THAT would be a project. I was thinking the other night of going back to the beginning and reading it all again but the thought was pretty overwhelming.
THAT would be a project. I was thinking the other night of going back to the beginning and reading it all again but the thought was pretty overwhelming.
Read this:
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/82/2/447#abs
The most important statement of the abstract is this:
"These findings suggest that intense muscle activity, which generates high concentrations of lactate, will disrupt excitation-contraction coupling. This may lead to decreases in Ca2+ transients promoting a decline in tension development and contribute to muscle fatigue."
Another thing: IF lactate was such a great fuel then coaches and their science teams would be injecting lacate into runners veins before the start of races.
It is not a fuel, unto itself. It must be converted to glucose first. 90% of that takes place in either the liver or the heart. Another 5% takes place in the kidneys. Only ~5% takes place in muscle tissue that is NOT active in running. And, even then, who cares? How much lactate is in the body has very little to do with how well a runner performs. Associated fatigue in the contractile mechanisms (myosin-active cross-bridging) takes place when lactate levels are high. See the article cited!
For the layman, high lactate = high muscular fatigue! It's that simple.
Must do something else more productive!
Regards,
Tinman
Tom, you really are talking absolute baloney, your knowledge of physiology is so far from modern research that you are just embarassing yourself.
Why don't you actually do some contemporary research on the subject before you start preaching.
Brooks lactate shuttle hypothesis was written almost 24 years ago, and you still don't even know anything about it.
You state so many untruths that it is difficult to know when to begin to point out your mistakes.
Stop arguing you clueless fool.
CraigMac4h wrote:
Ok, we get it. Lactate is awesome.
But you totally ignored everything I said about physiology.
Is it true that as lactate production goes up, so to does the hydrolysis of ATP?
If that is true, then it is accurate to say that "the more lactate there is, the more the body's pH falls."
Lactate might not CAUSE acidosis but those two things are LINKED. So measuring fatigue by the amount of lactate in the tissues is a viable way to do so.
Ok, so TECHNICALLY, lactate production does not directly CAUSE acidosis. But it is associated with it, yes?
I'm sorry, but your heat stress theory just doesn't make sense to me. As lactate production rises, more ATP molecules undergo hydrolysis, which leads to the lowering of blood pH and eventually acidosis. No, lactate itself doesn't lead to acidosis. But can't you see how they're linked? Isn't it reasonable to say "well, if lactate is really high, then the body's pH is probably lower than normal."
And for the record, I think you're the one who needs to be a little more open minded. You seem really bogged down in the fact that lactate is aerobically broken down. Ok, it is. Wonderful. But that doesn't change the fact that more lactate there is, the more (indirectly) acidic the blood becomes. No, its not a direct cause and effect. But those two things are linked.
Simplified, more lactate = more fatigue. No, that's not the whole story. But for the purposes of coaching, that's an accurate way to judge fatigue. Say your athlete has a 1.5mmol of lactate at rest. You say "today you're doing 3x3000 at 10k pace, ok?
So after the first one he was 4mmol of lactate. Ok, he rests and goes again. After the second 3k, he was 15mmol of lactate. Is he more or less tired? If he gets 15mmol of lactate running at 10k pace, either he's not doing it right (going too fast) or he's not recovered from his last session or at least SOMETHING is wrong. Would you say "nah, athlete- lactate is an aerobic fuel, and the 10k is an aerobic event, so its not bad that you jumped from 4mmol to 15mmol. In fact, the mmol the merrier! Go do the third one!"
Yes you've got it.
In very hard sessions and races up to 10k though, Lactate levels will be high because you are converting muscle glycogen and blood glucose into lactate at a proportion of about 80% glycogen derived and 20% blood glucose.
There is a suble difference in the reactions of both pathways that supply different amounts of glycolytic ATP and thus different amounts of Anaerobically derived ATP.
The better you prepare for a 10k and the harder you run, as long as you pace yourself well, then the higher the blood lactate levels are likely to be.
If the amount oxidation (aerobic respiration) of lactate falls during a race from 200m up to 10k, then your pace will drop.
Brooks argues that most of our energy in such a race will be derived from lactate oxidation. Brooks is the World reknowned authority and he has been researching this subject for 40 years. He knows a tad more than Tinman, who absolutely refuses to acknowlege such research, even though back in 2003 we were debating these issues. Why he has now renounced modern research is a mystery to me, and a disapointment.
Regarding heat production, I agree with Tinman that fatigue is exponential, and that the amount of fuel required increases to fuel this demand. The research is clear that there is a large increase in heat production, which In my opinion is the reason for this increase in energy demand, because at lower paces, this phenomenon only happens at much slower rate.
So the increase in heat production makes the effort required to maintain race pace increase exponentially.
wellnow, i thought you were ok some days back. you seemed, well, nice, and informed. but your insults/attacks towards tinman and others has forced me to reconsider what i thought of you before. too bad, really.
wellnow wrote:
Tom, you really are talking absolute baloney, your knowledge of physiology is so far from modern research that you are just embarassing yourself.
Why don't you actually do some contemporary research on the subject before you start preaching.
Brooks lactate shuttle hypothesis was written almost 24 years ago, and you still don't even know anything about it.
You state so many untruths that it is difficult to know when to begin to point out your mistakes.
Stop arguing you clueless fool.
Having just turned 51 today and out of running for awhile. I am literally starting from zero. I understand running by feel though I may at first limit myself with a heart rate monitor at Maffetone HR zone to curb any over enthusiam. From what I have read Lydiard discusses building up to on time basis a three hour run once that schedule is mastered switch over to the hundred miles a week. I have the time to do this. My question is am I best to do it that way or cycle through ie do what I can doing the 10 weeks marathon phase then move through each phase and progressivley build through each successive completion of a full macrocycle?
51.,
Ground zero! Good for you.
For the next while, just run.
Get to know your limitations and capabilities by feel.
Run as far as you are comfortable with at a steady pace, see how your body adjusts/reacts - learn from what happens to it.
Add mileage on by feel, add pace by feel...if you are careful with your progression in increasing mileage and pace, you may not need to take days off...but when you come to that decision, remember you recover better by running easy than by resting.
-Hills are your friends.
-Run as strong as you can, as much as you can handle and fit into your life.
-IF and when you plan to race, don't race full out until you have done a long building period and several weeks of faster work.
Your best source for this information, free from trolls is at
What are your goals?
Wow, thanks for the quick reply. Initial goal is just to get in shape and lose some of this midsection tire. Long term Boston marathon by 55. I have the patience to do this I am just not sure whether to use a long term serial progression or successive macrocycles that build on one another. Again thanks for any info or insights.
Wetcoast wrote:
Your best source for this information, free from trolls is at
http://www.lydiardfoundation.com
So a troll is anybody who disagrees with any aspect of the information in that link?
Questionerer wrote:
Wetcoast wrote:Your best source for this information, free from trolls is at
http://www.lydiardfoundation.comSo a troll is anybody who disagrees with any aspect of the information in that link?
THe cult goes on.
"Brooks lactate shuttle hypothesis was written almost 24 years ago, and you still don't even know anything about it.
You state so many untruths that it is difficult to know when to begin to point out your mistakes.
Stop arguing you clueless fool."
------------------------------
Rebuttal:
Saying I am a fool isn't an intelligent way of scoring points in a debate.
I have read Brooks' research on the lacate-shuttle back in the 1980s, when it first came out. I've also read his more recent articles on his theory (at least the 2000 and 2002 articels in my files I've read). Additonally, I've read Donovan's articles on the topic. So, you are wrong in saying I haven't read his work in the last 24 years. Don't talk about things you are not knowledgable about!
I have acknowledged that lactate-shuttling occurs, and if you reach recent research articles you'll find that the vast majority takes place in the liver and heart, not in other muscles cells (fibers), as I clearly stated in a previous post I made.
Regardless, it doesn't matter if lactate does or does not occur at a high rate in working muscle fibers because (when) the level of lactate (minus the resting lacate value) exceeds the clearance capacity of the cell(s), degradation of force & velocity occurs. You have to push harder and harder to get more force out of your legs when lactate production exceeds clearance.
To the runner who wants a basic explanation: Your legs rig more and more as lacate production exceeds clearance.
(Note there is a difference between lactate clearance and lacate-shuttling, so don't give us replies saying they are the same thing.)
Pragmatics:
You still haven't answered a simple question: If lacate were such a great source of energy, why aren't coaches and their science teams injecting it into athletes prior to competitions in order to "get a competitive advantage?"
My answere: Nobody injects lacate because it doesn't elevate performance. Lactate is merely a causation of intense cycling of carbon atoms, and it has limited real-value.
Think about it! Why don't coaches or their teams inject lactate?
Wetcoast; (And other staunch Lydiardists who say Lydiardism is "perfect".)
Do you agree with everything in Daniels? Is there any aspect of it that you don't enjoy or believe in? (Obviously there must be, because Lydiardism is perfect, it says so in that link.)
So, are you also a troll?
Instead of doing nothing but asking critical questions of people who put some ideas and subatance into the discussion, why don't you write a good, consice, description of Jack Daniels' training ideas and some of us can answer you.
Discuss.
But who is calling who a troll, HRE?
No answer, eh?
HRE wrote:
Instead of doing nothing but asking critical questions of people who put some ideas and subatance into the discussion, ......
Calling people trolls is ideas and substance?
And where have I done that? Once you've answered that maybe you can show everyone what you know about Daniels training.
Discuss.
How is what I know or don't know about Daniels, Lydiard, Bowerman, Higdon, whomever, how is that relevant to this particular line of questioning?
I keep seeing the word "troll" coming from Westcoast. Who is a troll, and why are they trolls?
Hopefully it isn't because someone wants to debate the goods and bads of a particular system of coaching/training, but increasingly, I'm thinking that might be the case.
Discuss.
I said 'Trolls' I didn't label you one.
THis however, is EXACTLY why I said 'trolls' - thank you for the demonstration, now I don't have to explain.
It was so lovely then and I loved it when we all loved each other lovingly.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=964958&page=28