|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Jan 30, 2008, 3:59 PM
Post #76 of 124
(9437 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
smellyhippie wrote: 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.
Both are probably true. Climbing is not well represented among the sports practiced or observed by most American kinesiologists and trainers. But in Austria things are different. There, climbing and skiing are top 40 activities and are intensively studied and trained, and not that many folks care about baseball or basketball.
Still, "climbing"-- even if we mean only gym, comp and sport climbing--is probably more biomechanically complicated than running or cycling or most track and field events.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Jan 30, 2008, 6:48 PM
Post #77 of 124
(9405 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
No one has been “extreme” in their position, here. In fact, I bet fluxus and David W. would actually be aligned on the majority of exercise science principles behind various aspects of training climbing performance. In fact, I know they are.
smellyhippie wrote: 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.
You are not wrong about that; as for strength/conditioning coaches making more money than the PhDs—pffftttt! I just looked at several jobs advertised in my home state to train some MLB teams during pre- and in-season—wanna know how much they offer? Uh, like barely over $1000 a month, plus you have to go live on the road with them. Yah, can’t wait.
As for getting PhDs to interpret the “good” or “better” data—definitely they can interpret with more aptitude than us plebes, but keep in mind that people like David and myself are required to obtain x amount of continuing education credits on an ongoing basis in order to maintain our credentials. Who do you think teaches the seminars and workshops we attend for these things and disseminates the latest research and applied science to us? I assure you we don’t form all our conclusions based on our own research-interpreting abilities. In fact, I’m attending this seminar next month: http://www.nsca-lift.org/bridge2008/ Sorry, no pressing rock climbing training issues on the agenda, but that doesn’t mean the topics will have zero application to them.
In reply to: If strength were causal, then we'd find our best climbers at the Bodybuilding Competitions, or the Irish Hardman Games.
No, this is not true at all, and I find that to be a really watered-down, silly analogy since it leaves out tons of other variables that affect performance. Anyway, I don’t think David is saying pull ups are “causal” to climbing performance. His statement that kinetics influences kinematics is correct. As he said, the part we don’t know is exactly which kinetic measures are most important to varying upper body kinematics during different kinds of climbing. Further, what I think he is saying is that it’s a bit premature and unwarranted to advocate that things like the joint kinetics created by the latissimus dorsi and other large shoulder movers have no real direct relationship on the ease with which technique can be executed. If you read any studies that examine these relationships, you’ll see that they find certain kinetic measurements do affect kinematic performances in many sports and manual labor occupations.
So, for a different analogy, we might think of the ability to do body weight pull-ups in relation to certain styles of climbing the way the 40 yd dash time is used in sports like football: it doesn’t inform or define the overall athletic ability and skills of the player but it does tell us something about an area of their potential performance that is important. Improving it is worthwhile, but no coach or trainer would decide 40 yd dash training should supplant things like game drills during in season.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Jan 30, 2008, 7:33 PM
Post #78 of 124
(9394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
Oh, regarding research:
I think factors like popularity and complex vs non-complex movement patterns may be part of the reason, but I also think it's got to be the fact that money-making enterprises are behind certain sports and therefore the demand for scientific methods of training are very important since millions of dollars often rest on performance outcomes.
What sports do I see reflected most often in the journals I receive and the symposiums and conferences I attend for sport specific training?
In no order of importance, they are:
Football/Rugby
Baseball/Softball
Volleyball
Soccer
Basketball
Lacrosse
Gymnastics
Track and Field (including the lesser stuff like discus and pole vaulting)
Golf
Boxing
Hockey
Tennis
Racquetball
Power and Olympic lifting
Various endurance events singularly or in combination of things like running, swimming, cycling
Less frequently I see research on sports like:
Skiing - endurance and racing
Martial arts - usually judo
Sometimes equestrian sports
Sometimes other racket sports like squash
Ummm, I'm sure there are more but I can't think right now.
Now, since I live in the U.S., these are typically researched and presented in this country. I know that in places like UK and Australia, rowing is the #1 leisure sport and workout preference, akin to running for Americans. I wonder if there is a lot more research on rowing coming from places like these.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jan 30, 2008, 8:16 PM
Post #79 of 124
(9384 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: Track and Field (including the lesser stuff like discus and pole vaulting)
Aerili, you know I love you, but...
Pole Vaulters are my heroes! Among the most "athletic" of the track and field events, requiring sprint speed, Core and extremity strength, kinesthesia, Superb timing, and courage!
"lesser stuff???"
Anyway, thanks for all of your well-done posts. I won't take your "diss" personally.
I do agree with your main point, money drives the research. /OPINION/ Elite Gymnasts train FAR more scientifically than even the best climbers.
|
|
|
|
|
smellyhippie
Jan 30, 2008, 8:19 PM
Post #80 of 124
(9382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2003
Posts: 155
|
Aerili,
I wish I knew how to use the quoting function to bring up specific quotes from previous posts...got to figure that out.
Thanks for the thoughts. Sorry that you think that the analogy is silly. I feel a little attacked by the tone of your email. I'm confused , though, because I think we're saying the same thing. Both of us seem to be saying that strength is only one factor that influences climbing performance, are we not? Thus we agree that it is correlational and not causal?
The bodybuilder analogy I used was to illustrate that if strength was causal to climbing performance then the athletes that have the most strength would turn out to be the best climbers. This is most assuradely not the case, thus it demonstrates why strength is not causal to increased climbing performance.
By the way, that looks like a really cool conference that you're going to!
I also agree that PhD's can earn more than coaches, but this is not always the case. I only said that coaches might make more than the highly lettered, which is true. That's pretty much all I have to say about that.
You're point about the PhDs being able to interpret research and communicate it to non-academics is well taken. Given, though, that for every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD, and given that the quality of research varies tremendously, how do you evaluate whether or not the implications for practice are sound?
It would be nice to think that each speaker at your upcoming conference truly represents a uncontroversial body of knowledge, but it's probably not entirely true. I'm sure there are differences of opinion among conference presenters on various topics. Also, I noticed some of them are presenting summaries of topics, they'll probably present some different viewpoints within each topic.
The crux of the issue is how do you, Aerili, assess the quality of the research for incorporating into your practice? How do you determine what applies to rock climbing and what doesn't?
A third issue is, how do you evaluate yourself as a coach? Is it client success or satisfaction? Are those appropriate measures for evaluation? Many coaches are good at helping clients achieve their goals, but how much of that is a result of the client, or some moderating variable like the Hawthorne Effect? (The Haw. Eff. basically says that people perform better when they know someone is paying attention to them.)
The question is relevant because if coaches evaluate their success on client satisfaction, the reasonable attribution to make is that the techniques, exercises, advice, etc. that the coach uses to engage their client are responsible. However, as we know, clients have success under the tutelage of coaches who have vastly different styles and beliefs. So what is the secret then?
I never claimed that David said pull-ups were causal to climbing performance.
He did say that it strength was causal to climbing performance in some cases. This could be accurate depending on your measure of climbing performance, but if so, then the measure itself probably wouldn't be of much value. David, can you clear this up by explaining in which situations strength is causal to climbing performance? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.
At any rate, cool. I'm fascinated by the whole deal.
Thanks,
Nate
(This post was edited by smellyhippie on Jan 30, 2008, 8:20 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Jan 30, 2008, 8:38 PM
Post #81 of 124
(9374 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: 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.
Ouch, my apologies for seeming condescending, its not intended. Anyway, if the other interests you mention are mountain climbing, then I would agree, but the methods I advocate should work just as well for trad climbers as they do sport climbers.
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Jan 30, 2008, 8:42 PM
Post #82 of 124
(9371 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
onceahardman wrote: I do agree with your main point, money drives the research. /OPINION/ Elite Gymnasts train FAR more scientifically than even the best climbers.
Training is very new in the world of climbing. Over the years I've seen only a small number of elite climbers who actually utilized organized training. Here in the U.S. its often been the case that the top achieving climbers do not train in a formalized way.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jan 30, 2008, 9:11 PM
Post #83 of 124
(9360 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
Hi Hippie (I don't want to call you smelly)...
