[spinmaster]

Hi Nibile

I am 40 and used to train one day on and one off. I've now reduced the session length to around 1.5 to 2 hours and training for 6 days with one off. If I feel really good then I do two sessions in a day. The improvements I have been getting are much better than before. Certainly noticed much more muscle mass gain, which I normally struggle with. I find I can't hit my fingers to hard so the 3rd day is always sling training, which works different muscle groups to my normal climbing muscles.

Been doing this for the last 4 weeks with no problems so far. Dropping it off in the next few weeks to focus on routes.

Would be interested to see how you get on.

[mr__j5]

One point that I think that it is always easy to forget in these sort of discussions is that often what makes somebody able to be a top cranker is thier ability to handle the volume of training.

The weekly routine for a top athlete, even if you scaled it down to my abilities and gave me a year or two to build my fitness up enough to cope with it, would break me in a short amount of time. I just don't have the body to cope with that level of exercise.

Also, looking at the comparison with cycling, the thing these days that the road cyclists mainly concentrate on in training is recovery. They do weeks and weeks of massive volume at low intensity sometimes only adding in the top end by doing races. So a normal training ride is 5-6 hours with a cafe stop. This then gives you a much base for coping with the hard stuff when it comes and for recovering from it afterwards.

[Nibile]

yes, that's a good point.
I've wasted many years training too much and in the wrong way (always at full throttle, never changing routines, no rest periods, etc), so I never had climbing results that were coherent with my training.
but all those years made me able to bear a big load of training now.
I think this is quite common in climbers that started a while ago, when there was less information and everything was trial and error, and error, and error.

[Nibile]

on another matter, I had an interesting email exchange with The Guru the other day, regarding training intensity.
While I can check my training volume if I need, not overdoing, stopping strong and so on, I find it really difficult to check my intensity.
I previously thought that I should measure the intensity of the session, on an absolute scale, more or less representing the ideal 100% intensity and at the same time my best ever performances.
So on "weak" days, in which I didn't feel very strong or powerful despite trying hard, I would mark that session in my training diary as a "low" intensity session, because my performances weren't high.
I think I was wrong.
I think that the intensity must be measured on the single session, judging what percentage we give of that day specific potential.
So my weak sessions were weak, but their intensity was very high nonetheless.
I found out that I always train at high intensities, because I don't know how much I can give until I give it, and when I give it I give it all because that's what I like.
I think that this is another factor that makes training volume a particularly important factor.
Has anyone else similar experiences respect training intensity? Are you able to train, say, at 70% intensity on a specific session?
Moreover:
how do you judge a problem intensity? Many coaches tell you: set 4 problems at 70% intensity and repeat them, etc...
Do people follow just their sensations, or do they try to use better, more precise methods to check a problem intensity?

Thanks.

[Serpico]

Rest days are for kids
I recover far quicker, and am able to tolerate a far higher volume and intensity of training in my 40's than ever I could in my 20's. I don't recover quite as quick as a few years ago, but I also don't have the same appetite for training I did then when I was doing 5 days a week, 2 sessions a day.
Volume and recovery are trainable variables, and it's true that they decline as you get older, BUT.... this is only a problem if you've already hit your genetic max in these areas, and there's nobody on this thread (in the world?) who has to worry about that, so you can always offset this decline with training (unless life gets in the way, which it usually does).
I recently had a bit of a training renaissance, and I've started doing double sessions again. This time (following your example Nibs) I've done my training session (weights and deadhangs) a couple of hours before my climbing sessions, and initially the climbing session was quite compromised, and short, but I'm adapting and I can actually pack in a reasonable level session now, with some blocs at my maximum level - there's always room for adaptation within your genetic capabilities.

Has anyone else similar experiences respect training intensity? Are you able to train, say, at 70% intensity on a specific session?
Moreover:
how do you judge a problem intensity? Many coaches tell you: set 4 problems at 70% intensity and repeat them, etc...
Do people follow just their sensations, or do they try to use better, more precise methods to check a problem intensity?

With the Klimb software I came up with an equation that multiplied the internal value (based on the YDS scale) for a problem exponentially, so that doing one V8 in a session gave a higher volume/intensity score than doing 10 x V1, and it seems to work well. In practice I go by feel on my recovery weeks - I do shorter sessions, take longer rests in between, problems and take two lots of consecutive rest days in the week. I don't drop the grade of the routes/blocs though, I think it's important to keep that high, just reduce the volume.
The best thing about being a bit older (unless you've just started climbing) is that you know your body, you're better able to judge what you can tolerate and how long it'll take you to recover.
As for the original question about short everyday sessions, or longer sessions with rest days; I've done tried both and they each work, it's more a matter of what fits with your training/life balance, and what keeps you motivated.
You're Nibs - motivation isn't an issue

[ghisino]

The idea to me is that training power you have to be short. The 3 sets of hangs that I am not doing right now, which gains would give? I mean, could I still keep such a high intensity on the second 3 sets, as to make them worth doing? Or would they be a loss of time both in terms of effort and hindering a fast and good compensation?

beast,

from what i recall my french guru saying, the 3 additional sets would probably start to fatigue your actual muscle and tendon tissues. Which would need longer time to compensate, probably even longer as you grow older (but i'm not sure)

At the same time the french guru also said that even for young elite subjects, you really have to dig deep before having a "worthwhile" muscular growth effect in your forearms (ie on mucle fiber and not just on muscle fluids). You'd have to get ubertrashed and find a smart way to do that without hurting your pulleys (negative finger rolls???).

His conclusion was that unless you have a long enough offseason and a disciplined athlete in his/her "building phase" who will trash him/herself for a few months and accept the short-term performance loss, specific strenght is best trained focusing on the neuromuscular factors only.
So the final general presciption was: very brief very intense sessions, almost daily to build strenght  or once a week to maintain.
If possible, best done in the morning after a good sleep (as you are probably the most recovered and neurologically active at that time of the day).

[Fiend]

Okay that's interesting...

I get that shorter sessions could mean less fatigue and less recovery time.

But surely you need that fatigue to stress your muscles enough to rebuild stronger?

And if you're not doing that and instead focusing on neuromuscular training....well I get that, but surely as a veteran climber your neuromuscular level will be quite good already??

[mr__j5]

But surely you need that fatigue to stress your muscles enough to rebuild stronger?

More recent sport science opinion seems to say that there is a point in which you have applied enough stress to your muscles to achieve the required effect of the workout.

After that you are just getting everything more tired and guaranteeing a longer recovery will be needed.

[Fiend]

Okay and what is that point then? 

[Nibile]

following last two weeks' efforts, I'll stop being a lazy bastard and I'll start posting again on the Power Club.
I want to do this also because yesterday I had a very strong session, coming from four days on.

on a side note,
does anyone know how could I make graphs about performance fluctuations, to check the form in various training periods? I have all the data written down, but a graphic view would be great.
I'm not very good with computers...

[mr__j5]

Okay and what is that point then? 

Well that is the tricky bit 

[shark]

But surely you need that fatigue to stress your muscles enough to rebuild stronger?

More recent sport science opinion seems to say that there is a point in which you have applied enough stress to your muscles to achieve the required effect of the workout.

After that you are just getting everything more tired and guaranteeing a longer recovery will be needed.

Okay and what is that point then? 

An overview of this subject is covered well here: http://www.theclimbingdepot.co.uk/blogs/training/blog-1-the-principles-of-training  but unfortunately there isn't a magic indicator that tells you precisely the optimum point to stop a training session. But, this is the bread and butter of any athlete in whatever discipline constantly questioning such things as what is good overload and overtraining and discriminating between training soreness and pain from injury. There are also moving targets to deal with as you become stale in one area and fresh stimulus/training is needed or perhaps more intensity/density/frequency is required as your body has adapted to cope with current volumes.

If you set out at the start of a training session with a specific adaption in mind (and if you hadn't you should) you  will probably have a good feel of what will work you hard enough in that area to induce the adaption without  tiring you to the extent that it unnecessarily compromises your next training session. The motto of "stopping strong" is quite useful in this respect particularly for power/strength sessions.   

[Fiend]

If you set out at the start of a training session with a specific adaption in mind (and if you hadn't you should)

Does "PULLING HARD ON SMALL HOLDS" count??

Useful explanation, thanks.

[JDobo]

Not to thread hijack but i was wondering how the lower intensity and higher frequency is for the exact opposite. That would be a younger climber but has not been climbing for a particularly long period of time.

[Nibile]

I think that low intensity works only as a build up phase to prepare the body for future training, or as active rest or recovery.
I don't think that a low intensity-only training would gave the same results as higher intensity.

[Sasquatch]

I think that low intensity works only as a build up phase to prepare the body for future training, or as active rest or recovery.
I don't think that a low intensity-only training would gave the same results as higher intensity.

I think the first sentence mixes two different concepts, and misses the importance of goals.  If you goal is build your ability to handle volume (something I see on the powerclub threads), then low intensity is VERY good at building volume.  Nibs is looking at Power/Strength(bouldering) training, so for him this tends to be true. 

The second sentence is very true, though.  The two types of training should be looked at relative to ones own goals.

[Pebblespanker]

on a side note,
does anyone know how could I make graphs about performance fluctuations, to check the form in various training periods? I have all the data written down, but a graphic view would be great.
I'm not very good with computers...

Nibs the easiest option is probably a spreadsheet tool like Excel but if you have never used it you'll need a someone to show you how it all works - I seem to remember you teach occasionally - there should be someone there who can provide a quick primer or failing that buy a good basic guide to Excel. The only downside will be getting a copy of the software - cheapest option is the Student/Home edition of Office - unless you know someone who can get you a copy ...  and supply a licence key ...  Another option may be open source type software but as I have never used it I can't comment - perhaps post a query in the appropriate forum of UKB??

I work on a Windows 7 platform so have no idea about Mac based tools etc.

I use Excel to track my various training programmes and it has excellent graph options - if you go the Excel route let me know I'll ping over a copy of one of mine so you can a) have a good laugh, b) use it to customise to record what you want etc

[slackline]

Another option may be open source type software but as I have never used it I can't comment - perhaps post a query in the appropriate forum of UKB??

LibreOffice is free open source software and will open most M$ documents.

You can also use Google Docs spreadsheets to generate simple graphs.

An over the top solution would also be possible using R and the ggplot2 package (probably easier using RStudio though as a Command Line Interface isn't to everyones taste).

[Nibile]

on a side note,
does anyone know how could I make graphs about performance fluctuations, to check the form in various training periods? I have all the data written down, but a graphic view would be great.
I'm not very good with computers...

Nibs the easiest option is probably a spreadsheet tool like Excel

I use Excel to track my various training programmes and it has excellent graph options - if you go the Excel route let me know I'll ping over a copy of one of mine so you can a) have a good laugh, b) use it to customise to record what you want etc

yes I have Excel on my pc, I use Windows XP. I'd like to see a sample, if you please. many thanks!!!

[Nibile]

I resurrect this to re-post a question that didn't get a precise answer (or it did but I did not understand it).
I always note the volume and intensity of my sessions, from 1 to 10.
I judge them relatively to the session, and not to a maximum that I know I have.
If I give my maximum in two different sessions, in one feeling weak and in another feeling strong, I note both sessions, the weak one and the strong one, with a high intensity mark, let's say 8/9.
Am I correct in doing this?
Or should I understand that I'm having a weak session and note it with a low mark because I'm performing poorly with respect to my absolute maximum?
Thanks.

[LucyB]

I thought I would just chip in with my unhelpful comments 

I'll be 40 in October, my training - and therefore fitness - is down the pan. It's not directly related to age, more to do with having 2 children and having to re-train and set up 4 businesses at once. If I ever get time to climb more than once a week again, I shall look back at this thread for pointers 

[lagerstarfish]

If I ever get time to climb more than once a week again,

I think once a week is enough for you to retain your DFBWGC membership, so that's one good thing your not missing out on.

[LucyB]

Lagers, you are completely deluded (unless there is a Dead Fat Birds Who Go Climbing thread that I have missed).

I have not been posted on that thread since the lovely andi_e posted - ooh, must be back in 1985 now?

[Sasquatch]

I resurrect this to re-post a question that didn't get a precise answer (or it did but I did not understand it).
I always note the volume and intensity of my sessions, from 1 to 10.
I judge them relatively to the session, and not to a maximum that I know I have.
If I give my maximum in two different sessions, in one feeling weak and in another feeling strong, I note both sessions, the weak one and the strong one, with a high intensity mark, let's say 8/9.
Am I correct in doing this?
Or should I understand that I'm having a weak session and note it with a low mark because I'm performing poorly with respect to my absolute maximum?
Thanks.

I think the depends on what you're trying to see.  Whenever I've tried to track intensity and volume, it's been to carefully monitor training load to avoid overtraining.  If you can't hit your target intensity for the training session, you need to evaluate why.  It could be an isolated occurrence due to sleep, diet, etc, but it could also be an indication of overtraining.

[biscuit]

I'd agree with Sasquatch on that.

The most important thing to note is that you performed well below expectations. That is what needs highlighting, however you record it.

For me i would show it was a max effort ( as long as it was a max physical effort and not a poor session due to lack of psyche ) but highlight it as a poor session. If you note it down as an easy session you run the risk of not seeing the warning signs of over training/under resting and trying to push on through.

i avoid this problem by never trying very hard.