u/fludwig

For almost 20 years, I've been developing and refining an unusual body mind strength training method called ICOBOMB.

Over those years, the method has evolved through extensive experimentation with slow controlled muscular contractions, segmented micro movements, breathing patterns, internal concentration and increasingly sophisticated forms of multisensory stimulation.

One of the most interesting observations to emerge from this process is what appears to be a synergistic interaction between muscular contraction and internally generated sensory stimulation.

ICOBOMB combines extremely slow, controlled muscular contractions with internal multisensory stimulation involving imagined sensations of movement, pressure, texture, temperature and other sensory experiences.

During a contraction, internal sensory imagination appears to increase awareness and control of the working muscle, potentially creating a stronger mind muscle connection and more deliberate muscular engagement.

But it seems to work in the opposite direction too.

The physical intensity of a sustained muscular contraction appears to make those internally generated sensory experiences more vivid and easier to concentrate on.

The result is a training system designed to pursue two objectives simultaneously:

Build the body: muscle, strength, tendons, connective tissue and physical control.

Train the mind: concentration, cognitive engagement and the ability to quiet mental noise.

ICOBOMB is now being practiced by several hundred students internationally, and some of the feedback we've received has raised some very interesting questions.

Students have reported that the method has helped them train around, prevent or recover from certain injuries. Others have described improvements in their ability to control anxiety and stress, and some have reported improvements in depressive symptoms.

We've also received interesting feedback about muscular development. One student, for example, had been strength training for approximately 23 years but had always struggled to develop his chest and calves. After around eight months of ICOBOMB training, he reported finally being able to strongly stimulate these areas and seeing noticeable development.

We've also had armwrestlers report that the method seems to help them train with fewer injuries. We suspect this could potentially be related to the extremely slow loading and controlled micro movements strengthening or conditioning the tendons and connective tissues, but this is something we'd really like to understand better.

Of course, these are observations and individual reports, not scientific conclusions.

And that's exactly why I'm posting this.

I'd love to see people actually test ICOBOMB and investigate what's happening.

That could mean a formal study by an Honours, Master's or PhD student, a university researcher or a research group.

But it doesn't necessarily have to be a large academic study.

I'd also be very interested in hearing from personal trainers, strength coaches, physiotherapists, exercise physiologists, psychologists, armwrestling coaches or other professionals who might want to conduct smaller practical investigations with their clients, athletes or patients and document what they observe.

There are lots of interesting questions that could be explored.

Does the multisensory component change muscular recruitment or the ability to activate difficult muscle groups? Does this type of slow micro movement training affect tendons and connective tissue differently? Could it have applications for people returning from certain injuries? Does combining sustained muscular tension with intense internal concentration affect stress, anxiety, attention or mind wandering? Could there really be a measurable interaction between the physical and cognitive sides of the method?

I'm open to ideas.

If someone has an interesting way of testing part of the ICOBOMB system, I'd be genuinely interested in collaborating and providing access to the method and instructional materials.

You can learn more about ICOBOMB here:

icobomb.com

And I've put together a page explaining the research opportunity and some of the possible areas of investigation here:

icobomb.com/research-collaboration-opportunity/

Whether you're a university researcher, student, personal trainer, physiotherapist, coach or simply someone with experience conducting this kind of research, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts.

For almost 20 years, I've been developing and refining an unusual body mind strength training method called ICOBOMB.

Over those years, the method has evolved through extensive experimentation with slow controlled muscular contractions, segmented micro movements, breathing patterns, internal concentration and increasingly sophisticated forms of multisensory stimulation.

One of the most interesting observations to emerge from this process is what appears to be a synergistic interaction between muscular contraction and internally generated sensory stimulation.

ICOBOMB combines extremely slow, controlled muscular contractions with internal multisensory stimulation involving imagined sensations of movement, pressure, texture, temperature and other sensory experiences.

During a contraction, internal sensory imagination appears to increase awareness and control of the working muscle, potentially creating a stronger mind muscle connection and more deliberate muscular engagement.

But it seems to work in the opposite direction too.

The physical intensity of a sustained muscular contraction appears to make those internally generated sensory experiences more vivid and easier to concentrate on.

The result is a training system designed to pursue two objectives simultaneously:

Build the body: muscle, strength, tendons, connective tissue and physical control.

Train the mind: concentration, cognitive engagement and the ability to quiet mental noise.

ICOBOMB is now being practiced by several hundred students internationally, and some of the feedback we've received has raised some very interesting questions.

Students have reported that the method has helped them train around, prevent or recover from certain injuries. Others have described improvements in their ability to control anxiety and stress, and some have reported improvements in depressive symptoms.

We've also received interesting feedback about muscular development. One student, for example, had been strength training for approximately 23 years but had always struggled to develop his chest and calves. After around eight months of ICOBOMB training, he reported finally being able to strongly stimulate these areas and seeing noticeable development.

We've also had armwrestlers report that the method seems to help them train with fewer injuries. We suspect this could potentially be related to the extremely slow loading and controlled micro movements strengthening or conditioning the tendons and connective tissues, but this is something we'd really like to understand better.

Of course, these are observations and individual reports, not scientific conclusions.

And that's exactly why I'm posting this.

I'd love to see people actually test ICOBOMB and investigate what's happening.

That could mean a formal study by an Honours, Master's or PhD student, a university researcher or a research group.

But it doesn't necessarily have to be a large academic study.

I'd also be very interested in hearing from personal trainers, strength coaches, physiotherapists, exercise physiologists, psychologists, armwrestling coaches or other professionals who might want to conduct smaller practical investigations with their clients, athletes or patients and document what they observe.

There are lots of interesting questions that could be explored.

Does the multisensory component change muscular recruitment or the ability to activate difficult muscle groups? Does this type of slow micro movement training affect tendons and connective tissue differently? Could it have applications for people returning from certain injuries? Does combining sustained muscular tension with intense internal concentration affect stress, anxiety, attention or mind wandering? Could there really be a measurable interaction between the physical and cognitive sides of the method?

I'm open to ideas.

If someone has an interesting way of testing part of the ICOBOMB system, I'd be genuinely interested in collaborating and providing access to the method and instructional materials.

You can learn more about ICOBOMB here:

icobomb.com

And I've put together a page explaining the research opportunity and some of the possible areas of investigation here:

icobomb.com/research-collaboration-opportunity/

Whether you're a university researcher, student, personal trainer, physiotherapist, coach or simply someone with experience conducting this kind of research, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts.

Hi everyone,

My name is Phil Quiet, and I'm the founder and creator of ICOBOMB (Internal Concentration Body-Mind-Building).

For almost twenty years I've been developing a completely new body-mind training system that combines a unique form of multisensory meditation with slow, controlled strength training, allowing both physical strength and mental control to be developed simultaneously within every repetition.

It's not meditation followed by exercise.

It's not mindfulness added to strength training.

ICOBOMB transforms every repetition into a structured multisensory meditation.

While performing slow, controlled movements, practitioners continuously generate internal sensory experiences such as pressure, temperature, movement, texture, weight, size and spatial sensations, creating an immersive internal experience throughout the exercise.

The result is a training system designed not only to develop muscles, tendons and connective tissue with minimal joint stress, but also concentration, mental control, body awareness and, potentially, long-term cognitive health.

Although I've been developing the system for nearly two decades, ICOBOMB only launched publicly a few months ago. The response so far has been extremely encouraging, with paying students from multiple countries and feedback consistently describing it as unlike anything they've experienced before.

I'm now looking to connect with people who believe this vision has the potential to become something much bigger.

That could be:

A business co-founder.

Someone with strong connections in the fitness, wellness, longevity or health industries.

Someone who has developed a complementary technology, methodology or business that naturally aligns with ICOBOMB.

Or an investor interested in supporting an ambitious long-term project, whether as a strategic partner or purely as a financial investor.

I'm based in Australia, but location isn't particularly important. What matters most is curiosity, integrity, long-term thinking, and a genuine interest in creating something that challenges conventional ideas about human performance.

If this resonates with you, I'd love to start a conversation.

Thanks for reading.

Phil

I’ve been researching Meta Ads campaign structures, and there seem to be two main schools of thought.

I’d be interested in hearing from people who have actually tested either or both approaches, particularly with real purchase campaigns.

Approach 1: One Consolidated Campaign for Testing and Scaling

This structure usually involves:

One campaign

One broad ad set

Around 4–6 active ads

Winning ads remain active

Underperforming ads are removed

New challengers are regularly introduced into the same ad set

The campaign budget is gradually increased as performance improves

The argument for this approach is that it reduces fragmentation, gives Meta more conversion data in one place, and allows the algorithm to allocate spend between proven ads and new challengers.

For those using this structure:

How do you decide when an ad has genuinely lost and should be removed?

Do you use a specific spend threshold, such as one or two target CPAs without a purchase?

Do you judge losers based on CPA alone, or also consider CTR, CPC, conversion rate and overall spend allocation?

How frequently do you introduce new challengers?

Do you wait until an existing ad declines, or continuously add new creatives?

How many ads do you keep active at one time?

How do you prevent Meta from spending almost everything on established winners and barely testing new ads?

When do you increase the campaign budget?

Do you increase it by a fixed percentage, such as 10–20%, or make larger increases?

How long do you wait between budget increases?

Does ABO versus CBO make any practical difference when there is only one ad set?

Is this approach mainly better for smaller budgets?

Is this becoming the preferred structure because Meta now favours consolidation and fewer fragmented ad sets?

At what budget or level of creative volume does this approach start becoming less effective?

Approach 2: Separate Testing and Scaling Campaigns

The second structure involves separating creative testing from scaling.

The testing campaign may contain several ad sets, with each ad set testing one angle, concept or audience. Some advertisers also recommend placing only one ad inside each testing ad set because Meta may quickly favour one ad and give the others very little delivery.

Winning ads are then duplicated or moved into a separate scaling campaign.

For those using this structure:

How many ad sets do you normally run in the testing campaign?

Do you test one angle per ad set, one creative per ad set, or several variations of the same angle?

Should every testing ad set receive the same budget?

What is the minimum daily budget needed for this structure to produce reliable results?

How much should each ad set spend before you decide whether an ad has passed or failed?

Do you kill an ad after it spends one target CPA without a sale, two target CPAs, or use another rule?

How do you handle an ad that has strong CTR and CPC but no purchases?

How many purchases does an ad need before you consider it a genuine winner?

When moving a winner into the scaling campaign, do you duplicate the existing post ID to preserve social proof?

Do you leave the winner running in the testing campaign, or turn it off after moving it?

Should the scaling campaign normally use CBO?

How many winning ads or ad sets do you place inside the scaling campaign?

Do you scale through campaign budget increases, additional ad sets, new audiences or all three?

When do you increase the scaling campaign’s budget?

How do you decide when a previously successful scaling ad should be removed?

Is this structure more suitable for larger budgets because every testing ad set needs enough spend to generate meaningful data?

What I’d Like to Understand

I’m not looking for a generic answer that both approaches can work. I’d like to understand which one people are actually using, under what conditions, and with what results.

When replying, it would be very useful if you could mention:

Whether you have used only Approach 1, only Approach 2, or both.

Your approximate daily or monthly ad budget when using each structure.

Whether you were advertising ecommerce products, lead generation, digital products, local services or something else.

Whether the account already had significant conversion data or was relatively new.

Whether the approach succeeded, failed or produced mixed results.

Any variation of these structures that has worked better for you.

There will naturally be some bias toward whichever structure someone currently uses, so hearing from advertisers who have tested both approaches would be especially valuable.

Which structure are you using in 2026, and why?

I’ve been researching Meta Ads campaign structures, and there seem to be two main schools of thought.

I’d be interested in hearing from people who have actually tested either or both approaches, particularly with real purchase campaigns.

Approach 1: One Consolidated Campaign for Testing and Scaling

This structure usually involves:

One campaign

One broad ad set

Around 4–6 active ads

Winning ads remain active

Underperforming ads are removed

New challengers are regularly introduced into the same ad set

The campaign budget is gradually increased as performance improves

The argument for this approach is that it reduces fragmentation, gives Meta more conversion data in one place, and allows the algorithm to allocate spend between proven ads and new challengers.

For those using this structure:

How do you decide when an ad has genuinely lost and should be removed?

Do you use a specific spend threshold, such as one or two target CPAs without a purchase?

Do you judge losers based on CPA alone, or also consider CTR, CPC, conversion rate and overall spend allocation?

How frequently do you introduce new challengers?

Do you wait until an existing ad declines, or continuously add new creatives?

How many ads do you keep active at one time?

How do you prevent Meta from spending almost everything on established winners and barely testing new ads?

When do you increase the campaign budget?

Do you increase it by a fixed percentage, such as 10–20%, or make larger increases?

How long do you wait between budget increases?

Does ABO versus CBO make any practical difference when there is only one ad set?

Is this approach mainly better for smaller budgets?

Is this becoming the preferred structure because Meta now favours consolidation and fewer fragmented ad sets?

At what budget or level of creative volume does this approach start becoming less effective?

Approach 2: Separate Testing and Scaling Campaigns

The second structure involves separating creative testing from scaling.

The testing campaign may contain several ad sets, with each ad set testing one angle, concept or audience. Some advertisers also recommend placing only one ad inside each testing ad set because Meta may quickly favour one ad and give the others very little delivery.

Winning ads are then duplicated or moved into a separate scaling campaign.

For those using this structure:

How many ad sets do you normally run in the testing campaign?

Do you test one angle per ad set, one creative per ad set, or several variations of the same angle?

Should every testing ad set receive the same budget?

What is the minimum daily budget needed for this structure to produce reliable results?

How much should each ad set spend before you decide whether an ad has passed or failed?

Do you kill an ad after it spends one target CPA without a sale, two target CPAs, or use another rule?

How do you handle an ad that has strong CTR and CPC but no purchases?

How many purchases does an ad need before you consider it a genuine winner?

When moving a winner into the scaling campaign, do you duplicate the existing post ID to preserve social proof?

Do you leave the winner running in the testing campaign, or turn it off after moving it?

Should the scaling campaign normally use CBO?

How many winning ads or ad sets do you place inside the scaling campaign?

Do you scale through campaign budget increases, additional ad sets, new audiences or all three?

When do you increase the scaling campaign’s budget?

How do you decide when a previously successful scaling ad should be removed?

Is this structure more suitable for larger budgets because every testing ad set needs enough spend to generate meaningful data?

What I’d Like to Understand

I’m not looking for a generic answer that both approaches can work. I’d like to understand which one people are actually using, under what conditions, and with what results.

When replying, it would be very useful if you could mention:

Whether you have used only Approach 1, only Approach 2, or both.

Your approximate daily or monthly ad budget when using each structure.

Whether you were advertising ecommerce products, lead generation, digital products, local services or something else.

Whether the account already had significant conversion data or was relatively new.

Whether the approach succeeded, failed or produced mixed results.

Any variation of these structures that has worked better for you.

There will naturally be some bias toward whichever structure someone currently uses, so hearing from advertisers who have tested both approaches would be especially valuable.

Which structure are you using in 2026, and why?

​

I know the general consensus is that if your ultimate goal is sales, you should optimize for Sales from the beginning. That makes sense, and it's how I currently run my campaigns.

However, I'm curious whether anyone is still getting good results with Traffic campaigns in a specific situation.

Let's say you have a genuinely interesting piece of content (an article, blog post, or advertorial) that your target audience is likely to read and share. The idea would be to drive people to that content first, build interest and trust, and then monetize through calls to action within the article (or via retargeting).

Has anyone had success with this approach?

I'm not talking about low-quality clickbait or cheap traffic. I mean high-value content that could potentially attract a lot of engagement or even become widely shared within a niche.

If you've tested both approaches, I'd love to hear:

- Did the Traffic campaign produce profitable sales overall?

- Did it outperform simply sending people directly to a sales page with a Sales campaign?

- Are there situations where you think Traffic campaigns still make strategic sense?

I'm interested in hearing real-world experiences rather than just what Meta recommends.

​

I know the general consensus is that if your ultimate goal is sales, you should optimize for Sales from the beginning. That makes sense, and it's how I currently run my campaigns.

However, I'm curious whether anyone is still getting good results with Traffic campaigns in a specific situation.

Let's say you have a genuinely interesting piece of content (an article, blog post, or advertorial) that your target audience is likely to read and share. The idea would be to drive people to that content first, build interest and trust, and then monetize through calls to action within the article (or via retargeting).

Has anyone had success with this approach?

I'm not talking about low-quality clickbait or cheap traffic. I mean high-value content that could potentially attract a lot of engagement or even become widely shared within a niche.

If you've tested both approaches, I'd love to hear:

Did the Traffic campaign produce profitable sales overall?

Did it outperform simply sending people directly to a sales page with a Sales campaign?

Are there situations where you think Traffic campaigns still make strategic sense?

I'm interested in hearing real-world experiences rather than just what Meta recommends.