Run S.M.A.R.T.
Menu
Login
  • Custom Training Plans
  • Private Coaching
  • Dr. Jack Daniels
  • Running Calculator
  • Coaching Staff
  • News & Updates
  • Contact Us

Is Training An Art Or A Science?

January 4, 2015 By Run S.M.A.R.T. In Ask A Coach Responses /  1

403858_10151132366921383_1384354392_n

By Malindi Elmore

I believe that there is “more than one way to skin a cat” when it comes to training programs. Certain key principles, such as consistency, health and variety are staples to a strong program but the specifics can vary dramatically from one program to another.

Coaches and athletes bring their own strengths and weaknesses to the table, and with that, they also bring their own philosophies. While some people may be very scientifically driven, needing science, data, and rationale to justify a training program, other coaches and athletes thrive on a more intuitive and communicative approach.

In an ideal world, the coach is able to use science to manipulate an athlete’s physiological and physical response to training, while also adapting to the athlete’s individual psychological needs:  hence using both an “art” and a “science” approach to training.

It is important to remember (or actually internalize) that humans are NOT robots and that adaptation to an athlete’s individual strengths and weaknesses are vital to a successful training program. The recipe that works for some athletes may not work for others and vice versa. This becomes important when discussing training and workouts with other people and the insecurity you may feel when you realize they do more, less, harder, easier, or different workouts than yourself.

For example, my longtime coach is currently coaching a talented runner who has similar personal bests as me in the 3000m and 5000m. The type of training she does is drastically different than what I would have done when I was at a similar level of fitness. She recently asked him if I had done sets of 3000m repeats as well and he almost fell down laughing – I would have had an anxiety attack if I had to do repeats of that length! As such, he is required to take his understanding of the science of training, with his understanding of the individual athlete and our psychology to devise a program that left us both feeling positive, excited and empowered (as well as making sure we were faster, stronger and fitter!).

Ironically, my same coach, whose talents lie in his ability to understand, motivate and communicate with his athletes, believes that science is the key to success with training. On the other hand, two highly successful Canadian middle distance runners, Graham Hood and Gary Reed offer reasons why the flip side (an arts approach) may rule the training roost.

In a recent Run Exchange panel, coach Mike Van Tighem and the aforementioned athletes discuss their perspectives on training and racing, including their views on the question: “Is training an art or a science”? Watch the video through the link and let us know your thoughts!

Malindi Elmore is a Run SMART Project private coach. As an athlete she competed in the 2004 Olympic Games in the 1500m. She’s a 6-time National Champion and Stanford record-holder in the 800m and 1500m. To customize her 1500/mile training plan go here. To work with Malindi privately sign up here. 

Tags:
Gary ReedGraham HoodMalindi ElmoreMike Van TighemRun Exchange
Science on the Run: Milk Better Calves From Your Marathon Training
Science On The Run: Gait Expectations

Archives

  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007

Meta

  • Log in
All rights reserved.