Original episode & show notes | Raw transcript
This document provides a comprehensive educational breakdown of the core concepts discussed in a podcast interview between Kolie Moore of Empirical Cycling and Mikael Eriksson of Scientific Triathlon. The conversation offers a masterclass in the philosophy of modern endurance coaching, the practical application of sports science, and the specific challenges of triathlon training. It is intended for students, athletes, and coaches seeking a deeper understanding beyond surface-level tips, focusing on the principles and critical thinking that underpin elite performance and coaching excellence.
A central theme of the discussion is that the quality of a coach is defined not by a static set of knowledge, but by their mindset and commitment to evolution.
Both speakers agree that being self-critical is one of the most vital traits for a coach. Stagnation is a significant risk in the profession, and the best coaches constantly question their own methods.
The “Cringe Factor”: Looking back at old training plans and cringing is presented as a positive sign. It indicates growth. Eriksson notes, “You don’t even have to go back five years, you have to go back one year and you already start to feel a little bit that ‘Oh, I wouldn’t do this like that.’” This reflects an ongoing refinement of the nuances of training application.
Avoiding Dogma: The alternative is the coach who “just do[es] the same thing year in, year out.” Success can be a trap, leading to the assumption that one’s methods are perfected. The speakers contrast this with their own approach, where even after an athlete’s victory, the question remains: “What could we have done better?”
Biases in Coaching: Coaching is “bound to be influenced by a lot of potential biases.” Critical thinking, which Eriksson laments is not taught more in schools, is the primary tool to combat this. Understanding cognitive biases like confirmation bias—the tendency to favor information that confirms pre-existing beliefs—is essential for objective analysis of an athlete’s progress and the efficacy of a training plan.
The success of a coaching relationship is not solely dependent on the coach’s knowledge or the athlete’s talent. It is a partnership that requires a specific chemistry.
The Importance of Fit: A coach and athlete can fail to “click.” Communication styles may be mismatched, leading to misunderstandings and frustration. The speakers acknowledge that parting ways in such a scenario is often best for both parties, freeing them to find a better fit.
Defining the Coach’s Role: Eriksson is clear about his coaching style: he is not a motivator in the traditional sense. His role is to provide structure and guidance for intrinsically motivated athletes. He states, “I’m not going to be a good coach for the kind of athlete that needs actual motivation.” This highlights the importance of aligning athlete needs with a coach’s strengths.
The conversation delves into how a modern coach consumes, interprets, and applies scientific information.
Eriksson reveals his primary motivation for starting his podcast was “100%… to talk to people” and learn. This positions the coach as an active synthesizer of knowledge, not a passive consumer.
Evaluating New Trends (The “One-Month Rule”): With constant exposure to new studies and methods, a coach needs a system to avoid “jumping on some bandwagon.” Eriksson’s personal rule is to wait at least a month after hearing a new, exciting idea. If the idea still holds appeal after that period of reflection, it’s worth considering.
Organic Integration, Not “Aha!” Moments: True learning is rarely about a single breakthrough. It is a cumulative process. Eriksson explains, “It’s just the idea is probably put into my brain a little bit and then it simmers there for a while and then somehow I remember it and try it out.” This organic process, influenced by multiple sources over time, leads to more robust and thoughtful changes in methodology.
A fascinating dynamic explored is that coaching practice is often ahead of published scientific research.
Research Validates Practice: “Research is quite often trying to… prove the methods that coaches have found out years ago are working.” This is a critical concept for athletes and coaches who may believe a method is only valid if it appears in a peer-reviewed journal. Observational data and practical experience from coaching are invaluable and often serve as the precursor to formal investigation.
Bridging the Gap: Podcasters and other media figures play a crucial role in closing this gap. They can ask researchers the “so what” questions:
What are the practical applications of this research?
What are the limitations of this study?
How does this one paper fit into the broader body of evidence? This provides context that is often missing when a layperson reads a single study abstract.
This section covers the specific, practical applications of training theory to the unique demands of triathlon.
Training for three sports simultaneously requires meticulous management of stress.
Truly Easy Low-Intensity Training: The foundation of Eriksson’s approach is that low-intensity training must be genuinely easy. He often prescribes it based on RPE (Rate of Perceived Exertion) of 2-3 out of 10, which often corresponds to heart rate Zone 1. This ensures that recovery is maximized and the athlete is prepared for key sessions.
Conservative High-Intensity Training: In contrast to a single-sport athlete who might go “to the well” in a workout, a triathlete’s hard workouts are more controlled. The goal is to finish a session “feeling like they could have done more.” A session RPE of 7-8 is typical. This prevents the cumulative fatigue from multiple hard sessions across three disciplines from becoming overwhelming.
Structured Low-Load Days: The training week must include days with very little stress, such as a day with only an easy swim, to allow for supercompensation.
Reverse Periodization: This model inverts the traditional approach, starting with high-intensity (e.g., VO2max) work and progressing towards more race-specific, lower-intensity volume.
Is it real? Yes, it is a valid strategy.
Is it optimal? Not always. Eriksson views it as one tool among many. It can be useful for an athlete who needs to develop their top-end capacity early in the season while they are fresh.
“Gap Analysis” over Models: The better approach is to perform a “gap analysis”: Where is the athlete now? Where do they need to be for their goal race? How do we bridge that gap? This individualized approach may or may not resemble a classic periodization model.
Rethinking Swim Training: Eriksson is moving away from traditional swim coaching, which is often derived from pool swimming. He argues this is a mistake for triathletes.
The Problem: Traditional “endurance” sets (e.g., 40x100m repeats with 10s rest) often end up being performed at a tempo or threshold intensity, not a true low intensity. This adds unintended stress. Hard sets are often “best effort,” violating the principle of conservative intensity.
The Solution: Treat swimming more like running and cycling. This involves true long, easy endurance swims (broken into long intervals for mental relief) and more precisely controlled high-intensity work.
Running for Cyclists: This is a high-risk activity. A cyclist’s cardiovascular system is far more developed than their musculoskeletal resilience.
The Rule: “Progress much slower than you think you should be progressing.” Bone, tendon, and ligament adaptations take much longer than cardiovascular adaptations.
The Stat: An estimated 80% of overuse injuries in triathlon come from running, underscoring the need for extreme caution.
The Flaw in Percent-of-FTP Rules: Generic advice like “ride at 85% of FTP for a half-Ironman” is highly problematic. It fails to account for the vast individual differences in fatigue resistance. Some athletes have high short-duration power but fade over time, while others are “diesel engines” who fatigue very little.
The Best Predictor: “The best predictor of performance is performance itself.”
The Method: The most reliable way to determine pacing is through race-specific simulation workouts performed in a similar environment (heat, terrain) to the target race. For example, a workout of 5x20 minutes at goal half-Ironman effort during a training block gives a strong indication of what is sustainable on race day.
The discussion addresses the role of technology and the pursuit of small advantages.
A Pragmatic Approach to Technology: While tools like aero sensors and readiness apps are interesting, they are not the core of training. The fundamentals are “98% of what it is to training.” It’s crucial to self-experiment with new tools before prescribing them and to set realistic expectations with athletes who may expect a gadget-heavy approach.
The Aero “Arms Race”: Aerodynamics has become a major focus in professional and high-level amateur triathlon, similar to cycling time trials. The availability of tools is pushing this trend further into the mainstream.
Drafting in Running: At elite speeds (over 20 km/h), drafting during the run leg of a short-course triathlon provides a significant energy-saving benefit and plays a role in race tactics. This effect diminishes at the slower speeds of long-distance racing unless there is a strong headwind.
When asked what training concept he most disagrees with, Eriksson’s immediate answer is fasted training.
The Rationale: While lab studies may show certain “signaling advantages,” he has “never seen that translate into performance.”
The Risk: The potential downsides, such as an increased risk of Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S), far outweigh the unproven benefits in his practical experience.
Peeing on the bike? Yes, it happens, and most competitors don’t care.
Why no socks? To save time in transition. For races up to Olympic distance, most fast athletes run barefoot in their shoes. For longer races, the risk of blisters makes it a calculated gamble.
The conversation between Moore and Eriksson reveals that high-level coaching is a sophisticated discipline blending foundational scientific principles with an adaptable, critical, and experience-driven philosophy. The key takeaways are that a coach’s value lies in their ability to continuously learn, to manage the complex interplay of stress and recovery, to individualize training based on an athlete’s unique needs, and to maintain a healthy skepticism toward trends while remaining open to innovation.