“see how well it works.”
right. what i’m saying is if you did not have any impediments, financial or otherwise, how would you go about determining what the right system is for calculating work, for the purposes of finding equivalency across endurance platforms (swim, bike, run, xc ski).
i think you’re right, that crowdsourcing would be the best way. this phrase you use, tho, “see how well it works.” how do you quantify that? here are a few possible metrics:
-
perform a formal study, you know, “we took 28 competing triathletes and split them into 2 cohorts.” and then you do what? test oxygen consumption or some other metric after 6 months?
-
crowdsource race results of people using different methodologies.
-
see who is actually able to use each system. you might find out that a particular system is best, but is so laborius to use that few people use it.
-
like #3 above, how many people are still USING various systems after one year?
i don’t think you and i are at odds here. i have no sense of ownership over this points system i’m trying to defend or protect. i welcome any input. you might say that this very forum is the crowdsourcing method by which my aerobic points system gets perfected. i would just note the following:
A) i believe that what we see in high level athletes is a misunderstanding of what is important; of what works. i don’t think that joel filliol, brett sutton, jamie hunt, siri lindley, paulo souza are successful because they use better training methodology. i think they’re successful MOSTLY because each is very good at managing a training enclave. what’s most important is not whether the coach has you swimming with banded ankles, but that in the lane on either side of you is somebody who’s as good or better than you. every day. all day long. so i think we ought to recognize what it is that makes athletes really good.
B) whether it’s any of these coaches above, or andy coggan’s (correct) emphasis on stress, once you get an athlete to produce the work, now the job is to make sure he doesn’t produce too much work. this is, in my opinion, more important even than the nature of the work.
C) over the years i’ve considered all kinds of ways to turn this into an algorithm. you multiply the points by so much for vertical feet climbed, or by intensity of work. but then you inherit two problems: 1) the more complicated you make it the fewer the people who can or are willing to use it; 2) you start to game the system, by hitting your points through doing harder work. then it’s not aerobic points. it’s anaerobic points.
D) for as simple, and clunky, and old-fashioned as it is, this points system is kind of a truth teller. if i say to you, “we’re going to have a swim-intensive week” this week, but we’re going to keep to (say) our average of 300 points per week during each standard-work week. if we give over 120 points to bike and run just to remain in the game (2 x 30-mile rides; 3 x 5mi runs) that means you must swim 20,000 yards to keep to those 300 points. you can whine. you can obfuscate. you can reason your way out of it. but that’s what it is. this points system, while imprecise, is a truth teller.
this is an AEROBIC points system. it’s not a work system. it doesn’t factor in other stressers. you can do a 600-mile bike week. you probably can’t do a 150-mile run week, because while each earns the same aerobic points, there is simply the structural problem with running 150 miles in a week.
this points system is also not a measure of YOUR aerobic expenditure. it’s a measure of what your expenditure would be if you were a balanced athlete. but i believe in training your weakness, so, no, you don’t get a pass if you are a poor swimmer. this points system exposes the fact that you’re a poor swimmer.
so, again, this isn’t to defend this points system. i rarely refer to it nowadays. however, these are the goals of this system:
- to tell you the truth about how much work you’re producing.
- for you to understand the relative value of each bit of swimming, cycling, running you’re doing.
- to be simple enough for anyone to understand, anyone to use, whether or not the user has a coach, uses a fancy training log, etc.
what we hear a lot in triathlon is that it’s too complicated. the cost of entry is too high. the learning curve is too steep. that’s not true. but it feels that way to beginners unless we present them pathways that meet them where they are, rather than that place to which they’ll eventually evolve.