The "more is MORE" is all over Slowtwitch. Some people I coach use it in their signature files, some use it in a sarcastic way and there are some that say they will introduce the "more is MORE" concept in their training.
Even though I feel flattered by the popularity of that little phrase, the fact that it is composed of three words of which two are the same leaves a lot of room for misunderstandings. I'm pretty sure that nobody remembers anything else from the original post except the... more is MORE! There is the risk that some of you out there, following what you think is the "more is MORE" approach will come back in January saying that the "more is MORE" doesn't work, that got you overtrained, injured, etc. And because increasingly people have a difficulty assuming responsability, it will be MY fault. Therefore, I feel that a clarification of the "more is MORE" approach is needed.
The "more is MORE" approach simply states that improvement comes from increased training load. It might sound simple but it is not. A lot of people week to week, month to month and even year to year go through their established training routine and stay at the same training load. As a coach, I have worked with athletes that were self-coached for a lot of years before getting me as a coach. When after some months I asked them what was the main difference between being self-coached and coached, they told me invariably two things: First, their easier training cycles were easier than before (and that includes taper) and their harder weeks were harder. Second, and this one is more important, their overall training load was increased and they felt that was the factor that had brought them to the next level.
Another important aspect of the "more is MORE" approach is the rate of progression of the training load. Like somebody that posted on the original thread said, most people over-estimate what they're capable of training. I remember that when there was a thread about Peter Reid's training week published in Triathlete Magazine, a lot of you posted that doing that week was possible. However, none of the people that post here have won IMH three times. This is where a good coach can make a huge impact, in judging the appropriate progression in training load. Some athletes need to be pushed beyond their confort level to improve. Others need to be brought down from what they think they can handle in order to improve. Do you think you know what type you are? Most of the times the athletes themselves can't tell which type they are, which means that the ones that need to be pushed don't improve because they "undertrain" and the ones that push too much don't improve because they overtrain.
The last important aspect of the "more is MORE" approach is the individual constraints that every single athlete has, for "bottom of the pack" to elite level. I have talked about this a lot before, but I will stress it again. It can be VO2Max, family, tolerance to heat/cold, work, etc, but any training program should be designed with those limitations in mind. Failure to do so, and your performance will suffer. Again in this case, it is good to have a realistic person by your side, and that person seldom is yourself.
Questions, constructive criticism welcomed. Please limit n=1 anedoctes to a minimum. Thank you.
Even though I feel flattered by the popularity of that little phrase, the fact that it is composed of three words of which two are the same leaves a lot of room for misunderstandings. I'm pretty sure that nobody remembers anything else from the original post except the... more is MORE! There is the risk that some of you out there, following what you think is the "more is MORE" approach will come back in January saying that the "more is MORE" doesn't work, that got you overtrained, injured, etc. And because increasingly people have a difficulty assuming responsability, it will be MY fault. Therefore, I feel that a clarification of the "more is MORE" approach is needed.
The "more is MORE" approach simply states that improvement comes from increased training load. It might sound simple but it is not. A lot of people week to week, month to month and even year to year go through their established training routine and stay at the same training load. As a coach, I have worked with athletes that were self-coached for a lot of years before getting me as a coach. When after some months I asked them what was the main difference between being self-coached and coached, they told me invariably two things: First, their easier training cycles were easier than before (and that includes taper) and their harder weeks were harder. Second, and this one is more important, their overall training load was increased and they felt that was the factor that had brought them to the next level.
Another important aspect of the "more is MORE" approach is the rate of progression of the training load. Like somebody that posted on the original thread said, most people over-estimate what they're capable of training. I remember that when there was a thread about Peter Reid's training week published in Triathlete Magazine, a lot of you posted that doing that week was possible. However, none of the people that post here have won IMH three times. This is where a good coach can make a huge impact, in judging the appropriate progression in training load. Some athletes need to be pushed beyond their confort level to improve. Others need to be brought down from what they think they can handle in order to improve. Do you think you know what type you are? Most of the times the athletes themselves can't tell which type they are, which means that the ones that need to be pushed don't improve because they "undertrain" and the ones that push too much don't improve because they overtrain.
The last important aspect of the "more is MORE" approach is the individual constraints that every single athlete has, for "bottom of the pack" to elite level. I have talked about this a lot before, but I will stress it again. It can be VO2Max, family, tolerance to heat/cold, work, etc, but any training program should be designed with those limitations in mind. Failure to do so, and your performance will suffer. Again in this case, it is good to have a realistic person by your side, and that person seldom is yourself.
Questions, constructive criticism welcomed. Please limit n=1 anedoctes to a minimum. Thank you.