Thank you, i have now a better understanding what you mean.
Your statement is still not correct (bold text). 'Threshold' is the result of LT%, VO2max and CR (cost of running). Where we agree on is that VO2max is a central fitness factor.
LT% is a peripheral factor, muscle fiber typology, and we have CR where also the brain seems to play a role.
So we have a central, a peripheral and also a central governor factor included and all that defines LTv!!
Look at the paper i shared (Stoa, 2020), where Elite athletes have a VO2max in the range of 4.42 +- 1.15 L/min, 71.2 +-8.3ml/kg/min. That is a big range. The Elite athletes with the lower VO2max can only compete by having a better running economy and/or a higher LT%.
So it is individual and it depends. Which factor is more important is not so easy to distinguish. All three factors have their importance.
Of course there is individual variation - so what? That doesn't alter general conclusions about what limits endurance performance in homo sapiens.
"Threshold" can be quantified in various ways, but the reason I have used quotes is because I have been talking about the concept, not any specific implementation thereof. Fiber type may be one contributing factor, but it's mostly about muscle respiratory capacity. In that regard, a trained individual who has more type II fibers can very well be superior to an untrained person with lots of type I fibers.
Running economy has nothing to do with Noakes' flawed hypothesis of a "central governor". Instead, it most closely related to things like leg spring stiffness, the distance between the ankle joints and the insertion of the Achilles tendon, etc. IOW, more the biophysics of tissue properties than motor control.
Finally, part of the reason that it is difficult to sort out these factors is that they are interrelated, making any distinctions somewhat arbitrary. Again, consider muscle respiratory capacity: on the one hand, it is the key determinant of the metabolic response to exercise ("threshold"), but on the other it likely also influences VO2max, by helping maintain O2 extraction despite reduced capillary mean transit time. But, building conceptual models like the "three-legged stool" is how humans make sense of data, even if at the end of the day they are an imperfect representation of reality.
With 'muscle fiber typology', i mentioned just one aspect of others to make a point, however we can use the term 'muscle respiratory capacity' for LT%. But again, it is still not the only factor defining the whole thing. It is still only a part of it!
The brain fires the motor units, and it is ridiculous to think that the brain has no influence on performance and running economy. You can not consider the brain as a perfect system. There is a lot of evidence that more volume of running, improves the running economy (as an example). As more often you do something as more brain learning there is. The brain is not the only thing which influences the running economy that is correct, but also clear.
We have not covered fatigue so far. We are talking about, more or less, rested athletes, How are the 3 parameters effected after e.g. 2h of running? Another thing to consider.
With 'muscle fiber typology', i mentioned just one aspect of others to make a point, however we can use the term 'muscle respiratory capacity' for LT%. But again, it is still not the only factor defining the whole thing. It is still only a part of it!
The brain fires the motor units, and it is ridiculous to think that the brain has no influence on performance and running economy. You can not consider the brain as a perfect system. There is a lot of evidence that more volume of running, improves the running economy (as an example). As more often you do something as more brain learning there is. The brain is not the only thing which influences the running economy that is correct, but also clear.
We have not covered fatigue so far. We are talking about, more or less, rested athletes, How are the 3 parameters effected after e.g. 2h of running? Another thing to consider.
Of course muscle respiratory capacity isn't "the whole thing". It is just the most important thing.
Motor control and a central governor are not the same thing. The fact that running economy is trainable does not tell you the mechanism.
There is little evidence that "stamina" (as, e.g., Riegel's exponent attempts to quantify) is a separate parameter. Any variation between individuals in the extent to which they must slow down over time/distance could be entirely due to imprecision in quantifying "threshold". (Think about the slope of the intensity-duration relationship, and how this impacts the sensitivity of measurements.)
Imagine Andy's fury when he realises literally nobody cares what he has to say on a running forum and none of what he posts is of any relevance. I have lexel ahead on rounds. But then again, that's like two bald men fighting over a comb and one coming up for air holding it, thinking that's a victory.
I don't know how you define "costs", but yes, of course, activation of the sympathetic nervous increases non-linearly with increasing exercise intensity. Indeed, plasma catecholamine levels at the end of an incremental exercise test to determine VO2max can be several fold higher than those resulting from, myocardial infarction, major body surface area burns, or severe traumatic injury (e.g., car wreck resulting in numerous fractures).
Lol I thought also real Coggan for so long. Until this post he made, mask slip. I guess a troll really troll lexel to get him to reply so much. Very funny as lexel waste all our time I'm glad he waste his.
I enjoy this thread very much. Even troll accounts are funny. My training is going well. 19 week into this method and I just PB. Very similar I see to another user in Strava group who just went from 21 to 19. I drop from mid 20 to 18:59 lifetime pb at 43 year old. Very lucky to get that second but want to thank all for help. I can die say I ran an 18. Forget the 59 seconds they do not matter he he.
Lol I thought also real Coggan for so long. Until this post he made, mask slip. I guess a troll really troll lexel to get him to reply so much. Very funny as lexel waste all our time I'm glad he waste his.
I enjoy this thread very much. Even troll accounts are funny. My training is going well. 19 week into this method and I just PB. Very similar I see to another user in Strava group who just went from 21 to 19. I drop from mid 20 to 18:59 lifetime pb at 43 year old. Very lucky to get that second but want to thank all for help. I can die say I ran an 18. Forget the 59 seconds they do not matter he he.
I've also enjoyed this thread very much. I'd love to hear a bit more about your progress. Specifically, can you talk about what your training was like prior to adopting to these principles (weekly mileage, workouts etc.) and can you also talk about your progression from these workouts. I'm wondering if there was an initial "flat" phase and then it kicked in or was it a smooth/linear progression?
