[Andy W]

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.

I could be in a kind of loop where the problems I aspire to do, I mimic on my board. But I'm struggling to think of problems outside that have a FFH feel. I'm sure FFH does have a place in training, but how much I'm not sure. The point I made earlier about problems of this kind being more communicable/marketable must be a little true. LED light systems wouldn't work without FFH, unless you have two different coloured lights. Actually I have no idea about this, anyone enlighten me?

[Andy W]

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?

 

I often use small foot holds, as the problems get wired I make them worse, more awkward, etc, this is a training effect. Also very controllable, which is important for an ageing body. Big moves which FFH often are, I think might not be so controllable.

[Andy W]

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.

This is true 

[teestub]

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.

I could be in a kind of loop where the problems I aspire to do, I mimic on my board. But I'm struggling to think of problems outside that have a FFH feel. I'm sure FFH does have a place in training, but how much I'm not sure. The point I made earlier about problems of this kind being more communicable/marketable must be a little true. LED light systems wouldn't work without FFH, unless you have two different coloured lights. Actually I have no idea about this, anyone enlighten me?

The kilter has different LED colours to allow you to add additional footholds when setting a problem and there are a lot of smaller holds for that purpose on the board. A lot of the better quality Moonboard problems revolve around feet that aren’t the same as the handholds forcing moves similar to laybacking an arête with your feet out to the side, or doing a big lock off poor hands rocking onto a good foot.

There’s also quite a range of setting on both boards from small moves on small holds to the getting to the top in two moves which they are probably more known for.

[SA Chris]

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?

I usually set with the same type / colour of holds, otherwise I forget where I am supposed to go! I do the prob first using any feet, then switch to HFF or I have a grid of crappy foot bibs screwed on in the gaps between the holds. Some probs are harder as HFF, some are harder on the jibs. Don't know about any sauce, but a lot of the hard climbing round here is on small edges an crap feet, so I try and emulated that. Loke Webbo, my board is too small and not steep enough for doing hard heelhooks etc. I save that for wall sessions.

[Fiend]

Firstly any tall slim people with strong fingers who have been training on a board all their climbing life, the door is over there and please shut it firmly as it's bloody cold tonight, ta 

Secondly:

Fiend, I think the thread is really interesting but ironically, possibly directly less relevant to you than to many other posters?

I think it's quite relevant to me as it's my thread, about me, with my questions  . But then again maybe the answers are less relevant - which would be business as usual - but the general theme seems to be one which can explain the situation?? Although, as much as I understand the "triple whammy" logic, I still have a gut instinct something else might be up.

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?

Yes but....part of the reason I posted this is about strength losses that aren't just climbing, and aren't as hampered by injury - this is why the weights issue highlighted it so much to me. I'd expect strength losses in lat pulldowns, bicep curls and maybe rows due to my persistent elbow problems. But bench and overhead press - yes they could be impacted by my impinged right shoulder, BUT my left shoulder feels just as weak, sometimes more so, without any injury. Deadlifts - yes I've had a gracillis tweak, but whilst this was very apparent in hamstring curls, it was negligible in deadlifts. Generally the weights are an area where I've not injured myself doing it, can measure a variety of lifts to avoid current injuries, am not hampered by my own weight, and I've been consistently able to get back into until this last year - hence the decline is more striking.

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.

Well, yes, talking about climbing specifically, that does seem to be the thing (and something I would consider as The Thing in general IF it was affecting my weights benchmarking too). I am trying a lot harder to get the balance right of enjoying my climbing (and other activities) which is enjoyable, and continually looking after my current injuries, which is not enjoyable (and sometimes quite detrimental to my mental, or even, physical health, and YES I know that being perma-injured is also very detrimental, my brain might be wonky but it's not entirely stupid). Generally the proper way is an anathema to my piss-poor motivation but yes I'm trying to be more receptive to the bits I can be receptive too (e.g. rest a bit more sensibly and don't be tempted to go to freezing cold board walls that I'm unfamiliar with and would struggle to ease into).


Thirdly, this thread, the responses, and the concepts, are still swirling around in my head. Some of those swirls are stuff like "I really am fucked strength wise, this is it". Some of the swirls are exactly the same as that but suffixed with "...but maybe I can try to slow the decline a bit by being a bit more tactical about what I do" (not that I am uninjured enough to contemplate anything remotely approaching "training" in the foreseeable future). Some of them are being more aware of junk metres, both in climbing volume and also in metres of grot excavated / de-ferned - I am starting to think more about getting the balance right between "this activity could calm the voices a bit" and "this activity could also keep fatiguing me and pushing my further from climbing capability". I'm not quite at the stage for "this other activity is boring as fuck, really repetitive, I'd rather motivate myself to lick the base of Wilton clean with my tongue.....but if I do it all the fucking time then it might proof me against injury x,y,z"...which is my other personal weakness ofc.

[mrjonathanr]

You’ve obviously got a range of injuries which inhibit what you can do and how you can do it, and that must be appallingly frustrating. Navigating through to a broadly uninjured state must be very difficult.

For me it was elbow woes, compounded by some bad luck and it took lay off, tiny incremental approach to loading, plenty  of shoulder strengthening and seeing the light about consistency and intensity- but it resolved, eventually.

What I was getting at (hopefully without coming across as snotty) was that a lot of the thread responses were about how to handle ageing. For sure it increasingly affects us all, but I wouldn’t be too fatalistic about this at your age. I think you are old enough to have to work round this now, but too young for that to be THE deciding factor.

I see some regret for not developing more strength when it was easier to do so, but lId look at how much untapped potential that gives you, once you have resolved some current difficulties.

Maybe get some health tests from the GP to check in on overall level of health?

[Fiend]

Thanks once again MrJR 

You’ve obviously got a range of injuries which inhibit what you can do and how you can do it, and that must be appallingly frustrating. Navigating through to a broadly uninjured state must be very difficult.

For the purposes of this thread, not really, as the issue I'm concerned about is strength losses that are not injury related (nor weight related). Although I do appreciate your sympathy as injuries have definited my lack of climbing physical capability in the last 3-4 years.

For me it was elbow woes, compounded by some bad luck and it took lay off, tiny incremental approach to loading, plenty  of shoulder strengthening and seeing the light about consistency and intensity- but it resolved, eventually.

Well, yes, going back to climbing strengths instead, this is definitely an important area, and other posters have highlighted publicly and in PMs that injury management is crucial as one gets older. I take your point that I too need to focus on shoulder strengthening (as well as letting my TE recover). I did Arnold Presses at the gym the other day...and need to do a hell of a lot more of that sort of stuff.

What I was getting at (hopefully without coming across as snotty) was that a lot of the thread responses were about how to handle ageing. For sure it increasingly affects us all, but I wouldn’t be too fatalistic about this at your age. I think you are old enough to have to work round this now, but too young for that to be THE deciding factor.

(Not snotty at all ). This is true, those were the responses, but my initial question wasn't specifically about age, it was a general "WTF is going on??" (in strength measurements that aren't hampered by injury / weight). People have replied about more age-related factors that I had considered, and that does make sense to me, but I wasn't necessarily expecting age to be THE deciding factor (although personally I think the DVTs and weight make my effective age a bit older...). Either way, the general consensus of being more sensible and careful seems a good one.

I see some regret for not developing more strength when it was easier to do so, but lId look at how much untapped potential that gives you, once you have resolved some current difficulties.

You are very optimistic!! I am not aiming to develop more strength, I am not aiming to maintain strength nor stop the decline, I am only aiming to SLOW the decline. Which is still something to strive for. And the same principles of sense and care apply to that.
Incidentally I think with the weights, I didn't try hard to gain more strength when it was easier to do so (unlike climbing where I've been trying hard for 20 years or so), but when I did start trying hard 6-8 years ago, I did see some GAINZ (now all lost).

Maybe get some health tests from the GP to check in on overall level of health?

Yes.

[Fiend]

Jamie G: Good point and I was going to mention that as it was something I considered, and I'm aware there can be a correlation. I personally don't feel my correlation is strong enough: Firstly I got to my strongest with lifting around 2018 when I had some increased depression (from post-norovirus nausea bouts). Secondly my mental health is marginally better and more stable than it was last autumn / winter, even if the strength is lower. Thirdly, it seems to be a very physiological thing - I don't feel I like motivation or commitment or effort at the gym (and definitely not at the wall). I feel good to try hard, and then the muscles just don't do as much as they could/should/have. Not ruling it out but I'm not sure TBH.

Okay so just watched DMaccy's latest, eloquent but fairly unrevelatory video about rest days. One thing that did come out was stressors affecting recovery, including mental health, and this got me thinking about the long term picture.

As per my reply to Jamie G above, I haven't found any "nearby" correlation between mental health issues and pure physical performance (in fact the latter has often been a reliable retreat from the former!), but maybe in the longer term, more prolonged mental health issues could affect my recovery and strength maintenance over time. E.g. the accumulation of regular depressive "rest" days where although I've felt strong in surrounding events, the physiological effects of the depression have been nibbling away at recovery for the long term.

Not that I have any enlightened protocol from that possibility. I am in general taking more care with rest days though.

[JamieG]

One definite positive is you are engaging with the struggle and being open minded about how to improve both mental and physical health. Hope you are seeing some improvements. Definitely not easy!

[SA Chris]

the idea is you have a feeding window of 8hrs, then a 'fast' for 16hrs, followed by workout, followed by a day of 800 calories, then back to normal.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/intermittent-fasting-cardiovascular-heart-disease-death-b2515400.html

FFS, can't win

[jwi]

I could not find the original study. From the newspaper article it sounds like they found that people who decided that they need a radical weight loss diet are overweight?

Surely that must just be a bad writeup?

[SA Chris]

I know it's probably tabloid hype, hence the smiley. More clickbait like the horrendous snowstorms we've been forecasted (promised) a dozen times this winter.

[Fultonius]

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-conference-abstract-about-time-restricted-eating-and-cardiovascular-death/

Nothing to see here. Move along slowly.

SMC always a good first port of call for clickbait shite in the press.

[SA Chris]

https://music.amazon.co.uk/podcasts/f2b36f7a-d734-483d-bce1-b0bdcf6a9b4f/episodes/e1836102-c253-46e5-bbe7-5ea767e8fbdc/always-another-adventure-76-dr-peter-clarkson-cardiologist-climber-how-hard-should-older-athletes-train

Probably more for endurance sports, but a bit of everything. There is the option of video in link.

[Fiend]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/aug/14/scientists-find-humans-age-dramatically-in-two-bursts-at-44-then-60-aging-not-slow-and-steady

Turns out that I am, unsurprisingly, peri-manopausal.

Or at least:

The findings could explain why spikes in certain health issues including musculoskeletal problems

It's just one article and doesn't go into much detail. But it does fit neatly with why much of my physical capability nose-dived off a cliff in a seemingly short time, a couple of years ago, for no obvious reason. Except maybe there was a biological reason??

It also fits with the fact that having plummeted to a new low, my perfomance hasn't been massively decreasing since then. All the best advice of "rest more, recover more, listen to your body, be wary of fatigue" etc etc, has done exactly bugger all to get me to regain any ground and reverse any of those losses, but equally the decline since has been comparatively slow.

Not sure what it all means, apart from, whilst it is shit having a new low of being weak (and heavy), the prospect of it not plummeting again for well over a decade is.....kinda reassuring??

[SA Chris]

Great. Second plummet incoming. I must have not noticed the first, as I was in 2 very small children wrangling mode.

[petejh]

Not sure what it all means, apart from, whilst it is shit having a new low of being weak (and heavy), the prospect of it not plummeting again for well over a decade is.....kinda reassuring??

Not so fast with being reassured..!  There's a possibility that your 'biological age' is aging at a faster rate than your calendar age, therefore for some people the 'decade-long plateau' in the overall decline could be shorter-lived than hoped for. Better make use of it while you can!
 

[MischaHY]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/aug/14/scientists-find-humans-age-dramatically-in-two-bursts-at-44-then-60-aging-not-slow-and-steady

Turns out that I am, unsurprisingly, peri-manopausal.

Or at least:

The findings could explain why spikes in certain health issues including musculoskeletal problems

It's just one article and doesn't go into much detail. But it does fit neatly with why much of my physical capability nose-dived off a cliff in a seemingly short time, a couple of years ago, for no obvious reason. Except maybe there was a biological reason??

It also fits with the fact that having plummeted to a new low, my perfomance hasn't been massively decreasing since then. All the best advice of "rest more, recover more, listen to your body, be wary of fatigue" etc etc, has done exactly bugger all to get me to regain any ground and reverse any of those losses, but equally the decline since has been comparatively slow.

Not sure what it all means, apart from, whilst it is shit having a new low of being weak (and heavy), the prospect of it not plummeting again for well over a decade is.....kinda reassuring??

Can't remember if this already came up but have you had bloods done and testosterone levels etc tested?

[Fiend]

Great. Second plummet incoming. I must have not noticed the first, as I was in 2 very small children wrangling mode.

Well that wrangling is going to mask anything!! I'm sure it's very different for different people and the amount of running has got to count for a lot...

Not sure what it all means, apart from, whilst it is shit having a new low of being weak (and heavy), the prospect of it not plummeting again for well over a decade is.....kinda reassuring??

Not so fast with being reassured..!  There's a possibility that your 'biological age' is aging at a faster rate than your calendar age, therefore for some people the 'decade-long plateau' in the overall decline could be shorter-lived than hoped for. Better make use of it while you can!
 

Dickhead. Amazingly enough I have enough pessimism and depression about this already. There's also a possibility that my "biological age" (which I generally assume is aging faster due to DVT-related repercussions) is aging slower (I was a couple of years late to the 44 decline party), or at the same rate. Or that I'm not really bothered about what happens at 60. Either way, faster, slower, the same, what am I going to do?? Try as hard as I fucking can to make use of it while I can...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/aug/14/scientists-find-humans-age-dramatically-in-two-bursts-at-44-then-60-aging-not-slow-and-steady

Turns out that I am, unsurprisingly, peri-manopausal.

Can't remember if this already came up but have you had bloods done and testosterone levels etc tested?

It has been mentioned aye, I had a normal blood test a year or so ago and no issues found (don't think T was tested??). But a friend also encouraged me to get tests again recently, so maybe I will.

[Wellsy]

I told you to get your T tested ages ago you knob :D

[MischaHY]

It has been mentioned aye, I had a normal blood test a year or so ago and no issues found (don't think T was tested??). But a friend also encouraged me to get tests again recently, so maybe I will.

Yeah T isn't tested in normal bloods as far as I'm aware. Could well be a factor and if you see it dropping off consistently there are various forms of intervention from what I understand. 

[Nibile]

My past experience is that the more specific the ability, the quicker we lose it. In my case, one armers and front levers.
Also, the more one was close to their genetic potential, the bigger the loss.
My recent experience is that some kind of high overall strength can be successfully trained even late, in my case, deadlifts.
My recent take is that pure strength and power, with age, become less important, in favour of always keeping or increasing muscle mass, which, in turn, will give strength benefits as a by-product.
Gym-style training is very easy and doesn't stress, I know it's boring, but it's something I want to be doing for as long as possible.
Half of my old climbing partners walk around folded in two, just bones and joints. The other half either climb on the same routes of the last 20 years or climbs twice a year trading grades for risk. I don't want that.
Before my finger injury in June I was feeling good on the board, but it was one weekly session versus six weights-relates sessions.
Climbing is hard on the body, one has to be prepared.
So, Fiend, my advice is: go get you blood tested and verify that everything is fine, as it will turn out, then suck it up and hit the weights.

[duncan]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/aug/14/scientists-find-humans-age-dramatically-in-two-bursts-at-44-then-60-aging-not-slow-and-steady

Turns out that I am, unsurprisingly, peri-manopausal.

Or at least:

The findings could explain why spikes in certain health issues including musculoskeletal problems

It's just one article and doesn't go into much detail. But it does fit neatly with why much of my physical capability nose-dived off a cliff in a seemingly short time, a couple of years ago, for no obvious reason. Except maybe there was a biological reason??

It also fits with the fact that having plummeted to a new low, my perfomance hasn't been massively decreasing since then. All the best advice of "rest more, recover more, listen to your body, be wary of fatigue" etc etc, has done exactly bugger all to get me to regain any ground and reverse any of those losses, but equally the decline since has been comparatively slow.

Not sure what it all means, apart from, whilst it is shit having a new low of being weak (and heavy), the prospect of it not plummeting again for well over a decade is.....kinda reassuring??

The original research publication is here.

It's fairly readable. The key point is this is talking about 'molecular aging'. It is not clear to me how important molecular aging actually is. It is not the same as physical performance, such as strength, which ultimately we should be more interested in. Hundreds of studies have observed real-world physical performance - strength, power, endurance or balance - declining in a pretty steady and predictable fashion without major drops at set time points. This makes me less convinced molecular aging is critically important here.

Even if molecular aging is important, it is unclear what kind of intervention - if any - would influence it.

It is abundantly clear what to do to reduce decline in strength and power. Many studies show strength training, for example, can knock 20-30 years off your age (functionally speaking) once you reach your 50s and older.

I'm not saying you have not experienced a decline in physical and other facets of well-being, far from it. I am staying that focusing on 'molecular aging' is, firstly, likely to be missing the bigger picture and, secondly, unhelpful because it encourages passivity and giving up. "It's coz of me molecular aging innit?"

TL/DR: What Nibile says.

[Fiend]

So, Fiend, my advice is: go get you blood tested and verify that everything is fine, as it will turn out, then suck it up and hit the weights.

Well....referring back to my original post, one of my main indicators, and therefore concerns, about strength loss was a variety of easily measurable weight lifting bench marks (that are usually irrespective of my corpulent weight and plethora of climbing injuries). I do go to the gym to do weights semi-regularly (not as much as in my prime), and that's where I noticed my clearest strength losses, including deadlifts. Despite the frustration of the smaller numbers, I still keep going with it, partly because I like it, partly because with DVT-fucked legs there's a lot of CV stuff I can't do, partly because I think it's a good compliment to climbing, and partly to generally try to keep strong-ish and conditioned.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/aug/14/scientists-find-humans-age-dramatically-in-two-bursts-at-44-then-60-aging-not-slow-and-steady

Turns out that I am, unsurprisingly, peri-manopausal.

Or at least:

The findings could explain why spikes in certain health issues including musculoskeletal problems

It's just one article and doesn't go into much detail. But it does fit neatly with why much of my physical capability nose-dived off a cliff in a seemingly short time, a couple of years ago, for no obvious reason. Except maybe there was a biological reason??

It also fits with the fact that having plummeted to a new low, my perfomance hasn't been massively decreasing since then. All the best advice of "rest more, recover more, listen to your body, be wary of fatigue" etc etc, has done exactly bugger all to get me to regain any ground and reverse any of those losses, but equally the decline since has been comparatively slow.

Not sure what it all means, apart from, whilst it is shit having a new low of being weak (and heavy), the prospect of it not plummeting again for well over a decade is.....kinda reassuring??

The original research publication is here.

It's fairly readable. The key point is this is talking about 'molecular aging'. It is not clear to me how important molecular aging actually is. It is not the same as physical performance, such as strength, which ultimately we should be more interested in. Hundreds of studies have observed real-world physical performance - strength, power, endurance or balance - declining in a pretty steady and predictable fashion without major drops at set time points. This makes me less convinced molecular aging is critically important here.

Even if molecular aging is important, it is unclear what kind of intervention - if any - would influence it.

It is abundantly clear what to do to reduce decline in strength and power. Many studies show strength training, for example, can knock 20-30 years off your age (functionally speaking) once you reach your 50s and older.

I'm not saying you have not experienced a decline in physical and other facets of well-being, far from it. I am staying that focusing on 'molecular aging' is, firstly, likely to be missing the bigger picture and, secondly, unhelpful because it encourages passivity and giving up. "It's coz of me molecular aging innit?"

TL/DR: What Nibile says.

Well I haven't investigated the science that much, but.... For me, one particular study observed real-world physical performance - strength, power, endurance (not sure about balance) - declining at a pretty steady and predictable rate, then had a major drop a couple of years ago (alarming), then reverted to declining at the something like the previous rate (less alarming). This is why the study interested me, because it corresponds to (if not necessarily scientifically explains) exactly what has happened to me.

Reducing decline in strength and power is exactly what I aiming for with strength training (weights and climbing). I feel that can slow the general steady decline. My gut instinct is that unless I dedicate my entire existence to doing it with a DMaccy like rigorously self-disciplined focus, there is no chance of reversing the major drop (if that is even possible).

For me, this study / major drop concept doesn't encourage passivity and giving up - it's actually the opposite, despite what Pete"doomandgloom"JH chucked in the mix. It reassures me that there is a possible explanation, that I'm not totally physically dysfunctional (still maybe low T...), that the major drop events are sporadic and quite a long way apart, so there's a hell of a lot to fight for and not give up on. 10+ years of only declining a few percent a year?? That's pretty motivating for someone who felt (yes, vague term, that's deliberate) things declining 10-15% in half a year....