Finally "If Tim Noakes Central Governor Model is Correct AND there is NO Lactate Threshold, HOW should this effect my training ?”
Tim doesn´t know ! No one knows.
Except those 2: Rich_New Theory or Nob Lydiard version.
Coaching remains the same.
Finally "If Tim Noakes Central Governor Model is Correct AND there is NO Lactate Threshold, HOW should this effect my training ?”
Tim doesn´t know ! No one knows.
Except those 2: Rich_New Theory or Nob Lydiard version.
Coaching remains the same.
Thanks for the clarification of the importance of Brooks@ work Steve.
Actually I have made the distinction several times between Brooks' inter and intra cellular lactate shuttles, so you are wrong on that one. I have also pointed out how contentious the inracellular lactate shuttle hypothesis is.
Where does Mader's graph point out the importance of the lactate shuttle?
Why dat wud be da bloo ink on da graf:
http://www.lactate.com/lactate_cycling.html#VLamaxchartTom, my last post to you on this subject wasn't very good I admit, you said that lactate cannot be directly oxidized by the mitochondria.
Well neither you nor I know whether lactate is oxidize inside mitochondria (the inra cellular lactate shuttle hypothesis) and it may be many years before we know one way or the other.
The tests in vitro of centrifuged pellets of rat mitochondrial fragments are extremely complicated and can obviously never recreate what is going on in vivo. Brooks has written about these problems:
http://jp.physoc.org/cgi/content/full/541/2/333However, this is the intracellular lactate shuttle hypothesis, which is an academic debate and is largely irrelevant to athletes and coaches.
What is important Tom, is the cell to cell lacate shuttle, which is widely accepted, so why aren't you discussing this? Is is because you are jealous of Brooks success? That is the feeling I get from you Tom, and this also comes across as the reason why you haven't even studied Brooks work in any detail.
coaching remains the same wrote:
Finally "If Tim Noakes Central Governor Model is Correct AND there is NO Lactate Threshold, HOW should this effect my training ?”
Tim doesn´t know ! No one knows.
Except those 2: Rich_New Theory or Nob Lydiard version.
Coaching remains the same.
Antonio, that you again postin under your 7896th different name?
Dr Noakes seems to be saying: forget about the myhtological LT or MLSS, instead, train your brain.
A friend has been doing JKD consistently for nearly 6 years. His teacher is a former world karate champion who turned to JKD as his mind turned towards self development. The teachers teacher is Paul Vinak and his teacher is Dan Inosanto who was directly taught by Bruce. Vunak is quite well known also. A long chain but it seems the purity of what Bruce was on about has been maintained through to my friend who was my pole vault coach and whom i currently live with. The integration of the JKD principles into my thinking has been practically grounded through many late night sessions in the living room. But enough of the resume :)
JKD as i see it is a holistic system of human development that is centered in the physical. It identifies around 80 human attributes and has specific methods and structures in place to train each one of them. What Bruce did once he left Hong Kong was to explore every other fighting art on the planet. From them he "took what was essential, rejected what was not and added that which is uniquely his own." his words.
So for example in application to pole vault, the mechanics that can be defined by a certain stick drill from the Philipino martil art of Escrima, so accurately replicate the correct way to move in order to initiate the plant. The shoulder mechanics and wrist mechanics and how they operate against the entire shoulder girdle and how the hips counterbalance the action of the shoulder girdle and so on ... are more finely tuned through this activity than through standard track and field coaching methods.
Steve, back onto the topic. Yes it is a conversion table. The way i like to operate is freestyle. I don't like to plan much and i don't want to have to remember anything when i'm at an athletics meet or training session and looking around. A table would mean remembering something. Instead what i would really like is to gain a feel for how it all relates together. Then all i have to do is come to know the relationships as i practise applying them. Knowing the relationships is a better way to go than knowing a style i guess.
The % effort is just that. Effort. Maximal might be achieved during a standing long jump or a maximal squat lift. I wouldn't know how to quantify it although i think i know my own range of effort quite well through lots of practise. Is there a way to quantify it?
Hmm.... I sure hope I'm not being hoodwinked, but that's the danger of this type of interaction, isn’t it. I will assume this is the genuine article, and if this is indeed Dr. Noakes, thank you, specifically, for your contribution to this discussion and, generally, the field of Sports Science.
I think there is a general misconception inferred from many of the posts on this thread that those of us who argue in favor of learning, understanding and consulting the scientific principles of Sports Science in order to inform training/coaching, are arguing that training should be the slave to testing, in particular lab testing. I'm not sure where this has come from, certainly not from me. In fact, I was half tempted to post an e-mail response I sent to an athlete who approached me for lab LT testing last week. In that e-mail, I convinced her that there was really no value in having the testing done for her purposes, so, I couldn’t recommend it in good conscience. In fact, in general, I don't advocate it, and actually discourage it in most cases.
That being said, I think it is fairly well established that the “thing” that is most responsible for improved performance in endurance sports with prolonged training (i.e. years) is the LT, or if you prefer, the lactate turnpoint. By that I mean, if you take a high school XC runner and he continues to train to become an international caliber athlete in the 10 k or marathon, what was the central *physiological* factor that contributed to his improvement? Most likely it was the improvement in pace at LT. Certainly, if you look at a very homogenous sample of elite runners, it is likely the ones that run fastest in your peak velocity (it was 5 sec wasn’t it?), at the end of an incremental protocol when they have already achieved VO2max will be the ones who are most likely to win the races. The athletes are maximally stressed aerobically, and by virtue of the test, you are selecting for “slow people” ;) So, the *fastest slow person* wins, right;) BUT, if you look at a young XC runner and contrast him with his older self several years later as a competitive marathoner, that peak velocity may not have changed very much. What will have changed dramatically though is his/her pace at the lactate turnpoint (hopefully).
Further, I would surmise that the ability to run at the highest percentage of VO2max that you refer to is largely dependent upon the slow component of VO2 incurred while running at a given pace, and it is well established that the slow component is largely influenced by LT. Again, as I have stated before, when I write “LT” I am using it more in a conceptual sense rather than a firm definition. Since this seems more like a “discussion” rather than an academic debate, I think that’s appropriate. The things that contribute to an improved LT will likely contribute more to max sustainable running speed than the things that contribute to VO2max.
(As an aside, I’m interested to know if you feel the CGM is something unique to humans or would play a role in animal performance as well. If the latter, I will point to the Britton/Koch rat model of genetic selection for treadmill running performance, and it is clear that the things that have resulted in the more than 300% improvement in running performance under their breeding protocol primarily contribute to the things we would associate with improvements in the LT (e.g. capillary density, economy, fat oxidation, etc), but very little has changed in the factors contributing to VO2max. Interestingly though, despite the increasing homogeneity in the population of both high capacity and low capacity runners, there is still a fairly large variance in performance; the CGM? I won’t belabor this point since it is very tangential, but I think it provides interesting fuel for discussion).
Finally, since you have established that the physiological characteristic that best predicts performance is the ability to run at a high percentage of VO2max, while on the other hand, most everyone one who is moderately trained can run, theoretically forever, below their Critical Velocity, which is again very tightly associated with the LT; wouldn’t it be of value to at least understand where this human performance “sound barrier” is (e.g. CV or LT), so that one can learn to perform above the level *everyone* can perform at for a significant amount of time, and close to the level you have established as distinguishing the elitest runners in endurance disciplines. Unfortunately, everyone doesn’t have access to the coaches of the East African runners, so, it would be of value to understand, even without lab testing, where the VO2max pace is and possibly use that as a benchmark. So, the question is, how best, or at least not worst, to train this. In my view, it’s good to think about the things that contribute to the LT, and what would be “useless” and what would be of “benefit”. This is a cost/benefit analysis and to properly perform a cost benefit analysis, one needs to know the costs and the benefits.
All of this being said, isn’t to discount there is some central control that influences performance, there certainly is, whether it is exactly like the CGM as you have described, or something similar remains to be determined. It may be that the cost/benefit analysis I write about above is simply a means of addressing the CGM, and training it. Obviously the human body is a complex dynamical system, and performance, particularly optimal performance, puts this dynamical system under stress, but just because a dynamical system fails when under stress, that doesn’t necessarily prove there is a central controller that caused it to shut down. In fact, I would conjecture that it will be quite a sizeable task to establish to the satisfaction of the scientific community the existence of a CGM as you have described it. There are much simpler complex dynamical systems that have yet to be fully understood. I’m sure anyone who has been, or has worked with, elite athletes is well aware; there is an intangible element that makes some athletes of comparable physiology better than others. What that “it” is, well, you are lauded for searching for, and trying to characterize “it”.
To me, the reason it hasn't gotten much attention in this thread is likely that, as with many things, the "brain" part of the equation is trained as a consequence of training the metabolic factors. In other words, hard training will expose the athlete to the discomfort of unaccustomed exertions, and as a result they become more comfortable. At least, that's the way I look at it.
Thanks again for contributing to the discussion.
Steve
My questions remain:
What happens to energy production during races or all-out test efforts?
Why is one person able to perform better than another?
What causes fatigue and what prevents it?
Have a great day![/quote]
What happens to energy production during races or all-out test efforts? Well if you can just get around the idea that lactate is bad, and that there is no lactic acid, then we might be able to debate these issuses Tom, you know like we used to do before you renounced so many other researchers.
What causes fatigue and what prevents it? Well it ain't lactate accumulation causing fatigue I will put all my money on that.
What prevents fatigue? Concentration and focus of the mind can do wonders, a confident runner races so much better than one lacking confidence.
Have a great day yourself Tom, but let me add, that this false chumminess is not my thing, it doesn't really achieve anything. So have a great day in your work and domestic life Tom, but consider yourself challenged by me in debate also.
Hmm.... I sure hope I'm not being hoodwinked, but that's the danger of this type of interaction, isn’t it. I will assume this is the genuine article, and if this is indeed Dr. Noakes, thank you, specifically, for your contribution to this discussion and, generally, the field of Sports Science.
I think there is a general misconception inferred from many of the posts on this thread that those of us who argue in favor of learning, understanding and consulting the scientific principles of Sports Science in order to inform training/coaching, are arguing that training should be the slave to testing, in particular lab testing. I'm not sure where this has come from, certainly not from me. In fact, I was half tempted to post an e-mail response I sent to an athlete who approached me for lab LT testing last week. In that e-mail, I convinced her that there was really no value in having the testing done for her purposes, so, I couldn’t recommend it in good conscience. In fact, in general, I don't advocate it, and actually discourage it in most cases.
That being said, I think it is fairly well established that the “thing” that is most responsible for improved performance in endurance sports with prolonged training (i.e. years) is the LT, or if you prefer, the lactate turnpoint. By that I mean, if you take a high school XC runner and he continues to train to become an international caliber athlete in the 10 k or marathon, what was the central *physiological* factor that contributed to his improvement? Most likely it was the improvement in pace at LT. Certainly, if you look at a very homogenous sample of elite runners, it is likely the ones that run fastest in your peak velocity (it was 5 sec wasn’t it?), at the end of an incremental protocol when they have already achieved VO2max will be the ones who are most likely to win the races. The athletes are maximally stressed aerobically, and by virtue of the test, you are selecting for “slow people” ;) So, the *fastest slow person* wins, right;) BUT, if you look at a young XC runner and contrast him with his older self several years later as a competitive marathoner, that peak velocity may not have changed very much. What will have changed dramatically though is his/her pace at the lactate turnpoint (hopefully).
Further, I would surmise that the ability to run at the highest percentage of VO2max that you refer to is largely dependent upon the slow component of VO2 incurred while running at a given pace, and it is well established that the slow component is largely influenced by LT. Again, as I have stated before, when I write “LT” I am using it more in a conceptual sense rather than a firm definition. Since this seems more like a “discussion” rather than an academic debate, I think that’s appropriate. The things that contribute to an improved LT will likely contribute more to max sustainable running speed than the things that contribute to VO2max.
(As an aside, I’m interested to know if you feel the CGM is something unique to humans or would play a role in animal performance as well. If the latter, I will point to the Britton/Koch rat model of genetic selection for treadmill running performance, and it is clear that the things that have resulted in the more than 300% improvement in running performance under their breeding protocol primarily contribute to the things we would associate with improvements in the LT (e.g. capillary density, economy, fat oxidation, etc), but very little has changed in the factors contributing to VO2max. Interestingly though, despite the increasing homogeneity in the population of both high capacity and low capacity runners, there is still a fairly large variance; the CGM? I won’t belabor this point since it is very tangential, but I think it provides interesting fuel for discussion).
Finally, since you have established that the physiological characteristic that best predicts performance is the ability to run at a high percentage of VO2max, while on the other hand, most everyone one who is moderately trained can run, theoretically forever, below their Critical Velocity, which is again very tightly associated with the LT; wouldn’t it be of value to at least understand where this human performance “sound barrier” is (e.g. CV or LT), so that one can learn to perform above the level *everyone* can perform at for a significant amount of time, and close to the level you have established as distinguishing the elitest runners in endurance disciplines. Unfortunately, everyone doesn’t have access to the coaches of the East African runners, so, it would be of value to understand, even without lab testing, where the VO2max pace is and possibly use that as a benchmark. So, the question is, how best, or at least not worst, to train this. In my view, it’s good to think about the things that contribute to the LT, and what would be “useless” and what would be of “benefit”. This is a cost/benefit analysis and to properly perform a cost benefit analysis, one needs to know the costs and the benefits.
All of this being said, isn’t to discount there is some central control that influences performance, there certainly is, whether it is exactly like the CGM as you have described, or something similar remains to be determined. It may be that the cost/benefit analysis I write about above is simply a means of addressing the CGM, and training it. Obviously the human body is a complex dynamical system, and performance, particularly optimal performance, puts this dynamical system under stress, but just because a dynamical system fails when under stress, that doesn’t necessarily prove there is a central controller that caused it to shut down. In fact, I would conjecture that it will be quite a sizeable task to establish to the satisfaction of the scientific community the existence of a CGM as you have described it. There are much simpler complex dynamical systems that have yet to be fully understood. I’m sure anyone who has been, or has worked with, elite athletes is well aware; there is an intangible element that makes some athletes of comparable physiology better than others. What that “it” is, well, you are lauded for searching for, and trying to characterize “it”.
You state:
“I remain surprised that few coaches has yet contributed the opinion that the coach is not likely to be successful unless he (or she) also emphasizes the contribution that the athlete’s brain makes to his or her running performance.”
Might it not be that Wagner’s view of the O2 delivery system holds for the neurological aspects of training also? I’m sure few coaches would think of it this way, but this complex dynamical system, our body, is so tightly integrated that the hard training that stimulates physiological adaptations that I argue are very important also, coincidentally, trains the nervous system. I get the impression that this is your view in essence as well, that strenuous training results in a neurological adaptation of some sort that, further results in improved performance. I’m again, not discounting this, but feel the metabolic adaptations need to be included in the equation. To coaches, the neurological side of the equation may just appear self evident, and most of the "discussion" in this thread has centered around the metabolic side of things.
Thanks again for contributing to the discussion.
Steve
Hi Timothy,
thankyou for appearing as i've wanted to read your actual words. Were they your emails presented earlier?
There are a few points you have made that i would like to follow up on:
You say "the body does indeed act as a complex system as predicted by the Central Governor Model." I don't believe this is new information to the coaching community. I think coaching methodology is in itself a complex system dealing with the body and mind as a complex system. Is this new to the physiology community?
You also say "We should perhaps focus simply on having athletes run faster for longer, the approach adopted by Matt Fitzgerald in his new book." Again i don't think this is new information to the coaching community. How do you see this as this a ground breaking idea? Isn't this what the kenyan's do and what Lydiard for one espouses?
You say "I have personally concluded that the tiny differences in performance between the very best athletes cannot be due to physiology but must be due to something else ... and that this has little to do with their physiology at that moment. Rather it is due to other factors that we scientists have yet to understand but which in my view most elite athletes appreciate rather well (if you ask them)." Well i can claim to be one and it is all mental once the physical variables are roughly equal. The differences are all within what is contained in the mind. I think i became aware of that when i was 18 because my coach told me. In fact i think my father may have said something like this many years earlier. Behavioural Psycholgy may hold the answers to high performance!
In relation to your opinion on Lydiard and Cerutty i noticed that the scant information you have provided is particular to your own point of view. I guess this tendency is difficult to separate in our thinking.
In defense, Lydiard coached only a small cadre, however, he never approached an athlete, had a small population to work with (2 million), basically just trained himself and then people wanted to join in (a bit Forrest Gump like). From the small cadre he had an amazing stroke rate of success. In relation to other countries i believe he was responsible for the rebirth of distance running success in Finland. He had less success in Mexico and i think he said their way of life makes them less open to his ideas. Still, I think someone ran 5th in the Olympic marathon whilst he was there. When he went to Kenya he left saying they already know everything i have to teach. Also i think some of his athletes coached another generation of world class middle distance runners In New Zealand. Quite a resume. People debate it though.
Cerutty on the other hand produced more than one champion, and he advised many beyond that which he coached. He even advised Clarke whilst still was a teenager. He has written many books and his philosophy is out there in plain view. Surely you recognise his genius? Anyway this link to an interview with Herb Elliot on Percy Cerutty should be enough.
http://www.coolrunning.com.au/general/2001e003.shtml
This is one important bit anyway:
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Smith: Do you think you would have achieved what you did in running, Herb, without Percy Cerutty?
Herb Elliott: I have no doubt that I would not have, no. I think we were a genuine partnership, and there was a synergistic thing. If you add the two parts up together and put them together, it ends up being more than the sum of the two, that's the way we were. So yes, I have no hesitation answering that question; I couldn't have done what I did without Percy.
------------------------------------------------------------
I guess to sum up, my main point would be that nothing of what you have presented has a practical effect on coaching methodology. You seem to agree with this though.
However, the central governor is just homeostasis is it not?
thankyou
Sim
Sorry, my first response was not complete. I clicked send by accident, and stopped the browser. I didnt' realize it went through. Please disregard the first.
Thanks
Steve
oh that explains the miscommunication but seriously i've never coached anyone in this age and event before. What are some standard performances for a 43 year old well trained female?
One more thing:
Tinman wrote:
wellnow -
It is funny that you continue to say spaniel and I are the ones who are pseudo-scientific when you are the one who has little or no understanding of biochemistry! Take a look in the mirror, sir!
You have talked about aerobic glycolysis as if it actually exists (it does not). etc
If you actually bothered to read what I have written you will have noticed that I have made the point several times that the terms aerobic glycolysis and anaerobic glycolysis are redundant.
In our "discussions" I don't believe you made the distinction. If you have elsewhere, good for you.
One assumes you are aware of the contentiousness since you think I am afraid of the APS police;)
Well der is lots of bloo ink on da graf, and there are a couple grafss. Pardon my ignorance. Please be less dubious;)
Steve
Possibly it is best just to ignore him now, i mean he even brought out the stop thinking of lactate as bad again for goodness sake ;)
"I won’t belabor this point since it is very tangential, but I think it provides interesting fuel for discussion."
Steve, I've enjoyed your carefully reasoned series of posts on this thread, but at nearly 40 pages, do you really think you guys need further fuel for discussion? ;-)
LOL! Good point. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) there is always more fuel for discussion.
Steve
Sim,
I think that's a good approach, understanding the relationships and how the various concepts/terms relate to each other. I'm glad that's the approach you're taking.
Well, if you wanted to define a truly Max effort from a power standpoint, by rights it should be the peak power elicited during something like a vertical jump. A truly maximal effort will be essentially a singlular muscle action as any repetition of the effort will result in a reduced value. In other words, a one rep max in weightlifting is just that, a one rep max. You can't do two or three, certainly not more. The standing long jump would have a skill component to it that the vertical jump would not. For something like the vertical jump, the power would be fairly straightforward to calculate P=f x d/t. I'm not sure how relevant something like that would be to running paces as a percent effort though.
From a more running relevant perspective, good track athletes have been estimated to generate peak power ~ 2500 watts during the 100 m and this is confirmed in cyclists for similar durations (again these are sprint specialists though). Contrast this to a one hour effort on the bike of ~450 watts, which would be comparable to a half marathon effort for running. So, this would make it appear as though the 1/2 is about 1/5 the effort of a maximal effort by your definition. It's really an apple to oranges comparison though, because again, a sprinter who can generate 2500 watts (running or cycling) will definitely not be generating 450 watts for an hour, their fatigue would be much greater.
From another perspective all out 20 sec efforts on a treadmill have been estimated to require ~120 ml/kg/min. Compare this to the approximate 60 ml/kg/min required to run a world class marathon and you'd get around 50% effort for the marathon. Granted the guy who generates a requirement of 120 ml/kg/min (realize that's not actual O2 consumption, just the estimated requirement being provided by anaerobic means) will NOT be running a marathone at 60 ml/kg/min.
Steve
Thanks, i'm planning on it being the right approach. If not it will be one of those dead ends.
True wordas about the vertical jump and the standing long jump. Took me years to range in on an ideal SLJ wheras the vertical one was pretty much done the first time i tried it.
From a decathletes perspective 8 events are under 15 seconds, the ninth is under 50 and the tenth is too long and too late in the program to worry about:) This indicates where training time is spent. Strength, speed, power and technique. Endurance is often in the background but hardly in the foreground. I would say in a 400m i am operating at 95% whereas in the shot put (or any of the technical events) i am operating at 100%. This would include the 110h and 100m. Having said this the overall effort in the 400m is 100%. I am 'maxed out' at the end. The last 50m requires maximal effort. In the 1500m the final 600m for me requires close to and in the final straight, maximal effort.
One thing that comes to mind is that in a 3000m race i would be hardly working for the first 400m and then not very much for the next 400m but after that my workload would increase to maximum very quickly. That range is quite high in me. In a specialist 3000m runner they would also be very easy at the start but they would still be working harder than a power athlete. At the end of the race, however, they would be working at a lower level than the power athlete. The range would be smaller. At least it looks smaller to me for the outside. Possibly it is quite huge to the experienced endurance athlete? I feel the power end of the spectrum is far larger than the endurance side but this could be because of my personal experience. Do distance runners feel the same as me only in reverse?
PS if the purpose of this thread has been fulfilled then possibly it is time for it to die as oldXCrunner said. I want to continue discussing and debating as well as throwing my own ideas into the mix. Can we start a new thread on a topical issue and look into that?
cheers for the thread anyway guys if it doesn't continue. Tis been 'fun' to quote Nobby.
Steve before i sleep one more thing and it regards your cost/benefit idea.
This is something that is at the core of decathlon training. Possibly i can highlight how so as an illustration of your idea/concept thing??
There is only a certain amount of time where it is possible to train in a given day and a given week. There are many ways to maximise the trainign time available such as split sessions, alternating types of work from day to day and doing any number of the recovery options that are generally known about. Even the taking of PED's for some is an opportunity to train more often and not really much else.
Within this time available a decathlete has to fit in a lot of different types of training. Ideally one would do all the potential training in a given week. This would probably require 8 hours a day 7 days a week and still fall short. The human body can only stand so much, even after being highly trained for 10 or 15 years this is so.
So there instantly comes a cost/benefit analysis when deciding on what training to put into the time available. The decisions are tough but fortunately, alike MD running, there is much crossover between qualities. In MD, if looking physiologically, the LT MLSS and VO2 max all occur quite close to each other. They can and are simultaneously trained through a number of different types of training. And so in the decathlon. One of the biggest ones that i discovered late was that the rhythm that exists in the hurdles is the same rhythm for the last two strides of each jump and the delivery strides for each throw. It is like a universal rule for projecting things (implements or oneself). The only other rhythm in track and field is the even one. It may accelerate, decelerate or remain constant however, it is still even from left to right. Two rhythms and things become easier. Now a more fundamental movement pattern can be isolated and trained. Then what i always find now is those 7 or 9 events mentioned above have automatically improved in the individual. The base level of the cost/benefit analysis has shifted if you like.
simm
So, you're suggesting we discontinue the discussion, but then ask two more questions?;)
Well, the reason I asked what your point of reference was for "max", it could be just about anything. If you take a max vertial jump, or a max 200 m, or a max 1500 m, or a max 10k or a max marathon; they can all be max references. If anyone of them is truly maximal, they probably cannot be repeated in the same session or even on the same day. So, any effort could be a max effort reference, but I would typically think of the 1500 or maybe the 800 as the max effort reference for aerobic activity.
In your example of the 3000 m, I presume you are referring to your *perception* of working/not working. By that I mean, you are likely running the first 800 at the ave pace for the entire race or close to it, so, your worklevel has not really changed over the course of the race, just your perception of it, right? Of course this is primarily because much of our perception of effort is a feedback response that comes from the periphery and it takes time for metabolites to accumulate in the periphery to the extent that makes the effort feel "hard". Of course that would be a "peripheralist's" point of view;)
Steve