But why not just climb roofs? That would be most climbing-specific training, wouldn't it? B/c none of the exercises I just mentioned are exactly like the combination of stabilizing the body, twisting it, and making an extension to reach the next hold.

I agree with you, climbing roofs is a very good way to build core strength. I know when I was first starting climbing I hated roofs, mostly because i couldnt keep my core tight enough to cut my feet, move efficiently, etc. Just forcing myself to climb on them did build a good ammount of climbing specific core strength. But, as I have progressed i feel like my core is at a point where simply climbing overhangs does not stress my core to the point where I am consistently getting stronger.

So, I think that at this point it is important to bring in exercises that while may not be as climbing specific as "just climbing" is, are much more effective at stressing your core to the point of failure (bringing gains in strength). Also, you never know whether your progression in climbing is due to your core getting stronger or your technique/ movement skills getting better. I have found that as you progress in climbing you reach a point where gains in technique and movement skills start to have less and less effect on your progression (but I would say that this does not come until you reach a fairly high level).

Ok, this is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I am not trying to say that there is this illusive turning point where all movement training becomes superfluous, there is only a point where you can make bigger gains more quickly by training strength. I am mostly a boulderer, and I have noticed that as moves get harder they often force you into one specific type of beta. For instance, say on a V3 boulder problem you have a number of holds, and numberous differnt betas. Some people find it easier to make lots of moves off smaller holds while others prefer to make bigger moves off the larger holds available. Now think of a V10 boulder problem where there is a blank section of wall with a huge lockoff required to go from one hold to the next. I think that if you dont have the strength required there are two approaches to doing that move. One, you try and try and try until your lockoff strength improves. But (provided you can hold onto the holds) your strength will not increase that fast as you are not directly stressing that one area (your lockoff strength) to failure (because you have your feet taking weight off etc). Now if you went into the gym and committed yourself to training your lockoff you could directly address that one specific weakness without involving any other factors (in this case your feet). Then when your lockoff improved you would probably be able to do the move and it would probably take less time than just trying the move over and over. But, in the end it all comes back to self examination. If you cant hold the holds on the problem then you have no buisness training to do the lockoff, likewise if your technique is so horrible your feet always fall off technique is limiting you, not strength. But I do believe that there are instances where strength training will give you bigger benefits faster than climbing alone will, which I assume that most people in this forum have already realized and that is why they train in the first place.

Harder routes tend to by more dynamic, not less, and so timing and coordination tend to gain importance relative to lock-off strength.

A problem of training lock-off strength in isolation is that, you won't be accurately replicating the body positions and movements used in climbing. A lock-off done on a bar with your feet hanging is different than a lock-off done with the assistance of the feet on the rock, with momentum generated from the pelvis, and ending with latching a hand hold; that is, a lock-off done while climbing.

I suspect that you are falling into the classic error of believing that the reason you fail on moves is that you aren't strong enough, when, in reality, you lack the complex combination of movement skills needed to complete the move. Rather than doing lock-offs to failure, boulder to failure.

Jay

I have noticed that as moves get harder they often force you into one specific type of beta. For instance, say on a V3 boulder problem you have a number of holds, and numberous differnt betas. Some people find it easier to make lots of moves off smaller holds while others prefer to make bigger moves off the larger holds available. Now think of a V10 boulder problem where there is a blank section of wall with a huge lockoff required to go from one hold to the next.

Jay, I think you oversimplify the problem. Perhaps the reason you think that harder routes require more dynamic movement is because you lack the strength to perform the moves statically? As my strength improves through physical conditioning (campus board, weights) I note a definite improvement in static holding power, such that previously dynamic movements become static.

Also, bouldering to failure is a great way to get injured (and not train effectively).

So, I would disagree with you strongly that there are no hard routes that involve lockoffs...

...theoretically any move can be locked off. Thus, by training your lockoffs and becomeing better at them you can lock off those hard moves that others would have to dyno for, and avoid the time consuming process of trying the move over and over again until it is learned.

Also, I think (strictly opinion) that this kind of general strength training will be more beneficial for your climbing in the end as now you have lockoff strength that can be applied to any route...

...if you are simply trying one move to failure...

My view is that if you try enough times you could do any V8, but only when you have trained enough and become strong enough to do them consistently can you truly call yourself a V8 climber, so general strength seems to me to be more applicable to my climbing goals. Do you think that training in such a way as you suggest is really training for strength or training specific moves?

Also, a benefit to training isometrically is it takes less time so you can spend your time on the real rock, which for most of us is precious, sending instead of working moves.

Let's just say that for whatever reason you want to isolate a specific group of muscles and quickly/efficiently increase the "strength" of that group of muscles. Is training to failure the best/quickest way to increase strength? What science is this based on? How exaclty do you define a muscle strength? Contraction strength, isometric hold strength, number of reps you can do before failure? And which one is the element that you need for climbing?

I keep going back to the "feel" of core muscles working while climbing roof, I can feel it very clearly and visualize it right now, and I can't quite figure out anything that isolates those muscles and works them in the same way.

Why would you strive to climb more statically!? This isn't 1970. Dynamic moves are usually (always?) more efficient than static ones.

Let's just say that for whatever reason you want to isolate a specific group of muscles and quickly/efficiently increase the "strength" of that group of muscles. Is training to failure the best/quickest way to increase strength?

I always love reading your posts JT as you, more than 99% of the folks out there in RC.com land, has his sh*t together. But, please share: I've found that generally the hardest thing on many climbs is just stopping and sticking the pro. How have you learned to do the clips on your routes dynamically?

Regards:

Bill