More on athletic balance....

How to use power curves to help determine athletic strengths and weaknesses

One of my key objectives as a coach is to address and rectify the athlete’s weaknesses with respect to the demands of their event.

The first step in addressing is assessing, i.e. determining where the athlete is physiologically weak. I use multiple means in making this assessment, including laboratory testing (which I have written about at length) along with field data, which will be the focus of this article.

One of the key principles within my training philosophy is that of athletic ‘balance’. This is no doubt, at least in part, bred from the testing that I have performed on a wide array of athletes of different events of different duration. In all cases, the general ‘athleticism’ of these athletes shines through, to some extent, irrespective of their specific event.

This is more than just platitude. In the communist GDR for example, all athletes from marathon runners to Olympic lifters to 1500m swimmers, first had to pass a ‘general athleticism test’ in order to be considered for the sports schools that would enable them to eventually practice their specialty. The criteria for a male 13 year old was as follows (Arbeit, 1997):

• Height: 1.71-1.76m
• 30m sprint: 4.0s
• 3x hop: 6.0-6.4m
• Ball throw (165g): 54-60m
• Shot Put (3.0kg): 9.0-9.5m
• 1500m Run: 4:40-4:50


My first personal ‘aha’ moment on the notion of athletic balance came ‘way back when’ during my college days. Our sports science class represented a cross section of elite athletes from a wide variety of sports, ranging from body builders to tennis players to swimmers to distance runners. It is an understatement to say that I was frequently surprised by who ‘topped the charts’ in the various physiological tests. Our body builder had the highest VO2max, a pro skateboarder topped the pull-up test and, just as surprisingly, when we took to the track for running field tests, our elite 10K/marathon runner came in top 3 in running tests of ALL DURATIONS, ranging from a 5K time trial down to a 60m dash!!

This pattern has since been confirmed as I’ve gone about my business as a coach of elite and AG swimmers and triathletes.

World class 1500m swimmers will beat National class 100m ‘specialists’ in a 100m race. Likewise, world class Ironman triathletes have surprisingly high 5sec power numbers, beaten perhaps by equally world class road and track cyclists, but certainly equal to or better than a Cat 2 ‘specialist’ sprinter (incidentally, the use of my inverted commas is an attempt to convey my view that a Cat 2 racer shouldn’t be a ‘specialist’ at anything, but rather should continue to focus on general development, but that is the subject for another blog…)

So, second to my central job of getting my athletes fit enough to train, my next job is to make sure that the training is focused on long term athletic balance, which will eventually lead to the athlete fulfilling their potential in their most genetically appropriate event. Of course, this implies that I have some idea of what ‘ideal’ balance is.

First of all, let’s throw out the epitome of athletic balance by looking at world best powers over each duration (Wilson, 2004):



Of course, despite the importance of balance that I have outlined, we wouldn’t expect a world class Ironman to also have world class anaerobic capacity. While the general shape of the curve will be the same for all athletes, parts of the curve will be warped to favor the athlete’s strengths/primary event. For example, below I have overlayed actual power data from a world class Ironman athlete with that of a similarly world class male road cyclist.



The differences are evident. While both have very strong curve ‘ends’ (in fact their maximal power is separated by less than 100W and their 4hr power by 12W!!), the difference in the middle of the curve is obvious. The anaerobic capacity of the road cyclist shines through in a significantly higher curve in the 1-20min time frames. This is the result of an athlete with very good basic strength and endurance specifically preparing for the decisive demands of their event.

On the flip-side, while not as obvious on this curve, as the duration increases, a trend is evident, the Ironman athlete loses very little power, while the road cyclists curve is on a steeper descent. Again, the result of an athlete with very high levels of strength and endurance (at least to the 4hr mark), developing the economy and lipolytic capacity to prepare specifically for the demands of their event.

If you look at the curves above, you will notice that beyond the 10 minute mark, the curve drops at a pretty steady rate (with the exception of the 30 minute point for road cyclists which falls within the range of TT performance and is therefore typically stronger than the other points). Beyond 10mins, the curve drops in a pretty linear fashion. Practically, then, the ‘steepness’ of this descent can be quantitatively defined. In fact, several coaches have developed rules of thumb that assess an athlete’s endurance via their fatigue rate. You may be familiar with Jack Daniels 2.2+10s rule, which implies a fatigue rate of 10% as the distance doubles. Joe Friel suggests a fatigue rate of 5% as the duration doubles in the Triathlete’s Training Bible, while George Dallam introduces a similar concept by looking at individual fatigue curves in Championship Triathlon Training. Based on the numbers that I have seen, here are my own rules of thumb regarding the gradient of this fatigue curve:

• Athletes with very strong endurance or who are long duration specialists, exhibit fatigue curves of ~6%. In other words, as the distance doubles, athletes with strong endurance lose ~6% of their power.

• Balanced athletes with average levels of endurance or mid-duration specialists (Time Trialists, Olympic Distance Triathletes etc.) exhibit fatigue curves in the realm of ~8%.

• ‘Top end strong’/Anaerobic athletes exhibit fatigue curves of 10% or more.

These numbers imply steady-state endurance (@ ~60% VO2max) of 90minutes+ for anaerobic athletes, 3hrs+ for mid-duration specialists and 12hrs+ for long distance/IM specialists.

Delving into this fatigue curve in a little more depth, from the database of field data that I have collected on a large number of top AG and pro athletes, I have compiled the following ‘ideal’ power-duration curve for (male) Ironman athletes.




The first number on each point represents the power duration (in minutes, for example, 0.1=6 seconds), while the second refers to the % of max power held for that duration.

So, using these numbers, in a basic development sense, if an athlete lacks the strength/power to hit max power numbers better than 4x their 2hr numbers, strength/power may be limiting. On the flipside, if an athlete is unable to hold 1/4 of their max power for a 90min session, endurance may be limiting.

Following this basic assessing and addressing of the foundational qualities, consideration can be given to specific development towards the athlete’s event. In the world of Ironman racing, this means both training to hold progressively higher % over longer durations and, just as importantly, since this is a long term project, identifying the % that they will realistically be able to hold for the next race.

For an elite Ironman competitor, this may be 21% of their maximal power, for a fit but not fully ‘Ironman developed’ athlete, it may be closer to 18%. For a novice athlete with a longer race duration, still working on basic preparation, it may be closer to 15% (lower than their ‘basic training’ intensity!!)

Ironman athletes are fundamentally, strong, fast, fit athletes (who are powerful but shy of world class short duration power) who then lay down ~6,000 hrs of specific endurance training to increase their economy, their fat oxidation and the consequent power that they can hold over the tail end of the curve by 15% or more.

In terms of development then, rather than focusing on a particular event, an athlete with a young training age is better served focusing on one of 2 general athletic weak points. Put simply, if you lack the ability to put out 4x your 2hr power in a maximal effort, focus on the strength end of the curve. If you lack the ability to hold 22-26% of your max power for sessions in the 60min to 4hr range, focus on the endurance end of the curve.

I find the power-duration curve to be a very useful ‘check-in’ tool with the athletes I work with. I hope you also find some value in this approach.

Train Smart,

AC

What it Takes (Part II)

“A dream doesn’t become reality through magic. It takes sweat, determination and hard work”
- Colin Powell.

I was in the unfortunate position over the last couple of weeks to lose 2 athletes that I had been working with one-on-one over a relatively long period of time. It bothers me on a ‘gut’ level when an athlete changes coaches. Probably harkens back to my swim coaching days when it was common for the best swimmers in our squads to abandon ship when they were either ‘poached’ by one of the less ethical coaches that made up our competition or they became impatient with the amount of work that they were putting in vs the perceived lack of results that they were achieving.

So, I decided to write this piece as a bit of a ‘reality check’ for those athletes who do aspire to reach their full performance potential in the sport of triathlon. This is in no way suggesting that reaching the front of the pack or the top of your age group is the only worthwhile goal. As Molina says, “take a look around, the fountain of youth doesn’t come easy”. Staying in fantastic shape and having fun are worthy goals.

Nor is it suggesting that the MOPers are ‘slacking off’. For your first 2-3 years in the Ironman ranks, the middle of the pack is an important developmental stepping stone on your Ironman journey. However, for those folks who’ve been in the sport for a while and are thinking about taking it to the next level, I offer the following reality checks.


Reality Check #1: There is very little difference in commitment between the top of the age-groups vs the Open Elite.

The guys who are racing Kona are doing so by getting top 10 at the most competitive Ironman distance races around the world. These folks are very serious competitors that make athletics a large part of their lives. Additionally, a surprising number of them are in a financial position to live a ‘pro triathlete’ lifestyle. In actuality, perhaps the only difference between the pros and the elite AGers is that maybe they started a little later than the pro athletes or had a period of their life that was career focused that caused them to miss their absolute window of opportunity in a physical sense. But make no mistake, these athletes aren’t holding back. They are 100% committed to reaching their potential in the sport.

Reality Check #2: It still takes a long time to get good.

Baker, Cote and Deakin (2005) studied the developmental patterns of expert, mid-pack and back of the pack Ironman athletes. They found that on average there were 12,000 hours of training behind a 9:30IM performance. Developmentally, these training hours must occur before age begins to negate performance improvements, i.e. by age 40-45. So, for an athlete who begins competing in Ironman triathlon at 25-30, they have about 15 years to accrue 12,000 hours of work. This equates to an average of 800hrs/year for 15 years!! For an athlete who goes in with some single sport experience, maybe they’ll get there in 10. For an athlete with endurance experience who commits to doing nothing but train, eat and sleep, maybe they’ll get there in 5 :-). Most of us don’t have this option.

Additionally, there are intensity limits that constrain just how ‘rushed’ this development can be. In order to challenge your aerobic abilities, a bulk of your training must be above the aerobic threshold. The glycogen cost of training at this point limits most folks to 2.5-3.5hrs/day of training. In other words, if you’re going to get ‘serious’ start now.

Now, the pattern of performance improvement illustrated by Cote’s study is both interesting and potentially discouraging, see below:



By the time the average athlete gets to a 15hr IM they have 4000hrs of training under their belt (5 years of single sport @~300hrs/yr + 5 hrs of triathlon @ ~520hrs/yr). By the time they ‘graduate’ to a 12hr ‘midpack’ performance, the average athlete has 6000 hours of training in the log books (an additional 2000hrs of training over 2.7 years for a 3hr performance improvement). However, to graduate from mid-pack (12hrs) to FOP (9:30) requires an additional 6000 hours of development!! Or, put another way, an additional 6-8 years of ‘2 a days.'

This is not unusual to the single sports. In the world of swimming, for instance, a kid with realistic goals of swimming open nationals will begin 2 a days at age 13-14 and have 6 or 7 years of these under their belt before reaching their peak performances at the national or international level in their late teens to early twenties.

Of course, one big difference is that our developmental period as long course triathletes is later than it is for swimmers and this poses some significant ‘life challenges’. Despite how it feels at the time, our lives are much more ‘simple’ during our high school years. Get up, eat, go to swim practice, go to school, leave when the bell rings, go to swim practice, eat, sleep. This is much more challenging in adulthood when other responsibilities are vying for attention. Still, this does not negate the fact that this (simplicity) is the path to success and that if you really want to compete with the guys at the top of the sport, that’s how they’re living.

Perhaps the other difference is the performance expectation that comes with 2-a-day training. I remember my promotion to the “A Squad” when coming up through the swim ranks carried with it a feeling of privilege to finally be ‘swimming with the big boys’ rather than something I needed to suffer for x amount of years in order to ‘get somewhere’. A 6 year period where long periods of high volume training offer very modest improvements in performance can be hard to take if it’s all about the ‘end game’. In fact, with the non-fitness related variables involved in the Ironman game coupled with the fact that most athletes will only race 1-2x per year, it is likely that athletes will experience seasons where despite increasing training load, performance regresses. This can be tough to deal with if you’re not getting a good deal of intrinsic motivation just from ‘living the life’.

So, what does it take?

• Persistence (irrespective of bad races)
• A lifestyle that supports 6-8 years of ‘serious’ training. What is serious training? 18-24hrs/week of aerobic training (3hrs/day, 10 sessions a week, 48 weeks a year).
• A deep love of the process

That means that, to achieve ‘your best’ in triathlon, for almost a decade, you need to be willing to put other aspects of your life in maintenance mode. It is difficult to climb the corporate ladder and the AG ranks at the same time. That doesn’t mean you need to ‘drop everything’, it just means you need the type of job (and the assertiveness) that enables you to block out time for a morning and evening training session most days for the next 6-8 yrs (see Gordo’s latest blog for more on this).
It also means, as an athlete with nothing better than an 11-13hr IM to your name, you need to have the courage or the naivety to ‘back yourself’.

This is a common decision among the majority of the guys (top age-groupers and pros) that I know who have ‘made it’. My buddy, pro triathlete, Justin Daerr comes to mind. At our last camp he recounted how, as a 12hr IM guy he planned his college class schedule around the needs of his 20+ hr training week not because of his pro ambitions, or an impending Kona goal but simply because “he enjoyed riding his bike”.

Maybe in the end, the answer to ‘what it takes’ to reach the top of the sport is to not care about ‘what it takes to reach the top of the sport’. Rather, to realize that you are committed to being a lifelong triathlete and committed to the life that it entails irrespective of performances (good or bad) or life demands at any point in the journey. A commitment to a life of consistent training offers so much more than a trophy or a ticket to Kona. As a buddy of mine says, the journey is the destination.

Train smart.

AC.

As mentioned, I have 2 open one-on-one coaching slots available for athletes who are willing to work with me for the next 5 years or so to discover their potential in the sport (athletes in current coaching relationships need not apply – I’m no poacher :-)