| Author | Message | ||
     Art_k82 Senior Member Username: Art_k82 Post Number: 145 Registered: 10-2009 |
I found something really troubling today when I was reading a magazine at the bookstore. In the current issue of the Inside Triathlon magazine, one thing really bothered me. The main article was about Lance Armstrong and how you would coach him when he made his return to triathlon, and specifically, how you would coach him to do the Ironman Hawaii in 2011. They interviewed several big name coaches, and I did some of my own research online, and these guys charge between $400 to $1,500 per month depending on what level of service. I mean, these coaches and their companies are so well known in the entire endurance sport area. You'd find links to them on the official Ironman website. (Doesn't necessarily mean they're good though  ) Of particular interest was this quote from a very famous coach: The primary adaptation from his normal training would be to hold flat-line sub-threshold watts for four hours in the aero position at a heart rate of 162-166 beats per minute (Lance's lactate threshold is listed at 178 bpm Wow, seriously??? He's a big name coach and he is arbitrarily assigning numbers based on nothing but guesswork? What's the physiological reason for saying that LT minus 15 is useful for Ironman? How did he come up with this conclusion? That really bothers me. Surely a coach that can charge so many dollars per month can be a bit more precise than that. Even more interesting is coach #2 who has this to say. I actually interacted with this person by email, and asked about how he came up with his "fuel economy" studies. So, this coach suggests to Lance: I'd love to host you in our lab to review your sub-maximal fuel economy (bike and run). Our protocol is Ironman specific. The key benchmark would be maximal cycling watts and running pace at baseline lactate values. In tour shape, we estimated at 295 watts and 4:15 per km respectively Okay, before I found FaCT last year, I was highly intrigued by this "fuel economy" study. So I emailed the exercise physiology and asked the question about how it was being done. The answer was simple: it was basically an incremental VO2 test, using RER to determine absolute levels of fat versus carbohydrate usage at each step of intensity. Of course, I know about how RER is a flawed metric and how absolute measures (especially based on equations) are not applicable to the entire population. Depending on your breathing pattern, RER can be affected. And even more interesting is how coach #2 came up with the estimation of Lance's "baseline" wattage and running speed. What the heck is "baseline lactate values" anyway? That's tremendously fancy wording for a concept that doesn't make sense? Do they even know the range of equipment available these days and the way testing can be done??? One more question is, how do coaches become coaches? Some are "exercise physiologists", and some are former pro triathletes. What makes them qualified to be a coach? How many successful athletes have they had compared to the number that were not successful? I find it interesting that coaches can charge the money they do. } | ||
| Juerg Senior Member Username: Juerg Post Number: 2508 Registered: 04-2006 |
Art, Very interesting comments and yes, it seems very surprising, how "coaches" can make this type of predictions and plans. Here my take, I try to give people , when confronted with this type of a very general question. 1. I have no clue really how to coach or program a person with this question. 2. The key for me would be to do a full assessment , as the combination in triathlon is one of the challanges any coach and or athlete would face. 3. Swimming may be often underestimated and in an Iron-man the key in swimming is not just the time but rather efficiency. Loosing 10 min in the swim can be a win for the rest of the race, as you like to be as relaxed as possible after the swim. If you look the % of swim time to the overall time you see, what I mean. On the other side pushing in the swim too much you may destroy a decent bike time and as you may still push on the bike as the strongest part you may kill the running part with it. The key is to see, where the efficiency is and how to work as efficient as possible to maintain a good performance without getting overboard for the next part of the race. Summary. Three assessments in each discipline to see, where and how the performance has to be used and adjusted with less ideas on time than rather on efficiency to go as fast as possible with teh best efficiency to be able to work in the less efficient parts still on a acceptable way. Often athletes with one strong discipline try to make time there but than make the less strong discipline even weaker. It would be fun to assess a top athlete and see, how an intelligent race plan would end up. |