Original episode & show notes | Raw transcript
This document provides an in-depth exploration of the core concepts discussed in the Empirical Cycling Podcast episode “p32 coaching mistakes and what makes a good coach.” The conversation between hosts Kolie Moore and Adam offers a candid look into the philosophy, methodology, and common pitfalls of endurance sports coaching.
The discussion begins by defining the essential attributes of a successful coach. These qualities go beyond technical knowledge and focus heavily on the human elements of the coach-athlete relationship.
A primary role of a coach is to provide an unbiased perspective that an athlete, caught up in the physical and emotional sensations of training, cannot have.
Core Idea: The coach can analyze data, goals, and performance metrics without the emotional filter that an athlete experiences. This allows for more logical and effective planning.
In Practice: A self-coached athlete might choose a workout based on “vibes” (e.g., “I don’t feel like doing VO2 today, I’ll do sweet spot instead”). A coach, however, looks at the long-term plan and determines what is necessary for progressive overload, even if it’s not what the athlete wants to do.
Quote: “I have an unbiased opinion, I can’t feel the emotion that you feel, so I can detach from it, look at data, look at your goals, and decide what we need to do.”
Before any technical coaching can be effective, the athlete must believe that the coach genuinely cares about their well-being.
Core Idea: An athlete will not fully buy into a coach’s guidance unless they feel a sense of trust and care. This is the prerequisite for a successful partnership.
The Litmus Test:
A Bad Coach: Sees an athlete’s training inconsistency and says, “I can’t be associated with you because your poor performance will reflect badly on my coaching.”
A Good Coach: Sees the same inconsistency and asks, “You’ve been inconsistent with your workouts. Are you okay? What’s going on, and how can I help?”
Quote: “No one cares how much you know until they know how much you care.”
Once a foundation of care is established, the coach’s primary function is to deliver results.
Core Idea: Performance is the ultimate goal. In cycling, this is broken down into two key areas:
Physiological Development: Improving power durations (how much power can be produced for how long).
Race Craft: Translating that power into speed and using tactics to achieve podium results.
A brilliant plan is useless if it cannot be communicated effectively.
Core Idea: A coach must be a clear and adaptable communicator. This involves understanding and aligning with the athlete’s preferred communication style.
In Practice: A good coach asks a new athlete, “How do you best communicate? Do you prefer texts, emails, phone calls, or Zoom?” They then share their own preferred methods and find a functional middle ground.
A great coach understands that their role is to support the athlete, not to seek personal glory.
Core Idea: The coach acts like a CEO. When things go wrong, they take the blame. When things go right, they give the credit to the athlete who did the hard work.
Quote: “When things go badly, you have to take all the blame. And when things go right, you should give away all the credit.”
The hosts candidly share career-defining mistakes, offering valuable lessons for aspiring coaches and athletes.
A common error for new coaches is the belief that “more is always better.”
The Mistake: Assigning high-intensity workouts too frequently (e.g., 4-5 days a week), driven by a desire to appear “useful” and by popular training trends.
The Consequence: Athletes become overly fatigued, burn out, and fail to adapt. The coach may fall victim to selection bias, believing their system works because only the most resilient athletes survive it, while others are dismissed as “weak.”
The Lesson: For most athletes, 2-3 days of intensity per week is the sustainable sweet spot. An athlete who consistently handles more is often not succeeding, but rather “getting away with it”—riding a fine line on the edge of overtraining.
Using flawed testing protocols can lead to training zones that are too high, causing systemic fatigue.
The Mistake: Relying on short-duration tests (like a 2x8-minute protocol) to set an athlete’s Functional Threshold Power (FTP). These tests can be skewed by anaerobic contributions, leading to an inflated FTP and consequently, training zones that are unsustainably difficult.
The Consequence: An athlete attempting “threshold” intervals is actually working well above their true aerobic threshold, leading to rapid burnout.
The Lesson: Move beyond rigid zones and incorporate Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE). The goal is to teach an athlete to feel the intended stimulus. The “Holy Trinity” of metrics becomes RPE first, supported by power and heart rate.
Athletes often misjudge their own habits. A coach must learn to dig deeper.
The Mistake: Accepting an athlete’s self-assessment at face value (e.g., “My nutrition is good”) without asking follow-up questions, often out of a desire not to offend.
The Consequence: A critical performance limiter (like under-fueling) goes unaddressed because the coach assumes it’s not an issue.
The Lesson: A coach must learn to ask probing questions respectfully. The example given is an athlete told she was “pre-diabetic.” Instead of accepting it, the coach asked questions and discovered the blood test was done three hours after eating pizza and a Coke—an invalid test. Verification is key.
A coach can lose control of the process if they don’t have the confidence to guide the athlete.
The Mistake: Allowing an experienced or knowledgeable athlete to dictate their entire training program. This creates a “reverse dictatorship” where the coach simply rubber-stamps the athlete’s ideas.
The Consequence: The training lacks objectivity and often fails, as the athlete is still subject to their own biases. The coach’s value is nullified.
The Lesson: The ideal model is collaborative. The coach provides the framework and guidance, but the athlete is given autonomy and choice within that structure. The coach must have the confidence to say, “I don’t think we should do that, and here’s why.”
Choosing convenience over clarity in communication.
The Mistake: Relying on text messages for complex or nuanced conversations.
The Consequence: Information is misinterpreted or incomplete, leading to poor decisions. A five-minute phone call could have resolved an issue that took hours of confusing texts.
The Lesson: Use the appropriate communication tool for the situation. A simple confirmation can be a text. A complex strategic discussion requires a phone call or video chat to ensure full understanding and human connection.
The relationship is a two-way street. The coach provides expertise, but the athlete’s feedback and input are crucial for individualizing the plan.
Training is the opposite of racing.
Training: Highly structured, intentional, and designed to induce fatigue to force adaptation. You are trying to make yourself tired.
Racing: Unstructured and opportunistic. The goal is to conserve as much energy as possible to do as little work as necessary to win.
A good coach is effectively trying to make themselves obsolete by educating the athlete. Over time, an athlete learns to make smart decisions, such as moving a workout or adjusting for fatigue. The coach transitions from a director to a trusted advisor. While the athlete could coach themselves, they retain the coach for the objective perspective and accountability.
~3 Months: To understand an athlete’s patterns, communication style, and response to training load enough to write effective workouts.
~1 Year: To go through a full cycle of base, build, and race season, truly understanding how they respond to different tapering strategies, race-day stressors, and seasonal changes.