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

More from Dr Noakes...

__________________________

Dear xxxxxx,

The whole basis of the central governor model is that exercise is

regulated by feed forward and feed back controls. Now to say that WE

are missing the boat and the feedback to the brain is involved in the

regulation of exercise performance is disingenuous in the extreme. That

is what we have been preaching since 1996 and is central to our theory.

But then they do say that truth goes through 3 phases. First they say

that what you say is ridiculous. Then they say that what you say is

true but irrelevant. Then they say that what you say is true but we

have always taught it. Your response indicates that you are somewhere

between the second and third phase in your understanding of the history

of the development of this model.

But you are also missing the point that the brain decides in

anticipation what will happen IN THE FUTURE. It insures that you have

the reserve capacity at the finish to undertake the end spurt. It does

not arrive at the end and then suddenly decide that an endspurt is

possible (because it discovers an unused anaerobic capacity (muscle

recruitment) for example) - it made that decision at the start or very

shortly after the beginning of the race (and paces your effort

accordingly). That is what the function for which the brain evolved –

to make sure you are safe, not to allow you to run yourself to death.

We know this because the rate of perceived exertion (RPE) rises as a

linear function of the time/distance that is left in the event. Since

it is a linear function from the start and since all maximal effort

always terminates at the maximum RPE, then the brain must have decided

what was to be the outcome before or at the start of the event. In fact

the one clear truth in exercise physiology is that the exercise

performance is always determined by the rate at which the RPE rises

during exercise. So if you understand what determines the rate at which

the RPE rises during exercise, then you understand the physiology.

Unfortunately there is no single metabolite that can explain this rise

in RPE in all experimental conditions. So it is not likely to be a

single metabolite, if indeed it is driven only by metabolite changes in

the body. Indeed this would seem most unlikely given that the brain

receives so much sensory feedback from all the organs throughout the

body during exercise.

Of course training improves the physiology that MAY then determine the

altered behavior. But I think in training we should focus on the

behavior change that we want (ie running faster for longer) and not get

caught up in trying to explain it by a physiology that we do not yet

fully understand.

For there are no data yet to show a one-to-one relationship between

changes in a specific physiological variable and an altered behavior ie

faster running. Until those data have been provided, I am allowed to

speculate that the changes occur in neuromuscular factors that are not

being discussed in this blog. Note that we have done quite a few

published studies showing that the most sudden changes in running

performance occur with a short period of high intensity training. The

changes in performance occur too quickly to be explained purely by a

change in physiological variables that produce an altered metabolic

response in the muscles. Something else is going on.

I would welcome the evidence showing that when you run faster for longer

it can be explained purely by changes in muscle metabolism (to which the

brain then responds by allowing a greater muscle recruitment). That is

partly what the traditional Hill model predicts (except it does not

include the brain part. It predicts only that the performance is better

because the trained muscles do not show as much "peripheral fatigue" – a

quite different interpretation). But when scientists have tried to prove

that prediction by undertaking randomized controlled clinical trials -

the proper way to prove these things - they hav

e not been able to

establish it as fact. Rather the findingsthe supporters of the Hill model. Even long term studies of elite

athletes like Lance Armstrong and Paula Radcliffe really have not been

able to show that their changes in performance can be exactly tracked by

changes in the variables that the Hill model predicts should be changing

in those athletes whose performances continue to improve over the years.

As I say – you can ignore these data if you wish. But sooner or later

someone is going to have to point out some inconvenient truths (and in

so doing attract the ire of those who would rather continue to believe

the established dogma).

So there it is. As I always say - what you believe determines what you

believe. The current US election provides an excellent example. If you

support Senator Clinton, then you will believe that most of what Senator

Obama says will be wrong. But if you support Senator McCain then you

will assume that most of what the Democratic pair proposes is untrue.

The point is that the decision on which politician you believe has been

taken long before any even opens his or her mouth. Then the final irony

-remarkably only one in two Americans will agree with your position

(Democrat vs Republican). But how did you come to your belief? What

role did you parents play? Or where you were born? Or where you went to

school etc? And what really is the “truth” given that 50% of Americans

do not agree with you?

