How much difference does a coach make???

Mr cyclist

I've read a lot on here and elsewhere about coaching and coaches. But how much of a difference does a coach make, or is their input just common sense? Are the online coaches who work for large coaching businesses as effective as local coaches who work for themselves? If anyone could shed some light on this matter it would be much appreciated.

estampida

its harder to say no to a coach

and can give you a telling off rather than you beating yourself up over a mistake

and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m3ZkJTX1qY

nickwill

I've been doing admin for http://www.mercuryperformancecoaching.com/ since June. I've been a regular sportive rider for several years and I'm usually happy to finish in the top 20-25% of the field (I know it's not a race!) As part of the package I have been coached and tested . Firstly I discovered that my heart rate training zones were way off even though based on a correct maximum heart rate and using the British Cycling formula. My initial test showed an aerobic base of 146 and threshold at 161. The first step was to get me training in the correct zones and to train at a lower but more consistent level in order to train my body to burn fat. After 6 weeks I was retested. I had lost 5 lbs in weight , my aerobic base had risen to 151 and my threshold had increased massively to 176. A few days later I completed the Ride with Brad sportive. I finished the 100 miles and 3000m of climbing in just over 6 hours 30 minutes which put me into the top 10% of finishers. I finished within 5 minutes of a friend who usually takes a good 40 minutes out of me on this type of route. I'm in the form of my life and am now contemplating taking big chunks of mty best time on the Fred Whitton next year. I have a road map of what I should be capable of if I stick to the plan.
It has been incredibly motivating. My cycling was stuck in a rut but even though I'm 55 I see a clear way towards continuing to improve.

SBezza

There is no way of telling for each individual I would say. If you are happy to follow a training plan then I think you can make great progress, if you struggle with motivation to train when you are not really feeling up to and the fact of a coach gives you that extra motivation to actually train, then again I think you would benefit from a coach.

There are many reasons for getting a coach, they can help with training obviously and they can tailor a training plan to your specific goals, but they can also be a sounding board for ideas, and problems. They can help when motivation takes a dip, they can give you the benefit of their cycling experience as well as many other things.

The main point is finding someone you gel with and can work with, it just isn't the case of getting a monthly/three monthly plan and just sticking with it no matter what, you need to be able to advise the coach of problems, changes in circumstances, changes in target events, you need a coach that will adapt as the relationship grows etc.

I have a wonderful coach that has helped me improve emmensly, but it is hard to quantify by how much, unless I could turn the clock around and do it all again self coached I will never know 100%, but I do believe I would be worse off as a cyclist without a coach. But as I mentioned above it is not just the training plan, there have been other benefits to me.

One other thing is not everyone will benefit from a coach, you might hate the idea of being advised to do certain sessions, and that might kill your enjoyment of cycling and hence you would be worse off with a coach.

Herbsman

It can be a less stressful experience than driving especially if you can sleep through the journey

ut_och_cykla

Coach can /should make a big differnce if it works on a personal level and they take your feedback seriously. I had one that sadly didn't really take me seriously. He worked out my training zones by percent and ignored the lactate tests I'd done here in Sweden. Had me working on my cadence all winter...upshot was I had 45 minutes left to the stop time when I completed the quebrantoheusos (200km3000m) after 11 hours 15 minutes of pure hell and just 15 mins of stops. So choose carefully :-)

dawebbo

Herbsman wrote:

It can be a less stressful experience than driving especially if you can sleep through the journey

Fully agree. For longer journeys it is much faster to go by coach than to cycle.

sagalout

Nickwill wrote:

My initial test showed an aerobic base of 146 and threshold at 161. The first step was to get me training in the correct zones and to train at a lower but more consistent level in order to train my body to burn fat. After 6 weeks I was retested. I had lost 5 lbs in weight , my aerobic base had risen to 151 and my threshold had increased massively to 176.

hhmm, I'm not sure that makes any sense at all?

Surely your HR zones remain constant, give or take a few beats for aging etc....its the power you can output at those zones that you're trying to improve?

jgsi

sagalout wrote:

Nickwill wrote:

My initial test showed an aerobic base of 146 and threshold at 161. The first step was to get me training in the correct zones and to train at a lower but more consistent level in order to train my body to burn fat. After 6 weeks I was retested. I had lost 5 lbs in weight , my aerobic base had risen to 151 and my threshold had increased massively to 176.

hhmm, I'm not sure that makes any sense at all?

Surely your HR zones remain constant, give or take a few beats for aging etc....its the power you can output at those zones that you're trying to improve?

I am with you there, sounds odd to me as well... (didnt want to be the 1st to say it though )
What it says to me is:
I is producing the same amount of ooomph as I was but I am having to make my heart beat faster.

I am sure your freebie coaching was all in order but did they not use 'power' in your testing protocols?

nickwill

The heart rate zones at which you are most efficient change with training. Your aerobic base is the maximum sustainable level at which you burn fat as the dominant fuel. Your anaerobic threshold is the maximum sustainable exercise intensity. These can be measured in both heart rate and power. As you get fitter the numbers go up. The ultimate objective (as I understand it) is to move your aerobic base closer to your anaerobic threshold. In simple terms this means that you are working more efficiently and can sustain a given power output more easily and for longer. So, yes, it does make sense. I rode a regular hilly route yesterday which I hadn't been near for a few weeks. My average speed had increased from a previous best average speed of 17.8 to 18.8 mph. This was nearly 5 minutes faster over the 28 mile route. I had bust a gut to record the previous PB.

nickwill

JGSI wrote:

sagalout wrote:

Nickwill wrote:

My initial test showed an aerobic base of 146 and threshold at 161. The first step was to get me training in the correct zones and to train at a lower but more consistent level in order to train my body to burn fat. After 6 weeks I was retested. I had lost 5 lbs in weight , my aerobic base had risen to 151 and my threshold had increased massively to 176.

hhmm, I'm not sure that makes any sense at all?

Surely your HR zones remain constant, give or take a few beats for aging etc....its the power you can output at those zones that you're trying to improve?

I am with you there, sounds odd to me as well... (didnt want to be the 1st to say it though )
What it says to me is:
I is producing the same amount of ooomph as I was but I am having to make my heart beat faster.

I am sure your freebie coaching was all in order but did they not use 'power' in your testing protocols?

Yes they use power. Unfortunately I don't have a power meter on my bike so have to use the heart rate equivalent. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly, but the end result is that I'm not dipping into glycogen reserves as early. I'm going faster and I'm actually doing this at a lower heart rate. When necessary I'm able to sustain a higher heart rate for longer while going up hills considerably more quickly. Because the AB and threshold have risen, it doesn't mean my heart rate is higher, it means that I'm more efficient at a given heart rate.

mike101

I'm about 6 weeks into having a Coach. Definite progression in my own cycling during that short period. The relationship between you and the coach is key as others have pointed out.

ric/rstsport

Mr cyclist wrote:

I've read a lot on here and elsewhere about coaching and coaches. But how much of a difference does a coach make, or is their input just common sense? Are the online coaches who work for large coaching businesses as effective as local coaches who work for themselves? If anyone could shed some light on this matter it would be much appreciated.

Coaching, in general makes a difference to most people. Be it cycle coaching, or singing coaching, or whatever. I don't think it's possible to quantify exactly what difference a coach would make. However, as senior coach at RST Sport we tend to see improvements with most people. And people tend to stay with us for relatively long periods of time suggesting that they see value in the coaching as well.

However, not all coaches are 'equal'. there are good coaches, bad coaches and average coaches (as there are in any profession). Additionally, as coaching is time intensive and you're probably going to communicate with your coach for long periods it's important that as well as selecting a good coach, you select a coach you can gel with (and vice versa - that is the coach has to feel happy with you).

Coaches can also play different roles - that is, one coach may offer one service while another coach may offer a different service. For e.g., you could find a coach that perhaps is willing to ring you up every day at 7am to check you're up and ready to go training. Perhaps, that is what you're after? Or perhaps you want someone that will write a complex training plan for you? Or someone who can teach you the skills of cornering at high speed. Some (definitely not all) coaches cover a variety of roles.

It's unlikely that a coaches role is 'just' common sense. There are many nuanced aspects of coaching, that go beyond common sense. Additionally, there are many skilled aspects to coaching, helping athletes to improve their performance. Some coaches work better with 'regular' cyclists while others work better with elite. You shouldn't make the presumption that an excellent coach who works well with elites would work well with a newbie.

If you're serious about coaching, but unsure exactly what you want, then perhaps write down a list of things you're looking for. Find a few coaches and give them a call or email. see how you get on with them.

We'd be delighted to talk with you, if you don't like me ;-) we have a few other available coaches! As regards the local issue it maybe that someone who works for a larger company can offer more services. For e.g. there's certain things i'm not good at, so the other coaches at RST Sport covers those aspects. A one man business wouldn't be able to do that. Being online allows us to effectively service people all over the world. I've coached masters riders in the USA, an elite world champion in Australia, and a local rider on building his confidence at how to corner at speed.

Give me a shout!
Ric

Alex_Simmons/RST

It's pretty common that coaches, who are still actively competitive, have coaches themselves.

I've coached quite a few coaches, and have had coaches myself, with Ric himself coaching me for many years from local level, through serious injury, to riding at World Cup level. My performance was always better with a coach.

It's multifactoral. For me, the issue was partly about removing the need to think too hard about my own training, and to focus instead on the execution, freeing up mental space for organising life so that could happen.

Herbsman

.... <removed>