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.
