"Balance" of physiological adaptations

[Yngvi]

Producing more force requires more energy (linear relationship) -> More energy requires larger reserves, faster metabolism or greater aerobic capacity. -> Larger reserves increase weight (requires more force [linear relationship], so it is not an efficient solution for more than short periods of time). Speed of metabolism is dependent on aerobic capacity. Physiological limit of aerobic capacity is limited by surface area of lungs available for oxygen exchange (there are other factors, but surface area available for gas exchange is the most dominant factor; enough so, that we can consider the other factors as negligible when approaching an asymptotic limit)

Aerobic capacity is the limiting factor for endurance sports and it is not trainable to the same extent that strength is. A doubling of strength can be achieved by most people, but a doubling of VO2 max may be impossible.

I should have organized this better rather than just starting to type. I realize I did not fully address why a small increase in weight along with strength would make an endurance athlete better and where the limit lies.

A stronger/ slightly heavier endurance athlete who has trained will:

1. have stronger, more rigid joints on impact (also aided by the fact that it is a more submaximal effort), and thus have more efficient for transmission from the body to the external load.

2.have a greater anaerobic capacity within existing muscle and the new muscle they have gained. Anearobic capacity acts as a buffer for aerobic capacity in endurance sport

3. Neurological fatigue will occur more slowly in an endurance athlete who has strength trained

The intersection would be when the above three factors no longer produce enough increased performance to match the increased energy expenditure due to higher mass and higher force generation capability. If you are willing to spend enough time collecting data on a compliant athlete, it would also be possible to generate a remarkably accurate, quantifiable assessment for that individual athlete.

[zft]

Incorrect.

What "axiomatic fact" were you referring to exactly?

[Nockian]

Nockian,

"Muscle is that which moves weight. One would think that the more muscle you gain (assuming you don't gain fat), and the higher the percentage of your bodyweight that is muscle mass, the stronger you would be in relation to your bodyweight." ...... where is the assumption about the possibility of getting infinitely strong?

"it just seems as if that ratio always improves, as long as you keep adding muscle WITHOUT adding fat." .... "as long as" =/= infinity. Even if one could keep adding strength without adding fat, if you thought that I was talking about linear strength gains from the day of starting a training program until death, then I can't help you.

If you actually thought that my question was "how do I get infinitely strong", then you're kinda stoopid.

Which is why I asked you to clarify. I don't have anything more to add.

[Yngvi]

Realized I failed to adequately explain one more piece of the puzzle that may not have been obvious to everyone. As per my other post, scaling laws mean strength increases in proportion to cross sectional area (^2) and weight increases in proportion to volume (^3). If you realize the previous statement is true, you may conclude all muscle increase is a negative if isolated as a single variable. However, you must remember the painfully obvious fact that the human body is ~30 percent skeletal muscle mass (much less if you only include conctractile muscle filament); Weight gain from muscle mass will increase your relative amount of contractile tissue compared to total bodyweight. Hence, a gain of muscle weight relative to total body weight will correspondingly increase the amount of force production relative to total bodyweight.

If a 200lb male gains 20lb of muscle, his relative amount of force generating tissue is now ~36% (a 20% increase) while his bodyweight has only increased by 10%

That needs to be accounted for in the mathematical modeling of the intersectional limit or 'physiological balance' when analyzing the ideal weight of a specialized athlete, like an endurance athlete or climber. In fact, it may be the dominant factor for many athletes; I have not actually collected the data or run the mathematical models.

[adamanderson]

The intersection would be when the above three factors no longer produce enough increased performance to match the increased energy expenditure due to higher mass and higher force generation capability.

This was perfect, thank you. It jives well with what others have said here as well as in other threads. Jordan Feigenbaum said virtually the exact same thing, only he summed those factors up with "increased force production". I mean it's pretty much what I had concluded by now; the point of diminishing returns being the one at which the demands on the new strength/bodyweight exceed the benefits of the new strength/bodyweight... I guess my actual question is thus answered. Common sense told me that there must be a point of diminishing returns, but I felt compelled to know what precisely the cause for that point, the "counterbalance" to the benefits, was. So thanks again.

If you are willing to spend enough time collecting data on a compliant athlete, it would also be possible to generate a remarkably accurate, quantifiable assessment for that individual athlete.

I'm not, but yeah it would be possible.

Out of curiosity, what do you think should be the approach to determinining the correct "balance" for practitioners of sports with extremely significant skill/practice components? Something like MMA, for instance. It seems like weight classes would also complicate things a bit. A short strong guy would have certain advantages, while his taller, rangier opponent would have others. Obviously their styles would determine their training and their innate strengths would likely have determined their styles from the beginning. But like, a more "cardio" based fighter might be able to weather the storm and put on a pace in the later rounds, while it'd be the opposite for the stocky fighter. At the same time, the stocky fighter might easily be able to go 25min if he uses his limited energy sparingly. A short strong guy is "naturally smaller" than his less muscular, taller opponent i.e. he has smaller bones, hands, skull and whatnot, so he might, in addition to his (possibly) compromised endurance, be less durable with respect to damage from strikes .... etc

[adamanderson]

Yeah, I mentioned before how the strength/gravity on bodyweight, wouldn't increase as one became bigger and stronger, since the more muscle one gains, the higher the percentage of one's bodyweight that produces force. So yes, that'd be a factor in any such calculation.

I guess the formula would seek to find the optimal work output/distance ... which would have to consider the upper limit of the function of the Strength function - Energy demand function ... and that added to aerobic capacity in terms of the right variables, to find the upper limit of work output/distance ... or some shit.

[Nockian]

What "axiomatic fact" were you referring to exactly?

Existence and consciousness. Doesn't matter now, OP has clarified the post.

[Nockian]

Out of curiosity, what do you think should be the approach to determinining the correct "balance" for practitioners of sports with extremely significant skill/practice components? Something like MMA, for instance. It seems like weight classes would also complicate things a bit. A short strong guy would have certain advantages, while his taller, rangier opponent would have others. Obviously their styles would determine their training and their innate strengths would likely have determined their styles from the beginning. But like, a more "cardio" based fighter might be able to weather the storm and put on a pace in the later rounds, while it'd be the opposite for the stocky fighter. At the same time, the stocky fighter might easily be able to go 25min if he uses his limited energy sparingly. A short strong guy is "naturally smaller" than his less muscular, taller opponent i.e. he has smaller bones, hands, skull and whatnot, so he might, in addition to his (possibly) compromised endurance, be less durable with respect to damage from strikes .... etc

Rips covered this in a number of podcasts. Recent one posted "mind of the warrior".

[Yngvi]

Out of curiosity, what do you think should be the approach to determinining the correct "balance" for practitioners of sports with extremely significant skill/practice components? Something like MMA, for instance. It seems like weight classes would also complicate things a bit. A short strong guy would have certain advantages, while his taller, rangier opponent would have others. Obviously their styles would determine their training and their innate strengths would likely have determined their styles from the beginning. But like, a more "cardio" based fighter might be able to weather the storm and put on a pace in the later rounds, while it'd be the opposite for the stocky fighter. At the same time, the stocky fighter might easily be able to go 25min if he uses his limited energy sparingly. A short strong guy is "naturally smaller" than his less muscular, taller opponent i.e. he has smaller bones, hands, skull and whatnot, so he might, in addition to his (possibly) compromised endurance, be less durable with respect to damage from strikes .... etc

I have not trained any MMA fighters, or fought MMA myself, so this is all speculative: My firm belief is that most fighters would benefit from getting as strong as possible while staying in their weight classes. A super heavy weight may come up against the limits if they are shorter than 6'5" (for example, some smaller framed, 6' even fighters with poor natural aerobic capacity might hit their limit around 250lbs). We have seen fighters like Butter Bean who have had no aerobic capacity limitations in fights at over 400lbs. I don't know if the guy lifted heavy, but at 400lbs and 5'11" (I think 425lbs - 450lbs was his maximum bodyweight), he had huge amounts of muscle and explosiveness regardless of his body composition. It is possible he has great lungs, but he most likely knew how to use his power at the right times and moved to the right places at the right speed at the right time; A fighter does not need to throw 100% effort punches while hopping around at 100% intensity like a jackrabbit for 3 to 5 minutes straight (like what Pudzianowski tried early in his career at about 315lbs). A stronger fighter can choose to throw punches at 70% if they will probably be deflected or their is no opening, but a weaker fighter cannot choose to throw at ~150% when they need to. A faster fighter can choose to move more slowly when fast doesn't produce any extra benefit, but a slower fighter cannot choose to move at speed they are too weak to generate, even if they need to. A stronger fighter can choose to hold a grapple with submaximal effort until they see an opening to display their strength, but a weak fighter may be expending 90% - 100% strength to hold a grapple, so they have no extra force to display when there is an opportunity.

The guys at 6'5" + may not hit their limit until well into the 400lb range, if at all. I believe tall guys with the aerobic capacity of strongmen like Brian Shaw (400 - 450lbs) and Hapthor Bjornsson(400 - 450lbs), would experience no limitations in a fight if their technique was good and they did not try to go at 100% intensity for the whole fight.

Yeah, I mentioned before how the strength/gravity on bodyweight, wouldn't increase as one became bigger and stronger, since the more muscle one gains, the higher the percentage of one's bodyweight that produces force. So yes, that'd be a factor in any such calculation.

I guess the formula would seek to find the optimal work output/distance ... which would have to consider the upper limit of the function of the Strength function - Energy demand function ... and that added to aerobic capacity in terms of the right variables, to find the upper limit of work output/distance ... or some shit.

Yes, you should be able to break it down into at maximum, a 4 variable equation and obtain the numbers needed to calculate the limits. Or you could simplify it even further down to 0-2 variables if you are using heuristics.

[adamanderson]

My firm belief is that most fighters would benefit from getting as strong as possible while staying in their weight classes.

To be direct; why is that? What if the fighter's strength is mediocre for his weight class and he's already barely making weight (perhaps he's very tall for the weight class)? Shouldn't he move up a division? To be clear, when you say 'limits', you are referring to the point at which strength/bodyweight starts decreasing?

I mean, a 6' guy at 250lbs who's ridiculously strong might come across a 6'7" boxing specialist, who is weaker, yes, but who might have 6" of reach on him per arm, who might have excellent endurance and who is explosive enough to knock anyone out in any round (look at Wilder: 6'7", 209lbs walking into the ring, the most devastating KO puncher in heavyweight boxing. NOT saying he should stay that light) ... I get the math, for sure, but it seems simplistic in that e.g. there are guys who are very unexplosive, skinny-fat, and who will still throw at ca 50%, but maintain such a pace and punch volume that they manage to 'drown' their opponents in the later rounds (Nick Diaz). Also, yes strength matters, it always matters. Force x lever length = grappling moves. The skills are designed to maximize those (as many force vectors pointing in the same direction as possible i.e. different muscles producing force and gravitational force on bodyweight as well + correct grip placement) variables, and is such an astronomical part of grappling that to reason that a weaker fighter can't afford to expend less than 90% of force production potential on a grip, is incorrect... again, I do get the math and, mathematically, it's undeniable, but I think that the variables are so numerous that more careful analysis is required.

So my question regarding your statement about weight classes, like, of course we can find out which weight class is theoretically optimal, I'm simply thinking that the amount of variables is so copious that it becomes kinda hard.

Butter Bean who have had no aerobic capacity limitations in fights at over 400lbs

To be petty, Butterbean wasn't known as the '4 Round King' for no reason. Obviously not saying that fat and or strong = can't go the distance, I'm just reminiscing, he was fun to watch.