Science or Feel?

Do athletes train better when they have a closer connection to what 'feels' right or does following specific metrics ultimately provide a better training stimulus... a conversation.

Caveat - it's about balance.

As an athlete and coach I have looked at training from all perspectives. I've worked with coaches who are data driven, training backed by science and literature and others who implement a more relaxed, I don't want to say blasé approach, but a more experimental approach. What do I mean by this?

Well when coaches prescribe an athlete training, they all but always set out a session that will have a desired effect or outcome. This can be delivered by setting a series of 'blocks' of efforts at a prescribed power output or heart rate for example. This is what we would call a focused, scientific approach because, as a coach, we have a specific area of an athletes physiology we want to focus on, let's say improving lactate threshold (LT2/CP - this is another debate). To do this we would want to set out a training session that according to the literature would train the mechanisms within the body to elicit improvements in lactate threshold.

As an athlete we then look at the session we've been set and approach it in the way we think is right. Some athletes will have the session written down somewhere, maybe stuck to their handlebars, others may have the exact times displayed on their computer and others may read the session notes and remember what they have to do. No approach is necessarily wrong, but all will have slight variations in how they perceive and therefore execute the same session.

Pros and Cons?

Now, let me try to explain some subtle differences in how the same session can be approached differently and ultimately executed differently.

This section aims to provide some insight into how the coach - athlete relationship is crucial and often overlooked, and also that the notes below are examples and only that, there are not 3-specific rider categories we group riders into.

• Example A) The handlebar session note rider

A rider will often write down the 'main' blocks or intervals that are set out by their coach and keep them with them on the ride. They may have a specific road or area that they can use to perform these efforts on that they think will match the session focus most appropriately. These riders generally get close to hitting all the right intensities and durations but may ride slightly harder/ easier than planned or ride longer/ shorter depending on how they feel on the day - knowing the intention of the session is hit correctly.

As a coach this is often good, it shows they have a good understanding of the importance of the session but also that the 'rest or recovery' periods for example may not set in stone but are a guide. These riders generally finish a session happy in the knowledge they have executed the session well and that even with small differences between the planned and executed session, the session has contributed to the desired outcome.

• Example B) The bike computer session executer

Now, some riders can become very obsessive over numbers, rest periods, data etc. They motivate themselves by completing exactlty what the coach has set out for them to the second and to the watt. This is great in some instances, however, if this athlete cannot hit the power numbers set on the day or isn't recovering in the rest periods they can often fail the session outright and stop. Now this isn't good, and can often but not always come from not understanding the session correctly or not having the confidence to know that by reducing their power slightly may allow then to execute the session how the coach intended.

If an athlete trains in this way, it is vital the coach understands this. If an athlete is consistently not completing sessions that are set it can have a negative affect on their confidence, or motivation to train, potentially increasing a riders anxiety and/ or pressure around performing - this can have detrimental long term affects.

With that being said, if an athlete needs to see a session executed perfectly to motivate themselves then a coach may need to pay careful attention to this and adapt zones/ power numbers to allow the athlete to complete the sessions consistently. By doing this you, as the coach, are able to use this specific tendency to help motivate the riders training rather than affect self- confidence or induce training anxiety.

• Example C) The read and mental note rider

Finally there are athletes, myself included, that read a session and gather all the information they need from that. They then go out and execute their training with the right intention. Sometimes on the day, a power target can be unachievable and in this instance an athlete will simple adapt to suit the required stimulus - on their own accord. This can be great at times, when there are a lot of external factors that could influence the session or a level of fatigue that is difficult for the coach to judge, in these instances having the knowledge and confidence to understand when to reduce intensity or duration, or conversely increase power if needed can be really important to maintain good training consistency.

This can go two ways, and in my case, if given too much scope to adjust sessions can often mean I cut rides short or don't have the motivation to hit the required intensity. Again, it is vital for a coach to understand which tendencies, from the above, the rider has so they can suit the training specifically to the rider.

Now the above approaches to training all have their own strengths, weaknesses or pros and cons. One is not right or wrong, the point is that the coach needs to be aware of how a rider approaches a specific session and needs to accommodate for this. The coaches job here is two fold; to educate the rider in what and why they are doing a specific session to provide them with the knowledge and confidence to execute it correctly but, also needs to understand and learn how riders motivate themselves and that one prescription of training that motivates some athletes does not always motivate others.

So, going back to the question, Science or Feel?

I hope this article helps to explain the different training approaches riders often take. But in answer, it really does require a balance. Being able to ride on feel without power or data metrics is a great tool for a rider to learn. There are many instances where data is not available or not accurately applicable to a situation and therefore by educating and preparing athletes and allowing them to learn how to feel for subtle changes can really benefit their long term development in the sport. Conversely, science and a data driven approach is what is required to maximise a riders development and create the right training stimuli. So, BALANCE is the key here.

Note: This article is not saying one style is right or one is wrong, it's helping to create the right mental approaches to training to create long-term and sustainable motivation towards training and racing.

If any of this article applies to you and you want to discuss ways to improve training, training outlook or anything around this topic, drop me a quick message, I am always happy to discuss this with athletes. Sometimes coaches can miss cues from their athletes that mean neither are maximising the benefit of the other.