Other/Mixed Decrease the "burn" in the muscles

[Steve Freides]

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.

Sacrifice? I don't mind sacrificing time, but you're saying somehow building up to this will make other skills in my training worse?

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.

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-

 

[D-Rock]

The Cost of Adaptation

Is this the article you had in mind @Steve Freides ?

 

[305pelusa]

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.

This is interesting, certainly more complex and fancy than my previous "try to hit 5 sets of X many secs". Looks like Al also agrees I should be pushing for that burn. No doubt in my mind, 5 x 30 secs with 30 secs of rest would provide just as much (if not much more) of a burn as well. So I think I'll try this.

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.

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.

Steve, I appreciate the concern and that you would bring it up. However, I don't think I'm anywhere near that level where this goal could be damaging at all. In the broad picture of calisthenics strength development, I believe building up to these minute Handstands would be really useful in terms of shoulder strength, mobility and for the progressions to come.

Also, caught my eye from the article:
"Become a student of bodyweight strength Learn the basics of tension and linkage at a one-day StrongFirst Bodyweight Course. Master the basics. Reach the “simple” goals like the one-arm-one-leg push-up. Then set your sights a little higher, e.g. the front lever and free handstands."

It seems to me that what Pavel fears is someone literally just focusing on one really specific thing (say only running, or becoming a 300 lb lifter). I think I wouldn't be considered in that population just looking at my training in general. Sorry if it seems like I'm not heeding (I definitely am paying attention to the warning) what you're saying, but I think I will plan to continue moving forward to the coveted One-arm Handstand eventually and this is the first step to many!

 

[Steve Freides]

The Cost of Adaptation

Is this the article you had in mind @Steve Freides ?

Yes, thanks very much.

-S-

 

[Steve Freides]

@305pelusa, I would try something like this - these would be milestones along the way.

5 x :30 on 1:00 rest (then increase volume, keep rest constant)
10 x :30 on 1:00 rest (then reduce rest, keep volume constant)
10 x :30 on :30 rest (then lengthen time and rest, reduce volume)

5 x :40 on 1:20 rest (then increase volume, increase rest)
10 x :40 on 1:20 rest (then decrease volume, reduce rest)
8 x :40 on :40 rest (etc.)

5 x :50 on 1:40 rest
10 x :50 on :50 rest
6 x :50 on :50 rest

5 x 1:00 on 2:00 rest
10 x 1:00 on 2:00 rest
5 x 1:00 on 1:00 rest

I could see the above taking 4-6 months.

I look forward to hearing of your continued progress.

-S-

 

[305pelusa]

Steve, thank you immensely for even taking the time to actually break it down for me. However, for the sake of discussion. You propose a step form of progression (5 sets of X with 2*X rest, increase sets, decrease rest to end up at the baseline, with both higher sets and lower rest... then move on to longer hold).

Why is this recommended? It's like we're training to do something, then we go back, then we pull in another direction, then back again. Why isn't the idea of a "straight line" just more effective, focused, and faster? Say:

5 x 40 s on 1:20 rest (now increase hold time and rest)
5 x 50 s on 1:50 rest (now decrease rest)
5 x 50 s on 1:10 rest (now increase hold time and rest)
5 x 60 s on 2:00 rest (now decrease rest)
5 x 60 s on 1:00 rest

I mean, isn't that just much simpler? You don't have to get good at higher sets ever, since you don't need that anyways. Again, these are just milestones. The point is to increase hold time or decrease rest as much as you can each training day.

 

[Steve Freides]

@305pelusa, just suggestions based on my experience. Linear progressions work for some people and for some things, but not every simple training program is an effective training program. Waving various aspect of the load is proven to be effective. That I have more variables and more variety in mine suggest to me, based on what I know, that it's more likely to be effective.

Remember, Pavel has given us both S&S, which is very simple, and PlanStrong, memories of which give me a headache and I attended twice - and I _like_ numbers. But many PlanStrong attendees, trainers themselves and experienced at program design, have reported new PR's after following a PlanStrong-based program for a few months. I've written a PlanStrong-based pressing program for a client, which has increased his pressing performance, but it took me more than an hour with computer, pencil and paper, to create all the workouts for him for 4 weeks.

We're all different - try what you've suggested and let us know how it works out.

-S-

 

[305pelusa]

@Steve: Sorry, maybe I was a bit vague in my question.

I don't think I'm advanced enough in HSs that a linear progression, like I wrote, would not work. It has worked thus far and I think it will work well.

My concern (and really, the whole point of this thread) is that following a program like that, because of the lactic acid, I will get counterproductive results. And hence, would I be better off with something like what you've mentioned specifically because that kind of step programming aims to make this all more alactic somehow?

Does that make sense? Like is the idea of adding sets just simply to wave the load and allow for better progression? If that's all it is, maybe I'll stick to the simpler linear progression to get me there faster. BUT if the purpose of it was to specifically somehow reduce lactic acid build up because that will destroy my mitochondria, then I will absolutely follow your schedule. That is my concern all along.

 

[ClaudeR]

a few random thoughts (and i am absolutely not the expert)

* some burn will most likely be inevitable, and not necessarily a bad thing (depending on your other goals). What's troublesome generally is chasing the burn in every session (a la crossfit), that is usually what destroys fitness and strength rather than build it. Muscle endurance will always include some form of burn to some extend IMHO (just ask a cyclist )

* Steve's progression is excellent, and it is basically what S&S and other programs does: get to a baseline number of reps, with enough rest, then stay at that and decrease rest, then increase weight (or hold duration in your case) with enough rest, then maintain that and decrease rest, and so on). It's a simple enough step cycle that's proven to work very well. Basically it's a double progression of reps/weight, and rest, and the time falls where it may.

* another approach is more what you described, i.e. have a constant time window, and fill it up with more or harder reps. No reason for this to not work either! The only thing you have to be careful about is to not make it an escalating density protocol, but rather manipulate the number of repeats and rest so that you feel strong and fresh. This is not a hypertrophy cycle, but a skill cycle, so take plenty of rest to feel strong and in control. You can vary the amount of reps and rest, or vary the duration of your reps and rest, but not at the same time. This is a lot more organic so a lot more things that could go wrong, but in the end it's still a step cycle that works very well. I do that for snatches (manipulating number of sets and weight and rest based on the day, but strive to progress all aspects over the longer term).

* multi-step cycles do branch out in different directions at every cycle (increase density, decrease rest, increase weight etc) as you said, but that is for a reason, focusing on the same thing all the time will not give endless results but stagnate. Steve's progression does the same, it changes focus slightly, but the large picture is you are working on the same exercise! This is what continuously changing up stimulus is really about, changing the same routine slightly so to keep fresh and not plateau, not the muscle confusion thing spouted out usually). In order to do 10x10 OTM you'll need to focus on all these things anyway, so the step cycle does that for you in a repeatable and testable way.

as you found out with your original question a purely linear cycle will only bring you so far (or improve very slowly), a slight bit more complex programming will certainly help you move forward quicker. That doesn't mean you need to break out the calculator or have a PhD in maths, simple is good enough!
Whatever you do (step cycles, ladders, linear progression, deloads, etc) just keep in mind that strength is a skill, and what you do is practice, so don't overextend yourself, strive for perfection not for volume!

 

[305pelusa]

* Steve's progression is excellent, and it is basically what S&S and other programs does: get to a baseline number of reps, with enough rest, then stay at that and decrease rest, then increase weight (or hold duration in your case) with enough rest, then maintain that and decrease rest, and so on). It's a simple enough step cycle that's proven to work very well. Basically it's a double progression of reps/weight, and rest, and the time falls where it may.

I would argue that the progression I mentioned is what this is. Baseline, decrease rest, then increase both hold and rest. Now begin to decrease rest again.

I would argue that Steve's progression is a step up in complexity as we are now changing the sets as well. This makes it different than S&S or what I mentioned.

a
* another approach is more what you described, i.e. have a constant time window, and fill it up with more or harder reps. No reason for this to not work either! The only thing you have to be careful about is to not make it an escalating density protocol,

Well, those two things are the same thing. Constant time window, in which you slowly do more hold time is what escalating density is. I suggest something slightly different (because you also increase/decrease rest while keeping hold time constant, the window itself also changes), but is very similar in nature to EDT.

as you found out with your original question a purely linear cycle will only bring you so far (or improve very slowly), a slight bit more complex programming will certainly help you move forward quicker. That doesn't mean you need to break out the calculator or have a PhD in maths, simple is good enough!
Whatever you do (step cycles, ladders, linear progression, deloads, etc) just keep in mind that strength is a skill, and what you do is practice, so don't overextend yourself, strive for perfection not for volume!

Here's the way I think about it. The less parts your program has, the harder it is to break down.

If all I'm doing is manipulating hold time and rest, it's hard to mess things up. If I choose a given hold time, then I can just rest as much as needed to meet that. And in later sessions, I slowly push to lower the rest. It's a simple one-two progression.

More complex programming has its place, but it's much harder to debug. For instance, is 10 x :50 on :50 rest a goal I should even strive for? To me, it looks much harder than the end goal. Truth is, there's no way to tell. When you manipulate one more variable (sets), then there's more things going on.

Another issue with complex programming is that it's simply slower. A linear progression like Starting Strength is much faster than its more advanced cousin, the Texas Method. And then even more complex cycles, where you eke out 5/10 lbs every 2 months are even more complex and hence, slower.

Trust me. I am a FAN of complex programming. I love the idea of different sets/reps/rest and so on. But over the years, I've tried to simplify. Programming should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. More complex programming needs to only be introduced at the same rate that simpler programming fails to work.

An advanced person will not make progress on programming that isn't complex enough (enough variables being manipulated). However, a beginning person will make slower progress on complex programming. So there's a fine line of course!

 

[Al Ciampa]

Less typing; more handstand time.

 

[Steve Freides]

@305pelusa, I'm afraid I'm with @aciampa on this one, and want to quote a Russian saying Pavel mentions in one of his books - understanding is a delaying tactic.

I say this with a smile - it's great you're both trying to understand how all this works _and_ figure out what works for you right now, but everything works at least some of the time, everything new works for a while, and nothing works forever, either, so take your best shot and continue doing what you've been doing, which is working, until it no longer works for you.

My favorite thing in training, and this resonates with me _so_ much because of my work in music and music teaching, is improving one's "easy." What I think are the best training programs are those that somehow increase your strength, endurance, or whatever, by keeping you in the 80% of max effort range and then having that same load gradually feel easier and easier. If your 80% load becomes your 70% load, you have improved, and if you can do that without going to 100% very often, you have found a formula for long-term success. That was my focus when spelling out a progression for you - there are built-in backoffs of volume, varieties of intensities, and I hope it makes the suffering minimal while still facilitating progress. It's certainly not the only way to make progress, but I think it minimizes the likelihood of, as you put it, "counterproductive results."

There are many variables - just keep doing what you're doing, remain mindful of how it's effecting you in both positive and negative ways, and I'm sure you will reach your goal.

-S-

 

[Steve W.]

a Russian saying Pavel mentions in one of his books - understanding is a delaying tactic.

Actually a quotation from Michael Crichton's novel Sphere.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Holy cow! This thread is packed with a lot of info and very informed speculation.

In my own mind, thinking through the issues involved here's what I've got.

Some burn is inevitable once you begin to push a muscle group past a very low force level. Its just a question of resistance and duration. As the load bearing capacity of the muscle increases relative to the demands, the burn will set in later and later, just as it would if you performed the same movement on a muscle that is not getting stronger and reduced the load.

Movements where balance plays a big role will limit how much shifting you can do to reduce acid buildup in the muscles. When backpacking I've been known to do a drag on each leg for a few steps to give it a rest and then switch. These strategies work but also increase the load the still active motor units must carry. So it allows some additional acid to leave the muscle and/or less is produced, but the other muscles will face an increase in load, acid buildup etc.

Ultimately you need to increase motor unit recruitment, overall mass, or both (preferably). Since this is essentialy a static/isometric lift, if it were me and assuming the balance aspect were well ingrained, I'd be looking at other ways to build the critical muscles in a manner closely matched to the target task, and be sure to include a heavy dose of isometric.

Progressive overhead sandbag lifting might replicate the demands on the shoulder complex, isometric overhead pressing at varying stages in the ROM.

 

[D-Rock]

understanding is a delaying tactic.

I say this with a smile - it's great you're both trying to understand how all this works

Some of us philosophical and scientific types really enjoy understanding and figuring things out and we have to understand it at least enough to apply things, have reasons for what we do, and not completely go off track. But it can totally get in the way. Countless times I have wasted more time reading than training and think I had it all figured out, only to change my program the next day because I read something else. One can get lost in all the techniques that can work. It is a very hard balance to find!

but everything works at least some of the time, everything new works for a while, and nothing works forever,

Frustrating because one can make a lot of progress, then spin their wheels for a long time trying to find the next thing that works.

improving one's "easy."

My favorite concept, can be applied so many ways, something that has allowed me to make the best and most sustainable progress of my life, and it hasn't stopped working.

 

[305pelusa]

My favorite thing in training, and this resonates with me _so_ much because of my work in music and music teaching, is improving one's "easy." What I think are the best training programs are those that somehow increase your strength, endurance, or whatever, by keeping you in the 80% of max effort range and then having that same load gradually feel easier and easier. If your 80% load becomes your 70% load, you have improved.

You know this is a really interesting way of going about it. To be frank with you, I'm totally the opposite way. If I can push hard and improve my best, then the "easier" stuff becomes "even easier". Strength paves the way to mastery. At times, I've been guilty of moving up to harder exercises, even with less-than-perfect form (a sin in some circles) like the Adv. Tuck Planche, as a way to improve my Tuck Planche! It does work though. Once you go back to the regression, the "easier" stuff becomes "even easier". There's a balance here of course. If you don't really train and perfect and strengthen the Tuck Planche, there's zero chance of ever getting a good Adv Tuck. Two sides of the same coin!

Less typing; more handstand time.

While good advice for most people, probably terrible for me. As a person guilty of pushing too hard with too much volume, I've learned to really restrain myself and do only what I program at the beginning of the week.

I think floor HS 4 times a week for a 10 min window, combined with 1-2 hard PB HS sessions a week (again, 10 min window) is about the right volume to consistently improve, but also give enough rest to my wrists.

To give an example, I could potentially do a PB HS session today. But I'm wary of it. Will decide later today. It really isn't as simple as "more handstand time" for some of us!

 

[305pelusa]

Ultimately you need to increase motor unit recruitment, overall mass, or both (preferably). Since this is essentialy a static/isometric lift, if it were me and assuming the balance aspect were well ingrained, I'd be looking at other ways to build the critical muscles in a manner closely matched to the target task, and be sure to include a heavy dose of isometric.

Progressive overhead sandbag lifting might replicate the demands on the shoulder complex, isometric overhead pressing at varying stages in the ROM.

Umh, interesting. I actually do little overhead work (aside from the weekly Barbell Pressing session I suppose). Most of my training has been more about horizontal pressing to be frank.

I don't know if training HSPUs would help, or would just detract. Hard to guess a lot of these things.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Umh, interesting. I actually do little overhead work (aside from the weekly Barbell Pressing session I suppose). Most of my training has been more about horizontal pressing to be frank.

I don't know if training HSPUs would help, or would just detract. Hard to guess a lot of these things.

And, you don't want to waste energy feeling this out with unproductive strategies but also need to stick with any changes long enough to see the result.

At the very least I'd add some isometric pressing. I've done this with a lot of activities I wanted to improve and it always gives some benefit for stuck thresholds as long as you can figure out a way to execute the movement. In your case I'd stand on a stool in a doorway so my legs are at full extension and arms nearly so, and press right up into the top casing for a handful of sets. This would be in addition to any other training, not really a substitution.

When I was more active in MA, I'd sometimes line up on a door frame and extend a punch, strike, or kick about half way. Then a couple of iso sets trying to extend the rest of the way. It definitely improved my rooting and speed. In my experience the benefit is mostly speed, but then anything that improves motor unit recruitment should also push up the load bearing potential. I had no objective means of measuring power generation in this instance, but more speed + better rooting = more energy.

A little extra mass is always handy too.

 

[Steve Freides]

f I can push hard and improve my best, then the "easier" stuff becomes "even easier". Strength paves the way to mastery.

I completely agree with you! "Easy" for me is a 275 lb. deadlift at 148 lbs. and 60+ years of age. No doubt that this wouldn't be easy for some other people with my metrics for age and weight, and that's because I've gotten stronger. And my 275 would be way too easy for the people - and there are many of them - who are my age and weight and can deadlift much more than I can.

The point is to find what works for you, and since it's sounds like you're doing that, my advice is to carry on and report your results.

-S-

 

[305pelusa]

5 x :30 on 1:00 rest (then increase volume, keep rest constant)
10 x :30 on 1:00 rest (then reduce rest, keep volume constant)
10 x :30 on :30 rest (then lengthen time and rest, reduce volume)

5 x :40 on 1:20 rest (then increase volume, increase rest)
10 x :40 on 1:20 rest (then decrease volume, reduce rest)
8 x :40 on :40 rest (etc.)

5 x :50 on 1:40 rest
10 x :50 on :50 rest
6 x :50 on :50 rest

5 x 1:00 on 2:00 rest
10 x 1:00 on 2:00 rest
5 x 1:00 on 1:00 rest

Steve, the requirement of the 5 x 60 s HS is on the floor, not PBs. Hence, there's no rush for me to get that with the parallettes. Because of this, I've decided to give your progression a shot. While I think it will take longer to get to 5 x 60 s, I think I'll get there with better techniques and a better foundation because I'd be taking the time to build volume up significantly.

Also, I know it can be frustrating to type a program on a post, only for the OP to not follow it. In experience, you beat me by a landslide so I want to try it.

Two things:
1) Could you read through it very quickly and tell me if there are any typos? It seems the last one should be "6 x 1:00 on 1:00 rest" correct? The last progressions in each section (i.e. 10 x :30 on :30 rest, 8 x :40 on :40 rest, etc) seem particularly tough. I just want to make sure this is what you had in mind.

2) I started today. I went for 5 sets of 30 sec, with 1:00 rest. After the fifth set, I was feeling very good, and pushed to 10 sets of 30 sec, with 1:00 rest. So I achieved this second milestone. I will now continue to push towards 10 x 30 sec, with 30 sec rest.

I will detail the rest on my log so as to not clutter this thread anymore. This should give it a nice end to the discussion and great information for anyone interested in similar things. Glad to have brought it up to SF's attention!