im not saying he jogged the 10.2, but slowing down that much to run a 10.2 certainly gives him a much better point to stand from than joe blow busting out a new pb of 10.2.
You do still see it a bit, where a “one of the favourates” runs some real fast semies or such eg (9.95) and then in the final, tries real hard to run (9.91).
Mo and Ato i remember in sydeny 2000 i think (perhaps a world championship?) were trying to win their heats but do so in the slowest time they could, To save themselfs for the final and still get a good lane.
Backing off that last 30m Will still make a difference to CNS if they WERE going so fast. Hence the reason some of the best do a PB at major meets and others dont. Sometimes you have to go real hard in the earlier rounds just to make it through. And i bet you’ll find that the final wont be done in a sub 9.9. You cant plonder the 1st 60m. But at 60m, if you are going fantastic compared to everybody else, why keep burning that CNS at max?
what about xavier carter running a pb in the 100m and a pb in the 400m 40 min later.
Same day. System still warm. STill primed. and different energy systems. i bet had the 400 been 1st, the 100m would have been a no show?
People doing same day PB;s on world scale in same or different events means a successfull training and taper approach.
I once ran a 15sec PB in the 1500m, then 1hr later as my compitition was licking there lips with delight that i used all my energy and effort in the 1500m i also won and did a PB in the 800m. Was it unexpected? To me no, i had done the training, and i tapered right. To them, they were blown away.
But the next day, i would have been lucky to run a 400m at 1500m race pace!!
my two cents on the CNF topic:
From an evolutionary view CNF might have served a role in survival:
Two things might be important concerning human locomotion
-
humans had to move efficiently over prolonged distances in order to survive: to get the food/water/ to get to the good climate conditions
-
however, they also had to deal with predators: anticipation and maybe short sprints.
Part 2 might be especially important since kangaroos can increase their speed remarkably without increasing energy expenditure. The reason why they do not go full speed all the time in nature might be that forces acting on the tendons are too high. (making them prone to injury, i.e. not being able to sprint when faced with a predator)
CNF, DOMS and fatigue within a session (especially high intensity prolonged efforts) might protect the musuloskeletal delivery system. This might be evolutionary based: making sure that there is enough left (safety margin) when it might really count in the future (when facing a predator)
For humans and other animals anticipation have become more and more important. That might be why we need quite a lot of recovery time (i.e. use it or lose it). I do not know whether it is different for different animals. The larger predators seem to require the longest recovery times.
Coming to training then: Isn’t it all about decreasing inhibition on the brain level (i.e. creating a situation of real percepted fight or flight when inhibition drops in all subsystems)? Still, the musculoskeletal system should be developed in concordance (balanced).
Other questions:
- how much training is enough (i.e. the minimum for enhancing performance): Hettinger (in the 60s) found that one time a day 2s max isometric effort, could produce strength and hyperthrophy gains up to two years…
Interesting post. I agree the aim of training is to inhibit your protective mechanisms and also learn to do it exactly when needed. When i was a kid at sports day (when i never trained) i felt massive adrenalin (fight or flight response) and always felt like I ran much faster than normal. However, while training decreased inhibition it also decreased the sensation of fight or flight during a race. While I was still nervous I never felt the way I do when I am in an emergency. Most recently I witnessed a car crash and the massive adrenalin kick shocked me, for a few seconds I was like Superman. A much stronger response than I ever got while racing.
I also have the feeling that experienced athletes tend to loose a bit of that adrenaline rush (or fight or flight response) with time, although they might still perform better or close to their best when it matters the most for them. It’s not hard to imagine results fluctuating more during one season, when athletes are growing accustomed to competing year after year. Somehow it’s just a tad more difficult to “fool yourself” into that special feeling, although, at the same time it’s easier to stay calm and cool during difficult circumstances. Perhaps this indicates that older athletes must find more time between such outbursts when/if they happen?
Sometimes we see very good results with experienced athletes when they’re making a comeback to competitions after a longer off period (around half a year or more). Somehow they seem to be recovered from long time exposure to training and competitions as well as being “newborn” in the sense of competition excitement. Perhaps this too is a CNS issue in some way; making it easier to tap into more CNS recourses when it feels “new or fresh” again?
(Don’t worry we won’t agree anyway James!)
To answer you … Yes, but following that I was fried for the week!!!
[quote=“no23”]
so after apparently expending your CNS once you were able to do it again soon after and the next week you were fried. perhaps the fatigue you expereicend isnt central in that you can max out in one excercise without it greatly effecting another. if this is so then the body doesnt have a reserve of CNS “juice” that can be expended.
[quote=“james_colbert”]
… Provided you have a totally fresh point of departure, then it should be possible to max-bench day1, sprint day2 and squat day3. The bench should not overload you in any way (unless you go for 300kg), it might even stimulate the sprint session. And if the volume in the sprint session is kept light-to-moderate, then it’s very much possible you have enough juice left to p.r. in the squat day3. But again, it depends on your absolute level of bench, absolute level of speed and absolute level of squat. I hardly think a 400kg squatter could max out this way, whereas a 200kg squatter could do it (provided he’s not overloading in the sprint session before that). Moreover, if you would continue with a new cycle (bench day 4, etc.) then you’ll have a hard time ahead of you, much sooner than later.
I have seen some fairly successful programs for jumpers that include consecutive days of high intensity stuff (although less volume): E.g. speed day1; technical session day2; weights day3… but then followed by at least two days – often three days – of recovery before a new cycle is started. So the key is still to have a fresh point of departure, and closely monitor intensity vs. volume within the sessions.
It depends on how much of CNS stress is put on the table, not necessarily about different exercises not affecting each other: Even though the bench might not affect sprinting negatively the next day (if you start out fresh), there’s a good chance sprinting (high intensity, high volume) will affect your bench negatively the next day, because sprinting is a much higher overall stressor (bench done at a fatigued state – not to mention bench affecting your sprints negatively if you have to sprint the next day again).
Good points Lorien
This brings us back to the two questions -
- How best to regenerate the CNS
- How to best measure the CNS stresses imposed (It think this is being debated on another thread too)
Hi there!
My take on this just for discussion purposes:
- I found complementary/energy medicine therapy approaches and appropriate fascial therapy extraordinary means to the purpose. What could the possible implications of this experience of mine be in regard to the nature and definition of CNS and CNS Fatigue?
2.Very hard to do. Charlie’s concept of “PULSES” may help to quantify the work done either proactively or reactively,at least on paper,and make adequate correlations thereafter.
[quote=“lorien”]
i am abstaining from stating the CNS is unlimited in its ability to produce repeated maximal efforts to investigate a point of contention. now you said that you may be able to max bench max squat and max sprint in close sequence and max bench then max sprint but not the other way around. why is this wouldnt the max bench take away from the CNS “pool” just as the sprinting does even if in a less drastic way? im trying to estabilsh that the CNS does not necessarily fatigue centrally, as in you do not have a finite amount of resources with which to maximally exert yourself. if this were the case then max benching or squating before a sprint woud hamper performance in the sprint even if to a small degree.
now you also contend that the higher the development of an athlete the greater the CNS expenditure ie the better you are the more it takes out of you thus limiting total work volume. but lets look at clubs like westside barbell who have some of the strongest people in their given sport but also max twice a week, and every week in a given movement weather that movement changes from a squat to a good morning the exertion is still maximal. this is a good indication that the CNS does not work on a work/debt system where after performing a task its resources are depeleted and the debt must be repayed.
#1: What about ’expecting’ CNS stress and setting up your training program accordingly? It does not have anything to do with increasing CNS recovery, albeit much to do with dealing ‘with it – yet being able to have gains despite it. The 48h rule is a good rule of thumb. And if you follow a cumulative approach (maybe some jumpers), then perhaps 72-96h becomes the rule.
#2: I guess observation is the best indicator… if 48h is not enough, then decrease load or try with 72h. Highly individual and dependent on overall load! Eventually it comes down to perception.
I know this does not answer your question, but acknowledging CNS stress is perhaps the best tool for planning a training regimen none the less. Perhaps it’s best to NOT put yourself in the position of “having to deal” with enhancing CNS recovery in the first place?
[quote=“james_colbert”]
Bench is “less central” than sprinting… from the standpoint of overall motor unit involvement. You might recover from the bench just in time (24h), but necessarily not from sprinting.
I don’t know about West Side Barbell (they don’t sprint), but I know lifting is less taxing on the CNS for a track and field athlete than sprinting or full approach jumping - being more profound when the performance level rises on the track or the field. Squatting 200kg takes less from the CNS pool than 400kg. Therefore, it might be possible to do a lower max in the squat than a higher max after benching day1 and sprinting moderately day2. The CNS pool is not anything absolute (a given number), it’s highly dependent on its current condition = what has been done previously in the short term (if it’s fully recovered or not).
[quote=“lorien”]
my point with westside was not that they sprint or that sprinting is less or equally taxing than anyother excrecise but that by organization of their system they are able to use maximal weights more often than could be handled in other systems. this should lead you to believe that there is no CNS pool so to speak but that the issues of fatigue are a lot more complex than that. by changing the stimulus they are able to continue the high volume work. a erson could easily max bench one day and then in quick succession go and sprint at full speed but by your reasoning the bench press would have been a detriment to the sprinting. but ive done it plenty of times setting pr in one or both ive known others who have done it and im sure that you have done it. this simple fact percludes the possbility of the CNS being as simple as a finite pool from which resources are drawn. a matter of fact if you have ever set multiple PRs in running events it is evidence that the CNS does not work in this way. you may argue that this may be the case with only novice to intermediate athletes but we have many examples of individuals in track and field running maximally in one event and shortly there after doing the same in another. another point, if the CNS is fatigued in a debt system then there would be no examples of individuals “psyching” themselves into fantastic performances even while in a “fatigued” state.
Are there expendible resources within the CNS? ofcourse but there contribution to fatigue is no where as great as many would suspect.
-
diet, and restoritive measures during times of intense training or when needed.
-
i think the better question is how to monitor the effect of a given stressor on supercompensation of an organism trait and how that stressor effects and interacts with other concurrenty employed stressors.
"if the CNS is fatigued in a debt system then there would be no examples of individuals “psyching” themselves into fantastic performances even while in a “fatigued” state. "
What about a latent resource, which can be used only under circumstances of reduced inhibition at CNS level?
We know from research that if a person is motivated the hormone concentration in the central nervous change. Cells can make contact more easily.
The nervous system works by means of inhibition: more or less inhibition
The following might be interesting:
Our nervous (motor) system is not a fixed tract from the brain to the motor units to the muscles (and back). Gerard Holstege from the Netherlands found out that we have an additional “emotional motor system”: under circumstances of high emotional arousal (in cats, when they are ready for mating for example), a high number of different additional nervous tracts from the brain to the spinal cord become available.
Fatigue may be for a part contextual. If the [emotional] context change (athletes fall in love or they brake up / [unexpected] high performance) it is possible that inhibition drops and fatigue also. Just tapping into the evolutionary resources. After this tapping one would need a lot of extra rest I guess…
[quote=“james_colbert”]
No… I’m not saying that bench or squat before sprints categorically provide a detriment for sprinting (see post #49 again). As I already said, it depends on how fresh you start, how hard you go, what has been done, what’s ahead etc.
My point is this: If you sprint day1 and intend to sprint again day3, then there’s only day 2 in between to recover… hence, benching or squatting on day 2 might hamper recovery between day1 and day3. I’m not arguing if it’s POSSIBLE or not, sure it is, as consecutive days of sprinting during championships already prove – it’s kind of a truism really. However, what I’m arguing is that such approach during most of the training year will not yield PROGRESSION to higher absolute performance levels. So, you can max sprint every day if you like (relative performance, i.e. 97-100%), but for that same reason, you will not achieve a high enough level of sprinting ever (absolute performance, i.e. x seconds in a particular event. You might progress for a while, but not to your fullest potential.
Eventually, when you reach a performance level that requires you to taper in order to improve your times, then I see no meaningfulness in going for max (or near max) every day. Simply changing high intensity stimulus will not suffice… it might help a little, but it’s still not enough; we must take it out, altogether, for a little while. Rise in performance will not progress symmetrically with ability to recover. I guess the nature of the CNS is one important limiter here.
Simply changing stimulus can be good in the beginning, but not near the end of the performance scale. Although, I see your point and it can be very valuable for beginners and youngsters.
OK - yes you have to plan for what you are going to be able to do and that is in essence the expectation you speak about… good point.
However putting the best possible elements in place for regeneration means the CNS canbe possibly restored a bit better… (on the other hand perhaps this is not possible at all and time is the only factor.)
#2
Yes perception is the key like I outlined in the above post - this is why I still regard good coaching as an Art not a science yet.
Thats a valuable contribution.
Have you references for some of this sijmker?
Westside is a different animal too. They draw from the pool in a different manner than sprinters or Olympic lifters do and with more help too.