Coaching with (quantifiable) certainty

Alan Couzens, M.S. (Sports Science)

Aug 26th, 2015

A little apropos MTV to kick things off… #NobodySaidItWasEasy :-)

“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence” - Charles Bukowski

The above quote was tweeted by @ZenTriathlon yesterday as a follow up to an article on “not knowing” (linked in the tweet below).

Perhaps predictably, I take issue with the quote. Coaching demands a level of confidence in your approach. A coach with no confidence isn’t going to exactly inspire belief in his athletes! So, I’m not really at ease with the implication… :-)

From the article ….

“And the truth is that deep down we all just feel that we’re winging it”

I don’t! Uh-Oh. Does this mean…that I’m just too dumb to realize it?

Maybe, but I’ll throw out an alternative (less ego-damaging) middle ground explanation…

We know some but not all.

This "some but not all" concept even has a mathematical equivalent – the fraction of variance unexplained

When we apply regression to a dataset to attempt to ‘pull apart’ the various factors contributing to the data relationship, as I did in last week’s post on what we can learn from our athletic ‘big data’, we are invariably left with a ‘missing bit’ – the stuff that affects performance that we simply don’t know. If we take the simple example of linear regression and add up all of the R^2 values of the independent variables, (providing it’s a true linear relationship and the variables are truly independent), in 'the real world', it’s never going to add up to 1! There are always going to be variables that have an effect on the outcome that we don't understand. There is always going to be a portion of 'stuff that we just don't know'. But.....this shouldn't stop us from trying. Those who, at least, have a good, objective, sense of how much is known and how much remains unexplained, those who are in the ongoing process of continuing to pull the puzzle apart, are in a significantly better position than those who put the puzzle in the 'too hard' basket.

Admittedly, for certain outcomes, like an Ironman race result, due to the number of factors that can come into play to 'mess with' your performance, this “stuff that we don’t know” is quite large. I looked at this question with a bit of 'back of the napkin' math for an X-Tri article (archived here) some time ago and concluded that, even when we run the full gamut of ex phys testing (including the often unconsidered role of fat oxidation), a large portion of Ironman performance remains unexplained. In my mind, though, this just makes the puzzle more fun!

So, while it’s assumed that scientific investigation is a quest for truth & certainty, in reality, it just quantifies the level of certainty and, as a corollary, quantifies the level of uncertainty. Put more simply, scientific analysis really helps us know just how much we don’t know. This can make for a scary proposition - as evidenced by the number of 'old schoolers' who publicly shun it!

Unfortunately, especially in “old school” coaching, the true validity of a coach’s ‘certainties’ is rarely 'put under the microscope' and tested, let alone quantified, so we wind up with some weird associations between the perceived effect of certain types of training on an athletes success. We’re all familiar with these – the “secret sauce” workouts: Perform 3x20min uphill at 92rpm – exactly. Not 91 &, heavens above, not 93! :-) That’s your ticket to a breakthrough performance! And because sources with perceived credibility continue to make these recommendations and a certain number of athletes do them and have success, that false link between the method and the result is strengthened – without any sort of analysis…or intelligent thought, for that matter…on just how strong, or even logically valid, that link might be.

When we abandon ‘folk lore’ and start to take a rational, scientific approach to testing our assumptions we…

a) Are able to test new methods objectively, free from the biases of tradition.

b) Are able to quantify just how much we still have to learn!

The 2 points above are what get my juices flowing as an applied scientist/coach!

If honestly and objectively investigating these data relationships isn’t your thing - as an athlete or a ‘people person’ coach – out-source it, but, ignore it at your peril because your competition won't! Big business is a great example of this: Data enables efficiency. Efficiency = more $ in for less $ out. More $ in, less $ out means your business thrives while the data-poor go under! That's the way of the new world! Most importantly, don’t jump to erroneous associations that spring entirely from ‘your gut’. In modern high performance sport (just as in modern business) that style of training/coaching just doesn’t cut it anymore! We’re entering an exciting time where our ability to deal with and analyze data is finally catching up with our ability to collect it. Don’t miss the boat! Grow! Evolve!

Understanding the process of athletic development is a huge jigsaw puzzle. While we can put some pieces of it together with certainty that the ‘bits line up’, there is always going to be a portion of the puzzle that remains incomplete. As coaches, we can choose to get bored with this and apply the standard toddler method of just jamming together puzzle pieces (methods & results) that clearly don’t fit or we can stay true, stay objective & embrace the ongoing wonder in the process of open, curious learning.

Stay open, honest, curious. Never stop questioning. Never stop testing. Never stop learning. And above all…

Train smart.

AC

  

Don't miss a post! Sign up for my mailing list to get notified of all new content....

  

Have no fear - I won't spam you or sell your info.