READY, WILLING, AND ABLE

PART G – EXPLORING THE MOST INSTRINSIC SPACE OF “THE” INNER SPACE

In the “manual assistance strategy” instance to reduce and reload the weight of limb, modifying the magnitude of the torque is the primary training factor that facilitates the benefit to stabilize the limb, in a static position. This kind of immobile challenge is typically considered to be the primary condition of “isometric” contractions. However, maintaining the same joint/limb (spine/trunk) position is only half of the provision. The other half is that the muscle remains the same tissue length, which, provokes a problem, because the tissue contains an “engine” that is responsible for causing the contraction, so, what about the contents of the engine i.e. its sarcomeres and their micro-filaments?

Is the increase in the strength (torque) of the contraction a result of engaging more sarcomeres? If this is the case, even though the muscle tissue may not seem to change lengths, the sarcomeres that cause the contraction do, because these tiny engines are connected in a series.

I once owned a BMW Z3. It was powered by an in-line 6 engine i.e. six valves and cylinders lined up in a series, one in front of the next. If an increase in sarcomere activity is the cause of the contractile torque (in this “isometric” instance), it would be the equivalent of attaching a second in-line 6 engine in front of the original (and then another and another, etc. 

Obviously, two engines will produce more horsepower, than one, and this would create a longer engine. The significance of the metaphor is, in the presence of more demand, like when a person is required to hold the entire weight of a limb rather than a portion of it, even though the muscle length does not seem to change, the length of its sarcomeres do, and the more sarcomeres contracting within a single fiber, the more (horsepower-force-tension) Length Tension it will produce. 

With an understanding that countless sarcomeres are contained in one muscle fiber that is smaller than a single strand of hair, if this proposal is accurate, the interpretation could be that muscle contraction cannot be “isometric, because, if the sarcomeres are changing lengths (within the galaxy of this inner space), their fibers are, as well, to accommodate for their contents. This would, of course, cause all of the remaining contents of the tissue to follow suit. It’s just that the changes are so miniscule, that the gross muscle we see from the outside, doesn’t seem to change.

On the other hand, what if the response to the stimulus is an “interstellar” cross-bridging of more otherwise stagnant micro-filaments within each sarcomere? Would that affect a change in length? Maybe not. Maybe instead, it would increase the breadth. That might support the veracity of isometrics. Or, does the stimulus cause more motor unit activity resulting in the participation of altogether different fibers? That option does not verify or deny the legitimacy, because more fibers might affect the length or breadth of the entire muscle, or both, and, maybe all of these reactions to the stimulus occur all together, leaving the ambiguity unresolved.

Although those questions cannot be answered here, there is one sure fact about the “off-loading/reloading” of torque. Regardless of the isometric uncertainties, when using this advanced technique, we are certainly tuning the contents of the muscle’s engine. In any case, this particular “engine tuning” strategy is useful to increase torque to control a compromised joint/limb position, and although it can even contribute to mobility, when the purpose is to enhance torque at this most perilous moment of the range, it needs to be imposed, statically.

Since the strategy indeed, engages sarcomeres, and because there is no absolute certainty that the effects are truly isometric, it may be more feasible to conclude that the contraction is “Sarcometric” (Eric Glickstein, 2017), rather than isometric. Furthermore, the advantage of this nomenclature is that, unlike the isometric, it is not linked to or associated exclusively with static joint positions. 

When it is thought of as “Sacrometrics”, it is also applicable, and useful, with mobility, and in certain instances, can bridge the gap between the moment when a person is prepared to exercise against more than limb weight, but not yet ready for a full body weight challenge, or even for the modified, less than body weight resistance of various kinds of exercise equipment. However, regardless of the state of readiness, mobility introduces complexity, which requires more contractile skill of the Recipient, and more Service Provider skill of adjusting the torque of the progressive challenge.  

The moment enough torque has been acquitted at the weakest position of the joint range, the net gain validates the readiness to tolerate mobility, but this additional complexity requires an even more accommodating strategy. Instead of applying varying magnitudes of torque in a static position, the leverage of the resistance (the resistance profile of the challenge) needs to be modified to comply with the leverage of the muscle’s contraction (the strength profile of the contractile effort) throughout the entire “Range of Available Joint Positions?” (Tom Purvis), so it is possible to permit a controlled descent to the predetermined eccentric threshold, followed by an ascending resurgence that will not result in an unstable return to the reestablished concentric threshold.

Remember, with regard to increasing contractile strength, (which is actually leverage, which results in mobility, and which requires tension), the strategy of accommodating profiles is paramount, because if the challenge (of the exercise) contains more leverage than the musculoskeletal torque of an exercise specific joint region, the only way to prevail is to cheat, impulsively, by shifting the body into different positions to gain leverage, arbitrarily, and/or, to employ the assistance of acceleration.

This, of course, disperses the leverage of the challenge, and not only by-passes the musculoskeletal torque deficit, but induces the defensive orchestration of the Central Nervous System. However, if the resistance profile is appropriately modified according to the strengths and weaknesses of the musculoskeletal profile, this impulsive kind of cheating can be avoided, and the Length Tension deficit, annulled. 

Ultimately, enough torque-ability can be elicited to not only restore the compromised range of mobility imposed by deficit, but to tolerate added resistance to the weight of the limb, and even (possibly) increase the training zone of mobility.

(The moral of the story is: progressive resistance is not always needed or appropriate to “appropriate” strength. Sometimes, we need to regress, to progress.)

However, with the acquisition of this contractile skill, the aforementioned verdict of effort (torque) will only serve its ultimate purpose (of using a better body to perform better without the risk of orthopedic wear) if the aforementioned effects of inertia are not only respected, but strategically readjusted to their natural state, to transfer the skill of controlling torque for enhanced performance. Although these strength and resistance profiles and their variants have an enormous influence on the application and consequences of training, they are, conventionally, ignored as much as the inertia itself.

That it is necessary to make the body work harder than normal to accomplish more (than normal) has always been acceded, but the demand typically used for this purpose also creates the risk. The tactics of mass-times an increase in its acceleration, and/or an increase in movement complexity, are imposed with the mistaken presumption that by achieving the effects of the goal with the impulsive style of training it provokes, the goal attainment will build a better functioning body, thus, the reference to the superficial comprehension of exercise as stated in Part C of Ready, Willing, and Able:

“The problem is, this kind of rationale only accounts for half of the physics i.e. the ‘external’/resistance half, and only accounts for it in a most superficial manner.” 

“Our consideration for the external half of this inexorable conflict is typically ‘superficial’ because we are consumed only by the instinct to accelerate against the amount of the resistance, without regard for its direction and place of application, both of which have an enormous effect on us, because those intrinsic factors determine how the leverage of the resistance will effect or impose upon the torque our efforts.” (Paraphrased)

Although it is the kind of resistance we will ultimately transcend to accomplish more (of anything, whatever the goal might be), mass-times acceleration is not the primary force we should encounter, because, since it, alone, will not change the state of our anatomical physics, it, alone, is not the kind of force that increases active tissue tolerance to prepare for the joint stress that accompanies it. 

Before we face mass-times acceleration, it is necessary to practice with the mass-minus acceleration of inertia. That kind of resistance will enable us to increase the forcefulness of muscle contractions that leads to the leverage (torque) of secure, congruent, joint mobility. We prepare by practicing or exercising (same thing) against the effects of inertia that intentionally makes the work harder, so we can perform better when we involuntarily make the work easier to transcend the effects of the mass (we need to accelerate) that exists between our efforts and the object of our desires. 

When we have acquired the contractile skill of controlling torque, it is possible to increase the rate of the contractile frequency to accelerate it, making the work easier, but with a greater tolerance for joint stress, not only when practicing (exercising), but also while performing (non-exercise) tasks and challenges. The former is the unfamiliar influence of resistance needed to control the torque. The latter is using the enhanced torque impulsively, to accelerate, for the sake of “performance”. That’s how we build exercise to create training conditions that provoke adaptation. 

The rate of acceleration and the inertial effects it produces are crucial for the exercise to allocate (transfer) a healthy benefit, but it has an even more elementary purpose pertaining to the mental aptitude of control, if adaptation is to be procured. We certainly have an ambiguous estimation of it, to begin with. 

It isn’t until we feel as though our movements are unbalanced that we begin to acknowledge the significance of control, even though the epiphany is prompted by imperceptible joint instability that is occurring almost all the time. Consequently, we gauge our sense of it only by the outcome of our efforts i.e. on how steady (or not) we feel. 

It is virtually impossible to perceive the minute, even though caustic, involuntary tremors caused by the erratic assaults of torque from the resistance of the tasks we need (or want) to fulfill, and that is why special efforts are required to redefine the presence of control. Building protective, orthopedic-minded strength, foreign to our instincts as it is, depends on it. Complete control is the catalyst of conscious effort that separates exercise (to build a better body) from impulsive, unprotected performance. 

(BTW, the idea is not to eradicate these micro-tremors, but to minimize them. The use of stronger, more elastic, contractile tissues that prevents the “quakes” from challenging less resilient, passive restraint of ligaments is the tolerance that exercise provides.)

Obviously, the sublime traits of control and its unnatural by-products require the assistance of a physics endowed Service Provider. However, customizing exercises according to the anatomical physics of the Recipient cannot be succeeded independently, because it is subjective i.e. “personal”. The most fundamental purpose is in receiving this subjective information, and for this, the “mental aptitude of the Subject”, is needed, to validate control-ability.

(“The Service Provider and the Recipient are ‘intra-terrestrial explorers’, searching for ‘torque-ability’ in uncharted, intrinsic, spaces”.)