There are a lot of subjects that I'd like to jump into. So many of them are related to others, it's been difficult to identify benign topics on training that are easy to cast a comprehensive net around. But I kept coming back to a basic idea. One that I settled on about two years ago when oddly, I was as removed from the athletic training world as I ever have been. Actually, it may have been quite because of my distance away that I could, figuratively, see the forest in greater perspective. I was pondering a question that haunted me most of my prior career a ski racer.
How much is too much and how hard is too hard?
The majority of divergences in schools of thought on a great number of subjects occur at the answer of that question. I suspect some of the reason for a wide variety of answers is a wide variety of perceptions of what "much" and "hard" mean. But still, two random coaches or experienced athletes will look at a detailed training log and will likely have very different feelings. Why is that?
I believe that it is because there is not a widely used and accurate system to determine if a training load is too much or not. Almost all of us have our anecdotal evidence or experience to draw from, but how confident are we in them? How proven are they? Do they work regularly and on other athletes? Careers are made or broken on these calculations. There is little room for error. Then consider a coach making the call who may not know everything going on in the athlete's life or the athlete making the careful call in a stressed and subjective condition. There aught to be a reliable system to give accurate feedback.
My idea is a bit simplistic and will no doubt have a "no duh" response; but hey, that adds credibility. There are two assumptions and two conditions of the system.
Assumption 1: Aerobic and anaerobic systems are not allowed to overpower each other.
Assumption 2: Illnesses are negligible and other life stresses are consistent.
Condition 1: Performances* can be accurately qualified as improved or not, and
Condition 2: The training load is repeated consistently for a period of time that is longer than the time** needed to see if adaptation will occur.
* Performance of regular training sessions.
**For reference, there's a lot of agreement that says this is a matter of weeks.
This system is reliable because the proof is in the pudding. If performances improve after a significant amount of time, that is proof of adaptation, and thus proof that the training load is not too much. Other than injury (and even that can be subjective), no other indicator such as heart rate, fatigue/energy feelings, etc., will give any kind of reliable proof-one way or the other. Besides, should body status responses be trusted anyway since we are trying to change the body? Remember the saying: "change hurts".
Consider the importance of being able to know if a training load is too much or not. This will tell you if you can ski train 700 hrs in one year or how fast the training can be.
There are difficulties of applying this system. It requires rigidity and patience that may sacrifice performances in the short term but will help lead to significant improvements years from now.
I like this, but what of a system where assumption 2 and condition 2 are both rendered impossible by a somewhat predictable but very significant life stress such as college? Especially when that stress contributes to more unpredictable stress such as illness, irregular sleep patterns, etc.
ReplyDeleteIf an athlete has a given amount of time to devote to training and recovery and then that time is cut in half or more; and the remaining time is spaced sporadically throughout their week, isn't it impossible to maintain consistency developed during the summer? How can anything be measured precisely and accurately with so many variables?
What do you consider "impossible"? If it's truly impossible to stay healthy and/or have some sort of consistent-or at least predictable level of other stresses, that will deteriorate your training effects in any case.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if it is merely must more difficult to do these things in the school year, that piece of information is hugely valuable in itself. If X amount of training load was found appropriate in the Summer, surely X amount is too much during the school year. There is still value to using what information is available, even if it's far from ideal.
Whats up playa? This is good stuff so start posting more posts.
ReplyDeleteAlso I am going to get back up to AK this summer for a visit so hopefully we can toe the line at a race. I miss that pace so bad!