The idea is to do it all in 10 minutes. That's essentially HS for a minute, rest a minute and so on until you get 10 min. So 1:1 ultimately.
OK, and I see you explain your reasons as well. There are plenty of strategies worth trying, e.g., do your 5 x 60-sec holds on long rests, where we hope they won't be too unpleasant, and gradually shorten the rest periods. I'm doing something similar as I work back to a 1-arm, 1-leg pushup, which isn't a skill I've had for a few years. I started with an appropriate elevation that, after a few days of getting used to the movement, I could manage for doubles and triples on each side pretty comfortably, and be able to crank out a set of 5. (NB: I am a decidedly low-rep sort of trainee - others might wish more volume at any given stage.) Then I lowered the elevation and could do a single a few times on longish rests, so I stayed at that elevation for a while until I could again do a few doubles and triples in a single session and crank of 5 if need be, and then I lowered the elevation again, started with 2 or 3 singles on long rests, etc. A combination of shortening rests, lengthening sets, and increasing overall volume is what's needed.
E.g., you might try working up to 10 or more :30 holds with 1:00 rests initially and then working down to :30 rests, and then starting working on :40 second holds, and so on, varying but overall gradually increasing all the parameters towards your goal. I like this step-like approach to volume - increase the difficulty and keep the volume low, increase the volume there, and then take a step back in volume. A step cycle, you could call it.
We know that, e.g., competitive field sport athletes, many of whom score very well on the FMS, show worse scores during their season than in the off-season. High performance isn't necessary good for you - some tolerate it better than others and here the phrase of Dr. McGill, "self-selecting," comes to mind - those who compete professionally are often those who managed to keep improving and not get hurt, whatever the reasons. Many other talented people fell by the wayside because the demands of high performance proved to be too much for them, although in other ways they could have competed at a high level, just less often or for less long.Sacrifice? I don't mind sacrificing time, but you're saying somehow building up to this will make other skills in my training worse?
So, you must remain mindful of how you're tolerating your journey towards your goal because, while we all hope it works out well for you, it doesn't always for everyone. I have no clue whether your particular goal is well-suited to you, of course, and I don't mean to discourage you, only to try to look at the broader picture of high athletic achievement.
Would someone please post a link to Pavel's blog on this subject? Thanks for that in advance.
-S-