Original episode & show notes | Raw transcript
In many fields, from academic research to high-level athletic coaching, there is a tendency to seek simple, universally applicable answers. We desire a clear formula for success—a single training plan, a definitive rule, or an “answer key” that guarantees results. However, as explored in the podcast, the most honest and expert answer to nearly any complex training question is often, “It depends.”
This is not an evasion but a recognition that biological systems, particularly human performance, are incredibly complex. Unlike a simple math problem, training an athlete involves a multitude of interacting variables, including genetics, training history, lifestyle, psychology, and recovery capacity. This document will unpack the layers behind this philosophy, using analogies from physics and engineering to illustrate why individualization is not just a preference but a fundamental principle of effective coaching.
The podcast opens by drawing a parallel between athletic training and scientific research, particularly physics. In school, we learn that physics is a world of concrete equations and predictable outcomes. Yet, at the research and development (R&D) level, this certainty dissolves.
The Absence of an Answer Key: In cutting-edge research, there is no predetermined “right” answer. Scientists explore the unknown, and a “null result”—the absence of a finding—is still a meaningful piece of data. It doesn’t mean the experiment failed; it means the answer lies elsewhere.
The Limits of Measurement and Theory: Physics grapples with concepts that are theoretically sound but impossible to measure with absolute certainty (e.g., whether a photon has exactly zero mass). This creates a space where definitive “yes” or “no” answers are impossible.
This mirrors the coaching process. A coach and athlete are, in essence, conducting an N=1 experiment. The athlete’s body is the laboratory. A training block that doesn’t yield the expected result isn’t a “failure”; it is a null result that provides valuable information, guiding the next step.
If there is one universal rule, it is that no single rule applies to everyone. The “it depends” philosophy is built on the foundation of individualization. Generic, “cookie-cutter” training plans are based on generalizations and rules of thumb that may not apply to a specific individual.
VO2 Max Training: While a high VO2 max is beneficial for all aerobic athletes, the need for and response to VO2 max-specific training varies. An elite athlete with a VO2 max of 85 ml/kg/min may have little room for improvement (“headroom”) and may see more benefit from focusing on threshold power or time-to-exhaustion (TTE). Conversely, a developing athlete may see significant gains. The only way to know is to test it and observe the response.
The “Teeter-Totter” Effect: For highly trained athletes, there is often a trade-off between different physiological capacities. Focusing heavily on VO2 max might slightly decrease FTP, and vice-versa. When improvements in one area come at the direct expense of another, it’s a strong sign that an athlete is approaching their current physiological ceiling. If both improve simultaneously, significant potential still exists.
Tapering is one of the most highly individualized aspects of training.
Some athletes perform best after a significant reduction in volume and intensity, arriving at a race feeling completely fresh.
Others, as illustrated by the example of “Coach Katie,” need to “beat their legs up” with high-intensity efforts (like a time trial or criterium) shortly before a key road race to “open them up.” Without this stimulus, their legs feel flat and unresponsive.
How an athlete recovers from a given workload is deeply personal.
Day-to-Day Recovery: One athlete might be able to follow a hard VO2 max session with a solid threshold workout the next day. Another may need a full day of active recovery or rest.
Block Recovery: The time needed to absorb a large training block and rebound stronger varies significantly between individuals.
The podcast presents a powerful analogy: coaching as a process of debugging. When a machine breaks, you don’t randomly start replacing parts. An expert technician uses their knowledge to form a hypothesis, test it, and systematically narrow down the problem.
Initial Diagnosis: When a new athlete comes on, or when progress stalls, a coach must survey the “system”—training history, past successes and failures, lifestyle, and perceived limiters.
Forming a Hypothesis: Based on this information, the coach applies established principles to form a hypothesis. For example, “I believe this athlete’s weakness in one-minute efforts is due to a lack of buffering capacity, not a lack of raw power.”
Testing and Iteration: The coach then prescribes a training intervention designed to test this hypothesis (e.g., a block of anaerobic capacity work). The key is constant monitoring.
Positive Feedback: If the athlete responds well, it confirms the hypothesis. The plan can continue, or perhaps be leaned into more heavily.
Negative Feedback: If the athlete responds poorly or not at all after a reasonable timeframe (e.g., 2-3 weeks), it’s time to “pull the plug” on that intervention. The hypothesis was incorrect, and a new one is needed. Sticking to a failing plan for months hoping for a “magical” adaptation during a taper is a recipe for failure.
While the application of training is highly individual, the underlying physiological principles are universal. This is a crucial distinction.
The Need for Stimulus: To improve, the body must be subjected to a stress that it is not accustomed to. Riding aerobically will improve aerobic fitness. This is non-negotiable.
The Laws of Energy Systems: The body relies on predictable metabolic pathways (aerobic, glycolytic, etc.). These systems function the same way in every healthy human.
The Importance of Recovery: Adaptation does not happen during training; it happens during recovery. Sleep and nutrition (specifically, adequate carbohydrate intake for fuel) are the universal and non-negotiable pillars of recovery.
Consistency Over Time: Long-term, consistent training yields the best results. The “all training is base training” theorem suggests that total accumulated aerobic stimulus over years is a primary driver of fitness.
Workout Structure: Should you do 5x5 minute FTP intervals or 2x20 minutes? It depends on your current fitness, goals, and psychological makeup.
Training Volume: Should you ride more? For most, yes. But if your current “endurance” rides are performed at too high an intensity (“junk miles”), riding more will only lead to burnout. The quality of volume matters.
Cadence: “Spin to win” or “grind it out”? It depends on the demands of your event. A track sprinter needs to be efficient at 150 RPM. A time trialist needs to find the cadence where they are most metabolically efficient and can produce the most power, which is often an intuitive process. Gearing should be chosen to support this optimal range.
Training “High VLAmax” vs. “Low VLAmax” Athletes: Rephrased as “athletes with a big sprint vs. those without,” the podcast argues that aerobic training is the same for both. A 20-hour week benefits a sprinter and a time trialist equally in building their aerobic engine. The differences lie in race strategy, job on a team, and the specific, race-oriented workouts layered on top of that aerobic base.
For the vast majority of athletes who are not professionals, life outside of sport is the most significant variable.
Stress is Stress: The body does not differentiate between training stress and life stress (work deadlines, family issues, moving). A high-stress week at work is a massive drain on your recovery resources. Piling a hard training block on top of this is counterproductive.
Flexibility is Key: A rigid, pre-written plan cannot account for a bad day at work, poor sleep, or unexpected life events. Daily adjustments based on feel, readiness, and life circumstances are critical for long-term success. This is why constant communication with a coach or honest self-assessment is vital.
The ultimate goal of the “it depends” philosophy is not to create uncertainty, but to empower the athlete and coach to find the right answer for that specific individual. The process is as follows:
Understand the Universal Principles: Know what drives adaptation (stimulus, recovery, nutrition, sleep).
Analyze the Individual Context: What are your unique goals, limiters, training history, and life circumstances?
Formulate a Plan (A Hypothesis): Based on the principles and context, create a targeted training plan.
Execute, Monitor, and Adapt: Treat the plan as a living document. Pay close attention to the feedback your body provides. Be willing to be wrong and adjust the course.
The best way to find the answer to “it depends” is to combine a deep knowledge of the fundamentals with a rigorous, objective, and flexible process of self-experimentation.