[Carl Valle]

Carl Valle on November 26, 2008 at 2:43 am #15058

Training should be a simple as possible but not simpler. I personally have a vendetta against those who pontificate KISS and other approaches to training design and programming. The stupid in this world haven’t don’t much so why are we trying to dumb things down? I would rather clarify than to simplify. With three requests for my training system I got this weekend I say with dramatic pause, the

Continue reading…

[RussZHC]

RussZHC on November 26, 2008 at 3:59 am #74548

training should be an inter-disciplinary approach

Complex v. simple. Taking this to coaching itself, how “specialized” should a coach become?

There is the idea that a truly “good” coach, given time, can coach nearly any activity; that the sprint coach should (?) be designing and implementing the strength program as opposed to having a specialized strength and conditioning coach (see many other discussions on this board) doing that part of the program.
Personally I agree with the “hands on” approach but do I say I only want to coach hurdles (as opposed to sprinters and hurdlers) and then later say “only sprint hurdles”?
In doing that will I close too many avenues of learning?

[Chad Williams]

Chad Williams on November 26, 2008 at 5:33 am #74553

“KISS” is for Vendetta . . .

On a whole, many coaches try to incorporate too much and confuse principles and energy systems. After hearing many ideas from minds far greater than mine this summer, one theme was that training was kept pretty straight-forward. Maybe your definition of simple is vastly different than mine, but I know personally, I used to get caught up in the spider-web of variation incorporation and lose the focus of the day.

I have asked many the question, “What are you trying to achieve today with this workout?” The answer is usually not straightforward nor well-thought out. The ability to clearly distinguish a training session is an ability that is gained over time. I think that new coaches (including myself) should be “simple” because complex training lends complex answers without the knowledge of contribution.

[Daniel Andrews]

Daniel Andrews on November 28, 2008 at 6:24 pm #74618

It’s funny you bring this up. I hate the segmentation and specialization that is occurring in the sport and athletic performance industry (applied science), to include coaching. While applied science as a whole are moving towards compartmentalization, segmentation, and specialization in training athletes the scientific and educational communities who teach and research for the application of such knowledge are moving more towards integrative approaches.

Train the whole body, how does a piece of training affect the whole body, how does an exercise or task apply to a sport. I just blogged what I term “core misconception” on my site before you did your blog.

Great Post.