[mrjonathanr]

@ slab_happy
I should add he discusses the relationship between physiology / arousal and how to stay motivated to train so not exactly the same thing, but I find listening to his ideas interesting enough.

[petejh]

Pete, can you suggest a written alternative to the podcast that doesn't involve giving him money!? I would normally cross the road to avoid David Cameron’s personal trainer but gritted my teeth. Couldn’t get past the first 15 minutes of self-congratulation and celebrity gossip. 

Just use fast forward. It’s a great thing about podcasts - you don’t have to listen to the shit bits! His info is interesting and there’s nothing to buy. (I agree btw on the name dropping and commerciality - trying to sell his book, but show me someone in the media not engaged in this sort of self-publicity. They’re extremely rare).

On a more general point, (not saying you’re doing this Duncan), it amazes me how often I come across people unwilling to take in information on a subject - let’s say ‘athletic performance in the ageing male’ - based on what the person divulging said information believes about a completely independent subject - let’s say ‘political beliefs’.
They’re two independent things.

I see it in investment research all the time. People with worldviews and politics that may be completely 180 to my view. I don’t care, I’m interested in the information they have on one subject only - the subject I’m researching. If that info is useful and high quality then that’s what matters. Their views on anything ‘non subject matter’ are irrelevant. Agendas excepted and always need to be considered.   

[Fiend]

I’m going to assume you’ve no underlying medical problem. Blood test to screen for obvious stuff like blood sugar etc? Unfortunately going to your GP with this is likely to get as much attention as a middle aged woman saying she is tired. 

I'm not assuming that!! Despite the logic in this thread I still have a bit of a gut instinct there could be something else wrong 

Anyway thanks for the as-exhaustive-as-expected-from-the-Professor-of-Climbology reply. I don't have a lot to reply as it's kinda reiterating / confirming some previous replies but I've paid attention to it.

I think one thing that is coming up is just being a bit more careful with my overall load, including factoring in rest days (I don't like them but am getting better at accepting them), and avoiding "junk metres" whether that's excessive climbing volume or metres of ferns and heather hacked out. As for the MH side, I am working on that in general so might become more tolerant of less sanity-maintaining but more effective forms of climbing-related activity.

[stone]

- Continue as you are, choosing this will involve a decline in performance. This wouldn't be the end of the world.

Hmmm, sometimes things just get better regardless don't they?

It can be good to take charge of a situation. But it's undeniable that some situations do sometimes just turn out well or at least better than feared. I guess I'm agreeing with Duncan in that it is important not to get too hung up about whether we can climb as well as we used too etc. But I'm going further and saying that sometimes we just get better (health/MH/climbing success etc) without ever understanding why or making any conscious intervention to bring it about.

[slab_happy]

I mean, what do you need this strength for anyway? Bouldering? Bouldering is fucking bullshit. Routes? You don't need to be that strong to do the crux of most routes in your future oeuvre (stuff like Metal Guru can get straight in the bin).

Listen to the podcast? All the health benefits mentioned from resistance training?

Could maybe be worth thinking of terms of strength training as two separate categories, though -- stuff you do in the hope that it'll directly improve your climbing, and stuff you do for general health (including mental health).

Because you might not necessarily want the same levels of volume and intensity for both categories. And defining what purpose you're doing different things for could lead to being more selective/efficient.

[slab_happy]

Basically, I have to count mental stress as part of the overall load on my body, when thinking about what I can do and how much recovery I need.

This ^

The frustrating and hard thing for me is that because I'm both autistic and depressive, "mental stress" for me includes "there were a lot of changes of plan and then I had to wait in a pub for an hour for the bus because it was raining and the music was too loud and my headphones are breaking and then I had to phone my bank because they've blocked my credit card again" or "I just woke up feeling incredibly awful for no reason, because my brain likes to do that sometimes!"

So I don't have a big dramatic external stressor to point to (and also this shit happens a lot). But I have been forced to acknowledge that it has as much of an impact on me as if I'd done some sort of super-gruelling training session, only with exactly zero benefits.

[mrjonathanr]

Slab_happy, Chris Packham did a programme about his and 3 other people’s experiences called Asperger’s and Me. As you might imagine, it was thoughtfully handled. Did you see it? It’s not on iPlayer any more.

Fiend, I think the thread is really interesting but ironically, possibly directly less relevant to you than to many other posters? It sounds like the adaptations forced on you by injury, (more volume, lower intensity) would have served to keep your strength levels up 10 years ago but don’t work now. In other words, the biggest problem is healing injury. Deal with that and you might be free to climb in a way that keeps your power at a level you’d be perfectly happy with?

The only difference age has imposed on you is that you’d have got away with inefficient training as a youth, now you have to do the ‘proper’ way. And that means fixing injuries.

[slab_happy]

Slab_happy, Chris Packham did a programme about his and 3 other people’s experiences called Asperger’s and Me. As you might imagine, it was thoughtfully handled. Did you see it? It’s not on iPlayer any more.

Haven't seen it, but heard good things! I tend to skip a lot of the "awareness-raising" type things about autism because I feel I am already sufficiently Aware.

[stone]

It's more about general climbing rather than strength in particular, but in depth advice from 50yo Steve McClure: https://steve-mcclure.com/articles/151-training-for-old-folk

[duncan]

I’m going to assume you’ve no underlying medical problem. Blood test to screen for obvious stuff like blood sugar etc? Unfortunately going to your GP with this is likely to get as much attention as a middle aged woman saying she is tired. 

I'm not assuming that!! Despite the logic in this thread I still have a bit of a gut instinct there could be something else wrong 

This was my way of saying my answer could be wrong if you have an underlying medical problem. I have no idea. In general, I would go to DMs if I thought someone described strong red flags.

On a more general point, (not saying you’re doing this Duncan), it amazes me how often I come across people unwilling to take in information on a subject - let’s say ‘athletic performance in the ageing male’ - based on what the person divulging said information believes about a completely independent subject - let’s say ‘political beliefs’.
They’re two independent things.

I see it in investment research all the time. People with worldviews and politics that may be completely 180 to my view. I don’t care, I’m interested in the information they have on one subject only - the subject I’m researching. If that info is useful and high quality then that’s what matters. Their views on anything ‘non subject matter’ are irrelevant. Agendas excepted and always need to be considered.   

Thanks Pete. I originally wrote “I would normally cross the road to avoid celebrity personal trainers ...” but that meant using celebrity in two consecutive sentences so changed it to David Cameron’s. In my experience, celebrity personal trainers are stronger on social skills than knowledge so I don’t tend to look to them for the latter.

I could write an essay on whether someone’s political views influence how much credence I give them in other fields. In short, it depends on the field.

[SA Chris]

There seems to be no clear answer that I could find on which is theoretically best out of:
8hr 'eating window', 16hr fast, then eat before workout, then normal eating (or limited calories day).
8hr eating window, 16hr fast, then workout before eating, then normal eating (or limited calories day).

I tried option a) yesterday. Ate nothing from 8pm until 12, ate a small carby "breakfast" then waited half an our and did a hard HIIT session of core exercises and dumbells for half an hour. Had a very good session, felt like I had lots of energy while doing it, then had a protein "lunch" afterwards, and ate normally for the rest of the day. Might try and do it a couple of times as week, on days I am WFH and see results.

[Fultonius]

There seems to be no clear answer that I could find on which is theoretically best out of:
8hr 'eating window', 16hr fast, then eat before workout, then normal eating (or limited calories day).
8hr eating window, 16hr fast, then workout before eating, then normal eating (or limited calories day).

I tried option a) yesterday. Ate nothing from 8pm until 12, ate a small carby "breakfast" then waited half an our and did a hard HIIT session of core exercises and dumbells for half an hour. Had a very good session, felt like I had lots of energy while doing it, then had a protein "lunch" afterwards, and ate normally for the rest of the day. Might try and do it a couple of times as week, on days I am WFH and see results.

Were you not on the:



diet Chris?

[Dingdong]

Slab_happy, Chris Packham did a programme about his and 3 other people’s experiences called Asperger’s and Me. As you might imagine, it was thoughtfully handled. Did you see it? It’s not on iPlayer any more.

Fiend, I think the thread is really interesting but ironically, possibly directly less relevant to you than to many other posters? It sounds like the adaptations forced on you by injury, (more volume, lower intensity) would have served to keep your strength levels up 10 years ago but don’t work now. In other words, the biggest problem is healing injury. Deal with that and you might be free to climb in a way that keeps your power at a level you’d be perfectly happy with?

The only difference age has imposed on you is that you’d have got away with inefficient training as a youth, now you have to do the ‘proper’ way. And that means fixing injuries.

He should sign up for a coached lattice plan 

[SA Chris]

Were you not on the:

diet Chris?

I am, might do this once or twice though.

[steveri]

An old folk reflection from Mark Cobb here: https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/climbing_with_age-13842
Nothing gob smacking but I liked this line: 'In my head, I'm still ageless.' That's both the solution and the problem: wanting to keep trying hard and get better ...but there's a relentless biological clock ticking.

I was chatting to a regular at the wall this week who mentioned he had Parkinsons. Never knew, never showed. Puts your own steady decline into some sort of perspective.

[Andy W]

Interesting thread and one which makes me feel pretty fortunate. It has left me pondering over my situation. I probably operate a bit like the guy in the last article linked, in that I don't think or feel old when I climb. However I'm 59 and will be 60 in a few months, something I find quite hard to accept. My body currently certainly feels old, I groan, creak, teeth ache, knees a bit shot, one meniscopy a couple of years ago, etc etc. However in the last couple of years I have climbed some 7C's, couple of FA's 7C and 8A, so I must be doing something right.

I've always been weak, 6ft and slim and strongish fingers. I've always been a bit lazy, never bothered with volume, never been bothered with flashing or onsights (happy if I do). But one key might be that I like working problems, often over years. I think this means that injuries can be avoided, I rarely push my body into unfamiliar positions or extreme and unknown loadings (I always feel closest to getting injured in social situations at climbing walls).

I've also not really been conscientious with warming up, again lazy and avoiding volume. I do now warm up more, but only on a portable finger board. Of course the upshot of this is I lose power quite quickly in a session, so my sessions are short and intense, maybe this a key point.

I've trained pretty much all of my 45 years, using as key mantra Jerry's 'listen to your body' and not getting that hung up with training plans (in fact never followed one).

Another key point for the longevity is that the intensity of bouldering and training sessions has slowly increased over the 45 years. I think I mean that when I started climbing, you didn't really need to be that strong, so I wasn't. I've always favoured crimpy problems and as crimpy problems got harder and steeper, I've had to get stronger and as I've got stronger, I've climbed harder and steeper crimpy problems.

So it all comes down to specificity I think. Oh and I have had my own board on some form or other since the late 90's, maybe even earlier (can't remember!)

[Yossarian]

Wow. I'm going to print this out and stick it on my fridge!

[stone]

Oh and I have had my own board on some form or other since the late 90's, maybe even earlier (can't remember!)

I realise board climbing is a mainstay for pretty much all capable climbers. Probably stupidly I've never tried it, so apologies if this question is muddled. I was sort of thinking that classic lurch and latch explosive style board climbing would just break the older climber. A friend of mine (younger than me) said that he stopped doing the hands-follow-feet Moon Board problems because he kept getting injured. He still uses his board but for climbing in a more "outdoor" style. Are you still doing hands-follow-feet problems and are you climbing them in that explosive style? I'm very happy to be corrected on any misconceptions I'm revealing here too.

[Andy W]

Oh and I have had my own board on some form or other since the late 90's, maybe even earlier (can't remember!)

I realise board climbing is a mainstay for pretty much all capable climbers. Probably stupidly I've never tried it, so apologies if this question is muddled. I was sort of thinking that classic lurch and latch explosive style board climbing would just break the older climber. A friend of mine (younger than me) said that he stopped doing the hands-follow-feet Moon Board problems because he kept getting injured. He still uses his board but for climbing in a more "outdoor" style. Are you still doing hands-follow-feet problems and are you climbing them in that explosive style? I'm very happy to be corrected on any misconceptions I'm revealing here too.

I don't know what the newer moon sets are like, but I always found the holds quite tweaky (unpleasant), with a propensity for a stray finger to drop/pop of the angular bits. I have one of the white sets, although I only use a small proportion of the set on my board(s). Wood is much nicer, ergonomic and better in warm conditions and friendlier on the skin, etc etc. If you are not doing 'moon problems' then there is not much reason to do feet follow hands. Maybe feet follow hands is an easier concept to communicate and share/market. I'd be interested to hear what other folk think about 'feet follow hands'?

I think a good board set up allows a variety of approaches, controlled locks etc at one end of the spectrum to limit explosive moves at the other end of the spectrum. What kind of injuries did you friend pick up?

[User deactivated.]

I think feet follow hands usually creates more realistic and varied movement than having open feet on small screw ons. It doesn't have to mean cutting loose in typical moon board style. Set feet works even better in my view.

[stone]

I only know that they were finger injuries of some sort(s). He attributed them to doing the set problems that apparently are available with the Moon Board. He then changed to doing problems he made up, which apparently are of a different style to the official Moon Board problems.

My (probably mistaken) impression was that the feet-follow-hands thing wasn't so much about communication, rather a way to induce that "board style" of climbing/training so as to get the training benefit. I'm extremely ignorant about all of this though.

[SA Chris]

I find the HFF method of climbing as per Moon problems is very different to the way that I as an aging gent climb, or have ever climbed. My usual approach for steep climbing is "hand lurch, move one foot, move the other foot (maybe move a foot again) other hand lurch" rather than the Moon HFF - "hand lurch, contort or cut loose to get one foot on the next hold, hand lurch" which, while it probably gets you stronger, can also get you injured from doing awkward over extended moves.

My home board is only wee, but it has a good variety of moves and foot options that you can use for the probs; any feet, HFF, crappy foot jibs for feet. There is one big knobbly foothold in the middle that is called the Maypole, because you inevitably dance around it on most of the probs where you don;t have to avoid it.

Otherwise, like Yoss, I could have written the first phree paragraphs of Any W's post myself.

[stone]

I think feet follow hands usually creates more realistic and varied movement than having open feet on small screw ons. It doesn't have to mean cutting loose in typical moon board style. Set feet works even better in my view.

When you set the feet, are you (or Chris or Andy or anyone) typically setting them to give an "out-door" climbing style or to induce the exceptionally powerful style that I presumed was what gave board training its magic sauce?

[User deactivated.]

Ideally both.

Just using small chips means you end up doing the same foot moves over and over. Perhaps this isn't so bad for someone who climbs on a board once per week but I generally do 3-4 board sessions a week, so I like to use feet pointing in various directions, different sizes, heel hooks, toe hooks and I even have a problem with a hard knee bar...

[webbo]

I think feet follow hands usually creates more realistic and varied movement than having open feet on small screw ons. It doesn't have to mean cutting loose in typical moon board style. Set feet works even better in my view.

By the time I get my feet high enough to stand on the starting hand holds I’m at the top of my board. Unless I put heel next to my hands as I start.