[Stubbs]

After reading that page it seems even more like BS. Hand movement, really?

[SA Chris]

Given it all sounds like a lot of wank, hand movement is a good start.

[abarro81]

Was something on that link supposed to convince me? You'll have to do better than that and repeatedly posting the 'good idea' picture

[Jaspersharpe]

Fuck me they used the word "holistic". I'm in!

[krymson]

Given it all sounds like a lot of wank, hand movement is a good start.

Seems perfect for tracking one-handed Aerocap sessions

[chris j]

Being a cynical naysayer I notice its use has gone from being a potential replacement for professional coaching in the original paper to now being a tool for said coaches and a climbing version of strava/fuel.

[i.munro]

Think about a dynamic hand movement executed badly. I'd expect to see (from wrist mounted accelerometer data) a rise slowing to a stop, followed by a fall back onto the hold, then an overshoot (as far too much force is put through the hold) & probably a series of oscillations before settling into a stable position.

Now what would the data look like for the same move done well?

The falling onto the hold period would be minimised as would the overshoot due to excess force.

So you could repeat a move & look at the data to see if you were executing it better or worse each time.

The only question for me is, can this gadget give you data to that sort of time resolution?

[slackline]

Think about a dynamic hand movement executed badly. I'd expect to see (from wrist mounted accelerometer data) a rise slowing to a stop, followed by a fall back onto the hold, then an overshoot (as far too much force is put through the hold) & probably a series of oscillations before settling into a stable position.

Now what would the data look like for the same move done well?

The falling onto the hold period would be minimised as would the overshoot due to excess force.

So you could repeat a move & look at the data to see if you were executing it better or worse each time.

The only question for me is, can this gadget give you data to that sort of time resolution?

Thats all pretty inconsequential when I already know that to climb something I need to be stronger and combine it with more accurate foot and hand placements and better body position/core strength anyway.

I don't need to wank away £200 to get this graphed for me after the event when I have instant feedback in real time.

[metal arms]

Think about a dynamic hand movement executed badly. I'd expect to see (from wrist mounted accelerometer data) a rise slowing to a stop, followed by a fall back onto the hold, then an overshoot (as far too much force is put through the hold) & probably a series of oscillations before settling into a stable position.

Is that not the kind of thing you can work out yourself i.e.

• I've missed the hold
• I've got to adjust as I've got it badly
• The hold has snapped off because I'm too fat

[Stubbs]

Why would you need quantitative data to tell you that you hadn't hit a hold well? You can tell this yourself from the feedback your body gives you.  Hitting holds well is as much about centre of gravity movement, core strength and appllying force through the feet as it is about hand movement.

If you really felt that this was an issue in your climbing, a £50 session with a coach would see you to a series of exercises to improve upon how you hit holds.

EDIT: I note I essentially wrote the same as the two people before me!

[i.munro]

So everyone can tell to millisecond precision how well they execute every move &  spot when they put a few newtons of excess force through a hold?

Wow, wish I was that talented.

[slackline]

I don't need to know to the millisecond or fraction of a newton, I know if its worked if I get up the route/boulder problem.  Having done a route/problem once I might, over time go back and repeat it and find it easier, this will be an improvement, I might even notice that I have time to adjust on holds to improve my grip.  A plot of milliseconds graphed over time is less informative than the immediate feedback.

I'm all for quantitative analysis, after all I'm a statistician, but knowing one factor in minute detail of a complex multi-faceted process is not going to be of much use.  I think this device and yourself are obsessing over minutiae.

The use of the term "validated" in relation to the algorithms doesn't mean that it tells you how to improve your climbing.  What it means is that the hardware and algorithms do what they are supposed to do, which is measure acceleration/deceleration consistently and accurately, and that this has been checked to be accurate to some degree (i.e. validated).

[Stubbs]

[i.munro]

The use of the term "validated" in relation to the algorithms doesn't meant that it tells you how to improve your climbing.  What it means is that the hardware and algorithms do what they are supposed to do, which is measure acceleration/deceleration consistently and accurately, and that this has been checked (i.e. validated).

