General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Training principles Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 1
 
 
2014-11-18 8:29 AM

User image

Expert
2355
20001001001002525
Madison, Wisconsin
Subject: Training principles
I attended the iFast seminar a couple weekends ago and one of the speakers talked about training principals and methods. To summarize he said those that grasp principals can successfully develop their methods, but those who try methods and ignore principals will ultimately fail. He then went on to speak on several different principals in regards to olympic lifting. So my question to everyone is what principals do you use in your training to direct your methods? If you are coached what is your coaches principals?

Edited by bcagle25 2014-11-18 8:58 AM


2014-11-18 8:52 AM
in reply to: bcagle25

User image

Extreme Veteran
933
50010010010010025
Connecticut
Subject: RE: Training principals
First, because I respect you and your opinions, please change the subject and content to 'principle'. Spelling mistakes don't do well to credit the discussion you deserve

My training principles have shifted with experience, and although I've not specifically thought of them before now, I can easily crystallize what they are :
1) Ample recovery -As I'm aging (although I'm not that old! yet!) I don't recover fully as quickly as I did even a couple of years ago. I need proper sleep, sound nutrition, and simple time to allow my body to recover from training load. I used a quantitative approach (ie HR, time at max pace, etc) to develop a qualitative feel for when I'm fatigued, and I've made bigger strides since focusing on this.

2) Data-driven training planning - If I see an improvement or degradation in performance or recovery after making a change, it becomes a part of the process. I'm religious about collecting my data and allowing it to help me make decisions about what needs work and what doesn't.

3) Holistic approach - It's not all about swim, bike, run. Circuit workouts, strength work, skiing, ice skating, hiking - as well as more mundane but still active stuff like housework and horsing around with the kids - it's all load, and it's all important. Psychological stress figures in enormously as well...training the mind to find peace in chaos is another bullet in the chamber.


2014-11-18 9:05 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Expert
2355
20001001001002525
Madison, Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Training principals
Originally posted by fisherman76

First, because I respect you and your opinions, please change the subject and content to 'principle'. Spelling mistakes don't do well to credit the discussion you deserve

My training principles have shifted with experience, and although I've not specifically thought of them before now, I can easily crystallize what they are :
1) Ample recovery -As I'm aging (although I'm not that old! yet!) I don't recover fully as quickly as I did even a couple of years ago. I need proper sleep, sound nutrition, and simple time to allow my body to recover from training load. I used a quantitative approach (ie HR, time at max pace, etc) to develop a qualitative feel for when I'm fatigued, and I've made bigger strides since focusing on this.

2) Data-driven training planning - If I see an improvement or degradation in performance or recovery after making a change, it becomes a part of the process. I'm religious about collecting my data and allowing it to help me make decisions about what needs work and what doesn't.

3) Holistic approach - It's not all about swim, bike, run. Circuit workouts, strength work, skiing, ice skating, hiking - as well as more mundane but still active stuff like housework and horsing around with the kids - it's all load, and it's all important. Psychological stress figures in enormously as well...training the mind to find peace in chaos is another bullet in the chamber.





LOL Thanks, I'm terrible with grammar and my editor is on vacation

First 2 are great, I would almost put the 3rd on methods or philosophy but can tie in well under the recovery portion too.

I think a couple for me are:

1. Specificity
2. Testing/Retesting
3. Training across the spectrum
4. Sustainability
5. Understanding biomechanics

I these are they apply to everyone, the methods I use don't but its about basing my methods on these principles (and more) to find the correct methods.

Edited by bcagle25 2014-11-18 9:06 AM
2014-11-18 9:18 AM
in reply to: bcagle25

User image

Extreme Veteran
933
50010010010010025
Connecticut
Subject: RE: Training principals
Excellent points, it's interesting (to me anyway!) that I read what you said and noticed that some things that *were* principles for me no longer are, for instance biomechanics - I did a LOT of work improving and ingraining form, which was what allowed me to progress farther. However, at this point I hardly think about it, except if things start to regress. Maybe it's still a core principle in that regard.

what did you mean by Sustainability?

2014-11-18 9:31 AM
in reply to: fisherman76

User image

Expert
2355
20001001001002525
Madison, Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Training principals
Originally posted by fisherman76

Excellent points, it's interesting (to me anyway!) that I read what you said and noticed that some things that *were* principles for me no longer are, for instance biomechanics - I did a LOT of work improving and ingraining form, which was what allowed me to progress farther. However, at this point I hardly think about it, except if things start to regress. Maybe it's still a core principle in that regard.

what did you mean by Sustainability?




I would type it is a principle and add in this:

No form is correct form universally. I have seen swimmers swim great with what would be considered "bad" form, great runners have "bad" form, etc. What is important with form is to find where an individual is strongest/fastest without losing efficiency. For example; Phelps could probably swim a 25 meter pool in 6-7 strokes with perfect form, but he doesn't in racing, why? He loses some of his speed/strength, but he has a form that gives him his best ability. Add to this, many people who are a bit older try to overall their form, but that is a slippery slope. After years ingraining a specific movement pattern, you would need to think is it more feasible time wise to overhaul my form now or make what I have stronger and more efficient?

For sustainability and this might be considered a rule, but again its important anyhow. I think a lot of people don't follow or have sustainable programs. I.e. they peak too early in the year, they are on a program that is too difficult, etc. Because of this they plateau, have a lot of fatigue built up, and sometimes burn out. I use EN as an example of this, not so much to pick on their plans but you see something very common with their athletes. Great improvement in the first 2 years and all the sudden the athlete is stagnant, complains of high fatigue and looks for something else. Their plans are not sustainable over time, they are on the quick results fast and now routine. As with any plan you should aim for progressive overload in your weeks, blocks, and seasons. A sustainable program is a long-term approach program. Its one that rewards the patient athletes that don't look for the now results. Look at the most successful athletes (not fastest, most successful) they are usually the ones that stick to a program, coach, etc. Alright I am going to stop now since I am about to go off on a tangent, but I hope that gives some clarity to what I was saying.
2014-11-18 10:34 AM
in reply to: bcagle25

User image

Not a Coach
11473
5000500010001001001001002525
Media, PA
Subject: RE: Training principles

The body adapts to stress.

Since the adaptations are likely to occur in the areas of the body that were stressed, specificity matters.

Building endurance is a continual process, so train in such a way to sustainably build and create new stress stimulii.

 

And one item that derives from the above principles:

Build a plan with an objective or goal, but base it on current fitness level



2014-11-18 10:47 AM
in reply to: bcagle25

User image

Master
2406
2000100100100100
Bellevue, WA
Subject: RE: Training principals

Originally posted by bcagle25 . Because of this they plateau, have a lot of fatigue built up, and sometimes burn out. I use EN as an example of this, not so much to pick on their plans but you see something very common with their athletes. Great improvement in the first 2 years and all the sudden the athlete is stagnant, complains of high fatigue and looks for something else. Their plans are not sustainable over time, they are on the quick results fast and now routine. 

Where is your data that says EN athletes have the problems you describe more than other groups of athletes that are 2 years into regimented training programs?

Two years is a long time to follow a growth oriented program. Its 2 years of pushing rather than maintaining. I expect any growth oriented program to have a drop out rate higher than a less growth oriented program.

2014-11-18 11:01 AM
in reply to: brucemorgan

User image

Expert
2355
20001001001002525
Madison, Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Training principals
Originally posted by brucemorgan

Originally posted by bcagle25 . Because of this they plateau, have a lot of fatigue built up, and sometimes burn out. I use EN as an example of this, not so much to pick on their plans but you see something very common with their athletes. Great improvement in the first 2 years and all the sudden the athlete is stagnant, complains of high fatigue and looks for something else. Their plans are not sustainable over time, they are on the quick results fast and now routine. 

Where is your data that says EN athletes have the problems you describe more than other groups of athletes that are 2 years into regimented training programs?

Two years is a long time to follow a growth oriented program. Its 2 years of pushing rather than maintaining. I expect any growth oriented program to have a drop out rate higher than a less growth oriented program.




