Bodyweight Convict Conditioning by P. Wade

[pet']

Hello,

Does someone here have an opinion about "Convict Conditioning", written by Paul Wade, especially the progression of the different exercises ?

It is a bodyweight methods whose aim is to pass:
=> pistol squat
=> OA push up
=> OA chin up
=> hanging leg raises
=> bridges
=> OA handstand push up

Kind regards,

Pet'

 

[Steve Freides]

It is a different approach than we take at StrongFirst. I have never tried it although I purchased and read the book. The "progression of the different exercises" _is_ the program, or at least the main focus of it, IMHO.

-S-

 

[the hansenator]

I have the book and tried it for a while. I mostly like the progressions but don't have a lot of faith in the programming that was presented. I would love to see a Strong First approach to gaining proficiency in the same (or similar) exercises.

 

[D-Rock]

Can you clarify what you specifically mean by the Strong First approach and the implied difference? Is Convict Conditioning more of a "work out" (expending energy, wearing yourself out) as opposed to skill and strength development (proficiency)?

 

[Abdul-Rasheed]

I have employed convict conditioning for a while. I think it is an excellent program. Pavel's endorsement is there in the book if I remember correctly. Where it wins is in it's progression. It is progressive calisthenics. It is good for strength but lacks the eccentrics provided by a KB swing. Another thing (though you have not asked about it) to be noted is, Pavel himself has mentioned when asked, that we don't combine it with another strength program such as S&S. Either this or that, but not both. (Simple & Sinister - Convict Conditioning Split)

 

[the hansenator]

@D-Rock

I mean that, if you wanted to use the six progressions presented in CC to get stronger, what would be the most efficient or effective way to program it? I just assume the people at Strong First would have a good answer for that.

Oh, and the bridge progression seems like it would be more of a mobility challenge but I think the people here know a good bit about that too.

The recommended programming in CC tends to be low frequency, low number of sets, and high reps (up to 50 for some of the earlier steps). It's a bit different than most size/strength programs. When you mention it, the comeback tends to be "Well, this is bodyweight exercises, you can't micro-load the way you can with barbells, why would you assume that strength training would follow the same rules when you're not using a barbell?"

 

[305pelusa]

I don't think it's a very good program. The OACU progression is a bit absurd, everyone gets stuck on the pistol (thanks to the infamous uneven squats), the bridge one is not well-thought out either. And don't even get me started with the one-arm HSPU, which he himself admitted could never do (meaning the entire progression is fully theoretical... not proven). They never released a Handstand DVD, my guess being that they could not find anyone capable.

Most people who start it, leave it frustrated after a few months, or switch to the material Al Kavadlo has made (which is gold). Those with enough motivation simply get advised online on how to change it to progress (most people end up changing it so much, it barely resembles CC anymore).

Not sure how Pavel could endorse that. My guess is that it was one of those "peace-offerings" to let DuCane get a new author in there as Pavel was leaving right around that time.

 

[Steve Freides]

Folks, at StrongFirst, we don't say you're wrong, only that we know what we do works. Convict Conditioning has, I'm sure, helped many people progress. It's a different approach than we take, and each person can make their own choice.

-S-

 

[305pelusa]

Fair enough Steve. My apologies. Here's a better response.

The good folks at Reddit BW have come up with good modifications to the CC program after some discussion, which you can read here:
kb/program_reviews - bodyweightfitness

I know CC with the modifications above, will work.

 

[J Petersen]

@D-Rock
Oh, and the bridge progression seems like it would be more of a mobility challenge but I think the people here know a good bit about that too.

Apologies in advance for resurrecting this thread--I'd been away for a few and wasn't able to chime in earlier.

As someone who invested four years into achieving the "master step" of the bridge progression as laid out in the book, and then spending more than a year polishing the technique and building up to performing them for reps and sets, I can't honestly vouch that it was much of a boon to my overall strength in any noticeable regard. And not as though I spend any great deal of time admiring my dorsal self, but the promised "very cool pythons of twisted steel" (or words to that effect) have yet to arrive, as well...

I'll still perform them here and there, if only to remind my own system of what it's capable. They must have at least done my mobility some good--I did feel at least a few years younger from the journey.

 

[TravisDirks]

They must have at least done my mobility some good--I did feel at least a few years younger from the journey.

Thanks for chiming in late or not. It's good to hear from someone who took some of the progressions to the end.

I suppose a few years younger is no small thing, but definitely not how it was presented.

 

[FatCop]

My experience was there just wasn't enough frequency of each exercise per week. I made no progression at all. Naked Warrior on the other hand was very effective for me and had me doing OAPs for reps within a month or two.

 

[Kozushi]

Given what S&S has done for me, when I'm away from my beloved kettlebells I'll be doing the Naked Warrior (or "GTG"???) programme.