Train Like You are a Forest, not a Tree

The "experts" say that athletic fitness has three components; endurance, strength, and flexibility. They say that different sports require different measures of each. For instance marathoners may have tons of endurance, but not much strength and flexibility, while a weight-lifter has lots of strength and flexibility but no endurance. While the ratios may change, all three are required in some measure to be successful, and the more of each that you have, the better athlete you will be.

This is a nice little formula that works for school administrators when evaluating P.E. curricula, but it doesn't come close to capturing everything it takes to improve as an athlete.

Trainers and sports researchers have now added speed, balance, and core strength to the original three metrics mentioned above. If endurance, strength, and flexibility are the building blocks of an athlete, then speed, balance, and core integrity are the mortar holding it all together. Neither group is worth anything without the other.

Besides musculoskeletal strength, an athlete must also prepare mentally. An athlete will need motivation, resilience, and good technique in order to keep pushing when life and training don't go according to plan.

And of course everyone agrees that training your muscles and your brain aren't worth a darn if you have a lousy diet.

As if that weren't enough, there are many intangible qualities possessed by successful athletes. Athletes must have a healthy sense of humor, understand the importance of sportsmanship, and strive to maintain a good balance between their personal, professional, and athletic lives.

Often times I see people try to tackle this list in a systematic or mechanical way. Long rides for endurance -- check. Pilates for core strength -- check. Push-ups for strength -- check. And so on and so on.

That is not the way I do things and here is why.

As training methods get more "scientific" they also get more specific and focused. I suggest however that your body and brain respond better to more general and holistic stimuli. Just like a team, or a corporation, or a forest, or any other complex system in the world, an athlete's performance is equal to more than the sum of its parts. So instead of trying to compartmentalize all of your training, you should strive to work on several, if not all, elements of fitness at every practice. Instead of doing lots of indoor bike training where you might maximize your optimal-power-output-to-heart-rate-ratio, you should do most of your riding outside where you can not only strive for optimal power, but also learn to climb, take corners, build endurance, stay focused in a wind storm, and sprint for all the city limit signs.

I understand that addressing each individual component seems rational and efficient, but it is that same kind of "rational and efficient" ethos that turns rivers into reservoirs, workshops into assembly lines, and schools into young adult factories. There is of course a place for the scientific application of basic principles, but to do so at the cost of a holistic approach is I think a mistake.

To illustrate I have to make a confession. I like to play golf. And that game is a good example of what I am talking about. To get better at golf you could go to a driving range and hit a thousand balls, then putt for hours on a practice green, then try chipping over lawn furniture in your back yard and in the end think that you have mastered the skills of the game. But when you are out on the course and you have to hit over a little patch of tall grass between you and the hole, your mind will start to play games with you and that easy chip chunks right into the hazard. Of course good golfers will practice their skills but they realize it means nothing without the ability to put all the pieces together on the course. Everyone knows Jack Nicklaus, but no one knows the national long-drive champion. That's because no one cares. Hitting the ball far is not golf. Similarly, high power numbers on a stationary bike will never win you any races.

"You idiot," you may say, "The science of sports performance has advanced tremendously in the last thirty years so it would be down right republican of you to ignore the empirical evidence and cling to the old sloppy ways of training." "Advanced?" Thirty years ago the New York Marathon was won by Alberto and Grete, both of whom ran FASTER than this years winners Meb and Derartu. (Alberto beat Meb by four seconds, and Grete would have won by three minutes). Similarly, the times at the Ironman World Championships in Hawaii are remarkably similar to the times posted twenty years ago when aero handlebars were first introduced. The course record set this year by Chrissie Wellington was 17 years old and all but one of Mark Allen's six first place times would have toasted Craig Alexander this year. So what is an athlete to do? Work on everything all the time. You won't be alone. Many world class athletes still train this way. Sure, they do lower intensity workouts in the winter; then ramp things up as the racing season starts; but it is not much more complicated than that.

Save the rocket science for firing rockets. Training is something completely different.

I just "bought" a 40 year young Columbia tandem from a woman at my Dad's condo. It is just like the picture accept for some rust, dust, and lots of that furry dirt that builds up on old greassy chains. It came with a brand new u-lock which is probably worth more than the bike.
Single speed and a coaster brake. Perfect for riding around Kirkland and the surrounding hills. Mine has the original everything. Including some awsome red and white comfort sadles. No ugly white covers on my baby. I'll keep you posted on how the refirb' goes.

Every summer some poor soul is found up in the Cascades at the bottom of a huge cliff where he fell to his premature end. I have always wondered; how does someone accidentally walk off a cliff? After my Team in Training practice yesterday I think I now know how this happens.
I gave everyone a map of the Redmond Watershed with arrows directing them on a 4.5 mile loop. Well, everyone missed the first turn 2 miles into the run. The trail ended at some neighborhood cul-de-sac and even though it was highly unlikely that there were giant homes in the public watershed, everyone just kept running. Out onto the streets, then onto the highway, then God knows where else.
Besides blaming myself for making the assumption that people could run and follow a map at the same time, I blame Audra and Cat. they were leading and at the point when they realized they were lost, instead of turning around and finding the true course, they just kept going. The reason I think they did this lies in some ingrained human frailty. Because they were the "leaders" turning around would have put them in an awkward or shameful group situation. The "followers" were not totally without fault either. Some of them must have sensed or known that they were off course, but they kept silent and just kept following.
So back to my lost hiker. When you are lost in the woods, (or anywhere I suppose) panic sets in and though it may not result in running in circles screaming, it can however make you walk mindlessly on. Instead of spending energy on actual route finding one's mind spirals off in many directions including everything BUT route finding. The poor hiker feels alone, desperate, and ashamed, and the view from the top of the cliff is obscured by his fear, and tears, and many furtive glances over his shoulder.
I feel that in the spirit of public service I should advise people that when you are lost; Stop! Go BACK to a place where you know you were not lost, then proceed again paying close attention to clues for the proper route. It's quite simple but not at all obvious at the time.
When you are lost, walking or running mindlessly on will sometimes lead you right off the edge of a cliff.

And Now . . . Something Completely Different

Dear Mr. Ponger; As I train in the off season how much time should I devote to building endurance vs. speed, vs. weight training, vs. technique? I am a triathlete and was also wondering if the proportions are the same for all three sports? Overtrained in Orting.

Dear O.O. The "experts" say that athletic fitness has three components; endurance, strength, and flexibility. They say that different sports require different measures of each. For instance marathoners may have tons of endurance, but not much strength and flexibility, while a weight-lifter has lots of strength and flexibility but no endurance. While the ratios may change, all three are required in some measure to be successful, and the more of each that you have, the better athlete you will be.
This is a nice little formula that works for school administrators when evaluating P.E. curricula, but it doesn't come close to capturing everything it takes to improve as an athlete.
Trainers and sports researchers have now added speed, balance, and core strength to the original three metrics mentioned above. If endurance, strength, and flexibility are the building blocks of an athlete, then speed, balance, and core integrity are the mortar holding it all together. Neither group is worth anything without the other.
Besides musculoskeletal strength, an athlete must also prepare mentally. An athlete will need motivation, resilience, and good technique in order to keep pushing when life and training don't go according to plan.
And of course everyone agrees that training your muscles and your brain aren't worth a darn if you have a lousy diet.
As if that weren't enough, there are many intangible qualities possessed by successful athletes. Athletes must have a healthy sense of humor, understand the importance of sportsmanship, and strive to maintain a good balance between their personal, professional, and athletic lives.
Often times I see people like you try to tackle this list in a systematic or mechanical way. Long rides for endurance -- check. Pilatees for core strength -- check. Push-ups for strength -- check. And so on and so on. They hope that X number of running miles, plus Y number of sit-ups, plus Z number of indoor bike sessions, plus S number of laps in the pool will result in a time of xy:zs.
That is not the way I do things and here is why.
As training methods get more "scientific" they also get more specific and focused. I suggest however that your body and brain respond better to more general and holistic stimuli. Just like a team, or a corporation, or a forest, or any other complex system in the world, an athlete's performance is equal to more than the sum of it's parts. So instead of trying to compartmentalize all of your training, you should strive to work on several, if not all, aspects of training at every practice. Instead of doing lots of indoor bike training where you can maximize your optimal-power-output-to-heart-rate-ratio, you should do most of your riding outside where you can not only strive for optimal power, but also learn to climb, take corners, build endurance, stay focused in a wind storm, and sprint for all the city limit signs.
I understand that addressing each individual component seems rational and efficient, but it is that same kind of "rational and efficient" ethos that turns rivers into reservoirs, workshops into assembly lines, and schools into young adult factories. There is of course a place for the scientific application of basic principles, but to do so at the cost of an holistic approach is I think a mistake.
To illustrate I have to make a confession. I like to play golf. And that game is a good example of what I am talking about. To get better at golf you could go to a driving range and hit a thousand balls, then putt for hours on a practice green, then try chipping over lawn furniture in your back yard and in the end think that you have mastered the skills of the game. But when you are out on the course and you have to hit over a little patch of tall grass between you and the hole, your mind will start to play games with you and that easy chip chunks right into the hazard.
Of course good golfers will practice their skills but they realize it means nothing without the ability to put all the pieces together on the course. Everyone knows Tiger Woods, but no one knows the national long-drive champion. That's because no one cares. Hitting the ball far is not golf. In the same way, high power numbers on a stationary bike will never win you any races. "You idiot," you may say, "The science of sports medicine has advanced tremendously in the last thirty years so it would be down right republican of you to ignore the empirical evidence and cling to the old sloppy ways of training." "Advanced?" you say. Thirty years ago the New York Marathon was won by Alberto and Grete, both of whom ran FASTER than this years winners Meb and Derartu. (Alberto beat Meb by four seconds, and Grete would have won by three minutes). Similarly, the times at the Ironman World Championships in Hawaii are remarkably similar to the times posted twenty years ago when aero handlebars were first introduced. The course record set this year by Chrissy Wellington was 17 years old and all but one of Mark Allen's six first place times would have toasted Craig Allexander this year. So the answer to your question? Work on everything all the time. You won't be alone. Many world class athletes still train this way. Sure, they do lower intensity workouts in the Winter; then ramp things up as the racing season starts; but it is not much more complicated than that. Save the rocket science for firing rockets. Training is something completely different.