[CoachCorner] Was It the Type of Training, or Was It the Circumstances?
Food for thought.
We often fixate on the workout.
Was it 4x4 at VO2max pace, or a double threshold session, or another magic workout that led to progress? “We” love to dive into sessions as if their exact configuration is the key to performance.
But what if the real difference lies not in what the session was, but in when it was executed?
I recall reading years ago from Anna Kiesenhofer, how she had done very different things before her best performances. If I look back at my modest results, I can also see quite dramatically different key workouts before my best results. At times, we find things that seem to work consistently, while at other times they don’t, or we do something different and still perform well. I think it might be worth looking at this differently.
In particular, following conversations with a few athletes recently, as well as another deep dive into HRV-guided training as part of the work I do with HRV4Training, I keep coming back to the idea that our capacity to assimilate stress is the single most important determinant of whether a session is productive (i.e., it will lead to progress) or not.
This is why tools like HRV and questionnaires tracking subjective feel matter (if we do listen!). These tools don’t tell you how to train, but they help you understand whether you are in a state to respond to training. It is not uncommon to be aware that we are not in a great state to assimilate additional stress, and that the circumstances are just not right (e.g. there’s a lot of stress in our lives, maybe because of work, or else), and we still go out, do a hard session, possibly execute it quite poorly, and then “we have got it done”, which must be a good thing for our progress. But is it?
In HRV-guided training studies, the answer seems clear. First of all, the specifics of high-intensity sessions don’t really matter that much: all the studies published in the past 15 years use quite different exercise protocols, different sports, etc. Regardless, athletes following HRV-guided programs show consistent improvements simply by adjusting when they train hard. Whether they do intervals, thresholds, or tempo runs is secondary. What matters is that they do them in a physiological state where stress is low, recovery is adequate, and the body is actually ready to respond. When this is the case, the session is assimilated, not just executed.
What I want to stress here are the circumstances around training, more than the tools we use to determine when we are in such circumstances. I don’t think technology is necessary, even though it can be helpful to some, especially when we might struggle to listen to ourselves or when we are pushing our limits, hence navigating a very thin line. Keep in mind that in the past few years, the HRV-guided studies adding subjective feedback to the mix (how we feel, whether motivation is there, stuff you have to use your brain for, and cannot be automated by wearing overpriced toys), have always led to even better outcomes. When we use technology, we should not just look at numbers but build an awareness of what state we’re truly in.
I also want to highlight how this is not just about consistency. Sure, working on building the right environment and circumstances can lead to better consistency. But the studies show that even with the same training frequency, outcomes are better when intensity is reduced on days where recovery isn’t complete, so to speak (e.g., HRV remains suppressed after 24 hours or more chronically as a baseline suppression, similarly to what you see in HRV4Training Pro). Hence, the benefits might come from doing things at the right time, not simply by doing things consistently.
Finally, it is clear that the type of training we do also matters: we might do more specific training closer to an event to get more economical at race pace, etc. - but I do think that we tend to overly fixate on specific sessions or what some person has done to achieve a certain result in terms of the exact sessions executed, while we should probably pay a lot more attention at the circumstances we execute training in. This is nothing new as we all heard many times how training camps can do wonders simply because athletes can focus fully on training and recovery, and forget about work, school, or else, for a few days. If we have learned anything from HRV-guided training studies, I think this is it.
Let’s work on building those environments and circumstances where we can thrive, together.
Personal Coaching for Runners
If you are interested in working with me, please learn more here, and fill in the athlete intake form, here.
How to Show Your Support
No paywalls here. All my content is and will remain free.
As a HRV4Training user, the best way to help is to sign up for HRV4Training Pro.
Thank you for supporting my work.
Marco holds a PhD cum laude in applied machine learning, a M.Sc. cum laude in computer science engineering, and a M.Sc. cum laude in human movement sciences and high-performance coaching. He is a certified ultrarunning coach.
Marco has published more than 50 papers and patents at the intersection between physiology, health, technology, and human performance.
He is co-founder of HRV4Training, advisor at Oura, guest lecturer at VU Amsterdam, and editor for IEEE Pervasive Computing Magazine. He loves running.
Social:
