[Anti]

Without reading the whole thread as I don't have the mental capacity currently...

if at rep 1 and 2 you're not hitting the numbers then it's not going to be a quality session.

...doesn't this fail to take into account the neurological gains that have to be made when doing, for example, max hangs? I say this because every time I drop a bit of weight on my assisted 1 arm hangs the first few sessions at the new weight are always shit; partly because I am weak and partly because I'm not yet used to how that hang feels. eg, I recently dropped down to 3kg assist on these hangs. The first session was appalling, I managed about 4 seconds per hang. The second session I managed a few hangs at the full 7 sec duration and then regressed rapidly. Hopefully this evening I'll be slightly better. If I had adopted your rationale as above I would have increased the assistance straight away because I very much wasnt hitting the numbers, but by doing them to failure hopefully in a few weeks time I'll manage the whole set. Once I've done that a few times I'll drop the weight again. Just seems like I'd never get any stronger if I made it easier as soon as I wasn't hitting the numbers.

So I'll preface again with the fact I am neither a qualified, intelligent or strong. However, I think the normal protocol for something like this is you've completed a cycle of hangs with x weight, re-tested, realised you're stronger and now to attain a similar stimulus you require x+(whatever increments your weights will go in) and continue. Assuming this is the case, it shouldn't be significant enough of a jump that you suddenly can't get anywhere near one single hang. Unless you only have big weights to use.

Obviously though you do it differently and it works, as do most people probably. Training eh, thankfully it's not just one single thing that works. Some people recover fine. Some don't.

Incidentally, your last statement kind of hints at what I'm trying to say though. Assuming you are completing your sessions at -3kg assistance and tonight you can't get anywhere near it. Would you do a session at -10kg assistance or would you deduce that there's probably something wrong and you'd be better off doing it tomorrow?

[Sasquatch]

I think we're actually pretty close to agreement, but there are subtle nuances.  If you upped the weight and hit 4 sec, then that's still 90+% actual effort regardless of rpe.  If you upped the weight and couldn't hang at all, then you went back to previous weight and could only do 4 seconds, you'd be more likely to sack off the session as you're not ready... I think that's more what Anti is talking about.  which is fair and is one way to look at it.  I find my variability between sessions for no discernable reason to be about 5%.  So It take alot for me to "sack it off" as being too tired.  For a max hangs session, that would be about 5kg off a 1-armer. 

I have a Tindeq I use for all of my RP's now so I actually see exactly what my numbers are.  If I were to see numbers that were off by 10-15%, I would also sack them off.  What I have found though is that even when I have had a nails session I can still pull 90% on RP's. 

Anti - I agree that after a hard Board session(MB for example), I would not even think about doing RP's.  There's no need.  However, I am climbing hard enough on the MB to be on loads of yellow crimps.  I have a friend who is terrible at steeps and foot cuts.  He fails through bigger muscle issues more often, so for him it could be the right call... Doing a few 15mm RP's would engage his fingers in a way he is otherwise not doing.  I also NEVER full crimp on a board and rarely inside, so I have found doing full crimp RP's to be very very helpful. 

[spidermonkey09]

Thanks both, interesting. For the record, I improved on the previous session! However if I had felt like total shit on the first hang I would definitely not have increased to 10kg assistance. I would have gone up to 4kg or 5kg at a push and done the session at that weight regardless of whether I was completing the hangs or not. As you say, interesting to compare the different methods. Mine has no particular science behind it, just word of mouth and a reluctance to sack the session off completely having got my fingers warm!

Sasquatch's point about full crimp RPs is interesting though, as I never full crimp inside if I can avoid it, definitely not on a board and rarely on the grit. Maybe by doing some full crimp RPs over the winter after wall sessions/repeaters I would hit the ground running quicker when limestone season comes around in the spring and I have to close every crimp. Food for thought.

[Sasquatch]

I will also add that the tindeq is an amazing training tool for the money.  Really great way to separate shoulders from fingers and easily see if one is the issue for 1-armers(for many people this is a big issue).  You can see actual numbers on the device for RP's.  You can also do density pulls on them(slightly different from the hangs, but fun to play with) 

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Re the Tindeq,

you can of course just use a set of bathroom scales. That's what I use.

I think people are on the same page now, re significance of RPs. I dropped Tyler Nelson a line, and if you're interested, he was keen to point out the significance of using RPs to hit a new peak force/MVIC (Maximum Voluntary Isometric Contraction) - and how this was completely different to the effects of working "max hangs".

From Tyler:

"Thanks for reaching out. There's a couple things going on that people might be mixing together.

1) Recruitment is all about hitting a new peak force. In this case a new MVIC (max voluntary isometric contraction) for the finger flexors. If athletes believe that doing 10-seconds hangs would do the same thing (people commonly do) they are mistaking..."

2) The question of it being useful when an athlete is tired is a similar, yet different point. In the article I've suggested that RP's are safer than weighted hangs because they autoregulate force on each training day. If you come into a training session tired it would be safer than simply adding load (from a previously tested session) to your body. That's making the assumption that you are that strong, that day. That isn't always the case. If I do a RP instead I only pull up to the capacity of my system on that day. So, somedays the force will be lower, some days the force will be higher. .."

I appreciate that some of this is now covered, above.

As well as the difference between what we work with RPs Vs Max Hangs, I was also raising the question of whether there was adaptation due to neuromuscular coordination, through the way that the force was applied/built. I still think that's a relevant question (? I'll come back to) but where I think Sasquatch disagreed with me, was in me trying to equate that to what we're targeting in RPs. I still think it's an interesting one, in terms of the underlying process behind recruitment, but here we're working the peak force.

That's also important in terms of when to work RPs.

Doing RPs without weight - i.e. using a small enough edge, one arm - allows for the variation in strength from day to day, rather than the force being determined by the load. The significance here, being the "autoregulation" - and not so that RPs are something to do when tired, because you still want to reach close to peak force.

Training RPs using the scales, my pulls were very similar to the way they're described in Tyler's article. However, I think there is something really significant in the way that the load is built and applied.

On days that I felt stronger - when I'd end up pulling to a feet off hang - I'd be very aware of a change in the contraction.

I think the word "voluntary" in MVIC is much more significant than it might seem.

[petejh]

I'd be interested to see how 'peak force production' is quantified. Does it say in his literature? It seems to be saying that peak force production is measured by your RPE? (and your RPE is a limiter on peak force production..).

Is there a measure, other than 'how hard you feel you're trying', to quantify whether you've:

a. actually increased your finger's peak force production?
or
b. whether you've just improved the connectivity of the billions of interlinked neuromuscular connections that enable you to do the same movement more effectively? Which makes it 'feel' like increased peak force production.

[abarro81]

I'd be interested to see how 'peak force production' is quantified.

Newtons. He'll just use a Tindeq (or other load sensor thing). He's just saying the same thing we were talking about higher up - if you pull at "100% effort" you might put out more force for the first few seconds vs doing a classic max hang:

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.

(bold added for clarity).

Tyler is saying that he thinks absolute peak force is the greatest driver of increased recruitment (which is broadly intuitive, though not sure if it's 100% accurate)

[tomtom]

The trying as hard as you can thing seems to be both the regulator (if you’re tired you’re not going to end up trying a pb because you can’t) and also the point of the exercise.

It’s a funny one to me - as how hard I try has as much variability in it as how tiredness etc.. effects performance.

Sasks nifty Bluetooth strain gauge (al tindek) looks like a neat way around this as it will record the mad pull you do. The scales might do something similar - but you have to look at them while doing it - and the speed up the display updating (and if you can read it) will lead to some spurious results (if our scales are anything to go by!)

[tomtom]

(And well done DT for reaching out to Ryan!)

[abarro81]

mad pull you do.

Mad pull bro. Do you even lift?

[tomtom]

mad pull you do.

Mad pull bro. Do you even lift?

Finally I’ve managed to contribute something noteworthy to the thread 😂

[petejh]

I'd be interested to see how 'peak force production' is quantified.

Newtons. He'll just use a Tindeq (or other load sensor thing). He's just saying the same thing we were talking about higher up - if you pull at "100% effort" you might put out more force for the first few seconds vs doing a classic max hang:

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.

(bold added for clarity).

Tyler is saying that he thinks absolute peak force is the greatest driver of increased recruitment (which is broadly intuitive, though not sure if it's 100% accurate)

Got it. 

Where in his literature does he show the progressive increase in peak force production that he or his trainees achieved? I assume there must be data to show it works as he claims.

I'm attracted by the TN programme on the training beta site, but it'd be good to actually see some data to back up the various claims made by various trainers.

[abarro81]

No idea if he's published anything on it I'm afraid, never looked!

[Duma]

An issue i think with the whole rpe concept, is the lack of acknowledgement of how hard it is to try really hard. This is a variable in itself and largely psychological in nature, and thus not auto regulating to physiological limits as discussed. Pulley/added weights get round this by their very nature.

[teestub]

An issue i think with the whole rpe concept, is the lack of acknowledgement of how hard it is to try really hard. This is a variable in itself and largely psychological in nature, and thus not auto regulating to physiological limits as discussed. Pulley/added weights get round this by their very nature.

This is interesting, by the same note wouldn't it be possible that the max effort that people are recording (i.e. their benchmark hangs) are not actually their max, as they are being limited psychologically in a similar way? (obviously everyone is limited psychologically to an some degree otherwise you'd just rip your tendons from their insertion points!)

[Duma]

Perhaps, but assumming one benchmarks when feeling good psychologically as well as physiologically, or even that after a few sessions one will coincide with a good try hard, fairly soon you'd get to a realistic max hang, and thereafter the ego may even have a positive effect on getting a real "max effort" out of you?

Also I'd posit that its a lot easier to try properly hard when going to failure than when keeping feet on the floor.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Just reading the last few posts - responding to them together. Sorry guys.

A really important distinction is that between the overcoming isometric (as with Recruitment Pulls) and the yielding isometric.

It's significant in terms of how the force is built/applied. I don't think you have to worry too much about what peak force means in terms of the numbers.

If you're pulling against something that doesn't move, you're just trying to put all your effort into trying to make it move. Autoregulation just means that on some goes, you won't pull quite as hard as on others, in terms of peak force.

If you're adding weight, then in most cases you'll be performing a concentric contraction, or on the fingerboard, most likely a yielding isometric.

What's important is the output. When you're "trying not to yield", if you think about it, you're trying to stop something happening - ie. your fingers from uncurling - rather than reaching a new higher level of force/output.

If you work RPs on a set of scales, it's easier to monitor "how low you can go" as you get closer to pulling with body weight. I think the psychological impetus to see the numbers reduce, is motivation enough to pull hard - your focus is on how high (in terms of force) rather than how long.

Don't know if that makes sense! In other words, don't worry about it too much; if you're performing an OI rather than a YI, you'll be creating a higher output force anyway. 

..

YI man.

[harrison]

I'll preface this with I'm very crap compared to other people but I got to climbing V6/V7 consistently without having strong fingers at all - I still can't hang a lattice rung in a half crimp with two hands at just bodyweight...

I started trying to hangboard to do something about it last year and I was really bad - like surprised at how bad I was.
I had to take weight off with a pulley (-20kg) to start with and gradually progressed +1kg/wk to BW on the 30mm BM2000 slots. Think I eventually made it to +10kg or so.

I ended up trying TN's hangboard routine earlier this year because I was away and had a portable hangboard.
I found it pretty simple to do the recuitment pulls and then the density hangs - I did the density hangs one hand at a time using weights with the portable hangboard. (oddly the equipment I happened to have - and easier to quantify progress).
I didn't do the velocity pulls.
I continued to train my shoulders separately which are another big weakness in certain planes - but not gastons. love a gaston.

I would say the result for me was I could do a lot more regular finger training alongside actually climbing outdoors as much as possible - whereas what I did before trashed my fingers.

My fingers have always felt quite tweaky - normally from climbing too much / trying too hard  - probably trying the same move/problem too much.

Doing the density hangs as the backbone of the finger training they feel way better (not tweaky).

I kind of doubt they're as good for your finger and shoulder strength as hanging with loads of weight added, but for me in my set of circumstances it worked pretty well.

I did it consistently again for the last 6 weeks and I tried the hardest, crimpiest problems (a big weakness obviously) that I've ever tried on limestone in the last few weeks and I easily pulled onto a hangboard slot that used to feel hard without a warmup - so confident its working.

I would consider it a good 'go to' or staple program when you're not sure what to do or maybe don't have the equipment you want.
And if like me your crimp strength is appalling its a good way of slowly building up.

Another benefit from the density hangs is I can hang out on holds for a lot longer which helps a lot.

Only downside I would say is I'm still bad on small edges cos I did all of the training on a 20mm edge. I now do some of the warmup and recuitment pulls on a smaller edge just to get used to the feeling.

I don't agree that the recruitment pulls are entirely safe because they're auto-regulated. I tweaked a ring finger doing them and I could have pulled harder than I was - perhaps another 10-20%. After that I only pull as hard as I think my fingers can take, rather than trying to reach the peak force I can generate which is what I did before. If they don't feel good I won't push it and I'll focus on the density hangs.
I think for me with weak fingers its not important if the RP's are truly maximal or sub-maximal, as long as there is a stimulus they will get stronger.
(If you have stronger fingers, I guess you may not have that luxury of responding to a lower intensity of stimulus.)

I plan to continue with it through the winter and beyond - I want to get to ~35-40kg on each hand so its effectively BW on a 20mm edge with two hands for 30s.
Hoping that will create a good baseline of finger strength to start pulling on disgusting edges

[DAVETHOMAS90]

That's a great post. Thanks for the benefit of your experience 

Interesting comments about stimulus etc. Many other great points.

"Love a Gaston" 

Love it 

[Sasquatch]

Indeed!  Thanks for sharing.