The training process must include a critical and determined degree of fatigue, followed by an appropriate duration to which Reserve Strength may be elicited. This is where scientific wisdom falters and practical experience establishes means to which context may be derived. Super compensation may be accelerated or hindered, and often times athletes neglect to fully understand the management of such, let alone a corresponding application of these critical elements to which training relies. Depending upon the sport and individual, a direct or derivative expression of force, tension, and/or speed must be implemented. Each unique facet may be appropriately intertwined into the network of expedited precision of human performance enhancement. Accelerating super compensation while applying beneficial prescriptions as deteriorating products and by-products are avoided, implementing the proper stimulus with complete precision in terms of volume, investigating Singular-Residual and Complex-Residual phenomena, integrating capacity of work scales and frequency modulation patterns, and incorporating the sum of gathering data will clarify scientific contradiction, explain failure of improvement, and will expedite results to the utmost of human adaptability rate.
There is dependence upon which segment of performance is trained with the application of residual fatigue management. In Auto regulatory Training Part 1, strategies were introduced as to how the management of fatigue and adaptation may be regarded for an athlete dealing with load, sets, and reps. There are many extrapolations to this phenomena, but in focusing solely on the strength athlete we may direct attention to important topics. Residual training effects must be monitored under singular and complex formats and later calculated into the drop off margin. Especially as an athlete progresses to higher levels of competition, precision must be carefully implemented to all aspects of the training process.
The residual fatigue under the singular emphasis is typically 2-3%. This means that a drop off margin of 6% really represents about an 8.5% drop off. More specifically, when calculating drop off margins it is important to produce three expressions for each localized group of motor units. The first is a direct prediction, explained in the previous article. Secondly, the estimation of singular residual fatigue should be tabulated. This is done by recognizing your individual fatigue rate through practical experience of specified brackets of work or by by using the generic value of 2.5%. The accuracy of the singular residual fatigue sum tabulation takes experience to implement properly but is the precision to which an advanced athlete must regard fatigue and frequency working relationships.
Direct fatigue and singular residual fatigue are important, but one must also monitor complex residual fatigue. Direct and singular residual fatigue both represent the degree (magnitude) of the training influence for a specified group of motor units. Complex residual fatigue is the ability to project drop off margins from a composite group of motor units to a more localized sector of neuromuscular constituents. In the bench press the pectorals, deltoids, and triceps are obviously subject to a training effect. However, when a 6% drop off is realized in a multi-joint movement such as this then the registration value of each local group of motor units (muscle groups) is unknown precisely. In theory, it could be all or none. For instance, a 6% drop off in the bench press could be the result of a 6% loss in function of the triceps with 0% deterioration values for the pectorals and deltoids. Ongoing scientific studies, as well as a logical analysis, prove this theory to be a high rarity, but understanding the availability of such is important information. This X-Factor of direct and singular residual fatigue for a localized group of motor units, resulting from one to multiple movements of single joint and/or multiple joint combinations, promotes a few important extrapolations. The debate from contradicting scientific literature regarding single joint versus multiple joint movements is one arena that a full understanding and implementation of the localized drop off margin tabulation will clarify misunderstanding. If one applies synonymous degrees of training influence, residual and direct, for single or multiple joint actions than the end product will also be similar, assuming that a commensurate frequency scale is equal among other factors. Motor units adapt to the degree to which they are stimulated regardless of how many joint axis are involved. Another important note resulting from residual fatigue understanding is that a localized drop off margin must be established in order to systematically integrate a frequency scale.
Misinformation is common to circulate in deeper investigations of the training effect, especially as immediate neuromuscular manipulation is implemented. One such case involves the successive set routine of agonist and antagonist pairing. In saving time by not addressing all the irrational theory's available, the factual information regarding this type of working regime on the human organism is multi-faceted. Antagonist inhibition will decrease as a result of fatigue to those working motor units that reciprocate the agonist action. This is an important finding for several reasons. The capacity of work attainable for an equal magnitude of fatigue compared to otherwise natural circumstances, with pinnacle or prime method administration, will be greater with a successive set routine of reciprocal movement actions. As this capacity of work is elevated through neuromuscular manipulation it is important to distinguish the difference between such circumstances and the Natural Fatigue scale. The degree of stimulus may appear to be identical if one analyzes merely the drop off margin, but the ability to generate increased volumes of work is substantially adequate to understand that there is more than one fatigue scale available for management and manipulation in training. One must address these factors in training to ensure accuracy in fatigue and frequency association models, with the advanced athlete it is one area where increases concentration should reside.
The degree to which compensation raises above initial is proportionate to the degree to which fatigue is administered. If an appropriate frequency scale is utilized in accordance to a thorough evaluation of all training effects stimulated then the equivocal value of fatigue can and will be present in a super compensatory degree. Specifically, a 6% drop off from initial in training should yield a 6% elevation from initial the very next training session. However, adaptability rate and tolerance to intricate magnitudes of stimulus is an oscillatory function of the neuromuscular apparatus and should not be perceived as stable. It is the margin of error (oscillatory driven) in determining the exact adaptability rate of a specific individual in a specific training session that eludes perfect implementation of developing a reciprocating value of Reserve Strength, compared to the magnitude of fatigue stimulation. Nevertheless, if one is falling well below this reciprocating reserve value then the fatigue and frequency relationship is inappropriate for that athlete at that given time in training. A margin of error is expected but anything exceeding 1.5% is considered extreme fallacy.
Accelerating super compensation is critical to off set the determent of time. Aside from substances that are banned in international competition, there are many ways to promote reserve strength development. These range from psychological to physiological, and complexity of administration matches the training process for serious athletes. Only 30% of a coach's concentration should be on training, the remaining majority is spent to raise performance. Simply stated, if you are spending more than a third of your strategic efforts towards developing fatigue implementation (decrease performance) for a training session then your hindrance is due to a lack of addressing the performance raising capabilities outside of training (supercompensatory effects). Chronologically speaking, there should be only 2.14% spent on training with the other 97.86% working on super compensation. This topic of accelerating adaptation is the topic of a future article.