
If you have not seen the Horizon documentary on exercise I recommend it. While generally promoting the virtue of exercise and activity they specifically asked the question “can three minutes of exercise per week make you fit?”. The presenter was subjected to a 4 week program of training (a 10min session including 3x20sec max effort 3 times per week) that was know to increase VO2 max in around 50% of ordinary people.
To the presenters dismay he fell right at the bottom of the “non-responders” group and showed no improvement at at all in VO2max for his effort. In search of a glimmer of hope, he looked up and was met by the smug grin of the scientist who had secretly predicated the result from a genetic test he did 4 weeks earlier. I was left praying this scientist would never turn to coaching.
I believe athletes deserve options, alternatives and plan B’s when plan A’s fail. A coach who uses only one training model will fail to achieve results in a high proportion of athletes. The way individuals respond to training in terms of duration and intensity can vary enormously meaning an optimal training plan can not be picked off the peg or fitted to a strict calendar but needs to evolve with and adapt to the athlete (not the other way round).
Now don’t get me wrong I’m going all Anders Ericsson 10,000 hours on you. We all have limits and many of these are influenced if not limited by our genetics. The woefully genetically ungifted are however unlikely to get so far as searching for a triathlon coach so I am confident that everyone I work with has some talent in that respect.
A mistake that is commonly made is believing there is one ideal training model, an optimal that we can all apply. Often we look to the best, maybe should all train like pro cyclists? We should do lots of distance, 1000s of kilometers of riding every week. Unfortunately pro cyclists are a rather uniformly talented, ultra high responding group of genetically talented individuals who are unfortunately frequently doping. Well I can tell you now I will not base my own or anyone else’s training on them.
The truth is there is no single ideal model. You may find you respond best to different patterns of low and high intensity, a generalised program working a range of intensities, you may want to go for a classical periodised approach or an ironman type periodisation.
There are very few studies that describe how this might work in real life but there are some. Gaskill et al followed 14 cross country skiers over two years (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10449026). In the first year they all performed 16% of training at high intensity (>lactate threshold) averaging 12-13 hours per week. After a year 7 had responded well while 7 had not responded. During the second year the responders continued with the same regimen while the non responders undertook a program with less hours but with an increased proportion of intensity at 35%. By the end of the second year all 14 were showing significant improvements.
This provides an documented example of how different athletes respond to different training. The more we begin to understand this the better we will be able to predict who will response best to what training. Until we can do this by taking a blood sample and doing a genetic analysis however you will have to be open to learning and trying new things.








