However conditioning towards one activity has very poor transferability to the other because the system is vastly more complex.

Muscles are comprised of a balance of fibre types with different characteristics, Individual leg muscles can be relatively stronger or weaker to others in the system. Specific conditioning is also required to allow muscles to exert their power best either when lengthening or shortening. Neurological adaptation to the very specific range and motion of muscle activation affect the amount of power developed and the amount of energy required to perform that motion, Bones harden to account for the impact of running.

In short, the system is vastly complex, and the result is that a top notch cyclist will run about as well as an average (fit-ish) Joe unless they have trained specifically for running.

That’s just a simple mechanical system, upscale that to the complexity of the brain and it would seem likely that a variety of studies will provide seemingly conflicting results^1. And the nature of those conflicts will pave the way towards improving understanding of the brain… maybe

(^1 flogging the life out of that analogy, I speculate that cycling might aid running sprints up hills owing to the heavier development of gluteal and hamstring muscles, and high cardio-vascular capacity)

Here’s my conclusion (is this a hypothesis, or is this too strong a word?).

1. We are born – our DNA “pre-programs” a base level of (for want of a better word) “intelligence” and a tendency to be “better” at some tasks, more “driven” and/or have better concentration (obviously lots more to add here).
2. We grow up – we learn “skills” and become good at “tasks” that we repeat regularly.
3. We develop and grow our “abilities” throughout our life (my definition – the combination of DNA, skills and tasks). The development and direction of our tasks and our ability to utilise tasks is influenced by our DNA and “skills” (such as the scientific method).
4. Tasks are NOT transferable, but appropriate skills (such as the scientific method) provide the basis for tasks to be utilised cross functionally, influencing the direction and “growth” of our abilities.

As a non-scientist, I am not sure if this actually makes sense or is missing the mark. Also, I have not read the original article, just Steve’s article and the 27 responses.

>>How can…

I don’t know. That’s why I asked.

I study mechanical engineering with a focus on launch vehicles. I know nothing about neurology other than what I’ve read here.

By the way: You haven’t exactly answered my question, you just answered a straw man.
You implied that I asked about reversal of the damage, while I asked about reversal of the effects. And any way you put it, you have not stated any references. Can you give me some?

But to your point, because it involves a new skill, it would no longer be a direct transfer of learning. Unlike your 3-D map example, which is a direct transfer.

“link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj4y0EUlU-Y — a beautiful video!”

Thanks for that.
I spent a beautiful ten minutes listening to that video.

“It seems intuitive…I believe they very much are…I would bet that…”

This study converts “intuition”, “believing, and “betting” into what’s scientifically defensible. It’s not the last word (no single study can be), but it’s better then the notoriously unrelaible evidence from personal experience.

Another dubious anecdote:
I have very good 3D and map reading skills, but the only computer game I ever played is “Cosmo”. Maybe Cosmo was responsible. But maybe not.