A couple of weeks ago I did a talk Parkour Visions, a local gym here in Seattle. (You may recall my recent post of an interview with the co-founder of the gym Rafe Kelly. )
The talk was about the effects of perceived threat on physical performance.
The basic message was that if the central nervous system senses a threat in regard to a certain movement, it will take various protective measures, none of which are desirable from a performance perspective. For example, it might increase stiffness to reduce range of motion; limit muscle contraction to reduce force; limit endurance to prevent local tissue failure; change coordination patterns to protect injuries; or create pain to discourage the movement from happening at all.
The implication is that one great way to increase performance is to reduce perceived threat, because threat might make our movement weak, slow, stiff, uncoordinated and painful. Sounds like everything we try to get rid of when we go to the gym! But of course many people will create excess threat during their workout, which will tend to be counterproductive.
This was the first time I have ever done any public speaking about the topics I discuss on this blog, and, as you can see from the vid, this was a very informal gathering. But I was still a little nervous. I think my first words on video are: “OK, so what I am talking about here?” Ha! Luckily I remembered.
There are a few gaps in the tape, and you can’t hear the questions, some of which were quite good (including a few on foam rolling!) Other than that, I think it turned out pretty well and provides a good summary of one of the major themes of this blog.
Check it out and let me know what you think!
Thanks again to Rafe Kelly and Parkour Visions for letting me talk and taping it!
Great video. Thank you!
I recently took the Z-Health fundamentals course. A good part of that course was on vision. I’m cross-eyed. This puts my body in survival mode re activities that require hand-eye coordination, i.e. probably all team sports. Something worth considering in the context of what threatens the central nervous system.
Hi Sol,
Thanks for the feedback, glad you liked the vid. Yes I’ve taken several Z courses and done some of their vision drills. My talk was definitely influenced by what I learned there. I think vision training has a lot of potential that we will probably see being utilized in the coming years.
I’m really excited to check out this video, but the sound doesn’t seem to be working. Other YouTube videos are working just fine for me, so I’m not sure if it’s on your end.
Hi Chelsea,
Sorry about the sound issue. I don’t have a problem from my end. Anyone else having problems?
great video. makes sense totally. thanks!
i read a trainer (perhaps Pavel?) said something like everyone has the capability to do split, but very few can do it. it’s all “flexibility reserve” in the brain.
regards,
Very informative video. When you say “every safe rep reduces risk of threat” (I believe that was the quote on the powerpoint)this goes for every movement, correct? Not simply in terms of exercise? And does this help reduce the risk of future injury and pain from that specific movement? For example, every baseball thrown without injury or pain (safe rep), or every cut one makes during a soccer game without injury or pain, will produce a result/adaptation that will limit future threat from that movement and also decrease the risk of future injury and pain from that movement (basically make it safer)? And if so, when does over use/over training come into play? Thanks.
Hi Derek,
Here are my thoughts. Every safe rep should help convince the CNS that a particular move is safe, which will tend to reduce the use of protective mechanisms such as stiffness, pain, weakness, etc. Further, to the extent that each rep causes physical stress sufficient to induce a physical adaptation, you will get stronger or fitter according to the SAID principle. Make sense? Of course, if each rep causes some micro damage, then an accumulation of this damage over may reps may at some point reach a critical mass which may increase threat.
So you can look at it from the perspective that all training is a matter of presenting the body with the right stress or threat in the right amount at the right time for the particular individual.
Todd, thank you for that very good talk! I have a question about training in emergency states. I agree with you that it seems not to be a good idea to exercise in a ‘threat mode’.
But have you ever thought about exercising in a perceived threat situation, where the actual threat is relatively low? Why would somebody use this? Well, we know that the reaction of the organism is to the perceived threat, and maybe there could be some benefits to this, especially on the level of the tissues. Let me give an example:
the threat-value of an exercise causes the organism to adapt, by muscle hypertrophy. Could a higher perceived threat increase the muscle hypertrophy??
Of course, if the above has something to it, the question is: how do you increase the perceived threat without increasing the actual threat.
In treating patients with chronic pain, it is not that difficult to do, but we do it for CNS reasons, not for local tissue adaptations. At least, I don’t know of any literature on this…
Cheers.
Pieter,
Great point, I should have made this more clear in my talk. Any good training will involve at least some level of stress or threat, or else there will be no reason to adapt. The key is to find the right level of threat. Not too much to cause injury and other undesireable protective mechanisms to infect our movement and sensation, and not so little that there is no reason for the organism to adapt.