No DNF Coaching

Balancing the Qualitative vs. Quantitative approach to training and racing. Simplified. 12/12/08

There is a lot of debate out there around how to train and more so how to interpret the physiological response to training specific stress so that recovery is optimized and peak performance can be achieved. Some say that it can’t be done without the use of heart rate monitors and power meters while others will say all you need is your brain and a willingness to listen to your body. Having just gone through a season where I faced a crossroad challenge with this very issue I will say that you need to have a balanced approach to both.


For simplicity sake let’s look at feedback coming from 2 sources:

1. Internally (your brain).
2. Externally (your power meter or HR monitor).


One is qualitative and the other is quantitative. Your brain gives you the qualitative feedback telling you things like this hurts, this is easy, I am tired, I am hungry, etc where as your power meter or HR monitor gives you the quantitative feedback with key information like what HR or Power zone you were in, max power, average HR, normalized power, etc. Both are extremely valuable data, but data is just data until you do something useful with it.


I look at feedback as a gift. This was something I learned back in my corporate days when conducting performance evaluations with my employees. But it is only a gift if delivered in the right mode and with the right context so that something constructive can be done with it. Your body does not always give it to you in a way you can rationally interpret it and your HR Monitor or Power Meter has no filter and gives it to you straight up. No sugar coating there.


So in theory, this should be relatively easy. Listen to the feedback your brain is telling you or listen to the feedback of your PM or HRM and you will be just fine. Well wrong, it does not work that way. While both are useful tools, it is not an either OR option. They need to be used in conjunction with each other and it requires the athlete to be open-minded and honest with themselves and their coach. More so, the feedback needs to be collected and interpreted in a consistent manner. The challenge here is that most of the time athletes can’t be honest and won’t be consistent. They lie to themselves and they lie to their coaches. Why? Because they do not want to admit weakness or failure in any shape or form. Very typical of type “A” overachieving personalities. We all want to improve, get faster, get stronger and when the feedback says otherwise we go straight into denial. Typically we just ignore and push on and while this is ok from time to time, when done constantly this can lead to some serious ramifications including injury, overtraining and chronic fatigue.


So with the advent of all this great technology as well as having access to probably the best intelligence data collection device available (your brain) why do so many people show up for races injured and over trained? In my opinion it all boils down to the “what” and “how” this feedback is used in an attempt to “predict” recovery and performance. For example: if you were driving your car and the gas gauge was on empty, you would not just hop on the highway for that long cross country road trip right? No, because you would be on the side of the road thumbing for a ride in a matter of a few short miles. No instead you would stop off and fill up with gas to ensure you started your journey on a full tank. Furthermore, as you head on your journey, the gas gauge will tell you (predict if you will) when you will be out of gas. So in this analogy, the dashboard of your car is your feedback mechanism. Unfortunately, the human body does not have a true dashboard with warning lights, bells and whistles. A HR monitor and Power Meter certainly does and can be construed as a dashboard, but they are not hard wired to your body to give 100% accurate information so there is always that level of doubt when using. Furthermore, those devices need to be pre-programmed with some information that YOU tell it and if that info is not accurate or honest, your dashboard is useless. So what is my point to all of this? Training and racing is every bit an art as it is a science and you need to balance the 2 for optimal performance. Still curious as to where this is going? Read on.


As a self coached athlete I like most out there jumped on the new gadget band wagon and bought a HR Monitor and GPS device so that I could monitor and dial in my training. Who would have thought (not me) that I would go on to have some of my worst performances as a result of training with these devices. Why? Because I decided to listen to what my HRM was telling me and not what my body was telling me. The big reason behind it all was the fact that I did not have the right information programmed into my HRM to train optimally. So I basically went 180 degrees in the opposite direction and gauged my training on inaccurate information. If I was supposed to be in Zone 2 then by all means I was going to be in Zone 2. The problem here was Zone 2 was not really Zone 2 but Zone 3. I did this for many years and over trained myself right into the ground because my “what” was all wrong in relation to my “how”. The dashboard was spitting out numbers that were all wrong and I was following it to the T.


Ok, so you are probably saying something to the fact that you are not so smart because everyone knows you need to have regular testing to ensure your threshold numbers are accurate and you are working in the correct zones, etc. While that is true, the fact that I needed to have the resources to do such a thing on a regular basis was a limiter. But ok, I wanted to get it right so I decided to get my lactate threshold tested regularly and dialed in my training zones. I was now training more optimally based on scientific feedback coming from my body. But the challenge here was the fact that this was still only an estimate. Why? Well for starters these numbers change as you become more fit and/or loose fitness and depending on when you had them taken they could be off because you could be fatigued going into the test. In order to have good numbers you need to have regular testing conducted and you need to be relatively rested going into the test. It is hard enough to get athletes to rest enough during their normal training. Now tell them they have to rest to test. I don’t think so. Don’t get me wrong, the benefits are there for this type of testing, but the reality is if you are not consistent here, this approach can be flawed.


