[IS2]

Thanks for that. The Entralpi app Aerobic work out uses 35% MVC, nearly died of “ being pumped “ first time I did it.
As heading outside approaches I will want to work on forearm ancap, Entralpi guys set that at 65% mvc ... is there a known range / value of mvc  that efficiently trains anaerobic energy systems ??

[Stu Littlefair]

You can see the spread in CF values from Dave Giles’ paper here

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dave-Giles/publication/343601001_An_all-out_test_to_determine_finger_flexor_critical_force_in_rock_climbers/links/5f339ca8a6fdcccc43c21001/An-all-out-test-to-determine-finger-flexor-critical-force-in-rock-climbers.pdf

This is as a % of BW, not MVC, but for the best climbers in this study the two will be around the same number, for one arm.

I’m not aware of anyone doing a study to find which intensity trains anaerobic fitness the “best” - be cool if someone had though.

Intensities from 60-80% of MVC are going to do you some good though.

[Muenchener]

I read the papers, a couple of times, and did some self-testing. Still not entirely clear what the results tell me. I know my 7-second max hang weight, and I now also know that I can do 7/3 repeaters at 42% of that for just under six minutes.

Now what?

Now do two more sets of 7:3 repeaters to failure at (say) 55% and  65%. You need to be fully recovered between these.

Now plot a graph of load*time against time. If you fit a straight line to it, the slope will be your measure of W’ and the intercept will be your critical force.

Excellent, thanks. That's my lockdown entertainment plan for the coming week sorted then.

[wasbeen]

Hi. I am selling a Tindeq on behalf of my daughter. £60 posted. Cheers. Martin

[wasbeen]

Just a bump on this in case anyone is interested -.£45 posted now.

[36chambers]

Just a bump on this in case anyone is interested -.£45 posted now.

I'm interested, just about to send you a pm

[wasbeen]

Just replied. Thanks.

[reeve]

I've got a question for Stu, or anyone else who understands this stuff.

I've just followed the instructions on this website https://strengthclimbing.com/critical-force-calculator/ and put my values into his calculator. I was using a pulley to had to reduce the theoretical assistance to account for friction on the pulley (I didn't want to cheat), so it won't have been perfectly accurate but I think it's close enough. I came out with a CF of 41.5% of max hang, but then in the comment I says "Your aerobic endurance requires more attention. On a long route, you may get pumped before you even get to the crux."

I mean, I often do get pumped before I get too the crux, but that's beside the point. I thought 40% was good and that would mean I should focus more on strength, non? Have I misunderstood or done something wrong?

[abarro81]

Without knowing anything about the setup, you seem right to me. I got 44% BW on the lattice digirung I think, and BW on that edge is about my max, so similar as % of max... and that was considered good IIRC (though there was quite limited dataset when I did it I think)

[abarro81]

But then I also get pumped before the crux sometimes 

[remus]

In a general sense a cf of 40% is pretty normal. I don't know anything about their models, so I suspect on the data they've collected 40% is at the lower end so they're saying you're at the lower end. Hard to say how meaningful this analysis is without knowing some more about their dataset and their analysis. Take it with a pinch of salt.

The other thing to bear in mind is how these results relate to your goals. If your goals are 50m overhanging pump fests then working to improve your cf is a good idea. Less so if you want to tick Zeke the freak.

[reeve]

But then I also get pumped before the crux sometimes 

Cool, thanks. For a moment I thought I was doing something wrong!

In a general sense a cf of 40% is pretty normal. I don't know anything about their models, so I suspect on the data they've collected 40% is at the lower end so they're saying you're at the lower end. Hard to say how meaningful this analysis is without knowing some more about their dataset and their analysis. Take it with a pinch of salt.

The other thing to bear in mind is how these results relate to your goals. If your goals are 50m overhanging pump fests then working to improve your cf is a good idea. Less so if you want to tick Zeke the freak.

Cheers Remus. Is the model not just an algorithm which fits the the data points to a curved line? Or are you referring to the model as in the data set of scores which could be open to selection bias?

In terms of goals, I primarily want to conceive ledge shuffling but on less hospitable ledges.

Even with any limitations, I think this tells me I can still focus on strength while just maintaining AeroCap for a while longer.

[Stu Littlefair]

If you follow the link to Dave Giles’ paper I posted above, and look at figure 4C then a CF of 40% puts you on the solid line, which is just slightly below average in the data from that paper. Without crunching the numbers I’d say that 42-44% would be about “standard”.

Having watched you climb, and bearing in mind your request for feedback, I think a focus on strength, but particularly a good block of explosive power training would pay off

[abarro81]

If you follow the link to Dave Giles’ paper I posted above, and look at figure 4C then a CF of 40% puts you on the solid line, which is just slightly below average in the data from that paper. Without crunching the numbers I’d say that 42-44% would be about “standard”.

Is it not slightly above average rather than below? Looks to me like the bulk of the data is above the line, which if I've read it right means that 40% MVC is higher than CF for the bulk... Am I mistaken?

[remus]

Cheers Remus. Is the model not just an algorithm which fits the the data points to a curved line? Or are you referring to the model as in the data set of scores which could be open to selection bias?

There is a curve fitting part to it, but once you've got your curve you need to interpret the values you're reading of the curve. So the curve will day "your critical force is ~41%", but then it's helpful to put that number in context and understand whether that's a good score or a bad score. A basic approach is to see where you sit on the distribution of scores, e.g say you're in the top 5th percentile then they'd say "congrats, your CF is amazing".

[Stu Littlefair]

If you follow the link to Dave Giles’ paper I posted above, and look at figure 4C then a CF of 40% puts you on the solid line, which is just slightly below average in the data from that paper. Without crunching the numbers I’d say that 42-44% would be about “standard”.

Is it not slightly above average rather than below? Looks to me like the bulk of the data is above the line, which if I've read it right means that 40% MVC is higher than CF for the bulk... Am I mistaken?

Yes, you’re right.

[reeve]

Thanks again all, I think I've got my head around it now. Took me a while, last night I couldn't work out why my score was around double off most in the Giles paper until I slept on it and realised that they were only using one arm and I used two! 

Stu, thanks for the specific feedback too.

[spidermonkey09]

Just done this and it was thoroughly unpleasant!

[remus]

Sounds like you did it right! Did you get really masochistic and do it on both arms? One interesting thing we noticed at lattice is that it's pretty hard to test both arms separately, because once you know how savage it is it is easy to subconsciously hold a bit back through the first few reps on the second test.

[spidermonkey09]

I did, but not in a particularly useful sense. I bailed after 12 reps on the left arm first time round because it was so grim, but on studying the graph it was clear I hadn't started to level out yet, so I decided to suck up the pain and do it properly on the right arm. Then I had to do it again on the left arm in full so that score is a fair bit lower than the right because i was so fatigued.

In terms of measuring the %s, for a rough and ready measure can I use my PB peak load scores as a max hang proxy? They effectively measure the same thing as a max hang if I remember right?

[remus]

Yeah you should be able to get some useful numbers out. Worth noting that they're not the same thing though, peak load is instantaneous and often quite a bit higher than e.g. a 7s max hang, where you need to maintain a certain level of force output for a sustained period of time.

[spidermonkey09]

Yeah you should be able to get some useful numbers out. Worth noting that they're not the same thing though, peak load is instantaneous and often quite a bit higher than e.g. a 7s max hang, where you need to maintain a certain level of force output for a sustained period of time.

Yeah sorry just realised that was dumb. I will have to do a max hang session in the week and calibrate it properly.

According to my current numbers my CF is 32% on the left arm and 37% on the right arm. I think they'd prob be similar if I hadn't had the rubbish aborted test first up on the left arm.

According to this thread that puts me in the region of a good score for a route climber, which I guess makes sense even though I haven't been training for routes lately. By my interpretation I'd be decently served by doing what I usually do when preparing for a sport trip, namely both strength and fitness work with the emphasis on fitness the closer the trip gets, and then maybe do a retest (if i can face it...) to see if the CF % has changed? Obviously depends on what your aims are etc. Its quite a confusing thread to read through, this.