Rip: The Two-Factor Model of Sports Performance

[Mark Rippetoe]

The Two-Factor Model of Sports Performance | Mark Rippetoe

[Matt Neilsen]

The Two-Factor Model (Training vs. Practice) has been discussed several times on this board, but this article helped bring it together for me. I must admit that even after finding Starting Strength, I got sucked back into gymnastics strength training for a time because it seemed to me that it would develop a more "practical" strength (whatever that means). However, I think what I was really doing was training strength and practicing its expression (through things like front lever progressions, planche progressions, etc.). Looking at it through the Two-Factor lens, it would make more sense to just focus on building strength through the most general means possible (i.e. barbells), and then practice the expression of that new-found strength in other movement patterns if so desired.

For example: Doing something like chin-ups on gymnastic rings isn't "building strength in the stabilizers" so much as it's teaching the brain to fire the various muscles in proper sequence to maintain balance; in other words, skill training (practice). A more efficient way would be to build general strength and then practice its expression in other domains (in this case, on rings) if so desired. Am I understanding the principle correctly, as applied to this example?

Thanks,
Matt

[George Christiansen]

This is definitely your best explanation of what is both obvious and sure to be mindlessly argued against in spite of a thoroughly reasonable treatment here.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I think it will be merely denied.

[Keith Burnett]

Denied=Ignore

[Torsten Bauer]

Hi Mark,
another great article which describes the concepts of training and practice. I have one question concerning the concept of training with respect to conditioning. You say: "Training is the process of accumulating a specific physiological adaptation or adaptations necessary for improved performance in an athletic event. ... These physiological adaptations are not dependent on any specific movement pattern or patterns – in fact, they are general adaptations across the entire body, and are totally non-specific to any particular neuromuscular pattern or pathway."

In terms of training for strength this is totally plausible but in terms of training for endurance the best possible training shoulde be performing the given sport (as you also state further down using soccer as an example). Therefore obtaining the physiological adaptations of a given sport is best done by performing the specific movement patterns of that sport. In other words, there are no analogue non-sport specific movements like Squats, DL, Press, and Bench Press for endurance training as running or cycling will not yield the optimal physiological adaptation for Basketball, Soccer or even Table Tennis. So is there a conceptual difference in training for endurance and training for strength in terms of specificity?

[Mark Rippetoe]

This is true for advanced endurance sport competitors, and reinforces the practice aspect of the paradigm. Novices can of course improve their endurance by getting stronger and participating in any endurance activity. But a 3-hour marathon involves enough running mechanics efficiency that it must be practiced on the road, in the wind, with people around. But I'm sure you understand that this article is aimed at sports in the middle of the curve, not those on the extreme kurtotic ends of the spectrum.

[Keith Burnett]

Hi Mark,
another great article which describes the concepts of training and practice. I have one question concerning the concept of training with respect to conditioning. You say: "Training is the process of accumulating a specific physiological adaptation or adaptations necessary for improved performance in an athletic event. ... These physiological adaptations are not dependent on any specific movement pattern or patterns – in fact, they are general adaptations across the entire body, and are totally non-specific to any particular neuromuscular pattern or pathway."

In terms of training for strength this is totally plausible but in terms of training for endurance the best possible training shoulde be performing the given sport (as you also state further down using soccer as an example). Therefore obtaining the physiological adaptations of a given sport is best done by performing the specific movement patterns of that sport. In other words, there are no analogue non-sport specific movements like Squats, DL, Press, and Bench Press for endurance training as running or cycling will not yield the optimal physiological adaptation for Basketball, Soccer or even Table Tennis. So is there a conceptual difference in training for endurance and training for strength in terms of specificity?

I don't think the evidence necessarily supports the contention of your last sentence/question.

If you read Martin Gibala's new book One Minute Workout....he is a very good exercise physiology researcher and Chair of his Department at McMaster U. He is the popularizer of certain HIIT endurance workouts so we shall take it on faith ....legit.

So many citations in One Minute workout are related to studies of highly trained athletes as well as untrained shmoes. Generic HIIT protocols clearly not sport specific improved sport performance due to adaptations and increased capacity....compared to the control groups of athletes who only continues with their sport specific training. Of course this is generalized performance. they presumably did not score more goals or make more "clutch" plays.

[Emily]

Rip, I really enjoyed reading this. It is such a frequently misunderstood concept. For example, I had a recent conversation with a 400m hurdler; he was measuring the velocity of his Hex-Bar Deads, and wondering how he might increase the velocity of the last reps. They were 130kg.

In terms of training for strength this is totally plausible but in terms of training for endurance the best possible training shoulde be performing the given sport (as you also state further down using soccer as an example). Therefore obtaining the physiological adaptations of a given sport is best done by performing the specific movement patterns of that sport. In other words, there are no analogue non-sport specific movements like Squats, DL, Press, and Bench Press for endurance training as running or cycling will not yield the optimal physiological adaptation for Basketball, Soccer or even Table Tennis. So is there a conceptual difference in training for endurance and training for strength in terms of specificity?

I think the concept is applicable to all sporting preparation. The nature and amount of each of the two-factors just varies in accordance to the stated sport. The first premise has to be, what are the motor, energetic, mechanical, analytical and psychological demands of this sport? I think, using the term 'training for endurance', as proxy for sport, may be confusing.

Are you suggesting only participation is necessary for sporting performance improvement, once the sport requires increasing endurance? The examples you use feature biomotor and bioenergetic demands that could certainly be improved by training. Even in the case of an ultra-trail runner; very often climate, injury management and venue considerations may necessitate including some non-specific training methods in their preparation.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Even in the case of an ultra-trail runner; very often climate, injury management and venue considerations may necessitate including some non-specific training methods in their preparation.

Training methods, or practice methods? Lots of sports face these types of problems. American football can't practice in pads all year, but they can practice on the field. Two different types of practice, both providing specific conditioning, neither are training. The weight room is available all year, even if the field is not.