all posts post new thread

Bodyweight Thoughts on "Convict Conditioning"

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
I second the idea that an SFB book would be awesome!

I think for a lot of you guys the second Convict Conditioning book, CC2, could be really interesting.

First, there is a progression for grip strength (pinnacle: One Arm Towel Hang for a minute or so).

And then he proposes the "Trifecta" for basic mobility and strength: Full L-Sit, Full Bridge and Full Twist. These three are to be practiced in submaximal sets (GTG and S&S anyone?) and strengthen and stretch all major chains simultaneously. The three are also supposed to rejuvenate the joints.

L-Sits: Strength in anterior chain (+ lats, scapula and triceps) and stretch in the posterior chain.
Full Bridges: Strength in the posterior chain, stretch in the anterior chain
Full Twist: The obliques get both a stretch and some strength from this (as long as it is performed as a light strength exercise and not as a passive stretch), as well as the glutes.

I think if you did the hanging/grip work, the trifecta and maybe add some some crawling you could call it a pretty complete and simple program in line with the SF philosophy.
 
While I don't do the 'Trifecta', I do incorporate the Full Twist when I am doing FS stuff. I like it a lot.
Likewise I can attest to the effectiveness of towel hangs. I haven't done them for a while, but when I was doing them... they worked as advertised.
 
Karen Smith said:
After glancing thru and reading many of the post on this thread, first want to mention that the SFB course and certification are open to ALL. You do not have to attend a KB course prior.

We have many progressions/regressions for all these skills. We also teach the SF principles and program design.

While we are on the STRONGFIRST bodyweight forum, I would be interested in a head count of those here who have either attended our course or certification or trained with an SFB instructor?

** I personally do not know nor have I read any of the Kavadlos work, so I can not speak in regards to them other than yes they seem to walk the talk.

**I have the CC book as I was once an instructor with DD and I have met C. Sommer's and attended one of his workshops.

What I can and will speak on is SF....Pavel developed great content for our course/cert that I am honored to teach. I would love for you guys to attend or train with one of our SFB instructor, this would give a better understanding of what we teach and that of our competitors that have been listed above.

AND just a quick example of how strong people can get using our principles in the proper programming manner.... I ran a 6 week beta program and many never even thought they would try to achieve a OAPU....But they followed the 3x week program and several of them in just 6 short weeks went from doing OAPU on the wall to being 15" from completing it on the ground.
JUST 6 SHORT WEEKS, and one of these ladies was 62 yrs old. Thought these stats might interest some of you.
Click to expand...

Hi Karen,

Good points - sorry for non-SF talk in a SF forum!

I look forward to attending the bodyweight seminar when I can. Any plans for the UK?

A SF bodyweight book would certainly get my vote, if there are plans for one from the course materials.
 
Hello,

The trifecta can be easily incorporated in stretching part of a training if you go for only a few reps or a few holds, a bit like SLDL for instance.

Some bodyweight moves can have a weight equivalence to measure performance: for isntance the kettlebell press and the freestanding HSPU using deficit. A full free. HSPU forces you to lift your weight on your 2 arms so it gives you the famous "1/2 bdw kettlebell press". However, it also works a lot on balance and space management. Related to push ups, there is a kind equivalence too: Need A Pushup Math Maven

We have the same logic with the pistol squat for instance.

Nonetheless, some bodyweight moves are very special and does not necessarily have an equivalence using weight. For instance, full planche - bent arm planche - front lever, etc... They require an incredible strength and balance which can be applied in weight. I do admit that doing them make us work with our own bdw only (so we do not add anything). However the levers are fare more unfavourable than for swings.

This is just a matter of CNS and tension we are able to put in our muscles

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
I was going to stay away from this thread, but I can't help myself!
I tried CC back when it first came out. I was all excited like a lot of people were.
I followed the recommendations in the book for six months. My results I felt were craptacular!
Back in 2000 I was hurting all over from a decade of going hard and heavy all the time in the gym. So I found a book on navy seal calisthenics and decided to do that for a little while. I got way more out of that training in six months, then I got from CC in six months. I owned the naked warrior, I should have done that instead of CC! Once a week training may work for extreme power lifters, but not bodyweight cals.
CC2 was an interesting book! I liked the forearm-grip training, and the discussion on how one does not need huge amount of protein to gain muscle, the most. I admit that I have bought a lot of workout books probably more for info-tainment, then actually seriously planning to use it. I also own a few books by Al Kavadlo, beautiful pictures!

I've come to the conclusion that S&S, ETK, PTTP and even Naked Warrior are more about GPP and enhancing your sport or work.
I see most of the master steps of CC and other tough BW feats as something that goes beyond GPP, with ever greater diminishing returns to helping your sport or work. Don't forget the higher risk of injury.

Just some scattered thoughts,
Al
 
BCman said:
I was going to stay away from this thread, but I can't help myself!
I tried CC back when it first came out. I was all excited like a lot of people were.
I followed the recommendations in the book for six months. My results I felt were craptacular!
Back in 2000 I was hurting all over from a decade of going hard and heavy all the time in the gym. So I found a book on navy seal calisthenics and decided to do that for a little while. I got way more out of that training in six months, then I got from CC in six months. I owned the naked warrior, I should have done that instead of CC! Once a week training may work for extreme power lifters, but not bodyweight cals.
CC2 was an interesting book! I liked the forearm-grip training, and the discussion on how one does not need huge amount of protein to gain muscle, the most. I admit that I have bought a lot of workout books probably more for info-tainment, then actually seriously planning to use it. I also own a few books by Al Kavadlo, beautiful pictures!

I've come to the conclusion that S&S, ETK, PTTP and even Naked Warrior are more about GPP and enhancing your sport or work.
I see most of the master steps of CC and other tough BW feats as something that goes beyond GPP, with ever greater diminishing returns to helping your sport or work. Don't forget the higher risk of injury.

Just some scattered thoughts,
Al
Click to expand...
I'm sadly also underwhelmed regarding "other stuff" out there, by "other stuff" I mean non-Pavel stuff.

I guess I was drawn to Pavel's work initially because I like simplicity. If there's a system with only two exercises in it and it works to make you insanely strong, I'm all for it.

I don't think, for instance, that a back bridge is really something on the same level as a one arm pushup or pistol squat. It's more of just a stretch - a good thing to do, but it's not an important thing to do.

I think Pavel is right in his Naked Warrior book when he says that frankly you're gonna have to lift real weights to strengthen your back chain of muscles!

I'm kind of dismayed. I'd like to find a non-Pavel programme that I think is as good as a Pavel programme. This is as much out of curiosity as anything.

Anyhow, the CC book and now the Pushing the Limits book too are both interesting and fun, but I don't see how they are on par with Pavel's work which is written I think from a much broader viewpoint.

Oh well, I guess I've gotten what I was questing for: a reliable weight training programme to follow in my own home, and when away from home: S&S and NW. That's probably the end of it.
 
Hello,

I think it depends on what we are after: strength only, strength and stretching, etc... Adding some stretch is important for my body. Indeed, I noticed that I can use my strength far better for I stretch. Indeed, before I did not stretch at all but I was rigid. I was not able to use all my "potential".

IMO, if we want to consider minimalistic training, then NW is good related to strength. Then, related to stretch (flexibility, not mobility), full split (lateral and frontal), bridge, twist, a squat, a "butterfly" (touching the toes with the head). Related to mobility, baby crawl and spider crawl.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
Inky said:
I would love to do a SFB course/cert, but I am currently doing the SFG level 1, maybe next year, as there is an SFB instructor nearby (Claire Booth). I am adding in some calisthenics stuff to my workouts, mainly push ups/dips and chins/pulls, but also trying to get some L-sits as well.



SFB book would be interesting :)
Click to expand...


Yes, Claire is an SFB and I will be heading to her place teach the SFB certification on June 2-3 of this year. I will be in the area from May 31-June 7th.
 
Carl said:
Hi Karen,

Good points - sorry for non-SF talk in a SF forum!

I look forward to attending the bodyweight seminar when I can. Any plans for the UK?

A SF bodyweight book would certainly get my vote, if there are plans for one from the course materials.
Click to expand...


Maybe a book could be a good addition, I am not sure it is something Pavel has time for at this moment with other research at hand but definitely will speak to him about it. I have some ideas for that as well.

And @Carl Please you do not have to apologies, I was merely stating that we get great feedback from those who attend the course and certs and that learning our techniques in person will benefit much more than just reading from a book. There are many great cues that you will walk away with. :)

I will be in the UK - May 31-June 7.
 
Karen Smith said:
Maybe a book could be a good addition, I am not sure it is something Pavel has time for at this moment with other research at hand but definitely will speak to him about it. I have some ideas for that as well.

And @Carl Please you do not have to apologies, I was merely stating that we get great feedback from those who attend the course and certs and that learning our techniques in person will benefit much more than just reading from a book. There are many great cues that you will walk away with. :)

I will be in the UK - May 31-June 7.
Click to expand...
Another book idea would be a kind of Strong First Compendium or "SF Bible" thing. It wouldn't necessarily replace the specific books on the specific programmes such as Naked Warrior, PTTP or S&S, but would put forward the overall outlook and philosophy of SF and also profile particular moves (like OAPU, pistols, C&P, Swings, TGUs etc) and discuss their relative merits and demerits, how to build them into programmes for what goals and so forth, and the relative merits and demerits of the programmes.

The biggest lesson I've learned from Strong First is that even though there are lots of good exercises out there to do, there are very few necessary exercises out there to do. The SF philosophy of working really hard at very few moves is to my knowledge a fairly unique one in the world of fitness and exercise. Pavel is about 50 years old now I guess and it's time to consolidate all the wisdom together. Updated editions would be welcome every 5-10 years or so. It's like any kind of good textbook.

Although, at the end of the day, who really needs anything other than S&S and NW???
 
Kozushi said:
I'm sadly also underwhelmed regarding "other stuff" out there, by "other stuff" I mean non-Pavel stuff.
Click to expand...

Kozushi, how many other Bodyweight programs have you tried out though? Have you tried anything by GMB? Have you tried the Recommended Routine of Reddit? Overcoming Gravity? Programs by Vadnal or Merrick? These are all excellent programs.

Kozushi said:
I don't think, for instance, that a back bridge is really something on the same level as a one arm pushup or pistol squat. It's more of just a stretch - a good thing to do, but it's not an important thing to do.
Click to expand...

This is totally, 100% dependent upon your goals. A OAPU and a Pistol squat are definitely not "important things" to do. No reason for my parents to do them.

However, if you're interested in minimalist Bodyweight training, then they're definitely useful. Same if you want to develop good shoulder mobility for Handstands. The Bridge is crucial. For the gymnast, the bridge is "an important thing to do". But the OAPU isn't. Do you see?

Kozushi said:
Anyhow, the CC book and now the Pushing the Limits book too are both interesting and fun, but I don't see how they are on par with Pavel's work which is written I think from a much broader viewpoint.
Click to expand...

I agree with The Naked Warrior being a broader viewpoint. It's meant to be this strength-training program to follow for variety, or when there's no equipment (he literally says this).

However, it's not a calisthenics program. Not a complete one anyways.
Pushing the Limits and other calisthenics programs look more "complex" and lacking simplicity precisely because they ARE the whole deal. You're meant to follow them, and only them, for many months. And it's not meant for those looking to spice up training. It's for those who want to do calisthenics for real.
 
BCman said:
I've come to the conclusion that S&S, ETK, PTTP and even Naked Warrior are more about GPP and enhancing your sport or work.
I see most of the master steps of CC and other tough BW feats as something that goes beyond GPP, with ever greater diminishing returns to helping your sport or work.
Click to expand...

This is actually a very interesting point you bring, because it's something I ask myself a lot.

I personally think things like the Planche and the Iron Cross are probably well past GPP. They require a lot of joint prep and training time. And the muscular strength isn't likely that useful.

However, I think other skills like the Front Lever and the One-arm Chin-up, at first, also seem like past GPP. But I'd argue training them does benefit your sport or work. The Front Lever builds an extremely powerful hollow body (and even Pavel himself does them). The One-arm Chin-up is nifty for rock climbing. First time I went bouldering, I was at an excellent level for my first time, no doubt due to the OACU.

The Flag doesn't seem that useful, but the Handstand absolutely does. And so on.

I can tell you that many of these higher level skills have high injury risks... however, I don't think you'll find diminishing returns until the very, very elite level. The carry-over from calisthenics to weight training is extensive.
 
305pelusa said:
Kozushi, how many other Bodyweight programs have you tried out though? Have you tried anything by GMB? Have you tried the Recommended Routine of Reddit? Overcoming Gravity? Programs by Vadnal or Merrick? These are all excellent programs.



This is totally, 100% dependent upon your goals. A OAPU and a Pistol squat are definitely not "important things" to do. No reason for my parents to do them.

However, if you're interested in minimalist Bodyweight training, then they're definitely useful. Same if you want to develop good shoulder mobility for Handstands. The Bridge is crucial. For the gymnast, the bridge is "an important thing to do". But the OAPU isn't. Do you see?



I agree with The Naked Warrior being a broader viewpoint. It's meant to be this strength-training program to follow for variety, or when there's no equipment (he literally says this).

However, it's not a calisthenics program. Not a complete one anyways.
Pushing the Limits and other calisthenics programs look more "complex" and lacking simplicity precisely because they ARE the whole deal. You're meant to follow them, and only them, for many months. And it's not meant for those looking to spice up training. It's for those who want to do calisthenics for real.
Click to expand...
Thank you. It's nice to read that. I suppose in my case my goals happen to be exactly those specified in the NW book but not those in the other books. I don't agree with biasedly privileging body weight only workouts over weight lifting workouts. I think that goal is biased and therefore wrong, not that I care what other people want to do with their lives - just for myself. I'm writing this with my chin up bar about 5 feet away! :)

I think there is a need for a programme for no equipment at all, like NW and also the Pushing the Limits programme and probably others similar.

There is also a need for a programme that's "cheap" in terms of equipment. So, the no equipment exercises PLUS some kind of bar work and some simple dumbbell stuff too(?).

Frankly, kettlebells are getting in the "expensive" range, but at least they don't take up much room. Buying a proper set for S&S is actually kind of pricey. You have to get the 16, 24, 32 at the very least. In my case I also have the 40 and 48, and seconds for the 16,24,32.

A barbell set with a bench is getting pretty expensive and space-eating, so it's more of an elite thing in my mind.

I think this conundrum is what is pushing the popularity of kettlebells. They're even selling cheap plastic ones at the Dollar Store now!!!

I think I am going to buy the Raising the Bar book too. Why? Because I also think it's biased to privilege weight lifting over bodyweight lifting. Self-locomotion is indeed an alternate and equally important kind of strength. Kavadlo says the Pushing the Limits book is meant to be used with the other book providing there is a bar available to use. His work is becoming another inspiration for me. Just the mere directionality of the exercises is opposite when you compare bodyweight and free weights - and I think mixing it up like this is very healthy and probably unlocks some kind of "Sympathetic" strength systems.

Anyhow, thank you for explaining to me WHY the calisthenics books seem so complicated and disorganized - because they're the real deal and the real deal is complicated! That makes a LOT of sense! Hahaha! I'll start on the back bridge! :)
 
Last edited:
Kozushi said:
I suppose in my case my goals happen to be exactly those specified in the NW book but not those in the other books.
Click to expand...
Yeah, absolutely. You do a lot of work with S&S, which is a hinge pull and a static press. TNW requires zero equipment, and trains a squat and bent-arm press, so it is an excellent substitute for S&S when away, or for some variety.

In fact, TNW makes sense in the context of KB training, because it plugs holes KB training has. For those who don't train with any KBs, we would need more complete routines.

Kozushi said:
I think there is a need for a programme for no equipment at all, like NW and also the Pushing the Limits programme and probably others similar.

There is also a need for a programme that's "cheap" in terms of equipment. So, the no equipment exercises PLUS some kind of bar work and some simple dumbbell stuff too(?).
Click to expand...
That's a big plus of calisthenics; it's great to your wallet. Even when you perform full-on calisthenics routines, 90% of the training is usually done with a floor and wall. A bar is eventually crucial, but you can get away without rings until the very advanced level.

That's how I got started. KBs are way too expensive for me, and I don't want to pay for gyms/even have to make the trip. Calisthenics is extremely convenient.

Kozushi said:
Anyhow, thank you for explaining to me WHY the calisthenics books seem so complicated and disorganized - because they're the real deal and the real deal is complicated! That makes a LOT of sense! Hahaha! I'll start on the back bridge! :)
Click to expand...
They can be complex, because there's many movements. It's not as easy as bumping up the weight. You have to change your exercises.

However, it shouldn't be complicated or disorganized. I agree that Al's material isn't the most simplistic, especially his programming. He tries to pull off this "have fun with training" but it can be confusing.
There's other programs that are a lot more "Do This". The stuff GMB releases are a good example. They incorporate holds, exercises, stretches, warm-ups, etc in very straight-forward ways.

If you really want to get started with calisthenics, I'd recommend an online course like those of GMB. Although if you scratch your brain a bit, the stuff by Al is great too. It's all the same movements at the end of the day, and the part that matters is that you do them!
 
Karen Smith said:
Yes, Claire is an SFB and I will be heading to her place teach the SFB certification on June 2-3 of this year. I will be in the area from May 31-June 7th.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know there is the SFB cert at Claire's early June, was very tempted, but can't afford it, may have to see if I can pop over whilst you are in the UK..... ;)
 
305pelusa said:
Yeah, absolutely. You do a lot of work with S&S, which is a hinge pull and a static press. TNW requires zero equipment, and trains a squat and bent-arm press, so it is an excellent substitute for S&S when away, or for some variety.

In fact, TNW makes sense in the context of KB training, because it plugs holes KB training has. For those who don't train with any KBs, we would need more complete routines.


That's a big plus of calisthenics; it's great to your wallet. Even when you perform full-on calisthenics routines, 90% of the training is usually done with a floor and wall. A bar is eventually crucial, but you can get away without rings until the very advanced level.

That's how I got started. KBs are way too expensive for me, and I don't want to pay for gyms/even have to make the trip. Calisthenics is extremely convenient.


They can be complex, because there's many movements. It's not as easy as bumping up the weight. You have to change your exercises.

However, it shouldn't be complicated or disorganized. I agree that Al's material isn't the most simplistic, especially his programming. He tries to pull off this "have fun with training" but it can be confusing.
There's other programs that are a lot more "Do This". The stuff GMB releases are a good example. They incorporate holds, exercises, stretches, warm-ups, etc in very straight-forward ways.

If you really want to get started with calisthenics, I'd recommend an online course like those of GMB. Although if you scratch your brain a bit, the stuff by Al is great too. It's all the same movements at the end of the day, and the part that matters is that you do them!
Click to expand...
It's amazing how you can see why I gravitated to NW exercises as both a substitute for kettlebells while away from home and as a fill-in for things the kettlebells lack, such as a forward press move and a squat.

Last night I tried out quite a number of Kavadlo's moves. I am good at the one arm pushup (5 reps no problem) and can even do the one arm one leg pushup (once, the balance is hard still for me, but it's an exciting goal for me!), but I cannot really do a pistol. It was nice reading that it's okay to do regular squats until you're ready to move up, and also that even when you do move up the "easier" exercises are still very valid. I thought I was a weakling because I couldn't do the pistol, but he says it took him years. So, I'll focus confidently on my two leg squatting for now. I'm convinced now after reading his book that squats are truly one of the best exercises we can do, and maybe THE most accessible. You can even do them at work when no one's watching without dirtying your hands!

I cannot do a full back bridge. I can't extend my chest up. I'm at the straight bridge level, which he calls intermediate. This is a move I'll be adding into my life. I'll work towards eventually doing the full bridge and then the one arm one leg bridge.
 
pet' said:
Hello,

Ring training is also very interesting, especially for everything linked to stabilization. GMB has some of them. Nonetheless, I consider tham a little bit more taxing than bar training
Online Training for Muscle-ups and Gymnastic Ring Exercises

In addition, here is the new Karen's article about mastering OA PU / OAOL PU:
A 6-Week Program to Master the OA/OAOL Push-up

Kind regards,

Pet'
Click to expand...
The CC book says that ring training was invented in the 19th century as a strength building device. I'm sure it's bettr than a mere bar. This makes a lot of sense to me. I just don't have anywhere to put that kind of thing in my home!!! A bar - easy - in a doorframe - I have one just to my right as I'm typing, but rings - no.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom