[mctrials23]

I was just reading a few fingerboarding articles and they all (unsurprisingly) claim to be a really good way to train your fingers. They will explain why you should do it in the given manner and why you perhaps shouldn't do it another way.

So, to those of you who have tried various types, what was the one you saw the best gains in pure finger strength from. I'm not bothered about stamina, just pure strength.

Personally I have never recorded enough info or completed enough consecutive months of any plan to give a strong opinion. At the moment and for the past few months I have been going back and forth between a rough version of the CWP one arm hangs with a pulley to take weight off and a super simple "hang for ~8-10s on the small BM2000 edge with as much weight added as you can.

It seems to be working but I wondered if others had a different view. The plans that advocate more time under load with less load seem attractive if they work.

[Probes]

5 on 5's  (5 sec hang, 5 sec rest x5 for 5 sets with a good 4 or 5 min rest between sets @ 80-90% of 1 rep max) for about 6 weeks with a max hang session every couple of weeks.
If you flat line with them go onto the typical 7:3 x6 protocol for a block (6 weeks) keeping the max hang every fortnight up. Then back again to 5 on 5's.

[Tommy]

From my point of view as a trainer/coach/climber then it's fairly simple.... there is no "best" method. The reality is that each person will respond to different types of protocol depending on their training history, their lifestyle, their workload, their morphology etc etc. It'll also massively depends on what change you're looking to make "strength" is not just "strength."

In my opinion the best thing is periodising your fingerboarding through the year according to your objectives and the above factors mentioned and keep cycling things around. You won't find a secret magic method I'm afraid but you will find lots of effective ones!

Heavy 5-10 hangs are great, as are repeaters, as are heavy pulls on bigger edges, as are 1-3 sec recruitment hangs as are negative releases.... just use them like a big bag of tricks and never get too stuck on one approach 

[mctrials23]

Cheers for the replies. The one thing that I always took as gospel was that you should change up your fingerboarding when you start to stagnate.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

This is a great thread topic.

To the OP, I take your post as an open question to other users about what they feel has helped most, rather than particularly requesting advice about what is best. Is that a summary?

Of course, a lot of people will feel there is no one "best" protocol, but I can imagine that a lot of people have a favourite routine which they feel is most dependable for good results.

Would be great to hear what feedback other people give.

I'm injured at the moment. Will think about what I find effective and get back.

+1 for the thread. 

[Andy W]

Yes interesting anecdotal thread. I've recently been using two beast makers on either side of a beam and doing dynamic sequences of 12 to 16 moves on as small holds as i can manage. So I've kind of got a basic, contact strength biased project. This corresponds to not having a board and having projects that are 10 moves plus.

Weirdly this seems to be working, I think it must be addressing some weaknesses. I'm also doing three sets of frenchies, its quite possible this is working as well.

I've been climbing years! and tried many 'writing everything down' routines, the random approach or as a previous reply suggests keep it varied seems to work.

[dave]

Basically if you're having to try fucking hard then it'll be doing you good. SCIENCE.

[Andy W]

Basically if you're having to try fucking hard then it'll be doing you good. SCIENCE.

more or less yes... but good form is also very important and not trying so hard that you bust things!

[moose]

I started out using a "Beastmaker" regime of 7/3s repeaters and never really felt it was benefiting me - the sheer number of hangs made me satisfyingly tired, but it knackered my elbows and any gains in terms of performance on rock were not readily apparent.  I also found it just too "fiddly".   Trying to get the right intensity needed a lot of experimenting with grips, and whilst doing the routine, having to remember how many fingers I was allowed to use in which pocket etc.  And, with such a hectic routine it was a pain to adjust the added weight between sets.

I changed it up to a Lopez style programme - with a base of heavily weighted hangs off a decent size edge - 10s hangs, 2-3 mins apart, using the maximum added weight I could hang fully refreshed for 12-13s (recalibrating every few weeks).  Worked much better for me - in terms of results and being able to stick to the routine - a short, fairly unonerous with nice long breaks for reading / doing the crossword!  Meant I had no trouble pursuading myself to squeeze in a couple of sessions a week, even when work was hectic.  Appreciable gains too - felt properly bionic after a few months, ticked off a few targets late last season, and started this route season well.

I stopped fingerboarding this spring as the routes season got going.  Currently starting fingerboarding again using the 5x5x5 routine Probes recommended.  I have also rigged up some pulleys to start assisted one-arm work........ starting to feel stronger but can't tell how it is translating to rock as shitty humid Kilnsey conditions are the main factor affecting my form at the moment.

[Doylo]

I started out using a "Beastmaker" regime of 7/3s repeaters and never really felt it was benefiting me - the sheer number of hangs made me satisfyingly tired, but it knackered my elbows and any gains in terms of performance on rock were not readily apparent.  I also found it just too "fiddly".   Trying to get the right intensity needed a lot of experimenting with grips, and whilst doing the routine, having to remember how many fingers I was allowed to use in which pocket etc.  And, with such a hectic routine it was a pain to adjust the added weight between sets.

I changed it up to a Lopez style programme - with a base of heavily weighted hangs off a decent size edge - 10s hangs, 2-3 mins apart, using the maximum added weight I could hang fully refreshed for 12-13s (recalibrating every few weeks).  Worked much better for me - in terms of results and being able to stick to the routine - a short, fairly unonerous with nice long breaks for reading / doing the crossword!  Meant I had no trouble pursuading myself to squeeze in a couple of sessions a week, even when work was hectic.  Appreciable gains too - felt properly bionic after a few months, ticked off a few targets late last season, and started this route season well.

I stopped fingerboarding this spring as the routes season got going.  Currently starting fingerboarding again using the 5x5x5 routine Probes recommended.  I have also rigged up some pulleys to start assisted one-arm work........ starting to feel stronger but can't tell how it is translating to rock as shitty humid Kilnsey conditions are the main factor affecting my form at the moment.

Did you just keep adding weight for the max hangs for months or did you stick around the same weight?

[masonwoods101]

I struggle to stick to regimes on a fboard... Just do 5 seconds on 5 seconds off for 35 seconds and then rest for the rest of the minuite for 5 mins with weight on as a 'finnisher' after a board session. Dont even know what that focuses on but it tires me out without ruining skin. Should probably work on different grip types other than 4 finger half crimp but it always feels tweaky...

[moose]

Did you just keep adding weight for the max hangs for months or did you stick around the same weight?

I recalibrated my "max"every week or so to make sure was maintaining the same relative intensity.  Every month changed holds - cycled through 18, 14, 12 mm edges (any smaller and skin became a bit of an issue).  Not sure if that was necessary (supposedly bigger loads on better holds give better results than less mass on smaller holds - something to do with recruitment?) but I felt like a smidgen of variety.

[Paul B]

Interestingly Eva Lopez has done another study looking at comparing methods. I haven't yet seen it in full but max hangs seemed to be the winner. However, I've no clue if for instance she used weighted hangs as the means of recording the improvement (as was done previously). She's put some screenshots on Facebook from a recent presentation.

[jwi]

The two main conclusions lead us to suggest the following practical applications about hangboard periodization:
1- When the goal is developing strength and our training plan is short (about 8 weeks) Max Hangs is more effective than intermittent dead hangs (repeaters)..
2- When a training plan is more that 8 weeks long, or we want to avoid "accommodation" with advanced athletes, sequencing both methods can potentially yield better strength outcomes by adding the effects of hypertrophy on top of the neural effects from maximal loads...
3- We could even combine both programs in different ways during a cycle or at different stages of an athlete's career to optimize grip strength development...but remember, please:
The effectiveness -and adequacy- of your periodization or how you should combine both methods, will depend on our goals, climbing level and training in climbing/finger strength experience.

For instance:
- if you are a low strength climber and you have more than 16 years, several cycles of unweighted max hangs would be effective for you,
- or if you are an advanced climber with experience in unweighted dead hangs and older than 18 years, you could do weighted max hangs (or weighted and then unweighted on the minimum edge) until you feel that you don't improve anymore, then you could start use repeaters (the method used in this study was 3-5 x 4-5 x 10":5"/1')...

- or you might to do 8 weeks of max hangs and then 8 or 16 weeks of repeaters and then returning max hang again...

From the presentation it's quite clear that by max hangs she means first added weight than subtracted edge depth.

I've tried cycling max hangs & repeaters (not with then 10":5" protocol, rather a 7":4" protocol—not that I think it matters) on my test subject (mrs Jwi) and I'm very sceptical that it is better than cycling 15-20" hangs, 10-13" hangs and 7-8" hangs (for my subject: a woman with amazing amount of endurance and astonishingly weak fingers that climbs more than she trains).

From intensive testing my other test subject, myself, I can report that regardless of training protocol on any time frame using any periodisation there will be no improvement of finger strength ever.

[tomtom]

Moose - quick Q, how many repeats of your 10s Max hangs do you do a session? A prescribed number or until failure/boredom?

[tomtom]

Good topic this btw.

[Nibile]

In terms of pure finger strength, the best thing I've done, apart from starting fingerboarding two weeks after touching rock for the first time and never stopping doing it, is max hangs.
As soon as I started cutting my sessions volume, I started gaining.
There are so many variables, from normal two handed hangs, to one armers, from reducing the size of the hold to adding weight, and mixing everything with prehensions.
As of late I've found great benefits in my crimp sessions. Part of them on the BM (although I won't keep doing it because my index fingers hurt a bit), and part on the system with one foot and added weight. This last routine is fantastic because it involves at the same time finger and full body strength, adding benefits to benefits.

[moose]

Moose - quick Q, how many repeats of your 10s Max hangs do you do a session? A prescribed number or until failure/boredom?

I do 3 hangs gradually adding weight, then aim for 5-6 at max load. But my enthusiasm usually gets the better of me and I add another  set of 5-6 hangs, usually on a smaller hold with less weight. Iirc the Lopez programme recommends less hangs - just 4-5 at max load. In any event, even with a dessert course,  it's a short and intermittent routine that suits my dodgy elbows and often being too mentally / physically tired to punish myself much after work.

Of course, YMMV, I'm a punter by by standards of many on this board so it's hardly like my example is worth taking too seriously.

[nai]

After I failed to be disciplined enough to stick to Lopez weights and hang times (knowing that I could hang heavier for a shorter duration) I experimented last year with a 5 hang pyramid of 10s, 8s, 6s, 8s, 10s. So something like 10s at 90%, 8s at 95%, 6s at 100%.  I found it quite effective, made some decent gains over 12 sessions and for those who need to see progress every session or so.

The other thing that's worked for me is 4 rep repeaters, 6on, 4off.  About 6 sets.  For strength gains (and injury prevention) keeping it short and intense is the way.  Like with 5on, 5off that's worked so well for a few folk, I'm wondering if 20-25s is a kind of sweet spot for work time?  If you were doing a 10 rep set of weights at your maximum that's probably the sort of time you'd be looking at isn't it?

Before a max hangs block I'd always precede it with a block of repeaters/volume work in some form. 

Do like Nib's idea of one arm locks/hangs on a system board, should be really good for strengthening the shoulder in an effective way without faffing pulleys and loads of counter weight.

[Stu Littlefair]

I know this is an anecdotal thread, but those seeing a clear preference for max hangs should beware of post hoc ergo procter hoc*.

If you do a month of repeaters and a month of max hangs you might see massive improvement during the max hangs but that *may* be due to the hypertrophy ground work you put in during the repeater phase. My personal preference - based on over interpreting pseudo science and anecdote - is for cycling phases of low intensity (e.g repeaters) with slightly shorter phases of ~10 seconds max hangs.

*yes I did just write that in Latin to be a twat. Obsessive west wing watchers, logicians and Latin scholars won't have to Google, and that's my core audience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nibile]

It makes sense. I think that current gains have lots to do with the idiotic, useless and obsessive volume of training I've done over the years.
Edited for clarity.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

I know this is an anecdotal thread, but those seeing a clear preference for max hangs should beware of post hoc ergo procter hoc*.

If you do a month of repeaters and a month of max hangs you might see massive improvement during the max hangs but that *may* be due to the hypertrophy ground work you put in during the repeater phase. My personal preference - based on over interpreting pseudo science and anecdote - is for cycling phases of low intensity (e.g repeaters) with slightly shorter phases of ~10 seconds max hangs.

*yes I did just write that in Latin to be a twat. Obsessive west wing watchers, logicians and Latin scholars won't have to Google, and that's my core audience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, but this is a bit "post Hock" ..hic..

"Max hangs" can be a bit of a conundrum, but it seems to equate to "to failure", which can be hard to judge and quantify.

I think it's important to be able to quantify things in context, such as "max weight for a given hang of 12 seconds duration". You know what 12 seconds is, so then you find the max weight you can hang - total of body weight + added.

A great short protocol I've found, utilises increased added weight to increase the amount of load I can apply.

This is how it works.

I start with no added weight - we're talking two hands here - gradually increasing weight, up to about the 12 seconds load max. Each set consists of 2 or 3 hangs @ 8 seconds, with fairly short (< 1 minute) rests between. Longer rests, up to ~3 minutes between sets.

Crucially, each hang involves a high level of "crush" - i.e. try to apply the maximum level of output force to the holds whilst completing the 8 second hang with a little to spare. In other words, the added weight doesn't dictate the load, but works as a pre-load, with the time as a guide, to help judge how hard to pull on the edges.

With each set, increase the added weight, thereby increasing the amount of force you can exert, up to your 12 second maximum load. Ideally, the last set will be something like 3 @ 8 seconds at 12 second load weight, but again, each rep involves "crushing" ,  applying near the highest level of force you can, whilst still just about completing the 3 reps.

What I've found this does, is to emphasise "output" rather than "failure".

With experience, you can gauge the level of intensity so that you're starting to drop off at the end of the last set.

Hope that makes some sense!

Injured at the moment though .- not from FB or climbing.

Good thread this.

[moose]

I know this is an anecdotal thread, but those seeing a clear preference for max hangs should beware of post hoc ergo procter hoc*.

True - correlation is not causation.  Although, I doubt a base of repeaters was of any benefit in my own case, as I abandoned that regimen very quickly.  I am certain a max hangs approach was the direct cause of my recent gains; the question is, would another regimen have produced better gains?  Impossible to know without an identical twin being available!

I suspect Dave's point about any routine that makes you try hard, consistently is good.  And, for me, that is more of an interest  / attention span matter.  I often work until late and get home tired and hungry and want nothing more than to collapse on the sofa, watch telly and eat.  In that kind of mood I find it easier to motivate myself for a brief, simple but high load session ("it'll soon be over"), than a longer session that takes more concentration.  Maybe a repeaters based routine would be more beneficial than more max strength work (I reckon I have more of a power-stamina decifit than a lack of pure finger strength) but I know deep-down that I would not keep it up.  Max hangs might prove to be a more indirect means of achieving my aims... but at least I'm likely to keep on that road (rather than stopping off at the training equivalent of a Little Chef!).

[Paul B]

From the presentation it's quite clear that by max hangs she means first added weight than subtracted edge depth.

I was more getting at during the last study, where MAW followed by MED was compared with MED followed by MAW, MAW was used as the indicator of improvement; if the same has been applied during the recent study then I wouldn't find it surprising for the group carrying out a distinctly similar type of training to outperform those for instance following a MED protocol. However, as I said, I haven't (as of yet) read anything beyond the 'headlines'.

[mctrials23]

Rotating between a 2 arm max hangs with weight added on a small hold and the CWP program I am really interested to see how I do when I come back to either program after completing the other one.

I wonder if I will see an improvement over the end of the previous period when I start it again. There should be ~4 weeks between cycles of the two.