Posted by Juerg (207.194.220.102) on January 23, 2004 at 08:12:05:
For our english speaking and writing Forum users. Thanks first for your active participation . but also for the readers , who , at least from the feedback I am getting enjoying the discussions and the info. I had a lot of really friendly and good feed backs from europe and we have people on our line like M. Albasini , ( National coach of the swiss U 23 cycling team , who have much more on knowledge than we and I hope over time we can build up a small international discussion plattform.
I think , as long we try to accept different views and give as much as we can some backed up info , not always as a correction , but as an other view , with always keeping in mind, as Cris puts it down " a lot of the info we learn , we never have seen , nor is it proven "
Working in sport in rehabilitation or high performance is pushing sometimes the limit.
I always use the joke :
If I test or work with an high performance athlete ,I have a lot of time for planning and for collecting the bill.If I make mistakes not a lot happend.
if I work with a heart patient I always collect the bill first , because I can not afford a mistake.
With this in mind I try to use once in a while the idea of elimination.( Not patients , but mistakes )
Example: I try to make a definition on a certain training intensity by eliminating certain physiological system, so I try to be able to control that this or that system is not really used ( which never is true this way ) , but that the system is not stressed and there for will not be the eliminating factor.( For example the cardio system in a heart patient, so I use eccentric work or 1 leg exercises at a time . )
Example . In our A 1 trainings we check very regular the glucose ( blood sugar level to see a change in this plus SO2, ammonia and at the beginning and if power ( wattage ) shows an extreme change sometimes Lactate. An other point we control is fluid intake and "weightloss".
If readers are interesting we can give once a protocol from one of the last camps and discuss the intervention we try , and the possible knowledge or dates we try to use and make more or less sense out of it , with still a lot of mistakes.
Problem for me is always the same , and Cris painted a perfect picture with his " town trip "
If an athlete makes progress , everybody is happy and it is the training , even tough I may not have any control or objetive tools to see why . Nobody cares.
If the athlete does not show any progress , than it is the athlete , he is just no talent.
Easy way out isn't it.
For me if the athlete makes progress I like to know a little bit , how I applied the stress and the progress may be because of this stress.
I am also happy about the progress , and I know it is the athlete.
If he does not make any progress and I have a bit knowledge , how I am applyimg the stress , than it is me as a coach and not the athlete. Some coaches my not like this approach at all.
I am at least for myself can say: This intensity or this type of stress did not worked well for the moment , and this or that worked well.
A stress who does not work , is not a lost training , as lomg I pick up the non respond of the body in a reasonable time. I feel really bad if 2 years down the road I would learn , that this stress was not very smart.
That's the main reason , why we " assess" an athlete in one or the other way more or less every day.
Depending on the " planned " training : for example an A 2 training which is for us a training in the glycolytic intensity . (FTF fiber , liver, lactate controle - protein MCT and what ever we think or believe may be stressed, we assess just before the training , whether the liver is reloaded, and whether the LBP/HR and lactate are back in a balance ( based on a whole test)
During the training we try to see , what falls out of balance first, and can we ignore it.
Would be nice to get some thoughts on this ideas. Juerg