Hmm - you probably know this as a coach and an interviewer, but the quality of the question determines the quality of the responses. Asking a novice athlete 'How did you feel?' might elicit responses that aren't very useful, like a chipper 'Good!', or 'That felt hard' with no context.
From the athlete point of view: As an athlete I get confused when my coach asks me 'how did you feel?' Yeah, I can tell her how I feel right now, while I'm riding the post-workout buzz, or later, when I'm disappointed by my performance, or even later, once I've had time to process something. But what is she really asking? Mentally? Emotionally? Physically? I can provide a whole page of notes or a one-word answer, what do you need to coach me properly?
That's why I kind of like the NASA framework (sounds useful for my own journaling too!):
Mental demand: what were your thoughts going in? coming out?
Physical demand: how did your body feel before, during, and after your workout?
Emotional demand: how did you feel? Anxious? Frustrated? Flow state?
Thanks for your comment Grace. "How did you feel?" or "How did that feel?" is an entry point, the first layer we peel back, if you will. The response gets the conversation started and opens a line of questioning—i.e., peeling back another layer, and then another. I've found through experience that if I ask an athlete more than one question at once it becomes too overwhelming and I don't get much that's useful, so we start with the most general and then drill down more specifically one layer at a time.
Reminded me of Goodhart’s Law. Paraphrasing (badly): “When a measure becomes the target it ceases to be an effective measure.”
It’s an interesting thing for running because “pace” can be a goal (pace over a distance for a time goal) but also a measure. But for a lot of data it rings true. If you start worrying about HRV then suddenly you’re making life decisions to improve HRV, not to improve your running.
Hmm - you probably know this as a coach and an interviewer, but the quality of the question determines the quality of the responses. Asking a novice athlete 'How did you feel?' might elicit responses that aren't very useful, like a chipper 'Good!', or 'That felt hard' with no context.
From the athlete point of view: As an athlete I get confused when my coach asks me 'how did you feel?' Yeah, I can tell her how I feel right now, while I'm riding the post-workout buzz, or later, when I'm disappointed by my performance, or even later, once I've had time to process something. But what is she really asking? Mentally? Emotionally? Physically? I can provide a whole page of notes or a one-word answer, what do you need to coach me properly?
That's why I kind of like the NASA framework (sounds useful for my own journaling too!):
Mental demand: what were your thoughts going in? coming out?
Physical demand: how did your body feel before, during, and after your workout?
Emotional demand: how did you feel? Anxious? Frustrated? Flow state?
Performance
Effort
...and fun!
Thanks for your comment Grace. "How did you feel?" or "How did that feel?" is an entry point, the first layer we peel back, if you will. The response gets the conversation started and opens a line of questioning—i.e., peeling back another layer, and then another. I've found through experience that if I ask an athlete more than one question at once it becomes too overwhelming and I don't get much that's useful, so we start with the most general and then drill down more specifically one layer at a time.
Damn I loved that protein bar article.
That Nico Young race is amazing!
Reminded me of Goodhart’s Law. Paraphrasing (badly): “When a measure becomes the target it ceases to be an effective measure.”
It’s an interesting thing for running because “pace” can be a goal (pace over a distance for a time goal) but also a measure. But for a lot of data it rings true. If you start worrying about HRV then suddenly you’re making life decisions to improve HRV, not to improve your running.
Too kind, Mario. Thanks for sharing the protein piece.