No apology necessary. This thread had gotten so technical that a little sarcasm could easily be overlooked.
No apology necessary. This thread had gotten so technical that a little sarcasm could easily be overlooked.
african running revolution wrote:
Eh? wrote:[quote]Timothy Noakes wrote:
This is one of the key differences between the African runners and so-called Western runners; Kenyans and Ethiopians never abandoned their traditions, like high volumes of strong running with hard intervals. Though as you have noted, again, they likely have added to their traditions. I have no problem acknowledging that Kenyan and Ethiopian runners are practicing other forms of training now. But, it's very important to note this new training is in addition to successful traditional forms of training, not in place of it.
Look deep. The most prominent east african coaches and runners as Kostre is one or look to runners as Bekele Gebre or Tergat and many more east africans past and present. You will realise that all those coaches and runners did learn to coach and train by europeans coaches and non-africans - directly or indirect. Since early ones Abebe Bikila or Kip Keino or Filbet Bayi – to more recent Daniel Komen or Gebre or Tergat or Kipketer. Look to the actual Kenyan/Qatari runners. Behind them there is an european coach. English, Italian, Polish, Bulgarian coaches and mentors. The hypothesis that what they know and what they train have to do with the African background that’s wrong.
What the east africans did preserve that’s not a new training style the african training style. Since the early days they follow the european training models adjusted to his own training reality and environment. What they did preserve it is the lack of training control by occidental technology and paraphernalia as well as physiology.
Abebe Bikila was coached by an European as well as most of the Ethiopians of that period. Kip Keino had an european coach. Tergat is coach be Dr. Rosa. Bekele and Gebre that´s Dr. Kostre but he did learn to coach in an European university. Daniel Komen was by the English M. Mac. Brother O'Connell is predominant to coach Kipketer and then he had another European coach. Bernard Lagat have an American coach. Kimbia coach is Dieter Hogan an german coach.
If you want to get back to the east african training sources you shall take a look in the european training methods that are adjusted to the east african runners and adopted by east african coaches.
Another theory is possible. That the lifestyle and culture of the africans proivided perfect raw specimens, talent if you will, and refined them with non-African methods in order to be able to race comeptitively. The racing is the non-African influence, the background is all African.
There is also a sociological effect occurring similar to that of the African-Americans and US power sports. Kenyan youth see teh guy who ran in Earope come home and all of a sudden have a much improved lifestyle. He has no prospects to achieve this other than follow the same path, run.
The mind is a powerful thing as you said HRE
It seems at least you agree that the Hill model must go -- earlier you proposed a "cognitive learning" or "simple learning" model as a more obvious extension to the existing physical limitation models.The advantage and value of a new model is how much it furthers understanding and knowledge. It is possible that this may suit scientists, while falling short of athletes expectations or timelines.I suppose one possible avantage would suggest a way to untap your physical potential by safely convincing your Governor to be less conservative, through some psychological techniques like positive thinking, subliminal programming, hypnosis, brain-washing, or some eastern holistic approach to finding oneness with the road.
I have a theory too wrote:
Back to the original reference for this thread.
From what I can see from Dr. Noakes' input, the CG model is proposed to explain behaviour apparently not supported by the Hill model.
For the original question, what would we gain with the CG model?
By definition, the CG intercedes to prevent 'us' from damaging ourselves during exertion/exercise. If this is true, it implies two distinct issues:
1) we can't override
2) if we could override it, we shouldn't
Given this, what possible advantage would acceptance of the model gives us in a positive manner?
The Light wrote:
earlier you proposed a "cognitive learning" or "simple learning" model as a more obvious extension to the existing physical limitation models.
No, I didn't. Dr. Noakes indicated the following:
"The strongest (but not the only) evidence supporting the central governor theory is that when they are allowed to pace themselves during exercise in different experimental conditions, humans modify their behavior BEFORE they run into trouble."
I indicated this behaviour is easily explanable by cognitive skills and thus does not strengthen the CG theory.
Wow! It has gone far since!!! I just want to share one thing.
Sim:
I totally agree with your friend. When I read Dr. Noak's comment about tactic (assuming it really is him); the first thing I thought about was Halberg. In fact, Arthur, in his last interview (Marathon & Beyond 2004 which I did), he compared Halberg's tactic with Tergat's at Atlanta Olympic 10000m. I'm a huge fan of Tergat and I think he's one of the greatest distance runners of all time. And, he clearly deserves a special award for "trying everything" to beat Geb. His tactics for Atlanta and Sydney were quite different and you KNOW that he was trying something different to beat Geb. Unfortunately for Tergat, with the basic speed, Geb was just quicker.
Somewhere in this thread...or it could have been other thread, some idiot said that Lydiard was not a good coach because 2 of his runners, Snell and Davies, didn't tie in the 1500m final at Tokyo (I still don't know what his point was...); that, if Lydiard was indeed a good coach and train "neighborhood kid" to become an Olympic champion, since he coached both Davies and Snell, they should have both won. Interesting.... But of course, the thing was that they had different basic speed. Snell was much quicker than Davies. You could say Snell was an 800-1500 runner and Davies was more like 1500-5000 runner. That's why they employed different tactics--Davies had to lead and put pressure on the rest of the field; and if he didn't, he probably wouldn't have even won a medal. Snell, on the other hand, could afford to sit and want.
You always capitalize your strengths and your oponents' weaknesses. You race to win; and the way you win is different for everybody. El G lost Sydney but of course the records show that he was no inferior runner to Ngney. To ensure his win in Athens (or am I thnking about Morcelli?), he had his teammate in the final and apply the pressure right from the start. He needed to make the race an honest effort to get the sting out of the opponents' who might be basically quicker than him. Quite often the race is won by someone whose times are not as good; but he/she happens to be at the right time at the right place...or they plan to be at the right place at the right moment and try to excute accordingly. Tactically, I always love to watch Montreal 5000 and Barcelona 5000. In both races, the winners knew exactly what they were doing. On the other hand, I remember Barcelona 1500m final, Kenyans ran very poor tactical race. And the commentator, Frank Shorter, who clearly understood what was going on, kept saying, "What were the Kenyans thinking..." Call what you want (Central Governer?); but they usually have a plan and execute it beautifully. Sure, you need to change it just in case; but you still need to know what the heck you're doing. I've heard Lasse Viren talking about Montreal 5000m race. He said, "I had 2 plans; one was to let other to lead. But nobody was willing to lead. So I switched it to the second plan, which is to lead. And everything went as planned..." What a cockie son of a b!tch!!! But clearly he was superior in his head that day.
This is why I personally love competition--I'd rather watch a race won in a slow time but tactically brilliant than a winner setting world record behind 4 or 5 rabbits. Competition, to me, is much more interesting.
By the way, Sim, you asked (much) earlier what Snell's 200m speed was. It's 22.4.
thanks for that Nobby. Snell certainly had a lof of strength when he ran, a race with Juantorena would have been a sight.
My coach always said a coach is also a psychologist. I believe a good coach can enhance an athletes own level of psychological ability. Further to this i wish we had more athletes capable of going head to head with one another over a series of races or even a season. Athletics/track and field need some really good battles.
Tim,
More later as I am limited in time now but in brief, I agree that theory must, or usually, comes first, and that a model that is inconsistent with what is observed must be modified. However, let's be clear that Hill is not necessarily inconsistent with what is observed, much of it is. I would first of all agree that it is wrong if it excludes a role of conscious pacing decisions, for example.
However, this still does not mean that we accept the CGM just because the other model doesn't explain anything. Much is not explained by CGM either and I believe there are inconsistencies.
Good quote from Hawking, but again I'm not telling you not to theorize. Much have what is said about CGM goes beyond theory and implies it is something more than that or there is real evidence FOR it. I'm just saying separate theory from saying it's something more than that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not here saying Hill is 100% right. I don't have a horse in this race other than good science. Theories are good, evidence showing it is more than an idea is even better. No model has R2=1.0 by definition so that is not the goal of a model. Most of us are more concerned with how this work in actuality rather than models anyways.
I'll dig into your points about what would be necessary to prove the existence of CGM later tonight when time allows. Some sort of physical localization or mechanism with evidence of existence comes to mind but I'll chew on that when I can look at your suggestions in detail.
I am a coach/runner with the usual background information of the various and competing theories. Some of the more recent comments deserve further comment.Motivation-if anyone thinks that Africans do it on talent only, or the advantage of altitude, read Tergat's comments about preparing to beat Geb in 2000. He said that he trained until he dropped (literally) got up, had some tea, rest and go again.
How many westerners would ever match that? Two that come close seem to me to be Paula and Deena and their results are similar to Tergat.
The reference to Kardong is interesting, and I believe an accurate theory. I am coaching a super talent 15 yr old now. He has the ability to run 3:40 (1500) in hs if everything goes well. 40 years ago that would seem to be a preposterous expectation. Now, after Webb, Sullivan Brannan, Acosta et al, it is a reasonable expectation if a kid is truly talented. Moreover, as the coach, if I am telling him matter of factly that he can attain it if his training goes well, he believes it, thus making it easier to accomplish.
another canuck wrote:
Motivation-if anyone thinks that Africans do it on talent only, read Tergat's comments about preparing to beat Geb in 2000. He said that he trained until he dropped (literally) got up, had some tea, rest and go again.
How many westerners would ever match that?
Answer: Alberto Salazar, Gerry Lindgren, Jim Ryun, Derek Clayton.
By the way, no one made any claims about doing it on "talent only." You're debating a straw man on that one. It's just that talent allows you to train harder without breaking down. Tergat's training would not work for runners of lesser abilities. But it's fun to pretend otherwise, as if the success of native Kenyans boils down to their superior character and many other heroic qualities.
From the 44 pages of discussion, I have gleaned that the CGM at this time should not affect one's philosophy of training one bit.
Do some longer, slowish runs
Do some runs that are faster paced
Do some runs that are even faster paced
another canuck wrote:
Tergat's comments about preparing to beat Geb in 2000. He said that he trained until he dropped (literally) got up, had some tea, rest and go again.
This brings up an interesting point. Training to beat (something/someone). It's current records and levels competition that dictate what needs to be done. It's hard to compare now and then since then had it's records and things have since changed.
Question for Dr. Noakes if he's checking in again. How does the Central Governor know that you're running in a race, and thus allow you to run faster than in, say, a time trial?
Not trying to challenge the theory... I was just wondering about this at the track this afternoon as I was punishing both my body and mind with 5 x 2000 w/90s jog rest.
I can't speak for everyone, but I know I can't run nearly as fast in a TT as in a race, even if I try to pretend it's really a race. Strangely, though, if it IS a race, even if I'm by myself with nobody to key off, I seem to be able to push myself that much harder (although the best results usually happen, by a little bit, when I'm being pushed or chasing someone faster). I find that curious.
spaniel wrote:
However, this still does not mean that we accept the CGM just because the other model doesn't explain anything. Much is not explained by CGM either and I believe there are inconsistencies.
The onus is on you and other scientists, then, to examine all the available evidence and then propose a new model that can explain the inconsistencies.
Ultimately this is how science moves forward, by discarding models that do not fully explain concepts and replacing them with new and more robust models that can explain what is happening.
The discarding (or alteration) of the Central Governor model and introduction of new models in our young field of Exercise Physiology would represent only progress and advancement in knowledge. This applies to all of the different areas of research (i.e. muscle damage, fatigue, metabolism, etc.) within our discipline.
As elegant as the central governor model is, in time it will see its day and be replaced as 1) better technology allows us eventually to test variables of which currently we are entirely unaware, and 2) we develop a better understanding of exercise physiology and the human body.
spaniel wrote:
However, this still does not mean that we accept the CGM just because the other model doesn't explain anything. Much is not explained by CGM either and I believe there are inconsistencies.
Jonathan Dugas wrote:
The onus is on you and other scientists, then, to examine all the available evidence and then propose a new model that can explain the inconsistencies.
No. Others may identify the inconsistencies, but the onus is on Dr. Noakes to explain them.
This thread should be pinned to the front page.
african running revolution wrote:
Eh? wrote:[quote]Timothy Noakes wrote:
This is one of the key differences between the African runners and so-called Western runners; Kenyans and Ethiopians never abandoned their traditions, like high volumes of strong running with hard intervals. Though as you have noted, again, they likely have added to their traditions. I have no problem acknowledging that Kenyan and Ethiopian runners are practicing other forms of training now. But, it's very important to note this new training is in addition to successful traditional forms of training, not in place of it.
Look deep. The most prominent east african coaches and runners as Kostre is one or look to runners as Bekele Gebre or Tergat and many more east africans past and present. You will realise that all those coaches and runners did learn to coach and train by europeans coaches and non-africans - directly or indirect. Since early ones Abebe Bikila or Kip Keino or Filbet Bayi – to more recent Daniel Komen or Gebre or Tergat or Kipketer. Look to the actual Kenyan/Qatari runners. Behind them there is an european coach. English, Italian, Polish, Bulgarian coaches and mentors. The hypothesis that what they know and what they train have to do with the African background that’s wrong.
What the east africans did preserve that’s not a new training style the african training style. Since the early days they follow the european training models adjusted to his own training reality and environment. What they did preserve it is the lack of training control by occidental technology and paraphernalia as well as physiology.
Abebe Bikila was coached by an European as well as most of the Ethiopians of that period. Kip Keino had an european coach. Tergat is coach be Dr. Rosa. Bekele and Gebre that´s Dr. Kostre but he did learn to coach in an European university. Daniel Komen was by the English M. Mac. Brother O'Connell is predominant to coach Kipketer and then he had another European coach. Bernard Lagat have an American coach. Kimbia coach is Dieter Hogan an german coach.
If you want to get back to the east african training sources you shall take a look in the european training methods that are adjusted to the east african runners and adopted by east african coaches.
I never said Africans didn't learn training from Europeans. I only said that once Africans coded their winning tradition they didn't stray from it, unlike Americans/Europeans. Africans may have learned from European/American coaches, but they took the lesson and internalized it, forming a tradition that they've never ignored.
Nobby wrote:
This is why I personally love competition--I'd rather watch a race won in a slow time but tactically brilliant than a winner setting world record behind 4 or 5 rabbits. Competition, to me, is much more interesting.
This is one of the reasons track isn't more popular here in the U.S. The televised races here are usually boring because they're led by rabbits. The rabbits string out the field right from the gun, there are few lead changes, no one from the back really makes any moves, and the athletes don't get a chance to use their strengths tactically. It's a dull thing to watch. Un-rabbited races are much more interesting. The 1500 and 5000 finals of the Athens Olympics were great to watch because they had lots of moves, and you didn't know who would win until the last few steps.
Rabbits shouldn't be used unless a world record attempt is on.
Thanks Sim, you have been kind to me lately in a couple of forums.
Bit off topic but... it mentions Lydiard and you have been discussing him.
Too many people on the net with egos trying to champion some idea and make a name for themselves - unfortunately the idea may be wrong.
From here
"You hit it on the head it’s like arguing religion. I will never convince LSD advocates… and that is ok. (I read some responses - they bore me. I heard every argument back int he 70s and early 80s when I actually believed it too. You see, I’ve been there and done that… 100+ mile weeks… Lydiard-ho!)
You are also right, they haven’t kept everything in context. There should indeed be longer slower runs for marathoners about every 2 to 3 weeks."
GOOD LORD!
and this (quoting some guy he agrees with)
"He advocates no more than 40 miles per week but this is all directed at decently accomplished half-marathoners (sub-2:00). What exactly is the training effect of running at a low heart rate for several months doing say 30-40miles/week?"
People read this and think it is true and perform below par.
No wonder they can only run 2 hours!!!!! They don't train the right way!!!!
Yes, I think I am.
I read some more stuff last night about Allen in the Tim Noakes book - very interesting. He began each year with 3 months of aerobic work with heart rate never over 150 (as your article says)
Ps i am with nobby on preferring to see a competitive race - all Gebs records are paced.
Previous marathon WR holders have raced it and been out in front most of the way.
Just on Geb - great great runner - the greatest ever? I don't think so.
most say he is.