CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Fitness
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Fitness Theory and Practice. CrossFit's rationale & foundations. Who is fit? What is fitness?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-11-2005, 10:39 PM   #1
Eric Cimrhanzel
Member Eric Cimrhanzel is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Houston and College Station  TX
Posts: 297
I've been hearing from Grease The Groove (and other low-rep, high-weight, long rest training) advocates that it "gives your Central Nervous System a boost". Can someone explain to me what exactly that means? I'm talking from a physiological psychology perspective, what does this "boost" entail? What chemicals in the brain are activated when strength training like this? Does this allow more neurons to connect to one another, such as what happens whenever we learn something new?

I asked one of my nueroscience professors about this after a class last week, and he didn't have a clue what I was talking about when I said "boost to your Central Nervous System".

I don't even know how to search for this, so if someone has resources (not Power To The People. I've read that), especially scientific, that they could point to, that would be greatly appreciated.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2005, 11:30 PM   #2
Rene Renteria
Member Rene Renteria is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Francisco  CA
Posts: 364
Hi. Good question. I've usually thought they were referring to motor unit recruitment. When trying to maximally activate a muscle, we don't necessarily cause all the motor units making up that muscle to fire. Training improves the amount of motor units recruited during the effort, thus increasing the maximal force applied independent of increases in the strength of the muscle itself.

Try looking up "exercise motor recruitment" in PubMed, which, for example, turns up abstracts like this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=16129897&query_hl=1
Can J Appl Physiol. 2005 Jun;30(3):328-40. Related Articles, Links

Resistance training: cortical, spinal, and motor unit adaptations.

Griffin L, Cafarelli E.

Dept. of Kinesiology and Health Education, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA.

During the first few weeks of isometric resistance training there is an increase in maximal muscle force output that cannot be accounted for by muscle hypertrophy. Early on, researchers postulated the existence of neural adaptations to training primarily through the use of surface electromyographic recordings. More recent evidence also suggests that increased excitation may occur at the cortical levels following short-term resistance training. Alterations in synergistic activation and reductions in antagonist activation are neural factors that have been identified as changing during the early stages of resistance training which could contribute to maximal force generation. Neural adaptations that occur during the ramp-up phase of isometric contraction include decreases in motor unit recruitment thresholds, increased motor unit discharge rates, and increases in double discharges. An increase in the maximal rate of force development also occurs during the early stages of resistance training, but whether the neural mechanisms associated with the increase in the rate of rise are also associated with the increase in maximal force has not been elucidated. More work is needed to examine the integration of changes in cortical and spinal excitability with single motor unit firing patterns during this simple form of exercise before we can extend our understanding to different types of training.


Best,
Rene'
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2005, 06:05 AM   #3
Steve Shafley
Banned Steve Shafley is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saginaw  MI
Posts: 508
More practice of the proper technique leads to increases in the efficiency of the movement, allowing greater weight to be lifted.

There's also the entire "neuromagnitude" vs "neuroduration" thing: Basically when you miss a maximal lift, do you miss it because you can't generate a big enough neural impulse to do it, or because you can't maintain the impulse long enough to finish the lift? Some interesting, yet hard to read, stuff about this over at www.inno-sport.net.

If you are interested in practical ways to "prime" the CNS, you are going to have to go over to CharlieFrancis.com and do a search on it. CF puts great store into using certain exercises at certain times to keep a certain amount of tonus in the body before competition.

  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2005, 06:06 AM   #4
Russ Greene
Departed Russ Greene is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 1970
 
Posts: 637
On a related note, I've tried to explain the basic idea behind the phosphate (ATP), glycolytic, and oxidative energy systems to biochem people and they didn't seem to have a clue what I was talking about. They seemed to just think in terms of aerobic or anerobic respiration. Do any of you science geniuses know why that could be? Do you guys use different words, or think about it in a different way?
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2005, 07:32 AM   #5
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Vladimir Zatriorsky's book "Science and Practice of Strength Training" indirectly addesses some of these basic points, like how many muscle units get recruited matters, whether they are recruited at the same time or randomly, and how often they fire. Also, (if memory serves)the "faster" (lower threshold) muscle units tend to fire the most to begin with, then as they fatigue, the slower (higher threshold) fire more.

None of that affects the price of tea in China, though. As far as I can tell, no one knows with certainty even to this day exactly what produces muscle fatigue, other than of course persistent effort in an oxygen debt situation, which produces lactic acid, which messes the muscles up.

As far as the 3 stage adaption, that is from a specific theorist, I believe. One of the science guys will know who.

Being a pontificator, though, I would like to add that the bulk of scientists spend the bulk of their time studying elms, and oaks, and beeches, and birches, and wonder why their theoretical models differ. The unifying perspective is that of the forest itself, which is rarely if ever seen by professionals. Hence the black box.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2005, 11:53 AM   #6
Robert Wolf
Member Robert Wolf is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chico  CA
Posts: 2,669
Unless you have a "science" type who is really into performance they are going to be completely ignorant as to these distinctions. This is somewhat the difference between talking to a "scientist" about a problem and an engineer. Both might be smart but scientists are largely interested in theory and data generation. Engineers are interested in results. Possibly a generalization but this is the basic idea.

With regards to the original question of what this training is doing to the CNS? The right amount is a "tonic" and is beneficial, too much is a chronic stressor and not beneficial. From a motor learnign perspective we have some interesting models that describe some things that might be occuring here but I think Steves explanation and links are as good as we can get at the moment.
Robb
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2005, 12:39 AM   #7
Jason Erickson
Member Jason Erickson is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minneapolis  MN
Posts: 198
Eric -

I agree that the basic premise is to develop neuromuscular efficiency. "Boost the CNS" is really a misnomer. Your CNS isn't boosted, just better educated about how to best achieve the desire result. Here's an article I wrote that simplifies the whole concept:

http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/27/erickson.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2005, 06:11 AM   #8
Eric Cimrhanzel
Member Eric Cimrhanzel is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Houston and College Station  TX
Posts: 297
Very cool. Thanks everyone for your help and the links!
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can't Squat = Nursing Home = Death. Science catches up to reality ... Anthony Bainbridge Community 4 08-11-2007 05:18 AM
Fight Science program William Hunter CrossPit 18 09-06-2006 12:59 PM
The Science of Sweating David Birozy Community 0 08-09-2005 02:55 PM
"The Science of Fat" lectures on DVD Rene Renteria Nutrition 1 07-30-2005 02:05 PM
Good science on bad carbs Keith Wittenstein Nutrition 3 11-24-2004 11:07 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:48 AM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.