This week I am going to expand my thoughts on both overtraining and effective investment. I'll also explain a little something about averages in training and racing.
Our photo is the "Dixie Chicks", three great ladies that came to Mitch's desert camp and made it fun for me. Their passion for the sport was contagious and they added a lot to the week.
An offer to gLetter readers from Albert at Coffees of Hawaii. From May 21-28, you'll be able to get 20% off everything on the website
by using the code "gordo2007". Choose your order, then enter the code at checkout
. My favourite product is the Hawaiian Espresso.
A reader asked for some more information on my advice to never follow poor investment decisions (in people, in shares, in companies, in ourselves).
Read Hedgehogging by Barton Biggs. Tons of good stuff in there -- written by a man's who's world contains people where a net worth of $25 million is a reasonable starting point. The insight into the mind-set of the financial elite is interesting but the real value, for me, came from his reminders on investment strategies that work.
For example, in his firm they have a policy that they review every deal that falls X%. If they still believe that it is a good deal then they must double their position. If they can't convince themselves of that point then they sell immediately. You can apply this point to any situation in life -- I use it on people, discipline with human capital is more important than financial capital.
Tip Two -- Common mistakes that we make are: (a) giving more value to things that we already own (bad deals) ; and (b) over-estimating our ability to influence a situation (save an investment, improve an employee). These concepts are laid out quite well in Mauldin's book, Just One Thing.
Another issue that we face with our Bad Deals is that they distract us from doing what we are really good at. Put another way, we gain very little from turning a poor employee into an average employee. However, the star members of our teams (and portfolios) can impact total performance in a meaningful manner. The mere fact that we tolerate dead wood can hold back the star performers (See Collins, Good to Great).
Put simply, whenyo u think that you can fix the situation... you probably can't and, even if you can, you'll make more money backing your winners and investing in your strengths.
Finally, don't fool yourself into thinking that markets are transparent. My investment portfolio consists of:
>>>Money Market Funds (low fee, very low risk);
>>>CDs from very highly rated organizations;
>>>Ventures in which I play a positive role in enhancing equity value;
In the past, I have had the opportunity to invest in collective investment schemes that were managed by the partners of my old investment fund. That was a great deal, quite profitable and my role was limited. I also benefitted from the extended bull market in prime UK housing (that is continuing) -- I can't take much credit for that.
The partners' investment scheme and the housing boom succeeded by giving me leveraged upside, with limited downside -- they were options on future outcomes. Create, and take, options whenever possible. Consider where you can create options in your own life. I tend to keep a number of opportunities rolling at any one time. This gives me flexibility and exposure to a range of situations.
Another good lesson from Venture Capital is that if you invest long enough then you'll nearly always hit a home-run eventually. One homerun, when combined with fiscal discipline, creates many options for how you will spend your time.
It all sounds so easy, doesn't it. Well, there are probably a thousand qualified people for each seat at the elite finance table -- so you need to be smart; work your ass off; enjoy working and a bit lucky. From the outside, opportunity may appear to be what holds you back (the entertainment industry may appear like this to some). From what I've observed, most people lack the combination of work ethic and work enjoyment. I've given (and continue to give) people the opprtunity to learn/succeed. Even when you offer a hand up, most folks are content to stay in their current situation -- out of fear, inertia or some other driver.
Final thoughts... when you take the return of the financial services industry (as a whole), you'll see the participants strip out the excess return for themselves. It's a highly efficient market for the participants of "the game". That's my final book recommendation for today, The Game, by Adam Smith.
What follows is a chat about simple averages -- not normalized, not weighted. Unless I specifically write otherwise, I always mean the simple average when I write.
E.M. wrote... I just heard your talk on power on Ironman talk podcasts and found it quite interesting... I am actually glad I did not look at the watts during the race because (from training) my expectations were to bike in the 240-250 range vs the 225-235 range.
A buddy that worked at Nasa once explained to me why we spend nearly all of our time above the average pace/watts/hr for a session. It has something to do with the fact that sometimes we go _really_ slow but we never go _really_ fast. He had a nifty equation that explained it all.
The above athlete's experience is what happens in the real world when we pace correctly... our actual average is lower than our training average for that goal effort. Specific to that example, sitting on 240-250w for the bulk of the race will result in an average 10-20w lower. Many athletes get caught in the trap of chasing average watts -- you can get a bit depressed, or very tired (!), with that strategy on race day. Dial in your sustainable effort and accept the power/pace/speed that results. Honest race simulation workouts help avoid surprises.
It is similar with running. For me to average 4 minute per K pace in a race, I need to be able to sit in the 3:50-3:55 per K range for the bulk of the race.
