Why are Athletes so dependent on Coaches?

Weird question

It's hard to be objective about your own training, so it's better to have an objective third party making (or at least helping to make) your training decisions.

For example, every athlete has training that they enjoy and training that they don't enjoy. It's really easy to convince yourself that something you like doing is beneficial. If I really like speed work and really dislike easy mileage, it will be easy for me to convince myself that I'm just a low volume/high intensity runner and that this is the training type that works best for me. If I really like easy running and really hate speed work, I can just as easily convince myself that it's okay for me to neglect track work because high mileage works for me. A coach can ideally prescribe training that isn't biased by individual preference.

Also, athletes will only be at their peak for a brief period of time. The idea of putting together your own unique training plan based on what works best for yourself sounds nice, but how many years of experimentation is this going to take? You could easily be well past your prime (or into a period of your life where you no longer have time to devote to training optimally) by the time you perfect your own program. If I'm a freshman showing up on campus for the first time and I have 4-5 years to try to put it all together, I'd rather rely on the expertise of someone who has been in the sport for decades than start experimenting today with the hope that I'll have it all figured out before I graduate and head out into the working world.

For running, an astute coach can make a difference in someone maximizing their potential. The coach does not have to be around on a daily basis as the runner can do most mileage on their own. A good coach can tailor workouts to enhance the runner's development because it is difficult to assess oneself objectively all the time and can reign someone in before they overdo things, which is common in running. You can look at other runner's training logs but what works for them may not work for you. A second pair of eyes can be quite helpful.

Internetsherlock wrote:

I mean if you really have an unrelenting Love for the sport

LOL this is a little dramatic, dude. Most runners do not claim to have an "unrelenting love for the sport." If you ask a dozen track/XC guys why they run, "I enjoy it and I'm good at it" will be a much more common answer than "I have an unrelenting love for it."

Coaches are partly to blame. There's an idea called "learned dependency" that basically says that when too much support/instruction is given it blunts an athletes ability to navigate their way through a situation.

I made that mistake way too frequently in my early years as a coach. I had all of the details planned and wanted it to be just so. I took away too many decisions for my athletes and made it so they always needed my input to know if they were doing it "right."

One of the other coaches I worked with had a thrower that year that needed to get feedback after every throw because that's what she was used to. She was talented and clearly a superstar on her HS team so she got that attention all the time and never needed to problem solve the situation on her own.

After a few years a caught myself on it and deliberately made some parts of our training open ended. It gave them room to make mistakes, but it also helped them develop a sense of course correction when something wasn't right. There's no doubt that some athletes are better/worse at this than others, but coaches own a big share of the problem if it's a widespread thing on their team.

It probably depends on the level you compete on.

I am pretty sure a coach is essential on the highest level of running.

Probably a lot of people can get away with no coach.

Sorry, just checked on the term and should have been "learned helplessness"