I’ll answer that: Yes and No.
Yes, the CNS’ ability to handle set tasks can be advanced because, as the limit of performance moves the ability to handle a set task becomes relatively easier.
No, because as absolute capacity advances, the time required for recovery from the expression of that new limit will remain AT LEAST the same and possibly become even longer.
i think that will be the most subscribed journal here.
good luck with it man. Cant wait to read.
Interestingly a system based almost entirely on reactive strength/plyos/maximal work is used in the Neatherlands. It is touted as THE MOST SCIENTIFIC SYSTEM availible. It is also the most notorious for injuries. I can’t find the link to the guys book but it does exist. Perhaps Pinderman can help?
used by speed skaters?never heard of it
I have heard of it too. If you can ever find any link,or documents it will be very much appreciated.
I would be interested as well.
Interested in what - sorry to be a party pooper? We are interested in a program that is notorious for producing injuries, has had limited real world sporting success and it supposedly the most scientific advanced training?? please heard it all before:)
It’s all worth lookig at, if only to reinforce your own system.
If you are so sure to have heard it all,then go ahead,just do not bother.
Real world sporting success is a poor indicator of training approach per se,as the variables involved in real world success are very different from those more closely related to training.
Anyone who has at least had some experience at top level in ANY sport could agree with that.
Also:injuries and injury rates (as well as failure in performance progress)can be indicators of poorly managed cost/benefit training approaches only,and not necessarily of bad training proposals per se.
Agreed. There are useful things in practically every program. Knowing more about what others do is always better than knowing less.
Fair comments, let’s see what the members can find.
And perhaps the frequency that this can be achieved? Isn’t this partly the problem here?
From my experience yes to both.
Frequency should not be a problem,as it would be the very same of the training stimulus application,in a cyclic process:
reset->training stim->reset->next training stim,
where the most adequate -and most efficient-training per se is the one eliciting the least disturbance,hence the lowest resetting need.
The real problem is considering training as a single side coin,too often forgetting its double sided very nature.
Can you explain this further?
yet great adaptation comes from great stress. abadjiev noted that the greatest adaptation came from competition stress even though the load lifted was only of a fraction of that lifted in the typical training day.
That’s what I was wondering. We’ll have to wait for Pakewi.
he may be commenting that perhaps with less stress and therfore minimal disturbanec of the bodies equilibrium and athelte can complete more supercompensatory cycles in the same amount of time. just a thought…
Waiting for his answer, I think pakewi takes a more “conservative” approach (i.e., go only as high as you really need/can afford to) looking for the “most efficient” stimulus and therefore, adaptation in a given session (potentially increasing the “frequency”, as James says) rather than only the greatest stimulus with a potentially doubtful adaptation/maladaptation, which will also affect the “resetting” process. Two sides of the coin, as he says.
Please, pakewi, go on…
PS James, what you are referring to is not achieved only via an actual load, but via a multi-facet stimulus, no? I.e., the difference between a competition and a training session.
yes the exertion has a large effect on adaptation. thats why a lesser load can induce a greater adapation and a greater stress. this idicates to me the adapataion is largely neurological and hormonal.
I am learning to evaluate training and monitor performance more on a cost/benefit analysis than anything else.
In this perspective stress and related adaptation may stand on the very same side: the cost one.
Efficiency is something very different though,and potentially the real key.
Also the traditional supercompensation model MIGHT only be one option.
My research and data collection by OmegaWave might indicate it exists at least another possible model.
I am starting to enjoy this discussion,and I will be happy to explain further,Charlie,but as you know I am on the move right now.
I’ll get back here over the next few days.Thank you for the stimulating comments Charlie,James,and Nick of course!