starting strength gym
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: It’s Time to Stop Talking About “Supercompensation”

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,381

    Default It’s Time to Stop Talking About “Supercompensation”

    by Jonathon Sullivan and Mark Rippetoe

    The term “supercompensation” appears in the biomedical literature in the early twentieth century, not in the context of physiology, but in the context of philosophy and psychoanalytic theory – and that, right away, should raise a red flag. In any event, the term was first appropriated in English by physiologists in 1950, to describe changes in muscle glycogen content during recovery from different workloads.

    Read article

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Garage of GainzZz
    Posts
    2,053

    Default

    In this context, I understand the thesis of the article as an argument against the use of the prefix "super-" as a quantitative descriptor as opposed to a qualitative descriptor, correct?

    Most importantly, we are to take away the notion that the adaptive response occurs over a continuum and is dictated by many different factors and not just the load placed on the bar every workout.

  3. #3

    Default

    I've always looked at supercompensation closely related to 'super performing' and , like reaching a point in a training cycle where performing a 1 RM in a super compensated state would result in better performance. You would achieve a super compensated state through an increase in training volume and recovery before accumulated fatigue sets in, allowing you to perform at a level that would immediately after the performance cause a stress overload and subsequent de-training.

  4. #4

    Default

    I can't tell if this is a test to see who can follow instructions about not talking about "Supercompensation" on the forums or if it's actually trying to encourage discussion on the topic. Is this now the first and second rule of Starting Strength?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    357

    Default

    I hope you enjoyed the beef and booze (who doesnt?), because actually there is no need to get rid off the "super" in supercompensation.

    Because

    1) although the article seems to suggest that "super" always means "of a different quality", like superman has qualities that no ordinary man has, or the cells acquire new mechanisms after experiencing stress; the Latin "super" also can simply mean: (quantitatively) more (of the same quality).

    2) And as you wrote yourself that our body doesnt only compensate for the stress induced by the past resistance, but prepares itself by providing a little more, a little surplus (which of course can be currently diminished by other factors and thus fluctuates) - it super-compensates.

    So its completely ok to speak of "Supercompensation" - the physiologists havent been that dumb for more than half a century after all.

    More interesting imo is a possible discussion about which model describes the adaption process best - and there have been newer suggestions than Selyess original one like the 2-factor-model, but still no ultimate satisfying one.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Portola Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,230

    Default

    Words do matter. I complement you both on improving the preciseness of the language we use in our corner of the human discussion.

    I do have an argument in support of the use of the "super" qualifier in this context. When I was a teen I worked at manual jobs summers and holidays. This work was physically repetitive. Always the first few days of the job left me exhausted, but by the end of the first week my body had adapted and compensated to the work level and at at the end of each day I was no longer exhausted. (Ah! The recovery power of the young!) My body "compensated" to the new load. It also "super-compensated" to the new load in that I would need a much higher level of work intensity to bring me to exhaustion. I suppose you could argue that these are both features of "compensation," but they are two different features and thus could support two different words. That way you could speak separately about the compensation effect and the super-compensation effect and be clear.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •