The Muscle Factor Model

[Richard99]

...IMHO, the dual factor approach is the best system which will give the athlete (or gym rat, i.e. me) the best overall gains.

I believe training based on the muscle factor model will produce 5 - 25% greater increases in strength than any other training method.

One study compared a non-traditional program that utilized the basics of the muscle factor model (even though the researchers were unaware of the muscle factor model) to a standard periodized program found the non-traditional program produced 50% greater increases in strength than the periodized program. This study used untrained subjects, so I wouldn't expect trained subjects to experience the same magnitude of improvement, but I do believe that gains of 5-25% are possible for trained subjects.

[GuyJin]

If you had a link to that study it would make for interesting reading. I'm glad you mentioned that the subjects were untrained, as "newbs" will (generally) experience gains no matter what protocol they follow.

Having said that, "believing" that a trained subject could get up to a 25% increase in strength and/or hypertrophy is a bit much. If they were chronically overtrained, then, yes, you'd probably see some kind of a rebound effect. I'm not doubting you nor saying no; I will reserve judgement until I see the "nuts and bolts" of your programme. If you could provide a link plus a programme that would be much appreciated.

[Richard99]

Here's the study citation:

Goto K, Nagasawa M, Yanagisawa O, Kizuka T, Ishi N, Takamatsu K., Muscular Adaptations To Combinations Of High- And Low-Intensity Resistance Exercises, J Strength Conditioning Res, 2004, 18(4), 730-737

When I say 5 - 25% increase I'm estimating since the muscle factor model has not yet been studied. 25% is the high end of the range, a gain I would expect of lesser trained (but not untrained) trainees. I expect well-trained folks would see gains in the 5-10% range. Of course, a 5% greater increase over any other program could easily be the difference between winning and losing in many sports and competitions.

I expect over the next 20 years as this is studied, tested, and refined we will know if my estimate is too high, too low, or about right.

[Richard99]

GuyJin,

The things I would ask anyone to consider as they evaluate the muscle factor model is this:

1. Are their different types of muscle fibers?

2. If there are different types of muscle fibers, do those fibers have different contractile properties (how much force they produce when they contract, how fast they contract, and how long they can contract before they fatigue)?

3. What muscle fibers are active during your activity or what muscle fibers are you wanting to train?

4. Does a fiber have to be overloaded in order to cause an adaptation?

5. Do the contractile properties of a muscle fiber have any influence on the training stimulus that produces overload in that fiber?

[N@tural1]

How about you just give us an example workout so we can see how revolutionary this program is

[GuyJin]

These are good questions. As I'm not a physiologist and just a layperson, here's what I think. (I also have not had the time to read the article, so I will look at it later on, time permitting, and see what's what). As for your questions...

Yes, there are different types of muscle fibres, possibly more than what you listed earlier. The fast-twitch will naturally fatigue earlier because the ATP in them will be depleted by intense exercise. I think All Pro said that they'll conk out between 5 and 10 seconds...maybe less, I'm not sure.

Do you have to train heavy to cause an adaption? It would seem so; "heavy" is a relative term--let's just say somewhat heavier than your body is used to at the moment. (i.e. if you bench 250 for 5 and go up to 255 for the first time, that is "heavier" than before). That in and of itself will cause some kind of adaption, although that will depend on outside factors such as nutrition, rest, age, frequency, et.al.

As for the muscle fibres you're training and those you want to train, I think it depends on what kind of result you're looking for. If you want strength, then I would go for repetitions in the 1-5 area, although that may vary somewhat. If you're into endurance type activities/training, it would make sense to train with higher reps to fatigue the slow-twitch fibres, although I'd think that the fast-twitch would receive some kind of stimulation as well. When you train, I'd think most, if not all the fibres would be stimulated, although the majority of certain types will be the prime focus, depending on the exercise, and the "lesser" ones will play a lesser role, although they'll still receive some kind of stimulation. How much, I can't say for sure.

The problem with trying to address ALL the fibres is that you'll end up doing a number of rep ranges, satisfying no criteria (strength/hypertrophy) IN FULL. As an example, you could do, say, 2-3 sets on the bench (after warmups) of 3 to 5 reps, which will tap into the fast-twitch fibres, then some other sets using a higher rep range to address the slower twitch fibres and push hypertrophy. (The number of sets will, of course, depend upon one's individual tolerance for exercise, and that is another matter entirely).

This in and of itself is good. The only problem I see is that one runs the risk of overtraining by trying to address ALL aspects at once for maximum effect. The case for periodization/deloading, etc. relies on the fact that the body will focus (for lack of a better word) on a particular type of training, and the CNS will adapt (to a point) to that type of training. Once exhaustion sets in, it is time to back off and let the body recover. Is it perfect system? No; no one system is.

I will be honest here and say that these are my thoughts and may not be necessarily correct. I would ask that All Pro, fbcoach--who both have the background for this type of talk--and some other guys on this board as well--to step in and discuss this a bit further. In the meantime, I will take a look at the article and see what the findings were.

[N@tural1]

excellent article on rep ranges and their purpose

http://www.strengthandscience.com/november/article3.htm

Id like to know whats revolutionary about the OP's system. Perhaps post a workout and we can see.

[Rowdy3090]

Richard - Are you suggesting one would be required to perform lifts at near maximal force generation for extended periods (i.e. up to 34 minutes) in order to achieve fatigue/overload in type IIA fibers?

[fbcoach]

I stopped reading after the first paragraph, due to the half-truths being propogated. Jones was not the first person to base weight training on exercise physiology. As a matter of fact, Jones stated many times in writing the heated debates he would get into with one Exercise Physiologist in particular (can't remember his name at the moment, but I believe he helped developed the old Cybergenics training protocol). Nautilus was also developed with a marketing strategy based on getting the most customers in-and-out in a time-efficient manner. "Head-em Up....Move-em Out".

I find the timing of this new thread quite laughable. Another instigation of the "HIT vs Everything Else". Whoever you are.....you should had let SLEEPING DOGS....

[_XYDREX_]

I stopped reading after the first paragraph, due to the half-truths being propogated. Jones was not the first person to base weight training on exercise physiology. As a matter of fact, Jones stated many times in writing the heated debates he would get into with one Exercise Physiologist in particular (can't remember his name at the moment, but I believe he helped developed the old Cybergenics training protocol). Nautilus was also developed with a marketing strategy based on getting the most customers in-and-out in a time-efficient manner. "Head-em Up....Move-em Out".

I find the timing of this new thread quite laughable. Another instigation of the "HIT vs Everything Else". Whoever you are.....you should had let SLEEPING DOGS....

yeah, quite bizarre actually. he starts off talking about jones making it sound like a he's another hit pusher, but ends by simply saying that to get max benefit you must work all the different types of fibers (which is already well known) & just invents his own name to stick to it. in fact nowhere in the body of the text does he present arguments for low volume training to failure. so it appears that he only mentions jones to say that jones was the first revolutionary saviour, & he's the second coming. he also makes mention in one reply how he's not familiar with soviet methods. how can anyone regard themselves as a scientific expert without knowledge of this?

[Richard99]

fbcoach and manfred99,

My suggestion is to follow Bruce Lee's advice - absorb what is useful.

If you disagree with the brief history lesson in my article, I suggest you ignore it. Ignore other minor or inconsequental points you disagree with.

Focus instead on the major points - in this case the physiological facts and data presented. The physiological facts and data aren't affected by bodybuilding history, level of familiarity with Soviet training methods of the past, beliefs about HIT or any other training program, or any other side issue.

[N@tural1]

fbcoach and manfred99,

My suggestion is to follow Bruce Lee's advice - absorb what is useful.

If you disagree with the brief history lesson in my article, I suggest you ignore it. Ignore other minor or inconsequental points you disagree with.

Focus instead on the major points - in this case the physiological facts and data presented. The physiological facts and data aren't affected by bodybuilding history, level of familiarity with Soviet training methods of the past, eliefs about HIT or any other training program, or any other side issue.

Why don't you just post an example workout so we can see how revolutionary this system is?

[Orlando1234977]

Is the revolutionary Muscle Factor Model specific to strength trainers, athletes, endurance athletes or bodybuilders? Seems to be all over the place.. Guess I need to actually see a model program like Britlifter suggests.

[fbcoach]

fbcoach and manfred99,

My suggestion is to follow Bruce Lee's advice - absorb what is useful.

If you disagree with the brief history lesson in my article, I suggest you ignore it. Ignore other minor or inconsequental points you disagree with.

Focus instead on the major points - in this case the physiological facts and data presented. The physiological facts and data aren't affected by bodybuilding history, level of familiarity with Soviet training methods of the past, eliefs about HIT or any other training program, or any other side issue.

Thanks for the suggestion, but when you started off posting half truths, it makes me question whatever else you post. Sorry, I can't focus on a bunch of mumbled up dogmatic BS. Every training protocol calls for progressive overload, which seems to be what you are saying, so what's your point? As for 1 single-set being optimal, excuse me for a sec please.....................Bawahahahahahhahahahaha h.
OK, single-set being most optimal. Yeah..right! Hypertrophy and strength is controlled by the CNS. You still want to tell me single-set is most optimal? That's like saying you only need to practice hitting a baseball 1 time a day..or htting a tennisball..or catching a football anything that involves any neuromuscular pathways. One time for anything isn't optimal. And before you say anything, yes, I know recovery has to be taken into account....that's why they call it DUAL-FACTOR!!

[Jeffo]

Why don't you just post an example workout so we can see how revolutionary this system is?

X2... I won't hold my breath.

Jeff

[Richard99]

Is the revolutionary Muscle Factor Model specific to strength trainers, athletes, endurance athletes or bodybuilders? Seems to be all over the place.. Guess I need to actually see a model program like Britlifter suggests.

The muscle factor model is a model (a physiological explanation) for how muscles function during exercise and, consequently, how they adapt to that training. The functioning of muscles is not unique to a particular sport or activity (muscles contract/function the same way whether you are powerlifting, olympic lifting, bodybuilding, running, cycling, etc.) so the muscle factor model is not specific to any particular sport or activity. The model applies anytime you want to describe muscle function or predict muscle adaptation.

The difference is found in the application of the model to training. For example, the training of a runner will clearly be different than the training of a bodybuilder. The difference is not because the muscles function differently during running than when lifting, but because the activity themselves are different and require specific training (principle of training specificity).

[legendz411]

Why the hell are you in the red?

Did you get misc.ed?

[Richard99]

As for 1 single-set being optimal, excuse me for a sec please.....................Bawahahahahahhahahahaha h.
OK, single-set being most optimal. Yeah..right! Hypertrophy and strength is controlled by the CNS. You still want to tell me single-set is most optimal? That's like saying you only need to practice hitting a baseball 1 time a day..or htting a tennisball..or catching a football anything that involves any neuromuscular pathways. One time for anything isn't optimal.

You appear to have me confused with someone else or you haven't actually read/understood what I've written. I've not made any claims about the superiority of a single set.

One time for anything isn't optimal.

You've never thrown a hand grenade or fired a claymore, have you? ( just kidding around)

[Orlando1234977]

The muscle factor model is a model (a physiological explanation) for how muscles function during exercise and, consequently, how they adapt to that training. The functioning of muscles is not unique to a particular sport or activity (muscles contract/function the same way whether you are powerlifting, olympic lifting, bodybuilding, running, cycling, etc.) so the muscle factor model is not specific to any particular sport or activity. The model applies anytime you want to describe muscle function or predict muscle adaptation.

The difference is found in the application of the model to training. For example, the training of a runner will clearly be different than the training of a bodybuilder. The difference is not because the muscles function differently during running than when lifting, but because the activity themselves are different and require specific training (principle of training specificity).

Sounds great, maybe I'll give it a try today.

[fbcoach]

You appear to have me confused with someone else or you haven't actually read/understood what I've written. I've not made any claims about the superiority of a single set.

EXCUSE ME, BUT YOU SEEMED TO HAVE CONFUSED ME WITH ONE OF THE JEDI THAT BUY INTO THIS DOGMATIC CROCK OF BS. AND YES..YOU'RE RIGHT..I ALREADY TOLD YOU I DIDN'T READ THIS AFTER OBSERVING THE HALF-TRUTHS BEING WRITTEN IN THE BEGINNING, LOSING ANY CREDIBILITY IT MAY HAVE HAD!!

You've never thrown a hand grenade or fired a claymore, have you? ( just kidding around)

NEXT YOU WILL BE TELLING ME IT ONLY TAKES 1 SPERM CELL TO MAKE A BABY....FORGETTING TO MENTION THAT IT TOOK LITERALLY MILLIONS OF SPERM CELLS TO BE RELEASED BEFORE THAT ONE SPERM CELL COULD DO THE JOB!!

[N@tural1]

Richard just post a sample workout and show us your ideas. I fail to see why you're ignoring requests for us to take a look?

[eupharies]

I knew i shouldnt have read all this, now ive even more confused about the type of training i should do for muscle mass, you all seem to know what your onnabout! any tips!>??

[Richard99]

Richard - Are you suggesting one would be required to perform lifts at near maximal force generation for extended periods (i.e. up to 34 minutes) in order to achieve fatigue/overload in type IIA fibers?

That's a great question.

I believe a key point in applying the muscle factor model is to train as many fibers as is practical for a particular sport or athlete. The point at which it becomes impractical to target additional muscle fibers is likely to vary depending on the demands of the chosen sport or activity.

For strength athletes and bodybuilders I don't suggest sets as long as 34 minutes because to the best of my knowledge it has never been studied. The closest thing I can think of to extended resistance training sets is the calisthenics program used in Army basic training and it works quite well at increasing strength and size in trainees. (It was the first resistance program I used and over a 12 week period I gained 20lbs of muscle, results that were pretty typical amongst the group of trainees I was with in basic training.) But, until someone actually studies it, I think it would be fair to leave greatly extended sets out of the workout program for strength athletes and bodybuilders.

For other athletes and activities, there definitely could be a place for extended resistance workouts (rowing, firefighters, and mixed martial artists come to mind, but there are likely others).

For strength athletes and bodybuilders I do suggest that it is practical to train significantly more fibers than are usually trained by current training programs.

[eupharies]

heyy dont ignore the little guy <<

[Orlando1234977]

heyy dont ignore the little guy <<

Your question was fiber activation for muscle mass? Post 37 will set you straight imo.

[Richard99]

Richard just post a sample workout and show us your ideas. I fail to see why you're ignoring requests for us to take a look?

We will eventually get around to discussing sample workouts, but in the meantime I think it is better to discuss the physiology first. If we don't agree on the physiological model, if we don't agree on how muscles function, then we won't agree on the training based on the model of how muscles function.

I'm thinking that at some point in this discussion we will finally get down to a serious discussion of muscle function, that we will discuss the 5 questions I posed to guyjin earlier. allpro and guyjin started down the path of discussing muscle function, what say we join them?

[Orlando1234977]

We've gone over fibers in great detail in past posts. To make sure we're on the same page, will you briefly describe the order of fiber recruitment and exhaustion?

[GuyJin]

Richard,

With all due respect, this seems to be going down a rather familiar path. I can understand your "zeal", but "meatheads" like me like to see the "hows" of training as well as hear about the "whys." Theory aside for the moment, why not post a sample workout or two and THEN explain the "method behind the madness." That isn't asking too much.

[Richard99]

We've gone over fibers in great detail in past posts. To make sure we're on the same page, will you briefly describe the order of fiber recruitment and exhaustion?

Sure. See post #2 as I discussed this in detail in that post.

[all pro]

Richard, you and I don't have a fundamental difference of opinion as to what causes muscles to adapt. The difference between us is that you are only looking at 1 of at LEAST 3 possible causes. Each method will produce a different result. That's why there is NO uber program.
There are 18 different fiber types that have been identified and named so far. There might be a few more. The argument continues. For convenience sake we place them into 3 different GROUPS based on the general characteristics. Muscle fibers hypertrophy because of DAMAGE not fatigue. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (non contractile protein) hypertrophies due to fatigue. The 2B group exhausts it's fuel source, ATP, in as little as 5 seconds in an athlete with a well trained CNS. For the average person they last about 10 seconds. The average person can only activate about 50% of their motor units under a maxim voluntary contraction. 2B fibers do not refuel during use. 2As last about 30-45 seconds for a well trained athlete, about 1-1:30 seconds for the average person for the same reasons as stated above. The difference in the effect of muscles failing due to damage or fatigue is as follows:
Damage the fiber and the fiber hypertrophies. Weather or not there is a fiber type conversion depends on rep range and rep speed.
Fatigue the fiber by running it out of fuel will cause the body to store more fuel at the muscle and to increase vascularity. It will also cause the conversion of fast twitch 2Bs to be converted to 2As and if done to the extreme will cause 2As to be converted to type 1s. If speed, strength and power are your goal you are going in the wrong direction. A bit more about those 2As. About half of them behave a lot like 2Bs in that they do not refuel during use. Pushing a set of 8-12 reps to failure obliterates the half that due refuel and splits them. Also called hyperplasia. This will cause an increase in visible size and it will also bring strength gains to a halt. You're loosing your largest, fastest and strongest fibers. The only way to prevent all of this from happening is to use mixed qualities training, ei 2 different rep ranges. 1-6 done FIRST, followed by 8-12. By juggling the volume and frequency you can have your cake and it it too.

Now I just KNOW you aren't going to tell me that 1 set too failure will do it all........RIGHT?
Now, I've written a very short essay and I'm not getting paid for any of this.