Noakes answered by first showing, in the first half of the article, why A.V. Hill's "peripheral fatigue" and brainless model cannot explain the complex nature of muscle fatigue, such as anticipation or calibrating effort as a function of anticipated work (e.g., beginning a run at a pace that one feels can be sustained for the planned distance) and end spurt or increasing effort towards the end of planned work (e.g., finishing a race with a sprint to the finish line). Noakes then showed how the feedback loop of the Central Governor Model (CGM) regulates performance in order to avoid catastrophic failure of homeostasis. A key idea is that fatigue is illusory, in the mind, and optimal performance is achieved by those who best manage the progression of the sensations of fatigue. Ah, that's why an even, slightly negative-split pace is optimal!
Noakes provided several historical quotes of individuals who had different views on performance from the, until recently, predominant Hill model. I include two here:
Roger Bannister, the first man to run the mile in less than 4 minutes: “It is the brain not the heart or lungs, that is the critical organ, it’s the brain.”
Paavo Nuurmi, who won nine gold and three silver medals in the Olympic Games: “Mind is everything. Muscles are pieces of rubber. All that I am, I am because of my mind.”
I'd previously written about the CGM in GPS watch - unfair advantage? and the story of Brian Morrison collapsing 300 yards from the finish in the 2006 Western States 100, as told by Scott Jurek, who was pacing Morrison. My own example of an event consistent with the CGM occurred in the 2014 Walnut Creek Half, where, because of the extra motivation of being exasperated (!), I ran the last 5 miles at near tempo pace, after 6 miles at half marathon pace. Now, compare that with the regular Thursday tempo runs of my 16-week marathon training plan. For weeks 13 and 14, before the two-week taper, the tempo runs are 5 miles, with 2 easy miles warm-up and 2 easy miles cool-down, for a total of 9 miles. Those training 5 tempo miles definitely feel harder than did those 5 miles at Walnut Creek--even though the overall pace of Walnut Creek was some 30 sec/mi faster.
Another example comes from my recent weekend long runs. I'm currently in the final two taper weeks before the Potomac Marathon. It has been a hard training cycle, with the summer heat and humidity. Also, because of work-related scheduling conflicts, I missed a significant number of long runs, and those I did run were 30-45 sec/mi slower. What I try to do in every long run is to run the front 11 miles somewhat slower than goal marathon pace (GMP, 8:58) and the remaining miles at or faster than GMP. As the following pacing chart shows, for the August 9, 16, and 23 long runs of 17, 19, and 21 miles, respectively, I struggled to get the front 11 miles below 10:00 and really struggled to get the remaining miles down to GMP. But, look what happened with last Sunday's 13-mile taper "long run."
Because I knew it was only 13 miles (anticipation), a medium-distance run for me, I ran 30-75 sec/mi faster for the first 11 miles, without a noticeable increase in the sensation of effort, compared with that of the previous three weeks. Miles 12 and 13 were easily faster than GMP. And, I felt as I could have sustained that pace beyond Mile 13! Obviously, I was doing more work during those 13 miles last Sunday, compared with the first 13 miles of the previous three runs, and, yet, my sensation of fatigue was lower.
Of course, the assumption must be that one is physically trained and prepared. A couch potato can't just sit on a couch for 16 weeks and train only the mind. But, what if one is, say, 10% less prepared physically, compared with another; could that 10% be overcome with 10% better mental training? What about 20%? Most intriguing is Noakes' hypothesis regarding second place and lower finishers. According to Noakes, during the final stages of any race, as much as 65% of the leg muscle fibers are inactive and not contributing to the effort. That's a lot of potential effort untapped, to prevent catastrophic failure. But, 65% unused potential is a large safety factor; why doesn't the second place finisher in a close race tap another percent or two to win? Noakes' hypothesis is that, in those cases, "physiology does not determine who wins. Rather somewhere in the final section of the race, the brains of the second, and lower placed finishers accept their respective finishing positions and no longer choose to challenge for a higher finish."
That's quite a statement.
Most of the time, the Central Governor Model does seem to work: most of the time, runners in a race don't die. That illusory fatigue won't let them. But, some runners manage the progression of the sensations of fatigue better than do others; some "run just a little faster and so approach death a little closer," and they prevail just a little bit more. Of course, in Phidippides' case, he kind of overshot the approach a little.
But, what's "a little closer"? One percent of that unused 65%? 5%? In the upcoming Potomac Marathon, which I DNF'ed last year, my main focus will be to just finish, for many reasons, not the least of which is psychological. And, given the hard and irregular training cycle I've had, qualifying for Boston would not seem to be realistic. But, what if I "decide" to BQ and "approach death a little closer"? Could I then tap just enough into that unused potential to prevail?
That would be quite an outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment