MAY 6 SWIM CLINIC IN HAMILTON

Passing along some information for interested triathletes:

Swim Clinic for Triathletes

When: Sunday May 6th 2012. 9 to noon.

Where: 350 Brant St., Brantford. W.R. MacDonald School pool.

How: Contact hamiltonhammerheadsac@gmail.com to reserve a spot with deposit

Goal: To give the committed triathlete a better technical understanding of how to swim more efficiently leading to an improvement in their swim time. The Swim Clinic will be led by Mike Finch, WRMS head coach who had four members attending the 2012 Olympic swim trials. The clinic will cover breathing/breath control, free style stroke technique, kicking, drills, open water techniques, how to train, and instruction other aspects of efficient swimming for multisport events. Included will be a video of your training.

Coaching ratio with assistants 4:1.

Limit: 20.

Requirement: Age 16 up and experience swimming in open water; Triathlon Ontario 2012 membership.

More information by Email. Sanctioned by Triathlon Ontario to the Hamilton Hammerheads.

SLEEP

Excellent summary from www.medicalbillingandcodingcertification.net. Edit: Thanks to Sports and Fitness Science for posting it.


Created by: MedicalBillingandCodingCertification.net

TRAINING TO FITNESS

In general terms, coaches/athletes have three options when it comes to training prescription:

A) Train to current fitness
B) Train to goal fitness
C) Mix of A & B

We make these decisions on a daily basis, although my observations lead me to believe that few people do it consciously, and fewer articulate these distinctions when talking about their approach to training.

The concepts are very simple, and relate first and foremost to the intensity of training. Without a doubt, training volume and the resulting training load (the product of volume and intensity) are also implicated, but I find that intensity (ie. pace, power, etc) is usually the primary variable being modified in this framework.

To "train to current fitness" simply means that training prescription is based on current fitness. The simplest example is an athlete who trains using RPE (rating of perceived exertion); a 60 min run done at a RPE of 7/10 will be done at a different pace in the winter than the summer, but will feel the same to the athlete. A more structured approach would use the data obtained from a recent time trial, race or test set to establish training intensity zones. There are several examples of this approach: Jon Urbanchek's color system in swimming, Dr. A. Coggan's power zones* in cycling, and Jack Daniels or Greg McMillan in running.

To "train to goal fitness" is to establish a goal pace (or power) for an event, and systemically train for longer durations (and/or with shorter rest) at that pace, as explained here by UK running coach Frank Horwill. I've seen several programs, across a broad spectrum of endurance sports, which follow this basic philosophy.

Both approaches have merits and weaknesses. In our program we employ both approaches (Option C) depending on the athlete and the time of year.

The point of this post however is not to argue for one approach over another, but rather to encourage athletes and coaches to identify for themselves what they are doing. Do you train to current fitness, or goal fitness? It's a simple question, but fundamental to the development and execution of a training plan.



*Dr. Coggan has clearly stated that the power zones are to be used descriptively, not prescriptively, but in my experience they are employed by coaches to both describe training and prescribe training.

ON DEVELOPING MENTAL TOUGHNESS

Chrissie Wellington on developing mental toughness:

“But I think the key is that you have to practice this in training. You know, 30k into the marathon in an Ironman is too late to realize you don’t have the mental strength to continue the race.”

Interview starts at 45:00 here (click "listen now" to launch player).

It's not rocket science, folks. The focus, habits and tendencies you bring to training will be the same you bring to racing. No one flips a switch on race day and becomes something they aren't in training. Equally applicable to athletes & coaches.

MINI-CONFERENCE IN GUELPH TONIGHT

In case you missed it, there's a great opportunity tonight in Guelph, free to any/all:

Science and the Running Machine: The Dog Days Are Over!

Presented by the Speed River T&F Club

Renowned sports science author and blogger Dr. Alex Hutchinson and National Team Physiotherapist Brenda Scott-Thomas, will make presentations on the latest sport sciences and applied methods on biomechanics, minimalist training, proper running form and injury prevention. This fun filled and informative evening is free of charge.

More info here. 

2012 ITU SEASON PROMO

A little late to the party on posting this, but it's definitely worth watching a few more times. What an incredible sport. Further inspiration to get into those blue carpet races.

MORE ON THE "10,000 HOUR RULE"

More on the 10,000 Hour Rule from Dr. Ross Tucker, who is the primary author of the Science of Sport blog, and sport physiologist from South Africa. Dr. Tucker recently took part in a BBC interview/debate with Dr. Anders Ericsson; co-author of The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance, which spawned the concept of the 10,000 hour rule. After the interview Dr. Tucker posted this note:

Just been involved in what was supposed to pass as debate on genes, talent, training & 10,000 hours with Anders Ericsson. Astonishingly, Ericsson, a psychologist, makes the claim that physiologists have never once found that physiological limitations exist in response to training, or that certain individuals have higher physiological ceilings than others. In other words, the psychologist is telling physiology that anybody can become an elite athlete (in any sport) if they just train. Unfortunately, the BBC didn't allow me to correct his little mistruth, so especially for Ericsson and the BBC, the links below sum up just a small percentage of the evidence that disputes the training theory, and shows that genes matter.

The full thread is worth a read, and can be found here.

Hopefully Dr. Tucker will post a link to the interview so we can hear it first hand. If Dr. Ericsson truly did make those claims, it would demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge regarding exercise physiology. However, it would be consistent with Ericsson's longstanding argument that talent doesn't exist, and that achieving expertise in any domain simply requires 10,000 hours of deliberate practice.

Dr. Tucker is far more nuanced in his assessment of what makes an expert, saying it's a mix of talent and hard work. I think he's right, and Dr. Tucker has the research, and common sense, on his side. You can find his excellent two part series on the subject here: Part 1 and Part 2.