|
|
Forums:
Climbing Information:
Technique & Training:
Re: [fluxus] Question about weighted pullups:
Edit Log
|
|
athletikspesifik
Jan 26, 2008, 1:13 AM
Views: 10160
Registered: Nov 6, 2005
Posts: 50
|
It seems like work is NOT that busy for you.
In reply to: [1) Training efficiency is not exactly a hot topic in climbing circles. The goal of using training methods that realize the most significant performance gains with the lest amount of training effort seems to be something that climber's and many climbing instructors don't think about. But the vast majority of climbers have a limited amount of time to dedicate to training. In this context its important to advocate for direct training and to show climbers how to get the most bang for their buck. Also the complexity of climbing movement just can't be underestimated and it takes the brain a high volume of high quality practice to learn and refine movement, this is a process that is ongoing for as long as someone climbs, it never stops. As coaches and trainers we must put our emphasis on learning movement skills and training efficiency if we are going to serve our clients well. ]
In Colorado, training efficiency/economy (they're different - look it up) are a religion in every sport. Thinking about and applying training methodology to climbing performance is my full time job - it's the only thing I do.
Here's what we (including you) don't know; how much of climbing is kinematic and how much is kinetic. To reinforce: Kinetic=Force/Power output, Kinematic=technique. As a reference for others reading this, a golfer has a high kinematic value to his sport whereas an NFL lineman has a high kinetic value to his job. The 2 examples are on opposite ends of the spectrum and climbing lies between.
Here is 1 reason why this is difficult and forever will be, each climb requires different technique/force/power and gives advantages to climbers with difference anthropomorphic features.
Under your logic, given the wide range of climbing face angles and hold torque values, there is no sport specific training because a climber will never encounter the same exact onsight twice. Under your logic, only the most experienced climbers (John Long/Lynn Hill era climbers) would be at the upper limits of competitive climbing. Any of us who follow competitive climbing know that the younger climbers are pushing the limits. How can this be? If they don't have decades of experience to "cognitively" interpret the sequence/situation, how are these young people accomplishing this????
I have read much of the history of training for climbing. Don't patronize me with your fake "pat on the back/welcome son to my world" 1st paragraph.
Sometimes advanced movement skills CANNOT be learned without the requisite strength/power. As Mike Stone says, "the answer is, an athlete can never have too much strength". I'm sure that you are very familiar with much of the writings of the Directors of Physiology at the Olympic Training Centers, so I won't bore you.
In reply to: [it's not that supplemental training has no benefit or should not be done but it should NOT be done as a substitute for direct training (YES, climbers do make that mistake all the time), and must address the specific ability and needs of the climber in question. ]
You said you oppose supplemental training. I NEVER said to replace climbing specific training with supplemental training.
In reply to: [Are you just trying to pick a fight with Jay here? ]
Full discloser: I posted Jay's "losing weight for climbing" for 2 years until someone stole it from my corkboard. Why? Because, while I have an "interest" in nutrition, I am not qualified to give advice - as Jay is. I thought it was solid advice and relevant. Likewise, Jay has an "interest" in sport specific and supplemental training as related to climbing - but, he is not qualified to give advice. He is certainly welcome to offer an opinion, as I am about nutrition, but not advice concerning matters of gaining strength/power and the transfer of training to sport.
In reply to: [The claim that pull-ups are not a good training activity is not the same as saying that elbow flexion and abduction of the Glenohumeral joint do not occur in climbing. They do, and we all know that. The question is what role do they play? How important are they to any given movement? Does doing pull-ups have an impact on climbing performance? Is elbow flexion a good way to initiate movement? and so on. Its these questions that matter.]
Ah, we get to the meat of it. An admission of similar biomechanical planes of motion? No admission yet to whether the motion effects the mechanical model of strength/power development, hhmmm. What role does it play? The distance from hold (size/surface area/angle to CG) to hold and the level of overhang with available footholds might dictate part of the role. Does doing pull-ups have an impact on climbing performance? It depends on the climber's strengths/weaknesses and the volume/intensity applied. Fluxus, you have some idea that Aerili and I are "Personal Trainers" trying to get people "beach body" ready for summer. Most Professional (even golfers!!!) and Division 1 athletes utilize Strength and Conditioning Coaches because we understand how to apply kinetic values to their respective kinematic needs.
In reply to: [Further as you must know the amount of elbow flexion we see in movement is often determined by the experience level of the climber. Certainly you and I can do many moves without elbow flexion that less skilled climbers can not.]
Not only experience, but kinetic values and anthropomorphic features of the climber.
In reply to: [Again you misrepresent what other people are saying, you act as if folks like Jay or myself advocate for lack of the ability to do pull-ups, which is just goofy. We certainly have not addressed the hypothetical situation in which a climber can't do even one pull-up and what that might mean.]
I'm not misrepresenting you, you said you are against supplemental training - specifically pull-ups. Where did I misrepresent you? There are many new climbers who do not have the ability to even START a pull-up. I view this as first a safety/health issue and secondarily as a performance issue to close the gap between max strength and relative strength as related to strength/power about the shoulder girdle.
In reply to: [Second, I'm gonna say that pull-ups as a performance factor is pure speculation on your part and you know it, unless you are thinking of something very specific that you have not mentioned.]
Well, you can say that it's speculation, but it wouldn't be true. It's based on frequent testing and experience.
In reply to: [Its not part of the argument to do pull-ups as supplemental training. On the other hand if you can connect the dots and show patterns of injuries in climbers that doing pull-ups would prevent, then do tell.]
Um, what? I thought that was the basis of this specific question - are supplemental pull-ups (weighted) useful? Second part, you got me there - I have not conducted clinical research to determine this observation, but I have ehem, observed it (it being subluxation/dislocation). Probably a dozen times.
Wow, thanks for the reply Fluxus. I look forward to hearing your response, and I will not climb this weekend (just to validate your claim that I don't climb as much as you) so I can prepare a proper rebuttal.
Please don't view my response as vitriol, but an all-encompassing vortex of gratitude for your efforts and contributions to this forum.
Next:mechanical energy requirements in the forearms, anaerobic OR aerobic. Come on Fluxus, give it to me!
Kinetics drive kinematics.
David Wahl
p.s. Jay, I don't know what to say - I think you're just wasting time.
(This post was edited by athletikspesifik on Jan 26, 2008, 4:31 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
