Endurance sports are generally numbers driven. At the highest-level, performance at races is judged by the most honest broker of all -- time. To me, that’s a large part of the growing draw to endurance sports; in a world filled with so much subjectivity (just ask any management position at big company what it means for them to do a good job, and odds are, it won’t be a simple explanation), endurance athletics provide us with an increasingly rare ability to set a goal and measure it against an objective criteria. If the goal was a 3-hour marathon, there is no wondering if you did a good job or not. You either ran sub-3, or you didn’t. For better or worse, there just aren’t that many other areas in life where you can test yourself in such a pure way. So, against that backdrop, I would say racing with time as a gauge is a good thing.
Then there is training. Whether it is pace zones, distance, heart-rate, or wattage, workouts tend to be both driven by and measured by a proliferating amount of numbers on a screen. This provides an enormous benefit, using bio-feedback to ensure that our hard days are hard (not a problem for most endurance athletes) and that our easy days are easy (usually a much tougher challenge for endurance athletes). Numbers based training also lets us to measure progress and can highlight problems as they arise, allowing athletes [and their coaches] to make adjustments to training in real time. Personally, I train using pace and heart-rate, and if I could afford a power-meter, I would train using wattage too. I’m a big believer in making informed decisions in all things, and my training is no different. Data is great.
Next comes nutrition and recovery. Not that long ago, “calories in, calories out” was a fine guiding principle; now it is no longer good enough. Not only do we measure nutrients; carbs, proteins, and fats; but also sub-types of nutrients (energy gels are now branding themselves as having the right mix of glucose, fructose, and maltodextrin) and the timing of when we eat them (simple carbs right before and after workouts, good fats and proteins throughout the rest of the day). This type of nutritional information arose out of a lot of hard-science and an entire fleet of PhDs, and on balance, it’s pretty accurate, and it’s hard to argue that it can’t help improve performance and health. Same goes with recovery; new IPhone apps can tell you how many hours you spent in REM, and for under $70 at Costco, you can take home a scale that reads your weight, BMI, body-fat percentage, and hydration levels.
I could go on forever, but by now the point should be pretty clear. As endurance athletes (especially those of us that are more serious) we don’t just engage in a sport, but an entire lifestyle, and one that can gravitate toward being pretty numbers driven. Personally, I think all of this science is a good thing, but we cannot forget about the critical importance of art in the endurance athlete’s lifestyle. The rationale is pretty simple:
1. Population-based data (e.g., the ideal weight and body-comp for a male marathon runner) is based on a bell-curve. The smallest minority of people comprise the median/average, and the great majority (of us) fall somewhere along the tails. As a matter of fact, it is our individual scatteredness around the center that creates such a recommended number. To that end, becoming hell-bent on achieving such recommendations is a bad idea, since odds are, that recommendation isn’t fit for you as an individual. Use it as a guide or starting point, but know yourself, listen to your body, and figure out where along the curve you [as an individual] lie. Then zero-in on your “ideal point.” This is true for all population based science; it certainly defines a neighborhood you want to be in, but that’s it.
2. Individual data (e.g., heart-rate zones) is also somewhat based on averages. You may know your training zones like the back of your hand, but how does your last night’s sleep impact your heart-rate, or the argument you had with your boyfriend, or the stressful project at work, or the cup of coffee you had with lunch…Over time, these metrics (whether it’s heart-rate, pace, or power) paint a great picture of where we should be for each workout; but, on any given day, they can actually be detrimental to the success of a workout. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that we have this personalized bio-feedback, but even it can be deceiving at times.
For these reasons, I suggest relying on art (or feel, touch, Zen…whatever you want to call it) to support and work in unison with science. Neglecting science can lead us down an extremely unstructured and dangerous path to poor training, racing, and health….but neglecting art can too.
I’ve noticed amongst peers in the sport(s) that a lot of people are becoming more and more comfortable with science, but a much rarer few is even aware of, let alone focused on the importance of art. And it’s not easy. When the Garmin says 7:10 or 149bpm, you know exactly where you’re at. But, what about when the body starts to feel lethargic all the time? Or you realize that little things throughout the rest of the day are bothering you more than they should? Being in touch with that side of the lifestyle, and then being able to make tweaks based on that feedback, can be a much greater challenge, but one that I believe separates good from great training and racing (and also good from great coaching, for those of you that work with or are considering a coach).
For further insight on this topic, check out the articles of the week. Most notably, the Slowtwitch interview with Matt Dixon, the Ryan Hall series, and conversation on the pros and cons of training with metrics.
No comments:
Post a Comment