So in short, training with my HRM exclusively still left me overtraining and consistently under-performing to what I was capable of. As I longed for that elusive breakthrough performance that I could never seem to achieve, I knew one thing was for sure. What I had been doing was not working and things needed to change. I needed to change. I had just started a coaching career and was really struggling with the philosophy on how I was training and now I was about to train my athletes the same way. Because my philosophy was to test it on myself first before I prescribed it second. I needed to get my stuff dialed in quick if I was to amount to anything valuable for my athlete’s sake.


So the challenge became how I balanced my need for information and technology with how I trained. I loved seeing my data post workout as it related to how far I went, how fast (or slow) I went and where I went but I hated when that damn thing beeped at me when my HR hit a certain number. Based on the data returned it may be saying to slow down…why? I feel great! Or it may be saying go faster but I was cooked and couldn’t.


It ended up stressing me out. I was getting mixed messages. It was really taking away from what I loved so much about training and racing. So what did I do about it? I decided I was going to find a balance between the two. I went back to my roots. I turned off all the warnings and changed the display to only show me the time of day. I still trained “WITH” the device but not “TO” the device. I continued to periodize my training so that I went HARD when I was supposed to and EASY when I needed to rest but used my brain to tell me what was hard and what was easy. I still recorded the data for the importance of the post workout analytics (which I will get to in a second).


This subtle and simple change in my mindset left me much more relaxed when I was training but still secure in the fact that I had the scientific data for the quantitative analysis later. I still needed to plan my training effectively which is where my coaching came in and I needed to establish some guidelines for myself as to “HOW” I would train now and “WHAT” I would do when certain warning signs would appear. I felt like I was on my way to something refreshingly different.


The next thing I needed to do was to figure out how I took my quantitative data that I was recording and marry that with the qualitative response from my body. Basically I needed to ensure that I accurately quantified every training session. Why? Because that is how I am wired. I like data. I love graphs and charts and I love to see it on paper. It is validating but it needed to be valid otherwise it would be useless. More so, I wanted to be able to plan an effective taper and predict how rested and ready I could and would be for those key races. Again, it is art and science. Should I taper 2 weeks or 3? What combination of hard and easy should I go during the taper? What is the right mix? Etc. If I had accurate representation from a data standpoint (quantified) of all my training sessions then building a model should be a snap. I did some research and found a software product called WKO+ made by www.trainingpeaks.com that I could use to build a performance manager chart using Training Stress Scores and Intensity Factors for each of my training sessions. During the free trial phase of the software I found that in order to get accurate scores for cycling, I needed to be using a power meter. Bummer, I don’t have one. Don’t have the resources right now to get one and did not want another piece of technology at this stage in the game to have to figure out.


I was not content with that and decided to still use the software but find another way to quantify my cycling scores. In short, I used GPS data to come up with a pace based formula to calculate a score for cycling. Depending on the terrain and wind conditions for any given workout, I would adjust the score accordingly to ensure it was as close to an accurate representation of the effort expended each time. I committed to using the same metric for the entire year to ensure a consistent representation. I used the default algorithm within the software for running and I came up with a pace based formula for swimming. I tested every 3 weeks in all 3 sports on the same course to ensure that my testing results (the metrics I was using to ensure accurate calculation of the scores) were staying consistent and up to date. I was now able to build a performance management chart with a little bit of manual intervention. As long as I tracked the data consistently then I should be able to predict an effective taper when I needed to. That was the key. Furthermore I could really correlate my perceived exertion of hard to what it looked like on paper and vice versa for easy workouts to really dial it all in. The quantitative data always tied out to my qualitative notes in my training log.


So I just went out and continued to train based on feel and I logged the data after every session. I was training more effectively just tuning into what my body was doing during the session. I was having a lot more fun and enjoying training for the sake of training. I had all of the quantified data for each session and I was progressing faster in a few short months then I had in the last 5 years.


There was only one race that I cared about in 2008. It was Ironman Arizona. While I wanted to perform well in all the other races I participated in, this was the big one and everything I was doing was in preparation for that race. So I decided to continue to train how I planned to and just log the data. Some races I took more rest going in then others but I did it using my gut feel. In short, I set 6 new PR’s this year and even won a couple of races flat out (A Boulder Stroke and Stride race and the 8 Hours of Duathlon event). I correlated these results to my refreshing new outlook on training and by just using my body for feedback. I let my brain tell me what hard and easy was and not my HR Monitor. I really maximized my ability to recover because when I was tired, I just rested and when I was fresh I gave it my all. The bar was upped and I was way outside of my comfort zone. I had the confidence that what I was doing was right and would pay off in the end.


With about 5 weeks to go before Arizona, I started to build my taper model. Was it going to be 3 weeks, 2 weeks, 15 days, 10 days, etc…? I kept track of which workouts were which throughout the season and started to plug those into the model. What I arrived at was about a 10 day taper with the preceding 5 days having 2 alternating full on rest days built in with hard sessions on the odd days. So I guess you could just say it was about 2 weeks or 15 days. I could predict where my overall fitness was going to end up and how rested I was going to be on race day. The model said I was going to have a banner day based on the training that I had done. But I still had to execute my carefully calculated race strategy of patience, pacing and fueling to finish off what I started. The end result was a PR of over 33 minutes, a bike split that was 20 minutes faster then I had ever gone in an IM before and a new outlook on how I would train and race from that day moving forward.


The snapshot above is my performance management chart. I only really used it to predict my taper for Arizona. But when I went back and correlated the data against the season it told a very compelling story. I trained hard when I needed to. I was rested and on form for the key races mid season. I buckled down for Ironman training and then I peaked for that one race.

· The blue line represents fitness. Notice that it builds then plateaus and then builds again based on the time and phase of the season

· The pink line represents fatigue. The higher it is above the yellow line the more tired you are. The closer it gets the more rested you are. It is very typical to see it high during the build phases and a little lower when you are racing and resting. Notice how it staggers denoting the hard and easy days of training. Stress then rest.

· The yellow line represents your “form” or predicted performance. The lower it is the worse you will perform indicating the excessive amount of fatigue and tiredness. The closer it is to the pink line the better you will be and when it crosses the pink line you can expect peak performance. Notice at the end of the taper where the yellow line is in relation to the pink. A very positive number indicating exceptional form on race day.


These are my takeaways from training this way during the 2008 season:

· Your brain is your best feedback indicator when you are out training.

· Your HR Monitor or Power Meter is a GREAT tool for post workout analysis but I don’t recommend you use them to train “to” all the time. There needs to be a balance and training “to” it on occasion is ok but it is best to leave the feedback mechanism to your brain. Capture the data but train on feel. Pretty simple.

· Go hard when you are fresh and rest when you are tired. Your body gains no benefit from training in a constant state of fatigue regardless of what your HRM says.

· If you are going to build a quantitative model for training and racing, do so with the premise that it needs to be correlated back to the qualitative feedback from your body.

· Use a training log to ensure you are consistently recording and tracking how you felt during your sessions. And be consistent about your field threshold testing in each of the 3 disciplines.

· During the taper, trust the process and the training you have done. While you will lose a bit of fitness you are gaining peak performance. Doing to much during this phase will leave you flat and broken. Less is more here…this is proven.

· On race day, listen to your body and follow your plan. Leave the electronics (including your watch) at home and just go out and race on feel. Listen to your brain and follow your gut, the 2 are never wrong.

· Keep it simple and have fun. Being consistent is the biggest bang for your buck. Doing something is better then nothing. Rest when you need to and go hard when you feel good.

· The right amount of intensity mixed with the right amount of recovery is paramount to a sound training program. Make sure it is grounded in reality with your ability and goals and you are guaranteed to improve.


The major point to all of this is simply one word...BALANCE. Both approaches are important. Being able to go out and train just on feel and then being able to quantify it using a mix of science and technology will make you a well rounded high performing athlete. It eliminates a lot of guesswork and makes training all that more fun.


On a closing note in case you are still skeptical if this can work for you, I put one of my athletes through this very same model. She was religious about keeping her workout log up to date and was by far the most consistent with her training. Actually, I have never seen any one more consistent then her. She rested when she needed to (reluctantly) and did the training necessary. In return, I had the data to build the model. Her taper was designed around this model and she PR’d her “A” race in a very big way. 90 minutes to be exact. And the best part about it for her was the fact that she did not have to even think about the analytics. In fact she did not have a clue that I was doing this behind the scenes. She just went out and did the training the way it was prescribed and I did all the heavy lifting with the analysis. A perfect coach-athlete relationship. The beauty here is that it can work for anyone.


Where am I going with this next? Well in 2009 I will incorporate the use of a Power Meter into my training and I will most likely have a few blood lactate threshold tests done so that I can even better correlate the scientific physiological feedback with my own internal feedback. My philosophy on training and racing will not change. I will continue to learn how to better use my body for feedback and structure my training in a way that I am optimizing stress and rest. I will continue to quantify it all using technology and science against how I felt so that I can better myself as a coach for my athletes so that when structuring their training it maximizes their overall experience to achieve the peak performance results that they deserve to have.