A few interesting posts since I last looked here.
If you look at trends in exercise physiology research over recent decades then you would see a trend towards greater and greater reductionism. It gets to the point where people are looking at things at the genetic and molecular level. While this is interesting there seems to now be a growing movement away from this. This is based largely on the realisation that knowing what happens at the molecular level doesnt really tell us anything about what it is that makes us 'human'. Nowadays there is much more work being performed in the area of integrative physiology, and expecially brain regulation of exercise performance. As somebody interested in sport this makes much more sense to me. Its not the person with the most mitochondria, the highest haematocrit etc etc who necessarily wins a race - its simply the person who covers the required distance fastest. This is the problem with trying to isoltae and train individual physiological variables. Firstly, you dont really know which one is the most important, and then you dont really know exactly the best method of training that variable in isolation. The solution then must be to simply train yourself to be able to run further and faster?
In order to effectively do this, I believe that it is absolutely essential to be able to listen to what your body is telling you. It is clear that emotional states are linked to physiological states, so as well as general physiological sensations of fatigue / soreness athletes need to consider factors such as mood. The problem with this approach is that I suspect many athletes are of the OCD type who are addicted to numbers and schedules etc and find it hard to let go of whatever they have written on a piece of paper weeks or months beforehand.
I am particularly interested in the effect of motivation and goal setting on performance. Although we are all taught that goal setting is essential, I'm beginning to wonder if in many cases it actually acts negatively. It can either be self limiting (in that the athlete is content to achieve a goal that is less than they are physically capable of)or it can be too ambitious meaning that the athlete continually overtrains in the pursuit of something unattainable. I suspect that most athletes would do far better if they set out some kind of simple flexible template incorporating a variety of different (not too extreme) training sessions that they repeat again and again with gradual conservative progression and modifications made when required due to excessive fatigue etc. Race regularly over a variety of distances and aim to enjoy the process taking a 'what will be will be' approach. Of course this can also be easier said than done because if you decide to not 'care' too much about performances for the purpose of improving your performance then this will never work. Its like telling somebody not to think about pink elephants - I can guarantee I know what they are thinking about! therefore I suspect that personality types have an important role to play. Some people probably just do not have a personality conducive to becoming a champion athlete just as others do not have the physiological attributes.
Having read just about every book on the topic of training and spending much of my days ploughing through scientific literature, I honestly have not come across anything more useful than a few interviews with a number of elite athletes. I'd recommend looking at the approaches taken by Jack Foster and Ron Clarke in particular. Although I'd have hated the book 15 years ago when I was younger, more intense, and more agressive about running, I'd also have a look at Joe Hendersons LSD book. In fact, this book was referred to by David Martin of the AIS when discussing why the training performed by the Australian track cycling team had been so successfull when he presented at the European College of Sports Science Conference last year.