You said:
In reply to: Both of us seem to be saying that strength is only one factor that influences climbing performance, are we not? Thus we agree that it is correlational and not causal?
This is kind of a logical disconnect, or perhaps a problem with definitions. A correlation occurs when two things are related in some way, either positively or negatively. A correlation does not imply causation. A famous spurious correlation relates alcoholism to Church of England marriages. The correlation was very strong (r~0.9, from memory).
If strength is one factor which influencesclimbing, (as you stated), you now have good evidence for causation. How could strength influence, but not be causative at any level? Strength need not be the ONLY cause to be scientifically causative.
I have treated many stroke patients over the years. I have seen a total lack of measurable strength. To say that strength has no effect on climbing is pretty disingenuous. (I'm not claiming you have said this).
I also understand your point about raw strength, such as the amazing feats performed in "strong-man" competitions. Clearly, there are different kinds of strength.
Specifically training the major movement patterns in climbing (finger flexion, wrist flexion, pronation/supination, shoulder int/ext rotation, adduction, extension, etc.) should improve climbing long term. It makes sense, but there is little supporting research.
Absence of evidence, though, is not the same as evidence of absence.
It may well turn out that entirely climbing-specific training (the fluxus method, if I may?) turns out the highest numbers at the sport crag. But it may also turn out that kinetic training (specifik method?) turns out climbers with the longest high-level careers, through injury prevention. The experience gained through a long career should increase climbing levels later in the career.
Of course, the opposite could also be true.
"Prediction is difficult, especially about the future"...Yogi Berra
Anybody want to collaborate on a study?
(This post was edited by onceahardman on Jan 30, 2008, 10:03 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
athletikspesifik
Jan 30, 2008, 9:52 PM
Post #84 of 124
(9339 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2005
Posts: 50
|
In reply to: If strength were causal, then we'd find our best climbers at the Bodybuilding Competitions, or the Irish Hardman Games.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how to develop relative strength/power. At no point have I ever advocated bodybuilding methods to develop pull-up strength or power. Not only are bodybuilders too heavy for strength:weight (relative strength) sports, but research has consistently proven bodybuilding methods to be counter-productive for sport-strength related activity.
Ikegawa et al., Muscle Force per Cross-Sectional Area is Inversely Related with Pennation Angle in Strength Trained Athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Vol 22, No1, 2008. pg 128-131
I think this answers another question you had about how we determine useful info research and its applications.
As far as the "Irish Hardman Games" go, that may have been a Freudian slip from your video collection.
The Highlander Games is a good demonstration of athletes who have trained for strength/power out-perform a larger muscled athlete.
David Wahl
|
|
|
|
|
athletikspesifik
Jan 30, 2008, 10:03 PM
Post #85 of 124
(9327 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2005
Posts: 50
|
Why do you post anonymously? This is wrong!
In reply to: It may well turn out that entirely climbing-specific training (the fluxus method, if I may?) turns out the highest numbers at the sport crag. But it may also turn out that kinetic training (specifik method?) turns out climbers with the longest high-level careers, through injury prevention. The experience gained through a long career should increase climbing levels later in the career.
OMG!!!! I do NOT advocate that an athlete or climber ONLY perform kinetic (pull-ups/squats... whatever) activities to improve sport performance!!!! You have done a great job at finding my spelling mistake, but missed the overall message?!?!?!?
I'll write it again, pull-ups are a way to develop kinetic strength and power about the shoulder girdle. It is one aspect of climbing performance.
I have NOT attached a grade value to the volume of BW pull-ups/intensity of weighted pull-ups or OAPs. It is AN aspect of climbing-related performance and safety.
David Wahl
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Jan 30, 2008, 10:18 PM
Post #86 of 124
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
onceahardman wrote: Aerili, you know I love you, but... Pole Vaulters are my heroes! Among the most "athletic" of the track and field events, requiring sprint speed, Core and extremity strength, kinesthesia, Superb timing, and courage! "lesser stuff???"
Oh! Sorry, I didn't mean that they were of lesser value or lesser importance, competence, or anything that infers a personal opinion about the events!  It was a bad choice of words--I meant that they are a smaller portion of events in T & F when compared to the number of strict running/jumping events. Also, I don't remember as much research passing in front of my eyes about them. That was all. 
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jan 30, 2008, 10:23 PM
Post #87 of 124
(9314 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
Dave, don't get all bunched up.
I did not intend to suggest that "the spesifik method" involved ONLY kinetic training. I understand that kinetic training is an adjunct to specific training, and I think it's very valuable. I have not missed your overall message.
I'm pretty sure the bulk of what I've written on this thread supports that notion, but I'm sorry if I have mislead anybody.
I post anonymously because I choose to remain anonymous. If you want to correspond privately, feel free to shoot me a pm, like several others have.
|
|
|
|
|
smellyhippie
Jan 30, 2008, 10:24 PM
Post #88 of 124
(9310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2003
Posts: 155
|
Hardman,
This conversation is really making me think! I think you're right about the problem with definitions. Causality is one of those words that has multiple definitions. I might be coming from a more philosophical background in my causation perspective.
I'm with you on correlation. Another well-known example of correlation is that ice cream sales in Chicago is highly correlated with incidents of rape in New York. Weird, huh? Clearly there is no causation, but the two are correlated because weather patterns, shared by NY and Chi, influence the same two variables.
Causation, as I understand it, is where the dependent variable (climbing performance) is directly influenced by the independent variable (strength). Thus, all one would have to do to improve their climbing infinitely is continue to increase their strength. But there becomes a point where this relationship doesn't seem to be true.
Another issue with causality is that for something to be causal there can be no exceptions to the reverse being true. For instance, if we figured out which climbers were strongest in all the right ways and lined them up in a row from strongest to weakest, their climbing performance must correspond directly in relation to the place in line. But we know this isn't the case.
An additional example is the great JB. In his prime, so I hear, he was pretty freaking strong. A hulk. The man. But many weaker climbers today are climbing at a higher level than he ever did (sorry, John). This again flies in the face of "strength is causal".
I don't believe that strength is "causal" to climbing performance. It is a huge part of it, of course. I believe it is highly correlated. If we were to take a sample of the absolute strength of all 5.14 climbers and compare it to 5.11 climbers, there is little doubt that the hard senders are the stronger of the two samples (and of course it depends on how we're measuring strength). Thus, there is a correlation between strength and performance, but this still doesn't establish causality. The hard senders also have better technique, strategy, more experience, and...well, who am I kidding, I have no idea what makes 5.14 climbers so good.
And all this seems to be boiling down to definitional issues. Thank you so much for the opportunity to do some thinking about it.
|
|
|
|
|
smellyhippie
Jan 30, 2008, 10:41 PM
Post #89 of 124
(9298 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2003
Posts: 155
|
Hi David,
Yeah, Highlander games...that's it. Where they have to carry the blarney stone across a cricket pitch while eating some haggis or something.
Sorry if I accused you of advocating body building methods. Pretty sure I didn't.
I appreciate the citation! You'll have to forgive me if I don't go look it up...
I'm am curious why you believe that the information in this article, is valuable compared to articles that present alternative information. How do you pick and choose? Do you assume that since it's in a peer reviewed journal that it has to be true?
Cheers,
Nate
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Jan 30, 2008, 10:49 PM
Post #90 of 124
(9291 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
Here's what I've learned in this thread.
-No-one knows exactly what makes top climbers perform.
-You trainer types are fucking married to your ideas
-Effective or not, I would never hire David Wahl as a trainer and I'd discourage everyone I know from hiring him, based solely on his attitude.
So there you have it.
Also, I don't want to come off as some Fluxus supporter, because I'm not. I don't think his methods are practical for anyone but grid-bolted sport climbers BUT there's something to what he's saying. I look at myself and I am physically quite weak, I can do a handful of pullups, can't do a front lever, am OK for core strength, average flexibility, nothing of note. Yet, in my weakness I've sent crack climbs up to 12d this year and will send harder next year. My secret is lots and lots of crack climbing. Or as Fluxus puts it, movement training.
Just don't arm wrestle me, you'll break my arm.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jan 30, 2008, 10:54 PM
Post #91 of 124
(9300 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
"The strength of any civilized society lies in its definitions"- Ayn Rand
A correlation coefficient (r) varies between 1 and -1
The correlation coefficient between strength (variable X) and climbing skill (variable Y) is certainly not r=1.
That is, the correlation is not a perfect one. That really means one CANNOT BE the ENTIRE cause of the other. But it can still be "causative", from a scientific standpoint. Or, a "cause" of part of the imperfect correlation.
there are 4 possibilities for any correlation:
1) X is the cause of Y
2) Y is the cause of X
3) The correlation is spurious
4) A third variable is the cause of the correlation between X and Y.
It looks to me like you are having difficulty admitting that strength is "causal" to climbing. I am not claiming it is the entire cause, but that does not mean it is not "causal". If you have 0/5 strength, you cannot climb. You must be carried. Strength is causal to climbing. It is not the only cause.
|
|
|
|
|
gunkiemike
Jan 30, 2008, 10:57 PM
Post #92 of 124
(9295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266
|
rgold wrote: Since no one will argue with me, I'll have to argue with myself. (Don't you just hate it when you have to do all the work for your adversaries?) In the thread on 600 pullups in an hour (now we're talkin' absurd), no less a luminary than John Bachar replied, the John Bachar of weighted pullups with 125 lbs of weight. One of the things Bachar says in his post is John Bachar wrote: Nowadays I see so many ultra strong boulderers and climbers achieving things I never thought imaginable and they don't even bother with pullups at all. This is a pretty strong confirmation of Fluxus' claim that specific training is more effective than supplementary training, from one of the kings of supplementary training from years gone by.
But in that same post, JB said "Like many climbers before me I started to do pullups when I began climbing, thinking it would help me up the rock. It definitely helped me climb a lot better."
So there! There is truth on both sides of the aisle.
This debate reminds me of one of the early Rocky movies, where the Russian champ used scientific training while our boy Balboa split wood and ran hills to get in shape. Both were effective. I firmly believe there are climbers out there who have been helped by chin ups and other exercises, and clearly there are climbers out there who have been helped by training climbing movement/technique. To suggest that either is worthless is just silly. But the pig DOES love to wrestle...
|
|
|
|
|
smellyhippie
Jan 30, 2008, 10:59 PM
Post #93 of 124
(9293 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2003
Posts: 155
|
Hardman, you're probably rightt about me not wanting to admit that strength is causal. I'm gonna have to chew on it for a while...and explore constructions of causality. I might be getting it confused with the relationship of causality to effect size.
Thanks,
Nate
|
|
|
|
|
smellyhippie
Jan 30, 2008, 11:13 PM
Post #94 of 124
(9277 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2003
Posts: 155
|
Hardman,
I have a question for you. I pulled this straight off Wikipedia, so it may not be accurate. But in determining causality, the following must be present:
* X must precede Y
* Y must not occur when X does not occur
* Y must occur whenever X occurs
Using that example in climbing terms...
--Greater strength must precede greater climbing performance.
--Greater climbing performance must not occur if greater strength does not occur.
--Greater climbing performance must occur whenever greater climbing strength occurs.
In the real world, we know the above 3 statements are not always true. What do you think of this as an argument for strength remaining non-causal?
I need to do something more productive than this.
Be well,
Nate
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jan 30, 2008, 11:23 PM
Post #95 of 124
(9268 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
hippie, I need to do some other stuff too.
In reply to: * X must precede Y * Y must not occur when X does not occur * Y must occur whenever X occurs Using that example in climbing terms... --Greater strength must precede greater climbing performance. --Greater climbing performance must not occur if greater strength does not occur. --Greater climbing performance must occur whenever greater climbing strength occurs.
BUT-strength (at some nonzero level) must precede climbing...zero strength=zero climbing.
Climbing performance does not occur without strength.
ability to climb occurs whenever sufficient strength exists. NOw, whether or not one CHOOSES to climb...
cheers all! see you tomorrow!
