all posts post new thread

Kettlebell "Giant 1.0"

barrak said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is funny. The calf development was a WTH factor with the giant series.
 
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...

You have to at least try mix bells. I am sure it will solve your problem. You are a bit stuck between bell sizes.
 
John Grahill said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is a very important point. It seems like some are too focused on high volume. When you move from 6 to 9, think about how much more of a percentage of RM that is. RM is not linear, it is logarithmic meaning that the difference between 50% RM and 60% is not that much but the difference between 80% RM and 90% RM is huge. I went to the PlanStrong Seminar and this is explained in depth. The closer to %RM, the harder recovery is. We can go a long time with rest periods at 50% RM but the shoulders will fry much sooner at even 70%RM at volume. It is unrealistic to keep expecting big jumps in volume without considering %RM. The 8s are tough in 1.1 and the 9s will be even tougher in 1.2 but that is the point that makes the Giant 1 to 1.2 series programming different from RoP and other ladder/volume programs and even 2.0. Imagine you did 8 sets of squats to near failure!
 
Last edited:
guardian7 said:
This is a very important point. It seems like some are too focused on increasing volume. When you move from 6 to 9, think about how much more of a percentage of RM that is. RM is not linear, it is logarithmic meaning that the difference between 50% RM and 60% is not that much but the difference between 80% RM and 90% RM is huge. I went to the PlanStrong Seminar and this is explained in depth. The closer to %RM, the harder recovery is. We can go a long time with rest periods at 50% RM but the shoulders will fry much sooner at even 70%RM at volume. It is unrealistic to keep expecting big jumps in volume without considering %RM. The 8s are tough in 1.1 and the 9s will be even tougher in 1.2 but that is the point that makes the Giant 1 to 1.2 series programming different from RoP and other ladder/volume programs and even 2.0. Imagine you did 8 sets of squats to near failure!
Click to expand...
Yes sir.
 
I just completed Week 3, Day 2 of 3.0.

Today, I managed 14 sets of 3, which is an additional 5 sets (or 15 reps total) compared to last week.

It only took me 14:25 to complete last week's total (which was 9 sets in ~27 minutes)! Once I hit 9 sets, I took my time completing the rest of the sets in the remaining time.

**Edited for clarity.
 
Last edited:
guardian7 said:
You have to at least try mix bells. I am sure it will solve your problem. You are a bit stuck between bell sizes.
Click to expand...
Today is a day off. I will try the experiment. My worry is my SI joint popping out of place. Sets of 2 or 3 and see what happens. I appreciate the benefits, just never tried it.

@barrak. I have those 70's! Unfortunately they've been collecting rust on the handle. :( . At one time they were a 5 RM max.
 
barrak said:
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.
Click to expand...
An interesting take.

I am feeling the same with those 4,6,8 ladders from giant 2.

I think I would struggle with a true 10 RM which is why I wanted to double check if that is what Geoff intended when writing the programme.

I initially read it as a progression in volume after stepping through the rest of the series & to use your starting 10RM from giant 1.0.

I would have to treat each ladder rung as a separate set & manipulate my rest accordingly.

I read back through to see if it recommended the ROP method of using ladders where you drop the last rung of the ladder when it becomes unachievable. However it doesn't mention that in the giant.
This would make it more achievable in my eyes.

@John Grahill
If I remember right you used a true 10 RM for the giant 2 right?
 
BrianCF said:
Today is a day off. I will try the experiment. My worry is my SI joint popping out of place. Sets of 2 or 3 and see what happens. I appreciate the benefits, just never tried it.

@barrak. I have those 70's! Unfortunately they've been collecting rust on the handle. :( . At one time they were a 5 RM max.
Click to expand...
The offset thing is something I've wanted to try with the Giant Down the road. It would take a lot of patience meaning no rushed reps and making certain to be tightly zipped up so as to avoid an issue.

The 70's will be in your wheelhouse again!
 
Cearball said:
An interesting take.

I am feeling the same with those 4,6,8 ladders from giant 2.

I think I would struggle with a true 10 RM which is why I wanted to double check if that is what Geoff intended when writing the programme.

I initially read it as a progression in volume after stepping through the rest of the series & to use your starting 10RM from giant 1.0.

I would have to treat each ladder rung as a separate set & manipulate my rest accordingly.

I read back through to see if it recommended the ROP method of using ladders where you drop the last rung of the ladder when it becomes unachievable. However it doesn't mention that in the giant.
This would make it more achievable in my eyes.

@John Grahill
If I remember right you used a true 10 RM for the giant 2 right?
Click to expand...
First time through in the fall, the 2.0 was done before the 1 series and yes it was a 10 RM. The second time through I did the 1.0 and then the 2.0. When I did the 1.0 the second run through they were actually only a 9 RM, and that 9th rep was as ugly as the Medusa! After 1 month the bells were a 10RM. I then hit up the 2.0. So as I'm writing this, the long-winded answer is yes, both times I did the 2.0, I used a legit 10 RM.
 
guardian7 said:
This is a very important point. It seems like some are too focused on high volume. When you move from 6 to 9, think about how much more of a percentage of RM that is. RM is not linear, it is logarithmic meaning that the difference between 50% RM and 60% is not that much but the difference between 80% RM and 90% RM is huge. I went to the PlanStrong Seminar and this is explained in depth. The closer to %RM, the harder recovery is. We can go a long time with rest periods at 50% RM but the shoulders will fry much sooner at even 70%RM at volume. It is unrealistic to keep expecting big jumps in volume without considering %RM. The 8s are tough in 1.1 and the 9s will be even tougher in 1.2 but that is the point that makes the Giant 1 to 1.2 series programming different from RoP and other ladder/volume programs and even 2.0. Imagine you did 8 sets of squats to near failure!
Click to expand...
I just reread this. @guardian has made a point that in my mind is important. If you choose a set of bells that are a true 10RM, meaning rep 11 is not going to even be attempted, the volume is going to be significantly less. This is what I experienced during my second run through with 36s. This doesn't mean the program wasn't effective with the heavier bells and less overall volume! It absolutely yielded for me more "desirable" training effects....more strength, muscle, etc. It also doesn't mean that my first run with the 32s wasn't worth it because it laid the foundation. They were like a 10 RM that I could probably have gotten 11 or 12 if I really pushed but didn't because they would most likely have been "butt ugly" reps. I needed to get used to higher rep c+p's!
 
I think I will take a rest week after completing giant 1.2.

During that week I will do a max test with the bells I used during the programme.

I will then do a max test with my next set of bells one size up a couple of days after.

Depending where I fall with these tests I will make the decision of what bells to run giant 2 with.

I will probably stick my head back in here for some advice to help me choose.

Thanks for everyone sharing their opinions & insight.

Really enjoying this thread.
 
After reading the comments and responses ( thanks everyone!), I guess I'll run 1.2 with the 1.1 bells, 2x24.
I appreciate @guardian7 's discussion of % of RM : I was feeling a bit low that my totals reps and tonnage decreased in 1.1, but I'll just trust the good effects in 1.2. Not really looking forward to 9 rep days, but as we say around here, "it's simple, not easy."
 
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...
It's REALLY solid work!
 
WxHerk said:
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."
Click to expand...
This is a CRITICAL point.

It's about using "heavy-ish" bells and learning to be comfortable with discomfort.

It's also about doing however many sets YOU can do, NOT what others can do. Or keeping up with what others can do. Nor matching what others can or are doing.

Personally, I'm terrible for volume. Absolutely terrible.

2s and 3s are my comfort zone.

4s, 5s, 6s, and beyond?

Definitely past my comfort zone, especially when you consider that you're actually doubling those reps - 1 Cl + 1 Pr is actually 2 reps of 2 different exercises. So, a "set" of 5 is really 10 reps.

Not my "favorite."

But it's this "volume" relative to what you can currently do with your 10RM (in 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 2.0) that yields the results.

Opting for a lighter KB and turning this into MetCon is really doing yourself a disservice.
 
guardian7 said:
This is a very important point. It seems like some are too focused on high volume. When you move from 6 to 9, think about how much more of a percentage of RM that is. RM is not linear, it is logarithmic meaning that the difference between 50% RM and 60% is not that much but the difference between 80% RM and 90% RM is huge. I went to the PlanStrong Seminar and this is explained in depth. The closer to %RM, the harder recovery is. We can go a long time with rest periods at 50% RM but the shoulders will fry much sooner at even 70%RM at volume. It is unrealistic to keep expecting big jumps in volume without considering %RM. The 8s are tough in 1.1 and the 9s will be even tougher in 1.2 but that is the point that makes the Giant 1 to 1.2 series programming different from RoP and other ladder/volume programs and even 2.0. Imagine you did 8 sets of squats to near failure!
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Geoff Neupert said:
This is a CRITICAL point.

It's about using "heavy-ish" bells and learning to be comfortable with discomfort.

It's also about doing however many sets YOU can do, NOT what others can do. Or keeping up with what others can do. Nor matching what others can or are doing.

Personally, I'm terrible for volume. Absolutely terrible.

2s and 3s are my comfort zone.

4s, 5s, 6s, and beyond?

Definitely past my comfort zone, especially when you consider that you're actually doubling those reps - 1 Cl + 1 Pr is actually 2 reps of 2 different exercises. So, a "set" of 5 is really 10 reps.

Not my "favorite."

But it's this "volume" relative to what you can currently do with your 10RM (in 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 2.0) that yields the results.

Opting for a lighter KB and turning this into MetCon is really doing yourself a disservice.
Click to expand...
Yes sir! I burn out quickly going for super high volume. I just checked my logs from February and March and there were some workouts that yielded reps in the low to mid 40s......but I certainly felt "worked out" on training days and made great gains!

I see where it seems like people almost are discouraged if they get less than 100 reps in a session! No need to feel that way at all!
 
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...
@BrianCF With respect to the higher reps with a "challenging for you" weight....I remember being in the 1.0 thinking I'd never be able to handle much volume with 8s and 9s. Honestly, I just stuck with it and each week built upon the last. Dont look up the mountain, just take the first step!
 
John Grahill said:
@BrianCF With respect to the higher reps with a "challenging for you" weight....I remember being in the 1.0 thinking I'd never be able to handle much volume with 8s and 9s. Honestly, I just stuck with it and each week built upon the last. Dont look up the mountain, just take the first step!
Click to expand...

That has been my experience too. My 8 day finishing 1.1 has 1/3 more volume than my 6 day of 1.0.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom