[Sasquatch]

With a max hang (or any other hang with feet off the floor) your force stays constant through the hang*. Otherwise you would fall off. So if I hang bodyweight on an edge, that arm/fingers will be exerting a force equivalent to approx. 750N (i.e. 75kg); at 2 seconds this is <100% effort, at maybe 5 or 10 seconds or whenever, this becomes 100% effort, then >100% and so I fail. So force is constant but effort varies during the hang.
* Some subtleties at start/end of hang that I've ignored and that would be complex

On an edge with knees under a bar, or on an edge that's too small to hang 1-armed, you could try to pull down with 100% effort for the entire duration, but the force exerted would not be constant. So at 2s I might be at 100% effort and 800N (I wish), at 5s I might be at 100% effort but I'm fatiguing so now force is only 750N, by 15s I'm still putting in 100% effort but I can only exert 600N etc... so effort is constant (in theory) but force declines as I get fatigued.

Further to this, Tom Randall posted to the Lattice Instagram page a while ago about his measured force differences between overcoming / yielding isometrics. Counterintuitively, he claims he could produce more peak force on a 5s yielding isometric (max hang) in comparison to a 5s overcoming isometric (recruitment pull). Perhaps a placebo type effect.

I see the same thing in the athletes I coach and assess.  The difference was about a 10lb difference. 

[Sasquatch]

The difference between max hangs and RP's.  Recruitment pulls are a form of overcoming isometric vs. max hangs as a yielding isometric. 

[...]

I found RP's a very effective way of adding a bit of max pull and max finger work at the end of climbing sessions, while feeling safe doing them.  I would never be comfortable doing max hangs at the end of a session.

My intuition would be that them feeling safe probably just means you're not really trying hard... which seems to somewhat defeat the point of using overcoming isometrics in my mind? I do agree w.r.t. ego not getting in the way etc, but you could just not write any of your weights down and use RPE (say 8/10) and probably achieve the same effect. I guess this comes down to individual psychology more than than anything else.

The safeness isn't from not trying hard, it's from naturally doing what you have the remaining strength left to do.  In your lower post you talk about the difference in force over time for these and the max hangs.  To me this is why these are safer.  For me to confidently do hangs at the end of a session (not knowing the level of exhaustion/tiredness) even 8/10 could be too much.  So to be able to consistently do this, you would have to re-assess every session to know what was an appropriate "safe" level to do max hangs.  Or you can just to 100% effort RP's which will naturally fluctuate in force session to session, but still be 100% effort.  This is also why I don't want the scale.  I don't care what the number is.  The RP's at end of a session are bonus. 

In terms of doing a protocol during lockdown, I think RP's are probably far less important. You're not doing a hard boulder or rope session, so you can do a full FB workout instead, which would be more beneficial. 

[Sasquatch]

Re the scales - I work several different things using the scales, what you might call "max hangs", Recruitment Pulls, warming up, injured fingers etc.

I'm not sure I would put RPs opposite max hangs though, although agree with the overcoming/yielding distinction. I'm not sure RPs are a stand alone loading/strength training exercise. I see them as something akin to "strides" in running training:

"Strides are 15-to-30-second bursts of speed up to the fastest pace you can go while staying totally smooth and comfortable (it's not a sprint)." ..etc

It's a way of"bringing everything together" , emphasising output without the stress levels of normal loading .. and yes, the problems associated with yielding when tired!

I disagree that strides are equivalent to RP's, but I get what you're saying.   

[cowboyhat]

The difference between max hangs and RP's.  Recruitment pulls are a form of overcoming isometric vs. max hangs as a yielding isometric. 

[...]

I found RP's a very effective way of adding a bit of max pull and max finger work at the end of climbing sessions, while feeling safe doing them.  I would never be comfortable doing max hangs at the end of a session.

My intuition would be that them feeling safe probably just means you're not really trying hard... which seems to somewhat defeat the point of using overcoming isometrics in my mind? I do agree w.r.t. ego not getting in the way etc, but you could just not write any of your weights down and use RPE (say 8/10) and probably achieve the same effect. I guess this comes down to individual psychology more than than anything else.

The safeness isn't from not trying hard, it's from naturally doing what you have the remaining strength left to do.  In your lower post you talk about the difference in force over time for these and the max hangs.  To me this is why these are safer.  For me to confidently do hangs at the end of a session (not knowing the level of exhaustion/tiredness) even 8/10 could be too much.  So to be able to consistently do this, you would have to re-assess every session to know what was an appropriate "safe" level to do max hangs.  Or you can just to 100% effort RP's which will naturally fluctuate in force session to session, but still be 100% effort.  This is also why I don't want the scale.  I don't care what the number is.  The RP's at end of a session are bonus. 

In terms of doing a protocol during lockdown, I think RP's are probably far less important. You're not doing a hard boulder or rope session, so you can do a full FB workout instead, which would be more beneficial.

This seems to be the crux of it, great summary.

[galpinos]

Great to get everyone's opinions. Plenty of food for thought, though Sasquatch's final paragraph:

In terms of doing a protocol during lockdown, I think RP's are probably far less important. You're not doing a hard boulder or rope session, so you can do a full FB workout instead, which would be more beneficial.

seems pretty pertinent.

Glad I started the thread, though will obviously post a link* and e-mail cowboyhat for permission first.

* I was pretty sure I'd heard about it via UKB and thought it was a well known protocol so assumed everyone would be in the know. Obviously not...... I shall also endeavour to expunge any typos from my thread titles.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

etc

I disagree that strides are equivalent to RP's, but I get what you're saying.   

I can see why you'd disagree. I'm not sure I'd say they're equivalent either, but akin to, as an adaptive stimulus.

I think there's still a bit of missing the point here though.

Strides might be more like "recruiting" on an 8-10 move boulder, where you emphasise pulling strongly - rather than tiring yourself out by doing multiple laps.

RPs are about the ability to "turn it on", or respond, and I don't think should be seen just as a way of replacing max hangs when tired. What do you think?

Perhaps the ability to respond to sprints off the front in bike racing works here. You might be fit/strong enough for the race, but not able to react quickly enough to not get dropped. You've loads of "gas in the tank", but still fall off when things get too steep.

You can work RPs with two hands, by adding weight. However, the point of the weight is not to produce a load that results in yielding, but just so that you can pull harder - "pulling harder than the problem".

Good that Galpinos has come back, and great thread 

and Cowboyhat ( for saying sorry) 

[petejh]

Isn't the difference between force and effort that force is objectively measurable (Newtons), but effort is unquantifiable except on a subjective scale - hence 'perceived' effort being a thing. You don't ever see 'perceived force', it is what it is and you can't fake it.
Get someone to shout at you mid-hang to trigger some emotions and as if by magic you'll produce more 'effort' (and hence produce an overall greater output of quantifiable force..).

[Bradders]

*old school inspiration:

This is absolute gold, thanks for posting.

[Sasquatch]

I can see why you'd disagree. I'm not sure I'd say they're equivalent either, but akin to, as an adaptive stimulus.

I think there's still a bit of missing the point here though.

Strides might be more like "recruiting" on an 8-10 move boulder, where you emphasise pulling strongly - rather than tiring yourself out by doing multiple laps.

Re: Strides - My understanding from doing a bunch of run training a few years back(I guess a decade or more now), was that strides are a way to work on form at top speed.  Most run training is so far below max, this is a way to work on form while doing sprint work. In my experience understanding(which is admittedly low) Sprinters under 400M don't really do strides in the manner shown in the video (or they may as a final stage or warming up, but not as a "workout").  Instead they work on starts, sprint finishes and other aspects of the race.  The comparison for this in climbing would be for someone projecting a 50M enduro route to do a series of perfect repeat boulders.  The goal being maintaining form when limiting out towards the end of the race. 

RPs are about the ability to "turn it on", or respond, and I don't think should be seen just as a way of replacing max hangs when tired. What do you think?

Perhaps the ability to respond to sprints off the front in bike racing works here. You might be fit/strong enough for the race, but not able to react quickly enough to not get dropped. You've loads of "gas in the tank", but still fall off when things get too steep.

I don't see this.  As described and as I've done them, they are about slowly engaging, then going full bore, which does not like what you're describing.  I think what Tyler nelson describes as velocity pulls would fit that bill more accurately.  Training the ability to create force quickly so that you can respond in that manner on route. 

I think of RP's as very similar to max hangs in most regards.  They are targeting very high intensity, and are generally low volume.  Think doing 1 to 5 rep training in weight lifting.  Generally you are at 90%+ of max and you are doing a relatively low time under tension.  That describes a very similar stimulus to Max Hangs.  Your force curve differs as described by Barrows, but not so differently that I would consider them very different from max hangs.  So as a coach, I look at them similarly.  It's like comparing a 5sec, 7sec, or 10sec max hang and saying which one is the best.  None of them are the best.  pick one and be consistent for a couple of cycles and see what happens.  All of them are straight alactic.  All of them will result in strength gains if done consistently and with plenty of rest.  RP's and max hangs are similar that way. 

