UKBouldering.com

Using a latticeboard (Read 63975 times)

highrepute

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1288
  • Karma: +109/-0
  • Blah
#150 Re: Using a latticeboard
July 18, 2018, 08:05:19 am
For it to truly blind you have to get someone else to do the test and provide you with only the numbers. Or it there a judgement element to the assessment?

remus

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2857
  • Karma: +146/-1
#151 Re: Using a latticeboard
July 18, 2018, 09:58:06 am
For it to truly blind you have to get someone else to do the test and provide you with only the numbers. Or it there a judgement element to the assessment?

(For context, I look after the numbers at Lattice which includes putting together the models we use.)

For the test Tom's talking about there'll be some judgement involved. The model's don't include any 'fudge factors' and there's obviously a big technique/tactics element to climbing (that we're still working on measuring). What the models do help with is giving you an objective view of your physical ability, so there's no hiding behind the old 'weak fingers' excuse if we measure you as being really strong!

36chambers

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1678
  • Karma: +154/-4
#152 Re: Using a latticeboard
July 18, 2018, 12:36:54 pm
For it to truly blind you have to get someone else to do the test and provide you with only the numbers. Or it there a judgement element to the assessment?

(For context, I look after the numbers at Lattice which includes putting together the models we use.)

For the test Tom's talking about there'll be some judgement involved. The model's don't include any 'fudge factors' and there's obviously a big technique/tactics element to climbing (that we're still working on measuring). What the models do help with is giving you an objective view of your physical ability, so there's no hiding behind the old 'weak fingers' excuse if we measure you as being really strong!

Have you guys got any data on rates of improvement?

For example, could you tell me how long you would expect an average male with typical 8A bouldering scores (across all parameters) to get typical 8B bouldering scores, if they followed your training plans.

Asking for a friend.

teestub

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2574
  • Karma: +166/-4
  • Cyber Wanker
#153 Re: Using a latticeboard
July 18, 2018, 12:42:58 pm
I'm betting the current data show a range of 6 months>Infinity.

remus

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2857
  • Karma: +146/-1
#154 Re: Using a latticeboard
July 18, 2018, 03:10:52 pm
I'm betting the current data show a range of 6 months>Infinity.

Pretty much. Measuring the effectiveness of training interventions is really hard because there's a huge raft of confounding factors (sleep, diet, age, training history and so on).

It reminds me a bit of testing new medical interventions. The question is pretty simple on the surface (do people who get treatment A respond better than people who get treatment B?) but despite being an industry with plenty of cash to spend on research it's still really hard to do a properly run trial that answers the question with a suitably large degree of certainty.

tim palmer

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 735
  • Karma: +34/-0
#155 Re: Using a latticeboard
July 18, 2018, 04:27:51 pm
I'm betting the current data show a range of 6 months>Infinity.

Pretty much. Measuring the effectiveness of training interventions is really hard because there's a huge raft of confounding factors (sleep, diet, age, training history and so on).

It reminds me a bit of testing new medical interventions. The question is pretty simple on the surface (do people who get treatment A respond better than people who get treatment B?) but despite being an industry with plenty of cash to spend on research it's still really hard to do a properly run trial that answers the question with a suitably large degree of certainty.

With that being said, why sell this product as a research driven method when you dont have evidence that it works to improve even the narrow parameters of the tests, let alone the far more complex area of actual climbing?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 04:46:30 pm by tim palmer »

abarro81

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4288
  • Karma: +341/-25
#156 Re: Using a latticeboard
July 18, 2018, 04:50:05 pm
I don't think they do sell the board as a training method per-se, it's the plans/sessions which are the method, with the board as a tool to help create the plans...

tim palmer

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 735
  • Karma: +34/-0
#157 Re: Using a latticeboard
July 18, 2018, 05:01:03 pm
But 36chambers was referring to the plans....

Plus do the assessments not form part of the plans?  I.e. test - train - test


remus

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2857
  • Karma: +146/-1
#158 Re: Using a latticeboard
July 18, 2018, 05:29:20 pm
With that being said, why sell this product as a research driven method when you dont have evidence that it works to improve even the narrow parameters of the tests, let alone the far more complex area of actual climbing?

Im not quite sure what you're saying here. If you climb on the lattice board you'll definitely get better at climbing on the lattice board, and the evidence we've collected so far suggests that doing lots of moves on the lattice board correlates well with certain aspects of climbing.

What we can't do is say 'do this training session on the lattice board and you'll be able to climb route xyz in 6 months'. Same as we can't say 'do this fingerboard session for 6 months and you'll be able to climb your first 8B'.

duncan

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2952
  • Karma: +332/-2
#159 Re: Using a latticeboard
July 18, 2018, 05:54:38 pm

For the test Tom's talking about there'll be some judgement involved. The model's don't include any 'fudge factors' and there's obviously a big technique/tactics element to climbing (that we're still working on measuring). What the models do help with is giving you an objective view of your physical ability, so there's no hiding behind the old 'weak fingers' excuse if we measure you as being really strong!

Sometime back I asked if you had estimated the how good your model was - what percentage of grade could be explained by the variables you record. It is straightforward, as I'm sure you know, to do this with a regression analysis. I'd love to know how important the measurable physical factors are (on average) compared to harder-to-measure factors like confidence and technique. Of course, if the model only predicts 30% of grade then perhaps you'd prefer to keep quiet about it!   


It reminds me a bit of testing new medical interventions. The question is pretty simple on the surface (do people who get treatment A respond better than people who get treatment B?) but despite being an industry with plenty of cash to spend on research it's still really hard to do a properly run trial that answers the question with a suitably large degree of certainty.

This is a reason often given by alternative therapists for the lack of research into their interventions: they are too individualised and there are too many variables. It's a poor excuse, the process of evaluating complex interventions is well-practiced and quite straight-forward, you mainly need enough people in your study. Logistically it can be a bit of a challenge, but that's a project management problem. (The bigger issue with drug trials is new drugs are very frequently disappointing in real patients when compared against current treatments. This is not an issue with the trial process).






dunnyg

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1521
  • Karma: +91/-7
#160 Re: Using a latticeboard
July 18, 2018, 05:57:25 pm
But does increasing the number of laps you do on a lattice show an increase in grade in individuals.

Ie if I start on trial 1 doing 20 moves then follow your training plan, 6 months later I can do 40 moves, can I climb harder routes?

I think Tim is pointing out you havent presentes any evidence for this.

I'm neither pro or anti lattice for what it's worth. Trying to do science is good though.

dunnyg

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1521
  • Karma: +91/-7
#161 Re: Using a latticeboard
July 18, 2018, 05:58:16 pm
Then what Duncan points out is the next question to answer.

remus

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2857
  • Karma: +146/-1
#162 Re: Using a latticeboard
July 18, 2018, 08:10:33 pm
...you mainly need enough people in your study. Logistically it can be a bit of a challenge, but that's a project management problem.

Yeah, that's the problem. Lots of variables means you need lots of people to have confidence in your result, and getting lots of people to follow a strict training protocol for an extended period of time is hard. Saying it's just a project management problem is a bit disingenuous, if the practicalities of the study mean it can't be done then it's a pretty poor study!

tim palmer

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 735
  • Karma: +34/-0
#163 Re: Using a latticeboard
July 18, 2018, 10:54:57 pm
I suppose conventionally trials don't ask the participants to pay, so I guess that might have something to do with it

Tommy

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 814
  • Karma: +97/-1
#164 Re: Using a latticeboard
July 19, 2018, 10:03:43 am
I suppose conventionally trials don't ask the participants to pay, so I guess that might have something to do with it

It's actually got nothing to do with it. We've been running a study with Dave Giles (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dave_Giles2) this summer looking at whether Critical Force protocols can be implemented in climbing (and what we can learn from them) and whether it's a single day or multi-day study, you'll find it's very hard to get applicants who are suitable. It's completely free on both of those events.

I think the big thing to appreciate here is that (as far as I know) we're the only organisation that's put in years and years worth of time to collect data beyond 10-50 individuals and we've done it from 6a to 9b and from V3-V15. Each and every year we keep adding to the pool of what we're doing and auditing our results to make things better. We could have just sat on "the product" a few years back and not bothered to do anything else! Of course there will ALWAYS be improvements to make and better ways to do things. We work on this every single day and we're absolutely committed to it. I'm 99% certain, that not a single coaching outfit ploughs as much of their income back into research as we do.

For those who do want more research, we have a paper that'll be available on finger strength profiling very shortly and there's also a review paper been written. Second to this, the Critical Force study with Dave will be available for review.

For those that want more input on their improvements and data surrounding gains, we're now operating an athlete monitoring program which the individual can be involved with or I guess, we might make it public (in summary) if we think it's useful to other people out there.

Moose - send me an email and we can chat about meeting up!  :great:

On last thing - someone asked if whether you can do a program then up doing more moves on the board and does that = increase in route climbing grade? The answer is yes it does. And no, the correlation is not perfect (obviously!). That's one of the main reasons why an assessment includes a battery of tests (much like any decent profiling tool) and the conclusions should be drawn from the big picture if you're a quality coach. Much that we'd all love to say 5.4% in test A = 5.4% in climbing, it's totally unrealistic as sport doesn't work like that. Again... that's why you use multiple tests in any profiling the closer you want to get to "perfect" correlation.

Just thought one more last thing - the one person I think we'd probably be able to look at in detail for assessments is Will Bosi. We've trained and assessed him multiple times from 8a+ redpoint through to 9a and V8 to V14. Would people find it interesting to see a view of data?

tim palmer

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 735
  • Karma: +34/-0
#165 Re: Using a latticeboard
July 19, 2018, 10:24:51 am
I suppose conventionally trials don't ask the participants to pay, so I guess that might have something to do with it

It's actually got nothing to do with it. We've been running a study with Dave Giles (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dave_Giles2) this summer looking at whether Critical Force protocols can be implemented in climbing (and what we can learn from them) and whether it's a single day or multi-day study, you'll find it's very hard to get applicants who are suitable. It's completely free on both of those events.
.........
 I'm 99% certain, that not a single coaching outfit ploughs as much of their income back into research as we do.

Thank you for that answer, really clear, just a couple of points for clarification.

I apologise for my pointed comment, presumably the data for your upcoming finger strength paper is from a free trial?

I think 99% of other coaching outfits don't push the data angle nearly as hard, the only one I can think of is those guys doing the isometric things in the states, what do you think of their approach?

roddersm

Offline
  • ***
  • stalker
  • Posts: 296
  • Karma: +2/-1
#166 Re: Using a latticeboard
July 19, 2018, 11:35:51 am
But does increasing the number of laps you do on a lattice show an increase in grade in individuals.

Ie if I start on trial 1 doing 20 moves then follow your training plan, 6 months later I can do 40 moves, can I climb harder routes?

I think that is an interesting point.

As someone who has done a test and found it pretty accurate, I do wonder if the accuracy does decline due to familiarity with the board and circuit.

Has anyone done multiple tests?

Tommy

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 814
  • Karma: +97/-1
#167 Re: Using a latticeboard
July 19, 2018, 11:48:42 am


Thank you for that answer, really clear, just a couple of points for clarification.

I apologise for my pointed comment, presumably the data for your upcoming finger strength paper is from a free trial?

I think 99% of other coaching outfits don't push the data angle nearly as hard, the only one I can think of is those guys doing the isometric things in the states, what do you think of their approach?
[/quote]

FS paper is combination of paid and unpaid research. The CF study is all unpaid and the current Lattice Board validation study is all unpaid (AFAIK).

Re: C4HP - yeah it's interesting stuff that he's doing. Very nice to see that someone else is spending decent chunks of time developing a system and collecting data on it too. From what I know so far, he's working with very small groups of climbers and that he's focused on measurement methods that exclude climbing movement (we have found a number of issues if you remove too much climbing specificity during tests). It'll be good is to see what he's finding once the big numbers add up - in our experience the findings become significantly more reliable (and informative of where you want to direct further research) once you're going above 100 individuals. The whole gender split is a BIG issue as well as the junior vs adult. Basically, the more and more we delve into climbing research, the more we realise how complicated it is and how an "ultimate" system is likely to have 10's of 1000s of hours behind it and some hefty maths/stats/analytics.

Right.... sorry for any further non replies on this thread. Got loads of work I'm supposed to be doing  :spank:

Hit me up anyone if you see me at the crag or indoor wall. Always happy to chat!!! 

duncan

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2952
  • Karma: +332/-2
#168 Re: Using a latticeboard
July 20, 2018, 12:32:23 pm
...you mainly need enough people in your study. Logistically it can be a bit of a challenge, but that's a project management problem.

Yeah, that's the problem. Lots of variables means you need lots of people to have confidence in your result, and getting lots of people to follow a strict training protocol for an extended period of time is hard. Saying it's just a project management problem is a bit disingenuous, if the practicalities of the study mean it can't be done then it's a pretty poor study!

If few people adhere to the protocol it is a poor protocol. Lots of people might be dropping out because they developed elbow problems for example. That doesn't make it a poor study.

Are you familiar with the differences between exploratory and pragmatic studies?

Fultonius

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4315
  • Karma: +138/-3
  • Was strong but crap, now weaker but better.
    • Photos
#169 Re: Using a latticeboard
December 21, 2021, 08:59:36 pm
Bit late to the party...

I booked an assessment about 3 years ago but for various and dull reasons I kept cancelling. Thought I'd better get round to it while it was allowed and I wasn't injured, in an attempt to prep for the winter and some longer term goals.

As I mentioned in the Power Club, my results were generally unsurprising except for a couple of things:

1 arm finger strength was better than expected. I've always felt my 2-arm max load was a higher level than my 1 arm, but I managed to get -13kg (they've recorded -18kg on my RH, but I had a cheeky second go and managed it but it didn't get recorded.)

The fatigue tests were very odd. I wonder if I maybe underachieved (lack of familiarity of the "circuit", and not being all that warmed up - I rarely manage a PB endurance route without having got a bit pumped in my warm up). I was also faster than recommended at 1.42 s / move, but I always climb fast...

Max Test: 57 moves. Felt pretty good until the last 5 moves and fell off a cliff.  (TCA Prop Store is 20 deg)

Lap 1: 43
Rest: 64s (and this stayed the same all the way)
Lap 3: 43
Lap 2: 43

>>Interlude - WTF?  Lap3/Lap1 is meant to be your Aerobic Score. Mine are the same  :-\ :shrug: This makes me think 57 was under-representing my max and therefor 43 moves was pretty easy?

Lap4: 30
Lap5:25
Lap6:17
Lap7:18
Lap8:14



The comment is that my Max Moves are good and within the error bars, and my efficiency score is good.

I'm a bit baffled to the next bit though, as it seemed to be saying my anaerobic capacity/power?  (metabolic conditioning phase) was pretty crap, but that my work capacity was very high. The comments in those sections were very conflicting about the level of intensity and volume of training, one saying I would need to carefully and slowly increase it, and the other saying I had it spot on.

I suspect things a bit skewed somehow?
« Last Edit: December 21, 2021, 09:06:36 pm by Fultonius »

Fultonius

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4315
  • Karma: +138/-3
  • Was strong but crap, now weaker but better.
    • Photos
#170 Re: Using a latticeboard
December 22, 2021, 09:04:41 pm
No thoughts on this? Or is this the Covid19/Politics only forum these days?  :boxing:

Stu Littlefair

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1836
  • Karma: +283/-2
    • http://www.darkpeakimages.co.uk
#171 Re: Using a latticeboard
December 23, 2021, 10:50:12 am
I’ve always found the lattice test hard to understand or explain properly, but I’ll have a go and Alex or Remus can correct me if they disagree.

The explanation below uses a simplified version of the hydraulic model of Morton (1990)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2307912/

We model your forearm muscles by assuming have two “tanks” to provide energy for climbing. The aerobic tank is essentially infinite in capacity, but limited in the rate of energy it can supply. The anaerobic tank is limited but can supply energy at a high rate.

A harder move requires energy at a higher rate. So if you climb above a certain intensity you’ll drain the anaerobic tank.

The crucial bit is this: the rate at which you can get energy from the anaerobic system DROPS as you drain the anaerobic tank.

The idea behind a lattice test is that eventually the rate at which you can get energy out will drop below what you need to stay on: this relies on it being too hard to be fully aerobic.

So in terms of energy systems, what happens during a lattice test is this:

1) Your first go fully drains the system, largely emptying your anaerobic tank.

2) Whilst resting, the anaerobic tank slowly refills. The rate at which this happens depends on your aerobic fitness. If you like, you can think of the aerobic tank slowly providing the energy to refill the anaerobic tank.

3) The amount of time you can manage in the next few goes depends upon the rate at which you are refilling the tank; it measures how aerobically fit you are.

4) Eventually the times you can stay on will plateau. This will happen when the amount you drain your anaerobic tank balances the amount it gets refilled in rest periods. Lattice seem to use this plateau as a measure of anaerobic capacity, but I believe it’s more complex than that. I’ve never fully wrapped my head around what this measures.

The test will go very badly awry if the condition in (1) is not satisfied and you don’t fully drain the system on your first go. This can happen a number of ways but I’m guessing the most common is a lack of commitment, learning the circuit as the test proceeds, or a simple foot slip.

If you don’t drain your anaerobic tank fully in step 1 then it can almost completely refill whilst resting and your times will stay the same.

Looking at your first 2-3 reps I would say this is what happened. If you have access to a lattice board and stopwatch you can always retest? I suspect now you know the circuit and the test you would get more conventional results.

abarro81

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4288
  • Karma: +341/-25
#172 Re: Using a latticeboard
December 23, 2021, 11:05:15 am
I wouldn't want to second guess how the results have been turned into observations, but would agree that it looks like you just "underscored" on your first time around. I wouldn't read much into it without repeating the test on yourself. If you get weird scores on 2-3 separate occasions then I'd be inclined to think it's "real", though I'm not entirely sure what it would mean.

As an aside, from my limited experience of both of them, I'm more sold on the critical force test on Lattice's digirung (or Tindeq or similar) than the lattice board assessment. It still has a lot of unknowns (e.g. what really is W' - maybe we're back to just calling it "power endurance"?) but feels more useful to me.

Aussiegav

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 677
  • Karma: +29/-10
    • Climberbiker.
#173 Re: Using a latticeboard
December 23, 2021, 11:13:04 am
On a more simplistic question; if I want to get really fit & conditioned for routes but don’t have a partner to belay, Will climbing on the lattice board serve this function better than doing the auto belays at Awesome Walls in Sheffield?

I have found the lattice board produces a high intensity of training but the moves are repetitive which means over working one style of movement and muscle group.

abarro81

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4288
  • Karma: +341/-25
#174 Re: Using a latticeboard
December 23, 2021, 11:19:49 am
In general I would plump for "real" climbing over lattice board/foot-on-campus/repeaters unless there's a reason not to (e.g. you want to test yourself, or you want a basic "finisher" where you can go to the death on something that's technically basic, you want to fit in a quick session before work, or you don't have time to make up a circuit). I don't like autobelays that much though - I find they affect my movement - so prefer circuits or up-down-up-down on problems or 4x4s or looping around the wall etc...

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal