[rosmat]

Yeah I guess that's true. Fair enough.

[standard]

so who wants to stump up 23 quid?
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19346182.2012.716061

[slackline]

so who wants to stump up 23 quid?
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19346182.2012.716061

Cheers, will  see if I can get that in a few weeks when back at work, but with N = 9 randomised to two groups its not a huge study, so hard to generalise (see rant below, but the confidence intervals for the effect size will be large).

Its utilised a cross-over study design where it can often be difficult to separate out the effects/benefits of the previous training regime.

Will need to read in greater detail about the analysis, but from the abstract it looks like the percentage changes are compared to baseline within each group and not whether there is a statistical difference between the two groups, but only reading the full article will reveal whether this is an error in the way the abstracts written or not.

<rant>And its fucking lazy not to provide confidence intervals for the estimated changes (the percentage changes in the grip strength and endurance) and also very, very lazy to write p > 0.05 when statistical software spits out exact p-values for people to read themselves</rant>

[biscuit]

I agree with whatever it was Slackers just said ......

[Ally Smith]

Is "Sports Technology" some kind of micro-niche journal? I can't even find a impact rating for it...

My Athens account can't access it (admittedly from an industrial firm, not academia) and a friend studying medicine can't get hold of it either.

All in all, this isn't looking like this work has undergone the best experimental design (few participants, potential for cross-over between groups), nor the most robust statistical analysis, nor is published in a journal with a significant impact rating, which mght lower how stringent the entry criteria are for publication.

(I might just be bitter: I only got one paper out of my Masters and PhD thesis combined )

[jwi]

I could access the article from my University without any problems.

[Ally Smith]

A copy of the Eva Lopez paper arrived in my Inbox a few days ago. Thank you to the sender (you know who you are); it has made for some interesting reading.

What has interested me most was not the content of the paper, but the information that has been left out.

The general synopsis is:
- the main tenent of the paper is not a direct comparison of the effectiveness of a max added weight (MAW) v. a min edge depth (MED), but a a comparison of a duel MAW:MED 8 wk cycle v. MED:MAW cycle
- The method of testing the max strength of participants is a MAW test at set intervals
- The amount of weight added during the MAW phase for both groups is listed and is greater for the MAW:MED group than the MED:MAW group.
- However, what is missing is any data regarding the progression/additional intensity that either group showed during the MED component.(Reduction in MED used)

I hypothesise that there was very little increase in intensity (reduction in edge depth) for all participants during the MED component due to the physcial discomfort of training on such small edges and thus there was little traing effect as intensity remained constant (N.B. the training was done a wooden edge, not resin a la the Progression finger board).

I would like to have seen included in the study a comparison of a MED v. MAW with the max strength test assessed by both MAW and MED, rather than just MAW.

A couple of extra points:
- With regards to the Barrows/Three Nine comments about the increase in strength being due to a tapering effect (not training the day before the finger board sessions) the participants in the study were all doing 2-4hrs of "technical and physical training" 6 days a week (bouldering, PE, enduro mixture). So, although the gains seen by the UKB guinea pigs might be a tapering effect, this study doesn't support that conclusion.
- The paper also acknowledges that the strength gains shown in this study were due to neural adaptation and not any hypothropy. Which is supported by the fact that 4 weeks after the training had finished all strength gains in both groups had disappeared.

[shark]

- However, what is missing is any data regarding the progression/additional intensity that either group showed during the MED component.(Reduction in MED used)

I hypothesise that there was very little increase in intensity (reduction in edge depth) for all participants during the MED component due to the physcial discomfort of training on such small edges and thus there was little traing effect as intensity remained constant (N.B. the training was done a wooden edge, not resin a la the Progression finger board).

Hi Ally,

The edge was adjustable and the participants hung the smallest edge for 10 secs that they anticipated they could hold for 13 secs. I think any wooden edge you can hang for 13 secs has to be reasonably comfortable (by climbers standards anyway) so I dont see the physical discomfort being an issue unless you are a total wad able to hang a razor blade for 13 secs.

For the MED phase I just used the same small edge and increased weight as I got stronger which is far more practical if you dont have a Progression fingerboard. It worked really well too.

[Paul B]

- With regards to the Barrows/Three Nine comments about the increase in strength being due to a tapering effect (not training the day before the finger board sessions) the participants in the study were all doing 2-4hrs of "technical and physical training" 6 days a week (bouldering, PE, enduro mixture). So, although the gains seen by the UKB guinea pigs might be a tapering effect, this study doesn't support that conclusion.

"10 sets of between 3 and 90 moves" - that's a huge difference. Having some people bouldering and others performing stam-lord exercises detracts somewhat; it's hardly surprising that there might be some strength differences between those two types of training after an 8 week cycle!

For the MED phase I just used the same small edge and increased weight as I got stronger which is far more practical if you dont have a Progression fingerboard. It worked really well too.

So really, despite all of your interest you're not really following the study at all? 

For me the study shows that a 4 week cycle of heavily weighted deadhanging is a good way to get highly recruited (something a strong Scot probably did years ago). Beyond that, I feel your guess is as good as mine.

[Gus]

I think the one mistake most people are making with this training is that 4 weeks or 8 weeks or whatever are enough to see strength gains that are something to get excited about.

Try doing it for a year or two with the rest of your climbing and I'm sure it will have a great effect!!

[Three Nine]

Neurological gains are real, just transient. If you're trying to peak for a route or a trip then it hardly matters that its transient.

[LB]

Is "Sports Technology" some kind of micro-niche journal? I can't even find a impact rating for it...

...

Do climbing articles tend to appear in A* rated sport science journals? Maybe this is an unfair bar to measure it against. Actually what are the highly rated sport science journals?

[slackline]

Is "Sports Technology" some kind of micro-niche journal? I can't even find a impact rating for it...

My Athens account can't access it (admittedly from an industrial firm, not academia) and a friend studying medicine can't get hold of it either.

All in all, this isn't looking like this work has undergone the best experimental design (few participants, potential for cross-over between groups), nor the most robust statistical analysis, nor is published in a journal with a significant impact rating, which mght lower how stringent the entry criteria are for publication.

(I might just be bitter: I only got one paper out of my Masters and PhD thesis combined )

Impact factors are a load of crap used to manipulate/craft universities stature (and in the UK their REF rating).  A piece of research work stands (or falls) alone, regardless of where it is published.

The rest I agree with so far (having only read the abstract).

Is "Sports Technology" some kind of micro-niche journal? I can't even find a impact rating for it...

...

Do climbing articles tend to appear in A* rated sport science journals? Maybe this is an unfair bar to measure it against. Actually what are the highly rated sport science journals?

See the Wiki training page for some other climbing related articles I've listed with links to the journals if you're bothered about impact factors (something like Web of Science or PubMed should give you Impact factors for journals).

[LB]

Do climbing articles tend to appear in A* rated sport science journals? Maybe this is an unfair bar to measure it against. Actually what are the highly rated sport science journals?

See the Wiki training page for some other climbing related articles I've listed with links to the journals if you're bothered about impact factors (something like Web of Science or PubMed should give you Impact factors for journals).

This is useful. Ta. I ask because of the tendency of top journals, in particular, [in my experience] towards topics or authors who are in vogue. I was interested if climbing research is viewed as increasingly worthy, in academic circles. Off topic now I think.

[Sasquatch]

Neurological gains are real, just transient. If you're trying to peak for a route or a trip then it hardly matters that its transient.

Out of curiousity and hoping for education, how would you test/measure how much of the gains were nueral vs. non-nueral?

Basically wondering from a longer-term perspective- If this concept is primarily nueral, it would be very logical to use for peaking (final macro-cycle), what would be optimal for strength gains in the 6 months prior? i.e. is this any better/worse than other strength options for setting up repeated strength cycles?

[Serpico]

Out of curiousity and hoping for education, how would you test/measure how much of the gains were neural vs. non-neural?

In practice you couldn't, but gains that aren't neural are physical so; muscle size and possibly pulley/tendon deflection.

Basically wondering from a longer-term perspective- If this concept is primarily nueral, it would be very logical to use for peaking (final macro-cycle), what would be optimal for strength gains in the 6 months prior? i.e. is this any better/worse than other strength options for setting up repeated strength cycles?

I don't think the concept is primarily neural, that hasn't been established either way, any strength program of this length is going to be mainly neural gains first time around, I'd have rather seen her stick with the MAW method for 8wks with forearm cross sectional area measured pre and post.

[Sasquatch]

I did two 4 week sessions of MAW separated by 2 weeks off, but didn't do any measurements.  From a strength and application standpoint, I feel like I've seen substantial applicable gains, and am certainly climbing the hardest/strongest I ever have. I also saw substantial gains during the second 4 week cycle. (2nd cycle-I started out adding 52% of BW and ended up at 67% of BW)

I've mentioned before that it doesn't seem like the second cycle gains should be nueral, which seems to be what you're saying as well.  For my winter training, I'm leaning towards using 3 repeated 6 week cycle of MAW hangs, with 2 weeks of campusing between (aimed at retaining contact strength).

 

[Paul B]

what were your gains in the first 4 week cycle (more or less than the 15% in the second)?

Can I also ask, were you doing much deadhanging before doing the MAW routine?

[Sasquatch]

what were your gains in the first 4 week cycle (more or less than the 15% in the second)?

Can I also ask, were you doing much deadhanging before doing the MAW routine?

First 4-week cycle started off adding 40% of BW and ended adding 52% of BW, so a little bit less from that perspective.  I did lose weight during this period, so based on total hanging weight, I saw 9% total gain during the first cycle, and a 7% gain during the second cycle (16% as compared to initial hanging weight). (most of the weight was lost during the second cycle)

I don't have much long-term history of fingerboard work(>8 months), but I started doing deadhangs in December using the intermediate beastmaker repeater cycle - 2 rounds of repeaters on 6 grips.  I followed this routine for about 3 months with significant gains, then shifted to campuswork for about a month, then in April went back to repeaters.  I had never done max weight hangs prior to this. 

[Paul B]

It'll be fairly interesting to see how that progresses if you choose to do a 3rd, 4th, 5th etc.

[Sasquatch]

It'll be fairly interesting to see how that progresses if you choose to do a 3rd, 4th, 5th etc.

I'm doing the MED cycle right now, then I'll probably take a break for about a month, then back into MAW hangs.  At this point I'm looking to do 3-4 4 week cycles with about 1 week off between over the winter.  I'll keep posting as I go through the multiple cycles. 

[Nibile]

Has anyone tried to test maximal hang duration on an edge?

[Sasquatch]

Has anyone tried to test maximal hang duration on an edge?

I haven't retested since beginning, but before i started, I was able to hang about 42 seconds on an 18mm edge. 
I'll try tomorrow after my other hangs and see how I do.

[Nibile]

Cheers beast.

[abarro81]

"10 sets of between 3 and 90 moves" - that's a huge difference. Having some people bouldering and others performing stam-lord exercises detracts somewhat; it's hardly surprising that there might be some strength differences between those two types of training after an 8 week cycle!