Well, given the tenor and language of his post on the topic, it appears Jordan has a hard-on for the model or coaches at EN, so he deviated from the article he should have been addressing. Paulo, well he's just paulo, but Jordan reacted emotionally, and put it in writing here, and that's something that folks here are not used to. shrug

And not that I hold this against them, but they are making some mighty fine bank.

This is a good example of a similar logical fallacy that the EN coaches are making - making a general inference off nothing but a data set, and a limited one. It's called an "inductive fallacy," if you want to be really technical. What your conclusion - at least based off the data you presented - misses is the fact that the swim very often has a significant impact on the rest of the race. You see this all the time where people overcook the bike, and not just because they rode too hard, but because the swim took more out of them than they realize. I.e., what was the physiological cost of that 1:02 vs. the 1:04? Or it could disregard the productivity of YOUR SPECIFIC swim training; maybe you waste a lot of time in your swim training. Or both. You have three data points, and you draw a conclusion about the general. That is rarely a good idea.

To compare to the inductive fallacy of the EN coaches (and I'm simply making up a data set here, as they didn't provide their specific "evidence")
2005: 6 bricks/week, 70.3FL - 5:30 with 2hr run.
2006: 5 bricks/week, 70.3FL - 5:20 with 1:50hr run.
2007: 4 bricks/week, 70.3FL - 5:10 with 1:45hr run.
2008: 3 bricks/week, 70.3FL - 5:05 with 1:40hr run.
2009: 2 bricks/week, 70.3FL - 4:55 with 1:35hr run.
2010: 1 bricks/week, 70.3FL - 4:50 with 1:30hr run.
2011: 0 bricks/week, 70.3FL - 4:48 with 1:30hr run.

Inductive fallacy - doing bricks doesn't make you any faster; in fact, doing less is better. And doing none is best. [NB - this would be an inductive fallacy even if the above data set represented a "typical" trend for 100 or even 1,000 athletes]

Appropriate induction - experience / accumulated training volume improves performance. There is a diminishing return on the value of brick workouts as experience and accumulated training/racing experience increases. This is supported by both the data and also by scientific research. [this would be more correct the more athletes you saw exhibit this pattern, but it's a reasonable induction even based off a single data set because of outside information that confirms such an induction]

The problem with the first conclusion is that it is far too general, and it looks at a limited - and potentially heavily biased - set of data in isolation, without consideration of existing research that would either support - or not support - the conclusion made. It's an even bigger problem when you extrapolate out to an even more generalized group than is reasonable based off the data set. In other words, imagine giving advice to all human beings off a data set that was comprised 90% of males, without consideration of whether or not, as regards what you were making conclusions about, there was any noted difference between males and females. Add in the fact that absolutely no evidence at all is given for the "explanation" provided as to why bricks offer no benefit should be a clue to the inductive fallacy. In other words, if you suspect an inductive fallacy, the absence of any outside evidence supporting the claims made to fit the data (a narrative fallacy, of sorts...) ought to tip you off.

//

To GMAN - yes I saw that snippet, but since I've already alluded to the scientific research that demonstrates that running off the bike is a skill, that undercuts their statement that it doesn't need to be continually practiced. It just means you need to practice it LESS once you are experienced, not "never," as they advocate. I also object to the fact that it says "avoid them entirely..." in the opening paragraph - what most people will read, even if they don't read the entire article, which doesn't even leave room for that (IMO, inadequate) qualifier that they make later on. So they say, "never" initially, and then contradict themselves? What was that I called them again in my initial post...

---

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

I'm not sure.

If I had to put my finger on it, I would say it's simply because my depth of fitness isn't there. As such I am forced to swim more conservatively to ensure that I'm not farked up by the time I get on the bike - which means my (swim) times are slower.

I couldn't swim December to march 2009/2010 - and spent a bunch of time getting my technique and fitness rebuilt - then I took 3 months off of swimming in the fall of 2010 - and spent the early part of this year restore my technique and fitness - so I've arrived at the big race time of year with less time of "real" swim training.

In an absolute sense - I can jump in the pool and drop out a 1,000 meter time trial effort - just as fast as I ever could, but it leaves me busted up a lot more.

I plan to fix that - and have been working to make sure that my swim at Arizona isn't nearly as disgraceful as at kona.

Good post. I might add that it was obvious, at least to me, that Jordan's use of hack was pretty deliberate and not unwarranted. It's very much a term used to describe someone who produces something mediocre, or trite, or flimsy with intention of monetary/commercial success. That seems like a pretty accurate description. Their website basically screams bad infomercial.

It's not just that they've fooled people into thinking that selling them a cookie-cutter training plan is synonymous with "coaching," but that they're falsely claiming to be something they're not. The later bothers me more. As for the former, I guess I'm just jealous I haven't been able to make a boat-load of money by mass-producing bad coaching advice...

---

___________________
Twitter | Kancman | Blog

Dear Rapp Apologist,

Re: "Hack"- nice try. If your argument is that J Rapp used it in the denotative sense of the word, I'm not buying and I'm betting others aren't either. The term connotes incompetence and given the context in which it was used it's clear that's what Jordan was saying, but didn't apparently have the sack to actually say it. But it's a cool if a bit hackneyed debating technique to look up a word's definition in an attempt to alter how it's been used.

Re: Individual attention to 400 athletes. Was never, ever, a claim made anywhere by Rich or Patrick. In fact, their model is all about an affordable, online, coaching system- well thought out plans and online input from themselves and other experienced AG members, offered as an alternative to the "elite" coaches, who charge much more for individual attention (but train with power and pace and with plans very much like EN's).

This discussion going en fuego here is interesting. You have a generally highly regarded guy trashing EN and others piling on. Why so threatened? My theory is that they're doing something very right.

They have created a unique business model. It offers very good plans based upon power and pace, mostly. It is not your typical team in training, up with people, tri singles, go run 3.2 miles crapola. Rich and Patrick are both repeat KQers. They have been around, trained well, trained poorly, and have figured this stuff out, and the plans are good and their advice is sound. They communicate extremely well. Bottom line- you can, through EN, train at a high level of technical sophistication without hiring a $300 a month "elite" coach. And that does not sit well with many people for some reason. Hence the terms "hack" and "canned".

One size never fits all, and everyone trains a little differently. You do what works for you. But EN has nailed it as far as a fundamentally sound approach through using power and pace. And it's never been targeted towards pros or elites. It's for typical AGers.

I meant off-season. My mistake.

Nobody at EN believes or expects they are getting 1 on 1 coaching with personal, individual attention, and that's not how they market it. If that's what you think, you clearly have not read their stuff, or are selectively interpreting it. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion on their methods, but don't make things up.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

Just to bump this: I'm interested too.

jaretj

x2, Monty...

I have read through the whole thread.  I haven't actually seen a whole lot of piling on, particularly by ST standards.  And I haven't seen anyone who feels threatened by EN.  

I have seen a number of "supporters" of EN jump in to defend.  Some of these "supporters" including you seem to be threatened for some reason.

EN is most definitely doing something very right.  Marketing and making money are at least 2 of those things.  I think it is a fine business model.  

I "joined" for free last year.  Seems like a fun place to hang out.  Plans weren't for me.  I didn't feel anyone there was a "hack".

That's a little harsh.

I don't think $130 bucks a month for a prefabricated plan is 'affordable.'



No one's doubting the success of their business model. It's amazing really how many people have bought in. The issue is that they've claimed to be "elite coaches" - when all they've done in fact is write marketable programs. The programs are hardly unique or groundbreaking - they're mass producing and marketing pre-existing training ideas and methodologies. Last I checked, producing a mediocre product to make money is precisely what a hack is, and what was implied in Jordan's post. No one's doubting their ability to do this well - it's what they've incorrectly identified themselves as, that's the issue. The very nature of 'coaching' and, moreover, elite coaching, is that it's highly individualized and specific to the needs, abilities, and experiences of the athlete. You can adapt written plans all you want, but it's not the same as coaching. Elite marketers or elite businessmen might be a more accurate term.

---

___________________
Twitter | Kancman | Blog

Yes. They are good marketers.


Since when does excelling at the physical part of a sport automatically grant the ability to coach the sport? There are thousands of elite athletes in every sport that couldn't coach their way out of a paper bag. And conversely, many many successful coaches that never performed at a high level. (John Madden comes to mind as the first example of the latter)


Your typical AG'er would benefit just as much from getting a $30 HIM plan from beginner triathlete or similar, and following ANY plan that has structure. But, the difference between BT and EN is that EN is presenting itself as a coaching authority, and implying that amazing benefits will ensue if you follow their plan. And, their plan at $129 a month is only slightly less than some of the respected coaches that are here on the board, where you are guaranteed an individualized approach.

It's like the difference between Arizona State and Harvard.

Oh, and nicely done on shifting my post to the personal. I'm not a Rapp apologist. I just think that in this case he's right. Supporting an argument does not automatically connote being an apologist for the essayer of said argument. If I thought he was wrong on something I'd say so. I might even call him an ignorant slut, but I think that particular epithet is reserved for slowman.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

I approached a local "pro-triathlete" for advice and this is what I got.

Me: I was wondering if you could write me a plan or help coach me?

Coach: Do you want to win races?

Me: Yes.

Coach: Go get a pen. I have all the secrets...

Me: Ok.

Coach: You need to swim fast. You need to bike fast. You need to run fast. Always race your transitions. Healthy crops are healthy craps. And last but not least, hurry up and rest.

Me: That's it?

Coach: Yup. Everything else people tell you or that you read about is coming from a marketing stand point of view. People love to sell you shit. There is shit everywhere and people buy it. Marketing targets people who don't trust their own body.

Me: What about compression socks:

Coach: I said "RACE YOU TRANSITIONS," not put on some knee-high-school-girl-looking-hooker costumes.

Me: Ummmm...

Coach: See you in the spring.

Me: ok...? Well, what about bricks?

Coach: I said "RUN FAST," not slow.

You sure you weren't talking to dd or Francois?

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

That's outstanding.

disgraceful for *me*


:)

Does it matter who I talked to? I take bits and pieces from everyone along the road of life. I think it is appropriate to say that we are "All full of shit." I buy shit and still do the odd end brick for the "payment of pain." But in the end, and from what I got from this guy was that, is that we all end up dead anyway. He always said, if you are good enough, someone will notice you and you will be living in a dorm in Colorado trying to take down someone who was fed with a silver spoon. Possible that you will, but highly unlikley. Just enjoy it and get an education.

Bricks won't make ME faster. I am positive of that.

Knee high socks are just not my style anyway.

I swim with faster swimmers, cycle with faster cyclists and run with faster runners. I only race transitions on race day.

This is going on my wall.

My response was tongue in cheek. :D That's about how Francois or dd sound if you talk with them. Maybe I should have put it in pink.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

"It's like the difference between Arizona State and Harvard."

Meaning at Harvard you may not meet or see your professor, probably just a grad student running the lectures, ASU you may even be allowed to visit them in their office... ;)

I know you meant disgraceful for you, but I still think you’re being a little harsh.

My swim at Kona, however, was undeniably disgraceful. It was 5 minutes slower than my first ironman. I took 4 months off swimming last fall/winter. I don’t know if that 4 months is to blame, but I certainly won’t be taking time off this year.

Some interesting points made here.
Is it just me, or does a lot of what is being offered up here as "evidence and statistics" or "results and therefore substantiative proof" really amount to nothing more than a broken clock being correct twice a day?


What is really compelling about this thread, like so many others; is the psychology involved. To see otherwise very intelligent people reduced to clutching at straws to maintain their perceived dominance in an artificial world…… its very entertaining.

---

persequetur vestra metas furiose

I have a tendency to be very rigid and blunt when dealing with management at work - particularly during meetings. A few months back, a colleague advised me that "it's better to walk out of these meetings with a handful of straws than a handful of nothing." Two weeks later, I was his boss. Funny how the psychology of affirmation can actually contribute to your undoing.

---

"The right to party is a battle we have fought, but we'll surrender and go Amish... NOT!" -Wayne Campbell