Should coaches coach female athletes differently?
In this blog Coach Alan looks at an area which has seen some of the highest media attention levels in the last 18months, from athlete conversations to the Training Peaks Endurance Coaching Summit (ECS): female athletes and how we should coach them.
This will seem to go against the grain, but my answer to the question “should coaches coach female athletes differently?” is, absolutely not. Crazy you might think, but I’ll explain why in one sentence.
‘All athletes should be treated uniquely.’
Are you, as an individual, regardless of sex, the same as the person next to you? We are all unique. We will, of course, have similarities but as a coach, we are trying to work with the ‘whole’ athlete, and when all the physical and psychological aspects of an individual are drawn together they make up a unique cocktail.
This month we are focussing on a theme of female athletes and there will be some gender-specific differences, so what are those differences and what should we do?
Keep asking the question
First of all, stick to the Stacy Sims rule that “women aren’t small men”. There is a significant lack of information in the academic literature that considers the different aspects of physiology in female athletes. It doesn’t take much reading of sports science literature to see that historically studies focus on male athlete subjects and don’t account or allow for any feasible difference in the response of female athletes. To some degree, almost all key studies need to go back and be repeated just with female subjects. With this in mind, the first step is ‘consideration’. Coaches and athletes need to be aware that the different underlying physiology could show up in training and racing in different ways. This is an additional component of the coach-athlete conversation when compared with coaching male athletes, and it should always be a question or query when planning training, and at times there may be a lack of information. I think this point is important for the general context.
Awareness
Second of all, coaches shouldn’t treat all female athletes the same. There is as much variance in female athlete physiology in terms of menstrual cycle length, phase duration, hormone levels, contraceptive use and nutritional implications and individual experience as there is in aspects of male or female swimming performance. It isn’t one size fits all, and it certainly isn’t simple, but then neither is swimming technique. And this is where the crux of my point is - all female athletes should be treated differently, in terms of their own physiology. Indeed in my experience, it is true that female athletes have as many questions as coaches do regarding the best way forward for them specifically. This isn’t really any different to any aspect of performance - you have to use some sort of framework to guide you and work together to work it out.
One of my biggest learning points to come from ECS was that a lot of the awareness-raising aspects of the conversation and infrastructure around menstrual cycle tracking apps could be the ‘telling’ nature of them. As I have said, not all female athletes are the same, so I’d extend Stacy Sim’s comment of “women aren’t small men” to “all women don’t fit one model”. Indeed ‘telling’ female athletes they do fit a particular model can have a negative impact. Moving forward, a greater range of the spectrum of healthy female athlete variances in different training modalities/loads, hormonal or non-hormonal contraceptive approaches and reproductive age will add better understanding. As with most things in life, things aren't black and white, and everybody lies on a spectrum. The errors in ‘telling’ aren’t really an exclusive issue confined to the effects of the menstrual cycle and the resultant changes in hormones associated with the different phases.
Communicate
Thirdly there absolutely should be an open-door policy on talking about the implications of different hormonal levels with individual athletes. Should this always be part of the conversation? Again, no not necessarily. But it is critical that the conversation is opened and continues to be open. As part of writing this blog, I have asked the opinion of the female athletes I work with, and I have quoted one of the responses below, which I think really neatly sums this point up.
"Maybe it’s adding something along the lines of ensuring, particularly if you are a male coach, that a female athlete understands you’re willing to and keen to hear about how the menstrual cycle plays in. But that’s basically the difference as once you open that up it’s a lot easier for an athlete to say, oh I had cramps today and it made that session tough, just as one might say, oh I slept like crap last night and it made that session tough. Actually, I think that’s probably the biggest point I’d make - I specifically remember writing at some point “I’m ill because x and x and oh this might be tmi, but I have my period and I always get ill near my period”, and we hadn’t had that chat before then. But as soon as we’d opened it up, it became just another thing you take into consideration in working with me. Not articulating well yet but I’d almost think that’s the main “difference”.
Again though if you neglect to talk about and cover race-day nutrition for long-distance triathlon and the athlete ‘bonks’ 3 hours into the ride well then, that’s a significant error too! As with all aspects of performance, it should also be assumed that things may change rather than they haven’t changed. One conversation at one point in time is a point of reference. In order to become a process, it must have some degree of repetition of discussion. If things do change, then coaches need to do what they should do best, listen, learn and adapt.
Maintain perspective
Finally, although it is the latest hot topic and certainly warrants much further development, it should not always be the centre of any coaching work. Female athletes are not defined by their menstrual cycle, and it should not become the complete centre of their coaching experience if it is something the athlete and coach are confident is well managed and accounted for. It can and still should be the case that the conversation can be focussed in other areas. It is impossible to focus on all areas at once constantly; hence why the periodisation of a season is so important. In my experience, when working with an athlete, you take the person first, then racing, then the athlete, then gender if that comes high enough up the pecking order.
"Reading that through did make me think about when we started considering my menstrual cycle and I do think there was a change at that point. Only insofar as it became “ok” in my head to talk about it. But also, that was a year and a bit in, and clearly, we’d had “success” before that."
In this specific example, perhaps that “success” was more luck than judgement, maybe, maybe not. Perhaps it was a result of keeping the main thing the main thing. Retrospective and indeed, any assessment of coaching performance is a super tricky area. If anybody has an answer to comparing apples with apples, please be in touch and let me know!
Summary
So to sum that all up;
Open the conversation in the same way you would any other training subject, open a conversation with an athlete.
Remain open to change and sceptical of the literature, listen to the athlete: There is simply not enough literature to draw conclusions and make sweeping statements: listen to what your athlete is telling you
Keep things in perspective, and consider the athlete first.
Open a conversation, listen, consider.
There is some specific knowledge required in female physiology just as there is with coaching from one sport to the next: you need to know your trade! Over the next few weeks some of my coaching colleagues will be covering some more specific content so stay tuned as there is, of course, differences between men and women. However, that doesn’t mean you should coach one sex differently; it purely means then you take a different pool of knowledge to make an informed decision about the unique athlete in front of you, which is, after all, good, sound coaching practice.
Alan has worked with Tri Training Harder since 2014. During this time working with a wide spectrum of athletes from beginner, to youth and junior elite athletes through to 70.3 and Ironman AG winners and Ironman Kona Qualifiers.
An active Triathlon coach since 2007 Alan has been fortunate enough to work with athletes, peers and support staff who have continutally challenged him to evolve and develop. Building on a solid foundation in swimming teaching, Alan has specifically developed swimming coaching experience having worked in High Performance Swimming environments. Alan's other passion is all things fast on a bicycle!
Since 2015 Alan has worked in conjunction with the other Tri Training Harder Coaches to significantly develop collective coaching practice both on camp and online.
Visit Alan's
Coach profile
We’re here to help
Tri Training Harder are one of the leading Triathlon coaching providers in the UK, using our wealth of experience to unite scientific and technological research with already well-established and successful best practices, to create a formula for triathlon and endurance coaching that works.
The result is an honest, dynamic, yet simple new way of constructing an athlete’s training to allow them to reach their potential.
If you’re planning your next season, just starting out in the sport or are looking for extra guidance at the very top end of the field, we are here to help, and our coaches would be delighted to hear from you. You can contact us via the website, and one of the team will be in touch.