The "What it Takes" Article Series
Hey,
Just felt like jamming this out here, to get your feedback, before putting this up on the blog...or not. Dunno, it's bouncing in my head and i have a couple hours before I ride 
.
The "What It Takes Article" Series
Our athletes do a lot of reading on the web and sometimes the blog posts/training articles of other coaches will attract their attention and become the subject of internal discussion. One such instance is the "What It Takes" series of articles at Endurance Corner (link). Let me first say I'm not super comfortable with engaging in some kinda internet, keyboard to keyboard, coaching theory contest. I prefer to keep my head down, focused on teaching and solving the training problems of our team. But this series creates an opportunity to discuss some broader topics of training, coaching, the endurance lifestyle, and more.
As I read the series, the thought that comes to mind is:
If the only tool you have is a hammer, than every problem looks like a nail
The parts of the EC hammer, which in some ways are very similar to many hammers used in the coaching and self-coaching world, are:
Metabolic Testing
If you have an MS in exercise phys, an expensive metobolic tester, a lease on said tester, rent, teirs of service involving metabolic testing, I suppose it's natural to frame training, fitness, and racing problems from the perspective of Vo2 max, rates of energy consumption, and other metabolic testing derived numbers.
The problems I see are largely practical: so what if training, racing and fitness questions can be answered by calculating the number of teragoogles expended per gigaflop...what is the practical application of that information? If I don't have access to quality, consistent testing (this is a big one), or don't want/can't afford to pay for it on a regular basis, your coaching/training model isn't very practical for me. And what do I actually DO with it on race day? What am I actually looking for each training day? I'm sorry but if your coaching method involves repeated $175 tests to provide tweaks and evolving guidance to be integrated into your $400/mo coaching service, the foundation of which is based on your interpretation and use of these $175 tests...my antenae start to come up.
Because quality, consistent, affordable metabolic testing is completely unavailable to 99% of endurance athletes, we instead focus on functional field tests. They are free, repeatable, consistent, free, the results are practical and easy to implement into a tweaked trainining and racing schedue, and they are free. Our coaching method doesn't involve me asking you to spend more money so I can have the information I need to better coach you...which you're already paying me for.
Related to the metabolic testing, and it's cost, is the high dollar coaching model. If my business model is high dollar coaching, then I have to sell personal customization as a value added, to help justify my fee. This model demands that we talk about how you are special, you are unique, everyone has a different bifflewidget profile that needs to be measured and accounted for individually, and that customization can only happen via personalized, and expensive, phone calls, coffee meetings and emails.
In our experience, one-on-one coaching is a business model first, coaching method second...but that's another topic .
Training Volume
Let's imagine you're an Ironman coach who likes to do big volume. You create a lifestyle around your enjoyment of big volume training. You like to include other people in that lifestyle, through your writing, camps, clinics, etc. Over time you begin to surround yourself with people for whom volume is a lifestyle first, training method second. You like to do volume, they like to do volume, you all frame the training question from the perspective of volume. Because everyone likes volume, we all like the solution...more volume.
I'm that guy. I like to do epic, high volume training, especially on the bike. My life, such as it is, can easily accommodate 14-15hrs per week of cycling, all very challenging. I'm planning a 2 day, 200mi, 20k of climbing adventure and several days of solo cycling in Utah. However, I know this is a personal lifestyle choice first, a training method second. In addition, I'm very aware that I need to separate my lifestyle/training situation from that of my Team. What works for me WILL NOT work for them and it's irresponsible, borderline negligent, to offer my personal flavor of solution to their training problem. We simply do not share the same world.
In short what I see, from many coaches in the space, is a lifestyle choice that creates a coaching method.. This coaching-method-as-lifestyle-choice attracts people with similar lifestyle choices and opportunities. We all have a volume hammer and every training problem looks like a nail.
However, 95% of age groupers can't or don't want the this lifestyle. They have a different hammer. Stamped on this hammer are:
- Return on Investment (ROI) -- I only have/want to invest, for many reasons, #X hours per week. I want to get the most out of time invested. If I can get the same or better results with LESS time, I'll do that. I won't continue to invest more time than I need to because in that direction lies training volume as lifestyle, not training method. I don't roll like that.
- Practicality -- your coaching methods are only good to me if they are useful to me. The tools I have available are my head, a heart rate monitor, maybe a GPS, maybe a powermeter. I don't want to spend money on anything else (see below). If your method can't give me practical guidance that I can't implement, in real time, using these tools, then it's of no use to me.
- Affordability -- is your $400/mo solution 400% better than this $99/mo solution? I'm willing to not spend $300/mo to not have the privlege of emailing you, calling you, etc. Instead I'll read, post questions in a forum, brainstorm with peers, etc. That little bit of work on my part is worth saving $3600/yr.
Not sure how to close the article but...there you go. Comments?
Comments
In my mind the benefits of the community aspect of EN cannot be overstated. Another thing that AGers often want is a "training community," for lack of a better term. Creating a “community” on the internet can sound like a cliché, but the EN model really capitalizes on the advantages of the medium in a way that benefits members AND coaches. I think it is a fascinating business model - call Harvard Biz School! I’ve been on a local tri team, but of course not everyone is training with the same philosophy. On the EN boards there is a great level of trust and expertise built-in. That’s huge.
Your coaching style benefits from the large amount of people that you reach. The “95% of AG” resonates with me, however we all know there are many “special flowers” in the tri-world who feel that their specific needs and abilities must be evaluated, viewed and analyzed by “professionals.” The curse of the type-A athlete, maybe. Does EN have the stats to show the level of improvement that are produced, PRs and such? Results are what these people (all of us really) are looking for. Maybe breaking out those kinds of numbers in creative ways would be an interesting exercise.
Perhaps tri-folk also respond to the idea that they have to "answer to a coach" and that will motivate them. They would be surprised how motivated you can be by people you haven't even met yet! ;-)
Very good post, should you be posting that to other training groups, my opinion is no. Why do you ask, you may then be drawn into defending your system, which we all no is good but it would take time away from what you truly love to do. As far as the EN model goes it works plain and simple which is Hard work, Consistency, and learning how your body reacts to different training stresses.
Your model works and there and over time more and more people will come to see it that way.
I think that is the first editorial I've seen from you on coaching methods of others without "stoopid and fookin" in it. Are you feeling ok? You might be overtrained.
Vince
P.S. Very clear and too the point. Also, very noble for you to admit your bias, especially if it is counter to what you teach (ie: volume on bike).
All,
I likely won't publish it and will just keep it internal as a conversation peice between us cool kids. Additional notes:
The beef I have with the Alan Couzens, Endurance Corner stuff is he speaks/delivers training/pacing guidance (the later is completely not useful) from an energy expenditure standpoint. Unless you have access to a metabolic analyzer, it's almost completely useless to you from a practicality perspective. I'm left screaming at the laptop "awesome...what the hell would I DO with this information."
Just disregards the functional tools and practicality of training with power, pace, FTP and VDot. If my gigawidget measurements is X gigglbots per liter to your Y gigglebots per liter...what do I do with that? But if my FTP is 250w to your 300w, then we each have VERY useful numbers for doing lots and lots of things. Training guidance, race pacing, etc.
The training lifestyle as coaching method came to me as I was writing this. I follow a couple EC guys that I used to race with/against back in the day, one guy came out one of my local high volume camps when I was running them. They are each, I think, independently wealthy and basically follow Gordo around the globe from camp to camp. They are fast, no doubt, but their training universe is in...another universe from the rest of you. So, to me, it's very apparent to me that the EC focus/framing of fitness within the context of training volume (Couzen's 10000 hours or whatever) is likely a product of Gordo's lifestyle, which places a premium on experiencing life through fitness, doing cool/epic shit with your fitness, etc. If you circle up a bunch of guys that dig that stuff, then the solutions presented will likely be related to training volume, cuz you all dig it.
Personally, I'm all about that stuff. But I'm very aware that:
Well articulated and dead on!
AC