Rest Set Progression

Hi,

What do you think is better?

A) Working on full sets and reps with rest needed so as to complete all the sets with all the reps. For example, 5x60'' plank. Then working on do this sets with less rest between sets until you get it only without the rest of integrated mobility.

B) Working in short sets that you are able to complete with the rest of the integrated mobility, until you are able to add the total volume with that rest.

C) Both are good. It depends on what do you prefer.

Thanks.

You need rest only to complete mobility. so adjust the correct reps x sets so that you can manage all the template for that week.

I tried both and B is the one that helps me the most.

Definitely B. That's how the program is designed, after all.

The only exception would be if you can't complete week 1 of PE 1 without rest; then you would gradually decrease the rest until you only need the iM, and then you'd start progressing like normal.

Joshua Slocum said:

Definitely B. That's how the program is designed, after all.

The only exception would be if you can't complete week 1 of PE 1 without rest; then you would gradually decrease the rest until you only need the iM, and then you'd start progressing like normal.

This. The more exact you are in following the program as written and with correct technique, the more quickly you'll progress.

The reason individuals need to repeat microcycles has more to do with these items or being on the wrong progression than any other factor. Is it sometimes necessary to repeat one? Yes. Should it be as widespread as it is? Certainly not.

Cory Fair said:

This. The more exact you are in following the program as written and with correct technique, the more quickly you'll progress.

 

The reason individuals need to repeat microcycles has more to do with these items or being on the wrong progression than any other factor. Is it sometimes necessary to repeat one? Yes. Should it be as widespread as it is? Certainly not.

I'm definitely guilty of this for a few elements, especially when I first started and wound up having to repeat most of my microcycles. It takes at least as long to progress by repeating cycles as to progress as dictated, by not deluding yourself and starting where you ought to, and often longer I'm sure.

B is not just better but more convenient. Why give yourself the extra work of taking into account shifting rest times when you can just follow the program as is and not have to worry about that at all?

I want to add that sometimes mobility issues force one to repeat microcycles, such as achieving the necessary compression in straddle ups by repeating the early weeks, but that's more of an exception to the standard.

I was just going to ask this exact question today - it seems clear the answer from these responses is B, in other words, always keep the rest time limited to the time to do the mobility movement.

But, how does this actually work in practice?  For example, say I can do 4x12 of HBP PE1 but when moving to the next week of 4x15 I can only get the first two sets of 15 and then hit, say 6 reps on set 3 at which point I fail.  Do I then immediately do an iM set, followed by another set of HBP PE 1 to failure?  Am I done at that point since it was 4 sets or do I keep this going until I complete the total number of reps for HBP PE1, regardless of how many sets it takes?

My own thinking on this is that if you are failing at the higher end of the spectrum, i.e. higher reps or time count, then it is really endurance you are trying to build and choice B above is probably the best course for progress.

However, if you are failing at the lower end, say under 8 reps, then you really need to build strength to move forward and perhaps increasing the rest period is the better choice so you can complete enough reps to stimulate the strength gains needed.

I'm curious what coach would say.

trw said:

I'm definitely guilty of this for a few elements, especially when I first started and wound up having to repeat most of my microcycles. It takes at least as long to progress by repeating cycles as to progress as dictated, by not deluding yourself and starting where you ought to, and often longer I'm sure.

B is not just better but more convenient. Why give yourself the extra work of taking into account shifting rest times when you can just follow the program as is and not have to worry about that at all?

I want to add that sometimes mobility issues force one to repeat microcycles, such as achieving the necessary compression in straddle ups by repeating the early weeks, but that's more of an exception to the standard.

Assuming one starts on the correct week and progression, this would indicate a need for either A) Correct Stretch Therapy as a supplement to the mobility or B) specific tissue work to address any underlying pathology or segment-reflex zones

Billy E. said:

I was just going to ask this exact question today - it seems clear the answer from these responses is B, in other words, always keep the rest time limited to the time to do the mobility movement.

 

But, how does this actually work in practice?  For example, say I can do 4x12 of HBP PE1 but when moving to the next week of 4x15 I can only get the first two sets of 15 and then hit, say 6 reps on set 3 at which point I fail.  Do I then immediately do an iM set, followed by another set of HBP PE 1 to failure?  Am I done at that point since it was 4 sets or do I keep this going until I complete the total number of reps for HBP PE1, regardless of how many sets it takes?

 

My own thinking on this is that if you are failing at the higher end of the spectrum, i.e. higher reps or time count, then it is really endurance you are trying to build and choice B above is probably the best course for progress.

 

However, if you are failing at the lower end, say under 8 reps, then you really need to build strength to move forward and perhaps increasing the rest period is the better choice so you can complete enough reps to stimulate the strength gains needed.

 

I'm curious what coach would say.

If you're failing at the lower end, you've most likely advanced beyond your abilities, so you should go back. If you're consistently having trouble making the jump from one week to the next, and you're absolutely sure you've really mastered the previous weeks, you may want to try breaking the progression up into two or more even more gradual mini-cycles. E.g. for SL PE1, instead of weeks 9-12 being 4x48, 4x60, 5x60, 5x30, you could try expanding that to weeks 9-16 being 4x42, 4x48, 5x48, 5x24, 4x54, 4x60, 5x60, 5x30  to make the progression more gradual. 

If you fail on the higher end, give yourself a 10 second break, and then finish the set. 

Cory Fair said:

Assuming one starts on the correct week and progression, this would indicate a need for either A) Correct Stretch Therapy as a supplement to the mobility or B) specific tissue work to address any underlying pathology or segment-reflex zones

I'm working on stretches for my poor straddle, and added compression drills in my warmups. I understand a number of people recommend a stretching plan to supplement Foundation work. Going to try Kit's method of one heavy stretch day this weekend.

trw said:

I'm working on stretches for my poor straddle, and added compression drills in my warmups. I understand a number of people recommend a stretching plan to supplement Foundation work. Going to try Kit's method of one heavy stretch day this weekend.

What's key to Kit's method is that you experience the stretch as an exercise in relaxation rather than a forced state of panic.

Thanks for the insight. I'll definitely keep this in mind.

Cory Fair said:

The reason individuals need to repeat microcycles has more to do with these items or being on the wrong progression than any other factor. Is it sometimes necessary to repeat one? Yes. Should it be as widespread as it is? Certainly not.

I think the biggest problem regarding this is that once you start accumulating volume with these exercises, there is often room for form improvement. This is especially true for hollow/arch holds, after one minicycle the form is getting polished, adding harder contraction but then the volume is essentially too great because the intensity grew too. If the form was perfect from the start, I find the structure works close to perfectly.