Homoeostasis Performance Model

General Discussion Debates
41

wow…
Thanks Lorien! This is very related to this model! I was reading something about cybernetics (which I aslo implemendet into my article Training Planning Programming) and something from Noakes et al when the thing come right to me…
As you may be familiar with it, I believe in Platonistic reality/world, and thus everything is descovered not invented and to every inventor the idea come from that reality: he didin’t inevented it! Fractals are allways been there, quarks too, the inventor only discovered it like Mt. Everest was discovered. It was allways been there…

I will certrainly try to look for those two theories!
BTW is human body an one point equilibrium system? Is body allways trying to keep that equilibrium (blood pressure, blood sugar, temperature etc) by improving the GAIN of the system and CONTROL STRATEGY? Or can it shift the equilibrium to another states? I believe Siff wrote about this too in Supertraining! Is higher blood pressure always bad per se? Or is that only the shift in equilibrium that allows better functioning of the body as complex system?
Thanks for your contribution Lorien!

42

Basically, the body* has two main goals/tasks

  • Create the actions directed by the Owner** which basicaly tend to perturb body homoeostasis

  • Provide the frame for life of the Owner by trying to maintain its own homoeostasis within boundaries of life

Thus, the body is allways deciding between these two processes. The body is smart. It will allow actions but only within the boundaries of maintenance of homoeostasis.

Training improves both processess. It improves actions (homoeostasis perturbation) by improving abilities and skills. It also improves the ability of the body to maintain homoeostasis by improving the functional systems and their control and also skills (more skillfull athletes are more efficient and thus create less perturbation in homoeostasis). Training should provide BALANCE between these two processess, becasue if emphasising only one there will not be any improvements and it can actually lead to decrease in performance. Both processes should be improved to improve performace. Note that those two processes are not split-able, they are integrated into a whole! Also, the body must provide a feedback from Material World to the Owner. This is called perception and is also affected by current states, emotions etc and is also affected by training. Everything is affected by everything.

If you (Owner) force the body to provide actions, it will give you feedback about the work done to maintain homoeostasis – RPE (rate of percieved effort; which is a „combination“ of action effort and homoeostasis maintenance effort). This is one of the mechanisms of the body to tell you where are you heading (perception, and as such it is affected by your expectations, prior experience, emotions etc). If your Will Power is very strong and keep pushing it, the body will ultimately use the second protective mechanism – fatigue. The body will try to alter the activity by „fatiguing“ itself (reducing CNS output and impairing physiological processes at the periphery), so you must push it harder (which will induce greater RPE) which ultimatelly lead to greater fatigue until fatigue is greater than your Will Power and this is when fatigue starts to become visible by altering/reducing performance. Note that fatigue starts at the onset of exercise/action as a control mechanism.

This was my short teleological (purpose) aspect of fatigue and RPE.
I hope I didn’t confuse anyone, but I doubt :slight_smile:

  • Under the term body I consider the body-mind complex
    ** Under the term Owner I consider the Consciousness, Soul or whatewer you like to call it. I am strong proponent of Descartes Dualism and I strongly believe in Free Will. Also, I don’t belive that Consciousness is located in the brain, it is something that is not material and cannot be explained by phisical laws and algorhythms. The brain/mind is just a „transducer“ or a machine. I did’t wanted to go into philosophical discussion but it seems that we cannot do anything without considering it.
43

Even in the case of the long distance runner I would say HBP would be maximal speed only IF and WHEN maximal speed training moves the subject away from her/his momentary balanced state bar.The very same training stimulus for the very same subject would well possibly be HMP if and when it initiates movement towards the opposite direction…

44

It’s rather difficult to decide if the “human system” shows characteristics of equilibrium or non-equilibrium since the definition is directly related to how we perceive the system in the first place (and what rules and variables we choose to follow in creating such distinctions). The map is not the territory, so, it’s our perception (map through cognition) that creates the reality (system) we try to understand – we cannot go beyond that. And of course, it’s the system that makes cognition possible in the first place – isn’t circularity a beautiful thing! Mount Everest might always have been there, but not as ‘Mount Everest’, but as…??? Mount Everest becomes Mount Everest only through our perception of ‘that something’.

