Another Great Tom "Tinman" Schwartz Podcast

Andrew Coggan wrote:

Logically, if you repeatedly subject a cell to increased demand for ATP, it should adapt to meet that increased demand.

That is, in fact, what happens not only in muscle fibers, but in, e.g., neurons.

In the case of muscle fibers, there may be up to a doubling of mitochondrial respiratory capacity with endurance training, such that the ability of type II fibers* to produce ATP aerobically can approach that of even endurance-trained type I fibers.

(*I won't differentiate between "intermediate" (i.e., type IIa) and "fast" fast-twitch (i.e., type IIx) fibers here, as endurance-trained individuals have very few IIx fibers, as they have all been converted to type IIa.)

As I stated previously, in terms of endurance exercise performance this is the single most important biochemical adaptation to training, as it has a large impact upon substrate selection/rate of carbohydrate depletion. That is true even individuals who do not differ in terms of overall aerobic capacity, i.e., VO2max:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1474063

Tinman wrote:

My first point about talent is simple: it's overrated as the reason for success of top-tier performers in any endeavor. Top athletes, just like top-tier performers in music, academics, professions, or being parents or spouses, are very dedicated and disciplined; they work a lot and don't rely on talent alone!

The average Joe or Jane thinks elite runners are just lucky; they got all the genetic gifts. But, the truth is, genetics is just one portion of the equation. Just as important is a combination of high level of sustained work (often over many years), opportunities, and instruction/coaching. The work must be productive. It's not enough to just train hard. One has to train smart on a regular basis. Sometimes that means the slowing down the rate of progress is necessary, so the final result down the road is higher. Rapid results too often end in disaster, experience shows.

Athletes must put their feet to the fire... they need to compete against the best, struggle, and learn. The school of hard knocks (competitions) teaches people that everyone at the highest level is fit and determined to succeed. There are no slackers! Strategies and tactics matter a lot, and one must be fully committed to using them when the pressure is high.

I look at Matt Centrowitz as a great example of someone who employed a specific strategy -> get to the front with 400m to go in the final of the 1500m in the Olympic Games and run full out. *If you are in front in a slow paced, tactical, race; you're gonna medal. If you lag at the back in a slow paced race and have to pass on the outside of runners; that means you're essentially gonna have to be a full second faster than them on the last lap to beat them. Which is better? Be in front and gun it and hold on or be at the back and have to run much faster than everyone else the last lap to medal?

The following is about my goals and and delivery.

First, my goal has been to make it possible for more runners to succeed at the highest levels. I love the sport and want more young athletes to grow up and stay involved in it. When they succeed, they stay in the sport. If they get injured often and don't see continued progress; they bail on the sport. In my view, if we have training methods that are patient - i.e. not overloading athletes to get rapid results - it's more likely they will continue to make progress over the years and enjoy the sport at higher levels - than burn out. I'm not convinced we should accept the methods of the past as the final say on how to train athletes. Either we believe that all knowledge has been acquired or we seek to learn more. Other sports evolve over time; they find better better ways to train athletes. Why not our sport too?

I'm a big supporter of the legendary coaches of the past - Lydiard, Bowerman, Groves, Dellinger, Bell, Cerutty, Wilson, Stampfl, Igloi, Vigils, Daniels and many more. I don't believe any of them would stop refining their methods as long as they had a breath in their bodies. Each probably strove initially to improve for at least two reasons: help their athletes reach higher levels of success and enjoy personal growth for themselves: the challenge of getting better at one's passion. I think many of the greats started with the first two goals, but eventually they moved to a third (perhaps more important) goal: helping the running community learn better methods of training and competing. They spread the word about their ideas regarding training in lectures or books. I'm trying to follow their lead and do my part to help the sport grow.

Second, depending upon where you grew up, how you communicate ideas varies. Regional differences matter. In the South, a certain way of speaking is different than it is in the North. The coasts have completely different ways of speaking.

Where I grew up in the upper Midwest, directness was the norm. If you disagreed on a topic, you said so. You explained your point of view about a topic purely based on logic, external evidence, and experience. It was not considered impolite to be direct as long as it wasn't personal. I've stepped over the line, just as others have, and regret it. Passion sometimes gets in the way of being polished, and one cannot read the minds of others well.

I learned when I moved to the West that people out here are far less direct vs where I grew up. They consider it confrontational to boldly say anything is true. It's more important to talk about other people, generalize, and be soft in one's tone. I once went to NYC and found that my way of speaking was in fact quite tame. People in Brooklyn, for example, told me straight up that they thought my choice of food was dumb, and my choice of beer was not good. I thought I was direct, but wow they hold nothing back!

My point is, just because I say that I think a certain method of training works better than another; that doesn't mean you can't say what you believe to be better and argue for it. I tend to be a logical guy and speak from an evidence point of view. That's my way. But, I fully admit that I could be far more polished in how I present information. Remember, I'm not trying to dismiss anyone on purpose. I do so because it's hard to know how to always speak perfectly. I say what I think is true because that's what I learned growing up. You can say what you believe and argue for it, and I will do the same and we'll be friends because it's not personal. We are both passionate about the sport.

Third, I think it's a good goal to send athletes to the US Olympic Trials and have them perform well. To say that I must coach Olympic goal medalist to be a credible coach is simply absurd. That's like saying our high school coaches in America are lame because they don't coach Olympic medalists. That's like saying someone is a lousy college coach because their team hasn't won that national championship. Really?

As coaches, we serve our athletes by helping them to move up the ladder of their potential. If they have not qualified for the US Olympic Trials before; helping them reach that goal is both realistic and honorable. Once they reach that level of success; we can talk about getting them to the Olympic Games or to the finals of their event; if there is a qualifying round. Incremental improvement is a prudent goal. And, just because an athletes doesn't win a medal in the Olympic doesn't mean he or she is a failure; nor the coach. It's insanely difficult to make to that level; let's be real. Let's honor the effort and work people put in to get better.

Enjoy your day!

Coach T