Yes... "effort" and "work" are roughly interchangeable especially when work can be metabolic and/or physical work.
As I explain in the "Music and Dance" book, "work of a demanding nature" serves as the general preamble to the definition which is then further elaborated by the qualifiers, process, and purpose of the definition.
And yes, it is about growth. "Growth" can be mistaken to be only in terms of size (enlargement), but there are several kinds of growth. They might include greater vascularization, enhanced innervation in several possible ways, enhance metabolism, greater bone density. Many of these possibilities are a kind of growth that are not revealed as increased size.
Time is crucial. Just as in the reciprocity of film and other chemical processes. The human body is a chemistry plant. The exposure must be long enough to effect the stimulus and as brief as possible to avoid insults to the recovery system.
Thanks so much for your questions. Obviously, I require the elaborations I make in my books to delve more deeply into these nuances.
Those explanations are helpful. I need to go back and reread your books but I have a big reading list to work though!
So much of this is about language and a misunderstanding of what we are trying to achieve. I would respectfully suggest that this is a suitable place to publish on exercise if the article, like this one, is predominantly focussed on practice errors arising from definitional misunderstandings. But the article with Gus might well be better housed elsewhere.
One more point on the definition: As I was devising the definition, I had to include concepts like "work" in ways to allow for great latitude of possibility while simultaneously delimiting the overall allowance with the several qualifiers.
I agree. It is nigh impossible to discuss exercise substantively without delving into linguistics. What's more, I see many world problems as language misunderstandings.
In some respects I think exercise is needlessly over complicated, but that is because there is a lack of understanding of the definition. Exercise is simple but what is usually discussed, prescribed and demonstrated is not exercise.
Thank you Ken. Much to digest here, but so far this is my favorite bit. "In the simplest terms for my mental approach to an exercise, I say to myself, “I am here to exhaust this muscle. I am successful IF I temporarily make it incapable of function.” This is the real process."
I learned from this. I liken it to surrendering to the process, which is a struggle when training is typically ego-based. My question is how does one measure progress when depth of fatigue is the goal or is progress needed at all?
As I stated in the article, "Obtaining more muscular strength is the general objective of exercise. And we naturally wish to see this in demonstration as a reinforcement for our effort. This is yet another challenge for the instructor. And the ways to practically and safely demonstrate improvement are varied, personal, and specific to the context of the subject’s life."
Improvement might be shown with dynamic SuperSlow or with FS somewhat objectively with the observation of the curated resistance change over time. However, improvement via TSC must rely on more subjective, experiential factors that I'm alluding to in the previous paragraph. For example, I tell the story of Lenny, the 79-year-old who went from being unable to stand from a seated position to being able to play his beloved game of tennis within 4-5 weeks merely via TSC. Nobody can quantify this, but it is a monumental improvement.
Thanks for this article. I had been waiting for something new from you and this was worth waiting for.
It seems to me that many of your pieces here are just elucidations or clarifications of The Definition. Which is appropriate given that the overall theme of this Substack is linguistic or definitional accuracy and the clarity of terms. However I think there is still scope for further clarity and indeed simplification.
I have a few thoughts that perhaps you could answer here or in another article.
1 Work vs Effort. The blue graphic in the article begins with “Effort”, yet effort is not mentioned in The Definition. “Work” is included. “Work of a demanding nature.” What do you mean by demanding? Something requiring effort perhaps? There is scope for additional clarity here; at least I would not use effort in the graphic as it requires explanation. It should start with Work.
2 The Definition does not involve resistance, so I understand why you object to the idea of PRE. I appreciate the explanation that it may be appropriate for the resistance to reduce not to progress. This is always going to be a conceptual barrier to people - this understanding that work does not imply an externally applied resistance.
3 The Process in the graphic is inroading strength levels. However in The Definition I think “inroading” of strength levels is presented as at least an intermediate objective. It is presented as Do X to achieve Y, where X is “ work of a demanding nature” and Y is “to inroad their strength levels”. So I would see “Work” as the process and “inroading of strength levels” as the objective.
4”to stimulate a growth mechanism “ reads as the ultimate objective or purpose of exercise. Although this is an element that I am yet fully to accept. Is growth absolutely the final purpose of what we are doing in exercise or is it simply strength? Growth may or may not occur, but it is the strengthening of “the muscular structures” that is the aim.
5 “within minimum time” - I am not sure what this adds to the definition. It may affect the quality of the exercise but if the process and objective are achieved then I think the definition would be met without the time element.
6 "inroading their strength levels" you address this or at least observe this in the article but I ponder how we detect inroad without the addition of resistance. e.g. your example of someone standing from a leg press and still being able to walk. It can be done in FS but not in TSC
But overall a very useful and thought-provoking article. Thank you.
Yes... "effort" and "work" are roughly interchangeable especially when work can be metabolic and/or physical work.
As I explain in the "Music and Dance" book, "work of a demanding nature" serves as the general preamble to the definition which is then further elaborated by the qualifiers, process, and purpose of the definition.
And yes, it is about growth. "Growth" can be mistaken to be only in terms of size (enlargement), but there are several kinds of growth. They might include greater vascularization, enhanced innervation in several possible ways, enhance metabolism, greater bone density. Many of these possibilities are a kind of growth that are not revealed as increased size.
Time is crucial. Just as in the reciprocity of film and other chemical processes. The human body is a chemistry plant. The exposure must be long enough to effect the stimulus and as brief as possible to avoid insults to the recovery system.
Thanks so much for your questions. Obviously, I require the elaborations I make in my books to delve more deeply into these nuances.
Thanks Ken.
Those explanations are helpful. I need to go back and reread your books but I have a big reading list to work though!
So much of this is about language and a misunderstanding of what we are trying to achieve. I would respectfully suggest that this is a suitable place to publish on exercise if the article, like this one, is predominantly focussed on practice errors arising from definitional misunderstandings. But the article with Gus might well be better housed elsewhere.
Thanks again.
One more point on the definition: As I was devising the definition, I had to include concepts like "work" in ways to allow for great latitude of possibility while simultaneously delimiting the overall allowance with the several qualifiers.
I agree. It is nigh impossible to discuss exercise substantively without delving into linguistics. What's more, I see many world problems as language misunderstandings.
In some respects I think exercise is needlessly over complicated, but that is because there is a lack of understanding of the definition. Exercise is simple but what is usually discussed, prescribed and demonstrated is not exercise.
Thank you Ken. Much to digest here, but so far this is my favorite bit. "In the simplest terms for my mental approach to an exercise, I say to myself, “I am here to exhaust this muscle. I am successful IF I temporarily make it incapable of function.” This is the real process."
I like this.
I made a comment and deleted it as I need to think this through.
I learned from this. I liken it to surrendering to the process, which is a struggle when training is typically ego-based. My question is how does one measure progress when depth of fatigue is the goal or is progress needed at all?
As I stated in the article, "Obtaining more muscular strength is the general objective of exercise. And we naturally wish to see this in demonstration as a reinforcement for our effort. This is yet another challenge for the instructor. And the ways to practically and safely demonstrate improvement are varied, personal, and specific to the context of the subject’s life."
Improvement might be shown with dynamic SuperSlow or with FS somewhat objectively with the observation of the curated resistance change over time. However, improvement via TSC must rely on more subjective, experiential factors that I'm alluding to in the previous paragraph. For example, I tell the story of Lenny, the 79-year-old who went from being unable to stand from a seated position to being able to play his beloved game of tennis within 4-5 weeks merely via TSC. Nobody can quantify this, but it is a monumental improvement.
Ken
Thanks for this article. I had been waiting for something new from you and this was worth waiting for.
It seems to me that many of your pieces here are just elucidations or clarifications of The Definition. Which is appropriate given that the overall theme of this Substack is linguistic or definitional accuracy and the clarity of terms. However I think there is still scope for further clarity and indeed simplification.
I have a few thoughts that perhaps you could answer here or in another article.
1 Work vs Effort. The blue graphic in the article begins with “Effort”, yet effort is not mentioned in The Definition. “Work” is included. “Work of a demanding nature.” What do you mean by demanding? Something requiring effort perhaps? There is scope for additional clarity here; at least I would not use effort in the graphic as it requires explanation. It should start with Work.
2 The Definition does not involve resistance, so I understand why you object to the idea of PRE. I appreciate the explanation that it may be appropriate for the resistance to reduce not to progress. This is always going to be a conceptual barrier to people - this understanding that work does not imply an externally applied resistance.
3 The Process in the graphic is inroading strength levels. However in The Definition I think “inroading” of strength levels is presented as at least an intermediate objective. It is presented as Do X to achieve Y, where X is “ work of a demanding nature” and Y is “to inroad their strength levels”. So I would see “Work” as the process and “inroading of strength levels” as the objective.
4”to stimulate a growth mechanism “ reads as the ultimate objective or purpose of exercise. Although this is an element that I am yet fully to accept. Is growth absolutely the final purpose of what we are doing in exercise or is it simply strength? Growth may or may not occur, but it is the strengthening of “the muscular structures” that is the aim.
5 “within minimum time” - I am not sure what this adds to the definition. It may affect the quality of the exercise but if the process and objective are achieved then I think the definition would be met without the time element.
6 "inroading their strength levels" you address this or at least observe this in the article but I ponder how we detect inroad without the addition of resistance. e.g. your example of someone standing from a leg press and still being able to walk. It can be done in FS but not in TSC
But overall a very useful and thought-provoking article. Thank you.
Good points well made.