Seems like a stupid question these days since the person next to you is probably a coach. I should be more specific with my statement and qualify that the coach next to you is probably a cycling and/or triathlon coach. Furthermore I would classify many of them as "hobby coaches" looking to "live the dream" in an unregulated profession who ultimately dilute and slow the professional growth of the coaching industry. Now I am not throwing everyone in this same category as there are many great coaches and coaching groups around the world who have helped to legitimize coaching and continue to build coaching into a credible profession and push the boundaries and roles of a coach.
How do I define a professional coach? This is a great question. For me I view them as having a minimum certification from a coaching association or other professional fitness organization that has covered the basics of physiology, training principles, coaching ethics, psychology. They have an athletic background in the sport, insurance coverage, experience and charges according to level of experience and expertise. They may also possess a University Degree in Exercise Science or Pedagogy and demonstrate seeking out additional knowledge via conferences and continuing education opportunities to grow themselves professionally. Many of these coach's will adjust their rates as they gain more experience and expertise is specific areas and then specialize in niche areas or demographics.
A hobby coach is someone who has success athletically and decides they know enough to sell their services. They don't obtain a certification of related training, carry no insurance and set rates equivalent to the most experienced coaches or low ball the average coaching rate. They may also work full time in another profession and look to use the coaching dollars to supplement equipment or travel expenses. They will work with anyone willing to pay them.
So what is with the rise of all these cycling and triathlon coaches these days? It is not just in Calgary but it appears to be a worldwide pandemic as coaches are multiplying exponentially and spreading their "knowledge" or in some cases "misinformation" to the masses of weekend warriors and potential hopefuls looking to make it to the big time. As I already stated above coaching is very much an unregulated profession, much like personal training or the fitness industry for that matter. Yes there are certifications from organizations (again some are great while others are looking to generate some vast network of certified fitness professionals which ultimately funds their existence) which can provide a scope of practice but even certification is not a guarantee for qualified professionals who represent that respective certification and it certainly doesn't limit who becomes a personal trainer or not.
Certain Coaching Associations like the Coaching Association of Canada (with specific sporting modules) and United States of America Cycling/Triathlon (USAC/USAT) offer various levels of certification for prospective coaches. USAC and USAT also require and offer continuing education opportunities for their coaching network which ensures coaches stay current and can add new ideas or methodologies to their coaching duties. Anyone can take these and upon completing all requirements can be certified as a coach. This is the easiest route to becoming certified coaches with the exception of saying you are a coach.
From my experience with the cycling and triathlon modules under the CAC umbrella, the value in pursuing such a certification is for those who wish to coach a Provincial junior team at a Western Canada Games or Canada Games and possibly moving on to coach a World Championships or Olympic Team. There is no incentive to go this route for those not pursuing the above mentioned coaching direction nor are there any regulations that would dictate that one must certify through the CAC. My NCCP Level I for Road and MTB has allowed me to act as a "coach" to two National MTB Championship events and one Provincial selection event. Sounds great but really the role was more like that of a chaperon for the juniors than actual coaching a role that could have easily been completed by volunteer parents. This is not always the case but again that was my experience with the projects. I spoke with Kurt Innes several years ago and he stated that if my goal was to coach at the Olympics, then going through the process (political and course work) was required but if I wasn't interested in that route and would rather focus on helping athletes develop (age-grouper, masters, youth etc) there really was no need to pursue the NCCP to a higher level. The route I chose was obviously to focus on working with those who wanted to get better and more importantly who I felt I could help get better no matter their level of perceived ability.
I should also state that a Bachelors or Masters Degree in Kinesiology or Human Kinetics does not qualify someone to be a coach either. Yes it gives a good foundation of physiology and basic sport performance but many of the programs lack the ability to teach students how to apply the knowledge and as such too many textbook clones come out preaching what a "book" told them. I chose a route to understand the physiological basis of sport performance and how to apply the methods to the actualization of performance enhancement versus learning and then not applying the knowledge. This realization occurred once I entered Graduate school and did not happen in my Undergraduate Degree.
What has also led to an increase in the number of coaches out there is previous athletic prowess. Look at how many coaches are currently professional athletes or retired athletes. Again, this does not guarantee a qualified approach to offering a coaching service however I do believe many can offer valuable pieces of advice and personal experiences. The trick is whether or not they can convey and communicate the information to those who are not as genetically blessed as they are and of a different lifestyle altogether. Many age-groupers deem the athletic success of their favorite pros to mean that the coach/athlete can take them to the next level. This may or may not be the case. I have been in the company of several far superior athletically gifted individuals who really could not communicate to me or the group what the intent of a particular workout was in the macro sense of our training plan. Yes it was a tough workout but it was not specific to developing either the neuromuscular system, a particular energy system or event specific demand. When questioned on what we were looking to achieve from the workout the answer was reduced to developing mental toughness and sport specific power. Funny thing was when I asked a member of the coaching team what power was, they couldn't even compose the definition of power! It mirrored what many do in personal training where a workout becomes simply a flogging session.
Too often athletes who become a coach who have been coached previously replicate workouts they were given and pass them on to their clients who may not be able to tolerate, complete or absorb that level of training. Heck I have made this mistake in the past where I gave workouts a previous coach gave me and a group of athletes when we were in a certain phase of training at the wrong time to a bunch of beginners! The net effect was not favorable as they broke down mentally and physically and quit the sport altogether because the training was too hard and unrealistic for them. Live, learn, adapt and apply.
Often times the sports science or coaching nomenclature can be confusing and what one coach speaks of another one coins a different phrase for it despite the same thing being implied which is further "bastardized" by someone else and so on. Understanding the intent of various workouts is a key to progression and development of an athlete and hence all coaches and athletes under the tutelage of a coach should understand what their outcomes should be after a training period. If one requires an increased FTP, then the training had better focus on developing that ability and not on anaerobic capacity or power. I have also tested clients of other coaches and when I go over the results with the athlete, I ask if their coach will understand the results and know how to work with them in their training. The athlete assumes their coach will know the results but nine times out of ten the results are dismissed and the coach prescribes something they are more comfortable with.
I have reviewed training programs that were questionable in the overall intent or focus. However, there are many variables that need to be uncovered first before trashing someone else's program and to see what exactly their intent was. For example a client switched over to work with me after a 3 month period of working under another cycling coach. In reviewing the plan the client was given, I saw no progression, pattern or focus over 3 months and very little performance improvement. The client could not speak to what the focus of the training blocks were either. They simply trusted the individual because of the coach's athletic background, slick website and professional fee of $200 per month. The program was mainly comprised of various "tough" workouts that touched on too many aspects to develop at one time – VO2max intervals one week, anaerobic capacity intervals the next, anaerobic power, low cadence high torque three weeks later, a few FTP workouts mix and match as needed. Testing to determine FTP and wattage zones was inconsistent and the protocols were different when scheduled. There was also a research article listed in the training program in which the coach had prescribed the training protocol studied in the article. Upon tracking down the article (at first for interest's sake) I noticed that the protocols in the article and what the coach prescribed were not the same thing. When I spoke to the client about how they interpreted and executed the workout, they did something completely different and the client was lucky they didn't hurt themselves.
Now, there are various methodologies of coaching out there too. The typical image of a coach is one who presides over a workout with an athlete or team of athletes with a clip board, stop watch and a harsh voice from yelling all the time. There are those who write training programs and email or post online for clients to follow, those who coach a single sport or series of sport sessions for a group (swimming, cycling or running) and focus on technique, those who do a combination of both and then groups who have specialists from various sporting disciplines and ancillary support services like nutritionists, biomechanics specialists, psychology etc. Each one of these methodologies has a specialty and as such, one coach may not be for everyone.
Athletes need to determine what they require most whether it is a structured plan with a Periodized approach, technical advice and guidance, race strategy and tactical advice, advice on their personal physiology. Athletes also need to determine the value of a coach's service. What does the coach offer compared to other coaches or groups? Are they a specialist in one area or do they try and do too many things? I have seen technical coaches for running, swimming and weight training successfully correct an athlete's form but lacked the knowledge in how to implement a training program that would lead to an actual improvement in performance. They could now move more efficiently but still either over or under trained themselves. I have also seen coaches get out there and "pose" their way through a swim session or running session. In fact they lack no formal background in teaching a drill or set of skills. I attended a Pose Method running clinic a few years ago and was videotaped from a far and told I was a classic heel striker. I asked how they could truly determine this without a close up image or specific method to measure where my foot actually contacted the ground over such a short video clip. Now these were experienced runners and coaches and their response was simply that you exhibit a classic heel strike pattern, next. At the end of the day approximately five of us were sidelined with Achilles issues but were told we all improved our running mechanics. Both the coaches by the way are excellent runners however the way in which they each ran was not at all Pose-like – they ran better. I have pictures of Simon Whitefield and Kyle Jones I took in Kelowna and I could make a case that they are both classic heel strikers from the position of their feet in my pictures. I would never make this claim however.
I have seen programs that must have been developed while the coach was learning how to use the copy and paste function in Excel, training advice written on a napkin or the back of Bicycling Magazine, a printout from a website given to a client. Now the quality of advice is what I would usually look for but when that advice is "on Tuesdays do one hour of intervals" too many questions pop into my mind. It is too easy for many to hang a coaching sign on their front step or develop a website and begin working with clients. They can begin charging $200-$500 a month because that is what the top coaches are charging and say "dammit I am worth that much". However at the end of the day, I like how Gordo Byrn stated "thankfully, it will still take a decade to generate ten years of coaching experience."
I learned the importance of sequencing workouts and what it was to really Periodize a training program when I was completing my Masters Degree. Dr. Steve Norris constantly challenged me to think about the big picture while addressing the details. It all matters. Prior to this period in my career I was just doing what everyone else was doing without much thought as to what the training effects might be, what the best sequence or progression of workouts and training periods was. My eyes were opened to critically look at how a program is truly constructed and how everything interacts and leads to an improvement in performance. To this day I continue to address this and learn. I have been at this for over a decade now and am still learning and retooling my trade. How many others can say the same?
So what is the point of this long post or rant? Honestly this has been a few years coming now as I have seen so many coaches come and go. I have had former coaches who worked for me and athletes I coached set up their own businesses. It is a form of flattery for me as most go and find their niches, establish quality training environments that don't infringe on others and continue to learn and evolve as coaches. However some of them have stated they know the equivalent and have the same experience level as I do when speaking with potential clients. Using templates I developed, terminology, testing protocols and such does not imply you are equivalent to me. I certainly can't say that I am the equivalent to the coaches I admire, learn from and implement ideas they have presented.
Why does this bother me? It is not about the client deciding not to work with me but I would rather lose a client to another professional coach or group striving for the same thing I am versus someone looking to supplement their real job in order to buy a new bike – the "hobby coach". This would in my mind provide legitimacy in our profession that potential clients are basing decisions on established, experienced and qualified coaches and groups and not the guy who won last weekend's race and works in oil and gas or in the produce aisle.
I am exploring whether or not the business of coaching is truly a hobby business and whether or not I should I go and do a more impactful profession like being an entertainment news reporter. I believe what I do is a good profession especially when a client tells me that without my help they would not have achieved their goals and they learned more about themselves during the training process. One client stated that my profession should not be overlooked or dismissed since I help people at more than racing well, but to understand discipline and hard work, their health is important, there are other things more important and rewarding than chasing money and that I helped build more character and self confidence in them as a person. I may not continue to work with a particular client on a regular basis as that is unrealistic but pride comes when athletes continue to use the training methods I taught them.
As a final interesting statistic that Joe Friel stated at the USAC Summit a few years ago, based on the numbers of athletes licensed as members for USAC and USAT and the number of coaches certified by USAC and USAT, he predicted that in 5 years the ratio of coaches to athletes may be close to 3:1. Perhaps standards and minimum requirements need to be established.
If coaches continue to charge $50 a month and deliver a high quality service or charge $300 a month with poor customer service, questionable knowledge and misguidance the "hobby coach" industry will continue to grow and maybe the professional coaches and groups will be a thing of the past.
JVD