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Jan 30, 2008, 11:58 PM
Post #96 of 124
(9255 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
smellyhippie wrote: Thanks for the thoughts. Sorry that you think that the analogy is silly. I feel a little attacked by the tone of your email. I'm confused , though, because I think we're saying the same thing. Both of us seem to be saying that strength is only one factor that influences climbing performance, are we not? Thus we agree that it is correlational and not causal?
Sorry, I wasn't trying to attack you; but you said you thrive on this stuff, right?! I'm giving you life, man! 
Anyway, I think other people have explained why your illustration doesn't make any sense here.
In reply to: I also agree that PhD's can earn more than coaches, but this is not always the case. I only said that coaches might make more than the highly lettered, which is true. That's pretty much all I have to say about that.
I see what you're thinking. You don't realize there's a difference between the TEAM/INDIVIDUAL COACH and the STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING COACH. I am not the former; they get paid the big bucks in certain arenas. However, they do not condition their athletes, do not possess degrees in exercise science nor certs to do anything special wrt that. They just train their athlete(s) in the sport skills and mental strategies required. Strength and conditioning coaches, OTOH, do not teach athletes actual sport skills, game strategies, or whatever. They condition the athlete as best as possible for the highest level performance possible. That's why we don't and can't be a "great" athlete in every discipline--it ain't possible when you are conditioning many kinds of athletes. And it's not necessary to be/have been elite (or even have trained at all) in a sport in order to understand how to condition someone properly for it.
In reply to: You're point about the PhDs being able to interpret research and communicate it to non-academics is well taken. Given, though, that for every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD, and given that the quality of research varies tremendously, how do you evaluate whether or not the implications for practice are sound?
Most conferences (run by the leading orgs in the biz) of course look to recruit people who are considered to be the cream of the crop in terms of what they know, what they've done, how they approach issues, and/or what they've accomplished in real world applications, esp. over the long term. Are you saying that my certifying organization has little clue how to figure out what is sound and what isn't when proposals come rolling in for the next conference? Aren't these issues faced by every single scientific discipline? It's peer review.
In reply to: It would be nice to think that each speaker at your upcoming conference truly represents a uncontroversial body of knowledge, but it's probably not entirely true. I'm sure there are differences of opinion among conference presenters on various topics. Also, I noticed some of them are presenting summaries of topics, they'll probably present some different viewpoints within each topic.
No speaker at any conference of any kind that is scientifically based represents an uncontroversial body of knowledge, of course.
In reply to: The crux of the issue is how do you, Aerili, assess the quality of the research for incorporating into your practice? How do you determine what applies to rock climbing and what doesn't?
Part of it is having a certain threshold of experience and up-to-date education--it helps one evaluate what seminars to take in the first place. But a lot of it is the education: if you don't understand exercise physiology very well and you don't understand biomechanics very well and you don't know accepted protocols for structuring conditioning programs properly, then yeah, it's gonna by way harder to figure out how the Physiology of Fatigue lab presentation or the Anaerobic Threshold Testing and Training sem will apply to climbing, not to mention which kind of climbing and under what conditions.
Many of the presenters I see are people I've seen before--they are researchers or practicing professionals working with athletes on a daily basis and many of them are all continually interacting, contributing to the same journals as editors, advisors, letter writers, article writers, etc. They go overseas and collaborate with people who come from different backgrounds. It's an interactive growth with constant checks and balances. Quacks or those with unsound practices won't last long on the circuit because both the organizing professionals and the audience is educated enough to recognize such and they won't be able to get a gig again (at least in respected venues that carry a mark of quality with the name).
In all the years I've attended lots of different CEC stuff, there's only two presentations in my memory I've found to be either stupid to some degree or complete bunk.
In reply to: A third issue is, how do you evaluate yourself as a coach? Is it client success or satisfaction? Are those appropriate measures for evaluation?
Most athletes of collegiate, minor/major league or pro level have at least 2 coaches (if not more) to measure various components of skill, agility and performance and they do so--at various times to measure actual changes. Part of it also is the motivational factor--if you don't motivate, you won't get much. And part of it is getting an intrinsically motivated individual to train. A lot of athletes are actually quite lazy if you don't give them a lot of structure, or they don't want to lift the weight you tell them to use, they want to lift what some other, bigger dude is moving. So, you have to find ways to get around that to get the end results.
Success is complex and does involve social psychological factors that aren't always in our control. Environment and access to the right training tools makes a big difference too (something a coach or trainer may not be able to control either). But primarily I see hard measurements of performance being the benchmarks, all other things equal. Because it's not true that "just any" training or methods will produce equally good results.
(This post was edited by aerili on Jan 31, 2008, 12:04 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
athletikspesifik
Jan 31, 2008, 4:39 AM
Post #97 of 124
(9215 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2005
Posts: 50
|
Please witness Paul Robinson at approx. 45 sec or so;
http://www.wadedavid.com/Videos/thegunshow.mov
In reply to: I'm am curious why you believe that the information in this article, is valuable compared to articles that present alternative information. How do you pick and choose? Do you assume that since it's in a peer reviewed journal that it has to be true?
That's a good point, I have become more critical about research - although I haven't come across research contradicting any aspect of that research. As I said earlier, sometimes research seems to be done in a vacuum without context of why field practitioners perform certain training exercises. I have an elementary understanding of statistical analysis, so that aspect is more difficult for me. It's somewhat late and I'm tired, but, one of the factors I consider is the volume of research done on whatever aspect. For example, bodybuilding has shown negative sport performance results as far back as the seventies (from my overview). This continues today, but with ever increasing data.
That's not rock solid logic, but, it's one of the factors I consider.
This is a good example of critical research analysis;
http://evidencebasedfitness.blogspot.com/
David Wahl
|
|
|
|
|
disturbingthepeace
Jan 31, 2008, 7:23 PM
Post #98 of 124
(9163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2004
Posts: 57
|
athletikspesifik wrote: 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
David, I seem to be missing your point. So what if many of the young guns can do one arm pullups? Of course they are strong, the are bouldering V15 / V16. The bigger question is did they develop this skill by training pullups, or from sport specific training, ie climbing, and campusing?
I can do 2-3 OAP's w/ each arm and boulder an uninspiring V6 outdoors.
IMO it all comes down to finger strength and technique, most people's time would be alot better spent training these aspects than performing weighted pullups.
|
|
|
|
|
athletikspesifik
Jan 31, 2008, 8:19 PM
Post #99 of 124
(9135 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2005
Posts: 50
|
In reply to: David, I seem to be missing your point. So what if many of the young guns can do one arm pullups?
I think you're missing it too. My grasp of the English language and the use of grammatical rules are barely within the limits of elementary school. As I've said a few times already, strength within the shoulder girdle and it's ability to pull is but one (important) factor in climbing safety and performance.
Again, I have NEVER said that technique is unimportant/should not be improved/be analyzed or any other combination of adjectives that describe the improvement of technique. Again, my point is that without kinetics it is difficult to apply the next advancement of kinematics.
David Wahl
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jan 31, 2008, 8:53 PM
Post #100 of 124
(9129 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
Hi Aerili, this is not so much a response to you, but I'm trying to bounce a couple ideas...
Study #1) Find a group of climbers who boulder at a level which indicates proficiency, but not eliteness, say V4.(GROUP 1) Then, find another group who boulder at an elite level, say V12+ (GROUP 2)...
-is there a difference between groups in the ability to do a one arm pullup (OAP)? Null hypothesis= no difference between groups.
Study #2) Design a training method which attempts to teach the ability to perform OAPs, using kinetic training as an adjunct to normal climbing. Take the GROUP 1 climbers who cannot do OAPs , Have 1/3 do the program. Have 1/3 undertake a climbing-specific program, like fluxus's. Have 1/3 climb normally as a control. Re-test at 6 months to a year. Does the learned ability to perform OAPs improve climbing more than climbing-specific? Is either method superior to a control group?
Exclusion criteria for study 2...can boulder V4, and already do OAPs. (probably would benefit more from climbing-specific training)
You ATC-types would be critical in designing a workout to teach OAPs. Math-types like rgold and jgill can do the stats.
I can rehab all the injuries!
Looking for comments, or connections to suitable places to publish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
