Training is a cumulative process. The workout is one piece of a much bigger
picture. Training is not one spectacular or particularly tough workout, rather
it is a succession of workouts designed to fit into the overall plan in pursuit
of specific training objectives. Anyone can make a workout hard, but the
essential element is context. Where does it fit? One workout cannot stand
alone. One great workout does not necessarily lead to a great competition
result. In fact it can be detrimental. To achieve an outstanding workout the
athlete may have to dig deep into physiological, psychological, and emotional
reserves to achieve that result. That potentially may detract from competition
performance. The concept that has stood the test of time for me is Bill
Bowernan’s concept of hard easy rhythm of training days. As the athlete progresses in their
career and you can assess their adaptability you can progress to a hard day,
followed by a medium day, followed by an easy day. Too many hard days without
easy days to balance them out will result in failing adaptation. Ideally we
want to achieve continual adaptation as a consequence of supercompensation. You
achieve this by having clearly defined training goals, a sound plan to achieve
those goals, a thorough knowledge of the athletes physical capabilities and
specific competitive goals. Remember one workout cannot make an athlete, but
one workout can break an athlete.
3 Comments
Mike Keeler
Through out this process do you expect continued improvements in performance through out the season or do you have less then steller performances at times due to the training cycle you are in at that moment
Mike
USD Swimmming
Victor Hall
As a coaching development model, I have always encouraged young coaches to work towards thinking about the big picture. For young coaches, the natural progression for this taking place seems to be the following;
1. Coach and master one EXERCISE at a time.
2. Coach and master one WORKOUT at a time.
3. Coach and master a SYSTEM.
The ultimate goal is to deliver training sessions under the context of the overall plan (as you describe). Great coaches do this. My question is – Is it is advisable to use a development model that mirrors the natural progression above? Or should that order be reversed?
My gut feeling is that by learning exercises first, then workouts, then the system, is that a stronger reference is gained for the small pieces once the “light bulb” is turned on relative to the big picture. The smaller learning chunks are a bit more manageable for a young coach getting a lot thrown at them. Also by doing this, a young coach is able to deliver a quality product during the time it takes for them to sort out their own understanding of the big picture. This mostly applies to young coaches who are becoming part of an established system. The trap to be cautious of is when coaches stop their developmental process at the workout step, and therefore never honor context. A good mentor can structure and guide this process.
Thoughts?
Ken Vick
Vern,
Great last line that many young (and old) coaches should should recognize more. Working in sports medicine definitely helped me develop better balance in my perspective.
Victor,
I have my new coaches develop in the order you listed. It has to have a context however, even though it might not all make sense right now. I like the cook to chef (http://artofcoachingspeed.blogspot.com/2009/04/over-years-ive-heard-from-several.html) analogy and follow that belief. We have far too many people that think learning how to chop a vegetable is all it takes to be a master chef. Then they sell a dvd to everyone!