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

Correction. That should read "R2 != 1" or "R2 not equal to 1" -- some characters got deleted.

The Light wrote:

... if R2 1, then R2 = 0.

The Light wrote:

I have a philosophical question. Is the goal wholesale acceptance of a new model, or is the goal to expand knowledge?

Possibly there is a third option, to solve problems? Knowledge as a by product of that?

Steve McGregor wrote:

Well, if you go wayyy back in the thread, you'll note that I stated most (physiologists as well as coaches) simply see much of the CGM as self evident not even debateable (e.g. thermal stress impact on performance)...

Steve,

Many may see the CGM as self-evident, but I have to point out that it sure hasn't been included in popular running books and literature. Pick up anything written by Lydiard, Daniels, Pfitzinger, Glover, Henderson, etc and you won't find even a single chapter written on the CGM or any sub-set of it. You will find, however, multiple chapters written about the 3 traditional physiological factors believed to mostly determine performance - VO2max, lactate threshold, and running economy.

So, if the CGM is seen by physiologists and coaches as self-evident it isn't evident in their books and such written for runners. Perhaps it is seen as evident but not particularly important or trainable.

savaged wrote:

The funny thing is that this little schema you are applying doesn't actually apply her because we actually already know of this and it's incorporated into training methodology. We aren't pretending we already knew.

Not to worry. Theorists tend to push the 'stage 3 acceptance...' thing a lot. When the theory can't be supported, stretch it to encompass something that can be demonstrated.

Ironically, Dr. Noakes alluded to this earlier in a quote from Steven Hawking:

"But Hawking also explains why this is so: 'In practice, people are very reluctant to give up a theory in which they have invested a lot of time and effort. They usually start by questioning the accuracy of the observations. If that fails, they try to modify the theory in an ad hoc manner. Eventually the theory becomes a creaking and ugly edifice'"

Richard_ wrote:

Steve,

Many may see the CGM as self-evident, but I have to point out that it sure hasn't been included in popular running books and literature. Pick up anything written by Lydiard, Daniels, Pfitzinger, Glover, Henderson, etc and you won't find even a single chapter written on the CGM or any sub-set of it. You will find, however, multiple chapters written about the 3 traditional physiological factors believed to mostly determine performance - VO2max, lactate threshold, and running economy.

So, if the CGM is seen by physiologists and coaches as self-evident it isn't evident in their books and such written for runners. Perhaps it is seen as evident but not particularly important or trainable.

But you won't have a problem finding concepts such as running hardest/fastest as the end of a training run when you're the most tired to get used to it, or acclimatizing yourself to hot weather before taking on such as race, or executing marathon training miles at MP to get accustomed to the pace. Essentially Dr. Noakes is just taking much of these concepts and declaring them part of the CG model. Heck, if he wants to he can declare coastal erosion as part of the CG, point to eroding coastlines and say "See!?! The CG in action!".

So what?

I did say I was open minded. My interactions with Dr. Noakes were actually quite stimulating to me (I don't know about anyone else;), and have provided additional context for some things we are working on. For that alone, our discussion was valuable to me, still, that's not to say I'm buying his approach lock, stock and barrel.

In answer to your philosophical question,... it depends, doesn't it;) I'm not the one proposing the paradigm shift, so, I'm generally happy with moving knowledge forward, or gaining more. Those who propose paradigm shifts carry a heavier burden though.

Steve

Quit putting words in my mouth. I've clearly stated numerous times that *elements* of the CGM appear self evident. That does not make the CGM self evident.

And I will reiterate again and again and again, the primary factors that dictate performance in general are the three things you cite. Dr. Noakes, in essence, agreed with me since he would not contest my points. Where the grey area come up is when you compare highly fit, highly trained athletes, there are intangibles that need to be considered. What is it that makes East African elite runners better than Western elite runners? That's really the only grey area. What are those intangibles? It depends on the athlete and the event.

Are elements of the CGM at play? Maybe, maybe not, but they are certainly lesser factors than the big three you cited.

Steve

Richard_ wrote:

Pick up anything written by Lydiard, Daniels, Pfitzinger, Glover, Henderson, etc and you won't find even a single chapter written on the CGM or any sub-set of it.

That is because Lydiard, Daniels, Pfitzinger, Glover, Henderson, etc are writing books to help make runners faster. They discuss techniques PROVEN over decades to do just that.

So, if the CGM is seen by physiologists and coaches as self-evident it isn't evident in their books and such written for runners. Perhaps it is seen as evident but not particularly important or trainable.

It is not see as self-evident as Noakes describes it. It is one thing to state that the body has built-in mechanisms the help protect it from damaging itself. It is another to conjure up a mysterious "Central Governor" that no one can locate, measure or train.

If you have a proven training plan for the Central Governor, please share it with us. I'm not normally into trying to train made-up mechanisms but lacking the ability to train it, I am not sure where it fits into a book that tells people how to train.

You didn't read what Tim wrote. He said the CG CANNOT be overridden. Yet earlier he cleary said he's done it himself. My issue is that not only does he not provide proper support for his theory (just because we slow down when we get hot does not mean this is controlled by the brain, and never is a mechanism of any sort proposed), but he can't even be consistent with what his own theory says. He bends it freely to deal with criticisms, then bends it back at will. He's married to the model and has zero interest in actually furthering what science may say is supported.

Is he flip flopping or is the answer either a/ more complicated than an either/or response or b/ the theory hasn't defined itself to that level.

We are talking about homeostasis and how it changes with exercise. How the brain is involved in the physical process. It's like one of those mysteries - mind and body. Tim may as well give the formula for MD training from the year 2050 instead. Tricky stuff.

I hope it doesn't end up with people discovering ways to deceive the brain/mind in future races. There could be some fatalities.

I agree with Tim in that the future evolutions of how we function will be through understanding how the brain (mind) relates to the body.

ps i keep saying brain and mind as they are different things and probably hard to define. The brain is the physical representation of the mind maybe.

My point was that my explanation was wrong - the theory has not changed. You can initially run faster than is appropriate for the distance of the event that you are actually running. The CG will not prevent you from doing that until some point is reached at which your physical state cannot support your current pace for the distance that still needs to be covered So you are welcome initially to run faster than is appropriate for the distance of the event (the CG will not intervene) but eventually the point will be reached at which the CG will need to act since the physiological reserves no longer exist to allow that same pace to be maintained to the finish.

I originally described this loosely as initially overriding the CG but on more careful reflection inspired by your tough questions I realize that of course you are not overriding the CG until the distance that remains cannot be covered at the same pace (given that the athlete's physiological state is no longer the same as it was during the first section of the race).

Since you have never met me please avoid ascribing to me motives that you have no idea whether or not they apply to me. I have never started with a conclusion and then interpreted the data according to that conclusion. If you had read my work you would see that as new information has become available we have adapted the model to incorporate that information. That is the way science is meant to progress. If we knew the conclusion ("the truth") before we started, why bother to do any research, since you risk finding something that disproves your theory?

Whatismore if you read our research (which you admit you have not) you would see that we design our research studies so that the findings will differentiate between either the Hill or the CG model. We always give the Hill model an equal opportunity to prove itself. In most all the studies we do, the findings cannot be interpreted according to the Hill model.

Don't quit the debate. Your contribution is important.

I will subsequently discuss the evidence that the rate at which we perceive fatigue is set early in the exercise bout and is determined by only one factor - the known endpoint of the exercise. Again this cannot be explained by the Hill model.

Timothy Noakes wrote:

Eventually the point will be reached at which the CG will need to act since the physiological reserves no longer exist to allow that same pace to be maintained to the finish.

Which physiological reserves are these?

Sim,

Your points are well made. To my knowledge no one has yet found the single biochemical factor that "causes" the sensations of fatigue. On the other hand there is now certainty that the most important determinant of the extent to which fatigue is sensed during exercise is how close you are to the finish of the event. Let me explain (please excuse if you already know this information).

In 1960 the Swedish scientist Gunnar Borg wondered if humans could describe in simple terms how hard they perceived the exercise to be. He found they could and developed the Borg Scale for the Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE). Borg was interested only in how this scale related to the intensity of the exercise; he had little interest in how the RPE might change as the exercise became more prolonged. Yet in 1976 he published a paper showing that in people doing a VO2max test, the RPE rose as a linear function of the exercise duration. Thus he reported that the rate at which the RPE rose could be used to predict for how long they would be able to exercise (given that each individual stops at a maximal RPE, the exact value of which is specific to the individual). But he took this aspect of his research no further.

I rediscovered this finding in 2004 when I looked at some data from my Australian colleagues who measured the RPE during two bouts of prolonged exercise at a fixed work rate, one when the subjects were carbohydrate-loaded and one when they were carbohydrate depleted. The first interesting finding was that the RPE rose as a linear function of the exercise duration even from the first measurement made during exercise. The increase continued in this linear manner until the athlete reached his or her maximal RPE at which time he or she would terminate the exercise bout.

The immediate implication of this finding was that if you knew the maximal RPE that the athlete could achieve, by plotting the rising RPE against exercise time, you could predict from quite early on during the exercise bout the exact time at which each subject would terminate the exercise bout.

Next we showed that when the data were normalized to 100% of the exercise time, the rate at which the RPE rose was identical for both exercise conditions, indicating that this finding is a biological "law".

The point of course is that if the RPE rises as a linear function of the exercise duration beginning from the beginning of exercise, then it is set "in anticipation", it is not likely responding purely to biochemical changes in the body (as more likely the mechanism according to the Hill model) and is more easily explained as the mechanism by which something like a proposed CG would be able to insure that the exercise terminates before damage occurs.

Since then a number of scientists, not all of whom are sympathetic to the CG model, have confirmed that these findings apply also to competitive sport in which athletes compete at their own chosen paces and in which, again, the RPE rises as a linear function of the exercise duration. Thus again the athletes performance time could be predicted by knowing how quickly the RPE was rising early on during exercise. We have since shown in a paper accepted for publication a few weeks ago, that the RPE rises as a linear function of the exercise duration which we manipulated in the laboratory by having the subjects exercise at different intensities in different environmental conditions. Always the rate at which the RPE rose predicted the exercise duration.

This finding might have some interesting practical applications. For example if you were to know how quickly your RPE was rising during competition, you would know quite early on in the exercise bout what your finishing time was likely to be. At present the data we have are for exercise up to 21 km (13 mile) and not further. Thus we do not know whether this finding applies for more prolonged exercise as in marathon or ultra marathons.

Here is an interesting observation: If you are training an athlete whose maximum RPE is 19 units and if he is doing an interval session and if his RPE at the end of the first 3 intervals in 14, 15 and 16, then his brain clearly believes that he is only doing 6 intervals (ie progressive RPE's of 14,15,16,17,18,19). Usually this is because he was told at the start that he was doing only 6 intervals. If he did not know how many intervals he was going to be asked to do, how did his brain settle on 6? Did he "know" the coach so well that he knew before he began that the coach would expect him to do only 6 intervals?

We have clearly shown that exercise is regulated "in anticipation" and that the brain does not wait until the catastrophe has already happened before it slows the athlete down by reducing the exercise intensity. The work is published by Dr Ross Tucker as the first author. This finding cannot be willed away - it exists in the published, peer-reviewed scientific literature and was the basis for the award of Dr Tucker's PhD thesis.

It has also been confirmed by a number of other scientists. The most recent a group from Sydney, Australia who wanted to understand how international tennis players could safely play in the Melbourne Open sometimes when the temperature may reach 40 degrees C. They soon found the answer. As the air temperatures increased, the duration of each point fell and the time the players took between points increased. As a result they maintained the SAME safe rectal temperatures (between 38 and 39 degrees Centigrade) which were essentially independent of the environmental conditions. Conclusion: Tennis players can safely play in extremely hot conditions because they simply modify their playing behaviors in response to the environmental conditions and so maintain safe body temperatures.

We and others have shown exactly the same in runners. The point is that the behavior is changed BEFORE the body temperature rises to reach dangerous levels. As a result dangerous body temperatures are not ever reached (in healthy individuals).

Perhaps the best way to define the CG model is really very simple: Exercise is a behavior regulated in the brain to insure that homeostasis is maintained and damage does not occur. The CG is simply the sum of the brain mechanisms that achieve this effect.

Okay. So here you've answered in completely different context than the post that spawned my question. I'll requote the snippet I used within context:

The context I presented was against finishing...anticipatory of distance. Your response was for protectived mechanisms concerning body temperature. These are two different issues.

So in the context of your original quote, what is it that the CG is interceding on, preventing a physically desctructive situation or simply permitting completion of distance/time?

This is really addressed to Tim, but I am using this quote from your post:

"Okay. So here you've answered in completely different context than the post that spawned my question. I'll requote the snippet I used within context:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timothy Noakes wrote:

You can initially run faster than is appropriate for the distance of the event that you are actually running. The CG will not prevent you from doing that until some point is reached at which your physical state cannot support your current pace for the distance that still needs to be covered So you are welcome initially to run faster than is appropriate for the distance of the event (the CG will not intervene) but eventually the point will be reached at which the CG will need to act since the physiological reserves no longer exist to allow that same pace to be maintained to the finish.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"

Couldn't an alternative interpretation of the above example be that the initial "poisonous metabolites" had not accumulated to a sufficient level to limit performance? Or again, even if there is central control in this circumstance, wouldn't it be more likely that the specific cues for control, the noxious stimuli being generated in the periphery have not provided the feedback to the central controller yet? Once that feedback is provided, the controller adjusts it's pace accordingly.

So, what is the control mechanism in the absence of the defined result? I know you have compared "known" vs "unknown" performances and argued the results suggest CGM mechanisms, but in the case of TTE trials, the individual will start hard and progressively slow/reduce power output as a result of peripheral mechanisms/cues.

Just wondering.

Steve

Richard_ wrote:

Pick up anything written by Lydiard, Daniels, Pfitzinger, Glover, Henderson, etc and you won't find even a single chapter written on the CGM or any sub-set of it.

That is because Lydiard, Daniels, Pfitzinger, Glover, Henderson, etc are writing books to help make runners faster. They discuss techniques PROVEN over decades to do just that.

So, if the CGM is seen by physiologists and coaches as self-evident it isn't evident in their books and such written for runners. Perhaps it is seen as evident but not particularly important or trainable.

It is not see as self-evident as Noakes describes it. It is one thing to state that the body has built-in mechanisms the help protect it from damaging itself. It is another to conjure up a mysterious "Central Governor" that no one can locate, measure or train.

If you have a proven training plan for the Central Governor, please share it with us. I'm not normally into trying to train made-up mechanisms but lacking the ability to train it, I am not sure where it fits into a book that tells people how to train.[/quote]

The book by Matt Fitzgerald "Brain Training for runners" is the first such book.

1000th post!

Yes, and it's almost as thick as "Lore of Running". Two peas in a pod;)

Steve