I've always understood you go to flatline. So that makes it look like you went too far this time (you flatline at 28) and not long enough the previous time (you hadn't stopped at 23). An improvement from <23 to 28 also fits with what you say you've been training. Unfortunately I don't know how that fits with the further decline to 14 - I've found the same sometimes that I can crash further than the flatline (or where I *figure* the line should be based on results from surrounding sessions), but then other times I can maintain that line for a while.
Quote from: AJM on March 09, 2018, 01:12:46 pmI've always understood you go to flatline. So that makes it look like you went too far this time (you flatline at 28) and not long enough the previous time (you hadn't stopped at 23). An improvement from <23 to 28 also fits with what you say you've been training. Unfortunately I don't know how that fits with the further decline to 14 - I've found the same sometimes that I can crash further than the flatline (or where I *figure* the line should be based on results from surrounding sessions), but then other times I can maintain that line for a while.I was wondering the same and that the ancap score should be the 4/5 attempt? I'm not sure though. PeteJh yes it is 1:1 with work:rest.
Quote from: roddersm on March 09, 2018, 01:52:39 pmQuote from: AJM on March 09, 2018, 01:12:46 pmI've always understood you go to flatline. So that makes it look like you went too far this time (you flatline at 28) and not long enough the previous time (you hadn't stopped at 23). An improvement from <23 to 28 also fits with what you say you've been training. Unfortunately I don't know how that fits with the further decline to 14 - I've found the same sometimes that I can crash further than the flatline (or where I *figure* the line should be based on results from surrounding sessions), but then other times I can maintain that line for a while.I was wondering the same and that the ancap score should be the 4/5 attempt? I'm not sure though. PeteJh yes it is 1:1 with work:rest.4/5 the first time? If I were doing it on myself I'd have stopped then.A fast crash to a high AnCap score versus a long slow decline to a lower score fits with the training story being told. Which I realise could be slightly circular, but whenever I've self tested in the past I've found a curve which fits with my preconception of how it should look given what I've been doing, so in that respect I have reasonable faith in its predictive power.
In which case my ancap score goes from 21% to 28%.
Yes and perhaps the 5th score second time as it goes pretty flat at attempt 3, I think the criteria is something like less than 5% performance drop between the attempts. Not sure though.
the best test of finger strength vis-a-vis climbing performance is having an experienced coach looking at slow motion video of the climber on boulder problems at their maximal ability. Other than that he claims (with some back-up from data) that you should not allow people to dead hang edges in the open position when assessing strength as this is mostly a test of a) biomechanical advantage on that specific edge and b) tendon stretch. According to my source any test needs to be done with the fingers in an "active" position (filmed so that you can check in slo-mo on replay that the fingers are working actively).
I don't know - haven't we all realised that it's all nonsense and you'd be better off going climbing?This facebook group is full of over-trained outdoor-shy lattice fanboys willing to discuss at length all the intricacies of movement on banisters. You could ask your question there.
I'd be curious to know if anyone has gone in for a lattice assessment and refused to let the assessors know how hard they already climb - just said "if your data is that good, and your science meaningful, you tell me how good I am"? I would be curious to know if their data is truly predictive, or if they bias / fudge the analysis so that it fits what they know about the client.
That said, I would be up for the assessment (had toyed with the idea previously)
Quote from: moose on July 17, 2018, 07:24:26 pmThat said, I would be up for the assessment (had toyed with the idea previously)Lattice challenge, love it! Looking forward to the results!
Quote from: teestub on July 17, 2018, 08:53:18 pmQuote from: moose on July 17, 2018, 07:24:26 pmThat said, I would be up for the assessment (had toyed with the idea previously)Lattice challenge, love it! Looking forward to the results!Well, I had been wondering how I could make climbing, which I often find unreasonably grueling for a so-called leisure activity, even more like work. Then the answer came to me: add graphs and statistical metrics that can be a source of added disappointment and shame!
Quote from: moose on July 17, 2018, 04:45:37 pmI'd be curious to know if anyone has gone in for a lattice assessment and refused to let the assessors know how hard they already climb - just said "if your data is that good, and your science meaningful, you tell me how good I am"? I would be curious to know if their data is truly predictive, or if they bias / fudge the analysis so that it fits what they know about the client.Hmmmm... I'd be curious too! Tell you what, I like a challenge, I like my work and I care about doing quality science. I'll assess you for free, you don't tell me anything about you. Not your grades, nor your training/climbing history. I'd ask just your name, gender and age beforehand. I won't ask you any further questions on the day... I'll just collect data and observe you through our tests. I'll do a full assessment and tell you:Redpoint grade within 10 sessions (accurate to 1 grade)Onsight (accurate to 1 grade)Boulder grade within 10 sessions (accurate to 1 grade)The key weaknesses that hold you back from improving (we can ask your friends to adjudicate). If I get ANY of them wrong, you get my time for free. I get them ALL right, you pay your way. This could be a lot of fun!!
