Exactly... being more efficient at running means being more economic... being more economic is not necessarily a direct result of improved technique and co-ordination.
While those things CAN improve economy, physiological adaptations brought on my lots of running will improve it more!
You’re exactly correct. I recognized that when I wrote it but good for you for pointing it out.
I hesitated throwing those credentials out however I thought why don't I lay out my credentials that way if we have a discussion we can understand where everyone is coming from.
Really what I hoped it would do is kind of put people on notice that if they are going to make a statement about x,y, or z that they should think about what they were going to write, and whether they actually had any evidence to support it. Maybe elevate the level of responses.
Also I had hoped it would get people to clean up the lazy language a little. Their less than precise use of terms such as aerobic, anaerobic and neural.
Why didn't I take each one of his points and pick it apart or pick apart the ones that started the post? Well I can be a bit lazy and many others have more-or-less refuted the points. However, in this post as in others, I had noticed some irresponsible posting by Alan and he was passing off his ideas as fact. The straw that broke the camel’s back was the comments on evolution.
Now if you really care to have a rebuttal on the previous comments I can oblige but otherwise I will leave things as they are. Your call. Pick a point any point. I am sure my response will satify you quiry regrading my qualifications. Normally I would not entertain this but I was a bit irresponsible with my post so I get what I deserve.
I have both lab and real world experience. Mostly human research but some animal work as well. No theoretical although that may have just been a slight in reference to my unsubstantiated credentials.
We need something to measure. Otherwise people will come up with any number of explanations for the improved performance.
We can take a simple task such as dart throwing and the improvements that will occur with practice. Why is it that we improve? Can we measure something to explain the improvement in performance beyond just our score in a dart game? We likely improve by altering the recruitment patters in the arm and shoulder but also possible other muscle involved in stabilizing the truck, and possibly the head. Can we measure this? Well we may be able to get some measurements from EMG, fine needle electrodes or surface electrodes depending on what muscle we are interested in. We could also use a force plate to measure postural stability, center of pressure etc. My point is that we can measure many things but do they really explain why our ability to throw a dart improves?
Now apply the same approach to a much more complicated system with multiple limbs that can either work synergistically or antagonistically. Add in the coupling between the oscillation in the center of mass to ventilation to heart rate and sympathetic outflow and you can begin to see how complicated a system we are dealing with.
This is why we narrow things down, isolate variables and try and control/eliminate other factors. Obviously this has its drawbacks and they are big but, it has yielded valuable findings.
Again we needed testable hypotheses and the equipment with which to make the measurements otherwise it’s just conjecture.
Runningart2004 wrote:
I love how everything I say now is taken to extremes. That's great.
I give information and opinions about health, nutrition, strength, and general exercise backed by experts in the field and peer reviewed research.
If you decide not to believe a word I say that is your loss.
You can give people the tools for success. However, success is intimidating for those who have never experienced it.
I have a Bachelors in Exercise Science and have studied exercise physiology. I also have a Health & Fitness Specialist Certification from the American College of Sports Medicine. I'm studying for the CSCS and just waiting for the funds to come through. That doesn't matter....that's just letters after your name. Some of the dumbest people I know have lots of letters after their names. Beyond my formal education I am a former 2:32 marathoner and 1:09 half-marathon (great? No...just respectable enough) and I am always reading research and articles from experts in the field of health, nutrtition, strength and exercise (Dr. John Berardi, Dr. Johnny Bowden, Dr. Lonnie Lowery, Charles Poliquin, Mike Robertson, Mike Boyle, Paul Chek, Eric Cressey, and many more)
Listen to your doctor, who has as much 'formal' nutrition education as me, one undergrad class...Listen to the FDA, who's shoving us full of over-processed foods filled with trans fat and high fructose corn syrup....listen to the so called "conventional wisdom"...and fail. OR you can expand your knowledge outside your usual box of 50 year old outdated research and adhere to what has been tried and true and what has been tested and approved.
Whatever you decide I will still be here helping those who truly want it, providing advice to those who wish to seek their athletic or health-related goal. There is an optimal way of doing things and way "just to get by". The success I have brought to people and the success of those I follow is undeniable. I'm done with this thread.
Alan
Dear Alan,
I don't know a lot about science and I don't know you but, in contrast to NONAMEs rebuttal, this reads like a narcissistic, self-serving bunch of crap. I'm very sorry that people on here keep deciding not to believe everything you say, I can see this is a source of great frustration to you. Perhaps you're not used to having your expertise questioned in your everyday life. Anyway, I hope you straighten your shit out, learn to express yourself with more humility and realise that there are others on here (not me) who clearly know as much, or more, then you do about exercise science and who have, in many cases, come to different conclusions.
Yours
AC
Runningart2004 wrote:
...
Early man was a scavenger....really no reason to actually run long distances. Travel long distances? Yes...but early man didn't just start jogging along one day for shits and giggles.
...
Alan
Here you go, for starters:
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/may/tramps-like-usTry not to let the door of peer-reviewed truth hit your ignorant ass on the way out of this thread. Whomever made the analogy that Alan:fitness::Flagpole:economics was more spot-on than anyone since frickin'... Galileo.
RonnyH wrote:
wellnow wrote:We can\'t measure neural improvements, because there is such a vast network of information being passed forward and backward along so many routes. But we know that such an information super highway exists in our bodies, even if physiologists prefer to ignore the importance of this issue.
I don\'t doubt the importance of neural improvement and co-ordination in running as a skill.
However, unlike golf... which is almost entirely a skill-based sport, running depends on variety of other things. Aerobic capacity is usually a catch-all phrase to mean everything from VO2Max to mitochondrial development in the leg muscles to christ knows what else.
I simply can\'t see that by learning to \"run well\" and improve the ability to \"run well\" that you will develop a better athlete than one who simply trains to improve his capacity for work (be it anaerobic or aerobic capacity).
********************************************************
The point is that you can't develop your aerobic and anaerobic capacities beyond your genetic limit, which is actually very easy to achieve. But you continue to improve your race times for year after year because you learn more and more skill of movement. Running isn't a simple activity, it is a hugely complex series of movements, and you can never be too skilled in these movements, especially at race paces.
edumacator wrote:
wellnow wrote:This is because of improvements in running skill, you become more efficient with practice.
But this is where I think you draw unnecessary distinctions. The term "efficiency", by its definition, implies the use of something to perform a task. If I make cars more efficiently, then I am able to make the same number of cars using less metal/money/whatever, or able to make more cars with the same amount of metal etc.
What, in your model, is being used more "efficiently" in, say, a 5k race? If I improve my neuromuscular coordination, how does that translate into faster running? Is it not my body being able to use less energy to run the same pace as before? And if so, is that energy not provided by aerobic means at most easy to medium paces? So, is neuromuscular coordination not another way to say that your body (leg muscles) are becoming more efficient at using oxygen to provide movement? If not oxygen, what is your body becoming more efficient at using?
Respectfully,
Edumacator
***********************************************
Yes, the efficiency to which I refered is often named running economy, which is defined as the the rate of oxygen consumption per distance covered measured in ml/kg/km.
But then that means that your only objection to other posters on this site is in the name "aerobic development". Because we are all referring to the same thing: the ability of the body to more efficiently use oxygen for aerobic exercise. Why do you have such a strong resistance to the use of "aerobic development" to mean developing your leg muscles' ability to use oxygen (the "aero" in "aerobic")?
NONAME wrote:
We need something to measure. Otherwise people will come up with any number of explanations for the improved performance.
We can take a simple task such as dart throwing and the improvements that will occur with practice. Why is it that we improve? Can we measure something to explain the improvement in performance beyond just our score in a dart game? We likely improve by altering the recruitment patters in the arm and shoulder but also possible other muscle involved in stabilizing the truck, and possibly the head. Can we measure this? Well we may be able to get some measurements from EMG, fine needle electrodes or surface electrodes depending on what muscle we are interested in. We could also use a force plate to measure postural stability, center of pressure etc. My point is that we can measure many things but do they really explain why our ability to throw a dart improves?
Now apply the same approach to a much more complicated system with multiple limbs that can either work synergistically or antagonistically. Add in the coupling between the oscillation in the center of mass to ventilation to heart rate and sympathetic outflow and you can begin to see how complicated a system we are dealing with.
This is why we narrow things down, isolate variables and try and control/eliminate other factors. Obviously this has its drawbacks and they are big but, it has yielded valuable findings.
Again we needed testable hypotheses and the equipment with which to make the measurements otherwise it’s just conjecture.
I'm interested in trying new ways of improving my training, and interested in how we learn new skills, but as far as the latest research in the neurology of movement, I have no knowledge of what new infomation recent brain scans have revealed about what is going on in the brain, which parts of the brain are processing which information. I would like to read more about this. The information I do have is very old.
wellnow wrote:
The point is that you can't develop your aerobic and anaerobic capacities beyond your genetic limit, which is actually very easy to achieve.
Define easy.
Dr. NONAME,
I'm glad you took that so well. You know sometimes, after you press "Post Message", you get second thoughts.
To re-phrase what I like to see, it's similar to your advice: in general, I expect critics to provide the counter-examples as part of their rebuttals. I have a degree in CS, so I'm not about to peruse physiology journals, or medical journals to get up to date, but I'm happy to read extracts, or links to articles. I don't have any specific points I'd like you to clarify, so we can leave it there.
Perhaps it's my own limited knowledge, but I simply wonder why Alan is rubbing so many people the wrong way? For example, with the "evolution" discussion, I have no problem putting Alan's comments in perspective. There is no shortage of links from others pointing out many articles from Dr. Lieberman contradicting Alan's links, while Alan gave a few links himself, saying something like "I like what this guy has to say...".
I guess he has certain views regarding protein, weight-lifting and running which go counter to the running culture here. That piques my curiosity, and I wonder what's behind it, but I know I don't know, so I can not yet form an opinion. But whatever his ideas and qualifications, he claims to have personal success with his ideas -- and I have no reason to doubt him.
edumacator wrote:
But then that means that your only objection to other posters on this site is in the name "aerobic development". Because we are all referring to the same thing: the ability of the body to more efficiently use oxygen for aerobic exercise. Why do you have such a strong resistance to the use of "aerobic development" to mean developing your leg muscles' ability to use oxygen (the "aero" in "aerobic")?
I object to the false notion of continual development of oxygen uptake and the false notion of superior oxygen uptake amongst elite runners put about by physiologists and coaches which in turn this leads to false notions about how effectively to train beyond certain levels. To break through a plateau we need to improve bio mechanically, not aerobically, we can't improve aerobically beyond the easily reachable absolute oxygen uptake we achieved in our late teens/early twenties.
The vast majority of exercise physiologists don't recognize neuromuscular coordination as being the number one factor in our improvement. All movements are controlled by the brain, but this is almost never discussed in the recent literature. It was discussed 30 years ago, so why are the new generation of boffins so uneducated?
This in turn leads to false notions of genetic superiority of East African runners and a lack of willingness amongst runners and coaches to face up to the issue of proper coaching development in non African countries.
I have a theory too wrote:
wellnow wrote:The point is that you can't develop your aerobic and anaerobic capacities beyond your genetic limit, which is actually very easy to achieve.
Define easy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Look at maximum absolute oxygen uptake values and how the are easily achieved by millions of people doing regular exercise, not extreme training.
wellnow wrote:
Look at maximum absolute oxygen uptake values and how the are easily achieved by millions of people doing regular exercise, not extreme training.
You're saying that millions of people doing regular exercise have reached their genetic potentials of oxygen uptake levels? Based on what?
Based on the fact that it's easy to achieve your normal maximum cardiac output, and the fact that it's easy to stimulate increases in mitochondrial mass with regular training to the point where you also reach your genetic limit within a few weeks.
Hence, maximum absolute oxygen uptake values peak in our late teens/early twenties.
wellnow wrote:
Based on the fact that it's easy to achieve your normal maximum cardiac output, and the fact that it's easy to stimulate increases in mitochondrial mass with regular training to the point where you also reach your genetic limit within a few weeks.
Hence, maximum absolute oxygen uptake values peak in our late teens/early twenties.
You do realize this is a circular argument, right?
It's easy to achieve.
How do you know it's easy to achieve?
By the millions of people who do it.
How do you know millions of people do it?
Because it's easy to achieve.
wellnow wrote:
The point is that you can't develop your aerobic and anaerobic capacities beyond your genetic limit, which is actually very easy to achieve.
Can one improve ANY physical capacity beyond one's "genetic limit" ?? Of course not. So I suppose you are simply trying to say: one's ultimate vo2 max potential can be achieved relatively early in one's career, so further improvements in running peformance are related to other factors. Fair enough. What about improvements in burning fat as a % of substrates used (as Renato recently discussed on his thread about recent fast Kenyan marathons) ? Where does that fall in your aerobic capacity / neural skill dichotomy? I think maybe you are oversimplying things.
wellnow wrote: But you continue to improve your race times for year after year because you learn more and more skill of movement. Running isn't a simple activity, it is a hugely complex series of movements, and you can never be too skilled in these movements, especially at race paces.
I too take exception with some of your terms. I certainly would call a golf swing a "skill", and throwing a dart. However, just as you claim that one develops their max vo2 max early in life, I surely think the "skill" of running (if defined as good form) is achieve even earlier. I see young children sometimes race down the street with better form than Al Salazar ever had.
Ok, to head you off, I understand that "form" and "skill" are not necessarily interchangeable, and you of course are more likely referring simply to neuromuscular efficiency as "skill". So.... if do squats 3 times a week, and also some plyo's, and now I can create more force( activate more fibers) more efficiently, have I really improved my running "skill", or have I just got more powerful/stronger? I would say more the latter (though it is a matter of terms).
Running is certainly less of a skill than a golf swing is. This may be a strange analogy, but..... : If I could "inject" someone with pure aerobic and anaerobic abilities, and pure power, I would have a good runner regardless of amount of time actually practiced running (though sure they would get better with practice). No amount of physical conditioning or power would produce a good golfer without some practice swinging. Although I would argue that some are born with better eye-hand coordination than others.
wellnow wrote:
The vast majority of exercise physiologists don't recognize neuromuscular coordination as being the number one factor in our improvement. All movements are controlled by the brain, but this is almost never discussed in the recent literature. It was discussed 30 years ago, so why are the new generation of boffins so uneducated?
Is this not simply because exercise science is all about the things that can easily be measured? And neuromusclar coordination isn't one of those things, yet...
wellnow-
I'd be interested in hearing your ideas on WHY EPO and similar drugs work?
Also, how does your neural theory explain the development of a MaxLASS at race speeds for some of Renato's athletes over 5k and 10k?
A lot of bodybuilders, personal trainers and people who do crossfit come across as very narrow-minded.
Alan is probably a blend of at least two of those, that's why he rubs people the wrong way.