Josh McDougal Logs Back

That's natural selection, not evolution, partner. Natural selection is just one of the multiple tenets of evolution. Therefore, just because it is true doesn't mean the entire theory is infallible.

12-14 miles wrote:

You're acting like every good runner trains the same. You're lumping so many different people and different training styles into one category just to prove your point. There are many different good ways to train, the most important thing is to find what works well for YOU, not for someone else. Just because one person is good on 50-60 mpw, doesn't mean that the next guy won't need 120mpw. Basically, how do you know what's best for Josh McDougal?

Yes you will find great variation in training by sub-14/29 guys (the good runners), you will find low-mileage guys, guys who only do singles etc...huge variation.

No you will find no big variations in training by sub-13/27 guys, you will only find high mileage guys who runs doubles almost every day and do a big amount of faster running around threshold pace. These things MUST work for YOU to be able to run this fast.

It's a difference between the 'good' runners you talk about and the great runners. At Josh's level you can succeed with a different training system. But if singles is the best way to reach his potential then he will never ever reach world-class level in any running event.

There are reasons for the immediate shuddering at the realization of how hard he and others work, the knee jerk reactions, and jealousy masked as "simply offering advice".

1. As I mentioned above: Jealousy

This requires the reader to objectively compare their work ethic with someone who has an exceptional gift (i.e. any elite runner). Many will claim that they are not jealous, but when further examined will uncover the harsh reality that Josh really has something that separates him and that separation is in and of itself the gap between achievement and mediocrity. When the reader is unable to now justify their insecurities and lack of work, they begin to question the path that Josh (and others) has chosen. The question then is derived from the jealousy that Josh and others are committed to doing more (whether it is on singles or doubles) in the way that they believe to be most effective, and the poster’s personal uncertainty of their own commitment.

2. By questioning someone's training without the full scope of their intentions is not only demeaning to the person's personal aspirations, but assumes that the runner has not already considered the suggestion you are making. I assure that elite runners are aware of the options they have in varying their training and moreover if they felt like they had an inadequate amount of knowledge they would pursue avenues to alleviate this shortcoming. Every elite runner wants to get better, and by assuming that he or she is complacent you are undermining and belittling the amount that they have already done to reach the level they have. To phrase it differently, runners are not trying to get worse or plateau, but these things do occur and may take time to get through. Eventually the runner will either change their routine when he or she feels like they have exhausted their current training system. But that decision is solely up to the individual runner. And this autonomy must be respected. It is the right of every runner to do what he or she believes to be right.

3. The suggestion that Josh nor any other elite will be successful on the international level if they don't train like other 'great' runners, as stated by a previous poster, is flawed. In this specific case we can say that Josh is probably better than the majority of those who posted alternative ways of training. I find it amusing that someone would suggest that Josh's training will not allow him to compete on the world level because of his variation from other elite runners. This assumes that the best way of training has already been established, which is of course false because if it were true, there would be no variation in elite athletes’ training. This would mean that all races would be strictly based upon who responded the best to a general prescription of training. This utilitarian argument should be considered extremely flawed. Also, had runners throughout history emulated the 'great' runners of their time imagine those who would have trained like Zatopek (who himself defied generally accepted ideas about training to become great).

4. My fourth argument is somewhat off topic, but I consider it worth looking at because of the direct relevance a quote had to the general feeling of entitlement most people have in the sport of running.

A poster said:

"But it's natural after learning someone's training to critique and suggest good alternatives. It's the "coaching" in us and it's healthy."

First, the idea that something natural is inherently healthy is a fallacy that if were actually practiced would result in the extinction of competitive running which is itself considered an unnatural practice. It is deceptive to cover your desire to feel a part and contributor to an elite athlete's training by claiming that it is your right to give advice. Certainly it is justifiable on the grounds of freedom of speech, but you are doing it in hopes that you will be recognized by others for your contribution. This is a MAJOR problem with American distance running (the first time I have addressed a topic as such should hint at the severity).

Just because you know a great deal about the science of running, running statistics, and the equipment of running (which are all externalities separate from actual running itself) DOES NOT MAKE YOU MORE OF A RUNNER OR A MORE PROMINENT MEMBER OF THE RUNNING COMMUNITY. This is a fundamental error that leads people to inflate their ego and their self worth and using this and other message boards to do so. I believe that many people try to cover their own shortcomings as runners by critiquing those who are better. This leads to an inevitable "pissing contest" about who can find more examples and statistics to support their argument. The first response to this from a member of this group will be something along the lines of "just because I am not as good doesn't mean that I can't offer advice." Let's stop for a second and imagine that Josh came onto the board and said "I choose not to listen to you because you aren't in my position and don't understand my personal decisions about my running." Which is a perfectly legitimate thing to say and I have already provided the grounds for a statement like that to be justified. But imagine the backlash that would ensue. Everyone would say that they were trying to help, or suggesting, or even go so far as to attack him and say that he is cocky. These responses fail to consider that the original posters (i.e. everyone who thought they were more qualified than Josh to modify HIS training) were the ones who presumed authority over Josh which would be more a qualification of cockiness.

This whole board is really a self perpetuating support group for people to critique better runners (even though they know it will not influence them) in order to justify their existence and position in the running community that they can't otherwise achieve through performance. The basis for this statement is obvious. I would wager that no one who posts on here would approach Josh in person and tell him that he was training incorrectly. That is because posters don't actually genuinely care if Josh is training correctly. They use the situation as an opportunity to bring attention to THEMSELVES as authorities or insightful and thereby more important by message board criterion in the running community.

845372 wrote:

No you will find no big variations in training by sub-13/27 guys, you will only find high mileage guys who runs doubles almost every day and do a big amount of faster running around threshold pace. These things MUST work for YOU to be able to run this fast.

It's a difference between the 'good' runners you talk about and the great runners. At Josh's level you can succeed with a different training system. But if singles is the best way to reach his potential then he will never ever reach world-class level in any running event.

Oh, really, partner? I think you're forgetting someone on the world class level who ran quite a strong 10k this past season, who flourishes on his high singles training. Might wanna do some research next time, because I do believe he constitutes as a "great" runner. Also, Goucher did quite well at World Cross and I do believe a LARGE portion of his career was spent doing similar type training to what Josh is doing now. There are quite a few examples of world class athletes who thrive and flourish on high mileage done in singles, especially that type of training in the developmental period of thier career (which is where Josh is at the moment).

Yes you will find great variation in training by sub-14/29 guys (the good runners), you will find low-mileage guys, guys who only do singles etc...huge variation.

No you will find no big variations in training by sub-13/27 guys, you will only find high mileage guys who runs doubles almost every day and do a big amount of faster running around threshold pace. These things MUST work for YOU to be able to run this fast.

It's a difference between the 'good' runners you talk about and the great runners. At Josh's level you can succeed with a different training system. But if singles is the best way to reach his potential then he will never ever reach world-class level in any running event.[/quote]

If you make me a list of every sub 13 minute 5k runner and every sub 27 minute 5k runner and show me that absolutley every one of them run doubles when they were the same age as McDougal then I'll consider dropping this argument. Otherwise I want you to explain to me why running twice a day is better than running once a day assuming the same weekly mileage number. So if Mcdougal kept running 120 miles a week but did it in two a days, how would he be better off? Would he be less likely to be injured? Yes. But is he injury prone? No. Would he be fresher off two a days? Possibly and maybe that'd mean he'd peak better at nationals (not that he didn't run well last year). But he'd also be less aerobically fit as two shorter runs does not equal one longer run in terms of aerobic development (specifically capillary growth).

So then if your argument is that all sub 27 and sub 13 runners run more than 120 miles a week, and that Josh needs to up his milage, then I'll accept that. As long as you can show me significant proof that all sub 27 and sub 13 runners did in fact run that many miles at McDougal's age.

There's also the possibility that running doubles is something they all have in common in their training but isn't what makes them sub 13 and 27 minute runners. Maybe there are other common factors - perhaps McDougal should change his last name to Kipdougal to fit in with many fast runners. Back in the 1950s I heard all the best milers did very little long aerobic work and instead ran fast nearly all the time. Consequently I've concluded that the only way to break 4 minutes in the mile is to run "low mileage" and hammer.

I'm not saying Josh is better off running singles than doubles. I'm just saying there's no clear evidence that he is, and for right now singles seems to be working for him. If he "struggles" this year like he did last spring then he should probably re-evaluate like any runner should. There's more than one way to go about training but there's only one way to train - hard.

A_Goofy_Runner wrote:

But he'd also be less aerobically fit as two shorter runs does not equal one longer run in terms of aerobic development (specifically capillary growth).

ive always heard doubles increase capillary density faster. what was your source that singles are better for capillary growth?

Wow, I'm pretty sure that was one of the best, most well thought out posts I have ever read on here. Thank you "logician".

Lydiard