"The broader the base, the higher the peak" was the mantra of the late 90s which had us [triathletes] doing mega miles in the pursuit of victory. What is the current evidence suggesting in regard to improving endurance performance?
I had the good fortune of being asked this question recently. It's a good one. Challenging, yet good!
My initial response was that any question premised with a statement [of proposed fact] is one of perspective. For example, one's perspective on "current evidence" is necessarily biassed by the perceptions of, attributions to, and experience/s with the "broader...higher" paradigm and, of course, what you consider "current" and "evidence" to mean.
In other words, it's a question of individual context: history, habits, and hope (goals).
It's multi-layered too.
The First Layer: Victory...
People start triathlons (anything, really) for different reasons. And, the reasons they continue (or comeback to) the sport are rarely the same. People do triathlons for any (combination) of: podium (first-third), performance (getting better, improving), prestige, participation, and pride.
In this sense, you have racers - those who risk coming 1st at the expense of coming 12th; competitors - those who seek to improve or get better, the PB or PR seekers; the participants - those involved for the social aspect; and, bucket-listers - the one-offers, the tick-that-box-ers.
Of course, interdependent, the racers aim to get to the finish-line first; the competitors aim to get to the finish-line fast; the participants aim to get to the finish-line among friends and family; bucket-listers aim to simply get to the finish-line (before cut-off). In each instance, you need to get to the start-line. I'll get back to this.
In this light, victory means different things to different people. Etymology wise, "victory" comes from the Latin 'victoria' meaning supremacy in battle or a physical contest. Interestingly, Nike - the Greek goddess of victory (yes, what the shoe & apparel company are named after) - comes from 'neikos' or 'neiken' meaning "to quarrel with".
Each race or physical contest is a quarrel, a battle - whether against, with, or beside others; the elements,;a given course; a time or cut-off; and, yourself. Getting to the finish-line, then, is a victory of sorts!
In this light, victory means different things to different people. Etymology wise, "victory" comes from the Latin 'victoria' meaning supremacy in battle or a physical contest. Interestingly, Nike - the Greek goddess of victory (yes, what the shoe & apparel company are named after) - comes from 'neikos' or 'neiken' meaning "to quarrel with".
Each race or physical contest is a quarrel, a battle - whether against, with, or beside others; the elements,;a given course; a time or cut-off; and, yourself. Getting to the finish-line, then, is a victory of sorts!
Now, getting to the start-line. This is where there is much opinion and, at times, decent debate. And ego!
The Second Layer: Getting to the Start Line...
And, the essence of the original question.
In a general sense there is activity-for-wellness, exercise-for-health, working-out-for-fitness, and training-for-performance. There are different guidelines and recommendations for each. Over the last 8-10 years the boundaries among (not between, as movement is the essence of each) have become blurred.
25-30 years ago, 80% of people who begun triathlons were (ex-)runners. That is, they had a running and endurance background. 80% of those who begin triathlons today are likely to have no background in either.
This partly explains why tri-run times haven't really improved relative to swim and bike times.
It also explains why many injuries are usually overall-load and run (load) related.
More importantly, and this gets to one of the key ingredients about the "broader base - bigger peak" paradigm question...
If you have no endurance (or general athletic or run-based) background when you start-out, no matter - or, in some cases, in spite of - what you do you will get better for your first year or two. You can even improve from race-to-race without getting 'fitter'...you learn things! You learn that effort is okay and won't kill you, you learn to pace (so-to-speak), you learn to change gears, you learn not to sprint out of T2 etc.
You also learn habits: some positive, some not so, and some become barriers to your future development. I like people and athletes who are serious about getting better - improving, or becoming victorious - about habits-of-movement (skill, economy & efficiency), general-training-habits (culture of the sport) and habits-of-training (their individual habits), and habits-of-mind (how and what they think about moving, training, recovery, lifestyle, performance, and improvement). A strength can easily become a weakness!
If you start from a place of not-much-really, no matter what you do (as mentioned), you'll essentially get better or improve regardless of how you measure, assess and evaluate it. It becomes easy to think "if-some-is-good-more-is/must-be-better!" In other words, you establish a habit-of-mind, "if I do more and/or faster, I'll get better".
This is a true, to a point. And, a large part of that point is - you guessed it - who you are, what your background is, where you are now, and what your goal(s) and time-frame(s) are. This individual athletic journey is discussion for another time & place.
How does this relate to "getting to the starting line"?
Those guidelines for exercise-for-health, working-out-for-fitness and training-for fitness are blurred here. True training-for-performance approaches wouldn't allow the "if-some-is-good-more-is-better" dogma to rear its ugly head. It encourages a quantity rather than quality approach. Working-out-for-fitness, underlies too much of what many do.
The Second Layer: Getting to the Start Line...
And, the essence of the original question.
In a general sense there is activity-for-wellness, exercise-for-health, working-out-for-fitness, and training-for-performance. There are different guidelines and recommendations for each. Over the last 8-10 years the boundaries among (not between, as movement is the essence of each) have become blurred.
25-30 years ago, 80% of people who begun triathlons were (ex-)runners. That is, they had a running and endurance background. 80% of those who begin triathlons today are likely to have no background in either.
This partly explains why tri-run times haven't really improved relative to swim and bike times.
It also explains why many injuries are usually overall-load and run (load) related.
More importantly, and this gets to one of the key ingredients about the "broader base - bigger peak" paradigm question...
If you have no endurance (or general athletic or run-based) background when you start-out, no matter - or, in some cases, in spite of - what you do you will get better for your first year or two. You can even improve from race-to-race without getting 'fitter'...you learn things! You learn that effort is okay and won't kill you, you learn to pace (so-to-speak), you learn to change gears, you learn not to sprint out of T2 etc.
You also learn habits: some positive, some not so, and some become barriers to your future development. I like people and athletes who are serious about getting better - improving, or becoming victorious - about habits-of-movement (skill, economy & efficiency), general-training-habits (culture of the sport) and habits-of-training (their individual habits), and habits-of-mind (how and what they think about moving, training, recovery, lifestyle, performance, and improvement). A strength can easily become a weakness!
If you start from a place of not-much-really, no matter what you do (as mentioned), you'll essentially get better or improve regardless of how you measure, assess and evaluate it. It becomes easy to think "if-some-is-good-more-is/must-be-better!" In other words, you establish a habit-of-mind, "if I do more and/or faster, I'll get better".
This is a true, to a point. And, a large part of that point is - you guessed it - who you are, what your background is, where you are now, and what your goal(s) and time-frame(s) are. This individual athletic journey is discussion for another time & place.
How does this relate to "getting to the starting line"?
Those guidelines for exercise-for-health, working-out-for-fitness and training-for fitness are blurred here. True training-for-performance approaches wouldn't allow the "if-some-is-good-more-is-better" dogma to rear its ugly head. It encourages a quantity rather than quality approach. Working-out-for-fitness, underlies too much of what many do.
General fitness has become synonymous with performance; a plan synonymous with a program; a program synonymous with a prescription. People who instruct or train others like this aren't necessarily coaches.
Layer Three: The broader the base, the higher the peak...
This layer is deeper than it's appearance.
Firstly, "the broader" part. When this paradigm is mentioned it's usually stated and intended as "the bigger the base, the higher the peak". From this, many interpret that the more "base" you do the better your performance will be(come).
The term "base" is misunderstood and often poorly used. The term/word, in relation to preparation for athletic/sporting performance likely developed through the translation of Russian terminology (eg. Matveyev c1977 p.255) that, in English, was printed as "base", from "average". Matveyev's descriptions and applications to "base [average] training" are not what has been popularised, promoted and marketed, and consumed as "base training/phase" since the 1980s. Here's a good example of popular-culture stemming from capitalism and consumerism.
**Matveyey refers to "base" mesocycles (sometimes 2, usually 3-6 week blocks) of smaller microcycles with a particular emphasis. The "base" or "average" mesocycle may be repeated many times (albeit it with different microcycle structures) throughout the year/annual plan*.
Matveyev refers to "basic" training (p.289) in the multi-year process of athletes development as the first 4-6 years. Harre 1982 pp.84-85 used the term "basic mesocycles"**
"Base training", "base phase", and "base endurance", and their associated interpretations and application (I should probably say 'dumbing down' and 'sales strategies') are unfortunate lexicon for the masses. For the most part, they've been and continue to be reinforced as easy, low intensity, high volume training as the sole focus. The approaches of classic coaches - Lydiard, Cerutty and others - have been debated in this light. Many aspects of the debates are pointless as 'the sole emphasis' has been misinterpreted from 'a priority or focus' for a period of time/over time for different individuals.
This was neither Matveyev's original intention, nor application. (Matveyev c1977 p.265-288). It was simply due to translation, and popularism.
In addition, much that went on during 70s research (eg. VO2max) and
the popularisation of running (early 80s boom) that lead a - pardon the pun - foundation or basis for this. Triathlon, as a mass-participation sport, and one that affords many individuals success (or victory) at different levels in still steeped in much of this culture: history, beliefs, values and behaviours .
Broader. The "broader the base the higher peak" was originally applied (and adopted) in two senses. The first, in relation to the number of people that got involved at the entry level of the sport. The concept was, the more we can get involved the more likely the cream will rise to the top. This is still evident in sports today ... in how different sports compete to:
* get kids involved (attention and participation strategies)
* keep adolescents engaged (retention strategies)
* develop juniors to seniors (development strategies)
* (performance strategies for) international success.
Young-age sports such as swimming and gymnastics vary, yet are similar in principle.
All that said, of course, there is (varied and debated) 'evidence' that (a) it takes at least 6-8 years (or 10,000 hours) of training practise to develop high level performance; (b) for high-level performance there is positive correlation between (accumulated) training volume and success, particularly in endurance sports; (c) as mentioned, as a beginner/novice, some is oft better than none, and more is better to a point. Obviously, various genetic and environmental constraints aren't ignored here.
The second, and closer to classic applications of Matveyev and others, refers to athletic development principles associated with Long Term Athletic Development: the broader your skill, aptitude, capacity (speed, strength, mobility, general) and body awareness the more likely you will be successful over time - with the appropriate development, support and performance strategies and networks. In this light, 'the better the base, the higher the (likely) peak".
Better referring to better movement, better skill, better speed, better strength, better awareness, better capacity, better habits, and better tactics - many of which are often best augmented at early ages, or early in an "athlete's" development.
Yet, prevailing triathlon mass-participation highlights "more is better". The Ironman attraction has reinforced this.
Much in today's world of (youth) sports preparation is counter to this, possibly summarised best through:
(i) early sports specialisation,
(ii) early intensification (absolute, and volume of)
(iii) eroded quality school gymnastic, aquatic and PE programs,
(iv) reduced daily activity and exercise types and levels,
(v) heavier, fatter, less resilient, less fit kids,
(vi) far more sitting,
(vii) poor dietary strategies, and
(viii) sales (quick fix, guru) rather than strategic approaches
In effect: better is better, not more is better.
Broader isn't the same as more or greater
And, base (endurance training) isn't the same as ' basic' training.
Layer Four: Current Evidence...
Evidence comes in various shapes and forms, and the importance you, or I give it, will depend upon your background, bias, understanding, and in one sense, desire to grab and use something tangible. Evidence can come from research (Evidence-Based Research, EBR), trial-and-error, experience as experiential knowledge, bias, myth, habit, popularity and popularism and heresay to mention a few. Regardless, understanding and applying evidence in context - coaching, athletic development and improvement - are most important.
Through the 2000s,
with the momentum of growth of EBP from
EPR, EBR has become the dominant source of
information for practice (principles behind practise) and practise/training in terms of athlete training, recovery and
preparation; ‘functional’ strength, power and endurance
capacity development; and muscle strain and tendon injury rehabilitation to mention a few.
That said:
* research recommendations (evidence) often stems from the sterilisation, observation, measurement and evaluation of practise. Practise (doing) is first & foremost
Rubin & Parrish (2007) highlighted…70% of evidenced-based research studies were found to have conclusions unjustified by their research findings
Currency is a time and timing construct. Research-based evidence can easily be 2-4 years old before it is published. Is there then a point or relevance to it? Yes, there can be. Practitioners and coaches work in the here-and-now. Does that justify doing what you like, think, or have always done? No! Yet, that experiential day-to-day (very recent) and accumulated (experience) knowledge is important. Finding a balance between recency, currency and experience is key.
Layer Five: Endurance Performance Development...
In my opinion, (re-emerging) current evidence as a basis for EPD include:
1) deep individualisation, N=1 - using the following:
2) back to emphasis on better basics: better movement/skill, speed, and strength as foundation for longer term endurance performance development
3) development of economical and efficient movers in endurance sports (better skill)
4) periodisation as a process: not a plan, program or prescription
5) greater auto-regulation at a day-to-day and week-to-week level
6) continuing use and development of hardware and software to plan, monitor and evaluate
7) intelligent and disciplined intensity of training load (volume of 'specific/relative' intense training, not absolute intensity itself)
8) improved training dynamics: understanding and application of acute 'load' changes in relation to accumulated chronic load in relation to performance development, ill-health and injury risk
9) greater popularity and access to the principles of polarised training (eg. Seiller, Fitzgerald)
10) ecological and sustainability principles applied to person as athlete in longer term development
As a whole, a move away from deconstructionist physiology (VO2, HR etc) toward a more holistic approach to performance enhancement (egs. central governor elements, genetics, and musculoskeletal and tendon integrity, pyscho-social environment).
In summary...
What was or may have been standard practise for some in the 90s wouldn't have been for others, yet still remains for some today. The bigger the base, the higher the peak has a number of angles. Ultimately, the better your base, the higher your peak. Base and basic training terminology, understanding and application has been bastardised - partly from ignorance, partly due to popularism, consumerism and habit-formation.
Current evidence, practise and trends use information, expertise and experience from a number of areas. Ultimately, an ecological and sustainable approach based upon sound principles and informed by (some) relevant science will be the key to improved endurance performance development for individual athletes - whether to race, compete, participate.
Layer Three: The broader the base, the higher the peak...
This layer is deeper than it's appearance.
Firstly, "the broader" part. When this paradigm is mentioned it's usually stated and intended as "the bigger the base, the higher the peak". From this, many interpret that the more "base" you do the better your performance will be(come).
The term "base" is misunderstood and often poorly used. The term/word, in relation to preparation for athletic/sporting performance likely developed through the translation of Russian terminology (eg. Matveyev c1977 p.255) that, in English, was printed as "base", from "average". Matveyev's descriptions and applications to "base [average] training" are not what has been popularised, promoted and marketed, and consumed as "base training/phase" since the 1980s. Here's a good example of popular-culture stemming from capitalism and consumerism.
**Matveyey refers to "base" mesocycles (sometimes 2, usually 3-6 week blocks) of smaller microcycles with a particular emphasis. The "base" or "average" mesocycle may be repeated many times (albeit it with different microcycle structures) throughout the year/annual plan*.
Matveyev refers to "basic" training (p.289) in the multi-year process of athletes development as the first 4-6 years. Harre 1982 pp.84-85 used the term "basic mesocycles"**
"Base training", "base phase", and "base endurance", and their associated interpretations and application (I should probably say 'dumbing down' and 'sales strategies') are unfortunate lexicon for the masses. For the most part, they've been and continue to be reinforced as easy, low intensity, high volume training as the sole focus. The approaches of classic coaches - Lydiard, Cerutty and others - have been debated in this light. Many aspects of the debates are pointless as 'the sole emphasis' has been misinterpreted from 'a priority or focus' for a period of time/over time for different individuals.
This was neither Matveyev's original intention, nor application. (Matveyev c1977 p.265-288). It was simply due to translation, and popularism.In addition, much that went on during 70s research (eg. VO2max) and
the popularisation of running (early 80s boom) that lead a - pardon the pun - foundation or basis for this. Triathlon, as a mass-participation sport, and one that affords many individuals success (or victory) at different levels in still steeped in much of this culture: history, beliefs, values and behaviours .
Broader. The "broader the base the higher peak" was originally applied (and adopted) in two senses. The first, in relation to the number of people that got involved at the entry level of the sport. The concept was, the more we can get involved the more likely the cream will rise to the top. This is still evident in sports today ... in how different sports compete to:
* get kids involved (attention and participation strategies)
* keep adolescents engaged (retention strategies)
* develop juniors to seniors (development strategies)
* (performance strategies for) international success.
Young-age sports such as swimming and gymnastics vary, yet are similar in principle.
All that said, of course, there is (varied and debated) 'evidence' that (a) it takes at least 6-8 years (or 10,000 hours) of training practise to develop high level performance; (b) for high-level performance there is positive correlation between (accumulated) training volume and success, particularly in endurance sports; (c) as mentioned, as a beginner/novice, some is oft better than none, and more is better to a point. Obviously, various genetic and environmental constraints aren't ignored here.
The second, and closer to classic applications of Matveyev and others, refers to athletic development principles associated with Long Term Athletic Development: the broader your skill, aptitude, capacity (speed, strength, mobility, general) and body awareness the more likely you will be successful over time - with the appropriate development, support and performance strategies and networks. In this light, 'the better the base, the higher the (likely) peak".
Better referring to better movement, better skill, better speed, better strength, better awareness, better capacity, better habits, and better tactics - many of which are often best augmented at early ages, or early in an "athlete's" development.
Yet, prevailing triathlon mass-participation highlights "more is better". The Ironman attraction has reinforced this.Much in today's world of (youth) sports preparation is counter to this, possibly summarised best through:
(i) early sports specialisation,
(ii) early intensification (absolute, and volume of)
(iii) eroded quality school gymnastic, aquatic and PE programs,
(iv) reduced daily activity and exercise types and levels,
(v) heavier, fatter, less resilient, less fit kids,
(vi) far more sitting,
(vii) poor dietary strategies, and
(viii) sales (quick fix, guru) rather than strategic approaches
In effect: better is better, not more is better.
Broader isn't the same as more or greater
And, base (endurance training) isn't the same as ' basic' training.
Layer Four: Current Evidence...
Evidence comes in various shapes and forms, and the importance you, or I give it, will depend upon your background, bias, understanding, and in one sense, desire to grab and use something tangible. Evidence can come from research (Evidence-Based Research, EBR), trial-and-error, experience as experiential knowledge, bias, myth, habit, popularity and popularism and heresay to mention a few. Regardless, understanding and applying evidence in context - coaching, athletic development and improvement - are most important.
EBR
is designed to improve Evidence-Based Practise ([EBP] here as coaching, and training) by
specifying or directing coaches/athletes to make decisions through identifying
research according to how scientifically sound (valid, objective and reliable)
it is. By being informed by the systematic collection of data from observation
(testing & measurement) and experimentation through the formulation of
questions and testing hypotheses, particularly randomised controlled trials
with properly designed evaluations, it has been assumed that this will be best
form of treatment for tri-athletes.
An ecological
EBP approach is often shown to be
more effective in practice where experiential and situational (contextual)
knowledge of the practitioner/coach/athlete (and support team) is used with the empirical knowledge of EPR. This
integrates the best possible available
evidence with coach & practitioner expertise, other resources, and with the
characteristics, needs, values and preferences of tri-athletes. It helps ensure that tri-athlete development and intervention(s) are individualised as circumstances are ever-changing, and
involves uncertainties and probabilities over the course (time: weeks/months/years)
of a development program. In
essence you are aiming to match the best-possible practice to the tri-athlete,
rather than simply prescribe an athlete to a program or treatment.
This, then, improves sustainability and, as a result the likelihood of ongoing performance improvement.
In essence, use
what is most relevant to an athlete in terms of effectiveness (the outcome of training/development performed
under ordinary, expectable conditions (ie. real life)) rather than efficacy (the outcome of
treatment/intervention performed under sterile, controlled trial conditions).
That said:
* research recommendations (evidence) often stems from the sterilisation, observation, measurement and evaluation of practise. Practise (doing) is first & foremost
Rubin & Parrish (2007) highlighted…70% of evidenced-based research studies were found to have conclusions unjustified by their research findings
* poor quality research design, intervention
strategies, and interpretation of data, contradictory research results, incomplete trials are published
* controlled intervention research is rarely performed on elite athletes, or good athletes for significant periods of time (beyond, say 6-8 weeks) due to its interruptive nature
* the most important stat is N=1; what works fro one athlete will most likely no work for another in the same, to the same, extent, for the same period/s of time
* the outliers or outriders - those discounted by stats - are often the individuals we work with
Layer Five: Endurance Performance Development...
In my opinion, (re-emerging) current evidence as a basis for EPD include:
1) deep individualisation, N=1 - using the following:
2) back to emphasis on better basics: better movement/skill, speed, and strength as foundation for longer term endurance performance development
3) development of economical and efficient movers in endurance sports (better skill)
4) periodisation as a process: not a plan, program or prescription
5) greater auto-regulation at a day-to-day and week-to-week level
6) continuing use and development of hardware and software to plan, monitor and evaluate
7) intelligent and disciplined intensity of training load (volume of 'specific/relative' intense training, not absolute intensity itself)
8) improved training dynamics: understanding and application of acute 'load' changes in relation to accumulated chronic load in relation to performance development, ill-health and injury risk
9) greater popularity and access to the principles of polarised training (eg. Seiller, Fitzgerald)
10) ecological and sustainability principles applied to person as athlete in longer term development
As a whole, a move away from deconstructionist physiology (VO2, HR etc) toward a more holistic approach to performance enhancement (egs. central governor elements, genetics, and musculoskeletal and tendon integrity, pyscho-social environment).
In summary...
What was or may have been standard practise for some in the 90s wouldn't have been for others, yet still remains for some today. The bigger the base, the higher the peak has a number of angles. Ultimately, the better your base, the higher your peak. Base and basic training terminology, understanding and application has been bastardised - partly from ignorance, partly due to popularism, consumerism and habit-formation.
Current evidence, practise and trends use information, expertise and experience from a number of areas. Ultimately, an ecological and sustainable approach based upon sound principles and informed by (some) relevant science will be the key to improved endurance performance development for individual athletes - whether to race, compete, participate.
