Other words you could look for on wikipedia,trying to make wiser use of your time,and learning (hence communication) skills:
Biology
Neurology
mammals
reptilian brain
triune brain
fight or flight
Adaptation
General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS)
Central Nervous System
Autonomic Nervous System
Peripheral Nervous System
Then this discussion may go somewhere.
I personally have almost 6000 subjects in my databases,some tested multiple times,collected over the span of 5+ years.
Tell me how sharing (privacy protected) data would help without being able to understand them.
Tell me in which context you would like to find evidence of what,then I might be able to tell you at least if the data I have available can support your thesis or not.
James says you have research:
we are comming back to the topic of CNS fatigue. we have discussed it in the past. plainly it doesnt exsits how you concieve it and pakwei can back me up on this one as hes done research with the omega wave. its not that your CNS cant be inhibited but it doesnt fatigue like a uscle would, depleted of substrates. its just a matter of inhibitory neural pathways which can be broken down, retrained to allow greater NS output. but thats another discussion altogether.
Sorry I did not mean data as in terms of individuals, do keep as much individual privacy to yourself, individual data I am not concerned about as much as aggregate data to support this idea and the context you came about it is more of what i am concerned with.
Ecclesiastes; “There is no end to the writting of books…” (the context is that you learn more through play and experiance than from a book. Simmilarly, I learned more through training than any book I’ve read on the subject of training.)
Though I must say, I have learnt a lot more from this website than any other website. Some of the info here has been fantastic, and it is much easier to learn from here than going elsewhere and studying dry literature on various sciences, which I have done to a point.
Did biology at school. Teacher asked a question that only I answered correctly. She said I was wrong. Years later I was proved to be correct, courtesy of a documentary on television. Wish the idiot teacher and students had been around to see it.
I’ve seen enough wildlife programs here in the UK to know all I need to know about mammals.
fight or flight; I have experianced this first hand on several ocasions, so I don’t need to study it. Nevertheless I came across literature on the subject many years ago, by chance. I don’t need to study it further.
“Adaptation
General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS)
Central Nervous System
Autonomic Nervous System
Peripheral Nervous System”
…My own training experiances, data, and feelings of energy levals, are the best learning tool for me, for what I can do in training in terms of volume, intensity, speed, frequancy per weak etc…
I’m not going to plug my brain into amega to let me know if I have recovered from a training session. The day athletes start relying on that stuff is a big mistake in my opinion.
When people start to trust more in technology than their own feelings, they are heading into a slippery slope. Good luck to them.
I come here to look at training ideas, exercises and ways of doing them, and to bounce a few ideas around.
You’ve missed the point completely.
Pioneers are trying to understand training - not ask technology to tell us anything. In IMO and from my point of view - the fact the aim of Omegawave should be to not have to rely on technology.
I forgot: documentaries on Television might do once more as well…
I’m going to try and help evolve this thread, as others have also put there welcomed efforts in.
What about the basic point of creating new neural pathways?
I mean, can this be stated as a bit differant to just enhancing pathways that allready exist?
Can we create NEW neural pathways? I’m pretty sure we can and I’m even more sure that some of the people in this thread can validate more (than myself), on wether we can or not, due to their knowladge of science.
Is creating NEW pathwas any better or as good as enhancing existing ones? Or am I “clutching” at a moot point?
(enhancing existing ones would obviously be done anyway.)
Is this point worth discussing, and what details might it bring up?
im not sure u know what you asking. do u know what a neural pathway is? it simply is the path that an impulse can follow not necessarily a concrete physiological structure. and the creation of new neural pathways does not mean the creation of new neurons.
I agree completely,and that is why I am so reluctant to throw in data and facts to be exposed here to rather costant misinterpretation,and misunderstanding by many,and sincere interest by Few…
The aim of Omegawave,as any other piece of bio-feedback technology should be LEARNING.
A few things we think we have learned so far:
What is written on paper is most of the times one thing,what really happens in the body,well,it is just…another.
Fatigue,CNS,CNS Fatigue(as well as “Neurology”,and “Biology”) are concepts that make perfect sense if used GENERALLY in an appropriate context (such as the CFTS,or in James’ thought system);very little if SPECIFICALLY taken,and investigated per se looking for a backwards validation of the context itself.
The body adapts to specific and general stimuli…in the very same way.
Due to the complexity of our organism,and BRAIN (which also creates our incredible adaptability potential) there is much more that hits the eye in the way we adapt to stimuli.
5.For the very reason above,ORGANIZATION of the stimuli potentially has way much more impact than CHOICE of the stimuli themselves.
Factors which truly limit performance are very rarely to be found in specific physiological traits:much more commonly in the general mechanisms which regulate them,and which subtly eluded most of studies and published literature on this ,again…specific topic!
If there truly is any secret hidden behind the science of human performance produced by the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries,it lies in their categories,and organization of thought,and how they translated to everyday life.
Hope this may bring a bit of true interest back in this discussion.
‘Reluctance’ is the polite word … trying to convince people that there is another way to look at the body is often a waste of time
Yes - it’s all about learning - the truth is that I personally don’t really have all the answers … yet
Words are the worst way to try and speak about this
The reason people have trouble understanding this is because it displys itself differently
True
Athletes have no idea what they can do, because the structuring and progression of training has been misunderstood and viewed incorrectly from the wrong aspect of the organism.
Part of this has been because of two reaons IMO - they have not been able to measure progressions previous to date and they have tried to look at isolated biological structure adaptations rather than the organism as a whole
I’m not sure they have succeeded in understanding it themselves - (otherwise the Gold medal count in the USSR would have put an end to the Olympic’s) - but they have certainly managed to push boundaries perhaps unintentionally and look at the body holistically & differently.
Me too!
Did I even imply it was a concrete physical structure? Nt at all. Ofcourse it is nothing like a solid muscle fiber, when we are talking about something which deals with such complex and incredibly refined things as synapses.
I have heard the phrase “…and a new neural pathway is created.”
That is why I am asking about it.
So I wll re - phrase;
Then can we create new paths for impulses to follow?
???
…and what do you mean, to improve my communication skills?
There were allready dissagreements on this thread long before I humurously copied and pasted (courtesy of wikepedia) part of a biography on Darkseid, about the “omega effect”.
Is it not a parallel (though humurous) referance to “higher” thinking? ( Who do you think the darkseid post was aimed at? Allmost anything can plant a seed. That one was not aimed at yourself.)
I dont think you got the joke. Mainly becuase you didn’t feel there was a place for it in the thread.
Am I not deliberately asking about stuff I’m not 100% on (and it seems a lot of other people are not 100% sure about it), so as to encourage debate?
Some of the most vague and abstract questions have lead to some of the biggest discussions.
I ask a question about something I’m not 100% sure about. I do whatever I can with the help of others to try and keep a thread alive (if the thread slows down its pace for a day, I will inject into the thread, SOMETHING, to incite, entice an answer. This is a style I am developing on internet discussion, though you have dissmissed it as poor communication. I don’t think it’s poor communication at all.
Now, I’m going to make myself cringe a bit, but I did start this thread. I was hoping the big guns would jump in and take over, so the thread would go somewhere, but it has been shaky from the start, as I thought it would be. That’s fine by me, becuase I trust it will gradually take shape.
However, if something is bugging me a tad, or gets my curiosity, but if a thread is starting to slack, I will but-in, with SOMETHING, that will entice an answer, even if somebody answers me with slightly condescending or sarcastic answer. (if they didn’t get my motive for a post.)
If I occasionally/seldomly play the “court jester” for a reason, from where I am standing I have also helped feed some of the big threads in the Strength discussion forum.
What with my opening questions for example. Thats not to say all my questions get somewhere, one of them only had 8 responses and thats fine.
Now, I have posted much more serious comments in some other threads in the other forums on the site, for which some people have thanked me, for some of my more serious and educated answers than what I put earlier in this thread.
As for the Omega whats-it, I remember somebody posting years ago, that they wanted to use it before and after every training sesion as a means to asses how much training volume, intensity, bar speed ect… they should use in THAT session and the next one. That is why I said that I don’t think athletes should use it in that way, as they will compromise themselves to the date collected, which they might even miss-interpret themselves. They would also have ended up loosing some of their trust in their own feelings and instincts if they were to obsessively rely on data.
My comment was in referance to some of the peeps who think thats how they should go about utilising the omega wave data. and I have read in the past abut people talking about it’s usage in that fashion.
However, since then, I accept that people here are NOW impliying to use it as a way of coming to understand a bit more about the body, rather than as the main guideline for what one should adjust in training on a day to day basis.
As someone who has just begun to use the Omega Wave Technology, the most valuable element I have found to date is the improved dialogue between me and my athletes.
The feedback from the data allows me to more closely work with athletes and better prepare them between workouts. When sharing the data with athletes they are able to see the effects of their positive and negative behavior (lack of proper sleep / poor diet) can have on their performance.
As I become more knowledgeable with the system, I suspect I will become more sophisticated with the manipulation of training. As of right now I am using the system as an Athlete Monitoring System and not a Performance Lab.
Very important points. In the words of James Oschman “People are trying to learn about conciousness and some are looking at neurology, some at biology and some at the quantum biophysics level. But none of those are “IT”! There is no “IT”, IT is everything!”
And so if you want to explain training from the bottom up (from little bits of the puzzle) well that’s great but our understanding is always limited by these models we make of things and these models arn’t correct, we are missing information both up and down the chain. So trying to go from how muscles (reputidly) work to how we should train is going to be hard. Problem is this is exactly what scientists try and do but the training problem is so complex so vast that it is very hard to achieve this. What we are left with is a detective story and where the model’s don’t fit the facts well you have to decide if your model is right or not or if there is a BETTER model.
Charlie’s model of CNS fatigue is a very practicle
one. But everyone reads far to much into the CNS part. Like it’s only the CNS that is fatiguing! Like you can fatigue just one thing and nothing else. Maybe one thing breaks in the end but other things around it are also affected, they just don’t take as much of the strain.
My point. Don’t focus on IT (iso lunges, 100% speed work, bench press, clean, med ball, tempo) but rather on IT (the human being). When we understand how we regulate ourselves we will know the secret to training. Problem is there are also like 20 billion of us and everyone is slightly different!
Lucky you! Now you can start to see if your model fits in with what the machine says and then if it is you or the machine that is wrong and to what extent. I think people often know what is wrong, problem is they arn’t sure so ignore it. Now you can show them what is going on (to a rough approximation) they may be able to make better connections between the links.
[QUOTE=TopCat]Very important points. In the words of James Oschman “People are trying to learn about conciousness and some are looking at neurology, some at biology and some at the quantum biophysics level. But none of those are “IT”! There is no “IT”, IT is everything!”
that quote sounds more like alan watts than james oschman. the problem with that is you cant attack the problem as a whole and if you do the results are very varied.
CNS fatigue as its considered in most places is a joke. the CNS does not fatigue because of the absents of a substrate. it inhibits itself and being a system with a high level of plasticity this response to training can be changed through condtiioning or repedative specefic stimuli.
" fatigue involved a variety of elements located throughout the neuromuscular system. It is convenient to thing of fatigue as occuring primarily within central or peripheral neuromuscular elements. Central fatigue may be affected by psychological factors, such as sens of effort, an/or neurophysiological factorssuch as descending control over interneurons and motoneurons located in the spinal cord. with central fatigue, voluntary efforts at activating the motoneuron pool become suboptimal when an individual is asked to generate a maximmum muscle contraction. during a maximal effort, the nervous system may initiate inhibitory pathways to prevent the effecient activation of motoneuron pools."
often times people will say, “then why cant you train everyday maximally” well aside form some other factors you can the reason that others havent is because they did not provide said stimuli. hence the phrase training to train or in this situation conditioning to train (thats not to imply phases such as gpp or spp, but that conditioning should be integrated into the training to allow for greater volumes, intensities ect of training. so its not simply adding a gpp session to allow for greater volumes of work, but organizing your training to not only meet your goal but meet your goal more rapidly via neurological programming or rather reporgramming more frequently). if you can handle a heavy load, intensity ect more often you can progress more rapidly.
All good points,James.
People do not train maximally everyday (or even every other day,or so,as a matter of fact) because they have no clue on how,and how much to do it,nor the will to look at things in perspective,nor that to try new paths themselves.Hence they keep bouncing from what they read here to what they read there,without really ever putting their bodies in the condition where they HAVE to adapt over time. Then we usually hear of things like “plateaus”,“variability of the stimuli” and such…
I think you actually do a good job throwing ideas around for discussion sake,whatever your communication style might be.Just maybe consider listening to what the others have to say,and if you do not understand…then,just ASK!
There’s nothing wrong with utilizing tools for understanding bodily responses to training, in fact, the more we know the better. But at the same time I fear there’s a possibility of confusing description with prescription unless we routinely take a more holistic view at the process we’re involved in.
Just a few points: First, track and field is not one single activity; every event has its own requirements (some require far more technical learning than others and some are far more demanding on joints and tissue). Second, the competition schedule is fixed, thus we also have to adapt our training according to time restrains.
What is it to train maximally then? To ‘what’ should we refer maximally to? … In terms of intensity, or frequency, or adaptation, or event specific progress, competition calendar, technical learning etc.? … Should we define it via “bottom-up” or “top-down”?
We already have some anecdotes about a particular Greek group that had success in their approach (where the runners had to adapt to high intensity work), yet when a similar approach was introduced to the triple jumpers they were trashed however.
Could you, pakewi, elaborate more about what activities you feel the information gained from the Omega Wave system plays a more descriptive role and where it could play a more prescriptive role for planning training? And even more holistically, are we talking swimming, long distance running, sprinting, jumping or throwing? I thing it’s crucial to have a clearer picture of the context in order to eliminate misunderstandings.