all posts post new thread

Kettlebell "Giant 1.0"

Frankly, I think some may have misunderstood some aspects ......and this is just my take......I certainly "get" going conservatively with respect to poundage when starting out on the Giant Journey but I kind of think using too light a bell combo will certainly yield some great conditioning but you probably won't get all the intended benefits! I got great benefits from using "heavyish for me" bells and less overall volume. May have only gotten 50 reps in 30 minutes but by the end I had a thumping heart rate and super pumped forearms. There are certain freaks of nature like @WxHerk who will get a lot of reps with heavy bells .... but he has become my hero ?!
 
Cearball said:
Thanks.
I will be honest I was getting a little down on myself but then have to remind myself that 4 to 6 sets of 9 with what was previously my 10 RM is solid work.

Really enjoyed doing 50/20. It's why the giant series appealed to me.
I feel I chased rep totals too much doing it though.

The specified sets of the giant force me to rest more.
Generally leading to better quality reps.

I think if I ever did 50/20 again I will steal a few ideas from the giant & utilise them.
Probably the different rep sets part.
Click to expand...
Excellent post, Gearball!! All good, clear, concise points.
 
John Grahill said:
Frankly, I think some may have misunderstood some aspects ......and this is just my take......I certainly "get" going conservatively with respect to poundage when starting out on the Giant Journey but I kind of think using too light a bell combo will certainly yield some great conditioning but you probably won't get all the intended benefits! I got great benefits from using "heavyish for me" bells and less overall volume. May have only gotten 50 reps in 30 minutes but by the end I had a thumping heart rate and super pumped forearms. There are certain freaks of nature like @WxHerk who will get a lot of reps with heavy bells .... but he has become my hero ?!
Click to expand...
Thank You for the kind words, Senor Grahill!! I strongly agree on the bell weight. I did find at first, after snatching for a year with very, very little pressing, that it took a couple trips through Giant 2.0 w/ 24kg and then 28kg bells to "find my pressing strength." Thanks to some vitally needed prodding from Geoff Neupert and John Grahill, I upped the weight and have experienced even bigger gains. It's vital that one push oneself with slightly uncomfortable heavyish bells. Don't worry too much about the set numbers at first. Get some sets the first few sessions and you'll find your set numbers go up as your mindset adapts and the heavyish bells just become "what you do."
 
I'm finishing up 1.1 week 4 this week. I wondered about other folks' experience and would be interested in feedback:

-Have you taken a week or so to de-load and do something else before going to a new program or another Giant program?
-Have you moved on to Giant 1.2, or restarted 1.0 with heavier weights? I'm kind of inclined to the second option, as the numbers are wearing me down and I'm in the 80-100 reps on all days, suggesting i could use bigger weights.
 
John Grahill said:
Frankly, I think some may have misunderstood some aspects ......and this is just my take......I certainly "get" going conservatively with respect to poundage when starting out on the Giant Journey but I kind of think using too light a bell combo will certainly yield some great conditioning but you probably won't get all the intended benefits! I got great benefits from using "heavyish for me" bells and less overall volume. May have only gotten 50 reps in 30 minutes but by the end I had a thumping heart rate and super pumped forearms. There are certain freaks of nature like @WxHerk who will get a lot of reps with heavy bells .... but he has become my hero ?!
Click to expand...
I totally agree and have said it a couple of times in this thread. The increased volume shows that you are getting used to the heavy weight and higher percentages closer to your max for the higher rep per set days push that envelope. The low rep days are waves to back off that peak and build volume for the next go at it. It is not a snatch program.
 
Ian CL said:
Update: Thanks to those who responded earlier. I did 6x8reps with 28s tonight in just over 22min. I'm pretty sure I did 9 on my fifth set. Had to grind my last rep on the 6th set so packed it in. I think this should be good to work off of, so will stay the course with the 28s.
Click to expand...
Good work, Ian! Love how you erred to the high side on your last set!
 
MarkSch said:
I'm finishing up 1.1 week 4 this week. I wondered about other folks' experience and would be interested in feedback:

-Have you taken a week or so to de-load and do something else before going to a new program or another Giant program?
-Have you moved on to Giant 1.2, or restarted 1.0 with heavier weights? I'm kind of inclined to the second option, as the numbers are wearing me down and I'm in the 80-100 reps on all days, suggesting i could use bigger weights.
Click to expand...
Is this your 10 RM bells?

It's worth noting that as I have progressed through the giant series my total volume has decreased.

What's your volume like comparing giant 1.0 to 1.1?

My overall volume dropped going into 1.2 & stayed lower but to me that makes perfect sense.

I remember hitting rep totals of high 70's on sets of 4 or 5.
Not doing that on sets of 8 or 9.
 
I just noticed something.
The giant 1.1 & 1.2 say to use your "10RM from giant 1.0" but the giant 2 says to just "use your 10 RM".
Maybe I need to retest between 1.2 & 2. I'm pretty sure my current bell selection is no longer my 10 RM but I'm dubious that my next pair up are my new 10 RM.
Initially before noticing the wording I was going to stick with the same bells from giant 1.0 to giant 2 then take a week off & test my RM with the bells I had been using.
I was then going to test a 5RM before doing giant 3.0.
 
MarkSch said:
I'm finishing up 1.1 week 4 this week. I wondered about other folks' experience and would be interested in feedback:

-Have you taken a week or so to de-load and do something else before going to a new program or another Giant program?
-Have you moved on to Giant 1.2, or restarted 1.0 with heavier weights? I'm kind of inclined to the second option, as the numbers are wearing me down and I'm in the 80-100 reps on all days, suggesting i could use bigger weights.
Click to expand...
I went through the 2.0, 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 (in that order) with 32s and with 36s I did the 1.0, 2.0, then 1.1. I stopped at that point and am currently hitting up Strong again. I just went in progression and didn't change the weights I was using each time through.

I think that before you switch to heavier weights, you should try the 1.2 with the bells you are currently using. The reason I say this is because the "jump" from 8 reps to 9 reps was very noticeable for a lack of a better term. You're only talking 4 weeks. Afterward you could test for a new 10 RM and begin again. Just my 2 cents.
 
Cearball said:
Is this your 10 RM bells?

It's worth noting that as I have progressed through the giant series my total volume has decreased.

What's your volume like comparing giant 1.0 to 1.1?

My overall volume dropped going into 1.2 & stayed lower but to me that makes perfect sense.

I remember hitting rep totals of high 70's on sets of 4 or 5.
Not doing that on sets of 8 or 9.
Click to expand...
I had the same thing happen. My second time through with the heavier 36 kg bells yielded far less volume. This second run through started in February. The drop in volume happened even though the 36s "felt" just like the 32s did in October when I first started this Giant Journey!

I was hoping to see the same volume increases with the 36s but it didn't quite happen. I wonder if it's because they're heavier, ?......?.

However, they gave me more in return in the long run .... I gained more muscle and more overall strength even though the volume was reduced.
 
Cearball said:
I just noticed something.
The giant 1.1 & 1.2 say to use your "10RM from giant 1.0" but the giant 2 says to just "use your 10 RM".
Maybe I need to retest between 1.2 & 2. I'm pretty sure my current bell selection is no longer my 10 RM but I'm dubious that my next pair up are my new 10 RM.
Initially before noticing the wording I was going to stick with the same bells from giant 1.0 to giant 2 then take a week off & test my RM with the bells I had been using.
I was then going to test a 5RM before doing giant 3.0.
Click to expand...
I think Geoff touched on that. I initially used the 2.0 as a way to get used to doing higher reps than I usually did. Figured the 2.0 with ladders would help. My second time through I did the 2.0 after the 1.0 for the same effect and it worked well for the same reason I just mentioned.

I think the consensus was if you run through the 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 and then want to try the 2.0, retest your 10 RM and start with that.
 
Cearball said:
I just noticed something.
The giant 1.1 & 1.2 say to use your "10RM from giant 1.0" but the giant 2 says to just "use your 10 RM".
Maybe I need to retest between 1.2 & 2. I'm pretty sure my current bell selection is no longer my 10 RM but I'm dubious that my next pair up are my new 10 RM.
Initially before noticing the wording I was going to stick with the same bells from giant 1.0 to giant 2 then take a week off & test my RM with the bells I had been using.
I was then going to test a 5RM before doing giant 3.0.
Click to expand...
The way I see it, the sweet spot is to start a Giant cycle where the largest set is 60% of your technical RM. So I think Giant 2.0 with a fresh 10RM is a bit too aggressive, even if you treat each rung as a separate set... rest-wise. I'm pretty sure I'll need to employ push presses on 4,6,8 ladder days when using a fresh 10RM weight. I tend to use I-go-you-go timing with ladders, so at least a 15TRM weight would be a more reasonable choice for me when doing Giant 2.0.

Here is how I plan to pick my way through the Giant maze:

TRM / 60% / Largest set / Giant Choice
5 / 3 / 3 / 3.0
6,7 / 3.6-4.2 / 4 / 3.0+ (1 extra rep per set)
8,9 / 4.8-5.4 / 5 / 3.0++ (2 extra reps per set)
10-12 / 6-7.2 / 6 / 1.0
13-14 / 7.8-8.4 / 8 / 1.1
15 / 9 / 9 / 1.2 or 2.0

I'm also not fully onboard with sequentially stepping through 1.0 to 1.2. Too much of a linear progression for my taste. What's wrong with going up and down with weights while mixing up cycles? For example, 2.0, then 3.0, then 1.1... and so on.
 
Last edited:
barrak said:
I'm also not fully onboard with sequentially stepping through 1.0 to 1.2. Too much of a linear progression for my taste. What's wrong with going up and down with weights while mixing up cycles? For example, 2.0, then 3.0, then 1.1... and so on.
Click to expand...
You certainly may be right. I just prefer the linear so respectfully I disagree. If you read the way it was originally written in one of his books you take a 10 RM and work it through the three cycles. My goal was to take a 10RM and make it a 14+ which I did. In my mind I wanted to see straight progression without jumping around.

Coming back to the 1.1 from say the 3.0, what weight do you start with? The 10RM from the 1.0 may not be as solid to use for the 1.1 after a 4 week break. I can get really strong on the lower rep work but find my endurance wanes if I stop the higher rep work....just how I'm made. So for me at least the linear works best.
 
Last edited:
John Grahill said:
You certainly may be right. I just prefer the linear so respectfully I disagree. If you read the way it was originally written in one of his books you take a 10 RM and work it through the three cycles. My goal was to take a 10RM and make it a 14+ which I did. In my mind I wanted to see straight progression without jumping around.

Coming back to the 1.1 from say the 3.0, what weight do you start with? The 10RM from the 1.0 may not be as solid to use for the 1.1 after a 4 week break. I can get really strong on the lower rep work but find my endurance wanes if I stop the higher reo work....just how I'm made. So for me at least the linear works best.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on one's training history and current goals. I had my fill with linear progression after a year of S&S and sandbag work. Not saying that I didn't benefit a great deal from that linear progression.

Sooner or later, however, one would stagnate and it's not necessarily the end potential of their physical development. Most likely it would be the end potential of linear progression as a tool. Not realizing that might cause one to get frustrated, lose faith in their potential, or get injured. I experienced all three consequences after three consecutive cycles of ROP back in 2018.

In my current situation with C+P, I'm starting at a severe deficit (3.0 with 16K+16K). So I expect progressing linearly for 3-5 months is a good path for me. Beyond that point, I better vary the intensity vs. density formula and maybe include DFSQ and C&J into the mix.
 
Started week 2 with the 55's after 2 days off. First set, was meh. Then sets 2-4 felt strong. Set 5, finished but the last rep was ROUGH. Decided to drop down to the 45's and did dead cleans from the floor to make it more of a challenge. 10 sets with the 45's = 75 total reps. Going to do the same with 6's day.
 
BrianCF said:
Started week 2 with the 55's after 2 days off. First set, was meh. Then sets 2-4 felt strong. Set 5, finished but the last rep was ROUGH. Decided to drop down to the 45's and did dead cleans from the floor to make it more of a challenge. 10 sets with the 45's = 75 total reps. Going to do the same with 6's day.
Click to expand...
Thank you for bringing dead cleans to my attention, I can't get the same "coiling the spring" with C+P as I get from sandbag cleans where I grab the sandbag's belly, thus putting me in a good low hinge starting position.

I think I'll try dead cleans during next C+P session, though I'll stand on 45lb rubber plates (or more) to effect enough deficit. Comp bells are too tall.
 
John Grahill said:
I went through the 2.0, 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 (in that order) with 32s and with 36s I did the 1.0, 2.0, then 1.1. I stopped at that point and am currently hitting up Strong again. I just went in progression and didn't change the weights I was using each time through.

I think that before you switch to heavier weights, you should try the 1.2 with the bells you are currently using. The reason I say this is because the "jump" from 8 reps to 9 reps was very noticeable for a lack of a better term. You're only talking 4 weeks. Afterward you could test for a new 10 RM and begin again. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

^This.^

This @John Grahill post was fortuitous for me this morning, as I read it just before going outside for my first 9 rep day. Noticeable, indeed. Monday I hit 12 sets of 8 in 29:29 with double 32kg bells. Today I hit 9 sets of 9 in 25:20. One of my favorite training partners jumped in, he told me that my last set looked just as good as the first. Regardless, going from 8 to 9 reps is a very big difference. I noticed the same on my very first set of 8 but it was more pronounced today. Luckily there was a chair height pallet, as this was the first time in years I needed to sit down between sets (starting after set 7). I almost certainly could have knocked out a 10th set before 30 minutes but felt my form would have compromised and I'd have been chasing numbers for numbers sake. Besides, 9x9 is 81, which is the year I graduated High School.

At first glance I felt I'd slacked off because 81 reps is 84% of 96. After dragging around the Squadron all morning I now believe that the 9 rep day doesn't compare linearly to the 8 rep day. At least not 'til I have another 9 rep day or two behind me.

Thoughts ? ? ? HeartRate12May.png
 
This makes a lot of sense to me. Get the high reps and absolutely own the lighter bell. I need to evaluate this after the 4 weeks.

For now, I'm just going to try and add a set with the 55's for the 5's and 6's days each time I do it, then drop down. Kind of the "if you want to press a lot, you need to press a lot." It worked for me in the Rite of Passage.

Long gone are the days I actually ran the medium day of the ROP with 70's. Glory days.
 
BrianCF said:
This makes a lot of sense to me. Get the high reps and absolutely own the lighter bell. I need to evaluate this after the 4 weeks.

For now, I'm just going to try and add a set with the 55's for the 5's and 6's days each time I do it, then drop down. Kind of the "if you want to press a lot, you need to press a lot." It worked for me in the Rite of Passage.

Long gone are the days I actually ran the medium day of the ROP with 70's. Glory days.
Click to expand...
From my limited experience with the Giant (3 weeks so far), it seems to be much more efficient than ROP in prepping one to press the next bell. I started with 5RM at 16K+16K, yet I'm already able to press 20K+20K singles! In 2018, it took me 3 cycles of 16K and 20K ROP to be able to press a single 1,2,3 ladder with good form using 16K+16K. (Haven't pressed them since till 3 weeks ago).

I think it has to do with how the double-bell C+P engages your entire body compared to a single bell. I don't recall my calves, for example, screaming at me during ROP as they do with the Giant, and with only a pair of 16K's!!!

@BrianCF , Get that pair of 70s now... you'll need them soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom