What does it mean?

The idea of “general” adaptation is very misleading.

There is no such thing as a “general” adaptation, it is merely a word used to explain an idea we don’t care to specify. For example, people might label the squat, deadlift, and bench as “general” exercises. But if I have three athletes and each performs only one of those exercises, their adaptions will not be the same; All will not have the same “general” response.

Ignoring the bench press, let’s just look at the squat and deadlift. Despite both emphasizing the lower body, they are not the same. From muscle activation to muscle synchronization, they are a far cry from being synonymous. True, both exercises will lead to hypertrophy and increase contractile properties of the muscle. However, these increases are specialized to these specific exercises. To clarify,  just because something leads to hypertrophy, does not make it “general.”

To take it a step further, we need to analyze the entire movement:

• What is the external load we are moving against? (this may influence early and late stage RFD)
• Is there an eccentric phase? (may influence muscle damage)
• Is there a large or small countermovement? (may influence muscle slack)
• Is the movement ballistic non-ballistic? (may influence coordination and motor unit firing)
• Is the athlete stable or unstable (may influence co-contraction and balance)
• How much is the range of motion changing on ground contact? (may influence stiffness)
• Is there an outcome to the movement? (may influence learning)

To label something as “general” is meaningless. It’s like labeling all foods as “food” and ignoring the actual nutrient profiles. If exercise was “general” coaches would be obsolete.

Just because we don’t know the answers right now, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to find them.

 

https://strongbyscience.net/product/nfl-early-off-season-2-week-training-block-skill-big-skill-players/

https://strongbyscience.net/product/power-house-squat-cycle/