UKBouldering.com

the shizzle => diet, training and injuries => Topic started by: petejh on January 16, 2017, 04:58:37 pm

Title: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on January 16, 2017, 04:58:37 pm
More and more walls are putting up latticeboards for training on, and clearly they're a useful tool both for training and benchmarking different aspects of forearm fitness.

So, what do people think are the most effective ways to use the latticeboard, and what training or benchmarking protocols do they follow?

I assume the original designer has a financial interest in keeping their testing protocol to themselves but I doubt this will be possible in the longer-term. A comparison could be made with when campus boards started to become more widespread.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: submaximal gains on January 16, 2017, 05:39:42 pm
You test yourself by seeing how many moves you can do, going round and round until you fall off.

I don't think the testing protocols are what gives Latice training an advantage, rather it is having the data on very many climbers with different abilities that allows them to identify a client's strengths and weakesses and then develop a training plan.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Kingy on January 16, 2017, 05:50:52 pm
It has been questioned in a separate thread how accurate the data will be given that different climbers will have had different degrees of practice before taking the test. Even basic exercises have a large technique component that can be learned with repetition (e.g. campusing is easier the more you do it due to you getting accustomed to the exercise). To be truly scientific, I would say that all climbers tested should be doing the lattice test for the first time (impossible?)
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: haydn jones on January 16, 2017, 06:10:10 pm
You test yourself by seeing how many moves you can do, going round and round until you fall off.

Actually thats just  a small part of the test.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: nai on January 16, 2017, 06:11:15 pm
I thought the assessment method and different ways to use the board was pinned to it at the Foundry?

I assume the original designer has a financial interest in keeping their testing protocol to themselves but I doubt this will be possible in the longer-term

Or make the method public so that more people that test themselves and send in their data along with their vital stats; the larger the database grows then the more useful it becomes?
Plus they'll likely pick up a few clients from self assessments who maybe can't afford the assessment but fancy a training plan.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Tommy on January 16, 2017, 06:22:40 pm
More and more walls are putting up latticeboards for training on, and clearly they're a useful tool both for training and benchmarking different aspects of forearm fitness.

So, what do people think are the most effective ways to use the latticeboard, and what training or benchmarking protocols do they follow?

I assume the original designer has a financial interest in keeping their testing protocol to themselves but I doubt this will be possible in the longer-term. A comparison could be made with when campus boards started to become more widespread.

Hi Pete, if you just go and ask one of the coaches at the wall that's near you that has one I'm sure they'll show you what's involved. Also we're putting together some training sheets for customers that everyone at the centre can use to train on the board and benchmark their own ability against the various energy systems.

As you can imagine I try to keep climbers, wall owners, assessors and current clients happy and it's always a tricky balance :-)
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on January 16, 2017, 07:03:57 pm
I thought the assessment method and different ways to use the board was pinned to it at the Foundry?

That would be the obvious thing to do, but there isn't any info with the one at my local wall (Boardroom).
It seems odd to have an item of training equipment occupying a large part of the training room which nobody I've spoken to (except Luke to some extent) knows how to use in the way it's intended for - i.e. benchmark forearm fitness against ancap, aeropow, aerocap. No doubt information will spread over time but currently it's all a bit vague and rumour-mill.

Tommy - I'll ask for the lowdown on the timings/protocol etc. from one of the staff next time I'm there. The signs on the wall about paying a member of staff for an assessment lead me to think they may not give out that info freely though.


Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Tommy on January 16, 2017, 07:17:16 pm
Hi Pete, ah ok Boardroom is your one. Speak to Freddie and please feel free to let him know I said to give him a shout! He's done quite a few assessments and he has my number so can call me if he's at all unsure about anything.

We're working on all this stuff 7 days a week (I promise you... we're knackered! :-).....) and it's very much the intention to have a better and better resources available next to the boards. For example I'm down at the Foundry on Wed with Ollie Torr making up training sheets & photos for some sessions.

At the moment, we're reliant on the coaches we've trained up to be helpful and friendly to climbers in the wall.

Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: nai on January 16, 2017, 07:24:42 pm
Tom, am I imagining it, the How-to document is on the one at the Foundry isn't it??

I'm down at the Foundry on Wed with Ollie Torr making up training sheets & photos for some sessions.

Does that mean the board isn't available on Wednesday?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on January 16, 2017, 07:33:15 pm
Hi Pete, ah ok Boardroom is your one. Speak to Freddie and please feel free to let him know I said to give him a shout! He's done quite a few assessments and he has my number so can call me if he's at all unsure about anything.

We're working on all this stuff 7 days a week (I promise you... we're knackered! :-).....) and it's very much the intention to have a better and better resources available next to the boards. For example I'm down at the Foundry on Wed with Ollie Torr making up training sheets & photos for some sessions.

At the moment, we're reliant on the coaches we've trained up to be helpful and friendly to climbers in the wall.

Cool, I know Freddie and will ask him. BTW I'm not suggesting any staff at boardroom haven't been helpful or forthcoming, they all seem a good bunch - just that the impression the signage gives is that the lattice board benchmarking/training protocol is something that needs to be paid for to have access to.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: duncan on January 16, 2017, 08:21:02 pm
It has been questioned in a separate thread how accurate the data will be given that different climbers will have had different degrees of practice before taking the test. Even basic exercises have a large technique component that can be learned with repetition (e.g. campusing is easier the more you do it due to you getting accustomed to the exercise). To be truly scientific, I would say that all climbers tested should be doing the lattice test for the first time (impossible?)

I missed that thread, this is a good question to ask but the wrong solution. With a subject naive on first test, s/he will always do better second time due to test familiarity and improvement in technique. The better solution (scientifically) is to ensure the subject is well-practiced before the first test so any difference at test two or three is due to physiological change. I'll let Tom decide if this is practical or not!
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Luke Owens on January 16, 2017, 09:26:21 pm
Also we're putting together some training sheets for customers that everyone at the centre can use to train on the board and benchmark their own ability against the various energy systems.

That's good to hear, I've seen countless people at the Boardroom staring up at the Lattice board bewildered.

Will information on "x" amount of moves relates to redpointing/onsight "x" grade be included Tom? Or is that exclusive to doing an assesment?

Cheers
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: slackline on January 16, 2017, 09:44:37 pm
Will information on "x" amount of moves relates to redpointing/onsight "x" grade be included Tom? Or is that exclusive to doing an assesment?

I hope it contains not just a point estimate of the predicted value but also a confidence interval.  :geek:
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Tommy on January 17, 2017, 10:51:34 am


I missed that thread, this is a good question to ask but the wrong solution. With a subject naive on first test, s/he will always do better second time due to test familiarity and improvement in technique. The better solution (scientifically) is to ensure the subject is well-practiced before the first test so any difference at test two or three is due to physiological change. I'll let Tom decide if this is practical or not!

[/quote]

Quite correct - we allow time and give coaching within the assessment to give the climber the best method and sequence for climbing on the board. We want to eliminate as much learning and technical inefficiency as possible, so people always get plenty of practice... they're also welcome to use the board before their assessment. It's not perfect, but it's the most practical way for us to reduce the problem. Like many forms of testing in sports science, there's an adaption to the exercise that's learnt and most good studies will do something to deal with this. The other thing that you rarely see in the papers is decent research (with bigger cohorts) on elite athletes... that's something that I'm really psyched that we've managed to tap into. I often assumed that performance profiles would have "something special" to them for the top end (those who we all aspire to) but they're actually boringly similar to all of us... just a bit better in all areas!

Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Tommy on January 17, 2017, 10:52:38 am

[/quote]

Does that mean the board isn't available on Wednesday?
[/quote]

You're very welcome to it. We're just doing some development stuff. Come and say hi :-)

Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Tommy on January 17, 2017, 10:53:37 am

[/quote]

I hope it contains not just a point estimate of the predicted value but also a confidence interval.  :geek:
[/quote]

Oh yes. That's why we brought Remus on board. He's the stats pro ;-)

Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: slackline on January 17, 2017, 10:55:03 am
Oh yes. That's why we brought Remus on board. He's the stats pro ;-)

I wondered who you'd got after I never heard from you again.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: standard on January 17, 2017, 11:22:13 am
 :popcorn:
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Luke Owens on January 17, 2017, 11:58:55 am
Oh yes. That's why we brought Remus on board. He's the stats pro ;-)

I wondered who you'd got after I never heard from you again.

 :boohoo:
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: slackline on January 17, 2017, 01:25:56 pm
:boohoo:

Its not a case of "Boo Hoo" that the emoticon you've used implies Luke. I don't have the time or inclination to jack in my moderately well paid job with lots of holiday nor "spare" time to spend  working on projects, especially when my skillset didn't match what was being sought.  Tom had messaged me through the boards, mistakenly thinking I've web-development skills, I'd taken the time to reply and explained that I wasn't and pointed him to a few other members who I thought might be able to help.  It doesn't take long to message but I never heard a thing back.  I can assure you I didn't lose any sleep over it though.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Mark Lloyd on January 17, 2017, 01:30:05 pm

Come and say hi :-)
[/quote]
Hi, Tom, I  was wondering how the zlagboard competition maximum hang time on an edge (20mm ?) relates to the lattice board endurance testing ?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: nai on January 17, 2017, 02:41:01 pm

Quote

Does that mean the board isn't available on Wednesday?

You're very welcome to it. We're just doing some development stuff. Come and say hi :-)

Managed to get down today in the end, I'll be resting tomorrow now so won't be getting in your way :wave:
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Johnny Brown on January 17, 2017, 02:43:43 pm
Hi, Tom, I  was wondering how the zlagboard competition maximum hang time on an edge (20mm ?) relates to the lattice board endurance testing ?

Hi, Tom, I was wondering how lattice board endurance testing relates to rock climbing ability?

PS have you tested Cubitt? Back when I was at Uni (97ish), a couple of mates were on the UK comp team and the team trainer at the time had them do a foot-on campus session to failure which sounds very similar to the lattice board. With a bit of competitiveness various members of the team pushed the time to three and then four minutes, each exploding off with forearms like piglets. Then Cubitt stepped up. After fifteen minutes he asked if he could get down as he wasn't getting pumped and didn't see the point.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: 36chambers on January 17, 2017, 03:01:11 pm
Hi, Tom, I  was wondering how the zlagboard competition maximum hang time on an edge (20mm ?) relates to the lattice board endurance testing ?

Hi, Tom, I was wondering how lattice board endurance testing relates to rock climbing ability?

PS have you tested Cubitt? Back when I was at Uni (97ish), a couple of mates were on the UK comp team and the team trainer at the time had them do a foot-on campus session to failure which sounds very similar to the lattice board. With a bit of competitiveness various members of the team pushed the time to three and then four minutes, each exploding off with forearms like piglets. Then Cubitt stepped up. After fifteen minutes he asked if he could get down as he wasn't getting pumped and didn't see the point.

was he wearing a knee pad?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on January 17, 2017, 03:43:25 pm
Hi, Tom, I was wondering how lattice board endurance testing relates to rock climbing ability?


I read somewhere that it's something like:
30 moves = forearm fitness to redpoint 7b,
40 = 7c
50 = 8a
70 = 8b
100 = 8c
etc..

Or
30 to 200 moves = no correlation in ability to climb grit or slate slabs.
etc..
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Muenchener on January 17, 2017, 03:57:53 pm
PS have you tested Cubitt? Back when I was at Uni (97ish), a couple of mates were on the UK comp team and the team trainer at the time had them do a foot-on campus session to failure which sounds very similar to the lattice board. With a bit of competitiveness various members of the team pushed the time to three and then four minutes, each exploding off with forearms like piglets. Then Cubitt stepped up. After fifteen minutes he asked if he could get down as he wasn't getting pumped and didn't see the point.

Reminds me of one evening at Broughton some time in the early 90s. I arrived, Tony Ryan was cruising around looking relaxed on the steep bit. I got changed, did my warm ups, started work on some projects ... noticed that about 30 to 40 minutes had passed, and Tony Ryan was still cruising around looking relaxed on the steep bit.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: BicepsMou on January 17, 2017, 04:38:07 pm
Hi, Tom, I  was wondering how the zlagboard competition maximum hang time on an edge (20mm ?) relates to the lattice board endurance testing ?

Yes, that’d be very interesting to compare.

However I assume that we are looking at two different energy systems via these two tests:

Lattice board is about aerobic endurance. The intermittent protocol lets the forearm muscles get access to oxygen. So the limiting factors are how much oxygen gets thru (capillary density) and to what degree the muscles can use it (mitochondria density, enzymes…).

Sustained hangs on 20mm edge will have the blood flow more or less occluded (for most of us mortals, almost completely occluded. And even for Megos this represents 33% of his MVC). So I’d guess that this is less about aerobic endurance and more about anaerobic lactic endurance aspects.

W.r.t. relationship between sustained hangs and climbing ability, there is an interesting study by Balas and colleagues that shows a strong correlation (>0,8!) between max hang times on a 25mm edge and max RP grade.
-> European Journal of Sport Science; 2011, 1 10, iFirst article; “Hand arm strength and endurance as predictors of climbing performance”; Authors: JIRˇI´ BALA´Sˇ , ONDRˇ EJ PECHA, ANDREW J. MARTIN, & DARRYL COCHRANE). Can be accessed via researchgate.
Sorry, don’t have the link at hand right now.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: StillTryingForTheTop on January 18, 2017, 10:36:09 am
How often are people retesting themselves, or does that depend on what you are trying to improve?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Tommy on January 18, 2017, 05:38:34 pm


I read somewhere that it's something like:
30 moves = forearm fitness to redpoint 7b,
40 = 7c
50 = 8a
70 = 8b
100 = 8c
etc..

Or
30 to 200 moves = no correlation in ability to climb grit or slate slabs.
etc..
[/quote]

Yup you're pretty spot on there, although you have to make some leeway for people who want to do super long routes or really short power-based routes. That part will always need a bit more interpretation.

Grit / slab / crack = no correlation at all I suspect! :-)

Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Tommy on January 18, 2017, 05:42:24 pm
Hi, Tom, I  was wondering how the zlagboard competition maximum hang time on an edge (20mm ?) relates to the lattice board endurance testing ?

Yes, that’d be very interesting to compare.

However I assume that we are looking at two different energy systems via these two tests:

Lattice board is about aerobic endurance. The intermittent protocol lets the forearm muscles get access to oxygen. So the limiting factors are how much oxygen gets thru (capillary density) and to what degree the muscles can use it (mitochondria density, enzymes…).

Sustained hangs on 20mm edge will have the blood flow more or less occluded (for most of us mortals, almost completely occluded. And even for Megos this represents 33% of his MVC). So I’d guess that this is less about aerobic endurance and more about anaerobic lactic endurance aspects.

W.r.t. relationship between sustained hangs and climbing ability, there is an interesting study by Balas and colleagues that shows a strong correlation (>0,8!) between max hang times on a 25mm edge and max RP grade.
-> European Journal of Sport Science; 2011, 1 10, iFirst article; “Hand arm strength and endurance as predictors of climbing performance”; Authors: JIRˇI´ BALA´Sˇ , ONDRˇ EJ PECHA, ANDREW J. MARTIN, & DARRYL COCHRANE). Can be accessed via researchgate.
Sorry, don’t have the link at hand right now.

Yup I quite agree. For over a year now I've been collecting data on continuous hangs (and I make sure that they're calibrated to a % of 1RM as I felt the Zlagboard didn't address this aspect enough) and I'm finding the results pretty inconclusive. Yes, there is some relationship between beginner-mod-elite, but I would say the better relationship exists with the number of years training. It's really poor though... not at the quality of findings that I think anyone would be happy with.

Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Tommy on January 18, 2017, 05:47:52 pm
Hi, Tom, I  was wondering how the zlagboard competition maximum hang time on an edge (20mm ?) relates to the lattice board endurance testing ?

Hi, Tom, I was wondering how lattice board endurance testing relates to rock climbing ability?

PS have you tested Cubitt? Back when I was at Uni (97ish), a couple of mates were on the UK comp team and the team trainer at the time had them do a foot-on campus session to failure which sounds very similar to the lattice board. With a bit of competitiveness various members of the team pushed the time to three and then four minutes, each exploding off with forearms like piglets. Then Cubitt stepped up. After fifteen minutes he asked if he could get down as he wasn't getting pumped and didn't see the point.

It has the best relationship to route climbing ability when the route specialisation involves efforts that are sub-15mins as the more that the profiling tool doesn't match "the event" then of course the specificity and predictive power will be reduced. We try to keep the battery of tests nice and broad and looking at lots of different aspects as not everyone is into the classics like Mecca, Fish Eye, Prow, Powerplant etc... which are becoming increasingly easy to profile as so many people want to do (or have done) these routes!

Cubitt - yeah it'd be great to get him on it. Wasn't he really really close to on sighting 8c back in the day? Dropped it at the chains??

Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Tommy on January 18, 2017, 05:49:40 pm
:boohoo:

Its not a case of "Boo Hoo" that the emoticon you've used implies Luke. I don't have the time or inclination to jack in my moderately well paid job with lots of holiday nor "spare" time to spend  working on projects, especially when my skillset didn't match what was being sought.  Tom had messaged me through the boards, mistakenly thinking I've web-development skills, I'd taken the time to reply and explained that I wasn't and pointed him to a few other members who I thought might be able to help.  It doesn't take long to message but I never heard a thing back.  I can assure you I didn't lose any sleep over it though.

Sorry Neil - my fault for not messaging you back. Hope it's no hard feelings. Much better you kept your real job, you wouldn't really want to be a loser like me obsessing about energy systems and data  :)

Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: slackline on January 19, 2017, 08:13:01 am
None taken at all, it was obvious your busy juggling lots of different projects. I wish you every success.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on February 07, 2017, 11:16:22 pm
Just did a lattice assessment on myself and have a question - is the 3rd rep % a percentage of the 1st (max moves) rep, or the 2nd (75% of max moves) rep?
Likewise the 7th rep - should it be a % of the max moves 1st rep or the 75% of max moves 2nd rep?

Hopefully that makes sense to someone.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on February 08, 2017, 08:32:08 am
Could have explained that better..

So, an aerocap score supposedly is obtained by taking the number of moves you do in your 3rd rep as a % of: either your 1st rep (max moves) or your 2nd rep (75% of max moves). Unsure which it is.

Likewise an ancap score is obtained by taking the number of moves in your 7th rep (or 8th - whichever you plateau out at) as a % of: either your 1st or 2nd rep.


I'm just uncertain if it's the first rep (max) or the second rep (75% of max) that you take the percentage against.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: haydn jones on February 08, 2017, 08:53:51 am
2nd rep i would imagine. I understand the question now....did you manage to get more than 75% on your third rep? If you did then that means ypu aerobic capacity  is high i think....but you would have to ask tom i suspect to know for sure
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: shark on February 08, 2017, 09:20:10 am


I read somewhere that it's something like:
30 moves = forearm fitness to redpoint 7b,
40 = 7c
50 = 8a
70 = 8b
100 = 8c
etc..
Quote
Or
30 to 200 moves = no correlation in ability to climb grit or slate slabs.
etc..

Yup you're pretty spot on there, although you have to make some leeway for people who want to do super long routes or really short power-based routes. That part will always need a bit more interpretation.

Grit / slab / crack = no correlation at all I suspect! :-)

The public (well me at least) demands actual grades for number of moves not lame arsed capabilities with caveats.

I suspect the increments between grades are higher than those cited above....
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: T_B on February 08, 2017, 09:29:39 am
90 moves feels a bit like E7 5b to me.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: AJM on February 08, 2017, 09:49:45 am
Could have explained that better..

So, an aerocap score supposedly is obtained by taking the number of moves you do in your 3rd rep as a % of: either your 1st rep (max moves) or your 2nd rep (75% of max moves). Unsure which it is.

Likewise an ancap score is obtained by taking the number of moves in your 7th rep (or 8th - whichever you plateau out at) as a % of: either your 1st or 2nd rep.


I'm just uncertain if it's the first rep (max) or the second rep (75% of max) that you take the percentage against.

I thought the measure of good aerobics was if 3rd rep was more than 2nd rep (so either >75% of max or >100% of 2nd depending on measurement preference). Ancap is definitely a % of first rep though...
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on February 08, 2017, 09:57:53 am
2nd rep i would imagine. I understand the question now....did you manage to get more than 75% on your third rep? If you did then that means ypu aerobic capacity  is high i think....but you would have to ask tom i suspect to know for sure

No, didn't manage more than the 75% on my 3rd rep.


My scores:

Weight 66kg (I'm heavier over winter, normally 62kg redpointing weight).

1-arm 5 seconds hang on the lattice rung: 0.5 kg assistance on LH, 0.75kg assistance on RH. So 99% of body weight held.

1st rep (max moves): 81
2nd rep (75% of 1st rep): 61
3rd rep (aero cap score): 52 - so an aerocap score of either 85% or 65% depending whether you take it against rep 1 or 2.
4th rep: 31 (50% or 39%)
5th rep: 22 (36% or 27%)
6th rep: 20 (33% or 25%)
7th rep: 15 (Ancap score of either 25% or 19%)


First time trying the lattice board so I could get slicker with the sequence. Not far off what I expected - strength not bad, although I'd half expected to be able to hang the edge with no assistance.
My aero is generally shite as baseline but responds quickly and is easy to improve. Haven't done any real endurance training in the last year so expected to suffer on the fitnesses.

Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: James Malloch on February 08, 2017, 11:31:15 am
Just wondering what everyone’s thoughts are on when to do a Lattice Assessment? I’d like to have some kind of benchmark but not sure if my current level means I’d be better off doing something myself initially and then looking at an assessment once I’ve finished my training plan.

My sport climbing in the last year has been limited to a few trips away but I’d say my current grade is about 7c sport (reasonably quick redpoint). Generally, on trips at least, I’ve been getting every 7b I’ve tried second go and onsighting up to this grade. Gave a couple of 7c/+ routes a token go on my last trip and felt they would go if I put a day or two of effort in (i.e. got close in half a session).

Strength wise I’m a bit shit. Had to take 17.5kg off for a 10s one arm hang on the middle, bottom beastmaker hold.

I suppose I could go and do my own thing on the lattice board next time I’m in Sheffield to see how many moves I would do and make a decision based on that, but it would be good to hear any thoughts people have.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Luke on February 08, 2017, 11:58:29 am
I'd defo do it before you start a training plan. It's basically a tool for building a training plan with, as it gives you a load of information on how you should prioritise the plan.

I had an assessment and then went on a month climbing trip. When I came back and started to build and plan the information was a bit out of date, as obviously I was a lot fitter.

They say you should be redpointing at least 7b+ for the assessment to be worthwhile.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on February 08, 2017, 12:33:04 pm
Just wondering what everyone’s thoughts are on when to do a Lattice Assessment? I’d like to have some kind of benchmark but not sure if my current level means I’d be better off doing something myself initially and then looking at an assessment once I’ve finished my training plan.

My sport climbing in the last year has been limited to a few trips away but I’d say my current grade is about 7c sport (reasonably quick redpoint). Generally, on trips at least, I’ve been getting every 7b I’ve tried second go and onsighting up to this grade. Gave a couple of 7c/+ routes a token go on my last trip and felt they would go if I put a day or two of effort in (i.e. got close in half a session).

Strength wise I’m a bit shit. Had to take 17.5kg off for a 10s one arm hang on the middle, bottom beastmaker hold.

I suppose I could go and do my own thing on the lattice board next time I’m in Sheffield to see how many moves I would do and make a decision based on that, but it would be good to hear any thoughts people have.

I'd say it's defo worth bench-marking yourself before you start a plan. Then you have the data of your relative strengths/weaknesses and can apply it to what your goals require.

It's relatively easy to do an assessment on yourself. I just filmed my first rep and during the 20mins rest period counted how many moves I did.
Second rep is 75% of the first rep so you know before you start how many to do - while on the board just count laps instead of individual moves, each lap is 14 moves. Time how long it takes to do.

For the 3rd to 7th reps you just climb max reps and time yourself - I found it easy enough to count the laps in my head and as I got close to failure started to count individual moves. Rest time is same time as the previous rep time.

Even easier if you can get a mate to count, long as you trust them not to fuck up!