If you have complete faith in the Hill model as the ultimate

explanation, then you have no reason to question it and you will always

believe that muscle metabolism alone determines performance. Changing

your belief might harm your running performance (since so much about

performance is based on belief) so it might not be a good choice. Much

easier to shoot the messenger, in this case me, and to preach that my

theories are personal beliefs that lack any scientific backing.

But it is because the majority of scientists believe implicitly in the

Hill model that they are reluctant to put it to the test. But when you

do, you find that the findings that you generate do not support the

predictions of the model. Then you have two choices. Either you ignore

your findings and continue to believe your dogma. Or you try to develop

a different explanation. Everyone is free to make that choice.

With regard to the question about science not supporting my ideas and it

being a personal theory, I would suggest that those critics should read

the literature. I am no longer the only scientist saying that the Hill

model does not explain what we observe. But most of those scientists

are working in the neuromuscular field. So if you don’t read that

literature, of course it will appear as if I am a lone voice preaching

in the wilderness a “personal theory” that is devoid of any scientific

support. If you read only the cardiovascular/metabolic literature you

are not going to see the revolution that is occurring in thinking about

the factors that regulate human exercise performance. And there is a

good reason for this. If one discipline (cardiovascular/metabolic) has

controlled the thinking in the field for 90 years, its members are not

going to give up that position of power easily. Science you must

understand is not purely about the search for truth. There are also

issues of power and control and access to funding sources etc.

But that does not mean that a revolution is not happening and that many

individuals might be ignorant of an emerging body of work. A good start

might be to read our paper in Journal of Physiology (R. Tucker et al.

2006) – feely available from PubMed. That study shows that exercise is

regulated “in anticipation”, the opposite of the predictions of the Hill

model. In other words the brain changes the exercise behavior “in

anticipation” specifically to insure that the body does not breakdown

and collapse before the end of the exercise bout. This is the opposite

of the prediction of the Hi

ll model which requires that you only become

fatigued and alter your behavior AFTER the damage (“fatigue”) has

already happened.

Some might then like to read the response by myself and Prof Frank

Marino (2007) to another study published in that Journal and which again

shows how the brain changes the behavior (during exercise in hypoxia) to

insure that the exercise can be completed safely.

Perhaps the final point is that exercise physiology has been suckered

into believing that “fatigue” is the key to athletic performance and

that if we understand (the metabolic basis of) “fatigue” then we

understand human exercise physiology and how we should train. But this

is only partly true. The much more important factor to understand is

pacing which is controlled by the brain to insure that exercise

performance is maximized and fatigue minimized, a different

interpretation.

We need to understand that exercise is a behavior and that all behaviors

are regulated by the brain to insure that we and hence our species can

survive. If this were not the case, some species other than humans

would be reading and writing these blogs.

Best wishes,

Tim Noakes.

thinairunr wrote:

More from Dr Noakes...

Give it up, Richard.

No Richard here..., yes that is Noakes,

the thinairunr

thinairunr wrote:

No Richard here..., yes that is Noakes,

the thinairunr

I'm (again) referring to the poster, not the email.

Hello Mr Noakes! I am wondering if you can reply in person. I don't think you are being represented fairly. In fact you are coming across as really quite stupid from what has been written under your name in this thread. Do you normally make spelling and grammatical errors when representing your knowledge into a public forum? I wonder if legal action can be taken for using your name.

I might have to analyse your paper in my way more fully in future but for now this should suffice:

quote

"We need to understand that exercise is a behavior and that all behaviors

are regulated by the brain to insure that we and hence our species can

survive. If this were not the case, some species other than humans

would be reading and writing these blogs.

unquote

this is so stupid to be hilarious.

We need to UNDERSTAND ... TO INSURE ... we (our species) can SURVIVE.

Quick go and tell your dog that exercise is a bahviour and that his brain regulates it.

QUICK

if he doesn't understand ... he might not survive!

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

moron!

oh no

sim wrote:

"We need to understand that exercise is a behavior and that all behaviors are regulated by the brain to insure that we and hence our species can survive. If this were not the case, some species other than humans would be reading and writing these blogs."

this is so stupid to be hilarious.

We need to UNDERSTAND ... TO INSURE ... we (our species) can SURVIVE.

Quick go and tell your dog that exercise is a bahviour and that his brain regulates it.

QUICK

if he doesn't understand ... he might not survive!

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

moron!

sim,

You might want to re-read what Prof Noakes actually said in the quote you quoted. What you said he said is not what he said. Which, of course, makes you look like the moron and unable to understand simple English.

thinairunr wrote:

More from Dr Noakes...

__________________________

Perhaps the final point is that exercise physiology has been suckered into believing that “fatigue” is the key to athletic performance and that if we understand (the metabolic basis of) “fatigue” then we understand human exercise physiology and how we should train. But this

is only partly true. The much more important factor to understand is pacing which is controlled by the brain to insure that exercise performance is maximized and fatigue minimized, a different interpretation.

Tim Noakes.

(italics added by me for emphasis)

Note the part where Prof Noakes states that pacing is the more important factor to undertand.

The Central Govenor is just that - a governor. A governor governs engine output so that the engine is not damaged or destroyed during usage. Admittedly the brain is the world's most sophisticated governor ever, but it is still a governor; it's not an engine.

The brain is the governor; the muscles are the engine. Muscles have limitations on how much work they can do for how long. The brain, acting in the role of governor, knows the limitations of the engine (i.e. the muscles) and sets the pace based on the capabilities of the engine.

If the brain knows you are going to be running for 4 hours it only recruits fibers that take 4 or more hours to fatigue. These are the weakest of fibers, so the pace is relatively slow.

If, on the other hand, the brain knows you are going to be running for 30 minutes, it is free to recruit those stronger fibers that fatigue in 30 minutes. The pace is faster in this case because stronger (but less enduring) fibers are recruited.

The most important factor to understand is pacing. The muscle factor model explains pacing.

wellnow wrote:

Tinman, you too. You guys are unf***ingbelievably ignorant bullshitters who blather on about things about which you have scant knowledge.

CLOWNS

Jon Orange, lighted the eff up!

Richard_ wrote:

You might...

So what are you expecting us to do here? Have you ask Noakes questions for us and you'll give us the responses? You've got to kidding.

wellnow wrote:

Tinman, you too. You guys are unf***ingbelievably ignorant bullshitters who blather on about things about which you have scant knowledge.

CLOWNS

-----------------------

Acutally, you are the one blathering about things which you have scant knowledge.

Spaniel is 100% right; you have provide zero evidence to working muscle fibers.

Please provide real evidence!

Again, George Brooks lactate shuttle is a theory; not iron-clad by any means. Plenty of science research by others shows that lactate is either ABSENT in mitochondria of muscle fibers or so small in amount it should be considered INSIGNIFICANT.

By the way, in support of the truth; spaniel is right to say the glycolysis is literally always anaerobic (oxygen independent). All 9 bio-chemical steps of glycolysis are without oxygen. ONLY when pyruvate is used in mitochondria is their use of oxygen to create ATP (aerobic respiration). Outside the mitochondria is the cytosol where glycolysis (without oxygen)takes place.

To state lactate is used by the muscle cells as a fuel is almost misleading. It must be converted to glucose and that takes place in the liver via gloconeogensis. Lacate is not used in working muscle fibers directly. It is only used directly in the heart, kidneys and brain.

IF and only IF it is converted (elsewhere) can it be used as a fuel within a working muscle fibers.

*Yeah, I know what you are going to say, "Brooks lactate shuttle proves that muscle cells use lacate as a fuel source." You'd be wrong to state that, once again. IT IS A THEORY or hypothesis and has almost no substantial that is occurs. The theory proves nothing, as previousl stated in citation. And, as spaniel stated, LDH is not present within mitochondria so lactate can not be used there.

I'll grant you one possibility, but it is very, very small. I'll offer that MAYBE lactate is used in the outer layer of the mitochondria but not inside the center of it; and even then the amount would be so small (as shown by Holloway, et all) that it's still an insignificant amount.

Pragmatics:

I'll go back to a statement I made a few weeks ago, why is lactate NOT injected into runners prior to competition? If it is such a good fuel source then athletes would would pay good money for the "solution to their problem."

Note, it is a limited critical thinking to use only 1 source as the be-all, end-all of foundational argument. Thus, using just George Brooks' theory is lacking in both depth and breadth!

Have a good day!

Haha oops, but as you can see i already beat you to it richard.

I like the way you pick one or two mistakes out of the hundreds of things i say.

I also like the way you ignore when i point out the myriad of things you are not taking into account.

The whole thread so far has been about people with a small world view (ie yourself, wellnow, and Mr Noakes) arguing against people with a larger world view ie spaniel, i have a theory too, tinman, myself, and the many one off comments that have been coming through).

See it is our responsibility to bring you guys, who don't live in the track and field world, up to speed; to broaden you view so you stop making stupid assumptions based on a reduced or limited perspective.

That is what is going on and i wish you would stop lurking around waiting for your one little chance to have something to say. If we were all in the same place debating this you would have left the room a long time ago.

[quote]thinairunr wrote:

More from Dr Noakes or someone...

__________________________

Dear xxxxxx,

The whole basis of the central governor model is that exercise is regulated by feed forward and feed back controls. Now to say that WE are missing the boat and the feedback to the brain is involved in the regulation of exercise performance is disingenuous in the extreme. That is what we have been preaching since 1996 and is central to our theory.

---I knew science is a religion for you guys ... preaching?

---I assumed there was feedback to the brain regarding exercise performance when i was studying PE in year 12.

quote

But then they do say that truth goes through 3 phases. First they say that what you say is ridiculous. Then they say that what you say is true but irrelevant. Then they say that what you say is true but we have always taught it. Your response indicates that you are somewhere

between the second and third phase in your understanding of the history of the development of this model.

unquote

---So you are speaking the 'truth'? And nobody knew this truth beforehand. I think you should have wandered down to a track and asked a good coach. It might have been common sense. Oh too hot and look at that i can't go as fast as on that cool day last week. I wonder why that has happened. Oh too little oxygen it looks like i'm going to be slowing down again. Oh a big hill i hope i slow down up the hill or i'm going to be too tired to finish the race. You assume no ability to use the conscious mind. How belittling!

quote

But you are also missing the point that the brain decides in

anticipation what will happen IN THE FUTURE. It insures that you have the reserve capacity at the finish to undertake the end spurt. It does not arrive at the end and then suddenly decide that an endspurt is possible (because it discovers an unused anaerobic capacity (muscle recruitment) for example) - it made that decision at the start or very shortly after the beginning of the race (and paces your effort accordingly). That is what the function for which the brain evolved – to make sure you are safe, not to allow you to run yourself to death.

unquote

You refer to the brain as it. You allow for no conscious decision making in your 'theory'. You also are not understanding that a trained person will have a better sense of 'how' to run a particular distance than an untrained one, simply because they have practised it before. There is probably an algorithm that defines the relationship between the length of time preparing for something and the accuracy in achieving it.

quote

We know this because the rate of perceived exertion (RPE) rises as a linear function of the time/distance that is left in the event. Since it is a linear function from the start and since all maximal effort always terminates at the maximum RPE, then the brain must have decided what was to be the outcome before or at the start of the event.

unquote

I'm not sure who was tested here but i have no doubt there is subtle adustments during a race but a seasoned runner. This is doubly true if responding to other runners in a race.

quote

the one clear truth in exercise physiology is that the exercise performance is always determined by the rate at which the RPE rises during exercise. So if you understand what determines the rate at which the RPE rises during exercise, then you understand the physiology.

Unfortunately there is no single metabolite that can explain this rise in RPE in all experimental conditions. So it is not likely to be a single metabolite, if indeed it is driven only by metabolite changes in the body. Indeed this would seem most unlikely given that the brain receives so much sensory feedback from all the organs throughout the body during exercise.

unquote

So by deduction, you have reasoned that because there is no single metabolite in the body that explains performance and its limitations, there must be a central governor that is determining performance. Again i think coaching methodology inherently assumes there is no one limiting factor. I think it also assumed inherently that there is a natural limit above which one cannot train. It is the defining of the limit that allows for optimal training. It is soooo accurately defined, with a precision that is too far ahead of where physiology is, to be able to gain any advantage from phsyiology.

I would like proof this is noakes. Second hand dubious emails being peddled by another dubious and unknown character in thinairrunner.

What i seem to get from all of this is Noakes is simply arguing against Hill. I don't see where Noakes has stepped out into the actual environment he is attempting to preach to. No applied understanding (he does look like one hell of a serious nerd)

Yes i am calling the emperor nude.

sim your email is false, I sent you an email but you email came back. Personal attack on Noakes does not cut it. Provide a valid email hotshot & I will offer you a chance...

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

seneca_soh@hotmail.com

Technical details of permanent failure:

PERM_FAILURE: Gmail tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. Thanks for your continued support. (state 14)

----- Original message -----

it is

seneca_soh@hotmail.com

post your email and i will send something to you if you like

i see.

somewhere along the line i made a mistake

seneca_soh@live.co.uk

(underscore between a and s)

Hello sim,

Do you think Noakes is attacking today's applied coaching methodologies, or a 90 year old physiological performance model?

You agreed that feedback mechanism to the brain is so obvious, you assumed it studying PE in year 12. Yet Hill's model doesn't include the brain at all, only oxygen, the heart, lungs, circulation, muscles, and lactate.

So I guess you don't completely agree with the Hill model either. I gather, you've taken parts of the Hill model, combined it with athlete's psychology, feedback to the brain, and conscious thought, and taken that to the track to perform your applied physiology.

Noakes has added some feed forward and some autonomous control to the mix, and he is taking that to the athletes to see if that better matches reality.

You did admit that "...Noakes is simply arguing against Hill". But what is it that makes you think he wants to "take over control of how athletes are trained"? Surely not many bullheaded coaches will let him take control or keep control, if his new ideas don't produce positive results.

Wouldn't pacing fall under the catagory of tactics and racing decisions? You DECIDE how fast you want to run, how hard you want to push yourself. This is part of the reason why why the Central Governor model is unpopular-it assumes that you have no control. The central governor is probably not even triggered until the last 1/4 of a race anyways and not even then unless conditions are exceptionally stressful (heat or humidity or pushing it harder the normal). The central governor does not set the pace, YOU set the pace and if it is too fast and causes too much stress on the body THEN the governor is needed.

Your brain chooses a 4 hour run--->slow twitch fibers--->slow pace

You have it backwards.

Say you are going for a very long run. YOU decide that it will be 26.2 miles in four hours. Your brain does not know that you will be running for four hours. It only operates based on current sensations and data. But common sense and past experience tells you that you cannot sprint a marathon. Your higher learning is what allows you to see into the future and guess the consequences of your actions. So you pick a pace,say 9 minute miles. Since the pace isn't fast, the slow twitch/slow fatiguing fibers are used. So in actuality

You chose a 4 hour run--->slow pace--->slow twitch fibers.

What if you decide to sprint the last 100 meters of the race? Will that use slow twitch fibers because of a decision your brain made four hours ago (according to you), or fast tiwtch fibers due to the faster pace?

That reminds me-didn't lydiard say that fast twitch fibers were recruited at the end of long runs when the slow twitch ones faltered (regardless of pace)?

I may answer your question. Noakes doesn’t want to contribute to build a new model that the coaches and runners they may profit to enhance the performance.

Noakes wants to be influential among the sport physiologists as well as among the running community. To be influential that´s what really matters for Noakes. Read this: “..has been published in one of more influential scientific publications…”