This may be a dumb question, but if Noakes is correct that there is NO LT then why am I doing tempo runs?
Are tempo runs, as Jack Daniels defines them, at odds with Noakes "central governor" model?
Do Noakes ideas, assuming they are correct, mean I should not train as Jack Daniels suggests?
just becauese there is no such thing as LT doesn't mean tempo runs are worthless
[quote]6packjack wrote: This may be a dumb question, but if Noakes is correct that there is NO LT then why am I doing tempo runs?/quote]
Because they work, I should think. Right?
Or are you ignoring the billions of man-miles of accumulated experience of what works, and instead deriving all your training from first principles based on raw physiology? That seems to be a popular pastime for some odd reason... anyone know why?
That's the thing about Noakes theory. It really doesn't suggest any changes in training at all. He doesn't tell you any practical way to TRAIN the Central Governor. He just tells you that it exists.
Do yourself a favor. Stick with Daniels. He's there with PROVEN programs to improve your RACE TIMES, not your ideas about why they happen.
dumb answer wrote:
[quote]6packjack wrote: This may be a dumb question, but if Noakes is correct that there is NO LT then why am I doing tempo runs?/quote]
Because they work, I should think. Right?
My question is WHY do they work if there is no LT?
I am not questioning whether they work or not. I am interested in the "why" part and it seems odd to me that we are doing something based on a reason that is flawed.
If there is no LT, then it seems Daniels is having us do a workout based on flawed reasoning. Am I missing something?
Why does the supposed value of tempo runs have to be "based" on some physiological model like LT? Can't it just make sense that it might be beneficial to run a little harder once in a while?
Why do tempos work? I dunno. You're not really asking me for the answer but if I had to make a very uneducated guess, well, some mechanism for lactate metabolism or whatever the hell probably gets better with practice, whether or not there's a "threshold" per se. Maybe there's also some element of mental toughness, pain tolerance, even "central governor" getting trained at the same time. Maybe it's 3 or 4 or 12 distinct things, chemical, neurological, muscular.
What I do know is, it's well and good to be a physiology hobbyist or professional if that floats your boat, but it probably doesn't give half an iota of advantage over the next guy in terms of knowing how best to train. I'd even suggest it's more likely to hurt since it seems almost impossible for people to avoid overreaching for prescriptive training advice from very specific and very limited descriptive research data... and trusting this unwarranted extrapolation over the solid time-tested knowledge of coaches and athletes for whatever perverse reason.
You see this all the freaking time, here and elsewhere: some stoopid study shows a group of previously untrained subjects who do some arbitrary interval workout get faster than another group who doesn't, and next thing you know everyone things "we gotta do that workout" regardless of whether it makes sense for them and their level of fitness and race goals and what else it displaces in their week et cetera. You have books written (and slavishly followed) based on what some physiologists have concluded most efficiently raises some lab test numbers which in turn tend to correlate fairly well to race performance most of the time, rather than *what freaking works in the real world*.
Take it out of the realm of running for a second. You want to improve your bench press. How do you do that? (Rhetorical question.) Now what exactly does that do for you physiologically? If you can give an expert-level answer to that, does it help you with your lifting? If you can't, does it hurt? Yeah, that's why all the best scientists are the hugest dudes at the gym...
Sorry for the rant. No offense intended toward you specifically; just felt like ranting. Feel free to ignore: I have no special credentials or insight, just an acquired cynicism in this regard. In running, in my own professional field, and all over the map.
Too late here to get into the central governor hypothesis. Some value or impact on training? Of course.
As for the tempo work:
Daniels is one physiologist out of many, and he is a fine one. He likes that 4mmol pace which of course turned out not to be anaerobic, turned out not to be a threshold, turned out not to be 4mmol, turned out not to be a maximal steady state, turned out you could go longer than 20', and turned out to be no better at producing a training effect than other medium to hard training paces. All those fixed blood lactate parameters of old have intercorrelations over .96; though all are reasonably good predictors of performance, that means little in regards to setting up optimal training. Just as one person might need 50 miles/week and one might need 90-100/week, the same sort of individual variation goes for training paces, rep choices, work rest patterns, and diet.
Velocity predicts velocity. That there is no threshold should free you a bit from fixating on a single pace, or doing magical thinking about HR or HR training zones, and altitude. Should pull you away from steady paced work, and help you understand that lactate is not so much the enemy as you've been lead to believe. Hopefully it will help you look at other aspects of training with an open mind.
What "dumb answer" said.
Similar question: If the Sun and all the stars aren't really revolving about a stationary Earth, why did the ancients rely on the motions of the Sun and stars (relative to the Earth) to help them with agriculture?
Answer: Their conceptual model wasn't entirely accurate, but their results were exactly the same as they would have been with today's model, since practical (and amazingly accurate) calculations for timekeeping and for the cycles of seasons - based on many generations of real-world observation, mind you - were the guidelines they followed. Their limited (or total lack of) understanding of the mechanics of the solar system and of the universe in general didn't render the measurements which affected their lives any less accurate.
As with farming, it's practicality that takes center stage in running. Finding a single physical process which pinpoints the exact "threshold" may be an exercise in futitily, but that doesn't matter in the workaday world of running. Whether or not there is a distinct LT, lactate levels do rise with increasing exercise intensity, and correctly executed "tempo" runs will improve your ability to process that lactate for use in energy production, reduce the negative effects of the associated positive ions (or whatever the fudge it is that creates fatigue), accumulate more time in a steady state of unbroken rhythm and harmony, and provide a host of other benefits that you will only come to learn and appreciate when you do enough running.
So if Noakes wants to call some hitherto unidentified exercise gremlin "Central Governor," let him. They might have thought it was strictly a lactate accumulation issue in Ye Olde Days (ah, I shall slay the evil lactate monster - I call him "Lactor"), but it doesn't change the effectiveness of "threshold" running (or the way you should approach it or how often you should use it) one iota.
They might have called the Earth the center of everything and the Sun a "god" a few thousand years ago, while today they see gravity as a property of how matter acts on space, which produces all those celestial motions we see. But none of those motions are changed by our (still limited) understanding of what is behind them. The ancients could have believed the Sun to be a huge flaming booger that got flicked off the end of the finger of some giant nosepicking nerd, who was lurking beneath the horizon of the flat Earth, to blaze a slow path across the sky every new day, and that theory wouldn't have made their tedious calculations of its motions (and the practical application to farming techniques) any less accurate or effective.
I used to think there are no dumb questions, but now I read "letsrun" :-) I can't speak for or against the "Central Governor" model, but I have seen a lot of praise for Noakes.
As a matter of consistency, if you want to adopt the "Central Governor" model, then you must adopt it fully, and likewise take the parallel steps, that since the LT doesn't exist, tempo runs are not exclusively about improving your LT, or that improving your LT can only be acheived by tempo runs. You need to redescribe what tempo runs do in terms of the new model. Then you can decide the value or the "at odds"-ness of tempo runs.
While we always try to estimate our LT, what's clear, and measurable, is how blood lactate accumulates at different intensities, and how that changes over time with training (and of course the related changes in race times). Replacing an exact threshold, with a sliding continuum doesn't change what you can clearly measure before, and after. It only changes how you talk about what you can measure or observe.
For example, Noakes ideas might suggest that slower and faster workouts provide similiar "LT" benefits as tempo runs, but it may take longer or be less beneficial. Or Noakes ideas might suggest that tempo runs bring "LT" benefits, and also bring some "AeT", and "VO2max" benefits too (to bring in two more thresholds).
I've seen Daniel's accused of being an economist. True or not, I believe his programs are designed to balance maximizing improvement, while minimizing effort and risk of injury. His programs are not purely based on the narrow foundation of a precipitous, or non-existant, threshold. Rather, his program is a collection, and specific combination, of several "optimal" training paces, each emphasizing a specific purpose, based on a pseudo-VO2max derived from recent race performances, which have been proven effective by trial and error, as well as reinforced by many years of scientific research.
A new model does not always mean radical and revolutionary changes, but may also suggest small changes, such as relaxing the emphasis on the boundaries of specific training paces.
I think it is up to Noakes, or his followers, to take the next steps to show how a new model can suggest changes in training (if it hasn't been done already).
dumb answer wrote:
Or are you ignoring the billions of man-miles of accumulated experience of what works, and instead deriving all your training from first principles based on raw physiology?
Interestingly, when physiologists have actually taken the time to study the training habits of elite runners they found some surprising information. (Note, the studies only examined the training the elites were doing; the studies did not control, dictate, or modify that training.)
Perhaps the most surprising fact to emerge from the research was that elites do very little tempo paced training. The research revealed that most elite training consists of about 25% higher intensity training (faster than tempo pace) and about 75% significantly below tempo pace (i.e. easy paced runs). As I recall, one study even found that elite Kenyan females did zero tempo runs.
The problem with "billions of man-miles of accumulated experience" is that the experience is spread randomly over hundreds of thousands of people, making it basically impossible for casual observation to discern any accurate information.
The Light wrote:
I think it is up to Noakes, or his followers, to take the next steps to show how a new model can suggest changes in training (if it hasn't been done already).
Matt Fitzgerald's new book, Brain Training for Runners, is the first training program that I know of that is based on Noakes' Central Governor model.
Richard_ wrote: The problem with "billions of man-miles of accumulated experience" is that the experience is spread randomly over hundreds of thousands of people, making it basically impossible for casual observation to discern any accurate information.
Maybe not useful for "accurate information" in a scientific context. But for a prescription of *what to do*? Everyone who ever got training advice that worked really well from a coach, from one's fellow runners, from the logs of the elite, raise your hands.
Since I do not have Noakes' book, can someone summarize the central Govenor theory and how it differs from Daniel's.
Thanks.
Since I do not have Noakes' book, can someone summarize the central Govenor theory and how it differs from Daniel's.
Thanks.
Richard_ wrote:
Interestingly, when physiologists have actually taken the time to study the training habits of elite runners they found some surprising information. (Note, the studies only examined the training the elites were doing; the studies did not control, dictate, or modify that training.)
Perhaps the most surprising fact to emerge from the research was that elites do very little tempo paced training. The research revealed that most elite training consists of about 25% higher intensity training (faster than tempo pace) and about 75% significantly below tempo pace (i.e. easy paced runs). As I recall, one study even found that elite Kenyan females did zero tempo runs.
Interestingly, wrong.
In fact if there is one common them in the training of the elites that has been shown over time is that the best do a significantly high volume of tempo training
The problem is that you have defined "tempo" training as far too narrow a band. Tempo is not one specific pace. It is quite a range of paces depending upon the distance traveled, conditions, etc.
I haven't read Noakes, so forgive me if this is a dumb question, but my understanding is that the lactate threshold (an inflection point in lactate accumulation as a function of running pace) is an observable phenomena. That is, it's a fact, not a theory. Reference for instance McMillan's article on the topic here: http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/rununiv/training/training1.htm . Further, my understanding is that there is a strong correlation between lactate threshold and distance running performance. The optimum approach to increasing one's LT seems fair game for debate, but is the original appender correct in stating that Noakes denies it's existance? My limited understanding of Noakes' "Central Governor" model (basicly the brain saying "whoa, slow down" well before the body is in real danger of harming itself) doesn't really put it in opposition to Daniels style training.
Richard_ wrote:
Interestingly, when physiologists have actually taken the time to study the training habits of elite runners they found some surprising information. (Note, the studies only examined the training the elites were doing; the studies did not control, dictate, or modify that training.)
Perhaps the most surprising fact to emerge from the research was that elites do very little tempo paced training. The research revealed that most elite training consists of about 25% higher intensity training (faster than tempo pace) and about 75% significantly below tempo pace (i.e. easy paced runs). As I recall, one study even found that elite Kenyan females did zero tempo runs.
.
What studies?
Doesn't the Central Governor Theory merely suggest that the Energy Systems Model (under which he categorizes Daniels)is overly simplistic and doesn't entirely add up and make sense, from a performance perspective? He argues instead that our brains are wired to work as a "governor" or a limiter in order to protect our hearts and brains from overclocking but that we can train our brains and bodies to push beyond that in order to maximize performance.
It makes a lot of sense to me to train our energy systems using the best training protocols we have available (which Daniels, among many others, outlines effectively) and also to train our minds to perform on race day. In my estimation, you can take the training principles from Daniels (i.e. using vDot to assign optimal training paces and creating phased training to optimize overall energy systems training) and the notion that there is a hard-wired limiter in our brains that we can carefully teach ourselves to push beyond.
new missian wrote:
Richard_ wrote:Interestingly, when physiologists have actually taken the time to study the training habits of elite runners they found some surprising information. (Note, the studies only examined the training the elites were doing; the studies did not control, dictate, or modify that training.)
Perhaps the most surprising fact to emerge from the research was that elites do very little tempo paced training. The research revealed that most elite training consists of about 25% higher intensity training (faster than tempo pace) and about 75% significantly below tempo pace (i.e. easy paced runs). As I recall, one study even found that elite Kenyan females did zero tempo runs.
Interestingly, wrong.
In fact if there is one common them in the training of the elites that has been shown over time is that the best do a significantly high volume of tempo training
The problem is that you have defined "tempo" training as far too narrow a band. Tempo is not one specific pace. It is quite a range of paces depending upon the distance traveled, conditions, etc.
Exactly. The notorious ex phys clown Owen Anderson cited a study that took Carlos Lopez as an example of a runner who did a lot of fast intervals and zero tempo runs to "prove" that tempo running was useless. The flaw in that argument was that Lopez did most of his distance runs at a fast pace (faster that 3,30/km), so he got his "threshold training" that way.