Forums: Climbing Information: Technique & Training:
Ignoring muscle?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Technique & Training

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All


ceebo


Feb 7, 2011, 3:26 PM
Post #1 of 83 (5029 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Ignoring muscle?
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

I have been experimenting with some targeted weight training sessions. I was not sure if it was a wise choice, given the amount of frowning on the subject. Other day i saw a new climber with allot of beef breeze his way to the top of a 20m f6c, and by no means a jug route.

It was quite a shock to me if I'm honest. F6c may not be insanely hard, but it is not easy. His technique was quite poor yet he still owned the route like it was a 4a. I was genuinely impressed.. And i usually look down on such climbers.

I'm obviously not suggesting hitting the weights and getting huge, but watching that guy blitz the route like that is making me challenge my current training ideals.

We constantly see the tip to climb, climb, climb.. always to work your technique. But i really am starting to question this as bad advice. I think that ignoring the brawn side of climbing (weights.. be it dead hangs and any other form) Just puts us on the opposite side of the extreme, that being lots of technique.. no notable strength.

It made me imagine a pyramid.. Strength is the foundation (you cant hang on the wall withought it right?), endurance would be the middle.. and technique is the top. All have their place, none should be ignored.. all should be trained from the get go.

Obviously the best way to increase technique is to climb.

The best way to do endurance.. is to climb too ofc.. while doing technique.

But strength? i think that is the exception.. it is looking to be the only aspect of climbing that is more beneficial and time efficient to be trained else where.

I do work as a climbing instructor. I see many new climbers.. and 99% of them can only climb the 5's or 6a/b if their really naturally good. The fact that this muscle man hammerd a 6c with poor technique is in my eyes an indication that climbing alone is infact the slowest way to improve.


jomagam


Feb 7, 2011, 3:39 PM
Post #2 of 83 (5014 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 9, 2008
Posts: 364

Re: [ceebo] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
It made me imagine a pyramid.. Strength is the foundation (you cant hang on the wall withought it right?), endurance would be the middle.. and technique is the top. All have their place, none should be ignored.. all should be trained from the get go.

Climbing depends on many factors, some of them you mention in your post. I don't view them as a hierarchical system like you do with the pyramid. It's more like an N dimensional box where each side is one factor and the climbing ability is represented by the volume of the box. You become a better climber whichever aspect of climbing you improve. The fastest results can be attained by improving your weakest link. My $0.02.


jmeizis


Feb 7, 2011, 3:53 PM
Post #3 of 83 (4999 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 25, 2006
Posts: 630

Re: [ceebo] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

If you think strength is the foundation then consider technique the semi truck that moves your foundation to a better neighborhood.

Strength is important but having good technique will make that strength worth so much more.


hafilax


Feb 7, 2011, 4:14 PM
Post #4 of 83 (4979 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 11, 2007
Posts: 3025

Re: [ceebo] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Depends on the style of climbing. Some routes can't be brute forced no matter how much strength you have.


ceebo


Feb 7, 2011, 4:15 PM
Post #5 of 83 (4976 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [jomagam] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jomagam wrote:
In reply to:
It made me imagine a pyramid.. Strength is the foundation (you cant hang on the wall withought it right?), endurance would be the middle.. and technique is the top. All have their place, none should be ignored.. all should be trained from the get go.

Climbing depends on many factors, some of them you mention in your post. I don't view them as a hierarchical system like you do with the pyramid. It's more like an N dimensional box where each side is one factor and the climbing ability is represented by the volume of the box. You become a better climber whichever aspect of climbing you improve. The fastest results can be attained by improving your weakest link. My $0.02.

I like the box thing Laugh


granite_grrl


Feb 7, 2011, 4:23 PM
Post #6 of 83 (4967 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14711

Re: [hafilax] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

hafilax wrote:
Depends on the style of climbing. Some routes can't be brute forced no matter how much strength you have.
But some route can't be pulled off by technique alone. Sometimes you just have to pull harder.


redlude97


Feb 7, 2011, 4:26 PM
Post #7 of 83 (4964 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 988

Re: [ceebo] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

ceebo wrote:
I have been experimenting with some targeted weight training sessions. I was not sure if it was a wise choice, given the amount of frowning on the subject. Other day i saw a new climber with allot of beef breeze his way to the top of a 20m f6c, and by no means a jug route.

It was quite a shock to me if I'm honest. F6c may not be insanely hard, but it is not easy. His technique was quite poor yet he still owned the route like it was a 4a. I was genuinely impressed.. And i usually look down on such climbers.

I'm obviously not suggesting hitting the weights and getting huge, but watching that guy blitz the route like that is making me challenge my current training ideals.

We constantly see the tip to climb, climb, climb.. always to work your technique. But i really am starting to question this as bad advice. I think that ignoring the brawn side of climbing (weights.. be it dead hangs and any other form) Just puts us on the opposite side of the extreme, that being lots of technique.. no notable strength.

It made me imagine a pyramid.. Strength is the foundation (you cant hang on the wall withought it right?), endurance would be the middle.. and technique is the top. All have their place, none should be ignored.. all should be trained from the get go.

Obviously the best way to increase technique is to climb.

The best way to do endurance.. is to climb too ofc.. while doing technique.

But strength? i think that is the exception.. it is looking to be the only aspect of climbing that is more beneficial and time efficient to be trained else where.

I do work as a climbing instructor. I see many new climbers.. and 99% of them can only climb the 5's or 6a/b if their really naturally good. The fact that this muscle man hammerd a 6c with poor technique is in my eyes an indication that climbing alone is infact the slowest way to improve.
So you base your entire opinion on one climb one person did to come to the conclusion that climbing is the slowest way to improve?


ceebo


Feb 7, 2011, 6:09 PM
Post #8 of 83 (4893 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [redlude97] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

It has not only been 1 single person. I already said i have watched many people climb.. i can tell you for fact, this guy got to the top purely from his weightlifting background.

I know what ''power'' a route looks like when i see it. All the other new climbers that i have seen climb who had no lifting background would not have done that route. I climbed the route myself and it was 4 arm intence.. he clearly had good solid 4 arms (although i would guess not much endurance).. but why did he need it when he was finished befor that problem arised?.

I took a group of friends outdoor climbing (all three of them was new at the time.. and havent climbed since at that). I am not making this up.. but 2 of my m8's had no lifting background.. 1 did. The 1 who did, done the best out of the 3, by far. I can still remember the other 2 stopig at the main restpoint crying about their 4 arms then giving up.

Over the past few year i really thought climbing ONLY was the best option to get better.. but i think i have seen enough now to know it is not. Atleast for me.


(This post was edited by ceebo on Feb 7, 2011, 6:16 PM)


johnwesely


Feb 7, 2011, 6:58 PM
Post #9 of 83 (4860 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5343

Re: [redlude97] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
ceebo wrote:
I have been experimenting with some targeted weight training sessions. I was not sure if it was a wise choice, given the amount of frowning on the subject. Other day i saw a new climber with allot of beef breeze his way to the top of a 20m f6c, and by no means a jug route.

It was quite a shock to me if I'm honest. F6c may not be insanely hard, but it is not easy. His technique was quite poor yet he still owned the route like it was a 4a. I was genuinely impressed.. And i usually look down on such climbers.

I'm obviously not suggesting hitting the weights and getting huge, but watching that guy blitz the route like that is making me challenge my current training ideals.

We constantly see the tip to climb, climb, climb.. always to work your technique. But i really am starting to question this as bad advice. I think that ignoring the brawn side of climbing (weights.. be it dead hangs and any other form) Just puts us on the opposite side of the extreme, that being lots of technique.. no notable strength.

