Is Noakes wrong?

No doubt that "otter" is yet another screen name for the430miler.

Hey quit being such a boob. If you don't know what he's talking about, then shut up. Read Lore of Running, get a clue, and then come back and post something worth reading.

otter wrote:

What Noakes has said is that the central governor keeps us from ever going anaerobic.

Noakes basic argument is that that the central governor keeps us from going anaerobic enough to damage the heart. We still go anaerobic but it is not that fact alone that slows us down; if that were true your heart would be damaged as much as your muscles.

As for that whole theory, try re-reading the chapter but insert "normal human response to pain" wherever you see the words "central governor" and see if it still makes sense.

Pamela Anderson's Left Nipple wrote:

No doubt that "otter" is yet another screen name for the430miler.

This is why I don't post much. There is always one poster who is willing to break up a potentially decent discussion. At least "the430miler" has something to say when he posts.

3000m douche wrote:

otter wrote:

What Noakes has said is that the central governor keeps us from ever going anaerobic.

Noakes basic argument is that that the central governor keeps us from going anaerobic enough to damage the heart. We still go anaerobic but it is not that fact alone that slows us down; if that were true your heart would be damaged as much as your muscles.

As for that whole theory, try re-reading the chapter but insert "normal human response to pain" wherever you see the words "central governor" and see if it still makes sense.

Thanks, I'll look it over again.

otter wrote:

This is why I don't post much. There is always one poster who is willing to break up a potentially decent discussion.[quote]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaah! You've posted twice too many times today.

[quote]At least "the430miler" has something to say when he posts.

Now, they say, the proof is in the pudding. Get ready for school and give us a few hours rest of your idiot posts.

im playing hookey today.

otter is NOT me. ive been posting for like 2 or 3 years.

otter has posted for like 4 or 5.

the430miler wrote:

ive been posting for like 2 or 3 years.

Don't play hookey today. Go to school. Learn to count. You've only been annoying the letsrun faithful since 2006.

What is it that is annoying you about the topic? It's nice of you to keep bumping my topic at the top of the page. See, even you have a purpose.

otter wrote:

What is it that is annoying you about the topic?

Your topic is annoying. It's obvious that the scientific theories will vary, and no consensus will be had. So explain to me what use is it for untrained laymen to join in and state their unscientific theories? Do you honestly believe that rest of us boobs on letsrun have some hard, scientific facts we are just dying to reveal here on a message board?

There are quite a few people on this board that have degrees in physiology. There are also a lot of coaches that look in on this board who have the intelligence and knowledge to weigh in on a topic like this.

There are also places that people like you can post like the hotness thread or stupid things that guys / girls say. Something for everyone.

This topic is not too complicated. I would assume that there are quite a few people on this board who would have an opinion about this but they are all probably working right now which is where I'm headed.

otter wrote:I would assume that there are quite a few people on this board who would have an opinion about this but they are all probably working right now which is where I'm headed.

Then I'll bump you one last time. Have a good time at work!

When the most recent version of Lore of Running came out 4 or 5 years ago, I bought it and read it cover to cover. At first I was tremendously impressed. How could you not be? Then we hit the "Central Governor" theory. Right off the bat it seemed like more self-promotion than a truly valid alternative. Then he got on to other topics and the book picked up again.

I think it is the one downside to an otherwise excellent book. It is his pet theory and he pushes it much too far.

He postulates its existence out of thin air. Almost like Anselm's ontological argument. It must exist because I can't think of an alternative explanation. Yet...

He can't really describe *what* it is.

He doesn't know how it works

He doesn't know where it is located

But he then goes on to devote page after page describing how it is likely responsible for the various effects we see in training and racing. The pages are full of "perhaps"-es and "it could be"-s. I remember shaking my head even as I was reading it. I think he starts with a conclusion and then tries to fit the facts to it. I'm no exercise physiologist but if I were I would be embarassed to attribute so much to a theory with so little behind it.

This topic comes up quite often, at least on other message boards. Apparently there are quite a few in the EP community (who really DO have the proper training) who likewise consider his theory something of a joke given the lack of evidence to support it.

He might know.

Even if he does though, I am sure I won't understand!

I have to say that from my reading of the book, he spent a little too much time trying to be controversial, and critising others based on misleading statements of their positions.

Oh, yawn.

Yaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnn!

Nobody should put a hypothesis before the public until it's been proven by dozens of studies, is intimately understood, and the cause and effect are well-correlated with the physiology?

That rules out a hell of a lot. I guess we really won't be discussing much at all then. Certainly nothing that touches on psychology, on consciousness. Or maybe you can tell me where consciousness is located, how it works, and describe *what* it is?

Hell, per an earlier chapter, we don't really even know (at least, didn't at the time, if the presentation is to be trusted) some of the nuts and bolts of how muscle fibers generate force. I recall at least a couple competing theories. And that's way more of a simple physical nuts & bolts proposition than anything involving the brain/mind.

Me, I'm a layman like you. That said I am convinced that ye olde cardio/aerobic model, though it has plenty of merit and has stood some time-testing, doesn't come very close to explaining everything.

And given that, I'm grateful that Noakes offers some alternatives/enhancements including his C.G. - which is plainly not offered here as a complete theory of everything with all the wrinkles ironed out.

If you wanna argue it's overemphasized for your tastes, OK, I can recognize that as a reasonable opinion. But still it's his book, and if he wants to use like one percent of it to air some ideas toward a more comprehensive model, that just doesn't strike me as so terribly offensive.

What a surprise: much of the established community clings to the old theory and is suspicious of the new! Oh boy, whenever that happens it's damn near ironclad proof that the heretics, the blasphemers... um, excuse me, I got carried away there. But you get the idea. ;-)

Thanks. I thought I was the only one who thought his argument was questionable.

Pamela Anderson's Left Nipple wrote:

[quote]otter wrote:

boobs

pam anderson's nipple said "boobs."

Noakes has postulated that previous research rarely shows a true VO2 max, rarely is there an actual plateau in O2 consumption during testing. This is true, but the majority of the data collected and reported has been on average trained subjects. His argument is that if we truly reached a maximum cardiac output and VO2 max, all blood flow must go through the heart before being delivered to the tissues, the coronary arteries must be supplied with enough O2 to continue pumping sufficient amount to the rest of the body. The hypothesis is that if we truly reach a max cardiac output then pectoris angina would occur as the muscles begin to work anaerobicaly. This is an interesting idea, but there is no data to support this hypothesis. We know that there are both central neural and humoral factors, and local factors within the muscle that regulate blood flow throughout the body, these regulators may increase or decrease O2 extraction at the active tissues in skeletal muscle, but not at the expense of the brain or the heart.