This is what I’m going off to find out in more detail.
I never consdiered a proven direct substainial link bewteen the CNS and
You forgot the last most important word,and I am no Jamirok…but I do have experience with the OmegaWave at least. All I can say: I do not think considering the fascia as the most extended CNS organ is potentially far from reality,with all its enlightening implications!
Sure by the OmegaWave System you can draw very clear relationships between therapy means and general as well a specific organism state…autonomic regulations as well as CNS responses there included!
Trigger points!
(apologies … just a low typist pakewi!)
Fascia is IMO far from understood … also another area I feel has a direct CNS impact/influence are the actual vertebral discs, which we are traditionally told have no neural feedback.
Sorry, but “prioritary” trigger point, are fruit of mine and other experience (doctor, acupunturists).
Travell and Simmons are a very well lecture, but probably a book on neuraltherapy is a best choice.
PS: I don’t like the Davie’s book on myofascial TrP.
Thanks.
I’ll go and see what I can find on neural therapy!!
I don’t have Davies book - I just never liked the look of it.
I’m glad I got T&S - as a grounding or foundation since most books and authors reference it.
but as a book I think it does far too much.
It covers everything, from attachments and origins to innervations etc. etc.
See the Homeostasis thread as well. Pakewi, was it you who got Biologicaly Closed Electic Circuits from the Karolinska Institute? How far have you gotten into it? Amazing stuff- especially when you consider how long ago they started looking into all this!
Is this the book http://www.ursus.se/ursus/publications.shtml ?
Some more links for people to look at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7531025&dopt=Abstract
http://www.iabc.readywebsites.com/page/page/623957.htm
Cheers,
TC
Charlie have you views on a definition of CNS fatigue?
I have my own definition of what I mean- the time it takes for recovery of the central nervous system to the point of readiness for additional high intensity work, which differs in time frame from muscular recovery.
That’s the one. Full of implications beyond accepted understanding of how the body functions. Interestingly, it has a forward by the IAAF’s Arne Lundquist, who has worked at the Karolinska Institute.
Wow, answers to questions without the tread being sidetracked, now that i can axcess Advanced S S
What about the spinal cord and alignment issues. ie, going to a Chrio and having your spine adjusted. The pressure releiving effect of the spine being out of alignemt and being adjusted by a chrio at times has a massive effect of how many CNS effects dissapear.
Not the be all and end all, but one link in the chain.
V. interesting thread, guys.
How do CNS training and adaptation/maximisation means differ from muscular training for sprinters. Can training be separated into discrete elements or is there always stimulation of both during training.
As the motor-unit is the link betwween the impulse and the muscle fibre, can this area be ‘revved up’ by training or specific supplements or is the motor-unit at the mercy of all thats generated before it? Is the motor unit 100% efficient in transferring electrical energy to mechanical?
Can the transmission of impulses thru the nerve(axon) be improved, i.e. is there loss of ‘current’ thru nerve ‘impedance’?
How come some junior sprinters can run so fast with very low strength levels? Is this a function of a more advanced nervous systems as opposed to just muscular elasticity?
Do Masters runners get slower do to proportionally less elasticity or reductions in the functionality of the CNS/PNS? Analogous to reduced speed of decision making, maths ability, memory etc?
That is the problem - you can train the musclulature much more often than the CNS will permit at high levels.
The concept of ‘revving up’ is interesting - the more I look at it the more I don’t think (in its purist sense) revving up of the CNS is possible with supplements, nor do I think the opposite (again in its purist sense) - is possible - regeneration of the CNS.
The impulse transmission is the chemical aspect that jamirok was correcting me on in the previous page, I think what you’re referring to here is the crossing of the synaptic cleft?
train the nervous system and the body will follow, plan your training on bettring your CNS and your body will over time taking on the muscular proportions best fitted to the given task. often times people will train muscle and end up with a body that doesnt funtion at it optimum for the given task.
im not sure what you mean by reved up but there are techniques such as complex training and supplements out there which cater to CNS enhancment. often effort is all that is needed to overcome CNS fatigue and lifts initiated with a load sound or other stimulus can assist in lifting weight or running a time when an athlete is fatigued. for example, a powerlifter that psychs himself up for that final attempt at a new pb or a loud, sudden, and sharp “GO!!!” to indicate to an athlete when he should initiate the concentric portion of his squat. This tells me atleast in part that the CNS does not fatiuge as normal tissues do and in part is effected by inhibitory pathways. and no the motor unit is not 100% effeceint simply because no machine including humans is 100% effeceint unless you start buying into the concept of zero-point energy.
i dont kno if the nerve transmission can be improved per say but the frequncy of nerve impulse firing can be trained to increase.
there is a misconception that speed follows maximum strength. that if you squat 600lbs and way this much you will run this fast or be capable of running that fast. but this is not the case. strength tends to follow speed and power. it is often a byproduct of training for other things. not to say it is never beneficial to max squat just that it alone will most likly not make u the best sprtinter you can be. this is why young sprinters can be so fast they arent relying on strength to run fast. ofcourse its how you define strength also because they are strong in the sense of explosive rate of force development but their maximum force capabilities may not be as high as someone like powell or gatlin.
[QUOTE=no23]That is the problem - you can train the musclulature much more often than the CNS will permit at high levels.
i disagree, but let me ask you this, and this is not an attack, just a question to stimulate thought have you ever max benched one day and maxed squat on another day close in time to the first, or deadlift, or run your best time in a sprint?
The day after, NO. Why, because the training is not set up that way. AFter say a real good speed or speed endurance session and weights, the next day i might PB staying in bed! Let alone PB anyting physical. Next time your in Qld, I’ll run you through a CNS workout and we’ll see how you go the following day…
IF you havnt been FLAT the day after a hard workout, your doing something wrong.
But the day after that, so long as you have done a Tempo session that day, you should feel ready to go again.
If you are fine the day after a CNS workout, ie sprints then weights, i would have to say you need help desigining your workout, or need a training partner to push you, or watch some of the DVD’s available here, or learn how to be more explosive, or just simply you are a FREAK???
And, benching heavy one day and deadlifting heavy the next (only, ie no running)is something i can do, it dont hit your CNS into pieces like a proper Sprint session does. If you break up your gym workout correctly. But that is weight training, not Sprint training.
I think people can tolerate a bit more CNS work than we may think, esp. at non-WR level. This does not mean it is necessarily the smart thing to do though! Of course people can do high intensity things 2 days in a row–that’s what all major championships for track are like! The difference is that continued exposure here can cause problems down the road and would work better for a controlled “overload” or brief intensification period rather than consistent training at that level (or else I doubt you will ever improve).
Two days in a row in track, perhaps due to only doing ONE effort?
And most times, you will notice the Top guys going say 10.2-10.3 in 1st round, Half a second off best, so pretty easy really.
A nobody will run his best time of say 10.2 v’s previous best of 10.25! Then next round
The best run say a 10.1-10.2, still say 0.4 off his best = NOt really taxing
A nobody runs say a 10.2 again and just makes it to next round
Then next round, the best run say a 10 flat
And nobody runs a 10.4 and bows out. Two days in a row of High CNS and by 3rd days he is spent, looses form and runs bad. Where as the best are still going sub par.
Also i agree and was going to mention it before but forgot!! that if your say a 11sec male runner, the CNS can handle a lot more work load than a 10sec 100m runner.
umm when is the last time a sub 9.8 runner (for that particular season), ran in a major meet w/ rounds? Considering there are only 2 who have shown any consistency to go sub 10, I think you are going a tad extreme. The runs are most definitely hard. also, it’s not like every 10.2/10.3 is the same. Asafa Powell cutting the jets and running a 10.2 is different the schmoe sprinter doing it. Asafa, as an example, most likely had an accel and probably reached a top speed of a sub 10 run, but cut it out early. The CNS stress on that is not going to be as-if he went from gun to tape and just ran a 10.3. Let’s be real here. Look at the last Olympics and see how far everyone was off their season bests during the rounds. It’s not as much as you think.