FSP's from other sources

Im not sure about the title, but what i wanted to ask was about all the "tutorials" about the PL, FL, BL etc. that are flying around out there, from the calisthenicskingz, "bar-barians", people in youtube etc., non-gymnastic people like that. None of them give any specific details like an SSC for example, they just give the progressions and say to "hold" the position "until it is stable" and stuff like that. I think none of them say to train sub-maximally either, i think they just do sets close to their max everytime.

Many of them can do all of these but for most of them their form sucks, their planches and backlevers are all bent and curved. I think the FL is the only one they can do fully straight.

So is the method taught here better than what all these people say? Are they all wrong and taking longer than they should? Is SSC the fastest way?

The half-of-your-max protocol is to ensure you do not work too hard, because you still have a complete workout after doing your FSPs. It's not a fundamental part of the SSC. It's almost like practicing a movement, greasing the groove.

SSC has a very low risk factor. That means if you look at a large population, on average it doesn't matter; while not using SSC is technically quicker, it also has a higher risk of injury, which leads to more time needed to attain the goal, so I think that across large populations the time needed would even out. That's why your best bet would be SSC, because the average person doesn't know how far their body can go, or how much they can push it, so the SSC prevents them from injuring themselves and getting set back a lot. If you're willing to take the risk of not doing SSC, you can do it; if you're a young guy, chances are you recover fairly quickly from 'light' injuries, but you still need to know when to back off and not let your ego overtake you (which is a problem a lot of young guys have). Aside from that, injuries suck. Hard.

Tl;dr: In almost every case, SSC is better.

Point of enlightenment:

FSP work is primarily going to teach your nervous system to use the muscle mass you currently have more efficiently.

Bent and straight arm training is primarily done to build new muscle tissue so that you have more muscle mass for your nervous system to train.

They both work together, and without both you won't get what you want. There's a good reason why we aren't supposed to focus exclusively on one or the other.

These other sources don't understand how things are supposed to be done from a proper gymnastic perspective and because they don't understand effective implementation of what we call FSP work they all have crappy holds and are completely unable to hold a proper position because they don't have the strength they need. That is largely because they use crappy form throughout their training and strengthen the wrong muscles. They are pretty strong, but not as strong as they should be.

There are variations of the SSC in the 2nd edition that will take a more progressive route to the FSP work, but these basic principles are still the foundation of successful training... You need to know how your training affects your body in order to structure your training so that you effect the physical, chemical, and neurological changes that make you better at what you train for. I have given a very simplified version of this.

Joshua Naterman said:

Point of enlightenment:

FSP work is primarily going to teach your nervous system to use the muscle mass you currently have more efficiently.

Bent and straight arm training is primarily done to build new muscle tissue so that you have more muscle mass for your nervous system to train.

They both work together, and without both you won't get what you want. There's a good reason why we aren't supposed to focus exclusively on one or the other.

These other sources don't understand how things are supposed to be done from a proper gymnastic perspective and because they don't understand effective implementation of what we call FSP work they all have crappy holds and are completely unable to hold a proper position because they don't have the strength they need. That is largely because they use crappy form throughout their training and strengthen the wrong muscles. They are pretty strong, but not as strong as they should be.

There are variations of the SSC in the 2nd edition that will take a more progressive route to the FSP work, but these basic principles are still the foundation of successful training... You need to know how your training affects your body in order to structure your training so that you effect the physical, chemical, and neurological changes that make you better at what you train for. I have given a very simplified version of this.

That's a good answer. Come to think of it if they don't have completely straight and correct holds, but bent and crappy, then they are wrong and doing it wrong.

Joshua Naterman said:

Point of enlightenment:

There are variations of the SSC in the 2nd edition that will take a more progressive route to the FSP work, but these basic principles are still the foundation of successful training... You need to know how your training affects your body in order to structure your training so that you effect the physical, chemical, and neurological changes that make you better at what you train for.

Gahh! I wish you guys would stop spilling mysterious tidbits of information about the second book ! The lust is killing me while I wait for it to come out. It just sounds so...so...magnificent 8) I need to get to those seminars pronto haha