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

hi it's been a few days and many posts have appeared, the discussion is going strong. I would like to catch up and offer some more thoughts/questions.

Firstly, Steve, i would like to follow up on a post late on page 18 regarding your term super-maximal. What is mainly being stimulated over a raced 5-6km? Where is it in relation to VO2max. For that matter on the continuum where is each landmark whether nebulous or not? If Aet is somewhere prior to AnT which is prior to MLSS which is prior to VO2max (do i have at least that much correct?) how far apart are they if we use HR as the measure.

Now late on page 19, i was thinking that the claim of studies being done by non elites was a good one in rejecting 'certain' claims. One such claim is that the central governor theory becomes even weaker in a population of elites. Such a population has an stronger ability to override themsleves with their will or willpower and therefore override the central governor to a greater degree than a non-elite. It's all in the mind and if we belive mr noakes then we might start to believe our potential is limited and cease to aspire as high as we did. Much mediocrity could occur if this theory ever penetrates into the mainstream thinking.

Later on page 20 you talk about the cost-benefit analysis and through this see that the higher the intensity the greater the necessary recovery. I guess this is why higher intensities are avoided when a lot of work needs to be done as in preparation phases. However, there is a side issue to this. The side issue is 'what is normal'?. If the athlete hits 95-100% intensities each microcycle for most of the year then no extra recovery us needed. training can occur the following day as per normal. If the 95-100% intensity is not normal, then the one off effort would require extra recovery. The same with doind a 60 minute run if you've only done 20 over the last 3 months. The change of activity is why extra recovery is required, not the intensity as i see it. Would you agree?

cheers

No Time For Straw Men wrote:

there exists a finite rate of oxygen uptake of a given organism (at a particular fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) and fitness level), beyond which increasing the work rate does not lead to more oxygen uptake (Hawkins et al. 2007)….

Finally, it is worth emphasizing that patients with coronary heart disease are regularly stressed beyond the point of myocardial ischaemia, which does not prevent them from continuing to exercise (Chaitman, 2005) – their ‘central governors’ must fail them all the time!

Excellent!.

Could you please explain for me what a straw man argument is?

Richard_ wrote:

one off or many wrote:

The problem with most physiology studies and thinking is that everything ends up mid range. I think this is because most studies are done with non-elite athletes.

Interesting point. I've long suggested that people have varying abilities to adapt to training - some high and some low, most average. If correct, then this means what works well for an elite is not very likely to work well for someone of average talents. And vice versa. I suggest this is the reason the results of most training studies are contradictory to the training of elites. Studies use those with non-elite talent and the results are not particularly applicable to those with elite level genetic talents.

I agree with this yet i don't disagree with Steve on the same issue. I feel the main difference between an elite and a non-elite resides in mental capacities and probably not the intellectual one. For one their physical intelligence is of the highest order, akin to the top intellectuals. Secondly their will is a major factor. It is this will that allows them to go further into pain or beyond the confort zone or past the central governor or whatever we might like to call it. This is then reflected in results from studies of elites and is not present in the non-elites studies (i'm guessing here). I feel it is the main why elite training doesn't correspond with physiology studies very often.

wellnow i just have a couple of queries. Firstly, how is Hill wrong? Secondly, i don't understand why the arousal affecting lactate oxidation is an issue. The more aroused one is the more oxygenated they are. Thirdly, i don't know about your definition as it defines itself by what it excludes. Can you Provide something that is inclusive instead?

how does one know to workouts at 3k pace or 5k pace, is it fair to say that either or is working the same system, in your opinion is 3k pace more related to V02 max than 5k pace for someone with a 8:30-9:30 3k time, do you use equal time rest for the V02 max workouts when at 3k effort, I can see your point about not setting workout paces to PR's but if not racing during this training period how do you know your starting point in regard to pace for the workouts, what is your opinion on racing while doing a block of V02 max training - would a race substitute a workout or should one do the prescribed workout and the race in the same week, thanks

Looks like you did some cramming;)

Well, Hill is the one who coined the term, so, yes, he is the one Noakes points to all the time. The fact that Hill may have misinterpreted the data he so laboriously collected (it still blows my mind how insightful he was considering the tools he had), does not negate the fact that when you start exercising, the work you do (at submax workloads) requires a given amount of ATP to perform, which if performed aerobically (and if for a sustained duration) requires a given amount of O2, and this is not consumed. Hence, you incur an O2 debt. Further, if you exercise above the VO2max (sorry if you don’t believe there is one), you incur an O2 debt as well. If the ATP wasn’t derived from the F1F0ATP Synthase at the end of the ETC, it’s “anaerobic” and part of the debt. Again, this is generally reproducible, and generally well accepted. I cannot understate how much I admire Hill for coming up with everything he did considering 1) there was no field of Ex Phys back then, so, he was inventing the wheel and 2) his tools were so comparatively primitive and he still got a lot right. Of course, he also surmised the VO2max was ~ 4 l, and was an absolute limit which we certainly know is wrong, but still, cut the guy some slack. The O2 debt, regardless of his interpretation, is certainly not dubious.

Regarding the lactate oxidation… to be honest, I half expected that you mistyped and meant “lactate production”, but anyway….

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15328074?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

and this

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/81/1/246

and this

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9688741?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

But I’m not sure what that means for the purpose of the “discussion”. These refs, as well as others simply indicate lactate metabolism is a complicated thing. I never advocated measuring lactate during a race, or even a training run. I simply stated the fact that the MLSS is a very well defined concept and generally results in a performance someone can maintain for around an hour, maybe a bit less. That is if you determine the MLSS under controlled conditions. That holds for the LT as well. Certainly extraneous factors affect LT and MLSS, but extraneous factors affect everything, ESPECIALLY performance times. So, what happens in a 5 km is next to impossible to know since we aren’t actually getting the measurements. That being said, from the wealth of lab tests, the zillions that have been performed collectively in the field, I am pretty confident that during an all out 5 km, or even the first half, at a submaximal pace (did somebody say MLSS?), that lactate would not be at a steady state. Sure, someone could run at their MLSS pace, but their physiology would not be at steady state. I doubt the venerable Noakes would even argue that, so, I’m not sure why we are.

(I hate the quote function on this forum..so..)

You said “Anaerobic capacity, how do you define it? I think that the term anaerobic glycolysis is misguided, since it is probable most glycogen is converted to lactate during any exercise”

Hmm… so, not only are you Noakes acolyte, but a Brooks acolyte as well? You like the controversial ones, don’t you?;) If you will,.. if *all* glycogen is converted to lactate during any exercise, how do you propose it is “oxidized”? Brooks hasn't settled that one to anyone's satisfaction (other than his own) yet.

“I refer to anaerobic energy supplies as being strictly non-mitochondrial, and thus, my definition of anerobic capacity is not the same as the old definition which seems to refer to maximum production of lactate, or maximum rate of glycogeolysis.”

That’s where we agree in large part. I’m not sure why you say the “old” definition refers to max production of lactate or glycogenolysis. I would simply use ….. sorry…. O2 debt (in the form of MAOD) to determine anaerobic capacity, or even the intercept on a Critical Velocity plot. The CV approach has been around for decades, so, probably as long as most lactate protocols. Still, I’m not sure how this is a nebulous concept. That was your original point, wasn’t it, that everything I was saying was dubious and/or nebulous? Sorry, I just don’t see it that way. I'm sure you'll disagree.

Steve

Steve, also would you start a person who just recently ran a 9:30 3k with the 4 x 1000m @ 3:10 if doing a block of V02 max training, you have probably mentioned this before but how long should one do this type of training or is it more individualized and should stop when you peaking in workouts like you mentioned

would you prescribe a V02 max workout to an athlete when in the race phase or if not what type of training should one do while in their main race phase

I am interested in knowing what you mean by "it's an increase in muscle tone" & "Muscle tone and its influence on running economy, that's what we should be discussing"?

As a massage therapist I am in the business of muscle tone. Too much tone leads to a decrease in movement & pain or constriction of blood , oxygen & nutrients.

Are looking for more or less tone? Thanks.

Well, since we're talking about aerobic exercise (at least everything more than an 800), and that the r^2 of VO2 to pace is close to 1.0, I think it is (important that is). Further the physiological adaptations (that's not to say there aren't biomechanical, but they are likely of lesser importance, still important, none the less) primarily reside in O2 utilization, and/or the ability to utilize it "efficiently".

Again, the reason I use the VO2max moniker (and the reason many others do) is because, as pointed out in an earlier post by another reader, a 5 k pace, for example is a different animal for an elite vs subelite, vs recreational. OTOH, running at a pace you can sustain for 5-10 min is running at VO2max pace regardless of ability level, and running slightly below it, is an arguable way to train both the VO2max and the ablility to run at that pace, whatever that ability is.

Again, I too agree it't not the acidosis that causes a problem per se. That being said, the systemic acidosis certainly causes some athletes to stop. Not necessarily the muscular acidosis, but the systemic.

Right.... muscle tone. Good luck with that.

Steve

The 3k vs 5k pace debate is a good one, one that you really need to resolve for yourself, again, through assessment and monitoring.

That being said, in general, 3 k pace is closer to VO2max pace by most definitions, although, probably, 5k is used most by coaches. The reason I cited 3 k for that particular athlete is that he is a middle distance runner, and the pace is closer to his competition pace of interest (800, 1500, 3000). I *personally* feel it's a stronger stimulus to VO2max. For example, if you ran 1000s at 5 k pace for a 15:xx runner, they'll likely never actually attain VO2max. They'll come close, but not all the way. So, again, if you think of it the way I am, if you elicit a greater O2 consumption over a similar time frame, it should be a stronger stimulus for adaptation. Further, you get the added benefit of training at a pace closer to what you will be racing at. Aside from what some may think from reading this thread, I'm more concerned with having the athlete run at a pace that will effectively train him for the discipline of most interest. So, for middle distance, faster is better within reason. (again, in my view, not a recommendation, but an explanation. I encourage you to find your own path).

Steve

Sim,

I'm sorry, I need to take leave of the discussion for a while. As often happens, these become more protracted than anticipated. I will respond, but it may not be for a day or so.

Steve

Runner,

I need to attend to other things for a while. I will respond, but it may be a couple days. Of course, that will likely resurrect the thread. Sorry;)

Steve

sim wrote:

I agree with this yet i don't disagree with Steve on the same issue. I feel the main difference between an elite and a non-elite resides in mental capacities and probably not the intellectual one. For one their physical intelligence is of the highest order, akin to the top intellectuals. Secondly their will is a major factor. It is this will that allows them to go further into pain or beyond the confort zone or past the central governor or whatever we might like to call it. This is then reflected in results from studies of elites and is not present in the non-elites studies (i'm guessing here). I feel it is the main why elite training doesn't correspond with physiology studies very often.

Sim,

I've not looked at any research on elite's mental capacities, but there is a study that examined/compared non-trained wrist flexor muscles in both elite runners and sedentary subjects in order to determine if there were genetic differences in the way the muscles work & respond in the 2 groups. By using untrained muscles it allowed the researchers to determine what the genetic differences between the 2 groups was and eliminated any differences due to training.

Not surprisingly, there were major differences between the non-trained muscles of elites and those of sedentary subjects. Elites were able to achieve and maintain a higher workload, plus they recovered twice as fast. Call it the double whammy advantage.

Here's a link to an article reviewing the study:

Richard_ wrote:

Here's a link to an article reviewing the study:

http://www.powerrunning.com/Exercise%20Physiology/How%20Different%20Are%20Elites.htm

It's not 'an article', it's your own website. Your 5k times are 30 minutes.

MLSS and CV are misnomers also, both based on the outdated physiology. The former is not a steady state at all, and the latter was/is often miscalculated, typically ignoring the heart of the velocity-duration relationship. Sorry I haven't time to post the references here right now but those interested should find them easy enough if they care to look.

As for tempo runs and the cost/benefit argument, it is of course possible to do training at velocities eliciting VO2peak without overworking, you simply need to let go of some of the conventional notions about what constitutes a training session.

Bowerman, Igloi, Stampfl and others were dialing in on this from different angles, years ago.

Steve McGregor wrote:

Right.... muscle tone. Good luck with that.

Steve

Speaking of muscle, today I introduced a new model of how muscles work during and adapt to exercise. I call it the muscle factor model and believe it answers many of the training questions that have been posted on this thread.

Anyone interested in knowing more?

lmt wrote:

I am interested in knowing what you mean by "it's an increase in muscle tone" & "Muscle tone and its influence on running economy, that's what we should be discussing"?

As a massage therapist I am in the business of muscle tone. Too much tone leads to a decrease in movement & pain or constriction of blood , oxygen & nutrients.

Are looking for more or less tone? Thanks.

I totally agree lmt, optimal tone is not maximal tone. maximal tone would be akin to a tetanic reaction would it not. A very important point you have brought up.

cheers Richard and i don't deny that in such studies it will always look as if the elites have better functioning muscles. The problem exists in 'why'the muscles function better in the elites. I don't think it is a symptom of the physcial structure of the muscles at all.

It is in the way an elite will utilise his body/muscles.

He has, if you will, less fuzz or static between his mind and his body. This is referred to as the mind body spectrum and is really what you are looking into. There are entire fields of knowledge on this planet, many of them developed over thousands of years, that look deeply into this relationship. Most martial arts are exploring/training this mind-body relationship. Yoga explores/trains the same. Most healing arts are looking into this (but not the healing sciences.

The problem for the sciences in analysing this stuff is it is invisible, and therefore, can't be detected and thus analysed, by the methods and tests they utilise.

cheers Steve, i will repost in a few days if you have fogotten about us. I realise my questions are tricky because they are so applied but i am hoping you can help me with them.

till later

simbo