In the previous post, I gave an overview of how I came to develop my concept of the performance equation. As a reminder, that equation is:

Preparation + Opportunity + Execution = Performance

If you have not read the last post, I would recommend doing so as I will now be taking a deeper dive into each aspect of the equation, starting this week with preparation.

Preparation

When looking at the performance equation, preparation may seem self-explanatory on the surface as almost any route to success involves extensive preparation, be it in sport or otherwise. One can almost imagine a movie montage with the main character undergoing extensive vigorous training with motivational 80’s music pushing them along the hero’s journey.

I love Rocky IV too, but the reality is often much more boring.

From 2008-2018, Endurance Corner would host a week-long training camp in Tucson, Arizona that consisted of six days of high-volume training where age group triathletes would typically train 25-30 hours in that timespan. The coaching staff would often include professional triathletes and every year I heard the age group athletes ask them a variation of the same question with:

“How does this week at camp compare to a normal week of training for you?”

The answers the pros gave often began with some technical differentiation, but would then almost always dovetail into some iteration of:

“It’s much more boring”

“Less exciting”

“A lot simpler”

All that being said, I think their description(s) of training being boring is not the same as saying that these athletes are not deriving enjoyment from it. I think performers that can achieve excellent preparation find elements of enjoyment and satisfaction from the repetitive and demanding processes of pursuing mastery in their craft. It might better be described as an acceptance and willingness to embrace the elements of preparation that may seem tedious and redundant with the understanding that it will serve a greater purpose towards their goals.

Next, athletes need to understand what they are actually preparing for and not fall victim to preparing arbitrarily.

What does that mean?

Let’s imagine a baseball player wants to improve their hitting so they decide they are going to the batting cages each evening to (try to) hit 100 pitches.

There are many different ways a player could approach this.

They could go each evening and hit 100 fastballs in a row, making them proficient at hitting that specific pitch, but little else.
Taking it one step further, the batter could choose to still hit 100 pitches each evening, but with a mix of fastballs, curves, sliders, etc. so that they learn to hit a variety of pitches.
That was an improvement, but they could take it even further by simulating different game scenarios where the batter is trying to hit certain pitches to different sides of the field based on hypothetical conditions involving base runners, ball/strike count, etc.

I’m sure it can get much more nuanced than that, but I stopped playing baseball at 14 so I’ll let the baseball savants take it from there.

Within the world of endurance sports, I see analogous situations where the preparation that athletes undergo may be quite rigorous, extensive, and even impressive, but it is lacking its direction towards preparing specifically for the demands of the competition or towards the potential tactics and scenarios that they may face.

Thinking about this practically, consider the following:

Are you incorporating the tactics you plan to use in competition in your training?
Are you simulating the terrain you will be competing on?
Are you prepared for any potential environmental variables that may be at play (e.g., cold, heat, wind, rain, etc.)?

The questions could go on and on, but you get the idea. An athlete could easily be preparing extensively, but not in a way that is directed specifically towards the demands they will face in a race/competition.

Ultimately, intentional and directed preparation enhances its effectiveness.

Next, excellent preparation avoids skipping steps.

A number of years ago, I was introduced to Wayne Goldsmith and his Seven Steps of Skill-Learning, which includes the following:

Perform the skill.
Perform the skill very well.
Perform the skill very well at speed.
Perform the skill very well at speed, when fatigued.
Perform the skill very well at speed, when fatigued, under pressure.
Perform the skill very well, at speed, when fatigued, under pressure, consistently.
Perform the skill very well, at speed, when fatigued, under pressure, consistently in competition.

With Goldsmith’s model, we can see how athletes can inhibit their own mastery by trying to add too many challenging variables at once. Instead, they need to master each step before progressing to the next one.

However, I also often see athletes trying to skip steps in the totality of their performance. For example, an athlete that has run a 20:00 5K may be overly focused on running a 19:00 5K instead of 19:50, 19:40, 19:30, etc first. By reaching too many steps ahead, they may fail to properly prepare for the next step in front of them. Moreover, it can manifest into athletes repeatedly attempting to train with the fitness they want in the months or years down the road, instead of the fitness they have right now. Collectively, this may perpetuate a cycle of suboptimal preparation despite a willingness and dedication to put in the work.

Basically this is explained in the countless variations of the following meme:

Finally, there is one aspect of preparation that I want to close with, and that is the pitfall of subjective comparison.

An athlete’s preparation can be severely hamstrung when they get overly focused on how their preparation is going alongside that of someone else (or many others). Typically, this is seen when two or more athletes are continually completing similar training sessions, but one athlete appears to be responding better or more quickly than the other(s). When this happens, the athlete that perceives their progression as subpar begins to weigh the effectiveness of their own preparation based on how well it mirrors someone else’s progression rather than focusing on themselves.

Ironically, the reverse perspective can be problematic as well. An athlete that is progressing at a seemingly better rate than their training partners can slip into the zone of complacency and lose sight of evaluating their own progress.

In either case, the key takeaway is avoiding the evaluation of one’s preparation when one’s progression is solely, or even primarily, rooted in external, instead of internal, comparisons.

+++

In Part III, we will take a deeper dive into the second element of the equation: Opportunity.

Performance Equation Part II: Preparation

The Performance Equation