The Light wrote:
Hello sim,
Do you think Noakes is attacking today's applied coaching methodologies, or a 90 year old physiological performance model?
You agreed that feedback mechanism to the brain is so obvious, you assumed it studying PE in year 12. Yet Hill's model doesn't include the brain at all, only oxygen, the heart, lungs, circulation, muscles, and lactate.
So I guess you don't completely agree with the Hill model either. I gather, you've taken parts of the Hill model, combined it with athlete's psychology, feedback to the brain, and conscious thought, and taken that to the track to perform your applied physiology.
Noakes has added some feed forward and some autonomous control to the mix, and he is taking that to the athletes to see if that better matches reality.
You did admit that "...Noakes is simply arguing against Hill". But what is it that makes you think he wants to "take over control of how athletes are trained"? Surely not many bullheaded coaches will let him take control or keep control, if his new ideas don't produce positive results.
Light, For one i don't remember aligning myself with anyone, let alone Hill. I don't even know Hill or his research. I don't bother to remember a reference because i never plan on needing it to defend my position. I learn new things only, and i stress only, in order to apply them, not to show them off. Where they came from is as irrelevant as where my own ideas come from. They are simply ideas. Nobody owns them.
What do you think i am doing here?
Secondly, you guys seem to assume that the only thing coaches know is what the physiologists have told them. And now you think you need to correct them of the mistaken knowledge. I really don't think coaches (real coaches and not just cut and paste coaches - A. Cabral p10) have ever relied on the physiologists version of things. Coaching technique or methodology is a deep art.