To Hadd: malmo disagrees with you. Can you explain the disconnect?

fastethio wrote:

Any questions now on Bekele's speed?

Asked about his personal best at 100 metres Kenenisa replied: “It is 11.00 seconds.”

I doubt he said 11.00 seconds. I'd bet he said "11" seconds, the writer added the hundredths.

U.N.O. That's a very good post but........ the metabolic developments come very easily, we already have those developments in place when we are well trained. However, we can continue to improve neuromuscular coordination for years, long after we have maximized our metabolic conditioning. That is where the continuous improvements in power and endurance come from. The metabolic capacity is maximized at a young age, late teens or even earlier, but the skill of power and endurance can continue for many years. Why do you think that distance runners can improve in their early thirties or even later?

All training is neural. These so called improvements in 'lactate threshold' of well trained runners are not metabolic conditioning improvements, they are improvements in neuromuscular coordination. With training we learn to improve stride power and endurance through better muscle fiber recruitment.

R.L. Scribner wrote:

I guess now we're not even believing Bekele about his own speed.

No athlete has ever said bullshit to a reporter.

ALL VOLUNTARY MOVEMENT IS CONTROLLED BY THE BRAIN.

This is neuromuscular coordination. Learn more, educate yourself.

Think about it> Ditch the dogma.

So if running is indeed only a skill, why not just skip all of the hard miles that have NO benefit whatsoever to metabolic adaption, and lucid dream about running for hours a night instead? It has been proven time and time again to improve skills of all types without fail. According to your own "theory", it would work. Guaranteed. That is of course unless your theory is completely wrong, which I would not doubt for a second.

You just don't understand the term neuromuscular coordination. That makes you confused which of course is very sad but it's probably even more sad and confusing that your lack of knowledge is a part of the dogmatic and stupid opposition to wellnow. My bet is that people in here would disagree with wellnow even though they only had the knowlegde of a 3 year old!

But you must agree with me that wellnow actually says that distance running is NOT just black and white? While many scientists, coaches and runners think that running is just about improving VO2max and some of them think that it is the only possible explanation to improvement, wellnow tries to teach us that it is not and that sprinting will make a marathoner better just as marathonpaced training will make an 800m runner better. That training actually is very complex!

Im sure that wellnow's sometimes unfriendly posts is a result af the huge amount of bullshit people in here writes about him and his opinions. So if people attack you - why not revenge yourself in some way?

And I don't have a problem with Tinman and other VERY knowledgeable people in here because they are contributing to the discussion in a very positive way. People disagree and that is okay but without arguments the discussion will end and that's my problem!!!

Morten DK wrote:

But you must agree with me that wellnow actually says that distance running is NOT just black and white? While many scientists, coaches and runners think that running is just about improving VO2max and some of them think that it is the only possible explanation to improvement,

I've got to jump in on this one. This is such an absurd statement.

In almost 30 years of running, having known more coaches than you can shake a stick at at all levels, I have never, EVER encountered a single coach who suggested or acted like "running is just about improving VO2Max". Never.

Not at the high school, college, club or professional level. I can't even find a book that says such a thing.

I don't know what you think you are rebelling against here but there is no "establishment" that says that.

The only thing I meant was that metabolic changes are not the primary factor in improvement. Of course I know that such coaches, runners and scientists do not exist!!!

And wellnow does of course not think you can medal at the olympics just by running in your dreams!!!! I exaggerated just as he does to make the statement clearer. But obvious it has a very negative effect...

Morten, as you and I both know, the fact is that your critics and mine have all been brainwashed by the old exercise physiology dogma which misses out the fundamental principle of neuromuscular coordination.

It has been know for about 150 years maybe more:

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/hist.html

So it's about time that exercise physiologists caught up with the idea that all voluntary movement is controlled by the brain.

However, since the dogma is 90 years old or more, the possibility of educating many letsrunners about neuromuscular coordination is very slim. We might rescue a few of them from the cult, but not many, common sense isn't so common, but don't give up the good cause.

The brain is well aware of the fact that the old grandmother would die of her efforts lifting the barbell. If life REALLY depended upon lifting the barbell she would probably be able to do it and THEN die of the efforts. The problem is just that the brain probably doesn't realise that it is a matter of life or death! How can small ants lift so many times their own body weight you could also ask?

The most important task of the brain is to keep us alive as long as possible! Why do you think it's possible to run 200m faster when having a hungry lion hunting you? Why can Kenenisa Bekele run 400m in 52s after running 4600m in just about 12 minutes??? Bekele's eyes observes that he is very close finishing and then the brain realises that he will not harm himself seriously running that fast in the end. If you are not in serious danger the brain will keep some reserves left because you might get into serious danger later! When "hitting the wall" in a marathon you don't actually run completely out of glycogen of course - that would kill you in the end! Your levels of glycogen are just so low that it would be very dangerous to maintain emptying them with the same amount per time.

My guess is that especially the east african's finishing speed is due to the hunter instinct. They are able to run smoothly and economical for a very long time (like when hunting) but they must posses the ability to suddenly turn on the "booster rockets" if they are to escape from a lion or anything else threatening their life afters hours of "work".

So that is part of the reason why wellnow advocates finishing our training runs and intervals at a faster pace. If we constantly run ourselves completely tired and only manage to struggle home at lower speeds the training may only harm us! But if we (like Gebrselassie and Bekele) train in such a way that we with only very little effort can run lap after lap at competition speed and suddenly finish with a strong sprint we will be able to run very economical. Our neuromuscular skill increases!

I myself once used ro run 10 - 15 km pretty fast after tough weight training at least once a week. Even though I was tired I felt very good and ran very economical. I didn't feel better due to metabolic changes. Instead I was able to recruit my muscles in a much more economical way - the signals of the brain through my nervous system wasn't particularly strong compared to my speed. The big brain activity during the weight training made the running a very easy job for the brain and that made my running easier too.

Of course no scientists, runners or coaches believe that running is just about improving VO2max but it's importance has been overemphasised to a very large extent. They do of course also believe in raising the so called lactate turnpoint / threshold and a lot of other metabolic stuff.

But that's a very old fashioned way in observing the body. The BRAIN controlls the body! And the brain is very difficult to understand so we are not nearly close in identifying how for sure is the best way to train and hence improve. The best science is no doubt experience and that is the reason why wellnow and I to a certain extent tries to explain what training we have done and why it POSSIBLY works along with the world's best runners and the effectivity of their training (based on the best and most up to date work in the field)

I'm reasonably sure you two are the same person. If not, DK is an awful sycophant.

Wellnow, here's my issue with your declarative statements and combative tone:

EVEN IF YOU ARE ENTIRELY CORRECT, IT DOESN'T MEAN SQUAT FOR TRAINING.

You don't argue any major changes in the accepted methods of training- any good coach has his runners doing all paces in training. Whether it was Lydiard who had his marathoners doing sprint training or his 800 guys running 22mi steady runs, or Coe who did lots of strength sessions like a 200m runner in the gym, but would bang out hard 10milers, or Hudson, who has had a lot of success having his marathoners do lots and lots of hill sprints. I could go on and on.

You can sit here and be a jerk about "challenging the dogma" and "fighting the establishment" but the truth of the matter is that there is no establishment. A good coach doesn't care WHY the training works- just that it does. If you took Lydiard today, and explained to him without a shadow of a doubt that aerobic capacity levels off and further improvement comes from neuromuscular coordination, he would probably go "ok, well that changes how I lecture, but now how I train my athletes." Just because Snell's 2hr long runs improved efficiency instead of his aerobic capacity doesn't make ANY difference in his performance!

You just come off like a petty, whiny little man who thinks he's discovered something huge. Instead, you've just insulted one of the greatest researchers in the sport, offended a bunch of people, and made NOT ONE constructive suggestion towards ACTUAL training.

As I've said before, it doesn't matter if the tempo run I do is to improve efficiency, improve aerobic capacity, improve lactate threshold, or please the Tempo Gods into blessing me in my next race. That tempo is going to make me a little better. The terminology is secondary, and it's not a close second.

Morten DK wrote:

Why do you think it's possible to run 200m faster when having a hungry lion hunting you? Why can Kenenisa Bekele run 400m in 52s after running 4600m in just about 12 minutes??? Bekele's eyes observes that he is very close finishing and then the brain realises that he will not harm himself seriously running that fast in the end.

Bekele can run 52s as the last lap of a 5k or 10k for the simple reason Bekele can run 52s, regardless of the lap. It's tactical suicide to go early, as demonstrated by Defar in the women's 5000 meter final...she went too soon. Even having already run the 10,000 meter is no excuse given the pedestrian pace of the 5000 final, simply a tactical issue and it doesn't always work. She ran her fastest before the finish, not at, and it cost her.

I will take a shot at this one wrote:

Bekele can run 52s as the last lap of a 5k or 10k for the simple reason Bekele can run 52s, regardless of the lap.

When has Bekele ever run a 52?

questioner of you wrote:

When has Bekele ever run a 52?

We had a pretty in-depth discussion about Bekele's finishing speed about 10 pages back. Lausanne 2003.

Right now it might not mean very much in terms of different training strategies - I totally agree! But in the future I think it's possible that there will be some useful changes.

And im not wellnow and no stupid sycophant - I just happen to agree almost completely with him in physiological terms!

If I were to participate in this discussion before I read Lore of Running and some articles on the internet I would probably not take site with wellnow - instead it's very likely that I would insult him just like so many others in here. His statements wouldn't really be understandable for me because I then only knew about the "traditional" way of observing the body during physical activity. I would hate the idea that I hadn't read the most up to date material and that would simply result in a lot of bad and of course unnecessary words.

BUT I so much enjoyed reading especially Lore of Running and I think every runner and coach should do it if they haven't already done it! It's very easy to neglect something if it's strange and in fact totally unknown but it's very stupid.

I remember in another tread about base building when wellnow increased the number of "enemies" in here just by saying that physiologically there is no reason not to do any speed training for a long period but that he still in some way believes in Lydiards approach to training. He offered to try to explain why Lydiard's training works but as far as im concerned people didn't even want that! Of course it makes no difference in practice but that's not the point at all!

Im a big fan of Lydiard too and it didn't make my belief in his approach come crashing down because I read Lore of Running. Actually it got even stronger. Thinking about running as a skill you MUST run a hell of a lot - and only a fraction of it at competition speed. And it must be relaxed and the pace should increase throughout the long run - because I believe in those 22 miles every weekend just like so many others!

While I have talked about my previous years of unstructured training I did the opposite this spring! I ran less often but longer everytime and even though Hadd doesn't take part in this discussion any more I would like to say that I actually agree with him very much! I believe in very long runs often and only once a day. And they should be VERY hilly. And in the end you are able to complete a track training program like those in Lydiard's orginal "Run to the Top". His new programs are to damn easy! I can only agree with Hadd in PRACTICAL terms!

High intensity training can easily be done on consecutive days if you run relaxed and avoid running on hard surfaces - a grass track is much better for 6 track session a week than a modern track is. Unfortunately I was injured this year but look forward to try it out again next year.

And my hope is actually also that we stop talking so much about science and WHY it works. My favorite question is: Does it work?!

Morten DK wrote:

If I were to participate in this discussion before I read Lore of Running and some articles on the internet I would probably not take site with wellnow !

There was a lengthy thread here around the Central Governor theory that Noakes promotes and Dr. Noakes (or someone doing a very good impersonation) was in the thread. In the thread, Dr. Noakes admits there's no practical way of validating his theories so it remains speculation on his part. From what I read in it, it seems he was more interested in dissembling the Hill theory (fatigue due to fuel exhaustion) than anything else. He seemed bent on making Hill the strawman of running physiological theory.

the CG thread seems to be disabled:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2412208&page=54

but you can still see most of the content in a google cache search:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aletsrun.com+timothy+noakes&btnG=Search&meta=