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

Yes! The central governor model and the aerobic/anaerobic model are not mutually exclusive. Noakes merely suggests that Daniels' model is insufficient for describing performance limitations.

I think that taking advantage of the theory comes down to simulating race effort. Racing early and often is good training because it prepares your mind, leading to reduced perceived exertion and higher comfort levels. This is especially important in middle distance, because energy systems training does not generally require much time spent at mile pace. If anyone has ever jumped into a mile race during cross season, you know the feeling. It's more than just a lack of "mile fitness;" it's an almost frightening feeling, like driving a car without brakes.

Fast-finish workouts are also very useful, because they give you a sample of late race effort levels. If you don't fast finish a mile repeat workout, you're never approaching the feeling that you will have in the late stages of a race. This can lead to panic and inefficiency when you do hit that effort level.

Personally, I think that the central governor model is brilliant. I believe that much of the ridicule it receives is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the model. Don't think of the governor as this guy who is pulling invisible strings, stopping you from working hard. Think of the governor as your limbic system. It's all of those primitive feelings that you experience when working hard like fear, panic, pain, and despair.

If you don't think that the governor can be trained, just think back about your first race of the season, after you've put in a huge base. You probably run pretty slow, but you feel fine afterward, because you're fit and you have to relearn how to go to the edge. You see the same thing with young runners. For kids, much of distance running is about learning how much you can hurt. When I was in 9th grade, I pr'ed in the 800 by 50 seconds! Obviously I didn't get fitter; I learned that I could do much more than I thought. In my second cross country ski race, I was in last place through 8k, but I did the last 4k faster than the entire field.

I do believe that the central governor has limitations. Supposedly, it exists to protect the organism from damage. I suspect that it is most important in middle distance and distance races. In the 800 and 400, it seems like you are running up against raw physical limitations, which make sense, since it would be hard to dangerously overwork the organism in such a short period of time. On the other side, in ultra distances, it seems as though the central governor can be tricked. Perhaps the slow-bleed of marathons and longer races allow people to run past their limitations, which is why you see internal organs becoming distressed in these races.

[quote]new missian wrote:

In fact if there is one common them in the training of the elites that has been shown over time is that the best do a significantly high volume of tempo training.quote]

A recent study examined this topic in collegiate cross country runners. They divided the runners into 2 groups, with one group training at 80/12/8 split (80% easy paced training, 12% tempo paced running, 8% faster than tempo pace) and the other group ran a 67/25/8 split. In essence, the 2nd group ran twice as many tempo runs and fewer easy runs. (Note, training for the first group was what their coach was already prescribing and was not different from their normal training practices.)

At the end of the study, the 2nd group's performance (those who ran a higher volume of tempo runs) was significantly lower than those in the first group. A high volume of tempo runs retarded progression in the 2nd group.

Impact of training intensity distribution on performance in endurance athletes.J Strength Cond Res. 2007 Aug;21(3):943-9.

Richard_ wrote:A high volume of tempo runs retarded progression in the 2nd group.

That's one way to interpret those data. Another way is to say that a high volume of "fast running" (tempo plus intervals) in comparison to easy volume retarded progression in the second group.

It would be interesting to see how well a third group performed: one with something like 75/20/5, or the like. Perhaps the tempo runs weren't the culprit after all, but in the context of that training, maybe the intervals (on top of the tempos) were too much.

Richard, please stop trying to peddle "power running" here.

knowerer of things wrote:

That's one way to interpret those data. Another way is to say that a high volume of "fast running" (tempo plus intervals) in comparison to easy volume retarded progression in the second group.

...Perhaps the tempo runs weren't the culprit after all, but in the context of that training, maybe the intervals (on top of the tempos) were too much.

My bias is that it was a too high volume of total fast running (tempo plus intervals), but until someone else studies the issue we won't have a definitive answer.

However, if we consider the results of the studies on elite runners, the results from this study seem to provide a clue as to why elites choose to run relatively few tempo runs.

novice exphys wrote:

Since I do not have Noakes' book, can someone summarize the central Govenor theory and how it differs from Daniel's.

Thanks.

Here is a good summary from the man himself:

I agree mostly. I have observed also that a lot of runners push themselves very hard very often, without improvement, they are training hard, but not training smart.

Nope. Hall, Meb and Deena were running tempo at 6-8000 feet

altitude. It works.

I won't even attempt to explain either model or why this works and that doesn't or what's the best way to train. I will say that training using Daniels' paces helped me more than anything else I've ever done, and that includes a lot of variation. After reading a bunch of books and threads on physiology and "brain training" (which was pretty worthless), I have almost completely stopped caring about it all because I've found what works and and what doesn't. To optimally train I just slightly adjust what I know works, but there are no radical changes. Sometimes there just aren't clear black and white answers, so it's a waste of time to try and come up with them.

Ryan Hall at 7,000 feet:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=e593f8eba239bada1a0c

For those of you unfamiliar with the man, Richard_ is the wackjob behind this site:

http://www.powerrunning.com

His entire purpose posting here is to attempt to further his "revolutionary" training.

Thanks fred, that was like turtally awesome dude.

Below is a thread from about the same topic. Within the thread Noakes is quoted from Email with a LR-poster, a good read.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1810681&page=0

Richard_ wrote:They divided the runners into 2 groups, with one group training at 80/12/8 split (80% easy paced training, 12% tempo paced running, 8% faster than tempo pace)

and the other group ran a 67/25/8 split. In essence, the 2nd group ran twice as many tempo runs and fewer easy runs.

group 1: 20% hard running

group 2: 33% hard running

From the looks of it, all this proves is that the 2nd group was overtraining. What pace do they call "tempo"?

I think Richard is correct in a sense. As I have noted in the 'Malmo - How do I structure 100 -110 mpw' thread, I have really become a student of malmo style training.

He states that the current defition of a 'tempo' run is different than his. He says that doing 4-5 mile runs at 15k - half marathon pace are too fast. He states, and it is true by looking at his log, that he never recorded a run as a 'tempo' run. If done correctly, a 'tempo' run can be done 3-4 times per week. Marathon pace or about :50 - 1:00 slower than 5k pace is more ideal under malmo's definition.

He throws in an adequate amount of track work per week, given the overall context of his mileage, at paces ranging from mile to 8k. The volume and rest of each particular session is done by feel, providing desired stimulus, while also letting the body be ready to go in a few days. The daily volume is always maintained with longer warm-ups and cooldowns.

Having trained this way for several months now, I can say I am running faster than ever. I already set a pretty good sized PR in a 5 mile race and I know times at all other similar distances will soon fall. I personally attribute my breakthrough to eliminating 'formal tempo' runs, and doing speedwork more frequently, with more rest, all within a high mileage week.

Richard-

Here\'s an actual look at some kenyan\'s training broken down into lactate concentrations, thanks to Marius Bakken.

http://mariusbakken.com/index.php?parent=13&groupid=19

Category Training HR

(haemolysed blood) Duration per session Days per week (n) S0 Warm- up/down 65-70 £ 0.8 Continuous S1 Easy 65-75 £ 0.8 30-90 7 S2 Medium 30-25 2.5-3.0 30-90 4 S3 High 25-20 3.0-4.0 45-60 4 Intervals S2 Med 30-25 2.5-3.0 30-60 1 S3 High 25-20 3.0-4.0 30-45 3 S4 Very High 20-15 ³ 5.0 30-45 1 What do you see from that? Lots of stuff in the 2.5-4.0mmol range.These studies that break training down into % done at tempo or above tempo are practically useless. It\'s like the genious coaches who require all long runs to be at 25% of weekly mileage. Well that long run is going to have an entirely and probably wrong, stimulus for a guy running 30mpw and one running 150.Training isn\'t simplistic. You can\'t break it down into to % or zones. Each individual workout effects the body in a specific way.

goieeeeee wrote:

S1 Easy 65-75 £ 0.8 30-90 7

S2 Medium 30-25 2.5-3.0 30-90 4

S3 High 25-20 3.0-4.0 45-60 4

Intervals

S2 Med 30-25 2.5-3.0 30-60 1

S3 High 25-20 3.0-4.0 30-45 3

S4 Very High 20-15 ³ 5.0 30-45 1

What do you see from that? Lots of stuff in the 2.5-4.0mmol range.

I see a lot of stuff that's unexpplained. What is S1, S2, etc? what is 65-75? What is the last column, days per week, those numbers add up to more than 7?

go to the link. It's much easier to see

The last column is the number of times per week they run in that range. Remember, these kenyans are running 2-3x per day. So there's going to be 20-21 sessions total in most cases.

The S# is just a way of categorizing the different intensities into zones for easier analysis. The 65-75 is the intensity in HR. It is the max HR minus 65-75.

For a simplistic interpretation.

They spent 7 sessions running easy from anywhere between 30-90min.

4 sessions running moderate continous for between 30-90min (2.5-3.0mmol)

4 sessions running High end aerobic continous for 45-60min (3.0-4.0mmol)

1 session running Medium intervals for 30-60min (2.5-3.0mmol)

3 sessions running High end aerobic intervals for 30-45min (3.0-4.0mmol)

1 session running intense intervals for 30-45min (above 5.0mmol)

Tempo, schmempo wrote:

Richard_ wrote:They divided the runners into 2 groups, with one group training at 80/12/8 split (80% easy paced training, 12% tempo paced running, 8% faster than tempo pace)

and the other group ran a 67/25/8 split. In essence, the 2nd group ran twice as many tempo runs and fewer easy runs.

group 1: 20% hard running

group 2: 33% hard running

From the looks of it, all this proves is that the 2nd group was overtraining. What pace do they call "tempo"?

From the study abstract:

"...training was organized after a polarized pattern, with most sessions performed clearly below (about 75%) or with substantial periods above (15-20%) the lactate accommodation zone, which is bounded by VT1 and VT2."

Also from the study, "The pattern quantified here is similar to that reported in observational studies of elite endurance athletes across several sports. It appears that elite endurance athletes train surprisingly little at the lactate threshold intensity."