|
lemon_boy
Aug 11, 2007, 6:19 PM
Post #76 of 143
(9613 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287
|
fluxus, are you still out there?
i have a quick question, in SCC (if I remember correctly, which isn't likely) you suggest providing a power spot during threshold bouldering to help slowly make progress towards achieving the move(s). how does this relate to our current discussion? it seems that power spotting might have similar (but different) problems to adding weight.
curt,
good comment about gymnastics. i think the balance beam would would have quite a bit of getting balanced over the feet. also landing dismounts and trying not to topple over. it seems that the climbers i know that were also involved in gymnastics really take to climbing well. i think the balance, strength conditioning, and flexability help a lot. also, i think that they are mentally tough. some of the feats they perform where being off a bit would result in eating total shit... pretty impressive!
|
|
|
|
|
whoa
Aug 11, 2007, 8:39 PM
Post #77 of 143
(9598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 193
|
How about admitting that sport and exercise science, even PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES, are woefully primitive and provide paltry basis for training advice. CERTIFIED TRAINERS who get so defensive about their SCIENTIFIC expertise are a hoot.
Look guys, you've seen some studies, mostly with small cohorts and exasperatingly weak controls, that have some hard-to-specify relevance to your hunches about how climbers (which climbers? how old? male or female? with what kind of experience and strengths and weaknesses?) should train. ADMIT THIS. BE HONEST AND MODEST.
In this particular case, I'd be willing to bet that the studies about sport specificity are completely irrelevant to the question of whether gains can be made by climbing weighted. I'd bet balancy slab technique will not be improved; but I am not at all convinced that it won't help you hold onto stuff more easily and longer. That's just a hunch, of course. Others have different hunches. The PEER-REVIEWED studies about baseball swings and sprinting just don't begin to answer this question.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 11, 2007, 9:24 PM
Post #78 of 143
(9586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
theclimbinglab wrote: Despite what you are saying I believe they have relevece to this debate.
I think they have relevance mainly with regard to general conditioning, but that's not what the OP was talking about. The conclusions of these studies with regard to straight forward general conditioning results or pure motor unit recruitment/force output changes I have no disagreement with. But they have nothing to do with results of sport performance after training under abnormally resisted conditions.
In reply to: When did I say that anecdotal evidence was the same as peer review? I said that in the absence of research. I also said that this was my opinion. You can't prove this wrong until you set up the research project ad gather the data. Trust me this is very hard. I unsuccessfully tried to complete a Doctorate while working full time as there is NO funding for this kind of work.
No funding for sport science research? I witnessed a lot of it going on when I was in college. I am not sure what you are referring to? Just to clarify, I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was questioning your words for clarification. That what it sounded like you said, but I wasn't sure. Anyway, I don't always believe it is a good idea to substitute the use of anecdotal evidence simply due to lack of research. I agree it could be great if they did a bunch of research on this subject in climbing; however, since we know that probably won't happen, it's not unjustified to use research done on other sports with regard to complex motor skills and consider it in relation to climbing. After all, the PRINCIPLES they were examining were neuromuscular pattern changes in response to changing the resistance encountered in sport movement. Same thing we're talking about here. I would personally err on the side of caution when believing this has zero to say about climbing with weighted appartuses that aren't specific to actual climbing conditions.
In reply to: Don't be so rude. I'm fully aware what this thread is about. Just ask the OP. I think he was asking about the effects of training with a weight vest. No?
I'm not trying to be rude, I was clarifying again the topic at hand, that's all. Forgive me if your first post sounded like you either did not read most of the thread and/or skimmed the majority of it at best.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 11, 2007, 9:52 PM
Post #79 of 143
(9581 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
Sorry, I am not trying to put so many different posts here, but there's too many separate things being asked.
antiqued: fluxus answered this question for me. To get more into it, you would need to know more about Hans Selye's General Adaptation Syndrome. It's academic to explain and usually requires me to draw a bell curve for better clarification, but I won't get into it here. Needless to say, yes, running and jumping are relatively "simple" motor skills for a fully grown human being with no other physical limitations.
Movements like pool shooting require lots of fine motor skill and hand/eye coordination, so it is more complex. Movements like pole vaulting and triple axles in ice skating involve more highly coordinated muscle groups firing together in just the right way to perform the movement, as well as the fact they involve rotational movements that encompass all 3 planes of movement. But running, for example, is mainly in one plane of movement. However, if you add in running and cutting, then the movement gets more complex and isn't so "simple" for the body anymore.
Standardized vertical jump tests are done with two feet on the ground from a non-moving position, typically.
To Jonathan: I am not saying there is no value in "dumb" strength at all!! No way man!! I am only saying that we consider that to be GENERAL conditioning, not SPORT SPECIFIC conditioning. If you ever read anything I post about training for climbing, you will see that I am ALWAYS an advocate of general conditioning for climbing. Anyway, you should read my earlier posts in this thread--I did talk about the differences between the two and how training should be applied to each. I also mentioned hangboard training and campusing.
BTW, Jonathan, I actually was a ballet dancer for 10 years. If you want some more input about how I combined general conditioning (working out) and its beneficial effect in my ballet technique classes, just pm me. 
to valeberga: We never said weight doesn't matter. (Hello?!) In fact, the whole point was that it MORE than matters. Did you really understand anything being said? I am not a "coat," either--I don't work in a lab, I just apply the results in the real world.
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 11, 2007, 10:05 PM
Post #80 of 143
(9576 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
[quote "mindlessroller21"me and my friend were talking today about how beastly strong youd be able to get if you learned how to climb with added weight. I really have no clue what would be a reasonable amount of weight to add. Has anyone ever climbed with added weight? didi it work? how much weight were you adding ?
In reply to: I think they have relevance mainly with regard to general conditioning, but that's not what the OP was talking about
Who's skim reading again?
In reply to: No funding for sport science research? I witnessed a lot of it going on when I was in college.
I live in England not the USA. Sport Science is not at the top of the list for funding as we don't even have a national sports school (for any sport apart from football). Climbing is way down the list smart arse. How's community college working out for you?
I'm interested to know how long these movement adaptions through added weight will take? Doesn't movement skill acquisition take a fair amount of time? Would supplementing weighted climbing with non-weighted climbing not counteract this?
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 11, 2007, 10:17 PM
Post #81 of 143
(9574 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
Apologies aerili for being on your back.
I just read this on your profile
Trad: Leads 5.8 Follows 5.10b
Sport: Leads 5.10c Follows 5.11b
No offence, but you don't have the relevent experience when it come to anecdotal evidence. Maybe this is why you cite so much.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 11, 2007, 10:36 PM
Post #82 of 143
(9571 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
Lemon boy,
You get your own reply separate from the rest. Don't you feel special? 
lemon_boy wrote: so, it sounds like you are saying that locking off a hold, dyno-ing, and each of the climbing movements are sport specific. and hangboard training, campusing, and performing certain climbing movements with different weight configurations fall under general conditioning. so, if a climber climbs primarily crimpy routes, and spends a few days climbing sloper dominated routes, where does that fit in? in the overall climbing performance scheme, it seems like it would fit in as sport specific, but relative to his/her primary climbing it would seem that it might fall under general conditioning. again, i think this is an example of where the actual GOAL determines, to some extent, whether a movement is sport specific or other.
Hangboard training and campusing ARE general conditioning, albeit highly specific to climbing. (For instance, you wouldn't use these types of conditioning for an equestrian.) But they wouldn't be considered completely specific climbing movements because you don't go out to IC to climb on your favorite natural hangboard, nor do (most people) campus routes. Dig?
Climbing sloper routes will always be sport specific even if you primarily climb crimpers because you will always encouter slopers at some point. However, if you make a major effort to avoid routes with slopers, then yes, it may not be your most EFFECTIVE type of sport specific training.
In reply to: that is great that you read the latest journals and attend the conferences, which often have a wealth of useful info. however, i also know from a fair amount of first hand, as well as second hand experience, that these aren't always unbiased, or the amount of ACTUAL USABLE data is not enough to extrapolate a blanket conclusion. i still stand by my statement that performing an entire, unbiased or uncompromised, significant research project in this area is pretty much impossible. there just isn't enough of the population with exact same variables to really bring it together.
True, but enough researchers and preeminent hands-on people in the sport science and application field on this topic are, for the most part, agreeing on the results of the subject we're talking about, so that's why if I believe it's quite pertinent to climbing as well. Because it's not the individual sports that are the issue at hand, it's the response to input during the movement execution.
In reply to: i know that you are going to log back on and point out that i am an idiot and that my training methods make me an inferior climber, etc,
In reply to: for SOME people, non-specific training might provide more benefit. i love fluxus's book, and i have adhered to it as well as possible for the last year and a half, but to be honest with you, i am climbing 2 to 4 letter grades below the levels i was consistently climbing when i was doing all of my training on the hangboard. i DO feel that i have learned a lot about movement (especially initiating movement from different centers, GOLD! also the CIR info), but i think that i am going to spend 2008 using a mix of the 2 training methods to see how that turns out.
I always advocate non-specific training, i.e. general conditioning in conjunction with technique training. I never said one shouldn't use the hangboard or campus, I only clarified that one shouldn't be adding atypical weight to their climbing regimen (unless it's adding the kind of weight you move normally [i.e. pack, haul bag, large rack, trail line, monkey on your back], and in that case, only add it when you are climbing under normal conditions--just not on plastic, hangboard, etc.) So if your plan to mix training follows these general guidelines, my prediction is that you should probably see beneficial effects, given no other variables in your life change.
In reply to: i guess my overall question to aerili (back on the wheel!) is, that some of the sports that have a lot of money at stake, and that are likely to invest in determining these questions, seem to use added weight or resistance as a tool (football, cycling, boxing). do they not put any effort into this sort of research, etc? i do respect your opinions on this, even if my tone is harsh and my questioning hard-headed. have you tested any of these questions on your own climbing?
I don't know very much about cycling, as endurance sports are not my thing (although some cyclists are time trial sprinters and therefore power athletes). Strangely, I don't see a lot of research on boxers, either. Anyway, they DO put effort into research on these things--that's where this emerging research is coming from. Case studies are often submitted to journals as well. Case studies (IMO) seem to come up with more muddled results that make things unclear more than anything. (Or at least the ones I have read.) Ask Lance Armstrong if they've put a lot of research into the many aspects of training for cycling. He's got full on exercise physiologist cycling specialists to work with him! And they use a lot of science to get him to be the amazing machine he is.
As for running being sport specific--well, it IS sport specific to a large degree, but at the same time no sports (except sprinting in track and field) involve running at top speed in a straight line with nothing else to think about. A 40 yd dash tells us something about the athlete's GENERAL capabilities for speed, but it doesn't tell us specifically how s/he will perform when they must not only run but also dodge, jump, cut, guard, turn 360*, and so on.
As for testing these questions on my own climbing, which questions do you mean? If it's about adding extra weight while I climb--the only time I do so is when I'm doing real climbing. Sometimes I put a lot more shit on my rack than I probably need. I figure even if I'm over-racking, it's okay cause it's good training for me when I'm on routes where I really need to do so. Then I am comfortable, adapted, and conditioned to carrying that kind of weight.
Ok, time to get outside and climb!
|
|
|
|
|
valeberga
Aug 11, 2007, 11:10 PM
Post #83 of 143
(9556 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2003
Posts: 434
|
aerili wrote: to valeberga: We never said weight doesn't matter. (Hello?!) In fact, the whole point was that it MORE than matters. Did you really understand anything being said? I am not a "coat," either--I don't work in a lab, I just apply the results in the real world.
Your respectable contribution to this thread was over after page 1. The rest has been a lot of insults flung at anyone daring to dispute your "negative transfer of skill" dogma. You read some papers. Good for you, thanks for sharing. No, really--what you shared originally is interesting, and we appreciate it. But it's not the Word of God, ok? Your verbal diarrhea and hysterical defensiveness is bordering on religious...
Please tell us how "applying the results in the real world" has provided you any special insight into the effect of weighted climbing? Does this mean you have tried it and that it made you worse?
ps. who's "we"? The Church of Negative Skill Transfer?
(This post was edited by valeberga on Aug 11, 2007, 11:16 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 12, 2007, 2:26 AM
Post #84 of 143
(9538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
theclimbinglab wrote: Apologies aerili for being on your back. I just read this on your profile Trad: Leads 5.8 Follows 5.10b Sport: Leads 5.10c Follows 5.11b No offence, but you don't have the relevent experience when it come to anecdotal evidence. Maybe this is why you cite so much.
Well, if you think climbing level is important, I lead sport 5.13. More importantly, I've been climbing since the mid-80s and am aware of zero anecdotal evidence that climbing with a weighted vest will improve climbing performance on difficult 5th-class terrain. I have never seen or heard of an elite climber climbing routes with a weight vest, nor does any climbing training book I have ever read recommend it (weighted system board training, and the like, is different, for the reasons already mentioned).
I have not read the scientific studies that aerili's sources have conducted; however, the principles she mentions seem sound to me. There is no question that adding weight necessitates a change in movement, and so by adding weight while climbing, you are changing the way you climb, and hence training in poor habits. I would not expect this to lead to an increase in performance, and would not be at all surprised if it led to a decrease, as aerili suggests.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 12, 2007, 4:57 AM
Post #85 of 143
(9522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
lemon_boy wrote: curt, good comment about gymnastics. i think the balance beam would would have quite a bit of getting balanced over the feet. also landing dismounts and trying not to topple over. it seems that the climbers i know that were also involved in gymnastics really take to climbing well. i think the balance, strength conditioning, and flexability help a lot. also, i think that they are mentally tough. some of the feats they perform where being off a bit would result in eating total shit... pretty impressive!
I competed in gymnastics myself for 4 years and (being the chauvanist I am) was only considering men's events. Good point about the balance beam--although the type of tumbling movement employed along the balance beam still probably doesn't translate all that directly to smearing or edging properly on small rock features.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 12, 2007, 6:23 PM
Post #86 of 143
(9494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
Its been a while since you lead 5.13 according to your profile. You may have climbed 5.13 but that doesn't mean you are a 5.13 climber.
I haven't heard of the use of weight belts on routes either. I have for boulder problems and campus/fingerboard work.
Malcom mentions them here http://www.climbingmasterclass.com/training/protips.asp?author=2
Keeping added weight close to COG would seem to be a necessity to avoid incorrect movement skills. However small increases in weight (say 5kg and below) might not throw you out of cilter. How long would you say it would take to unlearn correct movement skills when only a proportion of your climbing was done in this way?
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 12, 2007, 6:35 PM
Post #87 of 143
(9491 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
Just found this from Eric Horst
http://www.climbing.com/print/techtips/ttsport246/
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 13, 2007, 2:47 AM
Post #88 of 143
(9464 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
theclimbinglab wrote: Its been a while since you lead 5.13 according to your profile. You may have climbed 5.13 but that doesn't mean you are a 5.13 climber.
It's been about 24 hours since I last led 5.13. Not that grades matter at all in this context. You brought up the issue by making the ridiculous suggestion that aerili's opinion was a consequence of her climbing level. I only mentioned my climbing level to show you that someone who climbs harder might share her opinion.
In reply to: Malcom mentions them here http://www.climbingmasterclass.com/training/protips.asp?author=2
Where? I don't see a link. Learn how the fucking website works, already.
Edit: And I never claimed to be a "5.13 climber," whatever that may mean.
Why does the phrase "STFU" come to mind?
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 13, 2007, 3:02 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 13, 2007, 3:30 AM
Post #89 of 143
(9450 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
heh
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 13, 2007, 3:44 AM
Post #90 of 143
(9444 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Heh? As in, you actually think he's made a point here?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 13, 2007, 3:57 AM
Post #91 of 143
(9436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: Heh? As in, you actually think he's made a point here? Jay
I'm not convinced that climbing with a weight vest is useless as a training method, although I've never done this myself. I had several conversations with Todd Skinner though--who was a big proponent and practicioner of this type of training. He thought it was a great way to become a stronger climber. Of course, Todd only managed to lead 5.13 trad and 5.14 sport climbs--and he is only one guy, so feel free to reject this input as merely "anecdotal."
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 13, 2007, 4:21 AM
Post #92 of 143
(9421 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
curt wrote: jt512 wrote: Heh? As in, you actually think he's made a point here? Jay I'm not convinced that climbing with a weight vest is useless as a training method, although I've never done this myself. I had several conversations with Todd Skinner though--who was a big proponent and practicioner of this type of training. He thought it was a great way to become a stronger climber. Of course, Todd only managed to lead 5.13 trad and 5.14 sport climbs--and he is only one guy, so feel free to reject this input as merely "anecdotal." Curt
His input is anecdotal. How much more anecdotal do you want than one guy who did something and claimed that his results were due to it? How about all those other guys that climb 5.14, or 5.15? Do you hear about them training with weight vests?
On the other hand, we have controlled experiments showing that attempting movement training with weighted apparatuses is not just worthless, but actually detrimental to performance, together with a mechanism for the effect that is at least plausible. What's missing, of course, is direct demonstration of this effect to climbing. On the other hand, there is little reason to believe that Eric Horst's strengths are much more than self-promotion and book authoring, as opposed to sports physiology, or even training. So, I agree with you insofar that you believe that a slam-dunk case against weighted-vest training for climbing has not been made; but the fact that you have the same detrimental effect demonstrated in controlled studies in multiple non-climbing movement sports, plus a reasonable hypothesis for the underlying mechanism, plus the fact that this training method is not prevalent among elite climbers (unless they're really secretive about it) far outweighs anything Todd Skinner had, and the dubiously qualified Eric Horst has, to say on the subject.
Wrt Eric Horst, until he explains, based on sound principles of sports physiology, why climbing movement should benefit from this type of training when it has been shown that movement in other sports suffers, I have absolutely no reason to take his assertions on the subject as anything other than uneducated guesses.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 13, 2007, 5:30 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 13, 2007, 5:45 AM
Post #93 of 143
(9403 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: curt wrote: jt512 wrote: Heh? As in, you actually think he's made a point here? Jay I'm not convinced that climbing with a weight vest is useless as a training method, although I've never done this myself. I had several conversations with Todd Skinner though--who was a big proponent and practicioner of this type of training. He thought it was a great way to become a stronger climber. Of course, Todd only managed to lead 5.13 trad and 5.14 sport climbs--and he is only one guy, so feel free to reject this input as merely "anecdotal." Curt His input is anecdotal. How much more anecdotal do you want than one guy who did something and claimed that his results were due to it? How about all those other guys that climb 5.14, or 5.15? Do you hear about them training with weight vests?
No. However, each of those "other guys" have their own particular training methods by which they became stronger climbers, which probably don't actually work (according to you and others in this thread) because their methods haven't been peer reviewed and published--or some similar bullshit.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Aug 13, 2007, 8:48 AM
Post #94 of 143
(9394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
from the climbing.com techtip article...
http://www.climbing.com/...techtips/ttsport246/
In reply to: Rest for five minutes between problems and ditch the weight belt at the first sign that your technique is suffering.
so horts admits that tecnique starts to suffer. and that (plus 10 bouldering) is the only non-general-conditioning excercise that he mentions
In reply to: Favor problems with medium to long reaches, and avoid painfully small holds and out-of-control dynos.
and these problems that you should avoid are imho the ones that would suffer most from hypergravity training.
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 13, 2007, 10:30 AM
Post #95 of 143
(9387 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
Didn't update your profile? Likely story From what I've read Jay that' one of your major put downs of other people. You said that you lead 5.13. I read that to mean you climb 5.13. Not realising that you only did one in the last 24 hours. How's that working out for you?
In reply to: In reply to: Malcom mentions them here http://www.climbingmasterclass.com/training/protips.asp?author=2 Where? I don't see a link. Learn how the fucking website works, already.
Well if you read the interview he mentions training with a weight belt.
In reply to: So do you supplement your bouldering with other forms of strength training? Definitely. I do deadhangs, campusing, locking holds to the neck and 1-armers on a bar or an edge (although the 1-armers are mainly for a tune-up at the start of a session). I also do a few system style problems such as body tension moves at full stretch or front-on with my feet splayed out, or climbing with a weight-belt. I don’t do much isometric (static) work but I would do if I was training for a specific move again like I did for Hubble. I still use weights but for overall body strength rather than climbing strength - I only do compound movements like clean & jerk, deadlift, benchpress, upright row & shoulder press. I’d also use a Bachar ladders if I had one at the moment! I also do an hour of yoga at the end of the day - it really loosens you off and helps you relax and recover mentally as well as physically.
I'm pretty sure that's what I said. Malcom MENTIONS his use in this link. Learn how to use a computer.
I'm amazed that you haven't given us examples of people who have used a weight belt and found that it was detrimental to their climbing.
I'd rather you didn't swear at me during this thread either. It just makes you look like a child. I wasn't rude to you so I expect the same in return
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 13, 2007, 10:37 AM
Post #96 of 143
(9386 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
In reply to: His input is anecdotal. How much more anecdotal do you want than one guy who did something and claimed that his results were due to it? How about all those other guys that climb 5.14, or 5.15? Do you hear about them training with weight vests?
Malcom Smith and Ben Moon have both climbed this hard (or there abouts). Where is this evidence from ANYBODY that weightbelts don't work
In reply to: On the other hand, we have controlled experiments showing that attempting movement training with weighted apparatuses is not just worthless, but actually detrimental to performance, together with a mechanism for the effect that is at least plausible. What's missing, of course, is direct demonstration of this effect to climbing
Did people not already state that these exercises were not complex enough? I can't remember anymore. If that IS the case then a more complex exercise like climbing would be more resitant to incorrect movement over a short period of time. Pretty much what Horst states.
In reply to: plus the fact that this training method is not prevalent among elite climbers (unless they're really secretive about it)
Maybe this is more to do with you not being in touch with these top climbers. Maybe you were rude to them via the internet?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 13, 2007, 4:34 PM
Post #97 of 143
(9360 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
theclimbinglab wrote: You said that you lead 5.13. I read that to mean you climb 5.13.
Yes, I climb 5.13 sport routes, so you read and interpreted something correctly. Any chance we're going to see that from you twice in a row?
In reply to: Not realising that you only did one in the last 24 hours. How's that working out for you?
Huh?
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Malcom mentions them here http://www.climbingmasterclass.com/training/protips.asp?author=2 Where? I don't see a link. Learn how the fucking website works, already. Well if you read the interview he mentions training with a weight belt.
You can either take 15 seconds to post a link properly, or you can be lazy and expect 100 other people to each take 15 seconds to copy and paste the URL you were to lazy to post as a link. LEARN HOW THE FUCKING WEBSITE WORKS.
In reply to: I'd rather you didn't swear at me during this thread either. It just makes you look like a child. I wasn't rude to you so I expect the same in return
I'd rather you not:- Discourteously post URLs as plain text, instead of taking the 15 seconds necessary to post them as links.
- Put words in my mouth.
- Make idiotic and insulting comments to aerili, who has been the most insightful contributor to the thread.
- Insinuate that I've been disingenuous about my climbing level.
- Confound the controversial issue of climbing with weights with he banal issue of doing climbing excercises with weights.
I contend that by these actions you have been pretty fucking rude.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 13, 2007, 4:58 PM
Post #98 of 143
(9353 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
I used to use diver's weights...you can easily slip them into your pockets and climb normal...its pretty stealthy and people don't know you are using them. Its better to not flaunt such things.
Try 4 lbs, then increase in 2lb increments.
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 13, 2007, 5:09 PM
Post #99 of 143
(9346 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
Its nice to see your true colours.
I wasn't rude to aerili. I just didn't realise she didn't climb very well. Its hard to comment on something like advanced training without doing that same training yourself. I did apologise when I realised my mistake.
# Discourteously post URLs as plain text, instead of taking the 15 seconds necessary to post them as links.
Hardly being rude
# Put words in my mouth.
Which words? You said that you Lead 5.13. Which your profile didn't back up. I seem to recall you pointing this out to other people before.
# Make idiotic and insulting comments to aerili, who has been the most insightful contributor to the thread.
Who has no practical basis to be making those claims. People should be aware of that when they discuss a topic.
# Insinuate that I've been disingenuous about my climbing level.
Easy tiger. Maybe you should update your profile more often. Just interpreting the facts
# Confound the controversial issue of climbing with weights with he banal issue of doing climbing excercises with weights
Maybe you should read the article again. Malcom talks about weighted climbing. Learn to use your eyes please. I posted the whole link so people could look at the background of other training.
Here it is again, just for you Jay. I've posted it in bold as a clue.
In reply to: Definitely. I do deadhangs, campusing, locking holds to the neck and 1-armers on a bar or an edge (although the 1-armers are mainly for a tune-up at the start of a session). I also do a few system style problems such as body tension moves at full stretch or front-on with my feet splayed out, or climbing with a weight-belt. I don’t do much isometric (static) work but I would do if I was training for a specific move again like I did for Hubble. I still use weights but for overall body strength rather than climbing strength - I only do compound movements like clean & jerk, deadlift, benchpress, upright row & shoulder press. I’d also use a Bachar ladders if I had one at the moment! I also do an hour of yoga at the end of the day - it really loosens you off and helps you relax and recover mentally as well as physically.
Thanks for the personal attack I hope people realise what you are like now (if they didn't already). If you can't take it, don't give it.
Maybe try answering the points I raised. Do you know anyone that has adverse movement skills from weighted climbing. If so how long did that adaption take.
Another link for you to insult
http://www.nicros.com/archive/hypergravity_bouldering.cfm
This is just as bad as the last no?
Does Eric not post on here sometimes? Maybe we could ask his advice?
|
|
|
|
|
serpico
Aug 13, 2007, 5:26 PM
Post #100 of 143
(9329 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 139
|
If I'm going to take somebodies advice on climbing training I'd want them to have some sort of qualification in the field, and a track record of proven results coaching others. As I understand it Eric has neither, he doesn't coach for a living, he's used these drills extensively himself and yet even though he boasts about the amount of weight he adds to himself he doesn't actually climb hard.
As for Malcolm, I've climbed with Malc and he is obscenely strong, but his movement ability is not at the same level as his strength. Remember what Morstad said about Malc in OTE? "If he ever learnt to initiate movement with his lower body just imagine what he could achieve".
There's a lot to be learned from this thread, it's a pity it's turned into a slagging match and pissing contest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
