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.

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

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/…

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

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.