There's no way of knowing from the info we have what their data analysis is like. Could well be complete bollocks. The point for me is that there is data to analyse.
Without this, technique training is where strength training would be without stop watches & calibrated weights. Undoubtedly you could get stronger just by lifting random rocks but it doesn't half help when you can see progress in kgs or seconds.

[slackline]

The use of the term "validated" in relation to the algorithms doesn't meant that it tells you how to improve your climbing.  What it means is that the hardware and algorithms do what they are supposed to do, which is measure acceleration/deceleration consistently and accurately, and that this has been checked (i.e. validated).

There's no way of knowing from the info we have what their data analysis is like. Could well be complete bollocks.

I had a cursory glance through the paper and they include some Responder Operator Charactersitic (ROC) Curves, which is a method of checking how accurate your model is (see figure 8 in their PDF).  Wikipedia entry for ROC Curves is quite informative, its to do with sensitivity and specificity.

Removing climbers with BMI < 20 to improve the correlation coefficient is data dredging (see figure 9).

They note also...

While our results are encouraging, they are just based on a single climb per participant. Crucial aspects such as endurance (defined as resilience to fatigue) are inaccessible to the system and a considerable amount of work necessary until am automatic, personal climbing coach becomes reality.

[Stubbs]

I'll reiterate my above point that hand movement is a very small part of climbing movement, and as Slackers said above, what is analysing this on its own going to get you?

Can you not feel when you do a move right or wrong?  How many factors go into an individual move, especially a dynamic one?  To get useful data you'd need to look like this guy!

[tomtom]

I've been thinking about this a bit...

THe regular fitbit NikeFuel thingys work by being able to aggregate whole body motion (measured on the wrist) into a simple formula (probably emperical) to derive energy burned etc...

But I think climbing is not very well suited to such aggregated readings. Therefore to make a climbing thing like this - then you'd need (IMHO) a sensor (Accelerometer - also giving angles) on your belt (probably small of back best - lets call it a torso sensor) then another on each arm (though you could probably get away with just one over a longer time). THe one on the back could give you an idea of body movement (and energy burnt/muscles used etc..) but also the angle - which would give you a rough idea of how overhanging etc.. it is. Then if you can sync time between both sensors (do-able via bluetooth) then you can work out relative movements between the back (torso) sensor and the arm one. So you then have (generally) indexes of releative body/arm movement and body angle - which gives you a lot more to go on than just an arm/wrist sensor..

Ideally, you'd want to know where arms / torso (and maybe legs) are relative to each other in 3d space (xyz's) then you could do it all - but I can't think how you could do it with the tech available...

[Wood FT]

fucking hell all this crap is making barrows look like jonny dawes

[abarro81]

I actually just thought of a potentially good use for this. When I make up a new circuit or ancap problem i never know whether its going to be the right intensity for what I want to do until I start the session, especially on a new board or bit of wall. If this can measure how hard I'm trying and for how long then presumably I can give it benchmarks and it could help you predict if tthe intensity is correct for that workout on that day.

[ricardo cassim]

New project uploaded to specifically answer some of the topics raised here.
http://tinyurl.com/q4tdu4a

[MattD]

I'm sorry, but I think this is what we call "Jarg" in Liverpool. I even logged in to say that,so it must be bad... 

[slackline]

The main issue I have with this device is  that I don't see how it can be of any use to iimproving your climbing.

It might be great at recording hand movements, but if figure 5 is a true representation of low and high control as measured by the device, then how does it help you move from "Low Control" to "High Control"? 

This is acknowledged in the Second Update/FAQs.

You improve your climbing in terms of strength, technique and co-ordination.  There is nothing intrinsic to the system, as far as I can see, that actually helps you achieve this.  Its just passively measuring and recording your movements as you go through training/climbing so they can be plotted afterwards.  You learn within a session when you're working a route how to adjust your body/grip/feet to help you get up the boulder problem/route, having this plotted afterwards won't change or improve what you've already learnt kinesthetically. 

In the opening blurb it says that keeping track of training cycles is tricky, but those who do it already record their cycles and have plans, I can't see them needing anything extra.


I wish you & your colleagues every success with your product Ricardo.

[Grubes]

I am still of the opinion this is just a joke seeing if anyone will take it seriously.
The target of £150k is a bit too ambitious

How can any one take a device that records wrist movements and is called climax seriously.