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

you nailed him once again but like richard has very thick skin, who is the light? Steve macgregor?

My ears are burning.

Sorry, not me. I had to extricate myself from the conversation a while back to get some productive work done. I had half hoped this would have died so I wouldn't need to come back in. I may not anyway, like I said, not a productive use of time, although fun to be sure.

Steve

After going back and reading some of the relevant posts, I suppose that comment was intended as an insult. I don't think I ever defended Noakes other than to say he was prolific and controversial, so, not sure why we would be confused for each other (the light and me). Oh well, I'll live.

From a cursory examination, it appears as though "I have a theory too" has been doing a more than competent job of presenting *the facts*. So, I'll defer to him.

G'day

Steve

Steve,

any chance you could discuss the 3k - 5k pace intervals, what is your definition of VO2 max pace, what % of VO2 max is correct for tempo (LT, or whatever it is referred to), any chance you could a sample of training weeks in the base / pre-comp and racing phase, thanks

spaniel,

Everything you send in rebuttal is logical and the result of thorough critical thinking. On the other hand, wellnow is stuck in one gear because he's smitten with George Brooks.

Lacate is NOT a direct fuel for working muscle fibers. How many times must we say it before you get the point, wellnow?

Brooks has a hypothesis and it's even a stretch to call it a theory. His claim that lacate is processed as a fuel within mitochondria has no real evidence. He can explain all he wants (to support his self-created theory)but it's like the contractor who says, "The houses I build are the best." Are you going to believe the contractor or are you going to check around to see what else is really out there?

spaniel,

Everything you say in rebuttal is logical. On the other hand, wellnow is stuck in one gear because he's smitten with George Brooks.

Lacate is NOT a direct fuel for working muscle fibers! How many times must we say it before you get the point, wellnow?

Brooks has a hypothesis and it's even a stretch to call it a theory. His claim that lacate is processed as a fuel within mitochondria has flimsy evidence. He can explain all he wants (to support his self-created theory)but it's like the contractor who says, "The houses I build are the best, so you should buy mine only!" Are you going to believe the contractor, outright, or are you going to check around before throwing down money carelessly?

Apologies Steve i was just wondering where you went. Maybe you became the theorymeister for a while instead? I was just trying to flush you out!

Thanks to all those that presented the facts and those that can look a little further than the facts; those whose imaginations are a little more fluid than the norm.

I'm sure after this thread that Mr Noakes theory is breaking new ground within the world of the physiologists, however, it seems equally well known that coaching methodology probably won't be changing as a result of his work.

I would still like to see what definitions for the brain and for the mind might arise from the thinkers on this thread. Anyone care to look into that angle?

sim wrote:

I'm sure after this thread that Mr Noakes theory is breaking new ground within the world of the physiologists, however, it seems equally well known that coaching methodology probably won't be changing as a result of his work.

Maybe, but I think at this point Dr. Noakes has invested so much of his recent time into this, he's looking more at just getting it accepted somehow.

I view this from the core component that Noakes defines the CG as a neuro-based mechanism that stops you from pushing so hard that you place yourself (brain, heart) at physical risk. Unless Noakes can back this component up with definitive, reviewed verifiable research, I don't consider the concept viable.

What he has done of late is extended the concept to encompass characteristics that aren't part of the original concept, such as the CG anticipating future effects and making adjustments to pace, effort, etc. Not one scrap of this has anything to do with his original Central Governor theory, it's all explanable by cognitive learning mechanisms, no CG required. This stuff he can back up with tons of research but none of it substantiates the original CG concept. It seems more of a ploy, a sort of physiological bait-and-switch...buy into the learning mechanisms, then declare acceptance of the core CG theory.

Because of this, it's very hard for me to offer Dr. Noakes any credibility on the topic. It's the scientific equivalent of a used car salesman trying to hide the tires.

You are right and i felt stupid saying that first sentence. It's the compassionate side in me that comes out irrationally sometimes.

