Jay Johnson asked me to comment on balancing specificity
and generality in training. Jay is a middle distance and distance coach, but I
will broaden this to include all events and all sports. Obviously the highest
degree of specificity of training and the most direct transfer occurs when you
do the activity itself. Frankly this is where training has advanced significantly
over the last sixty years. We realized that staying highly specific would result in diminishing returns. We need to balance the actual activity with
other training tasks that would improve the actual activity. This is where a
fundamental disconnect began. As time progressed, especially in the last twenty
years we have progressed down a path of just doing work, doing exercises that
looking like the sport or event, but that we overloaded and slowed down to the
point where they had no transfer. I think the distortion and misuse of the Mach
drills is a good example. They are not technique drills. They are drills that break
the stride cycle into its component parts in order to strengthen through a full
range of motion and improve dynamic flexibility. If done correctly they have a
high degree of specificity in terms of special strength development and
flexibility. Certainly better transfer that riding a bike or using a stair
stepper for a runner.
To me it comes down to similar or same. Similar is OK, but
you need to understand what you are trying to accomplish. I like to think of it
this way 1) The actual activity 2) First Derivative – similar or big component
parts, no compromise on speed of movement 2) Second Derivative – Similar not
attempting to replicate the speed of the movement, probably with some
resistance 3) Third Derivative – very far removed, any similarities are
coincidental. In laying out a training program I try to balance all three. They
all need to be there during all phases of the training year, just with a
different emphasis. I think a good example of this is what I read of Roger Federer’s
training. They always touch on fundamental movements and they always play
tennis. What I think has happened especially in the last twenty
years is that there has arisen an emphasis on general work to get them fit. Fit
for what? Just making them tired does not make them better. This is alarming
trend in middle distance and distance training where too much mindless circuit work is
justified as “general strength.” I maintain that that is just work, work that
could be better planned and sequenced to specifically strength the movements that
would make them better runners. As usual I am quite outside the norm on this, but I
have seen it done better. Look at Coe’s training. The high school runner Peter
Callahan who ran 4:05.2 in the mile this year used the “general work” very
wisely. We need to wake up and realize that it is not about
exercises and making them sore and tired it is about preparing for their race
or sport.