UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => diet, training and injuries => Topic started by: remus on February 14, 2021, 08:24:45 pm
-
For anyone technically minded, UKBs very own Stu Littlefair has built a tool that lets you do a critical force test with a Tindeq (https://tindeq.com/). Code is available here https://github.com/StuartLittlefair/PyTindeq
-
Nice one
What’s a critical force test?
-
What’s a critical force test?
The idea is that there's some level of force output you can sustain for a long time (think 1hr plus), and broadly speaking this is closely related to how much work your aerobic energy system can sustain. This is an interesting value to know because if you're working above that line then the clock is ticking and you will definitely fall off, but if you're below that line you'll (theoretically) be able to keep chugging away almost indefinitely.
It's a model more commonly used in cycling (also called FTP) where the test setup is fairly straightforward. In climbing the test is typically adapted to use a 7:3 repeaters style protocol because it's more relevant (vs. a continuous hang).
There's some links in Stu's github repo with the details.
-
Cheers
-
What’s a critical force test?
The idea is that there's some level of force output you can sustain for a long time (think 1hr plus), and broadly speaking this is closely related to how much work your aerobic energy system can sustain. This is an interesting value to know because if you're working above that line then the clock is ticking and you will definitely fall off, but if you're below that line you'll (theoretically) be able to keep chugging away almost indefinitely.
It's a model more commonly used in cycling (also called FTP) where the test setup is fairly straightforward. In climbing the test is typically adapted to use a 7:3 repeaters style protocol because it's more relevant (vs. a continuous hang).
There's some links in Stu's github repo with the details.
The name isn't as fear inducing as a FTP test, are you as likely to throw up after a critical force test, suppose your legs will still work after it lol.
-
It's just as unpleasant as an FTP test, just in a different way
-
Stu, where did you find any docs on the API for the Tindeq? I had a look at doing something similar last year but couldn't find any info.
-
It's just as unpleasant as an FTP test, just in a different way
Good effort Stu. I know I'm being a bit lazy here but how's this being used in practice?
I'm pretty familiar with FTP tests having bought 'Training and Racing with a Power Meter' and completely geeked out on it; application in terms of cycling training is pretty straightforward (or perhaps not with the likes of the Sufferfest now suggesting 4DP is better (http://"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU_q7_pHq9Q") :worms:) but I can't see how that's the case for climbing.
How you can use it apart from on a rung (with a tindeq or similar built-in) to train whichever energy system you think you need to? Or, is it just being used as a measure of 'upward' progress?
It's just as unpleasant as an FTP test, just in a different way
I've got a Wattbike, I'm sure someone has a YouTube channel worthy of such a sight. Pick your poison, 1H, 20M, ramp? I think there's some kind of legal loophole for 'elite' sport :tumble:.
-
At the moment in climbing, critical force is really being used as a progress measure, or a tool to decide which training to do.
e.g a "good" critical force level for a route climber might be around 35% of maximum strength. If you were much below this, you should focus on aerobic training.
Using W' as a predictive tool is more of a :worms:, since the test tends to be less reliable for this measure.
In cycling you would use your FTP to plan your training as well; for example using Coggan's power zones. We don't do this in climbing right now, but perhaps we should?
For example, if you do your aerocap on a fingerboard and use the Crimpd app, it will suggest 40% of your max strength as a suitable load. Really, we should be giving this as a percentage of your critical force.
Worked example:
Billy Big Guns has a max hang of 120kg. His critical force is 20% of this - 24kg
Sally Limpet has a max hang of 80kg. Her critical force is 30% of this - also 24kg.
Really, they should both be doing their aerocap training using the same load, perhaps around 30kg, even though this is only 25% of Billy's max.
The main reason this isn't that much use, is that most climbing training is not as quantifiable as dead hanging, and no-where near as quantifiable as cycling.
Perhaps best practice would be:
1) Measure your CF.
2) Do a few aero sessions on the FB at the "right" intensity to understand how it feels
3) Recreate the same sensations when doing aerocap on the wall
-
Stu, where did you find any docs on the API for the Tindeq? I had a look at doing something similar last year but couldn't find any info.
I emailed Tindeq and asked. I've documented it in my code as well, so you can look in the tindeq.py files for notes on how it works.
-
Stu, where did you find any docs on the API for the Tindeq? I had a look at doing something similar last year but couldn't find any info.
I emailed Tindeq and asked. I've documented it in my code as well, so you can look in the tindeq.py files for notes on how it works.
fair enough, cheers :)
-
In cycling you would use your FTP to plan your training as well; for example using Coggan's power zones. We don't do this in climbing right now, but perhaps we should?
Yes, and they've got other nice models (I'm sure you know this) which basically track how much recovery you're going to need based on the session you last did overlain with the previous and so on. I'd like to see some of those!
Perhaps best practice would be:
1) Measure your CF.
2) Do a few aero sessions on the FB at the "right" intensity to understand how it feels
3) Recreate the same sensations when doing aerocap on the wall
Almost like a benchmarked 'perceived effort'? I can see the novelty but struggle to think it'd offer much more than a descriptive scale from "can't feel it, Barrows has his feet on the floor for this" and "forearms feel like lava".
The main reason this isn't that much use, is that most climbing training is not as quantifiable as dead hanging, and no-where near as quantifiable as cycling.
This is what I was expecting you to say (which is where the comments on the rung came from) and why I mentioned reading around 4DP. The tl;dr is that Billy Big Guns and Sally Limpet probably have vastly different profiles across the various power zones or energy systems and a single measure (FTP or critical force) is insufficient (particularly above threshold) :worms:.
It's worth noting that Sufferfest need a point of difference from others (of which there are plenty). However, I don't find it hard to imagine wildly different body types having different profiles across the power zones.
PS I'm not trying to piss on your chips, I'm genuinely trying to understand if there is / what is the benefit of this (currently, as it stands).
-
Perhaps best practice would be:
1) Measure your CF.
2) Do a few aero sessions on the FB at the "right" intensity to understand how it feels
3) Recreate the same sensations when doing aerocap on the wall
Almost like a benchmarked 'perceived effort'? I can see the novelty but struggle to think it'd offer much more than a descriptive scale from "can't feel it, Barrows has his feet on the floor for this" and "forearms feel like lava".
I think this would be interesting at the very least, and probably useful for most people. Certainly useful for coaches/coachees - it would probably be a lot easier for many to understand what to aim for based on this (i.e. my goal is to feel like that session my coach had me do the other week on the fingerboard) that getting their head around, say,
0. Full ARC. Could do this shit all day
1. Slight pump but pretty chill, could do 20min and keep going another 20 if I'm not bored/need to go home
2. Bit more pump, glad when the 20min timer beeps
3. Bit more pump, glad when the 10min timer beeps
4. On the border of lying to myself that this is still aero cap, it's basically pow because if you told me stop and clip a few extra times I'd fall off.
(there are then more levels to arms like lava, powered out etc above this).. I'd also be interested to know how these fit vs where they "should" be based on %s of CF/CP/FTP that another sport might use. Of course those might not map to a non-cyclic, occluding, forearm based sport like climbing.. but it would be interesting to experiment and see, and might give a guide that someone is always going a bit too hard or too easy? I'd certainly be interested to know how these sensations fit to % of CF for me
-
I can see where you're coming from and yourself, Stu etc. sure, but the wider republic of Lattice (what I'm meaning by that [rather than as a targeted slur] is those paying for training programmes) I'm far from convinced? It currently seems like another rabbit hole for people to disappear down.
If RPE wasn't sufficient then you'd have people selling "sit on my turbo to get a feel for your power zones". I've never seen that suggested, although I guess there's the backup of HR zones.
but it would be interesting to experiment and see, and might give a guide that someone is always going a bit too hard or too easy?
But what I'm suggesting is that saying a zone is defined by e.g 110% of CF/FTP isn't true across the board so you wouldn't get that information.
-
RPE works well at the higher end - most people have an instinctive feel for what a 7/10 or 9/10 effort should feel like. I think it's less useful at the bottom of the scale. The thing I see most often in people new to training is an uncertainty about how hard the exercises should feel, especially for aerocap, or confusion about what each exercise actually is training. So I think it would have some application there.
