[matts]

Hi,

I've been following this forum for a while now, but this is my first post. So please be gentle

I listened to the trainingbeta podcast with Eric Hörst today (https://www.trainingbeta.com/media/tbp-019-eric-horst-on-training-methods-for-adults-and-kids/?portfolioID=3838) and he said something about energysystems in climbing that seemed pretty interesting to me.

To paraphrase:

He basically said that a lot of climbers are doing something wrong if they go to the wall a few times a week, get stupidly pumped and then think they've actually trained for climbing. That's mainly because -according to Hörst- there are 3 energy systems in climbing: Aerobic, anaerobic lactic and anaerobic alactic. Someone getting really pumped on an indoor sport route would mainly be training the anaerobic lactic system. The problem with that is, that this energy system is not very well trainable and progress levels off pretty quickly. The aerobic and anaerobic alactic systems on the other side are more trainable (highly trainable in case of the aerobic system).

I did some more research and found this article (http://breakingmuscle.com/health-medicine/understanding-energy-systems-atp-pc-glycolytic-and-oxidative-oh-my), which explains the 3 energy systems in more depth. They call it: "ATP-PC (high power, short duration), glycolytic (moderate power/short duration), and oxidative (low power/long duration)"

ATP-PC = Anaerobic alactic
glycolitic = anaerobic lactic
oxidative = aerobic

I also looked for some papers and found a research paper (you need university access) covering the different energy systems used in sport climbing. Their main results were, that mostly the aerobic and the anaerobic alactic systems are used in sport climbing.

My question now is:

How does the concept of aerocap, ancap, aeropow and anpow fit into this?

My question is specifically aimed at the ancap system training, because as far as i understand it, it's basically hypertrophy training for the forearms. It's more like bodybuilders would train (8 - 12 reps -> 12 - 15 Moves ; getting pumped and going to failure). So wouldn't you kind of mimic this when doing hard (short) sport routes at the wall?

Am I confusing things or getting it seriously wrong?


Edit: seems to be in the wrong section. Wanted to post it in training. How can I move it there?

[abarro81]

The anaerobic alactic system only lasts a short time, though it produces energy at the greatest rate of the 3. I'm pretty sure that ancap and anpow are targeting anaerobic lactic primarily with maybe some alactic involved too, but I'm not 100% on how much they'll work the alactic, will try to do some checking at some point (aero is obviously designed to target aerobic). I suspect that simple bouldering and strength work will target the alactic quite effectively. No idea if Tom has views on this? He's in Norway so you'll be lucky to get a response on this thread..

The swimming training book that a lot of the energy systems stuff I've used/stolen is inspired by claims that anaerobic lactic is more trainable than anaerobic alactic, contrary to what you've said Horst said. I've not searched around to verify this, might have a google tomorrow evening after climbing.

In any case, irrespective of terminology and the like, I suspect Horst and I (and most people) would agree that smashing around cirucits getting really pumped (basically aero pow or anpow training) is a relatively quick adaptation and thus most time should be spent doing your base work. The an/aero cap/power approach is basically the same as the 'classic' method of training aero cap and strength during base then PE in peak, but with an cap thrown in during base phase too. I know little about the subtleties of an cap in terms of actual physiological adaptations, but I'm convinced enough that it's good for me - and my strength, especially for long problems and on routes - that I'll continue to do it without putting the effort into understanding it too much. The Anderson Bro's strength sessions in their book strike me as being quite ancap-esque too, so maybe it's really just the strength gains from that style of training that make it seem so useful rather than anything metabolic? I've not got time to spend ages looking into that unfortunately..

For ancap you shouldn't be pumped, you should be powered out, and routes are invariably going to be too long and too slow to climb unless your wall is 6m high.

[mindfull]

Some summary, and references to multiple studies:

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/38/3/355.full

[matts]

Well, just to clear that up: Hörst said that the anaerobic lactic system is the least trainable, so I just assumed that the other systems would be more trainable.

The paper I found by Moraes Bertuzzi et al. researches energy systems needed in climbing. They are using elite level and recreational climbers as subjects and let them climb easy, moderate and hard routes. Elite climbers climbed higher than 5.12d while recreational climbers climbed up to 5.11c. Also: "all EC subjects
occupied places within the first ten positions of the National Ranking of Indoor Rock Climbing".

The recreational climbers only climbed the easy route, which was 5.10d, while the elite climbers also did a 5.11b and a 5.12b.

Recreational climbers used 39.7% aerobic, 34% anaerobic alactic and 26.3% anaerobic lactic.

Elite climbers on easy: 41.5, 41.1 and 17.4%
medium: 45.8, 34.6 and 21.9%
hard: 41.9, 35.8 and 22.3%

So it's interesting to see that anaerobic lactic only plays a minor role for elite climbers. What I'd take home from that is:

Do a ton of ARC as a base, then do max strength and power (i.e. max hangs and campusing). Throw some PE/aero pow/ an pow in at the end. Which seems to be the training that Ondra (http://www.epictv.com/media/podcast/training-with-adam-ondra-part-1-%7C-epictv-choice-cuts-/601648) does.

It also seems to be the training that you advocate (Barrows). I'd just like to know how an cap or other programs aimed at hypertrophy like the Anderson bro's training fits into that. More on a physiological level. I did an cap and it was beneficial, there's no doubt but I'm keen on learning more about the theoretical side.

[Duma]

5.12b? So 7b? So the elite climbers weren't on anything even vaguely challenging for them (ie the routes we train for) so don't see how the split is very useful in designing a training plan

[joel182]

Doesn't look like the elite climbers were on anything even vaguely challenging for them (ie the routes we train for) so don't see how the split is very useful in designing a training plan

Also, the routes were only 10m, with the climbers taking around 80 seconds to do them - I would be very wary about drawing any training conclusions from that study!

[matts]

Also, the routes were only 10m, with the climbers taking around 80 seconds to do them - I would be very wary about drawing any training conclusions from that study!

Oh, I didn't see that. They surely didn't develop a pump on a 10m route. It's still interesting though. Consensus seems to be (Hörst, Andersons) to train specifically for PE only for 2 - 4 weeks. And despite it's limits this study seems to outline why PE training is not that important (maybe PE is not that trainable either).

But that's not really my question. I'm actually wondering how training stimulus aimed at hyperthrophy fits into the picture.

[mrjonathanr]

And despite it's limits this study seems to outline why PE training is not that important (maybe PE is not that trainable either).

I'd tend to differ on both counts.

[jwi]

The paper I found by Moraes Bertuzzi et al. researches energy systems needed in climbing. They are using elite level and recreational climbers as subjects and let them climb easy, moderate and hard routes. Elite climbers climbed higher than 5.12d while recreational climbers climbed up to 5.11c. Also: "all EC subjects
occupied places within the first ten positions of the National Ranking of Indoor Rock Climbing".

The recreational climbers only climbed the easy route, which was 5.10d, while the elite climbers also did a 5.11b and a 5.12b.

Recreational climbers used 39.7% aerobic, 34% anaerobic alactic and 26.3% anaerobic lactic.

Elite climbers on easy: 41.5, 41.1 and 17.4%
medium: 45.8, 34.6 and 21.9%
hard: 41.9, 35.8 and 22.3%.

IIRC, that study was of systematic use of energy pathways, not local. Unsurprising result since most energy is produced aerobically in the legs. Doh.

There are, btw, way more than three energy pathways used in climbing, or any other activity. For all practical purposes there is no need for any climber to know anything about them. It suffices to know a few strategies for improving on

Single moves,
Short boulders,
boulders,
long boulders,
short routes,
medium routes, and
long routes,

the adaption times and how improvement of one influence the other.

[roddersm]

I listened to this the other day and thought it was really good but thought it contradicted Steve Bechtel's podcast a bit.

What I took from Horst was that climbing was anaerobic based but all recovery was aerobic therefore having a decent aerobic base would help with recovery on routes.

Bechtel however insisted that climbing requires anaerobic endurance, which is local to the muscle groups and general aerobic fitness wasn't transferable or useful.

Both statements seem to have merit but it is interesting to see the different philosophies out there.

Dave Binney did a lot of research around this sort of thing I think - there is a PDF linked on the resources around this.

[abarro81]

Consensus seems to be (Hörst, Andersons) to train specifically for PE only for 2 - 4 weeks. And despite it's limits this study seems to outline why PE training is not that important (maybe PE is not that trainable either).

How long your peak phase will need to be depends on a few things - yourself for one, plus how long your base phase was. Longer base will generally mean you'd want longer peak phase. I've tried various lengths, and I'd generally say that for me 2-4 weeks is not enough unless the base was short (i.e. it's not that long since I was on a trip). (I know Stu tried the Anderson's one (3weeks?) and thought it a week or two too short. ). I think that 8 weeks (inc taper time) works well for me off the back of a reasonably long base phase (3-4 month).

As for the importance of PE, I read about one of the US trainers switching a few clients to the high-low approach (basically just doing a base phase of strength/power and aerocap, then not doing a peak/PE pahse). Think it wsa Kris Hampton? I think he rated it as working quite well, although they were trying their projects a few times per week towards the end of the program which kind of counts as your PE phase anyway, so it's hard to read all that much into it compared to if they'd done that approach then gone on a 1 week onsight trip.

But that's not really my question. I'm actually wondering how training stimulus aimed at hyperthrophy fits into the picture.

I don't quite understand the question. It doesn't 'fit in' in the same way that short bouldering doesn't 'fit in' by which I mean they're sessions presumably designed to target strength adaptations rather than anything else. There will be a crossover though if that's what you mean, e.g. an cap and whatever you're doing for hypertrophy will probably be fairly similar so both will crossover to the other? Or do you mean what effect will building more muscle have on the energy systems? In which case, I think it increases creatine phosphate stores (fuel for anaerobic alactic) by virtue of there being more muscle which is where CP is stored IIRC. It would decrease aerocap presumably by decreasing capilliary density unless you do the corresponding amount of aerocap to fix that.

I've not listened to Horst podcast yet but roddersm, are you sure they were actually contradicting each other? Was Horst definitely not talking about local aerobic endurance? You can certainly think that general cardio 'aerobic' training isn't very useful but still think that the aerobic capacity/power of your climbing specific muscles is very important. I'd guess that the majority of climbing coaches would take that view. I certainly didn't listen to the Betchel one and think that he was saying local aerobic endurance was unimportant, though I often listen to these things when I'm doing something else so could have missed something.

[roddersm]

I've not listened to Horst podcast yet but roddersm, are you sure they were actually contradicting each other? Was Horst definitely not talking about local aerobic endurance? You can certainly think that general cardio 'aerobic' training isn't very useful but still think that the aerobic capacity/power of your climbing specific muscles is very important. I'd guess that the majority of climbing coaches would take that view. I certainly didn't listen to the Betchel one and think that he was saying local aerobic endurance was unimportant, though I often listen to these things when I'm doing something else so could have missed something.

Yeah I'd need to listen again but I think Horst's response was in the context of whether running was useful - something Neilly(?) seems to ask everyone. Horst suggested a small amount of running (20-30) min would help recovery whereas Bechtel said it wouldn't... that's how I interpreted but could be mistaken...

[slackline]

Do a ton of ARC as a base, then do max strength and power (i.e. max hangs and campusing). Throw some PE/aero pow/ an pow in at the end.

http://rockclimberstrainingmanual.com/

[abarro81]

You sure he didn't mean recovery between session not on routes? I'll listen tonight anyway.

Slackers - OP seems familiar with the Andersons stuff already

[matts]

I don't quite understand the question. It doesn't 'fit in' in the same way that short bouldering doesn't 'fit in' by which I mean they're sessions presumably designed to target strength adaptations rather than anything else.

I'm relatively new to all of this exercise physiology stuff so I didn't quite understand some things. I just thought that training your energy systems actually means causing adaptations to training in the muscle. So -for example- in case of training for aerocap you would increase the number of mitochondria in the muscle. But with strength there seem to be really two approaches with low rep/high load causing better recruitment of muscle motor units (neural adaptations) and  medium weight/higher reps causing hypertrophy / growth of muscle fibers...

No real point here anyway, I'll just read up on the basics.

Yeah I'd need to listen again but I think Horst's response was in the context of whether running was useful - something Neilly(?) seems to ask everyone. Horst suggested a small amount of running (20-30) min would help recovery whereas Bechtel said it wouldn't... that's how I interpreted but could be mistaken...

I think Hörst said that removal of lactate in the forearms depends on local aerobic capacity. He also said that a small amount of running could help recovery between sessions. At least that's how I understood him.
I believe Kris Peters said that he'd let his clients run if they are physically unfit. He doesn't say it helps climbing but it helps becoming a better athlete which in turn helps your climbing. And I guess Hörst would somewhat agree with that.

[abarro81]

I just thought that training your energy systems actually means causing adaptations to training in the muscle.

It does. I still don't understand the question..?

Listened to the podcast: Horst does indeed seem to think there's likely to be some minor crossover from running to climbing fitness. His point about ability to reduce heart rate quickly at rests might well be a valid one; the talk about Sasha and Siegrist having run previously means nothing IMO, they're more likely to just be naturally good enduro athletes who like pushing themselves hard than it having any major impact compared to the strength of their fingers IMO. Running for 20-30min on a rest day is fun anyway, so you might as well do it, at least when the weather's nice!

Back to the general topic of the OP - I don't think Horst is really advocating anything significantly different from what one would expect.

[Sasquatch]

The talk about running is a funny one.  Folks seem to not like to talk about details.

3-4 easy runs of 20-30 minutes a week probably isn't going to hurt anyones climbing, and if you aren't fit enough to do an easy 20-30 minute run, it my well help you. 

That said, runner's who run regularly and are doing any type of run training, are likely running 5-6 times a week for 30-60 minutes per run with a longer run of 60-90 minutes.  That's a total of 4.5-6.5 hours rather than 1.5hrs.  There's a HUGE difference.

Back to OP.  I hate getting too into the science of it.  It seems to me that due to the complexity of climbing itself, it's very difficult to structure most training to the exactly right levels of whatever.  FB, Foot on campusing, campusing, can get sort of specific, but any of the aerobic/PE stuff becomes mostly "feel" and guess and test for an individual.  Add into it the personal differences to adaptation, and it gets very subjective. 

[abarro81]

Yeah, Horst was only advocating a few 20-30min runs per week, and advising against any significant running training.

[TheTwig]

I think energy systems should be looked at via what you are training for. It's all well and good saying X system or Y system is the most 'trainable' but if you are doing very short boulder problems then you will want to train in a way that simulates that type of climbing. Sometimes this isn't obvious - I've gotten more improvement from bouldering for trad climbing than route climbing. E.g. all most trad climbs I've done are essentially boulder problems separated by very good rests.

I would be suprised if Horst has found some way to reinvent the wheel, but who knows. Maybe he has worked out some training method that essentially cheats the body into being better at something (along the lines of fingerboarding/bouldering making individual moves easier, and so improves endurance..)

[TheTwig]

I don't quite understand the question. It doesn't 'fit in' in the same way that short bouldering doesn't 'fit in' by which I mean they're sessions presumably designed to target strength adaptations rather than anything else.

I'm relatively new to all of this exercise physiology stuff so I didn't quite understand some things. I just thought that training your energy systems actually means causing adaptations to training in the muscle. So -for example- in case of training for aerocap you would increase the number of mitochondria in the muscle. But with strength there seem to be really two approaches with low rep/high load causing better recruitment of muscle motor units (neural adaptations) and  medium weight/higher reps causing hypertrophy / growth of muscle fibers...

No real point here anyway, I'll just read up on the basics.

Yeah I'd need to listen again but I think Horst's response was in the context of whether running was useful - something Neilly(?) seems to ask everyone. Horst suggested a small amount of running (20-30) min would help recovery whereas Bechtel said it wouldn't... that's how I interpreted but could be mistaken...

I think Hörst said that removal of lactate in the forearms depends on local aerobic capacity. He also said that a small amount of running could help recovery between sessions. At least that's how I understood him.
I believe Kris Peters said that he'd let his clients run if they are physically unfit. He doesn't say it helps climbing but it helps becoming a better athlete which in turn helps your climbing. And I guess Hörst would somewhat agree with that.

The problem with climbing and people talking about anything training related is there are a million different training terms which all mean different things to different people, and most of them are pretty vague. I really like the terms Strength, Power, Power endurance as they are pretty clear and dont leave much room open to misunderstanding. Strength is being able to hold onto a really hard hold. Power is being able to move between hard holds, e.g. max campus ladders, and then Power Endurance is this huge spectrum of medium length boulder problems at the 'power' end of the scale, and long 30-50m routes where you are getting increasingly tired until you either climb it, or run out of energy and have to let go.

You train your power endurance for the routes you climb. There's no doubt an aerobic base (e.g spending the start of the season, and occasional session throughout doing long easy stuff) is a good way to get your body ready for the season. Loads of sports do it. I'm somewhat dubious about how it can help you stop getting pumped though. If you are not training getting mega pumped, recovering on a good hold (and repeating) then I really don't see how you will be any good at that when you are on a route.

I'm reminded of Jerry Moffats story of doing endless circuits with a rest 'jug' at stoney(?) and how this helped him when he was on some horrendous route later in his life.

[petejh]

Twig you just can't say shit like this it's very irresponsible. The more complicated training becomes the better, because more people will feel sufficiently confused to turn to a training expert for guidance. People have livings to make and mouths to feed.. (no fructose..)

[abarro81]

Twig - aerobic base in your climbing specific muscles (I.e. I'm talking aero cap not running) will definitely reduce you getting pumped, and gives the base to build your PE on. I've seen this work for a lot of people. Your logic doesn't work for exactly the same reason that bouldering is good for trad - to some extent you want to break things down into individual components rather than just endlessly replicatingthe exact structure of your goal, then put it all back together at the end.

Isn't that bit in Jerry's book just before he does the world cup?

[Oldmanmatt]

Ok, I'm confused by this thread.

So, call all of the following a question, posed as a statement.

In twenty minutes I'm going to sit down to an A&P exam section 3 of which is on energy systems.

As far as I can see, or know, the only Energy system which can be trained is the Lactate system (power endurance by my reading of the terminology used in climbing, which I cannot find replicated in the A&P texts I'm supposed to be studying).

This is all pointless without adding the context of available muscle fibres, surely?

And whilst those fibres may be trained and grown in size (Hypertrophy), the number and proportions of those fibres are genetically determined within each individual. There is limited scope for change, only the conversion of type IIX fibres to type IIA (through training) to increase aerobic endurance.




The only Energy system that can be "Trained" is the Lactate and only by improving tolerance to Lactic acid accumulation.





Aerobic capacity is alway going to be limited by the number of Mitocondria available (genetically determined).


Sorry for the screen shots but I'm using a synopsis text (which I emailed myself as a PDF) on my iPad for some last minute study, in the waiting room. My sources are (and excuse spelling) Seeley R, et al (A & P) and Tortora & Gabrowski 1996 and McArdel et al. 1996.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[roddersm]

So for aero cap you need to climb a load of easyish routes which give a mild pump? If the routes are too hard and you get pumped then the anaerobic system is kicking in - that is my understanding anyway.

Just bought that Anderson bros book - looks really good but one thing I thought was that if the strength phase was before the arc training, rather than after, then base level of route needed for the arc training would be higher due to being stronger on individual moves? 

 

[abarro81]

What are you on about Matt, the aerobic system is very much trainable