|
jt512
Jan 31, 2008, 9:06 PM
Post #101 of 124
(7227 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
onceahardman wrote: 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)...
What is the point of this study? Say you find a correlation. Then you still have a chicken-and-egg question. Cross-sectional studies tend to be a waste of time.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jan 31, 2008, 9:17 PM
Post #102 of 124
(7221 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: What is the point of this study? Say you find a correlation.
Sorry, Jay. In an effort at brevity, I left out some clarity. Study #1 is prospective for #2. If there is a correlation, then change the variable you assume to be the causative factor, and see if you change the second variable, relative to a control.
Thanks for your input. I'd kind of like to move this forward, with better ideas than my quick ones.
Rather than saying mine are a "waste of time", do you have ideas that would not be? And would you share them?
|
|
|
|
|
disturbingthepeace
Jan 31, 2008, 11:30 PM
Post #103 of 124
(7195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2004
Posts: 57
|
athletikspesifik wrote: Again, my point is that without kinetics it is difficult to apply the next advancement of kinematics. David Wahl
Gotcha, I don't think anyone is arguing that some amount of upper body strength isn't important for climbing.
However I don't think that for most climbers the "strength within the shoulder girdle and it's ability to pull" is anywhere near the limiting factor in what is holding them back from advancing their climbing. For instance in the nice video you linked with Paul Robinson doing the 1 arm lockoff, if all those holds were jugs then the average V4 boulderer could do those moves.
Correct me if I'm missing something, but for holds you can pull straight down on, it doesn't take any more shoulder strength to move off a tiny hold then a jug. Assuming all other factors are equal (power or speed of movement generated off the holds).
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Jan 31, 2008, 11:37 PM
Post #104 of 124
(7191 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
Ok, not that you were talking directly to me, but I'll answer directly anyway...
I think I'd be a really bad trainer if I had to train someone to do one armed pull ups... I prefer letting people potentially jack up their own bodies vs directing them through it...  
I'm no expert at it, but I believe it could be more fundamental to start with the building blocks: first, you need a lot more analysis of actual kinematics in climbing, and then, you have to define which kinematics you want to examine--i.e. what kind of moves or series of moves. Motion analysis software can be used for these types of investigations. It's straight forward but doesn't give you any idea why things are happening the way they are happening; you only get a description of motion.
Then, you would need to analyze specific joint kinetics to determine which structures are causing the motion. I've had a lot less exposure to this type of research, but I believe it's a lot harder to obtain, although the results can actually be validated against external force measurements (which is good).
A new, published climbing study also dropped into my inbox this morning (I get a general life sciences literature update on a list serv I belong to and there just happened to be a climbing study under the sport/exercise research). I'll post it up later.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Feb 1, 2008, 12:13 AM
Post #105 of 124
(7179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: I'm no expert at it, but I believe it could be more fundamental to start with the building blocks: first, you need a lot more analysis of actual kinematics in climbing, and then, you have to define which kinematics you want to examine--i.e. what kind of moves or series of moves. Motion analysis software can be used for these types of investigations. It's straight forward but doesn't give you any idea why things are happening the way they are happening; you only get a description of motion.
Hey Aerili...
I'm familiar with this type of analysis too, The biomechanics lab at the university I graduated from got several interesting contracts, analyzing various "ab-crunchers" and such...(and used poor grad students as slave labor to actually do the grunt work)
I agree that would be the best study to do, if you were trying to optimize kinetic-type workouts, and then compare those to climbing achievement.
My thoughts, though, were really more in line with this thread, which degenerated into which high-level climbers could do OAPs, and how this suggested it was an effective measure of climbing ability. I was trying to find a relatively quick, cheap way of assessing that suggestion.
Wouldn't it be nice if the climbers on this site would consider working together, and furthering the science in a very raw area, full of unsupported, but vigorously defended opinions...
wish in one hand... p in the other...thanks for your valued input, as usual. Stay in touch.
(This post was edited by onceahardman on Feb 1, 2008, 12:26 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 1, 2008, 5:45 AM
Post #106 of 124
(7150 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
onceahardman wrote: In reply to: What is the point of this study? Say you find a correlation. Sorry, Jay. In an effort at brevity, I left out some clarity. Study #1 is prospective for #2. If there is a correlation, then change the variable you assume to be the causative factor, and see if you change the second variable, relative to a control. Thanks for your input. I'd kind of like to move this forward, with better ideas than my quick ones. Rather than saying mine are a "waste of time", do you have ideas that would not be? And would you share them?
Well, maybe I missed something along the way, but why do you care about 1-arm pull-up strength in the first place? What's the big-picture hypothesis you're interested in?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Feb 1, 2008, 4:41 PM
Post #107 of 124
(7089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
Several reasons these are so difficult to do: First, you need a lot of subjects in each groups and then you have to work up some pretty messy apparatus to ensure that they are "blind" and not simply responding to your expectations. Second, you need to get your study to pass human subject protocols at whatever institution you are at. The more of this literature I read, the clearer it becomes that many institutions in the US really can't do this stuff too easily with climbing because of potential liability issues. At some universities you could doubtless work around the difficulties, but (at least at my institution) it would be a lot more involved than simply studying folks doing, say, a 40 yard dash or benchpresses. Third, the number of variables in climbing movement seem to pose special issues as well, because of the of the apparatus. In other sports, the performance environment is controlled comparatively tightly-- in climbing, each route is unique, so you would have to work harder on your design.
In the case you are suggesting here, if all of those could be worked out, there still is not clear way to evaluate the correlation-- if that elite group could more easily do OAPs, so what? Maybe that's just a side benefit of doing a lot of elite level climbing, as opposed to a pre-condition.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Feb 1, 2008, 10:05 PM
Post #108 of 124
(7054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
Thanks for the feedback...
My idea was really simpler, more of a questionnaire-type method of information gathering, rather than a biometrically/biomechanically accurate method.
My idea would be randomized and controlled, but not blinded.
The idea I was trying out was along the lines of "Does training for OAPs improve climbing skill relative to a control group, and relative to another mainstream training method.?"
A biomechanical method may well prove nearly impossible. Let's say we build indoor V4, V5, V6 etc problems. And do a full biomechanical analysis using the latest software. Clearly, different climbers will use different muscle groups to achieve the same problem. In fact, THE SAME climber may well do a given problem somewhat differently (biomechanically speaking) between trials. Besides, the results would only apply to that individual route, not the grade in general.
So, I guess we will be left with the usual unfounded opinions and endless arguments about who's training methods are superior. Thanks, though!
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 1, 2008, 10:31 PM
Post #109 of 124
(7039 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
onceahardman wrote: The idea I was trying out was along the lines of "Does training for OAPs improve climbing skill relative to a control group, and relative to another mainstream training method.?"
Still not sure why you have an interest in one-arm pull-ups, but regardless, maybe you can adapt the following idea to your hypothesis.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...20treatment;#1035058
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Feb 1, 2008, 10:50 PM
Post #110 of 124
(7031 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
Hi Jay...just so you know, most of my interest in OAPs came from this post, earlier in the thread, which seemed to indicate a belief in OAPs as an indicator of climbing prowess:
In reply to: athletikspesifik PM Friend Partner Jan 29, 2008, 9:11 PM Post #71 of 110 (234 views) Copy Shortcut Registered: Nov 5, 2005 Posts: 40 Re: [rgold] Question about weighted pullups [In reply to] Quote | Reply -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In reply to:I think that folks on both sides of the issue are taking positions that are extreme How is my position extreme? I have never stated that a climber should avoid climbing-specific training, mental training for climbing, video analysis for technical correction...the list of ways to improve goes on. Anyone who knows me, knows that I always advocate for climbing! Training is supplemental, never have I said anything to the contrary. The pull-up is a form of kinetic measurement and a way to improve relative strength and power about the shoulder girdle. I never said that one should have a goal of 50/100/600 pull-ups. In reply to:Part of the problem is that the foundation of the argument keeps shifting, the assumptions about who might benefit from pullups, what the actual benefit (if any) is, and when in a career one might benefit most---these assumptions have not remained constant. Nor has the relevance of pullup training to genres other than sport climbing really been addressed. I have not argued against pull-ups for anyone. Depending on the individual strengths and weaknesses of the climber - they adjust the intensity/volume of the pull-up. In my opinion, all climbers should maximize their kinetic values and the pull-up is but one thing. As I said before, sometimes new movement skill CANNOT be learned without the requisite strength/power. I appreciate the additions from Gill and Bachar - much respect! 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.
But, this subject has pretty clearly played out. Thanks for your civility. Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
athletikspesifik
Feb 2, 2008, 1:33 AM
Post #111 of 124
(6998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2005
Posts: 50
|
In reply to: which seemed to indicate a belief in OAPs as an indicator of climbing prowess:
Again, my point being kinetic force about the shoulder girdle. A weighted pull-up/BW pull-up/OAP all give a quantitative value of the ability to produce force adduction/elbow flexion relative to body weight.
If you read through the thread, someone cut/pasted a statement from JB who stated that elite climbers no longer train pull-ups. OAPs are an indication of some pull-up training.
David Wahl
|
|
|
|
|
bachar
Feb 2, 2008, 2:14 AM
Post #112 of 124
(6987 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 19, 2006
Posts: 70
|
I definitely think weighted pullups are valuable. I still do them . It is a safe way to gradually augment your pulling power in a controlled fashion.
I like the classic sling around the waist method to hang weights on. The sling I use is long enough so that the weights are suspended just above the knees. I think this works best as it seems to pull through your center of gravity without tilting the upper body abnormally.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Feb 2, 2008, 11:04 AM
Post #113 of 124
(6931 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
What do you know n00b?!!11
Sorry, couldn't resist.
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Feb 2, 2008, 4:42 PM
Post #114 of 124
(6898 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
Well, you just stepped back into the fights of the 1980s, because the supplemental versus sports-specific training debate is still in full swing here on rc.com. On one side, just to mention those in the cast of characters with some professional investments, we have fluxus and jt512; on the other, aerili and aspk. The tone gets even nastier here than on ST.
But these threads often are still pretty useful-- for instance, I found a bunch of good cites in this one.
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Feb 2, 2008, 4:55 PM
Post #115 of 124
(6892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
"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."
I am curious about this claim, and especially about the time period you have in mind. By "organized training," do you mean something akin to the highly specific regimes you've been advocating? Because most of the strongest folks I knew (or knew of) in the 1980s trained very seriously, if in lots of different ways, and many if not most of them had programs pretty firmly grounded in the period professional literature. Supplemental training was more highly regarded then, or at least even the sports-specific folks tended to recommend off-season resistance training and aerobic work, but training was clearly a common focus. I suppose that could be an artifact of the folks I climbed with or heard about, but it seems unlikely.
The Brits knew about systematic training by the late 19th century, and lots of the German and Austrian climbers trained carefully by the early 20th. Gymnastics-- which meant something much broader than what it means today-- was usually at the core, but hangs, pulls, and traverses on finger apparatus also appear to have been used as well.
Or do you simply mean that we didn't have climbing gyms and dedicated artificial walls until quite recently? I know this is something of a tangent to the main skirmish here.
[edited to add the quote]
(This post was edited by k.l.k on Feb 2, 2008, 5:00 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Feb 2, 2008, 6:19 PM
Post #116 of 124
(6873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
Constant back and forth, back and forth. Gah!!
Unless you are pro, you have a limited amount of time to train. Therefore, you need to train smarter.
Using that principle lets assume your schedule allows only 3 hours a week to dedicate to becoming a better climber, those 3 hours would be better spent working movement on rock than doing pullups. Pretty much no room to argue here.
What's getting completely missed (ignored actually, many people mention it and it's like they're talking to themselves) is the question of a little more time at home to train but there's no gym there. So tack 20 minutes of pullups 3x a week in addition to the allotted 3hrs of climbing. I don't see how this could possibly make you worse. It probably won't allow you too see as many gains as if you could just spend 4 hours a week on the rock, still, it's something.
I'm not advocating pullups, I'm just saying that they are probably better than nothing if you're spending enough time climbing. If you're doing pullups to the exclusion of training movement, I agree with Jay, you'll get much worse at climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Feb 2, 2008, 6:26 PM
Post #117 of 124
(6869 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
I just want to know, once and for all:
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Feb 2, 2008, 6:33 PM
Post #118 of 124
(6862 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
Poor form, chin dab!
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 3, 2008, 12:45 AM
Post #119 of 124
(6820 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
k.l.k wrote: On one side, just to mention those in the cast of characters with some professional investments, we have fluxus and jt512; on the other, aerili and aspk.
I have no professional investment in this subject matter.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Feb 3, 2008, 2:52 AM
Post #120 of 124
(6797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
jt512 wrote: k.l.k wrote: On one side, just to mention those in the cast of characters with some professional investments, we have fluxus and jt512; on the other, aerili and aspk. I have no professional investment in this subject matter. Jay
Then we can remove you.
Actually, you were the "some" since I thought you had more than simply libidinal investments in nutritional science, and a lot of those folks do develop good backgrounds in exercise physiology. That wouldn't be the same as becoming a certified Athletic Trainer, but I've known many nutritionists and PTs who had better training than some of the ATs I've known.
In that case, the list of folks with professional investments in the supplemental-vs-specific battle reduces to maybe three-- I got out of athletic training-PT years ago, partly for the reasons that Aerili has pointed out in various posts.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 3, 2008, 3:00 AM
Post #121 of 124
(6793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
k.l.k wrote: I got out of athletic training-PT years ago, partly for the reasons that Aerili has pointed out in various posts.
You mean you became a history professor for the money?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
pyrosis
Feb 3, 2008, 4:11 AM
Post #122 of 124
(6778 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 150
|
zeke_sf wrote: I just want to know, once and for all:
I can has cheezburger?
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Feb 3, 2008, 5:10 PM
Post #123 of 124
(6745 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
jt512 wrote: k.l.k wrote: I got out of athletic training-PT years ago, partly for the reasons that Aerili has pointed out in various posts. You mean you became a history professor for the money? Jay
Had no idea what I was getting into-- I thought I could get a job at some small place near the boulders (like Pueblo) and then I'd have my summers free to climb! Actually I was pre-PT, but the programs were impacted and I couldn't afford them. The orthos made all the money and glory, but they don't really do much hands-on work with athletes. And yeah, as bad as my hourly wage would be if I calculated it that way, it is better than what I made coaching gymnastics or working in the training room.
Americans spend gajillions on sports, but the vast majority of it goes into a handful of spectator sports, much of it in the form of gambling. That's one of the reaons we do so poorly at the Olympics, summer or winter, compared to other poorer, smaller countries.
|
|
|
|
|
jackalak
Feb 19, 2008, 4:41 AM
Post #124 of 124
(6606 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2007
Posts: 5
|
just read The Self-Coached Climber if you're confused. Then you'll know what people mean when they say movement training.
|
|
|
|
|
|
