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

Steve McGregor wrote:

Learning? ;)

I learn everyday.

You don´t. You simply learn and copy the knowledge from the others. Yesterday you did understand and today you past that info study as your own. Then your speach on this board is the style as you are the only one that understand it and the teacher.

Confess. What you don´t know about running that some other expert may teach you ? It remains something in the list of physiology or in the run sport that you don´t know or you aren´t update ?

Hmm.. hostile? Not sure why.

Regardless of your interpretation, as I said, I learn everyday. Knowledge is indeed acquired from others, but also from personal experience. That which I learn everday comes from both sources. Certainly, when I was younger and less experienced, I probably regurgitated much, but at this point in my life, I'm fairly comfortable with what I know and don't know. What I "regurgitate" at this point has been interpretted for authenticity and/or rationality, and is why I don't necessarily place equal weight on one "scientific" source vs another. Science is built upon the work of others though. It is essentially impossible to actually acquire all knowledge on one's own. Similarly, a coach, for example, who had no science knowledge or training would similarly acquire their knowledge presumably from their coach/mentor. Are you saying everything you know you learned first hand on your own, without the input of others? If so, then you have an enormous life experience, or very limited knowledge. I don't know lots, and freely admit it in front of others whenever it's the case.

Confess... why, is this an inquisition? What I know about running comes from personal experience, from what I have learned from others, and from what data I have gathered. I'm not sure what you are saying in the last point, so, it's hard to respond.

I will say this, almost everything I have contributed in this thread has been in response to a question or in response to misrepresentation. When someone makes a comment directly addressing a statement I have made, it makes me think that they would like a response. Am I to be faulted for trying to present the material in a pedagogical fashion, since that's what appeared to be necessary at the time?

Steve

P.S. You and welldone certainly are trying to make a liar of me aren't you regarding my statement about beind done with this topic.

hey Steve

petty stuff really. Wellnow's main recent argument was fat utilisation increases the longer you run. Spaniel nicely supported you on this and i 'thought' closed wellnow's argument down. Then you went and called wellnow on his claims and asked him to provide evidence to back them up. Specifically regarding the 'dubious' nature of certain concepts he refuses to accept exist.

Wellnow, if you have an issue because Steve presents things quite straight forward and with clear boundaries - it is your issue. Your ego. Give it up litte man and join in the (temporary) positive energy we had going there. PS still waiting for those nice defintitions Steve asked for.

Anyway, i am now a lot more secure in my own science thanks to the recent postings from Steve, you have done nothing to help this situation other than constantly looking for angles to chop him down. Petty as i said and not helpful to the overall discussion.

Where am i at now? Well i still know the paces my athletes run at when they are working at or past the edge of their comfort zone. This is where the central governor apparently does its job of limiting us. Sure we like to stay inside our nebulous 'comfort zone'. Sure the homeostsatic principle (which is all the central governor is) keeps us in place. Sure it is difficult to push past the comfort zone (but i bet i do it a lot better than most as i've been practising my whole life (pr 8084 decathlon).

Now i am more aware of what the lactate steady state is and i'm more certain in my knowledge of what constitutes recovery training. Will it change my training methodology. NO. Why? Because they things i have learned here are already covered by my present coaching methodology.

eg a week in GPP for a 16 year old with 2 years background (ie now for Australia)

MON - am easy 30, pm hard 45-60

Tues - am easy swim pm 7x3min/1min + circuits

wed am easy 30, pm hard 45-60

thurs am rest pm 12x1min/1min + circuits

fri am medium 30 pm rest

sat am 5-6km XC race or very hard 15-20

sun easy to medium 60-90

Easy is whatever, 120-135bpm usually, may involve a stop and stretch during.

medium is around 145-160bpm.

Hard is whatever the MLSS or LT or aerobic capacity or in between. (usually above 160bpm) The athlete knows. He pushes one run too hard and can't finish, the next is too easy and he finishes too strong. Over time he fine tunes this and becomes consistent, gets right on his edge and it's all go from there.

Very hard - akin to threshold? similar to his 5-6km XC races.

My program follows a 3 weekly macro-cycle. The week above bascially repeats for two weeks (there is variation usually week 2 has a slightly higher volume and lower intensity). Week 3 is basically 'lets return to normal' before we have to begin the next 2 week slog. It contains more recovery, much higher intensities and more fun. I try and have the bigger races fall at the end of week 3 for obvious reasons.

Would appreciate any critical thought on what i have said please.

one off or many wrote:

Now i am more aware of what the lactate steady state is.

Would appreciate any critical thought on what i have said please.

If I understand what you're saying, the notion of lactate steady state can be discarded in favor of the central governor theory. And as a corollary, the notion that an athlete should optimally run at or just below lactate steady state to avoid doing "quality junk" (Daniels's term) can also be discarded.

The point is that continuous runs at efforts harder than classic tempo pace are actually quite effective as long as they are accompanied by proper recovery and performed after several weeks of a base of "tempo runs."

Incorporating very hard continuous runs after building a base that includes weeks of classic tempo efforts is a major departure from Daniels.

Living in the Past wrote:

If I understand what you're saying

Apparently not. The notion is not being discarded.

i don't know what should be discarded from the theoretical side of our sport, however, i won't ever be following Daniel's approach, i don't like the artificial limitation i feel is placed by the central governor theory and even this tempo run idea is not something i am familiar with.

I think a large development of the aerobic capacity is needed and to achieve this one must work at their edge, comfort zone edge, homeostatic edge etc. This is combined with easy recovery running to gain all the benefits of that stuff. Also body work, postural strength training occurs weekly to balance the physical/muscular system out over time. I didn't mention all of the easy to fast strides that occur randomly, whenever the form from the longer running is starting to collapse really. Technique is still number 1 factor, ahead of any fitness gaining. Fitness cannot compromise technique/form.

The problem with most physiology studies and thinking is that everything ends up mid range. I think this is because most studies are done with non-elite athletes.

I really like Steve's way but i think Snell maybe the leader in cross applying theory and practise. I may be wrong. What do people know about Snell.

One of,

Nice job with your PR. Solid.

Really, I prefer not to critique individual approaches. If you are seeing progress and good performances, then your approach works for you. I really don't use HR other than as a secondary training metric and go strictly by paces whenever possible. I see you're using it primarily for the easy/medium runs, so, for those it's fine for the most part. You've got a fair bit of intensity in there, but since you're working with young runners, economy will be important for the shorter distances. I can see your approach working as long as you're monitoring progress, and intermittently providing a rest, as you appear to be in the third week. Working with young athletes is always a challenge because you want them to develop, and therefore need to overload, but on the other hand don't want to push them over the edge. It sounds as if you are letting each runner find his limits individually, and that is important. One size does not fit all (at least in my experience). Of course, some sizes fit better than others;) I would say performance monitoring will be important with your approach.

Your "very hard" I would consider supra-threshold, (again the "threshold" definition is problemmatic, but I don't think any would define it as 5 km pace). Still, 5 km pace would not be "too hard" if sufficient recovery is incorporated in the program.

How do you feel about it? Do you feel like your athletes are doing well? Progressing?

Steve

Snell was(is) a stud.

Steve

it seems to work really well although my approach has changed in the last month or so to be more inclusive of Lydiard and Cerutty who i have been discovering

March 07 saw a boy (15) who i had been coaching for 9 months on a very interval based program following the 3 weekly macros went from 2.13 as a minimally trained 13 year old to 154.8 as a 14 year old. It appeared to be the fastest time in the world for his age. This Summer began with a firtst up 153.40e easy and then some hard combination races which saw 4.01 and 49.68 appear. Then a stress fracture and he decided to leave me in Jan this year. By March he ran 150.63e as a 15 year old. I'm pretty confident in the system but it needed to become less interval based, hence Lydiard and to a lesser extent Cerutty.

I have had other MD juniors also do very well in their improvement although probably not so talented as the guy i mentioned above.

Right now i'm attempting to get a 145.57 runner back on track as he has been injured for 3 years and is only 28. It seems to be going very well now that he is convinced about all of this longer stuff and the slower stuff. He is now doing his 5x1km reps in 3.16 and can do 10x200 off 90 in 28. He is building the miles at different intensities and is starting to add hills into the longer runs. All of the postural and strength work is proving easy for him as he has a good natural posture and a good use of his muscular system. Probably part of the reasons why he first ran 145 as a 20 year old. He is 6 foot 3 and high about 170lbs and moves like a thoroughbred so if he can get back he may be able to move under 145. fingers crossed.

Know your termnology wrote:

Living in the Past wrote:

If I understand what you're saying

Apparently not. The notion is not being discarded.

So that means you believe that lactate threshold exists?

one off or many wrote:

The problem with most physiology studies and thinking is that everything ends up mid range. I think this is because most studies are done with non-elite athletes.

Interesting point. I've long suggested that people have varying abilities to adapt to training - some high and some low, most average. If correct, then this means what works well for an elite is not very likely to work well for someone of average talents. And vice versa. I suggest this is the reason the results of most training studies are contradictory to the training of elites. Studies use those with non-elite talent and the results are not particularly applicable to those with elite level genetic talents.

I'm far too old to read all this thread...

Benjamin D. Levine (2008) : what do we know, and what do we still need to know?

The Journal of Physiology 586 (1), 25–34 doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2007.147629

Does a true VO2max exist and can we measure it?

Some investigators have contended recently though that the absence of a clear and consistent plateau in VO2 with increasing running speed in the early Hill experiments argues that the concept of VO2max is not valid (Noakes, 1997). A number of scholarly reviews and rebuttals have been written about this issue (Saltin & Strange, 1992; Bassett & Howley, 1997, 2000; Bergh et al. 2000; Saltin & Calbet, 2006; Wagner, 2006)…

Fortunately this issue was put to rest recently by a study which provides unequivocal experimental evidence validating the concept of VO2max - that is, that there exists a finite rate of oxygen uptake of a given organism (at a particular fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) and fitness level), beyond which increasing the work rate does not lead to more oxygen uptake (Hawkins et al. 2007)….

Finally, it is worth emphasizing that patients with coronary heart disease are regularly stressed beyond the point of myocardial ischaemia, which does not prevent them from continuing to exercise (Chaitman, 2005) – their ‘central governors’ must fail them all the time!

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1113/jphysiol.2007.147629

so 6packjack, what have you learned from this thread?

chadwick

It is true that *most* studies are performed in non-elites, in part because non-elites simply make up a smaller segment of the population. Further, elites typically don't like "geeks" mucking with their training program. But that's not to say there aren't studies that have been performed in elite athletes that provide insight with regard to the principles that have been discussed in this thread. If we collectively take the studies that have been performed in elite cyclists by people such as Coyle and Padilla, and swimmers by Pyne and Mujika, and runners by Noakes, Billat, and Busso not to mention others, we can get a fairly clear picture of what constitutes the physiology of an elite runner and what makes them different from the average trained or even untrained athlete.

As stated previously though, there are certainly individual differences with regard to response to training and this is determined, in large part, by genetics related to performance and demonstrated by Bouchard et al, and later Bouchard, Wilmore and others. So, as Chris Carter used to say, "The Truth is Out There", and to simply say all studies have been performed in untrained pops is to ignore a large volume of data. Further, the studies that have been performed in animals, in particular the the High Capacity Running rat model by Britton and Koch is particularly enlightening. That model would indicate genetically gifted runners can be pushed harder, and can respond to a similar extent to the low capacity runners (arguing against the "dogma" of the "Law of Initial Values"). There is still certainly much to be learned from that model, but it provides clear insight into what makes an animal gifted at endurance running vs not gifted, or even "ungifted" if you will. Of course, it's in rats, and rats are not humans (at least not most;).

Anyway, not to dominate the thread, but the point is, to simply claim most studies are done in untrained, non-elites is an easy way to dismiss the body of physiological data regarding performance, but if one is particular, there is a great deal of info with regard to elites. Further, dismissing the data diminishes the great lengths some investigators have gone to in order to specifically get data in elites.. it ain't easy, believe me.

Steve

Again, sorry, I really didn't mean to dominate this point, the stuff just came out.

So does lactate threshold exist, or not?

Steve,

To piggy back on your comments - in many cases studies of elite training methods have revealed that the actual training of elites is often quite different from what is usually claimed about how elites train.

For example, I recall a study of elite male and female runners that found the fastest males ran few tempo runs and the females ran no tempo runs. Contrast that finding to the importance placed on tempo runs in most training programs.

Yes and no;)

The problem with the lactate threshold is that it connotates a specific point/intensity/velocity below which lactate accumulation, and hence, accumulation is linear, and above which it is exponential. In actuality, there really is no exact point (i.e. threshold) as lactate production is always exponentially related to workrate, but at low intensities, it appears to be linear.

If you take the very specific definitions, such as 1mmol above baseline, or Dmax method there is a definable "threshold", which will change with training and or other physiological manipulations. As some have pointed out, it is affected by numerous extraneous factors, but if such factors are controlled for, it is reproducible, and related to performance. This is very much analogous to body weight. On any given day body weight will fluctuate based on hydration status, or glycogen status or any number of other factors, but if controlled for, it is reproducible, and if it changes, will affect performance. Further, the LT provides insight with regard to the underlying physiology of the athlete.

All that being said, is it necessarily important for an individual athlete to know his actual LT? Probably not. Knowing performance paces is of greater value, and as (I believe) Richard pointed out earlier, performance at two other distances is a better predictor of performance at a particular distance than the actual LT.

Steve

Actually, it was a very controversial study, again from the Noakes group, that looked at black vs white runners, who were all considered elite. But if you define tempo as below 80% VO2max, then yes, the black athletes reported training for a significantly greater percentage of total training time above 80% VO2max.

Was this because they could, or did they have superior fatigue resistance in the longer distances (e.g. 10 k and 21 k)? That's the question. In other words, were they superior because of training, or were they able to train harder because they were superior?

Point well taken though.

Steve

Steve, thanks for your reply.

One of the key points of this thread seems to be that because there is no inflection point, only an exponential relationship between lactate concentration and workout intensity, there's no particular reason to limit one's efforts to classic "tempo runs." The theory of tempo runs is that there's an ideal intensity beyond which you get no additional benefit, since you're producing a sufficient amount of lactate in the blood for training purposes and going beyond that intensity only makes you needlessly tired.

Daniels and others cite a blood lactate concentration of 4 millimoles per liter as a "threshold" for achieving that training effect.

This thread seems to reject that idea in favor of there being a positive relationship between intensity and training effect. The higher the intensity, the greater the effect. So in layman's terms, would the value of the classic tempo run simply be that it prevents you from overtraining and getting injured? And that, if your body can handle the occasional run at an intensity well above classic tempo, the training effect with be greater than running at tempo (assuming appropriate recovery)?