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

Wouldn't pacing fall under the catagory of tactics and racing decisions? You DECIDE how fast you want to run, how hard you want to push yourself. This is part of the reason why why the Central Governor model is unpopular-it assumes that you have no control...

...YOU decide that it will be 26.2 miles in four hours. Your brain does not know that you will be running for four hours. It only operates based on current sensations and data. But common sense and past experience tells you that you cannot sprint a marathon.

I agree that a person usually consciously decides in advance how far they are going to run and how long it is going to take. There is no doubt this happens and that there is also no way the Central Governor can know, in advance, how far/long you are going to run unless it is told.

Noakes thinks that conscious information is forwarded to the Central Governor so that it can then handle the necessary pace calculations.

The Central Governor is just part of the subconscious brain. As a part of the whole brain the Central Governor is in direct and constant communication with other parts of the brain, including the conscious part of the brain.

Once the Central Governor is informed as to distance/time and intensity, it communicates a calculated pace to the conscious brain. Throughout the run, the runner is constantly receiving information from the Central Governor as to the state of the body and if the pace needs to be adjusted.

Have you ever felt the need to adjust your pace during a run? Maybe you realized your were running too fast for the remaining distant and decided to slow your pace. Or you felt your pace was a bit conservative and you could increase the pace without dying in the final miles. Noakes would say that realizations, such as those about pace, were a result of your central governor communicating to the conscious brain.

Rating of Perceived Effort is another example of the central governor communicating with the conscious brain. It communicates the gestalt of body information to the conscious brain.

The existence of a central governor doesn't mean we are a slave to it. We can consciously decide to override the central governor to a large degree.

Tinman wrote:

To state lactate is used by the muscle cells as a fuel is almost misleading. It must be converted to glucose and that takes place in the liver via gloconeogensis. Lacate is not used in working muscle fibers directly. It is only used directly in the heart, kidneys and brain.

Honest question: The heart is essentially a muscle, no? If it is the case that the heart can directly use lactate, what is going on there that does not happen in skeletal muscles?

Citizen Runner wrote:

quote]

Honest question: The heart is essentially a muscle, no? If it is the case that the heart can directly use lactate, what is going on there that does not happen in skeletal muscles?

The heart is a muscle, but it is NOT skeletal muscle. They are distinctly different. While I do not have time to look up citations for you right now, the heart has been shown to produce energy from a wider variety of substrates (including lactate) than skeletal muscle. I recall that the version (isozyme)of lactate dehydrogenase in cardiac muscle is different from that in skeletal muscle, and it takes higher levels of pyruvate to inhibit it.

(This is another fact some discussants here have failed to consider, pyruvate is produced preferentially and inhibits the lactate pathway directly. If you want to claim lactate is a primary fuel source in skeletal muscle, you have to explain where all the pyruvate has gone).

Citizen Runner wrote:

quote]

Honest question: The heart is essentially a muscle, no? If it is the case that the heart can directly use lactate, what is going on there that does not happen in skeletal muscles?

The heart is a muscle, but it is NOT skeletal muscle. They are distinctly different. While I do not have time to look up citations for you right now, the heart has been shown to produce energy from a wider variety of substrates (including lactate) than skeletal muscle. I recall that the version (isozyme)of lactate dehydrogenase in cardiac muscle is different from that in skeletal muscle, and it takes higher levels of pyruvate to inhibit it.

(This is another fact some discussants here have failed to consider, pyruvate is produced preferentially and inhibits the lactate pathway directly. If you want to claim lactate is a primary fuel source in skeletal muscle, you have to explain where all the pyruvate has gone).

speaking of being specific about the heart maybe we should also be specific about the brain. The specific distinction would be between the brain and the mind. I think that distinction may be important to the discussion at hand.

Does anyone have good definitions for them?

It looks more and more like the definition of the Central Governor is being modified, either by Noakes or Dickie's piss-poor translations. Whatever Noakes is trying to sell now as the Central Governor, it sure doesn't look like what he originally proposed.

The Light bringing up Geb's WR attempts was the perfect vehicle to show this Governor in LACK of action. Geb ran great strategic pacing in Berlin and still had some reserve left at the end so he kicked it up over the last few k's to use up whatever was left and push the WR down as far as he could. In Dubais he tried a different strategy, feeling he could achieve in the 2:03's. At the end there was little left, not even enough for me to push below the WR despite still having some buffer within 5 or 6k's to go.

If the CG as now described was supposed to 'let go' at the end as Noakes (or someone's interpretation of Noakes), Geb should have been able to finish hard. He didn't. Same runner in both situations, different strategies explicitly and consciously chosen by the runner, and two different results.

If the CG guys want to just keep bring up more yakkity-yak stuff that apparently everyone else is supposed to address, they can have at it.

I have a theory too wrote:

not even enough for him to push below...

typo correction

sim wrote:

I will talk to you or not, your choice, OK? As far as I can see you need a kick in the

F-ing ass to teach you a lesson in respect.

that's just freakin' funny

Indeed, as a result of research and real world observations, the Central Governor model has evolved somewhat over the last few years -- it is not at all what was originally proposed. Theoretical models are not carved in stone, but molded and stretched to fit reality, until they can be stretched no more.

I viewed Geb's races a bit differently. When he set the world record, his pacing was within his physical capabilities and his CG allowed that pace, and at the end, when he should have been the most fatigued, he was able to accelerate and kick. However in Dubai, he started out too fast, consciously overriding his CG and slightly exceeding his physical capability, until he got too close to some physical limit, and then his CG slowed him down so that he was not able to push because he had too little left. What could be a better demonstration of the CG in action?

Why does everyone feel threatened by the idea of self preservation being present during intense exercise? We know bio-feedback mechanisms exist. We know that our bodies learn from past experiences, and this affects our reactions in future similiar situations. What exactly is controversial?

Yes I know that the reactions of glycolysis are produced anaerobically in the cytosol. Why would you assume that I am ignorant about this? Because you don't read what I have written that's why.

It's not really the point though is it? The terms anaerobic glycolysis and aerobic glycolysis do not make this distinction. They are a hangover from the time when lactate was thought to be only oxidizable after excercise cessation.

Brooks explains why he believes other researchers have been unable to loctate LDH in the mitochondria:

http://jp.physoc.org/cgi/content/full/541/2/333

Anyway, that argument pertains specifically to the intracellular lactate shuttle not the cell to cell shuttle.

The notion that fast twitch fibers export lactate which slow twitch fiber import is widely accepted. Why do you think differently?

Yes pyruvate is a precursor to lactate production in the cytosol and oxidative phosphorylation in the mitochondria, but that does not negate the argument that lactate production is an inevitable product of glycolysis in order to maintain cytosolic redox. The intracellular lactate shuttle hypothesis pertains more to mitochondrial redox, which is more controversial, but Brooks has provided evidence to support this scenario.

Why would we accumulate lactate at the same time as pyruvate was being exclusively the oxidizable glycolytic intermediate? that doesn't make sense.

You ask me:

Why is lactate created to store energy for later? It's already there as glycogen or glucose. And lactate has already given up its "easy" energy through glycolysis, so no longer supports fast "survival-type" reactions.

My own hypothesis (if you will allow a mere layman to think for himself) is that once lactate has been produced, the so called "anaerobic heat" has been produced and thus the muscles remain primed (warmed up) ready for more action in fight or flight with a ready supply of large amounts of energy, and with it the abundance of catecholamines necessary for this fight or flight. This is what we tap into when we interval train, it also explains why we feel so full of physical and nervous energy after a hard race or interval session, becasue we have to be, as do most other species in order to maintain our survival.

You haven't provided any good evidence against Brooks' cell to cell or intracellular lactate shuttle hypotheses, which are accepted by Mader and Olbrecht as well as Noakes and many others and have been for more than a decade.

I think you are in denial spaniel, and your arguments are weak.

I don't know. At times you seem almost indifferent to physiology, as it's only a small part of real coaching of real athletes at a track. This I can understand. Yet there is a strong reaction to Noakes I don't understand. Hence the questions if you think pragmatic coaching methodologies are being attacked by his theories in progress. I think Noakes is just challenging some old ideas in a 90 year old model, which is quite far away from changing applied methodologies.

sim wrote:

Light, ...

What do you think i am doing here?

spaniel wrote:

This is another fact some discussants here have failed to consider, pyruvate is produced preferentially and inhibits the lactate pathway directly. If you want to claim lactate is a primary fuel source in skeletal muscle, you have to explain where all the pyruvate has gone).

Are you serious? Good grief spaniel that is a ridiculous question. You really haven't done your research, so stop pretending you have.

glucose -> pyruvate -> lactate -> pyruvate -> mitochondrial respiration.

The pyruvate is always an intermediate of carbohydrate metabolism.

Tinman wrote:

Pragmatics:

I'll go back to a statement I made a few weeks ago, why is lactate NOT injected into runners prior to competition? If it is such a good fuel source then athletes would would pay good money for the "solution to their problem."

Have a good day!

Tinman that is such a ridiculously stupid and childish question, completely undermining your credibility. You are just making a fool of yourself.

Actually, no they are not. If reality doesn't support he model, then the model is wrong. You can't change a model to fit reality and then declare it to be the same model. Either the model holds up or it doesn't, you can't massage it to fit.

You're all over the map on your interpretation of the CG. If you can't see that, I don't know what more I can tell you.

Richard, I doubt that you've ever run a progression run and

continuously picked up the pace to where you were hammering

the 15th mile.

If you had of you would realize it is the will of your

ego, and not some central governor, that calls the

shots.

A few days ago, I went for a run in the moonlight, which turned out to be one of those extraordinary experiences where you are just floating along at an amazing speed for a long way.

Do you know that feeling? I'm sure most of us do.

It felt like a dream, I was totally relaxed but totally aware of my technique and even though I was moving at a very fast pace, I was hardly breathing.

How does this happen? In my case I had done a very long hard run 4 days before and a very hard interval session two days before, with lots of mileage in between, so my muscles and mind were ready for something special, but the reality far exceeded my expectations.

If we tap into these phenomena, we can run our best races, but the fear factor in racing usually makes us hold back either in the days leading up to the race or in the race itself. I think we have to learn to overcome this fear.

When observations do not fit a model, then the model must be refined or discarded. This happens all the time. Is there a rule that says we have to rename it?Maybe your understanding of what I said is all over the map, but my interpretation of CG has been consistent throughout - a self preservation mechanism which limits performance to prevent damage.You can't tell me more because, besides unsupported conclusions, you haven't really told me anything yet.

I have a theory too wrote:

Actually, no they are not. If reality doesn't support he model, then the model is wrong. You can't change a model to fit reality and then declare it to be the same model. Either the model holds up or it doesn't, you can't massage it to fit.

...

You're all over the map on your interpretation of the CG. If you can't see that, I don't know what more I can tell you.

Wellnow,

Once again, you reveal how little you understand about what you are trying to discuss:

"Yes I know that the reactions of glycolysis are produced anaerobically in the cytosol. Why would you assume that I am ignorant about this? Because you don't read what I have written that's why."

Why? Read your very next statement:

"It's not really the point though is it? The terms anaerobic glycolysis and aerobic glycolysis do not make this distinction. They are a hangover from the time when lactate was thought to be only oxidizable after excercise cessation."

Nobody, ever, EVER, talks about aerobic glycolysis because glycolysis, by its very biochemical definition, is entirely anaerobic. Yet you keep throwing around the term "aerobic glycolysis" and are now calling it a hangover from another time. It is not a hangover, the term DOES NOT EXIST. Yet here you use it again right after crying about me pointing our your ignorance on metabolic biochemistry.

"Brooks explains why he believes other researchers have been unable to loctate LDH in the mitochondria:

http://jp.physoc.org/cgi/content/full/541/2/333

"

So HE says he found LDH in mitochondria, but two other labs didn't. Hardly conclusive evidence, huh?

"Yes pyruvate is a precursor to lactate production in the cytosol and oxidative phosphorylation in the mitochondria,

but that does not negate the argument that lactate production is an inevitable product of glycolysis in order to maintain cytosolic redox."

Explain why it is inevitable to maintain redox. This I want to hear from you.

"Why would we accumulate lactate at the same time as pyruvate was being exclusively the oxidizable glycolytic intermediate? that doesn't make sense. "

Sure it does. The oxidative pathway through pyruvate is running at max capacity, so the lactate pathway does what it does best by producing a quick yet inefficient energy boost. Lactate accumulates as a result. This is hardly a difficult concept to visualize.

"My own hypothesis (if you will allow a mere layman to think for himself) is that once lactate has been produced, the so called "anaerobic heat" has been produced and thus the muscles remain primed (warmed up) ready for more action in fight or flight with a ready supply of large amounts of energy, and with it the abundance of catecholamines necessary for this fight or flight. This is what we tap into when we interval train, it also explains why we feel so full of physical and nervous energy after a hard race or interval session, becasue we have to be, as do most other species in order to maintain our survival."

Here you go with this fuel source for "fight or flight". That insinuates a quick source of energy. AS I already discussed, lactate is produced AS A RESULT of a reaction that gives quick energy. Lactate must be recycled back, even if it is to produce energy aerobically, and it's already past the step where it can be used as a fast source of anaerobic energy. This is hardly a "fight or flight" adaptive mechanism, glucose will yield energy faster than lactate.

"You haven't provided any good evidence against Brooks' cell to cell or intracellular lactate shuttle hypotheses, which are accepted by Mader and Olbrecht as well as Noakes and many others and have been for more than a decade. "

Well, Noakes has been quoted on here showing he is a quack, and just because 1-2 others may like it there are a ton more that don't. As I mentioned, Brooks is trying to defend his position yet the majority of labs trying to verify his findings can't verify it.

"I think you are in denial spaniel, and your arguments are weak."

Only because you are too ignorant to understand half of what I say.

The Light wrote:

When observations do not fit a model, then the model must be refined or discarded. This happens all the time. Is there a rule that says we have to rename it?

If you follow proper process and your model has already been published/released, yes, even if that name change is as subtle as a revision number, or a date and time stamp, or a publication number.

[quote]The Light wrote:

Maybe your understanding of what I said is all over the map, but my interpretation of CG has been consistent throughout - a self preservation mechanism which limits performance to prevent damage.

[quote]

If you can override it (as you said you could), it is not a limiter. Argue this all you want.