FL/PE5 and arms position

Hi all,

I'm reaching the end of FL/PE5 and found myself in that terrible 5x60" moment.

Now, what I noticed is that if I keep arms as per video, I'm not able to complete the whole superset, while if I move them to the "other allowed stance" ("the arms may also be placed down by the hips", the page says) then I can complete the whole sequence.

At the moment I'm keeping arms up as much as I can, then move them down and go on till the end of the minute. The shift  happens at around the 2nd set, at approx the following times: 40/30/30/20

To be clear, I DO complete the whole thing for a minute 5 times, it's just that I'm not able to do it exclusively with arms up, only with a mix of stance 1 and 2 for them.

Now I'd consider this as failure and I'm planning to do another round of FL/PE5 before moving along, what would you suggest I should go with?

Shall I do another microcycle, steady at 5x60", trying and keep the arms up as much as possible or should I go back to the beginning of the cycle, doing 4x48s and progress that way again?

I'm more leaning towards the first option...

Thanks for the info.

I remember someone stating that PE5 with hands at hips simulates FL more, so it's not really cheating.

But if you really want to, start over with the whole microcycle. Coach himself said that's what he recommends because you still have a little less volume for more recovery.

It was stated that evaluations of mastery will be done exclusively with arms above the head.

In this specific case, I would engage in another microcycle with the following protocol:

Week 1: 5x60s (3 sets arms elevated, 2 sets arms near the hips)

Week 2: 5x60s (4 sets arms elevated, 1 set arms near the hips)

Week 3: 5x60s (5 sets arms elevated)

Week 4, Deload: 5x30s arms elevated.

But that is what I would do, you don't have to do the same.

As Fred said, testing requires the hands over the head. A dowel or broomstick held in the hands works really well-- especially for the rocks.

Taking that extra 4 weeks will pay big in the long run. Since you're struggling with that on the 2nd set, I would recommend doing that.

FredInChina said:

But that is what I would do, you don't have to do the same.

Damn right he doesn't. Stop trying to push your practical, sound advice on everyone else .

start the cycle over thats what I would do. Besides week 9 is better than week 11..

Oki, thanks all.

Just to re-state: I don't want to skip it, I do want to redo the cycle.

It's more about what to do in this cycle, keep the same pattern (easier) or try and stick with 5X60 and address the arms position (harder).

If arms above the head is what is required for mastery, why doesn't it just say so in the exercise? Why give the option? This is one of the frustrating thing with the program. Often times exercises are lacking complete description - 2 lines of description more often than not fails to adequately inform as to how to really engage the exercise. More thorough explanations can usually be found in the forums but often times I (and I've noticed others) have spent considerable time and effort doing an exercise either incorrectly or sub optimally.

Many of these exercises may appear somewhat simple from the video demonstration, but upon working the exercise and looking for more info on how to really exactly perform it to maximize one's efforts, I find greatly detailed descriptions/explanations on the forum that help out tremendously. Unfortunately, often times several weeks have already been spent trying to work through the exercises progressions.

Sorry for the rant, I truly love the foundation series, but for those of us who can't afford the time/expense of attending a seminar I wish the actual course had greater in depth explanations of the prescribed exercises.

I see what you mean.

From my personal, uninformed p.o.v. the course was quite clear about the fact that "arms up are the way to go", if not just by noticing that it's harder (hence better?).

I don't train for any graduation or test, just for myself, so it's pretty clear to me that I'll stay on this element until it's exactly how it's shown in video, should it take a full year.

The question was more about how to get there, given that I'm not "formally" failing, yet I feel I should reiterate until perfect form is achieved.
It seemed to me that trying and keep up with 60" sets, incrementing the time I spend with arms up, was a better approach than going back one full microcycle, just because it's harder to do, so I'd expect better results from that option.

Sorry for not being totally clear about it.

I'm sure you're right, it's always better to err on the side of performing the more difficult variation of a given movement if there's a question (I actual recall that being some general advice from one of the student moderators).

On the topic of the HBH - I worked up to 4x36s with arms above my head but found it very difficult to keep my lower back pressed firmly to the mat without arching. This was resolved by placing my hands by my hips, though that may have been taking the easy way out. Now, this arching occurred upon lifting my legs, any suggestions here? The slight arching seemed to occur no matter what the hold time was, so not quite sure how to resolve this as I didn't have this issue at all with the other FL holds.

I think my "mental agitation" in my previous post was due to recently playing around with some of the moves I had performed with ease when doing the daily wods that I now found to be incredibly difficult. I was freaked out a bit by what I perceived to be a substantial loss in strength. Though I'm keeping the faith that with the foundation series I'm working on building a better, stronger base of which will allow for greater progress down the line.

killroy70 said:

I'm sure you're right, it's always better to err on the side of performing the more difficult variation of a given movement if there's a question (I actual recall that being some general advice from one of the student moderators).

On the topic of the HBH - I worked up to 4x36s with arms above my head but found it very difficult to keep my lower back pressed firmly to the mat without arching. This was resolved by placing my hands by my hips, though that may have been taking the easy way out. Now, this arching occurred upon lifting my legs, any suggestions here? The slight arching seemed to occur no matter what the hold time was, so not quite sure how to resolve this as I didn't have this issue at all with the other FL holds.

I think my "mental agitation" in my previous post was due to recently playing around with some of the moves I had performed with ease when doing the daily wods that I now found to be incredibly difficult. I was freaked out a bit by what I perceived to be a substantial loss in strength. Though I'm keeping the faith that with the foundation series I'm working on building a better, stronger base of which will allow for greater progress down the line.

well, im not certain what your HBH looked like before, yet I can kind of relate with the feeling of my lower back trying to come off the floor. if you feel you get better engagement from working on an earlier progression in terms of hold or rocks, i'd work on getting those solid then once you get to the next hold, the previous progression in rocks will make it substantially easier. 

do you feel back arch in FL/PE3-4? how about FL/PE1-2? 

I've gone through PE 1-4 and had them down rock solid. It's weird with #5, it's not that I'm experiencing muscular strain to maintain my lower back pressed into the floor, it seems more biomechanical. I lift my upper body, and upon lifting my legs I can feel a slight arch. It's nothing overly pronounced, but feels different than, say, straddle FL hold/rock, which I naturally maintained that lower back-floor solid connection devoid of any arch. I'll see if I can get a pic and post it later.

killroy70 said:

On the topic of the HBH - I worked up to 4x36s with arms above my head but found it very difficult to keep my lower back pressed firmly to the mat without arching. This was resolved by placing my hands by my hips, though that may have been taking the easy way out. Now, this arching occurred upon lifting my legs, any suggestions here?

Well... that happens to me when I say I'm failing the element unless I switch to arms-on-hips position. As soon as I feel it's arching, it's bad news.

Because I can do a full set of 60" like that and then I fail at the second one, I'm just assuming I'm weak and need to work it more. That's all.

Not sure if it helps, but actually I don't move my hands down to the hips, instead I put them on top of my thighs, tips of fingers try and reach patella bone. A gymnast friend once suggested me to do so to maximise the "lower back bend" and avoid arching.

Something like this: http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/JnuYfsJ3CKg/maxresdefault.jpg

And not like this: http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/VyrUmzIHmzw/hqdefault.jpg

I found that i tensed my bum when holding this position so when my legs were close enough to the ground my back arched because my bum pressed me off the ground. Once I learnt to tuck my hips and relax my bum it didn't get in. The way any more

mmm...ok, but this is not about the issues with tucking hips.

I was just wondering what protocol would be better to adopt in my case.

killroy70 said:

If arms above the head is what is required for mastery, why doesn't it just say so in the exercise? Why give the option? This is one of the frustrating thing with the program. Often times exercises are lacking complete description - 2 lines of description more often than not fails to adequately inform as to how to really engage the exercise. More thorough explanations can usually be found in the forums but often times I (and I've noticed others) have spent considerable time and effort doing an exercise either incorrectly or sub optimally.

Many of these exercises may appear somewhat simple from the video demonstration, but upon working the exercise and looking for more info on how to really exactly perform it to maximize one's efforts, I find greatly detailed descriptions/explanations on the forum that help out tremendously. Unfortunately, often times several weeks have already been spent trying to work through the exercises progressions.

Sorry for the rant, I truly love the foundation series, but for those of us who can't afford the time/expense of attending a seminar I wish the actual course had greater in depth explanations of the prescribed exercises.

hehehe..... nothing will ever replace one-on-one hands-on coaching, and sometimes the half a second it takes a trained eye to give you a cue is entirely worth it.

That said,

I disagree with you:

When you hire the best of the world to assist you, you must be ready to discover and accept methods you did not know about - if you knew, you would be the one to have been hired.

More cues is not the solution; what we see on the forum are people asking questions showing they clearly misread the docs... there are only two cues - each 7 words - per exercise and they managed to misread them! What do you think would happen if there were more?

That's right, more questions, and then more, and more... More confusion and over thinking... More drop outs... and soon, nobody has time training , so busy they are arguing over details!

Foundation gives the dots; you draw the lines; if you get lost, you'll learn at least 5 things (and likely many more): (1) how to figure out that you are lost, (2) how to find directions, (3) how to find your way back, (4) eventually how to avoid repeating mistakes, and (5) how to teach others that. [this is why I've grown dubious of a full scale FAQ BTW.]

That's hard to beat, so hurry up and get lost!

Sorry, can't agree with you Fred.

That's a massive, huge generalization, valid in lots of cases, maybe most of them, but I don't see how it might fit this one in particular.

We're not talking about how "I'd like to perform this exercise this way even if the document describes it different", and not even "I need to exactly know how many degrees I should keep between legs and hip otherwise I'm lost".

Exactly I'm stating that:

- The drill is described correctly and extensively (by video, photo, words)

- A training pattern is given in clear an unequivocal way

- Requirement for mastery is described neatly

BUT

- An exception is added.

Mind, then, that my original question was NOT "can I pass mastery  even if I only hit the exception but not the proper case", I don't care about that, I want to tick this as fully mastered, I don't need meticulous descriptions nor marketing advice about "hiring the best of the world".

The core of the issue was about how to transition from the exception to the proper execution. Should I just stick to the normal pattern or should I increase the load a bit?"

And this is the whole point that started the discussion.

Just FYI, I'll reboot another microcycle and see how it goes, if any of you guys think I should follow different patterns let me know what and WHY, but please... less philosophical words and more sweat.

maolu said:

Sorry, can't agree with you Fred.

That's a massive, huge generalization, valid in lots of cases, maybe most of them, but I don't see how it might fit this one in particular.

 

(...)

 

(...) please... less philosophical words and more sweat.

- It is okay, that too will come in time...

- This is why we have the forum

- The "sweat" part was already addressed here: https://www.gymnasticbodies.com/forum/topic/13153-flpe5-and-arms-position/?p=128728

FredInChina said:

- The "sweat" part was already addressed here: https://www.gymnasticbodies.com/forum/topic/13153-flpe5-and-arms-position/?p=128728

Well, looks like you shouldn't be here then, should you?

maolu said:

Well, looks like you shouldn't be here then, should you?

Singing for pigs...

Fred has anyone ever told you that you say the strangest things.....?

FredInChina said:

Singing for pigs...

Even I didn't get this one man; isn't it time for your soup?

Time for my soup!

FredInChina said:

Time for my soup!

No soup for you!