[cjsheps]

In the past, my approach towards training strength has been to try the single hardest moves I can do (for example on absolute-limit boulder problems). However, after a few conversations with friends recently, and thinking about how  will barely ever do less than 3 reps (if the exercise isn't isometric) have left me questioning this philosophy.

Also, I've just been through a microcycle heavily weighted towards high-intensity strength endurance, and this seems to have resulted in bigger gains in finger strength (during a given time) than my previous strength training (max hangs under 10s, 1-3 moves at my limit). My theory is that this is due to a significantly higher volume of hard(ish) moves.

Does anyone have any opinions on the training value of the link of a problem etc? Thanks a lot UKB

[krymson]

Pure speculation but since no one else is answering, here goes:

In weight lifting 1 rep maxes aren't commonly done because it's hard to get the form right at your absolute limit. Poor form means the muscle doesn't get trained as well, and greatly increases risk of injury.

I feel like the arguments would be the same in climbing. It would probably be more beneficial to do multiple hard moves near your limit(perhaps failing 1-20% of the time) vs just one super hard one you can barely do if at all(maybe failing 30-50% of the time). Especially considering the importance of engrams and such.

[cjsheps]

Thanks a lot! 

[krymson]

How's it working out for you, CJ?

Not that this is very scientific but in the past week I've actually started following my own advice   and applying this principle of linking several moves instead of focusing on 1-2 hard moves.

So at the bouldering gym I would do problems with moves at 70% of my limit, which means when im on the wall i dont fall unless i do at least 2 or 3 hard moves.

This week I'm consistently stronger not just at Links, but also at individual hard moves., as in moves i actually did not practice last week because they were too hard (less than 30% probability of success)

To give some more data - besides that one bouldering session i just did route climbing until today, as well as one fingerboard session on saturday(which im sure helped as well), but the amount of gain i've had this week is pretty significant, and at least partly chalked up to working links instead of individual hard moves.

[shark]

Generally speaking if you focus on any one sort of training or climbing for too long you will plateau or get stale as the body will shrug off the stimulus so furthermore you are not able to increase the intensity. You might be able to extract further gains by upping the load through reduced rest or more reps but sometimes its just better to switch to something else to give the body a different sort of stimulus and unsurprisingly you start making gains.

[cjsheps]

It's been working really well! I'd been doing high-intensity strength endurance training for a while and tried a 45 board session yesterday. It's probably the strongest I've ever felt on that board, and hopefully this will translate to my climbing. However, in the long term some shorter repetitions will be necessary to top up that top end, almost neurological ability to pull off a hard move.

[krymson]

It's been almost two months since i've followed the philosophy of training bouldering strength through links of 2-5 hard moves  instead of repeatedly trying 1-2 limit moves which are lower percentage.

It's been mostly almost entirely positive and I've been steadily gaining strength and power.

Working links means in each session I'm working many many more moves, volume and time on the wall than if i work individual moves.

In each link, i still do moves which are hard for me yet no one move is entirely enough to shut me down. My body repeatedly experiences the feeling of successfully pulling off hard moves with less of the failure. A lot of quality engram programming occurs.

because there is more volume, my strength is also more generalized - i've become stronger at pinches, at big campusy movements, at body tension moves, underclings, etc.

Finally, on a limit move your brain is overwhelmed by the effort to stay on or move and often even if you succeed you're kind of flailing or wobbly., but on a hard link you are challenged yet have enough excess awareness to really feel your balance and improve the movement.

That doesn't sound ground breaking but if you visit any bouldering gym you'll see folks obsessing over a hard problem and working 1 or 2 moves to death, repeatedly falling and with each attempt getting further and further away from success.

[robertostallioni]

It's been almost two months since i've followed the philosophy of training bouldering strength through links of 2-5 hard moves.....

so, problems that are on your limit?

  .....instead of repeatedly trying 1-2 limit moves which are lower percentage.

instead of problems that are above your limit?

That doesn't sound ground breaking but if you visit any bouldering gym you'll see folks obsessing over a hard problem and working 1 or 2 moves to death, repeatedly falling and with each attempt getting further and further away from success.

Rarely see anybody trying the same move more than 3-4 times. To be fair most folks come in and smash around on 20ish problems on their limit, ticking some and just making links on others.

Unless we include Stubbs. 

[Nibile]

I haven't done 20 problemas in the last year, probably...

[krymson]

Rarely see anybody trying the same move more than 3-4 times. To be fair most folks come in and smash around on 20ish problems on their limit, ticking some and just making links on others.

me and my friends must be tenacious mofos then.

often see people working a move that is very hard(too hard) for them, or worse, climbing a problem up to the hard move and falling there repeatedly.

I've definitely been guilty of the former

Good in small doses to grasp a new technique or train recruitment but for strength training it's pretty much worthless.

[krymson]

btw,

If someones is smashing around on 20 problems at "their limit" in one session and ticking some, they by definition aren't climbing at their strength limit. The problems may be in some way hard, but the limit would be mental, endurance or stamina, not strength.

If I'm working strength, I would by definition try problems above my limit. They would have sustained hard moves which i can do individually, but can't yet link into a send.

[a dense loner]

This is not aimed at you krymson. If you're repeatedly failing on moves that are to hard for you that's not training strength that's you being a dick.

[shark]

I'm a dick

[Stubbs]

As Stallion pointed out above it would seem I am also a dick. Hoping to be less of a dick on my next session on the same problems!

[tomtom]

I'm nearly always a dick. To be fair, the times I'm not being a dick by not trying problems I can not do then I'm also probably also not not being a dick.

[Durbs]

I'm a dick, and so's my wife.

[Sasquatch]

You're making this way too hard.

You don't strength train using weights by constantly trying to lift something you can't lift.  You lift something that you can lift, and do it a certain number of times depending on what your workout specific goal is.  Periodically, you'll test yourself and see what your max is.  Done.  You can get into the details, but the reality is that it is this simple.  Even isometric training is done at a weight you can hold statically. 

Translating this into climbing is more difficult, because most of the time people fall off a move because they do the move wrong.  They are missing the technical aspect, not the strength.  What fool's people is that be getting stronger, you can do the move using greater strength instead of greater technique.  That doesn't change the fact that you fall off of a move because of the technique. 

In each link, i still do moves which are hard for me yet no one move is entirely enough to shut me down. My body repeatedly experiences the feeling of successfully pulling off hard moves with less of the failure. A lot of quality engram programming occurs.

I would assume from this that your technique has gotten better - Unless you've done controlled strength tests, I'd be hesitant about assuming you're "stronger". 

because there is more volume, my strength is also more generalized - i've become stronger at pinches, at big campusy movements, at body tension moves, underclings, etc.

Again, why assume it's your "strength".  I would assume it's your technique, rather than your strength. By increasing your volume, you've increased your technique training.

[Moo]

I'm sorry sasquatch but that post just made far too much sense in a no fuss straight forwards kind of way, especially for this forum.

Can we have the same again but perhaps include the picture of a goose?

[tomtom]

or an artists impression of Webbo after his massive bike ride - sat in a chair surrounded by chip and kebab detritus - with a can of beer in his hand.

But a goose is probably easier.

[Sasquatch]

So I have to admit, I don't get the goose reference......   

I think I may have a picture of me after a massive bike ride surrounded by food scraps with a beer in hand though

Here's my bouldering training plan. 
Step 1. Build Strength.
Step 2. Build Technique
Step 3. Apply and crush.

Simple.

[a dense loner]

Sasquatch basically said the same as I did but used 200 words whereas I used 3

[Sasquatch]

Yep

[saltbeef]

I'm a dick too. I disagree too. If you just rumble round doing stuff you can do it's too easy. I think the concept of doing 1 or 2 moves that are near or above your limit is definitely a worthwhile exercise to answer the OP question. Besides training max power you are likely developing a skill repertoire or new skill that has got to be a good thing. constantly failing on a move and gaining no insight into that move isn't necessarily worthless, if you are making inroads into actually doing that move and learning subtleties and nuances in order to actually perform it has to be beneficial. I also agree that doing lots of problems near your limit is a worthwhile endeavour too. ( I used more than 3 words, I also used capitals, grammar and sentences!)

[Sasquatch]

I never said it was worthless.  I said that generally speaking it's not the most effective method for strength training.  In fact, I would argue that neither links nor single hard moves are the most effective strength training method.  There are far more effective ways to train strength.

That said, I think both are really important.  Maybe I should have made it more clear, but I find the volume of hard moves is the best way to learn technique and engrams, and learning the confidence to do hard moves.  I just don't think it's the most effective strength training.  (an aside would be if you are setting and training specific movements in a controlled way such as a system board) 

constantly failing on a move and gaining no insight into that move isn't necessarily worthless, if you are making inroads into actually doing that move and learning subtleties and nuances in order to actually perform it has to be beneficial.

If you are gaining no insight, I'd argue that it is worthless, but I think that was a typo as you contradict yourself by saying you are learning subtleties and nuances, which by default means you are gaining insight.

[krymson]

Here's my bouldering training plan. 
Step 1. Build Strength.
Step 2. Build Technique
Step 3. Apply and crush.

Simple.

What if you could do both?

It's a bit hard to separate strength gains from technique gains but focusing on links recently I've made progress on individual moves, even on problems that i haven't touched for ages. (Is there some secret technique to pinching harder?)

My body tension feels stronger than ever, and DOMS has been a frequent visitor. Not just in the forearms either.

In any case, I think the most important measure of strength is being able to pull hard, physical moves and use bad holds. On that measure links have been working great for me.

[SA Chris]

I think the concept of doing 1 or 2 moves that are near or above your limit is definitely a worthwhile exercise

Is that like giving 110%?

[tomtom]

I think the concept of doing 1 or 2 moves that are near or above your limit is definitely a worthwhile exercise

Is that like giving 110%?

For me its closer to 100.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 %

[turnipturned]

Trying several individual hard moves that take you more than 3 sessions at a climbing wall is surly pretty demoralising, boring and you probably end up doing very little climbing.

Why don't you give yourself 6 weeks, two sessions each week and set yourself 6 boulder problems varying between 4-8 moves on a 45 board. All problems should be different in style using different kind of holds.

Problem 1 (easiest): Should be fairly hard but suits your style and strengths, should aim to do this in a session 10-20 goes of trying super hard.
Problem 6 (Hardest): Super hard, have two back to back moves that are ridiculous. First session you should be able to tag the holds of the back to back moves individually, but not be able to hold them, the style should be something you are rubbish at/ or holds you are not very good at using. You should aim to send this on your last session of your 6th week.

All the other problems should be somewhere in between, but the harder ones should be tailored towards your weakness or a certain problem you have in mind for the real stuff that actually matters (rock). Ideally, first week, you should be able to do one of them in a sesh, week 2 should able to do two of them in a sesh, week 3, 3 of them etc etc.

Before you try any of your problems, warm up well (20-30mins) on easy problems but also pulling on some crimps, pinches or whatever type of holds your board problems have on them. Then have between 1hour- 1 1/2 hours on the board pulling as hard as you can, give 100% and no less on each try whether that being one individual moves or linking the whole problem. Remember to try and finish relatively strong.

By the end of the six weeks, you should aim to do all the 6 problems you have set in a session.

Not that I know anything about training but this is something that I tend to do if I am preparing myself to try a hard problem on rock! Probably total rubbish, but it's pretty satisfying when you send all 6 in a sesh. 

[Charlton Chestwig]

This might be slightly an aside but, I think, useful point to make within this topic...

I think for a long time I had no concept of the difference between adapting to an exercise and 'real' training.

Using the campus board as and example: If you haven't done much and then choose to get started laddering away twice a week you may find yourself improving quickly up to say 1-4-7. If this has taken 4 weeks work you would be forgiven for thinking that you have just done 4 weeks of hard training and achieved a gain. But most of that ability will have come from (IMO) technique and adapting to the exercise. Continuing doing the ? x 1-4-7s each session twice a week and not being tempted to seek something harder now that this is within your limit (just) for say a further 8 weeks is where the real gain would come from.

You could level the same argument at the example posted by turnipturned above. Once you can do the 6 hard problems in a session, perhaps see this as the start of the training proper and then use the next 8 weeks to do these problems each session several times. I think that at the end of this period you would be a "stronger" climber than if you had used this time to create another 6 problems to work out how to do.

Of course this is based on my experience and my logic, not science!

Rich

[Moo]

No dense you said weren't calling somone a dick but then called them a dick. I'm a dick and I'm still waiting on a picture of a goose.

[SA Chris]

Have two.

[Nibile]

My ideal session is:
- get to the gym late
- chat around being cool
- crush the hardest problems in a vulgar display of power. Children cry. Adults hide. My hair is still perfect
- leave the gym surrounded by girls.

As you can imagine, it's not common for me to have such a session.
I think that all previous posts make sense. Somehow even just failing to do a move is training: I train the power to propel me up, the technique, etc.
What I think is often overlooked, especially in gyms, is that some problems must be so hard that you can't "cheat" your way up with technique or tricks, or jumps, etc. I mean, bad holds, bad feet. It's not always a matter of linking the moves, it's a matter of holding the positions first. This makes me progress also.
Power training happens at various levels: the power to do the move, and the power to do the problem. These two must go hand in hand. If you only do single moves, you'll climb small bits of hard problems, if you only do 4x4 you could climb problems but could easily find a stopper move.
It's important to train close to the max: while this is very easy to assess on very short problems, it's difficult in longer links. Many people mistake failing on a link because pumped and failing on a link because weak (at that point of the problem or session). They keep training, they get less pumped, but they don't grow stronger, so the harder problem will still be too hard for them.
Finally, I think that every option has its place, but it's crucial to know what you're doing and why you're doing it (what you'll reap out of it). A goal, in terms of project or training goal.

[Nibile]

Oh, and this:
][url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/70381658@N00/9616127716/]
image by Nibile, on Flickr[/url]

[Sasquatch]

What I think is often overlooked, especially in gyms, is that some problems must be so hard that you can't "cheat" your way up with technique or tricks, or jumps, etc. I mean, bad holds, bad feet. It's not always a matter of linking the moves, it's a matter of holding the positions first. This makes me progress also.

This is absolutely key to strength training by actually climbing. If this is the case, then the only solution to doing the move or problem is to get stronger.  I'd argue though that this is Exceptionally hard to find unless you set the move yourself - think Malc in Splinter.  Very rarely will you ever find this set at a gym. 

Finally, I think that every option has its place, but it's crucial to know what you're doing and why you're doing it (what you'll reap out of it). A goal, in terms of project or training goal.

So going back to the original post. A maximum strength cycle(max hangs) was followed by a strength endurance cycle(not specified type), and the strength gains were greater from the strength endurance cycle for the given period of time.  The question was if one was better than the other.  Without more knowledge of the training history or actual results (for example how was the strength measured?)  it's very difficult to answer the question.  A good comparison though can be  repeaters (strength endurance) vs. Max hangs(max strength).  Both will gain you finger strength at different rates.  Is one better than the other-No.  As Nibs states above you have to understand the goal of your training.  I find alternating the two to be very effective for me for strength training.  As Charlton mentioned below there's an adaptation period to all types of training, so the question is whether the gains are muscular, nuerological, or technique.

[Nibile]

This is absolutely key to strength training by actually climbing. If this is the case, then the only solution to doing the move or problem is to get stronger.  I'd argue though that this is Exceptionally hard to find unless you set the move yourself - think Malc in Splinter.  Very rarely will you ever find this set at a gym.

This is absolutely true. For me it's a non-issue because I only train on my board (I set) or set my own problems at the gym. I am a moody bastard though.

[Nibile]

As for the main question: I know that strength and power gains are systemic. The famous test with deadlifting only and biceps curls only.
Could it be that a very tailored PE training (real power) could involve more body muscles than single moves or deadhangs, thus provoking a major activation and systemic response?
Just an idea.

[fried]

I think the concept of doing 1 or 2 moves that are near or above your limit is definitely a worthwhile exercise

Is that like giving 110%?

You missed the word 'fabled' in that sentence. oh and 'the'.

[Sasquatch]

As for the main question: I know that strength and power gains are systemic. The famous test with deadlifting only and biceps curls only.
Could it be that a very tailored PE training (real power) could involve more body muscles than single moves or deadhangs, thus provoking a major activation and systemic response?
Just an idea.

Now that's a very good question regarding the value of systemic training activation, but probably far beyond the scope of the original question.