[This article originally appeared in the
December 2002
issue of Northwest Runner
magazine.]
Tim Noakes is a physician, an exercise scientist, and an
ultramarathoner. He thus is uniquely qualified to write a book such as Lore of
Running,
an exhaustive (and exhausting) treatise that bills itself as "the runner's bible." Like the
Holy Bible itself, the new fourth edition of Lore of
Running is quite lengthy (1277
pages) and will be read from cover to cover by only a small fraction of its owners. However,
the book's scope is so broad -- topics range from "Achilles tendonitis" to "Zatopek,
Emil" -- that virtually all runners would enjoy reading at least one of its 15 chapters.
The book will be especially appealing to coaches, serious competitive runners, and
athletes with a strong interest in biology and/or medicine.
My own interest in Lore of Running centers around
Noakes's efforts to dispense training-related information and advice based on solid
scientific studies -- an approach that I have termed "research-based coaching." In reading
Lore of Running, I was not entirely satisfied with the author's incorporations and
explanations of research data. Nevertheless, the book constitutes a noble attempt to
present this information to a lay audience, which is never an easy task.
Strengths of this book
1. Noakes cites and discusses relevant
scientific sources. While many running books claim to offer a "scientific
approach to training," my opinion is that hardly any provide adequate scientific
justification for their specific recommendations. Lore of Running is something of an
exception in that many practical training issues are addressed using appropriate references
to pertinent research studies. For example, Noakes argues that the American College of
Sports Medicine (ACSM) is wrong to advocate the intake of large volumes of fluid during
exercise. In doing so, he cites and critiques the original studies upon which the ACSM
recommendations are based as well as additional studies that have led him to adopt a dissenting
viewpoint. Irrespective of whether one is convinced by Noakes's arguments (which do have
some merit), he does an admirable job of laying out exactly what he thinks and why.
2. Noakes devotes adequate space to
opinions contrary to his own. Many coaches and scientists present their
views as the correct ones and the only ones worth knowing about. Thankfully,
Noakes is less dogmatic than that. The above-mentioned section on fluid
replacement is one instance where he makes an earnest attempt to summarize
both sides of a debate. Another is the section in which he summarizes his lengthy
feud with other scientists on whether maximum oxygen consumption (VO2max) is
an important determinant of exercise performance. While Noakes argues that a
high VO2max is an effect rather than a cause of superior athletic performance, he
freely acknowledges the opposing perspectives of other scientists, thus allowing
readers to sort through the evidence and reach their own conclusions.
3. Noakes draws appropriate attention
to the brain's ability to influence exercise performance. Perhaps the biggest
difference between the third and fourth editions of Lore of Running is that the fourth
edition
features Noakes's newly developed "Central Governor" theory of exercise performance.
According to this theory, exercise performance is determined by two key factors. "The
first," he writes, "is a pacing strategy that is pre-programmed into the athlete's subconscious
brain as a result of his or her previous training and racing experiences. The second are acute
alterations to that pre-programmed strategy resulting from sensory input from a variety of
organs -- heart, muscle, brain, blood, lungs, among others -- to the exercise controller or
'governor' in the brain." In other words, the brain provides an initial pacing strategy that it
subsequently modifies according to feedback from the heart, muscle, etc. Although this
theory can be reduced to a statement of the obvious -- we run at a pace specified by our
brain -- it is a useful reminder that that any comprehensive scientific explanation of fatigue
must include the brain in some way. This emphasis on the brain is a welcome departure from
traditional exercise science research, which has largely focused on the heart, blood, lungs,
and muscles.
Weaknesses of this book
1. Noakes doesn't always extract
useful insights from the large amounts of information he provides. As
stated above, one strength of Lore of Running is its presentation of multiple perspectives
on controversial issues. However, some parts of the book resemble a catalog of lists rather
than a scholarly analysis. Chapter 2 contains six tables showing how six different authors
interconvert performance times at different distances; Chapter 10 contains 11 tables'
worth of marathon programs designed by different coaches; Chapter 6 describes the
training habits of 35 elite athletes. Personally, I wish that Noakes had devoted less space
to the mere documentation of different approaches and more to the critical evaluation of
their scientific validity.
2. Noakes mixes scientific and anecdotal
information without clearly distinguishing between the two. Noakes rightly
criticizes popular notions for which there is no compelling empirical evidence, yet
he himself makes numerous claims based largely or solely on anecdotal (as
opposed to scientific) information. In particular, he derives his "Fifteen Laws of
Training" from the experiences of athletes and coaches, with minimal consideration
of the exercise science literature. Typical of this section is Noakes's description
of the tapering program advocated by swim coaches Forbes Carlile and Frank
Cotton, after which he concludes, "The 1962 European Swimming Championships
proved the correctness of this approach." The fact is that one team's success at a
particular swim meet proves virtually nothing about the correctness of one training
regimen vis-a-vis another. While anecdotal evidence can be useful, it is not
the same as scientific data and should not be treated as such.
3. Lore of Running contains inaccuracies,
misleading statements, and misattributions. Any 1277-page volume is
bound to contain a few typos; however, I was troubled by the number of problematic
statements I encountered while reading this book. Some selected examples: Chapter 1
states that muscle contraction speed is determined by the rate at which the thick filaments
burn ATP, whereas muscle power is determined by the amount of calcium bound to
troponin C. This explanation is contrary to textbook descriptions of muscle contraction yet
is not attributed to any particular source. Chapter 3 says that the "crossover point" between
carbohydrate and fat metabolism as occurs at about 70% of VO2max, yet Figure 3.11
indicates that the crossover occurs at about 35% of VO2max. And Chapter 6 disputes
the idea that maximum heart rate declines with age, yet this age dependence is clearly upheld
by a wealth of experimental evidence (e.g., Whaley
et al., Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise 24: 1173-9, 1992; Engels
et al., Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 69: 94-8, 1998).
Not a true "runner's bible" ... or is it?
Is "the runner's bible" really an accurate description of Lore of
Running? It depends on exactly what is meant by the term "bible." Lore of
Running is not an infallible work to be taken literally and accepted without
questioning, and Noakes
does not ask us to treat it as such. If the "bible" label is instead meant to denote an
interesting and important book deserving to be read with a critical yet open mind, it fits
Lore of Running quite nicely.