Over the years, we observed a recurring pattern that concerned us a great deal. While most coaches who adopted 3S are successful, and many are still using our now-GEN2 platform more than twenty years after first being introduced to 3S, some coaches discontinue using the platform—often before completing their first season—stating that 3S is not delivering the results they expected.
If you know me, you also know that I take every such report personally. To me, every coach who leaves 3S dissatisfied represents a personal failure to deliver what we promised and the failure of the 3S concept in general.
From the very beginning, 3S was built with one purpose in mind: to help coaches make better daily training decisions by formalizing the training process, establishing common professional definitions, and providing the tools needed to apply that process consistently.
Considering the fundamental principles of 3S and the universal platform (in the contemporary approach to training methodology), we do not see a real alternative to 3S when results and the confident management of the training process are in question.
Our objective has never been to tell coaches what to do. Our objective has always been to help coaches make better decisions by providing a coherent training process, consistent definitions, and practical tools that support—not replace—their professional judgment.
Naturally, one question continued to concern us.
Were our methods failing to produce the expected results, had we failed to communicate the methodology clearly enough, or was something else happening altogether?
Initially, we assumed that some coaches simply needed more time to understand and master the 3S platform and the instruments it provides. After all, many discontinued using 3S before completing the first season, often before the planned progression had a chance to unfold.
As the years passed and more information accumulated, however, we gradually arrived at a different conclusion.
The ongoing reports from our users indicate that the scientific foundations of 3S are not the problem. If nothing else, coaches who consistently applied the methodology achieved progression rates well above those reported in the industry.
As for our communication, it could certainly improve, and we have already invested considerable effort into articles, educational materials, webinars, and direct support to help coaches understand the 3S methodology.
What we eventually discovered, however, was something entirely different.
The real challenge was methodological.
It was hidden within the training concepts coaches had inherited over many years of education and practice.
A recent discussion with several experienced national-level coaches reminded me of a pattern we had been observing for many years.
Following their initial exposure to 3S, we conducted a brief survey to better understand how coaches interpreted several fundamental concepts within our methodology. We expected to identify gaps in understanding or areas where our explanations needed improvement.
Instead, we discovered something entirely different.
Our recent internal studies, including a re-evaluation of the original principles upon which 3S was built, helped us better understand where 3S fits within the natural evolution of training methodology.
Simply put, 3S represents one of the newest stages in that evolution—a methodology that frames coaching as a coherent process, helping coaches make the most efficient decisions by better understanding their athletes’ reactions to specific training loads.
Among the coaches who struggled to achieve the expected results with 3S, we repeatedly observed the same pattern.
Some coaches unknowingly stop using 3S even while believing they are still using it.
That may sound like a contradiction. In reality, it happens when coaches begin making training decisions according to familiar training logic rather than the logic behind the 3S methodology.
That single observation explained years of seemingly contradictory experiences. The coaches who struggled with 3S were not rejecting our methodology or the science behind it.
Instead, they were unconsciously translating 3S into the language and logic of another training concept they had already learned and used.
Once that happened, the conflict between the intent and delivery became unavoidable.
One of the clearest examples involves Training Zones, which can be viewed as a central question in training for defining targets and intensities.
Our survey revealed that many coaches were confused by the 3S definition of Training Zones based on TIME.
Almost instinctively, they continued selecting training intensities according to rules they had learned within another training concept, not realizing that the universal criteria introduced by 3S changes the chain of definitions and rules that govern our training decisions.
On the surface, the reasoning appeared perfectly logical.
They simply applied methods that had become natural through years of coaching experience.
Unfortunately, this approach fundamentally changes the role Training Zones play within the 3S methodology.
Within 3S, Training Zones are Training Targets.
They define what physiological function should be developed in order to improve the athlete’s ability to produce energy continuously and at higher power.
Training intensity serves a different purpose.
Intensity is one of the means used to develop that target.
This distinction may appear subtle.
In reality, it changes the entire logic of training design.
The moment Training Zones are reinterpreted as intensity prescriptions instead of physiological targets, coaches unknowingly leave the 3S methodology and return to the logic of another training concept.
That means the methodology itself is no longer being applied as intended, making the achievement of the planned training goals uncertain, at best.
The practical lesson extends well beyond 3S itself.
Every coach develops a personal coaching language over many years of education and experience. New ideas are naturally interpreted through that familiar framework.
Most of the time, that works well. But when a new methodology is built upon different definitions, different relationships, and a different decision-making process, familiar interpretations can quietly change the methodology itself.
That is why learning 3S does not begin with the software.
It begins with understanding the logic behind the methodology.
Once the definitions become clear and the relationships between the major elements of the training process are understood, the platform becomes what it was originally designed to be:
a process management tool implementing one coherent methodological framework.
Our objective has never been to replace the coach’s judgment. Quite the opposite.
Our objective is to help coaches make better daily decisions—and trust those decisions—because they are grounded in one coherent training process rather than habit, intuition alone, or inherited training concepts.
Understanding what should be developed is only the first step. An equally important question remains:
How should training intensities be selected to develop those targets most effectively?
Within the 3S methodology, Training Zones define the physiological target. Training intensity defines how that target is developed.
Although these concepts are closely related, they serve fundamentally different functions within the training process. Understanding that distinction is essential for designing training that consistently produces the intended adaptation.