[tomtom]

Cool. Serve me right for reading the posts too quick

[BicepsMou]

This study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6235814_Energy_system_contributions_in_indoor_rock_climbing
(…)

(…)

Actually, I'm mildly surprised at the contribution of the Aerobic system  in hard routes. I didn't expect it to be higher than the Alactic.
(…)

 

Was also puzzled by those claimed energy system contributions, until I realized I had looked at this the wrong way.
Not suggesting, you are making the same mistake, but am sharing my misunderstanding just in case others did :-)

The study is looking at energy system contribution via respiratory analysis, if I scanned this right. So this looks across ALL muscle groups / entire body, while from a climbers perspective we would obviously be most interested in the (most performance limiting) contribution of the finger flexors.

Finger flexors have very low absolute mass compared to the bigger muscle groups and thus will impact the analysis outcome only to a very small degree. Also the bigger muscle groups (legs, trunk…) will operate at probably lower average intensity levels and in a less sustained mode (having bigger chunks of time to recover) at least in most / average routes, as opposed to finger flexors.
So the probably more anaerobic lactic operation mode of the finger flexors gets ‘masked’ by the less intense and thus more aerobic operation mode of the other, bigger muscle groups.

Which makes sense if looking at like this: If I fall on a route, it is usually because my finger flexors surrender (either pumped out, powered out, or for bouldery routes not having enough max strength) or because I can’t do a certain move limited by other, bigger muscle groups - but then almost never pumped/powered out but rather not having enough max strength / power in those bigger muscles.

Hope this makes any sense.

[Oldmanmatt]

Not that I'm an expert but....absolutely what nibs said. If weight/fatloss is even remotely an issue and time is limited (as it is) then bouldering isn't even remotely a good way of achieving it.

Compound exercises and a 500 cal/d deficit. That's the most sensible long term plan for most people who aren't a million miles from target.

Short term, bigger deficits are available but they should be short term for all the hormone deficiencies and longer term rebound risks etc.

And fatter untrained people can clock up bigger, even much bigger, deficits before going catabolic because a unit of fat can be utilized by the body at a certain rate. Its not clear exactly what that rate is, but it sort of makes sense that there would be a limit. Think I've seen something quoted on Reddit saying either 22-31cals/lb/day. So if someone was hugely overweight then of course they could have a bigger deficit for longer. There's even a study reporting what happened to a fat bloke who didn't eat for a year. [spoiler]he leaned out[/spoiler]

Oh, and there's a ton of other factors too like how individuals react to exercise stimulus by compensating with wriggling less the rest of the day. Different people are different apparently. The ranger study really backs this up.

Basically track the food and be sensible. And for long term results don't go mad short term. But maybe not over Christmas

This is true and precisely how I operate. However, I generally have two types of client. The first are already very fit and strong, where my role is that of coach, bringing them on to a point often beyond my own ability (usually Parkour, MTB etc Athletes) and using quite "extreme" exercises (I usually do "Windscreen wipers" on the bar with 12kg strapped to my feet, some of these guys make that look easy. Muscle-ups with a 10kg vest? Ha! Warm-up!(JK)).
The second category consists of those who want to get fit/strong and lse weight. They are rarely the bored housewife but they are generally people who have tried the "FitnessFirstGold2000!" type of thing and found it a bit "meh".
Over the last couple of years, I/we have had great success utilising Body weight, Calisthenics and Bouldering to achieve their goals. One guy lost 6.2 Stone over an 11 month period, with an hour and a half of Calisthenics, three times a week; some limited CV work; generally upping activity (walk 10,000 steps/day etc) and climbing four times a week. In that particular case, he would be in climbing for 2-3hrs or more; usually starting off with 4x4's and then just having a ball.
The point being, once these guys get into climbing, they change their whole lifestyle around it; without realising it.
Now, what I'm wondering about here, is not if this is the "best and most efficient" method to lose weight; because that's well established and exactly what my clients are already running away from. However, I think I can see a potential to optimise Bouldering to better fit the goal.
So, possibly, instead of good'ol 4x4's; perhaps 3xlimit problems/5 min rest, repeat; or similar.
This assumes a problem that you can only just manage, approximates the 1RM of a resistance exercise. Note, I said approximates.

Now, generally the Calisthenics is tailored to Strength development over Hypertrophy or somewhere on the spectrum between, depending on the client. That means low reps, high resistance and long rests, so already a long way down the road I'm proposing...

I don't know and probably not explaining my thinking well (it's too nascent in my own mind). I'm pretty damn sure, though, that long term change needs a fundamental change in both attitude and body composition, so that's what I aim for. Not just losing fat, but building (enough) muscle, confidence and (even) a passion for exercise. That's much easier to achieve with Bouldering/Climbing than any machine or lump of iron.


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[Oldmanmatt]

This study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6235814_Energy_system_contributions_in_indoor_rock_climbing
(…)

(…)

Actually, I'm mildly surprised at the contribution of the Aerobic system  in hard routes. I didn't expect it to be higher than the Alactic.
(…)

 

Was also puzzled by those claimed energy system contributions, until I realized I had looked at this the wrong way.
Not suggesting, you are making the same mistake, but am sharing my misunderstanding just in case others did :-)

The study is looking at energy system contribution via respiratory analysis, if I scanned this right. So this looks across ALL muscle groups / entire body, while from a climbers perspective we would obviously be most interested in the (most performance limiting) contribution of the finger flexors.

Finger flexors have very low absolute mass compared to the bigger muscle groups and thus will impact the analysis outcome only to a very small degree. Also the bigger muscle groups (legs, trunk…) will operate at probably lower average intensity levels and in a less sustained mode (having bigger chunks of time to recover) at least in most / average routes, as opposed to finger flexors.
So the probably more anaerobic lactic operation mode of the finger flexors gets ‘masked’ by the less intense and thus more aerobic operation mode of the other, bigger muscle groups.

Which makes sense if looking at like this: If I fall on a route, it is usually because my finger flexors surrender (either pumped out, powered out, or for bouldery routes not having enough max strength) or because I can’t do a certain move limited by other, bigger muscle groups - but then almost never pumped/powered out but rather not having enough max strength / power in those bigger muscles.

Hope this makes any sense.

I reckon that sounds about right...


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[Murph]

Good post OMM, thanks. I feel like a bit of a Charlie now for spouting the bleedin' obvious!

Calisthenics for climbing - probably another separate thread, but I've always wondered how awesome a training plan that would be for someone who has been climbing for a while, has strong fingers, but is still pretty shit (as in, someone like me). Calisthenics plus fingerboard would make a good climber, no. Was it someone on this forum who once said "without strong fingers we would all just be shit gymnasts". Amen.

Anyway....

I usually do "Windscreen wipers" on the bar with 12kg strapped to my feet, some of these guys make that look easy

Ankle weights! Why don't I already have some!? And here I was wondering what to put on the Christmas list.

Nice one.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Oldmanmatt]

You end up walking like a duck.
Thus far I've only found 5kg max weights, so I use 3 sets at once (a 5 and two 1's on each leg).


With core stuff, for me, I aim for a balance between endurance and strength, so for these 3 sets of 10, with 2min between sets.


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[Nibile]

Nice one Matt, good display.
I was wondering though, if the same result couldn't be obtained in another way. I've read an interesting article on T-Nation, about absolutely avoiding flexion and torsion of the spine at the same time.
Seeing as it's almost impossible to avoid flexion at the lumbar spine, I was asking myself whether it wouldn't be better to just stick to front levers , ab-wheel or some other kind of single plane movement pattern, like planks for the obliques.

[Oldmanmatt]

I've certainly not experienced any negative effects, nor had any reported. But every core session for me:

A: incorporates shoulders.
B: begins with levers (actually salutations).
C: includes Weighted Dorsal raises (wall bar) and body levers, toe to bar etc.
D: Push away Flies (an advanced, weighted version of I,Y,T's).

And so on. I spend about 2.5-3hrs every Wednesday on my personal core training and an indeterminate amount of time demonstrating stuff during the rest of the week. So plenty of single plane stuff. I feel that wipers are more "realistic" (if that makes sense?) along with toe to bar. More akin to real climbing movements.
Core is also partially incorporated into my Monday sessions as that is spent (after Campusing and BM work) by spending a fair while under the 45*.
I think my obsession with a strong core is born out of my back injury though, which plagues me not a jot since I started to pay particular attention to core strength.

I might actually train almost as much as you, though not sure that's possible [emoji6]. I have a sneaking suspicion that the training is now more important to me than the climbing... Help![emoji15]

I've read similar articles, but not anything definitive; always keen to modify, so if you know of any?





All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[Nibile]

Ahahah, I'm afraid that's very possible! I just train at most one hour in the evening!
I wish I had the time to try all the different training routines that I'd like to do!

Anyway, cool that you don't have any drawback from that excercise, probably all the core training has put you in the position to bear that effort.
Not knowing anything specific, I'd simply sack the windscreen wipers for a couple of weeks, and see how things go, then maybe increase the levers and planks and check things again. Or simply leave everything as it is now, given that it's working well for you!

As for the training as an aim in itself... Welcome to the club. It's nice isn't it?

[duncan]

I've read an interesting article on T-Nation, about absolutely avoiding flexion and torsion of the spine at the same time.

Is it this one? In my fairly informed opinion it's almost entirely bollocks; opinion and pseudo-science masquerading as fact. It's a lot like the rationale given for never training crimps then wondering why you stuggle or get injured when forced to crimp. I'm instinctively suspicious of anyone that says NEVER do a particular movement or activity. If it's so bad for us why do we have evolved the capacity to do it?

Real world functional movements - including climbing - are almost always combined movements (a mixture of physiological movements e.g. flexion combined with rotation). If you are interested in improving real world function it makes sense to include combined movements in your training.

[Oldmanmatt]

I can see the merit of avoiding such motion in warm up, much like any static stretching (I don't like anything beyond "limbering up" through normal range of motion, myself, enough to get the synovial fluid flowing and no more). That's because I have been quite put off stretching in general, finding more spinal irritation from that than anything except sit-ups!

This meta started me looking into it:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/48/11/871.short

And lead me to another paper that stated as much as a 30% reduction  in strength from stretching prior to exercising, I can't find that paper now, thought it was in my library. I'll trawl the citations in the above.

Found this too, whilst searching:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/1/2.full.pdf?sid=5307c5fb-d3dd-4ade-8aeb-c8c1a10f9de8


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[Nibile]

Sorry guys, couldn't reply earlier.

No, that's not one of the articles that I've read, in any case as OMM said, it makes sense to avoid such a movement pattern in a warm up!
On the matter of specificity, or real world function, my experience is that the kind of core tension required for climbing is far more complex than the one that can be developed with front levers or windscreen wipers or even ab-wheel.
All these excercises train the ability of "pushing" yourself up against gravity, and do not place a serious effort on the legs.
In climbing on very overhanging terrain, this kind of ability - although crucial in terms of pure strength - is not enough, because the specific climbing effort requires that we stay rigid but actually pushing our body down on the footholds, rather than pushing it up against the rock.
So, down to the hips it's mostly the frontal part of the torso that bears the effort, but from the hips down, it's all the posterior chain, from erectors (that are involved in the levers anyway) to the glutes, hamstrings and calves.

I've been able to do front levers for quite a few years now, but only when I started climbing on my board and developing specific excercises involving the use of feet, my climbing core tension became better.
So, while all the excercises mentioned above are a strength prerequisite, in terms of climbing specific core tension they are not enough.
Or at least this is my experience.
I understand though that all these excercises are a bit addictive, especially if someone tends to be performance oriented in everything... It's hard for me not to try and get better and stronger on basically anything that I do for a training. For me almost every excercise could be an aim on its own. Unfortunately, this attitude collides with priorities.

[slackline]

Are you saying, in an occluded manner, that the best training for climbing is climbing then Nibile?

[Nibile]

The horror, the horror! 
Well, let's say that I say that the best training for climbing is... my board! 

No, really, the complexity of climbing is appalling.

[Oldmanmatt]

So, this thread wandered all over the shop, again. I hold my hand up for that, but it's all just too fascinating and too closely related to other equally fascinating thing and I just have so many questions and, and ...

But, in answer to the original topic and evidence aside, here's my anecdotal tale of what worked for me.

Said many times elsewhere, but repeating for context.
In 2013 I tore my right Supraspinatus (tendon rupture) and it put me OOA for the next two years. Even when I tried to come back after a year, I ballsed it up by going into it too hard and giving myself a tendinitis in the right Brachioradialis (I thought at the time it was Campusing that set it off, but later realised it was FB repeaters).

I got despondent, stopped climbing (or anything really), left all the PT work to staff and put on weight. Now I tell everybody that I got up to 86/88kg, that's not true. After Xmas 2015 I hit 92kg and panicked.
I'm supposed to be a Personal Trainer, FFS, but all I was was Billy three chins.

So, I took my own advice. The shoulder was much better and the tendinitis resolved, so no excuse bar the fear of failure.
This is what I did:

1: Downloaded and use the "My Fitness Pal" app and start to calorie restrict to 2300/day, paying attention to my Macro split. And that was it diet wise. Basically I ate normally and cut out extras, it's surprisingly difficult to actually eat as much as 2300 kcal.

2: Using my phone's pedometer, aim for 10,000 steps a day and ~20 floors climbed. Easy, walking the school run with the kids and 2km each way to work (~15min brisk) and getting back to active work.

Plan and execute a training program.

Mon:
 shoulder work, foot on campus, campus, FB campus, FB (I now do 3x3 pull ups on each hold, BM2000, started on the deep, now on the small edges, currently like this: 1set= 3x pull ups of 4 pads, front two, mid two, back two, middle mono (deep), index mono (attempt not done) ring mono. Then 3x3 pull ups on the 45's and then dead hangs on the (home made) 50* and (attempt not achieved) 55*. Then I spend ~1hr on the 45* board.
2.5-3hrs total.

Tues: rest/work maybe a board session if I feel the need/good.

Wed:
 Shoulder work. Then to the high bar, Salutations (un-weighted) 3x10. Wipers and toe to bar (weighted 12kg at ankles) 3x10. Then wall bar, Dorsal raises (12kg weight held at arms length), Body levers ( weighted 10kg at ankles). Rings, Push away Flies (weighted 23kg).
~2hrs.
Everything 3x10, basically.

Thurs:
Climbing day! Woo-hoo!
Early run to project (Dartmoor for me at the mo). Warm up problems (you can imagine) ~1hr of project work. I actually set a timer, 4 mins of attempts and 5 min rest. This usually leaves my skin trashed (and my arms).
Weighted walking (started with 6km/10kg/1hr/150mtr climb, built to 22km/20kg/4:38hrs/650mtr climb).
Rain screws the climbing part here, so I try to get to the board in the evening.

Fri:
Strength day.
Shoulder work.
One armers 3x3 each arm (started with assistance, now failing on the last one of the third set, no assistance. Still can't 1arm the BM square on, but I will).
Weighted Muscle ups. 4kg belt. 3x3.
Weighted Bachar ladder (1-5-8 insh Allah). 3x3.
Weighted push away lock offs on rings, 8kg. 3x10.
Weighted pull ups, wrecking ball, 8kg 3x4.
Weighted peg board. 8kg. 3xup the board.
Negative 1armers. 8kg belt 3x3. 6sec descent.
Negative Pull-ups 60kg, 3x3, similar descent.
Weighted press-ups, on the rings 30kg 3x10
Weighted FB Pull ups 4pad, 45's and the Lapis balls. 3x3 23kg.
Theraband shoulders to finish.

~3hrs.

Rest the weekend (which means MTB, Kayaking or God knows what with my kids).

So, obviously, I started that with everything un-weighted or assisted but essentially the same routine. Built it up over 4 week cycles, with a rest week at the end of each cycle and ~10% increase in resistance each cycle (not always, some things maxed out quite quickly).
Started in January 2016.
By September I was 74kg and back projecting 7C (and failing, still failing, but it begins to feel almost possible).
I have allowed an increase to 75.5kg over the winter, but this is to give me a reserve for an endurance race I expect to run in July (with a mock run in April). I'm running on 2660 kcal/day, plus extra to compensate for training. My weight is and has been steady for six months. I check my weight once a week, having calculated where it should be over the week. Same time, same day, same condition (post crap), never been more than 0.5kg out.

It works and the only CV components in there are the walking.


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[tomtom]

I found the myfitnesspal app good for calculating daily calorific intake.. and keep it (in my case) at 2.5k.

As it's a thread that wanders a Q to OMM or anyone.., I've been tracking my heart rate for the last two weeks with a reading every 4 min or something. Looking at the data what's notable is that despite doing a fair bit of gentle exercise every day (10k steps - mostly pram walking and pottering around the house) my max is 120-130bpm and resting around mid 60's. This is all fine, but I'm wondering if I need to do some more cardio. Something to give the old ticket a bit more of a work out a few times a week... I get this at the climbing wall or when climbing (don't wear the watch then) though...

[Oldmanmatt]

If you PM me an email I can send an interesting PowerPoint (or Keynote, if you're an Apple addict) on the subject.
But I wouldn't be overly concerned with a resting rate like that. Everything hinges around your Max Heart Rate, though so:


Which I find easiest to use.

In the middle of Squad training, so just a quick coffee stop. I can look at your post again later. [emoji3]

Edit:
Meant to say I'm guessing (not knowing your age) that the walking is taking you into the Aerobic zone?

All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[webbo]

220 minus your age is bollocks for working out your max heart rate. I could get over 200 in my early forties. My current max I think is somewhere in the 180's which would put me in my 30's which I haven't seen for over 20 years.

[fried]

So, an around about figure for calories burned for 1 hour (of average) bouldering (warm up, etc), no walk ins counted, would be about...?

[webbo]

About a third of a bottle of wine.

[Oldmanmatt]

220 minus your age is bollocks for working out your max heart rate. I could get over 200 in my early forties. My current max I think is somewhere in the 180's which would put me in my 30's which I haven't seen for over 20 years.

It's not the max you can achieve, it's the recommended max for a typical person (moderately fit) of your age, that is considered safe for training purposes. You might be much fitter than this if you perform a great deal of aerobic exercise. However, a higher rate increases the risk of things going wrong...

Edit:
Sorry, that was too brief.
It's also the simplest method for most people. I think 211-( 0.64xage) is "more" accurate (and better across genders), but still has huge variations across a population. The only truly accurate method is individual measurement in a controlled and monitored environment.
The Karvonen is a blunt tool, but it does the job safely. Put it this way, I would be required to stop/slow a client if their rate reached the predicted max, whilst exercising. I can't see much justification and a fair amount of risk, actually  Stress testing a client. What people do on their own, mind you, is a different kettle of pilchards...

All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[fried]

About a third of a bottle of wine.

That's what I feared!

[webbo]

220 minus your age is bollocks for working out your max heart rate. I could get over 200 in my early forties. My current max I think is somewhere in the 180's which would put me in my 30's which I haven't seen for over 20 years.

It's not the max you can achieve, it's the recommended max for a typical person (moderately fit) of your age, that is considered safe for training purposes. You might be much fitter than this if you perform a great deal of aerobic exercise. However, a higher rate increases the risk of things going wrong...


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

So all those athletes doing high level intervals are at risk, I guess nobody told Chris Hoy to take it steady doing his intervals on the turbo. With a mattress to fall on to and a bucket to be sick in. I think you need to show some evidence that pushing yourself to your aerobic limits is riskier than just pushing it a bit.

[Oldmanmatt]

220 minus your age is bollocks for working out your max heart rate. I could get over 200 in my early forties. My current max I think is somewhere in the 180's which would put me in my 30's which I haven't seen for over 20 years.

It's not the max you can achieve, it's the recommended max for a typical person (moderately fit) of your age, that is considered safe for training purposes. You might be much fitter than this if you perform a great deal of aerobic exercise. However, a higher rate increases the risk of things going wrong...


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

So all those athletes doing high level intervals are at risk, I guess nobody told Chris Hoy to take it steady doing his intervals on the turbo. With a mattress to fall on to and a bucket to be sick in. I think you need to show some evidence that pushing yourself to your aerobic limits is riskier than just pushing it a bit.

No.
That's your choice.
I wouldn't stop you, but can you not understand why as a PT, I would not "recommend" it to a client?
I push myself all the time, often until I literally collapse or require help to move. That's a whole other game, though.
However, Tom asked about an occasional "boost" and general CV health, not Olympic training protocols!


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[webbo]

Tom's idea of aerobic excercise is having a manual rather than automatic gear box.