# Arthur Jones speaks on sports specificity.



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 28, 2005)

Arthur Jones has always been one of my favorite authors, not so much for content (although I admire him in his simplification of complex points), but for the fact that I think his writing is hilarious beyond belief.

This article was taken from the Arthur Jones Collection (pages listed on the images).  Each image is relatively large, so it's best to download all six and read them with an image editor on the computer.  If you are lacking time, I really like page 3 and page 4, pretty funny read.

Arthur Jones: Page 1
Arthur Jones: Page 2 
Arthur Jones: Page 3 
Arthur Jones: Page 4 
Arthur Jones: Page 5 
Arthur Jones: Page 6


----------



## P-funk (Apr 28, 2005)

cool post. 

I have a bunch of Dr. Ken Leistner articles if anyone is interested also.

DD, have you ever heard of Dr. Ken?


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 28, 2005)

Yes, I've heard of him, and I've read a few things he's written.  Post away, I'd love to read them.


----------



## P-funk (Apr 28, 2005)

he writes a lot for milo strength training journal (don't know if you have ever read that from ironmind.com.). He trains a number of pro football players at his home in Long Island, as well as World Strongman competitors (and is frequently asked to be one of the judges for the contests), powerlifters, NHL players, etc....



> Asking Dr. Ken - Issue #33
> by Dr. Ken E. Leistner
> 
> Rep ranges
> ...





> Asking Dr. Ken - Issue #36
> by Dr. Ken E. Leistner
> 
> Olympic lifting
> ...





> Asking Dr. Ken - Issue #41
> by Dr. Ken E. Leistner
> 
> 
> ...





> UNIQUE TRAINING TIPS FROM DR. KEN
> By Steve Baldwin
> 
> In 1974 IronMan Magazine published an article by a young Ken Leistner detailing the strength training programs that his football trainees were using. The article emphasized high repetition squats and hard work on a relatively brief program. This type of training appealed to me. I always felt a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment upon completing a high rep set of squats or deadlifts. After a hard high rep set of hip and thigh work my workouts had to be brief and relatively infrequent. Training in this manner (especially when one trains alone) the trainee has to be extremely motivated. Through the years Dr. Ken's articles and unique ideas helped to inspire me to maintain this difficult regimen of training.
> ...


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 28, 2005)

excellent


----------



## shiznit2169 (Apr 28, 2005)

pretty good stuff


----------



## soxmuscle (Apr 28, 2005)

I love reading pieces by Arthur Jones.  He's excellent.  Also P, those are some good reads, thanks aswell.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 29, 2005)

These articles at least give me an idea of where you are coming from DD.  I still don't agree with it, I feel Jones doesn't give the human brain enough credit, one can discern between practice and game conditions, that is basic Cognitive Science/Sport Psychology.  If the engrams the brain make were in and of themselves exclusive of all else these ideas would hold water.  Problem is, they are not.

Is this the same Arthur Jones who invented Nautilus machines.

Here is another Jones reference for anyone who cares to read...

http://www.21minutefitness.com/docs/arthurjones.pdf


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 29, 2005)

I have to say that, although I typically (albet not always) agree with much of Jones concepts, it's the way he expresses them that attracks me.  I purchased "The Arthur Jones Collection", which is in two volumes roughly 1600 pages long, and the books (including his very interesting biography) are gut busting.  A lot of it deals with having sex with Mexican hookers and other topics of humor.

I'd like to say though that I recently came across this (about a week ago when I bought the book) and it certainly isn't the foundation of my beliefs, but right or wrong, I admire Jones' ability to speak in simplified terms.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 29, 2005)

I admire that he is steadfast in his ideals, and I like th fact that he goes against the grain.  I also agree with meany of the tennets of HIT.


----------



## P-funk (Apr 29, 2005)

yea, that is the arthur jones that developed nautilus


----------



## shiznit2169 (Apr 29, 2005)

DD who is arthur jones and what does he write books about?

What is it that attracts you to read his books?

I may consider reading some if you can influence me enough to buy one


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 29, 2005)

Arthur Jones is certifiably a genius, the creator of Nautilus Sports Equiptment and MedX Spine Care Technology.  He was the great ooponent of Weider and those of his ilk back in the 1970s.  In English class this morning (a class that I pass quite easily so have little need to pay attention to) I read an article that called Fred Hatfield and Weider liars in ways I am not clever enough to invent; over the span of several pages, citing dozens of incidents and ridiculing them to the point of tears.

The tears were mine, from laughing so hard, because I've long hated Hatfield and never cared for Weider.

He wrote for Ironman for years, contributed hundreds of articles referencing HIT and physiology.  He is not currently an author.  From an engineering standpoint, his work is absolutely phenomenon.  This could well be demonstrated to the satisfaction of an "average rabbit." 

"I may consider reading some if you can influence me enough to buy one"

I have no reason to try and influence anyone to buy something he's published.  In fact, the Arthur Jones Collection is a set of works published by a non-profit group that Mr. Jones reaps nothing in the benefit of.  This is probably because he is rich beyond belief.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Apr 29, 2005)

> Arthur Jones is certifiably a genius, the creator of Nautilus Sports Equiptment and MedX Spine Care Technology. He was the great ooponent of Weider and those of his ilk back in the 1970s. In English class this morning (a class that I pass quite easily so have little need to pay attention to) I read an article that called Fred Hatfield and Weider liars in ways I am not clever enough to invent; over the span of several pages, citing dozens of incidents and ridiculing them to the point of tears.
> 
> The tears were mine, from laughing so hard, because I've long hated Hatfield and never cared for Weider.
> 
> ...



wow what a great response. No wonder where you got your intelligence from. I wish i was a pure genious. I want to read some of his books so can you list some you would recommend? Does he have a site?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 29, 2005)

There is one principle from the article that I do not get.  How is strength general ie., how is a movement pattern performed for strength coded any differently than a movement on the field of play.  How is a flat bench press not similar to pushing a 300lbs lineman around?


----------



## maniclion (Apr 29, 2005)

I remember reading about him before, he had some good theories and some off theories.  He also loved animals and had almost 100 elephants at one time.  He also liked to fly planes and smoked cigarrettes constantly while swigging down gallons of coffee.  I love extreme people like that.


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Apr 29, 2005)

*



			Specificity in strength training is an outright myth, an utter impossibility...
		
Click to expand...

*


> and it is a good thing it is impossible, because it has absolutely no value in the way of increasing strength; and...anything
> approaching spcificity is even worse, because it will do little or nothing to increase strength but it will hurt your skills.
> 
> You must move suddenly, they say...fast exercise produces fast muscles, they claim.  *Hogwash...pure unadulterated garbage, utterly false and dangerously misleading information.*
> ...


 I love the sig.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 29, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> There is one principle from the article that I do not get.  How is strength general ie., how is a movement pattern performed for strength coded any differently than a movement on the field of play.  How is a flat bench press not similar to pushing a 300lbs lineman around?



The explanation is related to neurological specificity, reasoning that has been debated between us before, so there's no real need to rehash the details.

Generally speaking, for example, I know people who can bench press 500 pounds on a bench press but can't do as much as I can on a flye or with dumbells (despite performing them as much as me).  A great deal of this has to do with the idea of attunement; that is, once an exercise has been affectively learned by the body to a point that the system uses less muscle to perform the same amount of work (aka homeostasis - this would be related to firing patterns and rate-coding, leverage, and blah blah) the actual exercise being performed (such as a bench press) does not induce any further sarcomere or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (that is an increase in general strength via increased cross section) - again, biologically speaking i believe that once at a certain point excess muscle is not a benefit to the body, so inducing hypertrophy over neurological conditioning (which is what makes much more sense for the body to do) requires a very dramatic, unusual, alarming stimulus for the body to encounter. 

In any case, once the exercise becomes common-practice and thus less demanding to the body, improvement fades away from general and becomes more finely tuned (a skill) via neurological programming and consious and subconsious changes.

The explanation is fundamentally much more complex than this, and I happen to believe in it as I've seen guys in the weight room bench press ridiculous amounts of weight who simply can't hold their own on the football field.  It's a theory that I've been actively involved in, though, and I've seen some fantastic affects with involving the understanding of these concepts into my workouts (and other peoples workouts).

Also, it explains why some powerlifters can move such huge amounts of weight while remaining in a lower weight-class, and be relatively weak (relatively regarding their strength in lifts like the squat, etc.) in exercises that they don't perform.  I really don't subscribe to the idea that food is a magic bullet; rather, I don't think the notion of train the same all the time and eat with it "magically" imposes some change on a system as complicated as human physiology is, even if the weight goes up.  Somehow this has been thrown around as fact, although I've never had much use with it since I came into a phase of more advanced training.

A lot of these ideas were first introduced to me by Brian Johnson, another person I admire greatly.

For more information specifically regarding much of the motor-learning beliefs I am espoused to, visit this:

http://www.exercisecertification.com/books/Library/System-Analysis.html


----------



## maniclion (Apr 29, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> The explanation is related to neurological specificity, reasoning that has been debated between us before, so there's no real need to rehash the details.


And as I had testified before, the summer before my senior year I had worked at Wal-Mart pushing shopping carts hundreds of pounds 6 hours a day 5 day's a week up a slight incline sometimes needing to steer them by pushing left or right.  That fall I was moving linemen who twice outweighed me and I know lifted and squatted alot more than I could.  Why because I had the pre-conditioning of making those movements with those weights.


----------



## chris mason (Apr 29, 2005)

I cannot agree more Duncan.  I LOVE the way Jones writes and always have.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 29, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> The explanation is related to neurological specificity, reasoning that has been debated between us before, so there's no real need to rehash the details.
> 
> Generally speaking, for example, I know people who can bench press 500 pounds on a bench press but can't do as much as I can on a flye or with dumbells (despite performing them as much as me).  A great deal of this has to do with the idea of attunement; that is, once an exercise has been affectively learned by the body to a point that the system uses less muscle to perform the same amount of work (aka homeostasis - this would be related to firing patterns and rate-coding, leverage, and blah blah)
> 
> ...



That is not what I am asking, I am not asking about hypertrophy.  I just want to know how performing a bench press is not as detrimental, if not more, than performing say balancing on one leg.  Jones' theories state that you are either specific or you are not, there are no levels of specificity.  Yet, he comes back and says that if you do an act that is very similar to a goal you are trying to attain, yet not the specific goal, you are doing more harm than good.  How is benching not very similar to pushing a lineman?  SUrely he would state that if you just stood there pushing without using your legs you would be causing more problem than benefit.  I just want to know how this does not also hold true for resistance training.  What does resistance training have in it that makes the brain code it differently.  Personally, I don't think it does, so by Jones' theories it would be detrimental.  Yet, we know that people who train in the weight room typically end up improving on the field.

We also know that plyometric training helps the active muscles utilize the SSC more efficiently.  By Jones' theories, they would be more detrimental than good, yet they are really no different than resistance training.

The only thing I can see as being remotely an excuse for resistance training being different is that the adaptations in strength far outweigh the negative impact the similar motion has on the brain.  So why don't the adaptations made by the vestibular system and increases in stabilizer strength that can be made through balance training outweigh the coists of doing something not entirely specific.  The same would go for plyometric training and utilizing the SSC.

I would guarantee that if you take someone who has never practiced side any closed skill, matched them up against someone who has never practiced any such skills and had both face each other in sport for the first time, I would take the guy who has practiced the closed skills 10 times out of 10.  If there was zero transference, they would be evenly matched.

So the question I am asking is, how is strength training different.  How is it general.  I am not talking about strength, I am talking the actual act of strength training.  You could consider strength a general trait, but the act of strength training is very similar to many movements you would do on the field, only that they are small portions of a more complex movement.  If you are either specifc or you are not, then strength training is not specific and, therefore, detrimental to sport skill acquisition.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 29, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> So the question I am asking is, how is strength training different. How is it general. I am not talking about strength, I am talking the actual act of strength training. You could consider strength a general trait, but the act of strength training is very similar to many movements you would do on the field, only that they are small portions of a more complex movement. If you are either specifc or you are not, then strength training is not specific and, therefore, detrimental to sport skill acquisition.



Laying on a bench press stationary is absolutely in no way like pushing a lineman on your feet...your hands, center of gravity, foot placement, force distribution and, on the topic, every single muscle in your entire body is contracting in a very different way when pushing on a lineman while standing.  This is exactly why it isn't specific.  I don't think they're even remotely similar, actually, running into a person on the field feels nothing like anything I do in the gym.

Strength training should be, in my opinion, specifically related to sports, training that induces a physical change to the tissue and thus a GENERAL increase in force capacity. 

This sounds funky, but it is my understanding.  The only way to generally increase strength (which means that the muscle will be stronger in every exercise) is to increase the cross-section (or some such physical adaptation of the muscle itself).  If the muscle stays the same size but stength increases, this can be attributed to a number of things, such as leverage or neurological attunement.

I go back to the idea that once a person has stopped getting bigger but keeps getting stronger, the person can be a fabulous bench presser but there won't be a transference of that neuro pattern if the exercise is really nonspecific to the bench press.  However, if there is some kind of physical change in the tissue that would generally increase the strength, there would be transference.

Then that general strength increase can be applied by learning seperate skills, like football.  Think of lining up two people of the same general strength; subject A has trained in man-to-man contact, and the other hasn't.  Who will be stronger in such a movement?

Because of motor-learning, it's probably acceptable to assume that subject A will outperform subject B, even with a constant level of muscle capacity.  Because subject A has practiced the optimal joint positioning, muscle contractions, etc. he will literally be "stronger" in the skill performed, specifically, althougn not necessarily stronger from a general muscle-force standpoint.

I know you consider this taking specificity to an extreme, but I have observed it a great deal and have researched what I know about motor-learning and etc. and etc., and I stand by the theory, though I doubt it will be accepted anytime soon.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 30, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Laying on a bench press stationary is absolutely in no way like pushing a lineman on your feet...your hands, center of gravity, foot placement, force distribution and, on the topic, every single muscle in your entire body is contracting in a very different way when pushing on a lineman while standing.  This is exactly why it isn't specific.  I don't think they're even remotely similar, actually, running into a person on the field feels nothing like anything I do in the gym.
> 
> *Well, through Jones' theory it is not specific, but he states that you are either specific or not.  If there were such thing as levels of specificity in his miind, the bench would have to be close just because it is a pushing movement.  It may not necessarily be exactly the same, but it is a component of themovement.  They are both pushing movements in the transverse plane with a similar line of action.  Certainly you would not just push a lineman with your arms, but you wouldn't NOT use your arms.*
> 
> ...



So basically, you are referring to strength that is gained through hypertrophy.  So, strength itself is not general, but all strength gained up to the point of your natural genetic growth plateau is general.  Once you reach that plateau, it is specific in that it is the neurological changes that cause you to do the movement more efficiently and not a change in cross-sectional area.  Very interesting stuff.

I gotcha now, the only probelm is that the brain is learning the strength movement from the first time you do it.  The first 8 weeks of strength increases in strength training are from enhanced neuromuscular efficiency and not hypertrophy, so you would think this would have a negative effect on the movement.  You would also think that increases in strength from week 8 on are attributed to both hypertrophy and neuromuscular changes, whichh is why you need to change it up so much.  Is this covered by anything you have read.  I am sure there could be some way to explain this away, but it would require change in the theory.

Aren't you in school for this stuff?  What do your professors think of this, I bet it pisses them off to no end, eh?


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 30, 2005)

> Well, through Jones' theory it is not specific, but he states that you are either specific or not. If there were such thing as levels of specificity in his miind, the bench would have to be close just because it is a pushing movement. It may not necessarily be exactly the same, but it is a component of themovement. They are both pushing movements in the transverse plane with a similar line of action. Certainly you would not just push a lineman with your arms, but you wouldn't NOT use your arms.



In terms of motor patterns, the actual skill of a bench press (which, as it it has a unique preparatory postural reaction in the body, unique degrees of freedom, unique firing patterns within the CNS itself, and so forth) is indeed very specific.  In fact, it is so non-specific to a program that would require the same individual to contact a lineman in the context of a football game as to garner no negative transference. 



> Once practiced sufficiently, that skill ingrains within the neuromuscular system.  Any skill that is non-specific to a paticular task - even if that skill seems similar, but with different elements, e.g., force production, body positioning, ratio of muscular integration, etc. - can only be speciifc unto itself and must be practiced individually in order to, likewise, have an individual increase in proficiency.  Hence, there can be no transfer of skill based on the fundamental requirements for retention and extraction, as governed by the SAID principle.
> 
> When one skill affects the quality of another skill, it can be said to produce a negative transfer.  This happens when one skill appears to be similar (but it is not) to another, thus altering motor programming to create a hybrid between the two skills.  It is the introduction of a new skill that is very similar that alters an old skill.  It is often a temporal (timing) change in motor patterns that produces a "negative" to established skills.  *But movements that are non-specific to an established skill produce neither a positive or negative transfer.*"



To elucidate this point, consider a well-versed baseball pitcher who also plays football for leisure.  The fact that there are a handful of correlations between throwing a football and throwing a baseball does not mean that one skill interferes with another; they are non-specific.

Now consider using a heavier baseball when practicing pitching; the old pattern can be negatively influenced by a new pattern by the change of volume or weight (or whatever) of the new ball.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 30, 2005)

> Aren't you in school for this stuff? What do your professors think of this, I bet it pisses them off to no end, eh?



I've learned from my father that it is best to not step on the toes of those who control your fate.  I will listen to what is said with interest but with skepticism, because I really am so cynical as to believe nothing until I can observe it and proove it to my own satisfaction (which is commonly not easy and not often).

I was a dedicated HIT proponent until I took my biased glasses off, and I swore I'd never be so close minded again.  In any case, it's fortunate that the classes are not exclusively built upon muscle or neuro physiology, or I'd probably pull my hair out of my head.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 30, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> I've learned from my father that it is best to not step on the toes of those who control your fate.  I will listen to what is said with interest but with skepticism, because I really am so cynical as to believe nothing until I can observe it and proove it to my own satisfaction (which is commonly not easy and not often).
> 
> I was a dedicated HIT proponent until I took my biased glasses off, and I swore I'd never be so close minded again.  In any case, it's fortunate that the classes are not exclusively built upon muscle or neuro physiology, or I'd probably pull my hair out of my head.




I am quite the cynic as well, I was always chose to be the devil's advocate during college because I could see both sides, and I typically never had a stronger conviction one way or the other.  It helps me to this day.


----------



## topolo (Apr 30, 2005)

fence rider


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 30, 2005)

I'm not a fence rider, I wholeheartedly disagree with all of this, but I also know trying to convince DD that he is wrong is a futile effort, as well as he recognizes the same on my end.

So, I shall retreat into my thoughts, with a beer in my hand.


----------



## chris mason (May 1, 2005)

Maybe I can add some insight to this argument.  I will post a bit later today.


----------



## CowPimp (May 1, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> I go back to the idea that once a person has stopped getting bigger but keeps getting stronger, the person can be a fabulous bench presser but there won't be a transference of that neuro pattern if the exercise is really nonspecific to the bench press.  However, if there is some kind of physical change in the tissue that would generally increase the strength, there would be transference.



Have you read about the transmutation of training effects before?  It was a concept I read about in The Science and Practice of Strength Training by Vladimir Zatsiorsky.  Basically, there is some level of added benefit when working the muscles that are mutually involved in dissimilar actions.  However, the more similarities the two different movements share, the greater the transmutation of training effects.  So, leg extensions would add some level of improvement to your squat numbers, while the leg press would surpass that level of improvement because the motion is closer to that of the squat.  Just something to ponder.


----------



## musclepump (May 1, 2005)

Transmutation is just a cool word


----------



## GFR (May 20, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> The explanation is related to neurological specificity, reasoning that has been debated between us before, so there's no real need to rehash the details.
> 
> Generally speaking, for example, I know people who can bench press 500 pounds on a bench press but can't do as much as I can on a flye or with dumbells (despite performing them as much as me).  A great deal of this has to do with the idea of attunement; that is, once an exercise has been affectively learned by the body to a point that the system uses less muscle to perform the same amount of work (aka homeostasis - this would be related to firing patterns and rate-coding, leverage, and blah blah) the actual exercise being performed (such as a bench press) does not induce any further sarcomere or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (that is an increase in general strength via increased cross section) - again, biologically speaking i believe that once at a certain point excess muscle is not a benefit to the body, so inducing hypertrophy over neurological conditioning (which is what makes much more sense for the body to do) requires a very dramatic, unusual, alarming stimulus for the body to encounter.
> 
> ...


Wow can you say hack??? Lets break this down one by one.
1.( despite preforming them as much as me). As much as me do, or as much as I do...and you said English was easy for you.
2. Attunement: to bring into Harmony: Tune. You use this out of context just to impress the children  
3.Homeostasis: A state of body equilibrium or stable internal environment of the body. This term has nothing to do with the topic at hand...please don't use big words to impress the teenagers.
4.Sarcomere: The smallest contractile unit of muscle; extends from one Z disc to the next. Again you throw in a word that is out of context, just to try and make you look like you know something..OMG how sad
5. This one is too easy...hahaha...The idea that a big bench press equates to a football player...wow..I can see you have used no scientific facts for this, and only a nonscientific, non athlete would come up with this joke of an example.
6. I can't keep correcting the English errors ( and you said you were doing so well in English).
7. D.D. Please get you're own opinion and stop loving the pseudo scientists who shame us all.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 21, 2005)

Wow, this is amazing.



> ( despite preforming them as much as me). As much as me do, or as much as I do...and you said English was easy for you.



Thanks professor.  Since we're on the internet, now, should I go look for some petty irrelevant semantic mistake you made?  Your arguments are completely sad.

As for the discussion of homeostasis, if you looked closely, you would see that it was entirely appropriate:

"A great deal of this has to do with the idea of attunement; that is, once an exercise has been affectively learned by the body to a point that the system uses less muscle to perform the same amount of work (aka homeostasis - this would be related to firing patterns and rate-coding, leverage, and blah blah)"

Then, given your definition:

"3.Homeostasis: A state of body equilibrium or stable internal environment of the body. This term has nothing to do with the topic at hand...please don't use big words to impress the teenagers."

A better definition might be this:
"The ability or tendency of an organism or cell to maintain internal equilibrium by adjusting its physiological processes."

Homeostasis of the neurological system is in fact making something demanding more tolerable through physiological processes.  If you can't relate this to that statement above, I just don't know what to say...



> 2. Attunement: to bring into Harmony: Tune. You use this out of context just to impress the children



I must say, you're going to the dictionary and picking out the definitions that least fit what I was saying...lol.  That's pretty biased, don't you think?  Here's another definition:

"Agreement in feeling or opinion; accord: live in harmony."

Obviously people don't just use the term harmony for music.  Anyway,

Attunement is appropriate in this context as if the body DOES NOT INDUCE HYPERTROPHY OF THE MYOFIBRIL or HYPERTROPHY OF THE SARCOPLASM but instead gets stronger by BRINGING ALL FUNCTIONS (energy expenditure, rate coding, neuro efficiency, leverage, joint positioning) into HARMONY - obviously the term attunement is appropriate.  Your argument is semantic, you're trying to deny the points while attacking the words themselves.  This is not a good technique.



> This one is too easy...hahaha...The idea that a big bench press equates to a football player...wow..I can see you have used no scientific facts for this, and only a nonscientific, non athlete would come up with this joke of an example.



This was an anecdote used for illustration.  If you don't understand that this isn't a scientific paper, then you're confused.  Instead of paying attention to the context, you picked something that was obviously a universal point I was trying to establish and twisted it. 



> I can't keep correcting the English errors ( and you said you were doing so well in English).



If you want to talk about my English errors (which, in fact, there were none of, you simply don't like the word useage I had) you should go into the section of your English book that refers to LOGICAL FALLACIES.


----------



## GFR (May 21, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Wow, this is amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have reread you're response to Dale and find it interesting and a reflection of someone who is very interested in exercise Physiology.
As for Homestasis my definition was correct but I will give you another one.
Walter Cannon was the Physiologist who coined the word Homeostasis to describe the body's ability to maintain  relatively  stable internal conditions even though the outside world changes continuously. This term relates to the body maintaining internal temperature , adequate blood levels of vital nutrients and on and on ect.,  and also relates to positive and negative mechanisms to control the body's balance. It is a wonderful term but it has nothing to do with bodybuilding training except for the body's health in general.
Donut my problem is not that you enjoy research related to fitness, or that you express that knowledge in you're writing. The problem is that you felt the need to attack me for no other reason then jumping on the band wagon of you're two friends who started the attack on my advice. In past posts of yours ( looking back) I have read over and over again a very negative and judgmental comments that you have made. We all are guilty of crossing the line from time to time but you really need to look back and reflect. 
The positive thing is that I have learned is  I don't need to get involved with negative or arrogant people. I wish you the best in you're studies.


----------

