“All the gear and no idea” is that derogatory phrase all too oft quoted to reference the middle-aged athlete launching headlong into a sport with all the expensive equipment and no clue about the fundamentals. Working with MAMIL cyclists as I often do, I’ve met quite a few of these types. On the one hand, I embrace the enthusiasm of a new and exciting fitness project, but on the other I’ve sometimes had to persuade a few prospects to downsize their ambitions in the short term, so that they don’t do themselves an injury in the long run. For example - the aspiring triathlete who approached me in the autumn to race an ironman the following year with next to no experience, let alone any endurance base.

Athletics Weekly reporting on the ‘pacemaking platoon’ flanking Eliud Kipchoge

Interestingly this week I’ve started work with a cyclist in the opposite position, with barely any gear and some good ideas. How refreshing to find someone looking to learn and invest money, effort and time in getting the basics right, before spending too much on a swanky bike and expensive equipment. A bike isn’t going to buy you watts, but a good basic position will help, and a coaching program easily will, especially when you are starting from scratch.

Last month’s record breaking marathon by Eliud Kipchoge got me thinking about how the idea of “marginal gains” (propagated by the dominance of team Sky in the cycling world), has impacted on the ordinary cyclist/middle aged sports man or woman approaching a new fitness goal. In case you missed it, the African marathoner set an unofficial new world record for the 26.2miles with the support of a carefully masterminded INEOS team at the head of which was Sir Dave Brailsford, formerly of cycling’s team Sky.

As a lifelong cyclist who is now running, I found it a bizarre sight to watch Kipchoge flanked by elite runners in a “bunch” formation, benefitting from the draft as a cyclist would, and paced by a laser projected onto the road ahead for the full 26.2 miles of his record breaking run. For those familiar with the team INEOS philosophy in cycling, this measured level of control would have not been surprising, but to some in the running world it was controversial and new, being received with mixed emotions and not without controversy.

As British cycling’s popularity and visibility has grown over the last decades, many people have become fans and followers of Team Sky’s detailed approach, leaving no stone unturned in pursuit of performance goals, using their “marginal gains” philosophy to manage every possible controllable element.

In the context of team Sky/INEOS, this approach has reached into areas such as sports nutrition, sleep hygiene (ensuring riders have their own pillows for example), lifestyle management, as well as maximising the advantages of the tech that is so prominent in the world of professional cycling. The size of the team Sky budget has been a huge part of its success, but in reality this more holistic approach to training has been an enormous factor too.

“Holistic” is a word that I’ve often wrestled with in my approach because for some it seems unscientific. And yet, sports scientists are taking a holistic approach to maximise performance gains by couching their language in ways that seem more appealing to the scientific/sporting community. As this approach has been assimilated into the mainstream its interesting for me to see which parts of it have been quickly adopted and which have been ignored. I suppose it’s only human nature to want a quick fix, which is why for many cyclists buying a solution (such as a more aerodynamic bike), is easier than looking at all the small areas where changes could be made that would add up to that significant gain. Rarely have I come across a cyclist who has considered working on their sleep or nutrition patterns in a conscious way, or considered the benefits of closely matching their riding positions across several bikes to achieve the consistency that might add up to a more efficient pedalling action.

Part of the attraction of cycling for many is the geekery and analysis that is attached to it, from the bike itself to the clothing, the computers, the power measures and all the algorithms that can go into the analysis of training. As a sport scientist first and foremost I’m attracted to the analysis too, but I’ve also found that for ordinary people in the real world an overemphasis on tech or data and the wrong kind of detail fails to address the fundamentals of training which should underpin any fitness program. A lack of willingness to look at lifestyle factors such as overworking, under sleeping and poor nutrition can be the hidden factors that have the biggest impact on the effectiveness of any training program. Often these aspects cannot be scored on a digital training platform or app, and require the subtle artistic eye of an experienced coach, or the finely tuned confidence of a self-aware athlete.

Working with cyclists as I do I’m constantly wrestling with the problem that human beings are not designed to ride a bike. This biomechanical understanding must underpin the essential conditioning needed off the bike to keep the cyclist injury free, functional and performing at their best both on and off their machine. I’m often having to persuade keen riders to focus not on the ‘marginal gains’ of tech, but on the fundamentals of training, living a healthy lifestyle, resting and recovering well, and being realistic about what’s possible so that they are working with their body and not against it.

For runners, many of the pitfalls of an overemphasis on tech have largely been avoided, and its ‘low tech’ nature has been hugely attractive to me as I’ve turned my attentions for the time being to running well. So, although I’ve trialled and debated the benefits of certain trainers, and bought a few bits of basic kit, I’ve enjoyed the freedom of the fact that running gives your body more immediate feedback than cycling does. Without the intermediary of the bike to literally soften the blows of impact, it’s clear when you’ve over trained, under-rested, or not eaten right for whatever run you have in mind. While footwear choice is important, no trainer is going to magically make me a better runner in weeks rather than months.

Which is why I was saddened that some of the discussions emanating from the recent sub 2-hour marathon were centred around the performance gains of the Nike Vapourfly – the trainer with the carbon fibre plated sole claimed to add 4% efficiency to the runner wearing them. While I understand that sport is all about pushing the envelope and technological innovation I can’t help but think this is looking at the achievement back to front. As a fan of a more minimalist shoe for daily life as well as running I wonder how many middle-aged men and women will be rushing to buy these new trainers, hoping that this gift will transform their biomechanics and give them the gains in performance they are looking for. Without working on technique, without realising that the 100% running efficiency Kipchoge is already displaying even barefoot comes from decades of training, an early life running to and from school, and a probably natural, unprocessed diet that formed the base for his incredible recent performance with or without the Vapourfly. The trainers are not marginal gains, they are the icing on the cake. But the icing isn’t much good without the cake, is it?