Misinterpretation of research will sometimes create some bad Training Art, meaning coaches will instill poor training combinations in order attempt to stimulate the wrong adaptations, or just trying to get a lot of stuff done in one day. You don’t need to be a purist, as you can work a lot of biomotor abilities each day, but you need to see what the big picture is by using benchmarks. When I first took the USATF Level 2 course I was too isolated each week and each phase because I didn’t know how things mixed together. For example doing plyos and speed endurance. I still don’t know how things mix, but benchmarks on improvements of pure maximal qualities such as peak power, 30m acceleration, and aerobic recovery can show progress. Focusing on the adaptations instead of what the adaptations can provide is a common pitfall. Mobility circuits and RSA training are great, but are people better because of it? Can you prove it?
