Foundation 1, 2, 3 & 4 & the strength chart

Hi,

Just reviewing the strength chart (https://my.gymnasticbodies.com/fseriesstrength/) and wondering if anyone knows how L0.5 to L4 correlates to Foundation 1,2,3 and 4.

I think Foundation 1 cover L0.5, but I do not have access to the rest of the foundation course at the moment.

Thanks in advance

Enzo

F1 correlates 0 to 0.5 and 0.5 to 1. Foundations 2 correlates 1 to 1.5 and 1.5 to 2 and so on.

Are the exercises really arranged with regard to the strength required? I'm asking because e.g. in the HBP series PE3 seems to be the hardest of PEs 1-10 in terms of strength. To me it seems rather that HBP elements first focus on horizontal pressing, then vertical pressing, then inverted pressing and finally multiplane pressing, and only the elements within these four groups fall in order of strength required to perform them.

Petri you are correct it is only within a category (such as the ones you identified for HBP) that the strength requirements go up gradually. At least that is my experience and (from reading the forums) that of many others. 

The strength chart btw. has not yet been updated to reflect the new SLS progressions in F1 or the changes in order of progressoins in RC. I'm sure that will come soon, the same thing happened when the SL progressions were modified. 

On 9/30/2016 at 1:51 PM, Petri Widsten said:

Are the exercises really arranged with regard to the strength required? I'm asking because e.g. in the HBP series PE3 seems to be the hardest of PEs 1-10 in terms of strength. To me it seems rather that HBP elements first focus on horizontal pressing, then vertical pressing, then inverted pressing and finally multiplane pressing, and only the elements within these four groups fall in order of strength required to perform them.

I'm not sure if this is necessarily correct. I could do PPP no problem, but when I first attempted HBP/Pe5 (the dip negatives) I struggled to 3 reps. My shoulders just weren't used to going all the way down to my hands. It took me a couple of weeks before I mastered that PE.

Even when I started doing dips (Pe6), if I recall correctly, I could only do 2 reps at first (i.e. 5x2), despite having pretty decent shoulder extension. (In doing dips I let my shoulders go all the way down to my hands for the full range of motion.) It could have been the case that I was just weak in my shoulders.

On 9/30/2016 at 11:51 AM, Petri Widsten said:

Are the exercises really arranged with regard to the strength required? I'm asking because e.g. in the HBP series PE3 seems to be the hardest of PEs 1-10 in terms of strength. To me it seems rather that HBP elements first focus on horizontal pressing, then vertical pressing, then inverted pressing and finally multiplane pressing, and only the elements within these four groups fall in order of strength required to perform them.

It seems to me that the relative difficulty of the elements within the HBP progression are a point of controversy that repeatedly come up. For example, someone accustomed to doing weighted dips might come to the GB progressions and be told to work HBP/PE2-3 for months before even doing *bench* dips, and lose strength in weighted dips as a consequence (I feel like I read/hear this particular example a lot).

I'm still forming my opinions on the subject. Right now I think that to get to higher levels of GST we have to have sufficient levels of strength in various pushing planes. Pushups and PPP's work the musculature differently from dips, both press directions need to be developed, and it's not really fair to say "PPP are harder that dips" (or vice versa). Putting pushups/PPP earlier in a linear progression before dips seems arbitrary (and I say this because I severely struggle with PPP's, and have no trouble with dips) and maybe tailoring the HBP progression to an individual's specific deficits is a worthwhile optimization. But maybe it isn't. In either case that's beyond the scope of what F1-4 offers -- maybe it's a seminar topic. At the moment I'm ok trusting Coach's experience and doing things in the linear way he has laid out.

1 hour ago, William Marler said:

It seems to me that the relative difficulty of the elements within the HBP progression are a point of controversy that repeatedly come up. For example, someone accustomed to doing weighted dips might come to the GB progressions and be told to work HBP/PE2-3 for months before even doing *bench* dips, and lose strength in weighted dips as a consequence (I feel like I read/hear this particular example a lot).

I'm still forming my opinions on the subject. Right now I think that to get to higher levels of GST we have to have sufficient levels of strength in various pushing planes. Pushups and PPP's work the musculature differently from dips, both press directions need to be developed, and it's not really fair to say "PPP are harder that dips" (or vice versa). Putting pushups/PPP earlier in a linear progression before dips seems arbitrary (and I say this because I severely struggle with PPP's, and have no trouble with dips) and maybe tailoring the HBP progression to an individual's specific deficits is a worthwhile optimization. But maybe it isn't. In either case that's beyond the scope of what F1-4 offers -- maybe it's a seminar topic. At the moment I'm ok trusting Coach's experience and doing things in the linear way he has laid out -- I'm a beginner.

Maybe all the push-ups come before dips so we would also work on the core, with a solid PPT, so we can really make it rock solid (often we work on all those Hollow Holds)…  once we have that foundation, we move on  

They might come up more than others because more people make or "cheat" their way past HBP/PE3 and so get to start on the next group of exercises. There are a number of other instances where the next progression feels easier because it is the beginning progression of a new group of exercises. RC, SL, MN, FL, they all have examples of this I feel. 

My take is that coach just made a choice, to go by group and then within the group by increasing difficulty (even in that sequence there have been adjustments, if you look at the "Building the Gymnastic Body" book vs. the courses) rather than "overall difficulty". It's no big deal if you look around the forums a bit and apply a bit of common sense to your programming. Already a stud at dips or pullups? Keep them at maintenance volume while you are working through the other progressions, and you will not lose much at all. Just don't be naive and then blame the program. I lost some front lever ability while working on the Foundation 1 exercises for FL (still am), but then I added some specific work back in. The more you already can do and know,  the more you want to exercise some self-reliance. 

1 hour ago, Kai Ewert said:

My take is that coach just made a choice, to go by group and then within the group by increasing difficulty (even in that sequence there have been adjustments, 

This is what I said earlier on HBP. Mobility requirements within HBP also tend to get harder from group to group and within groups. I think the overall order is really clever.

I still think the majority of people find PE3 way harder than e.g. PE6. Protraction and PPT play a big role there.

Most adults probably lack shoulder extension too, making dips a difficult thing to prescribe safely when not meeting trainees face to face.

Horizontal pressing has the least requirement of shoulder mobility and during time building strength in this range, people can work their mobility in other ranges.

Definitely agree that PPPs are harder than dips from a strength perspective.

Max

Also, what's the problem with an "easier" variation here or there. You can always just test for mastery (I suggest twice, and also checking if you can do one set of twice the reps required per set for mastery) as soon as you hit an exercise that feels easy. If you pass, that's a nice little boost in motivation and it will maybe take a week.