Bill Starr's 5 x 5 program... Variation per Madcow2 (thanx) So here it is! K up now!

Topside said:

My Results:......

Click to expand...

TheOak84 said:

yes im natural, i noticed gaines throughout the whole program. when i was doin my max for reps (on the 1x5, 1x3 days) was when i knew it worked, so about the 7th week

Click to expand...

Boss101 said:

Cool, before you started the program what was your max 1x5 and 5x5 on the squat, bench, row, OHP and dead?

Click to expand...

Topside said:

My Results:

Stats before 5x5: 142 lbs. 10 % bodyfat @ 5'10
Stats after 5x5: 154.4 lbs. 10% bodyfat @ 5'10
Gained 12lbs. of muscle and put on no fat. My body feels more dense and muscular. My proportions are still the same as 142 so basically i look like a scaled up version of 142 at 154. I do look a little thicker especially in my back and arms.

Click to expand...

Shepherd4 said:

I typically train 3x per week (used to be 4, but I recover better on 3). I'm a ways out from my next comp, but currently only lifting 2x per week as I have Highland Games practice on the weekend (so much for an offseason!).

For the last several months, my workouts were based on constant drilling the SN and C&J with moderate weights - 70-85% 1RM - for 10-20 singles each per workout. Occasional squatting and other work as needed. I was toying with the concept of switching my SN/CJ workouts around to something like this:

Day 1:
SN drill 10-ish singles
C&J up to a heavy single.

Day 2:
SN up to a heavy single.
C&J drill 10-ish singles.

My plan would be to increase the drilling and heavy single weights by 2.5kg per week (5lbs) through week 4, deload for a week, and then cut the drilling from 10 singles to 5 and continue pushing up the drilling singles and the heavy singles. Garnish with Squats to a heavy set of 5 and power cleans to a heavy set of 3.

Is this just too far afield from the fundamental (and productive) concepts of 5x5, or does this have some merit to it?

Click to expand...

Madcow2 said:

<---Snip
I am thinking like 20 ppl (some body builders, young, old, newbies, intermediates, various ethnics, fat and skinny etc) for EACH training theory method. So lets say we are going to benchmark H.I.T. vs Dual Factor vs. MaxOT (I think) vs. xxx.
Snip--->

Click to expand...

Okay, obviously we've gone awry somewhere:

Dual Factor is not a workout routine or a program. It's a theory on how the body works, and to date it's the most comprehensive theory that seems to apply and fit all scenarios whereas single factor theory fails to explain a lot of very common and easily replicable scenarios.

There is no dual factor vs. HIT per se. There is dual factor vs. single factor, and the world at large resolved this a long time ago. The problem HIT people have is that they are wildly attached to the logical underpinnings of the program - which are single factor and for the most part don't really hold up in the face of much of the evidence. HIT training can clearly be used in a dual factor setting. These are mutually exclusive only to those who don't understand it.

Take for instance Doggcrap - somewhat similar to HIT (single set, train to failure) but the frequency is held constant and what he calls cruising periods (makes me think of a bunch of bodybuilders cruising around in Miatas) are actually deloading. This is how I understand DC's training anyway although I don't spend a lot of time looking at it.

So there is no Dual Factor vs. HIT vs. MaxOT or whatever to test. There are two theories - single and dual factor. Dual factor is far more comprehensive and robust, to the point where it has completely supplanted the single factor theory. Any program can be periodized, even HIT, and it's very logical and very efficient in that you can accrue more stimulus in a given period by inserting periods of lower stimulus (less frequency if you want to hold volume/intensity (%1RM) and/"intensity" [sic - preceived effort] constant). The amount of stimulus in this setting will be higher over an equivalent timeframe because you aren't taking the frequency all the way out under the assumption that it's optimal to time every single workout because you have to run an infinite chain of them without altering any of the components. The overall conditioning and tolerance levels of the athlete can also improve vastly using this method.

I think if Mentzer had known about this and it didn't force him into another amphetamine induced breakdown, he'd be on board (yeah, I'm taking a shot at him simply because I have no idea how he's garnered so much respect over the years - good sales person and ignorant customers). Makes a lot of sense and is consistent with how the body works. Very logical.

Granted you'll still argue with people that feel that constantly going to failure is horid from an efficiency standpoint because the fatigue is so excessive relative to any measurable benefit (and we'll just leave it that there's A LOT of doubt that there is any benefit to strength or hypertrophy from the isolated act of failure). You'll also face the argument that 1 set is not enough, and there's quite a bit out there on that too. BUT, you won't face the single factor/dual factor argument because it's really not central to applying HIT-style training, it just happens to be a theory that got tossed which a lot of HIT proponents are ignornant of and cling to as if it was written right after the 10th commandment and Jones and Mentzer caried it down directly behind Moses.

This is what one does in science, test theories, find out where they fail, modify or discard as needed until you arrive at one that is robust, comprehensive, and repeatedly stands up to rigorous testing. Dual factor theory is the best reprensentation we have of how the body works - at the very least it is far far better than the single factor alternative. What one does with that informaiton and how it is applied is up to them.

Obviously it's been making inroads into BBing for a while now in (I'm editing here because it's worth it - basically just breaking up the paragraph and adding a few examples):

- HST - Strategic deconditioning periods
- DC (Doggcrap) - "cruising" periods
- "Changing up your program because it's stale"
- a HIT practitioner decreasing frequency more than normal for a time until he starts to feel he's making progress again and goes back to his usual frequency
- even the Weider Instinctive Training Principle or whatever where one might decrease load if signs of fatigue or overtraining are felt

It goes on and on and most everyone is already subconsiously doing it in some form or another (albeit a keener understanding of the science allows a more refined and optimized approach). You see it everywhere it's just not well understood by the BBing population and it would be really nice if ****ing Weider and the musclemags would try to educate people a bit and give them something they can use rather than hawking supplements and promoting the drug beauty pagents that are competitive BBing.

Click to expand...

Madcow2 said:

Just curious how do you explain the fact that no pro or amature bodybuilders are even talking about "dual factor" let alone using it? i mean honestly if it works so well and is soo widely known about you would think at least one of them would be trying it wouldn't you?
At least with H.I.T there was or is a handful or people who talk about and use it with great success i might add.
and please don't come back with because all bodybuilders are dumb and use drugs etc because that is ridiculous i am a bodybuilder i am not dumb and i don't use any drugs.

Click to expand...

First, I have yet to meet a Pro BBer who can even explain or define dual factor theory. You and I both know it's not in the mags or Arnold's Encyclopedia. So primarily ignorance. It's not like this is a conscious choice for them and they selected single factor theory after thought, study, and deliberation - they have no clue there's anything else. You've been around BBing for 25 years and have never heard of it despite the fact that it is absolutely ubiquitous in virtually all sports at elite levels (essentially, the higher you go the more you find it but it's around at low levels too) - very notably those closely related like weightlifting and powerlifting. Hell, a friend from another board has told me he was suprised to find this common in equastrian training.

Also the fact that the difference between decent (and a lot isn't even that) and truly optimal training only really starts to show up very significantly further out on the spectrum so people have gotten results and get results with less than optimal programs and understanding (i.e. just because some new trainee put some size on their legs doing only machine extensions and curls doesn't mean it's optimal or going to carry them all the way to a massive set of legs). Of course at the elite end of the spectrum in BBing you have no performance criteria just hypertrophy and an ability to use any amount of anabolics over an infinite time period without restriction to compensate for sub optimal training. You might be drug free but I hope you are not naive enough to believe anabolics are only a small enhancement to hypertrophy.

But still, primarily ignorance. Ask a BBer to name a good training book. If you are supremely lucky they'll come up with something HIT related and that's the best outside of Arnold's Encyclopedia you are likely to get. You've seen my list for what are widely held as some of the best books on training available, I doubt more than the tinest fraction of BBers have ever heard of any of them. They aren't making a conscious choice - they just have no clue.

So really, a fully robust and working theory shouldn't be questioned simply because a single subgroup is massively ignorant - you don't question the world being round because some group of isolated indians in the Amazon still says it's flat. A better line of questioning would be, how has BBing and its surrounding media and publications managed to stay so far removed from the world of training at large? Consider the Aztecs not knowing about the wheel, they were separated by an ocean and no one every really thought about it. Now imagine if they were a people who lived right next to and frequently cohabitated with other groups that had it and used the wheel in plain view all the time - wagons, wheel barrows, everything. What if they existed like that and the Aztecs just never noticed or paid any attention - it certainly isn't justification for calling into doubt the usefulness of the wheel. Boggles the mind. How is this possible? Greatest conspiracy known to man? Dumb luck? It's really a great question. I have no idea how BBing has kept themselves this ignorant and isolated. It would seem to be a considerable effort at deception and misinformation but yet this is the juncture we are at and I freely admit that I am always stunned by it and can't find a modern parallel to its equal.

Click to expand...

Madcow2 said:

That is a very convincing explaination i should know because i was giving the same one to people in the gym about H.I.T 5-10 YEARS AGO (true story)

However that still does not explain why no bodybuilders at all even know about it and absolutely zero articles on the subject in anything bodybuilding related
i suspect that it might be really only thought of as a sports related training protocol
something to help pro athletes like football players and such improve their strength for their chosen sport at least that is the impression i am getting at this point .

I don't think it's rational to assume their is soo complete a conspiracy that no one in bodybuilding utters a word about dual factor, could it be because it's brand new or do they think it might be more trouble than it's worth or less effective than what they are already doing or what ? then again the government has been keeping alien space crafts a "secret" for years yet we have still heard of UFO'S so that really does not explain it either.

Click to expand...

Never said there was a conspiracy - that was just poking fun. People already subconsciously periodize in an effort to disipate fatigue once the signs manifest:

1) I believe you stated at FI that when you start to stall out you decrease frequency and until you start to make gains workout to workout again at which time if we understood you correctly you move back towards your more normalized frequency. What do you think you are employing here?

2) People changing up routines once they get "stale". What is this?

3) Wieder Instinctive Training "Blowjob" Principle - if you go into the gym and sense symptoms like overtraining you train lighter and with lower voluem - listening to your body until you feel good again. Doh.

All this stuff is consistent with dual factor theory. It's just very rough and very poorly understood. On the better side you have HST with strategic deconditioning and DC with cruising both of which are deliberate efforts to disipate fatigue that accrues over the course of the program (i.e. fitness fatigue theory/dual factor).

Once again though - you can't assume this is a conscious choice. The BBing population knows shit about training theory. It's not like they spent any time deliberating the merits. It's ignorance. They can't name a good training book, most don't even understand what overtraining is. I've spoken to pros on multiple occassions and seen a ton of training from them. Supperior training or knowledge has nothing to do with their success. You know as much and likely more than any pro I've ever met, and you know I don't credit you as any type of authority on training. You probably train harder and are more disciplined in the gym than most of them too.

Dual factor theory is not new. It took a long time for it to become this prevalent. It's basically dominated training in the latter portion of the past century. The only place where it's not ubiquitous is BBing and there is absolutely no evidence that they are even aware of it. You are a rational person - how can one claim anything other than ignorance based upon what you see demonstrated. Hell, if Jones hadn't had an impact on a few BBers (one of whom was very outspoken) I doubt they'd know about HIT either (and this guy was in the business to sell Nautilus so it's not exactly unbiased interest in the betterment of others and helping some BBers out). In 20 years I've seen no evidence of even casual study into training on behalf of the BBing population. I actually think my joke about the conspiracy is a more valid theory than believing that dual factor theory has been understood and consciously rejected by the BBing population at large. Even if it had, this isn't exactly a respected or knowledgable population so we'd have the equivalent of a group of peasants screaming the earth is flat when every scientist, coach, and even fairly well read person believes otherwise and can provide mounds of evidence to the contrary.

Still, look at the examples above and that's just the tip of the iceberg, you don't need to know you are using it to make use of it. Common sense will tell you when you are fatigued and you know to cut back (actually, the fatigue will force you to cut back by slashing your performance and ability to train, the body is self regulated for survival). You don't need to know how the brain works to think and make decisions or know how an engine works to drive a car beyond just filling to tank and getting occasional maintenance. It isn't conscious acceptance or rejection or anything of the sort. It just explains what's going on behind the scenes. The body doesn't know whether or not you are in theoretical agreement, as long as you don't drive yourself into the ground you will get results up to a point. Now, a better understanding of the theory and how the body works will enable one to utilzie this information and more fully optimize their training (i.e. get an oil change every 3K miles rather than 12K and your car will run better/last longer/whatever - just an example). Of course just like the car - you will only truly notice the difference once your car gets older and you've beaten it down some, in training the differences are most evident at the highest levels and almost non-existant at the novice levels. Of course we've already covered why the best in BBing can sidestep this to a degree by just saturating themselves with anabolics. With copious drugs cows put on a lot of muscle just eating and standing around, never touching a weight. With unrestricted use of drugs you can keep taking more until you get results from a comparatively poor stimulus.

Come on, how hard is it to believe that fatigue is an independent factor from supercompensation? Your CNS is at the heart of all of this and makes it happen, it's not a muscle but does have limited resources. Train hard for 3 weeks and then take some time off and you come back stronger and frequently grow as a result - this is what lead to the bodypart 1x per week workouts that are so prevalent now (i'm sure you remember the 3on1off - even AM/PM stuff you used to see circa the late 1980). They simply thought they weren't allowing enough time between each training session for recovery (basically single factor). It never dawned on them that they were simply disipating fatigue and allowing the body to fully adapt to the previous training stress. Single factor can't explain delayed compensation other than saying that the final workout was soooo stimulative that all this progress could be made from it alone. Yet, when we try to replicate this phenomenal single workout, we can't get near the same results no matter how much rest or effort we spend in timing it. Something else is at play in there also and a very robust and logical explanation is dual factor theory which is nothing more than addressing the independent fatigue component. It's not at odds with any training methodology, it's just what's going on when one exposes oneself to stress of this kind. If one intends to subject oneself to this type of stress on any type of consistent basis in order to achieve a goal, it's worth understanding what's going on so you can better work within the body's parameters.

Click to expand...

Madcow2 said:

Dual Factor Theory Is Not A Program Nor Is It At Odds With HIT et al.

I wrote this on another board and thought it might be useful to refer to in the future. Most people who have kept up with this probably will find no value in reading it as it's sort of a "No Shit" piece, but since this crops up a lot it's probably very useful to keep handy.

Source Post: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=6012897&postcount=159

Click to expand...

cwpick said:

So why in your opinion does the BBing world not change their way of training? I myself have tried to spread the word and have sent your post to the masses trying to at least get them thinking of other possibilities in their training.

Click to expand...