Dual Factor hypertrophy training?

Status
Not open for further replies.

radio

New Member
I know this is an HST forum but does anybody know anything about dual factor hypertrophy training? Im trying to figure out which form of training is best for me but im somewhat confused about DFHT. I know you have to work in 8 week cycles of 2 or 4 week training blocks and do loading phases and deload then load again and so on but im confused about the progrsive overload part of the loading phase. Do you try and increase the weights each session like in HST or do you try and increase the weight each loading phase. Since your not ment to train failure then i assume its the latter?
 
For details on Dual factor, you can find quite bit searching on google. I think bodybuilding.com has some articles.
The basics idea, is that you train more often than you can recover from, you 'accumulate' fatigue so that a 2-4 week block of training is like 'a workout', then you train less frequent with less volume but a bit heavier for 2-3 weeks and this is comparable to resting between workouts with single factor training.
Depending on how you perform HST, it can be either dual or single factor. If a person does not recover completely between HST sessions but yet keeps pushing, then it's more like dual factor. The only major differernce, is that with dual factor you expect performance losses during the cycle as your trying to accumulate stress to take advantage of the recovery/rebound effect afterwards.
Cheers,
Ron
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Do you try and increase the weights each session like in HST or do you try and increase the weight each loading phase.

I think it's the former. For most exercises, you work up to the pre-calculated RM, making sure you do all of the reps and sets with proper form and limited rest periods. After the entire loading cycle is over, you recalculate. During deload, you use 10% less of your RM. The DFHT setup is interesting. One loading phase is mostly dedicated to one rep range. Then the next loading phase resembles HST with different rep ranges, oestenibly to emphasize different responses.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Depending on how you perform HST, it can be either dual or single factor. If a person does not recover completely between HST sessions but yet keeps pushing, then it's more like dual factor.

When I started on HST a few years ago, I assumed the given program was Dual Factor theory applied to a HIT-style program. Took me a few months to understand why this wasn't true.

Periodization in general is a functional/outcome performance theory (as is HIT) linked to a strength-demonstration model. It is essentially a theory based on historical dialectic. Like all histories, concepts are recursive algorithms of the underlying model; in this case, strength-specific stress theory. In BBing circles, DF enthusiasts argue Dual Factor is a finer, more expansive application of the Supercompensation reasoning process. However, you could say that Dual Factor is Supercompensation chunked up, that is it is the sum response of finer, underlying GAS-y processes. DF is more useful simply because trainees don't want or need more esoteric variables and concepts to evaluate the history of their functional performance.

I basically don't agree with applying DF to hypertrophy because of DF's inherent strength-specific paradigm. Now, I suppose we could use to model the summation/feedback loops involved with metabolic anabolism/catabolism, various protein signaling responses, cumulative sarcolemma disruption vs. repair, remodelling response against progressive peak tension, growth factor concentrations, endocrinal response, etc. But we're mostly stuck with terms like sets and reps and weight.

But, in its original context as a performance-specific model, DF can be useful to manage the CNS fatigue response and metabolic stress during HST. The better your conditioning, the higher degree you can tweak HST up the wazoo. For example, I think people should start out with relatively conservative volume per bodypart, and then either mantain this or steadily increase it through each phase. Moreover, through the 2nd half of their program, they steadily increase the amount of metabolic stress while following progressive overload. This may not necessarily be the optimal way for hypertrophy, but this seems to match well with matching overall workout fatigue with overall conditioning.

cheers,
Jules
 
I agree, I don't think dual factor is optimal for hypertrophy, it's main intent was increased athletic fitness with strength gains.
I can see it being great for ball players and the like. :)

HST really isn't dual factor, I guess I worded that wrong, what I meant, was that if a person uses HST but keeps "going in the hole" then it ends up working like dual factor. Instead of gaining you'd be accumulating fatigue until your SD and next set of 15's where you might catch back up. Last winter I though dual factor sounded pretty cool so I read up quite a bit on it and then decided that 'super fitness' wasn't what I was after, not right now anyway :)

Cheers!
 
I'm not sure DF is not good for hypertrophy after all. First of all if it really makes you gain strength faster than a standard supercompensation system you might be able to grow more- because you counter the RBE more.

Also, the relatively high frequency - 2x/week- and high volume are interesting hypertrophy wise.

In other words DF enables you to train more, which is good for hypertrophy and still gain more strength, which is also good.

It could be possible also to lower the rep range during a DF cycle, like in HST, to increase the chances of countering the RBE.. in fact HST with its undulating format looks like DFHT.
 
Matt Reynolds (bodybuilding.com article)
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]When you know why you train the way you do, you can make dramatic progress in the gym
Well, at least he got that right.  ;)
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It could be possible also to lower the rep range during a DF cycle, like in HST, to increase the chances of countering the RBE.. in fact HST with its undulating format looks like DFHT.

Yeah, that's very true. Mind you, I think DFHT is a good program for hypertrophy. I'm just wary of the conclusion that because HST resembles X, it is actually a version of X.

A few years ago, I had a lengthy debate with another poster about the role of strategic deconditioning and the rep ranges used in HST. Because he was viewing things from a periodization model, he associated SD with active recovery/deloading and HST's rep ranges as a sort of microcycle specialization strategy. Most periodization enthusiasts do.

Insofar Dual Factor theory itself is a sports-scientists's application of systems biology, yeah some version of it could probably be used here. Nothing wrong with using a reductionist approach to how the various parts talked together, just as long as you're looking at the right thing.

cheers,
Jules
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (vicious @ June 03 2005,3:27)]A few years ago, I had a lengthy debate with another poster about the role of strategic deconditioning and the rep ranges used in HST.  Because he was viewing things from a periodization model, he associated SD with active recovery/deloading and HST's rep ranges as a sort of microcycle specialization strategy.   Most periodization enthusiasts do.
Just to be clear, I think here you're differentiating between people who use a certain rep range to achieve a certain end, like 10-12 reps for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, whereas in HST the reps are just a construct to allow for progressive loading while tracking volume and TUT?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (vicious @ June 03 2005,2:27)]Mind you, I think DFHT is a good program for hypertrophy.  
Sure, along with Max OT, HD, HIT, DC and the myriad of other routines. Any program can be HS if some of the principles of growth are involved.

My concerm with DFHT would be the premise that hypertrophy is a response to prolonged or accumulated fatique. It isn't. Neither is strength. The fact that one then combats this fatique with a reduction in volume but heavier load further goes to show that, even unwittingly, the principles of tension eliciting hypertrophy are applied by many.

It's a conspiracy I tell you, a conspiracy.
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]whereas in HST the reps are just a construct to allow for progressive loading while tracking volume and TUT?

That's correct. The 15s is sort of an exception to this, of course. Studies definitely have shown that 15+ reps (i.e. lengthy TUT) generates a lot of lactate and can contribute to low-level rehab. The rep range recommendations in periodization is a sort of misinterpretation of how load and metabolic fatigue induces hypertrophic responses. 10-15RM can generate significant myofibrillar hypertrophy were the muscle sufficiently deconditioned. And 5RM may generate very little if the muscle has been chronically worked at a certain load. And so on.

People tend to misinterpret the above and start fumbling around with the RM phase structure, say doing 12-8-4, in order to coincide with rep ranges that are more "hypertrophy-specific." Nothing wrong adjusting that, but the intended goal won't match the effect. Or if, having experienced the best apparent size gains through either 15s or 10s, they conclude it's due to that rep range being empirically associated with hypertrophy.

It kinda goes back to how HST uses conventional weightlifting terminology and structure in order to be accessible, with the caveat that it causes some cognitive dissonance with superficially similar looking programs. Trainees have to shift their fatigue/strength-performance paradigm toward HST's unique one, which takes awhile.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]My concerm with DFHT would be the premise that hypertrophy is a response to prolonged or accumulated fatique. It isn't.

NWLifter and I are having a jolly debate with this one. :D

cheers,
Jules
 
It's possible to say I guess that within HST microcycle, you have a period of load/deload. You deload the first 2-3 workouts or so because they are easy on the CNS and then accumulate CNS fatigue until the end of the microcycle, as you get closer to failure.
So in fact, the DF theory is more or less already in HST. Which doesn't mean it was intended to be there on purpose.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
My concerm with DFHT would be the premise that hypertrophy is a response to prolonged or accumulated fatique.

Right, but the thing is that the DF system enables you to train more - do more sets, etc.. - and still gain strength. Which is exactly what you what from an hypertrophy perspective - according to HST at least.

From what I know the DF theory is quite complex. It was developped by the russians decades ago, and is in fact probably better than standard supercompensation systems. I know several people who progress well on it, both in strength and size.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (NWlifter @ June 16 2005,7:36)]I found a series of awesome and very technical articles on this, it's really a great read :)
http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/taper1.php
http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/taper2.php
http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/taper3.php
Just as a sidenote, abcbodybuilding is one of the dumbest bodybuilding sites in the history of ever.

Seriously, how many bodybuilding boards double as creationist propaganda mills for anti-evolutionist rhetoric? You couldn't write fiction better than that.
 
On the first week, God made hypertrophy. And it was good. On the 2nd week, the Devil made supplements. And it made Bill Phillips very rich. The Book of Bryan shall revealeth the End of Days. Amen. Preach on. Booyakasha and all that.

Thanks for the links nwlifter. I'll read them further and see whether we can model this somehow for HST.

cheers,
Jules
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (mikeynov @ June 17 2005,2:55)]Just as a sidenote, abcbodybuilding is one of the dumbest bodybuilding sites in the history of ever.
Come on Mikey you know you love their papers that are written in the form of a study by a guy named Coolcat or Bonzo or Veal or Lark'sTongue in Aspic (wait no that's a King Crimson Album, sorry). How much more scientific do you want
laugh.gif
 
Speaking of King Crimson, what albums do you recommend? They released a few in the 90s with Adrian Belew but I wasn't sure about getting any them.

cheers,
Jules
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It kinda goes back to how HST uses conventional weightlifting terminology and structure in order to be accessible, with the caveat that it causes some cognitive dissonance with superficially similar looking programs.

this must be the single most profound statement in HST history. Not really in what it says, which is far from overly complex, but the diction is just downright authoritative!
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (vicious @ June 17 2005,2:40)]Speaking of King Crimson, what albums do you recommend?  They released a few in the 90s with Adrian Belew but I wasn't sure about getting any them.
cheers,
Jules
Thrak was the only one I liked from the 90's, really the only song I liked was "SEX SLEEP EAT DRINK DREAM" but it still wasn't bad.

"In the Court" has to be one of my all time fav's, 21st Century Schizoid Man was an anthem of mine. But "Starless and Bible Black" I think is one of their best as far as the music. I also liked "Islands" the song "Sailor's Tale" is outrageous.

They fell out of favor with me back in the 80's but I still had ELP. Greg Lake has got to be one of the best bass guitarists (note I said one of the best) I've heard, too bad he left King Crimson but we got ELP out of the deal so it was a fair trade off. Just think if he would have joined Jimi when Jimi asked him, that would have been great I wonder how different Electric Ladyland would have sounded with him on bass instead, but we still would have lost out on ELP.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]But "Starless and Bible Black"

I really like Starless actually. I like Fripp's sustain effect that he does with his guitar.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Greg Lake has got to be one of the best bass guitarists (note I said one of the best)

Actually my beef with Hendrix was how undemocratically he approached the power trio lineup during live performance. It's really, really hard for any bassist, be it Redding or Cox, to really improvise when they're just trying to mantain a pocket around Hendrix. Which is why I preferred the early Who or Cream, two bands that had bassist and leads really playing off each other.

cheers,
Jules
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top