Author: Vernon Gambetta

Peter Vint wrote in response to my post on Gadget and Toys: I'd like your take on how you value monitoring workload and/or changes in your athlete's performance. You know the quote, "unless you can describe something in numbers, you do not know what you're talking about" kind of thing. How do you rectify the value of quantified monitoring with the notion of having good coaches with a "good eye and good feel"? In your opinion, is there value in complementing your own implicit knowledge of the sport with objective performance data? And, do you practice this yourself? If so, what tools or technologies do you feel are more useful for those involved with athlete development? Please know I'm not being critical. Just looking to round out the discussion. Thanks Peter here is a go at it. I always try to decide on what I want to know, what is nice to know and what I absolutely need to know. It is import to understand that this can vary from sport to sport and a team or individual sport. What I can monitor is highly dependent on the resources I have available. Do I have the help to gather and interpret the data? The information I monitor must be meaningful – Can I use it to impact performance, adjust training or am I just gathering random numbers. What equipment do I need? How much extra time will it take? Can the athletes relate to it or do they regard it as a intrusion? Ultimately I want to make sure that what I monitor and how I monitor it will give the athlete more ownership over their performance. If that is the case then it is beneficial. I am as interested in pre-training readiness as I am in actual monitoring of the workout itself. What can I measure, or information I can elicit, that will give me accurate reliable input on their readiness to train on that particular day. As a coach I need to know their life demands and their lifestyle. I need to learn their recoverability from the various types of work. I always ask them how they feel and explain to them that I want an honest answer. Over the years this has proved to be the most consistently reliable method for me in my system. I watch them as they walk into the workout. Closely observe body language. Listen to them, what are they talking about, are they chatty or sullen? Sometimes I will ask them what they ate, and when they ate? The obvious question sometimes is: Did you eat? If practical and available a pre-workout urine sample to check osmolarity for hydration is advisable. Especially in a training camp environment where there are multiple training sessions in a day. Then for me the most important feedback is the actual warm-up. I use a consistent warm-up sequence that gives me feedback on the effect of the prior workout and red flags any areas of concern. This is all transparent, but it demands the coach pay careful attention to the quality and rhythm of the warm-up movements. Based on the information I gather then I will have a contingency plan if warranted. The intra workout monitoring is very important. If the workout is a technical session than I will use Dartfish In the Action feature for the athletes to review their technique. Post workout I will also use Dartfish to compare previous workouts. To monitor their neural state during the workout I will use a simple tool, a ten second quick foot burst on the Quickboard. The athletes self monitor on this and record the results. They know their parameters and if they are off, they are instructed to tell me and I will adjust the workout accordingly. As far as monitoring heart rate, I am not a big believer in it. There are too many variables and it does not accurately reflect the demands in a majority of sports. I know Heart Rate Variability (HRV) is now very popular but I need to have more evidence of its reliability and actual efficacy as a measure of training stress before I will use it. Blood measures are viable in endurance sports provided you can analyze and turn around the results in a meaningful time period. In change of direction and impact sport I am most interested in biomechanical load from the constant starts, stops, direction changes and collisions that accumulate over the course of a training session. This requires an accelerometer and a means to record and analyze the data. This represents the future because it is this mechanical stress that really beats up the bodyboth intro workout and session to session. I am interested in GPS data if available, not so much in total distance as I am interested in time in certain speed zones that represent high stress. The most obvious monitoring tools are the actual performances in training compared against previous workouts. Post workout I ask the athlete to complete a training demand rating (TDR) on a one to ten scale that rates the severity of the workout. Before the workout I project the training demand rating (TDR) of the workout. I reconcile that with the athletes post workout TDR (RPE). The rating is a one to ten scale with one being walking around the mall to ten being a butt kicker or a major competition. As I get to know the athlete there should be little difference from what I project to what is achieved. I encourage the athletes (sometimes I have required) the athletes to keep a training log. At the start of the training year I give a simple twenty-minute lesson on how to keep a training log. I have found over the years that the athletes who do keep a log and do a good job of it achieve more consistent results. I am a big believer in athlete empowerment and this is a tool for the athlete to take ownership with the coach to help and guide. The key to all of this is what I can do with the information. How can I turn the numbers into action to improve the athlete’s performance? That is always the ongoing challenge.