|
mr.tastycakes
Sep 18, 2009, 9:37 PM
Post #101 of 231
(11156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 10, 2008
Posts: 310
|
In reply to: No. The climber with better technique and greater muscle endurance will climb harder.
By giving our hypothetical climbers differing levels of technique and endurance, you're not holding all other things equal.
(This post was edited by mr.tastycakes on Sep 18, 2009, 9:38 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Sep 18, 2009, 9:45 PM
Post #102 of 231
(11147 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
mr.tastycakes wrote: In reply to: No. The climber with better technique and greater muscle endurance will climb harder. By giving our hypothetical climbers differing levels of technique and endurance, you're not holding all other things equal.
It doesn't matter... there is still no data to indicate that a "stronger" climber (whatever that means, but in the context of this thread, it means someone who lifts weights and does squats) will be any better.
If that's your position: That a climber who can bench more, or squat more, or curl more, will be better as a rock climber, then please show us the scientific data.
|
|
|
|
|
mr.tastycakes
Sep 18, 2009, 9:54 PM
Post #103 of 231
(11142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 10, 2008
Posts: 310
|
I've never said strength training will improve your climbing. I'm interested in examining the reasons why some people believe it will be detrimental.
I've got no data to support my positions; actually, I don't have a position on this topic. I'm just interested in the basis of others' beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
scion
Sep 18, 2009, 10:20 PM
Post #104 of 231
(11128 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 5, 2006
Posts: 39
|
mr.tastycakes wrote: I've never said strength training will improve your climbing. I'm interested in examining the reasons why some people believe it will be detrimental. I've got no data to support my positions; actually, I don't have a position on this topic. I'm just interested in the basis of others' beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Sep 18, 2009, 10:34 PM
Post #105 of 231
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
reno wrote: mr.tastycakes wrote: In reply to: No. The climber with better technique and greater muscle endurance will climb harder. By giving our hypothetical climbers differing levels of technique and endurance, you're not holding all other things equal. It doesn't matter... there is still no data to indicate that a "stronger" climber (whatever that means, but in the context of this thread, it means someone who lifts weights and does squats) will be any better. If that's your position: That a climber who can bench more, or squat more, or curl more, will be better as a rock climber, then please show us the scientific data.
Gosh, reno, I so seldom disagree with you...
There is unlikely to be scientific evidence supporting specific lifts as correlating to improved climbing-ever. But that's not really the point. To me, it's pretty clear that some routes have a degree of strength-dependence, similar to the way some routes have a degree of height-dependence. (Doesn't make it impossible to do the route if short or weak, but rather, more tall or strong people have had success on the route.)
Resistance training, when properly conceived and diligently done, can improve the strength of specific motions. Any disagreement with that? Training campusing is resistance training. Any disagreement?
I have myself strained a hamstring doing a hard heel hook, and I have treated climbers with similar injuries. The treatment? Hamstring strengthening, usually in closed chain, like modified stiff leg deadlifts (once sufficient healing had taken place.) The results? Exact same move later completed without re-injury.
I know it's kind of a case study/anecdotal evidence, but it can happen.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I don't know how many routes are dependent on hamstring strength, but some are. Squats, and variants thereof, strengthen the hammies. Strong hammies are less likely to strain. Disagree?
|
|
|
|
|
theguy
Sep 18, 2009, 10:58 PM
Post #106 of 231
(11116 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2004
Posts: 469
|
You might be onto something.
An elite (rather than elitist) climber by the name of Ben Moon includes the following in his power training program:
"...
- Weight Training"
Say it ain't so, Joe!
|
|
|
|
|
whipper
Sep 19, 2009, 1:36 AM
Post #107 of 231
(11103 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 241
|
WOW, JT, you are a tool in this debate. For what its worth, I do lift at least 3 times a week. I am 185#'s, 11% body fat, my bench max is about 260, and can redpoint 5.13 sport and 5.12 trad. No pissing match here, just letting ol JT know that he is not the ultimate authority on the subject. The way he talks I always thought he was stronger, but ONE 13....was it at Jacks Canyon?
I can also manhandle a haul bag around, there is something to be said for having guns on big walls.
I guess I kinda think, Do what you want...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 19, 2009, 1:54 AM
Post #108 of 231
(11100 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
whipper wrote: WOW, JT, you are a tool in this debate. For what its worth, I do lift at least 3 times a week. I am 185#'s, 11% body fat, my bench max is about 260, and can redpoint 5.13 sport and 5.12 trad.
You seem to have a couple of typos in your profile.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
whipper
Sep 19, 2009, 2:18 AM
Post #109 of 231
(11096 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 241
|
hmmm, your right,
thats no longer my current email, I dont live in Fort Collins any more, and climb harder. Also I would never say in my profile that I climb 5.13, I can and have redpointed that level, but dont onsight it, and dont send one a week.
What sucks is that it should not matter how hard you climb. Knowledge is what we are after on these forums, not physical prowess.
I used to have some respect for your posts, but it seems like you are an elitist bastard with no reason to be one. Glad to know that there are people like you out there who get their jollies buy telling nOOBs how stupid they are. Good thing you found someone to be better than, we all need that.
(This post was edited by whipper on Sep 19, 2009, 2:19 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 19, 2009, 2:57 AM
Post #110 of 231
(11088 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In consecutive posts, whipper wrote: [1] I am 185#'s, 11% body fat, my bench max is about 260, and can redpoint 5.13 sport and 5.12 trad. [2] Knowledge is what we are after on these forums, not physical prowess. |
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Sep 19, 2009, 2:58 AM
Post #111 of 231
(11087 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
mr.tastycakes wrote: So you're of the opinion that one can't increase strength without gaining weight?
You can increase strength without gaining weight, but you just might gain weight trying.
|
|
|
|
|
whipper
Sep 19, 2009, 3:10 AM
Post #112 of 231
(11083 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 241
|
Yep, I did.
I posted my stats to prove you wrong, which was not that hard to do.
You also asked someone earlier how hard they climbed, implying that you knew better than others because you climbed harder. Does that make me know more than you do (because I am a better climber)? I think not, although on THIS topic, I betcha I do.
I am really starting to think that you are the simplest of all tools...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 19, 2009, 3:32 AM
Post #113 of 231
(11073 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
whipper wrote: Yep, I did. I posted my stats to prove you wrong, which was not that hard to do.
You didn't "prove me wrong." If you think you did, then post the claim of mine that you think you disproved.
In reply to: You also asked someone earlier how hard they climbed, implying that you knew better than others because you climbed harder.
Wrong. I asked him how hard he currently climbs because I wanted a benchmark, so in the unlikely event that he is still around here in 6 months, I could ask him what his new level of climbing was, in order to make a rudimentary assessment of how his "training" regiment affected his climbing.
In reply to: Does that make me know more than you do (because I am a better climber)? I think not, although on THIS topic, I betcha I do.
Well, I think you'd climb harder if you lost 20 lb of useless muscle mass.
In reply to: I am really starting to think that you are the simplest of all tools...
Well, you post up about how you "disproved" me, and then we'll see exactly who the simplistic thinker is.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
whipper
Sep 19, 2009, 3:54 AM
Post #114 of 231
(11069 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 241
|
WTF....
useless muscle mass???? 20 pounds? I am 6 foot tall, there is no way I could lose 20 pounds and be healthy. You have really no clue, do you?
You implied that lifting would hurt climbing performance, that is just not the case. I am not a body builder, far from it. I am well built.
After looking at your pics, looks like you could loose a little bit of wieght there. Hows your 6 pack coming along? Lifting helps keep me slim, muscle mass burns calories.
Anyone on here who thinks JT's question about how hard the other guy climbed was for a "benchmark" feel free to post up. I call bull shit on that, he didnt ask you to judge his training regiment or make a god damned "rudimentary assesment" of him. I have, however, made one of you, and I concluded that you are an elitist jackass.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 19, 2009, 4:15 AM
Post #115 of 231
(11065 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
whipper wrote: You implied that lifting would hurt climbing performance...
Where, in your opinion, did I imply that "lifting" would hurt climbing performance.
In reply to: I am well built.
Yuck. Did you actually just write that?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
el_layclimber
Sep 19, 2009, 4:40 AM
Post #116 of 231
(11062 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2006
Posts: 550
|
whipper wrote: WOW, JT, you are a tool in this debate. For what its worth, I do lift at least 3 times a week. I am 185#'s, 11% body fat, my bench max is about 260, and can redpoint 5.13 sport and 5.12 trad. No pissing match here, just letting ol JT know that he is not the ultimate authority on the subject. The way he talks I always thought he was stronger, but ONE 13....was it at Jacks Canyon? I can also manhandle a haul bag around, there is something to be said for having guns on big walls. I guess I kinda think, Do what you want...
Going to make a couple more guesses here:
1. You can hike in and out on a back country route with a rope and a rack and still have enough in the tank to pull a few hard pitches.
2. You are interested in general fitness, and can see the value in being able to do things other than climb. You could also play a game of b-ball or some soccer without getting spanked if you felt like it.
Sorry, but you missed some rules for the weights v. pulling down battle royale: A) We only care about climbing. B) If you have anecdotal evidence, we will demand scientific proof. BUT we will all point out that climbing is sooooo complex that you can't possibly do a controlled study of it. C) only three or four people are allowed to give training advice. D) Certain folks will be total dicks for about 20 posts, tell you you don't make sense, then start backpedaling.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Sep 19, 2009, 6:19 AM
Post #117 of 231
(11053 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
scion wrote: aerili wrote: you're born with all the brain cells you'll have Actually, no, but please don't let that interrupt the beat-down. This is entertaining!
Well, I'm aware that there's some evidence that neural tissue regenerates after certain brain traumas (like stroke, etc.), and the only other evidence I'm aware of is brain cell growth in the hippocampus, which, let's face it, won't help TerminalVelocity with his higher thought process deficits.
P.S. Fwiw, I read that the research methodology for measuring the age of nerve cells is extremely complicated, especially in man, and gives unreliable and controversial results.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Sep 19, 2009, 6:52 AM
Post #118 of 231
(11047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
MS1 wrote: Dude, if you want to be big and climb a little less hard, fine by me. What people are reacting to is your incredulity that doing squats could limit your climbing performance.
C'mon people, 2-4 sets of squats a week is NOT going to weigh you down and hold you back in your climbing progress. Get real. The OP has repeatedly stated he is not talking about deadlifting 450 pounds 2 or 3 times a week. He has also stated his goals clearly and they are not all wired toward just climbing.
Who has any data or even a freakin anecdotal story that a few sets of moderate-weight squats/other lower body weight training every week has kept them a 5.10 gym climber for life??!
If you have ongoing knee injuries/issues, I would even hedge a bet some squats might help your climbing when it comes to knee pain and function during certain moves.
There is no one optimal amount of muscle mass for all individuals; ergo, climbers like Tony Yaniro vs climbers like Dave Graham.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 19, 2009, 11:55 AM
Post #119 of 231
(11034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
aerili wrote: MS1 wrote: Dude, if you want to be big and climb a little less hard, fine by me. What people are reacting to is your incredulity that doing squats could limit your climbing performance. C'mon people, 2-4 sets of squats a week is NOT going to weigh you down and hold you back in your climbing progress. Get real. The OP has repeatedly stated he is not talking about deadlifting 450 pounds 2 or 3 times a week. He has also stated his goals clearly and they are not all wired toward just climbing. Who has any data or even a freakin anecdotal story that a few sets of moderate-weight squats/other lower body weight training every week has kept them a 5.10 gym climber for life??! If you have ongoing knee injuries/issues, I would even hedge a bet some squats might help your climbing when it comes to knee pain and function during certain moves. There is no one optimal amount of muscle mass for all individuals; ergo, climbers like Tony Yaniro vs climbers like Dave Graham.
The OP wants to "bulk up." He has implied that he wants to gain 4 lb, just in his chest, and wants to be "balanced." How much mass in his legs will he have to gain to "balance" the four pounds of chest mass? Conservatively, 8 lb? So that's 12 lb right there. Yes, that is going to hinder his climbing. Like someone else said, if he doesn't believe that, he should just try strapping the weight on now, and see how it goes.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 19, 2009, 12:05 PM
Post #120 of 231
(11030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
onceahardman wrote: I have myself strained a hamstring doing a hard heel hook, and I have treated climbers with similar injuries. The treatment? Hamstring strengthening, usually in closed chain, like modified stiff leg deadlifts (once sufficient healing had taken place.) The results? Exact same move later completed without re-injury.
Not a very compelling argument. "A" happened. Did "B". "A" didn't happen again. Therefore, lack of "B" caused "A".
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Sep 19, 2009, 2:03 PM
Post #121 of 231
(11017 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
whipper wrote: WTF.... useless muscle mass???? 20 pounds? I am 6 foot tall, there is no way I could lose 20 pounds and be healthy.
I am six foot three and somewhere between 150 and 160 pounds and I do alright.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 19, 2009, 2:13 PM
Post #122 of 231
(11015 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
johnwesely wrote: whipper wrote: WTF.... useless muscle mass???? 20 pounds? I am 6 foot tall, there is no way I could lose 20 pounds and be healthy. I am six foot three and somewhere between 150 and 160 pounds and I do alright.
You have to understand that to a weight lifter, weight lifting is like a religion. If you question a weight lifter's cherished beliefs, they react emotionally. I have no idea how such a mind-numbingly boring activity can become a religion, but then again, religion itself is mind numbing, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
TerminalVelocity
Sep 19, 2009, 3:45 PM
Post #123 of 231
(10996 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2008
Posts: 49
|
whipper wrote: WOW, JT, you are a tool in this debate. For what its worth, I do lift at least 3 times a week. I am 185#'s, 11% body fat, my bench max is about 260, and can redpoint 5.13 sport and 5.12 trad. No pissing match here, just letting ol JT know that he is not the ultimate authority on the subject. The way he talks I always thought he was stronger, but ONE 13....was it at Jacks Canyon? I can also manhandle a haul bag around, there is something to be said for having guns on big walls. I guess I kinda think, Do what you want...
How do you get your bench max about 260? It's either that you've done it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
nivlac
Sep 19, 2009, 4:03 PM
Post #124 of 231
(10994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2003
Posts: 141
|
mr.tastycakes wrote: I've never said strength training will improve your climbing. I'm interested in examining the reasons why some people believe it will be detrimental. I've got no data to support my positions; actually, I don't have a position on this topic. I'm just interested in the basis of others' beliefs.
Any gymnasts on this thread or this site or anyone with knowledge related to that? I watch gymnasts with varying amounts of awe doing pommel horse, rings and the floor routine and think how applicable those movements are to climbing.
Does anyone know if gymnasts do any specific weight (strength) training? Even if they don't do weights, they definitely engage in strength training designed to improve their ability to perform difficult and complex movements that look applicable to climbing and gymnastics is definitely a gravity specific sport, much like climbing.
Gymnasts perform exercises where forearm and grip strength are paramount, yet also need good core strength etc. Wouldn't it seem reasonable to draw comparisons here? Wasn't Gill a former gymnast (meaning good gymnasts have the training to be very good climbers)?
|
|
|
|
|
scion
Sep 19, 2009, 5:11 PM
Post #125 of 231
(10979 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 5, 2006
Posts: 39
|
aerili wrote: Well, I'm aware that there's some evidence that neural tissue regenerates after certain brain traumas (like stroke, etc.), and the only other evidence I'm aware of is brain cell growth in the hippocampus, which, let's face it, won't help TerminalVelocity with his higher thought process deficits. P.S. Fwiw, I read that the research methodology for measuring the age of nerve cells is extremely complicated, especially in man, and gives unreliable and controversial results.
It is true that there were some ethical complications with getting a definitive answer in humans, but those were pretty well obviated by a group of people who were given BrDU as part of some sort of medical therapy. When they died and their brains could be sectioned and stained it pretty much put the issue to rest even for those last few who were holding out on the basis of human exceptionalism. I could dig up the paper for you if you're interested. I think it came out in Science in maybe 1997 or 1998.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
