|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 13, 2007, 6:13 PM
Post #101 of 143
(10619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
theclimbinglab wrote: Its nice to see your true colours. I wasn't rude to aerili.
Yeah, actually you were rude and sarcastic.
In reply to: # Discourteously post URLs as plain text, instead of taking the 15 seconds necessary to post them as links. Hardly being rude
In your opinion.
In reply to: # Put words in my mouth. Which words?
You said that I claimed to be "a 5.13 climber," which, I assume you know, would imply that I'm solid at the grade. Well, I'm certainly not solid at 5.13, nor did I post anything that suggested that I am. I merely claimed that I "lead 5.13 sport climbs," which I absolutely do. Thus, either due to poor reading comprehension or intentional misrepresentation, you publicly and wrongly accused me of misrepresenting my climbing level, an accusation that I flatly deny.
In reply to: 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.
I point out when people misrepresent their climbing level, which is pretty common around here. A lot of users here are on-line liars. I'm not one of them, Asshole. About half the routes I've done in the last two years are at a crag that does not, and will not, appear in the routes database until the guy who has invested thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours cleaning the routes, building the trails, and equipping the crag gives the okay to publicize it. Since the crag isn't in the database, the routes aren't in my profile, not that I owe you, or anybody else, a duty to enter them, anyway.
In reply to: # 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.
You could have broached that issue in an entirely impersonal and objective manner; but you didn't, instead making sarcastic comments to someone gracious enough to share actual professional expertise on the board, something that's rare enough around here. Few professionals are willing to share information on these boards specifically because what they get in return are undeserved insults from know-nothings like you.
In reply to: # Insinuate that I've been disingenuous about my climbing level. Easy tiger.
Fuck off, you condescending prick.
In reply to: Maybe you should update your profile more often. Just interpreting the facts
And what are we to infer from the "facts" in your profile, that you don't climb at all?
In reply to: # 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.
Maybe you should reread your posts and edit out all the examples I was referring to when I wrote that you were confounding weighted climbing exercises with weighted climbing. Learn to use your brain, please.
In reply to: Thanks for the personal attack  I hope people realise what you are like now (if they didn't already).
You're welcome. You attacked aerili; I attacked you.
In reply to: 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.
Maybe try raising intelligent points, instead of asking obviously stupid questions. The whole point of aerili's information is that professional athletes have been unknowingly harming their performance for decades by doing weighted sport-specific movement. It took controlled scientific studies to ascertain this. If it took controlled experiments to detect this adverse training effect, then how the hell would I know anyone who "has adverse climbing skills [sic] from weighted climbing", or how long it took such an adverse effect to accrue.
In reply to: Another link for you to insult http://www.nicros.com/archive/hypergravity_bouldering.cfm
I don't know how to insult a link, just as you, apparently, don't know how to post one.
In reply to: Does Eric not post on here sometimes? Maybe we could ask his advice?
What I would like to know from Eric Horst is what objective evidence he has, if any, for his claims that weighted bouldering does more good than harm to climbing performance, or is more effective than other means of training; and what scientific basis he has, if any, that climbing movement isn't harmed by weighted sport-specific movement training, in light of a body of controlled research that predicts that it would. Without that information, Eric's claims for weighted bouldering are just unsupported assertions.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Aug 13, 2007, 6:27 PM
Post #102 of 143
(10609 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
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.
This is a "prickish" response for many reasons, least of all that you have posted nothing. Using your logic, we should infer that you've never climbed and hence, all of your posts should be deleted from this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 13, 2007, 6:37 PM
Post #103 of 143
(10600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
Go ahead and take a look at my tick list. Does that make me any more or less knowledable than any other people on the site?
hrmph...
|
|
|
|
|
jbak
Aug 13, 2007, 6:42 PM
Post #104 of 143
(10597 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 63
|
Funny that I just bought a 16 lb vest and then ran into this thread. Now I've just got to try it !
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 13, 2007, 7:20 PM
Post #105 of 143
(10586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
You want qualifications and studies?
Heh
In an attempt to sidestep the internet slagging that is starting up, and in an attempt to interject some REAL facts: we at the Society for Laughingly Anti-Performance and Advanced Studies of Stupidity (Slapass) have initiated a peer reviewed study of the effects of the strength of weight-added to mice.
You will be happy to learn that this was more complex than a double blind Slapass study, and in fact was a triple blind Slapass study. Furthermore, we did not induce this vision loss on the mice, but in fact started with actual blind mice.
Thus the name of the study: the "3 Blind Mice Study".
First we had to see how they run. See how they run. We observed them running up to the Farmers wife, so we have took those who were timed multiple times to be the slowest, as noted by their tails having been cut off with a carving knife, and added weights to their lil Center of Gravitys" (COG). Study mice were then put on a treadmill that measured the effeciacy of the weight added to the mice.
We have found that a 10 lb weight, added in a rapid manner directly to their COG, is enough to kill 100% of the blind mice. Reduction of the weight to 5 lbs causes a similar effect.
We will add this to our previous findings which resulted in gaining the knowledge that hitting yourself on the head with a hammer is ineffective as a learning tool.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 13, 2007, 7:23 PM
Post #106 of 143
(10580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
We at the Society would hope this is the final word on the subject, but are aware that JT5.12 always has to have that. 
|
|
|
|
|
serpico
Aug 13, 2007, 7:45 PM
Post #107 of 143
(10571 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 139
|
In reply to: We will add this to our previous findings which resulted in gaining the knowledge that hitting yourself on the head with a hammer is ineffective as a learning tool.
|
|
|
|
|
carlos_a
Aug 13, 2007, 8:37 PM
Post #108 of 143
(10549 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 9, 2006
Posts: 34
|
I personally have not climbed with added weight, but did manage to read all the responses and came to a conclusion for myself. I appolagize if this pisses anyone off, is wrong, or incorrect in anyway. It sounds like using weight is good for general conditioning or strengthening your fingers/grip however using it for climbing may not be the best idea, due to the effects it may have on your technique. Take it or leave it, and I have no education on strength training and such, have done alot of research, but do not consider my self a proffesional in any way.
Best wishes to all and hope you all have fun climbing and get as good as you hope.
P.S. I did appreciate a majority of the reply's and feel I have learned alot from them, especially aerialli(sorry I think I incorrectly spelled that) and Jay.
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 13, 2007, 9:03 PM
Post #109 of 143
(10539 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
Sorry for the slagging match. I'm not going to defend my position anymore. But.....................
-adding weight has, for many people, helped their climbing
-climbing too much with added weight could well effect efficient movement based on other research in unrelated sports
-Eric Horst is not well regarded by Jay
- No evidence has been put forward that weighted climbing in bad for you, apart from Mr Smith who is still climbing pretty hard
-Jay is rude to most of the people on Rockclimbing.com and may or not have climbed 5.13 but it was at an undisclosed location that we can't go to . But climbs about 5.12 elsewhere.
-I like to argue
Peace and fucking x
|
|
|
|
|
theclimbinglab
Aug 13, 2007, 10:05 PM
Post #110 of 143
(10523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 64
|
dbrayack wrote: Go ahead and take a look at my tick list. Does that make me any more or less knowledable than any other people on the site? hrmph...
If your profile is correct, and those grades are accurate then yes it makes you less knowlegeable about advanced training. To climb those grades you don't need to be able to campus or deadhang. If you did these exercises and still only climbed those grades then I'd be worried for you. Therefore I'd say if you had any knowledge about these activities it came from a book. Some of these books might not be telling the whole truth.
To be fair I'd take anyones opinion on the subject who had actually tried to climb with extra weight. I was just arguing against Jay and Co who can't see the other side of the argument and make people feel bad about not reading research papers.
I've an academic background and have been coaching for over 10 years. I'd love to see research to prove me wrong/right but the chances are it's not going to happen. Quoting research in other areas is fine but is not perfect, nor is anecdotal evidence.
If I was to do any climbing with added weight I would restrict it to 5Kg or less. I'd try to keep it as close to my Centre Of Gravity (COG) as possible and restrict the amount of volume compared to my total time spent climbing. I'd also be careful not to fall on the weights!
I could have told you this in the 1st page but this thread had already turned into willy waving before I arrived.
Malcom may not have the best movement skills in the world. How about Jerry/Ben/Simpson? They have all used the dreaded weight belt. How about the Earl, Arron?
I've seen many technical problems beasted, but rarely do I see a powerful move made easier with technique
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Aug 13, 2007, 10:31 PM
Post #111 of 143
(10507 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
theclimbinglab wrote: dbrayack wrote: Go ahead and take a look at my tick list. Does that make me any more or less knowledable than any other people on the site? hrmph... If your profile is correct, and those grades are accurate then yes it makes you less knowlegeable about advanced training. To climb those grades you don't need to be able to campus or deadhang. If you did these exercises and still only climbed those grades then I'd be worried for you. Therefore I'd say if you had any knowledge about these activities it came from a book. Some of these books might not be telling the whole truth.
well, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. the grade climbed tells you next to nothing about the persons experience.
theclimbinglab wrote: I've seen many technical problems beasted, but rarely do I see a powerful move made easier with technique
a good friend of mine (who is also, by 'coincidence' an assistant coach to our national youth team and on a fast track to being the most popular comp route setter in the contry and getting an international license) once injured hes shoulder. he couldnt climb at all for 6 months. and afterwards, he came to the gym and bested everybody (even the 'instructors'; i was a noob then and it really seemed a great feat), and i bet you it wasnt because he was so strong. and some of the things he climbed were what you would call 'powerfull problems'. even after that injury, he has climbed 8a (.13?) within a month.
how did he do it? well, he has exeptional technique. he is by far not the strongest climber i know, but is definitely most consistent. even when hes 'out of form' you can pretty much bet he can crank any 8a you throw at him. last week he was 4th on a bouldering comp in bulgaria, while some far stronger climbers than he finished far worse. and that was after climbing (and drinking and being hung over) for a week after a 1.5 months without a serious training session.
and you know what? he has never, ever, used a weighted vest, at least to my knowledge. i will ask him about it, but im pretty much sure hes reaction to the question will be laughter.
in fact, i dont know of any climber in my country that uses such a training method.
i could say the opposite... i have seen many a 'power move' turned into something easy by proper technique and i have rarely seen a really technical problem turned into something requiring superhuman strength. but maybe its just a difference in how we do certain things
|
|
|
|
|
serpico
Aug 13, 2007, 10:54 PM
Post #112 of 143
(10494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 139
|
In reply to: Malcom may not have the best movement skills in the world. How about Jerry/Ben/Simpson? They have all used the dreaded weight belt. How about the Earl, Arron? I've seen many technical problems beasted, but rarely do I see a powerful move made easier with technique
Re: The Earl, I've only climbed with Andy a couple of times and the one thing that struck me about him is his speed at latching holds - nobody pulls in and shoots an arm out to latch a hold faster , he's king of the deadpoint. And this is the point, you say you've never seen a powerful move made easier with technique, but if we're really talking about power ie: force x speed, then the inter-muscular coordination involved is the ultimate expression of technique. Usually casually dismissed as a lunge it's actually for a single movement got the highest skill requirement.
I'd love weighted climbing to be consequence free because it would solve the problem of how to up the intensity of my endurance circuit on my attic board without having to reset every couple of sessions. It may be that because of the way my board is set: lots of feet movements to slow the pace, and no dynamic or tenuous moves, that wearing a belt maybe wouldn't do too much damage to my technique (if any). I'd never wear one for bouldering though because the technique element is just too high.
From Aerili's and others posts the 2 main elements seem to me to be:
1: The speed at which the movement is carried out, and this it appears has conclusive research to show that you get fastest (at a given movement) at the weight you train at. So for climbing if you consider that we're not dealing with a constant weight distribution (because of differing hold spacing and qualities) we're never going to be at our optimum across all move possibilities because of the amount of novel moves we encounter, unlike a shot putter who always deals with the same load and movement, so a weight belt will (speculating here obviously) have neither a positive or negative effect.
2: Movement engrams. Here I see a weight belt having the potential for cocking things up, not just in terms of disrupting the COG, but also because in any move involving momentum you're dealing with predicted outcome based on past experience: If you deadpoint to a hold you're generating momentum based on past experience of speed,force and trajectory, climbing with an abnormal mass is going to build conflicting engrams.
So now come clean, have we met? Are you watching me now?............
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 14, 2007, 5:12 AM
Post #113 of 143
(10448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
jt512 wrote: 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 is a super good summary that really does take things into account fairly and objectively.
I do agree with Jay that Horst has an agenda as wellto sell books and make money promoting himself, and he has little to no real competition in this arena of the climbing world. Hence the reason I dont buy into everything he espouses. Also, Ive looked at the limited climbing studies he advocates and the drawback (that I recall) is that none of them are really looking at the same thing, they are all different, sample sizes are regrettably small, etc.
Furthermore, the reality of the term anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron. But well use it with agreed acknowledgment of this fact, eh? 
And whether we like it or not, it goes without saying that anecdotal evidence is, for the most part, pretty useless. Any results people confidently believe they have derived are confounded by too many other variables not controlled for. This is a very important point!! People like Todd Skinner had too many variables in the form of genetic influences, other training factors, etc. to be able to say anything about the single influence of his use of weighted devices (plus who knows how he was using them, how often, in combination with what for how long, and so on).
Soooo
if some of our readers think research-driven science is useless, then please stop driving your car, using the Internet, going to the doctor, filtering your water, drinking pasteurized milk, taking antibiotics for that strep throat, and so on
.and just join the Amish community (actually, even theyre too modern). Science doesnt answer everything immediately and with crystal clarity, but its sure taken us a long way from the flat earth society, aye?
For people like climbinglab who really believe that climbing grade = competent understanding of training principles (even ADVANCED ones), get real. What this fails to understand is the difference between a CONDITIONING COACH and a SPORTS COACH. They are two separate entities and, in the normal athletic world (i.e. not climbing), they do separate things. Did I ever claim to coach any athlete in their actual game or technique? Of course not. What I CAN do is train and coach people on the conditioning aspects necessary for their desired sport. For instance, do you really think that all job openings for people like me go something like this: Open position for strength coach overseeing wrestling and womens softball: must be NSCA CSCS certified, possess a minimum of a Bachelors degree in exercise science, have 5 years experience, and have been both Division I wrestler and softball player [genders notwithstanding] for all four years. MVPs and full scholarships will be given extra special consideration. To further point out how silly this is, I will illustrate with an actual story of how I trained a former collegiate level golfer for well over a year. Several months into the program she added 30 yards to her drive while performing her conditioning with me, despite the fact that I have never golfed even once. A high school baseball pitcher I worked with increased his top pitch speed by 3mph, a speed he was unable to break previously. I sure as hell cant pitch and I am the worst baseball player on earth, frankly. (For the record, neither individual practiced swinging or throwing weighted golf clubs or baseballs.) I have other stories of training athletes who added measurable components to their performance in sports I have never played myself, but I think that will make things more clear as to what I am (even if I am only a moderate climber).
As I mentioned, most climbers dont think about (and what most high level, competitive climbers unfortunately lack) is the combination of conditioning coach and technique/i.e. regular coach so standard in the upper echelons of other sports. The conditioning coach is typically the individual(s) responsible for the general and sport specific conditioning of the athlete (in this case, sport specific means the fitness capacities specifically required by the sport); their backgrounds are almost UNIFORMLY required to be ones of certified and degreed education + relevant experience conditioning many types of athletes. The regular coach, on the other hand, takes care of actual practice, i.e. working on the athletes skill and game technique, real live sport simulation for competition, and so forth. These coaches are rarely educated in the fitness conditioning aspects required of their athletes, but they ARE usually required to have been actual, high level former competitors themselves with a demonstrated past performance of advanced skill (and the best coaches typically have a natural talent for nurturing the mental aspects of the game as well
this is not really the realm of the conditioning coach). The two are equally important and should ideally collaborate when necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 14, 2007, 5:28 AM
Post #114 of 143
(10443 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
serpico wrote: From Aerili's and others posts the 2 main elements seem to me to be: 1: The speed at which the movement is carried out, and this it appears has conclusive research to show that you get fastest (at a given movement) at the weight you train at. So for climbing if you consider that we're not dealing with a constant weight distribution (because of differing hold spacing and qualities) we're never going to be at our optimum across all move possibilities because of the amount of novel moves we encounter, unlike a shot putter who always deals with the same load and movement, so a weight belt will (speculating here obviously) have neither a positive or negative effect. 2: Movement engrams. Here I see a weight belt having the potential for cocking things up, not just in terms of disrupting the COG, but also because in any move involving momentum you're dealing with predicted outcome based on past experience: If you deadpoint to a hold you're generating momentum based on past experience of speed,force and trajectory, climbing with an abnormal mass is going to build conflicting engrams.
I don't know what engrams are, serpico, but I think your analysis is pretty good, actually, although I would hedge that a heavy belt/vest/whatever would PROBABLY have negative effects on skill and a lighter one might possibly have no effect at all--but still, an extra 11 pounds (i.e. 5 kg) would probably make a person of my size have a big change in mechanics.
I find it interesting that climbinglab states he would only use "5 kg or less"...I am not sure where he got that number except that I have only read it recommended as the maximum theoretical weight to "do no harm and MAYBE good" in resisted sprinting.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 14, 2007, 5:44 AM
Post #115 of 143
(10438 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
aerili wrote: ...And whether we like it or not, it goes without saying that anecdotal evidence is, for the most part, pretty useless. Any results people confidently believe they have derived are confounded by too many other variables not controlled for. This is a very important point!! People like Todd Skinner had too many variables in the form of genetic influences, other training factors, etc. to be able to say anything about the single influence of his use of weighted devices (plus who knows how he was using them, how often, in combination with what for how long, and so on)...
Well, I think the point is that Todd has plainly stated that this type of training did benefit his performance as a climber. Are you claiming that you can prove he was wrong?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 14, 2007, 5:50 AM
Post #116 of 143
(10433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
curt wrote: Well, I think the point is that Todd has plainly stated that this type of training did benefit his performance as a climber. Are you claiming that you can prove he was wrong? Curt
Todd did a lot of other things as well Curt. He did the forearm wrist curls to bulk up his forearm muscles, AND he was a professional climber, who climbed ALL the Frikkan time.
ALL THE TIME.
Who can really say? I see baseball players grab 3 bats and swing them to get warm, and some do not do this. Who can say?
Well, conclusively, there are certainly 3 blind mice who would say something...........but their little jaws got slammed shut when the weight was dropped on their little asses.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 14, 2007, 6:03 AM
Post #117 of 143
(10428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
billcoe_ wrote: curt wrote: Well, I think the point is that Todd has plainly stated that this type of training did benefit his performance as a climber. Are you claiming that you can prove he was wrong? Curt Todd did a lot of other things as well Curt. He did the forearm wrist curls to bulk up his forearm muscles, AND he was a professional climber, who climbed ALL the Frikkan time. ALL THE TIME. Who can really say? I see baseball players grab 3 bats and swing them to get warm, and some do not do this. Who can say? Well, conclusively, there are certainly 3 blind mice who would say something...........but their little jaws got slammed shut when the weight was dropped on their little asses.
Were you trying to make any particular point? The fact that Todd climbed "all the time" and that he also employed additional training methods does not negate the fact that he found climbing with a weight vest to be beneficial.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 14, 2007, 6:08 AM
Post #118 of 143
(10423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
curt wrote: Well, I think the point is that Todd has plainly stated that this type of training did benefit his performance as a climber. Are you claiming that you can prove he was wrong? Curt
My dear Curt, don't you know the burden of proof is on the claim being made, i.e. weighted vests made Todd strong? Burden of proof is never to DISprove sumptin'.
Todd may have believed they made him stronger, but that doesn't make it an unquestionable reality. Besides, like I said, I bet he couldn't even reasonably quantify a ratio of influence they may have had, especially if he wasn't doing a structured application with the weight consistently and without changing ANYthing else, know what I'm sayin'...
Now, billcoe, you are more than hilarious with your three blind mice....It's too bad your research is so unethical and inhumane! We might have to ban you from further inquiries of this matter.... 
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 14, 2007, 6:17 AM
Post #119 of 143
(10418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
curt wrote: aerili wrote: ...And whether we like it or not, it goes without saying that anecdotal evidence is, for the most part, pretty useless. Any results people confidently believe they have derived are confounded by too many other variables not controlled for. This is a very important point!! People like Todd Skinner had too many variables in the form of genetic influences, other training factors, etc. to be able to say anything about the single influence of his use of weighted devices (plus who knows how he was using them, how often, in combination with what for how long, and so on)... Well, I think the point is that Todd has plainly stated that this type of training did benefit his performance as a climber. Are you claiming that you can prove he was wrong? Curt
I can't speak for Aerili, but I have little faith in people's ability to accurately determine the extent to which what they think affected their performance actually did. I've seen too many stories that were either outright implausible or else later disproved by well-controlled studies, to put much faith at all into these sort of anecdotal reports. Professional baseball players swear that swinging weighted bats helps their batting in spite of sound research having apparently proven that this is harmful to performance. Horst says that climbing with weights makes climbing without weights "feel" effortless. Problem is that the climber's subjective judgment of how climbing "feels" is irrelevant; what is relevant is how objective measurements of his climbing performance have been affected by the training activity. Given the unreliability of subjective impression, without concrete, objective evidence, I cannot take Skinner's or Horst's claims seriously.
I am equally skeptical of my own experiences. I lost 8 pounds in the weeks before my hardest redpoint attempt. Was that important? I don't really know. It's tempting to say that it was because it is plausible, and many, if not most, climbers, would not hesitate to claim that it was. But, who knows, maybe it was just a coincidence. After all, I also only got 4 hours sleep and drank no less than a bottle and a half of $2 red wine on the night before I sent the route.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 14, 2007, 6:24 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Aug 14, 2007, 6:21 AM
Post #120 of 143
(10421 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
jt512 wrote: After all, I also only got 4 hours sleep and drank no less than a bottle and a half of $2 red wine on the night before I sent the route. Jay 
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 14, 2007, 6:22 AM
Post #121 of 143
(10418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
climbsomething wrote: jt512 wrote: After all, I also only got 4 hours sleep and drank no less than a bottle and a half of $2 red wine on the night before I sent the route. Jay Shocked. Stunned!
Hey, I usually get 8 hours of sleep, and drink only 1 bottle of cheap red wine.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
serpico
Aug 14, 2007, 9:44 AM
Post #122 of 143
(10406 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 139
|
You might know engrams better as schemas or motor programs?
I agree that skill is the area where added weight will likely be detrimental to performance. My first point was that in terms of a weight belt disrupting optimal rate coding/rate of force development etc as in the studies, as climbers we don't have an optimal RC/RFD because we're never dealing with the same load distribution for any 2 moves.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Aug 15, 2007, 3:59 PM
Post #123 of 143
(10330 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
aerili wrote: My dear Curt, don't you know the burden of proof is on the claim being made, i.e. weighted vests made Todd strong? Burden of proof is never to DISprove sumptin'.
Very well, so why don't you prove what you are claiming? That using a weighted belt is detrimental to climbing.
jt512 wrote: Problem is that the climber's subjective judgment of how climbing "feels" is irrelevant
Couldn't disagree more. You are completely throwing out the mental aspects of climbing. How a climb "feels" is extremely important to the end result in climbing. Whether or not a weighted belt is actually making one stronger is debatable, but if it makes the climb "feel" easier then who cares?
|
|
|
|
|
jto
Aug 15, 2007, 4:02 PM
Post #124 of 143
(10327 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 272
|
Interesting topic. (My background is a power and strength coach for over 15 years. I have been around climbing world for the last 5 years.)
- Many athletes use overweighted stuff in sport specific training with a lot of success. One example might be a hammer throw. The ahtletes might do over 70% (!) of their throwing training with oversized hammers. The success is quite dependant of the sport and the athletes abilities to maintain good technique.
- Climbers use weight vests too. Dave G reported using one too :) . A lot of frenchmen and spaniards use it as do many others in Europe. One good example up here north is Nalle Hukkataival from Finland (bouldering up to 8B+) who uses a vest quite often.
- Weight vests etc ARE bad for technique as they change the COG and that way the movement pattern etc. This is especially true in very movement centered sports as climbing is.
- Added weight in sport specific training must be carried out with a certain target in mind. In climbing one could use added weights for system wall type of exercises to work lock offs, body tension and finger strength etc.
- When training for climbing (movement skills) itself the added weight should not be used. This is the case in the most of the exercise sessions of course.
- If one likes to be very powerful in letīs say dynos the main target of training is movement training. When one can initiate the movement correctly itīs time to add speed and target the fast cells more. Thereīs no use training speed with a bad technique.
- If one likes to use weights the training must be general. No sport specific but raw iron in the gym etc. Get the muscles strong and then use very strict movement training to make them powerful. Neural stuff that is.
- About coaching: The coach canīt be the best athlete or even have very good results to show. Quite often the best coaches are those not so good in the sport they coach. The best athletes are the most gifted ones not the ones who know the most about training. Also a good coaching skill is also a gift. One example is a dentist (!) here in Finland who has coached a lot of World Champion and Olympic Champion javelin throwers and I might bet he has never thrown one himself :)
Cheers :)
(This post was edited by jto on Aug 15, 2007, 4:33 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 15, 2007, 4:36 PM
Post #125 of 143
(10680 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
mturner wrote: aerili wrote: My dear Curt, don't you know the burden of proof is on the claim being made, i.e. weighted vests made Todd strong? Burden of proof is never to DISprove sumptin'. Very well, so why don't you prove what you are claiming? That using a weighted belt is detrimental to climbing. jt512 wrote: Problem is that the climber's subjective judgment of how climbing "feels" is irrelevant Couldn't disagree more. You are completely throwing out the mental aspects of climbing. How a climb "feels" is extremely important to the end result in climbing. Whether or not a weighted belt is actually making one stronger is debatable, but if it makes the climb "feel" easier then who cares?
What you are proposing is that a weighted vest might work as a placebo.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