I see this central governor concept as simply our homeostatic nature. What is this nature? I don't precisely know but i do know how to work with it to engender change. Changing our homeostatic state is what training is about. It is very difficult to change and i once heard that only 1 person in 10 has this ability once they become an adult. One of the beauties of the middle distance running community is that this ratio of 1 in 10 probably does not apply. I find in this population a much higher ratio. As a coach i have come to the conclusion that unless the athlete still retains their ability to change i probably won't work with them. Their own self-motivation must already be well established. Self-motivation or will-power is essential if change is the goal.

If i take the ideas of stasis and change and put them into an energetic-flow model then homeostasis would be like a sun, expanding from the middle and change would be like the rhythmical expansion and contraction of that sun. On each expansion we have the ability to grow a little and on each contraction the new growth that just occurred becomes stabilised, ready for the next expansion. Note that the magnitude of each expansion and contraction far outweighs the slight growth that occurs in the sun itself. I guess the idea/concept of growth is another quality to consider.

This is where i come from. Organic, energetic conceptualisation. Specifics like 5x300m/4mins for an 800m runner have to fit the energetic flow of the entire program quite precisely.

What do you guys think. Some of you are the best thinkers i have come across in recent times. Could Lord Kinbote also return and comment. Steve, i have a theory too, spaniel, tinman etc please cut into this thinking i have

Exactly!

One thing though-although there is not much research into the central governor, clearly there is SOMETHING in the brain that limits the amount of effort that can be achieved (ie muscle mass recruited). A few rare athletes can push through this barrier but they ussually damage their body (Salazar and perhaps Bekele at Mombasa) in the process.

However, I think that level of stress at which the central governor is "triggered" can be changed. Pushing so hard that you damage yourself can reset the trigger level to a lower effort level.

Salazar:

"Salazar's competitive decline is often attributed to a reported blow-out after the 1982 Boston Marathon (his famous "Duel in the Sun" with Dick Beardsley), after which his athletic performance gradually declined to the point at which he could barely jog."

Bekele:

"After Mombasa, my leg muscles felt like they were arm muscles," Kenenisa told his sad tale.

"I felt dizzy, and two weeks later I had pain in my knee. I did not know that when I was running in Mombasa I hurt my knee. I have gone to see many doctors and they say it was a muscle tissue injury, which will get better through massage.

"I have seen many doctors but they all tell me that I'm not ill. But I feel I have no power any more.

"Previously, for example, I was able to lift this table (coffee table in his living room) but now I struggle to do this. I have no power any more?

"When I do hard training sometimes I have this pain in my head which I cannot resist? I don't have power in my body any more?. sometimes I train well one day and the next day I cannot train well? I need time to recover."

It was at this point of the interview that the room fell silent as Kenenisa almost broke down in tears."

The list goes on-Jim Peters was forced to retire after almost dying in the 1954 commonwealth games heat.

In all cases I think the Central Governor "reset" itself to a lower level of effort. This is to protect the body from further damage.

Ha, I guess I owe you a reply don't I. Sorry about that, I've just been busy with a lot of things. Regarding your 3k vs 5 k pace question, one of the things that is problemmatic is talking purely in distance paces. I'm sure some will have a problem with this, but so be it; the critical issue is the time the effort can be sustained,or maintained. Hence my affinity for the MLSSv approach, it works for 30 min, 35 min, 45 min and 50 min 10 k runners. Although some might poo poo concern with the 35+ 10 k runners, that will include some quite fit females. Anyway, I digress (again), but the point is, the 5 k pace is generally well below the pace that will actually elicit VO2max under most conditions, particularly recreational runners. A pace that you can sustain for more than 10 min, certainly 15 where the vast majority of 5 k times will fall, is not likely to elicit VO2max, let alone for short intervals. So, I prefer the 3 k pace as a point of reference, and based intervals of 3- 5 min in duration on that pace and build using that as a benchmark. So, for e.g., a runner who can do 3k in 10:00, start with 4 x 1200/5:21(90), then progress to 5 x 12s, then 4 x 15s, then 5 x 15s. So, depending on the individuals ability, you are trying to do intervals in the 3-5 min range at a pace they can maximally sustain for 8-10 min. For a runner that can tolerate 5 min efforts, 6 min might be even better, but in some that seems to be a point of diminishing returns which should be evaluated on an individual basis. That's just the straight up constant interval approach, in contrast to the shorter variety I've mentioned before (e.g. 400/200 or 200/100) where you can actually elicit VO2max and sustain it much longer than during constant intervals.

Correct for LT?? That's actually a pretty big range and as I've mentioned before, there are a number of ways to skin a cat. I really think it depends on your training volume, and I don't have a hard and fast rule for volume/intensity relationship. By that I mean, if you are doing 100 mi/ week, the lower end of the intensity range will be sufficient to train LT/MLSS because you are primarily overloading by volume. Let's say you're a 2:20 marathoner, training at marathon pace, or slightly below for a large volume of training will be a very potent stimulus to the LT. If on the other hand you are a relatively low volume trainer, you are overloading by intensity, and it will be necessary to ran at a faster pace to elicit the same relative improvement in LT. Both approaches can train the LT, and maybe optimally. I guess if you are constrained by time, the 10 k to 1/2 M pace will likely be best (pace for maximal 30 - 70 min effort).

I'm sorry, the rest of the question will have to wait until later.

Steve

No offense taken, and no offense intended to "the light".

You flushed... darn you;)

I see from a couple other posts that your statement regarding the "new ground" aspect of his work has elicited some negative attention so, I'll lay off.

Steve

I have a theory too wrote:

If you follow proper process and your model has already been published/released, yes, even if that name change is as subtle as a revision number, or a date and time stamp, or a publication number.

So can we agree that models can be refined, and it happens all the time, as a result of the research to validate the model? I agreed with you that the CG model is not the same model as it was a few years ago. Your issue was that I didn't mention a process which requires declaring the original model wrong, and then renaming, or reversioning it?

I have a theory too wrote:

If you can override it (as you said you could), it is not a limiter. Argue this all you want.

Perhaps my terms "override", "veto", and "limit" have misled you, but this doesn't put me all over the map. I understood the basis of CG is that exercise behavior is regulated, and not limited. So if it helps, I will concede the CG is not a limiter, but a regulator, or a governor. Sorry if you were confused.

What I mean is that we can not ignore, that by conscious will, athletes can overdo it, in spite of early warning signs, by not listening to the body. This happens all the time. Bad performance at the finish is one consequence, but it can be worse, e.g. injury, dehydration, overheating, passing out, and even death.

thanks Steve,

alittle confused though, you mentioned for a 10min 3k runner start with 4 x 1200/5:21(90), is this 1200's at 5:21 pace with 90 sec rest?, also you mentioned shorter intervals where you can elicit VO2 max and sustain it much longer than during constant intervals, did I read that correctly?, for LT 10k to 1/2 pace 30-70 min effort that seems quite difficult unless you are breaking it up into LT intervals ie. 4 x 10 min w/ 2 min rest, correct?

Hello sim,

Who is The Light? Well for one, I only post as The Light, except in rare instances, when I posted as something like "Excel User" or "Polar User", which was more applicable to that topic. I've been thinking lately I should use a different moniker, as "The Light" may be a bit pompous. But I haven't found another name I like.

The Light is a middle-aged 40-something guy, who used to run track and cross-country in high school, stopped competing in college, gained some weight, and then turned to cycling and is re-kindling an interest in running, because it was something he was good at, and in order to lose weight and stay healthy. In the past few years, I have run a few marathons, but you won't be seeing me on TV. In the meantime, I started reading a few different things, in order to structure my training a bit better, as my mind is stronger, but my legs are weaker. I followed a few typical plans, and learned about things like lactate threshold and VO2max, which seemed to make sense. Then I started to read a little more, and it seems other people have different ideas.

To be clear, I am best qualified to ask questions. As I prefer to stay anonymous, no one should assume any expertise from my part. In my opinion, since I know no one here, everyone is anonymous, and they get no assumption of expertise from me. Sometimes I offer my interpretation of things, not as an expert of that subject, but in part so someone can tell me if my interpretation is flawed, and more importantly *why* I'm mistaken, rather than simply telling me I'm wrong.

I don't think I'm a Noakes supporter (just yet), even if I'm coming across like that, but I read a little bit which I didn't find controversial. I think the CG model is a work in progress. I'm just wondering what I'm missing that makes other people react so negatively. Replacing a "CG model" with a "common sense" model, or a "simple learning" model may make sense to others, but for me, looking from the outside, I don't see anything obvious why CG is worse. I'm only wondering what the issue is.

I am not Richard. I read some of his stuff, and don't exactly agree with his conclusions, his basis, or his methodology, and I find his writing a bit grandiose, and I think his focus is too narrow. But I understand everything I cared to read, so I don't have any questions for him, nor any reason to confront him (since I'm not an expert anyway).

I am not Steve McGregor. I'm a little surprised that he assumed offense. I can be annoying and persistent, but I don't think I'm unreasonable. I'm also surprised that he concluded "I have a theory" was doing a good job of presenting facts, because I don't find him that helpful. Perhaps Steve knows something I don't.

I am not anyone else you probably care to guess at this forum, unless you guess "Excel User" or "Polar User". I am most likely no one that you know, although the idea that we are only separated by six degrees means maybe you are not that far away from me.

I've recently read a lot about Lydiard, who seemed to make a lot of sense too, with his "quantity, then quality" approach, then equally wondered why so many people react so strongly against him, especially given his success, which seems like such an important criteria here.

I've recently read Daniel's Running Formula, which looks like a very practical guide for anyone to shape their training -- something like "Training for Dummies".

But for the most part, what I read is still pretty much separated from how I train. I lack time to properly apply what I would like to, and I'm not a big fan of speedwork. If anything, I feel a lot better about my easy runs. Maybe in about 6 years time, armed with my accumulating knowledge and experience, I can train my son to be a better athlete than I was, but hope I don't turn into a father obsessed with having him achieve all the things I failed to.

Hope this sheds enough light for you.

Hi Light thankyou for that, very illuminating.

How did you find Lydiard's way of looking into middle distance running? Did you like and have you become a fan?

Nice post.If you don't mind, how would you summarize "original CG" and what research is missing for you?

The Light wrote:

Hello sim,

Who is The Light? Well for one, I only post as The Light, except in rare instances, when I posted as something like "Excel User" or "Polar User", which was more applicable to that topic. I've been thinking lately I should use a different moniker, as "The Light" may be a bit pompous. But I haven't found another name I like.

You shall post as "Assertive User" as nickname. Your posts show an assertive behaviour. Lydiard...not perfect but a good training method. Noakes...Well, i doubt but don´t take him out. Let´s see if he can do some progress in his new Central Governor theory to be accepted.

To clarify, 4 x 1200 m @ 5:21 pace. The (90) was typo, it should have been (80) which is the 400 m split. The rest period should be roughly equivalent, for this set 4 min.

The shorter intervals I refer to would be say 200/100 @ 37 sec/35 sec. So, running 200 @ 5:00 pace and 100 @ 9:23 pace. Some might call these "fartleks" but depending on the approach, the idea is to keep the work/rest close to 30 sec. That seems to be the opimal approach to keep VO2 elevated, whereas, longer rests allow VO2 to drop and longer work efforts induce fatigue. So, VO2 would come up to max and stay there since the runner doesn't fatigue as easily. OTOH, you could extend them out to 400/200s, but the rest would be long enough for VO2 to decline, and the work periods long enough to cause the runner to stop prematurely (at least compared to the 200/100).

Steve