Other/Mixed Physiological Adaptation Continuum

[Snowman]

1. Increase capilary density
2. Increase connective tissue density
3. Increase motor unit recruitment
4. Increase heart stroke volume
5. Increase heart stroke pressure
6. Reduce lactate buildup
7. Increase lactate throughput
8. Increase lactate resistance
9. Increase mitochondrial density
10. Increase muscle cell volume

I like this list, not so much as a guide for progression, but more as a guide for selection. If I want a comprehensive training program, (i.e. GPP), I just have to make sure whatever I'm doing covers all the bases.

I could start with low-intensity jogging. That takes care of 1, 2 (but only in the feet and lower legs), 4, 6, and 9.
I'm left with 2 (for the rest of the body), 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10 (although #10 may not be desired).
If #10 isn't desired, then high intensity/low volume resistance training will take care of 2, 3, and 5, and doing a few appropriately programmed HIIT/HIRT sessions would take care of 7 and 8.
If I do want hypertrophy, I could adjust the resistance training to increase volume, increase set duration, and decrease intensity. This would give me 2, 3 (to a lesser degree), 5 (to a greater degree), 7, 8, and 10.

If I wanted to start with A+A, that would cover 1 (not as well as LED work), 2, 3 4, 5 (not very much, though), 6, 9 (also not as well as LED work), and possibly 10 (depending on total training volume).
That leaves me with 7 and 8 that aren't really covered much at all, and 1, 5, and 9 that are perhaps being under-stimulated. Appropriately programed HIIT/HIRT sessions would take care of 7 and 8, as well as hitting 5 and 10 from another angle. Some LED work would bring up 1 and 9, if I wanted that.

If I start with HIIT as my base, I could potentially get some adaptation in every category (depending on what kind of HIIT I used), but I would have to use supplemental programs if I really wanted to develop specific traits effectively. For instance, HIIT+LED, HIIT+PTTP, etc.

I guess I'm saying that you could use this as a checklist to make sure that, whatever your combination of training methodologies, you're still hitting all the adaptations that you want to. You can also see where your training stimuli are overlapping, and make sure that it's in a way that is useful.

That still doesn't do much to answer your question about the continuum, though, but I'm not sure it needs to. You can develop different combinations of traits with different programs, so doesn't it all come down to goals?

 

[offwidth]

so doesn't it all come down to goals?

Always...

 

[Deleted member 5559]

I imagine regardless of goal, almost all of these traits improve the goal to some extent. However, I feel that working on the ends of the spectrum help the middle more than working in the middle helps the ends.

When we moved into our house, I wanted to plant fruit trees right away with our first year of labor because they would take a few years before we could reap the sewn fruits. In contrast, the garden is only a few months and could wait for year two.

I think of these physiological traits as the reaped fruits of our training labor and to prioritize them in a way similar to the garden analogy. Then, depending on the goal, one would select the traits needed and at least have the priority for their labor or the ratio of it. I prefer 3 days of LED for every 1 day of tempo or intervals for example.

Both a sprinter and middle distance runner need aerobic capacity, speed, power, strength, energy volume, etc. However, the ratios os those traits are different and if I were to train one of those traits once for every four times the other were, I would want that one time to be really effective simply because I couldn't make up for it with increased frequency.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Can different training styles be ranked according to their effectiveness at creating these adaptations?

Also do the adaptations need to come in a specific order similar to periodization of hypertrophy, strength, power to create muscle, make it strong, then make it fast?

I think you can definitely rank certain strategies based on how well they trigger certain responses. There will be carry over and some debate, but in general there are proven strategies.

IDK if a specific order or periodizing needs to be done in every case. You need to have priority adaptive responses and then there are supportive methods that maybe are not as important to the goal(s). If preparing an athlete there are pretty well proven progressions you can fall back on depending on the sport.

For GPP you'd still have to define some examples of activities/traits you want to crush.

 

[Deleted member 5559]

I came across this visualization today and was hoping to get some sciencey help (@mprevost @kennycro@@aol.com ?) understanding what it is representing and what that might mean to training. Does it imply that hypertrophy plays a bigger long-term role in strength gains? Does it imply that at some point, strength hits a limit that only PED can overcome?

 

[IonRod]

Hm, it looks like a broad and a little clumsy visualization on the challenges with trials in fitness industry - they are quite short (rarely longer than 3 months) and many enroll novice or early intermediate lifters. Such studies have an obvious bias where they will show short term effects that are muddled by combination of different adaptation factors that go away after those initial several months of training. Resutls of such studies are often extrapolated on strength trainees who have had those adaptations already. This is not however the case, there are a lot of good studies conducted, but they are rarely sexy and groundbreaking, so they don't become the latest fad.

 

[wespom9]

Hard to say what it means without context, but seems like it is showing that most studies aren't long enough to determine the benefit of said paradigm being studied

 

[mprevost]

It is not a bad graphic. It shows that the early strength gains are due mostly to neural adaptation. After a few weeks, most of the increased strength is due to hypertrophy, with neural adaptation accounting for only a very small amount. Hypertrophy tends to plateau after a time, but the plateau can be overcome with steriods. It fits both scientific and actual real life observations.

 

[Anna C]

I agree with @IonRod and @wespom9, that most studies use subjects who are novices and are therefore of limited use to serious trainees.

That's one reason I'll probably never pay attention to kettlebell studies -- 90% of the kettlebell swings I see at the gym aren't what I would call "effective", therefore what good would a study on them do?

And also what you said @Bro Mo :

• imply that hypertrophy plays a bigger long-term role in strength gains
• imply that at some point, strength hits a limit that only PED can overcome

Now whether all these things are true or how accurately each is depicted in the chart is debatable, but they seem like reasonable premises.