Individuality II: Adaptive Training.

“Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, let it grow, be like water”
- Bruce Lee

I was tempted, this week, to write an article on one of the remaining principles of training, the principle of specificity. But, I am forced to admit that I don’t buy into that principle to the extent that I once did. I, like Matt Fitzgerald and other coach/athletes who place a high importance on sensory acuity, have found now, on a couple of occasions, that my bike load does influence my running performance, that my strength training does influence my bike performance and vice versa. There are a couple of preliminary performance and dose-response modelling studies that also support this notion, but in a broader sense, the jury is still out. So, under the old adage that it is better to be presumed a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt, I’ll keep my mouth closed on that one…..for now :-)

Instead, I wanted to write a follow up piece on a principle that I DO believe in 100% - the principle of individuality. This piece was inspired by two things. First of all, I picked up a copy of Brad Hudson’s book “Run Faster”. This is, unequivocally, the best book that I have read on training theory in a very long time. Speaking from the vantage point of someone who is looking at 2 book shelves full of over 200 books on swim, bike and run training, hopefully that statement carries some weight. Do yourself a favour and buy a copy.

The second thing that inspired this piece was a discussion with one of the well-known coaches who espouses cookie-cutter programs as the cost-effective solution for the majority of triathletes looking for some guidance with their training program. I have a number of issues with this approach and the way that triathlon coaching seems to be going that I will address below, not the least of which is that it fails to acknowledge the physiological, psychological and socio-cultural realities of individuality as athletes and as human beings, that contribute to the fact that, when it comes to creating an effective, appropriate training program for the individual, one size does NOT fit all.

In fact, as you will see below, I would go so far to say than an athlete would be far better starting their journey with no schedule and a blank log book in hand than a generic schedule that is not tailored to them.

If you were to take a look at the 200+ books on my bookshelf, you would notice an interesting pattern. The older, more tattered books are much more practical in content (Triathletes Training Bible, Serious Training for Serious Athletes, Road Running for Serious Runners, etc.) . It used to be the case that if I didn’t see immediately practical schedules, routines, workouts when flipping through the pages of the new entries in the sports and fitness section, I deemed the book worthless and moved on. Now, I am much more likely to deem it worthless if it does contain schedules supposed to fit various age or ability groups because, after experimenting with various schedules & programs on myself and in earlier years, my athletes I have come to the conclusion that it is both preposterous & frustrating to think for a second that you can forecast with any degree of accuracy how quickly any individual will adapt to a given workload or even what physiological changes a given weekly schedule will create. It is a truth and certainly not a negative comment that, in a lot of ways, the very best coaches are ‘making it up as they go along’.

Bruce Lee is an athlete and an individual that I respect very deeply. His art of Jeet Kune Do was largely based on ‘formlessness’. An extension of Krishnamurti’s concept that ‘truth is a pathless land’, in a practical sense, formlessness simply means adapting a resolve to not hold to one form or one theory, but rather to have an open mind and use whatever works. While there are certain core concepts that have proven common to the great endurance athletes of the past, e.g. relatively high volume training, multi-pace training, some form of periodization, hard-easy training, etc. there is also room for a lot of grey. Some things have proven to work for some athletes, some for others.

However, this is not to say that there are 100 best ways to achieve your athletic potential. For every one athlete, there is one best way, specific to your own physiology, psychology and life circumstances. The real art, and perhaps joy, in training comes from discovering your Way

One of the more interesting things that I have done as an exercise physiology student is to look under the microscope and examine various muscle biopsy samples. It is very easy for the human mind, in a search for uniformity and schemata to forget just how physically different and unique that we all are. When your gaze is shifted from common faces to the foreign environment of a microscope slide, you are given a startling reminder of the fact that we are all completely unique. Even letting go of all the quantitative differences of muscle fiber type, # of cytochromes, mitochondria etc, it is clear, even to the layman that one guy’s muscle ‘looks’ very different to another’s. It is a logical extension then, that with different capacities, the ‘right’ way to train one person will be very different from another, even if the individuals are of similar fitness and training for similar events.

While most coaches will acknowledge these differences, the complexity of creating truly individual training programs tailored to each individual’s physiological peculiarities leads many to simply give up and adopt a ‘best fit’ approach, which works out fine if you’re one of the athletes who fits within the parameters of the best fit, but not so well if you’re one of the unlucky who lacks the adaptive potential or the optimal physiology to benefit from the fixed training plan. I will tell you from experience, that it is very easy to rationalize the success of a particular training method based on 1 or 2 athletes, of a squad of 20 or more being very successful on it. (I am honestly sorry to those 18/20 that didn’t make it. If only I knew then what I know now).

The good news is that you don’t have to perform daily blood analysis and muscle biopsies to determine the optimal training program for each athlete. A little flexibility, a little responsiveness is all that is required. Bruce Lee hit the nail on the head when he penned that quote 40 years ago. There is much to be admired about a single drop of water. From the day that it is deposited on an alpine slope and it begins thawing, it has only one mission, one way to use the potential energy that it has been given, and that is to find a path that leads it to the sea. However, like you on your athletic journey, the eventual path is undetermined at this point. The water droplet must be responsive. When times are good, the water will flow quickly. When times are tough, and the tributaries shallow, the water must slow down. When the water hits an obstacle and stops moving forward, it must quickly and subtly change course. If the hand of man comes in and attempts to hurry the water beyond it’s natural rate of flow it will spill over the sides and be removed (at least temporarily) from it’s forward path of progress.

This metaphor describes, quite succinctly, the way that I coach and train as an athlete. While the mission may be set in stone, the path & the rate of progress are not. The smart athlete rather than adhering to a particular schedule ‘no matter what’, will:

1. Pay attention to his/her body on a daily basis to determine if they are ready for a particular workout. If not, they will do an easier workout or rest without hesitation, irrespective of what the schedule says. In addition, they will make note of what they are able to absorb and plan the next training cycle accordingly.

2. Pay attention to the physiological adaptations that are occurring and once one plateaus, will move their focus to another, all with the aim of becoming an appropriately balanced athlete. I discuss the practicalities of this in my previous blog on complex training. In this way, a schedule forecasted forward more than 3 or 4 weeks is worthless because no one can guess the rates at which each physiological capacity will improve for each individual.

Ultimately, training responsively will prove to be the quickest route to your goals. It is true that nature does a poor job of anything when hurried. The water learned this a long time ago. Maybe, as athletes, we can too.

Train Smart.

AC

Exercise Physiology 201: Speaking the Same Language

In my last article on ‘Exercise Physiology 101: The Basics’, I outlined some of the key critical transitions that occur within the body when faced with an increasing exercise demand. In the name of practical applicability, coaches have used various methods to approximate these critical points and a variety of terms to describe the range that encompasses the transitions between these points.

The mixed use of terms like Zone 2, Compensation Training, Maximal Aerobic Function Training, Reps, Intervals, ½ Paced Efforts, Tempo Training etc etc. can leave 2 intelligent coaches speaking 2 totally separate languages, the equivalent of Swahili and Japanese, if you will. To make things worse, the Swahili definition of ‘Tempo’ is completely different from the Japanese definition, so even those words that are common to both languages or systems can have definitions that are completely distinct and different. No wonder athletes get confused!!

In this article, I will present our own Endurance Corner terminology and will outline how it relates to the concepts outlined in the last exercise physiology article and also to the many and varied terms used by some of the more popular coaching systems.

Let’s begin by defining the terms that you’re likely to hear at Endurance Corner:

Easy Training (AeT-10 to AeT) – Improves your ability to generate energy from fat (especially for Novice athletes), enhances mitochondrial proliferation and capillary density (although less so than steady training). For the advanced athlete, enhances recovery between sessions.

Steady Training (AeT to AeT+10) – Improves your ability to generate energy from fat (intermediate athlete), enhances mitochondrial proliferation and capillary density in FOG fibers (these points are VERY important for aerobic energy production at all aerobic intensities above this zone), creates biomechanical adaptations that allow training at more intense levels. Training above this level places increasing risks for overuse injuries, especially in the novice athlete.

Moderately-Hard Training (AeT+10 to VT1/LT) – Improves the ability of your FOG fibers to produce energy from fat, enabling you to include more intense main sets in your longer races and your basic week.

Hard/Threshold Training (VT1/LT to OBLA/FT) – Develop the ability of your fast twitch fibers to produce energy aerobically. At the upper reaches, this intensity also enhances cardiac stroke volume and VO2max.

Very Hard/VO2max Training (OBLA/FT to Max)– Maximally develops the ability of your cardiovascular system to deliver oxygen to your working muscles.

Now, comparing our definitions with some of the more well-known systems we come up with the following table:

We offer this table as an approximation of the way that the various definitions ‘fit together’ so that we may almost speak the same language as athletes who use other systems. I say almost because, rather than being based on independent physiological markers such as aerobic threshold, VT1 etc, the bulk of systems are based on somewhat arbitrary percentages of one point, e.g. Max heart rate, threshold heart rate or functional threshold power. In these cases, the computations will not always line up with the physiological markers. For this reason, I am a big advocate of defining each point separately via lactate, VO2/VCO2 or, when lab testing is unavailable, simple breath markers.

Train Smart.

AC.

Living the Basic Week 1: Big Rocks First

“Scheduling is how we manifest our intent on the world”
- Stephen Covey

Those of you familiar with Stephen Covey’s great read, “First Things First” will recognize the reference to placing your big rocks first. The story goes:

I attended a seminar once where the instructor was lecturing on time. At one point, he said, “Okay, it’s time for a quiz.” He reached under the table and pulled out a wide-mouth gallon jar. He set it on the table next to a platter with some fist sized rocks on it. “How many of these rocks do you think we can get in the jar?” he asked.

After we made our guess, he said, “Okay, let’s find out.” He set one rock in the jar… then another….then another. I don’t remember how many he got in, but he got the jar full. Then he asked “is the jar full?”

Everybody looked at the rocks and said “yes”.

Then he said, “Ahhh”. He reached under the table and pulled out a bucket of gravel. Then he dumped some gravel in and shook the jar and the gravel went in the little spaces left by the big rocks. Then he grinned and asked once more “Is the jar full?”

By this time we were onto him. “Probably not,” we said.

“Good!” He replied. And he reached under the table and brought out a bucket of sand. He started dumping the sand in and it went in all the little spaces left by the rocks and gravel. Once more, he looked at us and said, “Is the jar full?”

“No!” we all roared.

He said, “Good!” and he grabbed a pitcher of water and began to pour it in. He got something like a quart of water in that jar. Then he said, “Well, what’s the point?”

Somebody said, “Well, there are gaps, and if you really work at it, you can always fit more into your life.”

“No,” he said, “that’s not the point. The point is if you hadn’t put the big rocks in first would you ever have gotten any of them in?”

This story works on so many levels and, while I am likely to go off on a bit of a rant as to how this can relate to determining session order within a microcycle, the real power of this analogy can be achieved on the most basic level with the following simple instruction:

Begin each day with a clear list of your most important action items for the day and don’t start item #2 until you have finished item #1.

This is not a particularly new idea. The steel magnate Andrew Carnegie described this very item as the #1 distinguishing action of the most successful men in the world.

Along a similar vein, Friedrich Nietzsche commented:

“When one has a great deal to put into it, a day has a hundred pockets”

But, I’m a coach and so I am apt to interpret the metaphor through that lens. So, to that end, a warning: Many triathlon training programs can become exceedingly complex and often seem to incorporate change for changes sake. In my opinion, it is crucial that the athlete and coach are intimately aware of each athletes own ‘big rocks’ and that they create each weekly training schedule accordingly.

Personally, considering the importance of triathlon in my life and the fact that my current Ironman limiters are:
- Steady state endurance (bike and run)
- Basic strength
- Bike aerodynamics/flexibility

...my general big rocks (athletic and non-athletic) for the week are, in order of size:

- 1 x 5-6hr easy-steady long ride (200-250TSS) alt w/1x3hr aerobic maint ride (150TSS) every 2-3 weeks
- 1 x 2-2.5hr steady-mod long run flat or hills (100-150TSS) alt w/90min maintenance run every 2-3 weeks
- 2x1hr of strength training each week
- 30 minutes of yoga EVERY day
- 2 days rest/recovery training (0-40TSS)
- Good nutrition each day.
- 9-10 hours of sleep each night
- 1hr of prep time before each athlete’s phone consultation each week.
- 2 x 2hrs of aerobic maintenance training w/2x20min threshold maint. (80TSS)
- 1 x 2hrs of aerobic maintenance training w/1hr of tempo/BG maint. (100TSS)
- 3-4hrs of writing each week

From a training perspective, this equates to a week of 15-18hrs or 560-740TSS (80-105ATL) for a loading week or 12hrs/515TSS (74ATL) for a recovery/maintenance week.

At a projected increase of 10-30mins of training (or 1-3 CTL) per wk, this week will represent a good loading week that addresses my limiters for the next 2-4 months. Until then, no need for change, just repeat the week. In 2-4 months time it may be prudent to re-test, reassess and identify some new ‘big rocks’ (or some bigger rocks of the same geology) to put in my jar.

Not constantly changing volume and sessions every week allows one to truly habituate the week to the point that motivation is not an effort. Simplicity breeds habit.

In addition, having an acceptable time 'range' for the week allows for high energy and low energy weeks and allows for a little wiggle room with respect to unforeseen work and family commitments.

My sand (the stuff that can potentially fill my jar before I get my big rocks in) is:
- Excessively checking my email
- TV
- Getting carried away with writing
- Being a people pleaser: On a number of fronts, refusing to say no in favor of the bigger yes.

I have to stay vigilant on this and make sure that every day I put my big rocks in the jar first, i.e. get my training done before I get on the computer, get my steady state training done before I do anything ‘hard’, 'walk my walk' (i.e. train) before I 'talk my talk' (i.e. write).

In practical terms, my personal ‘basic week’ weekly schedule for the next 2-3 months is:

As mentioned above, 15-18hrs of training (3 swim, 7.5-8.5 bike, 4.5-5 run) + strength and flexibility.

You will notice that I start the week on Saturday with my biggest rock and schedule across by priority from there.

This is the same template that I use for my weekly planner. All commitments are in ink. I treat every commitment as I would an appointment with a VIP. Everything else must fit in around these big rocks. Period. No exceptions.

For some of my other athletes, with different limiters, their athletic ‘big rocks’ may be different. For example, their mod-hard training session may move from priority #10 to priority #1.

You will notice that my loading days (the days with an ATL greater than my CTL) reflect my limiters, i.e. long aerobic workouts. For an athlete who has strong basic endurance but poor muscular endurance, i.e. high CP360 relative to CP90-180, these loading workouts may accrue load in a very different way, i.e. with the inclusion of some very long, solid tempo sets. This is precisely the profile of one of the athletes that I work with who we tested last week. Therefore, in the name of continued development, a change of training tack is due (look out Mr. Friedman :-).

For the reasons listed above, frequent testing is a must. It is less difficult than many would assume for an athlete (particulalrly a masters athlete) to become chronically imbalanced.

With the number of different training approaches out there this whole business can, at times, get pretty confusing. Irrespective of the format that you choose to use, there are some universal training steps that need to be followed:

1. Build general fitness/ability to tolerate load
2. Identify personal strengths and weaknesses
3. Construct weekly training sessions that relentlessly address your weaknesses while maintaining your strengths
4. Schedule these sessions within your week so that the important ones GET DONE!

Train Smart!

AC

Complex Training: The principle of variety and multilateral development

“It is easier to do many things than to do one thing, continuously for a long time”
- Marcus Fabius Quintilian

We open today’s blog with a pic of my country man and one of the greatest marathoners of all time – Mr. Robert DeCastella. Deek, as he is fondly referred to back home, was, at his time, arguably the greatest marathoner in the world and a multiple world record holder.

Deek and his coach, Pat Clohessy, were a part of the ‘new order’ of marathoning that really began with Buddy Edelen. These coaches were characterized by their pot pourri approach to training in which, rather than exclusively adhering to the successive, phasic periodization approach of Lydiard or the meticulously controlled interval method of Gerschler, these coaches recognized the merits of both and implemented both concurrently throughout the training year.

Deek describes the method as follows:

“Complex training involves the same basic routine all through the year, year in year out, with only slight modifications for racing. Other methods break the year into sections (hence the name ‘interval’ or ‘block’ training), each aimed at developing specific aspects of running. When racing, I put more emphasis on track sessions, while during heavy training, I put more emphasis on long runs”

In practical terms, Deek’s key sessions included every week were:
* A hilly long aerobic “strength” run
* A long steady aerobic “rhythm” run
* A shorter, faster tempo run
* A track or hill repeat workout
* A leg speed workout
* Easy recovery runs

This was Deek’s weekly menu day in, day out, year in, year out. It was standardized to the point that he would run the same courses for the workouts each and every week to get a feel for form and improvement.

Almost year-round ‘speedwork’ coupled with high mileage training would characterize the methods of all of the ‘big names’ of the 70’s and 80’s – Deek, Salazar, Bill Rodgers, Frank Shorter etc. etc.

Physiologically, this is not surprising. If one were to pick up a copy of any of the big selling recreational training books of the 90’s and beyond, you could be forgiven for thinking that you can expect to devote 4 weeks of maximal strength training to take yourself from Mr. Puniverse to a 600lb leg press or 8 weeks of ‘build training’ in which you take you Anaerobic Threshold from 60-90% of your VO2max. The reality, of course, is that most physiological adaptations, perhaps with the exception of central VO2max, are very long term adaptations. What do I mean by long term? Things like maximal strength, anaerobic threshold, (and especially) fat oxidation are at the very least, multi-month, and in the case of fat oxidation, multi-year adaptations (see the chart from Jansen, 1987, below).


Additionally, particularly the last 2 follow that annoying rule of physiology that the adaptations that take the longest to train are also the quickest to de-train. In short, all of these qualities demand vigilant, year-round attention. The easiest way to do so, is to incorporate all of the training methods to some extent within the athlete’s basic week throughout the training year.

To further the point, studies on training monotony (e.g. Foster, 2001) have shown that too much similarity between training sessions within a week of training is a strong correlate of over-reaching and over-training. IOW, not only does providing a mix of training serve to address all physiological systems, the variety alone helps with recovery and improves the total workload that you will ultimately be able to tolerate.

In triathlon training, a good mix for a recreational athlete would be:
* A long aerobic swim (possibly with gear or open water)
* A technical/drill swim mixed with basic speed
* A descending aerobic swim with some threshold
* A long steady bike
* A medium strength (big gear) bike descending to mod-hard or AT
* A shorter high cadence recovery bike w/some aerobic maintenance
* A long hilly run
* A descending flat run
* A couple of recovery runs with strides and drills.
* A traditional strength workout
* A functional strength circuit + yoga

Now, that is a lot to fit in a week. To fit all of this within the time and energy constraints of a typical athlete will require that some sessions be very short and easy. To this end, as Deek points out, there is a change in emphasis put on different sessions in accordance with the time of year and the race schedule, e.g. harder and longer long runs during the base period, harder and more interval reps in the speed period. This said, some level of all types of training is included throughout the year. Let me elaborate more on how I use this principle within my own coaching practice.

Within most weeks of my athletes training year, some sessions will be ‘hard’, i.e. above your normal average load, some will be ‘maintenance’ sessions that equal your average load and some will be ‘recovery’ sessions that are lower than your average training load, giving you a ‘freshening’ affect.

This is not to say that hard sessions are always fast. If you’re used to a weekly 90 minute long run, a 2hr long run could be your ‘hard’ session for the week. As Deek points out, the decision of which sessions are going to be your hard sessions for any week is a function of the time of year and your own specific weaknesses. In my ‘forest for the trees’ blog and my ‘spending your allowance wisely’ blog, I give some guidelines as to how to use TSS points on the macro level to plan your training. I suggest that a loading week should be 10-20TSS/d above your CTL (your normal training load). As the monotony studies cited above point out, the best way to distribute this load isn’t to add 15TSS/d to each day, but rather, in line with the hard-easy principle to have 2-3 days that are 30-50 TSS/d above the norm, while the others are normal/maintenance or recovery days. For instance, if your normal CTL is 120 TSS/d, a big day may be 160TSS. In the early season, this may be a 3hr steady-mod long run. In the competitive phase this may be a 2hr descending run with the last 40mins just under threshold. Either way, this represents a ‘hard’ session.

I’ve presented a number of arguments for the incorporation of variety within the athlete’s basic week, including remaining true to the time course of training adaptations and avoiding training monotony and overtraining. However, perhaps the best argument is made by the Roman rhetorician quoted in the opening of today’s blog. As a former personal trainer, I have seen first hand the difference in effort put forth and the difference in session enjoyment between highly structured & monotonous ‘traditional’ strength sessions and sessions that incorporated multiple exercise modalities (bands, balls, slideboards etc.). When it comes down to it, not only is variety an effective training principle - it is just plain fun!

Train smart.

AC.