Stress, recovery, ...acclimation? Stress, recovery, ...acclimation?

starting strength gym
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: Stress, recovery, ...acclimation?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    45

    Default Stress, recovery, ...acclimation?

    Coach,

    Do you think acclimation is a better way to describe what happens when we train? I've always understood adaptation as being a more permanent change in a species due to natural selection whereas acclimation is a temporary change that persists so long as a certain stress is present.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    39,094

    Default

    If you prefer to think of it that way, you may. But perhaps your understanding is wrong. Adaptation can have several inflections, and our use of the term is one of them.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Portland, OR area
    Posts
    55

    Default

    I prefer stress / recovery / addiction, though to some degree, admittedly it really is the interactions with others in the community that keep me motivated. It really is nice feeling significantly much more functional!

    I am learning the hard way that what Mark says is true -- strength is hard earned, and therefore the body doesn't give it up easily. Several resets to fix form, vacation, and deal with minor injuries, and easily working up to working weight with 10lb increments proves things out.

    I'm just a novice -- if you ask Andy Baker I'm sure he could reinforce further the long-lasting strength impacts. I read it on this site at one point but I'm not energetic enough to do the heavy lifting for you on the search.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    375

    Default

    Mdillon, the problem is that Rip references the important work done by Hans Selye, who refers to it as Adaptation. The Stress-Adaptation-Recovery (S-R-A) cycle put forth by Selye is the basis for what Rip refers to, the "adaptation" term is widely used and generally accepted.

    Not using Selye's terms and what is found in biology may have unintended consequences, it could prevent some newcomers to the program to not realize the connection to Selye's work despite it clearly being spelled out in PP 3rd Ed. Forgive me for wanting to be precise in out vocabulary, but being consistent has benefits.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Akron, OH
    Posts
    981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TommyGun View Post
    Mdillon, the problem is that Rip references the important work done by Hans Selye, who refers to it as Adaptation. The Stress-Adaptation-Recovery (S-R-A) cycle put forth by Selye is the basis for what Rip refers to, the "adaptation" term is widely used and generally accepted.

    Not using Selye's terms and what is found in biology may have unintended consequences, it could prevent some newcomers to the program to not realize the connection to Selye's work despite it clearly being spelled out in PP 3rd Ed. Forgive me for wanting to be precise in out vocabulary, but being consistent has benefits.
    Words have multiple meanings. The point of the semantics is to make sure we're all on the same page. When Rip says "adaptation" or "strength" on this board, no one is confused by what he means, but at the seminar, the word "strength" is defined as the ability to force against an external resistance, so that anyone that might be confused about the meaning of "strength" is not confused when Rip later refers to it.

    I personally think "bench press" is a poor phrase to describe laying supine on a flat bench and pressing the bar off of the chest. "Supine press" or even "horizontal press" I believe would be better, but it doesn't matter at this point, because when someone asks me to teach them how to "bench press", I know what they're asking for.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewLewis View Post
    I personally think "bench press" is a poor phrase to describe laying supine on a flat bench and pressing the bar off of the chest. "Supine press" or even "horizontal press" I believe would be better, but it doesn't matter at this point, because when someone asks me to teach them how to "bench press", I know what they're asking for.
    What? I don't see the issue you take with this.

    Btw names for things is hardly ever sensical. Usually spur of the moment, though some rules apply. Brevity, for one. No one's going to start calling the bench press the "laying supine on a bench and pressing press" because that would take too long. Same for supine and horizontal press. Bench is a lot shorter and conveys more information in fewer syllables. This is why the squat isn't known as the "hip drive lift", even in our tiny circle on the Internet. But for exercises like the deadlift, which might as well have been named the floor pull, it's mostly just gut feeling and instinct. I guess you could argue that "floor pull" would cause confusion seeing as rows etc can also be pulled from the floor, but then accuracy to the movement is more of an afterthought than a parameter. (Cf more cases in point: press instead of shoulder press, cos leg pressing is gay, pendlay row, romanian deadlift, row, curl vs triceps extension, i.e. sometimes bicep curl, but never bicep flexion or plain extension where the other exercise is concerned, etc).

    It also wouldn't matter to try and change the name because you're never going to get that to work. Even if you start calling it the supine/horizontal press, everyone you know and even don't know is going to ask you to repeat yourself and then say "oh, the bench press?", thus defeating the purpose of renaming the exercise to begin with. Maybe if you get babies to say supine/horizontal press and in so doing change an entire generation's notion of the name of the exercise, but even then they may all still discover the name bench press in older texts or via older lifters and then all of your efforts are rendered pointless.

    But again, what? Why isn't "bench press" a good name for it?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    39,094

    Default

    Probably because it's descriptive of the equipment, not the movement. But it doesn't matter as long as we all understand what the term describes, and we all agree to use the term. Language works like this, as I know you know.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,083

    Default

    I prefer veni vidi vici.

    Other alternatives might include, but not be limited to:

    * lift, eat, sleep
    * Star Wars, Star Trek, Serenity
    * ⊙_⊙, (_), \_(ツ)_/
    * and -- in honor of that scene from The Wire: fuck!, fuck you!, fuck it.

    But always remember: Post coitum omne animal triste est.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Probably because it's descriptive of the equipment, not the movement. But it doesn't matter as long as we all understand what the term describes, and we all agree to use the term. Language works like this, as I know you know.
    Right, but the bench seems to me to be a lift that cannot be performed without the equipment. Otherwise you get a floor press, which again describes the equipment, as you say. But if the movement absolutely requires the equipment, it's hard to argue against the idea that the line becomes blurred to the point where the movement becomes the equipment. Certainly wraps or sleeves or belts aren't as necessary in any other lift as the bench is to the bench press, so saying "bench press implies the use of a bench" seems as silly as saying "we need to find a name for a pressing movement that can only be performed on a flat bench". Neither supine nor horizontal press specifies the lifter's position other than relative to the floor; he or she can be on the floor, on a bed, on a bosu ball, on a chair, or an another lifter.

    Moreover, I think we'd do well to remember that the mention of the lifter's position or use of equipment is implied in its negation in all the other lifts. Because the more specific movements of box squat, seated press, and incline bench press are describing the equipment and not the movement, we infer the lack of this equipment in the squat, the press, and the bench, to an extent. It would be redundant to say the standing (overhead) press when this is the more normal way of lifting, just like it would be ridiculous to say call the squat the unassisted or standing squat. Again I think the lines blur between equipment and movement where the bench is concerned insofar as it is impossible to refer to the lift without using the word "bench", itself having become the convention for an ornament in a gym onto which one sits or lies down. And just as we don't all call it the "flat bench press", normally, so, too, would it be besides the point to wait for a better name to come up or be invented. Or invent it, yourself, in the tradition of the American way.

    Not that it really matters lol

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Language works like this, as I know you know.
    It's amazing how the human brain unpacks the meaning behind language. I used to play games with my kids like:

    Me: what is a bird?
    Kids: an animal that can fly.
    Me: can a penguin fly?
    Kids: no.
    Me: so is it a bird?
    Kids: of course.

    (and then there's the one about an octopus after it looses a leg)

    And they never had a problem dealing with the apparent contradictions.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

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
  •