UKBouldering.com

Aeropow - setting the level? (Read 16366 times)

Tommy

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 814
  • Karma: +97/-1
#25 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 04, 2016, 03:41:27 pm
Ah..... just read through this thread and what I need to do is damn well sit down and write something out for everyone to use as a resource to get these training intensities.

Crap! Ok.... For my help, could a few people describe what you're wanting and I'll put something together. Is it the intensities and feelings of the trainings? The amount of moves you'd want to do for each in total work blocks? Which one you'd want to work for lengths of routes/boulders?

I'll do my best to create something that's simple, brief and compliments the good work done by Alex so far.  :)

Wood FT

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2951
  • Karma: +162/-8
#26 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 04, 2016, 04:29:05 pm
Hi Tom,

What exactly is a rep?

in layman terms please

Thanks,

Paul B

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 9626
  • Karma: +264/-4
#27 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 04, 2016, 04:32:54 pm
No one can fault natural curiousity of things such as training (without it this board wouldn't exist).

Paul - I get all of that (do you sense a 'but'). But (there you go) what you've just described is 'merely' the change in mindset and physical ability that comes when someone first gets into structured training; it isn't a mindset/physical reaction specific to any model.

I'm not suggesting it is anything more than that; I remember reading a CrossFit article (by Ripptoe - what a name for a coach!) which started by saying something such as (paraphrasing heavily): "the best thing crossfit has achieved is getting olympic bars in a lot of peoples hands". Similarily I think that one of the benefits of the 'Capacity' model is that it's got a fair portion of the UK sport climbing scene to think objectively about their strengths and weaknesses and what's required of them for their intended route. Even if it's not the best model, that can't be a bad thing?

Quote
I do have doubts about its usefulness for the vast majority of people operating in the 7th and low 8th grades. From what I can tell from posts on ukb and talking to people at the crag, getting the exercises right for ancap/pow/aerepow appears to confuse as many people as it helps. I don't think you need to focus on fine-tuning your energy systems that much to climb up to 8a/8b.

Why though? If it's what's needed to change their mindset as you put it... Again, your observation could say as much about the varied types of sport-routes you can get for any given grade than a training regime (how many ways can you skin a F8a?).

I also wonder how much of this is led by fashion/personality.

I'm sceptical when I see one person making gains, less so when I see two, even less so as this trend continues etc. With the same thought in mind I'm interested to see if Shauna's coach can pull it out of the bag with Gracie and Leah (i.e. is it just genetics or does he know [or apply] something we don't?). Also, is fashion the right word here (it seems like a term being used a little towards the Sheffield brigade  :ras: ); perhaps people merely think it's the best SCIENCE available?

...and Stu, that's just as baffling as a regime!

Guy - someone who sells things and usually drives an Audi.

Wood FT

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2951
  • Karma: +162/-8
#28 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 04, 2016, 04:50:45 pm


Guy - someone who sells things and usually drives an Audi.

so is gang starr's 'just to get a rep' about needing a regional sales operative to guide him through the coming seasons new line?

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
#29 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 04, 2016, 05:16:06 pm
Pete - I agree totally with you about the lack of clarity in the an/aero/cap/pow description of training. Too many people keep asking "what is aeropow" for anyone to disagree.

I quite like the way you break down your training but what your model lacks is the base/quality distinction. To take your power endurance training as an example. Your description doesn't tell me if I should be completing all reps (as I would during ancap, or base training early in my cycle) or going balls out and giving max efforts on every rep (anpow, or quality work). Historically, people have mostly done the latter. This works, but is non-optimal. This big advance of the an/aero/cap/pow model is realising that the base work is really useful; it's just that I don't think the language used to describe it is as clear as a base/quality description.


Agreed. Although my example is only a brief overview on a ukb forum, I wasn't trying to go into detail. In reality I do split my training into roughly the two concepts you mention by having a base phase of x-number of weeks (depending on overall goals - long routes or short / trad or sport), with a couple of harder sesh's thrown in.

That said - this year I'm experimenting with not doing any base aero work at all and just having a 'bouldering phase' consisting of short-medium prob plus short board problems, transitioning into longer problems (topsy-turvy to the usual sequence I know). Reason being that most years I'd normally winter climb until March and never have a bouldering season. This year I was injured at the start of winter and chose to not winter climb so I could have a bouldering season in early spring for the first time in ages.

