Hub Vs. Matrix Models

Think about the last conversation you had with another athlete or coach related to training. Was a version of this question asked, "How many miles are you running each week?" I'm going to guess it was. I know from experience as I would ask questions about this topic in most conversations with other coaches. I wanted a simple way to have an athlete improve and believed the answer could be found solely in how many miles were run each week.

Over time as I continued learning, I would add new training components or employ new methodologies to training programs. Through the process of refining how I assigned training, I had a realization that mileage was only one of the many variables I could assign. This caused me to ask the question, "Why is mileage any more important than the other components that I incorporate and monitor?"

On one hand, this question seems to have a simple answer: “Mileage is more important because we are training to run.” But upon stepping back and examining a typical week of training, it is easy to see that not all the running an athlete does is created equal. There is a difference between an easy run, a long run at easy pace, a tempo run, a workout at mile pace and a mile race. Again, this is an obvious statement. But why then are we (athletes and coaches) so quick to add the distances of all the various types and paces of running and describe it simply as mileage?

I believe much of the reason is rooted in our desire to simplify complex issues. However, somewhere in that process, we end up oversimplifying the contributing factors to performance. IE – Runner A improved because she was running a lot of miles or Runner B didn’t improve because she wasn’t running enough miles.

Once I embraced the complexity that is designing, administering, and evaluating training, I began to look for ways to explain the fullness of the process. This was born out of increasing invitations to present at clinics and the need to succinctly explain my approach to training. In talking with numerous people about the components that I utilize when designing training, a visual representation started to take shape. To make more sense of this new visual representation, I also needed a visual for my previous way of thinking. Thus the “Hub” and “Matrix” models were created.

Hub Model

The Hub Model represents how I thought about training for many years as an athlete and a coach. Mileage (in all forms) is the central tenant or hub and is the most important element. Any other component of a training program extends from the hub, like a spoke. The purpose of these other pieces is to support accumulating mileage.

Matrix Model

The Matrix Model represents my current view of training. There is no central component, just various elements that all relate to each other. These components can range from sleep to racing. All the modalities are related to each other and interact with each other. A component that is determined to be important for one athlete may not be a priority for another. This model requires constant observation and adjustment. The athlete and/or coach realizes there are complex relationships between the multitude of occurrences in the training session and life. This information must be sifted through to determine what will yield the best results for the athlete.