I have always been interested in the relationship between mental preparation and CNS fatigue. Target meets can flatten an athlete for days or even weeks but the actual performance may not be superior than one achieved at a meet of lesser importance or even in training. (This is one reason why achievements of athletes who double up should be repected)
Bulgarian weightlifters talk of ‘emotionally detaching’ from their training. I assume this is a skill that would be quickly developed if one is pressed to attempt multiple maximums four times per day, six day per week. Any rivalaries and egos must be abandoned if one is survive such training. (This is in direct conflict to the idea of having a training partner as a ‘motivational stimulus’). Of course, their selection system means those who are UNABLE to adapt are simply discarded. Additionally they are not intended to have careers spanning several Olympiad.
How many of you have struggled with a weight only to have it fly up the very next set when you have an audience (an attractive female!)? Such stimulus improves performance in the short term but at what expense over longer periods? Any CNS debt must be paid sometime in the future. A similar arguement can be made against stimulants like coffee and pseudo ephedrine - they may give you a pick up today but at what expense tomorrow?
I believe this topic is significant but under appreciated generally. Any thoughts?
David, interesting thoughts.
With respect to improved performance in the presence of an audience, it is my belief that the audience merely activates/excites a arousal levels/ perception that may otherwise remain dorment for those individuals who are more “self-excitory” impaired.
Meaning: there are those self driven athletes who are able to internally, without external stimuli, raise their level of arousal (and execute competition level lifts in training), in conrast to others who may need external stimuli to excite their level of arousal in order to “raise their game”.
As far as, as you mentioned, the prolonged effects, that is an interesting concept that requires further thought, at least on my part.
James Smith
Agreed,
I may have given the incorrect idea in my post. By raising arousal levels, I meant self-inducing “Optimal” levels, not necessarily hightenend (thus not optimal) levels.
James Smith
I had read a study a while back about performance and arousal levels and the conclusion was that, as James said, there is an optimal level of arousal for maximal performance and that this level of arousal was dependent on the sport (and presumably the athlete.)
Not surprisingly, sports that required finer motor control benefited from lower levels of arousal while sports that required more powerful gross motor movements benefited from higher levels of arousal.
Seems to me that an athlete would like to be able to achieve the maximal level of arousal that does not interfere with the skill of performing the movements required by the sport. That is, for something like weightlifting, you want high arousal so as to be able to achieve maximal power, but if achieving this power compromises your technique, then you have gone too far.
David, why would LOW arousal levels in the presence of external stimuli be advantageous? Perhaps for a lower-caliber athlete, it would help preserve technique, but for an advanced athlete where technique is presumably stable, I would think that higher (optimal) levels of arousal would be better.
Again, I’m talking only about performance for that event. The longer term issues about CNS stress and recovery are interesting but are essentially just a matter of degrees. For example, if I go into a competition and manage to stay at lower levels of arousal, does this mean that my CNS will be significantly less impacted? By how much? If this lower arousal causes me to lose the competition, then what was the point? Does losing (or knowing that I didn’t perform my best) cause more emotional stress that impacts my recovery to an even greater extent? I don’t have any answers here other than to say that this is what makes planning and periodization interesting. How does one manage all of the variables, make improvements and perform when it matters?
I’m suggesting lowering arousal during training not competition. I gave the example of a competition to illustrate how significant the effect of arousal is on the CNS.
There are times in the gym where you could increase the load 5% or so by shouting at yourself and butting the wall. I’m suggesting the cost of such high arousal will be decreased quality in subsequent sessions (due to CNS fatigue).
Oh, I was confused because you said “in the presence of external stimuli” which I assumed to mean “a competition environment.”
I’m not quite as sure how to manage it in the case of a weightlifter, but for a sprinter, one generally should lift well within themselves (leave a couple of reps in your pocket) so high levels of arousal should not be necessary. So I guess I agree with you.
The times when higher levels of arousal may be applicable are during a 3-1-3 max strength cycle when one is specifically focusing on improved strength. During these cycles, there is a conscious decision to spend more CNS energy on lifting to improve overall organism strength. However, even here I would argue that the intesification should be well below a personal 1RM (and the associated recovery costs.) The extra arousal should generally be spent on the track; and this does happen in the overall plan, after a 3-1-3 when weights are in maintenance mode and even the volume of sprint work is dropped (but the intensity/quality goes up.)
“the only reason we should have energy is because we deserve it, because we’ve earned it with proper rest. Things like stimulants are “false energy” and when we mess around with “false energy,” we get hurt - artificial energy.”
The topic of arousal and performance has been well studied by sports psychologists. The theory that xlr8 refers to is know as the inverted U hypothesis that suggests that performance increases up to an optimal level of arousal and then decreases with additional arousal. The optimal level of arousal depends on the nature of the sport, the individual and the skill level.
There are a number of other theories of arousal and performance including drive theory, Hanin’s zone of optimal functioning and catastrophe theory. Catastrophe theory suggests that after arousal passes the optimal level, perfomance declines dramatically.
All the theories however, suggest that arousal is an important consideration in performance.
With regards to the effect of arousal on recovery, it might be important to note that sports psychologists split arousal into physical (somatic) and mental (cognitive) components. I would imagine that somatic arousal might place higher demands on the CNS.
Also when considering arousal, remember the potentially negative effects of arousal for example increased anxiety causing choking. If higher somatic arousal prevents an athlete experiencing negative events in training this may be worth the increased CNS stress.