Talk to me about being coached....

BenderRodriguez

Imposter wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Looking at those times, what is most amazing is the consistency over the years, with 'modern' times being only a couple of seconds quicker than the norm for the 1960's!

Like I said - unless you know the conditions were identical for each year, you cannot make that assumption.

Why so? If you look at the averages, which are very close over decade to decade, or an even longer time span, the individual year to year variations will cancel each other out.

A quick calculations shows that the average time over the 15 year period between 1961 - 1975 was 1 min 59.8, the time over the last 15 year period, that is 1998 to 2012, was 1 minute 55.8, a 4 second difference or 3.3% over 51 years! Take off the benefit of carbon everything and lycra skinsuits as opposed to steel frames, leather shoes with toe clips and straps, woollen jerseys and shorts and so an and the difference between the riders is negligible, despite the coaching /scientific revolution!

BenderRodriguez

Tom Dean wrote:

The fastest 10's time is 7 seconds faster than the fastest 60's time. That is a lot in a 2 minute race. All the 10's times so far are better than the best 60's time.

I would bet that they were all done on about half the volume of training or less too. Absolute performances are not the only measure of training methods.

I have already pointed out that this might be the case when I said the following:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

It could be argued that the main benefit of 'modern' approaches is that the sort of focused, high-intensity training that is often prescribed these days simply makes the best of the limited time many people have to spare. I.e there is nothing magical about modern methods, above and beyond the simple observation that the less time you have the harder you need to go in order to get an effective training stress.

That said, I also pointed out that the above probably hold the truest for short distance, high intensity events like short time trials, or indeed hill climbs. If your thing is long hilly road races, or even Alpine 'sportives', accumulated miles on the bike will ultimately trump minutes on the turbo, no matter how intense they are. For me actual bike riding is also a lot more enjoyable than sitting on a turbo.

BenderRodriguez

Team4Luke wrote:

While I'm no great fan of power measuring anyone properly training and of a decent level at RR or TT would drop a group club ride for fun whilst riding in a training manner. You don't need any great use of science and tech, just train in a structured methodical way looking at the needs of your own races and resting is training too which people are not confident enough to do.

Who says one cannot have 'fun' whilst also trying to crack your mates every time the road goes upwards?

In my experience road races are often as unstructured an effort as you could find, with lulls, repeated intense efforts, long periods where you are riding along close to your threshold and so forth. So, a hard, if 'unstructured', group training ride would seem to potentially offer an excellent duplication of the 'needs' imposed in a road race!

Tom Dean

Are being coached and going on a hard group training ride mutually exclusive? did I miss something?

ric/rstsport

maryka wrote:

If I were choosing a coach, the one question I'd want answered by the candidates is "how well do your clients do in their 2nd and successive seasons being coached by you?"

It's easy to say "90% of our clients improve by X% in their first season with us" because pretty much anyone going from doing their own training plan to paying for (and thus being committed to and following the plan more seriously) a coach's training plan is going to improve by a decent amount in year 1. It's the seasons after that when the coach's skill becomes important (imo). You could probably pick any coach for your first season being coached, and improve.

At RST Sport we coach a variety of different ability levels. Some of our athletes come to us having not gotten the results they wanted after being coached by their national governing body. We've found those riders an improvement, some then stay with us and continue to increase their performance/power/fitness (although performance increments slow down at some point for every rider and you end up with a diminishing returns issue) and some riders go back to their NGB (this has frequently resulted in those riders returning to their pre RST fitness/performance levels).

Other riders we coach do continue to show improvements in their fitness year on year, although as mentioned gains will slow down for everyone (which i think you understand Maryka). Some people are hamstrung by the amount of time they have to train and without finding more time performance gains can slow down.

At the end of the day i'd think that if we (RST Sport) we're not constantly improving the people we coach they'd just leave. It's not like we force people to stay with us!

I seriously don't think you can randomly choose any coach and expect to improve. We have a variety of people we coach who've come to use from either NGBs or other coaching companies who were getting naff coaching.

Ric

BenderRodriguez

madasahattersley wrote:

I never said riding with others np and enjoying it is a bad thing, just counteracting the claim that you should ride exclusively at low intensities over winter and never use a power meter because they're pointless and don't work. If all you want from cycling is to have fun then fill your boots, but if you want to get your hands in the air then screw your head on and listen to the science, not tradition.

Thing is, a lot of the science says that a 'traditional' polarised approach is the most effective way to maximise your potential, assuming you have the time to get the miles in.

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/endurance-training-large-amounts-of-low-intensity-training-can-develop-base-conditioning-and-aid-recovery-41932

http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.pdf

I would go along with your rejection of the idea that exclusively riding at low intensities all winter is the right thing for every rider to do. I have already mentioned the 'reverse periodisation' approach. I also feel that micro cycles of a couple of weeks of MAF / base training interspersed with higher intensity work, or even weekend MAF interspersed with midweek high intensity work would work well for most people and might well be optimal for some.

Tom Dean

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I also feel that micro cycles of a couple of weeks of MAF / base training interspersed with higher intensity work, or even weekend MAF interspersed with midweek high intensity work would work well for most people and might well be optimal for some.

Very specific advice. I'm not sure you have grasped the point of coaching - the training is meant to be tailored to the individual's requirements. Obviously those requirements will depend on how many hours one has available.

maryka

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

I seriously don't think you can randomly choose any coach and expect to improve. We have a variety of people we coach who've come to use from either NGBs or other coaching companies who were getting naff coaching.

My point was more that the average person doing average training by him/herself is almost certainly guaranteed to improve upon hiring a coach (any coach really) just from being more committed to workouts, having someone to answer to besides him/herself, having a plan to follow, and feeling financially motivated to follow it!

ric/rstsport

my point is that i don't believe that's true. We've had regular (i.e., not on a national squad) cyclists come from other companies who have had frankly cr@p coaching that wasn't targetted to their needs or goals and who left (the other company) because they weren't improving.

i've no doubt that if you're at a low enough fitness level or your training has been absolutely shambolic then anyone can improve you, but i don't think that's the average cyclist.

We've had some riders come to us who were clearly using well defined training ideas and who had obviously studied (not necessarily in a formal manner) coaching or sports science ideas and we've squeezed out extra performance.

Ric

BenderRodriguez

Tom Dean wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I also feel that micro cycles of a couple of weeks of MAF / base training interspersed with higher intensity work, or even weekend MAF interspersed with midweek high intensity work would work well for most people and might well be optimal for some.

Very specific advice. I'm not sure you have grasped the point of coaching - the training is meant to be tailored to the individual's requirements. Obviously those requirements will depend on how many hours one has available.

Eh? Those were just just two suggestions (alongside the option of building a 'traditional' winter base and reverse periodisation) as to how a rider might include 'MAF' training in their programme!

Of course what an individual will choose to do will be dependent on their goals, the time they have available, what they have found worked in the past, whether they need to try something different because they need a psychological change or their performance has plateaued, and so forth. I have also said a number of times in this very thread that if you have limited time, then you will probably get more from focusing on higher intensity work.

BenderRodriguez

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

We've had regular (i.e., not on a national squad) cyclists come from other companies who have had frankly cr@p coaching that wasn't targetted to their needs or goals and who left (the other company) because they weren't improving.

...We've had some riders come to us who were clearly using well defined training ideas and who had obviously studied (not necessarily in a formal manner) coaching or sports science ideas and we've squeezed out extra performance.

Hi Ric, you do a good job of selling your services.

You also clearly take a lot of trouble to monitor the progress of your clients, so could you clarify a few points to support what you have said?

What sort of typical percentage gains would you expect to see from one of your clients who had already been racing for a few years before joining you?

Is there a lot of differences in the size of the gains made by those who go for your 'bottom of the range' £100 a month service, and those who pay for your 'top of the range' £500 a month service?

Of your current client base, what percentage has been with you more than one year? Two years?

ric/rstsport

give it a rest Trev

napoleond

Sweet jeez. Every. Single. Training. Thread.... Ruined.

ric/rstsport

NapoleonD wrote:

Sweet jeez. Every. Single. Training. Thread.... Ruined.

he ruins it here and everywhere else he pops up. however, Trev quite often asks interesting questions, if he was less antagonistic and somewhat more 'normal' the discourse would be great. i wonder if Trev is like this in person?

Come on Trev, feel the love, be more gentle with us all (but still keep asking probing questions).

BenderRodriguez

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

give it a rest Trev

To repeat, I am not this 'Trev' you speak of...

If you don't wish to answer my questions, fair enough. I am sure that you have your reasons.

ric/rstsport

LMAO.

matt-h

NapoleonD wrote:

Sweet jeez. Every. Single. Training. Thread.... Ruined.

i was thinking the same thing.
Shame as i end up just scan reading in the end :roll:

Matt

BenderRodriguez

matt-h wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Sweet jeez. Every. Single. Training. Thread.... Ruined.

i was thinking the same thing.
Shame as i end up just scan reading in the end :roll:

Matt

Ruined?

I have tried to contribute to this thread in a constructive manner and after reading some of Ric's sales pitch simply asked him to further support what he was claiming with some figures. I am sure, had he chosen to answer, prospective clients would have found it useful to know just how much they might expect to improve under his guidance. Doing this 'ruins' a thread?

Anyhow, who is this 'Trev' people keep referring to and why does RS seem to have an issue with him?

napoleond

Because 'Trev' trolls and talks utter b0ll0cks. And keeps coming back under different names. And his posts sound very similar to yours.

ric/rstsport

so much so that the content is often exactly the same... trev mustn't be able to keep up with what he posts under his various names!

Tom Dean

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I also feel that micro cycles of a couple of weeks of MAF / base training interspersed with higher intensity work, or even weekend MAF interspersed with midweek high intensity work would work well for most people and might well be optimal for some.

Very specific advice. I'm not sure you have grasped the point of coaching - the training is meant to be tailored to the individual's requirements. Obviously those requirements will depend on how many hours one has available.

Eh? Those were just just two suggestions (alongside the option of building a 'traditional' winter base and reverse periodisation) as to how a rider might include 'MAF' training in their programme!

you are missing the point. The OP asked about coaching in general, not for specific training suggestions.

maryka

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Ruined?

I have tried to contribute to this thread in a constructive manner and after reading some of Ric's sales pitch simply asked him to further support what he was claiming with some figures. I am sure, had he chosen to answer, prospective clients would have found it useful to know just how much they might expect to improve under his guidance. Doing this 'ruins' a thread?

Anyhow, who is this 'Trev' people keep referring to and why does RS seem to have an issue with him?

Agree with what you said about Ric (I've posted myself about it before) but you seem to take the approach that writing reams and reams of stuff on every thread in the forum is the best way to get people to listen to you -- frankly I've tuned you out. Be more concise, keep it to the topic, post some links to support what you say, and post less often and not on every thread multiple times in a day and maybe people won't be so inclined to take issue with you.

ric/rstsport

maryka wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Ruined?

I have tried to contribute to this thread in a constructive manner and after reading some of Ric's sales pitch simply asked him to further support what he was claiming with some figures. I am sure, had he chosen to answer, prospective clients would have found it useful to know just how much they might expect to improve under his guidance. Doing this 'ruins' a thread?

Anyhow, who is this 'Trev' people keep referring to and why does RS seem to have an issue with him?

Agree with what you said about Ric (I've posted myself about it before) but you seem to take the approach that writing reams and reams of stuff on every thread in the forum is the best way to get people to listen to you -- frankly I've tuned you out. Be more concise, keep it to the topic, post some links to support what you say, and post less often and not on every thread multiple times in a day and maybe people won't be so inclined to take issue with you.

maryka you're speaking to trev with multiple login names...

BenderRodriguez

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

maryka you're speaking to trev with multiple login names...

Tell you what Mr Stern, as far as I am aware having multiple log-ons is not allowed on here. So please, contact the administrator of this section and get them to look up the IP address for me and for this 'Trev' character. I would bet we are not even in the same country. Please report back when you have done this...

Anyhow, do you really believe that the way you come across on here, and other forums, encourages potential clients to engage your services? You seem to be pretty good at promoting your business, and 'bigging up' your expertise by putting down what other posters say, but the content of your replies often lacks any real insights or revelations. I know your business revolves about getting people to pay for your words of wisdom, but been just a little more constructive in your postings, a little more informative about your approach and a little more 'professional' (for example, by refraining from dismissing what others say out of hand and without explanation as being 'drivel', 'utter b0ll0cks' and so forth) might well win you more clients!

napoleond

Christ, even the phrasing is the same.

BenderRodriguez

NapoleonD wrote:

Christ, even the phrasing is the same.

Why don't you get on to the admins to check out those IP's as well? Don't forget to report back with what they say!

waterford123

Is anyone else giggling because someone's called themselves Bender?

BenderRodriguez

waterford123 wrote:

Is anyone else giggling because someone's called themselves Bender?

Bite my shiny metal ass...

napoleond

BenderRodriguez wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Christ, even the phrasing is the same.

Why don't you get on to the admins to check out those IP's as well? Don't forget to report back with what they say!

CBA. On to my ignore list.

twotyred

You sure he's Trev? I thought Bender was Bahzob's sock puppet.