BTBG vs. F 1

I have to say that I am enjoying progressing through the initial phases of Foundation One.  Currently on week 7.  Additionally, I have BTGB and have used some of it's principles in the past.  Definitely a great book.

 

That being said, I have noticed a perceived difference, at least by me,  in the approach to static holds and functional strength exercises when the two are compared.  In BTGB, Coach states,

 

In essence the Steady State training cycle is simplicity itself; only add weight,

or add repetitions, or increase the duration of a static hold or progress onward

to a new more difficult exercise variation approximately every 8-12 weeks and

then only after the athlete has progressed through an adaptive training cycle

of perceived over-load (hard effort), load (medium effort) and under-load

(easy effort or recovery). This means that the training load; i.e. number of sets,

number of exercise repetitions or the duration of static hold repetitions, will all

remain constant throughout the entire training cycle. At no time during this Steady

State cycle will the level of work be increased. 

 

 

In F 1, as an example, ABH and BHBH over the 12 week period progress from 12, 24, 36, 48 to 60 seconds.  Does this follow the recommendations in the paragraph above or is a variation as a mean to the same end (... the duration of static hold repetitions, will all remain constant throughout the entire training cycle.)?

 

Additionally, Coach states,  "In my opinion, the most common and yet serious flaw in the thinking of most coaches, trainers and athletes is that they neglect to allow enough time in the

under-load, or recovery stage, where the level of effort is physically perceived

as being relatively easy. This is actually a crucial part of any training cycle,

allowing the current gains to be solidified and the

musculature/joints/connective tissue/central nervous system (CNS) and the

psyche to completely heal and recover in preparation for the next steady state

cycle of perceived over-load, load and under-load."

 

In both programs, the underlying message is to do not rush the process.  My questions is not out of a desire to rush or question the methods, but rather of clarification and education.I would love for Coach or anyone else to comment on this as a way to further educate curious people as myself into the intellectual and physiological ideologies behind both approaches.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SSC - intermediate to advanced training method that ensures sufficient prep of very hard skills. Useful to more advanced ring strength elements and at an advanced athletic level.

F1 rep scheme - rep scheme that takes advantage of newbie acclimation to the skill where you can progress a bit faster. Exercises are inherently safer and apply less stress to the body. Also includes deload. Based on the premise of accumulation and intensification training cycles.

As stated in Dan's post, the simple answer is that the SSC approach is best suited for training intermediate to advanced strength elements; e.g. an iron cross. When working on less stressful skills, Foundation's more aggressive approach to progression yields better results.