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

Richard, your model sounds solid. Could you elaborate on what processes you see being involved in "fatigue"?

non sequiter wrote:

Richard, your model sounds solid. Could you elaborate on what processes you see being involved in "fatigue"?

That's a great question. Science has struggled for over 100 years to answer the question and there is still no definitive answer on the horizon. Physiologists have proposed no less than 8 different models of fatigue.

My personal bias is that when it comes to performance there is no single cause of fatigue - it can occur within muscle fibers themselves or in any other sytem of the body. I call this the dynamic model of fatigue. In short, I propose that the upper limit of performance is determined by limitations within the muscle fibers themselves. However, other factors such as training status, environmental factors, etc. can cause fatigue to occur prematurely, resulting in a performance at a level below what your muscles are capable of. For example, running in too hot an environment results in a slower performance than what the runner is capable of running in cooler temps.

If the runner is optimaly trained and prepared and there are no external factors reducing performance (heat, humidiy, etc.) then I suggest fatigue within the muscle fibers themselves limits performance.

What causes fatigue within muscle fibers? Unfortunately, that's also an unanswered question. The strong inverse relationship between force and endurance in muscle fibers suggests something about the structure of the proteins / contractile fibers / activation system within the fiber is at the heart of fatigue. The recent study on leaky calcium channels in muscle fibers causing fatigue provides support for this idea. And, of course, we can't forget the idea that energy production limitations within the muscle fibers might be a source of fatigue (but this idea doesn't fit with the research showing ATP levels don't really drop below about 60% in muscle during exercise).

Could someone of knowledge be able to give me the Reader's Digest version of this great thread? A specific gist or view, thanks! Noakes, Steve, Richard, wellnow, threshold, central governor, bla..bla

Reader\'s Digest Version:

Richard has half a clue and half a brain - together a very dangerous combination that does not make a complete whole!

His theories are not abslolute rubbish - but will never be anything more then his theories. Some of his theories he is claiming have been better described decades ago.

He is a little delusional too, thinking he is some modern day Galileo that no-one believes.

Two blatant assumptions are made from the outset of this thread:

1: Noakes' Central Governor theory has some merit (not shown to be true but the thread depends on it)

2: There is no lactate threshold (not shown to be false but the thread depends on it)

The key word in the title is the first one - 'If'

So far, the argument has been around what constitutes 'threshold'

lackstimetoreadallofthis wrote:

Could someone of knowledge be able to give me the Reader's Digest version of this great thread? A specific gist or view, thanks! Noakes, Steve, Richard, wellnow, threshold, central governor, bla..bla

Sure.

1. There is no lactate threshold. Even if there was one, it wouldn't matter because lactate doesn't cause fatigue.

2. Tempo runs improve "lactate threshold" - but since there isn't a lactate threshold (and it wouldn't matter if there were one because lactate doesn't cause fatigue) why should you run tempo runs? Answer - because tempo runs improve performance.

3. Physiologically speaking, why & how do tempo runs improve performance? Currently there is no physiological answer to this question.

4. The Central Governor does not physiologically explain why tempo runs are effective, nor has it suggested any real changes or refinements in training methods yet.

5. A new physiological explanation - the muscle factor model - is proposed for why & how tempo runs (and all other runs) improve perforance. The logical application of this new model does suggest a significant refinement of training methods.

Richard_ wrote:

lactate doesn't cause fatigue

This doesn't matter and has nothing to do with Lactate Threshold based training

There are a few people on here who live in reality Richard. You are not one of them. You ask yourself questions under another psuedonym and then answer as yourself. You have taken this thread into mediocrity and i wish you would just stop.

The fact that you are indignant at me suggesting you play more of the student role is the perfect example of why you aren't worth listening to. You haven't learned enough to even take an undergraduate tutorial in applied sport sciences. Ive been doing athletics for over 20 years and 10 of them were training as an elite. In case you have forgotten i have scored 8084 in decathlon and you have run

32mins or is that 35mins for 5000m. The sheer difference in that is why i can never find anything of value in your words. You just don't have the quality necessary for the role you are trying to pretend you are in. At least Steve makes up the difference with intelligence.

