|
|
|
|
fluxus
Jan 25, 2008, 8:37 PM
Post #51 of 124
(10205 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
I don't have much time to chime in here because work is really busy but you and areili (or how every she spells her name) are really, really, annoying.
I don't mean that with any venom towards your. Its great that you guys have excellent formal training in sports science. Climbing NEEDS you and more people with your level of expertiese, but from what you both write here I find it hard to believe that either one of you has all that much experience climbing, doing rigorous analysis of actual climbing movement, and training climbers. Its also difficult to imagine that you've put much thought into the cognitive side of movement behavior and other issues important to climbing. Finally, both you and aerili misrepresent other people's point of view in your posts.
In reply to: The pull-up is not climbing and those who oppose the pull-up seem to suggest that when climbers train on anything (campus board/hangboard/systems wall/pull-up bar) besides a climbing wall - that it is done in a "vacuum", where the climber doesn't do anything besides pull-up. No trainer/physiologist/strength coach would ever suggest that the athlete give up the kinematic aspect of their sport to rely soley on the kinetics.
I'm one of those people who "opposes" pull-ups and other forms of supplemental training and here are the reasons:
1) Training efficiency is not exactly a hot topic in climbing circles. The goal of using training methods that realize the most significant performance gains with the lest amount of training effort seems to be something that climber's and many climbing instructors don't think about. But the vast majority of climbers have a limited amount of time to dedicate to training. In this context its important to advocate for direct training and to show climbers how to get the most bang for their buck. Also the complexity of climbing movement just can't be underestimated and it takes the brain a high volume of high quality practice to learn and refine movement, this is a process that is ongoing for as long as someone climbs, it never stops. As coaches and trainers we must put our emphasis on learning movement skills and training efficiency if we are going to serve our clients well.
2) You are right no coach or trainer would advocate doing supplemental training in a vacuum. But as you know, the vast majority of climbers don't have trainers, they are doing it on their own without a guide as to how much of what activity and why. So again the message the direct training should be primary is important. you need to understand the specific history of climbing in that for 40 years the most commonly published advice was to put supplemental training first, even today books on climbing that contain little or no direct training sell very well. This has had a huge impact on the sport in the U.S. and we need to work on correcting it.
it's not that supplemental training has no benefit or should not be done but it should NOT be done as a substitute for direct training (YES, climbers do make that mistake all the time), and must address the specific ability and needs of the climber in question. Its simply not necessary in any way at all to campus board or do pull-ups in order to be a great climber at any given level including the 5.12 - 5.14 range. On the other hand if someone wants to be a great 5.12 climber but can only climb at a gym or crag 2 days per week, could the use of a hang board or system wall be beneficial? Certainly it could.
athletikspesifik wrote: Please post video analysis of an overhanging route/problem, say >V5 or .12+ with a climber absent elbow flexion/arm abduction. How about a classic - pinch overhang in Ft. Collins...anybody out there have video of pinch overhang being done absent elbow flexion/arm abduction?
Are you just trying to pick a fight with Jay here? The claim that pull-ups are not a good training activity is not the same as saying that elbow flexion and abduction of the Glenohumeral joint do not occur in climbing. They do, and we all know that. The question is what role do they play? How important are they to any given movement? Does doing pull-ups have an impact on climbing performance? Is elbow flexion a good way to initiate movement? and so on. Its these questions that matter.
Further as you must know the amount of elbow flexion we see in movement is often determined by the experience level of the climber. Certainly you and I can do many moves without elbow flexion that less skilled climbers can not.
In reply to: without question being able to do a basic pull-up is not only a performance factor, but a safety concern.
Again you misrepresent what other people are saying, you act as if folks like Jay or myself advocate for lack of the ability to do pull-ups, which is just goofy. We certainly have not addressed the hypothetical situation in which a climber can't do even one pull-up and what that might mean. Second, I'm gonna say that pull-ups as a performance factor is pure speculation on your part and you know it, unless you are thinking of something very specific that you have not mentioned. The other element you are pointing to is a symptom; not being able to do a pull-up may tell us something about a specific individual, but that's it. Its not part of the argument to do pull-ups as supplemental training. On the other hand if you can connect the dots and show patterns of injuries in climbers that doing pull-ups would prevent, then do tell.
There is a lot more to cover, but the 'ol job calls. Anyway, don't read my comments as hostile they aren't.
(This post was edited by fluxus on Jan 25, 2008, 9:33 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 25, 2008, 9:33 PM
Post #52 of 124
(10187 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
I wrote: Please post the short list of research on rock climbers that shows this.
In response, athletikspesifik wrote: Already covered.
Is that a failure to comprehend a simple English sentence, or just a lie? Or maybe the powerlifters, sprinters, cyclists, and drop-jumpers (whatever those are) in the titles of those studies you posted happened to be rock climbers, too.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
athletikspesifik
Jan 26, 2008, 1:13 AM
Post #53 of 124
(10151 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2005
Posts: 50
|
It seems like work is NOT that busy for you.
In reply to: [1) Training efficiency is not exactly a hot topic in climbing circles. The goal of using training methods that realize the most significant performance gains with the lest amount of training effort seems to be something that climber's and many climbing instructors don't think about. But the vast majority of climbers have a limited amount of time to dedicate to training. In this context its important to advocate for direct training and to show climbers how to get the most bang for their buck. Also the complexity of climbing movement just can't be underestimated and it takes the brain a high volume of high quality practice to learn and refine movement, this is a process that is ongoing for as long as someone climbs, it never stops. As coaches and trainers we must put our emphasis on learning movement skills and training efficiency if we are going to serve our clients well. ]
In Colorado, training efficiency/economy (they're different - look it up) are a religion in every sport. Thinking about and applying training methodology to climbing performance is my full time job - it's the only thing I do.
Here's what we (including you) don't know; how much of climbing is kinematic and how much is kinetic. To reinforce: Kinetic=Force/Power output, Kinematic=technique. As a reference for others reading this, a golfer has a high kinematic value to his sport whereas an NFL lineman has a high kinetic value to his job. The 2 examples are on opposite ends of the spectrum and climbing lies between.
Here is 1 reason why this is difficult and forever will be, each climb requires different technique/force/power and gives advantages to climbers with difference anthropomorphic features.
Under your logic, given the wide range of climbing face angles and hold torque values, there is no sport specific training because a climber will never encounter the same exact onsight twice. Under your logic, only the most experienced climbers (John Long/Lynn Hill era climbers) would be at the upper limits of competitive climbing. Any of us who follow competitive climbing know that the younger climbers are pushing the limits. How can this be? If they don't have decades of experience to "cognitively" interpret the sequence/situation, how are these young people accomplishing this????
I have read much of the history of training for climbing. Don't patronize me with your fake "pat on the back/welcome son to my world" 1st paragraph.
Sometimes advanced movement skills CANNOT be learned without the requisite strength/power. As Mike Stone says, "the answer is, an athlete can never have too much strength". I'm sure that you are very familiar with much of the writings of the Directors of Physiology at the Olympic Training Centers, so I won't bore you.
In reply to: [it's not that supplemental training has no benefit or should not be done but it should NOT be done as a substitute for direct training (YES, climbers do make that mistake all the time), and must address the specific ability and needs of the climber in question. ]
You said you oppose supplemental training. I NEVER said to replace climbing specific training with supplemental training.
In reply to: [Are you just trying to pick a fight with Jay here? ]
Full discloser: I posted Jay's "losing weight for climbing" for 2 years until someone stole it from my corkboard. Why? Because, while I have an "interest" in nutrition, I am not qualified to give advice - as Jay is. I thought it was solid advice and relevant. Likewise, Jay has an "interest" in sport specific and supplemental training as related to climbing - but, he is not qualified to give advice. He is certainly welcome to offer an opinion, as I am about nutrition, but not advice concerning matters of gaining strength/power and the transfer of training to sport.
In reply to: [The claim that pull-ups are not a good training activity is not the same as saying that elbow flexion and abduction of the Glenohumeral joint do not occur in climbing. They do, and we all know that. The question is what role do they play? How important are they to any given movement? Does doing pull-ups have an impact on climbing performance? Is elbow flexion a good way to initiate movement? and so on. Its these questions that matter.]
Ah, we get to the meat of it. An admission of similar biomechanical planes of motion? No admission yet to whether the motion effects the mechanical model of strength/power development, hhmmm. What role does it play? The distance from hold (size/surface area/angle to CG) to hold and the level of overhang with available footholds might dictate part of the role. Does doing pull-ups have an impact on climbing performance? It depends on the climber's strengths/weaknesses and the volume/intensity applied. Fluxus, you have some idea that Aerili and I are "Personal Trainers" trying to get people "beach body" ready for summer. Most Professional (even golfers!!!) and Division 1 athletes utilize Strength and Conditioning Coaches because we understand how to apply kinetic values to their respective kinematic needs.
In reply to: [Further as you must know the amount of elbow flexion we see in movement is often determined by the experience level of the climber. Certainly you and I can do many moves without elbow flexion that less skilled climbers can not.]
Not only experience, but kinetic values and anthropomorphic features of the climber.
In reply to: [Again you misrepresent what other people are saying, you act as if folks like Jay or myself advocate for lack of the ability to do pull-ups, which is just goofy. We certainly have not addressed the hypothetical situation in which a climber can't do even one pull-up and what that might mean.]
I'm not misrepresenting you, you said you are against supplemental training - specifically pull-ups. Where did I misrepresent you? There are many new climbers who do not have the ability to even START a pull-up. I view this as first a safety/health issue and secondarily as a performance issue to close the gap between max strength and relative strength as related to strength/power about the shoulder girdle.
In reply to: [Second, I'm gonna say that pull-ups as a performance factor is pure speculation on your part and you know it, unless you are thinking of something very specific that you have not mentioned.]
Well, you can say that it's speculation, but it wouldn't be true. It's based on frequent testing and experience.
In reply to: [Its not part of the argument to do pull-ups as supplemental training. On the other hand if you can connect the dots and show patterns of injuries in climbers that doing pull-ups would prevent, then do tell.]
Um, what? I thought that was the basis of this specific question - are supplemental pull-ups (weighted) useful? Second part, you got me there - I have not conducted clinical research to determine this observation, but I have ehem, observed it (it being subluxation/dislocation). Probably a dozen times.
Wow, thanks for the reply Fluxus. I look forward to hearing your response, and I will not climb this weekend (just to validate your claim that I don't climb as much as you) so I can prepare a proper rebuttal.
Please don't view my response as vitriol, but an all-encompassing vortex of gratitude for your efforts and contributions to this forum.
Next:mechanical energy requirements in the forearms, anaerobic OR aerobic. Come on Fluxus, give it to me!
Kinetics drive kinematics.
David Wahl
p.s. Jay, I don't know what to say - I think you're just wasting time.
(This post was edited by athletikspesifik on Jan 26, 2008, 4:31 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 26, 2008, 3:18 AM
Post #54 of 124
(10133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
You may or may not have anything interesting to contribute. Until you learn how to properly use the quote function here, it's somewhat hard to tell.
Also...
In reply to: I have trained over a hundred climbers in the last 5 years ranging from V13/14 to...
I call BS. Name even one V13/V14 boulderer who will verify that you are their trainer.
Curt
(This post was edited by curt on Jan 26, 2008, 3:33 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
smellyhippie
Jan 26, 2008, 9:41 PM
Post #55 of 124
(10071 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2003
Posts: 155
|
Hi all
This post is a bit rambling...I have the flu and am using it as an excuse not to do anything productive. The vicodin cough syrup stuff my wife gave me also helps. In general, this post is about how we can improve the quality of discussion on this forum, but I'll probably digress 6 or 8 dozen times.
I check this training forum a couple times a week, usually after going to the climbing gym. I'm typically a bit underwhelmed at the quality of most posts...I too get tired of people posting the same old stuff that they could learn about by doing a thread search. Every now and then I get super psyched after reading the more well thought out threads. And this is one of them, despite the conflict between opinions.
So thank you, all, who have posted information that is interesting and enlightening. This dialogue is key to advancing our understanding of how to train for climbing.
I've read most of the books (Goddard, Sagar-Reynolds, Horst, Fluxus and Anderson's Manifesto on this site) several times. I love reading this stuff. Compared to most of you, I have very little technical climbing skill, but love the sport and have always been interested in how to train for performance. I'm also do social science research (at a remarkably unimpressive level), so although I'm not directly involved in the Kinesiology field, I appreciate staying current with the secondary literature and thinking about it.
To share my bias, I believe that climbing should be studied as a movement-based activity. Strength is correlational but not causal. Thus, strength building activities are useful, but probably not as useful as technique-based training that incorporates elements of strength.
Do we know what is causal to climbing performance? Jesus, what a cool freaking project: design a systems model of climbing performance with coefficients that are predictive to samples. Anyone familiar with Ajzen and Fishbein's model?
I'd offer the following observations:
--The understanding of training for climbing is still in it's infancy. Thus, it seems incongruous that people's opinions are so polarized. I'm not saying that everyone's is but many are. Why?
--It's amazing how people are so emotionally attached to the ideas they profess. If we we're able to discuss these things with less emotional attachment, the quality of the discussion might improve.
--I wonder if, in part, the emotional attachment is that people are making money off their ideas. Not a bad thing. Fluxus, for instance, has a legitimate interest in having his ideas respected because it might result in more sales or clients. Thus, he may be in a position to defend them.
--Is there a conference for rock climbing training? Do y'all get together at the OR show and share ideas? If not, I'd suggest that perhaps the Association for Outdoor Recreation and Education (AORE) conference might be a great place to have a panel discussion and several beers. "The Role of Sport Specific Training for Climbing: A Panel Discussion Featuring Blah, Blah, Blah) Although AORE is not about Kinesiology, most people there are climbers and would be very interested. Also, many people there manage climbing walls. It could be a good place to network.
--Maybe I'm wrong about this. It seems that many coaches, trainers, etc. who post on this forum do not have PhD's and do not produce research. Am I wrong about this? It's not a big deal either way; they might make more money than the folks that do have the letters. But what I would suggest is that they create partnerships with Kinesiology departments to help gain insight into what factors most critically effect climbing performance. Are any of y'all doing that? I would love to hear about it. That would knock my socks off.
--Okay, maybe it is a little bit of a problem that those who give the advise, and base it significantly on scientific study, don't have PhD's.
Just as JT is certified in nutrition and athletik specific is certified in athletic training stuff (guessing here, please straighten me out), they are certified to consult as "experts" in their field. A doctorate is a certification to do research. And although you don't need to be able to do research to coach using scientifically-based principles, you do need to be able to understand it. That's what a PhD does for a person. In theory.
--But, just because one has a certification doesn't mean that there ideas are worth a damn. Nutrition, athletics, PhD. Which is why you have to critically assess the research that is out there...the assumptions, the literature, the methods, the research design, the population, and the generalizability.
--The reason that I bring this up is that there is so much crap produced by researchers that it's nearly meaningless. I'm not talking about the way people can "lie with statistics", but moreso that people with PhD's often produce crap. When I had my master's degree I wouldn't be able to pick apart studies well enough to be critical of them. I usually read the introduction, glanced through the lit review, and studied the results. My assessment of the article was largely about how much I liked the topic, not how good it was.
--Much of the rhetoric about "climbing performance is hard to figure out because there are so many factors that influence it" really isn't much of a problem if you wanted to study it empirically. It's actually freaking cool, because the research designs can isolate so many of these factors. Slab/Overhanging? Slopers/Edges? Mileage/Intensity? Women/Men? Old/Young? Novice/Expert? Easy. Relatively. Kind of. But not that hard. Probably.
And of course you need to be careful who you try to generalize to.
The key is...you coaches and trainers. You're the Thank God hold, the Jesus Bolt, the folks that can tell the academics the "why". You are the ones who have access to the population. You can form the relationships with scientist-type nerds. You can test your ideas empirically.
That's all. I really didn't mean to offend anyone by saying that a PhD is important to being a quality coach. Although it's another discussion, I have my own opinions about why PhD's suck. I think the three points that I was trying to make are:
1. A PhD helps assess the merit of the studies that may have implications for practice.
2. It would be freaking cool to test some of y'alls ideas.
3. When are y'all getting together for a conference? I want to be there.
Cheers,
Nate (high on vicodin and fever)
|
|
|
|
|
gunkiemike
Jan 27, 2008, 11:09 PM
Post #56 of 124
(10005 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266
|
fluxus wrote: We certainly have not addressed the hypothetical situation in which a climber can't do even one pull-up and what that might mean.
Well I recall exactly such a thread several months ago. The OP was a big guy struggling on a gym 5.7 overhang. He said he couldn't do a single PU. I suggested that working PU's might help him. You ridiculed the notion. "Thank you for setting training back 30 years" or something similarly dismissive. I chuckled at your choice of words, because IMO the OP was stuck at pretty much the level of what was considered hard for many people...30 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jan 28, 2008, 7:54 PM
Post #57 of 124
(9935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
I think that folks on both sides of the issue are taking positions that are extreme, even for them, as a result of the dynamics of arguing. I suspect there is a lot less disagreement in reality than it sounds like here.
Part of the problem is that the foundation of the argument keeps shifting, the assumptions about who might benefit from pullups, what the actual benefit (if any) is, and when in a career one might benefit most---these assumptions have not remained constant. Nor has the relevance of pullup training to genres other than sport climbing really been addressed.
Just to keep the pot boiling (I too think the discussion is interesting), here are four entirely personal observations:
1. My typical 5 sets of 5 routine takes about 15 minutes, most of which is resting time. I do this once or twice a week, at night, at home, where I have no more specific training appartatus available. My interest is primarily in injury prevention and physical conditioning; at 64 my body needs supplemental strength work in order not to fly apart when I try to climb. But in any case, the time spent is both minimal an not available for what may well be more effective forms of training. In other words, the idea that my time might be better spent doing something else doesn't seem to apply.
2. I can think (at the moment) of three times in my 50 years of climbing when the ability to do a pullup was critical. In all three cases, breaking holds left me dangling from fingertips with no replacement foothold available. (Someone will, no doubt, dismiss this as a failure of technique, if not intelligence.) In two of the three cases I was soloing, in one case I was leading with questionable protection whose failure would result in a fatal ground fall. A strong pullup (fueled by plenty of adrenaline) saved my sorry butt each time. "Initiating movement with the legs" was not an option; it was pullup or die. I'm aware that the nOObs who think they're gonna advance three grades by doubling their pullup capacity aren't thinking of these applications; I can't say that I was either. But when the shit hit the fan, it was good to have the reserves that were needed. ( Of course, in most sport-climbing contexts, the worst a breaking hold could to is to ruin the redpoint.)
3. No one has dared to say this yet, but aren't there times (enormously less frequent than the pullup nOObs think) when a pullup is actually the most efficient way of making a move? Carefully thought out, rapidly executed, and with a definite landing postion for the feet? No? Never?
4. How about the pullup as inferior technique that extricates you from a mess brought on by your own failings? You lost track of the footholds under the roof, you've got some high handholds, too stretched out to see back under, hydraulic pressure is falling fast, all systems collapsing...Now this is all your fault, Sparky, if your technique was up to snuff you wouldn't have let this happen. But it did happen. I've seen it happen to very experienced climbers with impeccable technique who just made a mistake--- human error. And so, channelling their inner nOObs, they chinned their way to success and salvation. In a sport climb, this might be an academic point, but on a trad or alpine route, it might not be such a good idea to fall. So aren't these stronger climbers (climbers with good technique who are, as we all are, still subject human lapses) also safer climbers?
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Jan 28, 2008, 8:26 PM
Post #58 of 124
(9915 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Rgold, you hit the nail on the head earlier when you observed that Fluxus, Horst, and a few others are so blinded by big-number sport climbing that they can't conceive of people having other needs or interests. Fluxus is downright condescending to anyone who doesn't have a gym, a bolted crag 10 minutes away, and is isn't young and hyperfit. He has great comments for that crowd but poor advice for everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
Hennessey
Jan 28, 2008, 10:01 PM
Post #59 of 124
(9883 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2007
Posts: 595
|
I like to use a weighted vest when doing pull-ups. The weight is eveny distributed and you don't have to worry about dropping it and damaging the floor. There is also no stress on any joints like if you had a dumbell or weights clenched between your legs. Also works great to climb or jog with it on to build up even more muscle and endurance.
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Jan 29, 2008, 9:19 PM
Post #60 of 124
(9809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
Wow David,
That was impressive, I could not have imagined a more bitter or disingenuous reply. You intentionally misconstrued just about everything in my post, You even took the time to doubt how busy I am at work. That shows real attention to detail.
you mention a reply from me, but how can I reply to that? I could correct all the absurdities in your post but you would just come right back at me with more nonsense. No thanks.
Anyone know if nominations are being accepted yet for the 2008 RC.com "Piss and Vinegar" Prize?
(This post was edited by fluxus on Jan 29, 2008, 9:25 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Jan 29, 2008, 11:29 PM
Post #62 of 124
(9778 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
Rich,
Sorry for not arguing with you more. I hope you didn't feel left out.
As for the situations you mentioned in the above post: My only comment is that you are working very hard to get folks to say that yes a pull-up motion might sometimes be necessary in climbing, which strikes me as a very different topic than is under consideration here. and one that won't inspire much debate. But I will do you one better:
There are times on steep climbs where due to the positioning and low quality of the available foot holds the climber will have better balance if he or she cuts his or her feet and does a campus move. consider the following variation on one of your above examples:
A boulder problem that goes through a 4 foot roof with a long reach from two slopers at the lip to another good sloper above. The only footholds available for the move turning the lip are on the back wall below the roof. They are small and greasy. The climber is 5 foot 9. As the climber tries to reach the next hand hold past the lip with his feet on the greasy holds, his feet cut loose because the distance between the footholds and the next hand hold is longer than his reach. His feet coming off create more momentum than he can control on the slopers and he falls. What should he do?
For me the central issue of climbing movement is creating or utilizing the highest quality balance available in the given context. In the case I just described the climber will probably have better luck if he intentionally releases his feet from the foot holds prior to making the long reach, and while his body is still low in relation to the hand holds. In Doing so, he will release his feet in a way that causes less momentum, and his COG will be positioned directly under the base of support when he make the long upward movement to the next hand hold.
Doing that is not an example of "bad technique", it's a matter of choosing between a move of dynamic balance that's very hard to control, and a move of off-set balance that is easier to control. In this context, off-set balance is the better choice.
The fact that the climber is using a pull up motion is not the most important or interesting thing about the move.
Sorry I guess I'm not really arguing with you, I'll try harder next time.
P.S.- What's with the "woe is me, I'm so old and broken down" stuff? The guy I remember from the Gunks is a trad hero, buffed like Willie the grounds keeper from the Simpsons, and willing to climbing anything with little more than a bashie ten feet down.
(This post was edited by fluxus on Jan 29, 2008, 11:47 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
yokese
Jan 29, 2008, 11:36 PM
Post #63 of 124
(9770 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 18, 2006
Posts: 672
|
fluxus wrote: ...move of dynamic balance that's very hard to control, and a move of off-set balance that is easier to control. In this context, off-set balance is the better choice....
He he,
good thing I just received your book in the mail today  .... otherwise I'd say: whaaaaaatttttt??? 
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jan 30, 2008, 12:06 AM
Post #64 of 124
(9759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
Ok, rgold, I'll argue a little.
I think your #s 2,3, and 4 are really pretty similar. They are all situations where specifically training pullups would be helpful. In those cases, it is good to have trained pullups.
Unfortunately, in the field of exercise physiology, the most interesting research is always at the cutting edge. That is, how to shave 0.1 sec off of 400 meters...How to add .01 meters to a long jump, how to add a small increment to an endurance athlete's *VO2. etc.
There isn't much research into how to extend the useful climbing career of an aging (and aching) rock climber. Frankly, there is very little research proving that doing pullups (or any other exercise) will consistently improve the performance of climbers in general.
So, given the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed studies which have stood the test of time, we are left with generalities which sort of seem to apply to climbing. This leads to relatively unfounded opinions being served up as facts. (They may well BE facts, but remain unproven). Even if "your stuff" works on a hundred V13/14 climbers, it does not mean they wouldn't have gotten to that level faster or safer than doing somebody else's "stuff". Not until you PROVE IT.
In athletic pursuits, egos run pretty hard. Different athletic programs...heck, different COUNTRIES have very different ways of improving performance. Many seem to work. I really think it is only part science, and part art.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jan 30, 2008, 2:54 AM
Post #65 of 124
(9729 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
athletikspesifik...I have a seemingly minor nit to pick (pik?) with you. You wrote:
In reply to: Please post video analysis of an overhanging route/problem, say >V5 or .12+ with a climber absent elbow flexion/arm abduction. How about a classic - pinch overhang in Ft. Collins...anybody out there have video of pinch overhang being done absent elbow flexion/arm abduction?
I think you must mean adduction. Arm overhead is end-range aBduction. Arm at side is aDduction. The resisted torque moment of a pullup is adduction.
Abduction would be doing a lateral raise, or overhead press.
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Jan 30, 2008, 3:04 AM
Post #66 of 124
(9723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
onceahardman wrote: athletikspesifik...I have a seemingly minor nit to pick (pik?) with you. You wrote: In reply to: Please post video analysis of an overhanging route/problem, say >V5 or .12+ with a climber absent elbow flexion/arm abduction. How about a classic - pinch overhang in Ft. Collins...anybody out there have video of pinch overhang being done absent elbow flexion/arm abduction? I think you must mean a dduction. Arm overhead is end-range aBduction. Arm at side is aDduction. The resisted torque moment of a pullup is adduction. Abduction would be doing a lateral raise, or overhead press.
I think that aspk has it correct. If we think of adduction as moving the arm towards the body, and abduction as moving the arm away from the body, there would be adduction on the initial dyno, where you yard the brick toward you as you dyno for the sloper, and abduction thereafter, as you first press, quickly, down and out on the brick, and then grab the sloper/edge and pull-- adducting briefly-- into the old-skool mantel in which the right arm will definitely be abducting.
If you do it the new skool way, putting the right foot up on the sloper and then rocking over, you'll do a lot more adducting. But there will still be abduction going on.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jan 30, 2008, 3:13 AM
Post #67 of 124
(9719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
klk...I have never even seen pinch overhang. I was speaking more in the context of most of this thread...ie what is biomechanically happening at the shoulder, during a pullup. Sorry for my lack of clarity.
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Jan 30, 2008, 3:29 AM
Post #68 of 124
(9715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
Well, the thread has degenerated in predictable ways. The debate between sport-specific and general or supplementary training has been with us (athletes, not simply climbers) for a long time. I doubt that a Ph.D. kinesiology program with a sport climbing specialization will resolve it. The debate will not simply resolve with the right kind of research. And the nasty tone just goes with the online territory.
Stiil, it's been a useful thread. I can track down the cites from Aspk's bibliography that I haven't already read. And I enjoyed Fluxus's historical account of his own position-- namely, that part of his polemical insistence upon sport-specific training is because of the context. (I.e., writing on training for climbing has focused so much on shite about power cleans, bench presses and pullup-triangles that we currently need to move the discussion over a bit.)
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jan 30, 2008, 3:54 AM
Post #69 of 124
(9708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
klk...i am well into a scotch bottle, and ready for bed. But, just for the sake of an accurate definition, can we agree that the torque moment at the shoulder during a pullup is adduction, rather than abduction?
Can we just do that?
As a general philosophy, my personal opinion is that specificity of training will bring the fastest objective improvement, while general (kinetic) training will lead to increased longevity in climbing career, and with that, may well come more objective improvement in the long run, largely through injury prevention.
I agree the thread has been useful. While ASPK's long citation list was overkill in this format, the list contains good stuff. I thank him for that!
|
|
|
|
|
athletikspesifik
Jan 30, 2008, 4:45 AM
Post #70 of 124
(9688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2005
Posts: 50
|
In reply to: [I think you must mean adduction. Arm overhead is end-range aBduction. Arm at side is aDduction.]
You are completely correct! All apologies for the misspelling and the confusion resulting from it.
David Wahl
(This post was edited by athletikspesifik on Jan 30, 2008, 5:12 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
athletikspesifik
Jan 30, 2008, 5:11 AM
Post #71 of 124
(9679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2005
Posts: 50
|
In reply to: I think that folks on both sides of the issue are taking positions that are extreme
How is my position extreme? I have never stated that a climber should avoid climbing-specific training, mental training for climbing, video analysis for technical correction...the list of ways to improve goes on. Anyone who knows me, knows that I always advocate for climbing! Training is supplemental, never have I said anything to the contrary.
The pull-up is a form of kinetic measurement and a way to improve relative strength and power about the shoulder girdle. I never said that one should have a goal of 50/100/600 pull-ups.
In reply to: Part of the problem is that the foundation of the argument keeps shifting, the assumptions about who might benefit from pullups, what the actual benefit (if any) is, and when in a career one might benefit most---these assumptions have not remained constant. Nor has the relevance of pullup training to genres other than sport climbing really been addressed.
I have not argued against pull-ups for anyone. Depending on the individual strengths and weaknesses of the climber - they adjust the intensity/volume of the pull-up. In my opinion, all climbers should maximize their kinetic values and the pull-up is but one thing. As I said before, sometimes new movement skill CANNOT be learned without the requisite strength/power.
I appreciate the additions from Gill and Bachar - much respect!
However, OAPs of note:
Daniel Woods
Fred Nicole (not a young gun, but still a pusher)
Charles Fryberger
Andy Raether
Ethan Pringle
Dia Koyamada (photo in a mag within the last year showed him in a 90 degree lock-off from one middle finger)
Rich Simpson
The list of elite OAPs is longer, but, you get the point. I don't know if Paul Robinson can do one, but on the latest National Comp Video that I watched he held a one-arm 90 degree lock off (sans feet) on the finish hold demonstrating a strong shoulder girdle.
Kinetics drive kinematics,
David Wahl
(This post was edited by athletikspesifik on Jan 30, 2008, 5:13 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
athletikspesifik
Jan 30, 2008, 5:37 AM
Post #72 of 124
(9666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2005
Posts: 50
|
In reply to: Much of the rhetoric about "climbing performance is hard to figure out because there are so many factors that influence it" really isn't much of a problem if you wanted to study it empirically. It's actually freaking cool, because the research designs can isolate so many of these factors. Slab/Overhanging? Slopers/Edges? Mileage/Intensity? Women/Men? Old/Young? Novice/Expert? Easy. Relatively. Kind of. But not that hard. Probably.
Not that I would argue against research for climbing, but I think it's not as attractive for researchers as other sports. Many other sports are more "linear" - the technique is cyclical in nature. I'm certain I'm going to get crap for this, but here goes - sports such as running/cycling/swimming (and others) have much more repetitive motion than, say, climbing/hockey/gymnastics/judo...I'm NOT saying there isn't technique involved in cyclical sports, just that it is more repetitive.
The sports that are more cyclical in nature tend to get the overwhelming volume of research published do to the ability to isolate variables and suggest improvement.
In reply to: To share my bias, I believe that climbing should be studied as a movement-based activity. Strength is correlational but not causal.
Of course it's movement based, no argument. Not causal? Depends on the situation.
David Wahl
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jan 30, 2008, 5:49 AM
Post #73 of 124
(9662 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
fluxus wrote: P.S.- What's with the "woe is me, I'm so old and broken down" stuff? The guy I remember from the Gunks is a trad hero, buffed like Willie the grounds keeper from the Simpsons, and willing to climbing anything with little more than a bashie ten feet down.
Well, gee, thanks for the memories. Time affects everyone differently of course, and perhaps I'm overstating the case; I really can't complain. I'm buff enuf for 64; probably a good candidate for an AARP centerfold (eat yer heart out, grannies).
Buth here's the thing: I go to the gym and climb with all these young men and women who've been reading The Self-Coached Climber, putting it down just long enough to totally burn me off whatever thing I'm trying, and after day after day of this, I'm obliged to let the cooling waters of humility wash over my psyche as well as my internetage.
Don't get me wrong though; I'm still havin' fun, even if the weight on those ineffective pullups is about half its former value...
|
|
|
|
|
smellyhippie
Jan 30, 2008, 3:09 PM
Post #74 of 124
(9629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2003
Posts: 155
|
David,
Yes, climbing is more difficult to assess than running/cycling/swimming, but I'd suggest the main reason researchers is not really because climbing is more complex. There are many more runners, cyclists and swimmers that there are climbers. Those three sports garner a level of respect than climbing does.
Researchers traditionally haven't wanted to study climbing for the same reason I wouldn't want to study bowling...I just don't care.
If strength were causal, then we'd find our best climbers at the Bodybuilding Competitions, or the Irish Hardman Games.
Cheers,
Nate
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Jan 30, 2008, 3:46 PM
Post #75 of 124
(9616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
yeah, adduction in the pullup motion. adduction in certain types of mantel movements. but abduction in others. pinch overhang is a fun example partly because it includes a top-out, unlike most sport and comp routes. and i'd probably be in a better mood if i, too, had a bottle of single-malt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
