This forum is archived information and is no longer active.
Started by PSD, June 9, 2012 · 21 Replies · 5,113 Views
Hello
I'm a long time listener, first time caller!
Just a little confusion on my part that i hope someone can clear up please.
In the GB book it says that once you can hold a position (in the FL, planche build up) then you can then try the next hardest hold in the progression.
In the article that Coach wrote on planche and FL he says not to try the next hold in the progression until you can hold the previous one for 60 secs.
Which one is correct, or have i got my wires crossed?!
Thanks.
60 sec for everything below straddle. 15s for straddle and above.
I think.
You have to works your way up to 60 seconds in every position(tucks, adv.tuck, straddle, etc) but once you reach 15 seconds you can try the next variation, but you remain using the former for the steady state cycle.
For example you can hold a straddle BL for 35 seconds. Most likely you can do a full BL, if the WOD is the type BL followed by 5 HSPU, then you will do it straddle, cause its a position you can hold for the full 15 seconds. Now, if it a ring strength series, you'll do the full back lever, because you only have to hold it for 3 seconds. There are different types of workouts and you'll be using different positions.
Chan
I don't think there is a person who can do a 60 sec full planche in the world. Rik de Kort is right.
The idea is to try and work up to the 60 seconds hold, even for full lay positions I think.
I doubt anyone can do a 60 second planche, but the message in the book was that before starting full planche work, a solid 60 second straddle should have been achieved- to ensure the joints etc were ready for the strain of a full planche being trained regularly.
:shock: Heres a 30 second planche, not very perfect but still real good. :shock:
Tavis G said::shock: Heres a 30 second planche, not very perfect but still real good. :shock:
respect him but not very perfect? it's terrible. seriously. look at his back. I bet he can't hold a correct planche for a sec.
Yeah, it was good, if you have no idea what that correct form is supposed to be. But for us people striving for a straight one, its terrible.
fghjEe5Tk
Still not awesome. He is not full protracted, but its the closest thing i can find beside some acrobatic stuff thats been posted here before
HAHAHAHA! Zach that made me laugh out loud. Its so true!
Richard Burns said:I don't think there is a person who can do a 60 sec full planche in the world. Rik de Kort is right.
Of course you are not gonna work your way up to a 60 seconds full planche or a maltese. This are the final positions, after achieving a solid 10 seconds on RINGS, then you'd work on harder transitions(maltese to planche, azarian maltese, etc), right now Chen Yibing's max for Planche is 10 seconds. And you're absolutely right, I've never heard of someone that could hold those position on rings for that long, on floor or parallel bars yes. Iron Cross is a different thing. Yuri Chechi could hold it for a minute. Tyler Mizouguchi for 45 sec. I think. I have both seen and heard of people performig 60 sec. straddle PL, and as Coach has said many times, for those people that see it through all the way to 60 sec for straddle will pay a tremendous interest on everything else, and most likely will perform a full PL for about 10-15 sec, perhaps even more.
Chan
Mr. Chan's proposals are not really accurate, though well meant! Rik has the right of it.
Once you are capable of performing a correct planche, for example, that would count as maximal strength work and be programmed accordingly for quite a long time. Either high frequency and low volume or lower frequency and higher volume. If, over time, you built the ability to perform a 30s planche you would A) be ridiculously strong and b) would be able to program your planche training for the energy system you are using (Anaerobic glycolysis) and start working it as a strength-endurance element. That's a long way away for most of us.
For those who are curious, a 10s technically correct full planche is pretty strong and is the initial end goal. At that point planche is just maintained unless for some reason you either want a longer planche hold or your coach decides you need more endurance there. The statics aren't going to receive the same emphasis as moving from one position to another once you achieve proficiency, because the real points are those combination moves and because (incidentally) we build more strength and muscle from movement than from isometric holds.
Isometrics teach us to use what we have right now, but cause little in the way of tissue growth compared to non-static work like PPP or FL rows.
For you gamers out there, FSP and other isometric training is kind of a way to min-max your physical abilities in terms of relative strength.
Joshua Naterman said:Mr. Chan's proposals are not really accurate, though well meant! Rik has the right of it.Once you are capable of performing a correct planche, for example, that would count as maximal strength work and be programmed accordingly for quite a long time. Either high frequency and low volume or lower frequency and higher volume. If, over time, you built the ability to perform a 30s planche you would A) be ridiculously strong and b) would be able to program your planche training for the energy system you are using (Anaerobic glycolysis) and start working it as a strength-endurance element. That's a long way away for most of us.
For those who are curious, a 10s technically correct full planche is pretty strong and is the initial end goal. At that point planche is just maintained unless for some reason you either want a longer planche hold or your coach decides you need more endurance there. The statics aren't going to receive the same emphasis as moving from one position to another once you achieve proficiency, because the real points are those combination moves and because (incidentally) we build more strength and muscle from movement than from isometric holds.
Isometrics teach us to use what we have right now, but cause little in the way of tissue growth compared to non-static work like PPP or FL rows.
For you gamers out there, FSP and other isometric training is kind of a way to min-max your physical abilities in terms of relative strength.
Joshua, perhaps I didn't make my self clear but thats exactly what I intended to say :?
I very much liked what you said about isometrics holds, that they teach us to use what we have right now. Very true
No worries Josh! Sounded like you were confused with the original article and the book, which is pretty much impossible to avoid if you haven't been to a seminar so I thought maybe that is what happened.
I totally missed your last post! You said that well. Just saw it... 
I was more referring to the first part of your first post in this thread! Sorry 
Joshua Naterman said:No worries Josh! Sounded like you were confused with the original article and the book, which is pretty much impossible to avoid if you haven't been to a seminar so I thought maybe that is what happened.I totally missed your last post! You said that well. Just saw it...
Don't even mention!!
Right this moment I'm watching the European Championships. You may be interested if you haven't seen them already.
@Joshua, so the solid state cycle doesn't actually build muscle? :?
asianbboy said:@Joshua, so the solid state cycle doesn't actually build muscle? :?
Training and food build muscle. The SSC is a way of training. So it does.
asianbboy said:@Joshua, so the solid state cycle doesn't actually build muscle? :?
I think that Josh&Josh said is that isometrics (whether in an SSC or not) are not maximizing muscle growth.
asianbboy said:@Joshua, so the solid state cycle doesn't actually build muscle? :?
What? SSC is just doing the same thing over and over again for a while.
SSC can be done with bench press. See why that doesn't make sense?
I am talking about FSP holds. Statics. Isometrics. Freezes. Whatever you want to call them, the positions where you don't move.
Anything you do that increases in difficulty over time builds muscle, but isometrics are the slowest way to do it and they add the least amount of overall strength. What they do beautifully is teach your body how to use the muscle you have to maximum effect.
Your FBE are where you will build the majority of your muscle, assuming you are eating enough at the right times.
What's FBE mean? Also, is it a good idea to train both FBE and FSP holds?
asianbboy said:What's FBE mean? Also, is it a good idea to train both FBE and FSP holds?
You should give the book a good readover. Also the stickies in the Getting Started forum.
FBE = fundamental bodyweight exercises. You move through space during these. Push ups and pull ups are two very beginner examples.
They can be made hard as hell, tho!