Your views are simplistic and not at all new. You might remember when i quoted from Percy Cerutty on strength training from his book published in 1960. That's nearly 50 years ago Mr Revolutionary. You might want to investigate Sebastien Coe. He was an 800m runner around 20-25 years ago now. You will find after not much looking some information on the strength training he underwent 3 times a week throughout his career. Spaniel (so glad you are around) then provided information from Stefano Baldini's own strength training.

Let me try and get you back on track once again and out of your laboratory. Oh thats right you've been running for 26 years and i'm still waiting on something practical from your mouth. To date the score on that side of the equation is still zero.

QUESTION from before that you have avoided answering

Firstly, it is fine to say the training for slow twitch is different from the training for fast twitch as you are correct. What is missing is an example of each. Can you please provide such examples?

STATEMENT YOU COULD RESPOND TO

Secondly, the training principle is actually progressive overload not overload.

AND I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN BE OFFENDED BY THIS - IT IS A SIMPLE STATEMENT OF FACT

In conclusion, it is good you are now making the attempt to practicalise. I applaud you on this, truly. What is almost intolerable is that you are continuing to speak like you know everything, are the expert and are never wrong, perhaps you could take more of the student role at times.

FINALLY

There is not a precise lactate threshold. This is agreed generally now so stop peddling it. What there is is a 'grey' zone or 'lactate' zone where lactate accumulates and H+ ions accumulate and many other things go on which start to limit performance. May as well call it the lactate zone. At least now lactate is our friend. Thanks physiologists for making it our enemy for so long.

This grey/lactate zone - which does exist - simply needs to be pushed higher through training. The training below and within the grey zone acts to enlargen the aerobic capacity and pressure the grey zone upwards. After training this for a while the entire grey zone will have shifted. This is what tempo runs are for. By training up to and into the lactate zone one becomes more efficient at using lactate, whether delaying the onset of glycogenolysis or improving the buffering capacity.

Muscle factor model spare me. Look at the alignment of individual fibres if you will. Those fibres in correct alginment with the joints at each end of it's length will function normally. They will cycle on and off (important factor you have not mentioned) and continue over time.

Those fibres being pulled into tension because of a subtle misalignment of one or both joints the muscle is connected to will fatigue more quickly than normal. These fibres (and you can find them on yourself) are unable to function normally because they are sitting in tension when they should be relaxed. They have too much tone and are always switched on. They will fatigue quickly and will in most cases be the limiting factor in performance. People get massages to reduce this problem and see chiropractors or osteopaths or bowen therapists to become realigned. Commonplace in elite athletics which i once again reiterate you have no place in.

thankyou Richard i hope you can answer those questions or i will just have to keep repeating them

I have a theory too wrote:

spaniel wrote:

NO, that's about as useful as asking a kindergartener to do calculus.

I have what I call the 'femur tibia ischium' model of running. I believe the interaction between the hip, upper and lower leg bones are what dictates and controls running performance. These are overlooked in conventional training literature and my theory will answer many question regarding training and performance.

THIS is where the discussion should be heading - care to elaborate as i am very interested. The stuff i wrote about alignment of fibres and joints rests in whether the bones between the joints are sitting in the correct positions. I would like to think more into this area for sure.

sim wrote:

THIS is where the discussion should be heading - care to elaborate as i am very interested. The stuff i wrote about alignment of fibres and joints rests in whether the bones between the joints are sitting in the correct positions. I would like to think more into this area for sure.

Because my model is based on bones, it is much more solid than other running physiology related models.

I propose that two or more bones that meet each other at a flexible joint have the ability to form different angular relationships with each other at that joint. This ability to change the relationship allows the joints to also change the relative location and distance between the extreme locations of the bones away from the joint. This can and does result the ability to provide mobility to anything attached to the bones. In my model, it is the bones alone that are the primary reason we can run. Without the bones, we would be a blob of soft, relatively slow moving material.

blobs don' run very fast but may have a very high aerobic capacity :)

I like what you are saying. Are you a treatment professional in Chiro, Osteo or Bowen? I have been studying under a healer in Australia for some 10 years now. He is not formally trained in any area although shiatsu was something he studied himself years ago and osteo and Bowen are the two known fields of realignment therapy to which he has the closest affinity to nowadays.

He basically realigns all of the joints and bones in the body and therefore allows all of the movement musculature to relax and all of the postural musculature to activate. He can do this to a car accident victim in a wheelchair and neckbrace in an hour and a half. They are walking around the following day. When he applies this treatment to an elite athlete it is like tuning up a formula one racing car. So whilst he used to call what he does as 'integrated compensation release therapy', he now just refers to it as 'body tuning'.

Improved external mechanical efficiency to improved internal mechanics.

Improved external mechanical efficiency due to improved internal mechanics.

Gosh, you are an idiot. When you can design a study to test your model and get it published in a peer reviewed journal, then we can talk. At least Noakes is able to justify his position with reason and some studies (more studies on the Central Gov are in the works).

The lactate threshold does exist unless you think the hundreds of lab tests that I have conducted are just made up. No one who is knowledgeable is saying that lactate causes fatigue only that its appearance in the blood is ASSOCIATED with a velocity that correlates well with performance. If the intensity is such that those levels are high then fatigue will come more quickly.

Barring the fact that you will never get such a study done or have the brains on how to test it how about providing some anecdotal support. Get some athletes, train them in your "model" and let's see the results.

That is too funny… You know I think I can top the “Central Governor” model. How about the “Genetic Regulator” model? You heard it here first! :)

The why?:

Genes make proteins that influence the structure and functions. We are all different in the fact that we have slight differences (variations) that affect how genes functions, when it is turned on, how much protein it makes, or how well the produced protein functions.

One important factor is the environment. (child development, nutrition, exercise, etc.) Certain genes and environment combinations cause a predisposition for some individuals to certain disease and differences in their ability to respond to various diet, exercise, or drug treatment.

Genes are located on DNA, DNA is transcribed into RNA, RNA is translated into a protein, and then that protein performs some function in the body. Genes are important for some aspect of cellular or tissue function.

Seriously though, The Central Govoner (if it exists) doesn’t change the way we train. If your brain governs your exercise capacity it still produces a “lactate threshold” and/or a “lactate turnpoint”. Research has shown how it’s a very reliable variable for exercise performance. Every runner is an individual case. Repeated measures of training and races performance should be the main goal. If lactate sampling is avaliable during the training that is the best time to use.

If any of you have doubt that exercise physiology has no place in this sport, go read: The Physiology of the World Record Holder for the Women’s Marathon. Andrew M. Jones, International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, Volume 1, Number 2, June 2006 , pp. 101-116(16)

Jones has measured these variables and helped the best athlete ever. “PR’s data demonstrate how 15 years of directed training have created the ‘complete’ female distance runner and enabled the setting of an extraordinary World record of 2:15:25 for the Marathon.”

Sport science has its place if used with a scientific approach and actually using real world applications. Anyone can read a book and use the terminologies presented in the book but unless you are using these tools then it can’t be replaced with charts. It'll be a hit or miss approach. Taking lactate samples, oxygen consumption measurements, measuring HR, etc. are variables that are used to measure what is happening inside the cells. It is bad coaching when you use training as the main goal to improve them variables and not performance. Everyone is different and you use them as a guide to understand the the effect of training of the athlete. If understood it can be very successful.

Very interesting. Your bone theory seems solid. Can you elaborate some more? How do other factors fit in? For example, surely the length of the bones must also play a role, affecting mass distribution, center of gravity, and overall efficiency. How does this model affect training? Should we work on increasing the range of angular relationships with the bones at the joints? Strengthening the bone? Increasing flexibility of the bone?

Do you have a website with lots of links and pictures?

Richard_ wrote:

2. Tempo runs improve "lactate threshold" - but since there isn't a lactate threshold (and it wouldn't matter if there were one because lactate doesn't cause fatigue) why should you run tempo runs? Answer - because tempo runs improve performance.

3. Physiologically speaking, why & how do tempo runs improve performance? Currently there is no physiological answer to this question.

But why there is an evidence that tempos enhance the performance but not physiologic evidence ? Because there is growing evidence that training can result in performance enhancement with no measurable physiological changes. Measures of physiological capacities only discriminate between athletes of wide ability ranges. They do not discriminate between a relatively homogeneous group of elite athletes in the same sport.

Improved aerobic capacity should be top priority in development of distance runners.

The response to training is specific. Bosch & Klomp (2001): considers specific training the one that must meet three criteria:

1/The structure of the movement must resemble that present during competition.

2/The types of muscle action must be similar to those used during competition.

3/The dominant energy system used during competition must be called upon.

The tempo run as any other submaximal pace is considered specific training only to some small percent but the fitness achieved in one activity will have, at most, a minimum amount of transfer to another activity. So the tempo run have certain amount of transfer to specific training. The better the aerobic capacity, then the smaller the anaerobic contribution at any submaximal pace (you can go faster for any given blood lactate concentration). Loads must be progressive – or else further overload will not occur. Therefore you shall go from steady-state easy runs to tempo submaximal runs and to maximal and supramaximal runs.

Most tempo training does not improve performance – but it may improve your specific training and consequently the tempo workout improves the performance indirectly.

KISS – Keep It Simple, Stupid.

KISS wrote:

But why there is an evidence that tempos enhance the performance but not physiologic evidence ? Because there is growing evidence that training can result in performance enhancement with no measurable physiological changes.

I suggest it is likely that there are physiological changes occurring, but they aren't being measured either because a) physiologists haven't identified what changes are occurring so they haven't attempted to measure them or b) we don't have the technology to measure them yet.

i realise the new theory man will answer but i thought i would have a crack with some ideas. I'm aslo wondering if youa re taking the pi**.

It is accepted that for running and jumping events it is advantageous to have a femur that is proportionally longer than the total leg length when compared to the norm. It is also advantageous to have total leg length as longer proportionally than total height when compared to the norm. It is also advantageous to have a smaller Q angle than the norm.

These three genetic/anatomical advantages are not exactly changeable though.

What can be changed as the theorymeister states is the angles between bones. Between the tibia and the femur, between the tibia and the tarsals, same with the fibulas and also between the femur and the ischium. Since the body is a connected whole basically there can be a compensatory misalignement between just about any one bone in the body with any other. The misalignment is maintained through a 'lock' between two points on two separate bones. There are feet/hand locks and jaw/elbow locks as examples. Shin splints occurs around a point on the medial edge of the tibia and any one of the tarsals, metatarsals and even the phalanges.

Really it is just a process of returning to the perfection that we all have experienced as babies and young children.

Richard_ wrote:

I suggest it is likely that there are physiological changes occurring, but they aren't being measured either because a) physiologists haven't identified what changes are occurring so they haven't attempted to measure them or b) we don't have the technology to measure them yet.

yes but doesn't this highlight the main problem with using the scientific method as a process when compared to utilising intuitive experiential method.

It is a fact that science must define what it wants to measure before it can measure it. How then does science consider anything beyond its present experience. How does it grow?

It is also an historical fact that all of the great leaps in science (eureka i've got it) occurred outside of the scientific methods process. In fact without intuitive leaps science would continuously stagnate. Yet intuitive leaps are technically not allowed within the strict terms of the scientific method.

A dilemma for sure.