If Tim Noakes "Central Governor" Model is Correct AND there is NO Lactate Threshold, HOW should this effect my train

You expect me to list all of the adaptations to muscles during training? I can't, nor would I want to list as many as I am aware of.

Now lets get down to the most important issue here, You seem to believe that I am physically a more talented runner than you, when I insist that the differences are due to my superior training knowledge and application.

Richard, I'd like to try to be polite, becuase you don't seem to be losing your cool in spite of the sometimes heated opposition, but I have to say you're pulling stuff out of thin air here:

Richard_ wrote:blah blah blah ... small MINORITY who still believe in the primacy of the cardiovascular/anerobic model.

... blah blah blah ...

This thread has shown that the MAJORITY of the running community now believes that changes within the muscle fibers ability to contract are at least as important as any changes in other bodily systems. ... blah blah blah

Where do you get this stuff? Muscles are important, as many have said on this thread. After all, you can't run without them.

But nobody, other than you, has suggested that the muscles' ability to contract is a factor that takes overall precedence in distance training, above that of cardiovascular/aerobic fitness.

Nobody + Richard does not a majority make.

Have you guys had enough science yet? Anytime you want to move on how all these "findings" effect how we train would be great.

Pete,

I'll admit I was having a little fun with that last post, but simply to illustrate a point. Read back in this thread - it was claimed that muscle is very important in performance and the running community has long known it. I said that the importance of muscle is not well recognized by the running community and was told I was wrong. Well, now you tell me its only Nobody + Richard that believes that the actual functioning of muscles (the way they contract, i.e. contractility) is all that important. Hmmm...maybe I was right after all.

What does the running community say is important about muscles? Are we content to just say "muscles are important" and leave it at that? Or do we actually delve into the functioning of muscle, examine the various parts and pieces of muscle, explain why muscle is important, how it contracts, and, more importantly, what is actually adapting within the muscle?

Perhaps the answer is that the running community believes only 1 aspect of muscle - energy production inside the muscle cell - is important? But, if that's the case, then it's not really "muscles are important"; instead it is "aerobic energy production is important" which is not the same thing at all as saying "muscle is important".

wellnow wrote:

You expect me to list all of the adaptations to muscles during training? I can't, nor would I want to list as many as I am aware of.

No, but you could have acknowledged that the functioning of muscles is as important as aerobic energy production by saying something along the lines of:

The muscle fiber's contractile abilities adapt greatly to base building in addition to increases in the muscle's ability to produce energy aerobically.

That's because you were wrong. Who in the running community does not think that muscles are important? Besides the straw men you set up in your polemics? Show me someone on this thread who said that muscles are not important?

No one would object for a second were you to claim that muscles are important. What people object to is your absurd claims that you and contractility have somehow rendered obsolete the prevailing theories of muscular performance.

Excercise physiologists have been doing this since before you were born, Richard. I don't know where you got this idea in your head that you were some sort of trailblazer. They have done this and that is what has LED to the prevailing theories regarding muscular performance.

No, that's the straw man that Richard set up. Please spare us the false dichotomies, mmmmkay?

Richard,

I think we need to come up with a more definite term than "important" to argue about. For HRE, Pete, etc. I would guess "important" means "responsible for 10-15% of performance variation". Your interpretation is also pretty nebulous. That's why you're getting accused of putting words in people's mouths.

This was posted about a year ago in another discussion "Is Noakes wrong?" by "Ross":

"It's amusing to me to read the posts on this topic. First of all, many of the posts are completely out of date - the notion that the central governor exists to prevent anaerobiosis is about 4 years old now. Science has moved on, and this concept of a little black box that protects the heart is history, yesterday's news. The latest work on the topic describes a completely different model, so do try to read it before you form an uneducated opinion."

I wouldn't bother breaking "important" down by percentages. I just think it's silly for Richard to say that no one has ever considered the importance of muscles to distance running performance when we've all done that and equally silly for him to ignore the imprtance of the heart.

As I said, you're not training a heart and you're not training a group of muscles. You're training a person and trying to make some particular aspect of training more important than another aspect is like trying to decide if the wheels or the engine are more responsible for your car getting you to places.

HRE wrote:

I just think it's silly for Richard to say that no one has ever considered the importance of muscles to distance running performance when we've all done that..

Let's put a much finer point on it than that, HRE.

We agree - muscle is important.

What specifically about the functioning of muscle is important? Break it down for us. Let's talk details.

In English, the possessive form of a singular noun is generated by adding " 's " to the noun.

Hence, if the model is generated by Tim Noakes, it is Tim *Noakes's* model.

[In some style sheets, an exception is made for the possessive of Jesus (" Jesus' "), but this exception is not universally accepted.]

This is kind of in response to a few things, but here are some questions that help me form my perspective:

1) If I compare a 1.1 liter Ford Escort to a Formula 1 car, what is the most important difference that affects performance? The motor? The fuel? The tires? Fuel injection? On-board computer? Suspension? The exhaust? Unsprung mass? Transmission? Gear ratios? You kinda need them all, plus a whole lot more. How about a Winnebago versus an Indy car? Maybe the order changes, but you still kinda need them all. Sure, a powerful engine is important, as is the oxygen mixture but the tire manufacturer will remind you making the wrong tire choice can lose you the race. Luckily for running, by a long history of trial and error, we pretty much know how to train to get all the improvements we need, at the same time, without having to enumerate them, or decide the relative importance of a few of them.

1a) Building on the racecar analogy, the central governor might be the driver. With experience, and with feedback from his instruments, he learns how to drive to maximize fuel economy, maximize tire life, keep the engine from getting too hot, basically balancing maximizing performance with preserving the life of the car. You might also include the on-board computer as part of the central governor, controlling autonomous functions like fuel-air mixture.

2) Speaking of the role of coaches, which is more important for a coach to know? Physiology or psychology? I'm all for learning about exercise physiology, and it can be a fascinating area of discovery for those so inclined, but I'm not yet convinced that a deep or even accurate knowledge is required to be a good coach or athlete. Besides physiology, and training methodologies, running history, etc., a good coach must also be strong in soft human skills: motivation, inspiration, perception, feedback. Put another way, at the risk of revealing my age, who would make a better coach, Captain Kirk or Spock?

3) Richard, I haven't experienced your previous history, so you still have my benefit of the doubt. But regarding muscles, I don't get the impression that discussion of muscles have been pushed aside to make way for VO2max, LT, MLSS, or other aerobic, and anaerobic concepts. Over the course of my casual readings, I have seen lots of discussions regarding fast twitch fibers, slow twitch fibers, Type I, IIa, and IIb fibers, muscle recruitment, as well as concepts like specificity of training. Perhaps there may be specific concepts, like fiber contraction (?) that are untouched, but at least to me, I see muscles being discussed, as well as a lot of other things.

So far, my favorite post of this thread is HRE's "train the muscles, and everything else will follow". It's only a few words, yet upon deep reflection, says it all.

Hi, The Light.

In your car analogy, I agree all those components are needed and vital in order to maximize performance. I used to race motorcycles and ultimately the motorcycle's performance was determined by the engine. All the other components either allow you to make max use of the power of the engine or they don't. I could never go faster than the engine was capable of propelling the bike, but sub-optimal components could limit performance to less than what the engine was capable of producing. There is a good reason the very first thing motorcycle racing organizations limit is engine size.

Ever notice how many different training programs and methods there are out there? Way more than one, that's for sure. And runners constantly debate over which method is best. I don't believe there is a consensus on how to train or what methods produce the absolute best performance. For example, a recent study of Olympic marathon trials qualifiers found very large differences in training across the athletes - there clearly was no one similar method all the qualifiers were using. My belief is that physiology can help in this area by helping definitively determine which methods really are best and which are just merely good.

Probably psychology.

When it comes to determining which training method works best overall, psychology probably is less important.

My bias is that the endurance community acknowledges that muscles are important, uses the terms you listed, and then generally moves on to aerobic energy production. I point to wellnow's recent post as an example of this. He noted muscles are important for a single reason - adaptations in their ability to produce energy aerobically. Nor have I seen a stickied post along the lines of "Mr. Renato Canova: Could you please answer a question about effective ways to improve muscles ability to contract?"

Fiber contraction - that is the single purpose of muscle fibers. They contract. If muscles are important and their only job is to contract and move us around, then, logically, how they contract is important. How many in-depth discussions about muscle contractility have you encountered in your readings? In running books? Here's another example: Physiologists have been studying aerobic adaptations to marathon training for at least 30 years. The first study on muscle contractile adaptations to marathon training occurred in 2006. Just how much importance has been placed on it if it took 30 years before someone finally got around to having a look at it?

Richard,

With respect to the car/motorcycle: once it's up to speed it can maintain that speed until it overheats or runs out of gas. That's clearly not true for a runner. Do you think it's still a useful metaphor?

non sequiter wrote:

Richard,

With respect to the car/motorcycle: once it's up to speed it can maintain that speed until it overheats or runs out of gas. That's clearly not true for a runner. Do you think it's still a useful metaphor?

If you would care to suggest an alternate metaphor I'm sure the readers here would be pleased to consider it.

So why are Ryan Hall, Meb and Deena training at threhold?

fred wrote:

So why are Ryan Hall, Meb and Deena training at threhold?

Training within 5-10% of race pace directly improves running economy at race pace. You don't know what they consider "threshold" either. They could be talking about marathon pace, 1/2 marathon pace, etc.

I've returned to this thread after a trip away and finding it hilarious that Richard_ is still going? Is he on prozac? Doesn't he relaise that everyone is against his laughable claims?

I'm a recently retired elite athlete (olympic level). I know the majority of elite athletes in Australia now and for the last 15 years.

hahah i'm laughing to myself

WITHOUT exception "WITHOUT" that is Richard_ .............

EVERY single one regardless of event has been doing strength and conditioning training over this time period.

Maybe you should find the book "Success in Sport and Life" by Percy Cerutty. You might have heard of Percy, he coached quite a number of World record holders in middle distance in the 50s and 60s. eg JOhn Landy, Herb Elliot.

The book is published in 1960. The Illustration on p72 is titled "Elliot strengthens with bar-bell". It shows his straining in a full lunge position with the bar-bell across the front of his shoulders .

I will now list the titles of a few chapters.

ch 11: my views on weight-conditioning for athletes, runners in particular.

ch15: resistance exercises using the body: the bar-bell and dumb-bell as added resistance.

ch17: gymnastics and extra exercises are a must

Now, i could quote all sorts of passages from this book by a coach who was doing his stuff ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

50 years ago - yes that is 50.

But i will save them in case you don't SHUT YOUR MOUTH right now

or....

offer some practical advice that can actually be used in reality.

(ps you are the type of loser that people like us always ignored in our sport and laughed at behind their backs. Comments like 'he just doesn't get it' were the norm)

Au contraire, it's analagously true for a runner too. Runner's slow down, stop, pass out, die, when they overheat, and as every marathon beginner who has slammed into the wall knows, can run out of gas. The car analogy (which was mine, not Richard_'s) is a great one -- probably the best analogy that ever was or will be.

non sequiter wrote:

Richard,

With respect to the car/motorcycle: once it's up to speed it can maintain that speed until it overheats or runs out of gas. That's clearly not true for a runner. Do you think it's still a useful metaphor?