|
|
|
|
wc
Sep 12, 2003, 5:49 PM
Post #26 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 176
|
In reply to: You should definitely pick up Horst's Training for Climbing and Neumann's Performance Rock Climbing. You might be surprised at how good they are. It's hard to put together a single program that would be perfect for both me and Chris Sharma (though certainly the same basic principles would apply.)
First of all, I appreciate your constructive comments.
I have read Goddard and Neumann's Performance Rock Climbing. It is an excellent book and it has had a HUGE affect on my climbing for the last 10 years. Indeed an excellent resource. The author of the program in question knows Goddard and has contacted him about being the second author, but alas Dale has a family, career, etc and like so many others, doesn't have the time to put into this. However, I suspect he will be reviewing it in the later stages of development. I have not read Horst's book mainly because of the criticism it got from some friend. However, I do plan to read it for reference.
I absolutely agree, the same program that works for me will not work for Sharma, I'm just too damn strong :). This is an excellent point which I am hopping to address... if possible.
I was thinking we would provide a specific program directed toward people who have been climbing for several years and have a reasonable fitness base to work with. People who find that simply climbing hard isn't helping them climb harder... if that makes any sense. We would concentrate on outlining a schedule of specific exercises (many of which I had never seen, despite spending years in gyms, PT facilities, etc) which are designed to build, balance, and condition important core muscles that many climbers neglect. We were even going to include a cdrom with video of the exercises to help illustrate the proper form... something I see lacking in SO MANY workouts!
From there we would attempt to address the sticky issue of customizing the exercises and schedules for weaker climbers and stronger climbers and people with special needs. Of course, any training program is a personal thing and hopefully the readers will be clear on that.
So, thanks for your input, it has been very helpful. Maybe I will even send you a free copy to evaluate... but that won't be until early spring.
|
|
|
|
|
wc
Sep 12, 2003, 5:57 PM
Post #27 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 176
|
In reply to: No, I would not pay. There is too much free info readily available. Sorry.
You get what you pay for I guess. For years everyone always told me the best way to climb harder was to simply climb hard all the time... but it just doesn't work that way. Personally, I prefer my "information" to come from reliable sources and be backed by years of clinical studies. But that's just me...
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 12, 2003, 6:03 PM
Post #28 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: You get what you pay for I guess.
Well, you're assuming I was looking for a product. I'm not. Can't create a need where this is none. Beyond my traditional gym membership I've never been willing to pay for training.
I wish you all the best my friend. Good luck and I hope you sell the crap out of your book!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
wc
Sep 12, 2003, 6:06 PM
Post #29 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 176
|
In reply to: Why not rough it out here, and we can offer you criticism. Once its been tempered in this fire, or rec.climbing, then take it worldwide. Or can't you take the heat?
I won't rough it out here because I ain't got the time, this site ain't got the bandwidth, and I would have to deal with cornholes like you getting in the way of other people trying to read the thread. Tell you what, I'll "rough it out" while I'm on the road for 4 months. Then I will distribute it to worthy reviewers. Then, if all goes well, I will put it on the shelf. At that time you can speed read the hell out of it, make your mommy proud.
Hopefully you will gain something from it, hopefully it will make you better, stronger, and wiser. Hopefully it will give you something better to do with your time and make you feel better about yourself. Until then I wish you and your father the best...
|
|
|
|
|
wc
Sep 12, 2003, 6:10 PM
Post #30 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 176
|
In reply to: In reply to: You get what you pay for I guess. Well, you're assuming I was looking for a product.
Nope, I wasn't assuming anything. I was simply acknowledging the fact that yes, there is a stack of free advice out there, while at the same time trying to illustrate just how reliable that information is
Thanks for the input though. It is good to know what is already out there and how satisfied people are with it.
peas
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
Sep 12, 2003, 7:02 PM
Post #31 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
wc- you wrote "One if the biggest misconception in climbing training is that climbing hard is the best training for climbing hard"
did I say that? MOST of bouldering (well, and climbing in general) is learning to use technique to supplement and inevitably replace exertive strength. this can be taught, but barely. I find that such technique, the fostering of "ease and finesse of motion" if you will, is something that our bodies learn in leu of the mind, and remember despite cognitive thought. it is an evolution that can be feebily prompted, but not successfully taught. climbing with someone who is better than you promts you to improve your technique and try harder climbs, it does little to actually make you a better climber. you have to do that on your own, you vs the rock.
anyhow, its nice to get pointers from friends every now and again, but the real battle is fought inside your own body, technique against exertion
oh fluxus, heather sagar sucks (real quick. who the hell is heather sagar again?) just joshin ya
|
|
|
|
|
wc
Sep 12, 2003, 7:16 PM
Post #32 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 176
|
In reply to: did I say that? MOST of bouldering (well, and climbing in general) is learning to use technique to supplement and inevitably replace exertive strength. this can be taught, but barely. I find that such technique, the fostering of "ease and finesse of motion" if you will, is something that our bodies learn in leu of the mind, and remember despite cognitive thought. it is an evolution that can be feebily prompted, but not successfully taught.
No, you didn't say that and sorry if I implied that you did.
You are absolutely right. I agree completely with your statements above. For 4 years I climbed at the same grade as many of my friends who were obviously stronger than I was. They could do one arm pullups, one arm lock offs, massive sets of pullups, etc. I couldn't lock off with one arm to save my life and I could barely do 10 pull ups, yet with technique and inner focus I was able to get up the same problems.
Now I am really excited because I can compliment my good technique with strength gains. I can now hold 10 sec front levers, which was inconceivable to me 6 months ago. Despite my new found strength, I still completely agree with you, technique is very important (I would say most important). But I feel it is something you can't teach... you can only learn.
Thanks for the input.
|
|
|
|
|
solid
Sep 12, 2003, 7:35 PM
Post #33 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 20, 2003
Posts: 338
|
For someone who posted a question (which we could only assume merited honest answers) you're seeming a bit reluctant to accept it.
Your program could have some merit but it doesn't seem that you've done enough research on your own to even see what's out there. Also, the way you're presenting your qualifications make you look like a braggart and a poorly versed one at that.
Just something for you to think about.
|
|
|
|
|
wyomingclimber
Sep 12, 2003, 8:56 PM
Post #34 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 152
|
Fluxus--I'm afraid I was the one who dissed Sagar's book, though if you liked it, great.
I just thought it was a really sloppy piece of work. Innaccurate, repetitive, unoriginal, hard to follow, etc.
I mean, it's hard not to giggle at a sportclimbing book that puts VO2max as a major contributor to ability. Maybe Lance Armstrong should give up biking and flash Realization.
|
|
|
|
|
alpiner
Sep 13, 2003, 3:41 PM
Post #35 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2003
Posts: 210
|
Well if you're going to play that game...Performance Rock Climbing espouses the "fat-burning zone" nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
wyomingclimber
Sep 13, 2003, 5:22 PM
Post #36 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 152
|
Can you tell I'm bored? I'm sitting here working on my own book that I've been writing for 6 months. So, I'll take a break and rise to Fluxus's challenge (despite there being no swank prize mentioned.)
In the first 3 pages of Sagar's book:
Your physical strength is determined by two factors: your muscle fiber type and the amount and type of training you do. Add: number of fibers, tendon insertions, genetic recruitment patterns, etc.
Multiple power moves are fueled by the anaerobic system of energy--the creatine-phosphate system. The ATP-CP system is only good for about fifteen seconds. Glycolysis? Ding ding ding.
If you fall with your hands opening uncontrollably on the holds...you have reached the anaerobic threshold--the point at which metabolism has switched from aerobic to anaerobic and your oxygen debt is too high to continue. Where to start... 1: AT relates to systemic blood concentrations of lactic acid, not localized concentrations. But that's just nitpicking, I suppose. 2: If your hands open uncontrollably, you're not at 'AT' you're way past it. 3: Oxygen debt ain't your problem, it's lactic acid interfering with muscle function (which, I suppose, to be fair, is related to a lack of oxygen. But not the way she thinks.)
Aerobic training involves maintaining a heart rate of 50-80% of max for twenty minutes or more. (fit people 80%, unfit people closer to 50%.) The suggestion here is that heart rate is a good indicator for training intensity in power sports? I love that. Can you imagine the difference in intensity levels between a XC skier(using a huge percentage of his/her muscle mass) and a sportclimber (using primarily his/her forearms.) How hard would you have to squeeze a rubber ball to get your heart rate up to 80% of max? Pretty darn hard, I would imagine. I guess you could try running up low angle slab. Oh, and her percentages are too high based on the endurance training literature I have.
The maximum volume the lungs can hold--known as VO2max--can limit exertion. VO2max has virtually nothing to do with lung volume and everything to do with cardiac output. [It] closely related to Anaerobic Threshold. Not really. VO2 is cardiorespitory and AT is muscular. Hence, training one ability will directly affect the other. This is actually true in endurance sports (though not for the reason she states) but it isn't true for climbing. Doing hill intervals on a bike will not improve your forearm's ability to endure repeated 5.10 moves, but it'll put a nice fine point on your VO2.
Endurance training is one of several approaches you can take to improve your V02max and AT (she then goes on to explain how sportclimbing will provide an continual improvement to your VO2.) Okay. First of all, sportclimbing is not probably going to tax the heart enough to significantly affect VO2 (though I suppose it is conceivable.) Second, you don't really get a 'continuous' improvement to VO2. Genetic ceilings are unbreakable and relatively easy to reach. Three, again, VO2 isn't really relevant to power sports like climbing.
As far as Horst's book goes. My big complaint was that he threw out muscular endurance training. I think that's a mistake.
PRC seemed almost perfect to me, though, I thought the Strength chapter was a little unclear in places. Regarding the 'fat burning' discussion mentioned by a prior poster. I think Neumann is correct the way he presented it.
Ooops. The rain has stopped and my road bike calls. Time to go work that VO2max...
|
|
|
|
|
redpoint73
Sep 13, 2003, 5:43 PM
Post #37 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 1717
|
In reply to: "I don't know if it can beat Horst's book" Anyone who can't beat Horst's book with one hand tied behind their back is in bad shape.
Unfortunately "anyone" is not willing to even try. Fact is there is not much published training info. Only a few books. Many on this site have panned Horst's books. But there is not much to compare them to, only a couple others.
Back to the original post, I would say there isn't nearly enough documentation out there. Any more books that are even a little helpful would be more than welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
granitehalo
Sep 13, 2003, 6:07 PM
Post #38 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 18, 2003
Posts: 10
|
I'm interested, if it is unique and accurate. If your goal is to help some people, even if it doesn't make lots of money, I think there is enough interest for it to be worth doing.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Sep 13, 2003, 6:10 PM
Post #39 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
Something that I think creates a contextual bias in this argument is that most memebers of this site are big on the "the best training for climbing is climbing." I'm not sure if that's due to a larger trad population or just a more vocal trad population (not bagging on tradsters).
However, in bouldering and sport climbing using climbing to train will get you plateau-ed pretty quick. I wish more people were supportive of wc. In fact, I'm sure Pablo Babero would agree with him:
"As opposed to most people, I think strength is the most important thing for anybody practicing a sport, except for the skill sports like equilibrium-based sports or ball sports. It’s true that we don’t have to forget such aspects like psychology or technique, but if you you’re in great physical shape your intellect will know it and will act better. Technique is very important as well, but you can replace it with power. If you already have got the power, there will be time to purify your technique that except in on-sight climbing, it’s easy to correct." www.8a.nu
|
|
|
|
|
alpiner
Sep 13, 2003, 7:05 PM
Post #40 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2003
Posts: 210
|
In reply to: Regarding the 'fat burning' discussion mentioned by a prior poster. I think Neumann is correct the way he presented it.
Then you are as outdated as he is. Running long and slow on an empty stomach as he suggests is simply lousy training and scientifically unsound.
|
|
|
|
|
wyomingclimber
Sep 13, 2003, 7:35 PM
Post #41 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 152
|
Hmmmm. I didn't read that part--I just flipped through the scientific explanation of GAET in the prior chapter, which seemed reasonable (ie he wasn't professing that there is an inherently inefficient intensity zone like those late night infomercials do.)
I agree, I'm not sure what his justification is for training before breakfast. Was this in vogue in the early nineties when the book was written? Can't remember.
An interesting side note: A German climber once told me that Neumann has written a number of books and that there is a heavily updated version of PRC available. Unfortunately, it's in German and I find that language completely unfathomable.
In any event, I stand corrected.
|
|
|
|
|
redpoint73
Sep 13, 2003, 10:44 PM
Post #42 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 1717
|
In reply to: Something that I think creates a contextual bias in this argument is that most memebers of this site are big on the "the best training for climbing is climbing." I'm not sure if that's due to a larger trad population or just a more vocal trad population (not bagging on tradsters).
That's an interesting view. I say this because I also believe that the best training for climbing is climbing, and I am largely (though not exclusively) a sport climber. I also think most sport climber would agree with the notion.
I think this has more to do with the fact that most other forms of training (weights, hangboard, etc.) may make certain muscles stronger. But they don't train all the types of hold positions possible, nor do they teach anything about body position, body tension, or climbing movement.
I'm a big fan of campus training, as it seems to have increased my lockoff strength considerably. And I spend quite a bit of time at the climbing gym. But I still think that my time is spent most effectively on real rock. Its just that many people don't have the time to hit the crag as much as they would like.
I will agree with you that many people on this site will insist that technique is more imprtant than strength. My personal feeling as that developing both are important, maybe even equally so -- at least in the first couple years for most climbers. I think those people are forgetting how whipped their fingers and forearms felt when they were still learning. Sure, better footwork and other skills will reduce the amount of work you have to do with your upper body. Even so, the increase in grip strength, lock-off, and shoulder strength is nothing to ignore as you progress through the grades.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 14, 2003, 4:26 PM
Post #43 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Fluxus--I'm afraid I was the one who dissed Sagar's book, though if you liked it, great. I just thought it was a really sloppy piece of work. Innaccurate, repetitive, unoriginal, hard to follow, etc.
You forgot "incoherent."
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Sep 14, 2003, 7:11 PM
Post #44 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
i'm sorry, but i've found the the gains i've made through the use of my hangboard, over the course of the past 3 months, has noticably increased my ability to hang small holds (and climb harder boulder problems). Increasing technique (as someone else said) is pretty easy...traversing a lot one day a week can improve technique noticably.
wc...Two of my goals for the summer were to do a solid front lever and a one-arm pullup, along with the obvious finger strength gains needed for bouldering hard. I'm interested in your training program...could you give us some clue as to how it works? And pleeeaaase stop responding to people who are here just to give you $#!t.
|
|
|
|
|
wyomingclimber
Sep 15, 2003, 12:52 PM
Post #45 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 152
|
Yeah, the great thing about the Sagar book is that it's so easy. I'll leave the others to those more motivated than I.
Don't worry. My book has absolutely nothing to do with climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
unabonger
Sep 15, 2003, 4:11 PM
Post #46 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 2689
|
In reply to: technique is very important (I would say most important). But I feel it is something you can't teach... you can only learn.
Please elaborate. Your "feeling" notwithstanding, technique can and has been successfully taught in a structured way to hundreds of climbers.
UnaBongerista
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 15, 2003, 5:40 PM
Post #47 of 49
(4140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Increasing technique (as someone else said) is pretty easy...traversing a lot one day a week can improve technique noticably.
RC.com Quote of the Week nomination.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
deadpointman
Sep 22, 2003, 1:02 PM
Post #48 of 49
(3798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2003
Posts: 176
|
Hey wc: I'm a training guru of sorts who has read a lot of books on the subject of training for climbing, including 3 out of 4 of Eric Horst's training books (I've only avoided reading Flash Training because I don't believe there's anything of importance in that one that isn't covered in his other 3). I'd be more than happy to offer you some input if you personal message me.
For the rest of you, here's my contribution (I just can't help it): On page 9 of Heather Sagar's book, carefully read the directions for performing test #1 (that is the open-hand grip strength test--probably the most relevant out of all the tests that she offers). However, if you perform the test exactly as described (i.e. "with both hands"), then compare your data with the charts on page 16, the chances are that it will appear as though you have the strength to climb about 5.18!!! Really a terrible mistake, that to be honest, I'm surprised even made it into a rough draft, not to mention the printed book! :shock:
|
|
|
|
|
lazide
Sep 22, 2003, 1:22 PM
Post #49 of 49
(3796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2002
Posts: 225
|
My experience, having read all the books, blah blah blah, has been that it is always returns a greater investment training your weaknesses than increasing your strengths, at least in a sport as diverse as climbing. If you lack in endurance, but have good strength and technique (and are not fooling yourself into just THINKING you have good strength and technique ;) ), then train endurance. When that is no longer your weak point attack what is (technique say).
Everyone has a unique set of strengths and limitiations based on their past history (training, pre-sport activitives, liftstyle, etc), and hence has specific needs training wise.
Yes, better technique almost always helps - but there comes a point where even the best technique in the world will not allow you to hold on to a specific hold, or do the sequence necessary to do a specific move. In that case, you need more power, or more endurance, more more blah blah blah.
The big reason why technique is always mentioned, in my opinion, is that a) most people have sucky technique, and b) you use more power, and need more endurance to do a route if you have crappy technique.
Technique however is never going to let you latch x hold and stick it, or pull x hard sequence, if you do not have the basic power necessary. What confuses the issue is that the basic power necessary is usually a lot less than most people think.
Anyways, my 2c :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
