Interesting discussion with Mike Robertson’s blog entry You NEED Long Duration, Low Intensity Cardio as any stance creates opposing points of view. I agree that some endurance is needed, but many coaches are asking for details, as the devil is always there. This summer is an interesting experiment with different athletes (offseason). I don’t know what works but I do know that workouts help guide us to what could work. No matter how good the research is, it never really is what people do for the majority, so it leaves the coaches to decide what could happen. So many variables we need to start doing more on sharing simple data sets to tell a story, not a summary. I have been guilty of this and I apologize for not getting into detail. So, I will share just the team system as it’s beyond HRV.
HRV testing to me has done more to address the most obvious of questions. How an athlete is sleeping. What is their RPE from the day earlier. Sometimes and RPE immediately is not enough, when an athlete wakes up sore and stiff, the added perception is valuable. This makes me think about the long term effects of the workout. What about resting HR? Is the athlete getting fitter or is he training hard and overtraining? Is the HRV and HR great, but they are training like a fitness person or are they handling loads that are investments for the season? Do they wake up early or wake up late. Are they stable? What about notes on soreness or activity of the previous day? What is the gap of time between practice and wake time? Good morning HRV is not as helpful later in the day as much can happen between wake and an evening session. Is a low HR meaning their Yo-Yo test is like a freak midfielder on a EPL team or are they good for 30 minutes of jogging? My resting HR is 52 (standing) and I walk three days a week. I would get destroyed in a pick up basketball game. I will get into more about the context of aerobic training, but without details we don’t know if the aerobic intervention was successful.