"Balance" of physiological adaptations "Balance" of physiological adaptations - Page 3

starting strength gym
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 52

Thread: "Balance" of physiological adaptations

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    43

    Default

    • phoenix arizona seminar date
    • texas seminar date
    mistake being made by the OP
    How so?

    My question is where and why are the diminishing returns of one physiological adaptation with respect to another.

    I don't think I've denied that attaining those adaptations requires us to obey the nature of reality as in reality is made up such that lifting weights makes us stronger but I want to become stronger by defying that state of affairs ...

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    43

    Default

    I'm no expert and everything I've written to you is just what I came up with after thinking about it.
    Humour me this, isn't it theoretically optimal for a marathon runner to be at the strength level where his force production potential/force required to move bodyweight, is at its max? I would think Hell No, it just feels wrong for a marathoner to be that big... Maybe such a strength level somehow messes with muscle and liver glycogen level maximization or something.

    Obviously the perfect algorithm for finding out optimal levels of everything, is hard to extract, but knowing what factors exist seems like a good start.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamanderson View Post
    How so?

    My question is where and why are the diminishing returns of one physiological adaptation with respect to another.

    I don't think I've denied that attaining those adaptations requires us to obey the nature of reality as in reality is made up such that lifting weights makes us stronger but I want to become stronger by defying that state of affairs ...
    Because we aren't dealing with a pure machine, but a specific entity, with a specific identity and of a specific nature. Our adaption to the environment is only partially physiological, but mostly through the mechanism of adapting our environment through use of our mind. In effect you are questioning an axiomatic fact.

    The physiological component has already been answered as an observer fact there is a law of diminishing returns on strength. This is the science.

    We are using our minds to figure out how to make us stronger than we would normally be for whatever activity we are performing, but the nature of our physiology is finite, if it were not, then nothing in the universe would have any identity and therefore there could be no existence. We cannot get infinitely stronger. This is the philosophical component.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nockian View Post
    Because we aren't dealing with a pure machine, but a specific entity, with a specific identity and of a specific nature. Our adaption to the environment is only partially physiological, but mostly through the mechanism of adapting our environment through use of our mind. In effect you are questioning an axiomatic fact.

    The physiological component has already been answered as an observer fact there is a law of diminishing returns on strength. This is the science.

    We are using our minds to figure out how to make us stronger than we would normally be for whatever activity we are performing, but the nature of our physiology is finite, if it were not, then nothing in the universe would have any identity and therefore there could be no existence. We cannot get infinitely stronger. This is the philosophical component.
    What is this pretentious bullshit that has nothing to do with OP's question?

    He is not questioning an "axiomatic fact" because no such axiom exists. Stop separating physiology and your "mind". It's the same fucking thing. Physiology includes the brain, humans are animals, and we are all just biological machines that take inputs and produce some output.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    43

    Default

    the nature of our physiology is finite, if it were not, then nothing in the universe would have any identity and therefore there could be no existence. We cannot get infinitely stronger.
    I never denied that.

    Nockian,

    The human body has elements that can be quantified. I base my question upon that assumption. Not sure how that conflicts with the Law of Identity, because I never said that we can get infinitely strong, infinitely fast, or infinitely giraffe or fish or tree.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moargainz View Post
    What is this pretentious bullshit that has nothing to do with OP's question?

    He is not questioning an "axiomatic fact" because no such axiom exists. Stop separating physiology and your "mind". It's the same fucking thing. Physiology includes the brain, humans are animals, and we are all just biological machines that take inputs and produce some output.
    Incorrect.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamanderson View Post
    I never denied that.

    Nockian,

    The human body has elements that can be quantified. I base my question upon that assumption. Not sure how that conflicts with the Law of Identity, because I never said that we can get infinitely strong, infinitely fast, or infinitely giraffe or fish or tree.
    So what exactly are you saying here:

    "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.

    So although I get the point of maximizing the ratio between your force production ability and the force of gravity on your bodyweight .. it just seems as if that ratio always improves, as long as you keep adding muscle WITHOUT adding fat. I believe you when you say that there is indeed a point, I just don't really see how that's possible."

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    43

    Default

    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.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    69

    Default

    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.


    Climbing leverages the body's weight against a point somewhere in front of the center of mass. An increase in body weight will necessitate a proportionally greater increase in force. Also, contractile force of the muscle is proportional to the area of the muscle, while weight is proportional to the volume (scaling laws); You will gain proportionally more mass than you will strength as your body weight increases, even if you were theoretically somehow able to only gain contractile muscle weight.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Not sure if my addition went through or not, so here it is again.

    ...but, training will also make you stronger by causing neurological adaptations. The increase in strength from neurological adaptation does not necessitate an increase in muscle mass. When you have reached the point where gaining strength requires more mass and muscle growth than neurological adaptation, you have reached the asymptotic limit. It is even possible to quantify this mathematically, though I will not do it here.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •