Is "Physiological Zones" Training Outdated?

wellnow

i see you arent able to answer the obvious. The obvious is we do a limited body in weight tall and everything else. Our cells, tissues, organs and all skeleton or body systems consequently are finite, not infinite. Our improvement in the ability to hold a long fast stride and develop it more and more, its finite and limited, confined to our material space and no training can enhance it at all.

As we don´t do a infinite VO2max or a unlimited VO2max no human does unlimited long fast stride. No training can enhance the stride or biomechanics efficiency quite continously. The limit of that improvement it´s the human format not the age. No training can go behind that limit.

Consequently the efficient stride and it infinite improve is a dogma as the infinite aerobic improve.

You try to blow up one dogma training, the aerobic dogma, but you build up another training dogma.

In the material world, nothing is infinite, everything is finite. You move to one dogma to another.

Antonio, we don't know the limit of stride efficiency and we never will. Records are there to be broken. Many years from now, runners with the same talent as today's fastest runners will be much faster.

wellnow wrote:

Antonio, we don't know the limit of stride efficiency and we never will. Records are there to be broken. Many years from now, runners with the same talent as today's fastest runners will be much faster...

...because they will have improved aerobic and anaerobic capacities/efficiencies to go with their improved cns contributions. Oh, and the peds will be better. :)

Other posters won't know you're trying to be funny. But anyways, they won't have higher aerobic/anaerobic capacities/efficiencies and they won't need drugs to run much faster, or even much much faster, or even faster than that. Or even recruit much higher percentages of muscle fibers.

wellnow wrote:

Other posters won't know you're trying to be funny.

Sure they will. I put a little smiley at the end of the last sentence. See?

Oh and you're wrong about the other stuff. How else would they get faster?

Aerobic/anaerobic development is limited and easy to maximize in a very short time. But neuromuscular coordination can be improved much more. We don't know how much, and in my lifetime we won't find out even if I live another 60 years.

wellnow wrote:

Aerobic/anaerobic development is limited and easy to maximize in a very short time. But neuromuscular coordination can be improved much more. We don't know how much, and in my lifetime we won't find out even if I live another 60 years.

What you seem to be proposing is that we simply 'learn' to run faster by taking longer and faster strides. How is this possible without additional physiological adaptation? I dont see how this is achievable without some kind of increase in the ability to 'fuel' the aditional work. To produce a longer stride you need to produce more force (meaning you have a higher energy requirement). Where does this energy come from if you havent somehow also increased your ability to generate it?

Perhaps you could improve your running mechanics in some way to make better use of the stretch shortening cycle? (I recall reading somewhere that the maximum achievable human running speed would only be in the region of 4 mps if we were unable to utilise this). However, I dont see how this could be improved much more than other qualities. Please tell us WHY you consider there to be so much more potential for improvement in the technique area than in the physiological area. I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts.

How do you explain the continual improvement in the WR's in weight / power lifting? Are you suggesting this is also a neuromuscular coordination phenomenon. If so why is the use of PED's (which alter physiological variables) so rampant (and also in endurance sports if we are to believe all we read on this forum). It cant just be all in the head as enough double blind pacebo studies have shown that the effects of PEDs are real.

As a previous poster has alluded to, ultimately all our qualities are limited to some extent. There is probably some kind of ceiling level of physiological adaptation or skill development that we just cant exceed withut doing so much training that we become injured or overtrained.

I think there is one further avenue that is well worth investigating, and this is the role of the brain. If you do a 10km at maximal effort then you only use a small fraction of the muscle fibres in your active muscle (lets say 20%). The rest is just along for the ride. Now if you could somehow acces that additional 80% then you would surely go faster. However, you dont want to 'overdo' it or you risk permanently damaging your body. So effectively you need to be able to utilise as much as your available muscle mass as possible without killing yourself. This could include any training designed to train a wide spectrum of muscle fibres as possible and also the ability to recruit them when fatigued, but may also include mental approaches that allow this maximal utilisation to occur. I think a number of different training systems can all achieve these physiological goals. I dont claim to know exactly what the best mental approach is, but I found it interesting that someone summarised one of my previous posts as 'mind over matter'. I would consider this could be improved if it was summarised as 'matter over mind'. We all have the physiological capabilities to do extraordinaril impressive things, but we need to access this ability if it is to be of any use to us. I'm starting to believe that a lot of our thought processes actually serve to prevent us achieving what we are capable of. If we could just empty our heads of conscious processes and let the muscles run themselves we would all do much better (this is not much different to the old idea of achieving a 'flow state').

okobe wrote:

Why is it fundamental? How will it inform the actual training to call it neuromuscular adaptation as opposed to aerobic/anaerobic?

wellnow wrote:

Neuromuscular adaption in running is an improvement in running skill. A well trained runner will not improve aerobic and anaerobic development, but improvements in the ability to hold a long fast stride can be developed more and more.

Most of us here can do a long slow stride, and a short fast stride, if you can put the two together for any race distance, you will be a phenomenally fast runner. With this in mind, you can have a greater purpose to your training.

You didn't answer the question. How will this alter training?

wellnow wrote:

Continued improved performance in elite runners comes from improvements in biomechanical efficiency. You get a faster pace for your lactate production because you have a more efficient stride or better endurance or both.

Better endurance? That's about as meaningful as saying "better speed". The endurance comes from the physiological changes you deny happen.

"We don't 'tolerate' lactate, we use it as a fuel"

We do both. But we can only use it as fuel, at least at a rate enough to clear, it when the energy demand (i.e. effort and pace) goes down and the available oxygen supply goes up.

AJR wrote:

What you seem to be proposing is that we simply 'learn' to run faster by taking longer and faster strides. How is this possible without additional physiological adaptation? I dont see how this is achievable without some kind of increase in the ability to 'fuel' the aditional work. To produce a longer stride you need to produce more force (meaning you have a higher energy requirement). Where does this energy come from if you havent somehow also increased your ability to generate it?

The improvements in stride efficiency and power come from improvements in the coordination of increased muscle tension and relaxation, so we produce more ground reaction force but with less muscle tension during the swing phase.

So we use less fuel for a given pace.

Added to this, we can always improve endurance by learning to concentrate for longer periods of time. When we start to lose this concentration our stride becomes less accurate, less efficient and we start to waste energy.

I don't completely agree with Noakes' assertion that more muscle fibers have to be recruited to run faster. A skilled runner gets more power from the motor units they recruit than a less skilled runner. However I agree that the shorter the race, the more fibers will be recruited.

In weightlifting, technique is hugely important (isnt' this true in every sport?) the lifter learns to use the elastic potential of muscle and tendon to gain as much stretch/shortening as possible with the best timing they can so that their whole body becomes one mass of springs, bouncing the weight as well as pulling the weight upwards.

In any sport the competitor needs to be able to summon their ideal state of arousal without undue performance anxiety or lack of commitment. This requires a combination of practice plus self expression to the point where the more important the competition, the more the competitor has to show off their willpower and star persona. They have to enjoy the attention and this takes a certain type of personality.

There is nothing radical here. All of the ideas above have been around for a very long time. It just seems radical on letsrun, because of the way that most distance running authors in recent decades have focused on metabolism and mostly ignored neuroscience.

okobe wrote:

okobe wrote:

Why is it fundamental? How will it inform the actual training to call it neuromuscular adaptation as opposed to aerobic/anaerobic?

wellnow wrote:

Neuromuscular adaption in running is an improvement in running skill. A well trained runner will not improve aerobic and anaerobic development, but improvements in the ability to hold a long fast stride can be developed more and more.

Most of us here can do a long slow stride, and a short fast stride, if you can put the two together for any race distance, you will be a phenomenally fast runner. With this in mind, you can have a greater purpose to your training.

You didn't answer the question. How will this alter training?

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

I wish I could explain how some days I can get it right, like the time I went to the track to run 6 x 800 with 4 minutes recovery. My first 800 was just three seconds slower than my 800 PR but I was hardly breathing. How does that work? I have noticed this a few times. If I knew how to attain that state of arousal for every race.....

I can get close to it, but convincing other people about these things seems to be a waste of time, who really cares? Do you and if so, how much?

Not correct wrote:

wellnow wrote:

Continued improved performance in elite runners comes from improvements in biomechanical efficiency. You get a faster pace for your lactate production because you have a more efficient stride or better endurance or both.

Better endurance? That's about as meaningful as saying "better speed". The endurance comes from the physiological changes you deny happen.

"We don't 'tolerate' lactate, we use it as a fuel"

We do both. But we can only use it as fuel, at least at a rate enough to clear, it when the energy demand (i.e. effort and pace) goes down and the available oxygen supply goes up.

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

Sorry but you are wrong. Your misunderstaning and misrepresention of the points I am making may make it impossible for this us to debate. You post under the name Not correct, as though you have some superior knowledge of exercize physiology, when obviously you don't. Instead of this approach, you should ask me to explain the points to you. Can you do that?

Skuj wrote:

4 major zones being Aerobic Conditioning, Anaerobic Conditioning, Aerobic Capacity, Anaerobic Capacity.

The Coe/Martin book of the early 90s famously detailed the parameters of these various types of sessions, and gave sample distributions of said sessions over the various cycles (although much debate ensued as to wether Coe himself adhered to these parameters.)

The first two chapters give a very good explanation of much of what I am saying on this thread. Chapters three and four though are full of misconceptions about metabolism. Those misconceptions are more or less in line with what many knowledgeable coaches and experienced runners feel was wrong with coaching methods in the 90's which can be summed up as the "no pain no gain" school of thought. Martin's obsession with the false notion of 'lactic acidosis' and tolerance of acidosis, was misguidied.

wellnow wrote:

Martin's obsession with the false notion of 'lactic acidosis' and tolerance of acidosis, was misguidied.

You do understand that lactic acid disassociation results in hydrogen ions, don't you? How is that misguided?

wondering wrote:

I also asked you to give us a little of your own background; education, degreees, competetive and coaching resume, etc. Since Martin and Coe included their histories in the book, it would help us to be more objective when comparing your assertions to theirs. Thanks!

wellnow wrote:

As for my own history. It's not relevant but, I hate bad science, and I see an awful lot of it from PhD's in exercize physiology. When you consider that I have no qualifications, yet I can see the dreadful incompetence of these guys in providing reliable explanations of aerobic and anaerobic metabolism well, what more can I say?

Thank you for your reply. I must beg to differ, however, regarding the relevance of your history. When you are differing with renowned exercise physiologists like David Martin, one's background in the subject matter is pertinent.

No offense, but since you admit to having "no qualifications" it is hard to take your assertions seriously. Perhaps if you had some formal education in the field or had been a successful coach it would be different. But lacking any such credits, I can give your unproven claims (i.e. dogma) little credence.

wellnow wrote:

I wish I could explain how some days I can get it right, like the time I went to the track to run 6 x 800 with 4 minutes recovery. My first 800 was just three seconds slower than my 800 PR but I was hardly breathing. How does that work? I have noticed this a few times. If I knew how to attain that state of arousal for every race.....

I can get close to it, but convincing other people about these things seems to be a waste of time, who really cares? Do you and if so, how much?

Do I care about getting faster? A lot. That's why I'm looking for the most effective training there is. So when you talk about something called neuromuscular coordination and say it's fundamental, I want to know how that will or should affect my training.

What you have described above is apparently just a story of you having a day where you felt great. And that is great but that doesn't help me much.

If this thing is fundamental, how should people change their training to exploit it? What new training methods should impart to us?

Give me something useful, please.

I'll repeat "glyogenolysis is a precursor to glycolyis."

Glycogenolysis is the BREAKDOWN of glycogen into glucose. It's a standard definition in any textbook. Each glycogen polymer is broken down into 6 glucose monomers. "Because about 1 in 10 residues in branched, glycogen degradation by the phosphorylase alone would come to a halt after the release of 6 glucose molecules per branch." Pg 580, Biochemistry, 5th Ed, Berg, Stryer.

So yes. Glycogen produces 6 much times as ATP as glucose in the long term. But only because glycogenolysis produces 6 glucose molecules to enter glycolysis. The pathways of glycogenolysis and glycolysis are still inextricably linked. Glycogenolysis actually produces 0 ATP. Glyolysis produces 2 ATP. TCA produces 2 ATP. Ox/Phos produces 25-34 ATP depending on membrane leakage and transport costs.

Glycogenolysis --> Glycolysis --> ATP (Either aerobically or anaerobically)

You argue against "pseudo-science" but I can find no evidence for your assertion and the stuff I've posted is straight out of textbooks.

I will say, though, that it has nothing to do with the training assertions you are making. I just wanted you to be held to the same standard you're holding others to. I'm really not trying to attack or anything of the sort.

All the Best.

The world records and the performance results continue to progress for a number of reasons, some are out of the individual physiologic indices of improve or individual enhance abilities.

It can’t be neglect statistics and demographics in the world record progressions. As the time goes by more and more human beings are living the same period of time and more individuals come to the sport activity. The simple fact that more individuals get engaged in the athletics and distance running in this particular case we discuss tends to an high percent of performance enhance. Some other reasons are out of the physiologic parameters. The number and the frequency of competition participation at world top level, in what the money prize and the professionalism are consequences and contribute to the distance run records progression indeed.

Another kind of reasons out of physiologic enhance done by training are from best equipments, best training facilities, best equipment, best athletes paraphernalia – from best shoes to best tracks, or weather conditions whatsoever.

However as your proposal, be the performance enhance a consequence improvement stride efficiency and power come from improvements in the coordination of increased muscle tension and relaxation, or improve endurance by learning to concentrate for longer periods of time, all this requires energy spend.

Besides, what Andy-AJR says as a hypothesis of best physiologic capacities by different thought processes it requires more energy spend. To relax or to concentrate, muscle tension, every done by biomechanics or neuromuscular action requires aerobic and anaerobic energy. But it’s you that stress the aerobic energy is very limited.

The neuromuscular model deals with the same conclusion than the cardio-vascular or the aerobic-anaerobic model. It deals about energy consumption and energy spend. The neurons capacity to coordinate our actions and transmit signals between different parts of the body requires energy. The central nervous system and the work of the conscious processes is engaged in what’s the Central Governor theory. It requires brain energy also what is limited indeed, not finite.

The action or movement as is the distance run pace can’t run away from the 2 kind of energy deal. One is the ability to spend more energy for a determined period of time run and the second one it’s energy management – run economy – to spend.

Your suggest of improve in stride efficiency and power come from improvements in the coordination of increased muscle tension and relaxation, to produce more ground reaction force but with less muscle tension during the swing phase and use less fuel for a given pace as a consequence, it´s energy management as the distance run economy deals with aerobic management - less oxygen for the period of time.

I repeat the same my last post because its not complete.

The world records and the performance results continue to progress for a number of reasons, some are out of the individual physiologic indices of improve or individual enhance abilities.

It can’t be neglect statistics and demographics in the world record progressions. As the time goes by more and more human beings are living the same period of time and more individuals come to the sport activity. The simple fact that more individuals get engaged in the athletics and distance running in this particular case we discuss tends to an high percent of performance enhance. Some other reasons are out of the physiologic parameters. The number and the frequency of competition participation at world top level, in what the money prize and the professionalism are consequences and contribute to the distance run records progression indeed.

Another kind of reasons out of physiologic enhance done by training are from best equipments, best training facilities, best equipment, best athletes paraphernalia – from best shoes to best tracks, or weather conditions whatsoever.

However as your proposal, be the performance enhance a consequence improvement stride efficiency and power come from improvements in the coordination of increased muscle tension and relaxation, or improve endurance by learning to concentrate for longer periods of time, all this requires energy spend.

Besides, what Andy-AJR says as a hypothesis of best physiologic capacities by different thought processes it requires more energy spend. To relax or to concentrate, muscle tension, every done by biomechanics or neuromuscular action requires aerobic and anaerobic energy. But it’s you that stress the aerobic energy is very limited.

The neuromuscular model deals with the same conclusion than the cardio-vascular or the aerobic-anaerobic model. It deals about energy consumption and energy spend. The neurons capacity to coordinate our actions and transmit signals between different parts of the body requires energy. The central nervous system and the work of the conscious processes is engaged in what’s the Central Governor theory. It requires brain energy also what is limited indeed, not finite.

The action or movement as is the distance run pace can’t run away from the 2 kind of energy deal. One is the ability to spend more energy for a determined period of time run and the second one it’s energy management – run economy – to spend.

Your suggest of improve in stride efficiency and power come from improvements in the coordination of increased muscle tension and relaxation, to produce more ground reaction force but with less muscle tension during the swing phase and use less fuel for a given pace as a consequence, it´s energy management as the distance run economy deals with aerobic management - less oxygen for the period of time.

Every of this aspects goes to this early thread question the “physiological training zones”. From the kind of ideas that you suggest – less fuel for a given pace – that’s from where it comes the threshold training concept. Less energy spend for a given pace. Do you propose to train the stride efficiency with sub-maximal paces ?

If you don’t then the other main zone is the maximal-pace or supra-maximal pace and in this late training zone the consequence it´s not energy management – less fuel – but more fuel – and you will get the opposite consequence than you pretend.

One or another. Your theory doesn’t go out of the same basic training laws to train every physical ability. Do, repeat, rest, recover, overcompensation, no return all in one spiral of execution. The same single workout training whatever will be may act in multidimensional and multidirectional training zones, the physiologic abilities, the several physiologic models, the various body systems and that same single workout may enhance both the stride efficiency the aerobic system.

Im not against your mind or brain theories to improve the run. Simply its not my business because as you admit the best we can do is speculate. The training method is a complex subject but we cant deny the objective evidence in the matter field.