[Nibile]

I asked Shark to remove the offensive part of my post, sadly it stays in the quote. I'd be glad if it could be fixed.
Now that I've apologized, I still think that there is a big difference between moving fast and trying to.
I think that what is featured in the video is more strength training than power training. Being power strength plus speed, removing speed removes a basic component of power.
The articles I read about added weights for power training suggested a max 7% of added weight, anymore resulting in a loss of speed. One of them was by a certain Marvin Climbing blog, specifically addressing the campusboard. Others were quoted to me by a friend who is a professional climbing trainer. If you're really interested I can ask him.
I tend to avoid % because as you say the range varies a lot, and I would never use them for a divulgative video aimed at a wide audience.
Even less I'd suggest reps and sets.
As for the links that you gave, I sincerely struggle with their concepts, but I will try to give them a deeper view.
Finally, please believe me if I tell you that moving upwards fast with plates attached to a harness is very dangerous.

[Sasquatch]

Well, since everyone is getting on the be nice bandwagon, then I'll go ahead and weigh in on the critical side.  I appreciate the conversation and am happy to try to keep weighing in. 

#1- Conceptually you are correct and the studies and science generally support your line of thinking.  However, the force/velocity curve is not the same for everyone.  Some people are very fast and not very strong, while others are very strong and not very fast.  In practice, what many people fail to understand is that the climbers who most need to work on this are slower climbers.  I.E. given the curves in this reference (https://simplifaster.com/articles/resistance-training-strength-continuum/), their force/velocity curve is very flat.  This would indicate an athlete with more strength than speed.  The percent that should be trained varies based on the athlete and the need.  So in this case, I would argue a lower weight and faster is better (30% and a focus on speed).  For an athlete with high speed and low strength (yes they are out there) I would suggest they train at the higher end (70%)

#2 - In the study you reference, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27699699/, it states that 30-70% is good for peak power in the bench press.  It also states " Lighter loads (<30 % of 1RM) appear to provide the highest mean and highest peak power production in the bench press throw exercise." I would argue that in climbing we need to create enough momentum to become nearly weightless to move our hands.  That means what we are targeting is more akin to the throw rather than a conventional press.  We need that level of speed production. 

#3 - In your video, the pullups you show as demonstrations are very slow.  If that is the fastest you can move(even with 11kgs), then I would assume you have a very flat curve and I would strongly recommend you decrease the weight and train to move faster.  I appreciate that you are trying to put valuable information out there but compare this pull-up(https://www.instagram.com/p/B--b17_jdXK/ vs yours, you can see how much of a difference in speed there is.  a few posts later Tyler does the same thing you do, using a 68% test, but again I'd argue that his force curve is relatively flat.  i.e. he is STRONG AF, but not very fast. (and yes, I have said the same thing to him and have had several good discussions about different training concepts)  Showing this as a demonstration is not very helpful IMO.  Perhaps go a bit deeper and find someone who is truly explosive and can demonstrate a VERY fast pullup.  Show both side by side, and then talk why/when to do each rather than giving specific %'s or set/reps. 

#4 - You're presuming the peak force is the final goal of power training.  Climbers are not cyclists or weight lifters who do the exact same thing over and over.  There is a massive amount of motor learning to be done.  And in my mind doing 60-70% max pullups for speed is not a motor learning pathway that is helpful for most climbers.  If you're in lockdown, and only have a pullup bar, I'd say lower weight and faster deeper pullups (pull to your waist) is better.  If you have a wall, then doing easy overhanging problems where you link two movements is better. 

This is a good article from the same site you posted before about the force/velocity curve and its pitfalls.  https://simplifaster.com/articles/force-velocity-training/

[mrjonathanr]

Off topic, apologies, but I thought Tyler Nelson had some really interesting things to say about tendon rehab, unusual to have an MSc in it.

Only gripe is the way Chiropractors call themselves doctors.

[teestub]

  Showing this as a demonstration is not very helpful IMO.  Perhaps go a bit deeper and find someone who is truly explosive and can demonstrate a VERY fast pullup.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B8beeHfoLgy/?igshid=1fpxliuzei8az  Bit of kipping but good speed. Interesting exercise combo too

[Bradders]

https://www.instagram.com/p/B8beeHfoLgy/?igshid=1fpxliuzei8az  Bit of kipping but good speed. Interesting exercise combo too

What a monster 

Also, love the two blokes in the background haha

Also: https://www.instagram.com/p/CJi-JD2qVA6/?igshid=qw0mlct4l94o

Can't tell if partway through the video is sped up or not? Unbelievably fast pull up there if it isn't.

[Mike Nolan]

Well, since everyone is getting on the be nice bandwagon, then I'll go ahead and weigh in on the critical side.  I appreciate the conversation and am happy to try to keep weighing in. 

#1- Conceptually you are correct and the studies and science generally support your line of thinking.  However, the force/velocity curve is not the same for everyone.  Some people are very fast and not very strong, while others are very strong and not very fast.  In practice, what many people fail to understand is that the climbers who most need to work on this are slower climbers.  I.E. given the curves in this reference (https://simplifaster.com/articles/resistance-training-strength-continuum/), their force/velocity curve is very flat.  This would indicate an athlete with more strength than speed.  The percent that should be trained varies based on the athlete and the need.  So in this case, I would argue a lower weight and faster is better (30% and a focus on speed).  For an athlete with high speed and low strength (yes they are out there) I would suggest they train at the higher end (70%)

I don't disagree with you, and this is why I said we should probably train the whole curve. 70% is a starting point for me (based on the limited research), that doesn't mean you won't see benefits from also doing them at 60%, 80% or 20%. You could also argue that 1RM can vary so much day to day that it's probably irrelevant what percentage you actually choose anyway, and that the only way to do it effectively would be with an LPT! 

I accept that this doesn't come across in the video. The idea behind the YouTube video was a short and simple session suggestion for people who are training at home. The video would need to be considerably longer to explain the benefits of adjusting % of 1RM depending on what your force-velocity curve looks like, and that's kind of beyond the scope of a 'simple method to train power at home' in my mind! Maybe I'll do a follow up, but I think we're at risk of getting bogged down in the detail a little!

#2 - In the study you reference, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27699699/, it states that 30-70% is good for peak power in the bench press.  It also states " Lighter loads (<30 % of 1RM) appear to provide the highest mean and highest peak power production in the bench press throw exercise." I would argue that in climbing we need to create enough momentum to become nearly weightless to move our hands.  That means what we are targeting is more akin to the throw rather than a conventional press.  We need that level of speed production. 

The percentages from those specific exercises are mostly irrelevant though aren't they. We would need to see more research specifically into the pull up, rather than trying to extrapolate.

#3 - In your video, the pullups you show as demonstrations are very slow.  If that is the fastest you can move(even with 11kgs), then I would assume you have a very flat curve and I would strongly recommend you decrease the weight and train to move faster.  I appreciate that you are trying to put valuable information out there but compare this pull-up(https://www.instagram.com/p/B--b17_jdXK/ vs yours, you can see how much of a difference in speed there is.  a few posts later Tyler does the same thing you do, using a 68% test, but again I'd argue that his force curve is relatively flat.  i.e. he is STRONG AF, but not very fast. (and yes, I have said the same thing to him and have had several good discussions about different training concepts)  Showing this as a demonstration is not very helpful IMO.  Perhaps go a bit deeper and find someone who is truly explosive and can demonstrate a VERY fast pullup.  Show both side by side, and then talk why/when to do each rather than giving specific %'s or set/reps.

I made a side by side video of my pull ups and Tyler's from the Instagram video you linked out of interest. There's no perceptible difference in my opinion. I'll send you the video if you'd like to see it?

#4 - You're presuming the peak force is the final goal of power training.  Climbers are not cyclists or weight lifters who do the exact same thing over and over.  There is a massive amount of motor learning to be done.  And in my mind doing 60-70% max pullups for speed is not a motor learning pathway that is helpful for most climbers.  If you're in lockdown, and only have a pullup bar, I'd say lower weight and faster deeper pullups (pull to your waist) is better.  If you have a wall, then doing easy overhanging problems where you link two movements is better. 

I have to disagree, there's no 'better' approach to any of this. (Except for maybe using an LPT to measure your individual force-velocity curve, and designing more individualised sessions with it.)

A variety of different exercises will illicit different responses. 70% of 1RM seems like a good starting point based on the limited available research to develop power. Yes, lower intensities will develop speed, and you can do those too! I see value in 60-70% for climbers, as well as other intensities where appropriate. I think we will need to agree to disagree here in the absence of any further research. 

This is a good article from the same site you posted before about the force/velocity curve and its pitfalls.  https://simplifaster.com/articles/force-velocity-training/

I'll have a read, thanks!

[Sasquatch]

First of all, I agree that it would be great to have more studies on pullups specifically, and then a secondary study to see how pulling speed relates to climbing performance. Does pull speed actually correlate?  However, we don't and you are putting training recommendations out there for the masses.    Therefore, you have made indirectly made the statement that 70% is the "recommended" number. and in your rebuttal to me, you seem stuck on that same number. 

My argument is that if 30-70% all are equal options based on the literature available, then we should be looking for other reasons to choose a different percent.  I could and would argue that 50% is a better starting point, then adjust based on your natural inclinations.  Based on what I know of climbing as a whole, faster movement is really important for big pulling muscles.  Being able to generate very quickly at the outset of a pull is critical as that is generally the moment you have the best purchase with the fingers.  The further you go into the movement the less finger purchase you have. 

Based on my experience with climbers, more often than not sport climbers lack explosive power, so they would be better training at a lower percent and faster.  Whereas a boulderer may be better off doing more strength work at the higher end of the percent. 

The idea behind the YouTube video was a short and simple session suggestion for people who are training at home.

This is why I am disagreeing.  I agree with Nibs that adding weight and asking people to do speed pullups is inappropriate.
 I think you would have been better off saying do fast pullups, and if you can't do a pullup with 50% added bodyweight, then maybe use assistance. 

[Mike Nolan]

70% is based on the literature that is available, as I have explained.

There is no suggestion that 30-70% are equal, if there was I'd have recommended 30-70%! I'm not sure which literature you have got these numbers from.

I'm glad that multiple people have found my video useful and seen improvements in their power. As I have said, there's no single best way to train power, but it seems that my suggestion has been beneficial to those that have tried it.

I'm leaving this thread now, we're going in circles.

[Sasquatch]

70% is based on the literature that is available, as I have explained.

There is no suggestion that 30-70% are equal, if there was I'd have recommended 30-70%! I'm not sure which literature you have got these numbers from.

I'm glad that multiple people have found my video useful and seen improvements in their power. As I have said, there's no single best way to train power, but it seems that my suggestion has been beneficial to those that have tried it.

I'm leaving this thread now, we're going in circles.

70% is based on the literature that is available, as I have explained.

I disagree that 70% is a logical conclusion from the sources you reference.  The study you presented on pullup force production only tested from 70-100% of 1RM, and the MPP increased as the weight got lower.  It is not illogical to presume that lower than 70% would be even better.  Look at Figure 2 for a graphical representation of this. 

And this is a direct quote from the study conclusion:
"Therefore, if absolute maximal power capabilities are to be developed, subjects should use an assistance that would reduce body weight and, therefore, could produce higher movement velocities."

There is no suggestion that 30-70% are equal, if there was I'd have recommended 30-70%! I'm not sure which literature you have got these numbers from.

The 30-70% is an extrapolation from the other meta-study you referenced regarding upper body push strength.  That one concluded that "Moderate loads (from >30 to <70 % of 1RM) appear to provide the optimal load for peak power and mean power in the bench press exercise."  In conjunction with the study above, there appears to be a very good reason in my mind to go below 70%.  Maybe the 30 is a stretch, hence why I said may start at 50%.

I'm glad that multiple people have found my video useful and seen improvements in their power. As I have said, there's no single best way to train power, but it seems that my suggestion has been beneficial to those that have tried it.

I'm leaving this thread now, we're going in circles.

I'm also glad that they have found it helpful.  Anything that furthers the discussion seems to me to be worthwhile. 

[Sasquatch]

I'm leaving this thread now, we're going in circles.

But that is the best thing about UKB 

[Oldmanmatt]

I was reading this study, this morning:

https://www.academia.edu/21822579/A_single_set_of_exhaustive_exercise_before_resistance_training_improves_muscular_performance_in_young_men?email_work_card=title

Whilst sat in a hospital waiting room (so, I haven’t really laid into it yet), but the underlying logic seems sensible.
Essentially, exhausting/burning out the type I fibres of the targeted muscle groups, prior to strength training, appears to lead to greater type II recruitment during the strength phase and more rapid/larger strength gains over time.
Go rip it appart.

[Stu Littlefair]

Rubbish study design though, isn't it?

The group that did the exhaustive exercise before training had a higher training load overall, because they did more exercise. Hard to know if that, or the exhaustive training, was responsible for improved results in that group.

[Oldmanmatt]

Rubbish study design though, isn't it?

The group that did the exhaustive exercise before training had a higher training load overall, because they did more exercise. Hard to know if that, or the exhaustive training, was responsible for improved results in that group.

Yes, but food for thought.
It would be nice to re-run with another group working to exhaustion, post strength training; for instance.
Good old, anecdotal, n=1, personal experience, for myself:
My training has evolved over many years, from something, more or less, a hangover from school PE, to something that, sort of, kinda reflects my interpretation of some quite conflicting information of moderate complexity and partly educated understanding and blah, blah, blah.
I started as a climbing instructor and weight training instructor and a county council sports centre at 16, so it’s always been a secondary career for me. Still find it hard to actually come up with a “good” training program.

Plus I keep changing my mind about what I want to achieve…

Anyway, thirty years ago, it was all stretching (static) before training and volume, volume, volume. No pain no gain etc etc.
That evolved into (for strength training) into 3 set 80/90% 1rm stuff and then work to exhaustion (stacks of press ups and pull ups, usually). Stretch it off etc.

Now, pretty hefty “warm up” followed by a long rest 5-10 minutes, then strength training. No particular cool down. But, my “gains” are way better. Much lower volume, hardly any stretching (once a week, on a rest day).

Seems to chime with the study’s underlying logic, for my experience. Dangerous ground, but intriguing.