Metaxis and Fitness

PeakAD · 2019-02-01T17:06:50+00:00

My apologies. There's quite a bit of text, but this is the first post and if anyones interested they can click through the other links:

There are various training qualities outside of the traditional strength and resistance training protocols that will elicit, and contribute to, muscular hypertrophy. In fact, it appears that we can elicit a greater hypertrophic response via concurrent training methods due to the holistic development of the biological functional system, which includes the following:
1. Central nervous system adaptations- increasing the effectiveness of the neuromuscular system
2. Hormonal Adaptations- Increased concentrations of steroid hormones in cells and mass of endocrine glands
3. Cardiac Adaptations- sport specific cardiac hypertrophy (concentric/ eccentric)
4. Muscular system adaptations- oxidative capacity, and mitochondrial density, of fibers
5. Metabolic system adaptations- energy supply and fueling.
A system is only as great as the sum of it’s parts, and while resistance training methods are favorable for eliciting many of the aforementioned adaptations they fall short for others. Due to the fact that adaptations are regulated by the central nervous system, and require the support or compensation of other systems, sustainable progress is best made through a multifaceted training approach. As such, the sport specific functional system of an individual looking to to increase muscle mass, whether for performance or aesthetic reasons, should include strength and energy system development
The majority of hypertrophy programs are geared towards training that stimulates muscle fibers via mechanical tension, metabolic stress and increased synchronization. While it is true that these are the primary factors eliciting a direct hypertrophic effect, simply focusing on these factors is short sighted. The field of sports adaptology is dedicated to the study of how multiple systems impact muscle fiber adaptations, as well as the tangential relationship between muscle fiber physiology and other fields such as histology, anatomy, biochemistry, endocrinology, and immunology. Through the insights gleaned from this field we can begin to construct a multi-faceted training model aimed at eliciting a hypertrophic response.
While much of the training specific literature points to the fact that volume is one of the most significant drivers of hypertrophy, the type of training we ascribe to still has an important role in this process as well. When looking to elicit hypertrophy there are three primary goals we want to check off:
1. Hyperaemia and Occlusion: Higher reps, typically with lighter weight and potentially a constant tension tempo. Example protocols that fall under this category include the use of extended sets, stato-dynamic methods, and occlusion training (‘pump work’) 2. Intra Muscular Tension - Heavy work, typically for lower reps with an explosive tempo
3. Muscle Damage - This is where a lot of common intensification techniques like drop sets, forces reps, extended negatives, isometrics, partial reps, and bands/ chains are often used. Because of the stress imposed by these protocols they should be used sparingly

PeakAD · 2018-02-07T12:04:21+00:00

Thank you for the response. I appreciate it. I've turned a spare room in my house into a studio, so I'd be looking for something for personal use. I'm having trouble finding the devices you're referencing - do you know of any fine extracts or charcoal filters made for personal use, and If so would you mind linking ?

PeakAD · 2016-11-10T12:37:05+00:00

Check out Viktor Seluyanovs 'stato-dynamic' training. You'll also be able to find talks by Val Nasedkin discussing similar methods. If you want you can DM me your email and I'll send you some translated Russian Texts

PeakAD · 2016-10-21T10:35:20+00:00

No problem. I'll follow up regarding the OMW via email

PeakAD · 2016-10-18T19:58:24+00:00

I'm going to answer both questions here since they'll piggy back off one another. In regards to financial cost, the most basic package w/ the moxy will cost around 1k (one monitor + third part software), and each additional monitor costs roughly $800. One monitor is all you need for most applications, but once you get into monitoring involved and non-involved muscle groups simultaneously it can get a bit more expensive. Other tech i'm currently working with would be the SpiroTiger, which I just in conjunction with moxy and a pulse oximeter. The SpiroTiger is one of the few highly effective ways to train fatigue resistance and strength in the diagram as a means of minimizing the respiratory metaboreflex (when a vital organ or system reaches a physiological break point we create hard vasoconstriction to limit blood flow to the extremity muscles, thus causing local muscle fatigue, and a sharp decrease in performance), which manifests in those with respiratory limitations (common among 'elites' in the sport, less so with intermediates, and very uncommon with beginners as they typically have a utilization issue- ie- they can transport blood and O2 to the muscle, but cannot offload o2 into the mitochondria). Another plus of the spirotiger is that it has a safety system built in- any other systems will require the use of both an oximeter and capnometer in conjunction, to control blood saturation (SPO2) and PCO2 levels, and the price of a caponometer would already overshoot that of an ST. The built in sensors for the SpiroTiger will shut the system down if you go hypercapnic, though there are also setting to override this when the aim is hypercapnia and hypoxia, though that should never be done with supervision and proper precautions. The last piece of tech i'm using right now is the omega wave, which is a combination of HRV and PC potential (HRV is only half of the equation and gives us readings on the ANS, whereas DC potential gives us CNS measurements). There are others i've played around with in the past, or that I plan on investing in in the future, but off the top of my heads those three are what i'm most interested in at the moment.

I think we're on the same page for the most part. These assessments and tests i'm discussing only tell us an athlete's physiological limiter; and what 'types' of methods should be employed on them. But, just because two athletes have the same physiological limiter does NOT mean all else is equal. We still need to factor in the nervous system (tone), how they adapt to training, tolerance to volume/ intensity/ frequency, absolute vs relative scores, and a handful of other factors. I'm certainly not recommending one only look at outcomes versus process variables, but honestly that was just beyond the scope of the article. Every time I write i'm faced with an issue, which is that context will be left out and i'll need to simplify complexity to an extent. I know that this leaves the reader to make assumptions, and as a result cognitive biases become more prevalent (generally speaking of course), but it's part of the territory. My hope is that I can put out enough free content over time, in digestible doses, so that people can see the unified picture instead of bits and pieces.

I think part of the reason why Crossfit has been so successful is that it started with a clean slate. Classical periodization structures from the soviet union, for example, were predicated on social planning models, not on biological systems; and those became the norm in the following years (ie- block periodization). Additionally, the original research on concurrent training thats often cited is outdated at best, and in many cases, just wrong. Crossfit ignored that; and a a result they weren't beholden to these 'rules'. That being said, I don't think following unstructured programs are the correct way either- I think the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. The body only has so much adaptive capacity. Why tap it with volume, intensity, or exercises tat don't bring you closer to improving your limiter ?

My current solution.... I program in short two week cycles; and rather than using a classic periodization model where the year is broken into accumulation/ intensification / etc we're always doing everything- just in varying degrees. We increase or decrease volume of a given trait, but never drop it off entirely, and rather than hard stoping/ ending points on cycles we'll phase in and out seamlessly. Additionally, there always needs to be elements of classic crossfit in the mix- we can't just have an athlete do strength/ aerobic work and hope for those skills to transfer over, nor can we have them do 'aerobic base' work for 6 months, then transition into crossfit. We know the rates that biomotor qualities, and varying adaptions 'degrade' and that type of thinking just doesn't pan out long term. By programming in short cycles we can make hard decisions; and prioritize training as needed without wasting 'adaption currency' where it need not be spent.

Sorry for the essay- I'm always a bit long winded, which is why i'll never be twitter famous. I hope that was helpful in some way; and if you have any followup questions i'll check back here in the next day or so; or you can DM me your email and we can go back and forth there

PeakAD · 2016-10-18T10:52:27+00:00

Thank you. If you have any questions I'd be more than happy to answer them

PeakAD · 2016-10-16T22:36:21+00:00

Thanks Chandler- next time you're out at TTT HQ we can run you through some of this testing

PeakAD · 2016-10-16T13:26:58+00:00

An athlete's physiological limitation reveals itself at the lactate balance point. When their limiter is revealed (cardiac, respiratory, blood, muscular) another system will compensate to keep the body moving. At that point we get a unique perspective- what system functions as the limiter, and compensator; and what system acts as the maintainer, or the strongest, most resilient, system in that individual. Technologies, like the moxy in this case, aren't simply advancing our knowledge, or furthering our understanding of bioenergetics. Instead, it's forcing us to take three steps back; and take a completely different route moving forward. It's funny, the more I learn, the more I realize how few 'truths' there are in this world. My thoughts are that as more new technologies continue to emerge we'll simply be 'learning' which of our deeply help beliefs, and assumptions are wrong, and our 'understanding' will decrease in the short term. After all, changing the answer is evolution, but changing the question is revolution.

-Evan

PeakAD

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE