It's not the size of the muscle (unless you have none to start with) but the ability to recruit them. .

thanks for the reply. maybe u could explain a bit more?

Think recruitment is most of the time referring to the amount of time needed to recruit a certain muscle to its maximise capabilities. Its different to how powerful your muscles are. Your muscle can be powerful but if you can't recruit fast enough it will not be useful at all(for dynamic moves).

thanks for the reply. maybe u could explain a bit more?

if the size of the muscles isnt relevant, how do u explain the high correlation between an increase in muscle strength and an increase in size? i have trained with weights for many years on my own and also as part of a collegiate wrestling program, and that statement doesnt seem to fit with my experience. aside from a quick initial gain in strength that is largely due to an increase in coordination, as your muscles get stronger, they get bigger. i've never seen someone with smaller muscles who is in fact much stronger than someone with larger muscles.

or is your statement only relevant to fingerboard exercises?

The second reason is that all exercises that use dynamic motion for your forearms are designed to train the two grip strengths that climbing doesn't utilize. Those, again are the crush and bending grip. Those exercises are the gripper machine and bending nails, and steel rods. You mentioned forearm curls, which in another tread, I gave a long explanation with studies showing that forearm curls (using dumbell and barbell) strengthen the stabilization of the wrists much more than they do the forearm muscle. Please don't replay back with saying that Eric Horst says it works. He is wrong in that area.

In climbing the fingers must exert X amount of force onto a hold. That force is always in a locked position, ie static contraction. Think about it, could you possibly hold onto a grip if your fingers were not in a locked position. This is the first reason that training your fingers using static exercises has the greatest carry over effect when compared to dynamic exercises.

Once upon a time, I was quite strong, but didn't look it. No bulk to speak of. How? High recruitment. If you pull on something, maybe only 30% of your muscle is pitching in. If you get 50% to play, you'll be stronger but not heavier. This is a good thing, unless you're just in it for the look.

Rob

i dunno about this bigger muscle = stronger muscle type thing, havent you ever seen that wee toaty sinewy guy who is may stronger than he looks like he should be?

All it comes down to is fibers of tissue that contract when given a neurologic signal. The contractions can flex or extend the fingers and hand in any combination. The biochemistry and the physiology is identical whether the load exerted against is moving or not.

The reason trainers use free weights over the dated isometric exercises is that resistance with motion recruits more fibers. The more you recruit the more that experience micro-trauma. The more fibers damaged, the more hypertrophy occurs.

In theory dynamic exercises are more useful - in practice I do both because I can't climb more than 1-2 times/week.

Of course all of this misses the fact that the first post was put up by some one who has only been climbing for a year and a half! There is no way in hell that someone with this little experience should even be thinking about supplemental training.

Does it matter how hard he is climbing? Or is it a bad idea no matter how hard he is climbing to add additional training after a year and a half? How long do you think one should be climbing before considering that?

Of course all of this misses the fact that the first post was put up by some one who has only been climbing for a year and a half! There is no way in hell that someone with this little experience should even be thinking about supplemental training.

i'm the original poster and i think thats an odd thing to say -- if u've only been climbing a year and a half then u have no business talking (sorry, THINKING) about a training related topic?

first, if you dont talk or think about an activity until it comes time to do it, then how will u know anything about it when u DO decide to pursue it further?

secondly, i would think that it would be a climber's level, rather than years of experience, that would determine when they should start supplemental training. somebody who has climbed for many years may only climb 5.8. clearly strength is not the limiting factor there. on the other hand, someone else may reach 5.13 within their first couple years climbing and find supplemental training of great benefit. people progress at very different rates.

i'm the original poster and i think thats an odd thing to say -- if u've only been climbing a year and a half then u have no business talking (sorry, THINKING) about a training related topic?

the book,"how to climb 5.12," has sections devoted to training, all for the purpose of helping somebody crack the 5.12 barrier. do u think they are wrong to include that?

at what point do u suggest somebody begin supplemental training?

I'm not the thought police I was using hyperbole to express a strongly held opinion.


There is no such thing as the 5.12 barrier. "How to climb 5.12" is a clever name for a not so clever book. The author of that book has a rather anemic understanding of climbing and therefore puts most of his emphasis on taking climbers away from learning the skills, tactics, and activities that are most efficient and effictive for creating real performance gains.


I think I stated earlier that from my point of view supplemental training is almost never necessary. Unless you are burdened by very unusual circumstances.
At your level of experience you want to pump up the volume of climbing you do each day, do different types of activities each day, do many different types of climbing.

peace.