|
fluxus
Aug 15, 2007, 6:04 PM
Post #126 of 143
(5929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
serpico wrote: You might know engrams better as schemas or motor programs? .
FYI Engrams, schemas and motor programs are NOT the same thing. Engrams for example is a general term used in some fields to describe information stored in the brain. You can have an olfactory engram or verbal engram etc.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Aug 15, 2007, 6:24 PM
Post #127 of 143
(5923 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
I think Performance Rockclimbing uses "engram" in a way that is synonymous with "schema." I'm not saying they're right, I'm saying that might be the source of the confusion of terms.
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Aug 15, 2007, 7:41 PM
Post #128 of 143
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
Well there's that, and there is also the fact that a motor program really is something quite specific to movement. Dale and Udo state that an engram is a complete record of a movement. I take this to be entirely unsupported by the available science. But further, their use of the term engram does not really jib with the current undertanding of what motor programs are and how they work. This is why I emphasied the idea of general motor programs in the book because I think that's the best description of how we learn and execuite climbing movements.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Aug 15, 2007, 10:04 PM
Post #129 of 143
(5883 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
jt512 wrote: 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
Well I'm not going to roll over and say I agree with that but if I must than at least with a greater emphasis on "might." All I was trying to say is that when looking at the end result you can't disregard the mental aspect of it. If it "feels" easier then it "feels" easier...isn't that what you want, placebo effect or not?
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 16, 2007, 12:22 AM
Post #130 of 143
(5864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
mturner wrote: Very well, so why don't you prove what you are claiming? That using a weighted belt is detrimental to climbing.
Maybe you didn't quite understand. The actual claim being made is that "weighted appartuses worn during climbing make people better/stronger climbers" and people like Todd Skinner, etc. etc. somehow prove it. I am saying that when research has looked into associated claims (to "prove" boosts in performance), it's actually finding there is no evidence of this.
It's a logical fallacy for us to think:
"It's true that using weights while climbing will make climbers improve their performance because there is no proof that this is false."
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 16, 2007, 12:38 AM
Post #131 of 143
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
aerili wrote: mturner wrote: Very well, so why don't you prove what you are claiming? That using a weighted belt is detrimental to climbing. Maybe you didn't quite understand. The actual claim being made is that "weighted appartuses worn during climbing make people better/stronger climbers" and people like Todd Skinner, etc. etc. somehow prove it. I am saying that when research has looked into associated claims (to "prove" boosts in performance), it's actually finding there is no evidence of this...
There is also a "study" posted somewhere on this very site that claims that chalk does not improve friction between a climbers hand and the rock. I can't tell you exactly what is wrong with that study--but I can certainly tell you it is wrong. Not everything that gets published is Gospel.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 16, 2007, 4:17 AM
Post #132 of 143
(5833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
curt wrote: aerili wrote: mturner wrote: Very well, so why don't you prove what you are claiming? That using a weighted belt is detrimental to climbing. Maybe you didn't quite understand. The actual claim being made is that "weighted appartuses worn during climbing make people better/stronger climbers" and people like Todd Skinner, etc. etc. somehow prove it. I am saying that when research has looked into associated claims (to "prove" boosts in performance), it's actually finding there is no evidence of this... There is also a "study" posted somewhere on this very site that claims that chalk does not improve friction between a climbers hand and the rock. I can't tell you exactly what is wrong with that study--but I can certainly tell you it is wrong. Not everything that gets published is Gospel. Curt
But that study was essentially a laboratory study, not a controlled trial with an objective measure of climbing performance as the endpoint. It's pretty clear that in that study the endpoint they measured was not directly relevant to the effect of chalk in climbing. In contrast, the studies that aerili is referring to actually measured sport performance before and after added-resistance training compared with a control group. What's missing, as I wrote before, are trials on climbers.
I've been trying to find the papers that aerili has been talking about, and they're very tough to find, because appropriate keywords, like "resistance training," "sport-specific," "motor learning," etc. are so general. I have found several trials on sprint training, and the results appear to be mixed. However, I've also, with aerili's help, seen some articles, written mainly for coaches, that treat the negative impact of added-resistance as a given; so, I suspect, that there is more research out there than I have dug up. Aerili has asked some scientific sources of hers for more information, which hopefully will be forthcoming.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Aug 16, 2007, 2:51 PM
Post #133 of 143
(5783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
aerili wrote: mturner wrote: Very well, so why don't you prove what you are claiming? That using a weighted belt is detrimental to climbing. I am saying that when research has looked into associated claims (to "prove" boosts in performance), it's actually finding there is no evidence of this.
If that was all you were saying then I wouldn't have a problem. But you have continued to make the arguement that using a weighted belt is detrimental to climbing with no proof for this.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Aug 16, 2007, 2:54 PM
Post #134 of 143
(5782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
jt512 wrote: But that study was essentially a laboratory study, not a controlled trial with an objective measure of climbing performance as the endpoint. Jay
That would be pretty hard to do, no? Too many uncontrollable variables.
(This post was edited by mturner on Aug 16, 2007, 2:55 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
drjghl
Aug 16, 2007, 4:06 PM
Post #135 of 143
(5769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 135
|
Why is this thread continuing? I thought a logical answer to the OP had already been made. Long ago. CLIMBING WITH ADDED WEIGHT WILL PROBABLY NOT IMPROVE ONE'S CLIMBING PERFORMANCE. The following was submitted by aerili in a previous post.
"Attempting to duplicate a sport specific movement with unaccustomed movements and loads results in the athlete learning two methods or styles of performance, thus causing a negative transfer. Multiple motor memories adapt, which inevitably leads to confusion. Competitive performance will either suffer or not benefit in any manner as a result."
The statement above likely does apply to rock climbing. For anyone interested in an educated explanation, I recommend that you read the first four posts submitted by aerili.
To all those who continue to dispute her stance. All I hear is a lot of yadda yadda yadda. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Whatever. Your arguments are based on personal accounts rather than facts or research. Being unable to support your arguments with anything meaningful, some of you have decided to use base tactics and insults directed at the one person with the most applicable knowledge, to discredit her. Bullshit.
My first impression when I read the OP was that climbing with added weight will make you a better climber. But after some education via aerili's posts, I realize that my initial stance is likely wrong. I say LIKELY wrong; because, as jt512 astutely points out, a controlled study with actual climbers would be necessary to clarify the question in the OP.
The problem with the original question and the possible answer(s) is that many people are using a logic that is illogical, to come to an answer. Which is: when something SEEMS to make obvious sense (climbing with added weight will improve your climbing when the weight is removed), it is correct. NO. And this is because there are confounding factors that may influence an outcome and can also explain a result. Very often, what seems obvious is true, but not always.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 16, 2007, 4:43 PM
Post #136 of 143
(5758 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
mturner wrote: jt512 wrote: But that study was essentially a laboratory study, not a controlled trial with an objective measure of climbing performance as the endpoint. Jay That would be pretty hard to do, no? Too many uncontrollable variables.
It would actually be relatively easy to do, because the intevention, use of a weight vest, is so simple. You'd randomize climbers to two groups, which would perform identical training exercises, except that one group would perform them while wearing a weight vest. You could balance the groups on critical variables, leaving other variables to be controlled by the randomization.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Aug 16, 2007, 5:19 PM
Post #137 of 143
(5744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
jt512 wrote: mturner wrote: jt512 wrote: But that study was essentially a laboratory study, not a controlled trial with an objective measure of climbing performance as the endpoint. Jay That would be pretty hard to do, no? Too many uncontrollable variables. It would actually be relatively easy to do, because the intevention, use of a weight vest, is so simple. You'd randomize climbers to two groups, which would perform identical training exercises, except that one group would perform them while wearing a weight vest. You could balance the groups on critical variables, leaving other variables to be controlled by the randomization. Jay
It would also be cool to incorporate qualitative evidence a'la fluxus' video analysis. I suspect that you'd find that the climbers in the "vest" group have lost many of the subtle, microsecond motions that often determine the difference between latching a hold and falling.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 16, 2007, 6:19 PM
Post #138 of 143
(5726 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
mturner wrote: aerili wrote: I am saying that when research has looked into associated claims (to "prove" boosts in performance), it's actually finding there is no evidence of this. If that was all you were saying then I wouldn't have a problem. But you have continued to make the arguement that using a weighted belt is detrimental to climbing with no proof for this.
I make the case that there is research to support both zero improvement AND detrimental effects to employing this type of thing. So I postulate that either effect could happen with climbing--which one is hard to say and would probably depend on the kind of route, the amount of weight used, possibly even gender-specific (due to varying CoG), and so forth.
sidepull wrote: It would also be cool to incorporate qualitative evidence a'la fluxus' video analysis. I suspect that you'd find that the climbers in the "vest" group have lost many of the subtle, microsecond motions that often determine the difference between latching a hold and falling.
There are other studies that bear this type of thinking out. Matt Brzycki (a longtime strength coach and currently with Princeton's programs) cites on article on swimming that evidenced this effect:
Some individuals feel that specific sports skills can be improved by simulating them with added resistance. Unfortunately, the motor-learning literature does not seem to support this assertion. In one study, competitive swimmers were filmed while sprinting the butterfly.3 The films were digitized and analyzed by computer. Among other things, it was found that swimming using resistance was done with noticeably different -- and less effective -- stroke mechanics compared to swimming without added resistance. In effect, the swimmers were performing different strokes.
The same result occurs when attempting to mimic the movement pattern of a particular sports skill in the weight room with a barbell or dumbbell. No exercise done in the weight room -- with a barbell, dumbbell or machine -- will help improve specific sports skills. At best, this is a waste of time and energy.
|
|
|
|
|
ndru
Aug 19, 2007, 9:50 AM
Post #140 of 143
(5608 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 1, 2006
Posts: 2
|
In reply to: Here is some anecdotal evidence for ya: I swam x years including blah, blah, blah, and my experience bore out the following: Extreme, stroke specific, resistance f'ed up my rhythm and did more harm than good, but just a bit of resistance (special drag suits, etc) coupled with hard training (just about the same training I could do with or without the suite) made me faster than otherwise. I am sure someone will jump on the cause and effect here, but the simple fact is that when I duck taped my nuts to my taint and shaved down I felt so smooth and, well...fast, that I dropped serious time. Tapered or not. I actually think this can translate. Adding just enough resistance (a few pounds?) so that you can still climb hard - but it just takes a bit more effort to do so - may be a happy medium. I have neither the discipline nor the coaching for this, but I have always thought it might help my climbing. BTW, anecdotal "evidence" is often the seed for fancy peer-reviewed research. That being said - aerili, your posts are very informative. |
|
|
|
|
joswald
Feb 23, 2008, 4:51 PM
Post #141 of 143
(5064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 19, 2008
Posts: 64
|
will it work if you eliminate the skill involved in it? e.g as Eric Horst states that when training with HIT strips you should climb face on.
Also would it change your centre of gravity and the way you climb if the added weight is distributed on your body like the weight is distributed on your body in real life. Meaning that the added weight is placed on your body in proportion.
Anyone get me?
|
|
|
|
|
joswald
Feb 23, 2008, 5:15 PM
Post #142 of 143
(5057 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 19, 2008
Posts: 64
|
i don't think that he intended to educate on improving sport specific skills but merely the strength which helps you practise and perform them.
and some of these exercise do transfer to climbing quite well
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Feb 23, 2008, 5:25 PM
Post #143 of 143
(5054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
joswald wrote: i don't think that he intended to educate on improving sport specific skills but merely the strength which helps you practise and perform them. and some of these exercise do transfer to climbing quite well
In this case I think they would argue that the strength needed to perform the skills are sport specific skills themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