Perhaps a good question would be how should ‘homeostasis’ be dealt with. Is it the logic of the system that defines homeostasis? Or, is it homeostasis that defines the logic of the system? I’m inclined to think that it’s the “logic” of the “system” that makes it possible for us to perceive it as homeostasis. Hence, homeostasis appears not to be the reason, but the result.

However, your model is very good, and such philosophical dissection might have little consequence for the usefulness of your model. It does not have to be true in the absolute sense (almost nothing is), as long as it’s consistent. Consistency makes it work, thus makes it valuable and very useful.

45

very true,
if homeostasis is required for adaptation and it occurs with in a given range then for adaptation to elite levels would require a even narrower range in which homeostasis is neccessary. this is why for the most part you can survive by eating crap but the achievement of elite performance whatever that is for the individual requires a more select selection of foods and dietary nutrients. that would be in my opinion the biological aspect of homeostasis but if we look at the system as a whole i would assert that homeostasis must be disturbed to bring about adaptation. a stressor effects the normal stasis of the system and in repsonse to this the body adapts. it is the careful interplay of disturbing the system drawing it out of homeostasis and then adaption occurs bring the system to a new level of homeostasis (homeostasis is redefined by the sum of its agreagate biological elements).

46

I am still under the impression we struggle anytime we or at least one of us discussing here move just a small step away from a static view and definition of “homeostasis”.Lets try to look at it in its very true dinamic state,more like we would look at a quite variable but costant trend,a movement “tending to”, more than an achieved/achievable set status.

I find it useful to think of it as the direction the body is already moving to,moment after moment.As such I have only two very general very basic but very crucial options: I can follow this flowing direction,or I can go against it.
Every other possible implications follow.

47

I must say WOW! to all of you: pakewi, lorien and james! Your posts really got me thinked, especially lorien’s!

Lorien,
your’s “Who is first:chicken or the egg” approach really got me thinked… But the question is what is the teleology (purpose) of human body? I think we should “answer” this question before answering chicken and egg problem!
On my personal point of view (based on Descarets dualism) the mind/body should provide:

  • A material frame for the Owner (spirit, soul). For this to happen, the body must be in life and to be healthy, and for this to happen, its physiological state should be kept in narrow ranges of state-space (exibit equilibrium - homoeostasis). Thus it must maintains it’s physiological variables within life-range
  • A transducer/convertor for Material world feedback (perception: vision, smell, hearing, touch etc) and as such it doesnt represent perfect convertor
  • Provide an frame for Material actions (movement etc) of the Owner

Oooops, here we go again into the phylosophy of life :slight_smile:

Contrary to you, I would say that the body’s need for homoeostasis (to maintain life within narrow ranges of physiological variables) defines the logic of the system, but this is only one part of the equation, because system logic also defines the ability to produce actions of the Owner. This two may be in CONFLICT, but I think the body will always try to keep the homosostasis while refuting to provide the action (which can deteoriate the homoeostasis and thus provide a treat to life, health etc). This happens most of the time…
Take for an example the performance at altitude. If there is lack of oxygen in air and thus less saturation of blood, we can say that we expect greater ammount of bLA during VO2max test because the body will use more oxygen independents sources of energy. But contrary to this, bLA will be less and also the performance level even if you push it maximally, because the body will stop the muscle activation to maintain homoeostasis (whatever that would be, because great amount of variables). In this way, the body listened to the need of homoeostasis maintenance (internal variables) rather than letting you “push to the max”.

James,
yes, the performance “tend” to alter the homoeostasis but it doesn’t succeed in that. The body ADAPTS by increasing its ability to maintain homoeostasis, and next time you perform you can increase the load without altering homoeostasis. This is the example of improving HMP (homoeostasis maintenance process).
The example is starting lifting weights. First time the athlete do squats, the body will not allow great motor unit recruitment because the body is not sure what is safe for it. Next time it will ALLOW greater recruitment.
When I was started lifting I always thinked that I didnt improved at all, only that I reached the norm of my body. But this was in the beggining… later the body tryes to adapt by increasing GAIN (muscle mass, functioning of various organs) and CONTROL (intra/inter coordination, control of heart etc) of the system. The activity (but not “external” activity per se, rather activity of the body - HBP homoeostasis break down process) tend to perturn the homoeostasis, and the body adapts to improve its mainetnance next time you perform. So body improves both perturbation of homoeostasis and its maintenance in the same time. The body produce perturbation of the homoeostasis not some “external” action - he body produce actions!!! Note that we are talking about performance, sometime some extarnal factor may try to perturb homoeostasis.

The body will allow and improve its actions but within its ability to maintain its homoeostasis!!! You must improve both to improve! The HBP and HMP are a “artifical” processes I “invented” to help me clarify some things.

Ok, to summ up on the example of starting lifting weights.

Phase1. The ahlete do squats for the first time with minimal load (but try to see how much he can lift). the body will not ALLOW greater MU recruitment because it is not sure about safety of this. This action will also try to perturb homoeostasis (split your joints in part etc). Your body will react by increasing the HMP (impring joint structure, bone density etc).

Phase 2. the body “sees” that you have great amount of HMP reserve so its allows greater MU recruitment. In the same time you are increaing your HMP reserve while increasing HBP. Each of this processes facilitates each other

Phase 3. You reached the maximum in HBP while you still have reserve in HMP. To improve, your body improves HBP by increasing mmass, coordination of those muscles etc. In the same time you HMP improves (joints structure, ligaments, stabilizers both active/passive etc.)

Phase 4. Your body reached great amount of HBP and decreased HMP reserve. You start to stagnate. You should increase the HMP by using various exercises that improves joint stabilization, mobility etc.

Phase 5. Jump to phase 2. Round and round here we go!

Hope this have a sense! But please note that during performance homoeostasis is never lost (unless injury happens), and that body adapt by improving its ability to maintain it next time you performa…
Maybe this model seems to complex for now but it is not… I will summ up all that is have written into new text in due course to be readable.

Thanks for your contribution guys! Please if you have some more ideas, critiques PLEASE post, because this is the only way for this model to improve…

48

Yes you are rigth pakewi… But I never said that homoeosetasis is a POINT in a n-dimensional state-space (a space with coordinates of various physiological variables like temperature, blood proteins, sugar, etc). Homoeostasis is a dynamical process within the homoeostasis range. Homoeostasis range is ALSO DYNAMIC becasue it depends on variables involved and their current levels. So, both representative point is dynamic (it also has biorhythms, on which I have already wrote) and homoeostasis range.
Homoeostasis as a point is constantly MOVING, trying to find (to go with a flow) the optimal position, but because body is dynamic the ideal position changes all the time… so Homoeostasis controler is always in the state of SEARCH of it, and this is why biorhythm happens (maybe). Equilibrium (optimal point) is dynamic it is not just a point… and the search is dynamic, so this is why we have oscilations in our heart rate, temperature etc.
Maybe the level of those oscilations (HR, temp) can say us something about underlying processess. If they are large, the Homoeostasis Controler is trying to find ever-escaping optimal point (which may have great movement due fatigue etc). Oscilations depends both on the eficacy of Homoeostasis Controler and the movement of optimal point (or Controler’s representatins of it). Maybe this is the core of OmegaWave functioning…

49

Does the body necessarily have to have teleology – a universal purpose of some sort? Is it not enough if we give the human body a purpose by analyzing it, so that it appears, – to us – that there’s a pragmatic purpose?

The problem with a teleology of some sort as a point of departure, is that it turns your model (the whole homeostasis performance model) into a dependent variable (highly dependable of the teleology you start out with); hence you must create another sub-division within that dependent variable; homeostasis as the sub-independent and performance as the sub-dependent variable again. Why not leave the teleology (philosophy of life) out so that you can simplify the hermeneutic approach; just start with homeostasis (as a dependent variable) and relate all other variables to that and see where it takes you?

When we move towards deeper understanding about matter, we move towards pure energy and vibrations. Thus, matter seems as much immaterial through better instruments as it seems to be material through rudimentary perception. Ironically also, as we move towards detailed mapping of cognitive functions, we find concrete patterns for different kind of cognitions. However, the brain also appears to be very changeable (functions in a damaged region can continue by activity in other regions, to some degree). Nevertheless, the distinction between mind and matter becomes much more elusive than Cartesian reasoning finds it hard to recover from – it looks like they are coming together as one and the same thing at the very end (and point of departure). Welcome to the quantum realm with all its uncertainty and instantaneous information exchange with each and every particle in the universe! :smiley:

One interesting thing with nerve signals (in the brain) is that they appear not to carry any (pre)coded information. Hence it’s up to the brain to create the appropriate action/reaction to such stimuli. This means cognition – again – must create the things we perceive in the first place. Thus, we can never be sure that our perception is really representative of the world as it is; it just appears to be that way according to our instruments. Had we different instruments, then the world might appear as very different. But this all we have, we have to start here anyway.

Don’t take too much emphasis on our philosophical incongruity; the questions are far too many to be answered – if there are any answers at all. I guess it’s better to focus on the coherence of the model itself.

Fair enough, your perspective should then be analogous to the following suggestion (and partly to what you already have done): While I totally agree with pakewi about trying to insert dynamics into the picture, I think it’s easier – from a scientific standpoint – if the dynamics is realized, but the actual work focuses on one point in time. Kind of when looking at a sprinting video where you freeze a frame just to take a detailed look to validate or falsify a particular issue, yet realizing that it’s about movement as a whole.

50

WOW again! What are you study lorien? Phylosophy, engeneering? You have a strong background in this, it seems!!!

Altought I undestand your recomendations I don’t know exactly what is hermenautic?
Also, I strongly believe in PURPOSE (teleological principle), because there is no organization/system witohut a purpose (this is what cybernetics is all about)… altought the purpose of the body may be very complex and very matephysical, I would never say that there is no purpose… And I would say that we can find the purpose by (optimally) analysing the system and its behaviour, and not to give it by analysis per se. Natural systems like human body may be self-organiying system, but again it has (one of numerous) purpose - to maintain life.
Please note that I am talking about the purpose of body, not life purpose, because if I believe in free will, then I would say that purpose of your life is what you choose it to be…

I agree with you, but I am not talking about the mind… I am talking about the soul or consciousness… …the spirit …the life! They are NOT the same!!!
I have wrote one article about this subject but it is on serbian, if you are interested I could translate it easyliy… I am sure you would like it!

Can we do the “dissection” without forgetting about the whole?
But now when we defined the WHOLE in general lines (homoeostasis performance model) maybe we can dissect/analyse particulart PARTS but only under the logic of the whole???

Again, thanks for your time and effort helping me out…

51

In a few words, you have spoken volumes!!!

52

Just a few thoughts about learning, memory, and motor control. There has been a trend to dismiss the concept that learning skills leads to a greater ability to learn more skills- that learning is entirely specific to each action. This “new” theory of specificity, often carried to ludicrous degrees, is very saleable at conferences, with the only drawback that it’s just not possible, thus it is requisite that these “salesmen” have never been high level themselves.
If skill was entirely specific and not a dynamic problem solving process with sprinting for example, something as simple as a change in surface hardness would disrupt the entire stride pattern. As long as the athlete doesn’t consciously fight against it, the body will automatically adjust and “ride the surface” optimally.
Motor actions are much like memory itself. You may “remember” a solution or you may repeat a mental calculation and come to the same answer over and over, which you then might easily assume to be “remembered”.
Within the Homeostasis model is the narrow “window” within which you may learn as well as advance physical parameters. Step outside these bounds at your peril.

I bring this up because learning is the first area in which most people step outside their parameters

53

Thanks for your contribution Charlie…

Here in Serbia it is common to call a motor skill with a stupid term as is “dynamic stereotype”!!! Skill is all about don’t being stereotype!

Technique (uchi mata in judo for example), on the contrary is the movement pattern or stereotype which is MODIFYED by skill expression. Technique is a NAME of a given movement expresed as a solution of the skill for a given/specific motor problem/task.

Skill is the PROCESS (learning), and in the same time the result of that process, of the SEARCH of the answer/solution to a particular motor problem/task. To solve the motor task skill uses abilities to help it out. Skill is a ability to solve (both consciously/sub conciously) some motor task.

Charlie, take a look at the right part of the Homoeostasis Performance Model, in which I depicted Schmidt conceptual model of performance (stimuli indentification, response selection, response programming).

I found the book from Schmidt “Motor Learning and Performance” excellent reading and easy reading regarding performance and skill learning. I wait to collect some money to order “Motor Control & Learning” from the same author!

Regarding motor (skill) learning…
Couple of question:

  • Is there a development of coordination (ability) which allows you faster learning of new skill later
  • Or there is the enrichment of skill/solution in a brain so thus you can use it when learning new skill

Couple of consideration:
A parallel: You have to learn some kid to do multiplication. You ask him what is 3x5, he responds 15. Now you ask him what is 3x5 again, and he again respond it is 15. You ask him again, he say it is 15. Is there any learning? Only mechanical REPATING of the answer (or “dynamic stereotype”).
To learn skill, you should provide the problems, different problems each time not solutions. The process must pass to mentioned three phases each time (stimuli indent, response selection, response programing) for skill to be learned. If 1-2 phases are constant then there is not skill learning just a mechanical repetition of the skill output (technique - “dynamic stereotype”). Problems should changed so this forces a skill to find new solutions and thus learn the “algorithm” of the solution rather than the solutions for a particular problems.
So, ask the kid 3x5, 6x2, 7x3 etc. He can remeber all the solutions, but if he learn the algorhtythm, he will find solutions in not experience problems.
So, when learning soccer kick, shoot from various positions to a goal (schema development), from various stating positions, ball moving, wheather conditions etc. Try changing the kick techniques every time (random practice) not just kicking all the time with the same. The change will force your to “remember” various solutions, to find them in the “long term memory” and put them into “working memory”… Read the book :slight_smile:

This may apply to sprint but with lesser degree because the sprint is more “closed” (predictable environment) than is soccer, but when learning sprint drills, like A, B, skips/marches we can alternate between them etc.

True, but not outsied the Homoeostasis zone (what is considered safe). Skill acquisition may be impaired for some time while the body realizes that what it is trying to do is safe.
This doesn’t state true for fight-or-flight reactions, becasue this situation represent greater threat for homoeostasis (health of the body) than does blood sugar level. The body just switch prioritetes!!!

54

Perhaps ‘this “new” theory of specificity’ stems from a predilection to cause-effect-thinking; a) one particular set of signals cause one particular set of action; b) another set of signals cause another set of actions. Thus, emphasizing signal to action over that of motion to reaction (the latter topic doesn’t lend itself to few simple algorithms).

Taken from the MIT Encyclopaedia of the Cognitive Sciences: “Motion is important for revealing the persistent properties of events, objects, and layout of the world. A striking example is the perception of biological motion when visual information is minimized. When spots of light are placed on key joints (e.g., elbows, ankles, hips), and all other illumination is eliminated, observers immediately perceive a person engaging in a uniquely specified activity, such as walking, dancing, or lifting a heavy box, but only when the actor is moving. Infants differentiate these biological motion displays from inverted displays and from spots of light moving in a random fashion.” (Bertenthal 1993)

To put it simply: Movements are required for perception, and perception required for movement. If infants can recognize biological motion they haven’t previously experienced, then, they appear to react to such motion; hence they seem to learn by reacting.

Contrary to what basic linguistics teaches us – that there’s a distinction between syntax (structure) and semantics (meaning) – a cybernetic approach doesn’t recognize ‘meaning’ as a given end; meaning becomes a structure as well, and consequently, it’s position in the system defines its (new)meaning. Learning tends to evolve the same way; we might learn the meaning of ‘joy’ by playing with our dog; later we expand the meaning of ‘joy’ by fooling around with our girlfriend… etc. Thus, ‘joy’ is recognizable as such, even though the ‘meaning’ fluctuates according to its position in the context. The same goes for sprinting; it’s still ‘running’, yet the perceived success is constantly dependent on feedback as to ‘how’ we are running. We never sprint the exact same way twice, but we can ‘learn’ to follow a path that seems favourable to us (replicate it more or less). Although, we cannot improve our sprinting, if we’re not allowed to ‘react’ freely in the first place. …entropy – order – entropy – order …ad infinitum.

‘Learning’ seems to be self-reflective in the way that we “learn how to learn”. :confused:

55

I think it is partially due to a lack of understanding of nonlinear systems and a failure to understand feedback(both of which aren’t taught in detail to most undergrads). For the former, with a linear system if then f(b+c) = f(b)+f©. In non-linear systems this is not necessarly true (which adds in interesting phenomina). Add in time-varying systems to the mix (where a response is dependance on the particular time the stimulus is received), this breaks down evenmore. (All the more reason that undergrads should be taught more math :slight_smile: )

Another option is that most people have a hard time understanding probability in general. I had a prof who required that all of his grad students were to take a grad-level stats/probability sequence from the math department for this reason. He said that practically everyone came out of it with a changed viewpoint (especially those who found the classes insanely difficult). Uncertainty appears to unsettle a lot of people (understatement intended)

56

Check out the learning descriptions on the GPP DVD. That’s my approach. The more that can be learned indirectly, without any anxiety, the better the final outcome, initially and down the road for further skill acquisition. I developed the best group of starters in Canada before we even had any starting blocks and this same group developed into the best starters in the world. To this day, coaches find it hard to imagine how few block starts there were in our program.

57

Try option C: Money. New sells.

58

I am very familiar with your approcah to learning!!!
Basicaly how I look at your method Charlie is that you first try to develop underlying abilities (both general and specific ones) which are needed for “perfect” performance and thus “perfect” learning! So, if someone is unable to reach optimal departure angle at the start, tryin to force it will only induce frustaration and stagnation (and maybe injury). The solution is to improve strength & power before even trying to force optimal departure angles. When everything fits in place (underlying abilties of crucioal factors) the “perferct” performance will be happened by iteself without need of “forcing it voluntary” (if that is even posible). This is how I look at your qualitative approach.
I mentioned this approcah when I was writing about “running form - technique” stating that it is not learned (forcefully) but it is happened unvoluntary and naturaly when everything fits in place (strength & power, relaxation, mobility etc). So forcing various drills for the need of developing running form without considering underlying factors will only lead to form deteoriation. Skill and techniques cannot be forced they must be reached naturally when everything fits in place.
Another example I ussually queto is can you teach someone technique of bench press with 200kg when he is able to lift only 100kg? Nope.
Same thing for block starts, same thing for sprinting form. Check out the underlying factors first…
I hope I got your message Charlie

For the perfect execution of the skill (performance) we need optimal development of abilities. The same thing is true for skill acquisition - no learning without optimal development of abilities
Altought the line between the is hardly made!

59

The mammalian brain has been evolving for about 6 million years, but we have only had language for about the last quarter of a million years at most. So for 95% of its evolution, the brain thought in a language called ‘mentalese’ or ‘linking’ (contructivist). This language is rather like a computer code or computer language. It expresses meaning non-linguistically.

60

All true, with the additional factor that learning via alternate means, like med ball accels etc, removes anxiety. After all, who cares what you look like doing those drills anyway. If you drill continually on the key element and are met with less than success at any point, anxiety and “paralysis by analysis” are likely to ensue.