|
mindlessroller21
Jul 31, 2007, 9:39 AM
Post #1 of 143
(17081 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 2, 2007
Posts: 24
|
me and my friend were talking today about how beastly strong youd be able to get if you learned how to climb with added weight. I really have no clue what would be a reasonable amount of weight to add. Has anyone ever climbed with added weight? didi it work? how much weight were you adding ?
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Jul 31, 2007, 9:46 AM
Post #2 of 143
(17078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
well, if you trained with a weighted west, it would change your center of gravity and thus be detrimental to your technique. and i dont think it would really be beneficial anyway; if the holds are too large, move onto smaller holds, if the moves are too easy, remove footholds, make them longer, whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
kirker
Jul 31, 2007, 12:30 PM
Post #3 of 143
(17040 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2006
Posts: 6
|
mindlessroller21 wrote: me and my friend were talking today about how beastly strong youd be able to get if you learned how to climb with added weight. I really have no clue what would be a reasonable amount of weight to add. Has anyone ever climbed with added weight? didi it work? how much weight were you adding ? You won't have to Learn how to climb if you use antigravity training methods. You'll climb the same as you do without weight its just harder. You can use the weighted belt a diver wears, or like you seid the weighted vests. Start with 5 to 10lbs and feel it out from there. My only suggestion is have good feet, and stay away from crimps.
|
|
|
|
|
bcombs
Jul 31, 2007, 1:45 PM
Post #4 of 143
(17002 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 30
|
Yep, take kirkers word for it, climbing with weights is hard work, but good for grip strength. More details here: http://www.nicros.com/...ive/HIT_overview.cfm Note: You definitely do not want to add a bunch of weight then go to your gym and ape around on V0 boulder problems. Start with a small amount of weight, climb slowly and deliberately. Keep your feet under you and try to stay on the wall as long as possible. This may mean linking easier routes together or if you have roped climbing at your gym climb and then downclimb. I know of several hard 13 and 14 climbers that have used this technique to get really strong. Start out slow though. Hope that helps, be careful.
|
|
|
|
|
demo
Jul 31, 2007, 1:56 PM
Post #5 of 143
(16991 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 28, 2005
Posts: 17
|
I actually wanted to post this same question. In particular, I cannot get outside very often, and am hitting a plateau in the gym (I believe) due to the limited number of routes. I can't seem to climb enough at my current grade to break into the next grade. My question is whether this sort of hypergravity training would be any more valuable than a combination of hangboard and campusboard workouts (presumably I need some supplemental training)? Does anyone have specific results from this method of training?
|
|
|
|
|
bcombs
Jul 31, 2007, 2:28 PM
Post #6 of 143
(16964 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 30
|
demo wrote: I can't seem to climb enough at my current grade to break into the next grade. I wonder about this concept alot myself. I have heard many differing opinions on it. Some people say the best way to climb 5.12 is to climb 5.12's while others say climb as many 5.11c/d as you can to get strong. I'm sure someone will weigh in on it, but my personal take is this. If your training for something specific like core strength, or hand strength, etc.. do so at something below your limit and on routes / problems that exagerrate your goal. For example, if you can't climb steep routes but want to, don't get on a 45 degree wall and climb a route at your limit. Instead climb something significantly lower so you can get the technique down. Or, if your training hand strength, don't strap on weights and hit your limit. Go slightly below your limit or go low enough that you still get muscle failure without pain. Now, if your not training, but instead just climbing then climb above your limit sometimes. Get on something hard for you so that you can feel the movement and undertand what it actually takes to climb at that grade. You may surprise yourself and be able to send at that grade already. Don't get hung up in "I'm not a 5.x climber so I wont even try that". Instead, climb a few below and at your grade. Then once your good and warmed up try something harder. Just my opinion. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Jul 31, 2007, 2:54 PM
Post #7 of 143
(16940 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
I use weights sometimes for traversing or systems board. And yeah, you bet it makes climbing MUCH harder. You can read up on hypergravity training for more info. We have loops of webbing filled with sand or lead pellets-- not sure which -- at the gym. Each one weighs maybe a pound or two. You can sling them across your chest, and pick however many you want-- 2, 4, 6... There was also a fad at the gym at one point--putting on a chest harness and attaching a 50-pound chain to it. It got harder the farther up you went b/c more of the chain was off the ground and pullling at you. LOL, admittedly it was more of an "impress the heck out of macho guys who flex ginormous biceps and wimp out on tough overhanging 5.8" thing than actual training tool. However, I find using weights rather useless for actual climbing b/c as overlord said, it changes your gravity center and for me it means that for any sort of bouldery dynamic move on anything overhanging the weights pull me back and off the wall, and the move ends up feeling totally different than without the weights-- I have to "over-swing" and then when I do the same move without weights it comes out all wrong. So I keep the weights for HIT strips and systems wall, etc. --repetitive easy movement rather than anything involving precice body positioning on an actual route/boulder problem.
|
|
|
|
|
demo
Jul 31, 2007, 3:10 PM
Post #8 of 143
(16926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 28, 2005
Posts: 17
|
In reply to: Some people say the best way to climb 5.12 is to climb 5.12's while others say climb as many 5.11c/d as you can to get strong. I'm sure someone will weigh in on it, but my personal take is this. If your training for something specific like core strength, or hand strength, etc.. do so at something below your limit and on routes / problems that exagerrate your goal. This advice makes sense, and if I had 100's of routes at my disposal then it would be the route that I would go. However, I don't have many options, as the gym only offers a handful of routes at each grade. Further, I feel that the benefits of climbing a route below my max grade diminish very quickly as I gain efficiencies and muscle memory. However, the modest gains I get from these lines that I have climbed many times are not pushing me into the higher grades. So my question is, will adding weight make the gains from more moderate climbs greater. And will this translate into harder climbing once the weight is removed? Further, in the context of developing strength and power (I want to improve both my contact strength and absolute strength), would the gains with weighted bouldering be greater than with a hangboard/campusboard combination? Input appreciated!
|
|
|
|
|
ninja_climber
Jul 31, 2007, 3:17 PM
Post #9 of 143
(16915 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2005
Posts: 403
|
You know you could do what I did...you could start climbing when your fat, then lose 15kgs ...its kind of the same thing
|
|
|
|
|
bcombs
Jul 31, 2007, 3:35 PM
Post #10 of 143
(16894 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 30
|
demo wrote: So my question is, will adding weight make the gains from more moderate climbs greater. And will this translate into harder climbing once the weight is removed? In my opinion, yes. Adding weight to your climbing routine will produce better grip strength and lockoff ability than just climbing the routes alone. Even on routes that you have wired, the extra weight will create more of a workout. With regards to others posts about technique and balance, I think that maybe the way the weight is being worn has something to do with it. For example if you have some weight hanging from your chest and your leaning back on a steep wall to see the next move, then you throw for it, then yes weight is going to mess up your technique. If you climb slowly, deliberately, under control, with weight I don't think it will affect your technique at all. It may improve it since you really need to concentrate on good foot placement and body positioning. Also, to a certain degree I think it will help with endurance. If you can rest on a pair of jugs and fully recover while weighted you can certainly do it unweighted. demo, since your gym is limited try some things like: -Downclimbing (makes it a whole new route ) -Making your own routes if there is room. If the gym isn't busy make something up. You don't have to track every route. Try getting on a harder route but calling out any feet. Or, make every other move on a harder route and rest in between on jugs. -Traverse if you can. Traversing can be really fun and difficult. If you have a partner try creating a traverse by addng two moves to it each time. Its fun to try and remember it, and as you get the first moves wired you can go for longer and longer. Regarding campusing, I think that weight and a campus board may be an injury waiting to happen. Campusing is too explosive to add weight to it (IMO). If your gym offers it though, use it, but without weight. I'm not an expert on it though, so maybe some more experienced people can chime in? Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Jul 31, 2007, 3:49 PM
Post #11 of 143
(16877 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
lena_chita wrote: However, I find using weights rather useless for actual climbing b/c as overlord said, it changes your gravity center and for me it means that for any sort of bouldery dynamic move on anything overhanging the weights pull me back and off the wall, and the move ends up feeling totally different than without the This is obviously not ideal. If you are going to use weights keep it to climbs that you can do most of the moves static. Dynamic moves with a weight belt is a good way to get hurt (although it can be done). I've trained with a weight belt several times, including a three week program this summer before the peak of my climbing season/trips. I did climb better, but was doing other things as well so it's hard to say for certain how much I can equate to the weight belt. Some notes though: as stated, this technique will pretty much only improve your finger strength and should not be used for technique training. Also, some mentioned not training on crimps and I think this is crap. Granted you shouldn't be training on holds that are too small for you but if you want to climb better on crimps then you should train on crimps. After warming up and fooling around on the latest stuff for an hour or so, I used to try to do 10 problems in 20 minutes at or one grade lower then my onsight level with about 15 pounds. I never did problems that I hadn't done without my weight belt (injury saving) and always climbed without my weight belt first to get a significant warmup. I found that my ability to hold on to a crimp become more efficient and comfortable. I will also admit that I started campus training with a weight belt but would not recommend that as the risks almost seem to outweigh the rewards.
(This post was edited by mturner on Jul 31, 2007, 3:50 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
demo
Jul 31, 2007, 3:59 PM
Post #12 of 143
(16855 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 28, 2005
Posts: 17
|
In reply to: Regarding campusing, I think that weight and a campus board may be an injury waiting to happen. Campusing is too explosive to add weight to it (IMO). If your gym offers it though, use it, but without weight. I'm not an expert on it though, so maybe some more experienced people can chime in? I don't have any intentions of weighting myself for campusing. This was just outlined as a possible reference when describing the gains of weighted bouldering. Thanks for the responses so far!
|
|
|
|
|
climbordie7
Jul 31, 2007, 4:19 PM
Post #13 of 143
(16831 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2007
Posts: 295
|
for the climbing team I'm on our coaches made us train w/ a 30 lb. weight belt from time to time, and boy was it tough, I mean you try doing an over hang or roof problem with extra weight just pulling you down. traqversing in the gym w/ it was awesome though. you should totally use this method it helps you get stronger and when your are climbing try to make all your movments flow don't jerk around that way you can learn to make your moves more fluid than power. start with a smaller weight though and work your way up so you don't hurt yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
climbordie7
Jul 31, 2007, 4:36 PM
Post #14 of 143
(16815 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2007
Posts: 295
|
that wasn't a suggestion to go and climb a roof with a weight belt, my coach did that in the cave and nearly fell on his back, which would have been very bad. just try the traversing thing or toproping.
|
|
|
|
|
climbordie7
Jul 31, 2007, 4:48 PM
Post #16 of 143
(16799 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2007
Posts: 295
|
actually leading souds really dangerous with any kind of weight belt, i wouldn't try that either, i meant toproping ya know like at a gym where the rope is already strung up. imagine how difficult of a time your belayer would have catching you and your extra weight on a lead fall. the only leading with extra weight that i would do is if the extra weight didn't exceed like 10 lbs. yall are crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
bcombs
Jul 31, 2007, 4:52 PM
Post #17 of 143
(16791 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 30
|
Hehe, I took a pretty good sized whipper while my wife was belaying me and I had 20lbs on. For sure you don't want to be leading if what you are wearing for weight is dangling from your neck / chest or whatever. Actually, I agree now that I think about it, no leading!
|
|
|
|
|
climbordie7
Jul 31, 2007, 4:58 PM
Post #18 of 143
(16780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2007
Posts: 295
|
ahh what a relief that you've come to your senses. now we won't have to start a forum for injuries from weighted leading. lol, happy training
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 4, 2007, 9:56 PM
Post #19 of 143
(16651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
bcombs and others agreeing with him are wrong. bcombs, you need to cite your scientific journals, otherwise you are just saying what "appears" to make logical sense to you without really understanding what you are talking about. You do not understand what SPECIFICITY OF TRAINING is. I am actually not trying to pick on anybody (sorry!), but the problem is most people who post about these things really don't know much about biomechanics or neuromuscular firing patterns, so they think, "More weight = harder workout = I will become as stronger, better climber." BUT! The exercise science literature now evidences that adding resistance to sport specific movements actually DECREASES performance. It has to do NOT with the strength of the muscles, but the way the body fires groups of muscles to perform the movement in the first place. For instance, we used to train overhead athletes (i.e. anybody who throws or swings overhead, like baseball players, football players, volleyball players, tennis players, and so on) by attaching resistance bands to their throwing arm and pulling against them while they went through their throwing/swinging motion-- usually in increments of slow to normal speed. The thinking went that if you made the throwing motion harder, their muscles would get stronger and they would perform a throw/swing that much more effortlessly and powerfully when unweighted in actual performance. The science isn't bearing this thinking out, though. The problem is that overhead athletes DON'T throw or swing in a weighted fashion (just as you don't actually climb with weighted vests and belts attached to you when you're working a route or trying to send). And by fucking around with the conditions under which the muscles fire, they found doing these things actually changed the firing pattern of the muscles responsible for the motion. When training the muscles to fire incorrectly over and over, you eventually get an ingrained muscle memory, and when you go to perform the real thing, your performance declines because the muscles fire improperly and your biomechanics become a mess. Dig me? BTW, I use overhead athletes as just an example, but it's been proven in various types of sport specific movements, so climbers can easily be correlated into this group. "Attempting to duplicate a sport specific movement with unaccustomed movements and loads results in the athlete learning two methods or styles of performance, thus causing a negative transfer. Multiple motor memories adapt, which inevitably leads to confusion. Competitive performance will either suffer or not benefit in any manner as a result." This quote is from this link: http://www.planetfieldhockey.com/PFH/Item-View-2172-41. Although this isn't a specific study, it was one of the best websites I found to accurately and effectively summarize the actual scientific data as a whole on this topic. Just so the OP and others understand what I'm saying: just because it is about hockey does NOT mean it doesn't apply to climbing; the principles the author is discussing are relevant to ALL sport specific activities.
(This post was edited by aerili on Aug 4, 2007, 10:25 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
PepsiTwist
Aug 5, 2007, 3:04 AM
Post #20 of 143
(16605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2007
Posts: 26
|
You get on bcombs and everybody elses case for not citing scientific journals, but that website/article you linked wasnt a peer reviewed academic/scientific article from an academic/scientific journal. Therefore the science being quoted in the article is as unfounded as bcombs and everybody else saying what they think makes logical sense. If nothing else, you did go further by providing sources, but those sources wouldnt be acceptable in the academic/scientific world. Anyways, continue on with the debate.
|
|
|
|
|
lemon_boy
Aug 5, 2007, 4:12 AM
Post #21 of 143
(16591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287
|
another thing that aerlii (and a few others) are forgetting to think about is that when you are climbing outside, you generally will be carrying some extra weight on you. in particular, if you are doing long, sustained trad routes you might be carrying a fairly significant amount of extra weight with you. and, (unless you are a chic), you will most likely be carrying this on a shoulder sling. if you are doing long sustained trad routes that include significant stretches of offwidth, then.... i think training with a weight vest works pretty well, if you use it as a tool and realize its limitations. if you generally climb at a vertical sport area with draws in place, then doing steep bouldering problems with a weight vest probably won't be overly helpful.....
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 6, 2007, 5:45 AM
Post #22 of 143
(16544 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
PepsiTwist wrote: You get on bcombs and everybody elses case for not citing scientific journals, but that website/article you linked wasnt a peer reviewed academic/scientific article from an academic/scientific journal. Therefore the science being quoted in the article is as unfounded as bcombs and everybody else saying what they think makes logical sense. If nothing else, you did go further by providing sources, but those sources wouldnt be acceptable in the academic/scientific world. Anyways, continue on with the debate. Hey PepsiTwist, if you read my post again, you will notice that I acknowledge this fact. But I can tell you that I used it because it accurately sums up the current scientific evidence AS A WHOLE, so actually what it states ISN'T unfounded. Most of the people posting on here are just saying, "Yeah, this seems to make sense to me so I would say 'yes.'" So their thinking is based on nothing except basically uneducated hunches. But unfortunately it's not the reality. Despite the fact that link doesn't have individual studies listed, what it says is the current scientific thought on this topic. I know this because I've worked in the strength and conditioning industry for many years; I attend continuing education seminars and this has been espoused by the premier strength coaches and educators in this country for the last 6+ years: people like Mike Boyle, Gray Cook, Juan Carlos Santana, Robb Rogers, etc. These guys base their training on science, not hunches, since they are all employed in the training of athletes, including pro teams. I assure you it's based on plenty of science. In regard to lemonboy's comment: as for carrying trad racks, etc., hey, I'm a trad climber, but I still wouldn't climb with weighted vests or belts or whatever. In other words, carrying a weighted belt or vest will not mimic carrying a trad rack. This is a negative transfer of skill. A track rack doesn't even come close to weighing the 20+ lbs these guys are carrying in additional weight typically either, but regardless of the amount of weight on a rack, weighted devices worn while climbing will only make you better at climbing with weighted devices. Like I said earlier, it's a matter of understanding neuromuscular firing patterns in muscles. Strength and power gains in sport specific movements are more complicated physiologically than the average climber grasps, I guess. BTW, girls can carry their rack on a sling just as easily as a guy.
(This post was edited by aerili on Aug 6, 2007, 5:47 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
PepsiTwist
Aug 7, 2007, 5:26 AM
Post #23 of 143
(16451 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2007
Posts: 26
|
I understand and appreciate your expertise in this field. I do not doubt your knowledge, I only question the fact that you really have done little more to substantiate your point of view in comparison to the others in this thread. Case in point in your last thread, you didnt really do much to back up your claims other than name off your credentials and the stances of other people. Though for all I know, those arent the stances of those people, you are just using them to back up your point. You may be interpreting data to fit your own agenda. I am just trying to hold you to the same standard that you are holding everybody else in this thread too. All you have to do is provide specific studies, and it would also be helpful if you ahd some sort of letter to from the scientific community saying this is the held belief, otherwise I am sure there are plenty of experts who would disagree with you. A good case in point is global warming, people like to come out and say that the scientific community and experts agree to the causes of global warming, when that is just not the case. But people throw that out there, and the lay people believe it because the opposition isnt as vocal in having their side heard. All in all, I really dont doubt your expertise and knowledge in this field, I just want to make sure that you are citing your sources and not making overarching generalizations in a complex science. :)
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 7, 2007, 5:46 PM
Post #24 of 143
(16408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
PepsiTwist wrote: All in all, I really dont doubt your expertise and knowledge in this field, I just want to make sure that you are citing your sources and not making overarching generalizations in a complex science. :) I agree, and actually I did look for some studies, but these types of studies in journals like Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise and The Journal of Strength and Conditioning are apparently hard to come by straight off Google (and I tried Googling lots of different combinations of terms). They also require membership to read the articles (I do have membership to the latter, but rc.com people don't). Most of my searches came up with sport specific information that was not related to this topic, so it was tough. I found two studies that were directly related, but decided not to post them in favor of the other site that sums up the general overview instead and which is more understandable to a layperson as well. You might wonder then where I get my stance on this topic in the first place? For the most part, I rely on major industry conferences wherein experts in the field give seminars on these types of things. (It's the best way to stay on top of things when you don't have time to chase down all the journal articles.) Also, I do read industry mags--they are not the same thing as peer-reviewed journals but summarize the latest information for us from those journals, because, just like medical doctors, nurses, physical therapists, and other health professionals, we have to rely on others in the field who devote their time to these things to fill us in since we can't possibly read and assimilate most of the information that comes out. I also only cited my background so that readers would understand I am not just some stockbroker/math teacher/attorney/plumber/carpenter or what have you who thinks they are a "fitness expert," heheh.
|
Attachments:
|
EmoticonStudy.gif
(5.87 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
lemon_boy
Aug 7, 2007, 6:12 PM
Post #25 of 143
(16401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287
|
aerili, i think one of the problems is that these articles focus on extremely sport specific activities, such as throwing, or swinging. in these cases, you are trying to get the exact same motion each time. this has pretty much no relevance to climbing. are there really any routes where you have to repeat the same dyno for 200 feet? i can't think of any. a climber who is climbing at a high level on many types of rock needs the ability to understand how his/her body will move or perform under vastly different situations. also, these articles tend to be biased towards activities in which going anaerobic, etc has no bearing. when a pitcher gets tired, he gets pulled. in a tennis match, there are very few timew when there are more than 10 volleys, etc. this might be too complicated for someone with many many years of sports physiology, but little climbing experience. in terms of rack weight, i can think of nearly 20 long offwidths that I have done where the weight of the rack did, indeed, probably approach 20 pounds. to say that climbing with extra weight will doubtlessly ruin your performance is pretty silly. it sounds like the doctor's secretary giving advice, thinking that she is somehow a doctor. regarding your comments that chicks can rack on a gear sling too, i have to point out that in the extremely few photos that you have of you actually leading, you are wearing the ole' metal skirt. but i guess you are an industry leading expert on that too.
|
|
|
|
|
lemon_boy
Aug 7, 2007, 6:21 PM
Post #26 of 143
(8219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287
|
one more thing that i forgot to add, concerns the quality of the references. having worked many, many years in the science and engineering field myself, and having written and peer reviewed many, many publications, i am fully aware that it is pretty much impossible to produce a non-biased, single-variable conclusion (particlularly when hujmans are the subject). when you add up the pre-conceived notions of the research personel with the brutal difficulty of producing large sample sets that don't have all sorts of 'complications', it just isn't happening. but i imagine that you, having man, many years in the industry probably realize this too.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 7, 2007, 6:29 PM
Post #27 of 143
(8217 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
lemon_boy wrote: a climber who is climbing at a high level on many types of rock needs the ability to understand how his/her body will move or perform under vastly different situations. The relevance of that sentence to the merits of training with a weighted vest is, at best, unclear.
In reply to: also, these articles tend to be biased towards activities in which going anaerobic, etc has no bearing. when a pitcher gets tired, he gets pulled. in a tennis match, there are very few timew when there are more than 10 volleys, etc. this might be too complicated for someone with many many years of sports physiology, but little climbing experience. Throwing a fastball and hitting a tennis ball are about as anaerobic as movements get. This might be too complicated for someone with zero years of sports physiology. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bigo
Aug 7, 2007, 7:20 PM
Post #28 of 143
(8194 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2002
Posts: 237
|
I have heard anecdotally, and had myself good results by adding weight when doing certain hangboard routines. Particularly dead hangs and pull ups on larger, open hand holds. I have also heard of people hurting themselves by adding weight and doing hangboard routines. It should be obvious that training with additional weight will increase the stress on your body, which can increase strength as well as increase likelihood of injury. It does not seem, to me, like a good idea to climb routes with a weight vest ... I would stick to controlled movements on a hangboard. Oh yeah - I, like everyone here, have no idea what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
lemon_boy
Aug 7, 2007, 7:56 PM
Post #29 of 143
(8169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287
|
jay, regarding first point, i'm simply saying that training with a weight vest is not necessarily going to ruin somebody's climbing. a good example would be a movement in which a climber is controlling a barn door while getting to the next hold. performing this movement with some (not necessarily a ton) of weight, in the right location, could potentially increase the climber's ability to control the movement. when the weight is removed, there is a good chance that the movement will feel easier. also, for typical semi static climbing, for instance a vertical crack system, climbing it with extra weight will result in it feeling easier when the weight is removed. regarding 2nd point. sorry about the nomenclature, i am trying to type fast today as i am pretty busy. i mean anaerobic endurance. ie, a pitcher or tennis player isn't getting pumped during their activity. i would think most of their movements would be ATP driven, and power is the key component to their performance. out of time, gotta go!
|
|
|
|
|
bcombs
Aug 7, 2007, 8:19 PM
Post #30 of 143
(8161 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 30
|
Jesus crimeny aerili, take a vacation.... I believe the OP stated: "Has anyone ever climbed with added weight? didi it work? how much weight were you adding ?" Had he asked "Can anyone cite scientific journals that clearly show additional weight in bouldering wil increase my strength" I would have declined to respond. Since the request was for personal experience I gave mine. I'm sorry if you disagree, maybe your right, who cares? I"ll stick to the training method I'm doing now and continue to use H.I.T. training because I feel its valuable. Eric Horst is one of the leaders in training for climbing. I'll take his word for it for now. Hope that clears things up a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 7, 2007, 8:24 PM
Post #31 of 143
(8155 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
bcombs wrote: Jesus crimeny aerili, take a vacation.... I believe the OP stated: "Has anyone ever climbed with added weight? didi it work? how much weight were you adding ?" Had he asked "Can anyone cite scientific journals that clearly show additional weight in bouldering wil increase my strength" I would have declined to respond. Since the request was for personal experience I gave mine. I'm sorry if you disagree, maybe your right, who cares? I"ll stick to the training method I'm doing now and continue to use H.I.T. training because I feel its valuable. Eric Horst is one of the leaders in training for climbing. I'll take his word for it for now. Hope that clears things up a bit. Yeah, maybe she's right, and maybe you should care, because, with all your HIT strip and weighted vest training, "your" only redpointing 5.11a. Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 7, 2007, 8:25 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bcombs
Aug 7, 2007, 8:26 PM
Post #32 of 143
(8149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 30
|
jt512 wrote: bcombs wrote: Jesus crimeny aerili, take a vacation.... I believe the OP stated: "Has anyone ever climbed with added weight? didi it work? how much weight were you adding ?" Had he asked "Can anyone cite scientific journals that clearly show additional weight in bouldering wil increase my strength" I would have declined to respond. Since the request was for personal experience I gave mine. I'm sorry if you disagree, maybe your right, who cares? I"ll stick to the training method I'm doing now and continue to use H.I.T. training because I feel its valuable. Eric Horst is one of the leaders in training for climbing. I'll take his word for it for now. Hope that clears things up a bit. Yeah, maybe she's right, and maybe you should care, because, with all your HIT strip and weighted vest training, "your" only redpointing 5.11a. Jay Haha, what makes you say that Jay?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 7, 2007, 8:30 PM
Post #33 of 143
(8144 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
bcombs wrote: jt512 wrote: bcombs wrote: Jesus crimeny aerili, take a vacation.... I believe the OP stated: "Has anyone ever climbed with added weight? didi it work? how much weight were you adding ?" Had he asked "Can anyone cite scientific journals that clearly show additional weight in bouldering wil increase my strength" I would have declined to respond. Since the request was for personal experience I gave mine. I'm sorry if you disagree, maybe your right, who cares? I"ll stick to the training method I'm doing now and continue to use H.I.T. training because I feel its valuable. Eric Horst is one of the leaders in training for climbing. I'll take his word for it for now. Hope that clears things up a bit. Yeah, maybe she's right, and maybe you should care, because, with all your HIT strip and weighted vest training, "your" only redpointing 5.11a. Jay Haha, what makes you say that Jay? Your profile. Let me guess: it's out of date. :roll: Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bcombs
Aug 7, 2007, 8:38 PM
Post #34 of 143
(8139 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 30
|
jt512 wrote: Your profile. Let me guess: it's out of date. :roll: Jay Oh, that's true. I've only logged one climb on here. I have been lucky enough to get out more and more recently. I've also ticked over 160 routes at my home crag including 5.12a. Does that make me more of a man to you Jay? Maybe I can talk the admins into bumping my post count to 13,000 so you'll believe what I say? The bottom line is that I gave the OP what he asked for and because of that your giving me a hard time. Tell ya what, I'll work on my profile if you'll promise not to be mean anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 7, 2007, 9:09 PM
Post #35 of 143
(8124 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
lemon boy, Your posts demonstrate your ignorance of what sport specificity is and what TRANSFER OF SKILL is and involves. If you do not think climbing movements are “extremely sport specific,” then you really do not understand what that term even means. Sport specific does not mean “one or two major movements performed in sport over and over,” it refers to any movement necessary in the actual performance of one’s sport. And regardless, are you honestly saying that crimping, locking off, jamming, dead pointing, chimneying, finger locking, toeing in, heel hooking, stemming (need I go on?) are not performed during climbing over and over? Are you saying that in other sports you think every pitch, every serve, every swing, every pass, every jump, every cutting motion is executed EXACTLY the same way with no regard to the changing conditions of the moment? Uh, okay. I don’t think your science and engineering is really helping you out here. Overhead athletes are only an example; the same concept can be applied to having soccer players kick a weighted ball, or athletes sprint with a parachute on, or any athlete perform a game drill with a weighted vest/belt/etc. The emerging results are not exactly bearing out the original assumption of increased performance results. I’m not sure why you think climbers’ neuromuscular responses are so incredibly different from those of gymnasts, lacrosse players, hurdlers, etc. It’s not about the actual movement of the sport itself, it’s not about whether the movement feels “easier” after removal of the weight--it’s all about the central nervous system input with regard to muscular firing patterns. Understanding General Adaptation Syndrome and the actual science behind biomechanical skill transfer would really help people wanting to understand this concept better. You clearly do not understand it; you are making the same assumptions that strength and conditioning professionals first came up with when they implemented this kind of training. I realize it seems logical, but it’s not what we're actually finding to be the case. Your comment about anaerobic states during sport makes no sense. Jay already pointed this out. A climber “getting pumped” is the same thing as any other athlete experiencing muscle fatigue in their given movements due to strength or power outputs. The occurring muscle physiology is the same. If you are getting pumped, lemon boy, you are definitely not in an oxidative pathway of fuel metabolism in your upper extremit(ies). Lots of sports require power/endurance combos, including tennis. As for climbing with extra weight: you didn’t interpret what I said correctly. I said climbing with a weighted belt or vest will only make you better at climbing with a weighted belt or vest. If you’re climbing long OWs with a 20 lb rack, then of course climbing more long OWs with a 20 lb rack WILL make you better at this. But the evidence (i.e. negative transfer of skill) strongly suggests climbing with a weighted belt in place of the rack WILL NOT. So I hope that weighted belt protects your route well.
In reply to: i am fully aware that it is pretty much impossible to produce a non-biased, single-variable conclusion (particlularly when hujmans are the subject). when you add up the pre-conceived notions of the research personel with the brutal difficulty of producing large sample sets that don't have all sorts of 'complications', it just isn't happening. I do realize this (although in some cases it is possible to have a non-biased, single variable conclusion with human subjects…certain established lifestyle disease research bears this out). You will find many websites and catalogs that still sell weighted devices for sport specific “enhancement,” but they are simply retailers who want to make money for as long as they can. There is no requirement for them to prove their product (just like the “fat burning” electrical stim devices still marketed). Despite the fact the research is still being further clarified, I stand by what I DO find in this matter: most up-to-date, credentialed, practicing strength coaches, trainers, and industry leaders, researchers, and speakers do not endorse training sport specific movements with added resistance that does not actually occur in real time performance. Doing so is not going to guaranteed "RUIN" your performance, but research is showing it appears to either impede or have no effect at all on performance. So if anything, no effect = why do it? P.S. My pictures have nothing to do with this topic or whether or not women are capable of carrying their rack on a gear sling (that is a totally sexist and stupid comment). I actually carry my rack both ways, if you really want to know, but it has nothing to do with the weight of the rack. P.P.S. bcombs, there is no rest for the weary! No intention to pick on ya, it’s all good. Otherwise I thought your recommendations are pretty good, although I do not necessarily buy into all the things Eric Horst publishes. I guess I was posting info more in regard to the question posed by demo: “So…will adding weight make the gains from more moderate climbs greater. And will this translate into harder climbing once the weight is removed?” Nuff said.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 7, 2007, 9:09 PM
Post #36 of 143
(8123 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
bcombs wrote: jt512 wrote: Your profile. Let me guess: it's out of date. :roll: Jay Oh, that's true. I've only logged one climb on here. I have been lucky enough to get out more and more recently. I've also ticked over 160 routes at my home crag including 5.12a. Does that make me more of a man to you Jay? Maybe I can talk the admins into bumping my post count to 13,000 so you'll believe what I say? No, I'm giving you a hard time about giving the person in the thread who has posted the best information a hard time. As to your question about whether climbing 5.12a makes you more of "a man to me." No, it doesn't. You still sound like a whiny little boy to me. It doesn't validate your training regimen either. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
lemon_boy
Aug 7, 2007, 9:11 PM
Post #37 of 143
(8119 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287
|
Jay, I agree with your statement that the question is probably too complicated for somebody that has zero education in sports physiology. However, given that there are quite a few trainers out there with educations in sports physiology that have advocated athletes training with added weight, thus resulting in the massive decline in performance that aerili has described, it might also be fair to state that the subject is too complicated for people with educations in the sports physiology field as well. I didn’t do a very good job of addressing your first point. My point was that a climber could potentially broaden the spectrum of types and intensities of climbing movements with the careful use of added weight. For the person who first asked the question about adding weight while climbing, here are several examples where I have used the tactic, or feel that it would have been beneficial. As I stated previously, I probably wouldn’t advocate it for bouldering, or other route specific cases where there is a lot of timing-intensive movements (ie dynos). First example I was working on a bolted sport route, about 90 feet tall with very sustained climbing up to a difficult rest at about 80 feet. Above that is sort of a boulder problem that takes you to a difficult anchor clip. I had tried the route quite a few times, and had the movements pretty wired. I was able to climb very quickly through the sustained part, and felt like I was climbing pretty well. When I first would get to the rest, I wasn’t really pumped, but after a few moments the pump would finally catch up and it was grim. I would milk the rest for about 15 minutes, which was kind of strenuous in its own way. Then, as I would tackle the last 10 feet, it felt like somebody had put a concrete block in my chalkbag. I absolutely could not clip the anchors, and would slither off every time. Finally, I decided to do the route a couple times with an 11mm rope tied as a trail line to my haul loop. Right off the bat, on the middle section I could tell that I really needed to get forward on my feet a bit more. The rest spot became more strenuous, and the final boulder problem was brutal. After a few tries with the trail line, I was in the same boat as I was before. The following day, I ditched the trail line, and when I hit the rest spot I felt quite a bit better. The last section felt better, and I felt a lot more confident (which was key). I was finally able to clip the anchors. Second example I had been doing quite a bit of crack cragging when a friend called and asked if I wanted to do a route on the diamond. The only problem was that he wanted to do it at the beginning of November. Immediately I realized that I was going to have to climb with a small pack to carry water, shoes to walk off, and extra clothes. So, for a couple weeks, I spent some time climbing steep cracks with a pack containing these sorts of items. I definitely feel this was beneficial. When I first started doing it, it felt like shit. However, as I kept doing it, I got more accustomed to it, and when we finally went up to do the route I felt OK. Third example This last winter, the weather consistently sucked, so I climbed almost entirely in the gym. In the early spring, we headed out to Indian creek. I decided to jump on a really long route that has a lot of cupped hands to wide fists. From the ground I couldn’t tell whether it was mostly 3 camalot, 4 friend, or 4 camalot. There were several pods to get through, so I racked fairly heavily on each size. So, between a lead rope (10.5mm), a trail rope (8.8mm) and 7 each of 3 camalot, 4 friend, and 4 camalot, I felt heavier than Black Sabbath. I headed up, and each time the rack would swing around I would curse. I just didn’t feel light and strong like I did when the draws were already hanging. I managed to eek it out, but it was pretty frazzling. Another good example of the potential use of adding weight as a tool is angry’s trip report about climbing in peru. You should read it if you haven’t, it’s a good read. He describes his first bit of climbing with a pack as a struggle to live. Having done some alpine climbing in the past, I could relate. This is probably another case where climbing with some added weight could be helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
bcombs
Aug 7, 2007, 9:12 PM
Post #38 of 143
(8118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 30
|
jt512 wrote: As to your question about whether climbing 5.12a makes you more of "a man to me." No, it doesn't. You still sound like a whiny little boy to me. It doesn't validate your training regimen either. Jay OK, just checking. Next time I'm in CA I'll swing by and you can take me climbing? Maybe some of that swagger will rub off on me.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 7, 2007, 9:35 PM
Post #39 of 143
(8105 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
lemon_boy wrote: For the person who first asked the question about adding weight while climbing, here are several examples where I have used the tactic, or feel that it would have been beneficial. ... First example I was working on a bolted sport route, about 90 feet tall with very sustained climbing up to a difficult rest at about 80 feet. Above that is sort of a boulder problem that takes you to a difficult anchor clip. I had tried the route quite a few times, and had the movements pretty wired. I was able to climb very quickly through the sustained part, and felt like I was climbing pretty well. When I first would get to the rest, I wasn’t really pumped, but after a few moments the pump would finally catch up and it was grim. I would milk the rest for about 15 minutes, which was kind of strenuous in its own way. Then, as I would tackle the last 10 feet, it felt like somebody had put a concrete block in my chalkbag. I absolutely could not clip the anchors, and would slither off every time. Finally, I decided to do the route a couple times with an 11mm rope tied as a trail line to my haul loop. Right off the bat, on the middle section I could tell that I really needed to get forward on my feet a bit more. The rest spot became more strenuous, and the final boulder problem was brutal. After a few tries with the trail line, I was in the same boat as I was before. The following day, I ditched the trail line, and when I hit the rest spot I felt quite a bit better. The last section felt better, and I felt a lot more confident (which was key). I was finally able to clip the anchors. It is unclear why you think that climbing with the extra 11 mm rope a couple times helped you send the route. I doubt that a couple of laps with an extra 8 lb caused you to gain significant strength for your next attempt. The fact that you had to get your weight more over your feet is logically because the rope moved your center of gravity posteriorly. This necessitated your having to shift your weight forward when climbing with the extra rope. This is an example of added weight necessitating a change in the way the movement is performed, precisely the deleterious effect that aerili warned us about.
In reply to: Second example I had been doing quite a bit of crack cragging when a friend called and asked if I wanted to do a route on the diamond. The only problem was that he wanted to do it at the beginning of November. Immediately I realized that I was going to have to climb with a small pack to carry water, shoes to walk off, and extra clothes. So, for a couple weeks, I spent some time climbing steep cracks with a pack containing these sorts of items. I definitely feel this was beneficial. ... So climbing with a pack on helped you climb with a pack on. This is - word for word - what aerili predicts.
In reply to: Third example Similar to example 2. Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 7, 2007, 9:35 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bcombs
Aug 7, 2007, 9:36 PM
Post #40 of 143
(8102 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 30
|
aerili wrote: P.P.S. bcombs, there is no rest for the weary! No intention to pick on ya, it’s all good. Otherwise I thought your recommendations are pretty good, although I do not necessarily buy into all the things Eric Horst publishes. I guess I was posting info more in regard to the question posed by demo: “So…will adding weight make the gains from more moderate climbs greater. And will this translate into harder climbing once the weight is removed?” Nuff said. Right on man, I'll read more on the subject and maybe change my mind on weighted training altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
bcombs
Aug 7, 2007, 10:08 PM
Post #41 of 143
(8082 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 30
|
aerili, I reread your link posted earlier and I have some questions. First off let me say that I have no knowledge, scientific or otherwise, as to whether weighted climbing will or will not improve your strength. So, I'm in learning mode...bear with me. In the article posted:
In reply to: Since resistance exercises (regardless of their apparent duplications) are not specific to the speed, gait and force produced in athletic events, they are useless for increasing a specific skill and an inappropriate way to contribute to a skill. Even the use of parachutes during sprinting has not been proven to optimally improve running speed since it is non-specific to the speed, mechanics, and gait of sprinting without a parachute. Those who make modest gains from such training do so because the stress overload on the muscles caused muscular strength and growth to occur. They could have received better results from a sensible strength training program and without disrupting the specifics of their natural gait. Isn't the speed, gait, and force of climbing weighted and unweighted the same? Well, maybe not the force since you need to grip harder to stay on the same size holds, but the other two are generally the same right? See, most of the reason that I was interested in and started climbing weighted (about 8 months ago) is that I could never get a clear answer as to what strength training regimen would apply to climbing. Most people say, "The only way to get better at climbing is to climb" and I'm sure that is true, your technique gets better, your climbing base gets larger, your mental state gets better, etc... So my question is then if climbing is all that you can do to improve, how do you achieve this...
In reply to: Those who make modest gains from such training do so because the stress overload on the muscles caused muscular strength and growth to occur. ...without adding weight? Any help is appreciated!
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 7, 2007, 11:39 PM
Post #42 of 143
(8054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
If additional weight is used, all factors in terms of how you move will be altered, even if it is not to a large degree. But this still results in a negative transfer of skill--it programs your nervous system to direct your motor units (i.e. muscles involved) to contract in a pattern or method that allows them to move you and your adjusted motion in as efficient way as possible, thus setting up and reinforcing new muscle memories. The late, great Mel Siff, a true ICON in the exercise and sport sciences research field, puts it this way: by simulating your exercise (in this case you are apparently simulating outdoor, real world climbing while adding resistance in a mode you don't employ when climbing in actuality), "that simulation of any movement with significant resistance is inadvisable since it can confuse the neuromuscular programs which determine the specificity of the actual movement. If one tries to replicate the sporting movement too closely in the gym, there will usually be changes to the centre of mass, speed of movement, lines of pull, moments in inertia, and the centre of rotation that will alter the fine neuromuscular skills required for the sport and therefore may impede sporting performance." I'm not sure if that was understandable, but I hope so. It does take a bit of knowledge about how the muscles and nervous system work together, as well as some basic understanding of physics as they apply to the human body (kinesiology). To answer your second question (a strength training regimen for climbing without adding weight): there's no single answer as to how to best accomplish this, and it all depends on what kind of performance you're looking for too. One thing to understand, though, is the difference between GENERAL CONDITIONING for a sport (best time to get bigger and stronger, more flexible, etc.) and SPECIFIC CONDITIONING for a sport (in other words, work on your technique). The only place you should "add weight" is when doing general weight lifting--here you can add as much weight as safely possible to strengthen whatever you want to strengthen because weight lifting exercises have no transfer effect on sport skill. (In other words, hamstring curls won't make your heel hooking technique better, although they might make it easier because you're stronger, but it shouldn't negatively impact your technique because the exercise is so fundamentally removed from the neuromuscular patterns required for heel hooking.) These exercises do condition your body to withstand demands placed on the joints in any situation, including climbing. Campusing, hangboard, traversing, etc. can also be considered general conditioning since they are supplementary training to assist in developing the motor skills and conditioning the fitness capacities encountered in climbing AT A GENERAL LEVEL. These qualities are then developed into sports specific strength, speed, power, endurance etc by the actual sport itself. You can now incorporate sport specific "drills" while climbing, which many people talk about on this forum; this may include things like laps or burns on a route, downclimbing (although again, I think this mainly makes you better at downclimbing, although it may assist in training to improve hand and forearm lactate threshold), repeated tackling of certain kinds of climbing (i.e. OW, liebacking, etc.) and so on. If you needed to climb with lots of additional weight (like a pack for instance), then I would incorporate training/climbing with a pack under the most specific conditions possible (because then you get true transfer of skill), not during one's general conditioning. If you have more specific questions, then try pm'ing me.
|
|
|
|
|
bcombs
Aug 8, 2007, 1:39 AM
Post #43 of 143
(8045 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 30
|
That makes sense and I think I followed all of your points. Let me give you a real world example and see what your take is on it. Let's say there is this climber, we'll call him Ted. Ted weighs 200lbs and has been climbing for two years. Mostly sport climbing on vertical to slightly overhanging rock. Ted climbs solidly on 5.10d and can usually send 5.11a after 2-3 burns. One summer Ted decides he really wants to lose 20 lbs so he gives up climbing for 8 weeks and instead runs 6 miles 3 times a week and watches what he's eating on the rest days. Ted loses 20 lbs in the 8 week span (above average, but hey this is all hypothetical right? ). After a week back at the crags Ted gets on a 5.11c that is longer and steeper than anything he's ever been able to complete. Ted flashes the route. Even though prior to the 8 weeks of training similar routes felt nearly impossible. So the question is: a. Did Ted just need 8 weeks of rest from climbing to be able to send two letter grades harder? b. Is Ted able to send two grades harder because he's 20lbs lighter? c. Can Ted send two grades harder because his muscles trained for nearly two years at 20lbs heavier and therefore are stronger. Keep in mind Ted is still sending 5.11c so it wasn't just a route that suited him. Also, I'll PM you about some specific things regarding training.
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Aug 8, 2007, 2:03 AM
Post #44 of 143
(8036 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
lemon_boy wrote: jay, regarding first point, i'm simply saying that training with a weight vest is not necessarily going to ruin somebody's climbing. a good example would be a movement in which a climber is controlling a barn door while getting to the next hold. performing this movement with some (not necessarily a ton) of weight, in the right location, could potentially increase the climber's ability to control the movement. Sorry man but I 100% disagree with this statement. A barn door is catagorized by the shifting of the climber's balance from off-set to dynamic balance. That is, the COG passes just outside the base of support in the frontal or sagitial plane. I can't think of any mechanical justification for saying that putting one's self in such a situation with added weight would have a desirable training effect. Controlling a barn door, that is preventing it from happening, is more of a cognitive issue involving a number of vairables including how well the climber perceives and responds to the movement of the COG as it approaches the limit of the base. The thing that is so problematic about discussions about climbing with extra weight is that there is the underlying assumption that everything in climbing performance is basically a strength issue. The thing is the motor complexity of climbing movement is substantial and should not be ignored. Adding weight totally recontextualizes your movement, that's a really big deal. don't take it lightly.
|
|
|
|
|
Climberguy88
Aug 8, 2007, 2:54 AM
Post #45 of 143
(8023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2007
Posts: 11
|
Well I've been climbing on the edge junior team for 7 years now and i've been competing for 5. I'm the 2006 Canadian National Champion. I Say that so you understand that i know what i'm doing. Anyway... I have trained with weight vests. The way to do it is to ease your way into them and ease your way out. and just be careful. Try not to climb with one on a lot cause it will change the way you climb. try to stick to conditioning Weighted dead hangs are the most common use of them. Use the smallest edge on a hang board and add enough weight so that you cant hang longer than 12 seconds max. do them in 3 sets with 30 seconds in between. Another common use is weighted pull-ups. or weighted campusing. Never Boulder with a weight vest. moves are too dynamic and have a very high potential for injury. I have used them while doing volume. 3 routes back to back (90 moves total) with very little weight (4 pounds). the problem with this is that it changes the way you climb. My Name is Simon Any Questions Message Me
(This post was edited by Climberguy88 on Aug 8, 2007, 2:57 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
Climberguy88
Aug 8, 2007, 3:11 AM
Post #46 of 143
(8014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2007
Posts: 11
|
bcombs wrote: That makes sense and I think I followed all of your points. Let me give you a real world example and see what your take is on it. Let's say there is this climber, we'll call him Ted. Ted weighs 200lbs and has been climbing for two years. Mostly sport climbing on vertical to slightly overhanging rock. Ted climbs solidly on 5.10d and can usually send 5.11a after 2-3 burns. One summer Ted decides he really wants to lose 20 lbs so he gives up climbing for 8 weeks and instead runs 6 miles 3 times a week and watches what he's eating on the rest days. Ted loses 20 lbs in the 8 week span (above average, but hey this is all hypothetical right? ). After a week back at the crags Ted gets on a 5.11c that is longer and steeper than anything he's ever been able to complete. Ted flashes the route. Even though prior to the 8 weeks of training similar routes felt nearly impossible. So the question is: a. Did Ted just need 8 weeks of rest from climbing to be able to send two letter grades harder? b. Is Ted able to send two grades harder because he's 20lbs lighter? c. Can Ted send two grades harder because his muscles trained for nearly two years at 20lbs heavier and therefore are stronger. Keep in mind Ted is still sending 5.11c so it wasn't just a route that suited him. Also, I'll PM you about some specific things regarding training. With regards to this. it is because he lost 20 pounds. however over the 8 weeks 'Ted' had time to adapt to his new weight whether he climbed or not. changing back and forth between a weight vest will make you stronger but it will equally make your technique suffer. so realistically you'll notice that you can squeeze harder but that you get tired faster. your best bet is to follow my last post. go climb for your regular session then take half an hour or an hour at the end to do weighted dead hangs. so you gain the strength without losing the technique.
(This post was edited by Climberguy88 on Aug 8, 2007, 3:13 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
drjghl
Aug 8, 2007, 5:07 AM
Post #47 of 143
(7988 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 135
|
Thanks for the post, Climberguy88. Your initial post is a nice "case study" regarding the use of weights that are worn as training for climbing. It seems that using weights for GENERAL CONDITIONING can improve your climbing perfomance. And using weights for SPECIFIC CONDITIONING (ie climbing with added weight) may be detrimental to climbing performance. That aerili chick knows her shit. She's also a badass climber btw.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 8, 2007, 4:37 PM
Post #48 of 143
(7951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
bcombs wrote: a. Did Ted just need 8 weeks of rest from climbing to be able to send two letter grades harder? Doubtful. 8 weeks of rest is sufficient time to cause a large amount of reversal in muscle hypertrophy, strength and power.
In reply to: b. Is Ted able to send two grades harder because he's 20lbs lighter? This question is actually a lot more scientific than you might believe. Without actual scientific methods and testing being used in your case study, I can't give you a really definitive answer, but I would say the weight loss had a lot to do with it. Most athletes perform better with lower fat masses (up to a point and depending on the athlete--linebackers and Tour de France riders would clearly differ, plus essential fat is needed and influences hormones, yadda yadda).
In reply to: c. Can Ted send two grades harder because his muscles trained for nearly two years at 20lbs heavier and therefore are stronger. Hard to say. Neuromuscular reinforcement (i.e. muscle memory) was probably still intact to some degree, but actual strength and size of required muscles would have clearly reversed, so it's possible the remaining muscle memory allowed you to perform technique-wise fairly well and the added benefit of less weight to move made the work on the muscles that much easier. (20 extra pounds is more substantial than people might think...if I gave you a 20 lb suit to wear and told you to do everything in it 24/7 you would think I was crazy.)
In reply to: Keep in mind Ted is still sending 5.11c so it wasn't just a route that suited him. Nice job. Congrats on the weight loss.
|
|
|
|
|
bcombs
Aug 8, 2007, 5:18 PM
Post #49 of 143
(7944 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 30
|
aerili wrote: Nice job. Congrats on the weight loss. Haha, thanks! Also, thanks for the input, its been very helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 8, 2007, 5:20 PM
Post #50 of 143
(7942 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
bcombs wrote: That makes sense and I think I followed all of your points. Let me give you a real world example and see what your take is on it. Let's say there is this climber, we'll call him Ted. Ted weighs 200lbs and has been climbing for two years. Mostly sport climbing on vertical to slightly overhanging rock. Ted climbs solidly on 5.10d and can usually send 5.11a after 2-3 burns. One summer Ted decides he really wants to lose 20 lbs so he gives up climbing for 8 weeks and instead runs 6 miles 3 times a week and watches what he's eating on the rest days. Ted loses 20 lbs in the 8 week span (above average, but hey this is all hypothetical right? ). After a week back at the crags Ted gets on a 5.11c that is longer and steeper than anything he's ever been able to complete. Ted flashes the route. Even though prior to the 8 weeks of training similar routes felt nearly impossible. So the question is: a. Did Ted just need 8 weeks of rest from climbing to be able to send two letter grades harder? b. Is Ted able to send two grades harder because he's 20lbs lighter? c. Can Ted send two grades harder because his muscles trained for nearly two years at 20lbs heavier and therefore are stronger. Keep in mind Ted is still sending 5.11c so it wasn't just a route that suited him. Also, I'll PM you about some specific things regarding training. reminiscence An improvement in later performance due to rest or non-practice.[1] Jay Reference: 1. "reminiscence." The Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science . Oxford University Press, 1998, 2006, 2007. Answers.com 08 Aug. 2007. http://www.answers.com/topic/reminiscence
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 8, 2007, 5:49 PM
Post #51 of 143
(8178 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
jt512 wrote: reminiscence An improvement in later performance due to rest or non-practice. For sure rest is a real and direct influence on performance, and there have been both designed studies and case studies to support this. But in 'Ted's' case, two straight months of no climbing wouldn't bear out a climbing performance increase in and of itself in my opinion. That is a verrrry long rest and would allow for significant detraining to occur in skeletal muscle. Additionally, bcombs, your running wouldn't have any transfer effect to specific muscle requirements for strength or power in climbing (except, possibly, for keeping certain muscle groups generally conditioned for muscular endurance [like your core, your legs, and your hip stabilizers]), and it probably aided you in the general aerobic requirements of any climbing you did. This is a very interesting topic, with so many things to think about.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 8, 2007, 6:15 PM
Post #52 of 143
(8169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
aerili wrote: jt512 wrote: reminiscence An improvement in later performance due to rest or non-practice. For sure rest is a real and direct influence on performance, and there have been both designed studies and case studies to support this. But in 'Ted's' case, two straight months of no climbing wouldn't bear out a climbing performance increase in and of itself in my opinion. That is a verrrry long rest and would allow for significant detraining to occur in skeletal muscle. Additionally, bcombs, your running wouldn't have any transfer effect to specific muscle requirements for strength or power in climbing (except, possibly, for keeping certain muscle groups generally conditioned for muscular endurance [like your core, your legs, and your hip stabilizers]), and it probably aided you in the general aerobic requirements of any climbing you did. This is a very interesting topic, with so many things to think about. In my personal experience, you can take several months off of climbing, and come back a technically better climber. The phenomenon appears not to be solely due to rest, but to the very avoidance of the activity (ie, "non-practice"). It's almost as if, during the time away from the activity, you lose the bad movement habits, and retain the good ones. I have taken periods of climbing off long enough to lose considerable climbing fitness, yet am often able to do routes just as hard as when I was fitter, finding that my balance and movement on those routes has improved during the layoff. Combine that with losing 20 lbs I think could account for a 2-letter grade increase in performance during a layoff. Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 8, 2007, 6:18 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Aug 8, 2007, 6:46 PM
Post #53 of 143
(8157 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
aerili wrote: For sure rest is a real and direct influence on performance, and there have been both designed studies and case studies to support this. But in 'Ted's' case, two straight months of no climbing wouldn't bear out a climbing performance increase in and of itself in my opinion. That is a verrrry long rest and would allow for significant detraining to occur in skeletal muscle. aeril if I have a criticism of your (frequently very good) posts its that you tend too look at climbing from only the phsiological point of view, not taking fully into account the kinesiological, cognitive and emotional aspects of climbing performance. There are many times when a climber comes "off the couch" and does something amazing despite a loss of fitness. Those of us who have a few years under our belts have seen this, and done this many times. I suspect the essential element in these performances is emotional. When one comes off the couch and tries something "hard" there is no performance pressure, infact climber's often allow themselves to relax and just climb in a way that they don't normally do, when they are fit and expect themselves to do well. Also climber's tend to over emphasize the importance of fitness to begin with so we don't really understand the relationship between muscular fitness and performing at a specific level. sorry for the thread jack.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 8, 2007, 8:20 PM
Post #54 of 143
(8124 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
In reply to: aeril if I have a criticism of your (frequently very good) posts its that you tend too look at climbing from only the phsiological point of view, not taking fully into account the kinesiological, cognitive and emotional aspects of climbing performance. You are right in that sports psychology is soooo not my forte. However, I’m not sure I understand your comment about the “kinesiological” aspect, especially since I offer information on this particular topic from a physiological/biomechanical standpoint, and these encompass the broadest aspects of kinesiology in most curriculums. Anyway, excellent to point out the psych side of things regardless. The athlete's mental state seems to be more in my mind when in a hands-on/live/right here, right now situation.
In reply to: There are many times when a climber comes "off the couch" and does something amazing despite a loss of fitness. Those of us who have a few years under our belts have seen this, and done this many times. I’ve seen this happen as well, but not consistently in either one person, one sport, or across the board. I’ve seen it occur in a couple runners (which is strange because I haven’t worked with many runners since endurance sports aren’t my specialty). Personal experience has proven the opposite effect to happen in my own physical pursuits over a time period of ~13 years total (when compared to what Jay said he experienced with time off)… Both in climbing and ballet and modern dance over the years, I almost invariably suffered performance decrease along with fitness decrease with time off. So, although I think you have a really good point in the mention of the cognitive and emotional aspects, I am not sure this occurs consistently enough to have statistical significance? (Not only in terms of x number of individuals, but in terms of repeated performance for a single individual.) Could these be outlier values? Are we not forgetting to take into account many other variables occuring when these “off the couch” experiences happen, all of them probably differing in actual occurrence, consistency and weight each time they happen? Also, as Jay’s reference stated, there is no known or recommended value for time off in order to see performance improvement, so it’s hard to make any certain claim. Just food for thought...Darn it, I am adding to thread jack!
In reply to: …we don't really understand the relationship between muscular fitness and performing at a specific level. I don’t completely understand what you are saying here, either, but pm me to explain it (with regard to the probability that everyone else’s boredom variables are increasing and it's off topic-ness!).
|
Attachments:
|
EmoticonPirate.gif
(0.50 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 8, 2007, 8:31 PM
Post #55 of 143
(8120 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
aerili wrote: Also, as Jay’s reference stated, there is no known or recommended value for time off in order to see performance improvement, so it’s hard to make any certain claim. As far as recommendations go, I think it is Horst who recommends taking every 10th week, plus one full month a year, off of climbing. Most sports have on- and off-seasons, so athletes get periods of time off more-or-less automatically. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Aug 8, 2007, 8:34 PM
Post #56 of 143
(8116 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
jt512 wrote: aerili wrote: jt512 wrote: reminiscence An improvement in later performance due to rest or non-practice. For sure rest is a real and direct influence on performance, and there have been both designed studies and case studies to support this. But in 'Ted's' case, two straight months of no climbing wouldn't bear out a climbing performance increase in and of itself in my opinion. That is a verrrry long rest and would allow for significant detraining to occur in skeletal muscle. Additionally, bcombs, your running wouldn't have any transfer effect to specific muscle requirements for strength or power in climbing (except, possibly, for keeping certain muscle groups generally conditioned for muscular endurance [like your core, your legs, and your hip stabilizers]), and it probably aided you in the general aerobic requirements of any climbing you did. This is a very interesting topic, with so many things to think about. In my personal experience, you can take several months off of climbing, and come back a technically better climber. The phenomenon appears not to be solely due to rest, but to the very avoidance of the activity (ie, "non-practice"). It's almost as if, during the time away from the activity, you lose the bad movement habits, and retain the good ones. I have taken periods of climbing off long enough to lose considerable climbing fitness, yet am often able to do routes just as hard as when I was fitter, finding that my balance and movement on those routes has improved during the layoff. Combine that with losing 20 lbs I think could account for a 2-letter grade increase in performance during a layoff. Jay that's interesting that there is a term for that. I was quite surprised when the same thing happened to me. After taking time off because of injury, I was definitely weaker/had less endurance, but I was able to send routes I couldn't before.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 8, 2007, 8:48 PM
Post #57 of 143
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
jt512 wrote: Most sports have on- and off-seasons, so athletes get periods of time off more-or-less automatically. Agreed. Although in sports where the athletes are either professional and/or quite serious, this never means a full break in conditioning. There is always an off-season conditioning schedule and protocol; there just isn't any sport specific conditioning or play involved.
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Aug 8, 2007, 8:54 PM
Post #58 of 143
(8102 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
aerili wrote: So, although I think you have a really good point in the mention of the cognitive and emotional aspects, I am not sure this occurs consistently enough to have statistical significance? Just to be clear, I was not claiming stat. sig. As far as I know this has never been looked at with any rigor. but I've seen it happen open enough to be curious about it, even to think there is something to be learned from these experiences. But yea, its a big unknown except to say that increase in fitness levels, probably don't play a role.
|
|
|
|
|
lemon_boy
Aug 10, 2007, 3:12 AM
Post #59 of 143
(8021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287
|
jay and aerili, the point that i am trying to make, is that the boulderer is pretty much the only climber that isn't experiencing a change in system mass as they climb (although a sport climber clipping draws on a short route is pretty close). climbers doing long pitches end up with a fair amount of rope weight (and often rope drag), that can affect their climbing, i can't count the number of times i've seen somebody slowly get shut down as they pass the 100', 120' 150' mark on a pitch crying about the weight of the rope, despite the fact that the climbing wasn't very hard. jay, you mention that the 11mm rope would only serve to make my balance worse, but the results didn't really support that. the overall result was improvement (ie sending). 8 lbs can be a lot of weight. aerili, i do actually have a pretty good idea of the definitiion of sport specific exercise, and what i am trying to say is that lumping ALL of them into one category and making a total blanket statement about what will cause improvement and what will cause decline, is going to be difficult to prove. for example, adding a weight belt to a gymnast for a beam routine is probably going to be a pretty bad idea. on the other hand, offensive and defensive linemen performing blocking drills with sleds of different weights is substantially different. the main difference is that when a gymnast performs a routine, he/she is performing at the same weight, on the same size balance beam, etc. similarly, a tennis player's racket, ball, etc weigh and perform the same. however, the offensive lineman's opponent varies in shape, size, weight, strength, speed, and skill. to prepare for this, altering sled weight can give a broader experience spectrum. i think this is similar to the all-around climber who climbs in many different situations where weight and other factors are variable. it is kind of similar to saying that a climber who climbs mostly crimpy routes is going to have negative results if he climbs some sloper-dominant routes. you have to define improvement or loss. is it based on his crimp climbing, sloper climbing, or overall climbing. perhaps he will have a slight loss on crimpy ground, but he also will probably find improvement on slopers. how will this affect his overall performanc when he goes to a new area for the first time, etc?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 10, 2007, 4:03 AM
Post #60 of 143
(8022 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
lemon_boy wrote: jay, you mention that the 11mm rope would only serve to make my balance worse... No. I said that it'll change your balance, which, according to aerili's information would likely be detrimental to performance.
In reply to: ...but the results didn't really support that. The results following "a couple of runs" don't really say anything at all about the effect, if any, of those runs. It isn't enough evidence, and I doubt that two runs carrying a few pounds extra weight would have impacted your fitness more than two runs without a few pounds extra weight. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 10, 2007, 6:24 AM
Post #61 of 143
(7999 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
lemon_boy wrote: climbers doing long pitches end up with a fair amount of rope weight (and often rope drag), that can affect their climbing, i can't count the number of times i've seen somebody slowly get shut down as they pass the 100', 120' 150' mark on a pitch crying about the weight of the rope, despite the fact that the climbing wasn't very hard. Then they should practice climbing more often with long stretches of shitty rope drag. Other kinds of weighted appartuses won't help you perform better with rope drag.
In reply to: aerili, i do actually have a pretty good idea of the definitiion of sport specific exercise Not that I can tell
In reply to: and what i am trying to say is that lumping ALL of them into one category and making a total blanket statement about what will cause improvement and what will cause decline, is going to be difficult to prove. for example, adding a weight belt to a gymnast for a beam routine is probably going to be a pretty bad idea. on the other hand, offensive and defensive linemen performing blocking drills with sleds of different weights is substantially different. What research have you done or read that says putting sleds on linebackers is such an effective protocol? Most of the so-called 'evidence' is purely anecdotal. Most of the studies I have read finds that resisted sprinting has virtually no performance effect when compared to the same training without. Keep in mind, I go to professional seminars about this stuff, dude. That is what I DO to stay CERTIFIED which kept me employed working with many different kinds of athletes for a long time. And YES, with this kind of topic I generally can make blanket statements about neuromuscular responses to altered sport specific training because they've studied this on many different types of athletes doing many various and unrelated types of sports movements. Go back and read my quote from Mel Siff about this very concept; he applies it quite broadly to all athletes. I doubt you can win against one of the greatest names and investigators into this very issue.
In reply to: the main difference is that when a gymnast performs a routine, he/she is performing at the same weight, on the same size balance beam, etc. similarly, a tennis player's racket, ball, etc weigh and perform the same. however, the offensive lineman's opponent varies in shape, size, weight, strength, speed, and skill. to prepare for this, altering sled weight can give a broader experience spectrum. No. Every athlete's conditions are changing all the time with each performance no matter how stationary they appear to you; horizontal and angular velocities are constantly dynamic, changing directions and involving differing planes of movement with regard to players, balls, equipment, terrain, general environment, etc. To be truthful and objective, your arguments reinforce your lack of education on what you are trying to argue about. Lemon boy, just train however you 'rationally' believe you should; your personal performance or beliefs about cause and effect have zero influence on my stance on this matter. I take my cues on training from the people in my industry who really know what they're talking about, have the credentials and application to back it up, and whose entire CAREERS are based on staying on top of this kind of thing. I really have nothing more to say because I'm starting to feel like a hamster on a wheel.
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 10, 2007, 9:50 PM
Post #62 of 143
(7963 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
Wow, interesting thread. I've been away for a while so apologies for not being involved in any discussions recently (fluxus) I've never prescribed the use of weight belts as I believe that they could increase the risk of injury. For most of my clients there are other exercises that are more suitable and safe. However one of my clients climbs on the British team and I wouldn't be too concerned. Why? Well she is aware to some degree about pushing the envelope of injury vs performance. Her movement skills are excellent and having a weighted COG would not make a massive difference to performance. More importantly I have anecdotal evidence from other climbers (and my own) that suggests that gains can be made. I know of several School Room users (Malc Smith for instance) who swear by their use. This is as much evidence as their is to movement skills improving climbing Common sense says that they do though. From what I've read hypergravity - was introduced by BOSCO (1985b), and SANDS & co-workers (1996) corroborated his results. Their work indicated that special weighted clothes bring important benefits to power events specialists................. Does anyone have any ACTUAL experience using added weight? BOSCO, C. Adaptive response of human skeletal muscle to simulated hypergravity condition. Acta Physiol. Scando, 124(4): 507-13,1985b SANDS, W.A. Hypergravity training: Women's track and field. J. Strength and Conditioning Research. 10(1):30-34, 1996
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 10, 2007, 10:07 PM
Post #63 of 143
(7958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
Also check these http://www.springerlink.com/content/gp0g2316p5l87119/ http://nsca.allenpress.com/nscaonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1519%2F1533-4287(1996)010%3C0030:HTWSTA%3E2.3.CO%3B2 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/jgs/2004/00000052/00000005/art00023
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Aug 10, 2007, 10:35 PM
Post #64 of 143
(7951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
PepsiTwist wrote: All you have to do is provide specific studies, and it would also be helpful if you ahd some sort of letter to from the scientific community saying this is the held belief, otherwise I am sure there are plenty of experts who would disagree with you. A good case in point is global warming, people like to come out and say that the scientific community and experts agree to the causes of global warming, when that is just not the case. But people throw that out there, and the lay people believe it because the opposition isnt as vocal in having their side heard. All in all, I really dont doubt your expertise and knowledge in this field, I just want to make sure that you are citing your sources and not making overarching generalizations in a complex science. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
In reply to: Global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,"[1] which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a small cooling effect since 1950.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that officially rejects these conclusions.[4][5] A few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC.[6] Note that you can find the citations of all the scientific studies cited here by clicking the URL. In doing so, you will also find that you are an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 10, 2007, 11:25 PM
Post #65 of 143
(7940 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
Hmmm…do you really believe anecdotal evidence is the same as peer-reviewed methodology? Do you believe that all cause and effect is as simple as “common sense” likes to tell us? I had already read all the abstracts you provide in your second post, btw. Regarding all the references: your first two citations are fairly dated, especially on this particular subject. Of your last three cited references, none apply to this topic. I will tell you why: #1 Didn’t even list the variables they studied and it doesn’t matter anyway because the weighted training they did consisted of GENERAL conditioning and plyometric exercises. It does not state they did any SPORT SPECIFIC track and field training in the vests whatsoever. #2 Was about plyometrics as well—plyometric training has an established base of research behind it, and although it has specificity behind it for power development, it doesn’t make people better at their actual technique. In-game or in-performance jumping and running involve a lot more “things” going on. They also were not measuring these women's competition performance, they were measuring nothing more than straight up jumping power. This says nothing about whether they were improving their actual track and field performance. #3 Was about geriatric women and their trouble with Activities of Daily Living—no reasonable relationship whatsoever to what we are talking about. It was published in a journal about geriatrics, not athletes. With regard to vertical jump tests, the vertical jump test is not administered with respect to form and technique the way athletes truly perform jumping motions in sports like basketball, football, lacrosse, volleyball, etc. I know because I have used the Vertec device for testing athletes as described in citation #2. One other clarification: activities like straightforward jumping and running are considered “low skill” movements, i.e. they aren’t terribly specific and the “language” used by nerves to tell the muscles how to perform them is relatively simple when compared to more complex motor skills. Climbing is full of very complex motor skills that are all 100% specific to performance, which is the topic at hand in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 11, 2007, 12:29 AM
Post #66 of 143
(7926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
I'm glad that you have read those citations. I posted references so that other people could read them. Despite what you are saying I believe they have relevece to this debate. Apologies # 3 was not the one I meant to post. When did I say that anecdotal evidence was the same as peer review? I said that in the absence of research. I also said that this was my opinion. You can't prove this wrong until you set up the research project ad gather the data. Trust me this is very hard. I unsuccessfully tried to complete a Doctorate while working full time as there is NO funding for this kind of work. There does seem to be SOME research to prove this kind of training works. As a professional in the field I have witnessed this, maybe other have too.
In reply to: Climbing is full of very complex motor skills that are all 100% specific to performance, which is the topic at hand in this thread Don't be so rude. I'm fully aware what this thread is about. Just ask the OP. I think he was asking about the effects of training with a weight vest. No?
|
|
|
|
|
antiqued
Aug 11, 2007, 12:38 AM
Post #67 of 143
(7925 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 243
|
aerili wrote: One other clarification: activities like straightforward jumping and running are considered “low skill” movements, i.e. they aren’t terribly specific and the “language” used by nerves to tell the muscles how to perform them is relatively simple when compared to more complex motor skills. Climbing is full of very complex motor skills that are all 100% specific to performance, which is the topic at hand in this thread. Thread drift: I am really surprised that you call climbing highly complex. Running takes kids years to learn - typically they walk at 12 months after only a couple of months of trying, and then take 8 years or more to run with decent co-ordination. And Dr J and others have demonstrated jumping as something that I see to be a highly developed, complex skill in basketball. On the other hand, lots of 4-6yr olds can throw themselves up, down and around jungle gyms fluidly, using many of the climbing motions, not to mention climbing trees and plastic. Another example of what I think is highly complex would be overhand throwing. Just about every guy will 'throw like a girl' if required to use the unpracticed arm, and I've never heard of a professional baseball player (not pitcher, just position player) changing sides due to injury and learning this 'simple' skill with the other arm. Is the jumping test you describe a simple two footed standing jump? Anyway, I have no training in this, and need some education. I would have said that things like jumping on the run, broken field running, etc are highly complex skills. Where do you rate Triple axels, bowling, pool shooting, or whatever illustrations make sense to you? Pole Vaulting is pretty complex in my book. Many of the others deal with precision - isn't a pool stroke generally simplified as much as possible to encourage precision?
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Aug 11, 2007, 2:03 AM
Post #68 of 143
(7913 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
antiqued wrote: Thread drift: I am really surprised that you call climbing highly complex. Running takes kids years to learn - typically they walk at 12 months after only a couple of months of trying, and then take 8 years or more to run with decent co-ordination. And Dr J and others have demonstrated jumping as something that I see to be a highly developed, complex skill in basketball. On the other hand, lots of 4-6yr olds can throw themselves up, down and around jungle gyms fluidly, using many of the climbing motions, not to mention climbing trees and plastic. First, running is a repeated motion activity, every intro text to mechanics or kinesiology descrbes it as such. Now you can make it more complex by running down a steep talus feild so there are degrees, but running is still fairly simple. Second 4 -6 year olds do not climb jungle gyms and trees in the same manner we climb rocks!! FEW of the movements found in climbing are present in these activities. And certainly the cognitive skills necessary can't even be compared.
|
|
|
|
|
fargoan
Aug 11, 2007, 2:43 AM
Post #69 of 143
(7902 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2003
Posts: 110
|
Sorry for the repost, but this is fascinating:
aerili wrote: If additional weight is used, all factors in terms of how you move will be altered, even if it is not to a large degree. But this still results in a negative transfer of skill--it programs your nervous system to direct your motor units (i.e. muscles involved) to contract in a pattern or method that allows them to move you and your adjusted motion in as efficient way as possible, thus setting up and reinforcing new muscle memories. The late, great Mel Siff, a true ICON in the exercise and sport sciences research field, puts it this way: by simulating your exercise (in this case you are apparently simulating outdoor, real world climbing while adding resistance in a mode you don't employ when climbing in actuality), "that simulation of any movement with significant resistance is inadvisable since it can confuse the neuromuscular programs which determine the specificity of the actual movement. If one tries to replicate the sporting movement too closely in the gym, there will usually be changes to the centre of mass, speed of movement, lines of pull, moments in inertia, and the centre of rotation that will alter the fine neuromuscular skills required for the sport and therefore may impede sporting performance." I'm not sure if that was understandable, but I hope so. It does take a bit of knowledge about how the muscles and nervous system work together, as well as some basic understanding of physics as they apply to the human body (kinesiology). To answer your second question (a strength training regimen for climbing without adding weight): there's no single answer as to how to best accomplish this, and it all depends on what kind of performance you're looking for too. One thing to understand, though, is the difference between GENERAL CONDITIONING for a sport (best time to get bigger and stronger, more flexible, etc.) and SPECIFIC CONDITIONING for a sport (in other words, work on your technique). The only place you should "add weight" is when doing general weight lifting--here you can add as much weight as safely possible to strengthen whatever you want to strengthen because weight lifting exercises have no transfer effect on sport skill. (In other words, hamstring curls won't make your heel hooking technique better, although they might make it easier because you're stronger, but it shouldn't negatively impact your technique because the exercise is so fundamentally removed from the neuromuscular patterns required for heel hooking.) These exercises do condition your body to withstand demands placed on the joints in any situation, including climbing. Campusing, hangboard, traversing, etc. can also be considered general conditioning since they are supplementary training to assist in developing the motor skills and conditioning the fitness capacities encountered in climbing AT A GENERAL LEVEL. These qualities are then developed into sports specific strength, speed, power, endurance etc by the actual sport itself. You can now incorporate sport specific "drills" while climbing, which many people talk about on this forum; this may include things like laps or burns on a route, downclimbing (although again, I think this mainly makes you better at downclimbing, although it may assist in training to improve hand and forearm lactate threshold), repeated tackling of certain kinds of climbing (i.e. OW, liebacking, etc.) and so on. If you needed to climb with lots of additional weight (like a pack for instance), then I would incorporate training/climbing with a pack under the most specific conditions possible (because then you get true transfer of skill), not during one's general conditioning. If you have more specific questions, then try pm'ing me. This whole topic is fascinating for me, because I truly enjoy reading about sport-specific physiology and most-effectively becoming a better climber. What is particularly interesting is that I haven't seen jt512, aerilli, or fluxus once suggest that weighted fingerboard training or campusing has appreciable application to improving climbing through increasing hand/finger strength. This is despite such recommendations in both Performance Rock Climbing (pp. 109-114) and the Self-Coached Climber (pg. 161, 163), two books for which I have tremendous respect. I fully understand your arguments regarding climbing movement and neuromuscular firing patterns for improving movement. However, there must be something to say for "dumb" hand strength and power? Do you all believe that there is no value in developing this in a non-movement oriented way? (As in, hangboard training or campus-board training.) If so, how does one develop such strength in an efficient, but "sport-specific way"? Very curious for your responses, thanks for writing. Jonathan
(This post was edited by fargoan on Aug 11, 2007, 3:03 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
fargoan
Aug 11, 2007, 2:46 AM
Post #70 of 143
(7900 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2003
Posts: 110
|
Additionally, can anyone with a background in gymnastics or ballet chime in with their experiences? Just curious, because these are two sports that are extensively steeped in training that also have very complex motor skills and strength demands. Thanks! (edited for clarity)
(This post was edited by fargoan on Aug 11, 2007, 3:04 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 11, 2007, 3:12 AM
Post #71 of 143
(7893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
fargoan wrote: Additionally, can anyone with a background in gymnastics or ballet chime in? Just curious, because these are two sports that are extensively steeped in training that also have very complex motor skills and strength demands. Thanks! I'm going nowhere near the "weighted vest" debate, but I can give you some input here. I think the primary carry-over from gymnastic training to rockclimbing relates to what Gill would call "kinesthetic awareness" and becoming comfortable with dynamic movement. Gymnastics does absolutely nothing (except perhaps for the floor exercise event) to develop balance over one's feet and none of the events build any type of finger strength. I suspect that (as opposed to say, weight training) gymnastics also develops some useful muscles for climbing--since the gymnast, like the climber, is primarily involved with pushing and pulling his own mass around. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
lemon_boy
Aug 11, 2007, 3:18 AM
Post #72 of 143
(7890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287
|
aerili, so, it sounds like you are saying that locking off a hold, dyno-ing, and each of the climbing movements are sport specific. and hangboard training, campusing, and performing certain climbing movements with different weight configurations fall under general conditioning. so, if a climber climbs primarily crimpy routes, and spends a few days climbing sloper dominated routes, where does that fit in? in the overall climbing performance scheme, it seems like it would fit in as sport specific, but relative to his/her primary climbing it would seem that it might fall under general conditioning. again, i think this is an example of where the actual GOAL determines, to some extent, whether a movement is sport specific or other. re: the gymnasts performance. i know that the angles, positioning, linear/rotational speeds and accelerations, rotational inertia, etc are all changing. but, her body mass isn't. that is why i wouldn't advocate adding weight in this case. you keep bashing me on this by stating that i don't know anything about sport specifity, but you haven't pointed out anything that i didn't already know. i'm not trying to brag or be confrontational, but i don't think you are listening to and addressing what i am really saying (or trying to say). that is great that you read the latest journals and attend the conferences, which often have a wealth of useful info. however, i also know from a fair amount of first hand, as well as second hand experience, that these aren't always unbiased, or the amount of ACTUAL USABLE data is not enough to extrapolate a blanket conclusion. i still stand by my statement that performing an entire, unbiased or uncompromised, significant research project in this area is pretty much impossible. there just isn't enough of the population with exact same variables to really bring it together. regarding your statement about lifestyle diseases, i assume an example would be smoking. with smoking, there is an enormous population that does, and an enormous population that doesn't. with numbers this big, assumptions are made that the distributions of variables are similar. i don't really think you can make this assumption when performing complex research on 100 athletes. i know that you are going to log back on and point out that i am an idiot and that my training methods make me an inferior climber, etc, but i think that there is a lot of testimonial out there (ie rockprodigy's documentation, my own documentation, malcom smith, etc) that for SOME people, non-specific training might provide more benefit. i love fluxus's book, and i have adhered to it as well as possible for the last year and a half, but to be honest with you, i am climbing 2 to 4 letter grades below the levels i was consistently climbing when i was doing all of my training on the hangboard. i DO feel that i have learned a lot about movement (especially initiating movement from different centers, GOLD! also the CIR info), but i think that i am going to spend 2008 using a mix of the 2 training methods to see how that turns out. fluxus (i think you mentioned this?) that running is repetitive (and therefore not sport specific? not sure if you said this or not, just asking). i would compare this to cycling. from a general view it would seem that it might not be sport specific(?) (waiting for aerili to beat me for this one too). could it be argued that that there is enough complexity and change in a pedal stroke (chaning angle ankle to pedal more with lower leg or higher leg, change in cadence, change in upward pulling amounts, etc) that are all implemented to respond to terrain changes, to consider it sport specific? i guess my overall question to aerili (back on the wheel!) is, that some of the sports that have a lot of money at stake, and that are likely to invest in determining these questions, seem to use added weight or resistance as a tool (football, cycling, boxing). do they not put any effort into this sort of research, etc? i do respect your opinions on this, even if my tone is harsh and my questioning hard-headed. have you tested any of these questions on your own climbing?
|
|
|
|
|
lemon_boy
Aug 11, 2007, 3:29 AM
Post #73 of 143
(7887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287
|
jay (and others), i went back and looked through my journal about the trail rope route. here is the info, i had attempted the route 19 times over approx 4 months (i know, i know beating a dead horse). i used the trail line 4 times on a saturday. returned the following day, tried it once with the trail line and was pretty much there. rested, dropped the line and sent it. i agree with your assesment that the number of laps with the trail line would not be sufficient to really result in much improved power, or power endurance. i also agree that it would potentially result in changes in movements, for better or worse. however, the end result was finally getting the route, which to me was an overall improvement. perhaps it helped mentally, in terms of confidence? just curious about what people's opinion on how the increased performance occurred.
|
|
|
|
|
valeberga
Aug 11, 2007, 5:51 AM
Post #74 of 143
(7873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2003
Posts: 434
|
OMG so am I reading in this thread that weight doesn't matter for climbing at all?! Take that, gravity! I'm glad that the lab coats could clear up for us that F does not equal m*a, and/or that resistance training does not increase peak muscle force. I bet Twight could have climbed a lot better if he hadn't been able to lat pull 300 lbs, eh? What's that quote again... "Imagine the climber who can pull 300 in training but only needs to pull 200 while climbing. He will be able to pull 200 all day long because 200 can't overtax his physical capacity." It's training. As in weighted strength training, followed by unweighted technique training. If you have no strength, you have nothing to train. The coats have done way too much spraying in this thread. How about we hear from some more climbers?
(This post was edited by valeberga on Aug 11, 2007, 6:07 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 11, 2007, 6:59 AM
Post #75 of 143
(8054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
fargoan wrote: What is particularly interesting is that I haven't seen jt512, aerilli, or fluxus once suggest that weighted fingerboard training or campusing has appreciable application to improving climbing through increasing hand/finger strength. This is despite such recommendations in both Performance Rock Climbing (pp. 109-114) and the Self-Coached Climber (pg. 161, 163), two books for which I have tremendous respect. I think that adding weight to deadhang exercises is different from adding weight while actually climbing in that deadhangs don't involve climbing movement. Therefore, by adding weight, one should be able to increase strength without risk of inculcating poor movement habits. That's a logical deduction, not an empirical conclusion, which is why I didn't mention it. Fluxus is a co-author of The Self-Coached Climber, so I suppose he either agrees, unless that was Dan's chapter. Douglas? I can't imagine being able to do weighted campusing without ending up in the orthopedic surgeon's office the next day, but maybe that's just me. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
lemon_boy
Aug 11, 2007, 6:19 PM
Post #76 of 143
(9563 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287
|
fluxus, are you still out there? i have a quick question, in SCC (if I remember correctly, which isn't likely) you suggest providing a power spot during threshold bouldering to help slowly make progress towards achieving the move(s). how does this relate to our current discussion? it seems that power spotting might have similar (but different) problems to adding weight. curt, good comment about gymnastics. i think the balance beam would would have quite a bit of getting balanced over the feet. also landing dismounts and trying not to topple over. it seems that the climbers i know that were also involved in gymnastics really take to climbing well. i think the balance, strength conditioning, and flexability help a lot. also, i think that they are mentally tough. some of the feats they perform where being off a bit would result in eating total shit... pretty impressive!
|
|
|
|
|
whoa
Aug 11, 2007, 8:39 PM
Post #77 of 143
(9548 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 193
|
How about admitting that sport and exercise science, even PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES, are woefully primitive and provide paltry basis for training advice. CERTIFIED TRAINERS who get so defensive about their SCIENTIFIC expertise are a hoot. Look guys, you've seen some studies, mostly with small cohorts and exasperatingly weak controls, that have some hard-to-specify relevance to your hunches about how climbers (which climbers? how old? male or female? with what kind of experience and strengths and weaknesses?) should train. ADMIT THIS. BE HONEST AND MODEST. In this particular case, I'd be willing to bet that the studies about sport specificity are completely irrelevant to the question of whether gains can be made by climbing weighted. I'd bet balancy slab technique will not be improved; but I am not at all convinced that it won't help you hold onto stuff more easily and longer. That's just a hunch, of course. Others have different hunches. The PEER-REVIEWED studies about baseball swings and sprinting just don't begin to answer this question.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 11, 2007, 9:24 PM
Post #78 of 143
(9536 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
theclimbinglab wrote: Despite what you are saying I believe they have relevece to this debate. I think they have relevance mainly with regard to general conditioning, but that's not what the OP was talking about. The conclusions of these studies with regard to straight forward general conditioning results or pure motor unit recruitment/force output changes I have no disagreement with. But they have nothing to do with results of sport performance after training under abnormally resisted conditions.
In reply to: When did I say that anecdotal evidence was the same as peer review? I said that in the absence of research. I also said that this was my opinion. You can't prove this wrong until you set up the research project ad gather the data. Trust me this is very hard. I unsuccessfully tried to complete a Doctorate while working full time as there is NO funding for this kind of work. No funding for sport science research? I witnessed a lot of it going on when I was in college. I am not sure what you are referring to? Just to clarify, I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was questioning your words for clarification. That what it sounded like you said, but I wasn't sure. Anyway, I don't always believe it is a good idea to substitute the use of anecdotal evidence simply due to lack of research. I agree it could be great if they did a bunch of research on this subject in climbing; however, since we know that probably won't happen, it's not unjustified to use research done on other sports with regard to complex motor skills and consider it in relation to climbing. After all, the PRINCIPLES they were examining were neuromuscular pattern changes in response to changing the resistance encountered in sport movement. Same thing we're talking about here. I would personally err on the side of caution when believing this has zero to say about climbing with weighted appartuses that aren't specific to actual climbing conditions.
In reply to: Don't be so rude. I'm fully aware what this thread is about. Just ask the OP. I think he was asking about the effects of training with a weight vest. No? I'm not trying to be rude, I was clarifying again the topic at hand, that's all. Forgive me if your first post sounded like you either did not read most of the thread and/or skimmed the majority of it at best.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 11, 2007, 9:52 PM
Post #79 of 143
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
Sorry, I am not trying to put so many different posts here, but there's too many separate things being asked. antiqued: fluxus answered this question for me. To get more into it, you would need to know more about Hans Selye's General Adaptation Syndrome. It's academic to explain and usually requires me to draw a bell curve for better clarification, but I won't get into it here. Needless to say, yes, running and jumping are relatively "simple" motor skills for a fully grown human being with no other physical limitations. Movements like pool shooting require lots of fine motor skill and hand/eye coordination, so it is more complex. Movements like pole vaulting and triple axles in ice skating involve more highly coordinated muscle groups firing together in just the right way to perform the movement, as well as the fact they involve rotational movements that encompass all 3 planes of movement. But running, for example, is mainly in one plane of movement. However, if you add in running and cutting, then the movement gets more complex and isn't so "simple" for the body anymore. Standardized vertical jump tests are done with two feet on the ground from a non-moving position, typically. To Jonathan: I am not saying there is no value in "dumb" strength at all!! No way man!! I am only saying that we consider that to be GENERAL conditioning, not SPORT SPECIFIC conditioning. If you ever read anything I post about training for climbing, you will see that I am ALWAYS an advocate of general conditioning for climbing. Anyway, you should read my earlier posts in this thread--I did talk about the differences between the two and how training should be applied to each. I also mentioned hangboard training and campusing. BTW, Jonathan, I actually was a ballet dancer for 10 years. If you want some more input about how I combined general conditioning (working out) and its beneficial effect in my ballet technique classes, just pm me. to valeberga: We never said weight doesn't matter. (Hello?!) In fact, the whole point was that it MORE than matters. Did you really understand anything being said? I am not a "coat," either--I don't work in a lab, I just apply the results in the real world.
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 11, 2007, 10:05 PM
Post #80 of 143
(9526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
[quote "mindlessroller21"me and my friend were talking today about how beastly strong youd be able to get if you learned how to climb with added weight. I really have no clue what would be a reasonable amount of weight to add. Has anyone ever climbed with added weight? didi it work? how much weight were you adding ?
In reply to: I think they have relevance mainly with regard to general conditioning, but that's not what the OP was talking about Who's skim reading again?
In reply to: No funding for sport science research? I witnessed a lot of it going on when I was in college. I live in England not the USA. Sport Science is not at the top of the list for funding as we don't even have a national sports school (for any sport apart from football). Climbing is way down the list smart arse. How's community college working out for you? I'm interested to know how long these movement adaptions through added weight will take? Doesn't movement skill acquisition take a fair amount of time? Would supplementing weighted climbing with non-weighted climbing not counteract this?
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 11, 2007, 10:17 PM
Post #81 of 143
(9524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
Apologies aerili for being on your back. I just read this on your profile Trad: Leads 5.8 Follows 5.10b Sport: Leads 5.10c Follows 5.11b No offence, but you don't have the relevent experience when it come to anecdotal evidence. Maybe this is why you cite so much.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 11, 2007, 10:36 PM
Post #82 of 143
(9521 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
Lemon boy, You get your own reply separate from the rest. Don't you feel special?
lemon_boy wrote: so, it sounds like you are saying that locking off a hold, dyno-ing, and each of the climbing movements are sport specific. and hangboard training, campusing, and performing certain climbing movements with different weight configurations fall under general conditioning. so, if a climber climbs primarily crimpy routes, and spends a few days climbing sloper dominated routes, where does that fit in? in the overall climbing performance scheme, it seems like it would fit in as sport specific, but relative to his/her primary climbing it would seem that it might fall under general conditioning. again, i think this is an example of where the actual GOAL determines, to some extent, whether a movement is sport specific or other. Hangboard training and campusing ARE general conditioning, albeit highly specific to climbing. (For instance, you wouldn't use these types of conditioning for an equestrian.) But they wouldn't be considered completely specific climbing movements because you don't go out to IC to climb on your favorite natural hangboard, nor do (most people) campus routes. Dig? Climbing sloper routes will always be sport specific even if you primarily climb crimpers because you will always encouter slopers at some point. However, if you make a major effort to avoid routes with slopers, then yes, it may not be your most EFFECTIVE type of sport specific training.
In reply to: that is great that you read the latest journals and attend the conferences, which often have a wealth of useful info. however, i also know from a fair amount of first hand, as well as second hand experience, that these aren't always unbiased, or the amount of ACTUAL USABLE data is not enough to extrapolate a blanket conclusion. i still stand by my statement that performing an entire, unbiased or uncompromised, significant research project in this area is pretty much impossible. there just isn't enough of the population with exact same variables to really bring it together. True, but enough researchers and preeminent hands-on people in the sport science and application field on this topic are, for the most part, agreeing on the results of the subject we're talking about, so that's why if I believe it's quite pertinent to climbing as well. Because it's not the individual sports that are the issue at hand, it's the response to input during the movement execution.
In reply to: i know that you are going to log back on and point out that i am an idiot and that my training methods make me an inferior climber, etc, Actually, I don't think you are an idiot (and I have no opinion on your performance as a climber), but I think you might have a different perspective if you had the same knowledge base I do (and others with a similar background as me). This topic isn't really about being intelligent or not, it's more about understanding what you're dealing with anatomically, physiologically and biomechanically and being objective about the data at hand. I used to think that putting extra resistance during sport movements was a great idea...and I trained football players, lacrosse players, golf players, etc. in this fashion. Then I changed my mind later and I haven't seen any loss of performance come to any athlete because of it.
In reply to: for SOME people, non-specific training might provide more benefit. i love fluxus's book, and i have adhered to it as well as possible for the last year and a half, but to be honest with you, i am climbing 2 to 4 letter grades below the levels i was consistently climbing when i was doing all of my training on the hangboard. i DO feel that i have learned a lot about movement (especially initiating movement from different centers, GOLD! also the CIR info), but i think that i am going to spend 2008 using a mix of the 2 training methods to see how that turns out. I always advocate non-specific training, i.e. general conditioning in conjunction with technique training. I never said one shouldn't use the hangboard or campus, I only clarified that one shouldn't be adding atypical weight to their climbing regimen (unless it's adding the kind of weight you move normally [i.e. pack, haul bag, large rack, trail line, monkey on your back], and in that case, only add it when you are climbing under normal conditions--just not on plastic, hangboard, etc.) So if your plan to mix training follows these general guidelines, my prediction is that you should probably see beneficial effects, given no other variables in your life change.
In reply to: i guess my overall question to aerili (back on the wheel!) is, that some of the sports that have a lot of money at stake, and that are likely to invest in determining these questions, seem to use added weight or resistance as a tool (football, cycling, boxing). do they not put any effort into this sort of research, etc? i do respect your opinions on this, even if my tone is harsh and my questioning hard-headed. have you tested any of these questions on your own climbing? I don't know very much about cycling, as endurance sports are not my thing (although some cyclists are time trial sprinters and therefore power athletes). Strangely, I don't see a lot of research on boxers, either. Anyway, they DO put effort into research on these things--that's where this emerging research is coming from. Case studies are often submitted to journals as well. Case studies (IMO) seem to come up with more muddled results that make things unclear more than anything. (Or at least the ones I have read.) Ask Lance Armstrong if they've put a lot of research into the many aspects of training for cycling. He's got full on exercise physiologist cycling specialists to work with him! And they use a lot of science to get him to be the amazing machine he is. As for running being sport specific--well, it IS sport specific to a large degree, but at the same time no sports (except sprinting in track and field) involve running at top speed in a straight line with nothing else to think about. A 40 yd dash tells us something about the athlete's GENERAL capabilities for speed, but it doesn't tell us specifically how s/he will perform when they must not only run but also dodge, jump, cut, guard, turn 360*, and so on. As for testing these questions on my own climbing, which questions do you mean? If it's about adding extra weight while I climb--the only time I do so is when I'm doing real climbing. Sometimes I put a lot more shit on my rack than I probably need. I figure even if I'm over-racking, it's okay cause it's good training for me when I'm on routes where I really need to do so. Then I am comfortable, adapted, and conditioned to carrying that kind of weight. Ok, time to get outside and climb!
|
|
|
|
|
valeberga
Aug 11, 2007, 11:10 PM
Post #83 of 143
(9506 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2003
Posts: 434
|
aerili wrote: to valeberga: We never said weight doesn't matter. (Hello?!) In fact, the whole point was that it MORE than matters. Did you really understand anything being said? I am not a "coat," either--I don't work in a lab, I just apply the results in the real world. Your respectable contribution to this thread was over after page 1. The rest has been a lot of insults flung at anyone daring to dispute your "negative transfer of skill" dogma. You read some papers. Good for you, thanks for sharing. No, really--what you shared originally is interesting, and we appreciate it. But it's not the Word of God, ok? Your verbal diarrhea and hysterical defensiveness is bordering on religious... Please tell us how "applying the results in the real world" has provided you any special insight into the effect of weighted climbing? Does this mean you have tried it and that it made you worse? ps. who's "we"? The Church of Negative Skill Transfer?
(This post was edited by valeberga on Aug 11, 2007, 11:16 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 12, 2007, 2:26 AM
Post #84 of 143
(9488 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
theclimbinglab wrote: Apologies aerili for being on your back. I just read this on your profile Trad: Leads 5.8 Follows 5.10b Sport: Leads 5.10c Follows 5.11b No offence, but you don't have the relevent experience when it come to anecdotal evidence. Maybe this is why you cite so much. Well, if you think climbing level is important, I lead sport 5.13. More importantly, I've been climbing since the mid-80s and am aware of zero anecdotal evidence that climbing with a weighted vest will improve climbing performance on difficult 5th-class terrain. I have never seen or heard of an elite climber climbing routes with a weight vest, nor does any climbing training book I have ever read recommend it (weighted system board training, and the like, is different, for the reasons already mentioned). I have not read the scientific studies that aerili's sources have conducted; however, the principles she mentions seem sound to me. There is no question that adding weight necessitates a change in movement, and so by adding weight while climbing, you are changing the way you climb, and hence training in poor habits. I would not expect this to lead to an increase in performance, and would not be at all surprised if it led to a decrease, as aerili suggests. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 12, 2007, 4:57 AM
Post #85 of 143
(9472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
lemon_boy wrote: curt, good comment about gymnastics. i think the balance beam would would have quite a bit of getting balanced over the feet. also landing dismounts and trying not to topple over. it seems that the climbers i know that were also involved in gymnastics really take to climbing well. i think the balance, strength conditioning, and flexability help a lot. also, i think that they are mentally tough. some of the feats they perform where being off a bit would result in eating total shit... pretty impressive! I competed in gymnastics myself for 4 years and (being the chauvanist I am) was only considering men's events. Good point about the balance beam--although the type of tumbling movement employed along the balance beam still probably doesn't translate all that directly to smearing or edging properly on small rock features. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 12, 2007, 6:23 PM
Post #86 of 143
(9444 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
Its been a while since you lead 5.13 according to your profile. You may have climbed 5.13 but that doesn't mean you are a 5.13 climber. I haven't heard of the use of weight belts on routes either. I have for boulder problems and campus/fingerboard work. Malcom mentions them here http://www.climbingmasterclass.com/training/protips.asp?author=2 Keeping added weight close to COG would seem to be a necessity to avoid incorrect movement skills. However small increases in weight (say 5kg and below) might not throw you out of cilter. How long would you say it would take to unlearn correct movement skills when only a proportion of your climbing was done in this way?
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 12, 2007, 6:35 PM
Post #87 of 143
(9441 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
Just found this from Eric Horst http://www.climbing.com/print/techtips/ttsport246/
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 13, 2007, 2:47 AM
Post #88 of 143
(9414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
theclimbinglab wrote: Its been a while since you lead 5.13 according to your profile. You may have climbed 5.13 but that doesn't mean you are a 5.13 climber. It's been about 24 hours since I last led 5.13. Not that grades matter at all in this context. You brought up the issue by making the ridiculous suggestion that aerili's opinion was a consequence of her climbing level. I only mentioned my climbing level to show you that someone who climbs harder might share her opinion.
In reply to: Malcom mentions them here http://www.climbingmasterclass.com/training/protips.asp?author=2 Where? I don't see a link. Learn how the fucking website works, already. Edit: And I never claimed to be a "5.13 climber," whatever that may mean. Why does the phrase "STFU" come to mind? Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 13, 2007, 3:02 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 13, 2007, 3:30 AM
Post #89 of 143
(9400 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
heh
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 13, 2007, 3:44 AM
Post #90 of 143
(9394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Heh? As in, you actually think he's made a point here? Jay
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 13, 2007, 3:57 AM
Post #91 of 143
(9386 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: Heh? As in, you actually think he's made a point here? Jay I'm not convinced that climbing with a weight vest is useless as a training method, although I've never done this myself. I had several conversations with Todd Skinner though--who was a big proponent and practicioner of this type of training. He thought it was a great way to become a stronger climber. Of course, Todd only managed to lead 5.13 trad and 5.14 sport climbs--and he is only one guy, so feel free to reject this input as merely "anecdotal." Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 13, 2007, 4:21 AM
Post #92 of 143
(9371 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
curt wrote: jt512 wrote: Heh? As in, you actually think he's made a point here? Jay I'm not convinced that climbing with a weight vest is useless as a training method, although I've never done this myself. I had several conversations with Todd Skinner though--who was a big proponent and practicioner of this type of training. He thought it was a great way to become a stronger climber. Of course, Todd only managed to lead 5.13 trad and 5.14 sport climbs--and he is only one guy, so feel free to reject this input as merely "anecdotal." Curt His input is anecdotal. How much more anecdotal do you want than one guy who did something and claimed that his results were due to it? How about all those other guys that climb 5.14, or 5.15? Do you hear about them training with weight vests? On the other hand, we have controlled experiments showing that attempting movement training with weighted apparatuses is not just worthless, but actually detrimental to performance, together with a mechanism for the effect that is at least plausible. What's missing, of course, is direct demonstration of this effect to climbing. On the other hand, there is little reason to believe that Eric Horst's strengths are much more than self-promotion and book authoring, as opposed to sports physiology, or even training. So, I agree with you insofar that you believe that a slam-dunk case against weighted-vest training for climbing has not been made; but the fact that you have the same detrimental effect demonstrated in controlled studies in multiple non-climbing movement sports, plus a reasonable hypothesis for the underlying mechanism, plus the fact that this training method is not prevalent among elite climbers (unless they're really secretive about it) far outweighs anything Todd Skinner had, and the dubiously qualified Eric Horst has, to say on the subject. Wrt Eric Horst, until he explains, based on sound principles of sports physiology, why climbing movement should benefit from this type of training when it has been shown that movement in other sports suffers, I have absolutely no reason to take his assertions on the subject as anything other than uneducated guesses. Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 13, 2007, 5:30 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 13, 2007, 5:45 AM
Post #93 of 143
(9353 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: curt wrote: jt512 wrote: Heh? As in, you actually think he's made a point here? Jay I'm not convinced that climbing with a weight vest is useless as a training method, although I've never done this myself. I had several conversations with Todd Skinner though--who was a big proponent and practicioner of this type of training. He thought it was a great way to become a stronger climber. Of course, Todd only managed to lead 5.13 trad and 5.14 sport climbs--and he is only one guy, so feel free to reject this input as merely "anecdotal." Curt His input is anecdotal. How much more anecdotal do you want than one guy who did something and claimed that his results were due to it? How about all those other guys that climb 5.14, or 5.15? Do you hear about them training with weight vests? No. However, each of those "other guys" have their own particular training methods by which they became stronger climbers, which probably don't actually work (according to you and others in this thread) because their methods haven't been peer reviewed and published--or some similar bullshit. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Aug 13, 2007, 8:48 AM
Post #94 of 143
(9344 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
from the climbing.com techtip article... http://www.climbing.com/...techtips/ttsport246/
In reply to: Rest for five minutes between problems and ditch the weight belt at the first sign that your technique is suffering. so horts admits that tecnique starts to suffer. and that (plus 10 bouldering) is the only non-general-conditioning excercise that he mentions
In reply to: Favor problems with medium to long reaches, and avoid painfully small holds and out-of-control dynos. and these problems that you should avoid are imho the ones that would suffer most from hypergravity training.
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 13, 2007, 10:30 AM
Post #95 of 143
(9337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
Didn't update your profile? Likely story From what I've read Jay that' one of your major put downs of other people. You said that you lead 5.13. I read that to mean you climb 5.13. Not realising that you only did one in the last 24 hours. How's that working out for you?
In reply to: In reply to: Malcom mentions them here http://www.climbingmasterclass.com/training/protips.asp?author=2 Where? I don't see a link. Learn how the fucking website works, already. Well if you read the interview he mentions training with a weight belt.
In reply to: So do you supplement your bouldering with other forms of strength training? Definitely. I do deadhangs, campusing, locking holds to the neck and 1-armers on a bar or an edge (although the 1-armers are mainly for a tune-up at the start of a session). I also do a few system style problems such as body tension moves at full stretch or front-on with my feet splayed out, or climbing with a weight-belt. I don’t do much isometric (static) work but I would do if I was training for a specific move again like I did for Hubble. I still use weights but for overall body strength rather than climbing strength - I only do compound movements like clean & jerk, deadlift, benchpress, upright row & shoulder press. I’d also use a Bachar ladders if I had one at the moment! I also do an hour of yoga at the end of the day - it really loosens you off and helps you relax and recover mentally as well as physically. I'm pretty sure that's what I said. Malcom MENTIONS his use in this link. Learn how to use a computer. I'm amazed that you haven't given us examples of people who have used a weight belt and found that it was detrimental to their climbing. I'd rather you didn't swear at me during this thread either. It just makes you look like a child. I wasn't rude to you so I expect the same in return
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 13, 2007, 10:37 AM
Post #96 of 143
(9336 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
In reply to: His input is anecdotal. How much more anecdotal do you want than one guy who did something and claimed that his results were due to it? How about all those other guys that climb 5.14, or 5.15? Do you hear about them training with weight vests? Malcom Smith and Ben Moon have both climbed this hard (or there abouts). Where is this evidence from ANYBODY that weightbelts don't work
In reply to: On the other hand, we have controlled experiments showing that attempting movement training with weighted apparatuses is not just worthless, but actually detrimental to performance, together with a mechanism for the effect that is at least plausible. What's missing, of course, is direct demonstration of this effect to climbing Did people not already state that these exercises were not complex enough? I can't remember anymore. If that IS the case then a more complex exercise like climbing would be more resitant to incorrect movement over a short period of time. Pretty much what Horst states.
In reply to: plus the fact that this training method is not prevalent among elite climbers (unless they're really secretive about it) Maybe this is more to do with you not being in touch with these top climbers. Maybe you were rude to them via the internet?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 13, 2007, 4:34 PM
Post #97 of 143
(9310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
theclimbinglab wrote: You said that you lead 5.13. I read that to mean you climb 5.13. Yes, I climb 5.13 sport routes, so you read and interpreted something correctly. Any chance we're going to see that from you twice in a row?
In reply to: Not realising that you only did one in the last 24 hours. How's that working out for you? Huh?
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Malcom mentions them here http://www.climbingmasterclass.com/training/protips.asp?author=2 Where? I don't see a link. Learn how the fucking website works, already. Well if you read the interview he mentions training with a weight belt. You can either take 15 seconds to post a link properly, or you can be lazy and expect 100 other people to each take 15 seconds to copy and paste the URL you were to lazy to post as a link. LEARN HOW THE FUCKING WEBSITE WORKS.
In reply to: I'd rather you didn't swear at me during this thread either. It just makes you look like a child. I wasn't rude to you so I expect the same in return I'd rather you not:- Discourteously post URLs as plain text, instead of taking the 15 seconds necessary to post them as links.
- Put words in my mouth.
- Make idiotic and insulting comments to aerili, who has been the most insightful contributor to the thread.
- Insinuate that I've been disingenuous about my climbing level.
- Confound the controversial issue of climbing with weights with he banal issue of doing climbing excercises with weights.
I contend that by these actions you have been pretty fucking rude. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 13, 2007, 4:58 PM
Post #98 of 143
(9303 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
I used to use diver's weights...you can easily slip them into your pockets and climb normal...its pretty stealthy and people don't know you are using them. Its better to not flaunt such things. Try 4 lbs, then increase in 2lb increments.
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 13, 2007, 5:09 PM
Post #99 of 143
(9296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
Its nice to see your true colours. I wasn't rude to aerili. I just didn't realise she didn't climb very well. Its hard to comment on something like advanced training without doing that same training yourself. I did apologise when I realised my mistake. # Discourteously post URLs as plain text, instead of taking the 15 seconds necessary to post them as links. Hardly being rude # Put words in my mouth. Which words? You said that you Lead 5.13. Which your profile didn't back up. I seem to recall you pointing this out to other people before. # Make idiotic and insulting comments to aerili, who has been the most insightful contributor to the thread. Who has no practical basis to be making those claims. People should be aware of that when they discuss a topic. # Insinuate that I've been disingenuous about my climbing level. Easy tiger. Maybe you should update your profile more often. Just interpreting the facts # Confound the controversial issue of climbing with weights with he banal issue of doing climbing excercises with weights Maybe you should read the article again. Malcom talks about weighted climbing. Learn to use your eyes please. I posted the whole link so people could look at the background of other training. Here it is again, just for you Jay. I've posted it in bold as a clue.
In reply to: Definitely. I do deadhangs, campusing, locking holds to the neck and 1-armers on a bar or an edge (although the 1-armers are mainly for a tune-up at the start of a session). I also do a few system style problems such as body tension moves at full stretch or front-on with my feet splayed out, or climbing with a weight-belt. I don’t do much isometric (static) work but I would do if I was training for a specific move again like I did for Hubble. I still use weights but for overall body strength rather than climbing strength - I only do compound movements like clean & jerk, deadlift, benchpress, upright row & shoulder press. I’d also use a Bachar ladders if I had one at the moment! I also do an hour of yoga at the end of the day - it really loosens you off and helps you relax and recover mentally as well as physically. Thanks for the personal attack I hope people realise what you are like now (if they didn't already). If you can't take it, don't give it. Maybe try answering the points I raised. Do you know anyone that has adverse movement skills from weighted climbing. If so how long did that adaption take. Another link for you to insult http://www.nicros.com/archive/hypergravity_bouldering.cfm This is just as bad as the last no? Does Eric not post on here sometimes? Maybe we could ask his advice?
|
|
|
|
|
serpico
Aug 13, 2007, 5:26 PM
Post #100 of 143
(9279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 139
|
If I'm going to take somebodies advice on climbing training I'd want them to have some sort of qualification in the field, and a track record of proven results coaching others. As I understand it Eric has neither, he doesn't coach for a living, he's used these drills extensively himself and yet even though he boasts about the amount of weight he adds to himself he doesn't actually climb hard. As for Malcolm, I've climbed with Malc and he is obscenely strong, but his movement ability is not at the same level as his strength. Remember what Morstad said about Malc in OTE? "If he ever learnt to initiate movement with his lower body just imagine what he could achieve". There's a lot to be learned from this thread, it's a pity it's turned into a slagging match and pissing contest.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 13, 2007, 6:13 PM
Post #101 of 143
(10572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
theclimbinglab wrote: Its nice to see your true colours. I wasn't rude to aerili. Yeah, actually you were rude and sarcastic.
In reply to: # Discourteously post URLs as plain text, instead of taking the 15 seconds necessary to post them as links. Hardly being rude In your opinion.
In reply to: # Put words in my mouth. Which words? You said that I claimed to be "a 5.13 climber," which, I assume you know, would imply that I'm solid at the grade. Well, I'm certainly not solid at 5.13, nor did I post anything that suggested that I am. I merely claimed that I "lead 5.13 sport climbs," which I absolutely do. Thus, either due to poor reading comprehension or intentional misrepresentation, you publicly and wrongly accused me of misrepresenting my climbing level, an accusation that I flatly deny.
In reply to: You said that you Lead 5.13. Which your profile didn't back up. I seem to recall you pointing this out to other people before. I point out when people misrepresent their climbing level, which is pretty common around here. A lot of users here are on-line liars. I'm not one of them, Asshole. About half the routes I've done in the last two years are at a crag that does not, and will not, appear in the routes database until the guy who has invested thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours cleaning the routes, building the trails, and equipping the crag gives the okay to publicize it. Since the crag isn't in the database, the routes aren't in my profile, not that I owe you, or anybody else, a duty to enter them, anyway.
In reply to: # Make idiotic and insulting comments to aerili, who has been the most insightful contributor to the thread. Who has no practical basis to be making those claims. People should be aware of that when they discuss a topic. You could have broached that issue in an entirely impersonal and objective manner; but you didn't, instead making sarcastic comments to someone gracious enough to share actual professional expertise on the board, something that's rare enough around here. Few professionals are willing to share information on these boards specifically because what they get in return are undeserved insults from know-nothings like you.
In reply to: # Insinuate that I've been disingenuous about my climbing level. Easy tiger. Fuck off, you condescending prick.
In reply to: Maybe you should update your profile more often. Just interpreting the facts And what are we to infer from the "facts" in your profile, that you don't climb at all?
In reply to: # Confound the controversial issue of climbing with weights with he banal issue of doing climbing excercises with weights Maybe you should read the article again. Malcom talks about weighted climbing. Learn to use your eyes please. Maybe you should reread your posts and edit out all the examples I was referring to when I wrote that you were confounding weighted climbing exercises with weighted climbing. Learn to use your brain, please.
In reply to: Thanks for the personal attack I hope people realise what you are like now (if they didn't already). You're welcome. You attacked aerili; I attacked you.
In reply to: Maybe try answering the points I raised. Do you know anyone that has adverse movement skills from weighted climbing. If so how long did that adaption take. Maybe try raising intelligent points, instead of asking obviously stupid questions. The whole point of aerili's information is that professional athletes have been unknowingly harming their performance for decades by doing weighted sport-specific movement. It took controlled scientific studies to ascertain this. If it took controlled experiments to detect this adverse training effect, then how the hell would I know anyone who "has adverse climbing skills [sic] from weighted climbing", or how long it took such an adverse effect to accrue.
In reply to: Another link for you to insult http://www.nicros.com/archive/hypergravity_bouldering.cfm I don't know how to insult a link, just as you, apparently, don't know how to post one.
In reply to: Does Eric not post on here sometimes? Maybe we could ask his advice? What I would like to know from Eric Horst is what objective evidence he has, if any, for his claims that weighted bouldering does more good than harm to climbing performance, or is more effective than other means of training; and what scientific basis he has, if any, that climbing movement isn't harmed by weighted sport-specific movement training, in light of a body of controlled research that predicts that it would. Without that information, Eric's claims for weighted bouldering are just unsupported assertions. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Aug 13, 2007, 6:27 PM
Post #102 of 143
(10562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
theclimbinglab wrote: Apologies aerili for being on your back. I just read this on your profile Trad: Leads 5.8 Follows 5.10b Sport: Leads 5.10c Follows 5.11b No offence, but you don't have the relevent experience when it come to anecdotal evidence. Maybe this is why you cite so much. This is a "prickish" response for many reasons, least of all that you have posted nothing. Using your logic, we should infer that you've never climbed and hence, all of your posts should be deleted from this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 13, 2007, 6:37 PM
Post #103 of 143
(10553 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
Go ahead and take a look at my tick list. Does that make me any more or less knowledable than any other people on the site? hrmph...
|
|
|
|
|
jbak
Aug 13, 2007, 6:42 PM
Post #104 of 143
(10550 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 63
|
Funny that I just bought a 16 lb vest and then ran into this thread. Now I've just got to try it !
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 13, 2007, 7:20 PM
Post #105 of 143
(10539 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
You want qualifications and studies? Heh In an attempt to sidestep the internet slagging that is starting up, and in an attempt to interject some REAL facts: we at the Society for Laughingly Anti-Performance and Advanced Studies of Stupidity (Slapass) have initiated a peer reviewed study of the effects of the strength of weight-added to mice. You will be happy to learn that this was more complex than a double blind Slapass study, and in fact was a triple blind Slapass study. Furthermore, we did not induce this vision loss on the mice, but in fact started with actual blind mice. Thus the name of the study: the "3 Blind Mice Study". First we had to see how they run. See how they run. We observed them running up to the Farmers wife, so we have took those who were timed multiple times to be the slowest, as noted by their tails having been cut off with a carving knife, and added weights to their lil Center of Gravitys" (COG). Study mice were then put on a treadmill that measured the effeciacy of the weight added to the mice. We have found that a 10 lb weight, added in a rapid manner directly to their COG, is enough to kill 100% of the blind mice. Reduction of the weight to 5 lbs causes a similar effect. We will add this to our previous findings which resulted in gaining the knowledge that hitting yourself on the head with a hammer is ineffective as a learning tool.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 13, 2007, 7:23 PM
Post #106 of 143
(10533 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
We at the Society would hope this is the final word on the subject, but are aware that JT5.12 always has to have that.
|
|
|
|
|
serpico
Aug 13, 2007, 7:45 PM
Post #107 of 143
(10524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 139
|
In reply to: We will add this to our previous findings which resulted in gaining the knowledge that hitting yourself on the head with a hammer is ineffective as a learning tool. I disagree, I tried it once and I learnt not to do it again.
|
|
|
|
|
carlos_a
Aug 13, 2007, 8:37 PM
Post #108 of 143
(10502 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 9, 2006
Posts: 34
|
I personally have not climbed with added weight, but did manage to read all the responses and came to a conclusion for myself. I appolagize if this pisses anyone off, is wrong, or incorrect in anyway. It sounds like using weight is good for general conditioning or strengthening your fingers/grip however using it for climbing may not be the best idea, due to the effects it may have on your technique. Take it or leave it, and I have no education on strength training and such, have done alot of research, but do not consider my self a proffesional in any way. Best wishes to all and hope you all have fun climbing and get as good as you hope. P.S. I did appreciate a majority of the reply's and feel I have learned alot from them, especially aerialli(sorry I think I incorrectly spelled that) and Jay.
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 13, 2007, 9:03 PM
Post #109 of 143
(10492 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
Sorry for the slagging match. I'm not going to defend my position anymore. But..................... -adding weight has, for many people, helped their climbing -climbing too much with added weight could well effect efficient movement based on other research in unrelated sports -Eric Horst is not well regarded by Jay - No evidence has been put forward that weighted climbing in bad for you, apart from Mr Smith who is still climbing pretty hard -Jay is rude to most of the people on Rockclimbing.com and may or not have climbed 5.13 but it was at an undisclosed location that we can't go to . But climbs about 5.12 elsewhere. -I like to argue Peace and fucking x
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 13, 2007, 10:05 PM
Post #110 of 143
(10476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
dbrayack wrote: Go ahead and take a look at my tick list. Does that make me any more or less knowledable than any other people on the site? hrmph... If your profile is correct, and those grades are accurate then yes it makes you less knowlegeable about advanced training. To climb those grades you don't need to be able to campus or deadhang. If you did these exercises and still only climbed those grades then I'd be worried for you. Therefore I'd say if you had any knowledge about these activities it came from a book. Some of these books might not be telling the whole truth. To be fair I'd take anyones opinion on the subject who had actually tried to climb with extra weight. I was just arguing against Jay and Co who can't see the other side of the argument and make people feel bad about not reading research papers. I've an academic background and have been coaching for over 10 years. I'd love to see research to prove me wrong/right but the chances are it's not going to happen. Quoting research in other areas is fine but is not perfect, nor is anecdotal evidence. If I was to do any climbing with added weight I would restrict it to 5Kg or less. I'd try to keep it as close to my Centre Of Gravity (COG) as possible and restrict the amount of volume compared to my total time spent climbing. I'd also be careful not to fall on the weights! I could have told you this in the 1st page but this thread had already turned into willy waving before I arrived. Malcom may not have the best movement skills in the world. How about Jerry/Ben/Simpson? They have all used the dreaded weight belt. How about the Earl, Arron? I've seen many technical problems beasted, but rarely do I see a powerful move made easier with technique
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Aug 13, 2007, 10:31 PM
Post #111 of 143
(10460 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
theclimbinglab wrote: dbrayack wrote: Go ahead and take a look at my tick list. Does that make me any more or less knowledable than any other people on the site? hrmph... If your profile is correct, and those grades are accurate then yes it makes you less knowlegeable about advanced training. To climb those grades you don't need to be able to campus or deadhang. If you did these exercises and still only climbed those grades then I'd be worried for you. Therefore I'd say if you had any knowledge about these activities it came from a book. Some of these books might not be telling the whole truth. well, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. the grade climbed tells you next to nothing about the persons experience.
theclimbinglab wrote: I've seen many technical problems beasted, but rarely do I see a powerful move made easier with technique a good friend of mine (who is also, by 'coincidence' an assistant coach to our national youth team and on a fast track to being the most popular comp route setter in the contry and getting an international license) once injured hes shoulder. he couldnt climb at all for 6 months. and afterwards, he came to the gym and bested everybody (even the 'instructors'; i was a noob then and it really seemed a great feat), and i bet you it wasnt because he was so strong. and some of the things he climbed were what you would call 'powerfull problems'. even after that injury, he has climbed 8a (.13?) within a month. how did he do it? well, he has exeptional technique. he is by far not the strongest climber i know, but is definitely most consistent. even when hes 'out of form' you can pretty much bet he can crank any 8a you throw at him. last week he was 4th on a bouldering comp in bulgaria, while some far stronger climbers than he finished far worse. and that was after climbing (and drinking and being hung over) for a week after a 1.5 months without a serious training session. and you know what? he has never, ever, used a weighted vest, at least to my knowledge. i will ask him about it, but im pretty much sure hes reaction to the question will be laughter. in fact, i dont know of any climber in my country that uses such a training method. i could say the opposite... i have seen many a 'power move' turned into something easy by proper technique and i have rarely seen a really technical problem turned into something requiring superhuman strength. but maybe its just a difference in how we do certain things
|
|
|
|
|
serpico
Aug 13, 2007, 10:54 PM
Post #112 of 143
(10447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 139
|
In reply to: Malcom may not have the best movement skills in the world. How about Jerry/Ben/Simpson? They have all used the dreaded weight belt. How about the Earl, Arron? I've seen many technical problems beasted, but rarely do I see a powerful move made easier with technique First off it's Arran, and who be you? coz now you've really creeped me out. Re: The Earl, I've only climbed with Andy a couple of times and the one thing that struck me about him is his speed at latching holds - nobody pulls in and shoots an arm out to latch a hold faster , he's king of the deadpoint. And this is the point, you say you've never seen a powerful move made easier with technique, but if we're really talking about power ie: force x speed, then the inter-muscular coordination involved is the ultimate expression of technique. Usually casually dismissed as a lunge it's actually for a single movement got the highest skill requirement. I'd love weighted climbing to be consequence free because it would solve the problem of how to up the intensity of my endurance circuit on my attic board without having to reset every couple of sessions. It may be that because of the way my board is set: lots of feet movements to slow the pace, and no dynamic or tenuous moves, that wearing a belt maybe wouldn't do too much damage to my technique (if any). I'd never wear one for bouldering though because the technique element is just too high. From Aerili's and others posts the 2 main elements seem to me to be: 1: The speed at which the movement is carried out, and this it appears has conclusive research to show that you get fastest (at a given movement) at the weight you train at. So for climbing if you consider that we're not dealing with a constant weight distribution (because of differing hold spacing and qualities) we're never going to be at our optimum across all move possibilities because of the amount of novel moves we encounter, unlike a shot putter who always deals with the same load and movement, so a weight belt will (speculating here obviously) have neither a positive or negative effect. 2: Movement engrams. Here I see a weight belt having the potential for cocking things up, not just in terms of disrupting the COG, but also because in any move involving momentum you're dealing with predicted outcome based on past experience: If you deadpoint to a hold you're generating momentum based on past experience of speed,force and trajectory, climbing with an abnormal mass is going to build conflicting engrams. So now come clean, have we met? Are you watching me now?............
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 14, 2007, 5:12 AM
Post #113 of 143
(10401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
jt512 wrote: His input is anecdotal. How much more anecdotal do you want than one guy who did something and claimed that his results were due to it? How about all those other guys that climb 5.14, or 5.15? Do you hear about them training with weight vests? On the other hand, we have controlled experiments showing that attempting movement training with weighted apparatuses is not just worthless, but actually detrimental to performance, together with a mechanism for the effect that is at least plausible. What's missing, of course, is direct demonstration of this effect to climbing. On the other hand, there is little reason to believe that Eric Horst's strengths are much more than self-promotion and book authoring, as opposed to sports physiology, or even training. So, I agree with you insofar that you believe that a slam-dunk case against weighted-vest training for climbing has not been made; but the fact that you have the same detrimental effect demonstrated in controlled studies in multiple non-climbing movement sports, plus a reasonable hypothesis for the underlying mechanism, plus the fact that this training method is not prevalent among elite climbers (unless they're really secretive about it) far outweighs anything Todd Skinner had, and the dubiously qualified Eric Horst has, to say on the subject. Wrt Eric Horst, until he explains, based on sound principles of sports physiology, why climbing movement should benefit from this type of training when it has been shown that movement in other sports suffers, I have absolutely no reason to take his assertions on the subject as anything other than uneducated guesses. Jay This is a super good summary that really does take things into account fairly and objectively. I do agree with Jay that Horst has an agenda as well—to sell books and make money promoting himself, and he has little to no real competition in this arena of the climbing world. Hence the reason I don’t buy into everything he espouses. Also, I’ve looked at the limited climbing studies he advocates and the drawback (that I recall) is that none of them are really looking at the same thing, they are all different, sample sizes are regrettably small, etc. Furthermore, the reality of the term “anecdotal evidence” is an oxymoron. But we’ll use it with agreed acknowledgment of this fact, eh? And whether we like it or not, it goes without saying that anecdotal evidence is, for the most part, pretty useless. Any “results” people confidently believe they have derived are confounded by too many other variables not controlled for. This is a very important point!! People like Todd Skinner had too many variables in the form of genetic influences, other training factors, etc. to be able to say anything about the single influence of his use of weighted devices (plus who knows how he was using them, how often, in combination with what for how long, and so on). Soooo… if some of our readers think research-driven science is useless, then please stop driving your car, using the Internet, going to the doctor, filtering your water, drinking pasteurized milk, taking antibiotics for that strep throat, and so on….and just join the Amish community (actually, even they’re too modern). Science doesn’t answer everything immediately and with crystal clarity, but it’s sure taken us a long way from the flat earth society, aye? For people like climbinglab who really believe that climbing grade = competent understanding of training principles (even ADVANCED ones), get real. What this fails to understand is the difference between a CONDITIONING COACH and a SPORTS COACH. They are two separate entities and, in the normal athletic world (i.e. not climbing), they do separate things. Did I ever claim to coach any athlete in their actual game or technique? Of course not. What I CAN do is train and coach people on the conditioning aspects necessary for their desired sport. For instance, do you really think that all job openings for people like me go something like this: “Open position for strength coach overseeing wrestling and women’s softball: must be NSCA CSCS certified, possess a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree in exercise science, have 5 years’ experience, and have been both Division I wrestler and softball player [genders notwithstanding] for all four years. MVPs and full scholarships will be given extra special consideration.” To further point out how silly this is, I will illustrate with an actual story of how I trained a former collegiate level golfer for well over a year. Several months into the program she added 30 yards to her drive while performing her conditioning with me, despite the fact that I have never golfed even once. A high school baseball pitcher I worked with increased his top pitch speed by 3mph, a speed he was unable to break previously. I sure as hell can’t pitch and I am the worst baseball player on earth, frankly. (For the record, neither individual practiced swinging or throwing weighted golf clubs or baseballs.) I have other stories of training athletes who added measurable components to their performance in sports I have never played myself, but I think that will make things more clear as to “what” I am (even if I am only a moderate climber). As I mentioned, most climbers don’t think about (and what most high level, competitive climbers unfortunately lack) is the combination of conditioning coach and technique/i.e. “regular” coach so standard in the upper echelons of other sports. The conditioning coach is typically the individual(s) responsible for the general and sport specific conditioning of the athlete (in this case, “sport specific” means the fitness capacities specifically required by the sport); their backgrounds are almost UNIFORMLY required to be ones of certified and degreed education + relevant experience conditioning many types of athletes. The regular coach, on the other hand, takes care of actual practice, i.e. working on the athlete’s skill and game technique, real live sport simulation for competition, and so forth. These coaches are rarely educated in the fitness conditioning aspects required of their athletes, but they ARE usually required to have been actual, high level former competitors themselves with a demonstrated past performance of advanced skill (and the best coaches typically have a natural talent for nurturing the mental aspects of the game as well…this is not really the realm of the conditioning coach). The two are equally important and should ideally collaborate when necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 14, 2007, 5:28 AM
Post #114 of 143
(10396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
serpico wrote: From Aerili's and others posts the 2 main elements seem to me to be: 1: The speed at which the movement is carried out, and this it appears has conclusive research to show that you get fastest (at a given movement) at the weight you train at. So for climbing if you consider that we're not dealing with a constant weight distribution (because of differing hold spacing and qualities) we're never going to be at our optimum across all move possibilities because of the amount of novel moves we encounter, unlike a shot putter who always deals with the same load and movement, so a weight belt will (speculating here obviously) have neither a positive or negative effect. 2: Movement engrams. Here I see a weight belt having the potential for cocking things up, not just in terms of disrupting the COG, but also because in any move involving momentum you're dealing with predicted outcome based on past experience: If you deadpoint to a hold you're generating momentum based on past experience of speed,force and trajectory, climbing with an abnormal mass is going to build conflicting engrams. I don't know what engrams are, serpico, but I think your analysis is pretty good, actually, although I would hedge that a heavy belt/vest/whatever would PROBABLY have negative effects on skill and a lighter one might possibly have no effect at all--but still, an extra 11 pounds (i.e. 5 kg) would probably make a person of my size have a big change in mechanics. I find it interesting that climbinglab states he would only use "5 kg or less"...I am not sure where he got that number except that I have only read it recommended as the maximum theoretical weight to "do no harm and MAYBE good" in resisted sprinting.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 14, 2007, 5:44 AM
Post #115 of 143
(10391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
aerili wrote: ...And whether we like it or not, it goes without saying that anecdotal evidence is, for the most part, pretty useless. Any “results” people confidently believe they have derived are confounded by too many other variables not controlled for. This is a very important point!! People like Todd Skinner had too many variables in the form of genetic influences, other training factors, etc. to be able to say anything about the single influence of his use of weighted devices (plus who knows how he was using them, how often, in combination with what for how long, and so on)... Well, I think the point is that Todd has plainly stated that this type of training did benefit his performance as a climber. Are you claiming that you can prove he was wrong? Curt
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 14, 2007, 5:50 AM
Post #116 of 143
(10386 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
curt wrote: Well, I think the point is that Todd has plainly stated that this type of training did benefit his performance as a climber. Are you claiming that you can prove he was wrong? Curt Todd did a lot of other things as well Curt. He did the forearm wrist curls to bulk up his forearm muscles, AND he was a professional climber, who climbed ALL the Frikkan time. ALL THE TIME. Who can really say? I see baseball players grab 3 bats and swing them to get warm, and some do not do this. Who can say? Well, conclusively, there are certainly 3 blind mice who would say something...........but their little jaws got slammed shut when the weight was dropped on their little asses.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 14, 2007, 6:03 AM
Post #117 of 143
(10381 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
billcoe_ wrote: curt wrote: Well, I think the point is that Todd has plainly stated that this type of training did benefit his performance as a climber. Are you claiming that you can prove he was wrong? Curt Todd did a lot of other things as well Curt. He did the forearm wrist curls to bulk up his forearm muscles, AND he was a professional climber, who climbed ALL the Frikkan time. ALL THE TIME. Who can really say? I see baseball players grab 3 bats and swing them to get warm, and some do not do this. Who can say? Well, conclusively, there are certainly 3 blind mice who would say something...........but their little jaws got slammed shut when the weight was dropped on their little asses. Were you trying to make any particular point? The fact that Todd climbed "all the time" and that he also employed additional training methods does not negate the fact that he found climbing with a weight vest to be beneficial. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 14, 2007, 6:08 AM
Post #118 of 143
(10376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
curt wrote: Well, I think the point is that Todd has plainly stated that this type of training did benefit his performance as a climber. Are you claiming that you can prove he was wrong? Curt My dear Curt, don't you know the burden of proof is on the claim being made, i.e. weighted vests made Todd strong? Burden of proof is never to DISprove sumptin'. Todd may have believed they made him stronger, but that doesn't make it an unquestionable reality. Besides, like I said, I bet he couldn't even reasonably quantify a ratio of influence they may have had, especially if he wasn't doing a structured application with the weight consistently and without changing ANYthing else, know what I'm sayin'... Now, billcoe, you are more than hilarious with your three blind mice....It's too bad your research is so unethical and inhumane! We might have to ban you from further inquiries of this matter....
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 14, 2007, 6:17 AM
Post #119 of 143
(10371 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
curt wrote: aerili wrote: ...And whether we like it or not, it goes without saying that anecdotal evidence is, for the most part, pretty useless. Any “results” people confidently believe they have derived are confounded by too many other variables not controlled for. This is a very important point!! People like Todd Skinner had too many variables in the form of genetic influences, other training factors, etc. to be able to say anything about the single influence of his use of weighted devices (plus who knows how he was using them, how often, in combination with what for how long, and so on)... Well, I think the point is that Todd has plainly stated that this type of training did benefit his performance as a climber. Are you claiming that you can prove he was wrong? Curt I can't speak for Aerili, but I have little faith in people's ability to accurately determine the extent to which what they think affected their performance actually did. I've seen too many stories that were either outright implausible or else later disproved by well-controlled studies, to put much faith at all into these sort of anecdotal reports. Professional baseball players swear that swinging weighted bats helps their batting in spite of sound research having apparently proven that this is harmful to performance. Horst says that climbing with weights makes climbing without weights "feel" effortless. Problem is that the climber's subjective judgment of how climbing "feels" is irrelevant; what is relevant is how objective measurements of his climbing performance have been affected by the training activity. Given the unreliability of subjective impression, without concrete, objective evidence, I cannot take Skinner's or Horst's claims seriously. I am equally skeptical of my own experiences. I lost 8 pounds in the weeks before my hardest redpoint attempt. Was that important? I don't really know. It's tempting to say that it was because it is plausible, and many, if not most, climbers, would not hesitate to claim that it was. But, who knows, maybe it was just a coincidence. After all, I also only got 4 hours sleep and drank no less than a bottle and a half of $2 red wine on the night before I sent the route. Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 14, 2007, 6:24 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Aug 14, 2007, 6:21 AM
Post #120 of 143
(10374 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
jt512 wrote: After all, I also only got 4 hours sleep and drank no less than a bottle and a half of $2 red wine on the night before I sent the route. Jay Shocked. Stunned!
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 14, 2007, 6:22 AM
Post #121 of 143
(10371 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
climbsomething wrote: jt512 wrote: After all, I also only got 4 hours sleep and drank no less than a bottle and a half of $2 red wine on the night before I sent the route. Jay Shocked. Stunned! Hey, I usually get 8 hours of sleep, and drink only 1 bottle of cheap red wine. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
serpico
Aug 14, 2007, 9:44 AM
Post #122 of 143
(10359 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 139
|
You might know engrams better as schemas or motor programs? I agree that skill is the area where added weight will likely be detrimental to performance. My first point was that in terms of a weight belt disrupting optimal rate coding/rate of force development etc as in the studies, as climbers we don't have an optimal RC/RFD because we're never dealing with the same load distribution for any 2 moves.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Aug 15, 2007, 3:59 PM
Post #123 of 143
(10283 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
aerili wrote: My dear Curt, don't you know the burden of proof is on the claim being made, i.e. weighted vests made Todd strong? Burden of proof is never to DISprove sumptin'. Very well, so why don't you prove what you are claiming? That using a weighted belt is detrimental to climbing.
jt512 wrote: Problem is that the climber's subjective judgment of how climbing "feels" is irrelevant Couldn't disagree more. You are completely throwing out the mental aspects of climbing. How a climb "feels" is extremely important to the end result in climbing. Whether or not a weighted belt is actually making one stronger is debatable, but if it makes the climb "feel" easier then who cares?
|
|
|
|
|
jto
Aug 15, 2007, 4:02 PM
Post #124 of 143
(10280 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 272
|
Interesting topic. (My background is a power and strength coach for over 15 years. I have been around climbing world for the last 5 years.) - Many athletes use overweighted stuff in sport specific training with a lot of success. One example might be a hammer throw. The ahtletes might do over 70% (!) of their throwing training with oversized hammers. The success is quite dependant of the sport and the athletes abilities to maintain good technique. - Climbers use weight vests too. Dave G reported using one too :) . A lot of frenchmen and spaniards use it as do many others in Europe. One good example up here north is Nalle Hukkataival from Finland (bouldering up to 8B+) who uses a vest quite often. - Weight vests etc ARE bad for technique as they change the COG and that way the movement pattern etc. This is especially true in very movement centered sports as climbing is. - Added weight in sport specific training must be carried out with a certain target in mind. In climbing one could use added weights for system wall type of exercises to work lock offs, body tension and finger strength etc. - When training for climbing (movement skills) itself the added weight should not be used. This is the case in the most of the exercise sessions of course. - If one likes to be very powerful in let´s say dynos the main target of training is movement training. When one can initiate the movement correctly it´s time to add speed and target the fast cells more. There´s no use training speed with a bad technique. - If one likes to use weights the training must be general. No sport specific but raw iron in the gym etc. Get the muscles strong and then use very strict movement training to make them powerful. Neural stuff that is. - About coaching: The coach can´t be the best athlete or even have very good results to show. Quite often the best coaches are those not so good in the sport they coach. The best athletes are the most gifted ones not the ones who know the most about training. Also a good coaching skill is also a gift. One example is a dentist (!) here in Finland who has coached a lot of World Champion and Olympic Champion javelin throwers and I might bet he has never thrown one himself :) Cheers :)
(This post was edited by jto on Aug 15, 2007, 4:33 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 15, 2007, 4:36 PM
Post #125 of 143
(10633 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
mturner wrote: aerili wrote: My dear Curt, don't you know the burden of proof is on the claim being made, i.e. weighted vests made Todd strong? Burden of proof is never to DISprove sumptin'. Very well, so why don't you prove what you are claiming? That using a weighted belt is detrimental to climbing. jt512 wrote: Problem is that the climber's subjective judgment of how climbing "feels" is irrelevant Couldn't disagree more. You are completely throwing out the mental aspects of climbing. How a climb "feels" is extremely important to the end result in climbing. Whether or not a weighted belt is actually making one stronger is debatable, but if it makes the climb "feel" easier then who cares? What you are proposing is that a weighted vest might work as a placebo. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Aug 15, 2007, 6:04 PM
Post #126 of 143
(5899 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
serpico wrote: You might know engrams better as schemas or motor programs? . FYI Engrams, schemas and motor programs are NOT the same thing. Engrams for example is a general term used in some fields to describe information stored in the brain. You can have an olfactory engram or verbal engram etc.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Aug 15, 2007, 6:24 PM
Post #127 of 143
(5893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
I think Performance Rockclimbing uses "engram" in a way that is synonymous with "schema." I'm not saying they're right, I'm saying that might be the source of the confusion of terms.
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Aug 15, 2007, 7:41 PM
Post #128 of 143
(5873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
Well there's that, and there is also the fact that a motor program really is something quite specific to movement. Dale and Udo state that an engram is a complete record of a movement. I take this to be entirely unsupported by the available science. But further, their use of the term engram does not really jib with the current undertanding of what motor programs are and how they work. This is why I emphasied the idea of general motor programs in the book because I think that's the best description of how we learn and execuite climbing movements.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Aug 15, 2007, 10:04 PM
Post #129 of 143
(5853 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
jt512 wrote: mturner wrote: aerili wrote: My dear Curt, don't you know the burden of proof is on the claim being made, i.e. weighted vests made Todd strong? Burden of proof is never to DISprove sumptin'. Very well, so why don't you prove what you are claiming? That using a weighted belt is detrimental to climbing. jt512 wrote: Problem is that the climber's subjective judgment of how climbing "feels" is irrelevant Couldn't disagree more. You are completely throwing out the mental aspects of climbing. How a climb "feels" is extremely important to the end result in climbing. Whether or not a weighted belt is actually making one stronger is debatable, but if it makes the climb "feel" easier then who cares? What you are proposing is that a weighted vest might work as a placebo. Jay Well I'm not going to roll over and say I agree with that but if I must than at least with a greater emphasis on "might." All I was trying to say is that when looking at the end result you can't disregard the mental aspect of it. If it "feels" easier then it "feels" easier...isn't that what you want, placebo effect or not?
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 16, 2007, 12:22 AM
Post #130 of 143
(5834 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
mturner wrote: Very well, so why don't you prove what you are claiming? That using a weighted belt is detrimental to climbing. Maybe you didn't quite understand. The actual claim being made is that "weighted appartuses worn during climbing make people better/stronger climbers" and people like Todd Skinner, etc. etc. somehow prove it. I am saying that when research has looked into associated claims (to "prove" boosts in performance), it's actually finding there is no evidence of this. It's a logical fallacy for us to think: "It's true that using weights while climbing will make climbers improve their performance because there is no proof that this is false."
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 16, 2007, 12:38 AM
Post #131 of 143
(5831 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
aerili wrote: mturner wrote: Very well, so why don't you prove what you are claiming? That using a weighted belt is detrimental to climbing. Maybe you didn't quite understand. The actual claim being made is that "weighted appartuses worn during climbing make people better/stronger climbers" and people like Todd Skinner, etc. etc. somehow prove it. I am saying that when research has looked into associated claims (to "prove" boosts in performance), it's actually finding there is no evidence of this... There is also a "study" posted somewhere on this very site that claims that chalk does not improve friction between a climbers hand and the rock. I can't tell you exactly what is wrong with that study--but I can certainly tell you it is wrong. Not everything that gets published is Gospel. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 16, 2007, 4:17 AM
Post #132 of 143
(5803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
curt wrote: aerili wrote: mturner wrote: Very well, so why don't you prove what you are claiming? That using a weighted belt is detrimental to climbing. Maybe you didn't quite understand. The actual claim being made is that "weighted appartuses worn during climbing make people better/stronger climbers" and people like Todd Skinner, etc. etc. somehow prove it. I am saying that when research has looked into associated claims (to "prove" boosts in performance), it's actually finding there is no evidence of this... There is also a "study" posted somewhere on this very site that claims that chalk does not improve friction between a climbers hand and the rock. I can't tell you exactly what is wrong with that study--but I can certainly tell you it is wrong. Not everything that gets published is Gospel. Curt But that study was essentially a laboratory study, not a controlled trial with an objective measure of climbing performance as the endpoint. It's pretty clear that in that study the endpoint they measured was not directly relevant to the effect of chalk in climbing. In contrast, the studies that aerili is referring to actually measured sport performance before and after added-resistance training compared with a control group. What's missing, as I wrote before, are trials on climbers. I've been trying to find the papers that aerili has been talking about, and they're very tough to find, because appropriate keywords, like "resistance training," "sport-specific," "motor learning," etc. are so general. I have found several trials on sprint training, and the results appear to be mixed. However, I've also, with aerili's help, seen some articles, written mainly for coaches, that treat the negative impact of added-resistance as a given; so, I suspect, that there is more research out there than I have dug up. Aerili has asked some scientific sources of hers for more information, which hopefully will be forthcoming. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Aug 16, 2007, 2:51 PM
Post #133 of 143
(5753 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
aerili wrote: mturner wrote: Very well, so why don't you prove what you are claiming? That using a weighted belt is detrimental to climbing. I am saying that when research has looked into associated claims (to "prove" boosts in performance), it's actually finding there is no evidence of this. If that was all you were saying then I wouldn't have a problem. But you have continued to make the arguement that using a weighted belt is detrimental to climbing with no proof for this.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Aug 16, 2007, 2:54 PM
Post #134 of 143
(5752 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
jt512 wrote: But that study was essentially a laboratory study, not a controlled trial with an objective measure of climbing performance as the endpoint. Jay That would be pretty hard to do, no? Too many uncontrollable variables.
(This post was edited by mturner on Aug 16, 2007, 2:55 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
drjghl
Aug 16, 2007, 4:06 PM
Post #135 of 143
(5739 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 135
|
Why is this thread continuing? I thought a logical answer to the OP had already been made. Long ago. CLIMBING WITH ADDED WEIGHT WILL PROBABLY NOT IMPROVE ONE'S CLIMBING PERFORMANCE. The following was submitted by aerili in a previous post. "Attempting to duplicate a sport specific movement with unaccustomed movements and loads results in the athlete learning two methods or styles of performance, thus causing a negative transfer. Multiple motor memories adapt, which inevitably leads to confusion. Competitive performance will either suffer or not benefit in any manner as a result." The statement above likely does apply to rock climbing. For anyone interested in an educated explanation, I recommend that you read the first four posts submitted by aerili. To all those who continue to dispute her stance. All I hear is a lot of yadda yadda yadda. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Whatever. Your arguments are based on personal accounts rather than facts or research. Being unable to support your arguments with anything meaningful, some of you have decided to use base tactics and insults directed at the one person with the most applicable knowledge, to discredit her. Bullshit. My first impression when I read the OP was that climbing with added weight will make you a better climber. But after some education via aerili's posts, I realize that my initial stance is likely wrong. I say LIKELY wrong; because, as jt512 astutely points out, a controlled study with actual climbers would be necessary to clarify the question in the OP. The problem with the original question and the possible answer(s) is that many people are using a logic that is illogical, to come to an answer. Which is: when something SEEMS to make obvious sense (climbing with added weight will improve your climbing when the weight is removed), it is correct. NO. And this is because there are confounding factors that may influence an outcome and can also explain a result. Very often, what seems obvious is true, but not always.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 16, 2007, 4:43 PM
Post #136 of 143
(5728 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
mturner wrote: jt512 wrote: But that study was essentially a laboratory study, not a controlled trial with an objective measure of climbing performance as the endpoint. Jay That would be pretty hard to do, no? Too many uncontrollable variables. It would actually be relatively easy to do, because the intevention, use of a weight vest, is so simple. You'd randomize climbers to two groups, which would perform identical training exercises, except that one group would perform them while wearing a weight vest. You could balance the groups on critical variables, leaving other variables to be controlled by the randomization. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Aug 16, 2007, 5:19 PM
Post #137 of 143
(5714 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
jt512 wrote: mturner wrote: jt512 wrote: But that study was essentially a laboratory study, not a controlled trial with an objective measure of climbing performance as the endpoint. Jay That would be pretty hard to do, no? Too many uncontrollable variables. It would actually be relatively easy to do, because the intevention, use of a weight vest, is so simple. You'd randomize climbers to two groups, which would perform identical training exercises, except that one group would perform them while wearing a weight vest. You could balance the groups on critical variables, leaving other variables to be controlled by the randomization. Jay It would also be cool to incorporate qualitative evidence a'la fluxus' video analysis. I suspect that you'd find that the climbers in the "vest" group have lost many of the subtle, microsecond motions that often determine the difference between latching a hold and falling.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 16, 2007, 6:19 PM
Post #138 of 143
(5696 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
mturner wrote: aerili wrote: I am saying that when research has looked into associated claims (to "prove" boosts in performance), it's actually finding there is no evidence of this. If that was all you were saying then I wouldn't have a problem. But you have continued to make the arguement that using a weighted belt is detrimental to climbing with no proof for this. I make the case that there is research to support both zero improvement AND detrimental effects to employing this type of thing. So I postulate that either effect could happen with climbing--which one is hard to say and would probably depend on the kind of route, the amount of weight used, possibly even gender-specific (due to varying CoG), and so forth.
sidepull wrote: It would also be cool to incorporate qualitative evidence a'la fluxus' video analysis. I suspect that you'd find that the climbers in the "vest" group have lost many of the subtle, microsecond motions that often determine the difference between latching a hold and falling. There are other studies that bear this type of thinking out. Matt Brzycki (a longtime strength coach and currently with Princeton's programs) cites on article on swimming that evidenced this effect: Some individuals feel that specific sports skills can be improved by simulating them with added resistance. Unfortunately, the motor-learning literature does not seem to support this assertion. In one study, competitive swimmers were filmed while sprinting the butterfly.3 The films were digitized and analyzed by computer. Among other things, it was found that swimming using resistance was done with noticeably different -- and less effective -- stroke mechanics compared to swimming without added resistance. In effect, the swimmers were performing different strokes. The same result occurs when attempting to mimic the movement pattern of a particular sports skill in the weight room with a barbell or dumbbell. No exercise done in the weight room -- with a barbell, dumbbell or machine -- will help improve specific sports skills. At best, this is a waste of time and energy.
|
|
|
|
|
ndru
Aug 19, 2007, 9:50 AM
Post #140 of 143
(5578 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 1, 2006
Posts: 2
|
In reply to: Here is some anecdotal evidence for ya: I swam x years including blah, blah, blah, and my experience bore out the following: Extreme, stroke specific, resistance f'ed up my rhythm and did more harm than good, but just a bit of resistance (special drag suits, etc) coupled with hard training (just about the same training I could do with or without the suite) made me faster than otherwise. I am sure someone will jump on the cause and effect here, but the simple fact is that when I duck taped my nuts to my taint and shaved down I felt so smooth and, well...fast, that I dropped serious time. Tapered or not. I actually think this can translate. Adding just enough resistance (a few pounds?) so that you can still climb hard - but it just takes a bit more effort to do so - may be a happy medium. I have neither the discipline nor the coaching for this, but I have always thought it might help my climbing. BTW, anecdotal "evidence" is often the seed for fancy peer-reviewed research. That being said - aerili, your posts are very informative.
|
|
|
|
|
joswald
Feb 23, 2008, 4:51 PM
Post #141 of 143
(5034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 19, 2008
Posts: 64
|
will it work if you eliminate the skill involved in it? e.g as Eric Horst states that when training with HIT strips you should climb face on. Also would it change your centre of gravity and the way you climb if the added weight is distributed on your body like the weight is distributed on your body in real life. Meaning that the added weight is placed on your body in proportion. Anyone get me?
|
|
|
|
|
joswald
Feb 23, 2008, 5:15 PM
Post #142 of 143
(5027 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 19, 2008
Posts: 64
|
i don't think that he intended to educate on improving sport specific skills but merely the strength which helps you practise and perform them. and some of these exercise do transfer to climbing quite well
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Feb 23, 2008, 5:25 PM
Post #143 of 143
(5024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
joswald wrote: i don't think that he intended to educate on improving sport specific skills but merely the strength which helps you practise and perform them. and some of these exercise do transfer to climbing quite well In this case I think they would argue that the strength needed to perform the skills are sport specific skills themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|