The Overworked Missing Piece

on September 9, 2026

Fatigue Index, Intensive Tempo, and why the 400m athlete so often “gets fit” and gets worse

There is a strange pattern that shows up in 400-metre groups all over the world.

A coach discovers “the missing ingredient”: more hard work. More sessions that feel like the race. More lactate. More discomfort. More of the thing that makes athletes look tough in training and makes coaches feel like they’re doing the real work.

The group gets fitter. The athletes can complete more. The sessions become a badge of seriousness. Everyone is convinced they’re building the right kind of resilience.

And yet months later the race hasn’t improved in proportion to the suffering. Or it improves briefly and then plateaus. Or the athletes lose their sharpness, become rhythmically dull, and start looking like they’re running through sand at 300 metres. Sometimes they even get slower at the very qualities that used to define them.

This is the point where coaches either double down (“we need even more tolerance”), or swing back to speed (“we’ve lost our sprint”), or blame psychology (“they’re not committed”). The problem, more often than we admit, is that a critical piece is missing from the logic: fatigue isn’t one thing, and “hard work” isn’t one adaptation.

The 400 metres punishes the coach who cannot distinguish between fatigue that builds capability and fatigue that erodes the very mechanism the event runs on.

That missing piece is what I’m going to call overworked fatigue: the fatigue you train so often that it stops being an adaptation stimulus and starts becoming a reprogramming signal.

To make sense of it, we need two ideas that are rarely held together properly:

Fatigue Index is not a performance metric. It’s a behaviour metric.
Intensive tempo is not “just conditioning”. It is motor and fibre signalling under constraint.

Once those are understood, the role of HIIT-style work in the 400 becomes clearer—and also more dangerous when misused.

Fatigue Index: what it is actually telling you

Coaches treat fatigue index as if it is simply “how well you hold on”. That framing is too blunt to be useful. Fatigue index is not just a summary of decay. It is a window into what the organism does when it is asked to repeat output under incomplete recovery.

If you look at it that way, fatigue index becomes less like a score and more like a fingerprint.

A high fatigue index can mean different things depending on the athlete:

Insufficient speed ceiling: the athlete is forced to work too close to max even in testing
Poor repeatability of power: the athlete can produce, but cannot resynthesise or recycle quickly
Mechanical leakage under stress: posture collapses, contact times lengthen, stiffness drops
Pacing/control issues: the athlete burns the early reps rather than regulating them
Underdeveloped oxidative support for recovery: not “endurance”, but recovery machinery

That last point matters most. In the 400, the oxidative system is not there to win the race directly; it is there to govern how quickly you can restore readiness between high-cost efforts and how long the neuromuscular system stays organised while cost rises.

Fatigue index, done properly, is one of the few practical tools coaches have that captures this interaction without needing a lab. It’s imperfect, but it’s directionally honest.

The problem is that coaches often treat “lower fatigue index” as an unconditional good, then chase it with volume of hard work. That’s the beginning of the overworked trap.

Because you can reduce fatigue index in ways that make you worse at the 400.

You can reduce it by becoming better at working at a lower power output. You can reduce it by shifting fibre behaviour, reducing peak power, and turning a sprinter into a more durable but less threatening runner. You can reduce it by teaching the athlete to self-limit in order to maintain outputs across reps.

The number improves. The athlete changes. The event punishes you later.

So the first deep correction is this:

Fatigue index must always be read alongside peak power and speed ceiling.
If FI improves while peak power and speed expression fall, you didn’t build resilience — you built self-preservation.

That is a critical distinction.

Intensive tempo: what it really is (and what it isn’t)

In sprint culture, “tempo” gets muddied because the term is used for everything from easy extensive work to very hard repeat efforts. You’ve already called this out correctly: intensive tempo isn’t “80% of MAS”. In the 400 world, what people mean by intensive tempo is something closer to controlled high output—often in the 75–90% of sprint ability range depending on the session, the distances, the recoveries.

But the deeper point is not the percentage. It is the cost profile.

Intensive tempo occupies a dangerous middle ground:

fast enough to generate meaningful mechanical and metabolic cost
slow enough to be repeated
long enough to allow substantial glycolytic contribution
dense enough to create incomplete recovery

That combination makes it a powerful stimulus—but also a powerful reprogrammer.

When you use intensive tempo (and HIIT-style work that behaves like it), you are not only training “fitness”. You are training:

rhythm under partial fatigue
mechanics under increasing acidity and phosphate load
pacing control under constraint
motor unit recruitment patterns when output is being rationed
neuromuscular stiffness decisions when the body wants to protect itself

In short: you are training how the athlete behaves when the body is trying to survive.

That is exactly why it can help the 400. It is also why it can ruin it.

The role of HIIT in this space: what it adapts, and what it costs

HIIT is a broad label, but most HIIT that 400 coaches adopt resembles intensive tempo in two defining ways:

High glycolytic demand (high rates of ATP turnover)
Incomplete recovery (constraint is part of the stimulus)

Physiologically, repeated high-intensity work drives several adaptations that can be very useful for 400 athletes:

improved buffering capacity and acid-base regulation (though “buffering” is only part of the story)
improved lactate transport and clearance kinetics
improved oxidative recovery support (mitochondrial signalling can occur even in very intense work)
improved tolerance to repeated high neural output (up to a point)
improved economy of working under fatigue (motor learning element)

Those are real benefits.

But the cost side is where coaches get naive, because they assume cost only means tiredness.

The deeper cost is behavioural adaptation.

The body becomes what it repeatedly practices. If you repeatedly practise running hard while not being allowed full output—because the session density forces survival—you train the athlete to become brilliant at moderated output. The athlete becomes extremely competent at being “pretty good” repeatedly.

That is the overworked missing piece. The session is building repeatability by teaching restraint. In an event where decisive performance requires controlled aggression and stiffness preservation, too much restraint becomes a ceiling.

This is why coaches sometimes observe a very specific phenomenon after months of heavy intensive tempo / HIIT work:

the athlete becomes “flat”
top-end speed stops moving
speed endurance sessions feel slower than they should
the athlete looks technically tidy but lacks bite
races become evenly paced but not fast
the final 120m looks slightly less catastrophic but the overall time doesn’t drop

The athlete has become better at distributing fatigue without becoming better at creating speed that matters.

You didn’t train the event. You trained survival at submaximal power.

The timeline problem: adaptation vs accumulation

Here is the deep timing issue coaches rarely articulate properly:

The useful adaptations from intensive tempo occur quickly. The negative reprogramming happens slowly.

In the short term (weeks), intensive tempo often produces:

better tolerance to training density
better “finish” in reps
improved confidence under fatigue
improved repeatability of decent outputs

In the longer term (months), heavy reliance can produce:

blunted neural output
reduced stiffness and elastic qualities under fatigue
chronic “grey zone” training status (always somewhat tired)
drift toward more oxidative fibre characteristics at the expense of peak power expression
a stable-but-capped performance profile

This creates the illusion of progress early and the reality of plateau later.

And the more talented the athlete is, the more it can hurt them, because the event is ultimately decided by who can bring the highest velocity into the last 120m without falling apart. If you erode the ability to express high velocity, you quietly dismantle the very thing that makes the 400 special.

This is why you can have programmes that “work” at developing 400 runners to a respectable level, but struggle to produce genuinely fast ones. They build durable performers rather than dangerous ones.

Fibre signalling and long-term shifts (without getting lost in jargon)

You asked specifically about fibre change. It’s worth being careful here, because the common coaching narrative (“you’ll turn them into slow-twitch”) is usually exaggerated.

But there is a more precise way to say it:

Repeated, dense, high-volume glycolytic work—especially when combined with frequent fatigue—tends to push the athlete toward a phenotype that is better at sustaining moderate-high outputs and less exceptional at producing peak outputs.

This can occur through:

shifts in myosin heavy chain expression over long timeframes (particularly in less trained or more plastic athletes)
changes in enzymatic profile toward oxidative support and away from maximal power expression
neuromuscular behaviour changes (recruitment, rate coding, coordination) that look like “fibre change” in practice even when the fibre types haven’t radically transformed

In other words, even if the fibres don’t “convert” in a simplistic sense, the athlete becomes trained to behave like a more endurance-biased runner.

The athlete learns to ration force.

That is the real danger: not fibre conversion as a myth, but motor strategy under chronic fatigue becoming the default.

So what is the correct role of intensive tempo and FI in a 400 programme?

If you hold the earlier model—speed unlocks, support stabilises, fatigue diagnoses—then intensive tempo and fatigue index sit in a very particular place.

They are not the centre of the programme.
They are not a year-round identity.
They are a tool for targeted consolidation and a lens for behavioural monitoring.

A mature interpretation looks like this:

Use intensive tempo / HIIT-style work to build the athlete’s ability to maintain mechanics and rhythm under controlled fatigue for a period, not indefinitely.
Use fatigue index to identify whether decay is improving because the athlete is becoming more resilient or because the athlete is becoming less powerful.
Always pair the interpretation of fatigue with markers of speed expression and peak power so you can see whether you’re building repeatability at the right output.

This is where coaches go wrong: they look at fatigue alone and chase “better fatigue numbers”. The event doesn’t reward that. The event rewards better fatigue behaviour at higher velocities.

That’s a different target entirely.

The overworked principle (the one coaches should actually remember)

If you want a single principle to carry forward, it’s this:

Intensive tempo is most valuable when it is sparingly used to stabilise a newly unlocked race.
It is most damaging when it becomes the programme’s identity.

Or, more bluntly:

The moment your athletes become very good at training tired, you should be suspicious.

Because the 400 is not won by who can repeatedly produce decent efforts in training. It is won by who can bring a high velocity into the final section of the race and keep it meaningful when the cost is highest.

Too much intensive tempo teaches the athlete to do the opposite: to distribute, to survive, to preserve.

That’s why it is the overworked missing piece. It’s not that coaches don’t use it. It’s that they use it so much they train the wrong animal.

START

Once you accept that fatigue can be trained in ways that quietly undermine the event, you start to see why so many 400-metre programmes converge toward the same shape even when coaches think they are doing very different things.

They all end up rehearsing restraint.

This happens slowly, and it rarely feels like a mistake while it’s happening. The sessions feel honest. They hurt. The athletes come off the track breathing hard, legs full, convinced they’ve done something that resembles the race. Coaches watch repeated efforts completed under fatigue and see evidence of toughness, resilience, professionalism. The environment rewards this kind of work because it looks like commitment.

But the organism is not responding to the intent of the session. It is responding to the constraint.

If you repeatedly ask an athlete to operate in a state where full output is not available, the nervous system adapts by learning how to ration force. It learns which fibres can be left dormant, which motor units can be cycled rather than fully recruited, which rhythms minimise cost rather than maximise velocity. None of this is conscious. None of it is malicious. It is simply efficient behaviour under repeated constraint.

Over time, this efficiency becomes identity.

This is where the fatigue index becomes seductive. Numbers improve. Decay smooths. Variability reduces. Coaches feel reassured that the athlete is “holding form better”. But what is actually being held is not speed; it is moderated speed. The system is learning to protect itself.

The uncomfortable truth is that the body does not distinguish between “race-like” fatigue and “training-induced” fatigue in the way coaches hope it does. It distinguishes between outputs that are repeatedly allowed and outputs that are repeatedly suppressed. If high velocities are rarely expressed under fresh conditions, they stop being treated as the default. They become exceptional events rather than baseline capabilities.

This is why programmes heavy in intensive tempo and HIIT often produce athletes who look excellent at everything except the one thing that matters most in the 400: carrying meaningful speed into the final section of the race.

The athlete has learned to survive at 85–90%. They have not learned to arrive at 95% and keep it organised.

What makes this especially insidious is that the decline is rarely obvious. The athlete does not suddenly lose top-end speed in testing. Instead, speed stagnates. Elastic qualities feel less reactive. Sprint sessions feel “fine” rather than sharp. Coaches compensate by adding more volume, more density, more exposure to fatigue, because that is where the athlete still looks competent.

The programme tightens around the wrong signal.

This is where the concept of fibre change is usually invoked, and usually poorly. The real issue is not that fast fibres suddenly convert en masse into slow fibres. It is that the rules governing their use change. High-threshold units are recruited later, less often, and with less aggression because the system has learned that full recruitment is expensive and rarely rewarded in the training environment.

In other words, the athlete is not becoming slow; they are becoming cautious.

That caution shows up most clearly under fatigue. When the race reaches the point where force must be imposed rather than distributed, the system defaults to what it has practised most. If it has practised surviving many hard sessions rather than expressing speed under threat, it will choose survival every time.

This is why the final 120 metres of the race often looks the same across athletes with very different training backgrounds. The mechanics soften, the stride shortens, the posture collapses slightly, and the athlete “runs out of answers”. It is tempting to call this a metabolic failure. More often, it is a decision failure learned over months of training.

The system has been taught that holding on is preferable to attacking.

Once you see this, the role of fatigue index becomes clearer and more dangerous. FI is not telling you how well the athlete will cope with the race. It is telling you how the athlete behaves when asked to repeat output. That behaviour can be adaptive or it can be defensive.

A lowering fatigue index is only meaningful if it occurs without a concurrent reduction in peak output or speed expression. If FI improves while top-end capacity stagnates or declines, the athlete is not becoming more resilient; they are becoming more conservative.

This is the point where many coaches misinterpret “efficiency”. Efficiency in endurance sport is usually a virtue. Efficiency in the 400 can be a liability if it is achieved by suppressing force.

The event does not reward the athlete who is best at being economical at submaximal velocities. It rewards the athlete who can remain mechanically expensive longer than everyone else without collapsing.

That is a very different skill.

The tragedy is that intensive tempo and HIIT are not the villains here. They are powerful tools when used at the right moment. The problem is that they are often used as a default rather than as a response. They become the centre of the programme instead of a phase within it.

Used sparingly, they teach the athlete how to organise movement under rising cost. Used excessively, they teach the athlete how to avoid cost altogether.

The difference is not in the session design. It is in how long you live there.

This is where adaptation timelines matter more than session mechanics. The beneficial adaptations from this kind of work appear quickly. The behavioural reprogramming appears slowly. Coaches often stop looking once the early gains appear and assume the job is done. Months later, they are puzzled by why the athlete feels flat, why speed refuses to climb, why races look controlled but not threatening.

The damage has already been done, quietly.

The hardest thing for a coach to do at this point is to reintroduce freshness and exposure to full output. Not because the athlete cannot handle it physically, but because they have forgotten how to allow it. The nervous system resists. Rhythm feels unfamiliar. Sprinting feels risky. The athlete may even feel slower at first, not because they are, but because the protective governor has been tightened.

This is why some athletes seem to “lose speed” when intensive tempo blocks are removed. They haven’t lost speed. They have lost permission.

Reversing that takes time, and it takes courage from the coach, because the early signs look like regression. The athlete feels less comfortable. Sessions look less tidy. Fatigue becomes sharper rather than smoother. This is often misread as evidence that the previous work was necessary. In reality, it is evidence that the system is relearning how to express force.

The 400 does not reward athletes who are best adapted to training stress. It rewards athletes who can weaponise speed in the presence of fatigue. That distinction is subtle but absolute.

If there is a single caution that sits underneath all of this, it is this: the more often you train the athlete to ration force, the more force they will ration in the race.

Fatigue index, intensive tempo, and HIIT are not wrong. They are simply overused because they provide visible feedback and emotional reassurance. They make athletes look tough. They make coaches feel purposeful. They also quietly teach the athlete how to survive rather than how to threaten.

The missing piece was never more work.
It was knowing when the work stopped serving the race.

Why the 400 punishes coaches who confuse tolerance with capacity

The confusion between tolerance and capacity is one of the most expensive mistakes a 400-metre coach can make, because it feels virtuous while it is happening.

Tolerance looks like progress. The athlete completes more work. They survive sessions that would once have broken them. Their recovery between reps improves. Their posture decays more slowly. Their splits stabilise. On paper, everything moves in the right direction. Coaches are rewarded socially and emotionally for building this kind of athlete, because tolerance reads as seriousness. It reads as commitment. It reads as preparation.

Capacity, by contrast, is quieter. It is harder to point to in a single session. It often requires restraint, protection, and a willingness to let the athlete look unimpressive on certain days. It doesn’t always announce itself with obvious fatigue or drama. And because it is less visible, it is easier to neglect.

The 400 metres punishes this confusion ruthlessly.

Tolerance is the ability to endure cost. Capacity is the ability to impose force despite cost. Those are not the same thing, and they do not grow in parallel.

When coaches chase tolerance, they often do so by increasing density: shorter recoveries, more repetitions, more frequent exposure to discomfort. The athlete adapts by becoming better at distributing effort. The nervous system learns which outputs are sustainable and which ones are not worth accessing. Over time, the system becomes extremely skilled at staying within itself.

That is tolerance.

Capacity, on the other hand, requires the system to repeatedly experience moments where full output is both permitted and expected. It requires exposure to high velocity when the body would prefer restraint. It requires the athlete to learn that force expression is still the correct solution even when fatigue is present, not something to be avoided.

This is where the conflict arises. You cannot maximise tolerance and capacity simultaneously for long periods, because they teach opposite strategies under stress.

Tolerance teaches the athlete how to reduce cost.
Capacity teaches the athlete how to override it.

The 400 metres does not reward the athlete who is best at reducing cost. It rewards the athlete who can tolerate cost while still imposing speed. That distinction is subtle, but it is decisive.

What makes this so difficult to manage is that tolerance improves faster than capacity. You can make an athlete more tolerant in a matter of weeks. Capacity takes longer, and its early signs are often messy. Mechanics fluctuate. Fatigue looks sharper rather than smoother. Sessions feel riskier. Coaches mistake this instability for regression and retreat back to tolerance-building work because it feels safer.

That retreat is often the moment the athlete’s ceiling quietly lowers.

You see this most clearly in athletes who become very good trainers but limited racers. They look composed in sessions, hit consistent reps, and rarely fall apart in practice. Then, in competition, they reach 280 or 300 metres and simply stop threatening the race. They don’t implode. They fade. Smoothly. Predictably. Politely.

That kind of fade is not metabolic failure. It is learned behaviour.

The athlete has learned that when cost rises, the correct response is to protect output rather than to challenge it. The nervous system is doing exactly what it has been trained to do. The coach just didn’t realise that was the lesson being taught.

This is why the language of “tolerance” is dangerous when it is not carefully defined. Tolerance to what? Tolerance at what output? Tolerance in service of what behaviour?

Tolerance without capacity produces athletes who are very good at being average under stress.

The race exposes this brutally. In the final 120 metres, when everyone is tired, the winner is not the athlete who feels the least fatigue. It is the athlete who can still impose speed when fatigue is unavoidable. If the athlete has been trained primarily to manage fatigue rather than to assert through it, they will not suddenly discover that ability in competition.

It is not a mindset problem. It is not a bravery problem. It is a motor strategy problem that has been rehearsed hundreds of times in training.

This is where many coaches misinterpret what they are seeing and reach for the wrong solution. They see the athlete fade and conclude they need more tolerance. More exposure. More discomfort. More sessions that look like the last 150 metres of the race. The athlete becomes even better at surviving those sessions, and even worse at threatening the race.

The loop tightens.

Capacity, when built properly, often looks inefficient at first. The athlete expresses higher outputs, but cannot yet repeat them smoothly. Fatigue becomes more volatile, not less. Coaches who are not prepared for this misread it as fragility rather than as a system being challenged beyond its previous comfort zone.

This is where judgement matters more than knowledge.

The question is not “does this athlete fatigue?” Every 400-metre athlete fatigues. The question is what does the athlete do when fatigue appears? Do they soften, distribute, and protect? Or do they remain aggressive in posture, rhythm, and intent even as cost rises?

Those behaviours are trained, not discovered.

If tolerance has been overtrained, the athlete will default to conservation. If capacity has been protected and challenged appropriately, the athlete will default to imposition. That difference shows up late in races, late in seasons, and late in careers.

This is why some athletes with modest-looking training numbers consistently outperform athletes with superior metrics. They are not fitter. They are not faster in isolation. They have simply been trained to use what they have when it matters, rather than to preserve it.

The 400 metres does not care how well you cope with fatigue in general. It cares how you behave at a very specific moment when fatigue intersects with speed. That moment cannot be faked, and it cannot be rehearsed indirectly forever.

Eventually, the coach has to decide what they are willing to sacrifice: the comfort of tidy training, or the discomfort of allowing capacity to be exposed and tested.

Tolerance makes training look good.
Capacity makes racing look dangerous.

The event will always choose the latter.

why coaches often confuse “protecting the athlete” with protecting the programme

Once tolerance has been mistaken for capacity, another confusion tends to follow almost automatically. Coaches begin to believe they are protecting the athlete, when in reality they are protecting the programme.

This is rarely a conscious decision. It emerges from a perfectly human impulse: if a structure appears to be working, don’t disrupt it. If the athlete is completing sessions, staying healthy, and looking composed, the programme must be sound. The temptation then is to insulate that structure from challenge rather than to expose the athlete to the kinds of stress that might destabilise it.

The programme becomes something to be preserved.

This is where protection subtly shifts its object. Instead of asking whether the athlete is being prepared for the demands of the race, the coach begins to ask whether the athlete can tolerate the demands of the programme. The two questions are not the same, but they quickly become entangled.

Once that happens, the logic of training inverts. Sessions are designed to ensure continuity rather than confrontation. Loads are shaped to maintain compliance rather than to provoke adaptation. When the athlete looks uncomfortable, the instinct is not to ask what that discomfort represents, but to smooth it out so the programme can continue uninterrupted.

The irony is that this kind of protection often feels ethical. Coaches tell themselves they are managing risk, avoiding burnout, respecting the athlete’s limits. In reality, they are often avoiding uncertainty. They are choosing the safety of predictability over the discomfort of not knowing whether the athlete can rise to the next level of demand.

In the 400 metres, that avoidance is costly.

The race does not reward programmes that run smoothly. It rewards athletes who can survive disruption without retreating into conservation. If the athlete has never been allowed to experience disruption in training — real disruption, not just discomfort — they will not suddenly handle it well when the race imposes it without warning.

This is why so many athletes look excellent until they don’t. Everything appears under control until the race reaches a point where control is no longer an option. At that moment, the athlete defaults to whatever strategy has been rehearsed most often. If that strategy has been “stay tidy, stay within yourself, don’t let things unravel”, the race unravels anyway, just more politely.

The coach, watching this, often feels betrayed by the programme. It looked solid. It was logical. It was progressive. But the problem was never the logic. It was the absence of genuine confrontation with the demands that actually decide the event.

This is where protecting the programme becomes a form of self-deception.

The programme cannot feel threatened. The athlete must.

This does not mean reckless loading or constant maximal stress. It means that at critical moments in development, the athlete must be allowed to experience outputs and costs that are not immediately stabilised. They must feel what it is like to impose speed when the body would prefer to distribute it. They must experience what it is like to maintain stiffness and rhythm when fatigue makes that choice expensive.

Those moments are uncomfortable for coaches because they are uncomfortable to watch. They disrupt the neat story of gradual improvement. They produce sessions that look uneven, messy, and occasionally alarming. They force the coach to sit with uncertainty rather than resolve it through intervention.

This is where many programmes quietly back away. Not because the coach lacks courage, but because the environment punishes perceived risk. Athletes talk. Parents talk. Other coaches watch. A tidy programme is easier to defend than a messy one, even if the messy one is doing more honest work.

Over time, the programme becomes optimised for explainability rather than effectiveness.

The athlete learns this too. They learn what kinds of behaviours are rewarded in training. They learn that composure is valued, that smoothness is praised, that survival is applauded. They learn to avoid moments that make sessions look bad, even if those moments are exactly what the race will demand later.

None of this requires explicit instruction. It is learned through reinforcement.

This is why some athletes struggle when they finally encounter true race stress. They have never practised being dangerous under threat. They have practised being controlled under load. When the race demands something else, they have no reference point.

The coach, faced with this, often reaches for reassurance: more of what worked in training, more of what felt safe, more of what kept the programme intact. The athlete becomes even more tolerant, even more composed, and even less capable of changing the outcome of the race.

The ceiling lowers without anyone noticing.

The uncomfortable alternative is to accept that some phases of training should feel slightly out of control. Not chaotic, but unresolved. The athlete should sometimes leave the track unsure whether what they just did was “good” or “bad”. The coach should sometimes resist the urge to tidy the response.

This is not negligence. It is trust in the organism’s capacity to adapt when given the right kind of challenge and enough space to absorb it.

Protecting the athlete does not mean removing all threat. It means removing unnecessary threat while allowing essential threat to do its work. The difficulty lies in telling the difference.

Protecting the programme, by contrast, removes threat indiscriminately. It smooths over every disruption, treats every wobble as a problem to be solved immediately, and slowly trains the athlete out of the very behaviours the race requires.

The 400 metres exposes this more brutally than almost any other event because there is nowhere to hide. The final section of the race strips away every layer of polish and reveals what the athlete has actually been trained to do when things stop feeling manageable.

If they have been trained to preserve, they will preserve.
If they have been trained to impose, they will impose — even when it hurts.

That difference is not accidental. It is programmed, often unintentionally, through what the coach chooses to protect.

The most difficult question a 400-metre coach can ask themselves is not “is my programme sound?” It is “what behaviours am I quietly rewarding, and which ones am I preventing from emerging?”

Until that question is answered honestly, the programme will always feel safer than the athlete it produces.

And the race will always expose the difference.

Categories:

Uncategorized

Tags:

No Tag

Comments are closed