Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Old school: uses easy/med/hard or % of Max HR
--------------------------------------------------------
Dan
Would old school use HR monitor?


Train safe & smart
Bob

Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Longboarder] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Would old school use HR monitor?"

i think you probably take old school and further break it into the YES and NO camps on HR monitors.

but in all seriousness, there is one differentiation that i think gets to the crux of it, i asked it in my original post, nobody invested in this process has spoken to it yet.

- old school relies on and believes and trusts in experience over scientific evidence generated in a lab, that is, an old school coach 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.


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [MarkyV] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"in writing this me thinks that I am more old school touchy feely with a strong lean towards pace/power. So how does that get defined?"

i don't know how this gets defined. but i'm going to pose some questions you might find interesting to wrestle with.


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"old school relies on and believes and trusts in experience over scientific evidence, that is, an old school doctor believes that science will catch up to and validate medical practices experienced doctors already know through decades of experience."

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

Just some food for thought...
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Just some food for thought..."

fair point. but let me ask you this: do you think that the science as applied to training & fitness is as rigorous as that required by the medical establishment? for example there are, what, four phases in the clinical trials before a drug can make it to market? this involves tens or hundreds of milions of dollars, just the clinical testing, not the development of a drug. and even then they get it wrong sometimes.

so, i agree with your view, as it relates to medicine. but is this apples to apples were talking about? i'm not saying it isn't, i'm just askin'.


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
let me ask you this: do you think that the science as applied to training & fitness is as rigorous as that required by the medical establishment? for example there are, what, four phases in the clinical trials before a drug can make it to market? this involves tens or hundreds of milions of dollars, just the clinical testing, not the development of a drug. and even then they get it wrong sometimes.

so, i agree with your view, as it relates to medicine. but is this apples to apples were talking about? i'm not saying it isn't, i'm just askin'.


Perhaps this quote from Dr. Phil Skiba's excellent book will help you understand my perspective:

"As exercise physiologist Dr. Andrew Coggan once wrote, 'Coaching is not a science, but all coaching should be based on scientific principles.'" (emphasis added)

Or, to put it another way: while I am a firm believer in evidence-based coaching, that doesn't necessarily mean that if I were a coach that I would only consider evidence generated in, e.g., a multi-center trial akin to drug testing. (Also note that "evidence" and "data" are not synonymous, at least in my book.)
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"while I am a firm believer in evidence-based coaching, that doesn't necessarily mean that if I were a coach that I would only consider evidence"

let's take a real world example. when you decided on your algorithms used for determining TSS, you depended heavily on your blood lactate tests taken from cyclists exercising at various submaximal efforts, as i recall. in so doing, you basically generated a TRIMPs using power instead of HR as the metric.

from what i understand, and i'm somewhat behind the curve on this, i think you've created a TSS analog for running, no? this would be helpful for those who're using training peaks for triathletes, and this sort of sportswide extrapolation of what you've helped them develop for cycling is the direction i think they're going.

so, what remains is to develop this same sort of thing for swimming. but, you're sort of back to something TRIMPs-like for those other two sports, are you not, because you can't really measure power, you're left with some other metric on which to rely (like HR)? let me know where i've gone wrong on my assumptions of how you're going about this.

now, what must happen is this:

- you've got to pretty much nail down a swim-TRIMPs or swim-TSS that's analogous to the bike and the run versions, in order for coaches and athletes to measure stress.

- then you've got to decide whether you just add the two TRIMPs or TSS scores together for a triathlete's double workout in two sports on a given day. if not, you need to determine whether the stress score X 2 is then modified by the fact that it's a brick (back to back) or separated by several hours (and of course, how is it modified? is a run and a later swim worth more, or less, than simply the two scores added?)

- then you need to ask whether you've got to adjust for distance. for example, let's stipulate for a moment that at, oh, Zone 3, a ride is worth about the same as a run a fourth of that distance (a 5mi run = a 20mi ride, a 10mi run = a 40mi ride). but i don't think we can extrapolate this forever. few coaches would agree that 5 days of riding 500 mi equals 5 days of running 125mi, at least not for a triathlete, because of the stress of a weight-bearing exercise.

so, then, what do you do when analyzing blood lactate of swimmers or runners, or whatever your methodology, generates TSS or TRIMPs algorithms that don't match the expectations of those who've been coaching and racing at high levels for 15 or 20 years? maybe a paul huddle or a dave scott might say that you've got to add body weight to the calculations, because elite triathletes are 160lb on average and elite runners are 125lb on average, and that's why elite runners can do 160mi weeks and that IS analogous to 640mi cycling weeks, but only for them, not for elite triathletes.

or maybe huddle says, pshaw, the swimming scores are coming out too high versus those in cycling and running, they just don't match the real world.

accordingly, i think this is where science might have to have its come to jesus with tradition and myth and lore. what do you do when the data determines the way it should be, and a panel of top athletes and coaches disagree?


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
when you decided on your algorithms used for determining TSS, you depended heavily on your blood lactate tests taken from cyclists exercising at various submaximal efforts, as i recall. in so doing, you basically generated a TRIMPs using power instead of HR as the metric.

That is correct.

In Reply To:
from what i understand, and i'm somewhat behind the curve on this, i think you've created a TSS analog for running, no?

You are behind the curve: GOVSS is Dr. Phil Skiba's baby, whereas Dr. Steve McGregor is responsible for rTSS. While I've discussed these ideas with Phil and (to a much lesser extent) Steve, I haven't contributed anything to their development (except perhaps inspiration).

In Reply To:
this would be helpful for those who're using training peaks for triathletes,

Perhaps, but I don't believe that runners (or swimmers) are likely to benefit as much from such a metric as cyclists, since 1) the effort of a runner (or swimmer) is far steadier than that of a cyclist, and 2) environmental factors (e.g., wind, air density) have far much less of an impact on the speed of a runner vs. a cyclist, making pace a much more reliable metric than for a cyclist.

In Reply To:
and this sort of sportswide extrapolation of what you've helped them develop for cycling is the direction i think they're going.

It is (although personally I wish it weren't).

In Reply To:
so, what remains is to develop this same sort of thing for swimming. but, you're sort of back to something TRIMPs-like for those other two sports, are you not, because you can't really measure power, you're left with some other metric on which to rely (like HR)?

What's wrong with a pace-based measurement (or heart rate, i.e., TRIMP, if you prefer)?

In Reply To:
let me know where i've gone wrong on my assumptions of how you're going about this.

See above (and also note that I'm not the one "going about anything").

In Reply To:
now, what must happen is this:


- you've got to pretty much nail down a swim-TRIMPs or swim-TSS that's analogous to the bike and the run versions, in order for coaches and athletes to measure stress.

- then you've got to decide whether you just add the two TRIMPs or TSS scores together for a triathlete's double workout in two sports on a given day. if not, you need to determine whether the stress score X 2 is then modified by the fact that it's a brick (back to back) or separated by several hours (and of course, how is it modified? is a run and a later swim worth more, or less, than simply the two scores added?)

- then you need to ask whether you've got to adjust for distance. for example, let's stipulate for a moment that at, oh, Zone 3, a ride is worth about the same as a run a fourth of that distance (a 5mi run = a 20mi ride, a 10mi run = a 40mi ride). but i don't think we can extrapolate this forever. few coaches would agree that 5 days of riding 500 mi equals 5 days of running 125mi, at least not for a triathlete, because of the stress of a weight-bearing exercise.

All the more reason why I'm not interested in attempting to do for triathletes what I've done for cyclists!

In Reply To:
so, then, what do you do when analyzing blood lactate of swimmers or runners, or whatever your methodology, generates TSS or TRIMPs algorithms that don't match the expectations of those who've been coaching and racing at high levels for 15 or 20 years? maybe a paul huddle or a dave scott might say that you've got to add body weight to the calculations, because elite triathletes are 160lb on average and elite runners are 125lb on average, and that's why elite runners can do 160mi weeks and that IS analogous to 640mi cycling weeks, but only for them, not for elite triathletes.

or maybe huddle says, pshaw, the swimming scores are coming out too high versus those in cycling and running, they just don't match the real world.

accordingly, i think this is where science might have to have its come to jesus with tradition and myth and lore. what do you do when the data determines the way it should be, and a panel of top athletes and coaches disagree?