I am convinced about the overall utility of getting lots of base followed by 'quality'/hard-short PE/power.

But.. for specific goals I don't think it matters one bit, provided you're of a certain level (can't be more specific than that) and the goal isn't stupidly endurance-based.

Your cycling comparison could be examined in terms of exactly what physical work cyclists need to do in their events and training. Training duration/event duration, number of leg reps, size of muscle group used, split between aerobic and anaerobic work (each type of event/inclination obviously slightly different, just like climbs - perhaps hill work most relevant to climbing?).
Cycling event duration is far longer than time required to complete a route. # of leg reps much higher than # of forearm contractions required on a route. Muscle group (quads, hams, calfs) way larger than forearms. Climbing's finger strength element isn't represented in cycling so there isn't a comparable element in their training.

So.. possibly scale down cycling energy systems to something 'climbing scale' for the typical demands of an 15-25m 8b route.. or whatever. Suggests to me that a good deal of typical climbing doesn't require a great amount of base work to be done in training.

But I accept I'll be able to do font 7C on a Saturday then get pumped shitless on a french 6c on Sunday.. until I train fitness for 4 weeks when I'll suddenly go up to able to climb 8b again!

How sustainable that is the further up the difficulty scale you go is another interesting question. Is it possible to have good strength and power but pathetic fitness until just before you need it, and then get it and be able to do 9a?


« Last Edit: April 04, 2016, 05:21:48 pm by petejh »

Doylo

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 6694
  • Karma: +442/-7
#30 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 04, 2016, 05:24:16 pm
The worrying thing is that you were pumped at the first bolt  :lol:

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
#31 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 04, 2016, 05:26:21 pm
That one was 6c+ give me some credit  ::)

Coops_13

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1206
  • Karma: +75/-0
    • YouTube
#32 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 04, 2016, 05:58:35 pm
The worrying thing is that you were pumped at the first bolt  :lol:
Been there...

Stu Littlefair

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1836
  • Karma: +283/-2
    • http://www.darkpeakimages.co.uk
#33 Aeropow - setting the level?
April 04, 2016, 10:09:23 pm
Pete; it sounds to me like you confuse "base" work with stamina work.

The point is to decouple the concept of base/quality phases from the actual skill being trained.

Different sports/climbers/goals will want to train strength, short endurance and long endurance with a different balance but all can benefit from the base:quality split.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2016, 10:14:43 pm by Stu Littlefair »

Stu Littlefair

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1836
  • Karma: +283/-2
    • http://www.darkpeakimages.co.uk
#34 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 04, 2016, 10:13:34 pm
...and Stu, that's just as baffling as a regime!

I'd be very surprised if you still thought that after giving it some time to sink in. I can't imagine someone being confused about whether they're training long or short endurance, or whether they are doing base training or quality work, in the same way they do with an/aero/cap/pow.

Muenchener

Offline
  • *****
  • Trusted Users
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2692
  • Karma: +117/-0
#35 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 05, 2016, 06:20:34 am
Well I'm confused about when to do them / how to mix them.

Although at the level I'm at "more of anything" will probably still make a difference.

Duncan campbell

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 764
  • Karma: +47/-2
#36 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 05, 2016, 07:40:03 am
Ah..... just read through this thread and what I need to do is damn well sit down and write something out for everyone to use as a resource to get these training intensities.

Crap! Ok.... For my help, could a few people describe what you're wanting and I'll put something together. Is it the intensities and feelings of the trainings? The amount of moves you'd want to do for each in total work blocks? Which one you'd want to work for lengths of routes/boulders?

I'll do my best to create something that's simple, brief and compliments the good work done by Alex so far.  :)

For me, having only briefly looked over all of these different ways of training fitness, its mainly how I should be feeling during the various sessions that I find tricky. I have seen it described somewhere in levels but I didn't feel too clear on what each level should feel like. 


petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
#37 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 05, 2016, 10:34:13 am
Pete; it sounds to me like you confuse "base" work with stamina work.

The point is to decouple the concept of base/quality phases from the actual skill being trained.


Could you briefly explain why it sounds to you like I confuse 'base' with stamina work?

If it helps, I understand 'stamina work' in a climbing context to mean the ability to give good quality close to max efforts on either routes or boulders, repeatedly throughout an extended training session or day at the crag.

