Specific vs. General

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone,

Much to be thankful about, not the least of which is the holiday itself, which this year, amid the typical cornucopia of “Things I am Thankful For” includes the time to think and organize* those thoughts in a word document which I can paste into the comment box of a blog entry that is 2 months old to use as my long winded response to the aforementioned entry.

First off, I like Ross’ comment a lot. Viewed through the lens of working with scholastic athletes, whose goals are most likely, “a successful career as a professional/amateur runner…[or] a life-long enjoyment of running” the theory behind general strength work seems to make a lot of sense, and is one of the guiding philosophies behind my own training theory. But, then you come to the next post by Steve Magness** (and this is one of the reason why I like the blog so much) that calls into question that very syllogism.*** Coach Kedge already offers the cliff notes version of Steve’s post.**** Personally, I find the two short sentences of the post’s preface the most thought provoking. I’d be intrigued to hear the reasoning behind Steve’s logic of doing “a great deal” of GS work as a post-collegiate runner but prescribing “very little”. I have some of my own theories on the subject, but I fear this post will be long-winded enough without barking off, terrier-brained, down that tangential path.

I think Steve’s second and third points can be boiled down***** to a single philosophical point which has a parallel in what some might term the “hubris” of Western Medicine or the idea that science alone holds the key to our salvation/science holds the answer to everything. Now, I hope the previous sentence does not make me come off as some earthy-crunch, homeopathic hippie (not that there’s anything wrong with earthy-crunchy homeopathic hippies). I’ve spent less than 24 hours of my life in the People’s Republic of Boulder.****** What I’m trying to get at was maybe better expressed (much to my chagrin) on a certain running-focused message board not always none for making cogent much less eloquent arguments. The post was regarding a article in the New York Times that questioned the theory behind cool downs and said something to the effect that, runners already know what science has yet to prove. Perhaps a corollary can be found in Hemingway’s moral code:******* If you feel good after you did it, it must be good. In other words, if it makes you feel better/run faster, just do it.******** I think this is what Coach Kedge is getting at and why I think accepting Mike Smith’s comment is not intellectual incest.*********** There might not be definitive scientific proof that anything benefits you be it cooling down or GS work, but there is enough anecdotal evidence to support it—until something proves otherwise.

This line of thinking brings to mind two quotes, both from the excellent book The Perfect Mile (if you haven’t read it already, put it on your Christmas list): “ ‘He invested with magic this whole painful business of running fast’ ” ( ), and “ ‘Training is principly an act of faith. The actor must believe in its efficacy’ ” ( ). Again, I fear I coming off as some sort of new-aged running mystic. The least of my aspirations is to acquire the reputation as a running guru—longhaired or otherwise. This is not intended to be a meditation on the Buddhist principle of Nothingness, much less a nihilistic manifesto. No doubt we can all agree on several training principles that have been proven over time both in the lab and on the track/road/cross country course. But for every rule, there is an exception that proves it.*^10 Take Glen Cunningham for example. He set 9 world records during his career, and yet he only logged 10,000 miles over a decade long career, which averages out to something like 20 miles a week. Now, the Lydiard Republican Army, we no doubt say he could have set 45 if he’d run 100 miles a week (I doubt Arthur himself would be as intransient as his adherents to the marathon training dogma) but as Vern Gambetta says (and Greg Brock would probably agree), “For every athlete who flourishes on volume nine are destroyed.” (I have some problems with the above statement, even though I quoted it. For one, I think its probably anecdotal rather than scientific, when does nature agree with itself 90% of the time?*^11 For another, just what is the definition of quantity and quality when it comes to distance running? I’d argue that quantity is quality as long as you your training leaves you “appropriately” fatigued, and you are not just running a number to run a number.)

By which I mean to say is this: to paraphrase another great philosopher, Running is 90% mental, the rest is all physical. I don’t mean to offend any of the exercise physiologist who frequent this blog, much less demean the countless hours of class-work and lab-work they have done (Lord knows, being an English major*^12 (me that is, not the Lord, though He did author some great texts) when it comes to the applicableness of class work to the real world, my house is made entirely of glass.) but the human body is a complex organism, akin to the global economy and weather systems and to think that we can predict cause and effect any better than the meteorologist (who the only people who can have a success rate less than that of a baseball hitter and still be considered accurate) or economists (witch doctors). No one can log every flutter of a butterflies’ wings. In the end it all returns to the quote by Franz Stampfl, the man who trained Bannister to his record mile, training is indeed an act of faith, and the important thing isn’t whether you faith is scientific or blind or a balance somewhere in the middle, tempered with a degree of healthy cynicism, having faith in what you do (and the results to support that faith) but in the fact that you believe—or are at least searching.

Thos


*verb used in its loosest sense
** thanks to Steve “Old School” Magness for being the Devil’s Advocate on this blog making us critically examine “trendy”, “new school” training approaches.
*** correct usage? I can never keep my in/de-ductive reasoning straight.
****sorry, cliff notes currently unavailable for this post
*****or reduced, just like cranberry sauce, excuse the poor play on words but if your actually reading this I feel you deserve at least a half-hearted attempt at humor.
******I have spent the lion’s share of my life in a Midwestern college town that likes to think of itself as the Athens (Greece, that is, not Georgia though I for one, am quite envious of the latter’s music scene).
*******not sure if Ernest is the right guy to look to when it comes to moral guidance.
********Do you think Phil will throw me a little love for that shout out? Hmmm, just struck me: was that shirt a marketing slogan or a training philosophy?
********* What’s the deal with guys named Smith and the Big XII. I know it’s a common name but 1:4?
*^10 Little known fact. This phrase has its derivation in a time when the verb “prove” had the same meaning as “test” in the same way that “proving ground” and “testing ground” are synonymous today. And thus, the real meaning of the phrase is for every rule that is an exception that makes us question it.
*^11 Catch the irony? As Uncle Walt would say: So I contradict myself, for I am vast and contain enormities.
*^12 See *^10

First of all, there is plenty wrong with earthy-crunchy homeopathic hippies.

Secondly, regarding Cunningham, before anyone looks to him as an example of success off low volume - what did a WR mean in the 1930s? Precious few people were running, and for those that did it was a very amateur pursuit. HS kids surpass those times regularly now.

A few weeks back I posted about what I felt was the importance of developing general strength before specific strength. My thinking is that too many of the kids entering our sport at the hs level lack basic overall strength and need to develop this type of fitness brfore specificity can be effective. Here is an excerpt from a post by Jim Richardson, the women's swim coach at University of Michigan, which I read on Vern Gambetta's site: "We began a basic functionally-based program designed by Vern in the fall of 2003. That program ensured that we would have a logical progression from basic strength to strength endurance to event oriented ..."
I think this is one example that supports my point that general needs to precede specific on many levels ranging from the beginning of a career to a season long progression at the elite level as well. This approach has been working for us. Martin

Hey Jay, I have a question regarding aerobic runing. Which do you think has a greater aerobic benefit...a 60 mile week with an average pace of 6:45-7:00 mins/mile or an 80 mile week at 7:30-7:45 mins/mile?

Just want to say thanks to everyone who commented - great information here.

Watching my daughter's HS teams, and the teams she competes against, I know that injuries are a huge issue. It is hard to imagine being absolutely able to say if more GS would have prevented some of them, but that is my gut impression. So when we say, "results are what matter" (e.g., times), I'm not so sure I agree. If someone had done less GS and more running, they might have run faster, or they might have gotten injured.
I like Ross11's comment -- I do think that GS is really important for a career, to allow for being better able to handle specific training closer to big races, etc. But I don't know anyone can do a controlled experiment to prove this.

I love Steve's comments and feel the same about many, like -

" Some of it is flat out worthless, some is debatable, and some is excellent. Yet it's all classified as the same thing and given the same importance. .....On the other hand many of the things seen in your video have some obvious good transfer to running and injury prevention.

and

"Secondly, I'm not sure if we know why GS does for runners. Sure there are things thrown out there, but I don't think we really know what it does. ..."

I base this in a non-quantitative manner. I don't really need or care much about scientific proff as long as I have assurance from two places: 1) positive resuts - hard to measure I know and 2) that I can convince my kids that it helps and they have faith in it. If I can get kids to believe that standing on their head is going to make them faster then at meets you'll see a bunch of Academy kids with blood filled red faces ready to explode.

Like Steve states, "I think some is needed. How much is the question."

Balance, for Sara and Renee (Jay's gals) it is far more than for my HS boys. Are they strong enough to handle it? Some maybe yes, but remember like most of us HS guys we've got some young pups and if we don't treat those pups like the 14 year old, 98 lbs kids that they are, we're going to wipe them out. On the other hand, some of our big dogs need more GS to keep muscle balance, refining running mechanics, and to work those little muscles that we don't always address in exclusive running only workouts. So, we GS, we do it often, some do a little more than others. Overall we don't do a lot, but we do it.

Like with most things in our sport the key is to find your conviction. What do you believe in? What in your program are you going to hang your hat on? My few things are in this order 1) everyone counts 2) we're going to be consistant and 3) if it helps do it. They all get coaching, they all are expected to run often, and we do GS, try to train smart, eat right, sleep often,... on down the line.

One last thing. Show me a Monday workout and I can figure out a lot of where your conviction lies. Most high school folks start with their bread and butter at 3;00 PM on Monday afternoon.

Wow. Great, great thoughts. I really appreciate it Adam.

Monday, 1520.
10M run (race).
Judson Bottom Road.
"You guys are just over 9mph (via bike computer), let's try to get to 10."

As a person who does a good deal of GS, yet the athletes I work with do very little, here's my take on it. Not trying to be offensive to anyone or their method, just like questioning things.

It depends on what you do for GS. I think we run into problems by throwing almost everything into this GS category. Some of it is flat out worthless, some is debatable, and some is excellent. Yet it's all classified as the same thing and given the same importance. I'm sorry but doing strength work on unstable things is pointless in my opinion (scientific reasons= causes co-contraction of the agonist and antagonist and slows the time it takes for muscle activation). On the other hand many of the things seen in your video have some obvious good transfer to running and injury prevention.

Secondly, I'm not sure if we know why GS does for runners. Sure there are things thrown out there, but I don't think we really know what it does. For instance, Hormone secretion is also thrown out there. Well that's true for a little while when the stimulus is very new. But with Testosterone and GH in trained athletes the threshold for those hormone secretion is pretty dang high in the research (around 70%MVC). So after initially adapting to doing tons of lunges and such are we getting that hormonal response that we think we are? I dunno. So what does GS do? I mean throwing out injury prevention is good and all, but how's it do that?

Third- Why do some people feel really good after GS? It could be due to alteration in resting muscle tension. Lots of running generally lowers resting tension big time. I know sprinting increases it a good deal, and it's why for people used to them hill sprints or strides make you feel better. I'm thinking that doing a variety of GS like lunges or whatever might do the same thing. Just theory though.

I think the question is what does GS actually do and is it the most effective way to accomplish that goal?

I'm undecided on this topic. I think some is needed. How much is the question. And can the same benefits of GS be accomplished with running? With my HS guys I tend to think so, they do some core work, but not much GS compared to most. There's various reasons, but at this point I think they get similar benefits from manipulating the running (hills, hill sprints, flat sprints, variations in speed, etc.)

"It depends on what you do for GS. I think we run into problems by throwing almost everything into this GS category."

I'm guilty of this it's great you brought it up because it's one of the things I keep coming up against as I plan the fall. What things are General Strength, what things are Ancillary and what things are Running, but 1st, 2nd and third deviation from the original exercise as Vern describes here - http://www.functionalpathtrainingblog.com/2009/09/general-or-specific.html

I will post on this topic soon. Thanks for the comment Steve.

I am no expert, but I think the question is about outcomes. If you simplify to three possible outcomes a trainee choosing their own goals would want: (1) top possible performance in one key race - Olympics, the one marathon ever to be run, etc.; (2) a successful career as a professional/amateur runner; and (3) a life-long enjoyment of running, then GS has different usefulness toward these three purposes.

For options (2) and (3) above, GS is important for long-term injury prevention, training enjoyment, and increasing the likelihood that you will make it to the starting line healthy over and over again. Even if you assume that running-specific exercise is a more efficient path to short-term improved running results, over the long term the benefits of GS in injury prevention will certainly be worthwhile.

For option (1) above, I think the argument is less clear. What if you have an olympic athlete who believes 4th place and DNF are equally bad results? Or an athlete in the last race of his/her career? Is it worthwhile to focus only on getting as close to the peak as possible, even with high injury risk the athlete may be willing to take? If they have their entire life to recover from an injury, perhaps. But assuming that there is time allocated in advance of a race, for the 99.9% of trainees GS who are not "1 more race" runners, I believe GS will help.

Moreover, if you think of the ultimate, unknown, top barrier of one's true "peak" performance, the idea that GS wouldn't help seems short-sighted. The body is an overall machine, so the fewer areas of weakness in the machine the better. Can one really meet their true "top" potential if all areas of the body aren't strong? Psychologically, wouldn't an athlete who knew he/she was strong in every area have an advantage? I believe an argument can be made that GS is needed to realize one's peak potential.

If anything, the nature of short seasons, good-intentioned NCAA restictions on runner/coach access, and the pressure on coaches to have their athletes perform to better their career results, biases a non-GS mentality over athlete's long-term running career. The more athletes can appreciate this, the more they can think about what is truly good for them both short- and long-term.

I think blogs like this that can raise self-awareness in athletes on key issues of their own health and well-being are awesome. Keep up the good work everyone, I really appreciate the posts and comments on this blog.

Thanks for this analysis as it really highlights the point - when we work with HS and collegiate athletes then it's likely scenarios 2 and 3, yet I want to make sure that with an athlete like Renee I'm helping her reach her potential. She should run well under 15:15 and well under 31:30 and maybe the Lydiard model will work best, or even the 70-80 mile a week Coe model where everything is high intensity.

Bottom line is I appreciate your thoughts and the reality today is that Renee can still benefit from GS to help strengthen areas where she's weak. That said, I still think that GS for women is like compost and that you should keep putting it into the system, even though figuring exactly why it works or why it's beneficial is difficult.

I completely agree with you that GS is crucial in middle distance training. Not only will it help strengthen core but it will help with foot speed and turnover. The question is how much is too much...

Two quick points about general v specific: 1. at the high school level a lot more general strength work needs to be done because kids come to the sport with limited overall strength because of several societal factors top of the list being a lack of informal play growing up. In my experience. 2. I have found that the general strength needs to precede specific strength work to be most effective.
We (WestfieldHS, NJ) do a great amount of general strength following daily practice sessions. I believe it has helped as our boys are much stronger and are finishing races better and handling a greater volume of running as well.
Martin