Forums >General Running>New VO2 Max research
Why is it sideways?
I think I'd really need to see some solid evidence to buy into the assertion that someone like Hall is so much faster than 2:15 is just because they can work their body harder (ie not feel fatigued).
Sure, it's speculative that a difference would be primarily in the brain physiology function, not some other physiological factor, but of course no classic physiological marker can tell us the difference between 2:06 and 2:15, either. The broader point (like bhearn says, this may be simply common sense and add nothing to the discussion) is that the brain is an important organ for running.
Feeling the growl again
There is no marker to differentiate a 2:06 from a 2:15, but there is a robust body of evidence directly linking aerobic training to improvements in distance running performance.
I don't think anyone would argue that the brain is important for running (what is it not important for?). It's when it's put forth as THE FACTOR..the ultimate... without solid evidence to back it up and an argument full of inconsistencies...that I have an issue.
If the end result doesn't somehow change the way we train, it really isn't of any importance anyways.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
There is no marker to differentiate a 2:06 from a 2:15, but there is a robust body of evidence directly linking aerobic training to improvements in distance running performance. I don't think anyone would argue that the brain is important for running (what is it not important for?). It's when it's put forth as THE FACTOR..the ultimate... without solid evidence to back it up and an argument full of inconsistencies...
I don't think anyone would argue that the brain is important for running (what is it not important for?). It's when it's put forth as THE FACTOR..the ultimate... without solid evidence to back it up and an argument full of inconsistencies...
Right. In fact, it's not the job of science to put forward any factor as THE FACTOR. (This is simply reductive reasoning.) Not sure if Noakes is making this claim--sounds like you have read much more of the literature than I have.
Here's my take-away from the article and the underlying research:
If you are interested in increasing your performance through training, then part of your training needs to focus on the mental aspect. Our perceptions about our performance, or expected performance, seem to have an impact on our actual performance.
It's one thing to think you can go out and run a given pace for a given distance. It's a different thing to go into a race BELIEVING, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you can run a given pace. You develop this belief through training and experience.
But you also have to know how to push yourself, motivate yourself, get through the rough patches. In the experiment, the subjects knew things would get easier, so they could mentally handle it. And when they tested following the normal protocol, they already knew they were capable of hitting a specific pace, so they didn't experience that mental fear of the unknown.
If anything, I think for me, this whole concept just highlights how useful a certain amount of difficulty in training can be.
I agree with the last post. Mental training is key. I remember when I ran the Sugarloaf Marathon, I was slowing down. I realized I was thinking negatively and decide to stop thinking and the next guy that passed me, I raced him until the end, and my fastest miles of the race. Now, this isn't a V02max situation, but it does speak to mental slowing. Then of course, I've never been able to speed back up after I've hit the wall. Brain or no brain, it's just not gonna happen.
--Jimmy
p.s. mental training is learning how to not think
not bad for mile 25
I think reading all this has made my brain muscles stronger.
If you are interested in increasing your performance through training, then part of your training needs to focus on the mental aspect. Our perceptions about our performance, or expected performance, seem to have an impact on our actual performance. It's one thing to think you can go out and run a given pace for a given distance. It's a different thing to go into a race BELIEVING, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you can run a given pace. You develop this belief through training and experience.
I think it would be hard to find disagreement with that, and no CG is required.