My data is in my observations of those that are with EN, leave and specify the reasons why. I know its not a scientific study so please feel free to dismiss it if you want, but I am not alone in the observation, especially if you ask many of the very experience age-group driven coaches. The outliers of athletes with EN usually come from extensive endurance background. You can push without maintaining in several ways (i.e. a sustainable program), I just point out that the structure of the EN program overreaches for many. It's built for short-term growth NOT long-term growth which, back to my point, isn't sustainable for many.
2014-11-18 11:17 AM
in reply to: bcagle25

User image

Not a Coach
11473
5000500010001001001001002525
Media, PA
Subject: RE: Training principals

Originally posted by bcagle25
Originally posted by brucemorgan

Originally posted by bcagle25 . Because of this they plateau, have a lot of fatigue built up, and sometimes burn out. I use EN as an example of this, not so much to pick on their plans but you see something very common with their athletes. Great improvement in the first 2 years and all the sudden the athlete is stagnant, complains of high fatigue and looks for something else. Their plans are not sustainable over time, they are on the quick results fast and now routine. 

Where is your data that says EN athletes have the problems you describe more than other groups of athletes that are 2 years into regimented training programs?

Two years is a long time to follow a growth oriented program. Its 2 years of pushing rather than maintaining. I expect any growth oriented program to have a drop out rate higher than a less growth oriented program.

My data is in my observations of those that are with EN, leave and specify the reasons why. I know its not a scientific study so please feel free to dismiss it if you want, but I am not alone in the observation, especially if you ask many of the very experience age-group driven coaches. The outliers of athletes with EN usually come from extensive endurance background. You can push without maintaining in several ways (i.e. a sustainable program), I just point out that the structure of the EN program overreaches for many. It's built for short-term growth NOT long-term growth which, back to my point, isn't sustainable for many.

So, is there something wrong with their principles?  Or the methods self-coached athletes choose to apply to themselves?  You say the methods work for some people.

2014-11-18 11:19 AM
in reply to: bcagle25

User image

Master
2406
2000100100100100
Bellevue, WA
Subject: RE: Training principals

Originally posted by bcagle25
Originally posted by brucemorgan

Originally posted by bcagle25 . Because of this they plateau, have a lot of fatigue built up, and sometimes burn out. I use EN as an example of this, not so much to pick on their plans but you see something very common with their athletes. Great improvement in the first 2 years and all the sudden the athlete is stagnant, complains of high fatigue and looks for something else. Their plans are not sustainable over time, they are on the quick results fast and now routine. 

Where is your data that says EN athletes have the problems you describe more than other groups of athletes that are 2 years into regimented training programs?

Two years is a long time to follow a growth oriented program. Its 2 years of pushing rather than maintaining. I expect any growth oriented program to have a drop out rate higher than a less growth oriented program.

My data is in my observations of those that are with EN, leave and specify the reasons why. I know its not a scientific study so please feel free to dismiss it if you want, but I am not alone in the observation, especially if you ask many of the very experience age-group driven coaches. The outliers of athletes with EN usually come from extensive endurance background. You can push without maintaining in several ways (i.e. a sustainable program), I just point out that the structure of the EN program overreaches for many. It's built for short-term growth NOT long-term growth which, back to my point, isn't sustainable for many.

Well clearly the cohort is self selected to those who left. To have any ability to draw conclusions, even non scientific conclusions, you need at least some input from those who stay with EN.

I don't know anything about EN beyond reading their website which I never looked at until 30 minutes ago. Same for your website. But you should consider whether you are just finding data that supports your belief system.

That said, I totally agree that sustainability, in a broad sense, is very important to success over time, in just about any endeavor not just triathlon. Sustainability is really personal. What is a sustainable program for me isn't perhaps sustainable for someone else. I've done one or two IMs every year since 2006. Most people don't last that long, not on BT for sure.

2014-11-18 3:25 PM
in reply to: brucemorgan

User image

Expert
2355
20001001001002525
Madison, Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Training principals
Originally posted by brucemorgan

Originally posted by bcagle25
Originally posted by brucemorgan

Originally posted by bcagle25 . Because of this they plateau, have a lot of fatigue built up, and sometimes burn out. I use EN as an example of this, not so much to pick on their plans but you see something very common with their athletes. Great improvement in the first 2 years and all the sudden the athlete is stagnant, complains of high fatigue and looks for something else. Their plans are not sustainable over time, they are on the quick results fast and now routine. 

Where is your data that says EN athletes have the problems you describe more than other groups of athletes that are 2 years into regimented training programs?

Two years is a long time to follow a growth oriented program. Its 2 years of pushing rather than maintaining. I expect any growth oriented program to have a drop out rate higher than a less growth oriented program.

My data is in my observations of those that are with EN, leave and specify the reasons why. I know its not a scientific study so please feel free to dismiss it if you want, but I am not alone in the observation, especially if you ask many of the very experience age-group driven coaches. The outliers of athletes with EN usually come from extensive endurance background. You can push without maintaining in several ways (i.e. a sustainable program), I just point out that the structure of the EN program overreaches for many. It's built for short-term growth NOT long-term growth which, back to my point, isn't sustainable for many.

Well clearly the cohort is self selected to those who left. To have any ability to draw conclusions, even non scientific conclusions, you need at least some input from those who stay with EN.

I don't know anything about EN beyond reading their website which I never looked at until 30 minutes ago. Same for your website. But you should consider whether you are just finding data that supports your belief system.

That said, I totally agree that sustainability, in a broad sense, is very important to success over time, in just about any endeavor not just triathlon. Sustainability is really personal. What is a sustainable program for me isn't perhaps sustainable for someone else. I've done one or two IMs every year since 2006. Most people don't last that long, not on BT for sure.




False, I said and observe those that are with EN "My data is in my observations of those that are with EN". Yes I am referring to those that have left and are with EN. I was using EN as a reference as it is a common training plan that many are somewhat familiar with. I am using an example to get across the idea of sustainability over the long-term versus the short-term. But we are losing track of the original topic

So back to principles.


2014-11-18 3:27 PM
in reply to: JohnnyKay

User image

Expert
2355
20001001001002525
Madison, Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Training principals
Originally posted by JohnnyKay

Originally posted by bcagle25
Originally posted by brucemorgan

Originally posted by bcagle25 . Because of this they plateau, have a lot of fatigue built up, and sometimes burn out. I use EN as an example of this, not so much to pick on their plans but you see something very common with their athletes. Great improvement in the first 2 years and all the sudden the athlete is stagnant, complains of high fatigue and looks for something else. Their plans are not sustainable over time, they are on the quick results fast and now routine. 

Where is your data that says EN athletes have the problems you describe more than other groups of athletes that are 2 years into regimented training programs?

Two years is a long time to follow a growth oriented program. Its 2 years of pushing rather than maintaining. I expect any growth oriented program to have a drop out rate higher than a less growth oriented program.

My data is in my observations of those that are with EN, leave and specify the reasons why. I know its not a scientific study so please feel free to dismiss it if you want, but I am not alone in the observation, especially if you ask many of the very experience age-group driven coaches. The outliers of athletes with EN usually come from extensive endurance background. You can push without maintaining in several ways (i.e. a sustainable program), I just point out that the structure of the EN program overreaches for many. It's built for short-term growth NOT long-term growth which, back to my point, isn't sustainable for many.

So, is there something wrong with their principles?  Or the methods self-coached athletes choose to apply to themselves?  You say the methods work for some people.




Yes their methods work for some people, but not without certain principles set in place. Without those principles set in place or ignored, those methods will not work.
2014-11-18 4:31 PM
in reply to: bcagle25

User image

Coach
9167
5000200020001002525
Stairway to Seven
Subject: RE: Training principals
I'd say definition 2 applies in this context
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principle

"a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived:
the principles of modern physics."


If that's the case do you think there should be general agreement on training principles with the methods being the things that vary? What defines if something is a principle or not in the endurance training world?

In principle training should...
-be specific
-be progressive
-have intermittent overload
-develop efficiency & economy in chosen discipline

Therefore methods may vary but should all support those ideas...

I'm being general, but just wondering what kind of discussion we can create. (not doubting, just thinking out loud here...)

2014-11-18 4:44 PM
in reply to: bcagle25

User image

Coach
9167
5000200020001002525
Stairway to Seven
Subject: RE: Training principals
Originally posted by bcagle25




Yes their methods work for some people, but not without certain principles set in place. Without those principles set in place or ignored, those methods will not work.


So what is the principle in their case?

Is there a fundamental law (using the definition I pulled) that we can all agree upon? And their methods for that principal then work for some people, some of the time for some duration?

e.g. principal of training: interval work between threshold work & Vo2 max improves endurance capacity.
questions then arise to develop principals...for what group is this true? For how long is this true?
2014-11-18 5:07 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Training principals

Before you can define a training "principle" that works for you, I would think the most important thing is to define your goals, or what you want out of your training. Lose weight, finish, podium, win?  You can go at each of those in drastically different ways because the training needs will be different for each.  I'm not sure a "one size fits all" approach is even realistic for something like triathlon.....the pieces can be complicated depending on background, skill level, etc......or very simple.  No?



Edited by Left Brain 2014-11-18 5:08 PM
2014-11-18 8:43 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Expert
2355
20001001001002525
Madison, Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Training principals
Originally posted by Left Brain

Before you can define a training "principle" that works for you, I would think the most important thing is to define your goals, or what you want out of your training. Lose weight, finish, podium, win?  You can go at each of those in drastically different ways because the training needs will be different for each.  I'm not sure a "one size fits all" approach is even realistic for something like triathlon.....the pieces can be complicated depending on background, skill level, etc......or very simple.  No?




This is why cookie cutter programs will only get one so far.


2014-11-18 8:44 PM
in reply to: AdventureBear

User image

Expert
2355
20001001001002525
Madison, Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Training principals
Originally posted by AdventureBear

Originally posted by bcagle25




Yes their methods work for some people, but not without certain principles set in place. Without those principles set in place or ignored, those methods will not work.


So what is the principle in their case?

Is there a fundamental law (using the definition I pulled) that we can all agree upon? And their methods for that principal then work for some people, some of the time for some duration?

e.g. principal of training: interval work between threshold work & Vo2 max improves endurance capacity.
questions then arise to develop principals...for what group is this true? For how long is this true?


I was referring to the principle of sustainability using that specific example, which might not even be a principle, its a bit in that middle ground.
2014-11-18 8:55 PM
in reply to: bcagle25


1055
10002525
Subject: RE: Training principals
Create the plan, follow the plan, trust the plan.

I map out all my races for the year in December, spend two weeks creating a training plan that best fits all of my goals, and then I execute.

2014-11-18 9:46 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Veteran
495
100100100100252525
Calgary
Subject: RE: Training principals
Originally posted by Left Brain

Before you can define a training "principle" that works for you, I would think the most important thing is to define your goals, or what you want out of your training. Lose weight, finish, podium, win?  You can go at each of those in drastically different ways because the training needs will be different for each.  I'm not sure a "one size fits all" approach is even realistic for something like triathlon.....the pieces can be complicated depending on background, skill level, etc......or very simple.  No?



I was thinking along similar lines. I want fun and enjoyment out of my training and competing. I was even thinking of that keeping activities fun might be a training principle. (And for coaching children it should be.) But other motivation may be important for other people - e.g. competition, weight loss, challenge.

So as a principle how about ...Understand what motivates you. Or... Understand what motivates the athletes you are coaching. Different sources of motivation will naturally lead to different goals.

"Fun" in the paragraph above isn't quite the right word, but I have trouble coming up a better one. It's related to the idea that I love sports and find them intrinsically rewarding. I think it's harder to stick with something if we rely on extrinsic motivation. So I'm going to throw out ...Strive for intrinsic sources of motivation. Or participate in activities for which you are intrinsically motivated.
2014-11-18 11:28 PM
in reply to: #5068299

User image

Member
256
1001002525
Iowa City, Iowa
Subject: RE: Training principles
X2 for what Ziggie mentioned.
2014-11-19 9:47 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Not a Coach
11473
5000500010001001001001002525
Media, PA
Subject: RE: Training principals

Originally posted by bcagle25
Originally posted by JohnnyKay

Originally posted by bcagle25
Originally posted by brucemorgan

Originally posted by bcagle25 . Because of this they plateau, have a lot of fatigue built up, and sometimes burn out. I use EN as an example of this, not so much to pick on their plans but you see something very common with their athletes. Great improvement in the first 2 years and all the sudden the athlete is stagnant, complains of high fatigue and looks for something else. Their plans are not sustainable over time, they are on the quick results fast and now routine. 

Where is your data that says EN athletes have the problems you describe more than other groups of athletes that are 2 years into regimented training programs?

Two years is a long time to follow a growth oriented program. Its 2 years of pushing rather than maintaining. I expect any growth oriented program to have a drop out rate higher than a less growth oriented program.

My data is in my observations of those that are with EN, leave and specify the reasons why. I know its not a scientific study so please feel free to dismiss it if you want, but I am not alone in the observation, especially if you ask many of the very experience age-group driven coaches. The outliers of athletes with EN usually come from extensive endurance background. You can push without maintaining in several ways (i.e. a sustainable program), I just point out that the structure of the EN program overreaches for many. It's built for short-term growth NOT long-term growth which, back to my point, isn't sustainable for many.

So, is there something wrong with their principles?  Or the methods self-coached athletes choose to apply to themselves?  You say the methods work for some people.

Yes their methods work for some people, but not without certain principles set in place. Without those principles set in place or ignored, those methods will not work.

So it's not a problem with EN, then.  Its a problem with the people using the plans (more specifically, how they use the plans or adapt them for their own use).  Perhaps they don't know the necessary principles.  More likley, they don't understand how to implement the principles.

Look, I have no axe in defending EN, but you did yourself a disservice (at least in the context of a duiscussion of principles) by using them of an example of a "problem" (if even one person can achieve long-term growth with their plans, then your conclusions from your observations are faulty).  And you are right, it did nothging to advance the discussion you wanted to have.

The crux of the discussion likely lies in one word in your first post--grasp.  To me, that suggests an ability to connect the theory to practice.  Simply knowing the theory isn't enough.  And understanding "practice" is more than just knowing how to mix different workouts for a desired response/adaptation.  It also entails understanding goals, constraints, etc.

 

Edit:  Was just reading something on a completely unrelated topic and came across a quote that seemed relevant to this discussion.  "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." -Yogi Berra



Edited by JohnnyKay 2014-11-19 10:15 AM


2014-11-19 10:29 AM
in reply to: 0


1660
10005001002525
Subject: RE: Training principals

I haven't done EN's plan, but I for the most part agree with their philosphy, specifically that their few plans will almost certainly fit well for the vast majority of triathletes.

 

Many AG athletes like to believe that they are so unique that they require such custom training plans to even have a modicum of success in triathlon. And we're not even talking podium here -we're talking just improving. In reality, what most of them need is more self-discipline and ability to be CONSISTENT and to stick to any incremental plan for a long period of time, not some super custom, heavily analyzed training plan. 

 

Cookie cutter plans that are at least reasonably selected WILL work, and work quite well for most AGers, even those shooting to podium.  There are tons of people on this forum and elsewhere who beat the pants off of heavily coached athletes even if they had similar genetic ability to start with, just by dint of outworking them on their cookie cutter plan. 



Edited by yazmaster 2014-11-19 10:29 AM
2014-11-19 11:26 AM
in reply to: yazmaster

User image

Expert
2355
20001001001002525
Madison, Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Training principals
Originally posted by yazmaster

Many AG athletes like to believe that they are so unique that they require such custom training plans



I think people over exaggerate what a custom plan is. All or most workouts have a warmup, main set, and cool down. Each sessions should have a goal that fits into the plan. When you break it down its pretty basic.

But really when you look at the most successful athletes they have one common trait together. The consistent training day after day, no 2 months off every November/December, no reevaluating goals every 6-12 months, they make a goal, chase it, and don't stop til their done.
2014-11-19 12:04 PM
in reply to: 0


160
1002525
Subject: RE: Training principals
Originally posted by bcagle25

Originally posted by yazmaster

Many AG athletes like to believe that they are so unique that they require such custom training plans



I think people over exaggerate what a custom plan is. All or most workouts have a warmup, main set, and cool down. Each sessions should have a goal that fits into the plan. When you break it down its pretty basic.

But really when you look at the most successful athletes they have one common trait together. The consistent training day after day, no 2 months off every November/December, no reevaluating goals every 6-12 months, they make a goal, chase it, and don't stop til their done.


As a recreational athlete who's main goal is to get be healthy, I see the emphasis on the plan as completely wrong.

Aren't professional athletes the ones with the body the most hurt as well? If the goal is to get in shape then the plan is a mean to achieve it, not an objective in itself.

I have only one body but many occasions to achieve my goal. The beauty of multi sport is that you can reduce emphasis on specific sports to put it on others. I personally see the plan as remotely important.

If my performance goals and the means (plans) I use are elastic, my commitment to be in good health on the other hand is not.

Of course, I am very far from podium but that does not imply I don't have my own personal victories.

I liked the "sustainability" evoked earlier in this thread.

Edited by Antoine tri 2014-11-19 12:05 PM
2014-11-20 9:24 AM
in reply to: Antoine tri

User image

Coach
9167
5000200020001002525
Stairway to Seven
Subject: RE: Training principals
Originally posted by Antoine tri

Originally posted by bcagle25

Originally posted by yazmaster

Many AG athletes like to believe that they are so unique that they require such custom training plans



I think people over exaggerate what a custom plan is. All or most workouts have a warmup, main set, and cool down. Each sessions should have a goal that fits into the plan. When you break it down its pretty basic.

But really when you look at the most successful athletes they have one common trait together. The consistent training day after day, no 2 months off every November/December, no reevaluating goals every 6-12 months, they make a goal, chase it, and don't stop til their done.


As a recreational athlete who's main goal is to get be healthy, I see the emphasis on the plan as completely wrong.

Aren't professional athletes the ones with the body the most hurt as well? If the goal is to get in shape then the plan is a mean to achieve it, not an objective in itself.

I have only one body but many occasions to achieve my goal. The beauty of multi sport is that you can reduce emphasis on specific sports to put it on others. I personally see the plan as remotely important.

If my performance goals and the means (plans) I use are elastic, my commitment to be in good health on the other hand is not.

Of course, I am very far from podium but that does not imply I don't have my own personal victories.

I liked the "sustainability" evoked earlier in this thread.


Hey I really like this! I totally agree with your ideas here. Race cars need tune ups and repair jobs more often then my trusty honda civic. THere's a real difference in speed, but also in how much fast work it can absorb not to mention the knocks of racing it often.

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Training principles Rss Feed  
 
 
of 1
 
 
RELATED POSTS

Training for training or training for weightloss Pages: 1 2

Started by Denise2003
Views: 3271 Posts: 28

2006-03-13 12:17 PM buckeye66

Tri Training and 1/2 Marathon Training.

Started by Crazypop
Views: 742 Posts: 3

2005-03-07 5:12 PM Crazypop

Weight training while Tri training?

Started by sty
Views: 1213 Posts: 3

2005-01-06 10:21 AM tupuppy

training logs - planned training options

Started by ginger ninja
Views: 1521 Posts: 5

2004-11-29 12:36 PM Ron

tri training and marathon training

Started by cece
Views: 1622 Posts: 11

2004-08-27 2:31 PM the bear
RELATED ARTICLES
date : March 12, 2013
author : mistymills
comments : 5
Dog training techniques have surprising parallels to triathlon training and race preparation. All the lessons I THOUGHT were for my dogs started seeming very applicable to me! Here's what I learned.
 
date : September 6, 2011
author : mikericci
comments : 4
Triathlon Coach explains Zone 1 and Zone 2 training and the benefits of each training zone
date : July 28, 2011
author : NiceTriCoaching
comments : 1
If you're training your swim, bike and run, you're almost halfway there! This article explores what most athletes miss, and how to integrate it into your training plan.
 
date : June 6, 2011
author : JorgeM
comments : 1
Article explaining simple training concepts important for any endurance program
date : February 3, 2011
author : alicefoeller
comments : 4
Scheduling workouts in the Custom Training Plan Creator for an ideal, balanced, injury-free season
 
date : January 20, 2011
author : Coach AJ
comments : 3
Using a high-volume schedule for many months is not the best tactic. Build speed and skill several months out, and then transition to a high-volume IM plan.
date : July 8, 2008
author : sportfactory
comments : 0
Training and racing with your body type mostly means a more analytical approach to both. Here are a few ways you can tip the genetic scale.
 
date : October 2, 2007
author : docgill
comments : 0
Is it possible for loners to work in a small group and still have plenty of time on their own? Training in small groups can give many benefits.