I think the only place I would have debate with you is in the definietion of C/ANS fatigue …
I would consider it to have other effects apart from muscular … no?
If I might propose an answer to the above question - I feel it is very much related to the ‘flight or fight’ effect, where when faced with HI A/CNS (or what I called ‘High Intensity Stresses’) the organism reacts by heightening awareness, Also there is a whole host of systems coming into play here too - adrenals etc. which switch on to combat the ‘danger’ faced.
On the other hand in the case of LOW A/CNS the reaction is to protect peripheral structures.
The other thing is that the LOW A/CNS is a very slow insidious attack on the body so the reaction is slower and of a lower effect.
The aim is to mininmise the need to heighten the CNS awareness twice a day. As I posted earlier - even simply heightening the CNS but not doing anywork drains the ‘engine’. It also aims to minimise total CNS fatigue and maximise CNS resource for the training performance.
I would also argue that saying that …
Is incorrect - IMO everyone would induce HI A/CNS fatgue the degree is just so much less?
Suggested answers to Questions:1. Alternative and supporting systems, (adrenals, hormonal) prolong awareness and potentiation?
2. To minimise total CNSF and maximise CNS resource for the training performance?
3. Yes - takes longer (it is LOW A/CNS work) and is not as severe, - is there such a thing as PNS fatigue (I don’t think so)
Yes… I forgot to put it here… it is just an measure of effect on muscular system … in HI CNS fatigue, ALL SYSTEMS ARE AFFECTED!!!
CNS Fatigue, scientifically measured, is the increase of twithc superimposition test during MVC! Thus, comparing MVC and EMS contraction before and after activity, we can conclude about the pressence of CNS-FATIGUE (LO & HI??) (but not HI CNS Fatigue, as defined as CF).
Basically, LO CNS Fatigue is the reduction of Recruitment of muscles to protect homoeostasis in non-CNS-systems (muscles, joints, heart, lunges, etc).
HI CNS fatigue is delayed(?) reduction of CNS activity (and thus effects the whole body) to protect CNS itself.
What is the difference between HI CNS Fatigue experienced in session after crossing Critical Drop-Off point (decrease in running performance for 5-7% or something) and hours later? Are talking about the same CNS Fatigue Type?
Regarding HI-LO programming: (Two HI activity planning)
Is perfomance decreased when performig it between “right after” and 4h later?
What is the difference bitween performing secongd HI activity 4h later, 12h later, 24h later, 48h later?
What will happen with the following situations:
Sprints + Weights
Sprints (+ 2h later) Weights
Sprints (+ 4h later) Weights
Sprints (+12h later) Weights
Spritns (+24h later) Weights
Sprints (+48h later) Weights
I know the rationale for separating two HI trainingg for 48-72h (to increase recover), but I don’t know why, if they are done on the same day it is better to do them right after another or at least 4h later (to facilitate recovery btw sessions), but not 12h later?
Thanks!
So there is no relevance to a table of lifts based on 1rm?
What is the desired outcome, stasis? If you want to keep improving you need to set the conditions.
So there’s no difference is the outcome when dealing with 100% of Motor Units vs 35%. I eagerly await the new sprint order that must surely follow. My opinions aside, no-one’s stopping Schraeder from showing us the way.
Of course you would but I simply can’t see how that is possible if it really was his max.
Sounds like an exercise in muscular endurance to me where 530 is easy for him (of course it would squash me!). In which case i can see that his max may be far less than if he trained for it specifically. I guess if you can bench press 530 it is probably “enough” and perhaps going for more may not be worth the injury risk and hence you move onto trying to repeat it many times but still if you are able to repeat it many times how you cannot then lift more for 1rm seems impossible to me.
Basically what this comes down to is you ignore the idea of strenght or speed reserve as a method of improving speed/strength endurance. In fact, what you descrive is perfect speed/strength endurance.
im sorry charlie those tables based on 1rm are a joke. they may apply to the population in general, but there are too many factors to use it as a golden rule. a chart that tells what every athelte can lift based on the 1rm… you would have to use some very extensive mathematical knowledge maybe a few equations based on quantum mechanics and chaos theory to account for everyone. but thats not even the issue here becasue that chart is based on continuous muscular effort. obviously it snot his max if he can bench it more than once consecutivly. whereas a normal indivudal may need a few min in between a maximal bout of training he needs as little as 6 seconds (this isnt kept up indefinatly).
next i was not under the assumption that sprinting required or was able to recruit 100% of motor units with the whole neural inhibiton and all. but the goal of training was to decrease the defeciet between vouluntary motor pool recruitment and invouluntary, it is still unkown if it is possible to recruit all motor units in any activity. now im confused you state that 35% of motor units are used in a maximal bench press but and 100% for sprinting correct? is this 35% of the entire bodies available motor units and 100% of the bodies available motor units (ie all the bodies muscle) or is within the muscles involved. if it is within the muscles involved as i believe it is then you cant put a number on how many motor units are recruited by a indivudal during a bench press becasue this number will vary in a given population and is greatly effected by training history. does sprinting require more complex motor patterns? yes. does it require more intense muscular contractions and coordination? yes. does it use up more cns “juice” than any other activity? no because there is no depletable substrate. as for schroeder, he does his onw thing, he has seminars and loves to talk about his system but he could give a flying fuck if people except his theories (his words not mine). hes not intersted in spreading the dogma so to speak. i asked him once if he was ever going to right a book, a legacy of his work. he told me flat out that he woudlnt that if his work was to continue he would hope that it was done by one of his athletes. how about this charlie let me give you one of jays excericses it will take you 20 min a day to do at max. then you can report back to see if it has any benefit. this isnt a challenge or a bet i just want you to see what i see that way we can talk about it in more depth.
it is endurance endurance specific to type 2b muscle fiber. the ablity to repeat maximal efforts ove and over. but hes not holding back. he cant bench more if he wanted. and he didnt train holding back his maximal ability ie he wouldnt be able to bench more if he couldnt do it so many times. if anything its one of the components which add to his ablity to bench more weight.
Good question. Doing weights imediately after an intense speed session as you might find in the SPP allows you to use the warmed up state to do many less lifts before reaching the working weghts and it assumes there is a program in place without a large number of lifts. Doing weights 4 hrs later allows for some muscular recovery but preceeds a significant drop in CNS status which is moving slowly at first and then more rapidly downwards after the speed session for a significant number of hours before bottoming out and starting the climb back to homeostasis and hopefully beyond to supercompensation if you’ve done it right. Look at the supercompensation curves in the Vanc series DVDs for a picture of this pheniminon.
Perhaps, as you say, a specific table is a poor example, and, in any event, a sprinter would have a far wider pyramid base than the shot putter, but, still there is the concept.
As for the 100% in sprinting, it’s damn close if not there due to the serial exposure of the muscles over the duration of the event (just as in your BP example there would be 100% use of the 35% of MUs, if that makes sense).
I’d be a poor test subject, for, in my state, anything I did consistently would show a big improvement! If you post the session, i’m quite sure there will be those willing to do it. The problem with all such experiments is that they usually have a good short term result but take time to evaluate over the longer term, at which point, a problem is seldom possible to overcome in the same season.
What is interesting in all this is how to balance a fully auto-regulated system with forward planning to get the best out of both systems. Likewise, it may well be interesting to hold certain training means in reserve for special situations, such as injuries.
Question:
How to organize a training when 1st training is in AM: (8-10h) and the second can be done only at evening (8-10h)? Suppose the morning training is HI conditioning (sprints -30m-hills), and the second is sport practice? I suppose that short sprints would not induce too much of HI CNSF compared to 30-60/70m runs. It also depends on the type of sport practice (skills, tactics, techninue-conditioning, tactical-conditioning, etc)???
What happens when 2-3 trainings are done per day? Can they all be of HI, but followed by LO day?
— I still need more practical experience to classify various sport practices into HI-LO “continuum” and organize them approprietelly.
For August GPP (kids 15yo), I used (1st week – LO/LO/HI – “Aerobic” emphasis: introductory week):
Mon: Tempo
Tue: Tempo
Wed: Hill (AM) + Bball practice (PM)
Thu: Tempo
Fri: Tempo
Sat: Hill (AM) + Bball practice (PM)
Sun: OFF
2nd week was HI/LO
Mon: Hill (AM) + Bball practice (PM)
Tue: Tempo
Wed: Plyos&ExMedball (AM) + Bball Practice (PM)
Thu: Tempo
Fri: Hill (AM) + Bball practice (PM)
Sat: Tempo
Sun: OFF
And in 3rd and 4th week (HI/HI/LO):
Mon: Hill (AM) + Bball practice (PM)
Tue: Plyos&ExMedball (AM) + Bball Practice (PM)
Wed: Tempo
Thu: Hill (AM) + Bball practice (PM)
Fri: Plyos&ExMedball (AM) + Bball Practice (PM)
Sat: Tempo
Sun: OFF
P.S. To Rupert: Why I am sometimes able to use IMG function, and sometimes I am not?? Thanks!
Fast twitch type 2b convert to 2a period. Your man WILL HAVE NO type 2b after about three weeks of training. Endurance endurance=slow fiber slow fiber=muscular endurance a trait of slow fiber/ type 2a muscle, which is NOT necessarily conducive to fast sprinting.
Your athlete probably has an abundance of endurance fibers…there is a fallacy that only fast fibered individuals are strong, but thats not the whole picture. Such high volumes of strength training actually inhibit the CNS from higher optimal output. It will try to be efficient as opposed to explosive.
Ultimately, will it make a man run faster? Thats what we want to know, and the answer arrived at from practical experience and research by physiologists like Schnidtblicher and Tidow and Staron says NO.
No, its option A and option B — right after, and 4h after!
I still don’t know how to clasify BBall work according to intensity… more practice needed. At current period, easy ball coordination work, shots corrections, individual tactics, passing etc is done… so I supose it is not HI?
According to his last post, YES! but I will wait for his respons and opinion…
Don’t know… it is a “visual” concept… Maybe the first potentiating effect last for 6-7h (including 2nd practice), but how would you then explain Crittical Drop-off point happened at sprint training, but not happened on strenght training practice? I think that 2 potentiation phases explains this situation…
Anyway, if you have Enoka nearby, check in it (Chapter: Acute Adaptations), mine is in other city. But even Enoka, proposed Potentiation/Fatigue interaccion as conceptuall, because you cannot measure them individually — you can only measure performance and fatigue. If performance is higher than at the onset – it is potentiation, if it is lower — it is fatigue. We don’t know their individual levels.
Does CNSF begin with a sharper curve shortly after the sprints begin?
It is important to explain Delayed Phenomena of HI CNSF. If CNSF would drastically increase after the sprints begin, Critical Drop off point would be reached sooner in the workout (it depends on the potentioation level) — this is all just an concept — and if the CNSF levels are higher, then it would be not so smart to do weights 4h after…
true but not period. if you train with traditonal means, then yes this holds true becasue the body strives for effecientcy and type 2a are more effecient under such stress, more effeceint than type 2b. but what if we train in a manner that sends nerve signals only at the highest frequency. as i would hope you know high frequency goes hand in hand with type 2b fibers. frequency is everything when it comes to force production. if a high frequency impulse is sent to a slow twitch fiber that fiber will behave like a fast twtich fiber. conversion occurs becasue of condtion. take away the conditions for conversion and no conversion occurs. so if you train under condtions where high frequecny impulses are used therby recruiting type 2b fibers conversion can be avoided. this includes the use of catching falling loads, eliciting the stretch reflex, taking adavatage of the alpha-gamma loop ect. present condtions where type 2b are preferible and they will not convert.
not my athlete, and i believe that many of you are under the impression that maxing all day everyday is all thats going on. benching is simply a tool, max benching is simply a tool. and the majority of his training is plyometric. and explosive. his levels of explosiveness if they are any indicator point to him not having a predominance of slow twtich firbers. i used the term endurance under condtion, the condtion that it is to fast twtich type 2b fiber. it can be done.
explosiveness is simply a matter of rate coding and motor unit recruitment in a timly manner. so benching this often does not have an adverse effect on explosiveness. if anything it reinforces the motor control pattern of high motor unit recruitment high frequency impulse.
sure as hell helped him run faster 4.37 fast. 39 in vert. max bench press completed in 1.09 seconds. sounds explosive to me.
Anecdotally I know that when a basic warm-up before a competition is performed, but the competition itself is cancelled (perhaps heavy rain), the athlete might still feel fatigued the next day. I would also assume elite athletes find it more difficult to train at high intensity the next day than novice athletes.
I guess elite athletes have grown somewhat accustomed to “heightening their alert status” that it has become more automatic than for the novice, thus ironically, even though the elite athlete might not feel the “height” as much, the body (adrenal glands etc.) might still be “firing up the engine” like always before. Novice athletes might consciously be more exited (like children), but it takes time for the body to adjust to the same kind of specific readiness as elites have built during many years of training and competing.
I think this is also a contributing factor to the fact that novice athletes cannot tax their CNS as much. Not only can they not reach such high intensity, but their body is also therefore not tuned to fire itself up properly in advance (specific preparation for high intensity activity). We might be talking about the difference between general and specific readiness to the task at hands. General excitement (novice) can be easier to repeat since it can be drawn from many sources (general buzz), but might not be as powerful for the specific task. Specific excitement might be harder to repeat since it tends to have settled to the same pathways for preparation, yet drawing more from them when asked.
I guess this could be an issue to consider when considering weights straight after, 4 hours after, 8 hours after, 12 hours after, especially if the pathway for preparation is approximately the same.
“Type IIA possess good aerobic and anaerobic characteristics, whereas type IIB possess good anaerobic characteristics but poor aerobic characteristics.” — p.72
“It now appears that type IIB fibers may in fact be just a pool of unused fibers (with low oxydative ability) that upon recruitment start a shift or transformation ultimately to the type IIA fiber” — p. 72
“Dramatic reduction in the IIB fiber type occur with heavy resistance training, which supports such a theory” — p.72
“Type IIC fibers are very rare in humans and are more oxydative than type IIA and type IIB…” —p. 72
“However, it now appears that the changes occur only within the subtypes of type I or type II fibers…” — p.73 (No shift between type I and type II, only within their subtypes)
“Thus, the old concept of trying to change muscle fiber types appears to be related to changes only within a fiber type” — p.89
“It is not know to what extent muscle fiber remodeling contributes to muscle strenght; however, gradual increase in the number and size of myofibrils and perhaps the fast fiber type conversion of type IIB to type IIA might contribute to force production” — p.89
Excerpts from Fleck, Kraemer. Designing Resistance Training Programs. Human Kinetics. 2004.
