|
tH1e-swiN1e
Feb 15, 2012, 4:37 PM
Post #51 of 72
(6049 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 192
|
Unlike most climbers, I weight train for strength/mass 3-4 times a week. I think weight training is highly beneficial to climbing. It keeps your body balanced which helps prevent injuries. It also teaches you how to properly control and flex all the muscles in your body. And regardless of activity EVERYONE should do squats. Best exercise in history.
Everyone says weight training is counter-productive to climbing but I climbed harder at 185 (13b) than I do now at 170 (12d). Lifting doesnt make you big, eating does.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 15, 2012, 9:25 PM
Post #52 of 72
(6007 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
tH1e-swiN1e wrote: Everyone says weight training is counter-productive to climbing but I climbed harder at 185 (13b) than I do now at 170 (12d).
The post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy applied to an anecdote.
In reply to: Lifting doesnt make you big, eating does.
Lifting weights increases muscle mass, provided your nutrition is sufficient. If it isn't, you shouldn't be lifting weights, as you'll at best be wasting your time.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Feb 15, 2012, 9:48 PM
Post #53 of 72
(6002 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
jt512 wrote: Lifting weights increases muscle mass, provided your nutrition is sufficient. If it isn't, you shouldn't be lifting weights, as you'll at best be wasting your time. Jay
Ok, this might be enough of a thread drift to prompt another thread, but I'm just going to ask.
What you're saying, Jay, is essentially a variation of the old wisdom that high reps & low weight are better for "toning" your muscles, whereas high weights and low reps are better for building bulk, right? That's the way I've understood it since high school PE.
Going of of this, I've long stayed away from doing weighted exercises. Go for more pullup reps, more pushups, more leg lifts, etc., in order to not add too much bulk.
However, once I started hangboarding, I realized the essentiality of adding weight for most efficient hypertrophy; up to 35 lbs or so. Now, I know that forearm training is kind of its own thing; I'm not really at risk of building too much bulk in my forearms. But, I'm still wondering, should I apply more weight to other exercises that, while not climbing specific, are intended to help my climbing?
To build better core for climbing, should I start doing lower reps of leg lifts, but with weight added? For antagonist muscles, should I move from trying to do 100 pushups, and towards fewer reps of bench presses? On the occasion that I do lockoffs or offset pullups, should I add weight?
I've been weighing the pros and cons of this for the last few months, and am wondering what others' experience/thoughts would be.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Feb 15, 2012, 10:16 PM
Post #54 of 72
(5990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
Here's how Mark Hudon trained for the Nose in a day at age 53: See the full TR at http://www.supertopo.com/...-A-Day-by-Mark-Hudon
Cardio.
In February I started doing a bike training workout on my fluid trainer in the garage. This gives me a solid 45 minute cardiovascular workout. I'm usually sweating like a pig when I'm done, even in the cold garage. I do this three days a week if I don't go skiing on Friday. I did this till it got warm enough to actually go outside and ride my bike. There are great mt bike trails five minutes from my house and I would do a 10 mile ride two or three times a week after work.
Weights.
Also in February I started lifting weights. At the start it was three sets of 10-12 but every six weeks I'd take a week off and change the weight/set combo. For the last two months I was doing one set of 11 different exercises, 50 reps.
My exercises come from a book "The Secrets of Advanced Bodybuilders" by Health for Life. I find their regime very good for me since for every pushing exercise you do you then do a pulling exercise. I find the regime very efficient since I can usually barely do the last sets/reps when I get to them. I also do their "Legendary Abs" routine.
I also did a lot of heavy finger rolls and a simulated rope climbing thing.
Climbing.
On Fridays I would get out to real rock but two mornings a week I went over to the local sports club which has a boring 30 foot tall vertical wall. I'd string a rope up each of the four routes and climb up and down each route four times or for 45 minutes which ever came first. I self belayed using a Petzl ASAP.
I must have looked like quite the geek as I climbed with all the gear mentioned above but including a 70 oz Camelbak. I was trying to simulate the weight of the actual gear I'd use on the route.
Recovery.
Protein Power, Glucosamine and Chondroitin pills. Two beers a day, without fail.
I took about two weeks off just before the beginning of the trip to ensure I was plenty rested.
|
|
|
|
|
noahfor
Feb 15, 2012, 10:29 PM
Post #55 of 72
(5980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2006
Posts: 61
|
jt512 wrote: Lifting weights increases muscle mass, provided your nutrition is sufficient. If it isn't, you shouldn't be lifting weights, as you'll at best be wasting your time. Jay
Are you talking about lifting for climbing specifically, or are you saying that anyone who isn't eating a sufficient amount of calories to gain muscle mass shouldn't be lifting weights?
|
|
|
|
|
noahfor
Feb 15, 2012, 10:49 PM
Post #56 of 72
(5969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2006
Posts: 61
|
camhead wrote: To build better core for climbing, should I start doing lower reps of leg lifts, but with weight added?
If leg lift strength transfers to climbing, then, yes, you should be adding weight. Otherwise, you're not actually strength training.
camhead wrote: For antagonist muscles, should I move from trying to do 100 pushups, and towards fewer reps of bench presses?
If you are trying to strengthen the antagonist muscles, then, yes, you should be adding weight to your pushups, or doing weighted dips, or bench press. 100 pushups is not strength training. You are not getting any stronger by doing 100 pushups. You are just gaining endurance.
camhead wrote: On the occasion that I do lockoffs or offset pullups, should I add weight?
Of course you should. One of the principles of strength training is progressive overload. If you aren't employing progressive overload, then you aren't actually strength training.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 15, 2012, 11:39 PM
Post #57 of 72
(5957 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
camhead wrote: jt512 wrote: Lifting weights increases muscle mass, provided your nutrition is sufficient. If it isn't, you shouldn't be lifting weights, as you'll at best be wasting your time. Jay Ok, this might be enough of a thread drift to prompt another thread, but I'm just going to ask. What you're saying, Jay, is essentially a variation of the old wisdom that high reps & low weight are better for "toning" your muscles, whereas high weights and low reps are better for building bulk, right? That's the way I've understood it since high school PE.
No, I didn't mean to contradict that. Heavy weights create hypertrophy more than lower weights. However, if lower weights do anything, then I think they would have to do it by increasing muscle mass. Since they don't create much hypertrophy, then to increase muscle mass they must increase muscle density. My point was that, for either effect, your diet has to be sufficient.
In reply to: Going of of this, I've long stayed away from doing weighted exercises. Go for more pullup reps, more pushups, more leg lifts, etc., in order to not add too much bulk. However, once I started hangboarding, I realized the essentiality of adding weight for most efficient hypertrophy; up to 35 lbs or so. Now, I know that forearm training is kind of its own thing; I'm not really at risk of building too much bulk in my forearms. But, I'm still wondering, should I apply more weight to other exercises that, while not climbing specific, are intended to help my climbing? To build better core for climbing, should I start doing lower reps of leg lifts, but with weight added? For antagonist muscles, should I move from trying to do 100 pushups, and towards fewer reps of bench presses? On the occasion that I do lockoffs or offset pullups, should I add weight?
I don't know what happened to aerilli, but I think she would be more qualified to answer questions about the relative benefits of high-rep–low-weight weight training vs low-rep–high-weight weight training. I don't think either one of them will help your climbing very much. For instance, what do you expect to get out of doing lots of leg lifts? You're training the muscles you use to get your feet up on high holds, but not the primary muscles you use to keep them on the holds (ie, "body tension"); while it's the latter, I think, that tends to be limiting for climbers. So I have difficulty believing that doing a lot of leg lifts, with or without added weight, will have much effect on your climbing.
Likewise, what do you expect to get out of doing massive numbers of push-ups, other than overuse injuries of the shoulder?
So, to my way of thinking, if you're going to do exercises that aren't likely to help your climbing very much, you should emphasize the ones that produce the least gain in body weight.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Feb 15, 2012, 11:42 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Feb 16, 2012, 2:47 AM
Post #58 of 72
(5920 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
camhead wrote: jt512 wrote: Lifting weights increases muscle mass, provided your nutrition is sufficient. If it isn't, you shouldn't be lifting weights, as you'll at best be wasting your time. Jay Ok, this might be enough of a thread drift to prompt another thread, but I'm just going to ask. What you're saying, Jay, is essentially a variation of the old wisdom that high reps & low weight are better for "toning" your muscles, whereas high weights and low reps are better for building bulk, right? That's the way I've understood it since high school PE. Going of of this, I've long stayed away from doing weighted exercises. Go for more pullup reps, more pushups, more leg lifts, etc., in order to not add too much bulk. However, once I started hangboarding, I realized the essentiality of adding weight for most efficient hypertrophy; up to 35 lbs or so. Now, I know that forearm training is kind of its own thing; I'm not really at risk of building too much bulk in my forearms. But, I'm still wondering, should I apply more weight to other exercises that, while not climbing specific, are intended to help my climbing? To build better core for climbing, should I start doing lower reps of leg lifts, but with weight added? For antagonist muscles, should I move from trying to do 100 pushups, and towards fewer reps of bench presses? On the occasion that I do lockoffs or offset pullups, should I add weight? I've been weighing the pros and cons of this for the last few months, and am wondering what others' experience/thoughts would be.
From my research on the interwebs and asking trainer who owns the gym I've been going to, this is the general breakdown of max reps with rest time:
3-6 reps w/ 2min+ rest = strength training
~8 reps w/ 1min rest = hypertrophy
10+ reps w/ 30-45 sec rest = endurance
I've seen slightly different numbers from different sources, but they're all in the same ball park. So from all this I gather we as climbers should keep the reps either low with long rests or high with short rests, but you want to stay out of that middle range.
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Feb 16, 2012, 3:10 AM
Post #59 of 72
(5917 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
granite_grrl wrote: camhead wrote: jt512 wrote: Lifting weights increases muscle mass, provided your nutrition is sufficient. If it isn't, you shouldn't be lifting weights, as you'll at best be wasting your time. Jay Ok, this might be enough of a thread drift to prompt another thread, but I'm just going to ask. What you're saying, Jay, is essentially a variation of the old wisdom that high reps & low weight are better for "toning" your muscles, whereas high weights and low reps are better for building bulk, right? That's the way I've understood it since high school PE. Going of of this, I've long stayed away from doing weighted exercises. Go for more pullup reps, more pushups, more leg lifts, etc., in order to not add too much bulk. However, once I started hangboarding, I realized the essentiality of adding weight for most efficient hypertrophy; up to 35 lbs or so. Now, I know that forearm training is kind of its own thing; I'm not really at risk of building too much bulk in my forearms. But, I'm still wondering, should I apply more weight to other exercises that, while not climbing specific, are intended to help my climbing? To build better core for climbing, should I start doing lower reps of leg lifts, but with weight added? For antagonist muscles, should I move from trying to do 100 pushups, and towards fewer reps of bench presses? On the occasion that I do lockoffs or offset pullups, should I add weight? I've been weighing the pros and cons of this for the last few months, and am wondering what others' experience/thoughts would be. From my research on the interwebs and asking trainer who owns the gym I've been going to, this is the general breakdown of max reps with rest time: 3-6 reps w/ 2min+ rest = strength training ~8 reps w/ 1min rest = hypertrophy 10+ reps w/ 30-45 sec rest = endurance I've seen slightly different numbers from different sources, but they're all in the same ball park. So from all this I gather we as climbers should keep the reps either low with long rests or high with short rests, but you want to stay out of that middle range.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Feb 16, 2012, 5:02 AM
Post #60 of 72
(5901 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
The routine that I described, that cycles between 10, 5, and 3 reps, is heavily oriented towards strength (which is appropriate for climbers). Here's what I found personally:
It is really important to build up a base before you start doing those heavy reps. Even if you decide not to cycle back to the ten rep sets, please start off your resistance training at the ten-rep level. Starting heavy is much more likely to end you up injured. I am not speaking hypothetically here.
I got the 10-5-3 cycle from an academic study on strength gains (sorry, this was quite a while ago and I don't have a reference). The study took four groups of college students and tested the mixed rep sets against constant ones. The group doing the mixed reps outgained all the groups at constant reps, both low, medium and high.
As for hypertrophy, I don't know. When I first started training, I could do 8 two-arm pullups. In the first year I think I gained about five pounds (of muscle). I'm not sure I remember correctly, but I think I was close to a one-arm pullup but not there. Over the following three years, I built up to seven one-arm pullups on each arm, with no weight gain and no significant change in muscle size. The same muscles just got way stronger, and this seems typical for people doing body-weight training.
Mechanisms I've heard about that explain strength gains without changes in muscle size are recruitment and the resetting of golgoi tendon organs. Someone who actually knows about this will have to explain, if indeed there is anything to these items. But my personal experience is that you can make vast strength gains with relatively little change in muscle size or density.
As for whether to do heavy reps or not, I think a common sense appraisal of what the training is for is appropriate. You wouldn't use heavy reps for antagonistic muscle training meant to decrease injury potential. You wouldn't use heavy reps for core training, because you typically don't need a burst of extremely high core strength. On the other hand, high repetitions of, say, pullups are pointless, because you don't need to do anything remotely like twenty pullups on any route, but it is conceivable that you might want a lot of power for a single move or two.
Training for extended periods of strenuous activity, like El Cap in a day, is another matter. Mark's use of very high-rep exercises is probably the way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Feb 16, 2012, 3:53 PM
Post #61 of 72
(5862 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
hey Rich... can women do front levers? not trying to be a dick, just wondering 'cause I googled it on a lark and couldn't find any pictures of women doing them. tried Lynn Hill specifically and got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Feb 16, 2012, 4:01 PM
Post #62 of 72
(5856 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
drivel wrote: hey Rich... can women do front levers? not trying to be a dick, just wondering 'cause I googled it on a lark and couldn't find any pictures of women doing them. tried Lynn Hill specifically and got nothing.
I don't see why not, though google image search definitely doesn't show any women actually doing one (I saw a bunch of pictures of women "working towards" one.)
I've gotten pretty close when I tried to work on it half-ass-regularly for about a month.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Feb 16, 2012, 4:28 PM
Post #63 of 72
(5848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
lena_chita wrote: drivel wrote: hey Rich... can women do front levers? not trying to be a dick, just wondering 'cause I googled it on a lark and couldn't find any pictures of women doing them. tried Lynn Hill specifically and got nothing. I don't see why not, though google image search definitely doesn't show any women actually doing one (I saw a bunch of pictures of women "working towards" one.) I've gotten pretty close when I tried to work on it half-ass-regularly for about a month.
In theory, I don't see why not. But remember, most women have 1 - a center of gravity lower on their bodies, and 2 - less upper body strength, and less ability to gain it quickly.
I think these two factors might add up to make it much more difficult for most women to get there, and near impossible for some.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Feb 16, 2012, 4:33 PM
Post #64 of 72
(5843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
lena_chita wrote: drivel wrote: hey Rich... can women do front levers? not trying to be a dick, just wondering 'cause I googled it on a lark and couldn't find any pictures of women doing them. tried Lynn Hill specifically and got nothing. I don't see why not, though google image search definitely doesn't show any women actually doing one (I saw a bunch of pictures of women "working towards" one.) I've gotten pretty close when I tried to work on it half-ass-regularly for about a month.
some of the guys at my gym have been working towards it recently, doing this ridik leg-lift/curlupintoaballandsuckyourowndick things, where they're hanging from the hangboard, and bring the knees up in the chest and then start curling like you're going to flip through, but just go as high as you can instead. the strong kids are doing sets of them. I tried it, and it does kick your ass. Mostly I've just been doing hanging leg lifts and pullups and some hangboard. I can do 3 sets of (8 hanging leg lifts+ 5 pullups) now, with the leg lifts getting past horizontal each time. I do think it helps/ correlates to being about to keep my feet up and on on the steeps.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Feb 16, 2012, 4:43 PM
Post #65 of 72
(5837 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
cracklover wrote: lena_chita wrote: drivel wrote: hey Rich... can women do front levers? not trying to be a dick, just wondering 'cause I googled it on a lark and couldn't find any pictures of women doing them. tried Lynn Hill specifically and got nothing. I don't see why not, though google image search definitely doesn't show any women actually doing one (I saw a bunch of pictures of women "working towards" one.) I've gotten pretty close when I tried to work on it half-ass-regularly for about a month. In theory, I don't see why not. But remember, most women have 1 - a center of gravity lower on their bodies, and 2 - less upper body strength, and less ability to gain it quickly. I think these two factors might add up to make it much more difficult for most women to get there, and near impossible for some. GO
Yes, I thought about lower center of gravity. But if a 6ft+ guy can do it, surely even with lower center of gravity a 5ft tall woman has less force being leveraged on her upper body in the lever position than a 6ft+ tall guy does?
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Feb 16, 2012, 4:54 PM
Post #66 of 72
(5828 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
lena_chita wrote: cracklover wrote: lena_chita wrote: drivel wrote: hey Rich... can women do front levers? not trying to be a dick, just wondering 'cause I googled it on a lark and couldn't find any pictures of women doing them. tried Lynn Hill specifically and got nothing. I don't see why not, though google image search definitely doesn't show any women actually doing one (I saw a bunch of pictures of women "working towards" one.) I've gotten pretty close when I tried to work on it half-ass-regularly for about a month. In theory, I don't see why not. But remember, most women have 1 - a center of gravity lower on their bodies, and 2 - less upper body strength, and less ability to gain it quickly. I think these two factors might add up to make it much more difficult for most women to get there, and near impossible for some. GO Yes, I thought about lower center of gravity. But if a 6ft+ guy can do it, surely even with lower center of gravity a 5ft tall woman has less force being leveraged on her upper body in the lever position than a 6ft+ tall guy does?
durpity
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Feb 16, 2012, 5:02 PM
Post #67 of 72
(5811 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
drivel wrote: lena_chita wrote: drivel wrote: hey Rich... can women do front levers? not trying to be a dick, just wondering 'cause I googled it on a lark and couldn't find any pictures of women doing them. tried Lynn Hill specifically and got nothing. I don't see why not, though google image search definitely doesn't show any women actually doing one (I saw a bunch of pictures of women "working towards" one.) I've gotten pretty close when I tried to work on it half-ass-regularly for about a month. some of the guys at my gym have been working towards it recently, doing this ridik leg-lift/curlupintoaballandsuckyourowndick things, where they're hanging from the hangboard, and bring the knees up in the chest and then start curling like you're going to flip through, but just go as high as you can instead. the strong kids are doing sets of them. I tried it, and it does kick your ass. Mostly I've just been doing hanging leg lifts and pullups and some hangboard. I can do 3 sets of (8 hanging leg lifts+ 5 pullups) now, with the leg lifts getting past horizontal each time. I do think it helps/ correlates to being about to keep my feet up and on on the steeps.
I think I know what you are talking about, and if I understand it correctly, then yes, I can do a couple of them in a set. But in general that is something I am fairly good at (e.i. stuff like leg lifts with touching toes to hands). I don't find it to be very helpful for climbing in my case (maybe because I have other relative weaknesses, and this one is my relative strength, so I never fail because if this).
I feel like there is a key difference between anything involving leg lifts (where the abs muscles are contracting and shortening), vs. keeping your feet on while climbing the roof, where the abs muscles need to contract while at the same time not shortening much, and you need to be exerting an outward force through the legs/toes. To me, that feeling is replicated much more by a lever than by anything that involves lifting legs up, but without outward push.
LOL, regardless of whether any of this stuff is useful for climbing, you guys are inspiring me to actually start training again. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Feb 16, 2012, 10:29 PM
Post #68 of 72
(5752 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
drivel wrote: hey Rich... can women do front levers? not trying to be a dick, just wondering 'cause I googled it on a lark and couldn't find any pictures of women doing them. tried Lynn Hill specifically and got nothing.
I've seen Lynne do multiple repetitions of pulling into front-lever position and dropping back to a vertical hang. I had the impression she couldn't (and wasn't interested in) holding the level position.
Although there are mass distribution differences between genders that might give some men an advantage in front levers over some women, I seriously doubt this is of any consequence. My take is that women are, in principle, stronger at strength-to-weight tasks then men (don't forget Lillian Leitzel's 26 one-arm pullups) and there is no reason other than, perhaps, a substantial lack of interest that would stop women from performing levers.
The same goes for other gymnastic feats of strength. Why do you suppose the women have different events than men in gymnastics? At least one reason is so that the genders won't be directly comparable, which might be distressing for male egos. Make the rings a women's event, give 'em a few years to get up to speed, and see what happens then.
drivel wrote: some of the guys at my gym have been working towards it recently, doing this ridik leg-lift/curlupintoaballandsuckyourowndick things, where they're hanging from the hangboard, and bring the knees up in the chest and then start curling like you're going to flip through, but just go as high as you can instead.
This is the first step of a standard progression used for learning levers without tubing. You go from that to the same thing but with one leg up and with one leg fully extended to performing lever with legs in a straddle position
to, finally, a full lever
(This post was edited by rgold on Feb 16, 2012, 10:41 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Feb 16, 2012, 10:39 PM
Post #69 of 72
(5746 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
rgold wrote: drivel wrote: hey Rich... can women do front levers? not trying to be a dick, just wondering 'cause I googled it on a lark and couldn't find any pictures of women doing them. tried Lynn Hill specifically and got nothing. I've seen Lynne do multiple repetitions of pulling into front-lever position and dropping back to a vertical hang. I had the impression she couldn't (and wasn't interested in) holding the level position. Although there are mass distribution differences between genders that might give some men an advantage in front levers over some women, I seriously doubt this is of any consequence. My take is that women are, in principle, stronger at strength-to-weight tasks then men (don't forget Lillian Leitzel's 26 one-arm pullups) and there is no reason other than, perhaps, a substantial lack of interest that would stop women from performing levers. The same goes for other gymnastic feats of strength. Why do you suppose the women have different events than men in gymnastics? At least one reason is so that the genders won't be directly comparable, which might be distressing for male egos. Make the rings a women's event, give 'em a few years to get up to speed, and see what happens then.
cool. and I have wondered that, actually. both why men and women don't do any of the same gymnastics events in general and why women don't do rings, specifically.
|
|
|
|
|
noahfor
Feb 17, 2012, 4:37 AM
Post #70 of 72
(5711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2006
Posts: 61
|
Women are not stronger than men on a pound for pound basis, and especially not when it comes to upper body strength. Women would not be able to compete with men at the gymnastic rings. Male gymnasts have some of the most impressive upper bodies out of all athletes, and it's not for show. It takes a phenomenal amount of absolute strength to do those moves.
A true front lever, with the arms perfectly straight, takes a lot of shoulder, chest, and back strength. I could see this being a problem for women with certain body types.
|
|
|
|
|
Durin
Feb 17, 2012, 6:39 AM
Post #71 of 72
(5687 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2007
Posts: 113
|
granite_grrl wrote: I'm not interested in the 5.10 climber telling me how awesome pullups have been for them and their climbing, or people telling me how amazing Crossfit is for this kind of thing. I'm hoping to hear from people who climb 5.12 and above on how they used specific weight training to help them climb harder, what they did and how it helped. Thanks.
I tried http://thealpinetrainingcenter.com/ weight training to break through into 5.12. Got pretty damn "fit." Didn't help as much as hoped.
Going ice climbing every weekend and sport climbing every wednesday last winter helped me really break through though.
A friend tried crossfit, didn't do crap for him. He's been following Ramon Julian's rhythm for over a year, now he's sending about 13b consistently.
|
|
|
|
|
shotwell
Feb 19, 2012, 1:27 AM
Post #72 of 72
(5612 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2009
Posts: 366
|
Upon reflection, I've realized I probably just have way more lock off strength than originally suspected.
A partial list of times that I lock off includes: getting into drop knees, big moves with my feet under me, moving up off of high heel hooks, moving up off of high flag moves, most climbing in no fall zones, topping out, getting out of drop knees, and moving in a variety of undercling arrangements.
I really didn't put a lot of thought into how I was using this strength before, but it is pervasive across just about all of my climbing. Even when I initiate dynamically into these moves, I'm still using lock off strength during part of the move. This took a bit of reflection and video review to pick up on as I don't do a lot of the traditional 'high feet and crank up' locking off.
G-girl, especially if you have trouble locking off, developing that strength can't hurt. Having that strength to use creatively can be immensely helpful, especially if you take the time to learn to initiate movements after you've locked off. It is way more than just reaching high.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
