Is Noakes wrong?

I'm going to apologize in advance if someone has eluded to this already...I couldn't make it through the whole thread thus far without feeling the need to post my thoughts.

My thoughts are this: If the Central Govenor model correct, as Noakes would choose to believe, then how can he explain fatigue seen in in-situ isolated muscle fibres (single fibres, bundles or skinned fibres) where there is NO central fatigue possible?

By isolating these fibre bundles and stimulating the inervating nerve, fatigue is still seen, irregardless of pH, Temperature, etc. of the bath solution and CNS input. There is still a decrease in the twitch force.

My thoughts on the main cause of fatigue in this type of set-up is calcium availability in the t-tubules of the SR.

fletch wrote: ...eluded ... irregardless

alluded, regardless

You're welcome! Have a nice day.

fletch wrote:

I'm going to apologize in advance if someone has eluded to this already...I couldn't make it through the whole thread thus far without feeling the need to post my thoughts.

My thoughts are this: If the Central Govenor model correct, as Noakes would choose to believe, then how can he explain fatigue seen in in-situ isolated muscle fibres (single fibres, bundles or skinned fibres) where there is NO central fatigue possible?

By isolating these fibre bundles and stimulating the inervating nerve, fatigue is still seen, irregardless of pH, Temperature, etc. of the bath solution and CNS input. There is still a decrease in the twitch force.

My thoughts on the main cause of fatigue in this type of set-up is calcium availability in the t-tubules of the SR.

As Noakes explained, we use different fibres at different times, circulating the effort between fibre types during the excercise.

You may have actually alluded to something that supports Noakes Central Governor model rather than refutes it.

I can see why you are only an average joe, Average_Joe.

You might possibly consider starting some races faster and also practising surges during a race. Maybe even do some faster paced training now and then.

You never know, you might actually learn something new about your body and how it works.

Scientician wrote:

I can see why you are only an average joe, Average_Joe.

You might possibly consider starting some races faster and also practising surges during a race. Maybe even do some faster paced training now and then.

I'd love to but my Central Governor is prohibiting me of course. Didn't you read Noakes?

[quote]a vote against noakes wrote:

1: J Appl Physiol. 2007 Feb;102(2):781-6. Epub 2006 Oct 26.Click here to read Links

Maximal oxygen uptake is not limited by a central nervous system governor.

* Brink-Elfegoun T,

* Kaijser L,

* Gustafsson T,

* Ekblom B.

Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.[quote]

This paper pretty much kills the entire idea that the maximal oxygen uptake is limited by a central governor. As for performance, that's something else as pain is the final factor determining when you stop no matter how motivated you are. It still surprises me that Noakes still haven't supported his theory with a single experiment.

With regards to Noake's point at the end regarding the final sprint: no matter what the distance is a person may have some ability to sprint near the end of a race. Anecdotally, last weekend I ran a half marathon, within sight of the finish I lit up a final sprint that almost had me vomiting. Now, I sprinted near the end because I was conciously aware that the race was about 10-20 seconds from completion, and such a move would have no negative ramification on my race.

Had someone told me to sprint 10k into the race, I certainly could have, but would not due to the knowledge that such an effort would have a negative impact on my race. Had they however told me to sprint at 10k and that I only had 100 meters left, and I believed them, I would have been able to sprint just as I had 11 kilometers later.

The poster who states that we start out at certain pace is dead on. How many times have you seen people get excited and run too fast too early in the marathon? I wouldn't think basic excitement would be able to overwhelm the all superior central governor. Only after crashing and burning do people learn conciously the impact of going out too hard and dying. Then they make a concious effort to correct their actions in the future.

Ottr and others, Noakes is just putting out a scientific theory. It is just that a theory. I can't recall the study off the top of my head, but it was shown that a percentage of marathon finishers upon completing the event actualy did have heart damage during the event. That alone pokes a big hole in the central gov theory. Sure the body lets off warning signs and the brain may react to these warning signs. However that will very greatly among people. Everyone has a different pain threshold. just ask alberto salazar. If that guy has a central gov, it is set well beyond death.

ad hominum argument, i know. But regardless, his conclusions are ridiculous. I was particularly fond of his idea that women are slower than men for the simple reason that they have "less powerful muscles". As someone who has spent many hours reading and evaluating ex. phys. studies I can't get through much of "Lore" without shouting profanities and wanting to punch my own head in. There is a reason that he publishes these theories in a book - because anyone can have a book published, even if it's nonsense. His work is majorly flawed, and his ideas more so.

sorry to rant.

Jason Holroyd wrote:

Ottr and others, Noakes is just putting out a scientific theory. It is just that a theory. I can't recall the study off the top of my head, but it was shown that a percentage of marathon finishers upon completing the event actualy did have heart damage during the event. That alone pokes a big hole in the central gov theory. Sure the body lets off warning signs and the brain may react to these warning signs. However that will very greatly among people. Everyone has a different pain threshold. just ask alberto salazar. If that guy has a central gov, it is set well beyond death.

There are indications of enzyme activity that is associated with heart "damage" and the study from Boston a few years ago also showed that the "damage" was pretty transient.

I would also say that "theory" is a strong word; to me it is more of a "hypothesis".

As a famous cardiologist once responded when asked about Noakes' Central Governor the good doctor noted that if the theory were true then people who had already suffered a MI would not be able to exercise. Their hearts are already damaged!

It is fun to watch Noakes' band of sycophants (some of whom are friends of mine) at a professional conference shout down "dissenters". Makes me think of the global warming crowd screaming "The debate is over."

It is not muscle fibers that are the issue in kids (depending on what age). Some of it is thermoregulation. Kids do not deal with heat as well as adults for reasons ranging from fewer sweat glands to body mass:body surface ratios. Another factor is that kids do not have a lot of an enzyme critical to aerobic/oxidative pathways. Basically they become "anaerobic" quicker than adults. (The answer to the question "What enzyme"? is phosphofructosekinase or PFK)>

"and should atheletes train any differently because of his theory? not really"

This is the only important thing said in this whole thread. Who cares if the chicken or the egg comes first as long as it gets across the street right?

Alan

Noakes's theory would suggest emphasizing race-pace or faster intervals: they teach the central governor that running at a given pace will not cause heart damage.

I'm not sure how an in-situ set-up with no central innervation supports the central governor model. Could you explain?

luv2run wrote:

As a famous cardiologist once responded when asked about Noakes' Central Governor the good doctor noted that if the theory were true then people who had already suffered a MI would not be able to exercise. Their hearts are already damaged!

don't disagree with you overall, but I'm not sure I follow you here.

My two cents:

oxygen debt in you legs does not mean oxygen debt in you chest. the limiting factor is not the prescence of oxygen in the blood as Noakes indicates but rather the ability for the body to get oxygen from the blood to the specific individual muscle fibers quickly enough. (this is why your entire body doesnt equivalently as fast when you are running/riding a bike etc.) Your body has trouble getting the waste product out and the oxygen in quickly enough to meet the demand. So i disagree with the theory because your heart could probably continue beating at max rate for far far longer than you could ever make it beat because it is much more efficient (obviously) than your legs.

While we're on Noakes... what do people think of his controversial thoughts that the dangers of dehydration are overstated... I forget the precise argumentation, but it's something along the lines of "a significant proportion of the weight loss observed during exercise is not a result in dehydration, as its glycogen and water associated with it's storage". Doesn't this conflict with a wide number of studies that show that performance deteriorates pretty rapidly with exercise-enduced dehydration/weightloss (at the 2% of bodyweight level)?

Last night I went to a lecture at Harvard by Jenkins on the Tiktaalik. That's the name he gave to a fossil fish that had arm and leg type structures 375 million years ago. There's a lot in a name.

Central Governor is a boring name. I think about evolutionary biology in order to explain running. So to mitigate between my friends Joe and Tim let me tell you how I explain fatigue to the athletes I coach.

Our ancestors, human and before, had to move to live. But those who moved too hard and destroyed their bodies in the process to either get food or escape from being food or get a mate, died without reproducing. Just like appetite, if any ancestors had an appetite set lower than the amount of food necessary to survive, they would die before they could reproduce. Gone.

I imagine the survivors, us, have have a dialog in our bodies,like one between the bridge of the Starship and the engine room that says, "Yo, if you keep running after that food you will wreck, wreck the main thrusters and we will be dead in space." Then the engine room lies and says there is no more power. (on steamships you can only throw the decking into the furnace for just so long before the crew has no where to stand.)

So you conclude the food is not worth it. You live for another day.

Or if being chased the dialog goes, "You fool,you are gonna die if you keep running, so stop, stand and fight and you might have a chance! We'll load the photon torpedoes."

The same dialog occurs if you are fighting a co-specific or showing off to get a mate. There is no reproductive future in dying for love, lunch, or during escape.

We descended from such decisions.

But there is great value in getting closer to the edge than the other guy. Those who get closest to the edge more often win.

We run to eat, fight, or f*** and live to do it another day.

Those are much more interesting things to do than listen to some central governor drone on about heart rates, ions, and acids.

Tom

Actually, Derderian just summarized Noakes' central governor/teloanticipation/complex systems integration hypothesis. Obviously no one else on this board has comprehensively read all of the papers on this hypothesis. It comes down to the central nervous system that limits you from pushing over the edge, but this can be overcome (sprinting at the end of a race). However, peripheral fatigue (T-tubule, ions, pH, lacitc acid, calcium, etc.) cannot be overcome without rest. There is no denying that each system has a failure point, but it's not good to reach that point and the brain tries to prevent you from doing so. Do you continuously slow during a 10K (peripheral fatigue theory) or do you run approximately even splits until the last 1k when you speed up and then sprint at the end?