Forums: Climbing Information: Technique & Training: Re: [ghisino] Importance of fast twitch?: Edit Log


Jun 21, 2011, 2:34 PM

Views: 11187

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [ghisino] Importance of fast twitch?
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  

ghisino wrote:
ceebo wrote:
Not quite sure why personal goals or motivation has anything to do with this..

it has because if, let's say, i'm a runner and more specifically i'm motivated by marathons, i don't give a fuck about fast twitch fibers, and that ends the discussion.

(just to make a gross generalization. but my point was more about your hamletic doubt between two campus board routines, than about the non-reversibility issue).

whether and how the non-reversibility thing is important in climbing is an interesting issue in itself.
(edit : apparently it's not such a big issue anyway, if learner is right?)

My 2 cents is that it's too early to know for sure, and we're still in an era where empiricism works best.
An answer sounding like "doubles improve your reach and hand-eye coordination in big dynamic moves" should satisfy you.
Still too early to focus on the science behind it, imho.

remember that most sports physiology studies are about "simple" tasks such as running or weightlifting, and we have a hard time applying knoledge gained in those areas to climbing...

maybe in 10 years climbing comps will go olympic and all WC athletes in boulder, lead and speed competitions will be followed by a medical staff -la-Patxi...
then we'll have the kind of answers you are looking for, and knowing those answer will make a true difference (at the elite level).

(hint : if we only look at muscular issues, 90% of the times the limiting factor on any climb/move comes from your finger flexors being too weak or not having enough stamina. Empirically speaking, you have to hold those crimps, pockets, slopers and pinches!

Now, your finger flexors normally perform a series of isometric contractions during a climb.
Whereas those sports or exercises from which we try to borrow our knowledge mostly involve bigger muscles and in a much more dynamic fashion...
that's the root of the problem and the reason why i'm skeptical.

Though, if anyone has good scientific resources about the physiology of intermittent isometric contractions in a smaller muscle group, i'm very interested...)

Yeah i understand that, but just as a example.. The hold positivity can be manipulated in such a way (by adjusting all round body position) where it is in fact easier on the fingers at the cost of multiple larger muscle groups engaging in the chain (none of this is new sure). But, when such muscles are in a half contracted state (give or take).. just maybe it is that much more difficult to generate any kind of movement from them as well. Like for example, if i put my fist 1 inch from your face and punched you.. it would not hurt much because i could not generate much force. If i do it from arms length then its another story. Not that i want to punch you Wink

If those muscles are not trained to sustain high level and duration of work (ontop of providing pwoer from short contraction span) it will ofc feel so much harder.. perhaps to the point where superior finger endurance/strength takes over and the rest of the body reacts in a way that is actually not efficient (although it my feel like it is easier). that person would have to have far greater finger strength or endurance to complete X route than what is really needed.

Fingers are used so much and i think for the majority of normal climbers are finger/fore arm endurance far out does are upper muscles, for some maybe even core. I can easily dead hang a 1 inch surface for well over a minute but i can not do a lock off for that time.. (yes i tested) that in my opinion is a ludicrous weakness in upper body. Little fingers out doing bigger muscle groups just does not feel right to me.

So that kinda brings it back to the original point. Flesh was using massive rungs, im still not convinced they gave significant finger strength improvement (in fact i do question if any gains would have been made in raw strength on such rungs). But still.. he made huge improvement.

Seems that the reason such gains were made was because of anything but fingers, apart from needing them to hang on ofc. That i guess would be huge endurance, strength, lock off, power generating improvements in the upper muscles (with fast and slow recruitment i guess?).. coordination maybe?.. some contact maybe? defo a little core. And ofc, something that probably contributed a big chunk of the improvement was losing weight.

That is all just a hashed up theory.. don't get mad people?.

Also something that bothers me. Every sport seems to have other supplementary training.. but for us it is still seen as not applicable for the most part. This is a genuine question with no sarcasm intended. Do you really think climbers can ''just climb'' and actually train every muscle group used to its optimal level?. Don't you think their are just far too many variables in climbing to ensure every muscle group and its pair get the same work out?. Were some climbers may get past those veriables (i guess with ought even knowing it).. how many may not. Maybe 1 weakness in the chain stops all the other parts making progress?. Hint being, he relatively removed fingers from the equation.. and actually made significant gains?.

(This post was edited by ceebo on Jun 21, 2011, 2:41 PM)

Edit Log:
Post edited by ceebo () on Jun 21, 2011, 2:37 PM
Post edited by ceebo () on Jun 21, 2011, 2:41 PM

Search for (options)

Log In:

Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?