[Stu Littlefair]

What an interesting thread. Don't log pile it! Also, if I were you Simon I'd try not to get pissed off by the trinity (Barrows/39/Bennett). Sure they constantly rag on your training routine, but what's their motivation? I find it hard to believe they're just trying to be dicks (39 excepted). It's more likely they genuinely want to help you improve and don't agree with what you're doing.

In terms of commenting on your current regime and the Eva Lopez training plan I have this to say.

There's nothing special about deadhanging on big holds with weights - it's just a way of doing max strength exercises for recruitment. As a result it will definitely provide strength gains, but if it's most of what you do for strength training these will be limited.

If my understanding is right you want to spend most of your time doing hypertrophy training - larger volumes of less intense work (I.e repeaters) -and then have a phase of recruitment (max hangs) towards the end.

So - if you wanted to be in top form for the Oak in 4 months time, spend 3 months doing repeaters, and a month doing the weighted deadhangs. The reason for this is muscle growth takes time, but recruitment is neural and quick.

In other news I think Alex's point about variety is excellent. eatswood is a tempting venue since it's perma dry but if you are feeling like you're in a plateau the last thing you need to do is keep doing the same thing over and over again.

[Doylo]

Its not the first time that Bennett, Barrows or threenine have had a pop. I try consistently to improve and for once had enough of being needled. Apologies for the sense of humour failure.

the 3 stooges 

[shark]

There's nothing special about deadhanging on big holds with weights - it's just a way of doing max strength exercises for recruitment.

Thanks Stu (and Sasquatch)  I will reflect on things but can I just pick up on this point. The fact that I can hang with progressively heavier weights month after month means that the gains must be hypertrophic. Once the gains plateau would that not be the time to turn to another form of deadhanging ?

[Sasquatch]

Yes, but it boils down to effectiveness.  If you think about wt training, classic concept is 3-5reps is ideal max str training, 7-10reps is classic hypertrophy, and 12+ is STR endurance.  That doesn't mean 3-5 reps results in zero hypertrophy. nor that 8-10 does result in max Str gain.

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.

By changing focus as Stu mentioned, you can acheive greater gains in the long run.  Hence the concept of periodization resulting in greater net gains.

The other big question is whether that is the most effective tool for your goals.  I'm a boulderer who dabbles a bit in sport, so my goal is maximal ability over 3-10 moves, and 15-60seconds.  Yours seems to be more heavily weighted towards sport climbing, and as such, Max hangs seem like they should be proportionately less critical.

[Stu Littlefair]

I wouldn't assume that just because you're making gains, you're doing the most effective thing. You could be making faster gains by changing your methods.

I don't know how much ancap you're doing (that's what the kids call it these days, isn't it)? I know you're convinced your fitness is fine and your aerobic endurance may be, but the impression I've always had watching you on your good goes on the oak is that you power out somewhat. It's hard to tell from watching but in your position I'd be splitting what I do 50:50 between ancap and strength training.

[Boredboy]

Just a quick question about hypertrophy and strength training that's been in the back of my mind and wondered if you guys had the answer.

In my scenario in question the climber doesn't have much body fat and doesn't lose or gain weight during a training period in which they see good strength gains. Training for hypertrophy implies increased muscle size / bulk for strength gains. Therefore if there is no increase in muscle size or weight gain during training then any gains made must be down to specific fibre adaptation or neural factors e.g. Motor memory etc.

Does this seem right?

[Paul B]

What an interesting thread. Don't log pile it! Also, if I were you Simon I'd try not to get pissed off by the trinity (Barrows/39/Bennett). Sure they constantly rag on your training routine, but what's their motivation? I find it hard to believe they're just trying to be dicks (39 excepted). It's more likely they genuinely want to help you improve and don't agree with what you're doing.

Have I ever seriously needled you about your specific training?

I've expressed my doubts over the Lopez technique and more specifically the paper (my previous posts were re: this) and the conclusions people have drawn from it but I've never felt the need to comment on the Oak etc., I've never seen you on it so why would I (you did K3 after all)? F*ck, I think I gave her 10x more hassle than you (I was really impressed when she came back with her rebuttal post saying "stop calling it the Lopez protocol" etc).

If you ever feel overly wronged you can/should start giving me a hard time, pointing out that I'm lazy and should actually redpoint things/stretch etc. I'll tell you to f*ck off but I might sulk a bit after.

Just a quick question about hypertrophy and strength training that's been in the back of my mind and wondered if you guys had the answer.

In my scenario in question the climber doesn't have much body fat and doesn't lose or gain weight during a training period in which they see good strength gains. Training for hypertrophy implies increased muscle size / bulk for strength gains. Therefore if there is no increase in muscle size or weight gain during training then any gains made must be down to specific fibre adaptation or neural factors e.g. Motor memory etc.

Does this seem right?

I'd have to be convinced that there's zero change in body composition to rule out hypertrophy. Some people (myself included) don't put on muscle easily (for reference I've never weighed over 60kg, even when I ate like a horse and did weights specifically aiming to put on mass) and don't have a lot of fat to speak of, yet I'm quite certain my body composition changes dependant on training.

[duncan]

Very interesting discussion. sharks, the three stooges don't come across as having a go at you from where I'm viewing. The Lopez paper is a very rare beast, climbing training research, but as science it is not all that. The result is unexpected because it runs counter to principle of specificity which is remarkably universal. Although the difference between the two training groups is statistically significant, the effect size is small (ie not much difference in absolute terms). We’re all after incremental gains but we have to be cautious. There are many potential biases (reasons why we must be cautious about the findings) in the paper. As others have said, this is pragmatic research: add something to what people currently do rather than do the new thing in isolation. Pragmatic research is good, it’s what I like to do because it’s messy and real-life, but, because of the large number of confounding variables (other types of training people are doing) you need 100s of participants. 9 in a group is far too small for this kind of research. If you only have small numbers available it’s very easy to get an accidental ‘wrong’ result. Other biases include that it the assessor does not seem to have been blinded to the intervention her participants received. Assessing strength is more subjective than you might imagine and subtle encouragement of the subjects to try a bit harder can happen easily and unconsciously.

You are discussing grades far in excess of where I operate so feel free to ignore the following but, as Dense puts it in his inimitable fashion, you get good at what you do. So hanging on hard for short periods to (relatively) big holds will get you good at this. Any other improvements in any other aspects of performance - like hanging on smaller holds, or hanging on for a longer time - come as a welcome bonus but it is unlikely that this will be most efficient way to gain improvement in these other aspects. I understand the Lopez paper suggests this is the case but I’m sceptical for reasons above.

I think Barrow’s point about not seeing big gains on rock is a good one. There is so little climbing training research that we’re all guinea pigs to some extent. It’s good to try innovative training ideas. It’s also important to recognise when they are not working. This is tough if you have invested a large amounts of time, effort and emotion and perceive risking a loss of credibility with your peers.

[Nibile]

Searching for big gains on rock to assess a training regime isn't enough.
One could easily be training very well and climbing very badly, because of life's normal issues, etc. Or the route/project could be in bad conditions, etc. Or one could simply have not enough time to climb.

[ghisino]

not knowing anything about the real life background to this 3d...

in one of the first replies there was some kind of rant about plateuing, projecting VS doing lots of more manageable stuff, variety of training VS doing the usual stuff.

it echoes my personal experience of last bouldering season VS the current one (so far).

last year i was almost always chasing some kind of big project. My complementary training was strictly focused on finger strenght and pulling power.
Result: got very close on almost all projects but failed all of them.
Often felt a weird lack of motivation: on one side i desperately wanted to send whatever i was trying at the moment, on the other i felt that the conditions and my shape were not good enough and so i wouldn't even drive to the boulders.

this season i started off by forcing myself to send more manageable things, repeat stuff i've already done, and to do some more "social" sessions, whose point is following a group of friends and/or collegues rather than going bloc-hunting alone.
On the complementary training side, my yosemite dreams and observed lack of general stamina suggested me that i should rather focus on "general conditioning", so i'm mostly doing circuits of core training and all-body movements.
When good conditions arrived, i tried a few harder blocs and things went much better than last year (this is already my best font season out of 5).
Most of this improvement seems related to a more healthy motivation and to a subtle step forward in "flow and feel".

[Nibile]

Most of this improvement seems related to a more healthy motivation and to a subtle step forward in "flow and feel".

Back around you fuckin' Italian hippy.
Here we want to discuss a finger strength that rips slopers from the rock.
 

[ianv]

Shark

Just had a quick google and,  am I right in understanding that the sum total of this method is dh ing with weights on a reasonable hold?

If so, I really don't see how that would be enough on its own to encourage gains in an already reasonably fit climber. It might improve static finger strength/stamina but there is more to getting up something like the Oak than the ability to hang on. If I take an example of Tony Walker (you might remember him from BITD), he could one arm dh for ever but probably only climbed 7c on a very good day. It was the dynamic element of climbing that was his problem and that of anyone who just spent their days hanging off the holds at the poly gym.

Peoples climbing only really improved when movement was introduced (campus boards etc.). I know that for me, just dhing was not the most beneficial use of time, it did not have any element of power stamina/movement  etc. in it and I only really made gains when I was incorporating them into a campus/fingerboard session.

I bet you are falling off the Oak at the move left on the vertical edge, at this point its no longer finger strength that will be your problem but a strong back and the ability to hang on when pumped, obviously getting there fresh would work as well. Neither of which will be improved by just dhing. Also strong biceps and pinch strength would help for the undercut section below which would them make the top bit easier. I could be taking bollocks re my interpretation of the Lopez stuff but I was a bit of an Oak expert!

I think you should take what has been said by others as constructive criticism and not pisstaking, I think they are right that you are possibly wasting a lot of effort on something that will give only small gains when there is a lot of other stuff that would be more beneficial. The most important question to ask yourself is; What would Ondra do? and I bet he doesn't do many weighted dhs.

[Nibile]

The most important question to ask yourself is; What would Ondra do? and I bet he doesn't do many weighted dhs.

Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. Ondra is a professional climber who gets paid to climb. What he does has no link to what Shark can do.

[ianv]

Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. Ondra is a professional climber who gets paid to climb. What he does has no link to what Shark can do.

I think it does, what works for him is likely to be beneficial for mortals as well and he seems to spend most of his "off rock" training on a campus board rather than doing weighted dhs, with reasonable outcomes   .

[krymson]

http://www.mountainsandwater.com/2012/03/interview-with-adam-ondra.html

[Nibile]

OK, I'll take the time to articulate.
Ondra is a young phenom who climbed 9a aged 13. He dedicates all his time to climbing and training.
What he can do, in order to climb a project, is very different from what Shark, or anyone else, can do. Spare time, rest, sleep, family, work, nerves, girls, booze, other interests, are all aspects that are very different from people to people and from professionals in particular, in my opinion.
A campus session before school at 15 is one thing, a campus session before work at 40 or 50 is another.
So, while I understand the meaning of Ianv post, I think that Ondra could be taken as a very very rough example.

[ghisino]

Most of this improvement seems related to a more healthy motivation and to a subtle step forward in "flow and feel".

Back around you fuckin' Italian hippy.
Here we want to discuss a finger strength that rips slopers from the rock.
 

not really sure about slopers, but it would be interesting to investigate a possible correlation between recent crimp breakages in font (sideways, fata) and the use of Eva Lopez's weighted deadhangs.

correlation which, if confirmed, could also paradoxically suggest that said methods, although very effective, are only useful up to a point (if you become too strong, you'll fall because you tear holds apart)

[ianv]

I don't understand why looking at what the very best climbers are doing and trying to integrate it (at a less elevated level and in shorter session) into a training regime is impossible just because someone is older, has less time and less gifted.

I never said Shark should follow Ondra's training routine to the letter, obviously that's not going to work. What I meant was that he should take cues from it ie: inject a level of dynamism into his training rather than keeping to a static programme (that does not appear to have led to large gains). The dh take up time, I am suggesting that he have a go at using that time differently as it appears to have worked for others (and not just Ondra)

[rodma]

not really sure about slopers, but it would be interesting to investigate a possible correlation between recent crimp breakages in font (sideways, fata) and the use of Eva Lopez's weighted deadhangs.

More likely down to the mindset of the idiots that feel that it is acceptable to climb on wet rock, simply because they have paid to get there and are in shape etc.

It's a minor miracle that more hasn't broken recently given the behavior of plenty of people that should know Better.

[Boredboy]

Just had a quick google and,  am I right in understanding that the sum total of this method is dh ing with weights on a reasonable hold?

What qualifies as a reasonable hold to dead hang on? Are you guys talking about dead hanging on a one pad edge or less or on something bigger with weights?

Cheers

[petejh]

Just ballpoint it and move on ffs.

[T_B]

Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. Ondra is a professional climber who gets paid to climb. What he does has no link to what Shark can do.

I think it does, what works for him is likely to be beneficial for mortals as well and he seems to spend most of his "off rock" training on a campus board rather than doing weighted dhs, with reasonable outcomes   .

Bit of a generalisation? Campus boarding is great and everything, but it doesn't really train finger strength. Certainly not crimp strength. Malham is more about sidepulls, undercuts and finger strength (I realise the Oak has a big move on it, but it's off an undercut)? My guess looking at his physique is that Ondra isn't naturally strong on a campus board, but has pretty strong fingers hence he trains on a campus board a bit?

As someone who has weak fingers (or is really heavy  ), I can empathise with Shark's focus on deadhanging. I also agree that 'powering out' can often be the problem for those who aren't naturally powerful, on power endurance style routes. If it was me, I'd be doing foot-on campussing as well, of the same duration and intensity as the route. There's even an undercut on the left-side of the Foundry campus board for that big throw-for-a-horn move?

[T_B]

as above

[account_inactive]

This thread is genius. I rarely look at the forum these days.....but when I do hahahahahaha.
Shark, and this is said without prejudice, you're basically weak. The crux move on the oak seems to be at your bouldering max (maybe 7a+ with moves before). I'm sure you could increase your ancap/pe etc but really you need to be doing those moves way easier before you can endure anything. X

[shark]

This thread is genius. I rarely look at the forum these days.....but when I do hahahahahaha.
Shark, and this is said without prejudice, you're basically weak. The crux move on the oak seems to be at your bouldering max (maybe 7a+ with moves before). I'm sure you could increase your ancap/pe etc but really you need to be doing those moves way easier before you can endure anything. X

Hi Dylan,

That is exactly the view I have and why have focused on working at getting stronger for the last 7/8 months so I can get through that move from the ground consistently rather than once in a blue moon.

The move is mainly off the front 3 in a first joint undercut for the left hand which is why I choose to hang off the front 3 in the BM slots when doing the weighted deadhangs. From June - Oct I gradually increased my ability on front3 on that hold by at least +7.5kgs. For me that now means I can hold now hold the BM slots with +35kgs for 10 secs. That seems like really good progress. At the same time I was bouldering on limestone over the summer and also my core is a lot better than it was though I think eatswood has been useful for that too.

Since my layoff after Kalymnos it has taken a few weeks to get back to a decent level. With the weighted deadhangs I hope to increase that to 40kg x 10secs by the end of the winter. In addition I was going to complement the deadhanging with bouldering indoors and outdoors and specific strength work on a systems board particularly using undercuts and gastons. In Jan/Feb I was planning to step up the PE sessions on the systems board and by doing longer bouldering links at eatswood and trying Killerweed.   

This thread has left me very confused but I am reluctant to let go of an approach that is giving (training) gains when other things I have done haven't had anything like the same results. I think that unless I focus on these things on a basic level I will be forever skirting round my weak point which as you point out - is being weak.