|
scrdofhites
Jan 5, 2006, 4:49 AM
Post #1 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2003
Posts: 71
|
Hey all. Just a quick question. Can genetics be a limiting factor to your upper limits of climbing. And if so, what traits would limit......Of course height and weight...... short and fat arent gonna help...... But as a 5'9, 135 pound climber, are there other factors that could limit? Do muscles have a limit to where they cant possibly get stronger for a certain individule?
|
|
|
|
|
estwing
Jan 5, 2006, 5:04 AM
Post #2 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2002
Posts: 344
|
Yes, at some point genetics will limit your abilities as a climber. Some people have more fast twitch muscle fibers, some more slow twitch. Depending on what type of climbing you hope to excel at this will be a limiting factor for your strength and endurance.
That said, you will likely never reach the true extent of your genetic potential, unless you devote yourself completely to climbing and training for climbing. To get to your maximum you will also have to develop excellent technique so as to maximize what strength and endurance you have. This is mostly a mental thing, though not neccesarily concious action.
Good luck,
Horst says you can climb 5.12 with enough work.
|
|
|
|
|
annak
Jan 5, 2006, 6:43 AM
Post #3 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2004
Posts: 191
|
Most people never get to the level when genetics starts to limit their athletic achievements. Unless you classify a lack of will power, determination, and commitment as genetic traits.
|
|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Jan 5, 2006, 6:56 AM
Post #4 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
With the exception of those who have the misfortune of being born with a genetic disease, everyone has the genetic make up to climb 5.13.
I honestly believe that.
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Jan 5, 2006, 9:21 AM
Post #5 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
I think when it comes to climbing, your ability has very little to do with fast/slow twitch, etc.
Note: I am not a physiology expert or anything, so this is all conjecture/heresay and is perhaps of little validity.
1. When it comes to strength and the human body, bigger/thicker = stronger.
2. In order to be a good climber, you need to have very strong fingers, hands, arms, and back, relative to your body weight.
3. Adding the two facts above together, you are physically limited in how hard you can climb by the relative size of your hands/fingers, and to some extent, arms. (I suppose you could have large hands/fingers, but short arms...but it's probably not likely).
Most of the forces you exert, as a climber, travel in some way through your arms and fingers...therefore, having very large hands/fingers would make you have genetics in favor of climbing hard. I think for the average person, 5.12 is very attainable with proper training/diet, and 5.13 is pushing it (training very consistently, needing sports therapy to prevent injury, very very smart training methods, flawless technique).
Two non-climbing people I know have extremely gangly, long arms, and relatively large hands/forearms, relative to their height. They are also skinny as rails, but so am I. One of them has never climbed a day in his life, and could easily do door frame pullups (He has the same wing-span as me, yet is 4 inches shorter and probably 30 lbs lighter). The other has climbed maybe twice, never works out, eats fast food regularly. He's maybe 1-2 inches taller than me, yet his forearms are much bigger than mine and hands/fingers are maybe 1.5 times the size of mine (mostly in thickness). I put him on a climbing wall, and he was having fun on a stemming 5.7, using horrible technique and cranking off of crimpers that I train to crank off of, not really stemming at all. He can also do 10 pull ups (again, no training whatsoever). After about 2 years of climbing, I was able to do 20 pull ups, and with no training (back when I was in cross country, skinny as a toothpick) I could do maybe 5 or 6.
Oh yeah, another friend of mine is like 5'6", rarely climbs, but does work out. His forearms are bigger than mine. First time I took him toproping in a gym, he onsighted a 5.10. Mind you, it's probably a somewhat juggy, overhung 5.10, requiring less technique than a slabby 5.10. The point is, he's strong by nature.
The point is: If you're not naturally gifted in terms of climbing genetics, don't worry about it. Have fun, and work hard at pushing your own limits, regardless if that is 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, or 5.15, and be happy whenever you reach a new level.
|
|
|
|
|
lostdog
Jan 5, 2006, 12:42 PM
Post #6 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 112
|
In reply to: Oh yeah, another friend of mine is like 5'6", rarely climbs, but does work out. His forearms are bigger than mine. First time I took him toproping in a gym, he onsighted a 5.10.
Oh yeah, and this one time at band camp. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jan 5, 2006, 2:47 PM
Post #7 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Yes, genetics plays a major role in how well you climb. To anyone who participated in sports during their childhood, inherent differences are obvious.
However, this shouldn't deter you from making the best of your natural talents. If you're into numbers/achievement, measure your accomplishments against your past achievements. Don't concern yourself with who your friends are progressing.
|
|
|
|
|
osloklatrer
Jan 5, 2006, 2:54 PM
Post #8 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2005
Posts: 21
|
when i started to climb i could do 11 pull ups, after half a year with climbing i could do 24.
|
|
|
|
|
skatedork
Jan 5, 2006, 3:07 PM
Post #9 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2005
Posts: 71
|
Screw genetics, I am a firm believer that if one is determined, they can accomplish anything.
|
|
|
|
|
fallingrock
Jan 5, 2006, 3:12 PM
Post #10 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2005
Posts: 33
|
I believe extreme alpinism requires a genetic disorder -- insanity. But your ability to crimp at 0deg. doesn't matter all that much.
|
|
|
|
|
carrotclimber
Jan 5, 2006, 4:20 PM
Post #11 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 48
|
I truly believe that it is a combination of one's mindset and genetics. I climb more to have fun than I really hardcore train. If I really pushed myself and trained hard... I think that I could climb 5.12.... eventually. My family is NOT athletic. I played sports as a kid, because I enjoyed them, but I was always gawky and sucked. I am thin (noone else in my family is) but I don't have naturally well-defined muscles that just exist with no work, like some people I know. Some people may have to work harder to get to 5.11-5.12.... but I think that the majority of people have the ABILITY to do it. I think that 5.13 and above is something that most people maybe can't do? That might be a mental block that most people (such as myself) have though. I think that it is brain chemistry as much as physicality. I truly think that has something to do with it. Some people's brains allow them to push themselves past the limits of most other people.
Does that make sense? This is totally my only opinion... I have no hard science on hand to back any of this up.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jan 5, 2006, 4:42 PM
Post #12 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
this thread is somewhat drifting into this area of discussion...
|
|
|
|
|
climb_ian
Jan 5, 2006, 6:05 PM
Post #13 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 28, 2005
Posts: 77
|
practice enough you will climb harder than you thought you could.. im 5'7 135 pounds, and climb way harder than i used to just by doin it 4 times a weeek
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jan 5, 2006, 6:17 PM
Post #14 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
I don't think genetics are a limiting factor, until the very high levels of climbing.
I've always been a pretty average athlete, but that doesn't take away from my enjoyment, and I've managed to get up a few .12s. No special diet. No training besides lots of climbing.
Plus, the hardest climbs I've done to date haven't felt like my physiological limit, and that's exciting and motivating. I always feel like I can climb stronger.
|
|
|
|
|
acacongua
Jan 5, 2006, 6:47 PM
Post #15 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 657
|
limits are difficult to determine
|
|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Jan 5, 2006, 7:28 PM
Post #16 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
In reply to: Yes, genetics plays a major role in how well you climb. To anyone who participated in sports during their childhood, inherent differences are obvious.
True, when your a child your genetics play a great role in how well you perform in sports. But as you age the role of your genetics becomes negligible.
Anyone who’s been to their high school reunion knows this to be true.
|
|
|
|
|
namoclimber
Jan 5, 2006, 9:22 PM
Post #17 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 118
|
The most limiting factor is your mind. The majority of the climbing community should by all means be able to climb into the 12s. You just need to want it and some may need to train a little harder then others.
If your over weight and you climb enough you will lose the weight.
If your weak on anything and you train specific weakness you will over come it.
simple, just climb, climb hard, enjoy the movements.
don't get mad, just get even.
|
|
|
|
|
mcfoley
Jan 5, 2006, 9:39 PM
Post #18 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2002
Posts: 644
|
ape index...Also if you inherited genes that equal a low IQ.
|
|
|
|
|
organic
Jan 5, 2006, 9:49 PM
Post #19 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
It seems most climbers who climb in the 5.14's, V10+ &c. have two things in common. They have been climbing for a long time and they train. People always say that climbing is good training for climbing but I think once you get to a point maybe ~5.12(at least for me) you need to start specific training of your weaknesses to progress. Yes, years and years of climbing can develop sick crimp strength, good footwork, pinching power and core strength but working on these things individually will help you progress much faster.
Also I think if you were not very athletic when you were younger it might be harder to progress faster because you need to build up the muscle that some people did when they were 12 or 15. I think it is possible for everyone to climb 5.14 but the time it would take certain people to climb and there age(ie. if you are 30 and it would take you 20 years your physical peak might be affected by age) might be a strong influence.
You also have to believe...
|
|
|
|
|
mcgivney_nh
Jan 5, 2006, 9:51 PM
Post #20 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2005
Posts: 421
|
In reply to: Yes, genetics plays a major role in how well you climb.
I disagree, i think that genetics plays a role in how you climb (i.e. if you are tall enough to reach something statically, you're not gonna dyno to it) but I am a strong believer in being able to do anything you set your mind to.
For some, it takes more training to climb at the same level as others, but that doesn't mean that the people who have to train harder cannot climb just as hard as the people who are more naturally gifted.
-Sean
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jan 5, 2006, 9:51 PM
Post #21 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: Yes, genetics plays a major role in how well you climb. To anyone who participated in sports during their childhood, inherent differences are obvious. True, when your a child your genetics play a great role in how well you perform in sports. But as you age the role of your genetics becomes negligible.
How do you know this? Your bit about high school reunions is more about inactivity and eating habits, not natural talent.
We all have genetic differences. Just ask Chuck Darwin.
|
|
|
|
|
organic
Jan 5, 2006, 10:03 PM
Post #22 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Yes, genetics plays a major role in how well you climb. To anyone who participated in sports during their childhood, inherent differences are obvious. True, when your a child your genetics play a great role in how well you perform in sports. But as you age the role of your genetics becomes negligible. How do you know this? Your bit about high school reunions is more about inactivity and eating habits, not natural talent. We all have genetic differences. Just ask Chuck Darwin.
Ok say there are genetic differences that help peope climb 5.14 but think about it, the amount of people that climb V10+ and 5.13+ compared to the number of climbers in the world would invalidate that statement.
The chances someone who is genetically determined to be a better climber who actually climbs and enjoys it to the point of trying to climb hard would be so small. Either that or the "good climbing" gene runs rampant in the population of the world.
Just for arguments sake we will say that you are a "hard" climber. if you have brothers most likely they have the same gene, unless we are talking about abonormalities and chiasmata but that is high unlikely to occur so often. Say your brothers don't climb. Well if you have the gene it had to be passed down, how many men are in your extended family, do any of them climb? The chances that someone has the gene and climbs is highly unlikely.
How come no one ever correlates a ~2 hour marathon runner to genes? the odds of the billions of runners in the world to ~2 hour marathoners seems more plausible to be genetic than the 1000's of 5.13+ climbers to the couple million climbers in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
musicman1586
Jan 5, 2006, 10:11 PM
Post #23 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2005
Posts: 488
|
I think genetics does play a role into how you climb, but it's something you learn to overcome with time. A story that I like that illustrates this point come from a competition the gym I go to held. The problems were rated in points values, no V scores, as to make it easier for beginners to understand, however the people that set the problems were all very tall people with very long reaches. One of the easiest problems they had scored turned out to be near impossible for anyone that had an arm length the same or shorter then myself. Everyone did the moves exactly the same, it's just that some could reach the next hold without a problem, others couldn't no matter how we shifted our body. However, on the counterpoint, the only "short" person to land this low-marked problem was the one who had the skill and technique to make the horribly awkward dyno to that out of reach hold. He's 5'5" somewhere around there, and easily one of the strongest climbers I know, despite his shorter stature and reach, he's learned to compensate.
|
|
|
|
|
jred
Jan 5, 2006, 10:25 PM
Post #24 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
In reply to: With the exception of those who have the misfortune of being born with a genetic disease, everyone has the genetic make up to climb 5.13. I honestly believe that.
It takes a lot of hard work, mental focus and a gift to become the Michael Jordan's, Wayne Gretzky's and Tommy Caldwell's and Mozart's of the world. Not everybody can do everything.
|
|
|
|
|
jred
Jan 5, 2006, 10:37 PM
Post #25 of 42
(7143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Yes, genetics plays a major role in how well you climb. To anyone who participated in sports during their childhood, inherent differences are obvious. True, when your a child your genetics play a great role in how well you perform in sports. But as you age the role of your genetics becomes negligible. How do you know this? Your bit about high school reunions is more about inactivity and eating habits, not natural talent. We all have genetic differences. Just ask Chuck Darwin. Ok say there are genetic differences that help peope climb 5.14 but think about it, the amount of people that climb V10+ and 5.13+ compared to the number of climbers in the world would invalidate that statement. The chances someone who is genetically determined to be a better climber who actually climbs and enjoys it to the point of trying to climb hard would be so small. Either that or the "good climbing" gene runs rampant in the population of the world. Just for arguments sake we will say that you are a "hard" climber. if you have brothers most likely they have the same gene, unless we are talking about abonormalities and chiasmata but that is high unlikely to occur so often. Say your brothers don't climb. Well if you have the gene it had to be passed down, how many men are in your extended family, do any of them climb? The chances that someone has the gene and climbs is highly unlikely. How come no one ever correlates a ~2 hour marathon runner to genes? the odds of the billions of runners in the world to ~2 hour marathoners seems more plausible to be genetic than the 1000's of 5.13+ climbers to the couple million climbers in the world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
