Knower of things wrote:
wellnow wrote:Martin's obsession with the false notion of 'lactic acidosis' and tolerance of acidosis, was misguidied.
You do understand that lactic acid disassociation results in hydrogen ions, don't you? How is that misguided?
***************************************
Lactate doesn't dissociate, that is a myth. It cannot release a hydrogen ion, in fact lactate production accepts a hydrogen ion.
Unecessary Distinction wrote:
I'll repeat "glyogenolysis is a precursor to glycolyis."
Glycogenolysis is the BREAKDOWN of glycogen into glucose. It's a standard definition in any textbook. Each glycogen polymer is broken down into 6 glucose monomers. "Because about 1 in 10 residues in branched, glycogen degradation by the phosphorylase alone would come to a halt after the release of 6 glucose molecules per branch." Pg 580, Biochemistry, 5th Ed, Berg, Stryer.
So yes. Glycogen produces 6 much times as ATP as glucose in the long term. But only because glycogenolysis produces 6 glucose molecules to enter glycolysis. The pathways of glycogenolysis and glycolysis are still inextricably linked. Glycogenolysis actually produces 0 ATP. Glyolysis produces 2 ATP. TCA produces 2 ATP. Ox/Phos produces 25-34 ATP depending on membrane leakage and transport costs.
Glycogenolysis --> Glycolysis --> ATP (Either aerobically or anaerobically)
You argue against "pseudo-science" but I can find no evidence for your assertion and the stuff I've posted is straight out of textbooks.
I will say, though, that it has nothing to do with the training assertions you are making. I just wanted you to be held to the same standard you're holding others to. I'm really not trying to attack or anything of the sort.
All the Best.
There is a distiction between muscle glycogen to lactate and blood glucose to lactate.
glycogen to lactate: 2 lactate plus 3 ATP
glucose to lactate: 2 lactate plus 2 ATP
Also the proportions utilized by skeletal muscle are 80% muscle glycogen to 20% blood glucose.
Hence glycogenolysis produces 6 times as much ATP as glycolysis.
Have a nice day.
passenger wrote:
I repeat the same my last post because its not complete.
The world records and the performance results continue to progress for a number of reasons, some are out of the individual physiologic indices of improve or individual enhance abilities.
It can’t be neglect statistics and demographics in the world record progressions. As the time goes by more and more human beings are living the same period of time and more individuals come to the sport activity. The simple fact that more individuals get engaged in the athletics and distance running in this particular case we discuss tends to an high percent of performance enhance. Some other reasons are out of the physiologic parameters. The number and the frequency of competition participation at world top level, in what the money prize and the professionalism are consequences and contribute to the distance run records progression indeed.
Another kind of reasons out of physiologic enhance done by training are from best equipments, best training facilities, best equipment, best athletes paraphernalia – from best shoes to best tracks, or weather conditions whatsoever.
However as your proposal, be the performance enhance a consequence improvement stride efficiency and power come from improvements in the coordination of increased muscle tension and relaxation, or improve endurance by learning to concentrate for longer periods of time, all this requires energy spend.
Besides, what Andy-AJR says as a hypothesis of best physiologic capacities by different thought processes it requires more energy spend. To relax or to concentrate, muscle tension, every done by biomechanics or neuromuscular action requires aerobic and anaerobic energy. But it’s you that stress the aerobic energy is very limited.
The neuromuscular model deals with the same conclusion than the cardio-vascular or the aerobic-anaerobic model. It deals about energy consumption and energy spend. The neurons capacity to coordinate our actions and transmit signals between different parts of the body requires energy. The central nervous system and the work of the conscious processes is engaged in what’s the Central Governor theory. It requires brain energy also what is limited indeed, not finite.
The action or movement as is the distance run pace can’t run away from the 2 kind of energy deal. One is the ability to spend more energy for a determined period of time run and the second one it’s energy management – run economy – to spend.
Your suggest of improve in stride efficiency and power come from improvements in the coordination of increased muscle tension and relaxation, to produce more ground reaction force but with less muscle tension during the swing phase and use less fuel for a given pace as a consequence, it´s energy management as the distance run economy deals with aerobic management - less oxygen for the period of time.
Every of this aspects goes to this early thread question the “physiological training zones”. From the kind of ideas that you suggest – less fuel for a given pace – that’s from where it comes the threshold training concept. Less energy spend for a given pace. Do you propose to train the stride efficiency with sub-maximal paces ?
If you don’t then the other main zone is the maximal-pace or supra-maximal pace and in this late training zone the consequence it´s not energy management – less fuel – but more fuel – and you will get the opposite consequence than you pretend.
One or another. Your theory doesn’t go out of the same basic training laws to train every physical ability. Do, repeat, rest, recover, overcompensation, no return all in one spiral of execution. The same single workout training whatever will be may act in multidimensional and multidirectional training zones, the physiologic abilities, the several physiologic models, the various body systems and that same single workout may enhance both the stride efficiency the aerobic system.
Im not against your mind or brain theories to improve the run. Simply its not my business because as you admit the best we can do is speculate. The training method is a complex subject but we cant deny the objective evidence in the matter field.
I agree with the first part of your post.
Regarding the saving of energy with better coordination, it works for all paces from jogging to sprinting.
wondering wrote:
wondering wrote:I also asked you to give us a little of your own background; education, degreees, competetive and coaching resume, etc. Since Martin and Coe included their histories in the book, it would help us to be more objective when comparing your assertions to theirs. Thanks!
wellnow wrote:
As for my own history. It's not relevant but, I hate bad science, and I see an awful lot of it from PhD's in exercize physiology. When you consider that I have no qualifications, yet I can see the dreadful incompetence of these guys in providing reliable explanations of aerobic and anaerobic metabolism well, what more can I say?
Thank you for your reply. I must beg to differ, however, regarding the relevance of your history. When you are differing with renowned exercise physiologists like David Martin, one's background in the subject matter is pertinent.
No offense, but since you admit to having "no qualifications" it is hard to take your assertions seriously. Perhaps if you had some formal education in the field or had been a successful coach it would be different. But lacking any such credits, I can give your unproven claims (i.e. dogma) little credence.
************************************
I can give you the references if you want? Go to my thread; definition of aerobic and anaerobic, from 2008 it is full of references. Those guys did the research, I just reported it. Now I don't agree with everything that is written in those papers because I have my own insights. The reason I don't want to study ex phys is because I have a love/hate relationship with the subject and get frustrated with the dogma of which there is a huge amount.
okobe wrote:
wellnow wrote:I wish I could explain how some days I can get it right, like the time I went to the track to run 6 x 800 with 4 minutes recovery. My first 800 was just three seconds slower than my 800 PR but I was hardly breathing. How does that work? I have noticed this a few times. If I knew how to attain that state of arousal for every race.....
I can get close to it, but convincing other people about these things seems to be a waste of time, who really cares? Do you and if so, how much?
Do I care about getting faster? A lot. That's why I'm looking for the most effective training there is. So when you talk about something called neuromuscular coordination and say it's fundamental, I want to know how that will or should affect my training.
What you have described above is apparently just a story of you having a day where you felt great. And that is great but that doesn't help me much.
If this thing is fundamental, how should people change their training to exploit it? What new training methods should impart to us?
Give me something useful, please.
**********************************
The original post concerned the book Better training for distance runners by Martin and Coe. The first two chapters of that book say almost exactly the same thing as I have been saying here for the past 18 months or so, even though I didn't read the book until last week. I have looke through it before, so possibly everything in those first two chapters stuck in my brain several years ago and was reinforced by another book I have been reading which was written in the 80's plus other sources discussing the fundamental issue of neuromuscular coordination, a field of study more than 100 years old.
I don't believe that any new training methods have been introduced in the last 50 or 60 years. That period of time is much younger than the neuromuscualar coordination model described in Martin and Coe's book.
What you and I are looking for is a better balance between training hard and training smart. If our efficiency is improving, then wouldn't it be true to say that the training should get easier and that our perception of the difficulty of running fast and long should reflect this? So even though we are running further and faster, it should feel easier? However, that subjectivity is also influenced by our changing moods and other distractions, so you really have to feel your way through the training with ever greater intelligence and understanding.
As for giving specific training advice, I believe it is very important to do plenty of fast paced running during the base phase, because if you are not running long and fast on your best days in base training, it is unrealistic to expect outstanding results when you reach the peak of the season.
wellnow wrote:
Martin's obsession with the false notion of 'lactic acidosis' and tolerance of acidosis, was misguidied.
Knower of things wrote:
You do understand that lactic acid disassociation results in hydrogen ions, don't you? How is that misguided?
wellnow wrote:
Lactate doesn't dissociate, that is a myth. It cannot release a hydrogen ion, in fact lactate production accepts a hydrogen ion.
I didn't say LACTATE. I said LACTIC ACID. It is lactic acid that disassociates to lactate and H+. This is what Martin was writing about.
It would seem that you need to brush up on your chemistry. Either that or your reading comprehension.
I'm no expert, but I think the current thinking is that the body doesn't ever produce lactic acid. Lactate and H+ are produced separately.
Knower of things wrote:
I didn't say LACTATE. I said LACTIC ACID. It is lactic acid that disassociates to lactate and H+. This is what Martin was writing about.
It would seem that you need to brush up on your chemistry. Either that or your reading comprehension.
I think I agree with a lot of what you said.
But with respect to improved neuro-muscular coordination making you faster, the idea is that better coordination makes your more efficient, ultimately requiring less energy for the same speed, or the same energy to go faster.
How? There are a few ways.
The muscular system and the running motion is quite complex, requiring execution of many muscles in parallel and in sequence. You have antagonists and protagonists. For example, if you have a sub-optimal sequence of the timing of muscle firing, where your quads and your hamstrings are both activited, for a brief instant at every step, you waste a lot of energy because one set of muscles are resisting another set.
Another technique is improving your form. If you spend a lot of your energy hopping up and down, or with a lot of sideways motion, or rotation, instead of in a forward direction, you can gain a lot of speed for the same energy by improving form and technique.
In longer races, you start to get tired, and your form breaks down, as parts of your body moves into different positions, wasting more energy, especially at a time when you need to conserve it.
Not too long ago, I would have argued (and I think I even did), that once you've maxed out your VO2max, and pushed your lactate turnpoint to the point of no return, that continued training by the physiological zones is still valid training, and it will still cause long term neuro-muscular improvements, in a "practice makes perfect" kind of way, as the feedback loops to your brain help improve and optimize your motions. I still think it's not wrong, but (at the risk of plugging the book again, but I think it's a good answer), Matt Fitzgerald, in "Brain Training" talks about techniques to improve and maintain your form. He:
- characterizes a handful of common characteristics of all elite runners, regarding turnover, ground contact, stiffness in the legs, minimal vertical motion, etc. ...
- gives "cross-training" exercises to help find and train unused muscles (hip stabilizers), which may have become dormant, especially in sedentary office workers (or forum surfers) who sit in front of a computer all day. The hip stabilizers help keep your hips stationary, especially at the end of long races, so that energy from the legs aren't absorbed into rotating hips.
- gives a set of drills to help isolate and improve certain running-like motions.
- gives a cautious (and optional) recommendation to go towards a minimalist shoe, to avoid bulky cushioned shoes which alter your form. (Cautious because he is mindful of avoiding injuries too).
It's hard to do the 3 or 4 chapters in the book justice, in these few bullets, but I don't want to rewrite the book here.
I think the key to running fast is to both improve how much energy you can produce, and how effectively you can turn that energy into forward motion.
you are in need of chemistry. HLac -> (H+) + (Lac-)
What is AP? High school? While I don't doubt your chemistry prowess, the question is, does that happen in the muscle?My chemistry knowledge is insufficient to dispute these guys:..."Contrary to popular belief, this increased concentration of lactate does not directly cause acidosis, nor is it responsible for delayed onset muscle soreness.[1] This is because lactate itself is not capable of releasing a proton [1], and secondly, the acidic form of lactate, lactic acid, "is not produced in muscle" [2]. "...[1] Robergs, F. Ghiasvand, D. Parker (2004). "Biochemistry of exercise-induced metabolic acidosis". Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 287 (3): R502–16. doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00114.2004. PMID 15308499.[2] Michael I. Lindinger, John M. Kowalchuk, and George J. F. Heigenhauser (2004). "Applying physicochemical principles to skeletal muscle acid-base status". Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 289: R890–94. doi:110.1152/ajpregu.00225.2005.. PMID 16105823.
got a 5 on AP chem exam wrote:
you are in need of chemistry. HLac -> (H+) + (Lac-)
Martin is wrong, rekrunner is right. We don't produce lactic acid ever. It's not Martin's fault thogh, Biochemistry is often misrepresented in Exercise Physiology text. Authors copy other text books, mistakes and all, which is copied from other text books etc etc.
wellnow wrote:
We don't produce lactic acid ever.
Lactic acid is a byproduct of glycolysis.
No, we don't produce lactic acid, we produce sodium lactate. This molecule is a product of the Lactate dehydrogenase reaction.
rekrunner provided the references. Not that I expect you to look them up, but to anyone else they are available as free full text.
Looked this up...
T he energy consumption of skeletal muscle cells may increase up to 100-fold when going from rest to high-intensity exercise. This high energy demand exceeds the aerobic capacity of the muscle cells, and a large fraction of the ATP required will come from anaerobic metabolism.... Anaerobic breakdown of glycogen leads to an intracellular accumulation of inorganic acids, of which lactic acid is quantitatively the most important.
Håkan Westerblad,1David G. Allen,2and Jan Lännergren1
Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden; and 2Department of Physiology and Institute of Biomed-
ical Research, University of Sydney F13, New South Wales 2006, Australia
You can find millions of references to 'lactic acid' but none of them are biochemically accurate.
Google: Biochemistry of exercise induced metabolic acidosis, by Robergs, Ghiasvand and Parker.
wellnow wrote:
You can find millions of references to 'lactic acid' but none of them are biochemically accurate.
Google: Biochemistry of exercise induced metabolic acidosis, by Robergs, Ghiasvand and Parker.
Already did...
Thus increased lactate production coincides with cellular acidosis
And you do understand the meaning of the word coincides, don't you?
The source of the acidosis, what do Robergs et al say about that?
Non mitochondrial ATP turnover, which is NOT lactate production. They also point out that lactate production accepts an H+ thereby REDUCING ACIDOSIS.
wellnow wrote:
And you do understand the meaning of the word coincides, don't you?
The source of the acidosis, what do Robergs et al say about that?
Non mitochondrial ATP turnover, which is NOT lactate production. They also point out that lactate production accepts an H+ thereby REDUCING ACIDOSIS.
Yes I understand the word 'coincides.' Lactic acid is produced in the muscle as part of anaerobic catabolism and the resulting disassociation results in lactate and H+. Thus lactate and acidity coincide.
By the way, I am not arguing the reduction of acidosis, but rathr your erroneous contention that lactic acid is not produce in the muscle.
Did they actually isolate, observe, and measure, or otherwise show lactic acid as in intermediate product, or did they simply assume the "old thinking", in an abstract and introduction of a paper, that looked at something else?
The "new thinking" is that during exercise, in the muscle, Lactate- is formed, and H+ is formed, but they come from different reactions. This replaces the "old thinking" which simply assumes some quick disassociation of the strong lactic acid. So we can still speak of a metabolic acidosis, but not lactic acidosis.
Perhaps you found this paper, dated Feb. 2002:
http://physiologyonline.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/17/1/17
The references I gave were dated 2004. Surely many references to "lactic acid disassociation" exist before 2004. Has anyone challenged the "new thinking" on or after 2004?
Looking at the 2002 paper, they don't seem to have measured or observed anything, except other studies. It looks like it just poses a question, looked at some existing data from other papers, and described a few possible avenues of further research.
I found another paper, dated 2006,
http://www.jssm.org/vol5/n3/2/v5n3-2pdf.pdf
. While they still talk about lactic acid, they only measured blood lactate, and blood pH, while repeating old references, e.g. "(Sahlin 1986; Kirkendall, 1990;
Newsholme et al. 1992; Westerblad et al. 1998;
Westerblad et al. 2002)."
But I just gave these papers a cursory look, and I am by no means an expert.
(Full credit: my previous quote and references actually came from Wikipedia, so they are not really mine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactic_acid
)
rekrunner wrote:
Did they actually isolate, observe, and measure, or otherwise show lactic acid as in intermediate product, or did they simply assume the "old thinking", in an abstract and introduction of a paper, that looked at something else?
The "new thinking" is that during exercise, in the muscle, Lactate- is formed, and H+ is formed, but they come from different reactions. This replaces the "old thinking" which simply assumes some quick disassociation of the strong lactic acid. So we can still speak of a metabolic acidosis, but not lactic acidosis.
I presumed you would know the answer to your question as it was a reference originally cited by you that produced that quote.
Here's another from a second source which used yours as a reference...
The rise in H+ generation closely agreed with the accumulation of lactate, as shown by a close correlation with a slope near identity (0.98; r2 = 0.86). This agreement between glycolytic H+ production and elevation of lactate is confirmed by an analysis of the underlying reactions involved in glycolysis in vivo and supports the concept of lactic acidosis under conditions that substantially elevate lactate and drop pH.
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/108/6/1479