If you want to graph your results it's easy to do online - I used 'Desmos', this is mine:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/egCC3sQh0PT17OrKblCD-UUu2hidYJUKE0BDdduOimOGqscN8f-wJVXrylzyHmUJrqqSJHW40gEV64fPRAmFlxmdrWoB40RsIAv-B_zTGxDt8m9QEpmUkctzUP4WlMiWHLXQEYFU7RPKBk1U9vs-YGggXyK7_UMvdbClzNL4XiMh0poSfkU68dmi-2-OV-qjP4DIXYZYh3pKOi2p2-lP9yz7ZAVIi83SmUhE0NcqXXRSxp4bWt5SSJ3onnV3RGuwdVUSNHrrH5sn2weThguX0jLbYSSjFpJy6sAy_ntgfLb7iO-K7xJT6F6PVGOwku8O06b01B3w2T55lmt-yEJkcesjf9oFqapCERdinV9KOOkPUv5t6qThVRDq3aAPi_1qCOTxOBCTyTZio8o2ORfHzoVtEuesE9QQcqQJ-OMZAGvWRYCaXy6YEvU8_7WOC0zyrJVLUROflv7Lv3Zrv8e9hMCCdv1rvzajNu5_rAZt6S_FOo3y3aJefmkzEwV6XZcERHRDLPgP51-lF-pIIpeZQRQYZ2sYEhseZR1bG-NEZrGppzboyFVbOybKmiAMN0jdaAzCQMTx8pkPiEoztuGrHo0sZ0wA_M4pLCFQTqbGLICMeRSsYj9r=w848-h618-no)


Of course Lattice or someone else can give you a more detailed assessment which would pick up on other things you're unlikely to be self-aware enough to spot in yourself.
For me, the data is enough.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Paul B on February 08, 2017, 12:34:03 pm
Pete (Tommy) - where does time come into all of this?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: T_B on February 08, 2017, 12:42:24 pm
Just wondering what everyone’s thoughts are on when to do a Lattice Assessment? I’d like to have some kind of benchmark but not sure if my current level means I’d be better off doing something myself initially and then looking at an assessment once I’ve finished my training plan.

My sport climbing in the last year has been limited to a few trips away but I’d say my current grade is about 7c sport (reasonably quick redpoint). Generally, on trips at least, I’ve been getting every 7b I’ve tried second go and onsighting up to this grade. Gave a couple of 7c/+ routes a token go on my last trip and felt they would go if I put a day or two of effort in (i.e. got close in half a session).

Strength wise I’m a bit shit. Had to take 17.5kg off for a 10s one arm hang on the middle, bottom beastmaker hold.

I suppose I could go and do my own thing on the lattice board next time I’m in Sheffield to see how many moves I would do and make a decision based on that, but it would be good to hear any thoughts people have.

I'd say it's defo worth bench-marking yourself before you start a plan. Then you have the data of your relative strengths/weaknesses and can apply it to what your goals require.


Don't you think you need to do a number of 'tests' and take the mean?

It took me about four sessions on the lattice board to get it dialled.

As for the edge, I reckon I'd see a big difference between a 'steely' day and a not so steely day.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: standard on February 08, 2017, 12:43:41 pm
Pete (Tommy) - where does time come into all of this?

1st: max, 20 mins rest
2nd: 75% moves of first. rest = work.
3rd: max effort, then rest = work.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on February 08, 2017, 12:44:41 pm
Don't you think you need to do a number of 'tests' and take the mean?

It took me about four sessions on the lattice board to get it dialled.

As for the edge, I reckon I'd see a big difference between a 'steely' day and a not so steely day.

Yeah, for sure. More data is usually a good thing!

Agree about the edge test.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: James Malloch on February 08, 2017, 12:52:25 pm

I'd say it's defo worth bench-marking yourself before you start a plan. Then you have the data of your relative strengths/weaknesses and can apply it to what your goals require.

It's relatively easy to do an assessment on yourself. I just filmed my first rep and during the 20mins rest period counted how many moves I did.
Second rep is 75% of the first rep so you know before you start how many to do - while on the board just count laps instead of individual moves, each lap is 14 moves. Time how long it takes to do.

For the 3rd to 7th reps you just climb max reps and time yourself - I found it easy enough to count the laps in my head and as I got close to failure started to count individual moves. Rest time is same time as the previous rep time.


Thanks for the detailed reply, Pete. It's definitely something I'll do next time I'm in Sheffield then.

Just to confirm:

Rep 1: Max attempt. Rest 20 mins.
Rep 2: Do 75% of max and then stop. Rest for time taken to complete rep 2.
Rep 3: Max attempt. Rest for time taken to complete rep 3.
.
.
.
Rep 7: Max attempt (after resting for time taken to complete rep 6).

As I've not access to the lattice board without a trip to Sheffield, could this be done doing foot on campusing for an initial, interim, estimate? I know John kettle uses this approach (using the same data as Tom, I think).

If so, would there be a specific way of doing it? I.e. just go up and down one rung at a time, or just do odd rungs to simulate the larger distances of the lattice board?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on February 08, 2017, 01:02:44 pm
Correct.

You could make whatever model you wanted to, using the campus board or other tools. As long as you made it possible to replicate then you could gauge your progress.

I suppose the advantage of using the lattice board is there's now a lot of relatively consistent benchmarking data behind it - lots of wads have given their scores on a supposedly standard testing tool (in reality I wonder how much variance there is in board angle at least, and the differences in friction between beastmakers suggests there'll be variance in friction on wooden lattice boards/edges), so the information is out there on what scores correlate to what grades. You wouldn't have that correlation from creating your own model on a campus board - you'd only have your own performance to correlate with grade benchmarks, plus whoever else you could persuade to do your test.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Paul B on February 08, 2017, 01:07:15 pm
Rep 1: Max attempt. Rest 20 mins.
Rep 2: Do 75% of max and then stop. Rest for time taken to complete rep 2.

I'd never realised that there was prescribed rest period for rep 1; I take it the duration of the first max effort is relatively low (4-5 mins?) compared to the 20 min rest time so you should be recovered?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: T_B on February 08, 2017, 01:15:18 pm
Basically it's 2 seconds a move.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: nik at work on February 08, 2017, 02:10:33 pm
Isn't someone contractually obliged to make a quip about sharks climbing speed at this point?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: 36chambers on February 08, 2017, 02:14:48 pm
Isn't someone contractually obliged to make a quip about sharks climbing speed at this point?

looks like they were too slow
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: andy_e on February 08, 2017, 02:19:09 pm
Someone sound the "climb faster" horn! Oh wait, shark just fell off going for it.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: BicepsMou on February 14, 2017, 03:41:31 pm
As I don’t have access to a lattice board here on the continent and out of curiosity, so that I can put the mentioned benchmarks in better context, could you enlighten me about the typical set-up of the lattice board in terms of:

-   inclination / overhang
-   edge depth of the rungs
-   are these flat edges (perpendicular to the board) or incut?

THX!
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: T_B on February 14, 2017, 04:28:59 pm
The one at the Foundry is 27.5 degrees.

The holds are like banisters i.e. rounded incuts first two joints.

You're not supposed to use yer thumbs.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: BicepsMou on February 14, 2017, 07:22:43 pm
Thx T_B!

Plus I have learned a new word, had to look up banister  ;D
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: dave on February 15, 2017, 08:18:17 am
Banisters you say? This whole concept has just gone up a notch in my estimation*.

*Now on notch #1
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Nibile on February 19, 2017, 06:23:01 pm
Ok, so I'm about to test myself with the Lattice protocol on my system board.
I was wondering, I've always taken the time, not giving specific importance tothe number of moves: should I just forget about the time and just try to CLIMB FASTER™ to complete as many moves as possible?
On my board, as you may have seen, the rithm can be easily tweaked because I only have one foothold, so I do up and down - 12 moves - before swapping feet. 12 straight moves can be easily paced.
Opinions?

Just done the first set, did 3' and 76 moves (could have climbed quite faster at the start).
Last test five months ago was 3'20" and 68 moves.
PB at the beginning of last Summer 3'40", don't know how many moves.

I've only done the 30/30 x 5 and 1/1 x 5 as of late, with a few sessions of 8/2 x 2.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: shark on February 19, 2017, 06:31:10 pm
I was wondering, I've always taken the time, not giving specific importance tothe number of moves: should I just forget about the time and just try to CLIMB FASTER™ to complete as many moves as possible?

The recommended pace is two seconds a move. I use a metronome app on my phone if I need to slow down on a systems board
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Nibile on February 19, 2017, 06:53:30 pm
Ok cheers. I'll use the metronome as well, I've been either too slow or too fast.
Now then.
I've messed up a bit with rest times also...  :oops:
Anyway:
1. 3' and 76 moves. 20' rest. More or less on time.
2. 2'15" and 57 moves. Slow. Rested too much.
3. 1'40" and 72 moves. Fast! 40" too fast!
4. 1' and 42 moves. 20" too fast.

I have to take into the equation that swapping feet takes around 2,5".

It's fun, but next time I'll have to be more accurate.
Board specs: 53 degrees, incut rungs (full first joint and half middle on the radius), 20 cm spacings, incut big foothold, matching on every move.

Opinions welcome.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: andy_e on February 20, 2017, 09:58:39 am
if I need to slow down

As if.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Nibile on February 20, 2017, 10:07:54 am
 ;D
Just noticed that I misspelled "rhythm". The many uses of a Latticeboard thread.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: BicepsMou on February 22, 2017, 09:50:03 am
Would also have been curious to see if / how the Lattice analysis principle can be transferred to another wall setting. Relevant for those outside of the UK not having access to the original LB setup.

Nibs, was your idea to replicate the 7-8 sets as described in the present thread and to interpret the relative times / number of moves in the Lattice-logic, e.g. comparing 3rd rep to 2nd for aerobic etc.?

I guess this would imply to follow the prescribed timings more rigorously, as you had also mentioned. Have you repeated your tries yet with a more ‘correct’ 2’’ rhythm yet?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Nibile on February 22, 2017, 11:12:24 am
Nibs, was your idea to replicate the 7-8 sets as described in the present thread and to interpret the relative times / number of moves in the Lattice-logic, e.g. comparing 3rd rep to 2nd for aerobic etc.?
Absolutely yes.
I guess this would imply to follow the prescribed timings more rigorously, as you had also mentioned. Have you repeated your tries yet with a more ‘correct’ 2’’ rhythm yet?
Not yet.

Did I mess it up? Absolutely yes. I'm always keen to measure myself against the numbers, especially if I believe I'm poor at it, like for endurance, a quality that I've never had.
But of course I got a bit overexcited and messed up. At first I thought that between set 2 and 3 there was another 20' rest, but I was wrong. When I found out I was already at 4'.
Then, I knew that rhythm was a factor, but I discovered later about the 2" advised per move.
In the past I've only timed my efforts, without counting the moves, and not minding about the pace of the moves.

Will try again in a few days when properly rested (as if...) because when I tried it I could feel that my forearms were a bit tight even before starting. Probably spending the weekend riding my 2 stroke Yamaha, training with my trap bar, partying and sleeping poorly could have had an effect.

In any case, while on the matter of timing, I was wondering if shakeouts are allowed on the max efforts, or if one should simply keep motoring with the 2" per move rhythm with no attempts at recovering.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Duma on February 22, 2017, 11:30:49 am
Probably spending the weekend riding my 2 stroke Yamaha, training with my trap bar, partying and sleeping poorly could have had an effect.

this sounds ace! I look fwd to similar
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Nibile on February 22, 2017, 11:36:39 am
Probably spending the weekend riding my 2 stroke Yamaha, training with my trap bar, partying and sleeping poorly could have had an effect.

this sounds ace! I look fwd to similar
To be honest it was gorgeous and well worth the pain of doing poorly on the test!!!
 :2thumbsup:

Maybe it could implement the Lattice test!
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: James Malloch on March 19, 2017, 10:35:33 pm
Does anyone know the difference between the Lattice assessment (done by Lattice) and the Foundary Lattice assessment?

Noticed there was a bit of a price difference so wondered if there is anything different in the output.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Nibile on April 05, 2017, 11:13:42 pm
Took a short version of the test today, after my max hangs session. Not smart, I know, but I had some time.
Instead of counting the moves I just went with the usual flow and timed my laps.
1. 3' then 20' rest.
2. 75% of 1. so 2'15" then 2'15" rest.
3. 1'30" so 50% of 1.
Then had to go back to work.
So, what can I understand from these data?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Muenchener on April 05, 2017, 11:16:35 pm
Then had to go back to work.

i.e. more max hangs?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Nibile on April 06, 2017, 07:38:32 am
 ;D
I wish.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on April 07, 2017, 03:46:30 pm
Took a short version of the test today, after my max hangs session. Not smart, I know, but I had some time.
Instead of counting the moves I just went with the usual flow and timed my laps.
1. 3' then 20' rest.
2. 75% of 1. so 2'15" then 2'15" rest.
3. 1'30" so 50% of 1.
Then had to go back to work.
So, what can I understand from these data?

Think it means your aerobic capacity is (unsurprisingly) screwed. But you'd need a qualified coach to confirm this.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Rocksteady on April 20, 2017, 10:28:16 am
I recently did a lattice test and found it a really interesting and useful experience. Not to mention quite exhuasting and an eye opener in terms of training intensity.

Not often mentioned is there are components of strength measurement and movement skills as well as physical stability, on top of the endurance analysis. I was very pleased to do well on the shoulder stability tests having spent much of the last 3 years doing a lot of work on this post injury/impingement. But I felt that there was a height disadvantage for a 6' like myself on the twisting test - felt quite bunched with the drop knee positions required.

Anyway, I confirmed one thing I sort of knew, which is that I am weak - was an outlier in weak fingers for someone who has climbed 7c in the last year and at the bottom end of the bar for font 7A too. Have not spent much time training fingers specifically and don't seem to get gains like others do just from climbing so it's the fingerboard for me.
Didn't know I had above average aerobic endurance for my grade, or that I had poor anaerobic capacity, although this makes sense in that I've never done an ancap session.

Have 6 weeks to train for a sport rock trip now...probably will focus on strength training and aerobic power to make the most of what I already have, then address anaerobic deficiencies afterwards.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling post. Just a plug for getting an actual assessment session done, if you can / can be bothered as personally I got more out of it than I think I would have just by getting on a lattice board and self-analysing.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: James Malloch on April 20, 2017, 12:47:11 pm
I recently did a lattice test and found it a really interesting and useful experience. Not to mention quite exhuasting and an eye opener in terms of training intensity.

Not often mentioned is there are components of strength measurement and movement skills as well as physical stability, on top of the endurance analysis. I was very pleased to do well on the shoulder stability tests having spent much of the last 3 years doing a lot of work on this post injury/impingement. But I felt that there was a height disadvantage for a 6' like myself on the twisting test - felt quite bunched with the drop knee positions required.

Anyway, I confirmed one thing I sort of knew, which is that I am weak - was an outlier in weak fingers for someone who has climbed 7c in the last year and at the bottom end of the bar for font 7A too. Have not spent much time training fingers specifically and don't seem to get gains like others do just from climbing so it's the fingerboard for me.
Didn't know I had above average aerobic endurance for my grade, or that I had poor anaerobic capacity, although this makes sense in that I've never done an ancap session.

Have 6 weeks to train for a sport rock trip now...probably will focus on strength training and aerobic power to make the most of what I already have, then address anaerobic deficiencies afterwards.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling post. Just a plug for getting an actual assessment session done, if you can / can be bothered as personally I got more out of it than I think I would have just by getting on a lattice board and self-analysing.

Glad to hear you found it useful - I have mine booked in on Wednesday next week and I'm really interested to hear the results.

As an aside, and I know this will differ from person to person, how did you feel afterwards?

Mine is at 10:30am and I've the day off work for it. I'm trying to decide if it's worth trying to get out climbing afterwards given I'll be travelling down to Sheffield. Though I feel the answer may be that I'll feel pretty beaten afterwards!
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Rocksteady on April 20, 2017, 02:43:55 pm
I recently did a lattice test and found it a really interesting and useful experience. Not to mention quite exhuasting and an eye opener in terms of training intensity.



Glad to hear you found it useful - I have mine booked in on Wednesday next week and I'm really interested to hear the results.

As an aside, and I know this will differ from person to person, how did you feel afterwards?

Mine is at 10:30am and I've the day off work for it. I'm trying to decide if it's worth trying to get out climbing afterwards given I'll be travelling down to Sheffield. Though I feel the answer may be that I'll feel pretty beaten afterwards!

Personally I felt pretty trashed. I think with a few hours' rest and some food I'd have been fine to have a climb. But I tried to have a bit of a bouldering session straight afterwards and had very little in the tank.

The anaerobic test I found pretty tiring and it felt like good training! I guess if you're used to doing anaerobic sessions you might feel better afterwards than I did.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: James Malloch on April 21, 2017, 05:42:27 pm
Cheers - I might go for an evening session locally then and work in the afternoon to save a bit of holiday. Perhaps it would be a good time to try and reacquaint myself with a project that I wouldn't expect to be doing anyway...
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: highrepute on April 21, 2017, 08:09:32 pm
I believe you continue doing reps until you get the same score twice. But do a minimum of 7 reps in total.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: standard on April 21, 2017, 09:10:44 pm
what you want is the decay to be in intervals less than 5% by the end.
I think the max sets suggested it 8, regardless.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: tk421a on April 22, 2017, 10:40:01 am
FYI, Aerobic function is more complicated than 3/1, (my score on assessment is different). I asked Tom since it didn't line up, it uses a bunch of factors including bodyweight held, moves etc.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: StillTryingForTheTop on April 24, 2017, 09:47:47 am
Yup, I have been trying to work that one out myself but gave up

FYI, Aerobic function is more complicated than 3/1, (my score on assessment is different). I asked Tom since it didn't line up, it uses a bunch of factors including bodyweight held, moves etc.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on April 29, 2017, 09:40:33 am
At the risk of pointing out the obvious.. Taking your 3rd rep score as a percentage of your first rep max score will still give you a result which reflects your aerobic function, it's still replicable, and you can still use it to benchmark yourself and measure progress in your aero fitness.
As long as the training method is relevant to climbing goals - and it clearly is - it doesn't really matter if the method you use calculate your aerobic score (provided it's based in some sort of logic) tallies with the way the people at Lattice calculate their aerobic score. Unless your need to compare yourself with other Lattice trainees is stronger than your need to simply improve.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: StillTryingForTheTop on May 02, 2017, 10:20:22 am
For me, I have done the test with the Lattice guys so ideally I would like to be able to repeat the test again and see where my improvements have materialised from all the training I am doing with them.

This, slightly surprisingly for me at least, isn't included as part of the monthly sign up plan and therefore (unless I wanted to spend another £100) is something I don't have access to

All the other metrics are easily calculated, but I can't tell on that function

For me, the 3/1 would give a result of 47, but my Lattice Aerobic Efficiency score is ~58, with 60 being the bottom end of excellent



At the risk of pointing out the obvious.. Taking your 3rd rep score as a percentage of your first rep max score will still give you a result which reflects your aerobic function, it's still replicable, and you can still use it to benchmark yourself and measure progress in your aero fitness.
As long as the training method is relevant to climbing goals - and it clearly is - it doesn't really matter if the method you use calculate your aerobic score (provided it's based in some sort of logic) tallies with the way the people at Lattice calculate their aerobic score. Unless your need to compare yourself with other Lattice trainees is stronger than your need to simply improve.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: T_B on May 08, 2017, 02:20:45 pm
Finally got round to doing a Lattice deadhang test, having had 3 days off over the weekend. On the rock my fingers feel just about as strong as ever at the mo.

Due to dodgy left shoulder/back, I only did the right hand.

It seemed to take a long time to warm into the rung and I could only drag it (not half crimp).

Worked up (or down) from -15Kg to -10Kg, which equates to 11.7% of bodyweight.

So yeah, I'm officially crap at deadhanging :???:
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Nibile on May 08, 2017, 02:40:51 pm
 :-\
I think that you mean -15 kg, that is taking off that weight...
Otherwise one arming the Lattice Edge with 15 kg added is not exactly being crap...

That said, the Lattice Edge is indeed quite hard to hang. I find the big rounded radius particularly nasty for my pinkies, that are quite short compared to the other fingers. I can't stabilize myself in any way and as soon as I start rotating the pinky pops out. Fucking cry me a fucking river, eh?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: T_B on May 08, 2017, 02:46:08 pm
Doh, yes of course! I need 10Kg of assistance.

Yes, the edge is pretty rounded and feels a bit awkward to me, but maybe that's because I'm not used to one-arm hangs. My guess is I could hold the middle lowest edge on the BM2K with perhaps 'just' 5Kg assistance.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: highrepute on May 09, 2017, 09:22:03 am
Doh, yes of course! I need 10Kg of assistance.

Yes, the edge is pretty rounded and feels a bit awkward to me, but maybe that's because I'm not used to one-arm hangs. My guess is I could hold the middle lowest edge on the BM2K with perhaps 'just' 5Kg assistance.
I got a similar "score" as you Tom, in kg. More like 16% body weight. My assessment is when I compare myself to other climbers who climb regularly outside, -10kg ish seems fairly normal for our grade.

I think the lattice data may be skewed by the the type of people taking the test, underperforming outside. Its just a hunch.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: StillTryingForTheTop on May 09, 2017, 12:54:13 pm
That is certainly me, although I did use my indoor bouldering grade to hopefully slightly compensate.

My finger strength supposedly equates to a V7/V8, however I have only ever done a few outdoor problems (hardest being V4), and indoor I have ticked a couple of "soft" V6 but usually have to project V5.

Hopefully the Lattice team have gathered enough data over the years that results like mine don't skew the data too much


Doh, yes of course! I need 10Kg of assistance.

Yes, the edge is pretty rounded and feels a bit awkward to me, but maybe that's because I'm not used to one-arm hangs. My guess is I could hold the middle lowest edge on the BM2K with perhaps 'just' 5Kg assistance.
I got a similar "score" as you Tom, in kg. More like 16% body weight. My assessment is when I compare myself to other climbers who climb regularly outside, -10kg ish seems fairly normal for our grade.

I think the lattice data may be skewed by the the type of people taking the test, underperforming outside. Its just a hunch.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Sasquatch on May 10, 2017, 02:59:54 am
Doh, yes of course! I need 10Kg of assistance.

Yes, the edge is pretty rounded and feels a bit awkward to me, but maybe that's because I'm not used to one-arm hangs. My guess is I could hold the middle lowest edge on the BM2K with perhaps 'just' 5Kg assistance.
I got a similar "score" as you Tom, in kg. More like 16% body weight. My assessment is when I compare myself to other climbers who climb regularly outside, -10kg ish seems fairly normal for our grade.

I think the lattice data may be skewed by the the type of people taking the test, underperforming outside. Its just a hunch.

Hmmmm.  I, without a doubt, am miles weaker than anyone who I climb w and I'm just a bit worse than T_B for the grade range... 

However, I was well below my grade at everything in the test :) 
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: abarro81 on May 10, 2017, 08:42:41 am
I'm weak too! I'm weak too! It might be that the numbers need an adjustment for 'days climbed outside over the last x years' or similar in order to account for a disproportionately high number of people who are strength/training/indoor/basic focused taking the test... get to it Tom.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: T_B on May 10, 2017, 09:00:35 am
Not to mention factoring in lank to the whole equation!
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: StillTryingForTheTop on May 11, 2017, 08:59:49 am
I was very weak in other areas though, the test highlighted poor aerobic and anaerobic capacity

5 months of work on those area should hopefully pay off this summer, but as I am predominantly a route climber even if I was to take the test again at the end of the summer with some amazing jump in grade, my bouldering grade will have been unlikely to have increased and thus it would skew the data even more….



I'm weak too! I'm weak too! It might be that the numbers need an adjustment for 'days climbed outside over the last x years' or similar in order to account for a disproportionately high number of people who are strength/training/indoor/basic focused taking the test... get to it Tom.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: jwi on May 18, 2017, 01:29:37 pm
I'm not sure how the dead hang test is done exactly, but I've had some discussions with a very experienced coach about testing finger strength using deadhangs. Basically he thinks that 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).
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on May 22, 2017, 04:29:14 pm
What are the approximate grade correlations for the deadhang test? Think I'm probably strong for the grade (100% bodyweight LH / 97% bodyweight RH)
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: nai on May 22, 2017, 07:59:39 pm
I think it depends on the route style.

Might have imagined it but I think when they launched their rung the blurb stated that the avergae finger strength for Mecca was -1kg.  But as I type I'm questioning myself and wondering of it was +1kg?

Anyway, you're in the ballpark

Although whether that's for a 5s test hang or a 10s training hang is anybody's guess.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: coulster on May 22, 2017, 08:10:40 pm
100% body weight for 5 seconds relates to 8b+ and 8A I believe, so you're looking good for Mecca.

I am in the camp for piss week for the grade I climb but I obviously there's a huge difference to stamina plodding in Spain to your average route at the Tor!
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: abarro81 on May 22, 2017, 09:26:10 pm
All I know is that climbing Mecca is a lot easier than hanging that edge 1 armed!
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on May 22, 2017, 10:23:24 pm
All I know is the grade correlation for 6'4'' differs to that for 5'10''
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: reeve on May 22, 2017, 11:13:50 pm
Whilst I would hate to dissuade anyone from mocking Barrows for being so tall it's cheating, I do agree with him here Pete. For reference since you've seen me climb lately, I last measured myself on the lattice rung in February (would be similar now) and I need -10kg for each arm. I think it's desperate!
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: nai on May 23, 2017, 07:32:10 am
yeah, -/+1kg/BW might have been on their old rung. The new one is much harder.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Nibile on May 23, 2017, 08:27:24 am
The new one is much harder.
Get the fuck in.
 :dance1:
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on May 23, 2017, 09:07:58 am
Whilst I would hate to dissuade anyone from mocking Barrows for being so tall it's cheating, I do agree with him here Pete. For reference since you've seen me climb lately, I last measured myself on the lattice rung in February (would be similar now) and I need -10kg for each arm. I think it's desperate!
[/quote

Bonkers isn't it.. going purely off comparative finger-strength tests and seeing how close you are on Mecca, I should have sent by now with ease. You've seen me climb - I'm nowhere near yet! (Although I do have to contend with opening jacket zips..)

Nai when did the rungs change?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: nai on May 23, 2017, 04:35:14 pm
They released a production rung back end of last year, harder compared to a standard campus rung or the BM2K middle slot.

http://latticetraining.com/product/lattice-rung/
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: reeve on May 23, 2017, 04:44:25 pm
Whilst I would hate to dissuade anyone from mocking Barrows for being so tall it's cheating, I do agree with him here Pete. For reference since you've seen me climb lately, I last measured myself on the lattice rung in February (would be similar now) and I need -10kg for each arm. I think it's desperate!

Bonkers isn't it.. going purely off comparative finger-strength tests and seeing how close you are on Mecca, I should have sent by now with ease. You've seen me climb - I'm nowhere near yet! (Although I do have to contend with opening jacket zips..)

Nai when did the rungs change?

You've got your jacket zips, I've got my jars of honey. We've all got problems Pete!

Thinking about it a bit more, I think that the lattice test shows me as being artificially weak (not that I'm naturally strong, far from it). I'm far better crimping than open handed, but as this isn't allowed on the test (and I don't like to dead hang in full-crimp either), I did my -10kg with front 3 open, my weakest grip in real life but strongest for 1-arm dead hanging. I also think that shoulder strength and stability play a bit part in the test, so I wonder if that boosts your test score relative to mine? (I'm making the assumption that your shoulders are stronger than mine - it's an assumption I regularly make about people I don't really know but it tends to turn out correct).

Nai - I thought the -1kg for Mecca / 8b+ was using the new rung
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: AJM on May 23, 2017, 06:45:18 pm

Nai - I thought the -1kg for Mecca / 8b+ was using the new rung

Engraved on a new rung on a Facebook advertising blurb thing I shared on my profile a while back, so assume so
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: nai on May 23, 2017, 08:29:55 pm

Nai - I thought the -1kg for Mecca / 8b+ was using the new rung

Engraved on a new rung on a Facebook advertising blurb thing I shared on my profile a while back, so assume so
fair enough. I thought the figures would have come out of their database which would have been built on data from the old rung at that point.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on May 23, 2017, 09:22:00 pm
It's that new rung that I tested myself on. Totally all over 'Mecca' like a rash.. hmm..

Shoulder strength could be a factor, mine are relatively strong from lots of burly drytooling, mixed climbing and jacket zip-operating over the years.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: remus on May 23, 2017, 09:46:39 pm
fair enough. I thought the figures would have come out of their database which would have been built on data from the old rung at that point.

Disclaimer: I work for Lattice.

There's a combination of old rung and standard rung scores in the database. We did a bit of a comparison between the two so we can compare scores. The reference numbers (e.g. -1kg for Mecca) are all based on the new rung, and we're going to try and use the new rung as a reference wherever possible.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: StillTryingForTheTop on May 24, 2017, 08:58:27 am
When you say it isn't allowed to crimp in the test, that is not 100% correct (although obviously it is down to definition)

You can 'half' crimp, you just can't engage the thumb.

also I agree with the shoulder strength / stability point.

I can hang substantially more BW% on the Loughborough Lattice edge than I can on the outer bottom BM1000 edges, I put this down to the fact at Loughborough I am able to get underneath and hang at a tangent to the board where as my setup at home requires me to hang square on, in fact one of the problems I have training at home is as I get tired I tend to 'chicken wing' my arm.




You've got your jacket zips, I've got my jars of honey. We've all got problems Pete!

Thinking about it a bit more, I think that the lattice test shows me as being artificially weak (not that I'm naturally strong, far from it). I'm far better crimping than open handed, but as this isn't allowed on the test (and I don't like to dead hang in full-crimp either), I did my -10kg with front 3 open, my weakest grip in real life but strongest for 1-arm dead hanging. I also think that shoulder strength and stability play a bit part in the test, so I wonder if that boosts your test score relative to mine? (I'm making the assumption that your shoulders are stronger than mine - it's an assumption I regularly make about people I don't really know but it tends to turn out correct).

Nai - I thought the -1kg for Mecca / 8b+ was using the new rung
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Nibile on May 24, 2017, 11:18:20 am
From what I know, the Lattice Edge references are for a four fingers half crimp, at whatever angle.
In other words, no full crimp and no open fingers or dragging front3.
In my experience the Lattice Edge is a lot harder than the bottom BM rung, mostly because of the bigger radius of the rounded edge. This makes it more affected by humidity and skin condition. Moreover, even the slightest movement or torsion makes my pinky pop off (I've got short pinkies). It's a bit frustrating, because I feel that I have more but somehow fail to apply it fully to the Edge.
So, I'd like to try and use a pulley to stabilize my body, rearranging the added weight of the hangs so that it's the same of before. Let's see. Temps around 27/28 degrees already, so not exactly prime conditions for hard fingerboarding.
We'll see.
I'm glad I bought a Lattice Edge though, it feels good to have references.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: nai on May 24, 2017, 11:51:29 am
I'm glad I bought a Lattice Edge though, it feels good to have references.

Likewise, Im glad I use a home made edge so I can drift along on a wave of delusion
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Nibile on May 24, 2017, 12:24:52 pm
I'm glad I bought a Lattice Edge though, it feels good to have references.

Likewise, Im glad I use a home made edge so I can drift along on a wave of delusion
You're lucky then, I was obsessed even with a home made edge. My own references are the toughest ones because I have no excuses with them.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: submaximal gains on May 24, 2017, 07:14:56 pm
 So Tom gives someof the details of the testing and analysis in his training beta podcast https://www.trainingbeta.com/media/tom-randall/

If I remember rightly he says the protocol is to have one hand on the rung, one on a pulley and keep removing weight from the pulley until it's just 5kg. Then to add weight (from a harness or vest, I'm not sure) to the climber who is still supposed to use the pulley with 5kg on it for stability.

Also (again, if I remember correctly) he says having the finger strength to hang 70kg from the rung (body weight plus added weight is sufficient to climb 9a (with enough endurance I guess).

I haven't listened to it in a while, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Nibile on May 24, 2017, 11:41:38 pm
Also (again, if I remember correctly) he says having the finger strength to hang 70kg from the rung (body weight plus added weight is sufficient to climb 9a (with enough endurance I guess).
Brilliant news. I'm taking the tick then. Fantastic week, 8C and 9a.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on July 05, 2017, 06:37:21 pm
Currently at the wall reading the latticeboard training info sheets. The 'An Cap workout' makes mention of 'choosing one of the 4 circuit options' but gives no explanation of what the other 3 circuits are..  (I've asked the staff - they either don't know or are too busy with groups etc.)

What are the other 3 circuit options?

Here's an idea, might seem crazy... if you put up a training info sheet that says 'choose 1 of 4 circuit options' then put up info on what those 4 circuit options are.  :-\
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: abarro81 on July 05, 2017, 07:37:38 pm
Hands below the 'X' instead of above
Gastons
Resin dishes

Obviously undercuts and small pinches also possible but hard, too hard for an cap unless you climb 9b
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on July 05, 2017, 09:49:16 pm
Cheers. Will give the slightly harder circuits a try next time I'm at the wall doing ancap. Ended up doing back to back probs on the moonboard, which works well.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: highrepute on July 06, 2017, 10:46:19 pm
100% body weight for 5 seconds relates to 8b+ and 8A I believe, so you're looking good for Mecca.

I am in the camp for piss week for the grade I climb but I obviously there's a huge difference to stamina plodding in Spain to your average route at the Tor!

Thinking about this. I'm not interested in what the average required to climb 8A is. I want to know what the weakest I can be and still climb 8A is.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Nibile on July 06, 2017, 11:29:50 pm
The Lattice references work the other way round, that is not in a predictive way. They are the result of testing people that have climbed a certain grade and not of training people on the Edge until they reach a certain level on that and then letting them out on rock to see which grade they can climb.
The average for climbing 8a is to one arm the Edge taking off 2 kg IIRC.
The average for climbing 7c is to take off 7 kg IIRC.
Maybe we can argue that somewhere in between the two values lies the magic formula of being weak and climbing 8a.
Not taking into account which kind of 8a we are talking about.
Bit the true question still stands: why do you want to be weakest you can?
 :shrug:
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on March 08, 2018, 12:54:20 pm
2nd rep i would imagine. I understand the question now....did you manage to get more than 75% on your third rep? If you did then that means ypu aerobic capacity  is high i think....but you would have to ask tom i suspect to know for sure

No, didn't manage more than the 75% on my 3rd rep.


My scores:

Weight 66kg (I'm heavier over winter, normally 62kg redpointing weight).

1-arm 5 seconds hang on the lattice rung: 0.5 kg assistance on LH, 0.75kg assistance on RH. So 99% of body weight held.

1st rep: 81
2nd rep: 61 (75% of rep 1)
3rd rep: 52 - so an aerocap score of 65%???
4th rep: 31
5th rep: 22
6th rep: 20
7th rep: 15 - ancap score of 19%???


First time trying the lattice board so I could get slicker with the sequence. Not far off what I expected - strength not bad, although I'd half expected to be able to hang the edge with no assistance.
My aero is generally shite as baseline but responds quickly and is easy to improve. Haven't done any real endurance training in the last year so expected to suffer on the fitnesses.


Just lattice-tested myself to see where I'm at. Number of reps all slightly up except 3rd - so aerocap down? And finger strength down a smidge.

Weight 65kg

Max hang:
98% of BW held LH
96% of BW held RH
Average 97%


Rep 1. 86 moves
Rep 2. 64 (75% of rep 1)
Rep 3. 46 - Aerocap 3/1 = 53%
Rep 4. 38
Rep 5. 27
Rep 6. 24
Rep 7. 18 - Ancap 7/1 = 21%


Overall reps up but percentages seem a bit low? Anyone know how/where this sits in wider context?


Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Ally Smith on March 08, 2018, 02:02:13 pm
Given your earlier postings about an-cap training on the board, i'm surprised to see the low score for rep 7. (It might even have gone lower if you'd done a couple of extra sets until the scores leveled out?)

86 moves = 8b/+ borderline for a euro stamina route?

Finger-strength, 'bout the same grade (less sure on this comparison in percent terms - my home edge says -2kg = f8b)

21% an-cap is pretty low for a power sapping LPT or Tor route; maybe keep your focus on an-cap a bit longer, tailoring it to longer efforts; 15+ moves? If you're off to Oliana or Rodellar, then it's pretty good...
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: abarro81 on March 08, 2018, 02:08:59 pm
my home edge says -2kg = f8b)

Strict forced half-crimp or natural draggy-half-crimp? There's no way the former is 8b for -2kg for people of our size! (Or the latter for that matter IMO, although the stats may claim differently)
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Ally Smith on March 08, 2018, 02:14:21 pm
my home edge says -2kg = f8b)

Strict forced half-crimp or natural draggy-half-crimp? There's no way the former is 8b for -2kg for people of our size! (Or the latter for that matter IMO, although the stats may claim differently)

Don't I know it - my home edge seems particularly difficult to hang; even using the draggy half-crimp I need 10kg assist compared to -5kg on the edge at the Boardroom. Bodyweight by any hang on that edge has got to be f9a if you weigh more than 75kg!
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on March 08, 2018, 02:59:11 pm
Given your earlier postings about an-cap training on the board, i'm surprised to see the low score for rep 7. (It might even have gone lower if you'd done a couple of extra sets until the scores leveled out?)

86 moves = 8b/+ borderline for a euro stamina route?

Finger-strength, 'bout the same grade (less sure on this comparison in percent terms - my home edge says -2kg = f8b)

21% an-cap is pretty low for a power sapping LPT or Tor route; maybe keep your focus on an-cap a bit longer, tailoring it to longer efforts; 15+ moves? If you're off to Oliana or Rodellar, then it's pretty good...


Yeah I'm surprised too. I've been training ancap on the latticeboard dishes since xmas. Until recently I was flying along making big gains and feeling ancap-fit-as-fuck. Then it fell off a cliff edge and hasn't really recovered, most weird. Feels like I either overtrained something and have gone into a dip, or a virus..
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: T_B on March 08, 2018, 02:59:54 pm
Is the third rep really a measure of AeroCap and the 7th AnCap? It seems very non-intuitive to me.

Coincidentally I’ve just done another ‘test’ a month after the last one.

Off the back of very little fitness training (I’ve just been bouldering on a board, campussing, bouldering on the Wave and trying a long (12-move) problem outdoors) I’ve just measured…

98
74 (75%)
56 (57%)
28 (28%
28 (28%)
14 (14%)

I didn’t bother with a 7th rep. I suspect I could have managed 5 or 6 moves!

Compared to my PR last May when I was doing regular Autobelay sessions and definitely had the fitness to recover…

128
96 (75%)
73 (57%)
45 (35%)
42 (33%)
38 (30%)
23 (18%).

Today’s effort in terms of dropping off on the 4th rep is what I would expect i.e. no ability to recover/fitness/poor aerocap between the limited rests. My AnCap is generally a strength and gets worked on longer Wave problems and outside where I’ve been trying a 12-move link up.

So, as I say, I fail to understand how the 7th rep is a measure of AnCap :-\
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: roddersm on March 09, 2018, 10:46:49 am
So, as I say, I fail to understand how the 7th rep is a measure of AnCap :-\

I don't think it is the 7th rep per se, it is when the scores flat line out  as you are no longer able to recover aerobically as the rest is too short.

Looking at your results I'm not sure that you should have stopped at rep 7 as there was a significant drop between attempts 6 and 7?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: T_B on March 09, 2018, 10:49:46 am
Er OK. Still not sure I understand. Yes, the rests were too short to recover so isn't that about aerobic capability?

Rep 7 would have been even poorer than rep 6 as I was totally boxed.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: roddersm on March 09, 2018, 11:25:14 am
Hmm maybe I am not the best person to explain but so you are plotting a lactate curve with the test, so if you consider with each each attempt you should see a significant drop in moves/time as your ability to recover aerobically is diminishing each go with shorter rest.

Then eventually the scores should bottom out or just dropping by a small percent each go.

I think the idea is that at this point your aerobic system is gone, so you would just be working anaerobically, or something along those lines.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: AJM on March 09, 2018, 01:12:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on March 09, 2018, 01:18:36 pm
Can someone just confirm the rest times between reps.. I've been resting for the same time as the rep just climbed took, is that correct? I read someone on ukc who thought the rest times were from the two reps prior.. if that makes sense..
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: roddersm on March 09, 2018, 01:52:39 pm
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.

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.

Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: AJM on March 09, 2018, 02:32:38 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: roddersm on March 09, 2018, 02:45:25 pm
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.

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.

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.

Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: petejh on March 09, 2018, 03:20:58 pm
In which case my ancap score goes from 21% to 28%.


Seems to involve a lot of personal interpretation...
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Teaboy on March 09, 2018, 04:32:17 pm
In which case my ancap score goes from 21% to 28%.


Not bad for two days and no training!
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Paul B on March 09, 2018, 04:50:38 pm
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.

There are some figures for a similar kind of thing in "Racing and Training with a Power Meter" (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Training-Racing-Power-Meter-Hunter/dp/1934030554), WRT to cycling and interval training.

Not tempted to pay for an assessment etc.?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Murph on March 10, 2018, 08:30:40 pm
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).

Jwi, I appreciate this is really old but I’ve just seen it. Absolutely fascinating. I would love it if you or anyone who is in the know could share more about this.

I’m a bit lazy really about training the proper grip. It’s not the first thing on my list of things to correct and I know for a fact that my project can go with an open grip at less than my current strength.

But...when I’ve done it i might want to climb something else and when that happens I’m interested in understanding what will hold me back. Maybe it’s something to do with not being able to hold some holds open at all?

Is finger strength in the open position functionally useless or something or is it just that it’s too dependent on friction and body angle?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: roddersm on March 15, 2018, 10:02:57 am
I think this answers your question - http://latticetraining.com/2017/10/04/open-or-half-crimp-for-performance-profiling-in-climbing/

Another point I heard was that while open grip is ok when hanging below a hold, as you move past then you need to engage the fingers therefore half crimp is the more applicable position for hard routes and bouldering.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Murph on March 15, 2018, 09:17:59 pm
Thanks rodders appreciate it. Not quite sure I understand the graphs, but I can get the idea that open hands are weaker the higher you get. Should do more half crimp. Ta!
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: reeve on July 17, 2018, 11:18:04 am
Given that I've had a funny start to the year climbing wise I decided to re-test myself last night. As usual, I'm struggling to decipher my numbers. Does anyone know what percentage scores are considered poor / acceptable / good for the AeroCap and AnCap measures?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: highrepute on July 17, 2018, 03:39:41 pm
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 (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1915164308496552/) 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.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: spidermonkey09 on July 17, 2018, 04:12:03 pm
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 (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1915164308496552/) 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.

 :worms: :worms: :worms:
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: reeve on July 17, 2018, 04:21:45 pm
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 (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1915164308496552/) 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.

Ouch! Already a member of that group. I hope that by posting here you'll see that my true colours are that I'm a Shark fanboy
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: moose on July 17, 2018, 04:45:37 pm
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.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Tommy on July 17, 2018, 07:01:32 pm
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.

Hmmmm... I'd be curious too!  ;D

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!!  ;D

Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: moose on July 17, 2018, 07:24:26 pm
Just to clarify, I was not entirely dismissing your approach - but my work has given me a bit of a suspicion of models.  I have experience of models that have lots of user definable variables - so they can always manipulate the result so that it fits a known outcome but are useless for predicting an unknown outcome from a set of conditions!  I was curious to know if, say, factors like height or flexibility, are used as "fudge" with a wide range of effects, which can be used to bring the results of the assessment closer in line to what you already know in advance? 

That said, I would be up for the assessment (had toyed with the idea previously) - be good to have a completely objective view of my peculiar set of climbing characteristics... even if I have to pay!  And, be nice to know if I am over or underachieving, or neither.  You would have to promise not to go looking through my posting history for mentions of past projects though! 
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Yossarian on July 17, 2018, 07:35:43 pm
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 (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1915164308496552/) 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 think a number of them were down at Portland this weekend. Comparing their electric car battery recharge times and then informing the entire crag that they were ‘“offski” because it’s Sunday night rosé happy hour in Clapham...
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: teestub on July 17, 2018, 08:53:18 pm

That said, I would be up for the assessment (had toyed with the idea previously)

Lattice challenge, love it! Looking forward to the results!
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: moose on July 17, 2018, 09:18:56 pm

That 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!
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: tim palmer on July 17, 2018, 09:37:51 pm

That 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!

Don't forget to add spurious associations, then the recipe will be complete!
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Sasquatch on July 18, 2018, 01:05:27 am
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.

Hmmmm... I'd be curious too!  ;D

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!!  ;D

Is this open for anyone?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: highrepute on July 18, 2018, 08:05:19 am
For it to truly blind you have to get someone else to do the test and provide you with only the numbers. Or it there a judgement element to the assessment?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: remus on July 18, 2018, 09:58:06 am
For it to truly blind you have to get someone else to do the test and provide you with only the numbers. Or it there a judgement element to the assessment?

(For context, I look after the numbers at Lattice which includes putting together the models we use.)

For the test Tom's talking about there'll be some judgement involved. The model's don't include any 'fudge factors' and there's obviously a big technique/tactics element to climbing (that we're still working on measuring). What the models do help with is giving you an objective view of your physical ability, so there's no hiding behind the old 'weak fingers' excuse if we measure you as being really strong!
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: 36chambers on July 18, 2018, 12:36:54 pm
For it to truly blind you have to get someone else to do the test and provide you with only the numbers. Or it there a judgement element to the assessment?

(For context, I look after the numbers at Lattice which includes putting together the models we use.)

For the test Tom's talking about there'll be some judgement involved. The model's don't include any 'fudge factors' and there's obviously a big technique/tactics element to climbing (that we're still working on measuring). What the models do help with is giving you an objective view of your physical ability, so there's no hiding behind the old 'weak fingers' excuse if we measure you as being really strong!

Have you guys got any data on rates of improvement?

For example, could you tell me how long you would expect an average male with typical 8A bouldering scores (across all parameters) to get typical 8B bouldering scores, if they followed your training plans.

Asking for a friend.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: teestub on July 18, 2018, 12:42:58 pm
I'm betting the current data show a range of 6 months>Infinity.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: remus on July 18, 2018, 03:10:52 pm
I'm betting the current data show a range of 6 months>Infinity.

Pretty much. Measuring the effectiveness of training interventions is really hard because there's a huge raft of confounding factors (sleep, diet, age, training history and so on).

It reminds me a bit of testing new medical interventions. The question is pretty simple on the surface (do people who get treatment A respond better than people who get treatment B?) but despite being an industry with plenty of cash to spend on research it's still really hard to do a properly run trial that answers the question with a suitably large degree of certainty.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: tim palmer on July 18, 2018, 04:27:51 pm
I'm betting the current data show a range of 6 months>Infinity.

Pretty much. Measuring the effectiveness of training interventions is really hard because there's a huge raft of confounding factors (sleep, diet, age, training history and so on).

It reminds me a bit of testing new medical interventions. The question is pretty simple on the surface (do people who get treatment A respond better than people who get treatment B?) but despite being an industry with plenty of cash to spend on research it's still really hard to do a properly run trial that answers the question with a suitably large degree of certainty.

With that being said, why sell this product as a research driven method when you dont have evidence that it works to improve even the narrow parameters of the tests, let alone the far more complex area of actual climbing?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: abarro81 on July 18, 2018, 04:50:05 pm
I don't think they do sell the board as a training method per-se, it's the plans/sessions which are the method, with the board as a tool to help create the plans...
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: tim palmer on July 18, 2018, 05:01:03 pm
But 36chambers was referring to the plans....

Plus do the assessments not form part of the plans?  I.e. test - train - test

Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: remus on July 18, 2018, 05:29:20 pm
With that being said, why sell this product as a research driven method when you dont have evidence that it works to improve even the narrow parameters of the tests, let alone the far more complex area of actual climbing?

Im not quite sure what you're saying here. If you climb on the lattice board you'll definitely get better at climbing on the lattice board, and the evidence we've collected so far suggests that doing lots of moves on the lattice board correlates well with certain aspects of climbing.

What we can't do is say 'do this training session on the lattice board and you'll be able to climb route xyz in 6 months'. Same as we can't say 'do this fingerboard session for 6 months and you'll be able to climb your first 8B'.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: duncan on July 18, 2018, 05:54:38 pm

For the test Tom's talking about there'll be some judgement involved. The model's don't include any 'fudge factors' and there's obviously a big technique/tactics element to climbing (that we're still working on measuring). What the models do help with is giving you an objective view of your physical ability, so there's no hiding behind the old 'weak fingers' excuse if we measure you as being really strong!

Sometime back I asked if you had estimated the how good your model was - what percentage of grade could be explained by the variables you record. It is straightforward, as I'm sure you know, to do this with a regression analysis. I'd love to know how important the measurable physical factors are (on average) compared to harder-to-measure factors like confidence and technique. Of course, if the model only predicts 30% of grade then perhaps you'd prefer to keep quiet about it!   


It reminds me a bit of testing new medical interventions. The question is pretty simple on the surface (do people who get treatment A respond better than people who get treatment B?) but despite being an industry with plenty of cash to spend on research it's still really hard to do a properly run trial that answers the question with a suitably large degree of certainty.

This is a reason often given by alternative therapists for the lack of research into their interventions: they are too individualised and there are too many variables. It's a poor excuse, the process of evaluating complex interventions is well-practiced and quite straight-forward, you mainly need enough people in your study. Logistically it can be a bit of a challenge, but that's a project management problem. (The bigger issue with drug trials is new drugs are very frequently disappointing in real patients when compared against current treatments. This is not an issue with the trial process).





Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: dunnyg on July 18, 2018, 05:57:25 pm
But does increasing the number of laps you do on a lattice show an increase in grade in individuals.

Ie if I start on trial 1 doing 20 moves then follow your training plan, 6 months later I can do 40 moves, can I climb harder routes?

I think Tim is pointing out you havent presentes any evidence for this.

I'm neither pro or anti lattice for what it's worth. Trying to do science is good though.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: dunnyg on July 18, 2018, 05:58:16 pm
Then what Duncan points out is the next question to answer.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: remus on July 18, 2018, 08:10:33 pm
...you mainly need enough people in your study. Logistically it can be a bit of a challenge, but that's a project management problem.

Yeah, that's the problem. Lots of variables means you need lots of people to have confidence in your result, and getting lots of people to follow a strict training protocol for an extended period of time is hard. Saying it's just a project management problem is a bit disingenuous, if the practicalities of the study mean it can't be done then it's a pretty poor study!
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: tim palmer on July 18, 2018, 10:54:57 pm
I suppose conventionally trials don't ask the participants to pay, so I guess that might have something to do with it
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Tommy on July 19, 2018, 10:03:43 am
I suppose conventionally trials don't ask the participants to pay, so I guess that might have something to do with it

It's actually got nothing to do with it. We've been running a study with Dave Giles (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dave_Giles2) this summer looking at whether Critical Force protocols can be implemented in climbing (and what we can learn from them) and whether it's a single day or multi-day study, you'll find it's very hard to get applicants who are suitable. It's completely free on both of those events.

I think the big thing to appreciate here is that (as far as I know) we're the only organisation that's put in years and years worth of time to collect data beyond 10-50 individuals and we've done it from 6a to 9b and from V3-V15. Each and every year we keep adding to the pool of what we're doing and auditing our results to make things better. We could have just sat on "the product" a few years back and not bothered to do anything else! Of course there will ALWAYS be improvements to make and better ways to do things. We work on this every single day and we're absolutely committed to it. I'm 99% certain, that not a single coaching outfit ploughs as much of their income back into research as we do.

For those who do want more research, we have a paper that'll be available on finger strength profiling very shortly and there's also a review paper been written. Second to this, the Critical Force study with Dave will be available for review.

For those that want more input on their improvements and data surrounding gains, we're now operating an athlete monitoring program which the individual can be involved with or I guess, we might make it public (in summary) if we think it's useful to other people out there.

Moose - send me an email and we can chat about meeting up!  :great:

On last thing - someone asked if whether you can do a program then up doing more moves on the board and does that = increase in route climbing grade? The answer is yes it does. And no, the correlation is not perfect (obviously!). That's one of the main reasons why an assessment includes a battery of tests (much like any decent profiling tool) and the conclusions should be drawn from the big picture if you're a quality coach. Much that we'd all love to say 5.4% in test A = 5.4% in climbing, it's totally unrealistic as sport doesn't work like that. Again... that's why you use multiple tests in any profiling the closer you want to get to "perfect" correlation.

Just thought one more last thing - the one person I think we'd probably be able to look at in detail for assessments is Will Bosi. We've trained and assessed him multiple times from 8a+ redpoint through to 9a and V8 to V14. Would people find it interesting to see a view of data?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: tim palmer on July 19, 2018, 10:24:51 am
I suppose conventionally trials don't ask the participants to pay, so I guess that might have something to do with it

It's actually got nothing to do with it. We've been running a study with Dave Giles (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dave_Giles2) this summer looking at whether Critical Force protocols can be implemented in climbing (and what we can learn from them) and whether it's a single day or multi-day study, you'll find it's very hard to get applicants who are suitable. It's completely free on both of those events.
.........
 I'm 99% certain, that not a single coaching outfit ploughs as much of their income back into research as we do.

Thank you for that answer, really clear, just a couple of points for clarification.

I apologise for my pointed comment, presumably the data for your upcoming finger strength paper is from a free trial?

I think 99% of other coaching outfits don't push the data angle nearly as hard, the only one I can think of is those guys doing the isometric things in the states, what do you think of their approach?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: roddersm on July 19, 2018, 11:35:51 am
But does increasing the number of laps you do on a lattice show an increase in grade in individuals.

Ie if I start on trial 1 doing 20 moves then follow your training plan, 6 months later I can do 40 moves, can I climb harder routes?

I think that is an interesting point.

As someone who has done a test and found it pretty accurate, I do wonder if the accuracy does decline due to familiarity with the board and circuit.

Has anyone done multiple tests?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Tommy on July 19, 2018, 11:48:42 am


Thank you for that answer, really clear, just a couple of points for clarification.

I apologise for my pointed comment, presumably the data for your upcoming finger strength paper is from a free trial?

I think 99% of other coaching outfits don't push the data angle nearly as hard, the only one I can think of is those guys doing the isometric things in the states, what do you think of their approach?
[/quote]

FS paper is combination of paid and unpaid research. The CF study is all unpaid and the current Lattice Board validation study is all unpaid (AFAIK).

Re: C4HP - yeah it's interesting stuff that he's doing. Very nice to see that someone else is spending decent chunks of time developing a system and collecting data on it too. From what I know so far, he's working with very small groups of climbers and that he's focused on measurement methods that exclude climbing movement (we have found a number of issues if you remove too much climbing specificity during tests). It'll be good is to see what he's finding once the big numbers add up - in our experience the findings become significantly more reliable (and informative of where you want to direct further research) once you're going above 100 individuals. The whole gender split is a BIG issue as well as the junior vs adult. Basically, the more and more we delve into climbing research, the more we realise how complicated it is and how an "ultimate" system is likely to have 10's of 1000s of hours behind it and some hefty maths/stats/analytics.

Right.... sorry for any further non replies on this thread. Got loads of work I'm supposed to be doing  :spank:

Hit me up anyone if you see me at the crag or indoor wall. Always happy to chat!!! 
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: duncan on July 20, 2018, 12:32:23 pm
...you mainly need enough people in your study. Logistically it can be a bit of a challenge, but that's a project management problem.

Yeah, that's the problem. Lots of variables means you need lots of people to have confidence in your result, and getting lots of people to follow a strict training protocol for an extended period of time is hard. Saying it's just a project management problem is a bit disingenuous, if the practicalities of the study mean it can't be done then it's a pretty poor study!

If few people adhere to the protocol it is a poor protocol. Lots of people might be dropping out because they developed elbow problems for example. That doesn't make it a poor study.

Are you familiar with the differences between exploratory and pragmatic studies?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Fultonius on December 21, 2021, 08:59:36 pm
Bit late to the party...

I booked an assessment about 3 years ago but for various and dull reasons I kept cancelling. Thought I'd better get round to it while it was allowed and I wasn't injured, in an attempt to prep for the winter and some longer term goals.

As I mentioned in the Power Club, my results were generally unsurprising except for a couple of things:

1 arm finger strength was better than expected. I've always felt my 2-arm max load was a higher level than my 1 arm, but I managed to get -13kg (they've recorded -18kg on my RH, but I had a cheeky second go and managed it but it didn't get recorded.)

The fatigue tests were very odd. I wonder if I maybe underachieved (lack of familiarity of the "circuit", and not being all that warmed up - I rarely manage a PB endurance route without having got a bit pumped in my warm up). I was also faster than recommended at 1.42 s / move, but I always climb fast...

Max Test: 57 moves. Felt pretty good until the last 5 moves and fell off a cliff.  (TCA Prop Store is 20 deg)

Lap 1: 43
Rest: 64s (and this stayed the same all the way)
Lap 3: 43
Lap 2: 43

>>Interlude - WTF?  Lap3/Lap1 is meant to be your Aerobic Score. Mine are the same  :-\ :shrug: This makes me think 57 was under-representing my max and therefor 43 moves was pretty easy?

Lap4: 30
Lap5:25
Lap6:17
Lap7:18
Lap8:14

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/rT196NSIFn2-H01Jd80BkClsDcCH2k7vTKqSmRItqjp9Vb9nUMhWeYvCA3zy4xU2FF-tBZ08kn_X0WmRV0RyKHnhCGchFe4d4DklW6TIo4BXd3TSxLpeG0gab728kC7zVFX6zoVpxSs_7V2hNchbhCPGwH7lIagnbEC-4iqg6rj8-XoPXj-Qy8zaO66q0371Ga3V-aNL_qENtMonsYNOh8kkYELl5DRU1UbJbvkMYMxusfmT3cbmKMLgLJwjrThCbx6GQmMR_SPEIBToGki4b6xXLwda1e6ngepFwbrB1wq97pb6YI4h0IDb78FyCaTyhNVVOXXB9alW0DfV1kkLJYQbNXvArOzuQXn3UnWyj4H_RAvk1loAweaU2EEgmvS81ZvBa0mNrr2mCq1Rg3yQbJtVoaR5ZiiYWuNomSx7yvPKuvTnF63V6jon0E7cLfdF9CMXbTslBih4cgt6NxYJXjY9T5k0nzTY3EkGEILBAWJFsyPBP_QgeQottDd3i_i5FHfTOFE9Funsdcs6JtMD5s2pWrfDJ9zXz260WwSPbSEMK0ioVs8z3BXRkAIqh2YZs3gRo8dfjwDPTVC0hgpaRmSog2ruK7syoD3IELnokhLy1atITNRb6Qi3Mzh8iohWT4QhpHtbI2k5w8rNMZOHNyXrk0Qt2Qvh0yfLzFazpiyTXeeWBnmipfg5qNL5D9AEY25F1LkHFKSWROYmxySwwg2d=w937-h677-no?authuser=0)

The comment is that my Max Moves are good and within the error bars, and my efficiency score is good.

I'm a bit baffled to the next bit though, as it seemed to be saying my anaerobic capacity/power?  (metabolic conditioning phase) was pretty crap, but that my work capacity was very high. The comments in those sections were very conflicting about the level of intensity and volume of training, one saying I would need to carefully and slowly increase it, and the other saying I had it spot on.

I suspect things a bit skewed somehow?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Fultonius on December 22, 2021, 09:04:41 pm
No thoughts on this? Or is this the Covid19/Politics only forum these days?  :boxing:
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Stu Littlefair on December 23, 2021, 10:50:12 am
I’ve always found the lattice test hard to understand or explain properly, but I’ll have a go and Alex or Remus can correct me if they disagree.

The explanation below uses a simplified version of the hydraulic model of Morton (1990)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2307912/

We model your forearm muscles by assuming have two “tanks” to provide energy for climbing. The aerobic tank is essentially infinite in capacity, but limited in the rate of energy it can supply. The anaerobic tank is limited but can supply energy at a high rate.

A harder move requires energy at a higher rate. So if you climb above a certain intensity you’ll drain the anaerobic tank.

The crucial bit is this: the rate at which you can get energy from the anaerobic system DROPS as you drain the anaerobic tank.

The idea behind a lattice test is that eventually the rate at which you can get energy out will drop below what you need to stay on: this relies on it being too hard to be fully aerobic.

So in terms of energy systems, what happens during a lattice test is this:

1) Your first go fully drains the system, largely emptying your anaerobic tank.

2) Whilst resting, the anaerobic tank slowly refills. The rate at which this happens depends on your aerobic fitness. If you like, you can think of the aerobic tank slowly providing the energy to refill the anaerobic tank.

3) The amount of time you can manage in the next few goes depends upon the rate at which you are refilling the tank; it measures how aerobically fit you are.

4) Eventually the times you can stay on will plateau. This will happen when the amount you drain your anaerobic tank balances the amount it gets refilled in rest periods. Lattice seem to use this plateau as a measure of anaerobic capacity, but I believe it’s more complex than that. I’ve never fully wrapped my head around what this measures.

The test will go very badly awry if the condition in (1) is not satisfied and you don’t fully drain the system on your first go. This can happen a number of ways but I’m guessing the most common is a lack of commitment, learning the circuit as the test proceeds, or a simple foot slip.

If you don’t drain your anaerobic tank fully in step 1 then it can almost completely refill whilst resting and your times will stay the same.

Looking at your first 2-3 reps I would say this is what happened. If you have access to a lattice board and stopwatch you can always retest? I suspect now you know the circuit and the test you would get more conventional results.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: abarro81 on December 23, 2021, 11:05:15 am
I wouldn't want to second guess how the results have been turned into observations, but would agree that it looks like you just "underscored" on your first time around. I wouldn't read much into it without repeating the test on yourself. If you get weird scores on 2-3 separate occasions then I'd be inclined to think it's "real", though I'm not entirely sure what it would mean.

As an aside, from my limited experience of both of them, I'm more sold on the critical force test on Lattice's digirung (or Tindeq or similar) than the lattice board assessment. It still has a lot of unknowns (e.g. what really is W' - maybe we're back to just calling it "power endurance"?) but feels more useful to me.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Aussiegav on December 23, 2021, 11:13:04 am
On a more simplistic question; if I want to get really fit & conditioned for routes but don’t have a partner to belay, Will climbing on the lattice board serve this function better than doing the auto belays at Awesome Walls in Sheffield?

I have found the lattice board produces a high intensity of training but the moves are repetitive which means over working one style of movement and muscle group.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: abarro81 on December 23, 2021, 11:19:49 am
In general I would plump for "real" climbing over lattice board/foot-on-campus/repeaters unless there's a reason not to (e.g. you want to test yourself, or you want a basic "finisher" where you can go to the death on something that's technically basic, you want to fit in a quick session before work, or you don't have time to make up a circuit). I don't like autobelays that much though - I find they affect my movement - so prefer circuits or up-down-up-down on problems or 4x4s or looping around the wall etc...
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: ali k on December 23, 2021, 11:26:11 am
Not sure if it’s just me but I find the angled rungs of the latticeboard pinch my little fingers to the point that I give up through pain.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Fultonius on December 23, 2021, 10:16:55 pm
I wouldn't want to second guess how the results have been turned into observations, but would agree that it looks like you just "underscored" on your first time around. I wouldn't read much into it without repeating the test on yourself. If you get weird scores on 2-3 separate occasions then I'd be inclined to think it's "real", though I'm not entirely sure what it would mean.

As an aside, from my limited experience of both of them, I'm more sold on the critical force test on Lattice's digirung (or Tindeq or similar) than the lattice board assessment. It still has a lot of unknowns (e.g. what really is W' - maybe we're back to just calling it "power endurance"?) but feels more useful to me.

Thanks Stu/Alex, that kind of sides with what I thought. I'll do a retest sometime. I reckon if I do a few single laps as "war up" and then have a good go on the max test I'll probably score higher. I was basically pretty comfortable up to about 4 or 5 moves before I failed, and then just got boxed on the downclimb. I suspect if I was a bit more aerobically warmed up (i.e. like if I was going for a PB onsight etc. I would have squeezed out 4 or 5 more moves and then the first 3 laps wouldn't have felt so cruisy.  That said, I didn't ever really "plateau" but maybe that's also due to it being slightly too low intensity for laps 1-3.

Anyone else find the downclimb quite awkward? I wonder if it's being tall? Mainly just being not that technically proficient  :lol:
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: duncan on December 24, 2021, 10:36:43 am

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/rT196NSIFn2-H01Jd80BkClsDcCH2k7vTKqSmRItqjp9Vb9nUMhWeYvCA3zy4xU2FF-tBZ08kn_X0WmRV0RyKHnhCGchFe4d4DklW6TIo4BXd3TSxLpeG0gab728kC7zVFX6zoVpxSs_7V2hNchbhCPGwH7lIagnbEC-4iqg6rj8-XoPXj-Qy8zaO66q0371Ga3V-aNL_qENtMonsYNOh8kkYELl5DRU1UbJbvkMYMxusfmT3cbmKMLgLJwjrThCbx6GQmMR_SPEIBToGki4b6xXLwda1e6ngepFwbrB1wq97pb6YI4h0IDb78FyCaTyhNVVOXXB9alW0DfV1kkLJYQbNXvArOzuQXn3UnWyj4H_RAvk1loAweaU2EEgmvS81ZvBa0mNrr2mCq1Rg3yQbJtVoaR5ZiiYWuNomSx7yvPKuvTnF63V6jon0E7cLfdF9CMXbTslBih4cgt6NxYJXjY9T5k0nzTY3EkGEILBAWJFsyPBP_QgeQottDd3i_i5FHfTOFE9Funsdcs6JtMD5s2pWrfDJ9zXz260WwSPbSEMK0ioVs8z3BXRkAIqh2YZs3gRo8dfjwDPTVC0hgpaRmSog2ruK7syoD3IELnokhLy1atITNRb6Qi3Mzh8iohWT4QhpHtbI2k5w8rNMZOHNyXrk0Qt2Qvh0yfLzFazpiyTXeeWBnmipfg5qNL5D9AEY25F1LkHFKSWROYmxySwwg2d=w937-h677-no?authuser=0)

Interesting plot and answers. Shouldn’t Lattice be explaining the result to you themselves?


On a more simplistic question; if I want to get really fit & conditioned for routes but don’t have a partner to belay, Will climbing on the lattice board serve this function better than doing the auto belays at Awesome Walls in Sheffield?

I aim to get close to the angle of the routes I’m interested in, in my case vertical/gently overhanging trad. or trad-style sport. Autobelays work well for me. I sometimes mix it up with a steeper circuit board or timed bouldering for a bit of variety. If was mainly interested in steeper routes (like Alex?) I’d make more use of circuit boards of the appropriate angles.

Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Fultonius on December 24, 2021, 11:31:22 am
I have queried it Duncan, and I'm going to re-do it next week in my own time to see how it compares.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Fultonius on December 29, 2021, 03:21:37 pm
Weirdness gets weirder....

Re-tested today with a warm up more conducive to a hard endurance route, and tried a bit to get more efficient sequencing for the drop down/left traverse (which I struggle with).

Managed to do 60 moves in the max test, which actually corresponds better to the expected (I was expected to get 61 moves). Confusingly it took me 2 mins 30 seconds, so around 2.5 seconds per move. (unless I did a full extra lap and mis-counted, but I'm fairly certain it was 4 full laps plus 4 moves, so 60 moves.)

I then did my laps, starting at 45 moves. First round it took me 58 seconds (I didn't feel like I was going way faster, but that's 1.3s per move, almost twice the speed...)

I then did 2 more laps after 58 seconds rest each time, and managed the full 45 moves again. Time per lap seemed to be more around the 1m30s - pacing is clearly all over the place for me! Sacked it off there as I again had no reductionin moves per lap between L1 and L3.

So, I've basically had roughly the same result, just everything is shunted up by 7%.  I'm tempted to just ignore the max moves test next time, and just do laps starting at 50 moves, using a metronome to help pacing. Even so, it does seem like I have a slightly unusual aero/anaero energy system mix?  :-\
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Aussiegav on December 29, 2021, 06:37:17 pm


Anyone else find the downclimb quite awkward? I wonder if it's being tall? Mainly just being not that technically proficient  :lol:
Yes. And I’m 5’8. (Not tall)
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Fultonius on December 30, 2021, 09:55:13 am


Anyone else find the downclimb quite awkward? I wonder if it's being tall? Mainly just being not that technically proficient  :lol:
Yes. And I’m 5’8. (Not tall)

I'm always fine on the up climb and the traverse right, but 12-13-14 just sends me into irreversible pump. Fortunately all my projects go up.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: AJM on December 30, 2021, 10:14:20 am
Fultonitis I'm tempted to say you need to force more consistent pacing and look at the test results in that scenario. I can't unpick exactly how it's skewing the results but pacing differences of 2x must be doing something.

Also, isn't the rest period supposed to be 1:1 with climbing time at a lap level, not at an attempt level (you say you had a 58s gap between all climbing attempts)?

This may have changed since I last did it, admittedly, but I thought the rest time was supposed to match the climbing time from the previous lap, not the first lap, so should (your wierd pacing aside!) get shorter as your move count decreases.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Fultonius on December 30, 2021, 11:08:27 am
Fultonitis I'm tempted to say you need to force more consistent pacing and look at the test results in that scenario. I can't unpick exactly how it's skewing the results but pacing differences of 2x must be doing something.

Also, isn't the rest period supposed to be 1:1 with climbing time at a lap level, not at an attempt level (you say you had a 58s gap between all climbing attempts)?

This may have changed since I last did it, admittedly, but I thought the rest time was supposed to match the climbing time from the previous lap, not the first lap, so should (your weird pacing aside!) get shorter as your move count decreases.

Yeah, I'll go again with strict pacing. I'm not sure if it's "changed" or if it's the way my assessor understood it, but when I did it with him he set the rest period as the length of the first rep of the block of 6, and it stayed consistent throughout. I'm generally a fairly fast climber so I need to actively slow down for the test. Either way, weird pacing aside (my lap 2 was 1.30 and third 1.10) I still did the same number of moves...
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: AJM on December 30, 2021, 11:18:26 am
Yeah, I'll go again with strict pacing. I'm not sure if it's "changed" or if it's the way my assessor understood it, but when I did it with him he set the rest period as the length of the first rep of the block of 6, and it stayed consistent throughout. I'm generally a fairly fast climber so I need to actively slow down for the test. Either way, weird pacing aside (my lap 2 was 1.30 and third 1.10) I still did the same number of moves...

Different time under load and different mix of loaded/unloaded though - your lap 1 was at 40% of max effort in seconds versus 75% in moves, so perhaps it's not surprising you were able to repeat it a few more times before decay set in.
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: abarro81 on December 30, 2021, 11:25:39 am
I'm not sure if it's "changed" or if it's the way my assessor understood it, but when I did it with him he set the rest period as the length of the first rep of the block of 6, and it stayed consistent throughout.

It's a long time since I did an assessment, but I don't think I've ever done that... Also I would go to failure every lap apart from the one where you do 75% or 80% or whatever it is. So, IIRC, you might go to failure @ 60 moves, rest however long it is (20 min?), do 45 moves, rest the same as that took, go to failure, rest the same as that took, go to failure, rest the same as that took... Whereas it sounds like you stopped at 45 moves each time? If so it's maybe not surprising that you didn't see a curve because you're never actually failing - I can envision a scenario in which your max is just not that high (e.g. because you've not done much getting pumped for a while) so 75% of max is not that hard for you and if you stop at that point every time instead of going to failure it doesn't build the intended curve. Maybe the protocol changed since back in the day or just this question doesn't come up often because people usually fail earlier, but I'm pretty sure the old version I did involved failure on every rep after that 75% or 80% one. I'm sure Lattice could confirm...

And yeah, if you change pace by 2x then everything will be messed up because like AJM says your first 45 move set will have been far too easy since you were on for about half the intended time...
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Fultonius on December 30, 2021, 01:49:05 pm
Yeah, I'll go again with strict pacing. I'm not sure if it's "changed" or if it's the way my assessor understood it, but when I did it with him he set the rest period as the length of the first rep of the block of 6, and it stayed consistent throughout. I'm generally a fairly fast climber so I need to actively slow down for the test. Either way, weird pacing aside (my lap 2 was 1.30 and third 1.10) I still did the same number of moves...

Different time under load and different mix of loaded/unloaded though - your lap 1 was at 40% of max effort in seconds versus 75% in moves, so perhaps it's not surprising you were able to repeat it a few more times before decay set in.

True. Metronome next time I think!

Alex  - I was aiming to go to failure each lap, but if I did that lap 2 would have been longer than lap 1!  45 was bang on failure for lap 3. I stopped after this as I realised it wasn't going improve my results.

My speed seems to range from 0.4 moves/second at the longest (but I actually struggle to believe that....) when I did 60?? Moves in 150 seconds. This would make a lot more sense if I had miscounted and it was 74 moves - still 0.49 moves/second. I struggle to believe. however, that in my first assessment I was 57 moves to failure, then jumped to 74 this time.... 

Maybe in my official test my rest times were also coming down with my reps?  I wasn't on the clock so that might have been the case.

At least all this re-testing is probably doing some good ancap training :lol:

So, next time:  1. use a metronome and climb at 0.65 moves per second (seems to be roughly my usual average).
2. Film/get a helper to do the counting / timing
3. make each lap in the 6/7 reps the same rest:climb ratio

Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Paul B on December 30, 2021, 03:48:03 pm
Instead of a metronome and influencing how you climb can you not just use Shoecamtm and then count afterwards?
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Fultonius on January 06, 2022, 09:27:19 pm
OK, so the feedback from the assessor is "inconclusive". Any Lattice boffins in the house able to elaborate? I've just engaged in a 14 week block of AnCap, so I'm really hoping I'm going for the right thing....

This ^^ and NoaB's mention of Dumbuck got me thinking about my last hard redpoint: https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/174742867 

14 moves in about 1 minute, pure Anearobic Endurance eh?!   
Title: Re: Using a latticeboard
Post by: Aussiegav on January 07, 2022, 06:04:46 pm
Great footage!  Enjoyed that  :popcorn:
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal