UKBouldering.com

Stretching and flexibility split(s) from Power Club (Read 10976 times)

duncan

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2951
  • Karma: +332/-2
Interestingly I was told the other day by someone whose mate works for Lattice that their data shows that hip flexibility is as much of an indicator of how hard someone can climb as finger strength. I’ve certainly watched people cruise routes I’ve struggled on and realised that the ease with which they move is due to having their centre of gravity much closer to the wall.

How do the Lettuce people measure hip flexibility? 

Guido Köstermeyer says much the same thing in his training book. How high you can place one foot while keeping the other close to the wall is in his battery of self-tests

This is just the kind of thing I’m after. Kostermayer’s book (Assume you mean Peak Performance?) doesn’t seem to be available in English, despite its title. However, elsewhere you say:

Stand with feet pointing forwards, toes 23cm from a wall. Hands flat on the wall at shoulder height & width. With supporting foot and both hands remaining flat on the floor/wall, how high can you touch the wall with one foot? The foot cannot go outside the width of the hands.

Standard values are:

UIAA VII (6b): 102 cm
UIAA VIII (7a): 108 cm
UIAA IX (7c): 114 cm


Extrapolating, I should be climbing about 4+


A bit of searching found the adapted Grant foot raise test (Draper et al 2009) which appears to be very similar to Kostermayer’s test. Whoever thought of it first, it seems quite specific, fairly reliable, and has some association with grade climbed. There is a lot to criticise about the paper, not least that measures are absolute length rather than relative to climber’s height, but it’s a start.

Following the specificity principle I'd think that active stretching is better to increase the active range of motion and passive stretching better for increasing the passive range of motion. I'm not sure that this in line with my own experience, or with common practice in sports and activities that require a big active range of motion; in classical dance e.g. they do a lot of (very brutal) passive stretching.

To this end I spent a fruitless hour on scholar.google trying to find any studies where the active range was evaluated after passive vs active stretching; the only thing I learned is that PNF stretching is worse than normal stretching on every measure. The other thing I learned is that basically no one has published a paper about the long term effects of stretching. Most studies investigate stretching on short term (less than a few months) or ultra short term (less than a month).

So if someone could point me to a peer reviewed article where it is shown that active stretching is better than passive for increasing the active range of motion I'd be very grateful.

As I expect you know, much sport science research is “self-funded” - BSc or MSc projects - so adequate sample-size and follow-up duration are very much the exception.

cheque

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3389
  • Karma: +522/-2
    • Cheque Pictures
How do the Lettuce people measure hip flexibility? 

No idea I’m afraid. Perhaps one of them will post on here and illuminate us.

Muenchener

Offline
  • *****
  • Trusted Users
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2692
  • Karma: +117/-0
@Duncan: Köstermeyer does indeed give Draper 2009 as his source, well sleuthed

thekettle

Offline
  • **
  • menacing presence
  • Posts: 203
  • Karma: +27/-0
    • johnkettle.com
Thanks for sharing that foot lift test, interesting stuff. Measuring it as a percentage of height would surely be more useful though? Mine is 103cm or 6b by Kostermeyers measure - a wildly inaccurate grade prediction. Or 63% of my height.

I'm pretty sure Lattice measure side splits (feet facing the wall) as a percentage of height for their basic assessment at least.

Personally I think foot raise is a more useful attribute as you lose so much reach when you do very wide side steps and I'm really inflexible that way. The key thing with foot raises seems to be your ability to maintain CoG close to the rock as you do them.
There also seems to be a much lower general requirement for hip mobility in outdoor climbing compared to comp climbing. I can think of a few 8c and 8B wads with pretty poor hip turnout, but no comp wads..

jwi

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4219
  • Karma: +331/-1
    • On Steep Ground
also seems to be a much lower general requirement for hip mobility in outdoor climbing compared to comp climbing. I can think of a few 8c and 8B wads with pretty poor hip turnout, but no comp wads..

It is pretty easy to find routes in the 8s that requires little flexibility. Basically any route/boulder on a 30 deg overhang on featured rock with plenty of feet will do. You get no price for guessing what kind of route old inflexible climbers prefer...

Good luck on old school Verdon test pieces or new school roofs though...

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
118cm with no stretching beforehand. 120 didn’t feel out of reach.

Time to get in those 9a’s? :)

Duma

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5751
  • Karma: +226/-4
Give us percentage of your height tt

If we assume Av male height =177cm and this was what the "standard values" were derived from, then 6b=58%, 7a=61%, and 7c=64%

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
Give us percentage of your height tt

If we assume Av male height =177cm and this was what the "standard values" were derived from, then 6b=58%, 7a=61%, and 7c=64%

Didn’t see the percentage normalisation. 64%

cheque

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3389
  • Karma: +522/-2
    • Cheque Pictures
I got 83cm, 48.5%.  :'(

petekitso

Offline
  • **
  • player
  • Posts: 103
  • Karma: +8/-0
Uh -oh, 91cm (51% (and I am not rehabbing after a serious accident or anything)).

Something else to work on, I should probably read the rest of the thread . . .

monkoffunk

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 721
  • Karma: +60/-0
  • sponsored by 90% lindt and vitamin D
Is this the highest foot, or an average of the feet?

Fiend

Offline
  • *
  • _
  • forum hero
  • Abominable sex magick practitioner and climbing heathen
  • Posts: 13413
  • Karma: +676/-67
  • Whut
95cm / 54%, test is clearly bullshit as it's more about core strength and balance rather than flexibility. Still I'm quite happy as a predicted sub F6b climber, I'm overperforming nicely. ::)

Avg male height is waaaay more than 177 cm surely.

mrjonathanr

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5377
  • Karma: +242/-6
  • Getting fatter, not fitter.

nai

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4008
  • Karma: +206/-1
  • In my dreams
Wouldn't where you can place your foot relative to body parts be a better guage - how many cms above or below knee, thigh, hip, belly button, chest, shoulder, head, etc.

Just did it quickly and roughly (away from home with no measuring devices) and came out at 5cm above belly button.

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
I think it’s a GREAT test*

*its the only metric i do vaguely well on!! :D

cheque

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3389
  • Karma: +522/-2
    • Cheque Pictures
95cm / 54%, test is clearly bullshit as it's more about core strength and balance rather than flexibility.

Did you do it right? Not sure you can classify lifting one leg off the floor with both hands leaning on the wall a test of balance or core strength!

Murph

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 653
  • Karma: +66/-0
112cm/170cm height = 65%

Both absolute and relative measures surely have some explanatory power. No doubt the shorter climber needs more relative flexibility for a given grade.

On the broader thread - thanks for sharing the stretches guys. That pigeon I remember was one that honnold did as his morning routine. I can’t even get into the most elementary beginner version of it...

I’ve been trying a stretch where you lie on your back, cross your left foot on top of your right quad and then pull your right thigh towards your face. You feel it in the glute. It feels really good. Can reach my toes these days relatively ok but know it’s more about a hinge movement pattern.

mrjonathanr

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5377
  • Karma: +242/-6
  • Getting fatter, not fitter.
112cm/170cm height = 65%


I’ve been trying a stretch where you lie on your back, cross your left foot on top of your right quad and then pull your right thigh towards your face. You feel it in the glute. It feels really good. Can reach my toes these days relatively ok but know it’s more about a hinge movement pattern.

That's an adapted form of pigeon, just in a more accessible way. Don't be tempted to force it hard, it isn't just your glute where you can feel tension, it's the high hamstring insertion.

duncan

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2951
  • Karma: +332/-2
95cm / 54%, test is clearly bullshit as it's more about core strength and balance rather than flexibility.

There is a certain amount of skill required. The testing protocol in the paper was best of three after a standard but not described warm-up. I think this may underestimate the learning effect and if you're interested in tracking change over time I'd suggest keep trying until you plateau.

61% (106/175cm) for the right; 58% (101cm) for the left.


[>2 seconds hold, feet 23cm from the wall, hands and feet 45cm (shoulders width) apart, hands at shoulder height.]


112cm/170cm height = 65%

Both absolute and relative measures surely have some explanatory power. No doubt the shorter climber needs more relative flexibility for a given grade.

Shouldn't be difficult to test. Anyone fancy collecting the data and doing some simple number crunching?

jwi

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4219
  • Karma: +331/-1
    • On Steep Ground

112cm/170cm height = 65%

Both absolute and relative measures surely have some explanatory power. No doubt the shorter climber needs more relative flexibility for a given grade.

Shouldn't be difficult to test. Anyone fancy collecting the data and doing some simple number crunching?

They tested both in the paper, and both were significant, or am I hallucinating?

Murph

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 653
  • Karma: +66/-0
Jwi - have I missed the paper? Saw Duncan’s link but was just to abstract from what I could tell?

Mr jonathan - thanks for the words of caution. As someone posted about pigeon I can feel the need to be careful of knees.

Duncan - love the idea of a big number crunch but these things are really hard not just what inputs but what solid dependent variable to choose. It’s worth some serious thought tho.

Murph

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 653
  • Karma: +66/-0
Carrying on the tradition of men posting on behalf of their womenfolk....

Current future ex mrs murph:
112cm/170cm = 65%
So just like me but a 6B rather than 7B climber.

Also googled for a link to the study I could read: flexibility assessment and the role of flexibility as a determinant of performance in rock climbing

Interesting study. The test we have been doing correlated fairly weakly with rock climbing performance compared to a more specific high step test. Also, the range is really small (“novices” perform at 90% of the level of “elites”) which would make self reported measurement a problem.

The high step test though looks a bit more relevant with novices performing at 80% of the level of elites and having more explanatory power. But that would be impossible for us to independently report even if we wanted to.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2019, 09:51:43 am by Murph »

remus

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2857
  • Karma: +146/-1
I'm pretty sure Lattice measure side splits (feet facing the wall) as a percentage of height for their basic assessment at least.

Yes, that's the test we use at the moment.

Quote
There also seems to be a much lower general requirement for hip mobility in outdoor climbing compared to comp climbing. I can think of a few 8c and 8B wads with pretty poor hip turnout, but no comp wads..

Might be because you can be more selective as an outdoor climber? If your hip mobility is poor you can always focus on problems that don't require it. As a comp climber you'll need to be more versatile.

jwi

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4219
  • Karma: +331/-1
    • On Steep Ground
Jwi - have I missed the paper? Saw Duncan’s link but was just to abstract from what I could tell?

Yeah, I downloaded the full paper.

« Last Edit: April 05, 2019, 10:58:17 am by jwi »

cowboyhat

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1496
  • Karma: +128/-5

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal