General Discussion Triathlon Talk » The Best Plan and The Training Bible Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2010-08-23 2:47 PM
in reply to: #3054217

User image

Master
1927
100050010010010010025
Guilford, CT
Subject: RE: The Best Plan and The Training Bible
I need a coach.  Been training by feel for 18 months after teaching myself to swim and buying a bike and I think I've reached that point where I need to fine tune.

I think the majority of people (if they are self motivated) can do pretty well just training hard and consistent by following a lot of the free advice you can get on the internet and from a couple of $20 or less books.  It may not be the BEST possible outcome but you'll do pretty well as long as you don't half a** it.

It all depends on the person I think.  But, if someone has the money to spend I think they would see much better results using a coach (edit:  Good coach).

I personally do not lack motivation at all and usually never miss workouts.  I can probably benefit from a coach to help me ease back my easy days and hit my hard days harder.  Also, my nutrition is horrible which in theory is an easy fix.

I know my limiters at this point and a generic plan probably isn't the best approach and I'm sort of that point where a lot of the newbie gains will slowly start to plateau I think unless I train "smarter".....

I'll throw a twist in now.  I have a couple of thoughts about coaching but let me ask this...how many of you use a local coach vs an online coach that you've never met in person?  As coaches with an online presence, do most of your clients come from local athletes or is a mix?


2010-08-23 4:02 PM
in reply to: #3054217

User image

Coach
9167
5000200020001002525
Stairway to Seven
Subject: RE: The Best Plan and The Training Bible
cusetri - 2010-08-20 6:52 AM

Take the bottom 90% of any Ironman race. have them follow a plan out of Joe Friel's book to the T. they ignore everything else, all they do is train every day, exactly as laid out in his book for 2 years.



The Bible doesn't lay out specific plans, rather it lays out general training ideas. It's up to the athlete to make a plan. Give 10 IM athletes the book and have them make a 2 year plan, you're going to get a lot of variation. That's actually one great thing about the training bible is that it gets people thinking critically for themselves about what to do, when and why. But the "why" is frequently not based on any sound science and that part becomes difficult to overcome when people are ready to move on to another type of training philosophy.

how do they do in their next IM?

Better? Worse?


In the best case scenario the athlete is testing their fitness gains along the way without having to wait 2 years to see if they have improved their time

How much better would they do if instead of using his plan, they used one of yours?


Or used any other of myriad plans...regular testing will tell you what's working well and what isn't.


I even believe the average person could make it the the top 20, but would take a very early start in life, and a serious life shift to support what it would take. At that point, the limiter is still not genetics; it's time (available to train, not age/aging!)


And this is one of the major differences with the way Friel/Byrn/Allen suggest you train. More current training approaches, and by current, I mean in the last 10-15 years of published literature, allow one to make the same gains in less time by taking a different approach to training intensity and rest. Yes, it still takes time, but the biggest difference is how much time does the athlete spend training?


they realize there is more then one way, and while their process may be backed up more by science, they understand how something general in nature can help a whole lot of people.


One thing I always say about following Friels approach is that yes, you will improve and you will not likely get hurt following the plan. if you are going to publish a book called "The Bible", you'd sure better advise an approach in which the average reader is not going to get hurt from overuse/overtraining...although many people do anyway.


My main contention with Friel is that for the reader without an exercise science background, they have no way of knowing which parts of his ideas and methods are sound and scientific and which parts are tradition or pseudo-science. There is nothing wrong with tradition, after all if people have been doing it for a long time and having success, then it's a method that works.

I'd say that the main reason people come to me for coaching is nto because they've reached the top 1-2% of their potential, but because they want to maximize the limited training time that they have available and become the best athlete they can be with the amount of time they have.

2010-08-23 4:04 PM
in reply to: #3059463

User image

Coach
9167
5000200020001002525
Stairway to Seven
Subject: RE: The Best Plan and The Training Bible
acumenjay - 2010-08-23 1:47 PM

I'll throw a twist in now.  I have a couple of thoughts about coaching but let me ask this...how many of you use a local coach vs an online coach that you've never met in person?  As coaches with an online presence, do most of your clients come from local athletes or is a mix?


Most of my athletes are local, but some are 2+ hours away. Even with my local athletes, the majority of our communication is via email and training peaks (I don't use the training plan generator, I just use it as a means of communication plans with my athletes, its great for storing power files, and recording training data & feedback).
2010-08-23 6:29 PM
in reply to: #3054217

User image

Elite
4235
2000200010010025
Spring, TX
Subject: RE: The Best Plan and The Training Bible

A consistent training load, over time, causes fitness gains.  Nothing groundbreaking there.  I'd agree that for most MOP athletes(less than 90%) as long as they do consistent training and live a healthy lifestyle (sleep, diet, etc.) that almost any plan is going to result in solid fitness gains.  That includes, TTB, EN, IronGuides, MAO or any other you want to name.  

Personally, I figure that if I'm spending ~50hrs per month training, I'd like to maximize that time.  I'm not elite, but I can challenge for an AG podium in most races, so I'm willing to pay for a coach so that my time isn't wasted.  I've done the TTB approach, an Endurance Nation training plan, and 3 different coaches.  Of all of those, I can feel a definite difference in my fitness gains with one of those coaches versus all the other approaches I've tried.  I can't really quantify that with a percentage, but I can tell you that the coaching fees I pay per hour of training that I do is well worth it. 

As far as the "The Training Bible" goes, I think the biggest problem I have with it is the name.  Call something a 'bible', and you're basically claiming that everything written in it is 'gospel' and that the book is the end all/be all of training guidance.  I know his training approach works for a lot of people, but the way it's marketed is misleading. 

2010-08-23 6:39 PM
in reply to: #3059463

User image

Elite
4235
2000200010010025
Spring, TX
Subject: RE: The Best Plan and The Training Bible

acumenjay - 2010-08-23 2:47 PM

I'll throw a twist in now.  I have a couple of thoughts about coaching but let me ask this...how many of you use a local coach vs an online coach that you've never met in person?  As coaches with an online presence, do most of your clients come from local athletes or is a mix?

As stated in my previous post, I've had 3 coaches.  Two of those I've met in person.  Both were elite triathletes and were very charismatic.  Neither worked out.  The only benefit to the one local coach I had is that I got to see him all the time, which is great.  He was at all my races (he was usually racing himself), and even at group rides.  He hosted OWS' and parties for his athletes.  Great stuff and great guy!  Unfortunately, he didn't have a very scientific approach to training.

Through this site, I found a coach (Jorge) that helped me prepare for IMCdA last year.  I've never met him in my life.  We speak on the phone when needed, but despite the lack of face to face communciation, my training was as detailed and tailored as it comes.  As much as I'd like to have a local coach, I'd much rather have a good, educated, critical thinking coach that I never see, versus a local coach who may not have those qualities. 

Take your time shopping for a coach.  Shop around.  Interview as many as possible.  Develop a list of important qualities and develop a questionaire for the coaches.  You should be able to seperate the wheat from the chaff pretty easily. 

2010-08-24 11:29 AM
in reply to: #3059463

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: The Best Plan and The Training Bible
acumenjay - 2010-08-23 2:47 PM

I'll throw a twist in now.  I have a couple of thoughts about coaching but let me ask this...how many of you use a local coach vs an online coach that you've never met in person?  As coaches with an online presence, do most of your clients come from local athletes or is a mix?


As a coach I currently have in Michigan, Texas, Idaho, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts and Canada. My business partner has athletes in England, China and other US states including Maine where he lives. So as you can see the majority of our athletes come from a mix though we have had the opportunity to meet most of our athletes; I personally haven't meet only 2 (one of those posted above) but i hope that will change soon.

I recognize the limitations of coaching most of my athletes on what I call "one-on-one remote coaching" and while I would love to meet with them and train often that is not the case. To overcome some of those limitations our coaching services have evolved from the traditional: different levels with different levels of attention to just a few level options based on coaching experience and mostly everything included.

Right now most of my athletes receive plans from every week to bi-weekly, we communicate almost every day via logs, they have the door open to call/email/text me ANYTIME they want, I get a weekly training summary form each of them and beside the training plan as I mentioned earlier we also offer:
  • Initial fitness evaluation and previous training assessment
  • Annual Training Periodization Plan developed by coach and athlete
  • Threshold power/pace/HRM testing and detailed training zones for optimal gains.
  • Daily/weekly training log feedback, workouts review/preview and power files analysis
  • Unlimited communication on a “need to” basis
  • Weekly training summary assessment and unlimited training updates
  • Body composition, sweat rate analysis, training and racing fueling plans
  • Racing pace and execution plans
  • Performance Modeling using the latest technology and scientific methods
  • Personalized Nutritional guidelines
  • Online training log
  • Free swim stroke motion analysis, gait analysis and bike fit using motion analysis software (Dartfish)
In the end it is not the same as one on one coaching as I don't get to spend time with all my athletes but we try to make use of the technology at hand to try overcoming some of this limitations. So far our athletes have had a very successful season ranging from completing their HIM/IM, AG podiums, OA wins and Kona/Clearwater/Nationals/Worlds/Boston slots.

It would be nice to be able to see my athletes every week but that is not the case and it is not stopping us from help them achieve their athletic goals. When looking for a coach, the main criteria IMO should be the experience and knowledge he/she has beyond a USAT level 1 certification and the TTB.


2010-08-24 12:05 PM
in reply to: #3054217

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: The Best Plan and The Training Bible
Over the weekend I got to think about this thread while I was a one of the biggest 70.3 races of the region. I talked with a bunch of athletes and coaches and I got to get a bit of info into their training whether or not they had a coach, where following some online plan or using the TTB (or other source).

One of the recurring themes was the tapering; most athletes were on the 3 week taper schedule regarding of their fitness levels an goals ranging from guys I knew where going to be on podium contention to some 1st timers who would be finishing over 6 hrs. This commonality quickly reminded me of this thread because the TTB in my opinion has helped spread this notion than tapering has to be 3 weeks and why I get to be critical of the book. Though it is known that is not the case, that we all need different tapering based on our fitness level, genes, goals, etc and the tapering schedule is different for each of the 3 sports we do in triathlon.

As a point of reference, I began coaching a new athlete 7 weeks ago. This athlete completed a 70.3 back in June which was her 1st. Her coach at the time followed a very 'traditional' TTB-esque approach having the athlete do "base" training (long slow) without much intensity, having a weekly day off, not addressing weaknesses and for that 70.3 did a 3 week taper, etc. I know this because I got to see the training plan. Anyway, in the end she had a great 1st race but still IMO the athlete under achieved based on potential and talent exhibited on training.

Soon after, we started working together and based on the potential I saw on her, I changed her training right away. I quickly added plenty of intensity every week, I took the rest days away (days off only when needed, otherwise active recovery days), we don't do a 3 week on 1 week off approach as before but instead we do a progressive training load and rest when the athlete's need it, we addressed the weaknesses and knowing a 70.3 was only 7 weeks away we did plenty of specific HIM training. The tapering for the race was only about 7 days for running, 5 days for cycling and 3 for swimming. In 6 weeks this athlete increased power threshold by 9% (3.91 W/Kg not bad for a she!), posted a PR at the race and got on the podium with a sub 4:54hr race.

Now, the athlete accomplished this because she did the work, have trained very hard, very consistent (which is the key) and also because of the great talent she has so the credit goes all to her. What I do feel proud is for the level of improvement she has had in a relative short period of time and I am certain there is still a lot more to come. For now, the athlete has a long way to go and the project we have established is a 2 year one with specific goals for the remaining for 2010, for 2011 and 2012.

Consistent training is very important, however do not underestimate what smart training can do for your goals!
2010-08-24 1:14 PM
in reply to: #3054217

User image

Expert
1123
1000100
Falls Church, VA
Subject: RE: The Best Plan and The Training Bible
 better race execution can go a long way as I'm sure many of us here can confirm or add stories about dropping gobs of time.. I probably would have started with some better times, but with my own race experience, my race execution has greatly improved.

FWIW, going long and without much intensity is what got me where I am now, and most new athletes would be doing themselves favors workout out this way as these methods take longer to plateau..  I'd like to read some sources which indicate otherwise, but the large volume of moderate intensity work is the tried and true method for a reason.. Friel didn't create base, build, peak methods just because he wrote about them.
2010-08-24 2:15 PM
in reply to: #3061368

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: The Best Plan and The Training Bible
Bioteknik - 2010-08-24 1:14 PM  better race execution can go a long way as I'm sure many of us here can confirm or add stories about dropping gobs of time.. I probably would have started with some better times, but with my own race experience, my race execution has greatly improved.

FWIW, going long and without much intensity is what got me where I am now, and most new athletes would be doing themselves favors workout out this way as these methods take longer to plateau..  I'd like to read some sources which indicate otherwise, but the large volume of moderate intensity work is the tried and true method for a reason.. Friel didn't create base, build, peak methods just because he wrote about them.


Well yes, it works increaing your fitness by doing most of your load via more volume with low/moderate intensity but managing load is like investing your money to illustrate a point; you can choose a very conservative investment which will give you modest yearly gains but the risk ratio might be lower while you can choose on investing on an investment with a greater rate of return though the risk might be a bit higher.

Though unlike investing your money, with training load an athlete can easily get injured by either doing too much volume at low/moderate intensities, by doing too much intensity low volume. or even by doing a mix of both. The problem is more about doing more of what your body can handle regardless of the load.

Hence, IMO is incorrect to assume that athlete have to only follow one or the other in terms of volume or intensity, but instead the athlete should be better served by finding the right training load mix that fits his/her needs, goals, limiters (like time availability), etc. The fact remains that athletes can increase fitness by doing, more volume/less intensity, less volume/more intensity or a mix of both. The main reason an athlete will plateau is if he/she reach a point in which their bodies are adapted to the stimulus and they don't chage it whether they do more volume, intensity or both.

And, yes you are right, Friel didn't create base, build, peak, etc; he borrowed those terms from T. Bompa who came up with those terms for weight lifting based on his interpretation of the work done by Matveyev. (here is a post I did explaining the story the concept of periodization). I am guessing he read Bompa's work and figured he could incorporate that to his  tri training approach.
2010-08-25 9:11 AM
in reply to: #3061530

User image

Expert
1123
1000100
Falls Church, VA
Subject: RE: The Best Plan and The Training Bible
JorgeM - 2010-08-24 3:15 PM

Well yes, it works increaing your fitness by doing most of your load via more volume with low/moderate intensity but managing load is like investing your money to illustrate a point; you can choose a very conservative investment which will give you modest yearly gains but the risk ratio might be lower while you can choose on investing on an investment with a greater rate of return though the risk might be a bit higher.

Though unlike investing your money, with training load an athlete can easily get injured by either doing too much volume at low/moderate intensities, by doing too much intensity low volume. or even by doing a mix of both. The problem is more about doing more of what your body can handle regardless of the load.




I think that may be the point though.. while it isn't as sexy to do the conservative approach, it is low risk and gives a consistent return.  You can't hedge your high risk investment if it fails though, as once you are injured, you lost your consistency, and lost your returns.. even if it is temporary we all have a finite time in which we can perform, race days don't change when we're injured.  Too much volume or too much intensity wouldn't be following the plan to the T like mentioned in the first post. 

High risk/high reward might pay off in the end, but simple math would tell you that the conservative approach will pay off for more people (over the period of time stated in the OP). 
2010-08-25 9:31 AM
in reply to: #3062826

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: The Best Plan and The Training Bible
Bioteknik - 2010-08-25 9:11 AM
JorgeM - 2010-08-24 3:15 PM

Well yes, it works increaing your fitness by doing most of your load via more volume with low/moderate intensity but managing load is like investing your money to illustrate a point; you can choose a very conservative investment which will give you modest yearly gains but the risk ratio might be lower while you can choose on investing on an investment with a greater rate of return though the risk might be a bit higher.

Though unlike investing your money, with training load an athlete can easily get injured by either doing too much volume at low/moderate intensities, by doing too much intensity low volume. or even by doing a mix of both. The problem is more about doing more of what your body can handle regardless of the load.




I think that may be the point though.. while it isn't as sexy to do the conservative approach, it is low risk and gives a consistent return.  You can't hedge your high risk investment if it fails though, as once you are injured, you lost your consistency, and lost your returns.. even if it is temporary we all have a finite time in which we can perform, race days don't change when we're injured.  Too much volume or too much intensity wouldn't be following the plan to the T like mentioned in the first post. 

High risk/high reward might pay off in the end, but simple math would tell you that the conservative approach will pay off for more people (over the period of time stated in the OP). 


Maybe I am misunderstanding your point; do you assume doing volume at lower intensities is 'safer'? Because if that is the case, athletes can easily get injured following either volume, intensity or both when doing more of what they body can handle. In fact, the majority of medical research indicates that injuries in runners are probably best correlated to volume/mileage and not intensity.

In the end, it is about doing the adequate training load for the athlete whether he/she do high volume/low intensity, low volume/ high intensity or volume with some intensity.


2010-08-25 12:39 PM
in reply to: #3054217

User image

Expert
1123
1000100
Falls Church, VA
Subject: RE: The Best Plan and The Training Bible
no I suggested following a conservative approach of slowly increasing volume consisting of moderate intensity work would produce a linear progression, probably slower at times as higher intensity methods, but in the end produce greater gains because of the higher consistency over the time period.

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » The Best Plan and The Training Bible Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2