Is single factor training really that bad?

[psychedout]

I'm gonna play devils advocate here and say something that maybe a lot of people haven't said.

While bulking I have noticed that training single factor really isn't any different than dual factor. I still follow the same basic principles of 2-3x week frequency and do lots of 5's and 3's, but don't follow any form of periodization, hell, I don't even commit to doing any specific exercises. Yet, I still manage to gain the same amount of mass/strength as if I train dual factor.

For example, yesterday I showed up at the gym and did:
-Narrow grip bench 5,3,3,3,3 (first three sets were warmups)
-Pendlay Rows 3,3,3,3,3,3 (first two sets were warm ups)
-Hanging Cleans 5,5,5,5

Then I went home.

Tomorow I might go and do:
-Squats for 5,3,3,3,3,3
-Reg Grip Bench for 3,3,3,3,3
-Deadlifts for 3,3,3,3,3
-Curls for 5,5,5,5

Go home.

Its just all random shit. I go to the gym. Pic 2-3 core exercises, maybe one accesory lift, then I go home. And then take a day off then repeat. No structure, no thought, no plan. Just show up, lift the core exerscises, no regard for anything. The gains have been just as good too. Blah, thats how I feel right now.

 

[Guinness5.0]

If you're tracking your lifts and they're going up (assuming the same/similar rep range) then you'r training is working.

THe question is: is it optimal? Single factor is bes if you can make gains regularly - periodization is adopted out of necessity. 'Better' is relative. So SF is 'better' for you if you are able to keep making gains on it. Once those gains slow/stop (and after various techniques have been employed to milk SF dry), perhaps DF would be 'better'.

 

[casualbb]

in the end it's how you train, not what you call it, that really matters.

if "single-factor" means that you train with a good frequency (ie more than 1x/week), good volume, and good weight progression, then that's good training.

however the "theory" of single-factor training is scientifically wrong and can be used to justify routines like mentzer's "let's do one set of squats to failure every other week," which we can all identify as bullshit

 

[anotherbutters]

the "theory" of single-factor training is scientifically wrong

...sits back and grabs some popcorn. What was I doing wrong when I acheived these gains, casual?

week bodywt squat bench  dead    military row
-----------------------------------------------
1    72     83    55     110     33       48
2    72     88    60     115     34       50.5
3    73     90.5  61     120     35.5     51.5
4    73     93    62.5   122.5   36.5     53
5    74     50    63.5F  125     38       54
6    75     60    63.5   127.5F  38.5     55.5
7    76     80    65     127.5   40       56
8    76.5   85    66     130     41       57.5
9    77     90    67.5   132.5   42.5     58.5
10   78     92.5  68.5   135F    43.5     60
11   79     96    70     135F    45       61
12   79.5   100   71F    135F    46       62.5F
13   80     102.5 71     125     47.5F    62.5F

All weights in kg.  F = failure

 

[casualbb]

read my whole post. if you really really want to get into this we can, but that was not my intent

 

[blut wump]

If your lifts are climbing on a regular and frequent basis, stick with it.

 

[Madcow2]

All training is really dual factor. Dual factor is the way the body works. When you talk about dual factor or programs that are periodized to make specific use and regulate fatigue, that's really the crux of this conversation as I see it.

Anyway, the goal is progress. Manipulation of workload, fatigue, etc... is just the scheming system. The system should be geared for optimal progress. Generally at some point people find that they simply can't make linear progress for any type of decent period or if they can the type of training they are doing is so far removed from the goal that they stagnate or regress in the core competency they are shooting for. This is when periodization and other methods come in handy as it can provide for systematic progress albeit not at a weekly or linear rate. Obviously if that same trainee could go in and set new PRs week to week for even 3 week stretches (and most can do it for longer), that's just a whole lot better. Why get better at a single increment every 4-8 weeks or whatever when you can ramp up and get 3 or more increments in the same total time (and if you can get 6 or more, shit even better).

So you want to move as fast as you can. A beginner can even get 3x per week or at least 2 new PRs. Somewhere beyond that is 1x per week, and then eventually 4-8 or longer for a single progression. There isn't a single person in the world who wouldn't chuck his ultra-complex and regulated system for just going in and adding weight to the bar and setting new core lift PRs on a weekly basis for long stretches.

 

[Numani]

read my whole post. if you really really want to get into this we can, but that was not my intent

could you care to elaborate Casuallbb. just interested on different views.

cheers.

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

17.6 lbs. gained, AB. Not bad. Was there much fat gain? Did you waist hop up 3-4" or so?

 

[anotherbutters]

AI: Yes, and yes. I think my target was 1.5lbs per week, which I met, but I shouldn't have set the target that high. 1lb per week would have been more sensible. You live and learn...

Casual: You have to admit that a bold statement like "SF is scientifically wrong" is going to provoke a response, given the number of people on here following, and making progress on, that type of program. I agree that when you get to a certain level, dual factor is going to be superior, but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for SF programs for beginners and intermediates. Not all SF routines are like Mentzer's. I didn't really want to get into a big debate. I probably shouldn't have posted earlier.

Sorry psychedout. If it's working, keep doing it! I couldn't work like that. I'd spend too much time wondering what to do next!

 

[casualbb]

without getting too long-winded...

the single-factor model of fatigue is incorrect. we know that to be true (as much as anyone can "know" anything, i.e. scientific method)

That doesn't mean that single-factor programs cannot be successful, as you have demonstrated. It does mean however that they were successful for reasons other than their being single-factor.

as an analogy, say that I have a personal theory that eating lots of cheerios will help me grow muscle. I proceed to workout and eat ridiculous amounts of cheerios. Sure enough, i see some growth. Of course we all know my theory is wrong, but what about my results? well it was probably that I was eating a lot of calories overall that caused growth, not the cheerios themselves. but in following my own theory I happened to do something else correctly. that's what i'm trying to hit at with my earlier post. Bad training theories can still lead to good training behavior. the trick is to come up with a theory that consistently explains why certain behaviors are effective

 

[Guinness5.0]

CasualBB:
So it's a semantic point in your opinion? Or are you saying that the premise behind SF programs is fatally flawed?

As I see it, the fatigue management mechanism in SF is simply not to do so much that you can't get stronger on a weekly basis. When this becomes inefficient a readily apparent DF strategy is necessitated. Sound about right to you? Again I think it's semantic - the idea is that weely strength gains (EDIT: perhaps a better way to put it would be 'more weight on the bar per session') along with adequate nutrition means efficient gains. Whether actual supercomensation occurs at weekly intervals is irrelevant as long as the gains happen. "The proof is in the pudding"

Is that what you're getting at, too?

 

[Cynical Simian]

Basically, single-factor programs disregard (or, in the HIT/BBing world, disavow) the cumulative fatigue component. It's not that it's not really there, it's just that the program's design and person's level of experience keep it minimal. So if you take "single-factor" to be implying that there's only one variable, it is fundamentally incorrect; you still have two variables, but one is (trying to be) held constant. I think that's what casual was getting at. As you continue to progress, even with improved conditioning, fatigue accrues. So you manipulate the fatigue component briefly (reset, reramp) then try to ignore it for as long as possible again. I would ramble more, but I'd pretty much just be restating what's already in "How to Benefit from Planned Overtraining" article.

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

I don't see SF being flawed, just most people's attempts at SF programs. I understand where Casual is coming from, but I also understand the other points. I think, as pointed out by Guinness, it's more of a semantic view than anything. You can argue that all you want, but in the end it comes down to one thing - results. Sure, understanding how, why, and whether or not the method was optimal can be useful (and you should know basics before you get into this stuff), the best thing to do is be consistent in your efforts.

AB (I can't help but laugh, thinking I'm calling someone ab. Like I'm talking to my fucking stomach or something ) how did you gain 1.5 lbs. a week? Does your scale give tenths of weight, or what? Either that, or I'm guessing you gained about 3 lbs. every two weeks, and divided that in half to get your weekly gain.

 

[Madcow2]

Maybe I should have never called that program the 'single factor' variant. It is single factor as opposed to the dual factor version but it works because workload is always kept low enough so that fatigue should not become an issue. It doesn't mean fatigue isn't there (i.e. the dual factor model of understanding training is correct), it just means that it doesn't get in the way so you don't need to concern yourself with explicitly manipulating it (so you only have to deal with one factor or pure supercompensation).

At the original time I started calling it that here we were mainly focused on explaining and understanding dual factor theory so it made sense to label that program as single factor so that people could see the difference (i.e. lower levels of workload and no purposeful manipulation of workload over time to deal explicitly with fatigue). Single factor or non-periodized programs are great - the best way you can train right up to the point where you get better progress over time by increasing workload to the point where you start to have to deal with fatigue. The dual factor model of training is 100% correct. Whether a program that makes explicit use of it is the right choice for someone or not depends on their ability to make consistent gains with workloads low enough not to fatigue them.

 

[casualbb]

Maybe I should have never called that program the 'single factor' variant. It is single factor as opposed to the dual factor version but it works because workload is always kept low enough so that fatigue should not become an issue. It doesn't mean fatigue isn't there (i.e. the dual factor model of understanding training is correct), it just means that it doesn't get in the way so you don't need to concern yourself with explicitly manipulating it (so you only have to deal with one factor or pure supercompensation).

good explanation. single-factor programs can result in training too infrequently if the trainee using excessive volume or to-failure training. fatigue will quickly become the limiting factor in training frequency, preventing gains

the training i do right now ironically is HST, which greatly resembles a low-fatigue single-factor program in that it assumes fatigue isn't an issue and uses frequently progression.

cheers

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

Fatigue usually isn't an issue with HST, due to the submaximal progressive loading. But you knew that, Casual.

You're never around here to tell us how things are for you. How's training going? How many cycles of HST is this? What gains have you seen on it so far? Dammit, we need details.

 

[majutsu]

Just a philosophical point. What is a theory? A theory is a statement (composed of words) which when interpretated by a certain culture (such as physicists) predict and describe measurable phenomena of reality. So in other words, what matters in a theory is not what happens in reality (because what happens will happen anyway), what matters is what words are used, the way those words are interpreted. In other words, a theory is only right or wrong semantically. For example, if we have a theory "rocks fall up" and do an experiment where rocks fall down, we are wrong. But if we redefine "up" as towards the earth, then our theory is now magically right! But, of course, this new "up" has to work as well in our other sentences/theories.

This is Quine's idea of science as a web of sentences whose nodes are the common words between sentences. When a new observation disrupts our web, we work like spiders reweaving our web of belief in the most efficient way possible!

So Casual is right. SF is wrong, because the words of SF when taken outside of exercise study have to be so twisted as to not fit our use of these words in biochemistry, physiology, etc. The reality SF described has not changed; reality never does change, it's only our thinking about it that changes . . .

However, SF-pure programs, even HIT, can produce great results. Simply because though SF has failed to survive in the web of belief, it contained an ancient strand, a theory that guided hercules, the spartan warriors, olympic greats of the past, Reg Park, Kaz, Arnold, Lou, . . .This theory has never failed to survive a pruning of the web: Majutsu's theory: "Lift heavy rocks, get big and strong."

So yes SF is wrong semantically. That's traditionally assumed to be the only way theories can be wrong, as they are just semantic structures.

 

[Madcow2]

Majutsu: I like the connected web example. That's a nice way to describe thought pattern when you see something break. I guess all learning is like that and we constantly check our experience against our recorded history of experiences to construct and then refine that web. When something doesn't fit we have a problem. I kind of feel that way about relativity and speed of light - it just doesn't fit our everyday web and paradigm. You have this whole web of your experience but it can't account for that and you can't reconcile it. One has to sort of sit back, take it in and then sort of abandon the current web for a larger view, realizing that it is just a web built on our perceptions. I think that's a generally healthy thing in life and unfortunately it gets rarer and rarer as we go along.

Anyway - just on the topic:
Lift bigger, get bigger works. Single factor appears to work very nicely but occasionally you have things that you can't explain that run totally counter to the theory. And this is the bugger in science, because you know you are right but not completely - and until you have something better don't toss the baby out with the bathwater so to speak, just know that your theory is not comprehensive. The dual factor theory (fitness and fatigue) fills in that gap and works in instances where single factor did as well as where it failed. It's just about completeness of a theory or understanding. No one likes the web breaking down and when it breaks down reliably and repeatably under sets of circumstances - you know you have a problem with your base theory or something else at work, either an outside force (which science seeks to minimize by controlling variables to isolate the test) or another piece of the puzzle brought on by the variables being tested that your theory just doesn't account for.