This thread has been so vibrant for so long that I'd love to hear more about what people's anecdotal experiences have been (and less from....)
Just asking, not arguing, appreciate your response. Just thinking for older runners it might make sense to get all the improvement you can milk out of sub threshold training first before spending your endocrine currency on higher intensity training, would like your thoughts
Lol I thought also real Coggan for so long. Until this post he made, mask slip. I guess a troll really troll lexel to get him to reply so much. Very funny as lexel waste all our time I'm glad he waste his.
I enjoy this thread very much. Even troll accounts are funny. My training is going well. 19 week into this method and I just PB. Very similar I see to another user in Strava group who just went from 21 to 19. I drop from mid 20 to 18:59 lifetime pb at 43 year old. Very lucky to get that second but want to thank all for help. I can die say I ran an 18. Forget the 59 seconds they do not matter he he.
Thanks. Glenn and I go way back, ever since he and his wife Kathy looked after me when I hung out in Melbourne for a week or so on my way to the duathlon World Championships in Hobart (I finished one step off the podium).
With 'muscle fiber typology', i mentioned just one aspect of others to make a point, however we can use the term 'muscle respiratory capacity' for LT%. But again, it is still not the only factor defining the whole thing. It is still only a part of it!
The brain fires the motor units, and it is ridiculous to think that the brain has no influence on performance and running economy. You can not consider the brain as a perfect system. There is a lot of evidence that more volume of running, improves the running economy (as an example). As more often you do something as more brain learning there is. The brain is not the only thing which influences the running economy that is correct, but also clear.
We have not covered fatigue so far. We are talking about, more or less, rested athletes, How are the 3 parameters effected after e.g. 2h of running? Another thing to consider.
Of course muscle respiratory capacity isn't "the whole thing". It is just the most important thing.
Up to now wrong. But i can safe you here, at least a little bit:
If we define 2 athlete groups:
Athlete group A) Trained and experienced athletes (they do the same sport for several years) then we have the following order of importance:
1) VO2max 2) CR/CC 3) LT%
Source: a) A Time-Saving Method to Assess Power Output at Lactate Threshold in Well- Trained and Elite Cyclists, Storen et al, 2013 (for cycling)
b) Factors Influencing Running Velocity at Lactate Threshold in Male and Female Runners at Different Levels of Performance, Eva Maria Støa et al, 2020 (for running)
Athlete group B) Untrained or trained but inexperienced athletes (e.g changing from running to cycling)
In this case there will be adaptations regarding LT% (gets higher) over the next month/years just by doing the sport.
Source: Determinants of endurance in well-trained cyclists, E.F. Coyle et al, 1988
Remark: But there will be also adaptaion regarding CR/CC and at least for the untrained ones, also VO2max.
_________
For all groups, all 3 parameters (LT%, VO2max and CR) are of importance. Having a relatively low VO2max can be compensated by having a better running economy as an example. There are huge individual variations also in the Elite group. To just putting it on LT% and call it out as 'most important thing' is not correct and a wrong picture of the whole thing.
Of course muscle respiratory capacity isn't "the whole thing". It is just the most important thing.
Up to now wrong. But i can safe you here, at least a little bit:
If we define 2 athlete groups:
Athlete group A) Trained and experienced athletes (they do the same sport for several years) then we have the following order of importance:
1) VO2max 2) CR/CC 3) LT%
Source: a) A Time-Saving Method to Assess Power Output at Lactate Threshold in Well- Trained and Elite Cyclists, Storen et al, 2013 (for cycling)
b) Factors Influencing Running Velocity at Lactate Threshold in Male and Female Runners at Different Levels of Performance, Eva Maria Støa et al, 2020 (for running)
Athlete group B) Untrained or trained but inexperienced athletes (e.g changing from running to cycling)
In this case there will be adaptations regarding LT% (gets higher) over the next month/years just by doing the sport.
Source: Determinants of endurance in well-trained cyclists, E.F. Coyle et al, 1988
Remark: But there will be also adaptaion regarding CR/CC and at least for the untrained ones, also VO2max.
_________
For all groups, all 3 parameters (LT%, VO2max and CR) are of importance. Having a relatively low VO2max can be compensated by having a better running economy as an example. There are huge individual variations also in the Elite group. To just putting it on LT% and call it out as 'most important thing' is not correct and a wrong picture of the whole thing.
You are correct, AC is wrong. Metabolism and movement skills are equally important, because the nervous system detemines both the efficiency of the movement (which in turn determines the power output) and the endurance factor, how long that power output can be maintained.
Of course there is individual variation - so what? That doesn't generally conclusions about what limits endurance performance in homo sapiens.
"Threshold" can be quantified in various ways, but the reason I have used quotes is because I have been talking about the concept, not any specific implementation thereof. Fiber type may be one contributing factor, but it's mostly about muscle respiratory capacity. In that regard, a trained individual who has more type II fibers can very well be superior to an untrained person with lots of type I fibers.
Running economy has nothing to do with Noakes' flawed hypothesis of a "central governor". Instead, it most closely related to things like leg spring stiffness, the distance between the ankle joints and the insertion of the Achilles tendon, etc. iOW, more the biophysics of tissue properties than motor control.
Ok now we are getting somewhere. This is actually an interesting and useful post to be fair. The concept of running economy has interested me for a long time and flawed is how I have always thought of populist or widespread views of it. The rest of your post I also pretty much agree with. Lexel, over to you......
What AC is describing is a genetic trait. The shorter lever on the ankle/tendon of runners with the best economy, but lower VO2max. In elite cyclists, you would expect to see the opposite; longer lever, less running economy, higher VO2max.
However AC is wrong about motor control because he is making the same mistake that 99% of 'exercise physiologists' make; ignoring the skill factor involved in running and cycling, which takes years of training to develop.