I understand 'base' work to mean relatively* long duration of relatively low-intensity climbing (for routes) with relatively short rest time, or many boulder problems at a relatively low difficulty (e.g. onsight level and below) with relatively short rest time.

*relative to my 'short/long PE' and 'power' sessions.(your 'quality' phase)


petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
#38 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 05, 2016, 10:42:00 am
Another thought on the 'energy systems' model is it seems well-suited for fine-tuning the kind of fitness demanded on routes more typically found outside the UK, particularly in the harder grades.

UK sport routes seem to me to typically demand more of an emphasis on finger strength, power and short-to-mid duration PE. So AnPow and AeroPow in the model(?) - the systems people seem to be asking the most about how to train.

Tommy

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 814
  • Karma: +97/-1
#39 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 05, 2016, 11:03:56 am
Ok, I won't go through trying to convince people that training with energy systems to compliment basic strength and conditioning of the forearm, upper arm and major climbing specific muscles is the way... I can see why some people think it is and why others think it isn't! I see it, but then I've worked with a lot of people over many years, so I can't expect others to. There will always be some failures, some extreme successes, but mainly (I hope) more climbers out there that understand that hard work put in consistently in an intelligent way really does pay.

Right. Energy systems.

AeroCap

Feeling: You're aiming for anything from very "un-pumped" to "just about in control" and this will always vary according to time of the year and whether you're well adapted to this type of training.

Aim: Increase in blood supply network, improvement in metabolic function (production of ATP aerobically), increase usage of oxygen in muscle.

Typical mistakes: Spending too much time pumped, never altering intensities of AeroCap training, doing too much when in "peak phase", doing too much when AeroCap is already high.

AeroPower

Feeling: You're aiming for anything from very "pumped" to "pumped/powered out" and this will massively vary according to level of base training that was applied. The key of this is to work mainly around the "event distance" that's associated with your goals. Make it more and more specific the closer to get to the trip.

Aim: Increase the maximum % of your aerobic capacity that you can maintain for your event distance (10m, 25m, 50m!). A poor aerobic power will be that climber that can only operate aerobically when they're at a reasonably low intensity i.e. not too close (or above) to blood lactate threshold and typically what people would think of as being "I love those routes where I'm a bit uncomfortable and can shake my way up" rather than "I love it when I have to go full bore for 20 moves, with no rest but nothing desperately hard". Most people fail on this training as they're not prepared to focus on quality enough. It's fairly unpleasant training and needs to be right at the tip of what you can do.   

Typical mistakes: Not developing base AeroCap, not altering training sessions enough, not using "event distance" training in complete sets but also broken sets, not training on ground/terrain specific to goals, not working at high enough intensity. Mixing it with AnCap too late in the season is always a mistake as well.

I hope I've kept it reasonably simple and people find that useful  :)


Paul B

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 9626
  • Karma: +264/-4
#40 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 05, 2016, 11:53:31 am
(you might as well do the same for the ANs too  :shrug:)

submaximal gains

Offline
  • **
  • player
  • Posts: 108
  • Karma: +9/-0
#41 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 05, 2016, 07:26:45 pm
I have found the series of articles by Katherine Scchirmacher helpful in understanding training endurance; I think she does a very good job of relating the energy to systems to when she's using them and how that feels.

www.lovetoclimb.co.uk/rock_climbing_articles/13/Training%3A+Endurance
www.lovetoclimb.co.uk/rock_climbing_articles/17/Training%3A+Power+endurance

There's a complete list of all she's written here
www.lovetoclimb.co.uk/rock_climbing_articles/

Stu Littlefair

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1836
  • Karma: +283/-2
    • http://www.darkpeakimages.co.uk
#42 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 05, 2016, 07:36:09 pm
So.. possibly scale down cycling energy systems to something 'climbing scale' for the typical demands of an 15-25m 8b route.. or whatever. Suggests to me that a good deal of typical climbing doesn't require a great amount of base work to be done in training.

Hi Pete,

Your later definition of "base" shows that you do get it. It was the quote above that raised warning signs for me.

There's good reason to always do a good chunk of base training, regardless of the sport. The type of of sport you do would dictate the balance between long and short endurance, but not the division into base and the quality phases.

To be quite frank, these terms are just rebranding of Tom's methodology, with

An = short endurance
Aero = long endurance
Cap = base
Pow = quality.

The only reason I bothered to raise it, was that I thought these terms mapped more plainly into the type of exercises that would train them and therefore be easier to grasp. The response suggests that

a) this isn't true
b) the real problem people have self-applying toms methods are setting the level.

I am pretty damn convinced Tom's structure works well, but this thread is probably not the place to set out wonkish sports science arguments why.

Instead, and since we have Tom here and contributing; I'd be interested in whether he thinks the failure rate is a useful metric for setting the level for all these exercises. I'm thinking particular about circuits or laps on boulders. For example, consider the following scenarios:

"This is an aerocap exercise, so I'd better not get so pumped i fall off"

"This is an ancap exercise. I should succeed on most, but perhaps not all, efforts."

"This is an/aero pow exercise. I'd better be prepared to fail on most or all of my efforts and my eyes are going to be on stalks".

Stu Littlefair

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1836
  • Karma: +283/-2
    • http://www.darkpeakimages.co.uk
#43 Aeropow - setting the level?
April 05, 2016, 07:40:43 pm
I like Katherine's articles as well, but she often mixes up base/quality (cap/pow) exercises or ideas in there, which is not that useful.

My personal belief is that much of Tom's success comes from getting people to do the cap/pow style exercises in the right ratios and the right times. There's loads more to it of course, including tailoring training to goals and a very clever way of assessing weaknesses, but I think if most climbers could get the cap/pow thing that would be the thing that made the biggest difference to their climbing.

Tommy

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 814
  • Karma: +97/-1
#44 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 05, 2016, 11:03:29 pm

Instead, and since we have Tom here and contributing; I'd be interested in whether he thinks the failure rate is a useful metric for setting the level for all these exercises. I'm thinking particular about circuits or laps on boulders. For example, consider the following scenarios:

"This is an aerocap exercise, so I'd better not get so pumped i fall off"

"This is an ancap exercise. I should succeed on most, but perhaps not all, efforts."

"This is an/aero pow exercise. I'd better be prepared to fail on most or all of my efforts and my eyes are going to be on stalks".

There are some basic rules, but like anything where you can't see inside the engine/computer/black box (read human body) you have to take some factors into account. For example, a climber's current form will affect the feeling and also the history of training they have (short routes, long routes, bouldering) and finally to some extent the level to which they feel comfortable pushing the margins of physical exertion. I see a lot of boulderers being fairly poor at this.

Also, you absolutely have to keep coming back to the simple question:

What am I trying to change? What adaptation am I hoping occurs through this training I'm about to do?

1. AeroCap - no pump to pretty darn pumped. The key is "aerobic" and therefore if your rate of demand of energy (ATP) is too high on the climbing, then guess what.... you ain't working aerobically! Keep it light-to-moderate and break into sets however you want.

2. AnCap - power out. The key here is you're stressing the "anaerobic system" to produce as much lactate as possible. Not enough intensity = aerobic. Thus no stress of anaerobic system. Stress the anaerobic and don't give it any recovery time = get pumped, can't recover = subsequent sets have to be performed at lower intensity = going back to stress aerobic system.

3. AeroPow - pumped and powered out. You're asking the muscle to operate at max % of aerobic capacity for longer (generally). Don't stress the duration or the intensity = poor/no adaptation. Do too much at event distance (i.e. your 25m circuit) then you're again not that efficiently stressing the system. Do too much = more recovery time needed and can't focus on concurrently working strength/power/recruitment

4. AnPow - pumped and more powered out. You're asking the muscle to operate at max % of anaerobic capacity for longer (generally). If the intensity is too low = stressing aerobic system = poor adaptation. If rests are too short or work isn't put into workable blocks = high level of pump = climber has to lower intensity. Highly anaerobic work can only be carried out for a limited time... thus if your training session on this can go on for too long, you ain't working hard enough!

So to summarise.... keep thinking about what you want to achieve. Is the training stressing that thing? Are you sticking to the overload principal.

If in doubt, always ask Barrows or Stu. They cover every possible scenario - strong, tall, weak, short, handsome, not so handsome.  ;D

Fultonius

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4315
  • Karma: +138/-3
  • Was strong but crap, now weaker but better.
    • Photos
#45 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 06, 2016, 03:04:24 pm
That's helped clear things up Tommy, thanks.

Quote
3. AeroPow - pumped and powered out. You're asking the muscle to operate at max % of aerobic capacity for longer (generally). Don't stress the duration or the intensity = poor/no adaptation.

This was really my first question - how to nail the intensity. Just back from a TCA session - my forearms have just about loosened up enough to type.

It consisted of: general warm up.

Then, circuit board reps on the 15 degree board.

1. ~6b x 40 moves
2. 6c+/ x 37 moves(I originally o/s it without too much stress, but was medium pumped.
3. Same circuit but pausing every 5 moves to "place gear" / clip draws"
4. O/S attempt at a 40 move 7a+ fell off @ move 18
5. O/S attempt from move 18 to 40 ok
6. Full lap the 7a+ - needed to shake out at any poor rest going, pumped/powered out by end.
7. lap of another ~7a+ (one I onsighted a month ago but cannot lap due to some droppable moves which I'm going to change up for less droppable moves...)
8. 6c+ again
9. 6c+ again
10. 6c+ again

Rests were roughly equal to climbing time, the last 3 reps were a bit fighty at the end.


 
Quote
Do too much at event distance (i.e. your 25m circuit) then you're again not that efficiently stressing the system.


So you need to do some harder stuff @ 15m and some easier @ 35m?

Nibile

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 7991
  • Karma: +743/-4
  • Part Animal Part Machine
    • TOTOLORE
#46 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 08, 2016, 12:28:04 pm
I was about to ask a similar question.
In my case, I want to be able to climb for roughly two minutes in a roof. With getting the route wired it could easily go down to 1'45" or so, at least according to all the videos of repeats.
I've been working with 10' on 10' off, going up and down my campusboard with feet on the ground - as Stu and others suggested in another topic - achieving and then maintaining a good level of pump for the whole duration. It seems to me that this is pure AeroCap, or maybe the Base phase of aerobic training.
Then, more recently, I've done a few sessions on a 15 degrees campusboard with foot jibs, going up and down on good rungs, managing laps of 4'. I this is more AeroPow or the Quality phase. Am I right?

Question: considering that the event duration is 2', is the base phase still needed? Are the 10' laps still beneficial because they "teach" the muscles to work aerobically better than the 4' laps?
Cheers.

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#47 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 08, 2016, 12:31:59 pm

1. AeroCap - no pump to pretty darn pumped. The key is "aerobic" and therefore if your rate of demand of energy (ATP) is too high on the climbing, then guess what.... you ain't working aerobically! Keep it light-to-moderate and break into sets however you want.

2. AnCap - power out. The key here is you're stressing the "anaerobic system" to produce as much lactate as possible. Not enough intensity = aerobic. Thus no stress of anaerobic system. Stress the anaerobic and don't give it any recovery time = get pumped, can't recover = subsequent sets have to be performed at lower intensity = going back to stress aerobic system.

3. AeroPow - pumped and powered out. You're asking the muscle to operate at max % of aerobic capacity for longer (generally). Don't stress the duration or the intensity = poor/no adaptation. Do too much at event distance (i.e. your 25m circuit) then you're again not that efficiently stressing the system. Do too much = more recovery time needed and can't focus on concurrently working strength/power/recruitment

4. AnPow - pumped and more powered out. You're asking the muscle to operate at max % of anaerobic capacity for longer (generally). If the intensity is too low = stressing aerobic system = poor adaptation. If rests are too short or work isn't put into workable blocks = high level of pump = climber has to lower intensity. Highly anaerobic work can only be carried out for a limited time... thus if your training session on this can go on for too long, you ain't working hard enough!


This is the best/most useful explanation of these four terms I've read. Excellent.

monkoffunk

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 721
  • Karma: +60/-0
  • sponsored by 90% lindt and vitamin D
#48 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 08, 2016, 02:14:15 pm

This is the best/most useful explanation of these four terms I've read. Excellent.

Explain to me like I'm a two year old the difference between AnPow and AeroPow?

monkoffunk

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 721
  • Karma: +60/-0
  • sponsored by 90% lindt and vitamin D
#49 Re: Aeropow - setting the level?
April 08, 2016, 02:54:16 pm
Or tell me to bugger off and use my brain. I guess I thought I had a vague idea but not sure exactly what difference is between  pumped and powered out. You're asking the muscle to operate at max % of aerobic capacity for longer (generally) and - pumped and more powered out. You're asking the muscle to operate at max % of anaerobic capacity for longer (generally).

Edit: I thought it said anaerobic both times. Ignore me.

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal