Training Metrics as Performance Limiters
Some recent experiences and a number of discussions in this (and other) forum got me to thinking deeply about an issue I have been noodling/struggling with...and that is that frankly; I'm beginning to believe that all measurements are limiters and barriers to breakthrough performance. I may begin a separate thread on this. While I like Power, HR, etc. I'm starting to feel like we practice, train, and even test TO the measures rather than our true physical abilities....RPE may in the end be the best training methodology.
I reckon back to the days when I didn't have and understanding of my "Thesholds" and I ran through them...
Coaching & Training programs based on strict measurement & progressive resistance are designed to reduce risk of injury and deliver incremental (and continual) improvement...but not breakthrough performance...
Endurance sports (all sport) is such a mental game that I'm beginning to believe (thank goodness) that uncoupling my mind from limiters and "just running/hard" again may be very important....
Any thoughts in the Haus on Training metrics as performance limiters?
Comments
For example, during my Bike Test yesterday, I can attest that the powermeter was a definite MOTIVATOR. I worked harder with the data than without; my power dropped off when I covered the display.
Incremental? Yes. Breakthrough? No.
But in the cost/benefit calculus, I will take a safe, injury-free incremental improvement over a breakthrough performance every day.
I think of it two ways - yes, a power meter, HR monitor, etc can be limiters if we become slave to following them and not exceeding certain metrics that we set out for ourselves. When I ran xc in high school, we had nothing - just RPE. Go run hard for three miles. I have absolutely NO clue what my HR was. In a few short months, I went from >28 minutes for a 5k closer to 20 minutes. Still sucked by high school runner measurements, and obviously I was younger then - but the improvement was quick and dramatic. Some days you go out and just feel like fookin' KILLING it in a workout and going significantly faster than the workout prescribed.
On the other hand, when I started cycling a few years ago, all I really had was HR, so I was sort of rudderless - no clue what to really do and how to train. Once I plugged into TR and started using virtual power, and eventually got my own powertap - that brought a LOT of fun into biking that I had been missing before. Previously, going for a long ride was 'meh' and I only did it because I knew I needed to in order to attain my goals. But with having numbers to shoot for, and something that brought some structure to the activity - it was definitely a motivator that helped me look forward to the next cycling workout. (being down in aero position and feeling like a speed-demon shot out of a cannon, thanks to the EN workouts, didn't hurt either
So in the end, I think there is a time and place for both philosophies. I do think Joe's point of injury-free incremental improvement,a nd the cost/benefit analysis, has to be considered as well - especially if there are timing goals in play (such as wanting to show up to the starting line in 6 months healthy and with a minimum of missed workouts).
I find run pace, bike watts, and HR in both to be helpful when training, especially when doing the OS. When racing, especially when running (stand alone or triathlon), not so much. That's the time to not be limited by something other than RPE.
Sticking withng the limits imposed by my testing when doing hard intervals helps prevent me from digging myself a hole, jumping in, and pulling the dirt over me. Even when doing the less intense workouts in IM race prep, I find the "training metrics" help me to cement my understanding of RPE/pace or power.
All that said, when riding with a group, I think there is value in going outside the envelope, within the confines of, say, an overall TSS target for the day. But not every workout, maybe not even every week.