Can you explain what this means?
I think it is pretty well established in a load of scientific literature that the brain not only isn’t the only factor in a lot of these systems, but it is sometimes not even the primary factor.
Yes I have. It is not a matter of where,or how CHEMICALS are produced.They are the RESULT of electrically encoded information.
As well as it is hardly arguable that the brain is the primary PROCESSOR of information in human beings.
Scientific literature depends totally on the expectations of its producers and even end users.
Primary, sure, but when we are talking about a few hundreths being the difference between being on the Olympic team or not even making the final, it’s just that I feel it is important to look at a variety of factors. A lot of people tend to look towards one direction without regard for another. I definitely agree that studies can be misconstrued because of how researchers or even just the readers want things to be, but the same would go for dismissing it. Has to be a fine balance.
The one thing that I don’t quite understand is the somewhat vague explanation you and Jamirock are giving for electrical. I agree that general signals are electrical, sure, but that doesn’t really give us that much of a look of what to DO to enhance the performance and recovery processes.
I refer to human in general,with no specific performance clue.
Would you agree that a better functioning human would also be a better sprinter,hence having more chances to make the finals you talk about?
You ask about what to do.Just start looking at the human before looking at the performance,and start improving human functioning,regardless of performace goals.
Performance will naturally follow as the result of a better functioning system as a whole.
Think to the body as a system, not as a collection of parts!
You want understand bioelectricity with the point of view of a medical doctor, it’s impossible.
I speak about peripherical potential, you speak about serotonin, I speak about CNS potential and you about neurotransmitter…uhm…it’s a cul de sac.
If you work every day with CNS you can see the real potential of this approach.
Who can release our muscle tension? CNS!
Often we work on biology for release a tight calf…30 minutes of massage, pressure point work, fascial work…our body has all the resource for recovery itself…we have to give only a little push…
How we can do it?
We have our tested system for balance and recovery.
Our first choices are Kinesiology and ARP, test, research, experience…not only a stupid electric theory.
Massage? It WORKS!
But it isn’t the best approach.
Simple.
I’m afraid the approach of saying everything starts with the brain is exactly that–thinking of it as a collection of parts or at least parts that are simply controlled by one thing. Again, I truly believe that what you’re saying deserves a hard and thorough look at and consideration, but you are ignoring other factors.
You want understand bioelectricity with the point of view of a medical doctor, it’s impossible.
I work at a hospital, but I don’t think I’m looking at it from the perspective of an MD here. I am looking for some scientific literature to back your conclusion and I can think of quite a bit that is contrary to your theory presented here.
I speak about peripherical potential, you speak about serotonin, I speak about CNS potential and you about neurotransmitter…uhm…it’s a cul de sac.
If you work every day with CNS you can see the real potential of this approach.
Who can release our muscle tension? CNS!
Often we work on biology for release a tight calf…30 minutes of massage, pressure point work, fascial work…our body has all the resource for recovery itself…we have to give only a little push…
How we can do it?
We have our tested system for balance and recovery.
Our first choices are Kinesiology and ARP, test, research, experience…not only a stupid electric theory.Massage? It WORKS!
But it isn’t the best approach.
Simple.
GREAT! More ARP. Again, I have no problems with different approaches and sciences being incorporated or at least considered, but things like ARP are just an example of how some people are believing (or at least, trying to sell) that magic bullet when it is perhaps not really there. Great, EJames used the ARP–he was also hurt a fair amount and still is. That isn’t to say the ARP caused the problems or didn’t help, but it’s simply one potential piece to the puzzle.
Soon all will start thinking Shaman is Sharmer ! 
Very soon so!
Of 100+ words in Jamirok’s post ARP is just ONE.
And several magic bullets have been mentioned along.
Let me advise a good read about people’s beliefs,and your beloved multi-factor biology:
Bruce Lipton,Biology of Belief
[URL=]http://www.brucelipton.com
At least it will make for some common ground to start discussion upon.
Science is first at all experience!
I’ve a different model, with different results, different conclusion, different point of view.
I’m not a fan of “my model vs. your model”, I see results, and my results are injury prevention/sport performance.
I (can) ignore (in your opinion) “other factors”, I’m not perfect thanks to God, but when my approach works, I’m on the right way and the game of factors is a waste of time.
Then, do you have specific question about our “model”?
PS: If you want to understand our approach first change your “model”.
I’ll be clear in that I have no specific ‘model’ and I don’t propose one either. I think a lot of the information we have is incomplete and sometimes even contradictory. My initial point, that you seem to be proving, is that focusing on one specific area/idea and ignoring the rest is just as bad as the approaches that view everything as separate. I was under the impression you both were about incorporating grounded science and experience, rather than simply ignoring what have been found through both science and numerous people’s experiences to be very important just because it doesn’t fit your new model.
I spent much of today reading through the article on Bruce Lipton’s site and I’m afraid I don’t see where that promotes an approach that is what you guys are promoting. I mean that very respectfully, I just don’t see where the ideas line up or even have cross-over at all.
Perhaps you can give some specific examples of how you ‘optimize’ the organism as a whole and use the electrical components of the body in your approach to sports training and we can go from there.
Jamirok, science is not properly (only) experience. While the (western) scientific approach has tons of flaws, I wonder how many of the folks usually dismissing academic science ever tried being a scientist. You know, hypothesis, material and methods, results, discussion and generalization etc. Generalization and careful consideration of implicit variables are pretty important. Pakewi, the work of Bruce Lipton is very tought-provoking, but I do not have a clue about the link between neurology, gene expression, muscle imbalances and ARP. 
The X factor here is skill and experience. If you are particularly skilled in one modality, your results will be better than with your use of another regardless of its metit.
Respectfully, You say “bad”, but you don’t know our approach/model in practice.
You play with words, philosophy and speak about science, but you have not a model.
What do you search?
In our experience, who is really interested to our work came here in Italy and see us in action.
As I have just said, we work with ARP (pakewi is an advanced pratictioner) and Kinesiology, we have an integrated model of work, we have results, we don’t love model vs model approach, only results speak! Simple.
We cannot know all the models, all the scientific studies, ideas, theories and probably we are not interested about all these things.
We work on bioelectricity because in our opinion is the better method for enhance the body system.
Actually, and after about three exausting years of work, we have a lot of information about CNS/Bioelectriciy.
A little example can be the acupuncture therapy.
We have studied and tested body reaction to needles insertion on specific skin points or area, and we have done a protocol for professional swimmers.
Acupuncture generate piaezoelectricity, this give you specific body reaction if you use the right points/reflex.
The same can be done with much power and interesting reaction with ARP.
Another interesting point is to work on mechanical tension of spinal cord (see Alf Breig work).
We can release CNS/NS tension, fight or flight traumatic tension, meningeal tension.
You can optimize the structure with specific information carried to the body via reflex.
But these are only few points.
Then, Bruce lipton can give you a general point of view on body function.
Nordenstrom, Bob Becker, quantum physic, biosignal analysis, kinesiology, ARP concept/theory…and few other complete the scenario.
Just for you about science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Sorry, but I love to speak about facts.
I do not consider myself a scientist, but a curious observer.
I try to give an explanation to my therapeutic experience with a scientific approach or any idea/theory with sense.
How can you understand years of work with few word on a thread? Or simply reading a short article?
It’s simple criticize, but much difficult try to understand without our mental filters.
Well Jamirok, being a scientist I think I know a thing or two about science, but thanks for the link. I know you have a good success in Italy, where I live, but it does not preclude the presentation of a general framework within which you operate. You know, “I have a model, it does work, so why going deeper” is an old cliché, somewhat guruesque. From a few posts it can be understood where someone is going, but unfortunately I think that the issues you are presenting are very interesting, but somewhat presented awkardly, and it does not depend on my model, his model or their model. A specific question: what is the way you use the most to release CNS tension?
svincenz–
Thank you for summarizing what are my thoughts as well–I was not sure if I was being unclear or if there was something that the language barrier was keeping from being understood.
I find the discussion and methods presented (however general) from pakewi and jamirock are interesting, but I have a hard time accepting that this method is somehow ‘better’ or ‘more developed’ in any way over other theories since there is, at best, loose associations with the theories they are supposed to be based upon and the experience of only a couple on a small scale to validate. I could use similar arguments for completely opposing theories to either of our positions that have had equal or greater amounts of success (depending on how you define it), but I don’t think that really forces us to improve our own practices.
I think the point of this discussion are two, first we’re trying to sell nothing and we’re not interested to convince other peoples about our work.
This thread is started speaking about massage as best option for recovery, my idea is totally different and I’ve worked a lot with some form of manual therapy.
But when you see muscle tear healing after 4-5 days instead of 20-40 days, you’re observing something that’s totally different from classic science/medical theory.
Now, we stay speaking about an advanced model of recovery and performance that work on CNS and bioelectricity.
You can (try to) understand or stay on your side and try to find a flaw in the system.
Meanwhile we go ahead.
@svincenz: you’re italian, if you’re so interested to our work you can try to contact me via PM or email, I find speak or write with technical word in italian more simple than english
Jamirock can you please point us to some resources that will help us ‘understand’ your positioning? Also, perhaps some explanation or an idea at least of the methods that you use?