PDA

View Full Version : Dual Factor Theory



Ir0nClad
12-12-08, 12:32 am
I've been doing a little bit researching, after deciding to try MadCow's 5x5 routine.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/core9.htm

Thought it would be useful to post this article. Seems the old one muscle a week bodysplit I have been doing isn't really that good.

http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/weight-training-weight-lifting/bill-starrs-5-x-5-program-variation-per-madcow2-thanx-so-here-k-up-now-375215-24.html

Here is another article from old MadCow himself.

Ir0nClad
12-12-08, 12:40 am
Here are some of the highlights of the first article, for those who don't want to read through all of it.



There are basically two accepted theories in the world of weight training (and outlined in Zatsiorsky's Science and Practice of Strength Training). One is called Supercompensation (or Single Factor Theory), and the other is called Dual Factor Theory. Bodybuilding tends to follow the Supercompensation way of thinking, while virtually every field of strength and conditioning, athletics, etc. follows the Dual Factor Theory.

The reasoning that almost everyone involved in strength training adheres to the Dual Factor Theory is because there is scientific proof that it works, not to mention that the Eastern Bloc countries that have adhered to this theory have killed the U.S. at every Olympics since the 1950s. In the following paragraphs, I hope to prove to you why Dual Factor Theory should be accepted, taught, and adhered to in the world of bodybuilding as well as all other athletes concerned with strength and conditioning.

The Supercompensation Theory has been, in the bodybuilding community, the most widely accepted school of thought. The theory itself is based on the fact that training depletes certain substances (like glycogen and slowing protein synthesis). Training is seen as catabolic, draining the body of its necessary nutrients and fun stuff. So to grow, according to the theory, the body must then be rested for the optimal amount of time, and, it (the body) must be supplied with all the nutrients it lost. If both of these things are done correctly, then theoretically your body will increase protein synthesis and store more nutrients than it originally had! (i.e. - your muscles will be bigger!)

So obviously the most important part of this theory is timing, specifically concerning rest periods. But that's where the problem comes in. If the rest period is too short, then you won't be completely recovered, and as a result, the next training session would deplete substances even more, which over a period of time would result in overtraining and a loss of performance. If the rest period is too long then the training would lose its stimulus and you would recover completely and lose the window of opportunity to provide the stimulus again. Improvements only occur when the training sessions are optimally timed. So you are left with the problem of timing workouts to correspond to the Supercompensation wave; anything sooner or later will lead to a useless workout.



The Dual Factor Theory is somewhat more complex than the Supercompensation Theory. The theory is based on the fact that the body is left with both positive and negative effects from a training session. On the negative side, fatigue sets in. On the positive side, fitness (or "gain" as it's referred in the exercise phys. world) increases. So the theory works like an equilibrium in that the effect of training is both positive (gain) and negative (fatigue). By striking the correct balance, fatigue should be great in extent, but shouldn't last very long. Gain, on the other hand, should be moderate, but will last longer. Typically the relationship is 1:3 - if fatigue lasts x amount of time, then gain lasts 3x amount of time.

Now, granted that's some deep, confusing stuff, but here is where the wheat is separated from the chaff…The timing of individual workouts is relatively unimportant to long term gains (unlike Supercompensation), and whether fatigue is or is not present, fitness can and still will be increased (which is the goal).

Bodybuilders often get stuck in the "one time per week per bodypart" rut, and that determines how many sets they do and the intensity they use. Since they are not going to change frequency, they end up not changing much over time. So what happens (when you view training through the lens of Supercompensation) is that you beat the crap out of a muscle group and then don't target it again for another week. This is because you think that the muscle needs time to completely recover before beating it into submission again. Well, the fact is, that when you see training through the lens of Dual Factor Theory, then you'll note that it is ok to train a muscle group again even if fatigue is still present.

Now the really cool part is this…science has shown that the body responds better in physique and performance enhancements when you have a period of peaking fatigue (2-6 weeks), followed by a period of "unloading" (1-4 weeks). (Unloading just refers to a time where you allow fatigue to fade. This usually means active unloading, where you continue to train, but with reduced intensity, volume, or frequency. Occasionally it could mean total rest.) You view entire weeks and maybe months, as you would've viewed just one workout with Supercompensation. For example, with Supercompensation, one workout represents a period of fatigue. But, in the Dual Factor Theory, up to 6 weeks would represent a period of fatigue. With Supercompensation, a day or two (up to a week) represents a period of rest. But in the Dual Factor Theory, up to four weeks may represent a period rest.



Each training session exerts both positive (gain) and negative (fatigue) aspects. Instead of thinking of each training session as fatiguing and then the next 6 days as recovery, begin to think of entire periods of training as fatiguing or recovery.

Obviously then the most important thing is to understand how long and how hard to "load" during the fatiguing phases and how long and how much to "unload" during the recovery phase.

Angelwrath
12-12-08, 12:57 pm
Yes .. I read about this long ago .. nice article. Got my fundamentals of training from this and similar articles.

simpleguy
12-12-08, 2:38 pm
read it, very interesting...

MojoMike36
12-12-08, 4:10 pm
Thats interesting but I'll stick with whats been making me grow.

The thing I've noticed is that everyone first has to disprove the other "proclaimed experts" first and then tell you what you SHOULD be listening to. If we listened to everyone who claims to be an expert we'd have no experts to listen to beause each expert would disprove anothers theory. Maybe some of the experts are just that, an expert.

People spend so much time trying to change and fix shit that they never actually just give good ole fashion balls to the wall training a shot. No more stupid cutting edge shit, just gains.

I'm not a super athlete, maybe a little above average for my age, and I still make amazing gains on a 5 day split. What does that disprove?

Ir0nClad
12-12-08, 6:16 pm
Thats interesting but I'll stick with whats been making me grow.

The thing I've noticed is that everyone first has to disprove the other "proclaimed experts" first and then tell you what you SHOULD be listening to. If we listened to everyone who claims to be an expert we'd have no experts to listen to beause each expert would disprove anothers theory. Maybe some of the experts are just that, an expert.

People spend so much time trying to change and fix shit that they never actually just give good ole fashion balls to the wall training a shot. No more stupid cutting edge shit, just gains.

I'm not a super athlete, maybe a little above average for my age, and I still make amazing gains on a 5 day split. What does that disprove?


This isn't cutting edge shit, its been around for 30 years, and all of the major athlete's and strength coachs follow this theory. Its been proven scientifically that this is how the body works and grows.

On Letting Go
12-12-08, 10:54 pm
Interesting. I'd like to find out more and see some hard evidence that supports it to be a superior training style.

rayzer27
12-13-08, 12:38 am
Thats interesting but I'll stick with whats been making me grow.

The thing I've noticed is that everyone first has to disprove the other "proclaimed experts" first and then tell you what you SHOULD be listening to. If we listened to everyone who claims to be an expert we'd have no experts to listen to beause each expert would disprove anothers theory. Maybe some of the experts are just that, an expert.

People spend so much time trying to change and fix shit that they never actually just give good ole fashion balls to the wall training a shot. No more stupid cutting edge shit, just gains.

I'm not a super athlete, maybe a little above average for my age, and I still make amazing gains on a 5 day split. What does that disprove?

If you're making gains, stick with it bro. Let the iron be the judge of you're strength.

Tiny
12-13-08, 1:17 pm
This isn't cutting edge shit, its been around for 30 years, and all of the major athlete's and strength coachs follow this theory. Its been proven scientifically that this is how the body works and grows.

Youngblood, fine, it works . . . for who? Bodybuilding actually more closely followed a similar logic - but back then guys were WAY smaller than they are today. My own training has evolved prety much along with every other huge guy in the bodybuilding game over time. And the consitent thread is that we continued to find paths that resulted in additional hypertrophy. What this author claims or credits to "bodybuilding" as far as what is done or how we think or what we believe is NOT correct at all. first off "training" is catabolic because it generates the body to produce and release cortisol - now you tell me in what way "cortisol" from a standpoint desiring hypertrophy can be viewed as "positive"?? AND what he describes to bodybuilding as its "methodology" is one version - someone's version confined to paper somewhere BUT NOT any widely accepted and truly practiced doctrine. It is not what I do - it is not what ANY individual bodybuilder I know believes and does. You cannot make blanket statements like "bodybuilders believe . . ." because it is such an individual pursuit. However, it is GOOD to read and pick brains and see what good you can implement from it but the reality is that eventually if a person trains long enough (like a decade or more) that person will find what works most effectively for them and it will be bits and pieces of many things too broad to be defined by any single label or explaination.
So to most simply recap, bodybuilders today are bigger than ever and interestingly, what few staple ideals we seem to all share have evolved over the years to deliver us to this point, and one of the staples largely agreed upon is that we train less frequently today than back when we were all 50, 75, 100 pounds lighter. In our sport, we ARE the living breathing proof.