|
|
|
|
fredrogers
Jan 16, 2004, 8:51 PM
Post #26 of 127
(50296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2003
Posts: 288
|
Refreshing to see some good posts about training. I never got into doing Goddard's ARC training but I'm like most Americans and have fairly bad endurance unless I really focus on training it. I never could understand how JB could warm up on 6-10 routes. The sun's going down by the time I've done 7 routes!
Sounds like Rockprodigy could redpoint a little harder if he's onsighting 12c and almost 12d. The guys I know that are onsighting at those levels are RPing hard 13d's. I guess it depends how much effort you put into the subdisciplines of RP vs. onsighting.
Rockprodigy and Fluxus - what do you currently think about Horst's books? 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.
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Jan 16, 2004, 9:53 PM
Post #27 of 127
(50296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
In reply to: 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.
Precisely what I think. He goes into great detail about individual workouts, but if you ask me, that is the easy part. The hard part is building a 4 month program and scheduling the individual workouts day-to-day. For example, where exactly would you include "Heavy Finger Rolls" into your training cycle?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 17, 2004, 2:39 AM
Post #28 of 127
(50296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: 1) He puts way too much emphasis on training activities that are at best supplements to real training.
What do you consider real training, then?
In reply to: 2) he does of a lot speculating without adknowledging that it is speculation.
I've always suspect that that was the case. Having only a glancing familiarity with exercise physiology myself, I can't tell in his books what is fact and what is theory that he's extrapolating to climbing. Citing references would be helpful.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
wyomingclimber
Jan 20, 2004, 5:31 PM
Post #29 of 127
(50296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 152
|
I think you're being a bit too hard on Eric. I read his book and while I have some disagreements with what he said and could point out some nitpicky errors, I think he wrote a book that can help 90% of climbers.
1: Your suggestion seems to be that extrapolating techniques from other research/sports, is useless and unless he's tested these techniques on large samples of climbers, he is merely speculating. That just isn't how exercise physiology works. Even at the highest levels of athletics, there is a great deal of training wisdom based mainly on observation. Testing these theories in a very precise way is nearly impossible.
2: Despite the fact that he hasn't biopsied the forearms of hundreds of climbers, I think it's fair to say that incomplete restoration of glycogen during a session contributes to fatigue. Sure there are other contributors, but are they really important in the context of Eric's book? I mean, the thing has to be readable by climbers, not PhDs. And as far as marathon runners being able to run 3 days in a row at a good clip, I would think they could. The guys riding the grand tours perform a similar feat for 21(ish) days in a row.
3: Eric seems to have set out to write a book about training--and does not pretend to have written a book about movement. While he does discuss mental and technical aspects (very similar to Neumann) it's understandable that he doesn't try to outline every move necessary on rock. This would be impossible. It's not like ballet, where you have fixed positions.
4: While I'd agree that specificity rules and climbing is the best training for climbing, there is no doubt that in the real world, supplemental training protocols can be helpful. I mean, football players lift weights. Cyclist XC ski, etc. If you reach a high level in your climbing, it is likely that you will have weaknesses that can be addressed in the gym. This is particularly true for those of us who don't have the ability to live on the road.
5: Eric's explanation of motor learning seemed like it would be instructive to his target audience. Again, there is simply no way he can write a 600 page dissertation on the central nervous system in a climbing training book. There's a balancing act between accuracy/thoroughness and readability. While you and I might like to sit around and read about motor unit innervation, we're two of six people on the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
psirro
Jan 20, 2004, 6:51 PM
Post #30 of 127
(50296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 105
|
you have to choose between stamina or power i prefer stamina
|
|
|
|
|
harihari
Jan 21, 2004, 2:21 AM
Post #31 of 127
(50296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2004
Posts: 182
|
Regarding _Perforamnce Rck Clmbing_--
neumann and goddard make some really useful points about ARC (or capillarity training). If you think this would get boring (e.g. ARCing on 5.9 for an hour at a time), i recommend you have another look.
