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

UofO wrote:

RunningArt, Richard_, that is pretty stupid. Have you ever done a vo2max test on a bike then on a treadmill? It'S called event specific. Lance’s vo2max value was done on a cycle ergometer not on a treadmill. He has done thousands of miles on a bike therefore he would have specific motor units that contract accordingly when cycling, and it would change when he runs. His vo2max value would not be as high running as it is when he cycles.

I think that was the point that Runningart was making

Runningart2004 wrote:

Answer: It's in the muscles. Train your muscles and everything else will follow.

Alan

Arsene,

I haven't delved into the research on this topic yet, but different fibers use energy (ATP) at different rates for the same level of power output. I suspect (but haven't attempted to verify) that when a muscle increases the amount of force it can generate that it does that without an equal increase in energy expenditure. In other words, if I train a muscle fiber so it's max strength increases 50% it would not necessarily require a similar increase in ATP consumption while working at the higher force output.

This idea is not unreasonable IMO since we already know and accept that running economy improves with training. Running economy is an indirect measure of the total energy being burned while running at a particular pace. So, when running economy improves it means the amount of energy being burned to run at a particular pace has decreased. I suggest that improvements in muscle contractility are what cause the decrease in energy consumption (i.e. improved running economy).

I basically agree with you that the primary training goal of endurance athletes should be to increase the % of maximum power they can sustain for a set distance. I would say it slightly different - they need to train to produce a higher power output for a set distance - but our beliefs share more similarities than differences. My advice to runners it two-fold - work to increase maximum power output and work to increase the % of power output you can mainain for a set distance.

all good but please richard_ can you respond about the increased recruitment at low intensity after a long duration?

something wrote:

The other occurs due to a sub-maximal effort being continued over time. AT some point on the way to continuous 2 hours of running at a sub-maximal level (125bpm) something* is going to give. Unless they are already trained for it already. That something often won't be the heart and lungs but will instead be a local muscular limitation. The recruitment you do just before that something gives is the key. One can't get to it if you run faster, as another sytem becomes the limiting factor. Lydirard talks about it as waking up dormant capillry beds and deepening the capilliarisation in the muscles fibres.

What do you think?

Something,

There is evidence from strength training research that shows an increased volume of active muscle fibers with training in beginners, but I'm not sure how applicable the results are to running. It makes sense that there would be an increase in active muscle fibers in beginners, but I suspect that this is a very limited explanation for improved performance in non-beginners.

I have an alternate model that offers an explanation for many of the unanswered questions in running, including this one. I'm still working on it so I am not yet ready to discuss it in detail. Hopefully this new model will be ready soon.

I encourage those of you who are interested in this discussion and have not read my book, Brain Training for Runners, to do so. Yes, it will put bread on my table, but I also think that you will find it interesting. For what it's worth, Tim Noakes wrote the foreword and described my practical application of his ideas--and other cutting-edge research on the role of the brain/central nervous system in running performance--as "seminal".

from Lore of Running, 542:

"during competition the elite runners exhibited associative characteristics, which means that their thoughts were totally absorbed in the race itself ... pace was governed not by the clock but by their bodies. According to the governor theory, these athletes were allowing their pace to be set by the central governor on the basis of its integration of all the different sensory information coming from those organs that determine performance. Since the central governor really does know what each athlete's physiological capacity is--in fact, it sets that capacity--it is perhaps not surprising that these elite runners did not believe in the existence of the so-called marathon wall. Rather, because they made their conscious brains subservient to the subconscious governor, they were able to choose the exact racing speed that avoided a sudden and precipitous fall off in performance at the wall ... the pacing strategy is dictated by the subconscious and not by some predetermined plan, invented by a hopelessly overoptimistic conscious brain and shaped by a host of imaginary variables, including expectations, hopes and presumptions, none of which has anything to do with the athlete's true physiological state before or during the race. Since it is onlthe central governor that can monitor the athlete's true physiological state, it is only the pace chosen by the subconscious governor that will ever be the best possible under the prevailing circumstances."

I basically agree with you that the primary training goal of endurance athletes should be to increase the % of maximum power they can sustain for a set distance. I would say it slightly different - they need to train to produce a higher power output for a set distance - but our beliefs share more similarities than differences. My advice to runners it two-fold - work to increase maximum power output and work to increase the % of power output you can mainain for a set distance.[/quote]

Agreed - the runner needs to be able to maximise their power output over the entire race distance (very simple; power being rate of work - if I can do the same amount of work faster than you, then I win). However, there is a big difference between peak and average power output. In any endurance event it is the runner who can sustain the highest average power output who wins, not the one who can produce the highest peak. I can easily see how it is possible for an athletes peak power to decline, while they continue increasing the average power they can maintain over their competitive event. This makes sense as the adaptations to training required to improve peak power are largely independent of the adaptations required to improve average power (the former being largely neural, the latter being largely metabolic). You dont see many Olympic weightlifters running fast marathons!

I'm interested in what the implications of this largely theoretical debate are for the practical training of runners. My belief is that most distance athletes are powerful 'enough' for the events at which they compete. Take your typical young MD runner who can run ~50 for 400, 1.56 for 800, 4.05 for 1500 and outside 9 for the 3K. This athlete has enough muscle power to run >1.50 and 3.40 as it is if they can improve their ability to sustain a high percentage of maximal power. Why do they need to become even more powerful? I can also believe that there are examples of athletes in the opposite situation (i.e. their endurance is superb but further potential improvement is limited unless they can enhance the muscle power factor). This is very subjective, but it is my observation that female athletes are more likely to fall into this second group. Clearly these two types of athlete require different training.

This is sort of related to this discussion, but I think it is interesting - at some time Renato Canova made a point on this forum that if an athlete progressively made their sessions more demanding in terms of specific endurance (eg. fast contimuous run gradually lengthened from 10-20K at the same pace, or during a session of 10x400m reduced recovery from 60' to 45', lengthened short hills from 60-100m etc) then the blood lactate concentration at any given workload gets less. The reason I find this so interesting is because he does not seem to be trying to target specific physiological variables with his sessions. He uses a range of different sessions, and as his athletes specific endurance improves then he finds that there have been changes in the athletes physiology. In other words, the changes in the athletes physiology are evidence of adaptation to the training performed, but not the primary goal. This fits in well with Noakes' other belief that it is impossible to isolate and train specific physiological parameters through different types of session.

The underlying physiology is clearly very complex, but what these ideas are saying to me is that we would be better served by sticking to the basic principles of overload, specificity and progression (and individualisation) in the design of the training programme, as opposed to 'guessing' exactly what each session is trying to achieve.

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

aha!

Matt Fitzgerald wrote:

I encourage those of you who are interested in this discussion and have not read my book, Brain Training for Runners, to do so. Yes, it will put bread on my table, but I also think that you will find it interesting. For what it's worth, Tim Noakes wrote the foreword and described my practical application of his ideas--and other cutting-edge research on the role of the brain/central nervous system in running performance--as "seminal".

Hi, Matt.

I read your book when it first came out and found it very interesting and worthwhile. I recommend it to anyone interested in wanting to know more about the Central Governor model and how it applies to training.

Matt Fitzgerald wrote:

I encourage those of you who are interested in this discussion and have not read my book, Brain Training for Runners, to do so. Yes, it will put bread on my table, but I also think that you will find it interesting. For what it's worth, Tim Noakes wrote the foreword and described my practical application of his ideas--and other cutting-edge research on the role of the brain/central nervous system in running performance--as "seminal".

I read your book and was convinced by the first part and then read the second part, which seemed like solid training plans. However I missed the part about why those workouts in particular trains the brain. ???

i would definitely be interested in seeing this model Richard_.

I'm glad the research says there is recruitment of extra fibres in beginners. I'm not surprised there isn't any research showing whether well trained individuals continue to recruit more fibres. It would be difficult to conduct (biopsies). Also it would be very minimal in the well trained and far more marked in the newly trained. I think a well trained individual is not dealing with large margins of improvement anymore so maybe recruiting an extra 1% of fibres through this method is a worthwhile gain. In all common sense there must be extra recruitment when effort levels overload. If every other system is straining itself why not that one?

Ultimately though i think it is the mind that is being trained. It is the mind that reaches for more when you are at your limits - the body tries to follow. Just the trying is enough to cause the training effect.

Matt

i haven't read your book bu i have heard of it. I don't seem to be able to find it in Australia though. Could you please explain how the central governor model is related to homeostasis?

I believe that Renato's methodology is based on neural adaptations and how they influence training paces. His athletes use short hill reps and fartlek sessions during high mileage training, and these speed workouts help the athlete to run the 400's faster which helps them run the 600's faster which helps them run the 1000m reps faster etc etc.

Thus all paces are inter-related in the training schedule.

The neural adaptations are such that the speed workouts increase muscle tone and nervous stimulation for the slightly longer reps, which in turn influences slightly more longer reps etc etc. But because the schedule contains so much mileage and variation, the athlete can adapt more quickly from one session to the next, than a less well trained athlete.

This is a very different approach to the Aerobic/Anaerobic dogma which confuses so many athletes and coaches and makes them fearful of the potential of an athlete to mix speed and endurance in the amounts they are capable of.

maybe you can explain the relationship wellnow. Homeostasis and the central governor.

I expected no reply wellnow because i know you can't answer this question can you?

You physiology guys are funny, relying on and using your 'borrowed knowledge'. Knowledge you have not gained yourself but have gained from others doing the thinking for you. Real coaches have developed their own knowledge. They can then share this with other coaches that have gained their own knowledge. Funnily enough when you explore the sport in a practical instead of theoretical sense, the self knowledge you gain is pretty much the same as with the other real coaches, so the sharing is easy.

If you feel the need to be self righteous about training theory i suggest you go down to your local track, start chatting to some coaches, and find out what is really going on in this sport. The actual training and competing has nothing to do with your physiology-speak.

You are a self professed scientist type, i wonder how much you know about the other main scientific field of biomechanics and how that relates to your own physical movement. I bet you have nothing.

right on

Wow.

A real running thread and one that almost has 100 posts.

I thought that did not happen anymore.

The actual training and competing has nothing to do with your physiology-speak.

Pretty much sums it up.

From "Good Will Hunting" comes this dialogue which does a good job of illustrating the stark distinction between hearing about or reading a mere summary of something and being totally immersed in the reality of it:

"So, if I asked you about art, you'd probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo. You know a lot about him - life's work, political aspirations, him and the Pope, sexual orientation, the whole works, right? But I bet you can't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You've never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling, seen that.

If I ask you about women, you'll probably give me a syllabus of your personal favorites. You may have even been laid a few times. But you can't tell me what it feels like to wake up next to a woman and feel truly happy.

You're a tough kid. And I ask you about war, you'd probably throw Shakespeare at me, right? 'Once more unto the breach, dear friends ...' But you've never been near one. You've never held your best friend's head in your lap and watched him gasp his last breath, looking to you for help.

I ask you about love, you'll probably quote me a sonnet. But you've never looked at a woman and been totally vulnerable, known someone that could level you with her eyes, feeling like God put an angel on Earth just for you ... who could rescue you from the depths of hell. And you wouldn't know what it's like to be her angel, to have that love for her, be there forever. Through anything. Through cancer. And you wouldn't know about sleeping sitting up in a hospital room for two months, holding her hand, because the doctors could see in your eyes that the terms 'visiting hours' don't apply to you. You don't know about real loss. 'Cause that only occurs when you love something more than you love yourself. I doubt you've ever dared to love anybody that much.

I look at you. I don't see an intelligent, confident man. I see a cocky, scared sh*tless kid. But you're a genius, Will. No one denies that. No one could possibly understand the depths of you. But you presume to know everything about me because you saw a painting of mine. You ripped my f***ing life apart. You're an orphan, right? Do you think I know the first thing about how hard your life has been? How you feel? Who you are? Because I read Oliver Twist? Does that encapsulate you? Personally, I don't give a sh*t about all that. Because you know what? I can't learn anything from you I can't read in some f***ing book. Unless you want to talk about you - who you are. Then I'm fascinated. I'm in. But you don't want to do that, do you, sport? You're terrified of what you might say."

Well, there you have it. There are those who watch from the sidelines and talk theory, and there are those who do and gain the truly pragmatic understanding. Many exercise scientists presume to know running because they "saw a painting" or two. But unless they've been through the running equivalent of those experiences described above, they don't know sh*t about building a running career from the ground up. That's not to say observing and gathering marginally-related data (as exercise science does in relation to day-to-day running) never has useful applications in real life. Some practical nuances can come out of exercise science, but using it as your basic template is like watching every episode of "Kung Fu" in order to learn how to protect yourself against armed attackers. There might be a couple of practical nuances in that show, as well, but those are only things that you'd recognize as practical if you already knew the basic principles of dealing with the reality of violence, and none of those nuances will turn a wimp into a fighter. Getting in some David Carradine stance and making a few flowery circular motions with your fingers and hands will only get you killed when two or three crowbar-wielding five-time felons on angel dust charge at you in a dead-end alley. In the same vein, you can concoct some very good stand-alone workouts from exercise theory, but nuances aren't what make the runner.

Lord well said! Can you finish a race like Jason from Japan? Just joking.Teddy Roosevelt - To the Man in the ArenaIt is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly...who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.Theodore Roosevelt, 1910