Is "Physiological Zones" Training Outdated?

exercisologist wrote:

wellnow wrote:

But don't you think that racing speeds have improved 'radically' in the last 100 years?

Yes

"Don't you think that this process will continue over the next 100 years?"

No.

Records improve but not radically as before. One need only look at the progression of world records over time. The improvement is asymptotic.

The smooth curve on the graph and the actual performances are two different things. One is an exercize for statisticians, the other is the reality of improvements that have been made, and which will be made, always confounding the skeptics.

u r wrong wrote:

wellnow wrote:

They are out of date because the dogma surrounding them ignore the fundamental issue of neuromuscular coordination.

Simply not true.

*****************************

It is true, but I guess you know that really.

No I dont see any contradictions at all.

VO2 max is largely a measure of the oxygen delivery capacity whereas the lactate response is largely a function of adaptation within the peripheral physiology. Therefore it wouldnt surprise me at all that one can change independently of the other. The drop in VO2 max occured largely in the relatively early years (probably because of increases in body mass), but you would then expect decreases as she ages due to reductions in maximal heart rate. Adaptations in the peripheral physiology could continue to shift her lactate curve right regardless of what is happening to her VO2 max (which is a very poor predictor of endurance performance capacity unlike the lactate response).

I would like you to explain exactly what "neuromuscular efficiency" that you keep going on about actually is. If we use the normal definition of efficiency as being the ability to do work with a low energy cost, then this would suggest that you believe improved running ability comes largely from reducing the energy cost of running at any given speed. Given that a muscle fibre can only be 'on' or 'off' (you cannot partially recruit an individual fibre) then the only way this can be done is by improving the efficiency of the individual fibres (i.e. through training you need to provoke some kind of metabolic adaptation that allows the fibres to more efffectively convert stored chemical energy to kinetic energy / movement). I've seen you write that its all about the ability to maintain longer strides - how do you propose this is actually achieved? In order to achieve a longer stride you need to create a larger ground reaction force by applying more force to the ground yourself. In order to do this then you need to recruit a greater fraction of your skeletal muscle mass. Obviously, this means the metabolic cost of running is increased and you can only maintain this greater power output if you have the oxygen delivery capacity, ability to use metabolic fuels that allow you to do so.

All this talk of longer strides is meaningless if you dont have the metabolism to fuel them.

There is more to longer strides than just metabolic fueling. Greater efficiency comes from more accurate movements and more elastic return from muscle and tendon.

Haven't you noticed that as your stride length gets shorter in a race, you are working harder?

You obviously have studied a lot and know your subject matter well, but you have to see past the dogma, to understand how the fundamental issue of neuromuscular coordination is largely ignored or greatly underestimated in ex phys explanations of endurance adaptions.

wellnow wrote:

The smooth curve on the graph and the actual performances are two different things. One is an exercize for statisticians, the other is the reality of improvements that have been made, and which will be made, always confounding the skeptics.

The smooth curve of the graph comes from the performances. Understand?

The reality is that they are improving less and less as the decades go on. One need not be a "skeptic" to see this. There is nothing to "believe" here. Merely data to observe.

wellnow wrote:

It is true, but I guess you know that really.

What I know is that in my 25+ years of coaching, CNS training has always been associated with energy systems training. Maybe I just had better mentors than you?

wellnow wrote:

Haven't you noticed that as your stride length gets shorter in a race, you are working harder?

Actually I have noticed just the opposite.

exercisologist wrote:

wellnow wrote:

The smooth curve on the graph and the actual performances are two different things. One is an exercize for statisticians, the other is the reality of improvements that have been made, and which will be made, always confounding the skeptics.

The smooth curve of the graph comes from the performances. Understand?

The reality is that they are improving less and less as the decades go on. One need not be a "skeptic" to see this. There is nothing to "believe" here. Merely data to observe.

************************************

Dramatic improvements happen, understand? Then no improvements for years, understand?

I don't need any mathematical lectures, this is running we are talking about.

Shufflah wrote:

wellnow wrote:

Haven't you noticed that as your stride length gets shorter in a race, you are working harder?

Actually I have noticed just the opposite.

**********************

So you get faster at the end of a marathon, even before the sprint finish? Good for you, you must be awesomely fast?

u r wrong wrote:

wellnow wrote:

It is true, but I guess you know that really.

What I know is that in my 25+ years of coaching, CNS training has always been associated with energy systems training. Maybe I just had better mentors than you?

*******************************************

I didn't have any mentors, I just read the usual garbage about energy systems that has been so popular for decades.

Show me one coach or writer who can give accurate explanations of the CNS with regard to middle and long distance running?

Matt Fitzgerald gave a good description of "neuro-muscular coordination" in his book Brain Training. (Sorry, I'm not trying to plug the book, but he clearly explains a lot of what I think "wellnow" wants to say. He even talks about running in terms of stride rate x stride length).It's not so much about making single fibers more efficient, but getting all the fibers coordinated and timed to work towards the same effort, without working against each other. Think of a how high school band peforms versus a symphony orchestra. Or compare how a 2 year old child runs, versus any elite runner. Running is a complex process which involves some muscles expanding and others contracting, and vice-versa at subtly different times. With bad coordination, some muscles can work against other muscles, making the overall energetic cost higher, regardless of individual fiber strength, or any VO2 and lactate properties. After many years and many miles, the brain gets enough feedback to fine tune all the muscles, to work in concert. This is a complex bio-feedback mechanism involving the brain, muscles, and the nerves, and can improve for decades.

wellnow wrote:

Shufflah wrote:

Actually I have noticed just the opposite.

**********************

So you get faster at the end of a marathon, even before the sprint finish? Good for you, you must be awesomely fast?

No I get slower. My stride doesn't get shorter I just can't keep up the cadence

exercisologist wrote:

Dramatic improvements happen, understand? Then no improvements for years, understand?

I don't need any mathematical lectures, this is running we are talking about.

Yes occasionally they still do happen. It's just that our standards for what constitutes"dramatic" continue to drop. Meanwhile the curve continues inexorably to level off. Understand?

That's not effective shuffling then is it?

I suspect that like almost everyone else, both your stride rate and stride length are decreasing when you get tired.

Ha! Probably not but my stride is so short that if I made it any shorter I would probably stop moving!

I see these as one-to-one directly corresponding to "Endurance, Stamina, Speed, and Sprint". The only distinction being the extra effort McMillan made to remove the "bad science" from the names, to better reflect the purpose and desired training effect.

From McMillan's website (you know, the one with too much bad science for your liking, from the guy who doesn't know what he's talking about...):

McMillan even mentions lactate shuttling. Looks like among a lot of the bad science, he seems to have included a lot of the good science too.

I've seen many accuse McMillan of being a bad coach, but at least, as a Master of Science, he's managed rather seamlessly and painlessly to incorporate the CNS and neuro-muscular coordination, into the alleged aerobic/anaerobic dogma, without any obvious conflict or contradictions, even if he does commit the sin of using lactic acid and lactate interchangeably.

So, I ask again, has anyone replaced multi-zone training with something else, with any degree of success, in the last 50 years?

wellnow wrote:

I didn't have any mentors, I just read the usual garbage about energy systems that has been so popular for decades.

Show me one coach or writer who can give accurate explanations of the CNS with regard to middle and long distance running?

I am sorry that you did not have any mentors. Perhaps that is why you never read/heard of a CNS connection to energy systems training. May I recommend Martin & Coe to you? They do a great job of working through the energy systems with a constant eye on the CNS component. Good stuff!

wellnow wrote:

You obviously have studied a lot and know your subject matter well, but you have to see past the dogma, to understand how the fundamental issue of neuromuscular coordination is largely ignored or greatly underestimated in ex phys explanations of endurance adaptions.

Thanks for the compliment - I would hope I do know the subject pretty well as it is what I am paid to know about!

To get back to the topic - I'm not arguing that the neuromuscular component is not important at all, just that it is not the only / most important component.

As I said previously, the muscles only do what the brain tell them so clearly the CNS regulates everything that happens. Certainly, to a certain extent you can 'learn' to utilise your metabolic resources more effectively. Look at anybasic physiology text and you will probably find a diagram showing responses to the initiation of a strength training programme. If the athlete is basically sedentary to start with then you will see extremely rapid initial gains in strength (without accompanying hypertrophy). This 'fast phase' is due to all the things you discuss (improved intramuscular coordination etc). However performance soon plateaus and subsequent gains are much slower. During this slow phase hypertrophy is often observed as a result of synthesis of additional contractile proteins within the muscle.

An interesting topic related to this is variation in muscle activity during a repeated task. Old research in the USSR involved filming skilled sheet metal workers who basically spent all day hitting things with big lump hammers. These workers were extremely accurate and able to hit basically the same spot each time they swung the hammer. However, film analysis demonstrated that each swing was actually different so effectively they were doing the different things during each swing of the hammer but achieving the same outcome. If you look at EMG analysis of athletes we seem to see the same thing - very consistant outcome (i.e speed / power) but apparently random fluctuations in electrical activity within different muscle groups. If you smooth the data enough then you get what looks like a nice clean EMG trace, but the trace for individual fibres are all over the place. Interestingly, there is much more variation in elite performers than non-elite performers. The reasons for this are unclear, but there is an idea that these fluctuations maintain the gross motor output (i.e. reflected in power output / speed) but delay fatigue and possibly reduce the risk of injury by briefly 'resting' some motor units while others are active. I think this does clearly show that there is some merit in the suggestion that neuromuscular factors are important, but it doesnt yet answer the question as to whether the elite runners are elite because of increased variability or whether this variability is an adaptation to training. Additionally, being able to spread the load around more muscle fibres is of little use if some fibres have inferior metabolic qualities - there is good reason why Usain Bolt would never attempt to run a marathon.

As for the original question raised in this thread - I'm not a big believer in the idea of training in different zones with the aim of achieving specific physiological adaptation. I am however a believer that you need to train a broad range of muscle fibres and that you need to learn to be able to recruit as many fibres as possible under conditions of fatigue. This may therefore be a moot debate, as although various people are arguing over the mechanisms of performance enhancement following training, I suspect our actual training suggestions would not greatly differ.

Shufflah wrote:

Ha! Probably not but my stride is so short that if I made it any shorter I would probably stop moving!

I've been feeling that way lately too.