The drawback I see to these as a coach is in an athlete/climbers ability to actually try at 100% intensity.  Very few newer climbers seem to be able to do this well, and many older sport/trad guys who have not done much FB in the past also seem to struggle with this.   For myself, I have no problem doing these in place of max hangs, and they have been great for transitioning into 1-arm work.  Doing alternating sessions of these and yielding isometrics have really helped my 1-arm strength and neurological recruitment.

You can work RPs with two hands, by adding weight. However, the point of the weight is not to produce a load that results in yielding, but just so that you can pull harder - "pulling harder than the problem".

Yes, you can do 2-arm rp's as long as you can't actually pull yourself off the ground.  As soon as you're off the ground you're no longer doing rp's(overcoming isometrics).

[abarro81]

Would agree with everything in Sasquatch's post to DT

Thinking more about our talk on safety of RPs, e.g.

For me to confidently do hangs at the end of a session (not knowing the level of exhaustion/tiredness) even 8/10 could be too much. 

Makes me realise that I'm probably best off deferring to your experience on this, as I realise that I basically never do max fingerboarding when tired. If I hang at the end of the session (or after a day out bouldering) it's almost always long (20-30s) hangs or repeaters, where it's easy enough* to adjust things on-the-fly to reflect being more/less tired than I realised by altering how long the hang is or how many reps/sets I do. Your thinking on doing something maximal when you're not sure how tired you are makes sense
*easy enough for me anyway, would be harder to program as a coach unless you know the climber well

[J_duds]

Could this be applied to varied hangs too? The article mentions half crimp and open hangs, and nothing on varied grips. I’ve had some recent progression on varied grips on trying hard with short hangs (3s to 7s).

Also what are peoples thoughts on cycle length of 4-5 weeks?
I’ve recently got back into some consistent max hang FB and so far found that by week 3 I’m getting tired, and so in week 4 I’ve taken a rest from max hangs. With peaks in week 1 and 2 of the next cycle, and not in the rest week.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Don't agree 

Lots of confusion around the roll of Strides. It's not just about form either. Strides improve neuromuscular coordination.

I think the confusion comes from thinking in terms of returns from the effort expended.

While that is really significant and highly (most?) important in terms of adaptation, it's also misleading.

Another running analogy.

Interval work. The common (mis) understanding, is that working intervals is about resting, until ready to put in another really hard running effort, in the hope that this effort will be rewarded with greater speed.

The adaptive process comes from repeatedly going from the more rested state, to the quicker pace/higher output state.

That is the significance of RPs, as opposed to "max" hangs.

[abarro81]

The common (mis) understanding, is that working intervals is about resting, until ready to put in another really hard running effort, in the hope that this effort will be rewarded with greater speed.

The adaptive process comes from repeatedly going from the more rested state, to the quicker pace/higher output state.

That is the significance of RPs, as opposed to "max" hangs.

I basically have zero idea what you're trying to say here, but think that it's highly unlikely that the adaptations most people are looking for in classic interval training* is driven by the transition between states itself. Transition between "on" and "off" is going to be more relevant in rate of force development (i.e. power/contract strength) training than in standard intervals.

*by which I mean lots of metabolic responses, less strength/power focused; possibly some crossed wires here because how you describe intervals (i.e. waiting to be quite fresh) isn't really how people normally do them in that context. Obviously since intervals can basically be anything you may be meaning a different type of interval... anyway, still don't really understand what you're trying to say.

[webbo]

I thought intervals were to increase your VO 2 max or your aerobic/ anaerobic capacity. By doing  hard efforts whilst not recovered from the previous efforts, your body adapts. So you can go harder for longer.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Bit simplistic, but describes significance of recruitment, and training this in order to make more of what we have, available:

https://www.healthguidance.org/entry/17616/1/the-role-of-muscle-fiber-recruitment-in-strength.html

In reply to Webbo, yes intervals will benefit that, but we're trying to look at the adaptive process, the "how/why" if you like.

[webbo]

Putting it another way, intervals are usually to increase ones endurance. I can’t see how they would help muscle recruitment.

[abarro81]

Yes, I'm aware of recruitment and a skim of your link didn't throw up anything new. I'm no closer to understanding why you think RPs are notably different to max hangs apart from being a slightly different type of isometric (with associated pros/cons in terms of effort profile, safety etc as already discussed above). (Judging by webbo's responses it's not just me that's a bit lost about what you're trying to say)

[spidermonkey09]

This is like the training equivalent of that Hubble philosophy thread. I've got no idea whats going on. If this is a simple fingerboarding programme according to TN I must be training at an amoebic level. 

[Anti]

This is like the training equivalent of that Hubble philosophy thread. I've got no idea whats going on. If this is a simple fingerboarding programme according to TN I must be training at an amoebic level. 

I think the "simplicity" is in regards to equipment etc required. As in ultimately why I think you'd bother doing them over say, weighted hangs / hangs with assistance. You don't need to measure or have pulleys or weights or blah blah. You don't need to test and re-test. You just use RPE. Of course the irony being actually gauging RPE is pretty hard for the sort of person looking for "simple" training protocols.

[gme]

This is like the training equivalent of that Hubble philosophy thread. I've got no idea whats going on. If this is a simple fingerboarding programme according to TN I must be training at an amoebic level. 

Went straight over my head after about post 3. All we are doing is hanging on a piece of wood.

[abarro81]

I think the "simplicity" is in regards to equipment etc required.

Very much this. Obviously the simplest training program is: dangle off bit of wood. If too easy then add load; if too hard then reduce load. Continue until strong or until your mate finds a kneebar on your proj thereby removing the need to be strong.

[Anti]

I think the "simplicity" is in regards to equipment etc required.

Very much this. Obviously the simplest training program is: dangle off bit of wood. If too easy then add load; if too hard then reduce load. Continue until strong or until your mate finds a kneebar on your proj thereby removing the need to be strong.

Haha true, apart from the fact your mate doesn't send your proj. He sends an alternate, kneebar reality of your proj. Max Tegmark would hypothesize that your mate is still weaker than you and the proj still stands. He's just a fraud and if had any integrity wouldn't take the tick.

[Sasquatch]

This is like the training equivalent of that Hubble philosophy thread. I've got no idea whats going on. If this is a simple fingerboarding programme according to TN I must be training at an amoebic level. 

Went straight over my head after about post 3. All we are doing is hanging on a piece of wood.

There's no doubt we're getting super geeky...

I think the "simplicity" is in regards to equipment etc required.

Very much this. Obviously the simplest training program is: dangle off bit of wood for various amounts of time. If too easy then add load; if too hard then reduce load. Continue until strong or until your mate finds a kneebar on your proj thereby removing the need to be strong.

This is the final gist of the whole thing, with one minor tweak.

[Sasquatch]

Don't agree 

Lots of confusion around the roll of Strides. It's not just about form either. Strides improve neuromuscular coordination.

I think the confusion comes from thinking in terms of returns from the effort expended.

While that is really significant and highly (most?) important in terms of adaptation, it's also misleading.

Another running analogy.

Interval work. The common (mis) understanding, is that working intervals is about resting, until ready to put in another really hard running effort, in the hope that this effort will be rewarded with greater speed.

The adaptive process comes from repeatedly going from the more rested state, to the quicker pace/higher output state.

That is the significance of RPs, as opposed to "max" hangs.

Sooo many things to unpack.  In my brain, form is a piece of neuromuscular coordination. 

Let's not get into intervals.  Too many variables.  Intervals can be used to train strength, endurance or vo2 max, etc.  it all depends on structured W:R ratios, and rest intensity.  For example, you can do 100M sprints with rest period of walking the other 300m around the track.  Or you can do 100M sprints, rest is continue running around the track at Aerobic Threshold pace.  These are VERY different interval workouts targeting very different systems and adaptations. 

So what you're saying in the last two lines is that because RP's force profile "can" be higher than the max hangs, therefore the adaptation will result in higher top-end adaptation? Because doing RP's is slow onset, not fast so it's not a quicker onset than max hangs, it's very similar.  But as Barrows pointed out, you likely will hit a higher overall force for a shorter period. 

[shark]

This is like the training equivalent of that Hubble philosophy thread. I've got no idea whats going on. If this is a simple fingerboarding programme according to TN I must be training at an amoebic level. 

The ‘simple’ aspect is that there’s need for the faff of a harness and pulley or weights.