It made me imagine a pyramid.. Strength is the foundation (you cant hang on the wall withought it right?), endurance would be the middle.. and technique is the top. All have their place, none should be ignored.. all should be trained from the get go.

Obviously the best way to increase technique is to climb.

The best way to do endurance.. is to climb too ofc.. while doing technique.

But strength? i think that is the exception.. it is looking to be the only aspect of climbing that is more beneficial and time efficient to be trained else where.

I do work as a climbing instructor. I see many new climbers.. and 99% of them can only climb the 5's or 6a/b if their really naturally good. The fact that this muscle man hammerd a 6c with poor technique is in my eyes an indication that climbing alone is infact the slowest way to improve.
So you base your entire opinion on one climb one person did to come to the conclusion that climbing is the slowest way to improve?

Not only that, but he is basing his opinion off one guy climbing a route that was not hard by almost any standard.


spikeddem


Feb 7, 2011, 8:59 PM
Post #10 of 83 (4821 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [johnwesely] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

How many routes do you come off of where your biceps feel fried? Your lats? Your triceps? Your traps? Your pecs?

Your observation of a person with "allot of beef" has nothing to do with the old "climb, climb, climb.. always work your technique"advice. The "climb, climb, climb" advice is given to beginners of generally good general fitness in comparison to using a hangboard. The strength from a hangboard is different than weight training strength.

This has to be a troll.


DouglasHunter


Feb 7, 2011, 10:51 PM
Post #11 of 83 (4799 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 1, 2010
Posts: 104

Re: [ceebo] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
We constantly see the tip to climb, climb, climb.. always to work your technique.

Maybe, but some of us advocate well structured climbing activities to develop all the different aspects of climbing, including muscular fitness.


In reply to:
It made me imagine a pyramid.. Strength is the foundation (you cant hang on the wall withought it right?), endurance would be the middle.. and technique is the top. All have their place, none should be ignored.. all should be trained from the get go.

I get why you might say this, but its simply not the case that the aspects of climbing can be categorized in this way. How much Kinesiology have you read? If you develop your background in Kinesiology it might help you refine you thinking here. Strength, endurance, and technique are not the best terms to use to think about how climbing works. Keep in mind that even though many climbers treat "strength" and "technique" as being different poles of a dichotomy, it is a false dichotomy to be sure. Functionally, in movement analysis it does no good to try to analyze movement using these terms.


In reply to:
But strength? i think that is the exception.. it is looking to be the only aspect of climbing that is more beneficial and time efficient to be trained else where.

Keep in mind that you don't really know that what you were observing is strength. No one just watching a climber could make such a judgement, we can't see enough with the unaided eye to understand what a climber is doing. In a technical sense casual observations tell us very little about what makes a climber successful on a given move or climb. You were just as easily seeing someone whose motor processing speed is faster than average, also climbing depends far more on intermuscluar coordination than it does the strength of individual muscles, you were also witnessing balance, timing, desire, etc etc etc. In a casual observation its impossible to pick apart what role each of these played in the climber's success.

How would you measure beneficial and time efficient? How do you measure strength in climbing?
These are questions for which there aren't really good answers in the climbing world. This is why I advocate training methods that can be quantified in terms of performance level, its something that can be measured with accuracy. Where as most descriptions of strength put forth by climbers leave us with nothing to quantify.


ceebo


Feb 8, 2011, 4:42 AM
Post #12 of 83 (4764 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [spikeddem] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

spikeddem wrote:
How many routes do you come off of where your biceps feel fried? Your lats? Your triceps? Your traps? Your pecs?

Your observation of a person with "allot of beef" has nothing to do with the old "climb, climb, climb.. always work your technique"advice. The "climb, climb, climb" advice is given to beginners of generally good general fitness in comparison to using a hangboard. The strength from a hangboard is different than weight training strength.

This has to be a troll.

Your telling me you have never been on a route where 4 arm/finger strength is not the deciding factor?.

And i never said the strength from hangbaord was the same as weight lifting strength.. Im aware of the differance. But none the less deadhangs can still fall under the same catigory as weighted training.. body being the weight.


ceebo


Feb 8, 2011, 4:54 AM
Post #13 of 83 (4755 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [DouglasHunter] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

DouglasHunter wrote:
In reply to:
We constantly see the tip to climb, climb, climb.. always to work your technique.

Maybe, but some of us advocate well structured climbing activities to develop all the different aspects of climbing, including muscular fitness.


In reply to:
It made me imagine a pyramid.. Strength is the foundation (you cant hang on the wall withought it right?), endurance would be the middle.. and technique is the top. All have their place, none should be ignored.. all should be trained from the get go.

I get why you might say this, but its simply not the case that the aspects of climbing can be categorized in this way. How much Kinesiology have you read? If you develop your background in Kinesiology it might help you refine you thinking here. Strength, endurance, and technique are not the best terms to use to think about how climbing works. Keep in mind that even though many climbers treat "strength" and "technique" as being different poles of a dichotomy, it is a false dichotomy to be sure. Functionally, in movement analysis it does no good to try to analyze movement using these terms.


In reply to:
But strength? i think that is the exception.. it is looking to be the only aspect of climbing that is more beneficial and time efficient to be trained else where.

Keep in mind that you don't really know that what you were observing is strength. No one just watching a climber could make such a judgement, we can't see enough with the unaided eye to understand what a climber is doing. In a technical sense casual observations tell us very little about what makes a climber successful on a given move or climb. You were just as easily seeing someone whose motor processing speed is faster than average, also climbing depends far more on intermuscluar coordination than it does the strength of individual muscles, you were also witnessing balance, timing, desire, etc etc etc. In a casual observation its impossible to pick apart what role each of these played in the climber's success.

How would you measure beneficial and time efficient? How do you measure strength in climbing?
These are questions for which there aren't really good answers in the climbing world. This is why I advocate training methods that can be quantified in terms of performance level, its something that can be measured with accuracy. Where as most descriptions of strength put forth by climbers leave us with nothing to quantify.

Im not sure where your going with this. The fact that he had no technique to mask strength obviusly sowed the raw fundementals of climbing.. he was using nothing but brawn and the most basic motor skills to get to the top.

I also wonder, if the fact that he had bigger muscles gave him the time to think the next move more. A climber with no training on the other hand will start to get pumped much quicker.. get aware of that.. and stop concerntrating on the prize.


(This post was edited by ceebo on Feb 8, 2011, 4:58 AM)


serpico


Feb 8, 2011, 7:42 AM
Post #14 of 83 (4725 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 139

Re: [ceebo] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

ceebo wrote:
he clearly had good solid 4 arms

There's your answer right there - if he's got 4 arms he's clearly got a natural advantage over the rest of us.
Was it Vishnu by any chance?


ceebo


Feb 8, 2011, 7:45 AM
Post #15 of 83 (4721 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [serpico] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

serpico wrote:
ceebo wrote:
he clearly had good solid 4 arms

There's your answer right there - if he's got 4 arms he's clearly got a natural advantage over the rest of us.
Was it Vishnu by any chance?

Wow that is so funy, so original. You inspire me.

I know, i need to lighten up right?. ok.


(This post was edited by ceebo on Feb 8, 2011, 7:46 AM)


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 8:14 AM
Post #16 of 83 (4693 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [ceebo] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ceebo wrote:
serpico wrote:
ceebo wrote:
he clearly had good solid 4 arms

There's your answer right there - if he's got 4 arms he's clearly got a natural advantage over the rest of us.
Was it Vishnu by any chance?

Wow that is so funy, so original. You inspire me.

I know, i need to lighten up right?. ok.
Every time you've typed forearms by saying "4 arms" I have included a picture of goro. Can't stop now.




spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 8:17 AM
Post #17 of 83 (4689 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [ceebo] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ceebo wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
How many routes do you come off of where your biceps feel fried? Your lats? Your triceps? Your traps? Your pecs?

Your observation of a person with "allot of beef" has nothing to do with the old "climb, climb, climb.. always work your technique"advice. The "climb, climb, climb" advice is given to beginners of generally good general fitness in comparison to using a hangboard. The strength from a hangboard is different than weight training strength.

This has to be a troll.

Your telling me you have never been on a route where 4 arm/finger strength is not the deciding factor?.

And i never said the strength from hangbaord was the same as weight lifting strength.. Im aware of the differance. But none the less deadhangs can still fall under the same catigory as weighted training.. body being the weight.
You're telling me that you spent paragraphs talking about a muscular beginner, used the term weight training, and we were supposed to assume you meant hangboard?

How much time do you think this guy was spending on a hangboard throughout his weight lifting regiment? (That's not rhetorical. I'm genuinely curious to see if your answer is anything other than zero minutes, zero seconds.)


ceebo


Feb 8, 2011, 9:04 AM
Post #18 of 83 (4672 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [spikeddem] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

spikeddem wrote:
ceebo wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
How many routes do you come off of where your biceps feel fried? Your lats? Your triceps? Your traps? Your pecs?

Your observation of a person with "allot of beef" has nothing to do with the old "climb, climb, climb.. always work your technique"advice. The "climb, climb, climb" advice is given to beginners of generally good general fitness in comparison to using a hangboard. The strength from a hangboard is different than weight training strength.

This has to be a troll.

Your telling me you have never been on a route where 4 arm/finger strength is not the deciding factor?.

And i never said the strength from hangbaord was the same as weight lifting strength.. Im aware of the differance. But none the less deadhangs can still fall under the same catigory as weighted training.. body being the weight.
You're telling me that you spent paragraphs talking about a muscular beginner, used the term weight training, and we were supposed to assume you meant hangboard?

How much time do you think this guy was spending on a hangboard throughout his weight lifting regiment? (That's not rhetorical. I'm genuinely curious to see if your answer is anything other than zero minutes, zero seconds.)

I realise my speling is bad, but i did mention deadhangs in the OP. That is ''targeted'' training after all.. along with traditional weights to target the larger muscle groups.


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 9:14 AM
Post #19 of 83 (4666 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [ceebo] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ceebo wrote:
It made me imagine a pyramid.. Strength is the foundation (you cant hang on the wall withought it right?), endurance would be the middle.. and technique is the top. All have their place, none should be ignored.. all should be trained from the get go.

You ever see some people pump out in a section that others can find a balancy no-hands rest in? I have.

Sure, theoretically we could train them all from the get go, but many people would agree that that kind of volume and intensity of training cannot be done until much later in the climbing career. If someone is resting properly in the beginning of their climbing career, it's unrealistic to assume that they're giving 100% to movement training, hangboarding, and performance climbing (days used to put the training to work).


Lbrombach


Feb 8, 2011, 9:28 AM
Post #20 of 83 (4656 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2010
Posts: 149

Re: [ceebo] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

It seems to me that beef climbers usually fry-out pretty quick. They jump right on the hardest routes they think they can pull off as soon as they get to the gym because they get wipe out the at the same rate whether they're on 5.6 or 5.10b. I don't know for sure, but I suspect they would suck outside of the gym...or at least, not get as much enjoyment out of a weekend climbing trip as I would because I can climb those routes all day by using technique first, beef second. They would be likely to call it quits after a couple routes, head back to camp and drink from noon til midnight. OK, that might not be so bad, but I prefer climbing over drinking.


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 9:34 AM
Post #21 of 83 (4653 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [ceebo] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

ceebo wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
ceebo wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
How many routes do you come off of where your biceps feel fried? Your lats? Your triceps? Your traps? Your pecs?

Your observation of a person with "allot of beef" has nothing to do with the old "climb, climb, climb.. always work your technique"advice. The "climb, climb, climb" advice is given to beginners of generally good general fitness in comparison to using a hangboard. The strength from a hangboard is different than weight training strength.

This has to be a troll.

Your telling me you have never been on a route where 4 arm/finger strength is not the deciding factor?.

And i never said the strength from hangbaord was the same as weight lifting strength.. Im aware of the differance. But none the less deadhangs can still fall under the same catigory as weighted training.. body being the weight.
You're telling me that you spent paragraphs talking about a muscular beginner, used the term weight training, and we were supposed to assume you meant hangboard?

How much time do you think this guy was spending on a hangboard throughout his weight lifting regiment? (That's not rhetorical. I'm genuinely curious to see if your answer is anything other than zero minutes, zero seconds.)

I realise my speling is bad, but i did mention deadhangs in the OP. That is ''targeted'' training after all.. along with traditional weights to target the larger muscle groups.
Well, your spelling doesn't really have much to do with the confusion. The confusion comes in where you look at a weight lifter, see him as a good beginner climber, and make the conclusion that deadhangs would be more effective than training technique. I will lay out my issues here:

1) It is very unlikely that the muscular beginner has done any kind of hangboard training in order to strengthen his forearms. Therefore, when you look at him and think that using a hangboard is more effective than increasing technique, we are confused because we don't see the connection. I mean, I'd argue that it's more often we see muscle-bound guys flail up a route, only to have their beginner, non-lifter girlfriend get up the route in better style.

2) The idea of movement training is that we decrease the amount of endurance/strength we require. Therefore, it is inherently easier on your tendons not only when you're training, but also when you're climbing in performance days. Your tendons will be unnecessarily seeing higher levels of stress as technique goes out the window. This, from a simply injury standpoint, suggests that beginners should stay away from putting movement training on a backburner.

3) The other aspect of movement training is that the gains we see from it come more quickly than gains from hangboarding. Of course, like any other investment, there is a point of diminishing returns. Everyone has their idea of where this is at, but I figure it's somewhere around V6/V7 or 5.12c/d. Sure, that's perhaps rather arbitrary, but it also helps me ensure that I will gradually introduce my tendons to higher levels of stress.

4) To expand on my #3 a bit more, just look at how stealing beta has helped your own climbing. A move or sequence can feel impossible, but then even just micro beta can make a move doable immediately after trying it. What would you prefer, two to four weeks of training on a hangboard, or having the technique background to come up with beta on your own?


ceebo


Feb 8, 2011, 3:52 PM
Post #22 of 83 (4579 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [spikeddem] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

spikeddem wrote:
ceebo wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
ceebo wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
How many routes do you come off of where your biceps feel fried? Your lats? Your triceps? Your traps? Your pecs?

Your observation of a person with "allot of beef" has nothing to do with the old "climb, climb, climb.. always work your technique"advice. The "climb, climb, climb" advice is given to beginners of generally good general fitness in comparison to using a hangboard. The strength from a hangboard is different than weight training strength.

This has to be a troll.

Your telling me you have never been on a route where 4 arm/finger strength is not the deciding factor?.

And i never said the strength from hangbaord was the same as weight lifting strength.. Im aware of the differance. But none the less deadhangs can still fall under the same catigory as weighted training.. body being the weight.
You're telling me that you spent paragraphs talking about a muscular beginner, used the term weight training, and we were supposed to assume you meant hangboard?

How much time do you think this guy was spending on a hangboard throughout his weight lifting regiment? (That's not rhetorical. I'm genuinely curious to see if your answer is anything other than zero minutes, zero seconds.)

I realise my speling is bad, but i did mention deadhangs in the OP. That is ''targeted'' training after all.. along with traditional weights to target the larger muscle groups.
Well, your spelling doesn't really have much to do with the confusion. The confusion comes in where you look at a weight lifter, see him as a good beginner climber, and make the conclusion that deadhangs would be more effective than training technique. I will lay out my issues here:

1) It is very unlikely that the muscular beginner has done any kind of hangboard training in order to strengthen his forearms. Therefore, when you look at him and think that using a hangboard is more effective than increasing technique, we are confused because we don't see the connection. I mean, I'd argue that it's more often we see muscle-bound guys flail up a route, only to have their beginner, non-lifter girlfriend get up the route in better style.

2) The idea of movement training is that we decrease the amount of endurance/strength we require. Therefore, it is inherently easier on your tendons not only when you're training, but also when you're climbing in performance days. Your tendons will be unnecessarily seeing higher levels of stress as technique goes out the window. This, from a simply injury standpoint, suggests that beginners should stay away from putting movement training on a backburner.

3) The other aspect of movement training is that the gains we see from it come more quickly than gains from hangboarding. Of course, like any other investment, there is a point of diminishing returns. Everyone has their idea of where this is at, but I figure it's somewhere around V6/V7 or 5.12c/d. Sure, that's perhaps rather arbitrary, but it also helps me ensure that I will gradually introduce my tendons to higher levels of stress.

4) To expand on my #3 a bit more, just look at how stealing beta has helped your own climbing. A move or sequence can feel impossible, but then even just micro beta can make a move doable immediately after trying it. What would you prefer, two to four weeks of training on a hangboard, or having the technique background to come up with beta on your own?

If you can get past the mental picture of some oversized guy bench pressing twise his weight.. their are many other forms of weight lifting where finger grip is engaged ( to a dagree), along with prolonged forarm contractions.

These are just a byproduct of the intended muscle groups targeted by the weight lifter. They are not going to be trained to a outstanding level for climbing.. but clearly, it is enough to put these people a step higher from the get go than other climbers with no physical background.

If this was to be strictly targeted for climbing (like deadhangs) and any other traditional lifting that would directly help.. would it not have a much more significant effect?. More over.. is training strength in a controlled enviroment where you can ease in the wieght/time not safer than snatching for holds and shock loading countless body parts?.. or should you wait 2 years untill your technique is at a respectable level befor you can try climbs at your absolute limit?.

Also, just because he has muscle.. it does not make him a retard. Is he not capable of learning technique at the same rate as anybody else? and then making even bigger gains again over a person with no such physical training?. Yes, when we get to the grades like 7c and so the added wieght he has will sure hold him back. The ''i only ever climbed'' guy will pass him due to strength/weight ratio. But? not forgeting.. im talking about using targeted training here, not training to get big.. like he did.

I have done nothing but climb and climb more. My technique and so is good.. but my true raw physical ability is poor. I have put in so many hours aswell. I genuinly feel like their is a big hole in my over all climbing ability.. and it is that i did not sooner incorperate the likes of deadhangs, targeted weight training and campus boarding to my climbing plan. I only ever done such things when i could not make it to the wall. I think they should have allways been part of the plan now.


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 4:28 PM
Post #23 of 83 (4562 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [ceebo] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I'm done here. I really tried with that last post, too. Shoot.


Rufsen


Feb 9, 2011, 2:47 AM
Post #24 of 83 (4466 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2008
Posts: 126

Re: [spikeddem] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

My two favorite points so far.

A person with some training background can climb harder than a completely untrained person. Therefore lifting weights is better training for climbing than climbing.

Deadhangs with bodyweight is weighttraining, climbing and bouldering is not.


ceebo


Feb 9, 2011, 2:58 AM
Post #25 of 83 (4460 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [Rufsen] Ignoring muscle? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Rufsen wrote:
My two favorite points so far.

A person with some training background can climb harder than a completely untrained person. Therefore lifting weights is better training for climbing than climbing.

Deadhangs with bodyweight is weighttraining, climbing and bouldering is not.

You are just reading what you want to read in order to make a sarcy post.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : Technique & Training

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$53.96 (10% off)
$18.86 (10% off)
$62.55 (10% off)
$3.56 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook