Why Athletes Need a Plan, Not Just More Work
An Ask Aaron & EJ Podcast
The urge to train harder can be a strength—until it gets in the way of training well. Coaches Eric Johnson and Aaron Thigpen say athletic progress depends on more than effort: it takes a plan that connects each workout to a sport-specific goal, room to recover, and enough patience to master the work.
## Performance training is not the same as fitness
A workout can leave an athlete tired without moving them closer to better performance. Thigpen draws a distinction between general fitness and sports performance: an athlete’s program needs structure, oversight and a clear sense of how each session affects the next.
That’s why adding extra work just because it feels productive can backfire. Thigpen gives the example of doing a high volume of squats on Monday and expecting to sprint at full effort the next day. Depending on the work, recovery may take 48 to 72 hours. The additional session can force changes to what follows and disrupt the wider training plan.
He calls this “contaminat[ing] the next workout.” The point is not that athletes should avoid working hard. It is that effort has to fit the goal. A session that competes with the next stage of training may cost more than it adds.
Johnson reinforces the distinction for athletes and parents: going to the gym may help someone get in shape, but that alone does not mean the work is building the qualities needed in a sport. The program should have a reason for what it asks an athlete to do.
## Coordinate training and make space for recovery
The same planning problem arises when athletes take on multiple programs at once. Two coaches can each offer valuable work, Thigpen says, but those plans may not complement each other. Different priorities, overlapping demands or poor timing can leave an athlete doing too much without a coherent progression.
Online routines can add another layer. An athlete may combine coached speed work with a program found on Instagram, or add another skills plan alongside existing instruction. More activity is not automatically more progress; the pieces need to work together.
Recovery is central to that equation. Thigpen says athletes build during recovery, and insufficient rest can leave them “just digging a hole.” When an athlete wants to pursue several approaches, his advice is to choose one for a period, finish it, then move to the next rather than trying to follow every plan at once.
The practical test is whether each part of training supports the others. If the schedule keeps undermining the next workout, the solution may be better coordination—not another program.
## Let mastery guide changes
Johnson says athletes often ask for a new program after six months or a year simply because time has passed. But a calendar date does not prove that the current work has been mastered or that it has stopped helping.
Thigpen notes that establishing a foundation may take 20 to 30 sessions. For an athlete who trains once a week, that amounts to roughly half a year. And when training requires changing mechanics practiced for years, expecting a complete shift in a handful of sessions is unrealistic.
He encourages athletes to consider what they have actually learned and accomplished, rather than asking only how long they have been training. Can they perform the skill consistently? Can they recall it under pressure in competition? Those questions offer more useful evidence than the calendar alone.
Being able to do something once is not the same as mastery. Johnson and Thigpen describe mastery as an ongoing process, not a box to check before moving on. Athletes can ask what they need to do better within their current training before assuming they need an entirely different plan.
## Treat setbacks and breakthroughs as part of the path
Progress includes peaks, valleys, setbacks and sudden jumps forward. Thigpen cautions against making sweeping changes in response to a difficult stretch. Adjustments may make sense, but a setback does not automatically mean the whole approach should be discarded.
The reverse is true, too. A breakthrough does not mean the athlete has arrived. A good result can be evidence that training is working, while also showing that there is more to develop.
That perspective helps athletes resist the appeal of constant novelty. A program should be adjusted when the athlete’s development calls for it—not merely because a month has passed, a session felt hard or a new routine promises a quick fix.
## Build progress one purposeful session at a time
Athletes should judge training by whether it serves their sport, fits into a coordinated plan and allows for recovery. Instead of asking what to change next, they can ask what they still need to master—and whether their current work is helping them get there. For more companion writing and related ideas, the coaches point readers to gamespeed.net.
Related Material- Podcast: Rethinking Training Expectations
Podcast – Training: Putting The Pieces Together
