Eric Wilson
Level 6 Valued Member
How do you know that?If I forced a rest week W1, I wouldn’t have hit those PRs.
How do you know that?If I forced a rest week W1, I wouldn’t have hit those PRs.
Week 1: 20 minutes could be considered a recovery week.
How do you know that?
I like the challenge of the week 4 idea…For me the most effective way of approaching any of the Giant Programs was the 20/25/30/25 minute sessions (post warm up) wherein I did a good pace and kept that same pace for the first three weeks. The increase in session lengths added to the overall sets/reps. Then cutting back down to 25 minutes in week four and pushing density. The goal for me was to get the reps in week four that I got in week three. It was quite effective for me at least.
Maybe you would have hit the PR in the next week, if you had a lighter week for recovery?Because it would have been only 20 minutes instead of 30 minutes?
Maybe you would have hit the PR in the next week, if you had a lighter week for recovery?
My point is, if you haven't tried an approach, maybe you don't know how it would work for you.
I think the only PR that really matters to me is the Rep Max Test at the end of the Giant to measure progress.Why bring up a hypothetical? Plain facts are I got higher reps week one, if I ran it again to test it would never be apples to apples as either it would be a repeat of the same or
a different weight.
I ran the program as written. Geoff has released the Giant multiple times and has never placed that protocol into an offficial release. I believe running the program as written, and then getting positive results, is superior to jacking with it because you might be able to get better results.
I think that it’s popular in here because it’s both easier and guarantees PRs. Which cool, but be honest about why instead of acting like it’s the better way to run the program.
I think the only PR that really matters to me is the Rep Max Test at the end of the Giant to measure progress.
“20-30 minutes” is the written guideline in the program and so we’re all running as written and making progress. I don’t see the issue with it anyone’s approach.
I think what he’s saying is that what y’all are doing isn’t autoregulating. It starts looking more like triple progression - add a set each week, then deload, then step up the rep range and repeat.Pretty funny when we argue about who's autoregulation is the most pure.
Don't put me in with "y'all" -- I haven't talked about what I do.I think what he’s saying is that what y’all are doing isn’t autoregulating. It starts looking more like triple progression - add a set each week, then deload, then step up the rep range and repeat.
But the only component of the GIANT intended to be auto regulated is the rest periods. Whether you pick 20, 23, 25, or 30 minutes… it is still predetermined.I think what he’s saying is that what y’all are doing isn’t autoregulating. It starts looking more like triple progression - add a set each week, then deload, then step up the rep range and repeat.
Okie dokie.Don't put me in with "y'all" -- I haven't talked about what I do.
Autoregulating rest also autoregulates sets. Changing duration will affect that. Let’s say you grind through 5x5 on week 1/20 min. Maybe you aren’t able to add a set of you stuck to 20 min, but since you added 5 min you now get 6. Same on the third week, you now get 7. You are still autoregulating in a way, but you are also increasing the stimulus in a fixed way irrespective of recovery.But the only component of the GIANT intended to be auto regulated is the rest periods. Whether you pick 20, 23, 25, or 30 minutes… it is still predetermined.
It’s also easy enough to track reps per minute in a spread sheet to compare progress week over week. It worked like a charm for me.
I think the big temptation with more time is that you keep the rest the same, so you may or may not be progressing. You may get more sets, but the density doesn't change, and what you get in week 2 and week 3 you might've been able to get Week 1 if you had just done 25/30 minutes. Maybe not, and more is still more...I have tried both methods. They have both worked for me. As far as this discussion goes, my personal opinion falls more in line with what Hrungnir and John K are saying. I find it difficult to track true progress when I vary the time of the session. Comparing the total reps done on a day where I do 20 minutes vs. a day where I do 30 minutes isn't necessarily an apples to apples comparison.
Also Geoff has pointed out in his emails before that you can't really compare the effort based on total reps done when you have different rep counts per day. In this example two days of the same total reps where you did say 3 reps per set for a total of 30 vs. a day where you did singles for 30 reps are just not the same session. I think this also applies to the time/length of the session. A day where you do 30 reps in 20 minutes is just not the same as doing 30 reps in 30 minutes.
Either way you would get stronger. My point here is just that I find it makes it harder to track your progress.