Plyometrics is the only thing I've come across as an exercise that overcomes the inhibition exerted by the golgi tendon which is what I assume you are refering to.
I didn't realised there is direct relation between the neural inhibition and the golgi tendon organ (GTO). So, brief research on that lead to this paper (I'm sure there is more)
Neural inhibition during maximal eccentric and concentric quadriceps contraction: effects of resistance training which states:
"autogenic inhibition from Golgi organs seems to be a more likely candidate in accounting for the reduction in neuromuscular quadriceps activation during maximal eccentric vs. concentric contraction"
So yes, GTO and related reactions is what I'm referring to.
It seems, however, the there is a discussion on
GTO vs other inhibitory mechanisms (muscle spindles), which one is stronger or which one activates when (fast vs slow stretches, how fast means fast etc.).
I guess, it isn't relevant to dive in into such great details, is it?
After Lee E. Brown's explanation of
Protective Mechanisms, it seems that only GTO adapatation is possible with resistance training anyway. So, let's stick to GTO.
From a climbing training point of view that means double dynoing on a campus board and similar exercises which have limited crossover to actual climbing. Also the inhibition has evolved to protect us from injury so overcoming it is almost by definition risky.
Assuming plyometric exercices target the neural adaptation and double dynos on campus work around the natural neural safety net, then no wonder it may easily lead to injuries (i.e. after switch to one size smaller rungs). But, I'm still unclear about plyometrics as the only thing that overcomes the inhibition.
On specific moves you can have someone power-spot you a bit.
Haven't heard of that. Is the power-spotting idea similar to the
Forced Repetitions?
As far as I am aware 'neural adaptation' and 'recruitment training' are the same thing in this case.
Initially, I didn't see them the same, but it seems they are very closely related indeed.
However, AFAIU what Lee E. Brown writes, the amount of recruitment depends on load (i.e. max weight) applied and it does not have to rely on speed of movement. IOW, a deadhang from tiny hold (near one's limit) or very slow one arm pull-up/down leads to higher recruitment too, doesn't it?
The bigger load (weight), the higher demand for more muscle fiber to be activated.
So, GTO controls the fibres activaction limits, then indeed recruitment is the same as neural adaptation and because GTO can be 'trained' to allow heavier loads, then recruitment is increased.
I wonder, why plyometrics on campus are almost exclusively suggested as recruitment training.
Obviuosly, plyometrics combined with load should increase recruitment to some extent, but it seems to me there are more gains due to increased speed and explosiveness of contractions, and higher
rate coding, than recruitment.
But, the recruitment itself is mostly increased by systematically increasing maximum load/weight.
The problem is, teadings like
The myths about plyometrics published by MIT raise more questions than give answers
Searching continued,
Plyometric Training Concepts for Performance Enhancement by Micheal Clark, Scott Lucett, National Academy of Sports Medicine suggests
"Plyometric training may promote better neuromuscular control of the contracting agonists and synergists, thus enabling the central nervous system to become more reflexive. These neural adaptations lead to enhanced neuromuscular efficiency"
Sounds good, but it still does not answer if the better control is due to decreased neural inhibition and the "enhanced neuromuscular efficiency" sounds more like higher rate coding thing mentioned earlier and teaching the system to react with higher speed. Anyhow. I'm aware the mechanisms are way too complex to assume only single process or single form of adaptation stands behind the gains.
The same book says there is no evidence that plyometrics increase strength, so here comes my doubt about plyometrics lead to significant increase of recruitmnent.
In both you're trying to increase the number of muscle fibres recruited in the same instant to generate maximum power from your existing available fibres
The readings I've done seem to suggest there is a popular misconception possible.
Let's assume there is a constant amount of strength available (muscle fibres).
First, the power is increased by adapting the system to react quicker.
It is still unclear the adaptation happens solely due to decreased inhibition, but it may be the increasted speed of neural reaction, rate coding, etc.
And it seems to make sense, as the papers show that plyometrics don't increase strength, but the power, so they must increase the speed (as per the previous statement).
So, we train on campus.
Next, the strength factor is increased by making the muscle bigger (hypertrophy) or activating more fibres.
The latter, increased recruitment, is trained by increasing the load (bigger weigth/smaller holds).
So, we train on fingerboard.
Finally, we come back to the campus, to teach the newly activated fibres to work faster.
That seems to make sense to me, and if it does, then there is no real gain in muscle recruitment from the campus.
So, why the heck every one hits campus during recruitment phase?
I neither aim to bust plyometrics on campus nor deadhangs on fingerboard. I simply try to understand what works in what areas exactly.
Otherwise, if the only thing I've got is a hammer, then every thing looks like a nail.
So, looking around various climbing gyms, I see people jumping on campus, fingerboard, bouldering hard all in the same session.
I see more folks hitting on campus or fingerboard at the end of their climbing session, than doing it at the beginning.
Some of these folk I know as strong climbers, much stronger than I am, so I have no reason to believe they don't do the right thing.
On the other side, it's completely against the logic and conclusions from the papaers I'm researching.
Is that because "9 out of 10 climbers make the same mistakes"? :D
