Today I really feel way too much attention has been paid to training CONTENT as the main factor underlying performance,while it may actually lie in training CONTEXT to extents we barely can imagine.Especially for Top Level performers.Especially for performances consistent over time…
Just have a look at the majority of questions posed and answered here on cf.com ,just have a look at training journals here in the archives ,and compare how much information is there provided about training CONTENT with that available about CONTEXT,and you’ll see what I mean,and where everybody’s attention,focus,and…EMOTIONS are!
It vaguely reminds me of the infinite years spent researching the secrets of life INSIDE the cell,only to discover they well may lie…OUT of it !
Maybe,but surely it is true the other way round: more emotion necessarily implies higher intensity for a given task.If the higher intensity falls in the response capabilities of the individual,the cycle will perpetuate and energize itself over and over.
More motivation might be related in some circumstances to STOP trying to hard (putting too much effort in sprinting fast for example). Motivation is an individual thing. But for example you could motivate an athlete by saying he cannot relax when challenged by other athletes. You make a bet, set up a situation in practice, and then see what happens.
Could result in more relaxation. dynamic minimization, in the short term and increased performance in the longer term.
An athlete can get thrilled if he/she experiences that changes pay off, and that less means more, etc.
I have read somewhere that elite athletes have a new goal each day. Does that keep up motivation? I think so!
[QUOTE=duxx]… I know you are familiar that Bosh and Klomp also criticized training of motor abilties in their book.
Anyway, what about specificity-overload trade-off?! You cannot be specific and provide large overload? Example squats and sprints!
…/QUOTE]
In my opinion B&K may be on the right track, but I have a different opinion.
They treat coordination based on the anatomy and supposed muscle function. Based on these assumptions they structure training.
But (Bernstein): the brain does not know muscles only movements (or better: how to reach the goal). The muscles are the slaves of the will of the brain. Of course there is some interaction. However, the same movement can and is performed by different combinations of muscles / motor units etc (the flexibility is not restricted to a single part of the motor system I think)
Right now I go back to the example of squats and sprints. Does one need overload in squats to sprint faster. In practice it might work (though Charlie have stated that sprinting faster might well make you squat more).
from motor control perspective do you need lifting really?
Does anybody know the role weightlifting played in the Greek sprinting periodisation?
How much “unnecessary” work did Charlie do with Ben? Can we know the answer?
Off course they did supplementary work. But what is the reason for doing that: is it culture (because everybody has been doing some “unspecific work”) in history of the sport?
Is the difference between PBs of Kim Collins and Greene etc explainable by one motor ability (strenght in particular comes to my mind)?
Humans are the horse in the book Animal Farm by George Orwell: if there is a problem (you want to improve) don’t complain just work harder. Is this allways smarter? Yes, if it motivates the athlete and he/she does not brake down. This is a recipe for your short term success. Long tem succes is dependent on long term motivation (experiencing succes after success, while having to cope with challenging goals).
You make another very interesting point,Stefan,citing Bernstein:and again, brain functioning being all about goals and GOAL (FUTURE) driven,how comes everybody in training still worries primarily about the PROCESS (PAST)? Just check again the archives on this site to have…thousands of examples!
Hi Pakewi, I am not totally following you. I will write underneath, how I see the picture. Please post your comments!
My (biological/mechanistic) definition of motivation: a state in which the extracellular concentration of hormones in the brain facilitates Hebbian Learning.
In my opinion one can learn to reduce effort (i.e. “conscious” effort). Learning will go faster / more efficiently, is my assumption, if
A: motivation is optimal (maximal?)
B: situation is specific
A and B go hand in hand in central nervous system in order to achieve a goal. Repetition is the driving force behind achieving goal better (qualitative/faster/more efficiently)
We are on the very same page,Stefan.
What I meant above by “effort” may be identified with your “maximal” motivation,as opposed to “optimal”,as from your very appropriate words.Nothing more than that.
I was not referring to any conscious or unconscious effort specifically,an area where I stand in perfect agreement with your…assumption.
Not to turn this thread into another general vs. specific thread as there are many other topics here that each should be very interesting to discuss, but if lifting(and really anything other than the specific motor skill being performed) are used as secondary stimuli that are just in support of sprinting, do they necessarily have a high degree of cost? Wouldn’t, at least sometimes depending on the situation, the less cost of something that is used as a secondary stimulous outway the limited trasnferability of a given skill?
Also, might secondary components be able to play a role as far as structural adaptions? Not that I disagree with Wolff’s and Davis’s laws of structural adaption to imposed demands, but might certain secondary components be a more efficient way of acheiving these structural adaptions?
If anyone feels that these questions should be moved to another thread so as not to disrupt the other topics being discussed, let me know and I’ll start a different thread for this.
