Training theories 291018 5/5

Training theories 291018 5/5

Two models of thought predominate the current thinking in strength training. One is ‘supercompensation’ or the one-factor theory, the second is the ‘fitness-fatigue’, also known as the two-factor theory. These two are generalized theories and as such contain only the most essential portions of the training ideas. Extraneous options are not included in this brief snap shot of these two training programs.

A rough rule of thumb with a normal training load is the duration of the fitness gains and the impact of fatigue differ by a factor of three. That is the fatigue effect is three times shorter than the positive effects, which last up to three times longer. As an example if the effects of fatigue last 24 hours, the improvement in fitness lasts 72 hours.

Using the two factor model the coach must keep in mind the two offsetting components of training and plan each follow up session accordingly. Maintenance of preparedness, avoidance of fatigue and continual training sessions comprised of several warm up type sessions prior to a contest. The idea behind this is to decrease the training load during each session rather than reduce the number of training sessions. A tapering off of the training load has been proven to enhance the final strength outcome.

In order to accomplish this feat the intervals between sessions must be long enough so the “negative traces of the preceding workout pass out of existence but the positive fitness gains persists.” This has become a rather popular model for use in planning strength training programs.

Training theories 221018 4/5

Training theories 221018 4/5

Two models of thought predominate the current thinking in strength training. One is ‘supercompensation’ or the one-factor theory, the second is the ‘fitness-fatigue’, also known as the two-factor theory. These two are generalized theories and as such contain only the most essential portions of the training ideas. Extraneous options are not included in this brief snap shot of these two training programs.

Two factor theory (Fitness-fatigue theory)

This “theory of training is much more sophisticated than the supercompensation theory”. Its basis is the premise “that preparedness, characterized by the athlete’s potential sport potential performance is not stable but rather varies with time. There are two components of the athlete’s preparedness:

Those that are slow changing, for example, physical fitness is a slow changing phenomenon. It does not change a substantial amount over short periods of minutes, hours or even days.
Fast changing such as physical fatigue (a temporary lowered ability to work because of disturbed homeostasis resulting from performing this work ), illness, the athlete’s disposition toward competition, intellectual, and sensory inputs may all change quickly.

According to this theory, the immediate effect of the training is a combination of two processes:

  1. The gain in the fitness which was prompted by the workout
  2. Fatigue resulting from the workout

The sum of the two effects is an increase in fitness due to the workout that is offset by a deterioration of fitness due to fatigue. The outcome is a balancing act of positive and negative actions within the body. If the fitness increase is greater than the effects of fatigue, the organism grows stronger. If not the opposite is true.

Training theories 151018 3/5

Training theories 151018 3/5

Two models of thought predominate the current thinking in strength training. One is ‘supercompensation’ or the one-factor theory, the second is the ‘fitness-fatigue’, also known as the two-factor theory. These two are generalized theories and as such contain only the most essential portions of the training ideas. Extraneous options are not included in this brief snap shot of these two training programs.

Several popular methods try to achieve this state. One is overloading in a Microcycle, one heavy cycle of training is followed, after a brief rest, by another heavy training cycle. A lengthy rest and restorative period is then included in the schedule. The belief is that by adhering to this schedule the final supercompensation will be greater than normally results from a training cycle.

A critical look at this theory leads one to believe it may be too simplistic to be of much use any longer. The very fact that supercompensation even exists is not a proven fact in scientific experiments. Glycogen depletion, however, is a fact after heavy exercise. It is a possible to increase glycogen in the cells via a particular program of correct training and carbohydrate loading-but only before important competitions. Replication in everyday training situations has not been proven.

ADP, adenosine triphosphate, generally thought to deplete after heavy exercise in fact shows little change at all in the cells. Other substances require differing amounts of time to restore to initial levels.

It is unclear as to which substance the program planning should be adjusting to in anticipation of a supercompensation result. “In general, the theory of supercompensation is too simple to be correct. Over the last few years it has lost much of it popularity”.

Training theories 081018 2/5

Training theories 081018 2/5

Two models of thought predominate the current thinking in strength training. One is ‘supercompensation’ or the one-factor theory, the second is the ‘fitness-fatigue’, also known as the two-factor theory. These two are generalized theories and as such contain only the most essential portions of the training ideas. Extraneous options are not included in this brief snap shot of these two training programs.

Supercompensation

In order for this to work, the program design must take into account the phases of enhanced absorption and plan accordingly for these periods. If, on the other hand, the program planner inserts a workout before the cells have had a chance to take on the higher levels of the growth producing substances they will be less apt to tolerate the new load. An injury or deleterious cell damage will be the result rather than growth occurring.

Equally disruptive to growth is a lengthy period between workouts. After too much time has elapsed, the cells will revert to their normal status. Perhaps a small amount of growth will take place but not nearly as much as if the period had been correctly planned.

The coach has to keep in mind these two variables while planning a program.

Optimal rest periods between successive training sessions and
An optimal load in each workout.

“The aim selecting these intervals and loads is to ensure that a subsequent trading session coincides with the supercompensation phase”.

 

 

011018 Training theories 1/5

011018 Training theories 1/5

Two models of thought predominate the current thinking in strength training. One is ‘supercompensation’ or the one-factor theory, the second is the ‘fitness-fatigue’, also known as the two-factor theory. These two are generalized theories and as such contain only the most essential portions of the training ideas. Extraneous options are not included in this brief snap shot of these two training programs.

Many are already familiar with ‘supercompensation but for the sake of review, here are the basics.

In one factor training, the most immediate effect of training is on the depletion of the critical biological components of strength gain, i.e. the substances that enable us to grow in response to the imposed demands. Evidence exists in sports literature indicating an exhaustion of these substances at the conclusion of a hard workout. One that immediately comes to mind is the depletion of muscle glycogen stores.

This theory postulates this phase as being a time of super saturation of the cells of the biological substances needed to grow. In other words, the cells absorb more of the substances than normally would occur, thus enhancing the growth of the organism. Gluttony of the cells would be an apt description of this replenishing process. This is ‘supercompensation’.