I think that before this discussion can really go any further, you need to think some more about the difference between quantifying the "dose" of training, and how you actually use that information. Consider, for example, Foster's session RPE approach...even though it is quite simple and it isn't exactly clear what it measures, it may still be possible to apply this imperfect metric in a productive manner to guide training. Conversely, one could, at least theoretically, develop a method that always perfectly reflects the acute physiological strain, but if this metric were misapplied there still could be a "disconnect" between the results it yielded and what empirical evidence suggests is true.

EDIT: Perhaps the following may help flesh out my perspective:

1) as I told my hosts at UK Sport when they invited me to give a talk, I don't believe that there's much progress to be made by attempting to develop ever-better means of quantifying the training load. Rather, the most productive direction (IMHO) to go lies in trying to improve our quantitative understanding of the relationship between the training load and performance; and

2) as I stated during a recent webinar, I would like to see WKO+ calculate/accept TRIMP and session RPE as inputs to the Performance Manager chart.
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Dec 28, 07 11:32
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"All the more reason why I'm not interested in attempting to do for triathletes what I've done for cyclists!"

nevertheless, here we are, with triathletes storming the gates of sport ;-) and, of course, if you're training peaks (or slowtwitch, for that matter) there is a vested interest in quantifying training loads, and normalizing those in each constituent sport.

i guess, bringing it full circle, the clash between new and old school is the smooshing together of your excellent approach to cycling and the *at best* imprecise and *at worst* unreliable ways of integrating this into triathlon training programs. if you're a triathlon coach, and the cycling part of your training has as its hallmarks attention paid to FT, TSS, ATL, CTL, TSB, NP, are you cutting a rock with a razor blade? i don't mean in any way to denigrate your excellent system for measuring stress and performance and adaptation in cycling, but it reminds me of peter reid keeping roch frey as his triathlon coach while simultaneously going to chris carmichael for his cycling. the result was one of triathlon's most spectacular meltdowns.

so, is the adherence by triathlon coaches to your framework for cycling, at the expense of a similarly-precise way to integrate this into an overall swim/bike/run program, too new school for its own good? i'm not saying it is, i'm, you know, just askin'. maybe there are some coaches who can describe how they integrate all this.


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
"All the more reason why I'm not interested in attempting to do for triathletes what I've done for cyclists!"

nevertheless, here we are, with triathletes storming the gates of sport ;-) and, of course, if you're training peaks (or slowtwitch, for that matter) there is a vested interest in quantifying training loads, and normalizing those in each constituent sport.

Just for the record: I'm not TrainingPeaks (PeaksWare LLC, actually), and my interest in quantifying training load is really purely avocational in nature (i.e., it helps me scratch that intellectual itch).

In Reply To:
i guess, bringing it full circle, the clash between new and old school is the smooshing together of your excellent approach to cycling and the *at best* imprecise and *at worst* unreliable ways of integrating this into triathlon training programs.

Sorry, but I don't see it that way. That is, even if I believed you could, in fact, label someone as "old school" or "new school" with reasonable accuracy, I don't think the distinction could or should be made on whether they use my ideas or not.

In Reply To:
if you're a triathlon coach, and the cycling part of your training has as its hallmarks attention paid to FT, TSS, ATL, CTL, TSB, NP, are you cutting a rock with a razor blade? i don't mean in any way to denigrate your excellent system for measuring stress and performance and adaptation in cycling, but it reminds me of peter reid keeping roch frey as his triathlon coach while simultaneously going to chris carmichael for his cycling. the result was one of triathlon's most spectacular meltdowns.

I'm afraid that I don't see the connection (in part because I'm completely unfamiliar with Roch Frey), but I'll still say this: you could be as "new school" as you want and use all of my ideas, and still cause someone to have a spectacular meltdown. That's true because all I have done is try to provide cogent ways of describing and quantifying training (of cyclists/for cycling) - it's still up to the individual and/or coach to decide how they should train.

In Reply To:
so, is the adherence by triathlon coaches to your framework for cycling, at the expense of a similarly-precise way to integrate this into an overall swim/bike/run program, too new school for its own good?

Again, I think you're conflating the issue of how you describe and quantify training with how you actually train. With respect to the latter, the only recommendations that I've really made or conclusions that I have drawn in connection with the various calculations are:

1) a CTL between 100-150 seems to represent an "optimal" training load, i.e., those that train less than this generally realize that they are time-limited, not tolerance-limited, whereas few, if any, seem to be able to push their CTL significantly above 150 w/o breaking down;

2) ramping up your CTL at more than 5-8 TSS/d/wk is often flirting with danger, and

3) performance at shorter durations (i.e., 5 min or less) tends to be best when you've tapered/rested enough to allow your TSB to ride to >+10, whereas performance at longer durations tends to be best when your TSB is more "neutral" (i.e., TSB = -10 to +10).

Even if one were foolish enough to slavishly follow these recommendations while ignoring everything else, there's still an infinite number of training programs that could be devised...which is why I said that it's still up to the individual and/or coach to decide how they should actually train.

Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Dec 28, 07 12:17
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
is the adherence by triathlon coaches to your framework for cycling, at the expense of a similarly-precise way to integrate this into an overall swim/bike/run program, too new school for its own good? i'm not saying it is, i'm, you know, just askin'. maybe there are some coaches who can describe how they integrate all this.[/quote]
Too new school? I will let others judge. I think that it (wko+) allows one to help quantifiy the workload that a triathlete is doing on bike. I look at that and how it effects the overall picture I'm dealing with. Coaching triathletes (any athlete actually) is about integrating the stresses, including life stresses, from their chosen sport(s), managing the workouts so the athlete progresses, etc. Often the feedback from an athlete is as valuable, if not more valuable, then the feedback from a software tool. It's just a tool, to help monitor the athlete, not manage the athlete.


If I have an athlete who is complaining about being tired, I have to look at what they have been doing over the last few weeks, what they just did over the last few days and what else is going on in their life (lack of sleep, more stress then normal, sick kid, new boss, more work at work etc). WKO may show everything is fine, but if the rest of life is falling apart sooner or later something has to give. Last I checked no software program can make those day to day decisions about life.

The software tells me what is taking place athletically or provides part of the picture anyway of what is taking place athletically, the athlete tells me what is taking place in life. For the overwhelming majority of clients, life happens and the coach has to integrate life happenings in how they are doing the day to day training for an athlete.

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Last edited by: desert dude: Dec 28, 07 12:27
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
The software tells me what is taking place athletically or provides part of the picture anyway of what is taking place athletically, the athlete tells me what is taking place in life.
One of the reasons that I've advocated incorporating Foster's session RPE score into WKO+ is to help people spot when the two disconnect.
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dan,

I was staying out of this to see how it shook out and how people viewed different things, but since we've moved into subjects that are in my direct area of expertise / research / publication...

Quote:

from what i understand, and i'm somewhat behind the curve on this, i think you've created a TSS analog for running, no? this would be helpful for those who're using training peaks for triathletes, and this sort of sportswide extrapolation of what you've helped them develop for cycling is the direction i think they're going.

As Andy mentioned, I brought power and a TSS-like metric to running in 2005 when I released GOVSS. (The guys at Peaksware have been talking about their rTSS ever since, but have yet to release it...though they are again claiming they are close.) GOVSS is currently in use in a number of settings (you have seen thrown it around here enough, no doubt), including at least one national/olympic training center (to my knowledge). Ask MarkyV how he likes it :-)

Quote:
you've got to pretty much nail down a swim-TRIMPs or swim-TSS that's analogous to the bike and the run versions, in order for coaches and athletes to measure stress.

It has already been done. I spent the last year finishing development on and validating SwimScore, which works by the athlete inputting distance, pace, rest and reps. The user must also input a threshold distance/time. I hope to publish on this in the next few months, and the white paper will be released shortly. If you are interested in playing with it, head over to http://www.physfarm.com/php-client. It is included in TriUtilities. The demo is free. You will be surprised at how well it works. (I was.)

Quote:
then you've got to decide whether you just add the two TRIMPs or TSS scores together for a triathlete's double workout in two sports on a given day. if not, you need to determine whether the stress score X 2 is then modified by the fact that it's a brick (back to back) or separated by several hours (and of course, how is it modified? is a run and a later swim worth more, or less, than simply the two scores added?)

Can't add them together...you need to treat each sport separately. You can prove this to yourself by using my performance modeling and prediction program, RaceDay. You can also get the free demo at the above address. You can very nicely (R^2 > .9 in some cases) model performance in individual sports, but you lose almost all predictive / modeling ability (in most people) once you start adding scores together. The principle of specificity reigns here. (Evidence based coaching at work :-) ).

Quote:
then you need to ask whether you've got to adjust for distance. for example, let's stipulate for a moment that at, oh, Zone 3, a ride is worth about the same as a run a fourth of that distance (a 5mi run = a 20mi ride, a 10mi run = a 40mi ride). but i don't think we can extrapolate this forever. few coaches would agree that 5 days of riding 500 mi equals 5 days of running 125mi, at least not for a triathlete, because of the stress of a weight-bearing exercise

Again, this is where modeling work can be very helpful, because you can begin to QUANTIFY the recovery costs of different workouts in different sports.

Quote:
accordingly, i think this is where science might have to have its come to jesus with tradition and myth and lore.

On the contrary, I think this is a situation where coaches can learn a lot from science...what many GOOD coaches find is that this sort of modeling work actually supports them. The benefit to using models is that the coach can learn how to wind up the athlete just right in a matter of months, rather than years. Using these types of models / metrics helped me push a veteran Ironman pro (at 39 years old) to a sub 9-hour performance after a lot of VERY heavy hitters brushed him off and said, "You want something your physiology cannot deliver." I'd like to say it was some coaching magic, but it wasn't. It was based entirely on scientific first principles.

Phil

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!
Last edited by: Philbert: Dec 28, 07 12:41
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Philbert] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Quote:
then you've got to decide whether you just add the two TRIMPs or TSS scores together for a triathlete's double workout in two sports on a given day. if not, you need to determine whether the stress score X 2 is then modified by the fact that it's a brick (back to back) or separated by several hours (and of course, how is it modified? is a run and a later swim worth more, or less, than simply the two scores added?)

Can't add them together...you need to treat each sport separately. You can prove this to yourself by using my performance modeling and prediction program, RaceDay. You can also get the free demo at the above address. You can very nicely (R^2 > .9 in some cases) model performance in individual sports, but you lose almost all predictive / modeling ability (in most people) once you start adding scores together. The principle of specificity reigns here. (Evidence based coaching at work :-) ).

Indeed:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Philbert] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
As Andy mentioned, I brought power and a TSS-like metric to running in 2005 when I released GOVSS. (The guys at Peaksware have been talking about their rTSS ever since, but have yet to release it...though they are again claiming they are close.) GOVSS is currently in use in a number of settings (you have seen thrown it around here enough, no doubt), including at least one national/olympic training center (to my knowledge). Ask MarkyV how he likes it :-)[/quote]

Very much so... still interested in chatting with Phil about the time constants but other than that it's highly useful for workout predictions and tapering. Use it similar to the manner in which TSS is used within the PMC and it's fun to see it run it's course over the season.

This all said between the science of GOVSS, TSS and PMC etc. your workouts initially I believe should still come from a knowledge of what has worked... then in the analysis see how the science plays out... then use this blend (front end belief based planning and back end evidence/science based analysis) to build your plan going forward.

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You're on the right track.. it has nothing to do with old vs. new school.

A formula would be a bit irrelevant too....

Here's some thoughts from my coach:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...rch_string=;#1471793
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I guess I am a die hard "old school" running coach. One more thing I could add is old school coaches tend to learn their craft through word of mouth passed from generation to generation of coaches changing little things as they go along. The overall concepts stay the same. I had four years of college running to learn from my coach, who had over 10 years of experience with his coach. These time tested coaching concepts give me more trust in the system than some computer telling me this or that works. The science does tend to support my ideas though.
I was at a coaching conference last week where Dr. Li (Lagat's coach, gold medals in the 1500 and 5k at world champs this year) spoke. Someone asked if Lagat had ever been tested for threshold, V02 max, etc. He said no, we just go by effort. Then Li said Lagat is always stretching and very flexible for a runner and does lots of sit ups. Some high school coach then asked if Lagat did Pilates, Li said, "What is that?" I got a kick out of it.
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Here are a few signs that you may be an old school coach:

1. Biomechanical advice- "relax the jaw like the black sprinters"
2. Medical RECOMMENDATIONS: Hey coach, I am do not think I can run 14 today, it feels like my leg is ready to explode: "hey kid, do an easy 90 minutes in the trails"
3. 4mi in the am and 6 mi in the evening, you might as well be pissing into the wind.....
4. what do you mean you think you are too sick to race? god damnit kid, I don't care if you have 104 degree temperature, get your ass out there and quaify for nationals....



john mcdonnell
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [paulthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Here are a few signs that you may be an old school coach:"

and what about the kid with pneumonia who took himself off the starting line, "because of a case of the sniffles."


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think the differences you've described really boil down to:

Coaching in person.

Coaching remotely, across space and time.

Whether the approach is new or old or whatever, the growth of remote coaching is what has driven the use of on-line tools and the use of workout descriptors, such as zones and power and TSS and whatnot.

If a coach can stand on the side of the track or pool, or ride along in a car, saying, "Harder! No, easier! OK, just right!" then no such modern tools, words and methods are needed. The coaching is delivered in real time, in person.

If instead a coach has to send an email across the continent, telling an athlete how to self-manage a workout, then the only possible way to do that is with words and data.

Perhaps the best early example is The Daniels Running Formula. It gave a common language that coaches and athletes could use to communicate desired workout structures across space and time. I can, in a sense, hire Jack Daniels as my coach without ever meeting him. I can have him coach me long after he's gone off to the big track in the sky.

So I think that breaking "new" and "old" school down by the training prescriptions is missing the point. The difference is driven by changes in the athlete-coach relationship and by the same knowledge and communications trends that have affected so many other service industries.

The newer tools (HR, power, etc.) are a way of encoding the collective personal knowledge of training into symbolic language so that the knowledge can be transmitted across space and time.

The whole "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants" idea. If it's not written down and encoded, few people can build on it.
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Ashburn] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I disagree with your characterization, in that one can have a personal level coach who is at the athlete's side who uses power, HR, and other telemetry data to give feedback.

This style of coach would be different than a personal level coach who doesn't use this information.

I don't think it is just a function of a coach being personally there when the athlete trains.

For instance just look at Master's swimming. I would imagine that there is a personal level coach at all Master's swimming classes (i.e., there is someone physically at the training session), yet their styles, workout prescriptions, etc. would vary depending on some arbitrary definition of old versus new school coaching.
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Ashburn] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Whether the approach is new or old or whatever, the growth of remote coaching is what has driven the use of on-line tools and the use of workout descriptors, such as zones and power and TSS and whatnot.

I would agree that power data appeal to those engaged in remote coaching, as to some extent the objective data that one provides can substitute for being their "in the flesh". I wouldn't, though, go so far as to say that remote coaching has been the driving force behind the development of zone-based systems, etc. - after all, the Polar heart rate monitor was around for a number of years before email use and Internet access became so ubiquitous.
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Greatest swim coach ever would be the deceased MIKE PEPPE from The Ohio State Univeristy.

Thats All.
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Gordo's Xtri article on old school training with Molina back in 2002 comes to mind and is worth a read for a couple of examples. I've pasted some excerpts.
http://www.xtri.com/...p;CAT=11&xref=xx

"So, my only option was to try to get fit fast. To try to cram for my Iron-Examination.
I needed expert advice for this, I needed Molina. Scott was kind enough to offer some advice. All the best coaches in New Zealand are simple when it comes to planning. His advice was… ride as much steady volume as you can from now until ten days out from the race, when you get tired have something to eat then get back out there and ride easy."

"Scott said to target about 2,000Ks in the period (18 days) – I did all my training without a bike computer, HRM or powermeter. I did everything on feel and used my watch to log duration (Old School Style)."

Searching for school on Xtri also revealed this.
"If you read Gold in the Water you’ll see that Jochums is very old-school. Work as hard as you can, everyday, repeat until you achieve greatness."

Back to Slowman's post. I'd place Lydiard in the old school category (used experience r/t science, work ethic, face-time with an athlete, that quote from run to the top about running as fast as possible to a tree and back until he thought you'd done enough without measuring time or HR) and he was a strong believer in periodisation and did use the word (as opposed to "not caught dead using that word". If he was new school then and old school now then surely you need to add ancient, future and fusion schools to your categorisation.
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
if you really want to be cutting edge, its 'Nu Skool'




Proud Member of the Cervelo Mafia.
Quote Reply

Prev Next