Abstract
An important epistemological problem has been faced by Exercise Physiologists. On one hand, one theory explains the fatigue through a ceiling effect of oxygen uptake. On the other hand, the new theory proposes that an encephalon mechanism would stop the effort before a catastrophic homeostasis failure. Many physiologists have looked for evidence to support their favourite theory even though the induction logic problem does not allow to prove whether truth is discovered; however, it is possible to prove that it does not occur. When some researchers fail to test their hypotheses, they use relativism to bring up their theories again. Noakes and his colleagues have based their theory on relativism, because it is impossible to refute by empirical observation. It also doesn't explain all phenomena that the oldest Hill's theory is able to explain. Noakes's theory isn't more accurate in its previsions. Noakes did not check whether the oxygen uptake plateau occurs in suitable tests to measure on the mouth what happens in the muscles. Finally, it doesn't propose new tests for the encephalon role during maximal effort, as that is expected in scientific work. For all of these reasons, it is possible to conclude there are no advantages in switching to the "Central Governor" theory.