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

Richard_ wrote:

There is no lactate threshold.

Even if there were one, it would not matter because lactate does not cause fatigue. Lactate is an energy source. Research suggests lactate delays fatigue.

Which brings me back to my original question, WHY am I doing tempo runs to improve my LT if it does not exist?

There is a lactic threshold. Everyone can feel it. One day in the future THEY will have another study and change their minds yet again. Whilst track coaches will just smile at the foolishness and keep on doing their thing.

After reading this whole thread, I have decided to go back to my belief that lactic acid causes fatigue and just leave it at that.

I feel comfortable with that belief, and I understand it.

Yay. Me too. So what if it is actually the H+ ions causing the fatigue (are they even sure it is just that). I'm sure most serious runners know the feeling of pain that comes on. I'm sure they have also known how this improves when they train it. There are specific ways so train it and most good coaches all seem to have a similar approach. The differences arise with the training before and after

6packjack,I thought your question was pretty much answered by page 3. Perhaps the problem lies in what people mean by "exist".As far as I know, the question about "lactate threshold" existence is centered around at least 2 issues:1) Along the energy production continuum, is there a distinct, discrete, identifiable threshold, or do the energy production changes look like a smooth continuous curve?2) If we can identify a measurable inflection point, or whatever, is it the same everyday, or does it suffer daily variations?So if your question is "Why am I doing tempo runs if LT doesn't exist?", there is no right answer, because the question has become wrong, the way you've phrased it.Here are a couple of suggestions:1) Believe in the existence of LT, and believe that tempo runs are for pushing up your LT. Although the reality is a little more complex, this simplified model still brings improvements, and the concept is not wrong. Blood lactate exists, and can be measured, and clearly tempo runs do produce blood lactate related improvements, even if physiologists struggle to agree on the right model or terms to describe the improvement. No one has yet shown that improvements do not occur.2) Adopt a more complex model, where the Lactate Threshold is really not a threshold, and is really not static. But then you need to rephrase your question in the new terms of the new and improved model, not a mixture of two conflicting models. You no longer say your pushing up your LT, but you are improving your lactate tolerance/consumption/conversion, or whatever new terms come with the new model.3) Abandon the quest for physiology knowledge completely and realize that you were never doing tempo runs to improve your LT -- you were doing them to improve your running performance, and tempo runs are proven to work.I said earlier, I'm not convinced athletes or coaches require a deep or even accurate knowledge of physiology, except maybe at the highest levels, where other factors become important too (psychology, motivation, inspiration, race tactics, injury prevention, diet, etc.) Through trial and error, we pretty much know already what kind of training works even if we debate about why it works. Physiologists debate about the exact physiological changes which occur, but there is no doubt that changes do occur with the right training, and performance improves.Regards,

6packjack wrote:

240 posts, 14 pages. And I still do not know if there even is a "lactate threshold."

The Light wrote:

I said earlier, I'm not convinced athletes or coaches require a deep or even accurate knowledge of physiology, except maybe at the highest levels, where other factors become important too (psychology, motivation, inspiration, race tactics, injury prevention, diet, etc.) Through trial and error, we pretty much know already what kind of training works even if we debate about why it works.

I agree. The best coaches have a healthy understanding of work, recovery, and improvement. Having a degree in physiology may clarify a coach's understanding of why what he/she is doing works, but that's about it. I've always hated talking about training on a strictly scientific basis. Limiting the discussion to physiology binds it to the errors and omissions of a scientific discipline. If you don't want to believe in the LT, then don't. Physiologists may have missed a mechanism (or likely mechanisms) for improvement. But that doesn't mean that sustained hard runs don't work. They always have and always will. So if they make you a better runner, keep doing 'em.

The Light, that post makes too much sense. Soon you will be ridiculed.

So good light. I must admit when i learned my physiology 1990 to 1992 i was taught the 'old' version which served me well in my 9 years of high performance training in oz. What i felt in training and racing reflected what i had studied. I am happy to know what has been found slightly differs from what i knew.

The original question is how it affects training. I can't seem to find that anyone addressed that. Everyone is stuck on the science and never adapted it to training.

Slacker wrote:

The original question is how it affects training. I can't seem to find that anyone addressed that. Everyone is stuck on the science and never adapted it to training.

To the best of my knowledge no one has suggested a change in training due to the demise of the lactate threshold theory.

Where this leaves us is here:

1. Tempo training is accepted to be an effective training method.

2. The physiological explanation (lactate threshold) for tempo training is now known to be inaccurate.

3. No new physiological explanation has been offered as a replacement.

4. No changes in tempo training have been suggested.

Slacker wrote:

The original question is how it affects training. I can't seem to find that anyone addressed that.

You could build a "base" from classic tempo runs and then enhance that with even harder runs.

Daniels uses the phrase "quality junk" in his book. By that, he means that any effort beyond what is needed for a specific training effect is wasted and therefore "junk." But if there isn't anything to the lactate threshold theory, then there isn't any high-intensity "junk." A case can be made for running harder than the classic tempo effort--but not necessarily every week or 10 days, since the body probably cannot handle a regimen of continuous runs substantially harder than "threshold."

If "lactate threshold" no longer applies, perhaps one's training should focus on a balance between hard and easy. The classic tempo effort might still be the best intensity for improving fitness while avoiding injury over the long term. But perhaps occasionally pushing yourself even harder than that can serve a purpose. I would only try that after laying a foundation of tempo runs.

Richard_ wrote:

To the best of my knowledge no one has suggested a change in training due to the demise of the lactate threshold theory.

Then what is the point in discussing it over and over and over? Take it to Letsscience.com. Topic over.

Or you might just as well ask, why do coaches like to use big words they don't understand?

Because they want to sound knowledgeable?

Why don't they just tell runners how to run the session without trying to pretend they understand the physiology?

Sometimes I forget the subject line, and just respond to the questions in the body. Others make the opposite mistake.But then again, the subject line is clipped. All I see is "HOW should this affect my train". I don't see how this can affect anyone's train. If I read the body of the original question, 6packjack is wondering why Daniel's tempo runs work if LT doesn't exist.In any case "spare me" responded in the 4th post: "That's the thing about Noakes theory. It really doesn't suggest any changes in training at all." So someone did address that question, and on the very first page, only 3 responses away from the original question.To address tempo runs again, Noakes doesn't challenge the validity of tempo runs, but only (by implication) the idea that tempo runs improve LT, by saying there is no "T".In this case, a new model just changes how we think and talk about what is happening when we train. In the future, the new thinking may refine, or even revolutionize the training, but I don't think we are there yet.Regards,

Slacker wrote:

The original question is how it affects training. I can't seem to find that anyone addressed that. Everyone is stuck on the science and never adapted it to training.

The Light wrote:

In this case, a new model just changes how we think and talk about what is happening when we train. In the future, the new thinking may refine, or even revolutionize the training, but I don't think we are there yet.

New thinking oftens leads to new ways of doing things because it often opens up possibilities that were either not seen before or were rejected under the old way of thinking.

When everyone was focused on the c/a model it channelled thinking almost exclusively along the lines of energy production. Everything was interpreted through the lens of the c/a model.

Now that the lens of the c/a model is cracked, we have seen the first investigations of other possibilities such as the role the brain plays in performance (the central governor model).

I expect these new investigations will eventually lead to refinement of training methods but these things take time. Humans are often reluctant to change their beliefs and thinking.

Ugali, Miss Molly! This thread is still alive? The whole "discussion" makes me think of a bunch of monkeys throwing feces at each other.

Can it be? I think you're ... correct ... on that one!

BRAAAAACK!!!!! Awwwww. And you were doing so well up to that point. There is a threshold, although it's more of a "yellow zone" than a precise line. The reason you can't pinpoint it exactly is because your definition of it is somewhat dependent on the protocol used to find it, which is in turn tied to the rate at which pace (or incline) increases. Ergo, the threshold may be passed through quicker with some protocols than with others. Certain athletes who process lactate as fuel extremely well may also have a broader "yellow zone" and be able to spend more time in it before crossing into the "red zone." Some of that ability may be fiber-dependent and/or related to stride mechanics and/or related to an as-of-yet unknown mechanism, so looking for a Holy Grail "catchall" explanation for this phenomenon (or most others related to exercise) is like playing darts blindfolded. You don't even know if you're facing the target.

Calling this zone the lactate threshold could possibly be seen as a misnomer inasmuch as lactate itself is now viewed as not causing fatigue (not that the negative ion ever was viewed as responsible for fatigue). However, lactate levels do rise during increasing (or prolonged) moderate to high exercise intensity and as such can be used very effectively as a barometer or measuring stick for ensuing distress or fatigue.

This brings us to the the "replacement explanation." Since lactate levels rise with increasing exercise intensity, and since lactate is used as fuel, this chain of events increases the logic behind using tempo running to stimulate adaptations. A lollipop to the clever lad that figures out why.

Effectiveness of tempo running is also related to the amount of time spent in a steady state of effort, which most assuredly can be found on the roads and trails and tracks even if it can't be isolated to your satisfaction in the laboratory. The stressors and associated adaptations perhaps have one or more skeletal muscular components, but they also include some myocardial components, pulmonary components, neurological components, etc. Moreover, the true effectiveness stems from the fact that all of these systems are working together in unison during sustained effort.

Read just a liiiitle bit closer. I've often advocated segments of "crest-load" running at the very end of the "yellow zone" and briefly dipping into the "red zone" during the end of some of the latter segments. This would be stuff like 3-5 x 7-12 minutes on / 2-3 minutes off, with a total of about 35 minutes (give or take a few) spent at the speeds leading to those states of effort. This isn't a new training method either (people were already doing this in one form or another when I started running back in the early 1970s), but it's an underemployed training method. It can also be tricky (just like continuous tempo running) to get the effort just right for regular use. In light of the idea that lactate appears (for the moment) to be our friend and has no hidden plans to sabotage us, it makes sense to do some sustained running while producing (and therefore using) medium amounts of lactate.

In light of the idea ... blah, blah, blah, physiobull ..., it makes sense ...

Aw, nuts. I forgot the most important part:

In light of the fact that correctly incorporating tempo and crest-load running produces fitter, stronger runners with better performances (regardless of what other changes are or aren't taking place), it makes even more sense to use that type of running.

Yes it's still alive -- some of us like to talk too much.

Thanks for the "yellow zone" explanation and the other stuff.

Unless I misunderstood, I think Richard's summary above was in the context of Noakes's Central Governor model: e.g. "Noakes" doesn't offer a new physiological explanation, or changes in tempo training.

For some reason, when I wrote "In the future, the new thinking may refine, or even revolutionize the training, but I don't think we are there yet.", I thought of "Richard_" and "wellnow".