Before moving into the training details, or even the training principles, it’s important to zoom all of the way out and understand what training is and what it is based on. To start that process, I’m presenting two different models. First, how fatigue occurs. Second, different models of training. I like to think of models as tools that allow us to be just accurate enough in representing how a process works, but without all of the messy details that get in the way of application. So before we move on to my principles of training, let’s get on the same page for how fatigue occurs and how we, as coaches, view training

Overall Goal of Training:

We are trying to fundamentally change the person we are coaching.

Our goal in training is simple; we need to:

1. Decide a direction to take
2. Understand what training stimulus accomplishes this goal
3. Apply an appropriate training stimulus for that INDIVIDUAL athlete
4. Allow for adaptation to occur.

 

Fatigue Models:

Fatigue is a complex subject. We could write volumes about the mechanisms and classify it into a myriad of categories including neural, peripheral, and central fatigue. However, this book is about usability, and the way to translate our knowledge of how fatigue works into practical application is to strip away the fat and simplify it. To do so, we need to create models of how fatigue works. Our goal is to get close enough for comfort, getting the major details right, but reducing the complexity so that we can use the model for training decisions. What follows, then, are simple models, which may be technically ‘wrong’, and for the scientists out there.

Old School Model- By-Product Build up and Depletion:

• Exercise causes the production of waste products
• The Waste products are produced quicker than we can deal with/get rid of them.
• Fatigue occurs, muscles fail, and we run slower

Another similar model is instead of by-product build up; simply replace build up with depletion. Instead of product accumulation causing fatigue, depletion of fuel or energy sources cause fatigue. The basic gist of both of these models is that we either run out of gas or we have too much waste to deal with.

The ‘old-school’ model suggests that ‘stuff’ builds up and causes fatigue. Whether that buildup or depletion is in the muscles, the liver, the brain, or any other organ doesn’t matter. If this is our preferred model, then it’s obvious we must train to either delay the build up of by-products or increase our tolerance to that. Similarly, in the depletion model, we must train to delay depletion or increase how far down in the depths of depletion we can go to.

Integrated Model of Fatigue

1. We have expectations, or a model, of how hard a race should feel at each moment.
2. The race starts, and at each moment we compare our actual effort to our predicted effort. Our actual effort is based on feedback
   1. Internal feedback- related to how our muscles/body is working, which may include by-products/depletion.
   1. External feedback- Visual, auditory, environmental stimuli.
   1. Motivation and Emotion- How much the race matters, our motivation, and emotional control in that moment.
3. As fatigue products increase, or motivation decreases, our sense of effort increases and our brain nudges our internal dialogue to attempt to get us to capitulate. Giving in so that we slow down and maintain homeostasis. If motivation or emotional control is high, we press forward for longer, until our body subconsciously gets in our way, creating extreme levels of effort and fatigue, shutting down muscle fibers to make sure we slow.

What we have here is a simplified version of an integrated look at fatigue. The build-up of by-products or depletion of glycogen still matter, yet they are seen not as the ultimate causes of fatigue, but instead they are influencers. They influence our perception of effort, which then leads us to speed up (if we feel better than we expect) or slow down (if we feel worse than expected). This model has a few implications.

First, our expectations matter. Our conscious expectations and our experiences form the basis for our pre-race model. Don’t believe me? Think back to the workout, perhaps leading into a major race that looked easy on paper. You think “Oh this won’t be bad at all,’ before showing up to practice and having to put way more effort into running slow. Expectations shape experiences.

From here, the model suggests that, yes physiologic contributors to fatigue still matter, but so does our whole experience. Meaning that it’s not simply about building up acidosis in the legs, but the combination of that, with the fact that we have 500 meters left in the race, with what we are attuned to and focused on. We can train to handle the physiologic facilitators to fatigue but also to ‘prove’ to our self that we can handle ever-higher levels of effort. Additionally, we can shift the external component of feedback to train our mental focus and attention. Also, our motivation and our ability to have emotional control to regulate ‘freak out’ moments during races is vitally important. In other words, it’s not simply about training to withstand fatigue, but training to mentally cope with our reaction to fatigue.

This model is slightly more complex but provides a more complete physiological and psychological framework for manipulating training. Using these models, it becomes clear the variables we can manipulate to combat fatigue. These include:

Expectations of a race

• Including: Effort levels, motivation, difficulty and pain levels, wherein the race we should expect moves or increases in effort, and so forth.

Perception of Effort during the race

• We can train to decrease this via:
  • Shifts in our fitness (making each pace ‘easier’)
  • Decreasing internal feedback, delaying the build up of effort (e.g. by-products of fatigue)
  • Manipulating what we pay attention to externally (breathing, awareness, attention zooming in or out during a race)
  • We can train to enhance our capacity to tolerate increased effort before our “brain” shuts us down:

• Delay signal from the brain to “shut down and protect” by proving you can safely 
handle slightly more of that product. 

  • Increase the maximum amount of by-products that can be accumulated or lost before 
the brain starts shutting things down. 

  • Increase our capacity to tolerate increases in effort/fatigue through improving our ability to stay focused and attuned.
  • Increase Emotional control, therefore decreasing our reaction to increases and effort. We are creating space between an increase in effort and fatigue and ‘freak-out’ and slow down response.

 

Training Models

Just as individuals have a psychological framework for how they view the world, we take a psychological framework to how we view training. We all come at it from different angles. For instance, sprint coaches often come from a biomechanical viewpoint, seeing mechanics as the most important aspect, while distance coaches often favor the physiology. Below are a few models that coaches tend to utilize. Each model comes with its own vocabulary. For instance, lactate threshold development, extensive tempo, or ‘strength’ work might define the same type of training in different models.  It’s worth learning all models of seeing training and developing the ability to switch between them to allow for evaluation and innovation.

Physiology model-

The physiology is what matters the most. For each event, we have physiologic demands or components that predict performance. Depending on the event, we might know that VO2max, Lactate Threshold, Anaerobic Capacity, or any other myriad of phrases are important contributors to performance. Everything is designed around enhancing these physiological determinants. The hope is that if we develop these components, performance will improve. Therefore, we put all of the focus in workout design and creation on attacking these components. Often you see team sports and strength and conditioning coaches adopt this model when it comes to endurance development. They learn endurance after their own

Experiential model-

When you grow up [practicing sport, you learn the nuances of the training naturally. You aren’t interested in the science or definitions underlying the training as a young teenager and instead, focus on the experience. Your coach provides guidance and you simply perform the workouts. In this way, you develop a natural feeling for what a 4-mile “tempo” workout feels like or the sensation of hammering out 400m repeats on the track feels like. We learn through experience. From this perspective, when we get into coaching we relate workouts to our experience in completing them. This forms the basis of our understanding of training. Often, we layer on science after the fact as an explanatory mechanism for why we should feel a certain way on training, but the experience dominates.

Mechanical model- 

In this model, movement is emphasized. We create a model of how the athlete should move throughout the event and perfecting that becomes the point of emphasis. Sprint coaches who dictate what an athlete should look at every point in the race utilize this model. Their training largely centers on perfecting their mechanics, even at the expense of getting a slightly higher physiological stress. This is why often the workout is stopped if mechanical breakdown occurs, even if the physiological stress desired isn’t reached.

Workout/Mathematical model:

This model is what I would call a practical model. Similar to how Bowerman broke down his workout progressions based on working his way from date pace to goal pace, a workout based model is almost mathematic. The idea is that we have a particular workout and to improve we need to change and progress in that workout. While we might be attacking underlying physiology, the coach’s model is simply to look at improving our speed or endurance through ever-evolving workouts. In this model, the workouts predominate. So if we can do 5x1mile at 4:40 with 2 minutes rest, we will race faster if we can do the same workout at 4:35 pace next time. The thought isn’t that we are attacking a particular zone or physiologic system, but instead, simply improving.

What I hope you understand in this little booklet is that the ideal ‘model’ is a synthesis of the aforementioned concepts. We need to know how to apply each of them, knowing when to emphasize one and ignore the other. For example, if you are a 100m sprinter, it makes sense to primarily view the world through a mechanical model. The extra percentage improvement based on pushing their physiology slightly higher isn’t worth the bad patterning that can occur when an athlete’s mechanics fall apart at the end of a hard workout. On the other hand, a distance runner might need to forget about mechanical stability and instead, go to the point of complete breakdown. We know that the runner will phase immense levels of pain and fatigue during a workout, so conditioning them for this, and allowing for them to learn how to cope (mechanically, psychologically, and emotionally) may be the key to improving performance.