Hmm, I think this thread got bombed. I don't think there are 5 people who climb 5.13 who read this website.
I agree, They need to fess up.
Alright, I admit it! It was me. I climb 5.13 and lift weights. In my defense I only hang around cause I find Sungam and Angry amusing
I suppose I have the option of saying I climb 5.13 but since the last one I climbed was a year ago, I don't claim that grade. Certainly though, I'd feel confident that I could redpoint just about any route 5.12- to 12+ anywhere without too much projecting. 2 days at the most.
If I want to get back into the higher numbers here, I'll have to bolt projects and cross my fingers they're hard. I onsighted one of the harder routes on the island in an effort to put project draws on it the other day.
Angry gets back into it!
I think that for this poll you maybe could have clarified style of climbing, and whether the grades are onsight, easy project (2nd go), or maximum redpoint. As it stands, you could have someone who consistently onsights 12c trad and someone who siege projected a soft 12a all season at the Red River Gorge clicking on the same level.
I will stand by my statement that in order to see what level you're at, take the lowest grade of anything you've fallen on in the last six months, and subtract a number grade. So, I put that I am in the solid 5.10 category.
I am a 5.7 climber then because I lost my balance on a 5.8 slab once.
Making this poll even longer would have been an even bigger mess...
It's not really a mess. It's just that the limitations of the format imposed by the site make it difficult to see if there is a relationship between climbing level and weight lifting—by the way, people, if rock climbing is your priority, it is "weight lifting," not "lifting". Unless someone else does it first, tomorrow I'll organize the data in a table that hopefully will make it clearer what relationship, if any, there is.
Jay
JT, I think that might be a waste of time a'la garbage in, garbage out. Here's why:
Imagine we're making a regression equation where the dependent variable is climbing grade. What should our independent variables be? If you look at data on athletic performance (eg., field goal percentage of basketball players, improvement of speed of sprinters, etc.) or if you looked at data on learning, both sets of data would suggest that time would be a big predictor. In other words, the longer you climb, the higher the grade*.
So, why is this important in the current thread? Well, if you understand the role of time, the problem is that "weight lifting for injury prevention" versus "weight lifting to improve my climbing" is a false distinction. In other words, if I use supplemental training and it does prevent injury, then that means I'll be able to climb more frequently and push harder while climbing. So, lifting for injury prevention, assuming injuries are prevented, will lead to "improving my climbing" over time.**
I guess if you really want to run the data, it would be best to collapse these two categories into one. But even if you did that, the fact that people can see others' responses and that hundreds of discussions on this topic have already created biases makes any conclusion from this data inconclusive.
*We're talking regressions on messy data, so anything that sounds like a generalization is because we're looking at how means correlate. Outliers don't disprove the mean, so an example of some guy climbing for 10 years and never improving does not disprove the point.
**Time probably has a curvilinear relationship with performance. At some point we get old and physical deterioration will overcome all the wily smarts and slick movement skills acquired. That said, one thing I like about climbing is the number of 50+ climbers still pushing hard grades. So the point at which the curve flattens or angles down may be further out for climbing than other sports.
V8 with weight training mostly for injury prevention - but also sometimes some directed weight training to address specific climbing weaknesses (e.g. specific lockoff positions).
I weight train fairly extensively and I climb in the full 5.11 range. I lift for strength not climbing and body weight management is key. I do a mix of conventional lifting (bench press, squat, curling, etc etc etc) with crossfit style exercises as well as extensive cardio. Next summer I can see myself climbing a few 5.12s (if I my current condition and progression continues) even with my weight training. Granted, I'm 72inches, 175-180pounds so I'm still pulling more weight up the rock than most.
I have analyzed the data in the poll. At the time of my analysis, there were 68 respondents, of whom 28 did no weight training, 18 weight trained for injury prevention, and 22 weight trained for strength. The purpose of the analysis was to see if there was a relationship between reported climbing grade and type of weight training.
In order to use climbing grade in the analysis, I dropped the "5." prefix from the YDS grade, so 5.11, for instance, was transformed to just "11". I calculated the mean climbing grade for each group, and compared the means using ANOVA or t-tests, as appropriate.
Results. There was no significant difference between the mean climbing levels of the three weight training groups. See Table 1.
Similarly, there was no significant difference between strength trainers and non-strength trainers (None + Prevention) (mean 11.3 vs 11.1, P=0.84), or between weight trainers for any purpose and non-weight trainers (11.1 vs 11.2, P=0.50).
Because it seems questionable that eight respondents actually climb 5.13, I repeated the analysis without the reported 5.13 climbers. I found no significant difference in climbing grade among the three weight-training groups (None 11.0, Prevention 10.9, Strength 10.8; P=0.48), nor between strength trainers and non-strength trainers (10.8 vs 11.0, P=0.64), or between weight trainers for any purpose and non-weight trainers (10.9 vs 11.0, P=0.44).
Conclusion. No relationship between weight training habits and climbing level is apparent from this dataset.
(This post was edited by jt512 on Nov 16, 2009, 6:23 PM)
That fits my preconceived notion to it must be true.
Anyone want to put together a poll regarding cardio training v. climbing ability? If it gets done, my prediction is no correlation, but I certainly could be wrong. (Perhaps cardio training would correlate with lower BMI, which I would imagine would correlate highly with climbing ability. I guess we could do that poll also (BMI v. climbing)).
Interesting to note that more respondents are weight training (for whatever reason) than not weight training.
Of the 5.12 and 5.13 climbers, how many claim this grade over a variety of styles... i.e. face, friction, crack climbing, offwidth, chimney, mantel moves, long routes, mountaineering, etc.
I'd guess that one's chosen training has something to do with the individual's chosen terrain and chosen venue of the climbing, and what's required to succeed. Part of what I find striking about the likes of Tommy Caldwell is the combination of climbing at the highest grades, on natural gear, in the most demanding of venues.
Of the 5.12 and 5.13 climbers, how many claim this grade over a variety of styles... i.e. face, friction, crack climbing, offwidth, chimney, mantel moves, long routes, mountaineering, etc.
Of the 5.12 and 5.13 climbers, how many claim this grade over a variety of styles... i.e. face, friction, crack climbing, offwidth, chimney, mantel moves, long routes, mountaineering, etc.
That's an... 'interesting' list.
Actually, it's kind of a crappy list, but I bet you know what I mean.
How about this, "how many 5.13 climbers are referring to routes other than vertical to overhanging face climbing with crimps, pockets, edges, slopers, sidepulls, or tufas?"
JT, I think that might be a waste of time a'la garbage in, garbage out. Here's why:
Imagine we're making a regression equation where the dependent variable is climbing grade. What should our independent variables be? If you look at data on athletic performance (eg., field goal percentage of basketball players, improvement of speed of sprinters, etc.) or if you looked at data on learning, both sets of data would suggest that time would be a big predictor. In other words, the longer you climb, the higher the grade*.
So, why is this important in the current thread? Well, if you understand the role of time, the problem is that "weight lifting for injury prevention" versus "weight lifting to improve my climbing" is a false distinction. In other words, if I use supplemental training and it does prevent injury, then that means I'll be able to climb more frequently and push harder while climbing. So, lifting for injury prevention, assuming injuries are prevented, will lead to "improving my climbing" over time.
Although there are myriad problems with these data, I disagree that the issue you focus on above is really one of them. No matter what the reason for it, if weight lifting for injury prevention affected climbing level, it would be a finding of interest. Furthermore, if lifting for prevention is actually different in the population than lifting for strength, then we would want to know if the two had different effects on climbing level. A bigger problem is that "weight training for injury prevention" and "weight training for strength" are mere statements of intent; we don't know what they entail in practice in the population, if they effect their intended outcomes, or even if they differ, as practiced.
Id like to know how weight lifting could not have a benefit to ones climbing ability. Depending on the target muscle group as you train and increase the weight or resistance your building strength unless your doing something terribly wrong eg poor form. Theres so many weighted core exercises for instance that can help keep your body tied together when on a wall,same goes for shoulders and back.
By the same token someone who can bench 200kgs isnt particulary going to be a good climber its all relevant.
I currently climb 5.11b but due to weighing about 80kgs i doubt id be able to even do that without some sort of weight training behind me
im not suggesting it couldnt be done but in my situation without the training ive done in gyms over the years itd take me alot longer than it has to get to that stage if you get me?
I could be mistaken, but it seems that there isn't any exceptional level of strength generally needed to climb at that grade. In most cases it should develop naturally in the time it takes to properly develop and refine the necessary skill sets, so no, I don't really get you.
Results. There was no significant difference between the mean climbing levels of the three weight training groups. See Table 1.
Hmm... if you can believe the data (that's a big if) then it seems as though there is one trend: The ratio of people who either don't weight train or only do it for injury prevention, compared to the other group, gets significantly higher in the mid grades (5.11 and .12) and then lower again at the higher grades.
Or, put another way, the weakest and strongest climbers are most likely to be power training, while the intermediate (5.11 and 5.12) climbers are less likely to do so.
This is easy to believe, (though it may or may not be true).
For example, it may be that weaker climbers are pumping iron to the detriment of their climbing, or at least their training time. Those sending 5.11 and 5.12 have discovered that to send those grades requires no more power than they get from their climbing or other training. And those pushing harder grades (5.13 or higher) are doing targeted weight training.
Results. There was no significant difference between the mean climbing levels of the three weight training groups. See Table 1.
Hmm... if you can believe the data (that's a big if) then it seems as though there is one trend: The ratio of people who either don't weight train or only do it for injury prevention, compared to the other group, gets significantly higher in the mid grades (5.11 and .12) and then lower again at the higher grades.
Or, put another way, the weakest and strongest climbers are most likely to be power training, while the intermediate (5.11 and 5.12) climbers are less likely to do so.
You are over-interpreting a small dataset. There is no evidence in this dataset for any relationship between climbing level and type of weight training.
So far it looks like the non- lifters tend to climb harder than either lifter category.
Way to read and comprehend the thread!
Jay
Reminds me of a story:
Friends were taking a philosophy of science class and the prof eloquently went through a description of the Schroedinger's Cat superposition scenario with the cat being both dead and alive. At the end of it a person raised a hand and asked in a very concerned voice:
2 /
1%
table1.jpg
