Is "capillarity" really a word to describe climbing training physics?

I'm not a sports doctor, though I often spray like I wish am. ARC to warm up...

Is "capillarity" really a word to describe climbing training physics?

I know that in describing the circulatory system of the body "vascularity" is a correct term. I know that capillaries are the smallest of the blood vessels in the circulatory system but i think capillarity describes the mechanics of fluids in very small spaces.....

....but it seems that climbers have hijacked the word capillarity to describe something other than what it is intended.

ARC stands for aerobic energy restoration and capillarity, again according to Goddard and Neumann. The theory is to train for at least 30 minutes at a pace that does not create a pump.

Indeed. What does "ARC" stand for?

-Jay

I thought the goal was to "maintain a light pump". I've been doing it that way for about 6-7 years.

With all respect, i'm not sure if 'Performance Rock Climbing' is considered a medical or physiology reference.

I stand by my original statement. By questioning the original post's diction, rather than addressing the question, you have asserted your ignorance of this topic.

Here's a word for you: Homonym

Ill have to try that ARC trainning. Iam 180lbs and a 5.9 climber.

I am encouraging people to look at the intensity of their ARCs in terms of grades. Is a climber able to sustain 5.7, 5.4, 5.11 in their ARCs and how is this shaping their climbing?

My own opinion is that he has a hard time getting specific about how to put together all his varied training methods into a realistic routine. I think he does well helping people get to an intermediate 12a level but doesn't have much specifics for ya after that.

1) He puts way too much emphasis on training activities that are at best supplements to real training.

2) he does of a lot speculating without adknowledging that it is speculation.

it is also important to note that power trainign comes at the END of endurance work and should also avoid the pump-- Neumann recommends 3-5 move boulder problems that don't develop pump, mixed into the end of the endurance training cycle.

Your post makes me realize that I was NOT choosing my words carefully. You should disregard my use of the word "real." Its not about "real" Vs "fake" training. The distinction I should have made is between direct training or indirect training. Or better still between Sport specific and suplemental training.

Direct / sport specific activites can be quantified in performance terms, where as supplemental training activities can not. Supplemental activities may foster improvements in certain types of strength but their actual contribution to an on sight, flash, or red point is unmeasurable as is their effect on movement skills.

An easy example is hand board workouts. There is no doubt that correct use of a hang board can significantly improve forarm fitness. However, the fitness gains made on a hang board may or may not make a controbution to an increased performance level, nor can they be used to signal readyness to perform at a specific level. etc.

2) he does of a lot speculating without adknowledging that it is speculation.


I will apologize right up front for not having the book here. Citing specifics would indeed be best. Anyway, (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) I recall him stating that glycogen depletion is the cause of feeling fatigued at the end of a day of climbing...

It may be helpful to point out that when I write about quantifying a workout in performance terms what I mean is, being able to directly compare the demands of a specific workout to the demands of (a) specific climbing performance(s). For example, being able to (consistently) red point 5.13a. Since any route (and in broader terms, any number grade) can be quantified in terms of the range of its movement intensity (basically the V grades of individual moves or sections) and how long it takes a climber to do the route; we can use this information to create performance / fitness bench marks that are very, very accurate in determining a climber's readiness to achieve a specific performance. I'm sure I wasn't clear about this.

The theory of creating a wide base for a high peak is very true, but IMHO only for the type of strength you're trying to develop. If you're a bike racer, increasing your aerobic floor is pretty much everything. For a power lifter (who, incidentally, do no ARC at all) the base relates to hypertrophy.

Whew. Sorry about the long post.

How do you determine the length of your peak phase? Is it 3 weeks by choice, or does your body just refuse to climb hard after that? It seems like a 3 week peak is kinda short for an 18 week training cycle...but then it all depends on what you call a peak.

In your Hypertrophy phase you say you are doing boulder problems that are hard to flash...does that level go up throughout the 8 week period? For example, when you start out you are doing V2 and by the end of the phase you are doing V5?

And finally...do you work routes during your PE phase, or are those workouts strictly in the gym? I artificially lengthen my peak by working PE on my projects (which I was recently told, isn't very good training).

Its incorrect to assume that the other factors that effect performance stay stable across the year.

For example do you know the answers to these basic questions:

1) What are the types of balance found in climbing, how do they feel to the climber, and what their impacts is on movement?

2) What are the main motor processing differences between novice and more accomplished climbers?

3) What physical principle causes a barn door to occur in climbing?

I would have to disagree with that training for climbing is still in the dark ages, the problem is that the application of those training routines are weak and half a$$ed.

Ha Ha, I don't remember what the original question was, something about ARC, now thats funny

All right,
Neil Gresham (planetFear.com) calls it 'SACC' training (Specific Aerobic Capacity & Capilliarity). To those of You who've got my point - many thanks.

Now, some people advise to do it as a warmdown, e.g. after a bouldering session.
Will it not prevent super-compensation, a desireable effect of any high-intensity workout?

In a sense that's the point. When I say training for climbing is in the dark ages I mean two things (a) the state of coaching and hence the practise of training for most climbers is poor as well as (b) although we understand the basic physiological factors reasonably well and a truly well qualified coach can certainly point out deficits we don't know how to design a long term training program for a given climber as we do for say a sprinter. We have a lot to learn in how to 'tune' the factors to climbing.

We had this huge amount of hyped of kid superstars struggling on real 12Bs and the like. The coaches are at the same degree of fault as the kid who got pumped out. So the problem is the lack of ability to apply certain training routines.

Is "capillarity" really a word to describe climbing training physics?

I know that in describing the circulatory system of the body "vascularity" is a correct term. I know that capillaries are the smallest of the blood vessels in the circulatory system but i think capillarity describes the mechanics of fluids in very small spaces.....

....but it seems that climbers have hijacked the word capillarity to describe something other than what it is intended.

Thanks for the kick in the ass. I thought I was being helpfull and not a know it all, I merely looked it up. A word is not defined through usage when the usage is WRONG. Try looking it up in a dictionary, it's a medical term with an accepted meaning and usage. You can call a cat a dog if you like, but that doesn't mean they are going to change it in Maricon-Webster's dictionary.

So thanks for totally misunderstanding the intention of my post genius.

First of all, you're just plain wrong. The word capillarity is used throught the medical and exercise physiology literature to refer to the density, diameter, and length of capillaries in tissue.

-Jay

Please site a reference other than Performance Rock Climbing because I suspect that's the only place it is used that way. And English isn't Dale and Udo's first language.

And English isn't Dale and Udo's first language.

I am beginning to think this is why so many climbers use the word "endurance" to mean anything that's not bouldering. they try to ARC, they get pumped which makes it a low intensity anaerobic workout, but the climber sees benefits at the crag, they just don't realize they are training anaerobic rather than aerobic endurance.

This may not be a terrible thing but if you are concerned with long term development or on-sight climbing the aerobic level must increase.

That is not self-evident, and I don't think I believed it myself until you explained the following: Training aerobically increases the aerobic/lactate threshold, which allows the climber to climb at a harder level without accumulating lactate. I think that even some of die-hard ARCers are missing how this translates to increasing the onsight or redpoint level.
snip . . .
Consider a route that consists of 5.11 climbing to a 5.12 boulder problem crux, with no rest before the crux. If 5.11 is well above your AT, then you will be hitting the 5.12 crux with a substantial pump, an obvious disadvantage. At the other extreme, if you can climb the 5.11 section aerobically, you will be arriving at the crux essentially fresh. But when you cross the AT, it's not all-or-nothing. If you've raised your AT such that 5.11 is in your low anaerobic range lactate will accumulate more slowly, and you'll at least arrive at the crux with less pump.

The only remaining question I have is whether ARCing is necessary to increase the AT. I believe that there is a literature from other sports showing that anaerobic training also increases the AT, so I am not completely convinced that the best way to increase AT is to train in the high aerobic range, as compared with say the low anaerobic range.
-Jay

- I think what you guys (JT n Fluxus) are partly saying is right-- you need areobic cross training to help get rid of lactic acid more efficiently.

At least it seems to have worked that way for me.

A question about ARCing:

Do you guys think it is better to climb and then down climb routes, resulting in true continuous climbing, or climb a route, lower quickly, and immediately start climbing again.

I'm curious why 30 minutes is a magic number for ARCing. Is there a physiological reason? The logic in PRC seems to be more pyschological, e.g. climbing for 30 minutes gets you used to being in a vertical environment.

The reason I ask is that I have been using a hangboard to ARC and I find that more than 15 minutes is just too boring.

Also, because I'm taking my weight off my legs get tired. This was also true when I was trying to ARC indoors, I'd have to climb on slabs most of the time and my calves would get really tired. Any thoughts? I want to be training my fingers not my legs.

Your post made me wonder though, I see myself primarily as a boulderer. Because that's my discipline of focus, maybe shorter ARC sessions make more sense because 5 minutes on a hang board is way longer than I'd ever spend on an individual problem.

In addition, I guess I'm wondering if 30 minute ARC sessions are built more for competition climbers.

I boulder V7 and I've redpointed 5.12's. My body is pretty skinny and taller so endurance has never suited me. I'd take a 5.12 with a stiff bouldery crux over 5.10 Indian Creek route any day.

For the boulderer the need for endurance has to do with recovery between problems not for the actual climbing, since any bouldering effort will be anaerobic in nature. Also there is a limit to how short your ARCs can be and still be effective. If your blood pressure is not up for a reasonable length of time then there won't be a stimilus for change. At least, that's how I understand it.

I mean the two basic examples of progressiveness:
(Weekly progression, grades hypothetical but indicating something around onsight level. Of course this should be quite an excact number, but anyway the idea is to barely make the given sets so in the end of a session one should be quite trashed.)

A
1. 8*7a / 5´ pause
2. 10*7a / 5´
3. 12*7a / 5´
4. 12*7a / 4´30"
5. 12*7a / 4´

B
1. 10*7a / 5´
2. 10*7a / 4´
3. 10*7a+ / 5´
4. 10*7a+ / 4´

:lol: the ocean between us seems to have some effects...

ok... I´ll try to clarify things a bit:

system A
week 1: 8 times 7a sport route with 5 minutes pause between attempts
2: 10*7a / 5´
3: 12*7a / 5´
4: 12*7a / 4´30"
5: 12*7a / 4´

system B
1: 10*7a / 5´
2: 10*7a / 4´
3: 10*7a+ / 5´
4: 10*7a+ / 4´

got more sense out of me yet? :)

:lol: the ocean between us seems to have some effects...

ok... I´ll try to clarify things a bit:

system A
week 1: 8 times 7a sport route with 5 minutes pause between attempts
2: 10*7a / 5´
3: 12*7a / 5´
4: 12*7a / 4´30"
5: 12*7a / 4´

system B
1: 10*7a / 5´
2: 10*7a / 4´
3: 10*7a+ / 5´
4: 10*7a+ / 4´

got more sense out of me yet? :)

To make the above Mr. Greshams systems better to suit a person who is let´s say preparing for a sport climbing road trip, what changes would you recommend?

I came up with this five week sketch:
week 1: 5 times onsight level route of 22 moves, pause 4 minutes
week 2: 6 times onsight level route of 24 moves, pause 4 minutes
week 3: 7 times onsight level route of 28 moves, pause 4 minutes
week 4: 7 times onsight level route of 30 moves, pause 3 minutes 30 seconds
week 5: 7 times onsight level route of 30 moves, pause 3 minutes
week 6: no hard AE, one strength and power, one ARC
week 7: hard climbing and grade smashing on a road trip :)

In all the AE routes the target time would be kept at 5-10 seconds per move even if the climbing gets easier. There would be 2-3 different routes where the training is done and the same route wouldn´t be done back to back.

Weekly schedule would go
Mo: Strength and power bouldering
Tu: rest
We: AE workout, faster pace (5 secs per move)
Th: ARC
Fr: rest
Sa: AE workout, slower pace (10 secs per move)
Su: rest

If we are talking about the main principles of AE period, what would they be in your opinion?

I´m mainly an onsighter on roadtrips but would like to do a bit redpointing too. Maybe the first day RP´s and the second OS´s and after that a rest day.

What do you think about the rest periods compared to the work? Should it be 1:1 or less? Is it a good idea to cut down the rest period as the phase goes on as in my sketch?

I also agree with the harder AE workouts to be included. As the wall we train the routes on is only 10-15 degrees overhanging (12metres high) it´s hard to simulate steep stuff there. I have a 50 degree boulder woodie at my house and been doing longer porblems there for AE. I might build a problem that has 10-15 pretty hard moves. In the beginning I do it 3-4 times with 5 mins rest. I try to work on it once a week and in two months I can do maybe 5-6 times 15-20 moves with 4 minutes rest. Sounds bad? Anyway I think increasing the time spent on the problem is good and not always just to make the problem harder.

1) How long?

2) Should one add more volume over the period or up the grade? I mean which one is better (grades showing just to clear things out):
- 6 times 7b ( let´s say onsight level) , 5 minute pauses progressing to 10 times 7b, 4 minute pauses or
- 6 times 7b, 5 minute pauses progressing to 6x7b+, 5 minute pauses.

3. How should the workout load be calculated? How many sets would do it and should one be completely trashed in the end or leave something for the next time?

4. How many times should one do anaerobic endurance in a week? Should the strength, power and ARC be kept along at maintenance level?

5. Is it better to do the same grade many times or lower the grade as one is getting more tired:
- 6x7b or
- 7b+, 7b, 7a+, 7a, 6c+, 6c

7. You said before that if one is concentrating more in onsighting, the work period should be over 5 minutes. Should one also climb slower and simulate onsight climbing that way?