Forums: Climbing Information: Technique & Training:
muscle strength versus muscle volume
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Technique & Training

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


Partner cracklover


Nov 21, 2011, 8:01 AM
Post #26 of 32 (1019 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [guangzhou] muscle strength versus muscle volume [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
jacques wrote:
lemon_boy wrote:
i read on the SCC website that to double the strength of a muscle you need to increase the volume by a factor of 4. i had always thought that muscle strength was (approximately/generally) directly proportional to muscle cross sectional area. ?
the muscle is compose of muscle cell. In each cells, there is fiber of actine myosine. the number of those cell will gave you the maximal forces that you can have.

Many way to increase forces. If you increase the signal, 80 % of the fiber will contract at the same time. It is your maximal strenght. One shout, but very strong.

If you increase the glycogene, you will have more energy from the krebs cycle. Runners have those kind of energy and it is also what we need in climbing. To stay light, you have to transform linear glycogene to branch glycogene. this can be done by exercise. If your muscle stay linear, you will look like a weight lifting guy.

In sport climbing, as most the route are 25 meters or 30 meters (90 feets), with very hard moves... it is better to have a weight lifting approach.

In trad, as most route are of 200 and more meters (600 feet) it is more to have a good cardio and a good synchronisation of' the fiber.

Notice that when you begin a training, some inert fiber become active. the volume of themuscle will change, but not the number of fiber. It is possible to increase the number of the fiber too by division of the fiber. An other think to consider is the color of the fiber. Red one are more for aerobic activity and white one are more for weight training.

Look for glycogenesis and krebs cycle for energy information. If you want for fiber, look for actine myosine fiber and contraction. In grimper, Patrick Edlinger, they make the relation between the energy use by the fiber and what you climb.

I've been on plenty of sport routes that are dozens of pitches long, and hundreds of single pitch trad lines.

As for giving advice on training, weren't you just posting about how you have no idea what you're doing and can't climb most of the time because you keep injuring yourself with your workouts.

I don't often agree so completely with guangzhou. Seriously, jaques, wtf were you thinking with this post?

GO


jacques


Nov 21, 2011, 8:21 AM
Post #27 of 32 (1013 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 278

Re: [cracklover] muscle strength versus muscle volume [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
[
I don't often agree so completely with guangzhou. Seriously, jaques, wtf were you thinking with this post? GO

I am sure that if I train in sport acttually, I will be able to climb to 5.12 very easily when I will recover.

The paper that you critics was wrote by two teacher from France University. They make study about the physical quality need in climbing.

personally, I have a master in biology. I study what happen at the protein when you eat it and where it go in your body. One place is the muscle and what I wrote is a good vulgarisation.

We have good trad climber who can climb 5.13 on sight. We also have very good sport climber who can climb 5.13 on sight. After emphasing with some exception, let talk about normal person.

Note a guide who climb 5 days a week for 8 hours train 40 hours and he can climb at his level between his client. Overtraining for those could be a problem.


petsfed


Nov 21, 2011, 9:22 AM
Post #28 of 32 (1004 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8589

Re: [lemon_boy] muscle strength versus muscle volume [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

If your principle measure of muscle size is circumference, and if cross-sectional area is indeed proportional to strength, then doubling your principle measure (e.g. doubling the circumference) would result in quadrupling your strength.

I think self-coached climber got confused about what their principle measures are.


guangzhou


Nov 21, 2011, 4:46 PM
Post #29 of 32 (964 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

Re: [petsfed] muscle strength versus muscle volume [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
If your principle measure of muscle size is circumference, and if cross-sectional area is indeed proportional to strength, then doubling your principle measure (e.g. doubling the circumference) would result in quadrupling your strength.

I think self-coached climber got confused about what their principle measures are.

Or someone misunderstood or misinterpreted the SCC


lemon_boy


Nov 28, 2011, 6:55 AM
Post #30 of 32 (879 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287

Re: [guangzhou] muscle strength versus muscle volume [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
petsfed wrote:
If your principle measure of muscle size is circumference, and if cross-sectional area is indeed proportional to strength, then doubling your principle measure (e.g. doubling the circumference) would result in quadrupling your strength.

I think self-coached climber got confused about what their principle measures are.

Or someone misunderstood or misinterpreted the SCC

the thread/post on the SCC website said that in order to double strength you have to quadruple volume. not much to mis-interpret there. petsfeds guess seems possible.


damienclimber


Nov 29, 2011, 7:08 PM
Post #31 of 32 (813 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2011
Posts: 313

Re: [lemon_boy] muscle strength versus muscle volume [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

 

lemon_boy wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
petsfed wrote:
If your principle measure of muscle size is circumference, and if cross-sectional area is indeed proportional to strength, then doubling your principle measure (e.g. doubling the circumference) would result in quadrupling your strength.

I think self-coached climber got confused about what their principle measures are.




ALL I CAN SAY IS LEMON TREE,- OH SO PRETTY, BUT THE FRUIT OF THE LEMONS ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO EAT-its a song

translated to tell you, just climb lemon boy! Wink

I'm off to the gym, have fun reading versus working out and climbing!


lemon_boy


Nov 30, 2011, 11:39 AM
Post #32 of 32 (782 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287

Re: [damienclimber] muscle strength versus muscle volume [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

damienclimber wrote:

lemon_boy wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
petsfed wrote:
If your principle measure of muscle size is circumference, and if cross-sectional area is indeed proportional to strength, then doubling your principle measure (e.g. doubling the circumference) would result in quadrupling your strength.

I think self-coached climber got confused about what their principle measures are.




ALL I CAN SAY IS LEMON TREE,- OH SO PRETTY, BUT THE FRUIT OF THE LEMONS ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO EAT-its a song

translated to tell you, just climb lemon boy! Wink

I'm off to the gym, have fun reading versus working out and climbing!

thanks for the insight, oh wise and mighty 5.8 climber...Pirate

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : Technique & Training

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook