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

Dr. Noakes did give a reply when I asked what physiologicals factors the CG would be responding to, as below:

So a rudamentary list of things that would trigger a response, obviously not complete nor concise but generalized for concept.

As you indicate, it's a response too something. It responds to a physical state, a condition, various excesses and deficits. My problem, it makes no sense when he says it anticipates future condition. Exactly how would it do this? It's easy to say 'slows you down' but if the vehicle to do this is through fatigue (suggested by the core philosophy of what the CG primarily does), wouldn't this mean we would be starting races feeling....tired?

and I hit send too soon.

But essential the CG must respond to a state, factors/condition, etc. must trigger it. It isn't indicated that it would respond with physical or physiologicals factors to trigger it.

So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

and I hit send too soon.

But essential the CG must respond to a state, factors/condition, etc. must trigger it. It isn't indicated that it would respond without physical or physiologicals factors to trigger it.

So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

That's just it. The "something" can be/is a number of things, depending on the task. Fatigue is very task dependent, and depending on what you are doing the "thing" that causes you to slow down may be different than when performing another task. I was intentionally nebulous with the question because the CGM is nebulous, and at the same time, all encompassing. That is, if I understand it correctly, which I think I do for the most part. (To be honest, Dr. Noakes has so many darned pubs, it's next to impossible to wade through them all, so, it's quite possible I may have missed something). My impression is that he argues the CGM is at work anytime someone "fatigues", whether that be due to an all out 30 sec effort (Wingate), a VO2max test, or a marathon. The CGM is an overriding mechanism to protect homeostasis. The example Theory provided is not terribly common in running, but it's actually fairly common in other endurance sports, namely, cycling. Presumably, the same mechanisms are at play in both disciplines, so, just because it wouldn't be an advisable strategy to run a marathon in such a fashion, the question remains, what is the problem in doing so?

Steve

I have a theory too wrote:

Richard_ wrote:

What Prof Noakes has provided is a different physiological explanation for training practices. His physiological explanation (the CGM) is very different than the cardiovascular/anaerobic model being preached by others.

I agree there's no training value in his concept.

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

I have observed in the teams that I have worked with that if the team can be taught to imagine a favorable outcome and believe that that will be the outcome, their performance can go to a level that is unexpected. Victor Frankl (Man's search for meaning) taught this concept as "treating the future as if it is the past". That is how Bannister and Ryun were talked into breaking the four minute miles for the first time. (Interestingly there are data showing that the outcome of a successful putt in golf can be predicted by the brain patterns occurring before the putt is struck. So at least in putting the outcome is apparently determined even before the ball is struck. By extension the same probably applies in other skilled activities such as field goal kicking in gridiron football or free throw shooting in basketball).

Stampfl who coached Bannister also said that: "Training is principally an act of faith. The athlete must believe that through training he will become fitter and stronger… He must believe that through training his performances will improve and continue to improve indefinitely as long as he continues to train to progressively stiffer standards".

Presumably Stampfl considered that the main effect of training was on the athlete's self belief. The focus on the Hill model has promoted the view that the main benefits of training are brought about by changes in the physiology of the heart, muscles, lungs (perhaps) and the metabolism (amongst some others).

If the CG is correct, it may be that novel techniques in which the coach's feedback to the athlete is "filtered" might be helpful. Others on this blog have reported that once they achieve a certain performance it becomes much easier to repeat. What if the athlete thought that they were actually slightly faster in training than they really were? Would this translate into a faster performance in real competition? Or would it make the athlete perform worse?

I don't know but at least the CG allows one to propose that this is a question

that is worthy of study. The HIll model provides no possibility for this question to be imagined.

Those look like good questions, but that was not Theory's question. His question was more along the lines that does Noakes's definition mean that the CG "forcing an appropriate pace" always guarantees a runner can finish a race no matter how he paces himself at the beginning. With all due respect, that specific question is either trivial or irrelevant or both.

Steve McGregor wrote:

Theory's question is neither trivial nor abstract, this is actually quite relevant. If the CG is the ultimate arbiter of fatigue, then it should be fairly straightforward to explain. Of course, the simple explanation is that the CG causes you to slow down, but the question is why? What is the homeostatic parameter that is being protected?

"I think every runner has experienced slowing down during a race. The relevent question that CG poses is, does this happen before, or after some physiological failure?"

Hopefully, or they've never run at their limit, but if you are slowing down when you want to run faster, there is something causing you to slow down,... that's fatigue. What is the "something"? It's a very relevant question.

Steve

Well, it's germain to the debate, and may or not be to practice. If the proponent of a particular model can explain it under "extreme" circumstances, then it should easily hold for less extreme cases. I don't believe Dr. Noakes has argued that it doesn't hold for extreme cases, and if in fact, he has used extreme examples such as physiological responses to high altitude to support his argument. So, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Steve

I wasn't arguing Noakes words, but your words. You said "the CG guarantees" and "impossible not to finish", and "reasonable example". Noakes says the CG calculates a pace that is appropriate. But the CG isn't there to guarantee you'll finish races, it's there to defend the body from harm. "bodies able to deliver" is an important pre-requisite. If you run the first 10K at 10K pace, then what is your body able to deliver with respect to the remaining 32.2K? Perhaps every athlete can always finish by walking, but is that distinction really relevant?I think your litmus test is too basic.

I have a theory too wrote:

You can interpret what Dr. Noakes said in any way you want. I posted what he said, and you can argue that 'force' doesn't really mean 'force' at all.

"Timothy Noakes wrote: But what clever athletes do is that they run at the pace that the CG has calculated is appropriate for the full 42km not for the first 10 or 20 or 30 or even 41 km because if the pacing strategy does not exactly match the optimum pace that their bodies are able to deliver, the CG will come into play sometime along the route and force them to slow down and so adopt the pace that it has calculated is appropriate"

Do you consider that focus on those physiological factors, such as heart, muscles, lungs (perhaps) and the metabolism (amongst some others) is less important than the CG?

OK OK -- you and Theory win.I guess I forgot there's no such thing as a dumb question.

Steve McGregor wrote:

Well, it's germain to the debate, and may or not be to practice. If the proponent of a particular model can explain it under "extreme" circumstances, then it should easily hold for less extreme cases. I don't believe Dr. Noakes has argued that it doesn't hold for extreme cases, and if in fact, he has used extreme examples such as physiological responses to high altitude to support his argument. So, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Steve

I take it you're being faecicious (sp?). Seriously, this really is a "practical" question from an Ex Phys, or performance in general, standpoint. Look at my response to SIM and you'll see I reference cycling. You could even go farther though, and look at dynamic, non-endurance sports such as soccer (football). You are thinking in terms of "constant" efforts in running, but in broader terms, Dr. Noakes proposes the CGM as a catch all fatigue mechanism. There are plenty of other examples of non-evenly paced efforts where fatigue plays a role, and the question is, how does the CGM fit in?

I'm really not trying to "win" anything, at least not on this forum;), but exploring these concepts since "the inventor" is here to converse with. I was perfectly willing to let it go, but Noakes encouraged Spaniel to remain engaged, so, I'm taking that as an open invitation and taking advantage of the opportunity while it exists.

Anyway, I, personally, am thinking in terms bigger than running, although running is the common frame of reference for most of this discussion.

Steve

BTW, I will take the win though.

Steve

I have a theory too wrote:

Do you consider that focus on those physiological factors, such as heart, muscles, lungs (perhaps) and the metabolism (amongst some others) is less important than the CG?

Actually, no need to answer that.

I'm going to back out for a while, I'm being hoggish here. Caught up too much in opportunity.

Thank you for the input, Dr. Noakes.

Hello Steve,No, that was genuine, but I don't know the right emoticon for that. :-O (Maybe your tongue in cheek sensor is turned too high now). So very few people change their minds here about anything, it must be unusual to see it.I did read your response to sim, your example of cycling, as well as your insistence that the question was germain to the debate, and you convinced me that the answer might be worth hearing after all - at least to confirm if my thinking is correct.Regards,

Steve McGregor wrote:

I take it you're being faecicious (sp?).

Steve

Hi Tim

i thought a bit about this statement of yours

"If the CG is correct, it may be that novel techniques in which the coach's feedback to the athlete is "filtered" might be helpful."

and whilst i don't know if the CG is correct but i feel this is where all of the hidden knowledge is. In the interactions between the coach and athlete. I believe in this wholeheartedly because i was the recipient of such information. For example: i missed a few sessions early on with my training and when i came back to train one time he said 'hello stranger' and as i looked at him quisically, he continued with 'training is like building a wall. The more bricks you miss the more likely it will all come crumbling down.' This is one example of broader training concepts yet there were also a myriad of technical concepts as well. Within all of this communication was the combined knowledge of one man and his experiences. An analysis of this man would yield an enormous amount of information i am sure.

Difficult to analyse scientifically though with the current terminology and concepts available. Possibly this is where the Central Governor, as it becomes better defined, can start it's work?

Further on you talked about Stampfl and self belief so i thought i would share some stuff about Percy Cerutty. I am lucky enough to have a questionnaire and a handwritten letter from Albie Thomas(former 4x1mile, 2mile, 3mile world record holder) who was one of Percy's protege's. I will also share a few things from Herb Elliot on the same man. Next post!

Questionnaire filled out by Albie Thomas in 1994 - selected questions.

-greatest influence on your career?

Albie: Initially i got the 'big kick' from Percy Cerutty a real motivator.

-career highlight?

Albie: My world Records and my first time under 4 minutes for 1 mile, and then lowering John Landy's 1 Mile record (John was held in such high esteem and his record had withstood many attacks - it was a tough one.)

-What was your bread and butter (most valuable) Winter session?

Albie: A good solid run covering up to 10 mile where i worked hard for most of the run. Some run on footpath and some run on grass.

-Did you do any strength/weight training? If so what was it?

Albie: YES. 1. Running over sandhills and doing reps up large sandhills, 2. weights - had a set in the backyard - deadlifts, press, rowing, curls, bent over rowing and did the sets reasonably quick pace. Also some Winter's i did the odd session in a gym (but as a young guy with young family paying off house not much spare cash for gyms.)

-What advice would you give today's athletes?

Albie: There is no easy path to success nor a secret training recipe. It takes hard work, patience, a schedule to suit the person and a good coach/friend as a counsel, working towards goals. Cerutty said "Hard things take time, the impossible a little longer."

And from the personal letter

"Percy was a fantastic character and he was ahead of his time, he wanted to do things that are just being done now. I remember him saying 'give an athlete a quid and watch the times improve' - this is what happens now - you get paid on results. Some people thought him eccentric but he was far from it, in fact he was predicting things to come - his breakfast cereals were the forerunner of todays high tech commercial blends. Look at weights, people thought he was crazy to use weights but we did - now it is an essential part of conditioning. Running up sandhills - people told me i was crazy and would get muscle bound or whatever. But it taught you to work hard, put on pressure and take the pain - he was right."

cheers, Elliot's view on Percy next.

From an interview with Herb Elliot.

If you are looking for mind-altering affects that are coach related instead of drug related then read on:

foreword:

At the 1960 Rome Olympic Games, HERB ELLIOTT won the 1500 metres race by the largest margin that had been recorded in Olympic history. Elliott's coach was the eccentric, irascible PERCY CERUTTY, and over the six years that Cerutty trained Elliott, from 1956 to 1962, Elliott was the undefeated champion of both the 1500 metres and the mile running events. Postal worker turned athletics guru, Cerutty revolutionised running training in Australia - most famously by making his athletes run up and down sand dunes. Cerutty was also a health-food nut, he developed a philosophy he called "stotanism", and he was notoriously outspoken. Cerutty's most famous protege, Herb Elliott, remembers his controversial, charismatic coach.

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

Amanda Smith: So how did Percy Cerutty develop his ideas about running? And what was it like to be coached by him? Herb Elliott recalls their first meeting in 1955, when Herb was a schoolboy at Aquinas College in Perth.

Herb Elliott: I'm not quite sure how it happened, but he turned up one day from the Eastern States, (one of the Wise Men from the East, we used to call them then) to the school, and I remember he had this magnificent body for a 60-year-old man; he had a pair of white shorts on, bare feet and no top on, just the shorts. And he talked to us about flying. I remember he was running around flapping his arms, and if he'd taken off I would have been very impressed, but my first impression was he was sort of interesting, but a bit of an old fool.

And then my father invited him out to our home the following weekend, and I remember Mum went to great effort to make sure the food looked very healthy, and we had a conversation with Percy that probably lasted two or three hours. And that was probably the start, that probably sowed the seed that ultimately sort of started to strike towards the surface to think about devoting a bit of my life to becoming a good athlete. It was a very, very inspiring, thought-provoking meeting.

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

Amanda Smith: Well I guess the decisive meeting or moment for you though was during the 1956 Olympics when you came to Melbourne with your family. You saw the great Soviet runner, Vladimir Kuts win the 5,000 and 10,000 metres races. Can you tell me about that experience and what that led to for you?

Herb Elliott: Yes. My father decided to come across and have a look at the Olympics, for which I am eternally grateful. And the way in which Vladimir Kuts, he was a stocky, nuggety little figure, he looked more like a weightlifter than a runner, and his arch opponent was Gordon Pirie who had the classical build of an athlete, 6-foot-2, barrel chested, slim legs, all that stuff, and this guy just absolutely ground Pirie into the dirt. I've never seen anything quite so remorseless, or quite so unstoppable as that. And it inspired me, all the nasty bits, and I thought 'Oh, I wouldn't mind doing that to somebody', so that was probably, I guess any of our major decisions in life very rarely happen with a flash of lightning out of the sky, they build up and you can't actually see where it's going to until you get there. But I guess there were lots of things happening, including that, which eventually made me go back to my parents and say, 'Look, I don't want to come home, I want to stay here in Melbourne with Percy', and that was quite a lot for my mother to deal with at the time. But anyway, they agreed, and from that time on I became one of his protégé.

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

Amanda Smith: So you were 18 years old at that time, Herb; what was it about Percy Cerutty that appealed to you?

Herb Elliott: I guess there are a number of things. I mean, he had the magnificent ability which very few people have got, some of the great speakers in history I guess, Winston Churchill had it, I guess King had it, I guess maybe to some extent, JFK. He just had the ability to transfix you with words, and lift you 20 feet into the air. I mean he had a wonderful eloquence, an inspiring eloquence about him. But I don't think that was what appealed to me so much as he seemed to be more interested in using your sport to develop you into a better human being, than he did in using your sport to become a world champion. I mean he somehow or other put your sport into a much larger context than just running around in circles faster than anybody else.

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

Amanda Smith: And this appealed to you as an 18-year-old?

Herb Elliott: Yes I mean I was brought up a Catholic, led to believe you're a breathing sinning machine of course, and to have somebody start talking to you about improving yourself, I mean I guess we all probably thought that we could be better people than we were. And he showed me a way that I could be a better person, which was to use the skill that I had which was running, and provided that, and this is where I asked him the question. I said, 'Well how do I become a better person by running round in circles?' And he said, 'You only ever grow as a human being if you're outside your comfort zone.' And so I guess I went into all of my training and my approach to training was that you've got to be outside your comfort zone, so I was an intense, high quality trainer, and there was a lot of pain in my training sessions as a consequence of that. But I think it was one of the reasons why I just never got beaten, because every training session, four out of six, were nominated as quality, and I was used to sort of doing the hard yards at quality.

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

Amanda Smith: Well at that time, were either you or your parents aware that Percy Cerutty was regarded by some as a bit of a 'fruit loop'?

Herb Elliott: Yes. I don't know, I didn't discuss that with Mum and Dad, I think if they thought he had have been totally or genuinely a fruit loop then they wouldn't have allowed me to stay here in Melbourne, and it was with their blessing that I stayed here in Melbourne. I didn't say, 'Well stuff you, I'm staying', it wasn't one of those sorts of situations. He was eccentric, he was unpredictable, and he was entertaining, had an enormous sense of fun, but he would be very close to probably the most widely read man that I've met, in terms of the breadth of subjects that he read about: spiritual aspects or physical aspects or mental aspects, or art, or science or saints or devils, I mean Percy didn't read books, he studied books. He would often stop when an interesting point was raised, and write a two page essay on that particular point, just so he could think through his own views that had been provoked. So he was a highly, very widely read guy and he had a very sound philosophy behind all the nonsense and the hoo har that was going on. Underneath it all there was a sort of sound philosophy based on 'Let's improve ourselves as human beings, let's become more compassionate, let's become bigger, let's become stronger, let's become nicer people.'

Percy Cerutty: Athletics, I always say, is only a start, but you prove on the track something, beating others and getting somewhere, but you can use as an experience in after life, as I told Elliott, 'Beat them on the track and you'll beat them in business', and he's getting on, see?

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

Amanda Smith: Well part of Cerutty's philosophy was a kind of thing about naturalism, wasn't it, about training outside of the city, about not doing interval training or circuit training.

Herb Elliott: Yes, I mean he was a great believer in yoga, it was one of the many subjects that he discovered, and anybody whose read yoga knows that essentially it's about the battle between the ego and having the ability to be connected with the spirit some way or another. Now I had absoloutely no desire to find God particularly at that stage of my life, but certainly the transferability of that sort of idea into a sporting program, where you have to master all your weaknesses, was one which was enormously appealing.

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

Amanda Smith: Well part of his philosophic creed also was in the term that he coined, 'Stotanism'. Now what did that term mean?

Herb Elliott: He had a great admiration for the Spartans, you know the Grecian army people who I remember even as a kid myself, reading some story, I can't remember whether it was in mythology or some ancient history book anyway, but where a Spartan had stolen a fox and he'd been detected, and rather than get detected and lose face, he hid the fox under his clothing and the fox ate his stomach out and he didn't let out a sound. I mean being able to stand enormous pain without showing it, and of course the other part of the Spartan was the Stoic, and again, the person who basically doesn't show emotion particularly. And he'd put those two together to come up with 'Stote', and so you were supposed to, as the great 'If' poem says from Rudyard Kipling: 'To treat triumph and disaster as the same', and realise there was something bigger behind it all anyway, so it's not worth getting excited about or depressed about. So that was basically what the Stotan stuff was.

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

Amanda Smith: Finally then, you mentioned the word 'genius' earlier. Was Percy Cerutty a genius?

Herb Elliott: Well if you describe a genius as somebody who is able to pluck some concept or some idea which nobody else has been able to grasp, and that works, and that people can see the logic and the sense of it as soon as it is applied and wonder why the hell they didn't think of it themselves, yes, Percy was a genius.

Percy Cerutty: Once you've tried and done your best, you can look back and feel satisfied. I tried a hundred different things, little businesses, all sorts, see? And I don't feel any regrets about anything. I feel that it's far better to know you've tried and perhaps not succeeded than to look back and wonder whether you should have really tried hard.

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

Amanda Smith: Do you think you would have achieved what you did in running, Herb, without Percy Cerutty?

Herb Elliott: I have no doubt that I would not have, no. I think we were a genuine partnership, and there was a synergistic thing. If you add the two parts up together and put them together, it ends up being more than the sum of the two, that's the way we were. So yes, I have no hesitation answering that question; I couldn't have done what I did without Percy.

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

Percy Cerutty: Fail, it's not in my dictionary. I've got a good dictionary up there and the words 'fail' and 'failure' have been ruled out for years. I don't know what people are talking about who use that word. All I do know is temporary non-success, even if I've got to wait another 20 years for what I'm after, and I try to put that into people, no matter what their object in life.

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

This is what a coach can do. It's quite a large role!

Wow, I'll take that win. Yes, you're right though the typical entrenchment mentality threw me off. The sensor sure is sloppy though,... not sensitive enough... too sensitive...

Steve

Great posts about Elliot and Thomas. I agree that the mental side (not necessarily the CG) plays a huge part in success or failure. Imagine, before Bannister there was some serious debate about whether it was physically possible to run 4:00. No wonder it was such a barrier.I think this transfers over to Africans. When a good young talent comes along, at some point in time he asks his coach or mentor,"what is a good time for me to aim at?" In North America,we would answer "13:59" (5k-18 yr old) In Africa, the answer would be no slower than 13:20 and might even be 13:00. Thus the kid has a preset expectation, and will not be afraid to run at that pace. Obviously there are more variables than that, but that is certainly an important element.

I actually lived that scenario out myself. When I was a 5:00 miler in 9th grade, I asked the coach what I needed to get a good scholarship. He said 4:20. I ran 4:15. it would have been interesting if he had said 4:08!