Absolutely a must!
Pakewi,
the question is still there. CF training system with his high-low setting and Tzekos’ training with specificity and continous high intensity days. Where are the similarities? Of course both have been very successful (Charlie a lot more, Kenteris was far away from WR and also Thanou as far as I remember). And the end result of succesful training system -> successful athletes (when in elite circles) is the modulation of tremendous high forces. But how can you reach the same “conclusions” by taking routes so far away?
double posting, a common problem
Happens all the time:
Arguably there are many differences between CFTS and Clyde Hart systems.
In middle / long distance events, some runners are successful via low volume/high intensity, others the opposite.
Perhaps there is no absolute right answer. Maybe some athletes are more suited to a certain type of approach, therefore the key point is understanding what suits each person.
Perhaps that says something about us as human beings rather than specifically for each successful training method around.
So, Kenteris with Charlie wouldn’t have reached the potential he reached with Tzekos? And the same for Ben with the opposite?
I don’t know. For sure, Tzekos’ training system is more demanding than CFTS (but we have more limted info on the fomer) and thus the “selective” implications are stronger.
But what? This is what Pakewi (and Schroeder) and Jamirok are supporting.
Exactly.
Until we recognize the need of a training system which targets the human before the athlete,input before than output oriented,and stimulus before than response based. A feedforward rather than feedback structure,hence,by definition:universal.
If I knew this, I would have started employing the method pakewi describes. Pakewi has done a good job in convincing me that the success certain athletes have had has the human organism as the common denominator and not the diversity of the successful training plans over time.
It all depends on where you focus your attention upon: the minimum common denominator,or the diversity of the possible numerators.
Pakewi
it is like deciphering a code.
So, targeting the human before the athlete means a commong training system for every discipline? Of course not, as the imposed demands provoke plastic adaptations and they must be specific to the discipline (or better, to the qualities required by the discipline). What does it mean?
Input before than output oriented? I’m confused.
Stimulus before than response based?
Feed-forward rather than feedback structure? (Von Bertalanffy or Wiener or Shannon?)
I agree it is all very interesting and I don’t know if the mystery is on purpose or not. Maybe a PhD in biology is not enough.
But I am interested, for sure.
That is it!
It is called systemic efficiency. Or only efficiency,if we want start making it all sound less…as a code,as you quite righteously pointed out!
I have referred to this a number of times in the past,as you may want to check through my posts here,only if of any interest for you.
And the very reason which lead me to Charlie a few - too many - years ago.
In the last few weeks, I’ve read several books and articles by Hans Selye which have helped to clarify my thoughts on stressors and organism responses as it relates to training. I encourage all of you to re-read (or read for the first time) his materials. I am of the mind (although heavily influenced by my time with Charlie) that general stressors are just as important - if not more so - than specific stressors, particularly as you begin dealing with high level athletes.
It (acceptance of the impact of general stressors) has also heavily influenced my approach to recovery and regeneration and how I cycle through various methods for different athletes. A non-specific approach to injuries and regeneration seems to work much better based on my experience. This may seem counter-intuitive, but now it makes perfect sense to me.
I agree,and learned the hard way to make counter-intuition a highly valuable epistemological tool - just to throw in some more somewhat coded jargon…
The fundamental prerequisite is that the training is structured based upon the biodynamic and bioenergetic structure of the sport discipline. By analogy, these are the organism requirements as they have been spoken of in this thread.
Increase the requisite outputs as they relate to that sport structure while carefully regulating the training load; managing it against the energetic draw of sport practices and recovery needs.
The sport structure/organism requirements must come first, then the athlete/human and their peculiarities and needs.
Weighing the athletes skill and ability set will alert you as to how well selected they are for the sport they compete in.
Optimal training cannot, in my view, be accomplished working outside of these guidelines.
Athletes who require an overt physical preparatory workload conducted outside of sport practice itself, just to compete on a less than top level, are excellent examples of poor talent identification/selection.
Alternatively, those who require lesser physical preparatory workloads outside of sport practice, in order to compete at the top levels, are, by definition, more wisely selected for that discipline.
So what you are saying is first look at what the athlete does in normal day to day activities then the load/overload is applied.
Correct me if I am wrong please
To some degree, absolutely. I spend a lot of time doing HRV monitoring with myself and different athletes to to measure sympathetic-parasympathetic nervous system balance. Regardless of how measured and careful the prescribed workloads for training, I must look at the contribution of all stressors to determine if I am getting a positive adaptation with my athlete (or myself), as opposed to simply creating fatigue. In most cases, I am unloading (or opening up recovery time) on the “training side” and managing on the “day to day” side. In other cases I will purposely pick “low intensity” work to keep a holding pattern and perhaps use it as an active regeneration session (i.e. Live to fight another day). When in doubt, I will pick a simple activity that will give me a general response, as opposed to a specific activity that gives me no adaptive response (if that makes any sense).
I no longer get into debates over “front-squats vs back squats” or “bench press vs push press” or “hill running vs sled dragging”. It drives my interns nuts because that is the kind of stuff they read on the internet. I don’t believe my approach gives them clarity.
I read “The stress of my life” (along with scholar work) and for sure it was an interesting read. Salye was a interesting character and his time-managing skills were original to say the least. Anyway, the third part of his “stress chain” (exhaustion) is no longer considered valid (Sapolsky’s book and general research on stress), the general response of course yes.
Pakewi,
what is the definition of system efficiency? I bet at this point is your definition, as the term has non been used (at least not widely) in athletic settings. Do you have any quantifier?
I looked at your previous posts and I also participated to some of the discussion. Pretty interesting, but for a real communication we must take distance from some jargon, which is not useful. If you are interested in some communication, of course. I always remember what Feynman said: if you are not able to explaing it to a freshman, your comprehension of the problem is not good enough. And, you know, Feynman was tackling some difficult problems.
James,
it seems you are the opposite end of of the spectrum (relative to Pakewi).
You talk about athlete’s selection, which is more important if we talk outside team sports. If you have the opportunity of watching Barcelona (soccer), you will immediately notice how your opinions about selections are biased toward single sports. That kind of sport-specific quality is not clear up to your late teenage years.
You say "The sport structure/organism requirements must come first, then the athlete/human and their peculiarities and needs. ". What is the difference between organism and human? I suspect you are talking about the same thing and so your subdivision is forced.