I really enjoy reading these blog posts on training!
When you are new to weightlifting most of the initial gain in performance comes from neural adaptation and improvement in technique, not from a gain in muscle mass. “Noob-gains” as a Bro scientist would call it. I think Fig 2 in this paper illustrates it well (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5983157/). The standard fitness-fatigue model doesn't really separate between these types of improvements. Should one think of technique as yet another subsystem?
An elite lifter probably has very good technique, but I keep on wondering how one should think about technique training vs. training for muscle mass (technique training might still induce some fatigue). They aren't really orthogonal to each other but not always perfectly aligned either.
Not to mention sports like CrossFit where a positive gain in some area, like more muscle mass on your upper body, might have a negative impact on your running and your 5k time at the Games.
Techinique is definitely something I'm just completely ignoring for now. It's why I focused on running and deadlifting. But I should have used cycling and squatting where technique matters even less. I think for the basic lifts (say a squat), technique is learned pretty quickly. But then if you take an olympic movement like the snatch, technique takes a lifetime to master.
But you are right, the FF model doesn't distinguish between any of these subsystems. But I think you can model the joint performance as interconnected FF subsystems with dramatically different time constants. Or at least that's how everyone approaches training!
And yeah, with regards to crossfit training, who knows how those people torture themselves to be so good at everything?
I think endurance is actually one of the faster systems to adapt. You can gauge adaptation speed by how quickly that system degrades when you stop training it. For endurance-based sports, a week of no activity and you're already "out of shape". However, it takes several weeks to notice any loss of strength, and several months to notice a loss of power. This is one of the main causes of injury --- your stamina detrains much faster than your power, so a sprinter who took a break will still have similar top speed, but risks injury if they try to train at their usual volume due to loss of stamina.
I described this sloppily. What I mean technically that training ATP production in mitochondria is done by low-intensity cardio, and improving this energy system takes a long time to train. But like you said, you can feel good after a few weeks of interval training and out of shape if you take a week off. Does that clarify what I was getting at?
In some activities there are also important distinctions between isometric, isotonic, and eccentric types of strengths. And the rate of motor unit recruitment can also be very important, not just the total recruitment. For example, in most of climbing, the isometric finger strength is a backbone for performing well, but some type of powerful dynamic moves requires a completely different type of explosive power recruitment. Just be careful with NNT. He seems to bully people on twitter, if he decides he doesn't like them.
Absolutely. I was focusing on powerlifting or racing because these particular sports only have one "move," but even training these is very complicated. Rock climbing is a cool example of a sport that sounds simple but is super nuanced because there are such varied faces you'd like to be able to scale.
Oh, and I hoped it was obvious that I was joking about NNT. He's an odd duck. I mean, odd swan. I just know he's obsessed with deadlifting.
I really enjoy reading these blog posts on training!
When you are new to weightlifting most of the initial gain in performance comes from neural adaptation and improvement in technique, not from a gain in muscle mass. “Noob-gains” as a Bro scientist would call it. I think Fig 2 in this paper illustrates it well (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5983157/). The standard fitness-fatigue model doesn't really separate between these types of improvements. Should one think of technique as yet another subsystem?
An elite lifter probably has very good technique, but I keep on wondering how one should think about technique training vs. training for muscle mass (technique training might still induce some fatigue). They aren't really orthogonal to each other but not always perfectly aligned either.
Not to mention sports like CrossFit where a positive gain in some area, like more muscle mass on your upper body, might have a negative impact on your running and your 5k time at the Games.
Techinique is definitely something I'm just completely ignoring for now. It's why I focused on running and deadlifting. But I should have used cycling and squatting where technique matters even less. I think for the basic lifts (say a squat), technique is learned pretty quickly. But then if you take an olympic movement like the snatch, technique takes a lifetime to master.
But you are right, the FF model doesn't distinguish between any of these subsystems. But I think you can model the joint performance as interconnected FF subsystems with dramatically different time constants. Or at least that's how everyone approaches training!
And yeah, with regards to crossfit training, who knows how those people torture themselves to be so good at everything?
I think endurance is actually one of the faster systems to adapt. You can gauge adaptation speed by how quickly that system degrades when you stop training it. For endurance-based sports, a week of no activity and you're already "out of shape". However, it takes several weeks to notice any loss of strength, and several months to notice a loss of power. This is one of the main causes of injury --- your stamina detrains much faster than your power, so a sprinter who took a break will still have similar top speed, but risks injury if they try to train at their usual volume due to loss of stamina.
Hey Laurent!
I described this sloppily. What I mean technically that training ATP production in mitochondria is done by low-intensity cardio, and improving this energy system takes a long time to train. But like you said, you can feel good after a few weeks of interval training and out of shape if you take a week off. Does that clarify what I was getting at?
In some activities there are also important distinctions between isometric, isotonic, and eccentric types of strengths. And the rate of motor unit recruitment can also be very important, not just the total recruitment. For example, in most of climbing, the isometric finger strength is a backbone for performing well, but some type of powerful dynamic moves requires a completely different type of explosive power recruitment. Just be careful with NNT. He seems to bully people on twitter, if he decides he doesn't like them.
Absolutely. I was focusing on powerlifting or racing because these particular sports only have one "move," but even training these is very complicated. Rock climbing is a cool example of a sport that sounds simple but is super nuanced because there are such varied faces you'd like to be able to scale.
Oh, and I hoped it was obvious that I was joking about NNT. He's an odd duck. I mean, odd swan. I just know he's obsessed with deadlifting.