Go sick Kinbote! How can they reply to the last few threads?
Go sick Kinbote! How can they reply to the last few threads?
yeehaa wrote:
Go sick Kinbote! How can they reply to the last few threads?
Yup. There's some great stuff in the last few posts and anyone interested in the actual business of running well or helping others to as opposed to being some sort of poser should read them closely.
The 3:30 Thonster wrote:
Wow.
A real running thread and one that almost has 100 posts.
I thought that did not happen anymore.
Considering the last few posts, it appears some here want this real running thread to end now.
something wrote:
Matt
i haven't read your book bu i have heard of it. I don't seem to be able to find it in Australia though. Could you please explain how the central governor model is related to homeostasis?
The basic idea is that the human body must maintain various interdependent types of homeostasis--or biochemical equilibrium states--to preserve health and life (body temperature, pH balance, fluid balance, etc.). The body therefore has a variety of mechanisms that serve to resist stressors that threaten to disrupt specific homeostatic states. Exercise is obviously a stressor that has the potential to harm the body by disrupting homeostasis in terms of pH balance, muscle cell polarization, core temperature, etc. The brain appears to have evolved mechanisms (which work largely in the subconscious domain) that constantly read and respond to afferent feedback signals from the body that inform the brain of threats to equilibrium states. When an immanent threat is preceived, the motor centers of the brain reduce output to the muscles, hence reducing muscle activity and preventing a catastrophic loss of homeostasis from occurring.
joyful wrote:
Matt Fitzgerald wrote:I encourage those of you who are interested in this discussion and have not read my book, Brain Training for Runners, to do so. Yes, it will put bread on my table, but I also think that you will find it interesting. For what it's worth, Tim Noakes wrote the foreword and described my practical application of his ideas--and other cutting-edge research on the role of the brain/central nervous system in running performance--as "seminal".
I read your book and was convinced by the first part and then read the second part, which seemed like solid training plans. However I missed the part about why those workouts in particular trains the brain. ???
Well, of course, every run "trains the brain". It's automatic. And it's not as if in reflecting on the practical impact of the central governor theory on training practices I said, "Eureka! All this time we should be chopping wood to race faster instead of running!" What I did come up with was a set of subtle tweaks to conventional training practices and also a new way of conceptualizing the training process that is more than just a matter of semantics, I believe.
One specific is the method of target pace training. In many conventional training systems, workouts are performed at specific pace levels at which fatigue is supposedly caused by some specific catastrophic loss of homeostasis in the muscles (e.g. muscular acidosis). However, the reality is that fatigue is far more complex than this. It's never caused by a single factor, yet it is always mediated by the brain and always occurs when the brain determines that continuing to run at the current pace is dangerous.
So it really makes no sense to base workout target paces on individual physiological causes of fatigue. I decided it made more sense to base all workout pace targets on one's goal pace for a particular event, since all that really needs to happen to achieve a race goal is to train in a way that convinces the central governor that you can cover the full race distance at your goal pace without killing yourself. All of the pace targets in the brain training system exceeding your basic jogging pace represent race pace levels from the marathon to 1,500m. I believe that pursuing performance-based versus physiologically-based pace targets in training gives the whole training process a slightly different meaning and also motivates the runner to train a bit harder, and at the end of the day, you get faster by training harder.
There are also many other particulars that make brain training a little different from other training systems. For example, I encourage every runner to actively use proprioceptive cues to control and refine their form on every stride of every run.
Wow, thanks for the response! I guess I've always been a believer in race pace so it wasn't new news to me. I see your point.
One useful thing I got from your book was the explanation on how to practice the stride. I love stomping; it's a comfortable way for me to run fast and I don't have to worry about people telling me to lighten my stride.
that's great Matt and i like the central governor theory and what Tim and you have alerted to us. I still call it homeostasis in my mind as that's the thing as a coach i am always working with or against. It's what it has always been but now in my thinking it is far more important. Thanks.
I'd like to follow up on a few things you said.
"The basic idea is that the human body must maintain various interdependent types of homeostasis--or biochemical equilibrium states--"
I assume that although there are various independent states of homeostasis there is also the overriding or generalised homeostatic state. What is that? Is that the central governor? Is the central governor your 'overall' homeostatic principle?
and
"The brain appears to have evolved mechanisms (which work largely in the subconscious domain) that constantly read and respond to afferent feedback signals from the body that inform the brain of threats to equilibrium states. When an immanent threat is preceived, the motor centers of the brain reduce output to the muscles, hence reducing muscle activity and preventing a catastrophic loss of homeostasis from occurring."
So we can't run ourselves to death just like we can't hold our breath till we die. Yet horses can run to death and the story of that guy liquifying his muscles are both examples where the conscious mind over-rides the subconscious.
I think when you are maximising your performance you do over-ride your feeling of homeostasis, it's just that there is a flexible ceiling to how far you can over-ride. The principle of progressive overload in training theory is what is focussed on this aspect of training. The other aspect is all the work you do underneath this homeostatic threshold.
and finally,
"There are also many other particulars that make brain training a little different from other training systems. For example, I encourage every runner to actively use proprioceptive cues to control and refine their form on every stride of every run."
So this refers to the area of biomechanics or mechanics. Again i assume the homeostatic principle is what maintains our balance or homeostasis. You drive one arm forward and as the body counter-balances itself the opposite leg must go forward or else you become unbalanced. Could you cover some fo the proprioceptive cues you use or what you are trying to achieve there?
thanks
Yes,but if you don´t base the training on individual physiological causes of fatigue how you can define the RIGHT target pace?
Im a 14:50 5K runner, but I believe that I can run 12:35.Infact I think I can run it already this year.Watch out Bekele im going start training the central governor!
target pace wrote:
Yes,but if you don´t base the training on individual physiological causes of fatigue how you can define the RIGHT target pace?
Im a 14:50 5K runner, but I believe that I can run 12:35.Infact I think I can run it already this year.Watch out Bekele im going start training the central governor!
It has nothing to do with what you believe. The body has to believe it.
Great thread folks.
I'm no exercise scientist or coach. I'm a pretty decent recreational runner at 16:12 5k PR (on a very fast flat course). I'm a 42 YO male. I have been following the training found here for a couple of years:
http://www.coacheseducation.com/xc/jack_farrell_july_00.htm
If I have read these posts correctly, it seems Mr. Farrell has caught on to this Central Govenor theory as it is being defined by these posts. Mr. Farrell states:
1. No hard/easy training. It is balanced. The runner runs at his/her aerobic threshold (45 sec. to 1 min. slower than 5k race pace). It is a mild threshold pace every day so no AnT dedicated day.
2. The runner feels about the same everyday.
3. There is a gradual ratcheting up of the pace as adaptations to training occur.
4. Upside down periodization- mileage and intensirty increase together at the same time as the season ends with peak mileage about 2-3 weeks from target race.
5. Race pace with training intervals typically on Wed. of each week. Usually 4 x 1200m with 90 sec. rec. ( I do 6 x 1000m with 90 sec. rec. instead)
6. Running economy improved with a 400m (race pace), 300 (mile pace), 200(all out) at the end of Monday long run. I also incorporate 6 x 100m strides 2-3 days a week on short grass.
I have never been this happy about my running or injury free in my life. In college I ran a tad faster but was injured much of the time from the hard/easy methodology and raced wildly inconsitent. Now I am consistently at my PR or slightly slower due to mainly environmental conditions.
It seems this has a similar training philosophy as McDonnell at Arkansas too-I think.
Maybe these non-scientists have been keen observers of what works and do not care what happens strictly at the cellular level. There is much more going on that is far more complex.
Recent comments by McDougal and other elite runners have suggessted that the old periodization and tapering methods do not work for them.
Any how, I'm interested in what Matt and others think about my interpretation of the cental govenor hypothesis and the training theories of Mr. Farrell and McDonnell.
Am I far off the mark?
something wrote:
I expected no reply wellnow because i know you can't answer this question can you?
You physiology guys are funny, relying on and using your 'borrowed knowledge'. Knowledge you have not gained yourself but have gained from others doing the thinking for you. Real coaches have developed their own knowledge. They can then share this with other coaches that have gained their own knowledge. Funnily enough when you explore the sport in a practical instead of theoretical sense, the self knowledge you gain is pretty much the same as with the other real coaches, so the sharing is easy.
If you feel the need to be self righteous about training theory i suggest you go down to your local track, start chatting to some coaches, and find out what is really going on in this sport. The actual training and competing has nothing to do with your physiology-speak.
You are a self professed scientist type, i wonder how much you know about the other main scientific field of biomechanics and how that relates to your own physical movement. I bet you have nothing.
Good grief, what brought this on? You don't know anything about me, so why would you pretend that you do.
You couldn't have got me more wrong, but why should I waste time defend myself against your accusations? if you want to let off some steam, then go ahead.
Lord Kinbote wrote:
The actual training and competing has nothing to do with your physiology-speak.Pretty much sums it up.
From "Good Will Hunting" comes this dialogue which does a good job of illustrating the stark distinction between hearing about or reading a mere summary of something and being totally immersed in the reality of it:
"So, if I asked you about art, you'd probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo. You know a lot about him - life's work, political aspirations, him and the Pope, sexual orientation, the whole works, right? But I bet you can't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You've never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling, seen that.
If I ask you about women, you'll probably give me a syllabus of your personal favorites. You may have even been laid a few times. But you can't tell me what it feels like to wake up next to a woman and feel truly happy.
You're a tough kid. And I ask you about war, you'd probably throw Shakespeare at me, right? 'Once more unto the breach, dear friends ...' But you've never been near one. You've never held your best friend's head in your lap and watched him gasp his last breath, looking to you for help.
I ask you about love, you'll probably quote me a sonnet. But you've never looked at a woman and been totally vulnerable, known someone that could level you with her eyes, feeling like God put an angel on Earth just for you ... who could rescue you from the depths of hell. And you wouldn't know what it's like to be her angel, to have that love for her, be there forever. Through anything. Through cancer. And you wouldn't know about sleeping sitting up in a hospital room for two months, holding her hand, because the doctors could see in your eyes that the terms 'visiting hours' don't apply to you. You don't know about real loss. 'Cause that only occurs when you love something more than you love yourself. I doubt you've ever dared to love anybody that much.
I look at you. I don't see an intelligent, confident man. I see a cocky, scared sh*tless kid. But you're a genius, Will. No one denies that. No one could possibly understand the depths of you. But you presume to know everything about me because you saw a painting of mine. You ripped my f***ing life apart. You're an orphan, right? Do you think I know the first thing about how hard your life has been? How you feel? Who you are? Because I read Oliver Twist? Does that encapsulate you? Personally, I don't give a sh*t about all that. Because you know what? I can't learn anything from you I can't read in some f***ing book. Unless you want to talk about you - who you are. Then I'm fascinated. I'm in. But you don't want to do that, do you, sport? You're terrified of what you might say."
Well, there you have it. There are those who watch from the sidelines and talk theory, and there are those who do and gain the truly pragmatic understanding. Many exercise scientists presume to know running because they "saw a painting" or two. But unless they've been through the running equivalent of those experiences described above, they don't know sh*t about building a running career from the ground up. That's not to say observing and gathering marginally-related data (as exercise science does in relation to day-to-day running) never has useful applications in real life. Some practical nuances can come out of exercise science, but using it as your basic template is like watching every episode of "Kung Fu" in order to learn how to protect yourself against armed attackers. There might be a couple of practical nuances in that show, as well, but those are only things that you'd recognize as practical if you already knew the basic principles of dealing with the reality of violence, and none of those nuances will turn a wimp into a fighter. Getting in some David Carradine stance and making a few flowery circular motions with your fingers and hands will only get you killed when two or three crowbar-wielding five-time felons on angel dust charge at you in a dead-end alley. In the same vein, you can concoct some very good stand-alone workouts from exercise theory, but nuances aren't what make the runner.
WOW, you too Lord Kinbote (JK?)
blah blah blah, shaddup you boring old hippy.
wellnow wrote:
Lord Kinbote (JK?)
that's what i was thinking too. i recall lord kinbote as the red claymation king kong lookalike alien from the earth's core in the x files episode 'jose chung's from outer space' ... a very humorous episode with lots of references to alien conspiracy theories and military experiments and government coverups in popular culture. jk mentioned in the past he listened to art bell's show and was interested in fringe stuff like bigfoot. so it makes sense he'd be an x-files fan too.
he sounds good. It appears balance is the foundation of his program. As an ex-decathlete i appreciate the principal of balance. I think homeostasis is the balancing factor in us. I think the central governor is a specific work for homeostasis. I think that is the hidden force that you guys have noticed and are calling the central governor.
I really like the idea of lowering the comfort zone Farrell talks about. I think this is what Mark Allen is talking about when he refers to HR training and i think it is what Lydiard is talking about when he wants you to run at all paces up to your best aerobic pace (ie right under the anaerobic threshold) and not really and faster during his base phase.
If this is a line of thinking that has already been existing amongst out top athletes and coaches then i like the fact that physiology has identified it and can explain it in their language. I also like the fact that it is now becoming the norm that the physiologyzones fo aerobic and anaerobic are becoming blurred as further scientific investigation ensues.
Practically i have a problem with science. Theoretically i think it is the best descriptive tool we have if we aren't resourcing a master coach's opinion. This is not always available though and often loses accuracy in translation. Also coaches often disagree on fine points when they are already agrreing on the main points. All this leads to some confusion for the students of the sport just trying to unedrstand.
I think there are a lot of people looking at this site who don't have a lot of experience with running but want to run. They resource this site looking for information on how to train, how to put a program together or some specific point that they have found in their own training that confuses them.
Either way they are looking for practical information. Possibly one or two of them have studied physiology or anatomy or biomechanics but i don't think very many really. When the explanations about how to run better come out in the physiology format i really don't know how most of these people can take it in. I have to look stuff up and i have a background at uni in these areas. (B.App.Sc. 18 years ago).
So i think the use of phsyiology speak is useful in explaining concepts, it just has to be used as ain aid to coaching theory and not try and replace it with their own version. It keeps changing anyway.
Thanks for the feedback.
I think I will do a progression run once a week to hedge my bets that will take me from my aerobic threshold to my Anaerobic threshold (but never at or over)the last couple of miles. For me these Aerobic threshold runs are 8 miles so it will be a pretty strong run but "within" myself.
I will report my findings.
Just run baby.
Gonzo i reckon that is the bottom line. You just run and you pay attention to what is happening to yourself.
I've started a long distance preparation to build up to run an 800m. As a decathlete i could run 47.65 and 4:42.06 (I know! i was slack).
So for me i need extra development of the aerobic end of the spectrum.
If i was to just run i think i would identify things slower than if i ran and analysed. I also think it would be slower than if i had gained no knowledge from my scientific studies. I think science is a filter for your own feelings and intuition. It has helped me enormously through roughly telling me where the specific feelings of MD can be found and can give you a guide so as to reject/accept some of the erroneous intuitive thoughts.
Still when i get over 120bpm my breathing changes. It deepends and the sucking is stronger. As i approach 150bpm it attempts to deepen again, struggles to do so and as such i begin to have some strain on my system.
I think i need to live in this range 120-150 for a while. Now, I only use those two different changes in my breathing and effort level as the boundaries of the range i am trying to develop. Occasionally i check my HR to see if it is still at the same level it used to be at when that feeling of deepening breathing comes along. At that level my HR is slowly dropping.
"I never guess. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
and
Yesterday i did a talk with Dr. Kostre Bekele´s coach and he said to me that he did read this thread recently. He thinks an interesting theory that will do a revolution in the old training method style. If Tim Noakes "Central Governor" Model is Correct that should effect Bekele´s train.
When Richard_ will be more confident about his new training theory the running will not be the same as it used to be. No more. Never the same.
Dr. Kostre also said that he doesn’t want that the Kenyans knew those new theories before the Ethiopians. That would be disastrous for Bekele or Gebrelassie.
That´s for sure that the day that Jorge Torres or Mottram they will train with with Central Governator or Richard´s contractile theory they will win over Bekele. Jorge or Craig one of them will win the WCCC. Bekele will be smashed. Poor Bekele.
Dr. Kostre is anxious that Richard_ posts out his new research. When it happens, if it happens, that will be named “The Day After” of the training theory. Kostre wants to contact Richard_ and all the rest of the experts and ask them to teach him what changes can be done in Bekele´s training.
You're a f***. And a bad one. Go troll somewhere else.