emotional development was influenced by support or lack of support and the schema(s) of attachment figures are life-long, so self-regulation is always happening somewhere along a continuum of co-constructed regulation, even if that regulation is primarily happening via past-event produced schemas.
Some interesting tidbits: non-verbally, when a person tilts their head to the side or self-soothes through touching of their limbs, they allow themselves to exist at both ends of the continuum nearly simultaneously, but this is not optimal and they are not fully engaged in the current task, whether it be an athletic activity, or interacting with another person. Think of athletes, or yourself, tilting your head to the side during a hard effort: this has been show to be an emotional 'escape' from the duties related to regulation. I've been playing with this and forcing myself to keep my head straight, posture good and to remain fully engaged and avoid "escaping", keeping regulation a the forefront of my responsibilities as a form of preparation for race-day.
final thought: I'd say that a good coach knows consciously or intuitively how to keep this ebb and flow of co-constructed regulation optimally timed and tended to and how to keep the athlete highly engaged and not trying to 'escape' the regulation duties. Thoughts?
wovebike.com | Wove on instagram
Last edited by:
milesthedog: Jul 18, 17 20:19