Last weekend I attended the PetroCan Sport Leadership conference in Ottawa, an annual conference for coaches, administrators, leaders and officials. Lots of great discussions and learning all around. One offline discussion I had with a few coaches had to do with LTAD (the Long Term Athlete Development model). More specifically, the discussion was about what I perceived to be the problems with the LTAD.
As I've said before, there are are lot of great ideas in the LTAD, many of them are backed by solid empirical research. There are however a few glaring problems, presented as fact, which to the best of my knowledge are not supported. The top three are:
1) Windows of Trainability
2) The 10,000 Hour Rule
3) Gender bias in training application
The problems don't stop there, but these are the three things that came up in the discussion on the weekend. I've previously written about the first issue here. The 10,000 Hour Rule requires more time than I have right now, but it's something I plan on returning to.
So I'll tackle the easy one in this post....gender.
The LTAD identifies "Shortcomings" in the Canadian Sport System, and the ensuing consequences. One of the shortcomings is that "training methods and competition programs designed for male athletes are imposed on female athletes", and consequently "female athlete potential (is) not reached due to inappropriate programs."
On the face of it, it certainly seems possible; sport is still largely a male domain when you look at the demographics of coaches, administrators, athletes, etc. Maybe we're not training and racing our female athletes appropriately. Maybe we can realize better performances by changing what we do.
Surprisingly, there is no further discussion of this issue in the LTAD, no supporting data is cited, and no solutions are provided. This seems strange, given that 50% of the Canadian population is female, and Canada's Olympic Teams are 38-44% female. It would seem like we're leaving a big stone unturned, and lots of medals on the table.
But before we go revamping our programs for female athletes, we should again ask a very simple question: is it true that our female athletes aren't reaching their potential due to inappropriate programs?
Anecdotally, in the sport of triathlon, it would seem that the reverse is true: that the Canadian women are doing quite well. The majority of Canada's medals in international triathlon this year came from female athletes (ie. Paula, Kirsten, Joanna).
But one year does not constitute proof, and triathlon is just one sport. What happens if we look at the performance of Canadian women at the highest level of competition, the Olympic Games, over the last 22 years?
* denotes a medal won in paired figure skating
As it turns out, the women seem to be doing just fine, or maybe better than fine.
At the Winter Olympics, women have constituted only 36% of the Canadian team over the last 7 Games (increased to 44% for the last two Olympics), but won 56% of Canada's medals. Rather than "not reaching their potential", it would seem that the ladies in red & white are exceeding expectations, or at least beating the odds.
The Summer Olympic Games provide a somewhat different picture, but it's far from dire. Over the last 6 Olympic Summer Games, the Canadian women have on average constituted 45% of the Canadian Team, and won 45% of the medals.
This post is just a quick snapshot of what could be a much larger conversation, but at least it's based on actual data, rather than conjecture. And from the data summarized above, it's not clear to me that our female athletes are not reaching their potential.
But the bigger issue is not about how we train and race female athletes, it's about where we get our info, how we verify it, and how we use it. If I could leave the reader with one piece of advice, it would be to be critical of the information you receive, and to do the homework for yourself. If a statement seems odd, simply ask: "Is that true?", and do some digging. We live in a time of unparalleled access to information. If we want to be world-class, we can't be blindly following advice when the readily available data points us in the other direction.
Taking that approach, maybe the mens' teams in winter sport should reconsider their approach to training, not the other way around. Food for thought, anyways.
Sources:
As I've said before, there are are lot of great ideas in the LTAD, many of them are backed by solid empirical research. There are however a few glaring problems, presented as fact, which to the best of my knowledge are not supported. The top three are:
1) Windows of Trainability
2) The 10,000 Hour Rule
3) Gender bias in training application
The problems don't stop there, but these are the three things that came up in the discussion on the weekend. I've previously written about the first issue here. The 10,000 Hour Rule requires more time than I have right now, but it's something I plan on returning to.
So I'll tackle the easy one in this post....gender.
The LTAD identifies "Shortcomings" in the Canadian Sport System, and the ensuing consequences. One of the shortcomings is that "training methods and competition programs designed for male athletes are imposed on female athletes", and consequently "female athlete potential (is) not reached due to inappropriate programs."
On the face of it, it certainly seems possible; sport is still largely a male domain when you look at the demographics of coaches, administrators, athletes, etc. Maybe we're not training and racing our female athletes appropriately. Maybe we can realize better performances by changing what we do.
Surprisingly, there is no further discussion of this issue in the LTAD, no supporting data is cited, and no solutions are provided. This seems strange, given that 50% of the Canadian population is female, and Canada's Olympic Teams are 38-44% female. It would seem like we're leaving a big stone unturned, and lots of medals on the table.
But before we go revamping our programs for female athletes, we should again ask a very simple question: is it true that our female athletes aren't reaching their potential due to inappropriate programs?
Anecdotally, in the sport of triathlon, it would seem that the reverse is true: that the Canadian women are doing quite well. The majority of Canada's medals in international triathlon this year came from female athletes (ie. Paula, Kirsten, Joanna).
But one year does not constitute proof, and triathlon is just one sport. What happens if we look at the performance of Canadian women at the highest level of competition, the Olympic Games, over the last 22 years?
* denotes a medal won in paired figure skating
As it turns out, the women seem to be doing just fine, or maybe better than fine.
At the Winter Olympics, women have constituted only 36% of the Canadian team over the last 7 Games (increased to 44% for the last two Olympics), but won 56% of Canada's medals. Rather than "not reaching their potential", it would seem that the ladies in red & white are exceeding expectations, or at least beating the odds.
The Summer Olympic Games provide a somewhat different picture, but it's far from dire. Over the last 6 Olympic Summer Games, the Canadian women have on average constituted 45% of the Canadian Team, and won 45% of the medals.
This post is just a quick snapshot of what could be a much larger conversation, but at least it's based on actual data, rather than conjecture. And from the data summarized above, it's not clear to me that our female athletes are not reaching their potential.
But the bigger issue is not about how we train and race female athletes, it's about where we get our info, how we verify it, and how we use it. If I could leave the reader with one piece of advice, it would be to be critical of the information you receive, and to do the homework for yourself. If a statement seems odd, simply ask: "Is that true?", and do some digging. We live in a time of unparalleled access to information. If we want to be world-class, we can't be blindly following advice when the readily available data points us in the other direction.
Taking that approach, maybe the mens' teams in winter sport should reconsider their approach to training, not the other way around. Food for thought, anyways.
Sources:
Posts
Craig,
ReplyDeleteRegarding the 10,000 hr rule: It's funny how many think that Gladwell is totally out there in Outliers when he makes this suggestion, but in endurance sports and many other sports, what's remarkable is that it's not that far off. If you truly want to be the best that you can be, start training now and if you do it right. you should reach your absolute personal peak in about 10,000 hrs.
Of course, as you know Malcolm Gladwell was a runner running locally in the GTA when he was a teenager.. I recall running against hims a few time sin high school!
Steve Fleck
Interesting digging. But is looking at Olympic results the best way to judge development? It doesn't show how many young women might be slipping through the cracks, which is the concern of the "shortcoming." Not to suggest the LTAD does it either, but maybe more digging would get to the truth of the matter.
ReplyDelete