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

Steve McGregor wrote:

Real quick, actually, I don't believe I *asked* for feedback,

I think it was the statement "Would that be tempo? hmmmm..?" that implied the feedback.

carry on

Steve, Spaniel, i have a theory too etc i still have to much fuzziness in some of my thinking, i'm wondering if you guys can help?

1. What is the difference between LT and MLSS and Lydiard's 'best aerobic pace'?

2. Where does VO2max lie in relation to the above levels? Also is VO2max something to isolate and train or is it something that is trained concurrent with something else?

3. Is development of the above levels done better with a steady state or with a fluctuating state like with intervals or fartlek. If both, is one trained prior to the other or is concurrent training sufficient?

4. In preparation phase how much time would you spend in anaerobic training? What proportions of lactate and creatine-phopshate training would you utilise?

cheers

Sim

I have to work on a weakness now as well since i've begun to understand where Lydiard is coming from :)

I've also been examining Cerutty in depth and it's proving quite easy since he lived in the same city as I. I would encourage anyone to read his books. They flesh out more thoroughly aspects of training than Arthur has done for me so far. His approach to strength training is an excellent one and i can say this with some authority as my own training as a decathlete required much strength training.

I have started 4 MD runners on Lydiard style programs and the number is growing. They are agreeing with my explanantions of why we are going to be developing their aerobic capacity (is that term even used in physiology anymore?) through substantial long running. I am really keen to begin working with a marathon runner now to really go deep into it. The other guys are 800m, 1500m and 5000m runners.

There is no modification to this approach because of Cerutty's thinking. Instead his ideas of naturalism and maximal effort training in both running and strength training are being adopted by the program. Specifics like the sand dunes, the fist position when running, the eating of cereal without milk to develop mastication, the randomness :) are all things i like am am taking on.

Light, how many miles are you covering on average?

Not sure who said this but a final point on Snell. To say he ran as he did in spite of his long running is truly a reaching statement. It would disagree with what he himself believes and promotes to this day. Whilst he rarely hit 100mile weeks it was still his goal. I think the fact he didn't often is a tribute to the flexibility in Arthur's thinking more than any other factor. Snell was a massive MD runner. Just take a look at the final 150m in the 800m at Rome. He was a thoroughbred racehorse. His very mass meant that achieving a lot of mileage was going to be his main challenge. Yet he truly believed Arthur's words and went about totalling up a lot of miles.

To work on his weakness one might say, ey light?

RGB said so wrote:

The Light wrote:

I guess his approach for 800m athletes is the most controversial. He makes a strong case for 800m runners to build up stamina to carry their speed to the finish. But whether they need to do 2 hour runs, or run marathons, I won't say. It may depend on the athlete. The gain may be marginal, but then again the difference between gold and 4th is often marginal.

For what it's worth, Roger Bannister has stated that Snell was a superior athlete that did well not because of his "marathon training", but in spite of it. Snell only did 70-80 miles most weeks anyway.

Snell's endurance actually was not that good considering he was lydiard trained-he ran 1:44 (52s)for the 800m but only 3:54 (58.5)for the mile.

I really don't know how you can say that last part.

From Wikipedia

"In January 1962 Snell broke the world mile record before a huge crowd at Cook’s Gardens in Wanganui, and one week later set new world records for both the 800 m and 880 yd at Christchurch. He then won gold and set a new record for 880 yd at the Commonwealth Games in Perth in 1962, and won gold for the mile at those same games."

And he won an Olympic 1500m title as well.

PS Cerutty told Bannister that if he changed his style he would run much faster:)

LT = Lactate Treshold;

MLSS = Maximum Lactate Steady State.

LT has multiple definitions. Some are associated with tradition and others are associated to what really happens during running.

Laypersons often call 1-hour race-pace the LT. It may or may not be! It's fairly arbitrary and linked to 40+ years of "doing it that way."

LT is probaly best defined as the first rise in lactate above resting that does NOT return to resting lactate value upon continuation of a given workload. However, even better may be 1 mmol above resting lacate, which leads us to MLSS.

To exercise scientists and some coaches MLSS (maximum lactate steady state) is the maximal intensity at which blood lactate does not increase more than 1 mmol per liter (from the 10 minute to 30 minute mark)of a steady state exercise test. You can do a google search and find some studies that have this exact definition or very close to it.

What is the intensity associated with MLSS, as defined above? It is ~80% of VO2 max for most serious runners. By the way, if you like to use heart rate, 80% of VO2 max is ~85% of true max heart rate.

Some test methods show MLSS at a higher level (typicaly in in the 3-4 mmol range (more commonly called LT).

By the way, when tesing runners with lacate meters, I've 1-hour race pace typically has lactates of 3-7 mmols. It it really overly-simplistic to say the 1-hour race-pace is 4 mmols of lactate!

An aside (it can be a bit overwheling to think about all the definitions and criterias involved in setting LT or MLSS). If you are a non-physiology person, keep distance simple and think in terms of EZ, Medium, and Hard (or combinations of those three). EZ is base distance running that doesn't tire you out unless you go very far. Medium is about MLSS or LT, and Hard transitions above LT to VO2 max.

Practicality: all good training is a blend of intensities and efforts. If you can figure out how to blend them together, in sufficient volume and for a lengthy period of time, you'll reach a high level of racing fitness. If you get confused about putting it all together, talk to an experienced runner or coach.

Have a good day!

This is great stuff thanks mate. I would like to question a few things to help further my understanding if you don't mind.

Firstly one thing i like to do is compare where things are so linking HR to other values is great, please more of that :)

[quote]Tinman wrote:

LT = Lactate Treshold;

MLSS = Maximum Lactate Steady State.

LT has multiple definitions. Some are associated with tradition and others are associated to what really happens during running.

Laypersons often call 1-hour race-pace the LT. It may or may not be! It's fairly arbitrary and linked to 40+ years of "doing it that way."

LT is probaly best defined as the first rise in lactate above resting that does NOT return to resting lactate value upon continuation of a given workload. However, even better may be 1 mmol above resting lacate, which leads us to MLSS.

[/unquote]

What is the resting lactate level in mmol? ps that last paragraph confuses me.

[quote]

To exercise scientists and some coaches MLSS (maximum lactate steady state) is the maximal intensity at which blood lactate does not increase more than 1 mmol per liter (from the 10 minute to 30 minute mark)of a steady state exercise test. You can do a google search and find some studies that have this exact definition or very close to it.

[/unquote]

I have seen this and it has led me to wonder what is the real difference between MLSS and LT?

[quote]

What is the intensity associated with MLSS, as defined above? It is ~80% of VO2 max for most serious runners. By the way, if you like to use heart rate, 80% of VO2 max is ~85% of true max heart rate.

Some test methods show MLSS at a higher level (typicaly in in the 3-4 mmol range (more commonly called LT).

[/unquote]

Can you outline the different test methods?

[quote]

By the way, when tesing runners with lacate meters, I've 1-hour race pace typically has lactates of 3-7 mmols. It it really overly-simplistic to say the 1-hour race-pace is 4 mmols of lactate! [/unquote]

I'm wondering if the more elite the population is, the more standardised their 1 hour steady lactate level would be. I remember a study saying 2.5-3mmol was the MLSS for an elite group.

[quote]

An aside (it can be a bit overwheling to think about all the definitions and criterium involved in setting LT or MLSS). If you are a non-physiology person, keep distance simple and think in terms of EZ, Medium, and Hard (or combinations of those three). EZ is base distance running that doesn't tire you out unless you go very far. Medium is about MLSS or LT, and Hard transitions above LT to VO2 max.[/unquote]

Please overwhelm me! I already have paces of training that i use. What i am trying to do with those paces is fit the level of effort applied with certain physiological criteria and also with HR. Like where exactly is the VO2max and how hard does one push in order to be working at that level and what is the HR for that level?

cheers

Sim

No need to swear at me -- go ahead and read!Actually, you're pretty spot on. We spent too many iterations discussing my version of CG, which, upon reflection, isn't really all that important, even for me. I was mainly interested in the answer to "Why not CG?", and I got caught up in trying to correct misunderstandings.I actually got more of what I wanted from your recent response to "sim".I'm sorry I wasted your time and mine by not cutting that tangent short. We should have stopped at your "bone" theory.

Im trying to read, dammit! wrote:

Light, from this end, it appears you looked a bit at what Noakes describes his CG model as, some stuff you agree with and some you don't, and you simply built your own version of it and this is what you're presenting. It doesn't matter what a runner does in your version. They speed up, slow down, bonk, drink, don't drink, pass out, sprint, run faster than they should, run slower than the should, do everything right, do everything wrong... No matter what happens, you simply chaulk it up to some combination of the CG and the runners conscious or subconscious actions of following it or ignoring it or whatever.

I can't see a single reason to bother continuing on here with you on this thread. From that perspective, we're done.

sim wrote:

Light, how many miles are you covering on average?

It varies but is usually 70km/wk, on average, and can get up to 100km/wk.

sim wrote:

To work on his weakness one might say, ey light?

I haven't decided if the optimal approach to training is to develop your strength or your weakness, but it seems you need to factor in both.

The Light wrote:

No need to swear at me -- go ahead and read!

hah! I'd switched ID's to rag on the admins over those vehicle ads and forgot to change it when I responded to you.

ah, well

balance is the primary principle for me.

check this out

http://home.hia.no/~stephens/interval.htm

Steve McGregor wrote:

And your point is?

My point is that the graph shows the contradiction between the LT concept as you describe it and what really happens during a race. In other words, LT and MLSS are irrelevant, there are more importanat things to talk about with regards to pace judgement.

The graph also points out the importance of the lactate shuttle. In ten years time when it becomes fashionable you will be talking about the lactate shuttle, but right now people are afraid to discuss the issue intelligently for fear of castigation. Instead they would rather talk old dogma. Be honest with me Steve if you can, that is the reall issue isn't it?

spaniel wrote:

Are you George Brooks? Or simply attached firmly to his backside? One author does not well-researched make. There are more people in the field who disagree with him than agree with him, yet you pretend he's fully supported.

I've quoted studies from multiple sources during this discussion, while you have quoted ONE. So who has studied better again?

I'm not lecturing Brooks, I'm sure I could have a very engaging and intelligent discussion with him on his work. You are simply a parrot with no real understanding of what you are talking about, as I have already pointed out a multitude of points of simplistic biochemical ignorance on your part (anaerobic heat? What on earth is that?). I'd be happy to talk with Brooks, and I'm sure he'd have something really insightful to add, but you're not him.

No Andy, you haven't done your research, why do you persist in this ridiculous charade? You ask what is anaerobic heat? why don't you research it? Your biochemistry knowledge is not enough for you to put forward a good enough argument. Why do you pretend that it is?

wellnow wrote:

My point is that the graph shows the contradiction between the LT concept as you describe it and what really happens during a race.

That graph was generated from calculated lactate levels and not actual measured levels.

You ask me how lactate production maintains cytosolic redox potential, but in an earlier post you answered your own question:

AH wrote:

lactate is produced using the enzyme lacate dehydrogenase to regenerate NAD+ for glycolysis to continue

Also there are other reasons why the LDH reaction is beneficial. Lactate production consumes a proton, thus helping to buffer acidity in the muscle cell. Also, the transport of lactate out of the cell co-trasports protons.

Is that enough biochemistry for you? Or do you want more?

I have a theory too wrote:

That graph was generated from calculated lactate levels and not actual measured levels.

Yes, it is a computer simulation based on Alois Mader's hypotheticalmodel of of lactate production and uptake.

The literature explains how lactate is produced anaerobically in the cytosol and utilized aerobically in the mitochondria.

Both Tinman and spaniel are in denial about this.

They adhere vehemently to the old dogma which states that lactate can only be oxidized after a race, when in fact it is used at all running paces in considerable amounts.

Tinman and spaniel present pseudo-scientific arguments and a lack of understanding of the biochemistrty, whilst pretending to be experts. I find this completely unacceptable and must challenge their profoud desire to mislead people on this website with their pseudo-science.

Honestly (I'm not sure why think I can't be honest), that *anyone* (let alone me) is afraid to talk about the lactate shuttle because of fear of recrimminations is laughable. Seriously, who is going to castigate me here? The ACSM police? The APS mafia? Spriet? Hood? Bonen? LOL. Although Brooks' contention regarding lactate oxidation in skeletal muscle is not widely accepted, it's not like he is being "kept down by the man". His data and hypothesis is out there and in print in the most reputable journals in the discipline, and even more. Since you have not made the distinction, I will; his "intercellular" lactate shuttle is fairly widely accepted in the scientific community and is cited by his major detractors as repeatedly demonstrable, and therefore, essentially, fact. On the other hand, his "intracellular" lactate shuttle is not widely accepted, and his results are not reproducible. That's the only problem anyone has with his claim, if it's true, why can't anyone else show it? I will certainly give him credit where credit is due, he was one of the first in the field to present the concept of the lactate shuttle (intercellular), and to propose the idea that lactate is not a dead end metabolite, and for that he is to be respected. Further, he has contributed greatly to the field in general. So, again, he is owed his due. Regardless if the intracellular version of his hypothesis bares out, he has certainly left a great legacy. I think even many of his academic adversaries would agree with that, and it's probably why he was given a key note slot at the ACSM meeting last time it was in Indy. Not exactly the kind of thing you do for someone who is being silenced to perpetuate dogma, is it?

Truth be told, *you* seem to have more invested in this whole thing than he does. To me, I couldn't care less. If tomorrow 10 labs came out and said, "wow, look at this, Brooks was right", I'd be fine with it. It just doesn't appear to be the case, and so for now, that's where I am. It doesn't change anything I do one way or the other.

Can you indicate to us where the graph shows the contradiction between the LT concept as I describe it (and as a multitude of others have demonstrated) and what really happens in a race? Are you saying that *I* said that one should run a race based on their LT? That they should use their LT for pace judgement?

Where does the graph point out the importance of the lactate shuttle?

Steve

I found this site already. A lot of his stuff is dated 1996, so it may be out of date -- some things change and some things don't. I kinda liked the graph here:

http://home.hia.no/~stephens/timecors.htm

What more does an athlete really need to know?

Why are you perpetuating the dogma that intramuscular acidosis is a bad thing and needs to be buffered?;)

Not nearly enough. More please.

Steve

wellnow -

It is funny that you continue to say spaniel and I are the ones who are pseudo-scientific when you are the one who has little or no understanding of biochemistry! Take a look in the mirror, sir!

You have talked about aerobic glycolysis as if it actually exists (it does not). Over and over you have mentioned that lactate is being used intracellarly (a Brooks hypothesis) - which has NOT been shown to be true by researchers from labs other than the one at U.C. Berkely.

George Brooks' conclusions are based on guesses and estimates of what it happening rather breadth or depth of substance.) That's fine and alright because inquiry starts this way. But, for anyone to believe a theory is reality there must be plenty of solid, reproducible evidence in support of it. Brooks has not shown hard evidence, and other labs have NOT been able to produce results that show lactate is being used as fuel within working muscle fibers -citiations have already been provided on this topic by me and spaniel).

Perhaps I am dogmatic, but you are no different!

At this point, I am hopeful that Brooks' and his crew of graduate students do come up with more evidence. I'd like to know more about what is really going on within muscle fibers, as well as without.

My questions remain:

What happens to energy production during races or all-out test efforts?

Why is one person able to perform better than another?

What causes fatigue and what prevents it?

I look forward to reading qualtiy research that is reproducible by anyone. Perhaps Brooks will discover more that is profound or worthy of scientific scrutiny? I'll give him a kudos when I see him again, if he does. That'd be great! Until then, I'll admire his work, think critically about it, and appreciate what he does offer, but still reserve the right to ask for substantive evidence if I am to believe a theory.

Have a great day!