I once attended a talk by the stress physiology researcher Monika Fleshner in which she defined robustness in a way I really liked. She defined a robust system as one that exhibits both resistance and resilience: resistance being the ability to oppose change from a normal (e.g., homeostatic) range and resilience being the ability to return to that range when indeed perturbed, without undue damage. What I particularly liked about this definition was that it acknowledged that neither being overly flexible nor overly rigid were desirable. It also anchored resilience in a way I find more appropriate than how the word is frequently bandied about.
I take it this definition of robustness resonates with what you're describing. But I'm curious whether you view its underlying qualities similarly or different. In any case, I appreciate the reminder that "building" toward what you want is a better and more sustainable strategy than avoiding what you don't.
Charles - Great thoughts here. Thank you. I like those definitions. I've also come to like Taleb's ideas on Anti-Fragility as well. One thing that many of these definitions seem to fall short on is the realities experienced by biological systems over time. This may be because those who study human health often do so under very specific time constraints whereas those of us who work in human performance see these attributes work out over years. Regardless - the overall point is to move towards the positive expression of these attributes rather than simply try to ward off something we may not want.
Thanks Rob! I appreciate your point about considering the relevant time domain when it comes to robustness. What might not "move the needle" in an 8-12 week study may well pay dividends when implemented over years (for better or worse).
I once attended a talk by the stress physiology researcher Monika Fleshner in which she defined robustness in a way I really liked. She defined a robust system as one that exhibits both resistance and resilience: resistance being the ability to oppose change from a normal (e.g., homeostatic) range and resilience being the ability to return to that range when indeed perturbed, without undue damage. What I particularly liked about this definition was that it acknowledged that neither being overly flexible nor overly rigid were desirable. It also anchored resilience in a way I find more appropriate than how the word is frequently bandied about.
I take it this definition of robustness resonates with what you're describing. But I'm curious whether you view its underlying qualities similarly or different. In any case, I appreciate the reminder that "building" toward what you want is a better and more sustainable strategy than avoiding what you don't.
Charles - Great thoughts here. Thank you. I like those definitions. I've also come to like Taleb's ideas on Anti-Fragility as well. One thing that many of these definitions seem to fall short on is the realities experienced by biological systems over time. This may be because those who study human health often do so under very specific time constraints whereas those of us who work in human performance see these attributes work out over years. Regardless - the overall point is to move towards the positive expression of these attributes rather than simply try to ward off something we may not want.
Thanks Rob! I appreciate your point about considering the relevant time domain when it comes to robustness. What might not "move the needle" in an 8-12 week study may well pay dividends when implemented over years (for better or worse).
Typos at the end there, love the article and want to share with my athletes, but some lines seem unfinished...
"Health is marked by the ability to"
Russell - thanks for bringing that to my attention! Fixed.
As I'm recovering from a knee injury, this definitely resonated with me
Sorry to hear about your injury but I hope this framework helps. Injury is very difficult to "prevent" but robustness can be defined and pursued!