Strength Concept as a Neural Expression

[pakewi]

@james_colbert

this topic is going to make me do some much needed research into the inflammatory response. this is what I believe jay has figured out. 1. there is not CNS fatigue only inhibition or rather a protective mechanism to keep us from ripping ourselves apart. 2. information flows two ways so the above said inhibition may be produced because of the state of the physicality and the inflammatory response. 3. get rid of the negative feedback from the body to the brain and break down inhibitor barriers and fatigue as we know it is a thing of the past. he said it best on his site.

"training elicits only the response of the specific trait being trained; nothing else is affected. It completely eliminates the normal symptoms of overtraining, and can become, depending on the level of the athlete, specific to the very skill being performed without interruption of the base performance of that skill."

what this means is that training the body only leads to adaptive change not anything else (fatigue, soreness, etc.) not so far fetched to think of a person maxing out in the bench 50 times in a single workout session. or a person benching their max every 30 min 8 hours a day for a year!

Here we are finally finding the common areas from where such precise similarities in our approach emerge…

What we have been trying to do here guided by the results gained from monitoring athletes,patients,and clients with the OmegaWave Technology is exactly that: creating balanced protocols targeting Sport Performance,Health,Rehab,and Fitness which elicit “clean” adaptive responses,in a costant effort to maximize the benefits,and minimise the costs.

Fascinating how the many ways to skin the cat and the many paths to climb the mountain come finally together from very far locations and environments…

[no23]

Pakewi, you have the use of Omega Wave?

[lorien]

@no23

Which in another sense underlines the suggestion that there is no such thing as neural fatigue as such rather neural protection.

@james_colbert

this topic is going to make me do some much needed research into the inflammatory response. this is what I believe jay has figured out. 1. there is not CNS fatigue only inhibition or rather a protective mechanism to keep us from ripping ourselves apart. 2. information flows two ways so the above said inhibition may be produced because of the state of the physicality and the inflammatory response. 3. get rid of the negative feedback from the body to the brain and break down inhibitor barriers and fatigue as we know it is a thing of the past. he said it best on his site.

Kind of interesting… we might be talking about the same thing when referring to CNS-fatigue or CNS-inhibition. They are two different things in the specific scientific sense, although we might use them – and have – as synonyms on this discussion board (from the perspective of training and when talking about CNS-drain etc.).

I find two interesting things in regards to CNS-inhibition (-fatigue, -stress or whatever):

#1: If the body gives the signal for inhibition, and we somehow manage to ignore that signal, then, what comes next? Will such a signal be “forgotten” or will there come an even bigger signal (STOP YOU MORON!), with more serious consequences for future performance levels. Many have been there, including me.

#2: What is the best, most efficient, way of getting over a state of CNS-inhibition? It has been suggested through history that ‘rest’ might actually be one very efficient way of resetting such inhibition. The other way was to ignore it and perhaps teach our bodies not to respond to such signals, thus not have inhibition anylonger (for a specific task)… but is it as effective from a performance standpoint? That’s the question!

I’m very sceptical to the notion of ‘not having inhibition kick in’; not necessarily from a scientific standpoint; but very much so from a performance standpoint. The basic point of departure is to get better (level of performance) in a limited time span (time until next competition). Is it meaningful to sacrifice training time in order to find out if such approach is possible (aka ‘train to train’)? So far I have not seen any indications to support such an approach, especially not when the task requires high intensity together with high skills of mastering complexity. That means LEARNING the task to perfections can already take a lifetime.

[pakewi]

@no23

Pakewi, you have the use of Omega Wave?

So far so good…yes,for a few years now,worth every single minute of use!

[pakewi]

@lorien

Kind of interesting… we might be talking about the same thing when referring to CNS-fatigue or CNS-inhibition. They are two different things in the specific scientific sense, although we might use them – and have – as synonyms on this discussion board (from the perspective of training and when talking about CNS-drain etc.).

I find two interesting things in regards to CNS-inhibition (-fatigue, -stress or whatever):

#1: If the body gives the signal for inhibition, and we somehow manage to ignore that signal, then, what comes next? Will such a signal be “forgotten” or will there come an even bigger signal (STOP YOU MORON!), with more serious consequences for future performance levels. Many have been there, including me.

#2: What is the best, most efficient, way of getting over a state of CNS-inhibition? It has been suggested through history that ‘rest’ might actually be one very efficient way of resetting such inhibition. The other way was to ignore it and perhaps teach our bodies not to respond to such signals, thus not have inhibition anylonger (for a specific task)… but is it as effective from a performance standpoint? That’s the question!

I’m very sceptical to the notion of ‘not having inhibition kick in’; not necessarily from a scientific standpoint; but very much so from a performance standpoint. The basic point of departure is to get better (level of performance) in a limited time span (time until next competition). Is it meaningful to sacrifice training time in order to find out if such approach is possible (aka ‘train to train’)? So far I have not seen any indications to support such an approach, especially not when the task requires high intensity together with high skills of mastering complexity. That means LEARNING the task to perfections can already take a lifetime.

Very interesting points…

What about ways to minimize the requirements of “rest” through polishing and optimizing the stimulus input and minimizing the perturbation of homeostasis?
Isn’t it possibly a valuable and…EFFICIENT option?

All this makes sense of course if we accept and understand the biologic vs. neurologic and chemical vs. electric distinction and context.

[Nikoluski]

@lorien

…#1: If the body gives the signal for inhibition, and we somehow manage to ignore that signal, then, what comes next? Will such a signal be “forgotten” or will there come an even bigger signal (STOP YOU MORON!), with more serious consequences for future performance levels. Many have been there, including me.

#2: What is the best, most efficient, way of getting over a state of CNS-inhibition? It has been suggested through history that ‘rest’ might actually be one very efficient way of resetting such inhibition. The other way was to ignore it and perhaps teach our bodies not to respond to such signals, thus not have inhibition any longer (for a specific task)… but is it as effective from a performance standpoint? That’s the question!

…So far I have not seen any indications to support such an approach, especially not when the task requires high intensity together with high skills of mastering complexity. That means LEARNING the task to perfections can already take a lifetime.

From the old forum:
“But seriously, this training system (note: 95% most of the time, no weights, no jumps) is indeed very hard for the system. XXX has still injuries from the past. There are training days that the CNS is completely down. But still after a while it seems that it adapts to the stimulus. The question is why it doesn’t become overtrained.” … “The interesting part of this training is how fast the improvement is.” … “But I am still wondering why there is no speed plateau (XXX has improved dramatically the past 5 years) in this type of training. If XXX has a better start technique I think XXX would be able to break indoor 60 m WR… I also believe that we will see XXX running faster in the future.”

The quotes refer to a certain group in athletics, who trained in this way with great success -perhaps you know who I refer to. No CNS considerations it seems…

[lorien]

@pakewi

Very interesting points…

What about ways to minimize the requirements of “rest” through polishing and optimizing the stimulus input and minimizing the perturbation of homeostasis?
Isn’t it possibly a valuable and…EFFICIENT option?

All this makes sense of course if we accept and understand the biologic vs. neurologic and chemical vs. electric distinction and context.

Very true, I’m not disputing that at all… my point is that of seeing ”rest” as an active component from the perspective of an efficient training plan (and maybe less from a physiological standpoint). I think it’s important, in such discussions, to make clear what perspective one is using. My foremost concern is to have an efficient and effective training regimen in regards to a specific end goal. Hence, using Occam’s razor, the practical approach towards ‘efficiency’ through ‘rest’!

So we have at least two important variables already: ‘rest’ + ‘optimized stimulus input’. These two are interoperating, albeit rest is much more robust (almost universal) than the other. Optimized stimulus input must have a clearer reference point, i.e. in regards to what is it considered optimal? In regards to physiological inhibition, recovery or intensity… or in regards to performance, learning, progress, training plan, aspired goal? They are not necessarily excluding each other, but they could if focus becomes fixed at one single point. In this regard, I see rest as more robust, more flexible and adaptive, hence easier to work with.

The question is not WHETHER or NOT, but HOW MUCH! I’m positive to the notion of ‘optimized stimulus input’, but sceptical to being fixed at one aim besides the one that’s on top of the agenda (e.g. sprinting, jumping or throwing). I don’t thing time is forgiving in this regard. I think it should be a positive side effect rather than a goal in itself.

[pakewi]

@lorien

Very true, I’m not disputing that at all… my point is that of seeing ”rest” as an active component from the perspective of an efficient training plan (and maybe less from a physiological standpoint). I think it’s important, in such discussions, to make clear what perspective one is using. My foremost concern is to have an efficient and effective training regimen in regards to a specific end goal. Hence, using Occam’s razor, the practical approach towards ‘efficiency’ through ‘rest’!

So we have at least two important variables already: ‘rest’ + ‘optimized stimulus input’. These two are interoperating, albeit rest is much more robust (almost universal) than the other. Optimized stimulus input must have a clearer reference point, i.e. in regards to what is it considered optimal? In regards to physiological inhibition, recovery or intensity… or in regards to performance, learning, progress, training plan, aspired goal? They are not necessarily excluding each other, but they could if focus becomes fixed at one single point. In this regard, I see rest as more robust, more flexible and adaptive, hence easier to work with.

The question is not WHETHER or NOT, but HOW MUCH! I’m positive to the notion of ‘optimized stimulus input’, but sceptical to being fixed at one aim besides the one that’s on top of the agenda (e.g. sprinting, jumping or throwing). I don’t thing time is forgiving in this regard. I think it should be a positive side effect rather than a goal in itself.

Very “robust” food for thought… I’ll take my unforgiving time.

[lorien]

@Nikoluski

From the old forum:
“But seriously, this training system (note: 95% most of the time, no weights, no jumps) is indeed very hard for the system. XXX has still injuries from the past. There are training days that the CNS is completely down. But still after a while it seems that it adapts to the stimulus. The question is why it doesn’t become overtrained.” … “The interesting part of this training is how fast the improvement is.” … “But I am still wondering why there is no speed plateau (XXX has improved dramatically the past 5 years) in this type of training. If XXX has a better start technique I think XXX would be able to break indoor 60 m WR… I also believe that we will see XXX running faster in the future.”

The quotes refer to a certain group in athletics, who trained in this way with great success -perhaps you know who I refer to. No CNS considerations it seems…

I think I know what group you are talking about, and I’m somewhat perplexed too. Obviously it worked for them. The only thing I can say is that at least they forced adaptation on their specific end goal, i.e. sprinting a specific distance. Perhaps that’s the key; the body only had to adapt to one single task, thus would have made any other input detrimental for the end result? I don’t know! My understanding of CNS-implications is very limited.

[no23]

I am coming round to the reasoning that it is an inhibition or a protective induced fatigue rather than a pure fatigue.

The idea of pushing the envelope is interesting - but like the overload principle there may be a narrow no-mans land where training can be pushed into.
The nature, intensity and duration of the training seem to be the keep factors.

The resetting of the CNS seems to need a period of rest and this seems to correlate directly with the inhibition concept.
The greater the stress the greater or deeper the rest that is needed… essentially sleep.
IMO the CNS supplementation others talk about just reduce the organism stresses - not helping reset the CNS directly.

[Principles]

@lorien

I think I know what group you are talking about, and I’m somewhat perplexed too. Obviously it worked for them. The only thing I can say is that at least they forced adaptation on their specific end goal, i.e. sprinting a specific distance. Perhaps that’s the key; the body only had to adapt to one single task, thus would have made any other input detrimental for the end result? I don’t know! My understanding of CNS-implications is very limited.

Why is this groups identity a mystery? Can it not be mentioned?

[Principles]

3. ok the low grade inflamation thing… if any of you are familiar with the ARP and what it does you will know that it seeks out sources of inflamation. inflamation being the response of the body to stress or damage. traditional training produces an inflammatory response, you get sore, you can no longer perform etc. jays way of training, maximally, does not. im not going to profess that I understand it completely but I know it to be true because I have trained in the manner he describes and noticed the noticeable difference. also most people don’t know that Adam didn’t have the ARP when he trained with jay. Dennis and jay didn’t meet till Dennis saw the Monday night football piece on Adam and the realized that the two were achieving the same thing just by different means.[/QUOTE]

I was wondering if you could provide a little more info on “Jay’s” way of training? Maybe the website information. I actually don’t even know who you’re talking about. Sorry for my ignorance. Also who is Adam and Dennis? Thanks you for your patience.

[no23]

Try here www.arpprogram.com

I was all on board and open to understanding until I read about non-invasive repair of a torn ACL … sorry that’s starting to push it!

[Nikoluski]

@lorien

I think I know what group you are talking about, and I’m somewhat perplexed too. Obviously it worked for them. The only thing I can say is that at least they forced adaptation on their specific end goal, i.e. sprinting a specific distance. Perhaps that’s the key; the body only had to adapt to one single task, thus would have made any other input detrimental for the end result? I don’t know! My understanding of CNS-implications is very limited.

That was not an answer on my part by no means! Just another angle on the discussed topic because -if I remember correctly- you were concerned about performance and rightly so!
And of course, you are not the only one perplexed! It seems they forced adaptation, as you say. But if they (or some of them and/or for some of the events) were struggling to cope with this approach, I also wonder what other inputs, if any, could possibly fit in without performance distraction! From what I understand and provided the information is accurate, there was nothing else in there. Although quite a few years back they were lifting, too; was this a progression over the years? A progression that never plateaued and came rather quickly in certain cases.
Apologies, because I’ve referred to this issue before, but I find it of more interest and relevance, as it relates to actual performance.

[pakewi]

@no23

Try here www.arpprogram.com

I was all on board and open to understanding until I read about non-invasive repair of a torn ACL … sorry that’s starting to push it!

I understand and agree.Nevertheless I think it is their fault to make public things which are hardly acceptable and borderline cases and events.Poor marketing choices,yes. Not true: I would not say with 100% certainty,although ignoring the medchanism through it could happen throughoutly.

[james_colbert]

@lorien

Kind of interesting… we might be talking about the same thing when referring to CNS-fatigue or CNS-inhibition. They are two different things in the specific scientific sense, although we might use them – and have – as synonyms on this discussion board (from the perspective of training and when talking about CNS-drain etc.).

I find two interesting things in regards to CNS-inhibition (-fatigue, -stress or whatever):

#1: If the body gives the signal for inhibition, and we somehow manage to ignore that signal, then, what comes next? Will such a signal be “forgotten” or will there come an even bigger signal (STOP YOU MORON!), with more serious consequences for future performance levels. Many have been there, including me.

#2: What is the best, most efficient, way of getting over a state of CNS-inhibition? It has been suggested through history that ‘rest’ might actually be one very efficient way of resetting such inhibition. The other way was to ignore it and perhaps teach our bodies not to respond to such signals, thus not have inhibition anylonger (for a specific task)… but is it as effective from a performance standpoint? That’s the question!

I’m very sceptical to the notion of ‘not having inhibition kick in’; not necessarily from a scientific standpoint; but very much so from a performance standpoint. The basic point of departure is to get better (level of performance) in a limited time span (time until next competition). Is it meaningful to sacrifice training time in order to find out if such approach is possible (aka ‘train to train’)? So far I have not seen any indications to support such an approach, especially not when the task requires high intensity together with high skills of mastering complexity. That means LEARNING the task to perfections can already take a lifetime.

1. I think your over simplifying a bit its not just a matter of stopping the signal but reprogramming the system to out inhibit itself and one of the signs to inhibit is given by the body in response to stress. but there are occasions where the body must use its resources fully and so inhibition becomes secondary to survival. I think there are more factors to consider but remember if inhibition does occur via pathways in the CNS that means they can be disinhibited because of the natural plasticity of the neural network.

2.its not so much ignoring it but finding a more efficient means of output. we all know that the more you can train and adapt from said training the faster you will get results so if and it’s a big if you can say bench 100 times a day maximally and recover between each of those sessions fully you would theoretically make gains 100 times faster. I do of course believe this is mainly theory as there are underlying adaptive currents which slow productive adaptation.

what is not fully understood I believe is that training to train does not mean that the initial training contributes nothing to subsequent training a matter of fact the greatest gains will probably be made in this time period more rapid then any other in training. yet it sets the individual up to make continued gains in the future. so here we see that training must be very systematic .

yes perfection of movement effecientcy is a life time goal. i believe movement effecientcy is asymptotal, no matter how precise you get you never going to be perfect.

[james_colbert]

@Nikoluski

From the old forum:
“But seriously, this training system (note: 95% most of the time, no weights, no jumps) is indeed very hard for the system. XXX has still injuries from the past. There are training days that the CNS is completely down. But still after a while it seems that it adapts to the stimulus. The question is why it doesn’t become overtrained.” … “The interesting part of this training is how fast the improvement is.” … “But I am still wondering why there is no speed plateau (XXX has improved dramatically the past 5 years) in this type of training. If XXX has a better start technique I think XXX would be able to break indoor 60 m WR… I also believe that we will see XXX running faster in the future.”

The quotes refer to a certain group in athletics, who trained in this way with great success -perhaps you know who I refer to. No CNS considerations it seems…

lol im curious can you fill in the “xxx”?

[james_colbert]

@lorien

Very true, I’m not disputing that at all… my point is that of seeing ”rest” as an active component from the perspective of an efficient training plan (and maybe less from a physiological standpoint). I think it’s important, in such discussions, to make clear what perspective one is using. My foremost concern is to have an efficient and effective training regimen in regards to a specific end goal. Hence, using Occam’s razor, the practical approach towards ‘efficiency’ through ‘rest’!

So we have at least two important variables already: ‘rest’ + ‘optimized stimulus input’. These two are interoperating, albeit rest is much more robust (almost universal) than the other. Optimized stimulus input must have a clearer reference point, i.e. in regards to what is it considered optimal? In regards to physiological inhibition, recovery or intensity… or in regards to performance, learning, progress, training plan, aspired goal? They are not necessarily excluding each other, but they could if focus becomes fixed at one single point. In this regard, I see rest as more robust, more flexible and adaptive, hence easier to work with.

The question is not WHETHER or NOT, but HOW MUCH! I’m positive to the notion of ‘optimized stimulus input’, but sceptical to being fixed at one aim besides the one that’s on top of the agenda (e.g. sprinting, jumping or throwing). I don’t thing time is forgiving in this regard. I think it should be a positive side effect rather than a goal in itself.

i think your spot on rest is important becasue we arent just considering neurological factors when it comes to training and competition. but i do believe with proper training (training to train) you can greatly exceed previous thought of limitations.

[james_colbert]

@no23

Try here www.arpprogram.com

I was all on board and open to understanding until I read about non-invasive repair of a torn ACL … sorry that’s starting to push it!

actually I talked to Dennis face to face on that topic he himself doesn’t understand exactly went on in this case but it did happen he showed us the MRIs. he postulates that the ARP was able to create an atmosphere ideal to tissue repair. I know it seems crazy but I have absolutely no fear of injury anymore because I know that in three days pretty much any muscular injury can be recovered from back to 100%. its really an amazing advent in technology and one of those things you will have to try before you believe it.

[no23]

Forgive me for not being completely convinced - I know they believe it - but how can an injury - much less a complete rupture realign itself … surely this is something that CNN or CBS or whatever stations you guys have over there would be all over no?

Any injury recover in 3 days?

(James? … even JC didn’t claim he could do that)