Results Reporting and Why It Matters

One of the most integral aspects of my coaching approach that tends to get overlooked is results reporting. The athletes that work with me understand this but my perception is that athletes who haven’t worked in a similar system do not. I don’t mean just logging that a session happened, but actually communicating what happened inside of it. There is a meaningful difference between those two things, and athletes who understand that difference tend to get a lot more out of their programming.

The short version is this: when I get quality feedback, I can create the highest quality progressions I am capable of. When I get a check mark, I create more generic ones.

What Quality Feedback Actually Looks Like

Most athletes default to objective reporting. They'll tell me they hit a 5x5 back squat at 275 pounds and that's it. That tells me it happened but doesn't tell me whether that was a 6 RPE or a 9 RPE, whether their core was the limiting factor or the legs. It doesn't let me know if they had more in the tank or were grinding through every rep.

That subjective layer is where the useful information lives. I want to know what you experienced. Where did you feel fatigue accumulating? What was the limiting factor? Did your heart rate recover between sets or were you still elevated going into the next one?

These details are what allow me to fine tune the next week of progressions appropriately rather than just applying a standard percentage increase and hoping it lands correctly.

Understanding the limiting factor in a given movement changes everything about the accessory work we build around it. Whether grip fatigue is the issue, a bicep pump, lat fatigue, or technique breaking down under load all point in different directions. Knowing which one we're actually dealing with allows the secondary work to directly address the primary problem. That's how accessory work compounds the main stimulus rather than just adding volume.

Where This Matters Most

I see this gap show up most consistently in gymnastics development. Athletes tend to have a fairly accurate sense of their barbell numbers because they've been building that awareness over time. That same internal map doesn't always exist for gymnastics movements.

The frequency that I get an athlete who estimates they can run 30 ring muscle ups in 7 minutes and it ends up being over 10 minutes is much higher than the athlete who tells me their back squat is at 300 and we get test results from them under 250. The sport of crossfit is unknown and unknowable, in order to maximize performance we need to have the most accurate picture of ourselves possible. 

This also creates a problem from a programming standpoint. If I don't have an accurate picture of where an athlete actually is, I'm making decisions based on information that doesn't reflect reality. That leads to progressions that are either too conservative to drive adaptation or too aggressive to be sustainable.This is why I mandate testing in our initial assessment phase and come back to testing periodically to create that picture. 

Video as Part of the Feedback Loop

One of the ways I've structured the communication process is by having athletes post video through the Coach RX app alongside their session notes. This is not something I ask for every session, but for the movements we're specifically developing it makes a significant difference.

The reason is that there is often a gap between what an athlete thinks their movement looks like and what it actually looks like. Written feedback can help close that gap, but it can't close it completely because the athlete can only report what they're aware of. 

When I can see the movement, I can respond with a voiceover and use the pointer to highlight the specific position or pattern I'm addressing. The athlete is getting visual and audio feedback simultaneously. The one thing I can't replicate remotely is tactile feedback, but I can design drill work that creates the right physical sensation to address whatever the movement is asking for. 

The Communication Loop as a Requirement

When an athlete isn't giving me feedback, I'm not able to deploy the kind of dynamic periodization that I prefer to work with. I end up creating conservative progressions because I don't know how aggressive we can be, and working on things retroactively after a training block has already finished is too slow of a time horizon for athletes who have serious goals.

I'm also more willing to have direct, honest conversations about the direction of a program with athletes who are actively communicating. Because when I know how you're experiencing the training in the moment, we can make real adjustments together. When that information isn't there, the feedback loop breaks down and the coaching relationship is less effective than it should be.

The athletes who are consistently improving in this sport all have a system where they're communicating with their coach and the coach is building a program in response to that information. Sometimes that means more competition work, sometimes it means pushing intensity through intervals, sometimes it means addressing something technical. That system only works when the feedback is actually there.

The non-reflective athlete will continue to give ground to the athlete who is more detail oriented. That's just the reality of competitive development at the higher levels of the sport.

When to Stop Analyzing and Go Compete

That said, there is a ceiling on this. It's rare for me to tell an athlete they've crossed it, but it does happen.

If an athlete is always running beautiful splits, always in control, always negative splitting their MetCons, it's probably time to start pushing them outside of that comfort zone. Competition isn't going to feel like a perfectly executed training session. You're going to go out too hot at some point. You need to know what that feels like, and what the back half of a workout feels like when it happens. This is something you can only really get from racing other people in person.

Part of reading an athlete well as a coach is knowing when the tool of detailed feedback and precise programming needs to give way to the tool of competition. Prescribing paces beyond current comfort levels or getting the athlete into a group setting where they're racing against other people once or twice a week creates a different kind of adaptation. 

The Bottom Line

Results reporting isn't administrative work that happens alongside training, it is part of the training. Every time an athlete gives me accurate, detailed feedback, the following week of programming becomes more precise. That precision compounds over time.

I want athletes who are bought into that communication process. If they're not, they're not getting the best version of what I can offer as a coach. I am in this business to help people to the best of my ability. Help me help you. 

— Ryne Sullivan