Front and back walkovers/limbers

Bipocni said:

Well, my own contribution is going to pale in comparison to that posted above but I'd say this is your problem right here. You've basically skipped a progression. I've always thought that the stand-to-stand bridge should be mastered before even beginning limber work. If you can't pull out of a bridge onto your feet, how can you pull out of a bridge onto your hands? Eliminate the hop in one, and it should go a long way towards eliminating the hop in the other.

And yes, I know above he clearly states "it's okay to 'hop' back to standing" and by all means, listen to the advice of the guy who clearly knows more than I do. But once you can stand from a bridge, front limbers should be fairly easy for you. It would only be the reverse planche portion of the exercise that would give you trouble.

You've gotten mixed up there buddy. Going to HS and then to stand is easy with a hop. Standing up from bridge (stand to stand bridges) is easy at any speed. You can see me doing that in the front video. The thing that really needs work is to do so with straight legs, which is significantly harder and to me distinguishes a correct limber from CC style thing stand to stand bridges

Edit;

I think thats my fault, my focus was on back limbers since the front, while not right yet, is on the right track , so i had the back one on my brain while writing

Jon Douglas said:

Edit;

I think thats my fault, my focus was on back limbers since the front, while not right yet, is on the right track , so i had the back one on my brain while writing

Okay wait, you've lost me with that edit.  I'm confused now....

 

But I've never liked the way bridges were portrayed in CC.  The instructions for correct bridge form clearly state that arms and legs should both be completely straight, but the model doesn't portray this himself.  (Still, all respect to Jim Bathurst, the guys clearly strong as all hell.)

My back limber is where i was looking for and received advice and corrections on.

The front is not yet quite correct, but it's on track and coming along. It needs a cleaning but I am much more comfortable with that technique than the back at this stage. That is on track as long as i am diligent and mindful.

I don't wanna talk about CC; from the costumes to the exercises it is a study in a particular direction I choose not to go down.

So where are you now?  I reread the topic after your answer to MrPuppeh's thread and now I'm curious to see your progress.

Bro said:

So where are you now?  I reread the topic after your answer to MrPuppeh's thread and now I'm curious to see your progress.

I think I'm progressing ok with it, comfortably doing 5 reps of lower to bridge- hop to handstand (very occasionally get the pull but it's ugly) as an IM between FL strength sets.

Might put up a video on Monday and fish for more hints, but I'm pretty sure at this stage it's just rep rep rep and open the chest more. As my flexibility's improved I've been able to get more weight on my hands, and I think I'll get it with time.

Jon Douglas said:

....Might put up a video on Monday....

Show us a pull.  Even if you have to do it straddle or with a single leg.

 

Edit: should expand on this.  Just as there is the half lay, straddle and one leg variations on levers, would the same principal not apply to limbers?

 

I know they're not quite the same thing, but there's still the role of leverage in the whole thing, right?

Cool, seeing all the videos back to back will surely highlight good progress!

Well, progress anyway. How good it is I couldn't say but it feels more comfortable.

Bipocni-- pull is ugly in terms of I find it very difficult still, so my back tends to stay arched and my legs bend or even pull away from each other. Whereas a hop feels like a nice tight shape.

If I tried to pull over in tuck I would put myself in a very awkward position, and same with straddle-- it amounts to elevating the hands a little (by dropping the level of the hips) and making it much harder to get the weight onto my hands. While this is the eventual goal (elevated hands) Im not there yet

Jon Douglas said:

If I tried to pull over in tuck I would put myself in a very awkward position, and same with straddle-- it amounts to elevating the hands a little (by dropping the level of the hips) and making it much harder to get the weight onto my hands.

Oh hey, you would too.  I didn't even consider that...

First real pull from bridge to HS today, very pleased with myself. Built by Tues/Fri F7 (3-5 back limbers as FL mobility) + 4x a week H1/2 (10kg x 10r flexion reps in warmup) for the past 6 weeks. Video to come next week.

 

 

A note;

I got quite sick at the beginning of the year and missed a couple of sessions. I noted that coming back after an extra couple days break had me 1) restless and raring to go and 2) finding everything easier than the week before. From this I decided, with trepidation, to dial down to 2x F7 a week and spend my active recovery days on H1/2. It made me tremendously restless to begin with, but this schedule already has me improving notably faster than the 4x a week split, progress on which I was already pleased with.

 

My point is volume addicts, don't dismiss 2x out of hand. I have time to get genuinely hungry to improve my performance, it never feels like a chore, and mentally I have no problem gearing up for F7 since it's only twice a week anyway. Turns out I'm a medium-low recovery person-- I can do quite a bit more, but I thrive on a little less frequent. Every time I have over my misgivings reduced the volume (allowing 3 cycles at least following the same template), I have experienced a significant acceleration. If you are not progressing at least on schedule, you might give this some thought too I never considered training so infrequently to be worthwhile/productive, but I am proven convincingly wrong.

Jon Douglas said:

First real pull from bridge to HS today, very pleased with myself. Built by Tues/Fri F7 (3-5 back limbers as FL mobility) + 4x a week H1/2 (10kg x 10r flexion reps in warmup) for the past 6 weeks. Video to come next week.

 

 

A note;

I got quite sick at the beginning of the year and missed a couple of sessions. I noted that coming back after an extra couple days break had me 1) restless and raring to go and 2) finding everything easier than the week before. From this I decided, with trepidation, to dial down to 2x F7 a week and spend my active recovery days on H1/2. It made me tremendously restless to begin with, but this schedule already has me improving notably faster than the 4x a week split, progress on which I was already pleased with.

 

My point is volume addicts, don't dismiss 2x out of hand. I have time to get genuinely hungry to improve my performance, it never feels like a chore, and mentally I have no problem gearing up for F7 since it's only twice a week anyway. Turns out I'm a medium-low recovery person-- I can do quite a bit more, but I thrive on a little less frequent. Every time I have over my misgivings reduced the volume (allowing 3 cycles at least following the same template), I have experienced a significant acceleration. If you are not progressing at least on schedule, you might give this some thought too I never considered training so infrequently to be worthwhile/productive, but I am proven convincingly wrong.

Jon, I'm giving training frequency extra thought as well.

 

Lately I have been capable of demonstrating mastery for a given week on several different exercises at the first workouts in the week, but on the last workouts, performance have been significantly worse, which leads me to question whether I am fully recovered. 

 

Reading this article also raises some interesting points on the subject - Makes the gears in my head churn a little.

Ravn said:

Jon, I'm giving training frequency extra thought as well.

 

Lately I have been capable of demonstrating mastery for a given week on several different exercises at the first workouts in the week, but on the last workouts, performance have been significantly worse, which leads me to question whether I am fully recovered. 

 

Reading this article also raises some interesting points on the subject - Makes the gears in my head churn a little.

Wow, that's a depressing article

I don't doubt most people can train more often than me and make great gains, I'm not terribly athletic. I enjoy it, and I work hard, and I want the most return for my effort-- if that meant 6 days training, then that's what I'd do, if logistically possible. But that clearly wouldn't be right for me.  My point is to reiterate what Coach wrote in Foundation-- there is no benefit in forcing yourself to do what you are not suited to.

Notably I now find my second workout of the week much easier than the first. The elements genuinely feel easier. If you're starting your week strong and fading a little towards the end, perhaps you *would* benefit from a schedule shuffle

 

Edit;

Training on this schedule has not solved my planche problems entirely (yet), but I have spontaneously developed a 10 second SE>SE4, which I didn't have a couple weeks ago. So... fingers crossed that one of my corrective measures (likely H2 and R1 release have contributed too) has taken hold and my planche will catch up to the rest soon enough

Yep, that sPL/SE3 is one of those I have trouble with - Sticking to the progression as laid out is not possible atm., have to spend roughly double the time developing it.

It's interesting to see that going from 4-day split to 2xF7 works better for you. I always saw the split as less volume even though it's four workouts in the week. You still have two days of rest in between each element. Maybe that's because I'm still on F1 for most stuff, so F7 is just basically a day of minutes staying still in torturous positions. 

Maybe I should give it another try and see how it goes this time.

Wouldn't it be the same though, since you're still doing upper body / lower body twice a week?

 

Regardless, when are you going to post a video?

Ravn said:

Reading this article also raises some interesting points on the subject - Makes the gears in my head churn a little.

And I quote:

 

In 1988, Graves et al3 studied 50 men and women accustomed to strength training and tested them on 12 weeks of reduced training frequency, going from 2 or 3 days per week to 0, 1 or 2 days per week. Those reduced to zero lost strength as expected (about 70% over the 12 weeks), but for those who merely reduced their frequency? No loss at all.

 

Sorry, but what!?  I'm pretty sure if they lost 70% of their strength in 3 months, they weren't that accustomed to strength training.  I can't imagine someone with a thousand pound squat would be reduced to 300 in 3 months, nor could I imagine someone with a maltese be reduced to anything less than a planche (if that) in 3 months.

 

I've seen 80 year olds do side levers.  You don't just lose strength like that.

 

Edit: I've got loads more beef with this article, but I'd like to concentrated on some ambiguity here:

 

Three sets do not have even double the effect of one, not even close. Specifically, 2-3 sets are 40% better than just one,18 and only 20% more for 4-6 sets.

 

Is the author implying that 6 sets are 20% more effective than 3 sets, or 20% more effective than one set?  Because if I'm really supposed to be learning something from this article, I would think the most significant one would be that results actually diminish at higher volumes.

 

Now I know since they didn't expressly say so (and it's kind of the point of the article so they would if it was the case) I have to assume that 6 sets are 20% more effective than 3 sets, rather than one.  But I don't like assumptions.

 

And while I'm on the point, 3 sets of what, exactly?  Since we're talking about barbell training^ambiguous It would be easy to list rep ranges as well as % relative to one rep max, which is what's really required to properly evaluate a workout.

 

Sorry, I don't mean to dump all over this article, but the author made a point about how he's a fan of scientific rigour, so I think he's fair game...

First of all, disregard everything written in that article. It was written solely to push a book.

 

If you want real science, read journal articles. Even then you'll encounter a lot of crap, so you have to look carefully at their methods to see if the conclusions they draw are justified. 

This is what Coach wrote about it a while ago.

- Note that the point about multiple workouts per day is very important. Your body literally does not know the difference between 1, 2 or even 3 workouts in a given day. As far as your body is concerned, it is simply one loonngg workout that had breaks built into it.

- Allan's most productive schedule ever was twice a day workouts on M, W, F followed by a single workout on Saturday. Note that this is only four training days, with three days (T, Th, Su) of REST.

- Of course the cautions about adequately controlling intensity and intensity and following proper progressions still apply.

- Note also that this multiple workout per day template is something that you must build up to gradually.

Bipocni said:

Wouldn't it be the same though, since you're still doing upper body / lower body twice a week?

Regardless, when are you going to post a video?

It definitely isn't the same. Theres an extra day before I repeat an element, and apparently for me that makes all the difference. Reminds me of what Mats said a while ago about liking 3*F7 because it gave him more total rest days than splitting em up.

I seem to remember Big Jeff saying he thrived on 2*a week too. More volume is better long term, but its more effective to build up volume in eg) hbp or rope climb than eg) pushups or pullups

Video during Tuesday morning workout I expect, provided I can pull it off again

Jon-

 

Thanks for sharing your results.

 

On a related note, between January to February I went from 4x/week F1-F2 to 3x/week (Mon-Tue-Thu).

 

I continued to increase reps/time each week, and in some cases made huge jumps in reps/times.

 

Also the quality of effort (rate of perceived effort) dropped, meaning the training was still hard but not exhausting.

 

My friend noted that if I was making gains on 3x/week, then basically I was wasting a fourth day.

 

I recall Coach Sommer has also written that one of his athletes (not Allan) cut training to 3x/week and once again started making tremendous gains. (I may be misremembering.)

 

Reducing training days is a challenge. I have difficulty simply taking time off.

 

Thanks again for sharing your results-

 

j

Jason Stein said:

 

Reducing training days is a challenge. I have difficulty simply taking time off.

 

j

Agree! I also have trouble with this. What has helped me is to do something else like yoga, stretching, light running or other things that could help my GST.

Jon Douglas said:

.....There's an extra day before I repeat an element.....

How?....  There's 7 days in a week.  If you were doing an upper lower split as outlined in F1, you would work upper monday and thursday.  This leaves 2 and 3 days off respectively.  If you decided to do it say, monday and friday you've still got 3 days off and 2 days off respectively.  The only way you could have extra days off is if you were on a rotating schedule where you worked out different days each week.

Bipocni said:

How?....  There's 7 days in a week.  If you were doing an upper lower split as outlined in F1, you would work upper monday and thursday.  This leaves 2 and 3 days off respectively.  If you decided to do it say, monday and friday you've still got 3 days off and 2 days off respectively.  The only way you could have extra days off is if you were on a rotating schedule where you worked out different days each week.

Original schedule A: Mon/Thurs, B: Tues/Fri.

Now: Tues/Fri

 

Yep, you're right, my mistake. Not repeat an element, I meant in my head an extra day before hitting F training (which is far more taxing than HS or my meagre R) again.

 

I'd give the 3xF7 another look, but right now my HS is improving a lot on the extra focus. I feel this is an excellent, very sustainable balance, especially with the gentle, gradual beginning of R1 conditioning alongside.

Along these same lines, the US Sr Team has found that approx 3 days in between high level ring strength workouts appears to be the sweet spot.  Note that Jon's Tues/Fri Foundation schedule pretty much nails this dead on.

 

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

Coach Sommer said:

Along these same lines, the US Sr Team has found that approx 3 days in between high level ring strength workouts appears to be the sweet spot.  Note that Jon's Tues/Fri Foundation schedule pretty much nails this dead on.

 

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

Since recovery is an individual process, I can only assume that they've all built up to similar levels of work capacity having made it this far in their sport.