Those of you who watched 'SAS are you tough enough?' may have seen Eddie Stone practically demonstrate to Stevie B that tiredness is all in the mind. Eddie scoffed at Steve's laughable suggestion that he was tired after three days of dysentry, effectively no food, no sleep and some harsh beasting. Steve's punisment for such a claim was to give someone a firemans lift over a 400m course in the midday sun, which surprise surprise he managed. Now, strange as it seems, there may be some wisdom in Eddie Stone's claims.
The article below in New Scientist is all about the process of fatigue in sport, specifically endurance sports. The theory put forward is that the brain generates a tiredness sensation as a protective mechanism for the body, eventhough the body may still be in a physiologically sound state. It also suggests that interval training can condition the brain to realise short bursts of exercise are not harmful to the body, and therefore maximise preformance levels. Sadly it doesn't go as far a saying that if we cross our legs and meditate a bit then we can make Jamie look like tortoise with rickets, but it does give a few ideas on how performance can be improved.
The article details are:
Running on empty
New Scientist vol 181 issue 2439 - 20 March 2004, page 42
If New Scientist isn't kicking around your coffee room (like it handily does where I work), I believe you can get a 7 day free online trial if you want to read the science behind the hypothesis.
Is tiredness all in the mind?
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
24 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Is tiredness all in the mind?
"Don't try and fulfil your maximum potential, it's disappointing when you realise that all you are capable of doing is eating less cheese." Dylan Moran
-
Migsy - white
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:00 pm
- Location: Birmingham
Oh dear !
Pseodo scientific statement of the bleeding obvious!
To believe that it is all in the muscles is daft
To believe that it is all in the mind is daft
As ever both will play their part.
WARNING - if you train or race through the limits of pain and fatigue that you experience then you RISK INJURY
pain and fatigue are there to protect you
And anyway what a lot of pish to claim that the mind is only a limit to performance. The mind can be set to exercise harder than is good for you - and the results are painful.
The whole are - like an awful lot of physiology is far too complex, and certainly too complex for a bit of New Scientist pop-journalim to even get close.
rant over
Pseodo scientific statement of the bleeding obvious!
To believe that it is all in the muscles is daft
To believe that it is all in the mind is daft
As ever both will play their part.
WARNING - if you train or race through the limits of pain and fatigue that you experience then you RISK INJURY
pain and fatigue are there to protect you
And anyway what a lot of pish to claim that the mind is only a limit to performance. The mind can be set to exercise harder than is good for you - and the results are painful.
The whole are - like an awful lot of physiology is far too complex, and certainly too complex for a bit of New Scientist pop-journalim to even get close.
rant over
If you could run forever ......
-
Kitch - god
- Posts: 2433
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 2:09 pm
- Location: embada
Kitch wrote:
Pseodo scientific statement of the bleeding obvious!
This sort of reasearch into the semi obvious doesn't float my boat. Bu it is the people who are prepared to test the "obvious" that have allowed you to post that message. - Once the world was obviously flat!
It is these people who challenged teh obvious that lead to the industrail and technological revolution. Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Curie. And thus the internet and the idea of open source which with mastery from pyrat and the other nope boys have allowed you to place that post. Ironic Kitch isn't it?
There are many things that we think are obvious but on close inspection are not.
The resluts of the above study do confirm the obvious but that does not make the study and less useful. As we cannot know wheter teh obvious is true or not until it is tested.
"Poor is the student who does not surpass his master" - Leonardo Da Vinci
-
pasta and cheese - orange
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:22 pm
- Location: Lestar
Easy Tiger! I'm going to have to defend this I'm afraid.
Whilst no-one disputes that 'if you train or race through the limits of pain and fatigue that you experience then you RISK INJURY pain and fatigue are there to protect you', there is a point to this study. And it is a little harsh to blanketly damn New Scientist, which is there to communicate science at an accessable level to all. So, the content may get distilled in the communication, however, the source of the finding is often from (and is in this case) peer reviewed journals. The work in question is from studies of oxygen consumption, muscle fibre dynamics, ATP levels, lactic acid measures and glucose measures. A little more than 'pop science'!
The point it seems to make is that whilst endurance and distance training will increase lung and muscle capaitiy, and therefore an athletes potential, such phenomena as 'the wall' and the point of physical exhaustion are borne out of a brain induced top down response. It is therefore prudent to train this top down response to know what actually ARE an athletes limits, rather than allow it to kick in protectively before physiological limits are reached. This way an athlete can enhance performance. Such a top down mechanism explains for example how athletes can increase their speed in the last Km of a race, and have sprint finishes, which are contrary to physiological predictions. The example of interval training is an example put forward of how the training of this top down response can be done.
Personally, I think there might be something in this, and may be something to think about at whatever level you are. Especially to those at the less elite level. For the elites, well, yes, this may be intuitive, and the article itself accepts that (wasn't the majority of Miguel Indurain's training interval based?). But then isn't all good science retrospectively intuitive!
Whilst no-one disputes that 'if you train or race through the limits of pain and fatigue that you experience then you RISK INJURY pain and fatigue are there to protect you', there is a point to this study. And it is a little harsh to blanketly damn New Scientist, which is there to communicate science at an accessable level to all. So, the content may get distilled in the communication, however, the source of the finding is often from (and is in this case) peer reviewed journals. The work in question is from studies of oxygen consumption, muscle fibre dynamics, ATP levels, lactic acid measures and glucose measures. A little more than 'pop science'!
The point it seems to make is that whilst endurance and distance training will increase lung and muscle capaitiy, and therefore an athletes potential, such phenomena as 'the wall' and the point of physical exhaustion are borne out of a brain induced top down response. It is therefore prudent to train this top down response to know what actually ARE an athletes limits, rather than allow it to kick in protectively before physiological limits are reached. This way an athlete can enhance performance. Such a top down mechanism explains for example how athletes can increase their speed in the last Km of a race, and have sprint finishes, which are contrary to physiological predictions. The example of interval training is an example put forward of how the training of this top down response can be done.
Personally, I think there might be something in this, and may be something to think about at whatever level you are. Especially to those at the less elite level. For the elites, well, yes, this may be intuitive, and the article itself accepts that (wasn't the majority of Miguel Indurain's training interval based?). But then isn't all good science retrospectively intuitive!
"Don't try and fulfil your maximum potential, it's disappointing when you realise that all you are capable of doing is eating less cheese." Dylan Moran
-
Migsy - white
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:00 pm
- Location: Birmingham
Right
the pair of you.
I think you'll find a slight difference between my stance and the stance of 'The Church' versus Copernicus, Da-Vinci etc.
There the argument was ' you can't say that it is wrong, we are right'
I am saying both sides of the argument here apply - the mind plays a role in fatiugue and pain and the body plays a role.
but
The article presents the argument as one or the other, with one set of scientist saying the other's ideas are the heretics
which brings me on to the next post and the next point
I did not say pop-science, I said pop-journalism - because of the way that the findings and arguments are presented - as if each side believes they are wholly right and the other side wholly wrong.
I would hope this in not the case - which means it is poor journalism.
If it is the case then the scientists are guilty of the kind of head in the sand ignorance of which Mr Cheese is trying to accuse me.
Reading the article there it sounds like there is good science being done, my objection is to the way it is presented; simplistic, black and white.
If you know anything about physiology or even general biology then you should know that there is no such thing.
If you present things as such to the lay person then you risk misleading them and you do science no favours whatsoever
the pair of you.
I think you'll find a slight difference between my stance and the stance of 'The Church' versus Copernicus, Da-Vinci etc.
There the argument was ' you can't say that it is wrong, we are right'
I am saying both sides of the argument here apply - the mind plays a role in fatiugue and pain and the body plays a role.
but
The article presents the argument as one or the other, with one set of scientist saying the other's ideas are the heretics
which brings me on to the next post and the next point
I did not say pop-science, I said pop-journalism - because of the way that the findings and arguments are presented - as if each side believes they are wholly right and the other side wholly wrong.
I would hope this in not the case - which means it is poor journalism.
If it is the case then the scientists are guilty of the kind of head in the sand ignorance of which Mr Cheese is trying to accuse me.
Reading the article there it sounds like there is good science being done, my objection is to the way it is presented; simplistic, black and white.
If you know anything about physiology or even general biology then you should know that there is no such thing.
If you present things as such to the lay person then you risk misleading them and you do science no favours whatsoever
If you could run forever ......
-
Kitch - god
- Posts: 2433
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 2:09 pm
- Location: embada
P&C thanks - sounds very clever and a nice dig but wtf ?
There is a difference between my stance and the stance of 'The Church' versus Copernicus, Da-Vinci etc.
There the argument was ' you can't say that you are a heretic, we are right and don't dare to question us'
I said both sides of the argument apply -
so opposite
but
The article presents the argument as one or the other, with one set of scientist saying the other's ideas are the heretics
which brings me on to the next post and the next point
I did not say pop-science, I said pop-journalism - because of the way that the findings and arguments are presented - as if each side believes they are wholly right and the other side wholly wrong.
I would hope this in not the case - which means it is poor journalism.
If it is the case then the scientists are guilty of the kind of head in the sand ignorance of which Mr Cheese is trying to accuse me.
Reading the article it sounds like there is good science being done, my objection is to the way it is presented; simplistic, black and white.
If you know anything about physiology or even general biology then you should know that there is no such thing.
If you present things as such to the lay person then you risk misleading them and you do science no favours whatsoever
There is a difference between my stance and the stance of 'The Church' versus Copernicus, Da-Vinci etc.
There the argument was ' you can't say that you are a heretic, we are right and don't dare to question us'
I said both sides of the argument apply -
so opposite
but
The article presents the argument as one or the other, with one set of scientist saying the other's ideas are the heretics
which brings me on to the next post and the next point
I did not say pop-science, I said pop-journalism - because of the way that the findings and arguments are presented - as if each side believes they are wholly right and the other side wholly wrong.
I would hope this in not the case - which means it is poor journalism.
If it is the case then the scientists are guilty of the kind of head in the sand ignorance of which Mr Cheese is trying to accuse me.
Reading the article it sounds like there is good science being done, my objection is to the way it is presented; simplistic, black and white.
If you know anything about physiology or even general biology then you should know that there is no such thing.
If you present things as such to the lay person then you risk misleading them and you do science no favours whatsoever
If you could run forever ......
-
Kitch - god
- Posts: 2433
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 2:09 pm
- Location: embada
Anyhoo,
on the subject of mind over matter,
In my first post I made the point that the mind can make you do more than is good for you.
two experiences stand out for me
Once I did the Wilderness Challenge (magnificent 25m through the Fisherfield forest, from Dundonnel to Poolewe - epic !)
ran the race, last few miles I was in the lead - dying on my feet but determined to keep going and win - and I did. after finishing I sat down on a park bench by the burn to recover. after leaving the bench this nice old scottish granny picked me up off the ground concerned about the muddy sweaty bloke in tears - I could not walk I could not stand I could not move. on finishing the race a switch was flipped somewhere in my head which said - 'ok admit the pain'
same switch got at the Corriearick Pass race - but during the race this time - which is infinitely worse !
I was not really that fit but in the lead over the long climb and descent of the mountains - mind writing checks the body couldn't pay. The last 3 or some miles is undulating road. I new the guy was catching me but I stuck in, I focussed, I made my legs work - almost thinking through each step, he got closer, I kept focussing. He caught me.
The instant he passed me I was drenched in pain, it was amazing. Suddenly my legs were killing, every step was agony, any pretence at speed vanished and I ground my way down the last mile at a hobble.
What would interest me would be this switch and how it works and whether it differs between athletes of different standards and how independent it is of phsical capacity ?
Does the top down decree from the mind, which I suspect responds to the signals from the body, respond at different levels in different standard athletes ? do people of the same physical capacity experience the same fatigue symptoms ?
Almost impossible to answer because you can't have a control on an experiment like that.
through one test you will almost undoubtedly influence the result of the next if you try to control by using the same subject.
is there any quanitive way to measure perception of pain / fatigue (oxymoron ?)
its all verry interesting
on the subject of mind over matter,
In my first post I made the point that the mind can make you do more than is good for you.
two experiences stand out for me
Once I did the Wilderness Challenge (magnificent 25m through the Fisherfield forest, from Dundonnel to Poolewe - epic !)
ran the race, last few miles I was in the lead - dying on my feet but determined to keep going and win - and I did. after finishing I sat down on a park bench by the burn to recover. after leaving the bench this nice old scottish granny picked me up off the ground concerned about the muddy sweaty bloke in tears - I could not walk I could not stand I could not move. on finishing the race a switch was flipped somewhere in my head which said - 'ok admit the pain'
same switch got at the Corriearick Pass race - but during the race this time - which is infinitely worse !
I was not really that fit but in the lead over the long climb and descent of the mountains - mind writing checks the body couldn't pay. The last 3 or some miles is undulating road. I new the guy was catching me but I stuck in, I focussed, I made my legs work - almost thinking through each step, he got closer, I kept focussing. He caught me.
The instant he passed me I was drenched in pain, it was amazing. Suddenly my legs were killing, every step was agony, any pretence at speed vanished and I ground my way down the last mile at a hobble.
What would interest me would be this switch and how it works and whether it differs between athletes of different standards and how independent it is of phsical capacity ?
Does the top down decree from the mind, which I suspect responds to the signals from the body, respond at different levels in different standard athletes ? do people of the same physical capacity experience the same fatigue symptoms ?
Almost impossible to answer because you can't have a control on an experiment like that.
through one test you will almost undoubtedly influence the result of the next if you try to control by using the same subject.
is there any quanitive way to measure perception of pain / fatigue (oxymoron ?)
its all verry interesting
If you could run forever ......
-
Kitch - god
- Posts: 2433
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 2:09 pm
- Location: embada
I did not say pop-science, I said pop-journalism
I'll hold my hands up and appologise for that one. It was sloppy of me to misquote. I can and do sympathise with your view on pop-journalism of science. But the answer is to go back to the source journal if the arguements aren't clear.
In this case, however, I think the physiological principles are apparent in the article. You just have to read around the journalistic bias. Part of the bias in this instance I think occurs due to scientists meeting with resistance from their academic field (for which there can be multiple reasons). Since I've gone over the principles in my second post I won't trawl old ground. But in summary, the subtle points about methods of training the mental repsonses have got more than a little sense, especially for younger and non-elites.
"Don't try and fulfil your maximum potential, it's disappointing when you realise that all you are capable of doing is eating less cheese." Dylan Moran
-
Migsy - white
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:00 pm
- Location: Birmingham
Sorry Kitch, No offence meant.
Wasn't saying that you weren't looking at both sides or owt, only commenting on the fact that you called it "pseudo scientific reasearch stating the obvious".
Was trying to point out the importance of research into things that we instintively take for as obvious.
All that flat world thing was trying to put it in an explanative way. (actually wasn't thinking about the church but peoples lay beliefs before all that). Possibly offended you and that i regret. Apologies, no dig intended.
Anyhows your comments on the pain made me think of something....
Best way to measure pain is possibly by using a "visual analogue scale". Well studied in medical research. It is basicallly where a patient points on a 15cm line where thier pain is. One end being no pain, the other is teh worst pain imaginable. Don't know how the verfied it but aparantly it works better than an oral 1-10 question. Couldn't find any use of it with runners on google though.
Your other questions are far too hard for me but i'll ask the girlfriend when i see her next. She does psychology and likes knows a bit more about that stuff.
Anyone any thoughts on hypnotisiing a runner?
Also phyiscal performance may also enhanced by the psychology of others. Been suggested that (long time ago now) that maybe this was the reason many people run faster in a race with other runners. Best example i can think of is the "4 people lifting someone in a chair trick". Very simple to do if you have 5 of you. Sure you'va all done it though.
Wasn't saying that you weren't looking at both sides or owt, only commenting on the fact that you called it "pseudo scientific reasearch stating the obvious".
Was trying to point out the importance of research into things that we instintively take for as obvious.
All that flat world thing was trying to put it in an explanative way. (actually wasn't thinking about the church but peoples lay beliefs before all that). Possibly offended you and that i regret. Apologies, no dig intended.
Anyhows your comments on the pain made me think of something....
Best way to measure pain is possibly by using a "visual analogue scale". Well studied in medical research. It is basicallly where a patient points on a 15cm line where thier pain is. One end being no pain, the other is teh worst pain imaginable. Don't know how the verfied it but aparantly it works better than an oral 1-10 question. Couldn't find any use of it with runners on google though.
Your other questions are far too hard for me but i'll ask the girlfriend when i see her next. She does psychology and likes knows a bit more about that stuff.
Anyone any thoughts on hypnotisiing a runner?
Also phyiscal performance may also enhanced by the psychology of others. Been suggested that (long time ago now) that maybe this was the reason many people run faster in a race with other runners. Best example i can think of is the "4 people lifting someone in a chair trick". Very simple to do if you have 5 of you. Sure you'va all done it though.
"Poor is the student who does not surpass his master" - Leonardo Da Vinci
-
pasta and cheese - orange
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:22 pm
- Location: Lestar
What would interest me would be this switch and how it works and whether it differs between athletes of different standards and how independent it is of phsical capacity ?
Does the top down decree from the mind, which I suspect responds to the signals from the body, respond at different levels in different standard athletes ?
My intuitive response to this would be that with athletes of different standards, fitter athletes ought to be able to delay the onset of the wall longer than less fit athletes. Fitter athletes ought to also be able to recover from the wall quicker, as that is what their extensive training (of both body and mind) will have prepared them for. Fitter athletes are more used to physical pain and hence the mental aspect ought to be less. This does not however answer the question of the how the moment of the switch is coped with for different athletes. I expect the experience of the athlete would be a contributing factor though. And leads onto your second point.
do people of the same physical capacity experience the same fatigue symptoms ?
Almost impossible to answer because you can't have a control on an experiment like that.
Could possibly be done with cloning, but that's a dark place to be going me thinks ...
is there any quanitive way to measure perception of pain / fatigue (oxymoron ?)
Pain and fatigue are two very different things (although highly connected). There are measures of pain that Pasta'n'Cheese highlights. But pain doesn't necessarily relate to physical harm. There is a famous case study of a workman who trod on a 6 inch nail. The nail went through the sole of his shoe and out through the top. He was immediately paralysed by the pain, couldn't stand up, and was taken prostrate to hospital. Before they removed the nail they x-rayed him to see the damage. The nail hadn't even broken his skin, it had gone between two of his toes!
Quantative measures of fatigue are equally tricky, so metabolites are measured. Thats the wierd thing that these scientists have discovered, metabolite levels seem to be at a plateau through the wall period. Though there must be some sort of feedback to the brain, or else the wall wouldn't happen. All in all it is kinda wierd.
"Don't try and fulfil your maximum potential, it's disappointing when you realise that all you are capable of doing is eating less cheese." Dylan Moran
-
Migsy - white
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:00 pm
- Location: Birmingham
Ok, just to be painfully anorakish!
Tryptophan floats around in the blood, it crossed the blood-brain barrier and is a precursor to seratonin. Seratonin affects mood, particularly lathargy and is linked to a central fatigue hypothesis, possibly also affecting cognitive processes important in orienteering (not just feeling tired).
As the bodies CHO (carbohydrate or sugar) stores are lowered, the ratio of tryptophan to certain amino-acids increases. The amino-acids (specifically branch-chain aminon acids) compete for transportation across the blood-brain barrier and in fact have a higher affinity for transportation.
This is only ONE theory behind fatigue, there are so many and to an extent they are all interrelated.
So how can you affect this:
Train so that you increase endurance (lots of log runs and big CHO rich meals after)
Eat enough meat (that doesn't means heaps)
Use CHO supplements (eg drinks) during long runs
possible a place for BCAA supplements - but WARNING - you run a much higher risk of testing positive due to contaminated samples
Tryptophan floats around in the blood, it crossed the blood-brain barrier and is a precursor to seratonin. Seratonin affects mood, particularly lathargy and is linked to a central fatigue hypothesis, possibly also affecting cognitive processes important in orienteering (not just feeling tired).
As the bodies CHO (carbohydrate or sugar) stores are lowered, the ratio of tryptophan to certain amino-acids increases. The amino-acids (specifically branch-chain aminon acids) compete for transportation across the blood-brain barrier and in fact have a higher affinity for transportation.
This is only ONE theory behind fatigue, there are so many and to an extent they are all interrelated.
So how can you affect this:
Train so that you increase endurance (lots of log runs and big CHO rich meals after)
Eat enough meat (that doesn't means heaps)
Use CHO supplements (eg drinks) during long runs
possible a place for BCAA supplements - but WARNING - you run a much higher risk of testing positive due to contaminated samples
Last edited by Run like u stole someting on Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
knowledge is dangerous but so is ignorance
-
Run like u stole someting - string
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 4:36 pm
- Location: Back in the office
24 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 200 guests