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

Richard_ wrote:

In relation to the history of the belief about muscles and performance that is an amazing comment. When I first started telling runners years ago that performance was primarily limited by muscles and not the cardiovascular system the howls of protests were deafening and the name calling was unrelenting. I encountered very few who were even open to the idea that muscles might be really important.

Today, the idea that muscles might play a big role in performance is not only not heretical but now HRE is claiming we've known muscle was really important all along.

Thank you, HRE, for your ackowledgement that muscles do play a very important role in performance. I believe the debate is now close to officially being declared to be over.

Richard,

If you've never known anyone who's talked about muscles in relation to running I can only think you've been talking to people who know even less about the sport than you do.

In 1975 Ron Hill, then at the tail end of his international career, came fifth in the Boston Marathon. He said he'd only been averaging 65 miles a week as opposed to the 120-130 he'd done in preparation for the 1970 Boston Marathon. He said, "After all these years do you really think my muscles would get any stronger running more than I am?"

The whole reason Lydiard had his guys do hill work, then faster anaerobic work, then, speed work, was to adapt the muscles for faster running and even in the base phase he talked about adding capillary beds and mitochondria to the muscles to improve their functioning as well as increasing the heart's ability to pump blood.

Why did Lance Armstrong, who must have as good a cardiovascular system as any East African, struggle to break three hours in the marathon when those Africans are running 2:10 or so? Because he devoloped that cardiovascular fitness by cycling rather than running and his muscles weren't adapted to running. The reason why the idea you push on your website about training by running three or four days a week and lifting weights on the other three or days being a better way to train than by running seven or more times a week is nonsense. The weight lifitng won't help your muscles adapt to the activity of running.

Yes, the debate should be about over, but I have a hunch you'll try to keep it going.

From Richards website:

"Join the Rebel Alliance

As you can see, I am convinced this program works, even without having personally coached a single elite athlete."

Oh can I, can I join, where do I sign up.

Now, you quote on that same page that "some" runners were averaging 60 miles per week.

Well, 100km per week x 52 weeks = 5200km per year. A few weeks without running, a few weeks at 140 or more kilometres, a few weeks at 60 to 80 kilomtres and before you know it you've got a balanced program that includes high volume work - working on increasing the ability of the muscles to aerobically metabolise!!!!, you've got some lower volume periods where the workouts dictate that instead of running 1:30 to 2:00 hours on your easy days you just go for some short recovery runs.

There is no either/or for genuine elite runners and coaches - they balance their year with both high volume and high intensity when and where required.

The only people that have this either/or approach and think that others do are people who have never actually been around elite runners for a period of time.

And don't forget - most runners never report accurately - they often over estimate or under estimate depending on who is asking and where it is going to be written!

Again from the website:

"I was able to run a 2:23.26 marathon--2 weeks later I ran a 30:46--10K"

That is a guy right - are we supposed to be impressed by those times? What a joke.

Bring us a sub 27:00 10k runner or sub 2:08 marathon runner you have coached and we'll start listening to you.

Keep theorising - the rest of the world is out running while your thinking about it!

I read some more of this Richard guys website, I think he (Richard) has even confused himself. he talks about optimal training load - what happens if someones optimal training load is 160kms per week - is that wrong? he then says in another section how he never used to believe in easy runs, but now he does for level 1 and 2 runners as a way of increasing their training load. Well guess what buzzard brain - that is exactly what elite runners are doing - they are doing your long run, your sprints, your hills, and everything else, and then easy running. By the time you do all that you are running 140+kms a week.

Anyway, now I'm pissed off wasting my time bothering with your rubbish website and writing on this subject.

Another worthless post. I am by no means a fan of Richard's, but this is asinine. Sub 27? No American has done that. So there are no good coaches in America? And with the exception of Khalid, no American has run sub 2:08, either. So I suppose that also means we have no good marathon coaches? Not even Bill Squires? If I ran a sub 31 10k I'd be happy. My current pr is 31:23, and I worked hard to get it. Go away unless you can form a meaningful thought.

HRE,

Your last post brought a tear to my eye - it is fantastic to see you building a case for the important role muscle plays in performance.

I officially welcome you to the "muscle" group.

Ok, but I'm still waiting for the day I can welcome you to the "gets it" group.

Richard_, last night after training I came to the conclusion that I don't accept the Hill/Noakes central governor hypothesis.

My reason was that, the heart outperforms all other muscles by a huge margin, because it is constantly excercised and therefore has vastly superior contractility to the skeletal muscles. And thus, a healthy heart is never in danger of failure in athletic competition since the performance of the skeletal muscles are much more limiting.

Only in an extreme case such as life threatening dehydration, poisoning, or viral attack, does the heart's performance become compromised.

wellnow wrote:

Richard_, last night after training I came to the conclusion that I don't accept the Hill/Noakes central governor hypothesis.

My reason was that, the heart outperforms all other muscles by a huge margin, because it is constantly excercised and therefore has vastly superior contractility to the skeletal muscles. And thus, a healthy heart is never in danger of failure in athletic competition since the performance of the skeletal muscles are much more limiting.

Only in an extreme case such as life threatening dehydration, poisoning, or viral attack, does the heart's performance become compromised.

wellnow,

My understanding of the central govenor was that it applied to all parts of the body, not just the heart. Anytime any part of the body reaches some critical level, the central governor responds to protect the body from irrepairable harm or death. If my understanding is correct, then the belief that the heart is never at risk doesn't negate the central governor model.

Okay, I am going to be a sucker here and throw in my 2c worth.

Many years ago a number of us were sitting around discusssing "What make us work as 'elite' ahletes". The proffessor involoved said . "Bottom line : we are walking/running chemical reactions that have a number of components helping that chemical reaction (ie heart/lungs/muscles etc)and the whole thing is run by a computer(Brain) and the reason that some athletes are better than others is their chemical reactions are handled better by their components but really their oomputer has an extra circuit in it that says "Do it better" or 'don't slow down", or as we say here in NZ. The top 2 inches of the Brain is the limiting factor.

Once again, all the science is great to read about and very interesting but what I want is to get my athletes running better. I have seen nothing here that does not replace good old fashioned "balanced training done on a consistent basis over a long period".

I have spent some time with 2 Olympic Champions (Not runners .. Rower and Kayaker)with their training and noticed they adhered to those factors BUT I also noted that when the going got tough an X factor came to the surface which saw them just push ahead of their Training mates or dig a little deeper than those of us "lesser mortals". I asked them "How and Why". Bottom line they were not prepared to settle for second best or waste a training session.

An old timer once said he saw something like this in Peter Snell at a training session (and also Racing) He said Peter's eyes sort of took on this "steely" look almost sinking back into their sockets and seemed to focus on something else that was out there beyond where eyes actually do focus. It was like he had bought in a new dimension.

Maybe he shut down that "Central Governor"!!!!

Richard99 .. Still hanging in there I see !!!!!

Kim Stevenson wrote:

Richard99 .. Still hanging in there I see !!!!!

Hi, Kim.

Yes, I'm still banging on the same "muscle" drum I've been beating a tune on for nearly 10 years now. The difference today is that a bunch of people have stopped dancing to the cardiovascular disco and some have even started to groove to the muscle beat. Heck, even HRE has his muscle groove going on. Dare I predict that you and Nobby will be joining the party sometime soon?

Richard_ wrote:... even HRE has his muscle groove going on. Dare I predict that you and Nobby will be joining the party sometime soon?

Richard, I imagine you're just trying to be funny, but in case it isn't obvious to anyone else, it seems to me that HRE still takes strong issue with the basic message you have been transmitting about effective training for distance runners, and you're taking some license pretending he's in your camp.

Nobody with any sense would ever suggest that the muscles don't play an important role in distance running. To that extent, I believe HRE agrees with you (as I suggest everyone does). Not to speak for HRE, but I think where nearly everyone tunes out from your message is when you go on talking about training ONLY the muscles as an effective strategy for becoming a good distance runner.

I haven't looked at your website since a cursory review several years ago, so forgive me if I'm way off base, but it struck me then that the training approach you were advocating was something that went way against the collective experience of all elite distance runners, ever (low mileage, focus on strength/power only, etc). I'm all for original thought and new ideas, but if you want people to accept a radical new idea, you need to provide some evidence to support it, which I don't think you have (in the form of race results and improvements in specific trained athletes).

Of course I'm paraphrasing from an addled memory, so please correct any misunderstandings, and if you like explain your training philosophy for those who haven't seen it before. And by all means, if there are some results to support it, please share those too.

Pete,

I make a stong, clear distinction between physiology models (such as the cardiovascular/anaerobic model) and training models (such as Lydiard style training).

It was not suggesting that HRE and I were in agreement on training methods - we clearly are not.

I was only suggesting that he and I share similar physiological beliefs. My "prediction" was also only about physiological beliefs.

On the topic of my training beliefs, one thing I would point out to you is that most of my advice is addressed specifically to those with average levels of talent and is not the same advice I would give if I were advising someone with elite level talent.

Pete wrote:

Nobody with any sense would ever suggest that the muscles don't play an important role in distance running.

Pete,

Runners talk, debate, argue, and focus on those things they think are important influencers of performance. That being the case, if you would like to conduct a little research to determine just how much importance the running community places on the role of muscle in performance, I offer the following suggestion to you.

First, review this message board and count the number of discussions & # responses in those discussions in the last few years focused on muscles. Compare that to the number of threads and # of responses on VO2max, lactate threshold, running economy, HR, mitochondria, and any other aerobic energy production related factor. If muscle is seen as being important in performance then there should be as many discussions and responses about muscles as there are about any other singlular topic.

Second, pick up several running books and count the number of chapters focused on muscles and their important role in performance. (If you are unable to find even a single chapter focused muscles, count the number of paragraphs focused on the role of muscles in performance.) Compare that to the # of chapters that are devoted to aerobic energy production topics. If muscle is believed to be important in performance there should be as many chapters focused on it as there are on any other singular topic.

wellnow wrote:

Richard_, last night after training I came to the conclusion that I don't accept the Hill/Noakes central governor hypothesis.

My reason was that, the heart outperforms all other muscles by a huge margin, because it is constantly excercised and therefore has vastly superior contractility to the skeletal muscles.

Isn´t the heart a muscle also indeed ?

Richard_ wrote:If muscle is seen as being important in performance then there should be as many discussions and responses about muscles as there are about any other singlular topic.

There are literally thousands of threads on this forum that discuss topics such as drills, cure strength, hill training, weight training etc.

If you limit your search to threads that have the word "muscles" in the subject line I guess you might be disappointed, but discussions about strength training, in a distance running-specific form, abound here.

Pete wrote:cure strength,

Pete,

I guess since I've encountered so many people over the years arguing that it was all about oxygen and with no chapters in any running books on the role of muscle in performance but multiple chapters devoted to topics like VO2max & lactate threshold that I just didn't realize that the running community already recognized the full importance of muscle in performance and that it was a small but vocal minority that was arguing against the muscle power model and writing books focused on the cardiovascular/anaerobic model.

I guess we really can officially declare the debate to be over. Muscle power is now officially recognized as being at least as important as any other physiological factor in performance (and, for some of us, more important than other factors that were previously preached as being most important before the debate ended).

Now that it is official, I vote we change some names:

from "aerobic base building" to "slow twitch fiber training"

from "aerobic" to "fast twitch A"

from "anaerobic" to "fast twitch B"

from "tempo runs" to "power runs"

We can start with those and make other changes later.

The reason nobody harped on the muscles is because it was so dadburn obvious running muscles were being used to run and different muscles were being used to do different sports, so it never needed much discussion. Everyone knew that the bulk of the energy being produced to move the running muscles was taking place within - surprise! - those very running muscles, specifically within fibers with properties related to the intensity of the running. A few decades ago, we all called it "sport specificity." The delivery system (heart, vascular network, lungs, alveolar capillaries, O2-carrying properties of the blood, myoglobin reservoir, etc.) was given more attention, but the changes taking place in the muscle fibers were also under scrutiny the whole time.

See above. "Aerobic" has always been thought to involve more "slow twitch" than "anaerobic" has. Even if people are still wrong about that and something entirely different is happening, running is running and always has been. We've ***always*** been training those running muscles at the same time we train our hearts and lungs and connective tissue and while we're becoming mentally tough and developing savvy racing tactics.

Now you're groping, but whatever. I used to call them "fast continuous runs" if the weightless and effortless sensation was there for most of the run, and I called the hard, pushing ones "gut runs." To quote the Mad Hatter (or is it the March Hare?), "Words mean what I want them to mean," so if you want to rename something and feel like you've made a practical contribution, have fun with that.

By then, these "revolutionary" terms will be stale because everything will be defined by the sizes and functions of motor neurons instead of by muscle fiber type.