[r-man]

I think we all understand that in a sport where weight to strength ratio is important, e.g. bouldering or gymnastics, the best women are prepubescent. The best girls are going to be the talented few who have not yet had a serious tendon injury.

That's just not true. The best women in climbing (to name a few) are...

Lynn Hill
Josune Bereziartu
Sasha DiGiulian
Anna Stohr
Lisa Rands
Alex Puccio
Dorothea Karalus
Barbara Zangerl
Beth Rodden

...And they aren't prepubuscent. Ashima is clearly up there with them, but considering what the other women have achieved over their lifetimes, I don't see why she can't keep on improving as she grows. Climbing is not gymnastics.

I'm sure there are risks to training young, but if kids want to dedicate themselves to something they are passionate about, perhaps it's better to help them do it safely, rather than say no.

[jwi]

I think we all understand that in a sport where weight to strength ratio is important, e.g. bouldering or gymnastics, the best women are prepubescent. The best girls are going to be the talented few who have not yet had a serious tendon injury.

That's just not true. The best women in climbing (to name a few) are...

Lynn Hill
Josune Bereziartu
Sasha DiGiulian
Anna Stohr
Lisa Rands
Alex Puccio
Dorothea Karalus
Barbara Zangerl
Beth Rodden

...And they aren't prepubuscent. Ashima is clearly up there with them, but considering what the other women have achieved over their lifetimes, I don't see why she can't keep on improving as she grows. Climbing is not gymnastics.

I'm sure there are risks to training young, but if kids want to dedicate themselves to something they are passionate about, perhaps it's better to help them do it safely, rather than say no.

Ashima is clearly better at bouldering than many of the above mentioned are, or ever was at their peak.

I think climbing is a fantastic sport (obviously) and kids who love it should be given encouragement to do it (obviously). But even if kids perform at world-class levels, they should not be treated as fodder for the news-cycle. I think it put children's health in unnecessary danger.

In Sweden, the climbing federation tried to bar use of crimp holds from junior competitions. This decision was taken based on some recent evidence that training for maximum strength in the crimp hold leads to permanent life-long damages in the hands of junior climbers. The reactions from many coaches to the federation's move taught me all I needed to know about some peoples priorities on performance vs health for children.

The BMC trying to tell children to stop campusing was also an illuminating episode.

[masonwoods101]

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,21169.0.html  good thread here talking about the whole training too young thing.

[r-man]

Ashima is clearly better at bouldering than many of the above mentioned are, or ever was at their peak.

Obviously, because some of those listed are legends of previous decades, and some are not boulderers. But the point is that they achieved their best not when they were pre-teens, but as adults, after many years of training.  Your statement that "in...bouldering...the best women are prepubescent" is false. One Ashima does not make it true. You can't even say it's true for Ashima, because you don't have an older Ashima to compare her to.

I don't buy this idea that Ashima is on course for disaster (perhaps not precisely what you are saying, but I have heard this from many others). There are lots of young people who have trained hard and continued to climb harder and harder as they grew up. Caution is not a bad thing, because injuries do happen, but I'm not sure we are really doing too much harm by getting excited about a promising young climber.

[iwasmexican]

Ashima is clearly better at bouldering than many of the above mentioned are, or ever was at their peak.

I don't buy this idea that Ashima is on course for disaster (perhaps not precisely what you are saying, but I have heard this from many others). There are lots of young people who have trained hard and continued to climb harder and harder as they grew up. Caution is not a bad thing, because injuries do happen, but I'm not sure we are really doing too much harm by getting excited about a promising young climber.

no one (mostly) ever became world class good by waiting for their growth plates to finish...

[Danny]

Ashima in 10 years?

[ianv]

I am quite sure that treating children's climbing as a competitive elite sport fosters a culture where parents/coaches pressure the children to preform on a level that their bodies cannot tolerate without permanent damages. Practicing at elite levels is also mentally demanding, and behavioural and psychological problems will be the consequence for many.

I dont get the impression that this is happening to Ashima, she seems like a kid that loves climbing (much like Ondra at a similar age). I bet she will still be climbing, and kicking ass, in 5 or 10 yrs time.

On the other hand, I would be less sure about Robin Ebersfield's daughter as she will no doubt be subject to extreme pushy parent mother pressure and probably end up wrecked or hating climbing 

[Jaspersharpe]

Not sure where you get that from Ian. She seems to love climbing for what it is from what I've seen.

[T_B]

Is there conclusive evidence about what hanging off your fingers at a young age might do? There are enough climbers in their mid 30s now who will have trained hard as youths. I used a finger board and trained on a board at age 11 and 26 years later I've just had my first pulley tear. Generally speaking my fingers have never been a problem.

You will always get pushy parents in kids sport. Even without media attention there's the comp scene and some kids will drop out anyway if they're too pressured/don't continue to enjoy it. My dad used to drive me around the country doing BMX comps (I was ranked 3rd nationally in my age group at one point). I jacked it in, not because I felt loads of pressure, I just lost interest. Some kids would cry at the end of races if they'd not done as well as hoped whilst others weren't that bothered. That's just the way it is.

[Jaspersharpe]

I used a finger board and trained on a board at age 11 and 26 years later I've just had my first pulley tear.

Fucking hell Tom, was that the first board in the world?

I agree with all of that post by the way. I also did lots of training from a young age and I never got a finger injury. In fact I've only had the odd minor ligament tweak even now and never done a tendon (yet).

I think it helps to train your fingers as they are developing both to prevent injuries in the future and to keep a base level of finger strength which you never lose. This is based on my case study of one.

[T_B]

I used a finger board and trained on a board at age 11 and 26 years later I've just had my first pulley tear.

Fucking hell Tom, was that the first board in the world?
 

built in my garage - real pieces of Lakeland slate attached to the wall with plastic padding, a ply 45 degree board in the eaves and a 6 foot long finger board for foot off circuits (except I was too small and weak to do much with feet off). 1988 - Mark Leach training for Cry Freedom with foot off circuits in Pollit's? garage was the inspiration I think!

[Jaspersharpe]

Quality. Having had first hand experience of how shit that garage board was I reckon yours was probably far superior.

[tesla]

This is a topic I find quite interesting.

I disagree that news about kids climbing/bouldering exploits is in some way dangerous or worrying, or that it is somehow going to drive them to injuring themselves.  Ashima *is* exceptional (the same way that it's pretty exceptional that Stevie Haston is still cranking so hard at his age!) and thus newsworthy.

I definitely see some kids being pushed too hard by parents / coaches, but I expect that's the same in lots of sports? Good coaching should help kids learn to be better athletes, and progress whilst minimizing the chance that they hurt themselves through overtraining or poor technique, whatever their chosen sport. Things like keeping them away from campus boards and focussing on larger volumes of easy climbing to build technique seem like common sense to me. Fun fact: all the pushy parents I know whose kids compete are not actually climbers themselves.

I think kids actually get lots out of competition, too - learning to cope with being nervous in front of a crowd, pressure, disappointment etc are all useful life skills. I also think climbing specifically is great for developing focus and other mental skills.

I've climbed since I was 11 (now 37), but never competed, and I don't think I've ever had a serious finger injury despite climbing 7c or so way back when, bouldering on crimpy limestone and training on boards (Nick Jowett had one in his garden shed in Rhos-on-Sea). The worst I ever had as a kid was mild bouts of sore elbows, I think.

I do think over-training when young, or training too hard on small holds (as illustrated by that BMC sponsored research) is likely to have a detrimental affect on kids joint health in later life (and I see a bit of that in some people I know in their 20's who used to compete as kids). Actually, I think one possibly more likely/widespread negative consequence of kids climbing from a very young age is going to be gnarly toes - bunions from tightly fitting shoes are pretty hard to avoid.

My daughter competes, but only because she wants to,  and there's certainly no pressure from me. She's got a really great coach, and climbs with a bunch of other really nice kids who love climbing outdoors as well as competing. I can't think of anything I'd rather her be doing...

Hm. I think that might be my longest post ever.

[SA Chris]

And probably best? Good insights. Eldest is 3 and a bit now and keeps wanting to climbing 'wif' me, but more inclined to wait for some warmer weather and get him doing sme more scrambling on boulders outdoors rather than thinking indoor climbing is the norm.

[gme]

Sorry Chris but you have already ruined your of springs chances of getting good. They should be on at least the 7a section of the beast maker app by now or think about another sport.

[SA Chris]

Bugger. Well he had a good go at sponging at Aberdeen last summer; should I have him paddling into OH Brimm's this year?

[slackline]

http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/climbing/rock-climbing/The-Science-of-Young-Crushers.html

[krymson]

The article talks about the possible dangers of climbing for younger climbers -- based on findings that connective tissues are weaker in younger folks.

The problem i would see with those findings are that those are probalby based on normal population. If climbing strengthens our connective tissues, than it's foreseeable that trained in a progressive and careful manner, young climbers bodies may adapt to the strains of pulling hard.

Yesterday at a bouldering competition in my area there were two brothers who started climbing about the same time. separated by 10 years, the younger brother(16 years old) pulled much harder than the older one, and had better overall athleticism.

Knowing that our epigenome can be affected by our genes I wonder if children who climb not only have more time to train relatively speaking, but if by climbing, their development physically and mentally would be adapted epigenetically towards climbing.

That  climbing can affect physical development sounds a bit science fictiony but knowing what we do about epigenetics and if you saw what i saw yesterday, and if you've seen the difference between someone like Ashima and someone who started climbing much later in life, it's not so far fetched.

[slackline]

Your point about responding to training is fine, but having studied and worked in genetic epidemiology its got bugger all to do with "epigenetics", its just physical adaptation to repeated physical stimuli, and with more years experience of that, no wonder the brother who started younger had better overall athleticism (also helped not just by physical, but the increased experience in technique too).


If you've specific citations on epigenetics to support what you're saying please link them as I'd be interested and its pertinent to the discussion, and its is a very interesting topic.

[krymson]

Hi slackline,

First of all thanks for your reply, in regards to your first point, i wanted to clear up -- the brothers started at about the same time, so they have the same years experience. I know brothers are far from genetically identical but they are much more similar than two strangers off the street.

It's possible the younger brother climbs more, but the difference in athelticism i saw does not seem like it was entirely explained that way.

[lukeyboy]

Haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else - Ashima was in Ceuse the last few weeks and did Dures Limites 8c (2nd go!!) and also L'arcademicien des Crepis 8c, amongst others. Crusher!

Write up from DPM here

[krymson]

More readable, less scientific articles:
1. http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_46259.asp
2.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1952313,00.html

These articles talk about cross-generational adaption because it shows that the adaption  is on the epigenome and can be inherited, not just an individual physical adaptation. 

The reason that is important is that otherwise the argument could be made like you said that it is just the individual adapting, and its not epigenetic.

Child health,  development plasticity, and epigenetic programming

This article, from what i can understand, examines environmental impacts of birth to earlychildhood on long term health and development.

Identification of ten loci associated with height highlights new biological pathways in human growth.
This article talks about epigenetics and height.

Epigenetics in Sports
And the holy grail - this article talks about epigenetics and sports, obviously. Well not really the holy grail since it's mostly theory, but i think the fact that these topics are being discussed at this level, on this medium, mean that it is a valid train of thought - athletic performance very well can be influenced epigenetically.

Or in other words, identical twins - could end up with significantly different athletic potential even though they have the same genetic material, simply based on their environment and life expriences.


Sorry lukeyboy didnt mean to interrupt you, that's pretty cool!

[slackline]

Thanks for taking the time to reply Krymson.

The NCBI abstracts/articles are for review papers, I've a half-decent understanding of epigenetics having studied at post-graduate & worked in Genetic Epidemiology (analysed several whole genome screens for different diseases).  I'd be more interested in scientific studies that demonstrate the conjecture as what little evidence I've come across is in the field of auto-immune diseases and some cancers and nothing anywhere near as complex as the phenotypes of sporting performances which would require some incredibly complex feedback loops.


(By the way from scanning of the height one you link to it talks about and analyses epistasis between the identified loci, which is the interaction/additive/multiplicative effects of multiple genes, not epigenetics).

[krymson]

The NCBI abstracts/articles are for review papers, I've a half-decent understanding of epigenetics having studied at post-graduate & worked in Genetic Epidemiology (analysed several whole genome screens for different diseases).  I'd be more interested in scientific studies that demonstrate the conjecture as what little evidence I've come across is in the field of auto-immune diseases and some cancers and nothing anywhere near as complex as the phenotypes of sporting performances which would require some incredibly complex feedback loops.

Fair point. I would like to see that kind of stuff as well but epigenetics is a relatively new field and it's technical enough that googling for that kind of material isn't as easy as "epigenetics and sports".  I settled for more layman type articles just to show that these ideas carry water and are being considered and researched by serious scientists right now.

(By the way from scanning of the height one you link to it talks about and analyses epistasis between the identified loci, which is the interaction/additive/multiplicative effects of multiple genes, not epigenetics).

This is a quote from the abstract:

"The newly identified loci, along with several additional loci with strongly suggestive associations, encompass both strong biological candidates and unexpected genes, and highlight several pathways (let-7 targets, chromatin remodeling proteins and Hedgehog signaling) as important regulators of human stature."

Also

"It is currently unclear how genetic variation at these loci modulate height, but there is a precedent for a connection between regulation of chromatin structure and stature: "

Chromatin Remodeling is a key epigenetic mechanism, from what i understand.

I dont think the point of that paper is that Epigenetics completely determines height as much as that it is one of several determining factors.

Sorry to take the thread a bit off-topic but this is truly fascinating stuff.

[slackline]

Fair point. I would like to see that kind of stuff as well but epigenetics is a relatively new field and it's complicated enough that googling for that kind of material would be quite difficult. I settled for more layman type articles just to show that these ideas are feasible, and being considered by serious scientists right now.

All ideas are feasible, they're just not always realistic.

Its a new and emerging field still in its infancy and evidence will of course take time to accrue.

However the effect sizes of any of this will in my opinion be miniscule in comparison to the effects of motivation to train (engender by ones up-bringing) and its application (whether through structured training or going climbing lots and trying really hard as Sharma advocates), something highrepute pointed out in the natural talent thread.

I think the article identified multiple factors actually.

This is a quote from the abstract:

"The newly identified loci, along with several additional loci with strongly suggestive associations, encompass both strong biological candidates and unexpected genes, and highlight several pathways (let-7 targets, chromatin remodeling proteins and Hedgehog signaling) as important regulators of human stature."

Chromatin Remodeling is a key epigenetic mechanism, from what i understand.

I dont think the point of that paper is that Epigenetics completely determines height as much as that it is one of several determining factors.

The full text of the article doesn't mention epigenetics anywhere, but they do look for epistasis (a common strategy after performing GWAS, but statistical interaction doesn't always mean biological interaction as has been cautioned by Cordell and others multiple times many years ago).

Yes they've identified new loci which encode genes which would be expected to be strong candidates based on their function, but as you've picked out they found those that wouldn't be expected.  This the the inherent beauty/advantage of relatively hypothesis free genome wide association (GWA) scans that they've employed to identify the loci (and also one of their major problems as you get a high rate of false positives, I had early access to one of the 10k SNP arrays and applied it to the dataset we worked on nine years ago, you now have arrays with 100,000 to 500,000 SNPs on, a huge multiple testing problem complicated by linkage disequilibrium meaning that they're not all necessarily independent).

Anyway, this is really  for this thread and belongs in the "Natural Talent" one.