[webbo]

I don't know whether this is that relevant but it might fit in with how and why people respond diffrently to training.
There was an article in Cycling Weekly last year which looked at body types i.e. Endomorph, Ectomorph etc and how they need to train.
It identified people who are natural athletes need to train less than those have tendency to gain weight easily ( I can't remember which is which body type ) and natural athlete types have to avoid training too much as they more at risk of over trainimng and injury.
It implied the volume of training you need is dependant on your body time.
So a fat git like myself needs to train lots but will only have a slight upward curve in performance. where as a natural athlete like lagers on my regime will either be climbing 9a or get injured.

[shark]

just make sure he doesn't fall into the trap of bouldering for fun

If he comes to my camp that will never happen. It will be bouldering for survival.

I heard your flat was spartan but what they meant was Spartan

[SA Chris]

Maybe you're a non-responder to hypertophy stimulus... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17177251
Anyone else see the horizon programme last year about aerobic responders and non-responders? Pretty cool. The genetic test they used is available commercially from XE Genomics.

I remember watching that, I wonder if the one minute exercise actually works?

I wouldn't want the test, results would probably be too depressing.

[Nibile]

just make sure he doesn't fall into the trap of bouldering for fun

If he comes to my camp that will never happen. It will be bouldering for survival.

I heard your flat was spartan but what they meant was Spartan

[Teaboy]

The genetic test they used is available commercially from XE Genomics. It currently only tests for aerobic fitness but there's talk of one in the future which can test for strength.

Hi Pete do you have a link for this as I've googled XE genomics but can't get anything useful

[shark]

I went from being able to climb some v10's in 3-5 sessions, to being able to climb most v10's in a session, and upped my max from v10 to v12. And I'm 100% confident the finger training was the reason, as I was literally doing 3 MAW session in a week and climbing 1 day outside.  That's it, no campusing no climbing in the gym, nothing else really.  But I'm not 100% convinced they did any better than repeaters or some other mechanism for fingerboarding would have done, as I didn't/don't have a long experience with fingerboarding in general.    My fingers were without a doubt my weakpoint, so by actively addressing them, I saw massive gains. 

I think the above is worth highlighting in that it illustrates that (in this case for an experienced climber where fingers really are a weak point) how much can be achieved to improve at bouldering in so little time if the activities are focussed enough. The same was outlined by John Kettle in a recent UKC article  http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=5597 where he went from Font7B to Font7C+ in a year on an average of 2.1 sessions a week of training and/or climbing averaging 6hours a week. It begs the question whether less can be more, and more can be counter productive (sometimes) ? In any case more isn't an option for most of us timewise and because were not conditioned for it.

My end goals aren't bouldering ones so more volume of climbing/training is required than the above I think. Activity on 5 days a week is possible taking mon and fri as rest days with an easier week once a month. Ill do the fingerboarding on Tues and Sat mornings so that I'm fresh for them and can go bouldering later in the day. If 5 days proves too much Ill have a rest day on Weds too.
 
My current thinking is to stick to the Max hangs twice a week for a month or two (or the gains stop) on the #10 rather than the #5 (or is it the other way round) then switch to repeaters/intermittent hangs for a bit more fingery endurance as the season approaches. I'll go bouldering 5 times a week indoors and outdoors stopping strong and introducing more variety. I'll develop an intimate relationship with the undercuts on the Foundry 40degree board and do longer linkups for AnCap/PE again as the season approaches. Might throw in a little weightlifting too.


 

[SA Chris]

And some free weights to address resulting imbalances

And some yoga

[kelvin]

... and some cake 

[petejh]

Hi Pete do you have a link for this as I've googled XE genomics but can't get anything useful

My mistake it's XR Genomics not XE. Here: http://www.xrgenomics.com/


I see they've canned the cheaper basic test and now just offer the 'predictor test+' which comes with a long report, yours for £150. They did send me another test kit when they lost my original saliva sample (not blood sample as I said earlier - that was an omega 3/6 ratio test, too many tests!), but I never got around to re-doing it and it's sitting there unused.

[Sasquatch]

I went from being able to climb some v10's in 3-5 sessions, to being able to climb most v10's in a session, and upped my max from v10 to v12. And I'm 100% confident the finger training was the reason, as I was literally doing 3 MAW session in a week and climbing 1 day outside.  That's it, no campusing no climbing in the gym, nothing else really.  But I'm not 100% convinced they did any better than repeaters or some other mechanism for fingerboarding would have done, as I didn't/don't have a long experience with fingerboarding in general.    My fingers were without a doubt my weakpoint, so by actively addressing them, I saw massive gains. 

I think the above is worth highlighting in that it illustrates that (in this case for an experienced climber where fingers really are a weak point) how much can be achieved to improve at bouldering in so little time if the activities are focussed enough. The same was outlined by John Kettle in a recent UKC article  http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=5597 where he went from Font7B to Font7C+ in a year on an average of 2.1 sessions a week of training and/or climbing averaging 6hours a week. It begs the question whether less can be more, and more can be counter productive (sometimes) ? In any case more isn't an option for most of us timewise and because were not conditioned for it.

This is really tricky, but the answer is almost without a doubt yes.  Sometimes less is more, but that is Extremely relative.   More of what?  Less of what?  And for whom?

My end goals aren't bouldering ones so more volume of climbing/training is required than the above I think. Activity on 5 days a week is possible taking mon and fri as rest days with an easier week once a month. Ill do the fingerboarding on Tues and Sat mornings so that I'm fresh for them and can go bouldering later in the day. If 5 days proves too much Ill have a rest day on Weds too.

I get that your end goals aren't bouldering, but the trick with volume is to match it with recovery.  This where the less/more question comes in.  You will normally get a greater response by doing more, but it takes longer to recover, also the higher the intensity the longer the recovery period.  I've always tried to base my training volumes and such off this concept.  It's all about recovery.   

My current thinking is to stick to the Max hangs twice a week for a month or two (or the gains stop) on the #10 rather than the #5 (or is it the other way round) then switch to repeaters/intermittent hangs for a bit more fingery endurance as the season approaches. I'll go bouldering 5 times a week indoors and outdoors stopping strong and introducing more variety. I'll develop an intimate relationship with the undercuts on the Foundry 40degree board and do longer linkups for AnCap/PE again as the season approaches. Might throw in a little weightlifting too.

As above, That's a high volume of high intensity work.  you may be able to get away without getting injured, but you may also not get the timing right to get to the super-compensation point in the recovery cycle.

[Stu Littlefair]

Shark

The bits where you say you'll throw in repeaters and ancap as the season approaches - this is totally the wrong way round.

These things are your base and should be trained first, I.e now. They take longer to develop than power hence training them first. It's also likely you'll get more improvement from your max hangs if you do them after a solid base of repeaters.

Everything else sounds grand but my advice is to spend two months doing repeaters and ancap, then switch to max hangs as the season approaches.

[AlistairB]

Shark

The bits where you say you'll throw in repeaters and ancap as the season approaches - this is totally the wrong way round.

These things are your base and should be trained first, I.e now. They take longer to develop than power hence training them first. It's also likely you'll get more improvement from your max hangs if you do them after a solid base of repeaters.

Everything else sounds grand but my advice is to spend two months doing repeaters and ancap, then switch to max hangs as the season approaches.

+1, through not really having a plan last year I ended up trying to "catch up" AnCap relatively late and it was a complete disaster in terms of performance on any routes without huge rests. This year I accepted that I no longer knew what I was doing and paid for a coach. My first three months have been spent building an anaerobic base which seems to be the conventional wisdom.

[shark]

Shark

The bits where you say you'll throw in repeaters and ancap as the season approaches - this is totally the wrong way round.

These things are your base and should be trained first, I.e now. They take longer to develop than power hence training them first. It's also likely you'll get more improvement from your max hangs if you do them after a solid base of repeaters.

Everything else sounds grand but my advice is to spend two months doing repeaters and ancap, then switch to max hangs as the season approaches.

I know the periodising theories but this building a base etc didn't work well for me so I'm a little sceptical. You seem to underate max finger strength training probably because you have it in abundance. I don't and find it desperately hard to attain though the weighted hangs is giving me progress and hope so Im not giving up on it till the gains stop. Finger endurance I find easier to top up on.

[Sasquatch]

A bit of a different take on the repeaters side of things.  To me these are basically hypertrophy for the forearms.  In theory, you should get stronger doing the repeaters themselves, while also building the muscles themselves.  Then when you switch back to the Max hangs, you should see greater gains as you've already developed the muscles, and you're looking to mximize recruitment of those muscles.  Repeaters are not finger endurance.

[Stu Littlefair]

Sort of +1 to what Sasquatch said, except that repeaters are sort of in between hypertrophy and ancap for the forearms and will improve both.

Simon - I'm not down on max hangs at all. *In the right place* I think they're very useful. It's just I think they should come after a prolonged period of ancap base and hypertrophy.

You seem to have decided that hypertrophy exercises won't work for you. I think we'll always disagree, but you know your body so I won't argue too much.

But don't leave the ancap until the last minute. Honestly - on that last video you have all the strength you need to climb the oak - it's your PE that let's you down. Those moves on the traverse are much easier and if you're falling off them you are powered out pure and simple. You can get your finger strength sky high this winter and you'll just fail repeatedly at the end of the traverse.

AAAAANNNNNCAAAAPPP!!!!!!!

[abarro81]

I don't really understand the physical/metabolic subtleties of hypertrophy or ancap, but there's got to be significant cross-over given the work and rest times, especially if you work at the strengthy end of ancap, say 12mvs ish or maybe 30sec and something like a 1:4 work:rest ratio.

[Sasquatch]

Sort of +1 to what Sasquatch said, except that repeaters are sort of in between hypertrophy and ancap for the forearms and will improve both.

Yeah, I'd probably do a 4 hang repeater instead of 6 for pure hypertrophy, but that's more a nuance, and I think it'd be pretty specific to the individual...

I don't really understand the physical/metabolic subtleties of hypertrophy or ancap, but there's got to be significant cross-over given the work and rest times, especially if you work at the strengthy end of ancap, say 12mvs ish or maybe 30sec and something like a 1:4 work:rest ratio.

I think there's crossover all the way through, it's just a matter of how much crossover at each point.  Did you see my earlier post with my hypothetical crossover amounts (totalloy pulled from my ass, but a reasonable concept)?

Hypothetically it could be thought of like this(THIS IS COMPLETELY MADEUP TO SHOW A CONCEPT):
1 Rep = 100% MAX STR
2 REP = 95% Max STR, 5% Hyper
3 REP = 90% Max STR, 10% Hyper
4 REP = 80% Max STR, 20% Hyper
5 REP = 70% Max STR, 30% Hyper
6 REP = 60% Max STR, 40% Hyper
7 REP = 40% Max STR, 60% Hyper
8 REP = 20% Max STR, 80% Hyper
9 REP = 10% Max STR, 80% Hyper, 10% Str End
10 REP = 10% Max STR,  70% Hyper, 20% Str End
11 REP = 60% Hyper, 40% Str End
12 REP = 40% Hyper, 60% Str End
Etc.

Think of Str End as Ancap. 

Shark: Can you calculate the gains you've made through each cycle of MAW you've done?  Take the % increase vs. total hanging weight.

[Nibile]

I heard your flat was spartan but what they meant was Spartan

image by Nibile, on Flickr

[lagerstarfish]

I can see why nobody pays good money for a personal training committee

[Sasquatch]

I can see why nobody pays good money for a personal training committee

%^$*%(

You mean we're not getting paid for this!!!

[shark]

Shark: Can you calculate the gains you've made through each cycle of MAW you've done?  Take the % increase vs. total hanging weight.

Possibly but my head hurts. I think I'm just going to get on with the training.

[Fultonius]

Hi Pete do you have a link for this as I've googled XE genomics but can't get anything useful

My mistake it's XR Genomics not XE. Here: http://www.xrgenomics.com/


I see they've canned the cheaper basic test and now just offer the 'predictor test+' which comes with a long report, yours for £150. They did send me another test kit when they lost my original saliva sample (not blood sample as I said earlier - that was an omega 3/6 ratio test, too many tests!), but I never got around to re-doing it and it's sitting there unused.

  So, you spit in a tub, send it to them with a £75 cheque ... and they lose it?  Sounds like the best business plan in the world - i.e. a scam! ha!

[petejh]

Yeah I've started one similar.

PH Gnomics - send me a saliva sample in the pre-paid envelope and I'll send you a report back telling you if you're capable of climbing The Oak. To you, £88.45p

[ianv]

Will the report be written by John Redhead??

[petejh]

It can be, for a £372 premium. For that you get told whether or not you're cable of The Oak and also a report on why you shouldn't climb it because sport routes represent the death of the primal spirit. And a little oil painting of a cock.