This is interesting to me because I thought that the hyertrophy range was more in the 7-12 rep range from everything I've. I've currently been doing a mix of high weight/low reps (like 5-6 reps) and lower weight/high reps (12+ reps) and generally avoid this middle range.

What kind of reps should I be looking at? (not that I'm the sort of person to bulk up regardless, but I would like to do the most effective training in terms of strength/endurance gains).

Not saying you're right or wrong...I have no idea..but if this is completely true, then why do bodybuilders have some of the lowest body fat % I have ever seen? I worked for a short time in a physiology lab that tested (we did fat % with a tank and did a lot of VO2 testing) athletes from several sports, including some elite level cyclists and runners. We tested a few bodybuilders and they had the lowest %'s of any of them.

Let me drop some science: If you're lifting weights but not consuming enough protein/calories to support muscle growth you are wasting your time.

You are right in that 7-12 rep range can be considered hypertrophy training but I really feel that if you max out at 7 reps you're lifting a fairly heavy % of your maximal lift. I think of hypertrophy training as 12-20 rep range personally. I think of true endurance lifting as beyond 20 reps.

Now all this has to be taken into context of how many sets you are doing as well. Lifting for mass usually entails a very high number of sets performed, so take that into account. Not to mention that all bodies respond differently--some people build mass more easily than others.

As a woman doing what is probably modest weight training, I just don't see how you'll ever really bulk at all.

I can't tell you what reps you should do since I have no idea what your goals are or even what you're doing, but I would say most climbers, lifting for prehab, could do well to lift anywhere in the 5-15 rep range, 2 sets, sometimes 3.

Personally, I do lighter load/higher rep/higher sets for stabilizer muscles (like rotator cuff and core) and heavier load/lower rep/lower set for things like lower body and opposition muscle training (although I'll usually apply this to at least two different exercises for one muscle group).

Care to elaborate?

Sure.

"Strength is not primarily a function of muscle size, but one of the appropriate muscles powerfully contracted by effective nervous stimulation." (Supertraining)

"Once again, strength training will not lead to mass if the athlete utilizes the correct program, while also paying careful attention to his nutritional intake. The food that you consume is the real cause of weight gain (or loss)." (rosstraining.com)

"Muscular strength is determined not only by the quantity of involved muscle mass but also by the extent to which individual fibers in a muscle are activated"(science and practice of strength training)

Plus, even if adding muscle mass was necessary for getting stronger, it's not the tremendous bulk people think of when they think of bodybuilders or gym bros.

Look at this guy holding 469 pounds over his head. That would take a tremendous amount of shoulder and upper back strength, but his shoulders and upper back aren't that massive. Would the added weight be more detrimental than the strength would be beneficial, in a climbing scenario? I don't know. But, I don't think it's obvious one way or the other. That amount of leg mass wouldn't be beneficial regardless of the provided leg strength.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NL6rqGAJlE

I don't weight train. I don't care how I look anymore, I just want to be a better climber, and weights don't help.

The vast majority of hard climbers would disagree with you here. Take a look at serious climbers' training routines. Weights are used regularly and are critical to adding resistance.

I haven't found lifting to benefit my climbing other than as a injury prevention tool.

Most of the best climbers I know don't do any or very little weight training. Unless your talking about weighted campusing/climbing.

The point was to make the distinction for other people that most top climbers don't spend their time doing curls, dips, bench presses, squats, etc... typical weight room work outs. I know this, because I climb with many of them regularly. We all discuss what we do. Also, limited time could be spent better elsewhere.

There is no need to get all butthurt about it, and imply that yours is the "high road", while mine is not.

My opinion is, too many people view resistance training as curling and benching. Transporting your center of mass to the top of a wall via muscle contraction is weight training, whether you like it or not.

I agree with your definition.

Based on previous posts, most ppl who have posted in this thread aren't using that definition.

There are many types of body weight or body weight weighted climbing specific exercises that can be used to gain strength in certain areas faster than one would through just climbing. Depending on their strength level and where they are at in their cycle and what their weaknesses are.

I don't think there is EVER a time when lifting dumbells, doing yoga, pilates, p90x, and the like are a better alternative than body weight or weighted exercises targeting specific muscle groups. Such as campusing, hang boarding, system board training etc.

Assuming most people have limited time, and they are male, and they are not at or below 8% body fat, they would see more improvement through doing cardio to lose weight and dieting.

I agree, but with several exceptions.

Traditional resistance training for muscle groups especially including the rotator cuff musculature and hamstrings are effective for injury prevention in athletes. (There are not many studies targeting primarily rock climbers, but there is no prima fascia reason why rock climbers would be different in this area than other athletes)

Also, from a muscle balancing perspective, it is plausible that some limited chest, elbow extensor, wrist extensor, and perhaps gastroc training could be effective in limiting some of the usual tendonosis/itis problems which appear numerous from a look through the Injuries Forum.

---You're saying limited injury prevention weight lifting is important, totally agree. I do 3 sets of ten shoulder presses, triangle push ups, and the medial epicondylitis (sp?) workout, almost every climbing day, which is working your wrist.

If you are not injured, you are able to climb more. If you climb more (and thoughtfully), you will get better at climbing.

---This is huge, I can't emphasize this comment enough...... IMO staying injury free if the number one thing you can do to make the most progress over time, say, five years or more.

Resistance training, indirectly, can help your climbing.

I lift weights, mainly because I need to be able to lift 280 lb motors and 120 lb engine heads (12 of them) once a year. With that said, I can climb up a 20 foot climbing wall (a really easy one) using only my arms, so i'm pretty happy about that haha.

I say to each their own, but the best climbers I know use some form of weighted training, be it weighted climbing or weights in a gym.

but there is no prima fascia reason why rock climbers would be different in this area than other athletes.

Ah yes, how did I guess you were going to be one of those meatheads at the gym