maximally means its all maximal load, velocity, intensity voulme, effort ect. this model of training and control is far more controlable than periodisation allowing for the athelete to be “pulled” out of a state of training and into a state of athletic readyness ie. aptly prepared to perform. im not talking about what greeks did. im not talking about sprinting maximally everyday. progress especially for seasoned athletes comes largely via neural “reorganization”, this is a process that is facilitated by repitition. look at how charlie organizes his training. he knows what few do, you progress neurologically only with maximal or near maximal efforts. people dont seem to understand that getting faster, jumping, higher, lifting more weight is largely neurological. your neurology does not “adapt” like your biological systems. its natural plasticity allows for a very rapidly changing and dynamic system, when the appropriate stimuli is applied.
understanding is key, understand how the body really works not just some voodoo passed down like “you can only train maximally once every 10 days” or some other bull… you get the point. have you ever questioned this information?
”Understanding is a three-edged sword” – Kosh in Babylon 5
What about “maximally” in terms technical adaptation up towards 99% (> 10m/s) speed at the take-off board (triple jump)? Here the determining factor is specifically the event itself and its technical requirements within a fixed time frame (say twelve weeks).
Have I ever questioned such information? How can one not question such information, especially when one is foremost concern about the quality of the aforementioned sessions themselves? They are primary, thus they are determining what’s done in between, how much and how often. When a kind of equilibrium is found (that’s perceived working) one tends to follow that, albeit it can change over time of course.
Of course it’s neurologically determined, hence high quality jumping requires near maximal intensity, always. Just take the hop for instance: in order to activate the required reflexes (for example, when the take-off leg surpasses the free leg, the gap between both legs opens until the reflex kicks in and throws the back leg forwards, prior to ground contact) one must have sufficient momentum at take-off, sufficient air time, and sufficient speed… that is to say: the intensity must be high in order to get to the position (and full reflex) in the first place. Moreover, timing is also paramount, thus again; high intensity is the only route because it differs from lower intensities. It’s interesting how some jumpers, when they are near prime performance levels, can sometimes find it more difficult to jump with lower speeds – as if they are “neurologically tuned” for higher speeds in those instances.
But most of this kind of tuning comes from event-specific work at high intensities, and they do have “spill-over” effects on other activities as well (for instance the clean tend to “magically” go up when speed and jumping ability goes up). Many jumpers have finally understood that doing millions of different jumps is not required for performing in their event at a high level, BUT, when they are jumping good in their event, drop jumps or hurdle hops or whatever seem to be easier… thus becoming almost redundant as a stimulus.
Looking at the term ‘maximally’ from one perspective can turn out to be sub-maximal from another perspective. We need to have a specific frame wherein we discuss this subject, not just talk about maximal training in general.
Understanding is key… but understanding what one specifically wants to achieve with that understanding makes it meaningful.
”Understanding is a three-edged sword” – Kosh in Babylon 5
What about “maximally” in terms technical adaptation up towards 99% (> 10m/s) speed at the take-off board (triple jump)? Here the determining factor is specifically the event itself and its technical requirements within a fixed time frame (say twelve weeks).
Have I ever questioned such information? How can one not question such information, especially when one is foremost concern about the quality of the aforementioned sessions themselves? They are primary, thus they are determining what’s done in between, how much and how often. When a kind of equilibrium is found (that’s perceived working) one tends to follow that, albeit it can change over time of course.
Of course it’s neurologically determined, hence high quality jumping requires near maximal intensity, always. Just take the hop for instance: in order to activate the required reflexes (for example, when the take-off leg surpasses the free leg, the gap between both legs opens until the reflex kicks in and throws the back leg forwards, prior to ground contact) one must have sufficient momentum at take-off, sufficient air time, and sufficient speed… that is to say: the intensity must be high in order to get to the position (and full reflex) in the first place. Moreover, timing is also paramount, thus again; high intensity is the only route because it differs from lower intensities. It’s interesting how some jumpers, when they are near prime performance levels, can sometimes find it more difficult to jump with lower speeds – as if they are “neurologically tuned” for higher speeds in those instances.
But most of this kind of tuning comes from event-specific work at high intensities, and they do have “spill-over” effects on other activities as well (for instance the clean tend to “magically” go up when speed and jumping ability goes up). Many jumpers have finally understood that doing millions of different jumps is not required for performing in their event at a high level, BUT, when they are jumping good in their event, drop jumps or hurdle hops or whatever seem to be easier… thus becoming almost redundant as a stimulus.
Looking at the term ‘maximally’ from one perspective can turn out to be sub-maximal from another perspective. We need to have a specific frame wherein we discuss this subject, not just talk about maximal training in general.
Understanding is key… but understanding what one specifically wants to achieve with that understanding makes it meaningful.
Have you a clear picture yourself of what the Omegawave Technology actually shows?
It only shows how an organism dynamically interacts with external stimuli.
Holistically speaking we are not talking any specific activities,we are talking HUMANS.
babylon 5. lol ok. but seriously you completly missed the point. we arent talking about a event specefic training regiement. we are talking about rate coding, INHIBITION and inter-muscular coordination. so you have made know statements which present a valid argument to what i have presented. maximal means maximal period. there is no need for interpretation. technique or skill is also effected by maximal training because skill/technique is largerly the effective and effecient expression of force through proper body postion (angle) and muscular contraction sequence, in essence inter-muscular coordination. your body “seeks” a certain level of coordination dependent on the intensity of muscular contraction (velocity, load, ect). most effecient levels are only achieved with maximal efforts. why? because your body must find the most effecient means to lift the weight or lift the weight fast or absorb the weight or sprint or jump ect. repetative exposure to such stimuli moves the bodies control mechanisms towards effecient inter-muscular coordination.
Yes, you’re right; it’s about rate coding, inhibition and inter-muscular coordination. My arguments were mainly triggered by pakewi’s post:
“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 I became interested in what he meant by maximally, perspectives and paths. I also presented one perspective that I have been interested in. But let’s not derail further… I wasn’t on the subject in the first place. It wasn’t my intention to argue against your point, mainly to clarify some critical issues I find to be important, from the point of view I come from. I agree with you that some important skills are only manifested via near maximal or maximal intensity.
Well no, not really anything else than the little I could find on the net. I have, however, been curious in the system for a while. That’s why I asked you about it. If it shows how an organism dynamically interacts with external stimuli (training or travel or just stress in general) it should be plausible to find some kind of commonality between a particular stimulus and reaction over time – when other stressors are kind of stabilized.
It’s just my impression (and just that) that some events might find more value in the whole OW-system than others. High intensity javelin throwing might not show up as a significant stressor, but that doesn’t mean the elbow is going to hold together if doing it more often.
Just an anecdote: Some Finnish researchers made a study on triple jumpers many years ago, that concluded their bones (tibia) were significantly denser than lay persons. It was a clear indication of adaptation but it didn’t really help the triple jumpers to reorganise their training in any way. It was purely descriptive, although perhaps, in a vague way, prescriptive for other people as to start stressing their bones a little bit more.
I just want clarifications and perhaps personal anecdotes.
The ability for the body to “learn” to be strong is very interesting. I’ve always thought about gymnastics when i’ve thought about strength. The “Cross” to me is a berwildering exercise. I always assumed that there must be some anthropometric barrier that means only some people can do it or that it takes years of dedicated trainign to do. But just recently a friend of mine started practicing for it. In 4 months 2 times a week he was able to achieve a cross! When he started he couldn’t even get to about 15 degrees of ABduction. It’s amazing how the CNS now allows him to take this “risk” which it just wouldn’t allow such a short time ago.
Well,no. That is not truly the case,as HUMANS ARE HUMANS,besides the task,and environment they are confronted with. They all interact through the very same mechanisms,even though they display individually different reactions.
The Swiss alpine skiing Team a few years ago was conducting a research project correlating the data produced by the OW technology regarding Regulatory Mechanisms,and traumatic ,and non-traumatic injuries occurring during their skiers’ training and racing.
Until the time I was still in touch with them the preliminary results were showing significant correlations.
Did the technology tell them anything about the structural status of the skiers? Surely not,as it wouldn’t tell you about the structural status of your javelin thrower’s elbow.
Surely enough though it would tell you of a widening gap between structural and functional potential in your thrower’s body,shown as lagging adaptation (as structure does follow function,but sometimes…needs time),providing the information needed to optimize the frequency of the exposure to stimuli.
Would you consider this descriptive or prescriptive?
Since (I assume) the body knows everything about its functional state, do you think this lack of adapatation is due to a protective mechanism to preserve the structure? Can we reset the “CNS” if the structure is comprosied or do we have to allow the structure to supercompensate in order to reset the CNS?
i dont like the term reset as it implies that somewhere somehow a flip is switches automatically allowing the CNS to perfrom optimally when in fact it is a very complex netowrk of afferent, efferents, and interneural fibers which dictate the output of the CNS. ahh but there is the probelm stimuli from afferent nerves can inhibit the system. so please dont think that i or even pakwei is advocating training based purely on neurological concerns without any care towards biological aspects. the system is integrated. biology and neurolgoy are all one thing, only seperated for the benefit of our narrow understanding. we can not conceive the body as it truely is so we must make models to deal with and comprehend issues that arise dealing with the human body. this is why no science is truth and is subject to perceptions and interpretations.
Recently, I have begun looking at the CNS from the point of view of other (Eastern) cultures and I think that they have demonstrated that in some cases it is possible to control the bodies physiology and responses.
lol thats only what ive been saying for years on this board lol. this is our power as individuals we can change our selves down to the physiological neurological and anatomical level.
