NLC standard

Hi hi, and loving this purchase-- well worth the wait (probably did my impatient self a favour over-preparing a little),

I'm sure other people will ask this too; what is the way to tell mastery for NLC's (SE>IM4)? Emphasis on a complete slow negative? How to tell what sort of hand assistance is appropriate?

I was a little surprised to see this one here despite expecting it a bit; both NLC and GHR are substantially more difficult than SLS. How should judging the standard be approached?

simple stupid thing i did in the past..using a weight scale to understand how much weight you are pushing up!

alex87 said:

simple stupid thing i did in the past..using a weight scale to understand how much weight you are pushing up!

I like that actually

But from what I see it doesn't look like 5 unassisted reps are required-- and that seems pretty disproportionate to the difficulty of negative SLS. Please clarify when you have a moment, team

i think that the problem is not the disproportion between negative SLS element and NLC as IM...

the problem is your (and mine    ) actual strength difference between pushing and curling movements of the legs. there is a very little percentage of people who have the same level of strength in NLC and SLS. people can do multiple sls but no one single leg NCL.

so pair a negative SLS with assisted NCL means that the standard is lowered...(better then 1 leg negative NCL with 1 negative SLS)

Agreed. I don't mean a problem exactly, just a wide margin unassisted reps are definitely a goal for the future, but I wonder how best it's approached at this point...

Show control, tight body with good negative and then as you see in the video the arm push does not put you completely back in the starting position only part way and you finish it out with leg strength.

Nic Branson said:

Show control, tight body with good negative and then as you see in the video the arm push does not put you completely back in the starting position only part way and you finish it out with leg strength.

Thanks Nic. That's much more achievable than unassisted reps.

Still, aim high! No reason not to train these until they ARE unassisted.

ewethestuff said:

Wow, I thought I'd get to try these tonight, but I just got CURBSTOMPED by single leg bridge curls.

 

Weaknesses are all comin out.

Getting em into the light means it's only a matter of time until they're eliminated

ewethestuff said:

... but I just got CURBSTOMPED by single leg bridge curls.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself! I'm thinking negatives at this point to bridge the gap or just see how I fare next time. Anyways, it was quite the shock.

So I'm back on these. I can complete NLC's as they are in the video, but I regard these as a personal goal.

My thoughts are that I'd quite like to work on these until I have a very strict 5-10 second negative and something passably close to a strict (momentum-less) concentric-- so I'm not necessarily looking to hang out here until I can knocking out strict reps like pushups. Is it worth the time investment to stay at SE3 with them (while remaining at negative SLS, which are easy and a little boring), or am I better off moving forward and keeping just a set or two in SLS to work on?

Am I overall better off dropping a few months into this now, or moving forward and keeping up work on the trilogy of NLC-nGHR-GHR to edge in on a strict curl in slightly different ways?

My thought process could go either way, but I'm a little more on the side of moving forward to bring more difficult (and somewhat less time-consuming) SE's into the equation, since after all there is a full NLC contained in GHR. Any advice welcomed

Addendum=>

Doing some reading, it seems that a lot of strength coaches value NLC's more for the eccentric adaptions in runners and jumpers. Is a perfect negative the primary goal here, more so than minimising momentum on the concentric?

A longer term goal should be to be able to do these for reps, but you'll always start with the negatives

I found that the most reasonable way to scale these, for me, was to use a counterweight that starts to kick in around 45 degrees, so that you are only assisted at the weakest points. This is brutally hard, much harder than the self-assisted reps, so it's probably not a good way to start off. I'd work on developing your negative to the level that you mention, and then perhaps trying this method of working up to full bodyweight.

An alternate method, which is what I often use when teaching pull ups, is to first build the negative and then have 2s holds every 15 degrees or so, slowly turning them into longer holds. When you can produce steady 7-10s isometric holds at any point in the ROM, including hovering off the ground, you should have no trouble going back up.

That last method is definitely a more purist approach, and requires a whole lot less equipment.

Hey Charm,

As you know I have also completed these. I'm planning on moving on to the next level. You have inspired me to one day aim for unassisted nLC. By the way how far can you go down without using your hands for assistance?

Super Saiyan said:

Hey Charm,

 

As you know I have also completed these. I'm planning on moving on to the next level. You have inspired me to one day aim for unassisted nLC. By the way how far can you go down without using your hands for assistance?

I have a solid negative to the floor without hands, I still have trouble pausing it past 45 degrees though-- it's a slow steady over maybe 5 seconds. I am finding it difficult to tell exactly how much assistance I am giving myself with my hands on the concentric; I need a push up, I can't start it without momentum.

Joshua Naterman said:

A longer term goal should be to be able to do these for reps, but you'll always start with the negatives

 

I found that the most reasonable way to scale these, for me, was to use a counterweight that starts to kick in around 45 degrees, so that you are only assisted at the weakest points. This is brutally hard, much harder than the self-assisted reps, so it's probably not a good way to start off. I'd work on developing your negative to the level that you mention, and then perhaps trying this method of working up to full bodyweight.

 

An alternate method, which is what I often use when teaching pull ups, is to first build the negative and then have 2s holds every 15 degrees or so, slowly turning them into longer holds. When you can produce steady 7-10s isometric holds at any point in the ROM, including hovering off the ground, you should have no trouble going back up.

 

That last method is definitely a more purist approach, and requires a whole lot less equipment.

NIce, thanks for that. I prefer the sound of the approach; my attempts with counterweighting and bands haven't been great. I will definitely use that.

If you don't mind me asking again, whilst using this approach, am I better off overall moving forward with the SLS progressions (and putting the time into the leg curl portion of the GHR's coming up) or biding my time here and building on this movement? They *are* very similar, so if I can incorporate an archup into it as well, on the face of it my training time stands to be a bit more efficient, but I'm not sure that's a totally valid perspective.

Well, the NLC should always be a part of your warm up when you move on, so you should be able to do maybe 2 sets of those each training session before starting on the GHR.

In a way, full GHR is easier on the leg curl because you already have momentum, but that depends on how fast you do the arch up part

Joshua Naterman said:

Well, the NLC should always be a part of your warm up when you move on, so you should be able to do maybe 2 sets of those each training session before starting on the GHR.

 

In a way, full GHR is easier on the leg curl because you already have momentum, but that depends on how fast you do the arch up part

Yeah, I should probably just keep it simple-- less moving parts, less to break, right? I'll keep two strict sets in there and work on slower negatives with pauses.

Will post when I edge in on strict reps starting from the bottom!

Charm said:

Yeah, I should probably just keep it simple-- less moving parts, less to break, right?

So I hear!