By the way, this discussion isn't meant to say that one needs to train faster -- rather, I'm pointing out that on race day, most of us find that our "steady" pace over 8-18 hours is slower than our steady pace over 20-60 minutes. I spend a lot of time helping athletes learn this point.
What feels "easy" for the first five hours of racing... just might be your sustainable pace/power/effort for the entire race. It certainly is for the first three hours of your day -- no need to open up by swimming at Half Marathon heart rates. You are killing yourself.
A final thing to watch for in training -- let's say you want to hold 128-135 bpm on a workout. Early in the day that might result in an average of 127-129 bpm. After you are warmed-up, say, 133 bpm. If you are seeing averages close to 135 bpm then you've been training above your target zone most of the main set.
Coach KP and Dr. J were swapping ideas about overtraining, reaching for excellence and other ideas. It's always nice to "listen in" (via email) when a couple of smart guys share their experiences. Anyhow, after reading their thread, I talked it through with Mark Allen (I was in Santa Cruz this week). What follows is a mix of Mark, the guys and my own thoughts.
The lessons and benefits of being overtrained ALL accrue the FIRST time you go through that process and (if you are lucky) learn the nature of "bad fatigue". You will also see that fatigue is a state, not an emotion. The highest performing ultraendurance athletes have a low (to nil) emotional attachment to fatigue. I expect that the shorter the duration of the event, the more important a low emotional attachment to pain becomes.
Guys like Dave Scott, Mark Allen, Scott Molina, Peter Reid -- I imagine that they have low attachment to both fatigue and pain. I have no idea what _really_ happens in their heads but I know that my experiences meant that I was open to completely frying myself. My early warning signals sound "faint", or are ignored. My buddy Clas is even stronger than me -- therefore, his overtraining experience was, ultimately, deeper than mine.
In hindsight, I received all the overtraining "benefits" when I took myself to an over-reached state (see Going Long for an explanation of the difference). Basically, over-reaching is using race specific overload to create race specific fatigue in a desire to generate physiological and mental benefits. Over-reaching is an essential part of ultraendurance performance.
My lack of experience with "appropriate overload" led me to choose to go "too far" resulting in overtraining. It is really tough to see that you've gone "too far" until you get there.
Similar to learning how to differentiate pain, some people learn how to differentiate between types of fatigue. Good fatigue, silly fatigue, dangerous fatigue, fatigue that can be ignored and fatigue that shouldn't be ignored. Thing is... we are constantly changing and challenging ourselves to make decisions on uncertain information.
Many athletes relive, recreate, actively seek... highly stressful experiences such as overtraining -- they crave the chemical buzz associated with high stress. This pattern is a poor strategy for success but can produce high level results. A deeper level of success is available if we are conscious enough to learn from our mistakes.
Mark shared... picture a horizontal line -- at the left side is "out of shape"... at the right side is "maximum potential" -- one hundredth of an inch to the right of maximum potential is completely overtrained. Athletes that come closest to their maximum potential have the greatest risk of overtraining. I see this in my own athletes.
Here's the kicker... most people are so far from their maximum potential; so stressed out from their life choices; that to pile on the additional stress of "training right"; "physiologically optimal"; "true build training"; "going hard"; and/or "training like a pro". Achieves only two things...
#1 they get sick/injured; and
#2 they get very tired.
You are left with a person that faces simple exhaustion, rather than being overtrained. So they get nuked AND fail to get the benefits from pushing their limits. It takes many years of preparation to gain value in screwing up... a paradox of endurance training, I suppose.
To an athlete with an experience of being deeply overtrained -- effective training feels like being constantly undertrained. I've felt completely undertrained for the last thirty weeks, while using Mark's protocol. However when I think back, I can remember thinking very clearly that I was at my maximum limit for what I could absorb. It is just like looking back at a well paced Ironman race, at any given point could have gone "harder" however at the finish you know that you gave it your all.
I did an aerobic run test Tuesday morning before I met Mark. 5:59 average across three miles with last two miles at 6:00.36. The last three benchmark runs that I have done have all been life best performances across the distance (6 miles off the bike, 33-flat; Half Marathon off the bike, 1:16; Aerobic Test, 5:59). Everything that I am doing is contained in this blog -- there's no secret training happening. I'm doing less than previous years but (I suppose) absorbing more.
Most people fail by never giving themselves a chance to perform. Too much effort, too short a timetable, and a lack of preparation. Short bursts of mis-directed passion -- one night stands with "effort" rather than an extended courtship of "excellence".
That's all for this week,gordo
Labels: investing, overtraining, triathlon