Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

The explanation is related to neurological specificity, reasoning that has been debated between us before, so there's no real need to rehash the details.

Generally speaking, for example, I know people who can bench press 500 pounds on a bench press but can't do as much as I can on a flye or with dumbells (despite performing them as much as me). A great deal of this has to do with the idea of attunement; that is, once an exercise has been affectively learned by the body to a point that the system uses less muscle to perform the same amount of work (aka homeostasis - this would be related to firing patterns and rate-coding, leverage, and blah blah) the actual exercise being performed (such as a bench press) does not induce any further sarcomere or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (that is an increase in general strength via increased cross section) - again, biologically speaking i believe that once at a certain point excess muscle is not a benefit to the body, so inducing hypertrophy over neurological conditioning (which is what makes much more sense for the body to do) requires a very dramatic, unusual, alarming stimulus for the body to encounter.

In any case, once the exercise becomes common-practice and thus less demanding to the body, improvement fades away from general and becomes more finely tuned (a skill) via neurological programming and consious and subconsious changes.

The explanation is fundamentally much more complex than this, and I happen to believe in it as I've seen guys in the weight room bench press ridiculous amounts of weight who simply can't hold their own on the football field. It's a theory that I've been actively involved in, though, and I've seen some fantastic affects with involving the understanding of these concepts into my workouts (and other peoples workouts).

Also, it explains why some powerlifters can move such huge amounts of weight while remaining in a lower weight-class, and be relatively weak (relatively regarding their strength in lifts like the squat, etc.) in exercises that they don't perform. I really don't subscribe to the idea that food is a magic bullet; rather, I don't think the notion of train the same all the time and eat with it "magically" imposes some change on a system as complicated as human physiology is, even if the weight goes up. Somehow this has been thrown around as fact, although I've never had much use with it since I came into a phase of more advanced training.

A lot of these ideas were first introduced to me by Brian Johnson, another person I admire greatly.

For more information specifically regarding much of the motor-learning beliefs I am espoused to, visit this:

http://www.exercisecertification.com...-Analysis.html

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

Wow, this is amazing.



Thanks professor. Since we're on the internet, now, should I go look for some petty irrelevant semantic mistake you made? Your arguments are completely sad.

As for the discussion of homeostasis, if you looked closely, you would see that it was entirely appropriate:

"A great deal of this has to do with the idea of attunement; that is, once an exercise has been affectively learned by the body to a point that the system uses less muscle to perform the same amount of work (aka homeostasis - this would be related to firing patterns and rate-coding, leverage, and blah blah)"

Then, given your definition:

"3.Homeostasis: A state of body equilibrium or stable internal environment of the body. This term has nothing to do with the topic at hand...please don't use big words to impress the teenagers."

A better definition might be this:
"The ability or tendency of an organism or cell to maintain internal equilibrium by adjusting its physiological processes."

Homeostasis of the neurological system is in fact making something demanding more tolerable through physiological processes. If you can't relate this to that statement above, I just don't know what to say...



I must say, you're going to the dictionary and picking out the definitions that least fit what I was saying...lol. That's pretty biased, don't you think? Here's another definition:

"Agreement in feeling or opinion; accord: live in harmony."

Obviously people don't just use the term harmony for music. Anyway,

Attunement is appropriate in this context as if the body DOES NOT INDUCE HYPERTROPHY OF THE MYOFIBRIL or HYPERTROPHY OF THE SARCOPLASM but instead gets stronger by BRINGING ALL FUNCTIONS (energy expenditure, rate coding, neuro efficiency, leverage, joint positioning) into HARMONY - obviously the term attunement is appropriate. Your argument is semantic, you're trying to deny the points while attacking the words themselves. This is not a good technique.



This was an anecdote used for illustration. If you don't understand that this isn't a scientific paper, then you're confused. Instead of paying attention to the context, you picked something that was obviously a universal point I was trying to establish and twisted it.



If you want to talk about my English errors (which, in fact, there were none of, you simply don't like the word useage I had) you should go into the section of your English book that refers to LOGICAL FALLACIES.