While doing ARC, it is wise to also do movement practice and "play," where you simply fiddle around in low-risk low-pump situations with new moves. yes, you will be in the gym and climb the same 5.9 six times. But...you can do any of the following-- try climbing the route a different way each time, climbing silently, liebacking (or whatever) the whole thing, climbing w/ eyes closed, etc. These will both allow you to maintain the low-level near-pump that builds capillarity AND it will increase your inventory of engrams (i.e. it will make you develop new ways of doing moves, an essential component of increasing on-sight performance).
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.
I have loosely followed these guys' program and it has worked hugely for me. I find that a great way to work it (here in Squamish) is to do looong long trad moderate days as ARC work (fun and easy) and then go and fire harder sport routes at peak phase.
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Jan 21, 2004, 3:45 AM
Post #32 of 127
(50296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
In reply to: 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.
What do you mean by "the endurance training cycle"? PRC does not use that nomencature. There are the ARC cycle and the Power-Endurance cycle...which do you mean?
I always thought the training cycles should be in this order:
1. ARC
2. Hypertrophy (strength development)
3. Maximum Recruitment ("power")
4. Power-Endurance
5. Rest
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 21, 2004, 7:27 PM
Post #33 of 127
(50296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: What do you consider real training, then? 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.
It would seem to me that working out on a hangboard would almost certainly improve climbing performance for a relatively advanced climber. Obviously, the hangboard holds would have to be relevant to the type of climbing the climber was doing. Hangboard and other training offer an advantages over climbing on rock for strength training, namely, they are repititious. One could easily quantify the effects of such training on climbing performance in a controlled study.
In reply to: 2) he does of a lot speculating without adknowledging that it is speculation. In reply to: I've always suspect that that was the case. Having only a glancing familiarity with exercise physiology myself, I can't tell in his books what is fact and what is theory that he's extrapolating to climbing. Citing references would be helpful. -Jay 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...
I meant that I wish that Horst cited more sources, so that the reader could judge how speculative Horst is being. Nonetheless, thanks for the specific examples. They were informative.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
harihari
Jan 22, 2004, 6:13 AM
Post #34 of 127
(50296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2004
Posts: 182
|
What do you mean by "the endurance training cycle"? PRC does not use that nomencature. There are the ARC cycle and the Power-Endurance cycle...which do you mean?
I always thought the training cycles should be in this order:
1. ARC
2. Hypertrophy (strength development)
3. Maximum Recruitment ("power")
4. Power-Endurance
Sorry, I used the wrong terminology (don't have the book at hand)-- my understanding is that most of the capillarity work (the ARC stuff) is done before work on strength and power. Near the end of the ARC part of training, you start mixing in the short boulders, etc, to work on strength.
One of the really good points of this book (IMHO) is that they suggest that different aspects of training need to be differentiated. I.E. we learn (and gain physical skills/power) better when we train oen thing at a time, rather than when we spend all our time working near our limit.
|
|
|
|
|
wyomingclimber
Jan 22, 2004, 5:46 PM
Post #35 of 127
(50296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 152
|
Harihari:
Based on current research, you're right on the order of 2-4.
How ARC should be worked into this seems a bit speculative (with PRC being probably the most comprehensive text on the issue.) This is because rock climbing has kind of a unique blend of physical abilities. What I mean by that is that periodization has been studied pretty extensively for endurance athletes and for power athletes (though there is still a lot of debate.) But we're power-endurance athletes.
The questions in my mind are:
1: Does a long exclusive ARC period reduce hypertrophy and recruitment undesirably?
2: Does a long exclusive ARC period reduce the strength of connective tissue (something ignored in pretty much every text on climbing)
In my experience, ARC is better performed during other phases instead of having one of its own. So, for instance, in a power phase you might do
M: Power
T: ARC
W: ARC
Th: Off
F: Power
S: ARC
Sn: Off
And then during your end-of-cycle week off, you'd do something like 3 ARC days and a 4 days off. There's a secondary benefit here--ARC seems to speed recovery.
Keep in mind that periodization is really personal. Some people respond well to longer cycles and some to shorter. I, for instance, could never do 6 weeks of power, which many people consider optimal. I'd be totally broken.
Another thing to consider is what ARC is actually doing for you--essentially making it easier for you to shake. How important is this to your style/type of climbing.
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Jan 23, 2004, 12:39 AM
Post #36 of 127
(50296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
I think you are missing much of the intent of ARC training. Improving your ability to shake is not the only reason for ARC.
As far as I know, most sports follow the paradigm that the "the breadth of your base determines how high you will be able to build your peak". The ARC phase is your base. It is the foundation that your future training is built upon. That is why I do it, and why I spend so much time on it. I suppose you could make the argument that the Hypertrophy phase is also a base, and it would be an interesting experiment to go through a training cycle with no ARC training. It sure would make my training more productive (I could have 4 peaks/year instead of 2!) Does anyone know if weightlifters do anything similar to ARC training?
I recall one season where I dismissed the ARC phase because I was in a hurry...I just started doing hangboard workouts, then campusing. I didn't experience much of a peak at all that season. I didn't feel very strong, and I definitely didn't send anything notable.
As for your questions, I can give you my personal experience. I have always trained with a long exclusive ARC phase, and I also quantitatively record my Hypertrophy workouts, so I have actually measured my strength gains over the years. I can say that for me, I have always improved strength despite the long ARC phase. I'm not saying that when I start a new Hypertrophy phase, I am stronger than when I left off the last one, but by the end of the Hypertrophy phase, I am usually measurably stronger than the end of the last Hypertrophy phase. Maybe I could be even stronger if I didn't take so much time off in between Hyp phases.
For the second question...I don't know. I feel like if I jumped from my rest phase right into Hypertrophy again, I would be much more prone to injury. The ARC phase as a buffer seems to really help.
Seriously though, how much stronger can the human body get from year to year without using steroids?? At a level that is sustainable? For example, in the area of weight loss, the common rule of thumb is that sustainable weight loss is 1-2 lbs. per week. I wonder what the sustainable strength increase is for a muscle??
I would guess that 1-2 (closer to 1) letter grades per year is a sustainable improvement for an advanced climber. If you're improving faster than that, it won't last for long (if so, there would be 5.17's by now, right?)
I would also like to add that PRC is not the only resource that advocates ARC-type training. Tony Yaniro's "Fingers of Steel" also recommends it. It's been awhile since I've watched it, so correct me if I'm wrong (I took notes, though, and I have those here...yes, I'm a training geek). He talked about 3 phases: Endurance, Stregth-power, and Power Stamina. For the Endurance phase he recommends "10-40min continuous climbing with no burning pump, no trainig boards, and varied movements/hand positions."
Are there any gymnasts out there that know about training for gymnastics?
Please share your standard training cycle, and the results you have had.
|
|
|
|
|
wyomingclimber
Jan 23, 2004, 6:40 PM
Post #37 of 127
(50296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 152
|
Rockprodigy:
You're a training geek after my own heart.
The ARC thing relates to one of the most interesting concepts in exercise physiology: The relationship between aerobic and anaerobic 'strength.' There was a time when the relationship was thought to be really strong, but now conventional wisdom is moving in the direction of a weaker relationship. I'm on the lunatic fringe of thinking there is no relationship at all.
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.
Think of it this way: Aerobic energy is used for low intensity exercise and then is phased out over a very narrow band of relatively low intensities. Let's say that, through ARC, you raise your aerobic floor from 25% of max contraction to 40% of max contraction and then it phases out (and into glycolysis) from 40% to 50%. Now, a hard redpoint might not have a single hold big enough for you to grip at less than 60% of max contraction (pretty easy.) This makes the improvement in your aerobic floor completely irrellevant. Until, of course, you let go and all those new capillaries start flushing lactic acid.
There are a number of studies that suggest this--most I've seen relate to weight training vs bicycle power output. Too hard to quantify in climbers.
Don't get me wrong--I'm a big fan of ARC for many of the same reasons you are. I just don't think high levels of muscular endurance actually affect peak power levels in any direct positive way.
WIth regards to sustainable improvement in strength, I agree. It is ruled by the law of diminishing returns. Even steroids wouldn't probably help due to increased body weight. You can only get so big and you can only recruit so many fibers. Probably a lot of long term improvement relates to improved technique and not improves strength.
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Jan 23, 2004, 6:49 PM
Post #38 of 127
(50296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
In reply to: 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.
I agree that the difficulty of a particular route can be somewhat quantified by the length of the route and intensity of the individual moves. However, this still includes a large degree of subjectivity as to the difficulty of the moves, availability of rest positions, etc.. Even if I accepted the fact that you can quantify the difficulty of a route, what do you compare this to in order to assess a specific climber's readiness to achieve that performance level?
When I first read PRC, I bought into the idea that many factors affect your overall performance as a climber, and specifically, strength is not that important. Remember the analogy of working on a car? These days, I am not so sure.
As you know, I like to use periodization to train. During my peak phase, I am usually an entire number grade stronger than when I'm not "in shape". If strength is only a small piece of the pie, and the other pieces (mental factors, technique, flexibility, etc.) stay relatively constant throughout the year (they aren't affected by periodization), then wouldn't it make sense that my overall climbing ability would stay relatively constant throughout the year, despite the dramatic fluctuation of my physical strength?
I have decided over the years that although those other factors are important, they are not as important as strength.
Another angle to look at is the "Katie Brown effect". Why is it that so many pre-pubescent boys and girls are exceptional climbers, until they hit puberty. Does puberty cause a reduction in balance, technique, flexibility etc.? It seems like the most logical cause of their decreased performance is their strength to weight ratio.
It's nearly impossible to prove that one aspect is more important than another by isolating them. You can't practice technique without also improving strength, and vice versa. So the the original argument of whether or not the hangboard is the most effective training tool is impossible to answer.
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Jan 24, 2004, 2:32 AM
Post #39 of 127
(50296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
In reply to: 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.
This is good stuff. I would be super psyched if I could just drop the ARC phase off of my training cycle...it would buy me a lot of time!
I'm curious...do you use periodization?
Do you use Hypertrophy as your base, and how do you accomplish it? I do hypertrophy on the hangboard.
The way I train now, I do a 4-5 month cycle in the spring and fall. As it is, the ARC phase takes up 1.5-2 months of that. If I eliminated it, I could cut my training cycle down to 2.5-3 months and do 3-4 cycles per year instead of the usual two...that would be a lot more climbing, and a lot less training. I figure I could still work in the occasional ARC sessions between hard workouts, as I do now.
|
|
|
|
|
wyomingclimber
Jan 24, 2004, 7:55 PM
Post #40 of 127
(50296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 152
|
Are you kidding? I put periodization right between the invention of antibiotics and the moon landing in the heirarchy of human achievement. I mean, it sounds like a late night commercial: "Get way fitter, with less effort, less monotony, and fewer injuries." Only it actually works.
I remember when I first used a periodized program. It was right after PRC came out and I was doing a trip to Thailand to climb with a guy who had a home crag advantage there. On the bright side, I got ridiculously strong (for me.) I felt like Superman. Unfortunately, I didn't understand the subtleties of scheduling, peaked 3 weeks too soon, and was broken when I got there. When I pumped off my warmup, I swear I almost broke into tears.
But, I digress...
Here's what I finally developed that worked well for me (but might not work for anyone else...)
REST
Nov 15-Dec 15: Off. Not allowed to even climb a ladder.
PHASE ONE
8 weeks: Arc/Hypertrophy.
This starts as 4 days per week of ARC and slowly transitions into 3 days/week of hypertrophy and 2 days of ARC. I don't use fingerboards or heavy finger rolls because they never seemed very specific and I have a trick wrist. I tended to do long boulder problems or short routes (15 moves or so) that were sustained and hardish to flash. Ideally, I'd have used a system board, but never had the motivation to build one.
Rest week: Essentially off. 2 or 3 ARC days
PHASE 2
6 weeks: Power
I used a weird loading pattern ripped off from power lifting
Weeks 1 & 4: Barely doable medium length boulder problems
Weeks 2 & 5: Work very hard boulder probs. 60% chance of RP
Weeks 3 & 6: Work individual moves I can't do. Hard Campus Board training.
My schedule was:
Sat:P
Sun:ARC
M:off
T: P
W:ARC
Th:ARC
F:Happy Hour.
Beginning with week 4, I substituted PE on Weds and took Thurs off. This seemed to make the transition into Phase 3 less of a shock.
1 week: Off (as above)
PHASE 3
4 weeks: Power-endurance
My schedule was:
Sat:PE
Sun:PE
M:ARC
T: Off
W: PE
Th:ARC
F:Off
The first week I substitute ARC for PE on Sun.
I do this by lapping a steep wall in the gym until I fall off. I do routes as opposed to all holds with the goal of doing all the routes on the wall without touching the floor by the end of the phase. I do not do long shakes.
PEAK PHASE
Lasts me about 3 weeks. Climb hard on the weekends. Maybe one relatively easy PE day during the week and a couple ARC days.
Week off at the end of this as above.
PHASE 1B
This is essentially a shortened version of Phase 1 above. It last about 5-6 weeks, starting with mostly ARC and ending with mostly Hypertrophy. Then I just go into Phase 2 & 3 as shown above.
I ended up with two pretty high peaks/year coinsiding with the climbing season of Sinks Canyon (spring/fall.) As a practical matter, though, you have a number of peaks with this schedule. Toward the end of the power phase you're sending hard boulder problems but can't do long routes all that well--so you have to just plan your tick list accordingly.
As you can see, I do a lot of ARC (probably 50% of my training time) but I don't set aside large blocks of it. It just kind of gets woven in.
A word on weightlifting. I do an easy workout maybe twice per week of opposing muscle groups. Just one set, medium intensity. Seems to help me hold together...
Whew. Sorry about the long post. Anyway, give that some thought. I doubt the acutal schedule would work for you because everybody's different, but you might be able to use some of the theory.
|
|
|
|
|
csoles
Jan 25, 2004, 1:02 AM
Post #41 of 127
(50296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2002
Posts: 329
|
For a bit of perspective:
"At this period, my training consisted in the main of two parts. Firstly I kept up my general condition in training and secondly I did a special kind of training to strengthen the fingers. Over the years we had worked out a traverse exercise at the old sawmill which we kept up until our fingers got a cramp, the we let go and fell off. This did not matter very much as the holds were, on average, not more than three meters above the ground. The traverse was about eight meters long and I carried on until fatigue caused me to fall off.
On one occasion, just before the solo ascent of the Marmolata di Rocca, I managed to do six traverses without coming off. This was equivalent to 480 meters of climbing and, when one bears in mind that the holds were minimal, one can imagine the effort involved. Admittedly I knew every hold and movement intimately, but the most difficult meters after 40 minutes of maximum effort were often a torment.
One thing I learned from this traverse at the old sawmill was to be able to continue despite cramp in my forearms. For example, when I had taken the wrong route on the first solo ascent of the North Face Direct of the Cima della Madonna and got cramps when descending, my training was such that I could will myself not to let go. This, of course, required strong willpower but, above all, the knowledge that it would work.
This training did not take up too much of my time and I am convinced that, carried out over the years, it lead to greater achievements.
Extreme climbing is perhaps one of the few sports which have, as yet, not reached the limit and which leave open the way to the attainment of completely new standards.”
Reinhold Messner, The Seventh Grade, 1973
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Jan 26, 2004, 4:02 AM
Post #42 of 127
(49835 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
Sounds like ole' Reinhold could use some training tips from us....
In reply to: Whew. Sorry about the long post.
The longer the better...let's get into the nitty gritty:
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.
It seems like your periodization isn't too different from mine. What you define as "hypertrophy" is not as intense as what I do...you would probably consider my HYP workouts to be similar to your lower intensity "power" workouts. If you look at it that way, your 6 week power phase would be pretty similar to my 4-5 week HYP phase plus a 2-3 week Max Recruitment phase. The major differences would be that I use training boards (hangboard + campus board) and you use that funky powerlifting routine.
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).
|
|
|
|
|
wyomingclimber
Jan 26, 2004, 5:15 PM
Post #43 of 127
(49835 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 152
|
In reply to: 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.
The whole peak thing is pretty subjective. My peaks tended to be really high, which shortened them. Also, as you say, how you define it is subjective. By the first week of my PE phase I was climbing really strong and after 3 weeks of peaking, I probably could have gone on--but I'm really injury prone.
In reply to: 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?
It goes up significantly for two reasons. 1: I'm getting stronger. 2: I get the problems I'm training on wired. Generally, though, my intensity, stays the same. It's like a famous bike racer once said: It never gets any easier, you just get faster.
In reply to: 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).
At the beginning of my phase I used to set a route in the gym as a project to measure my progress against. I'd make it hard enough that I wasn't quite able to do any of the moves. The idea was that toward the end of my macrocycle, I'd get it.
I don't see that working a project as training is all that big a deal. It's a little like occasionally cheating on a diet--not ideal, but good for your morale. Also, it allows you to slowly get them wired in preparation for being fit enough to do them.
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Jan 27, 2004, 2:51 AM
Post #44 of 127
(49858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
In reply to: Its incorrect to assume that the other factors that effect performance stay stable across the year.
Why wouldn't they stay constant? When you consider that, during my training cycle, I spend a lot of time doing non-climbing-specific training (hangboard and campus board), you would think that those other factors would be at an all time low when I hit my peak phase, and yet I send much harder routes than when I am "out of shape" physically.
In reply to: For example do you know the answers to these basic questions:
I think I can get one and a half...that's 50%...F+!
In reply to: 1) What are the types of balance found in climbing, how do they feel to the climber, and what their impacts is on movement?
You got me here...help!
In reply to: 2) What are the main motor processing differences between novice and more accomplished climbers?
I'm not quite sure if this is what you are looking for, but.... Advanced climbers use motor "engrams" which are previously learned, rehearsed and stored movement algorithms which the brain can call up at will to perform a certain movement. A novice must consciously direct his/her every movement.
In reply to: 3) What physical principle causes a barn door to occur in climbing?
It is a result of the climber's center of mass being outside of his/her attachment points to the rock.
I knew I could lure you back into the conversation....
What do you have to say about my Katie Brown argument?
|
|
|
|
|
phaser
Feb 5, 2005, 10:01 AM
Post #45 of 127
(49855 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 5, 2005
Posts: 3
|
excellent thread
I would observe a couple of things.
pretty much all theory of periodization in training was derived from the e europeans. The classics are by the e german defector bompa. Still the bomb.
many people have made observations to the effect that various things are too difficult to quantify in climbing as opposed to say running or cycling. but, to state the obvious, that does not mean that the physiological effect is not present. the point of increasing the density of capillaries in the muscle is to increase the efficiency of the aerobic engine, to delay the onset of anaerobic and then to increase the efficiency of the anaerobic by flushing waste more effectively. this is absolutely valuable in climbing despite the difficulties of measure the appropriate training rate. your threshhold may be hard to measure but it doesn't mean it isn't there and that you shouldn't make efforts to train below it for prolonged periods.
similarly it is easy to appeal to how unique our sport is and allege that non sport specific strength training etc is of little proven value. but it is worth remembering that this was said of such training in many many other sports and it has become increasingly apparent that a well designed program can indeed help. Example - strengthening the back. It is extremely easy to strengthen the wrong muscles and get further out of balance. The right exercises by a physical therapist or very good pilates instructor can really help.
it is not true to say that power athletes do no training to improve the performance of the aerobic engine. They do! And one of the reasons they do is that it enables them to train the max power and power endurance phases more intensely! The waste flushes better and they recover quicker. It is just a flat out good thing to build those capillaries. With such athletes the trick is finding a low impact aerobic exercise to that they do not get injured. But this is perfectly possible and elite power athletes do it!
and whilst we are on conventional wisdom in climbing let me put in a plug for massage. pretty much ALL serious athletes in other sports have massage as an integral part of their program. I could go on as to why, but you get the idea.
my feeling is that real training for climbing is in the dark ages compared with more mature and richer sports. there have been some brave pioneers and I salute them, but the overwhelming majority of thinking in the sport is little better than neanderthal. I honestly don't mean this in a perjorative way. I just see it as a fact. The overwhelming majority of 'coaches' have very very very little real understanding of sports science etc and we haven't yet had a bompa in our sport.
just my 2c
|
|
|
|
|
pushsendnorcal
Feb 5, 2005, 6:00 PM
Post #46 of 127
(49854 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 15, 2003
Posts: 207
|
As a strength and conditioning coach for both martial arts and a high ranking national climbing team, I'll have to agree with you. There are very few climbing coaches, that I have met that have the information to be able to train their kids. Many are working off the belief that climbing is the best training for climbing and expanding the training to light conditioning which involves crunches, sit-ups and the like. Nothing special. This is one of the reasons why we have so few kid climbers, climbing at an elite level (14.A & V11).
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$$ed. Look at the most recent USAC Junior nationals. I was in complete shock that some kids could make it to the national level and barely being able to onsight 12.D/13.A.
We had this huge amount of hyped of kid superstars struggling on real 12Bs and the like. The coaches are at the same degree of fault as the kid who got pumped out. So the problem is the lack of ability to apply certain training routines.
Ha Ha, I don't remember what the original question was, something about ARC, now thats funny
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Feb 6, 2005, 2:29 AM
Post #47 of 127
(49854 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
In reply to: I would have to disagree with that training for climbing is still in the dark ages, the problem is that the application of those training routines are weak and half a$$ed.
Climbing as a sport is in the dark ages so of course the training for it is as well. But in addition, since no one has much of a clue about climbing movement (in terms of biomechanics and kinesiology), its quite difficult to construct highly efficient training programs. Clearly we have found some effective training activities but the best stuff is still out there waiting to be discovered. I could go on but won't.
In reply to: Ha Ha, I don't remember what the original question was, something about ARC, now thats funny
and ARC is so funny because?
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Feb 6, 2005, 2:46 AM
Post #48 of 127
(49850 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
Climbing is DEFINITELY in the dark ages when it comes to training. You can say what you want about all the theories that have been presented in books such as PRC, TFC, etc., but the fact is...there are no facts! There is virtually no research that has been done on climbing, so nothing can be taken as fact.
At best, we have a smorgasboard of anectodal "studies" which consist of guys like you and me, working in virtual seclusion, and what we think we have learned over years of training ourselves. Such "studies", with one subject and a biased observer wouldn't even earn a passing grade in a 6th grade science fair.
What literature that does exist is mostly taken from other sports (which take themselves seriously) which have conducted SCIENTIFIC research, and we apply those principles to climbing, but that doesn't mean those theories do apply to climb. An interesting study would be to figure out which (well-known) sport climbing most resembles...at least that way we would know who to steal our theories from.
|
|
|
|
|
clmbr3
Feb 6, 2005, 3:44 AM
Post #49 of 127
(49848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2004
Posts: 35
|
In reply to: 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?
First off, I just want to say that I think this has been one of the most productive threads on RC.com. I've combined elements from PRC and this thread in my last three months of training.
Second, I'd like to reiterate the above question; should ARC be done after a workout? I'm not to clear on how to "cool down." I'm in my power phase - campusing and short, hard boulder problems - and I've been doing 20minutes ARC to warm up... and I pretty much just "climb around" for 10minutes or so to cool down, combined with some light stretching.
|
|
|
|
|
clmbr3
Feb 6, 2005, 3:53 AM
Post #50 of 127
(49846 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2004
Posts: 35
|
Oh, and one more thing:
I do some of my ARCing traversing in the gym - but it is hard enough that I have to shake out fairly often.... I also traverse back and forth on a horizontal cliffband that stretches for almost 500ft. The difficulty is very inconsistent - 30ft of 5.11, 100ft of 5.7, 10ft of 5.10, 100ft of 5.6, 50ft of 5.9, etc. I don't think it really fulfills ARC for me, technically... but I FEEL like I'm climbing well after 2+ hours of continuous climbing. And after my first few weeks on that traverse this fall, I had my hardest trad onsights... Is there something to be said for really long stretches of mostly easy climbing? (Another problem, for me, is that I kind of lose the mentality for making really hard movements when I'm traversing a lot - it's like I forget how to move through improbable feeling sequences)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
