Fair enough, i will await further developments :).
Good discussion light!
Fair enough, i will await further developments :).
Good discussion light!
surely he can defend the analysis of his email before specific questions are asked.
Quote:
I know this is hard for you, but sit down, TRY to open your brain, and actually think with it for a moment. Two glucose molecules are broken down...one each in a leg muscle cell of two different 5K runners. One is broken down into two pyruvate molecules, which within .5 seconds are transported into a mitochondria an metabolised aerobically and completely to CO2. With 2 seconds of the glucose molecule undergoing the first chemical change, it is fully converted into CO2 and ATP. The ATP is used .02 seconds later in a muscle contraction. Within 2.02 seconds, all of the metabolic potential of the first glucose molecule is realized and put into useful effort.
The second glucose molecule is broken down into lactate. A small amount of ATP is released via glycolysis, but most of the potential energy of the glucose is left tied up as lactate. 2 seconds after being created, these lactate molecules are released into the blood stream where they join an accumulating amount of lactate. 10 minutes later, the runner finishes the 5K and metabolism begins to catch up with effort when he stops. 3 minutes after that (now we're 13:02 after the creation of lactate) the metabolic machinery works through the backed up lactate and turns it back into pyruvate. 2 seconds after this it broken down aerobically to help the runner high-five his competitor (from the other example above) on the guy's new PR. He wishes he would have run one himself, but because he turned too much potential energy into lactate he couldn't use until after the race he couldn't keep up.
If you don't yet grasp the temporal different between direct oxidation of pyruvate, and delayed oxidation after recycling of lactate, I don't understand why you are even bothering to debate this.[/quote]
------------------------
Spaniel - I like your elaboration of the difference between use of pyruvate to generate ATP and use of lactate to "backdoor" create ATP - a much slower process.
Awhile back I mentioned that if lacate was so darn good for athletes coaches or trainers would be injecting into runners before races via syringes. It doesn't happen because lacate is an inefficient way to make a runner perform better. I'll take pyruvate any day over lactate!
Keep going strong, spaniel; you are doing great!
Regards,
Tinman
I have a theory too wrote:
Since you decided to declare that the physical model would have it all used up evenly, I was actually mocking you on it. But it's a bit nonsensical to think a person runs faster at the end because some central governor kicks in.
Did I declare those things? Were you mocking me? I missed it and I'm still missing it. I didn't mean to say the central governor kicks in at the end, but rather the opposite. The idea (in theory) is that the central governor kicks in before, if it senses any danger, as a kind of self preservation mechanism, and then lets go at the end, because he (or you) knows the end of the effort is near.
I have a theory too wrote:
The problem here, you're just muddling up concepts. It's plain stupid to say that, when it's warm you automatically and unintentionally adjust to optimal pace.
You're doing a fair bit of muddling what I said too. Whatever you may say now, other people were saying that in the heat we slow down *after* our core temperature rises. But it seems that in reality, this behavior isn't observed the way it's been described, and what is observed suggests something else. You implied that these adjustments are simply the result of applied conscious thinking, and I think it is that and more. Luckily someone is studying that so we may see some progress one way or another.
Perhaps you misunderstand my intention too. I'm not trying to push some unfinished controversial model as a proven fact on the public. I'm trying to push critics and supporters to defend their positions with a little substance, simply for the selfish purpose of my own education. A simple declaration that an idea is absurd, non-sensical, or just plain stupid, whether true or not, has no value. I'm trying to hold you to a higher standard, and you turn around and say I'm muddled and confused. Well maybe it's because you aren't defending your superficial conclusions or statements of facts.
When you touch a hot stove, you reflexively pull your hand away *before* you sense the pain. Sure its something you learn (at conscious and unconscious levels), but conscious thinking is not involved until after the fact. Why is it non-sensical to think that similiar autonomous self preservation mechanisms aren't involved during prolonged intense activities involving?
You didn't follow up your point. Shall I conclude then, that we agree my statements are in fact not at odds with each other -- that it is possible to die in the middle, and still find extra untapped energy at the end?Maybe we are just arguing about who "you" is. When you say "Sorry, but all you did was realize the end was close and you could afford to pay the price after you crossed the line", this is exactly my point. But, in this new theory, the "you" in that sentence is a combination of the conscious "you", and some autonomous homeostasis manager (to use "sims" term), which discourages the conscious "you" from pushing to, your physical limits, by giving the conscious "you" warning signs that things are getting a little too heavy.But we can think of the central governer as something that can be vetoed. You can consciously override the warning signs, but at your own risk and peril.Or not -- after all it's just a new model proposed to suggest new experiments, which may or may not better explain what's going on during intense activities. Nobody is forcing anyone to play along with a new theory.Regards,
The Light wrote:
Not necessarily. Here's a practical example of what I meant. In my first marathon, I predicted a target marathon time from my half-marathon time. I was on target for 23K, but then started degrading until my splits were about 90 seconds slower. Then at 41K, I was able to speed up, and at 42K, I managed to reach my target pace for the finish, and a little faster for the last 200m.
My body made me pay for my bad conscious choice of pace selection, yet I was still able to draw on reserve energy at the end.
I have a theory too wrote:
And I've died at the end of races with no reserve and no kick.
Sorry, but all you did was realize the end was close and you could afford to pay the price after you crossed the line.
[quote]Kim Stevenson wrote:
An old timer once said he saw something like this in Peter Snell at a training session (and also Racing) He said Peter's eyes sort of took on this "steely" look almost sinking back into their sockets and seemed to focus on something else that was out there beyond where eyes actually do focus. It was like he had bought in a new dimension.
Maybe he shut down that "Central Governor"!!!!
quote]
Seems like bekele can do this too....
http://nazret.com/blog/media/kenenisa_bekele_011307_scotland.jpg
http://www.fleetfeetsyracuse.com/images/KenenisaBekeleandHaileGebrselassie.jpg
For what it's worth, the web page linked below has a 45 minute podcast interview with Tim Noakes mostly dedicated to his "Central Governor" hypothesis. I downloaded this a while back and just got around to listening to it last night. Much of his argument has been touched on by various posters in this thread, but it's interesting to hear them from Noakes himself.
The interviewer asks Noakes about training specifics and (my impression at least) is that he's not really proposing anything new based on the theory.
The Light wrote:
But we can think of the central governer as something that can be vetoed. You can consciously override the warning signs, but at your own risk and peril.
You've strayed about as far away from Noakes' description of the CG as can be done.
So how many aliases here is this for you so far, Richad...4?
The Light wrote:
Did I declare those things?
yes
The Light wrote:
One would presume that in order to produce a world record performance, the body shouldn't store any extra energy in reserve
The Light wrote:
A simple declaration that an idea is absurd, non-sensical, or just plain stupid, whether true or not, has no value. I'm trying to hold you to a higher standard, and you turn around and say I'm muddled and confused. Well maybe it's because you aren't defending your superficial conclusions or statements of facts.
No, it's because you're saying really stupid things like when it's warm you automatically adjust to 'optimal' pace.
stupid, stupid, stupid
And that geb seemed to magically have reserve at the end of a race, which you feel OBVIOUSLY proves the CG exist because he should have used it up during the race. Well as near as I know, the end of the race IS during the race. Unless he took off on a sprint AFTER he crossed the line, I'd like to know how you determined he should have used up that energy during the race...HE DID use it up during the race, strategically at the end where it won't hurt his effort.
And yes, he could have run faster earlier in the race which is what I said, and it would have cost him. Think I'm making this up? You do realize Geb tried to break his WR early this year, right? Did you check out his splits on the effort? He ran the first half in 1:01:27...overcooked it. At 35k he ended up slowing down and the second half ran in 1:03:26, 2 min positive split and came up short of his WR attempt.
B]The Light wrote:
One would presume that in order to produce a world record performance, the body shouldn't store any extra energy in reserve [/quote]
Unless you are good enough to not need to run all out.
Here's one for you guys:
Take 2 twins who have identical physical training. The one that is stronger mentally will get a faster time. Is this another way of saying that the faster runner has a weaker central governor that is more easily overcome?
I have a theory too wrote:
He ran the first half in 1:01:27...overcooked it. At 35k he ended up slowing down and the second half ran in 1:03:26, 2 min positive split and came up short of his WR attempt.
You left out the part where he was still able to sprint at the end to get under 2:04:55...
fUrCeOsNhN wrote:
Here's one for you guys:
Take 2 twins who have identical physical training. The one that is stronger mentally will get a faster time. Is this another way of saying that the faster runner has a weaker central governor that is more easily overcome?
Maybe we should ask the Torres brothers about this?
BTW, I can't believe the legs that this thread has had. I thought it was pretty much done by the second page.
fUrCeOsNhN wrote:
You left out the part where he was still able to sprint at the end to get under 2:04:55...
His final 2.2 was a 2:48/k pace (~ 1/2 marathon pace), he was running 2:50-2:51's at the start.
I have a theory too wrote:
His final 2.2 was a 2:48/k pace (~ 1/2 marathon pace), he was running 2:50-2:51's at the start.
Sorry, mistyped. His final 2.2 was 2:58 paced, not 2:48. Actual final 1.2k was a 2:57 pace.
Actually, I was wrong. I seem to remember a race report of him sprinting in to get under Tergat's old wr but here is a report from firsthand...
http://kenner.org/adam/wp/octagonjgb/2008/01/19/dubai-10k-day-of-reckoning/
"The announcer spurns them on with news that with 6k to go, he is 40 seconds under the world record and running all alone. Soon he is at the 4k with 30 seconds to spare. We do the math and figure he’s gonna make it- and we are going to see it! The announcer returns with the news that with 2k to go he is still 20 seconds under. Okay, he’s losing time but he still has a decent cushion with just over a mile to go. We watch the clock tick past 2:04 and get concerned that he hasn’t hit the final stretch yet. 2:04:15 and he is nowhere in sight- its over, there is no way he will break 2:04:26. And then he appears, the crowd goes wild but he is not sprinting, he is actually fading as he cruises in at 2:04:53"
Darn that Central Governor! Never there when you need it
Here's his splits, in case anyone's interested.
spaniel wrote:
I know this is hard for you, but sit down, TRY to open your brain, and actually think with it for a moment. Two glucose molecules are broken down...one each in a leg muscle cell of two different 5K runners. One is broken down into two pyruvate molecules, which within .5 seconds are transported into a mitochondria an metabolised aerobically and completely to CO2. With 2 seconds of the glucose molecule undergoing the first chemical change, it is fully converted into CO2 and ATP. The ATP is used .02 seconds later in a muscle contraction. Within 2.02 seconds, all of the metabolic potential of the first glucose molecule is realized and put into useful effort.
The second glucose molecule is broken down into lactate. A small amount of ATP is released via glycolysis, but most of the potential energy of the glucose is left tied up as lactate. 2 seconds after being created, these lactate molecules are released into the blood stream where they join an accumulating amount of lactate. 10 minutes later, the runner finishes the 5K and metabolism begins to catch up with effort when he stops. 3 minutes after that (now we're 13:02 after the creation of lactate) the metabolic machinery works through the backed up lactate and turns it back into pyruvate. 2 seconds after this it broken down aerobically to help the runner high-five his competitor (from the other example above) on the guy's new PR. He wishes he would have run one himself, but because he turned too much potential energy into lactate he couldn't use until after the race he couldn't keep up.
If you don't yet grasp the temporal different between direct oxidation of pyruvate, and delayed oxidation after recycling of lactate, I don't understand why you are even bothering to debate this.
I understand all of that, however what makes you think that what you have written is actually correct?
You are talking about the difference between supposed "aerobic glycolysis" and supposed "anaerobic glycolysis"
What you haven't grasped yet, because you haven't actually bothered to research the subject in any detail, is that Brooks and others propose a very different scenario to the one which you have described. It's called the lactate shuttle, you might have heard about it? Brooks proposes that most of the carbohydrate metabolism which occurs when we run, is from the oxidation of lactate.
Why do you think that there is always 1mmol of lactate in the blood? The red blood cells use the glycolytic ATP for cell growth and maintenence, and the heart uses the lactate for fuel. The skeletal muscles also use lactate for fuel. Why do you think that 4mmol of blood lactate is an average figure during a half marathon race? It's because the fast twitch fibers export lactate into the bloodstream (via MCT4) and the slow twitch fibers import much of this lactate (via MCT1) to use as fuel for contraction.
During a 5k lactate levels are much higher, usually slowly accumulating, the slow accumulation during the first 4k shows that most of the lactate is beign oxidised (used as aerobic fuel) whilst during the last 2 laps, when the athletes increase their pace to a final sprint, lactate accumulates more. So after the race, there is still an accululation of lactate, serving as extra fuel for recovery or as an emergency source of fuel for another effort, a survivla mechanism if you will.
That's just the cell to cell shuttle I have described. I will let that information sink into your tired brain for a while before I try to educate you about the intra-cellular lactate shuttle hypothesis.
I realise though that I might be wasting my time trying to inform you, because you are one of those know-it-alls who thinks he knows better than some of the most brilliant researchers in the World, even though you haven't actually studied their work.
Tinman, you too. You guys are unf***ingbelievably ignorant bullshitters who blather on about things about which you have scant knowledge.
CLOWNS
I understand all of that, however what makes you think that what you have written is actually correct?
Unlike you, I have read more than ONE article on the subject and actually am educated enough to put it all together. You have presented ONE study indicating the lactate shuttle exists; 3 have been presented indicating that your reasoning is incorrect. Furthermore, lactate cannot be metabolised aerobically without first being converted via lactate dehydrogenase. If you would have actually read the articles I referenced, you would know that studies have shown that there is insufficient levels of this enzyme in the mitochondria to support your assertion that lactate is responsible for the majority of energy derived aerobically.
You are talking about the difference between supposed "aerobic glycolysis" and supposed "anaerobic glycolysis"
No, I am not. Only you are stupid enough to use those terms. All glycolysis is anaerobic. The aerobic part takes place in the mitochondria while glycolysis is in the cytoplasm. Go back to Biochem 101 buddy. Really, how can you call ME the BSer here when you have exhibited ZERO knowledge of biochem except that you have read Brooks?
What you haven't grasped yet, because you haven't actually bothered to research the subject in any detail, is that Brooks and others propose a very different scenario to the one which you have described. It's called the lactate shuttle, you might have heard about it? Brooks proposes that most of the carbohydrate metabolism which occurs when we run, is from the oxidation of lactate.
I am well aware of it....and the full and stronger body of evidence against it.
Why do you think that there is always 1mmol of lactate in the blood? The red blood cells use the glycolytic ATP for cell growth and maintenence, and the heart uses the lactate for fuel.
That may be. It may also be that biochemical reactions are usually regulated on a sliding scale; they are rarely 100% on or off. There will always be some lacate present.
The skeletal muscles also use lactate for fuel.
Possibly, but again it depends WHEN it is used and at WHAT RATE it can be used. Current evidence indicated insufficient levels of LDH to support significant aerobic metabolism of lactate during exercise.
Why do you think that 4mmol of blood lactate is an average figure during a half marathon race? It's because the fast twitch fibers export lactate into the bloodstream (via MCT4) and the slow twitch fibers import much of this lactate (via MCT1) to use as fuel for contraction.
Maybe to some extent, but again, insufficient LDH.
During a 5k lactate levels are much higher, usually slowly accumulating, the slow accumulation during the first 4k shows that most of the lactate is beign oxidised (used as aerobic fuel)
Retarded reasoning. It could just as easily be that the majority of energy is being provided via aerobic respiration of pyruvate so not a ton of lactate is being produced. You are hand-waiving here.
whilst during the last 2 laps, when the athletes increase their pace to a final sprint, lactate accumulates more. So after the race, there is still an accululation of lactate, serving as extra fuel for recovery or as an emergency source of fuel for another effort, a survivla mechanism if you will.
Why is lactate created to store energy for later? It's already there as glycogen or glucose. And lactate has already given up its "easy" energy through glycolysis, so no longer supports fast "survival-type" reactions.
I realise though that I might be wasting my time trying to inform you, because you are one of those know-it-alls who thinks he knows better than some of the most brilliant researchers in the World, even though you haven't actually studied their work.
I have read their work, just I am smart enough to actually interpret it on my own and compare it to what else is out there. In this whole discussion, you have never ONCE supported your position by bringing in other biochemistry and science. You simply reiterate Brooks.
I'm not a know-it-all, but am certainly a know-more-than-you which is the point here. I may even be smarter than the researchers you quote but that isn't the point here. A PhD doesn't make you smart or right; if it did you'd lose this one automatically.