I'm not sure what your point about the 4DP stuff is; you are obviously right that climbers won't have the same performance profile (in this case you'd measure time to failure against load). But is this useful to know? I can't work out if you are advocating for using a more complex approach or not. To me, the fact that climbing is so much less quantifiable about cycling makes me wonder about the merits of more complexity. Or, put another way, if you had that information - what would you do with it?
-
RPE works well at the higher end - most people have an instinctive feel for what a 7/10 or 9/10 effort should feel like. I think it's less useful at the bottom of the scale. The thing I see most often in people new to training is an uncertainty about how hard the exercises should feel, especially for aerocap, or confusion about what each exercise actually is training. So I think it would have some application there.
If I took a large sample of people and told them the RPE description of Z1 and asked them to sit at what they thought it was, and then took a second group and showed them what Z1, Z2 etc. felt like and then asked them all back several months later, I'm doubtful there'd be much difference in the group's ability to get it correct. This is based on nothing but opinion and the feeling that if it was useful (or exploitable) people would be selling it to road cyclists.
I'm not sure what your point about the 4DP stuff is; you are obviously right that climbers won't have the same performance profile (in this case you'd measure time to failure against load). But is this useful to know?
My point is that the 'single measure model' is potentially too simple and it won't show the nuance Barrows mentioned. You won't know if they're going too hard or too easy as it may just be they're naturally worse in that zone.
I can't work out if you are advocating for using a more complex approach or not. To me, the fact that climbing is so much less quantifiable about cycling makes me wonder about the merits of more complexity. Or, put another way, if you had that information - what would you do with it?
It'd be fantastic if a more complex approach existed as coming from climbing to sitting on a turbo, there's beautiful simplicity in just turning up, selecting ERG mode and making sure you hit the numbers, I just can't imagine what that'd look like for climbing (how it'd be measured for a start) etc. so I'm a little torn between being fascinated by such things and seeing it as a very complex way to measure progress, and perhaps add a little clarity on RPE.
-
If I took a large sample of people and told them the RPE description of Z1 and asked them to sit at what they thought it was, and then took a second group and showed them what Z1, Z2 etc. felt like and then asked them all back several months later, I'm doubtful there'd be much difference in the group's ability to get it correct. This is based on nothing but opinion and the feeling that if it was useful (or exploitable) people would be selling it to road cyclists.
I’m assuming this means you don’t have an HRM for your cycling computer like a large amount of roadies then?!
I’d agree with Stu that at the top end it’s easy enough, but the difference in between Z2 (good) and Z3 (OMG junk what are you doing you’d be better sat on the couch) for example wasn’t that east for me to spot to start with.
-
No, I do (which I used initially before adding a speed sensor to an old turbo and then finally going a bit Gucci on the Atom) and I don't have a power meter on the bike itself but then again, I'm not racing and generally just want to be having fun. I didn't need to rely on HR zones (above RPE) for my harder rides this season which required getting it right. My main use of a HR monitor is pairing my head unit to my Dad's sensor as he's been told not to exceed 159 as his heart simply can't take it (he peaked at 157 today on the first ride of the year).
I’d agree with Stu that at the top end it’s easy enough, but the difference in between Z2 (good) and Z3 (OMG junk what are you doing you’d be better sat on the couch) for example wasn’t that east for me to spot to start with.
And you think that if someone (/ a coach) showed you in a 1:1 then you'd remember that and take it forward reliably? You may, and that's fair enough I just don't share that opinion and it seems like a niche development.
Z1 - Can sing
Z2 - Can talk in complete sentences
Z3 - Can talk but it isn't comfortable
Z4 - Talking is pretty challenging
Z5 - Cannot talk
Z6 - Breathless, ragged breathing
Z7 - Can't even manage a single word
-
Sorry I thought you were saying an HRM to indicate effort zones wasn’t required as RPE was a good enough measure, but I think I missed your point!
-
Sorry I thought you were saying an HRM to indicate effort zones wasn’t required as RPE was a good enough measure, but I think I missed your point!
No, my point (or opinion) is that being 'shown' zones in a one off by a coach (or A N Other) at some point has limited value as I'd have little faith in someone recreating that more accurately in several months time when compared with just using RPE.
-
Well I disagree on that, from my own experience. After some time pissing around on a turbo trainer I'm now pretty confident what zone I'm cycling in based on feel alone, and it turns out to be about right based on heart rate when I get home and look at my phone. I can imagine the same idea being useful in climbing.
Also, I think we are getting sucked into just talking about one potential use case. There are others:
1) Alex and I have the same project - a 45m endurance sufferfest to a V10 crux at the top. Alex's critical force is 40% of his bodyweight, mine is 25%. That's a pretty good indication that I need to focus on aerobic endurance, and Alex is better spending time training strength/power.
2) I've just spent six months following a training plan aimed at getting better aerobic endurance. By the end I'm doing harder circuits and can go for longer doing my foot off campussing. Did the plan work? I do a CFT and find that my W' has gone up, but critical force is unchanged, so I've improved, but not because my aerobic endurance plan worked. Given my 45m endurance project, it's time to change training plans...
Both of these are examples where the model and test can be useful, despite it being over-simplistic.
-
1) Alex and I have the same project - a 45m endurance sufferfest to a V10 crux at the top
It was all so realistic until you forgot that enduro routes with V10 cruxes at the end are too hard for either of us :lol:
-
That’s why we need to train
-
Well I disagree on that, from my own experience. After some time pissing around on a turbo trainer I'm now pretty confident what zone I'm cycling in based on feel alone, and it turns out to be about right based on heart rate when I get home and look at my phone. I can imagine the same idea being useful in climbing.
Slight tangent but are you sure? Various factors from being outside mean that HR vs. actual effort becomes even more unreliable. I'm guessing you're talking HR zones in this instance (i.e. you're looking at HR data when you get back in, not power data)?
Also, I think we are getting sucked into just talking about one potential use case. There are others:
Fair enough, those indeed are two examples I hadn't thought of (I did ask). I need to think a bit more on the two but the first I can't help but think what you need to know is a normalised critical power that would get you to the chains, the same way as when Peewee and I were considering crucifying ourselves on the local hills (for some daft, max elevation in a set timeframe challenge) we were trying to work-out which one of them would keep us just below FTP.
I can't help but think that for No. 2 there'd be some other indicators ;D
It was all so realistic until you forgot that enduro routes with V10 cruxes at the end are too hard for either of us :lol:
;D
-
Slightly off-topic, but where does FTP sit on your 7-zone system?
Z1 - Can sing
Z2 - Can talk in complete sentences
Z3 - Can talk but it isn't comfortable
Z4 - Talking is pretty challenging
Z5 - Cannot talk
Z6 - Breathless, ragged breathing
Z7 - Can't even manage a single word
-
That was just grabbed off the web, the one I've got saved is here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DjfCpwmLHsxCGvrXDW1JmYPDY9WNWXCR/view?usp=drivesdk
Z4.
-
Thanks, that’s what I thought from the descriptions. I’ve always used a 5-zone version with FTP (or running equivalent) at the top of 4, so wouldn’t normally split 5-7 out explicitly. Although you end up targeting them via different length intervals/hill reps.
-
I had more time to think on this, unsurprisingly when sat on the turbo (more than a little bit bored) and I'm sticking with my initial thought that showing someone their critical force and the % breakdowns required is of limited benefit.
My current programme has a few different workouts that repeat. OK, so there is progressive overload with work periods and rest periods changing accordingly in approx. the same format, but not always. Having just done a session which I've done before, it made me think that this time it felt the living end and what you're offering in the above (via "this is what X should feel like") is almost a one off 'snapshot' of what things should feel like and unlike having a power meter output staring you in the face, you just can't have the feedback often enough unless all your training is on a Tindeq (or a lattice board with these built in to every hold!). What that person leaves with is an impression of what X or Y% should feel like, on that given day. That'll feel different when they turn up for a session and find the kids club using their preffered area for Ancap.
Perhaps it's an improvement when it's in addition to an RPE with session descriptions such as:
If you failed on 5 of 9 sets you got this totally wrong - too hard, try again
If you didn't fail and thought you'd like some more - too easy, try again
You failed on the last rep of the last set - Nice one (good luck doing that again next session)
Well I disagree on that, from my own experience. After some time pissing around on a turbo trainer I'm now pretty confident what zone I'm cycling in based on feel alone, and it turns out to be about right based on heart rate when I get home and look at my phone. I can imagine the same idea being useful in climbing.
Now do the above again but accurately predict your (actual, not estimated) power output, accounting for all of the climatic factors (wind, heat, how much diet cherry coke you've consumed etc.). I'd imagine you won't be able to do it (there are various algorithms that attempt to do this, none are very good).
PS saying you were below threshold doesn't count either if you were out for more than an hour :tease:.
Obviously with that all said, I know you don't go instantly from nothing to the best developed model you can wish for, and the concept is massively interesting (to me at least). I'd be very interested to see whether the TSS and IF models can be applied to a training programme, because when I get it wrong I just break (increasingly leading me to not try all that hard in general).
-
Sounds to me like you weren’t suitably recovered for your turbo session 😄
-
I did an hour on the treadmill this afternoon.
I normally concentrate on trying to maintain a specific heart rate (130 bpm or around 75% max) and I can usually do that, despite changing pace (if not always during the change if pace) by altering the rhythm of my breathing.
So, I thought I could tell my exertion, at a given pace, by the chant I was breathing. Today, I got distracted. I don’t normally watch tv, but something the kids were watching caught my eye. My heart rate went way off (up), no change of pace, no change of breathing rhythm that I was aware of.
Just a minor distraction is enough to screw with your performance, let alone all the physiological changes your body cycles through constantly.
-
My current programme has a few different workouts that repeat. OK, so there is progressive overload with work periods and rest periods changing accordingly in approx. the same format, but not always. Having just done a session which I've done before, it made me think that this time it felt the living end and what you're offering in the above (via "this is what X should feel like") is almost a one off 'snapshot' of what things should feel like and unlike having a power meter output staring you in the face, you just can't have the feedback often enough unless all your training is on a Tindeq (or a lattice board with these built in to every hold!). What that person leaves with is an impression of what X or Y% should feel like, on that given day. That'll feel different when they turn up for a session and find the kids club using their preffered area for Ancap.
I think the reverse of this is also true. If you measure your FTP on a given day it's only accurate at that point in time and after that there are a lot of factors that'll affect your ability on the day. Perhaps your session that felt like the living end was actually at too high of an intensity (that is, if you could have measured your FTP today it would have been lower) and if you were aiming for a particular % of your 'instantaneous FTP' (i.e. if you could know your FTP at any given point in time without having to do a big exhaustive test) then you would have been better off at a lower intensity.
In my opinion a mix of RPE and metrics is best for getting the correct intensity. I think over reliance on metrics can be counter productive (e.g. third week of your training cycle, "Why can't I aerocap on this circuit like I did in week 1? Must try harder!")
-
Sounds to me like you weren’t suitably recovered for your turbo session 😄
I'm pretty sure I wasn't meant to be, but that's part of my point. If I was working off the 'snapshot' I had previously, I'd have backed off (thinking "this shouldn't feel as hard").
I think the reverse of this is also true. If you measure your FTP on a given day it's only accurate at that point in time and after that there are a lot of factors that'll affect your ability on the day. Perhaps your session that felt like the living end was actually at too high of an intensity (that is, if you could have measured your FTP today it would have been lower)
I take your point but see above in reply to Stubbs. I can see where you're coming from with testing, but it's not overly onerous to re-test semi-frequently (perhaps the same is true for climbing?) and there are algorithms looking at anything that includes max. efforts that will attempt to capture this (i.e. you don't physically have to do ramp tests all the time), I think some of these are fairly crude (Zwift just applies 0.95 to any 20-min effort), but there are others that are less so. Peewee might remember the latter (it might be on a GP Lama video)? Regardless, you're still getting feedback continuously through a workout which just isn't possible on anything other than a rung with a Tindeq or similar attached / built-in.
In my opinion a mix of RPE and metrics is best for getting the correct intensity. I think over reliance on metrics can be counter productive (e.g. third week of your training cycle, "Why can't I aerocap on this circuit like I did in week 1? Must try harder!")
Do you expect a large difference then from two groups, both given an RPE scale with:
too easy
just right
too hard
explained thoroughly with session descriptions etc., and the second having the addition of a coach showing them the % of critical force each should expect in a one-off, when considered a month later (and then a season later)?
-
I'm pretty sure I wasn't meant to be, but that's part of my point. If I was working off the 'snapshot' I had previously, I'd have backed off (thinking "this shouldn't feel as hard").
And this might have been a sensible option if the session felt harder than it was meant to, as if you’re overexerting yourself due to being tired, sick of injured, then you could potentially put yourself in a hole. Alternatively you might have been on amazing form the first time and this session was more like it was meant to feel. Hopefully the power numbers came with some form of relative perceived effort advice to guide you on this 😄
-
What Remus and teestub said.
Also I think you are overthinking this, and fixating on a narrow point. No one is suggesting that if you measure CF/FTP once and get someone to do a single workout calibrated on that basis, they will suddenly have a perfect internal power meter.
My point is merely that some people’s RPE scales are miles off and if you can do one session that you know is - for example - at threshold, then the accuracy of their RPE scale is going to get a bit better
-
And this might have been a sensible option if the session felt harder than it was meant to, as if you’re overexerting yourself due to being tired, sick of injured, then you could potentially put yourself in a hole. Alternatively you might have been on amazing form the first time and this session was more like it was meant to feel. Hopefully the power numbers came with some form of relative perceived effort advice to guide you on this 😄
Touché, but there's a difference between a number derived during a test where the advice is to make sure you're fresh AF, and a number during a workout (based on the previous testing) planned by people that know their sh*t. Pick your poison, but the progressive overload isn't only from when they rob your rest to feed your work intervals (week on week), but also in terms of the lack of rest between sessions (day to day):
https://wattbike.com/gb/training-plans (https://wattbike.com/gb/training-plans)
To put it another way, I don't expect to go into every workout (climbing or sat on a turbo) fully recovered and with the massive hike in training load you see in people moving onto energy systems type plans (including paid for plans), I wouldn't expect them to be either!?
My point is merely that some people’s RPE scales are miles off and if you can do one session that you know is - for example - at threshold, then the accuracy of their RPE scale is going to get a bit better
I can get on board with this, I think I suggested 'marginal', I think Barrows said 'useful for most', it's probably somewhere in the middle.
I'm probably coming across grumpy (honestly, it's not intended to be so; it's much easier to discuss things like this in person) but:
No one is suggesting that if you measure CF/FTP once and get someone to do a single workout calibrated on that basis, they will suddenly have a perfect internal power meter.
Well I disagree on that, from my own experience. After some time pissing around on a turbo trainer I'm now pretty confident what zone I'm cycling in based on feel alone, and it turns out to be about right based on heart rate when I get home and look at my phone. I can imagine the same idea being useful in climbing.
The latter quote is implying just that (or that's how I read it) and my point is still that you're gauging a response. Perhaps that was obvious to everyone but me :shrug:
Also I think you are overthinking this, and fixating on a narrow point.
Likely so on the over-thinking, but my narrow point is 'useful application'. Do you have data that can be anonymised showing test results for Billy Big Guns and others etc. to widen the fixation a little?
Also, can you see a scenario in the future whereby instead of Lattice score vs. grade you have some kind of CF chart akin to the w/kg chart (or where do you see it going)?
https://www.saris.com/post/blog-power-to-weight-ratio-whats-watts-per-kilogram-all-about
(pink and blue table for any interested lurkers)
-
Touché, but there's a difference between a number derived during a test where the advice is to make sure you're fresh AF, and a number during a workout (based on the previous testing) planned by people that know their sh*t. Pick your poison, but the progressive overload isn't only from when they rob your rest to feed your work intervals (week on week), but also in terms of the lack of rest between sessions (day to day):
https://wattbike.com/gb/training-plans (https://wattbike.com/gb/training-plans)
To put it another way, I don't expect to go into every workout (climbing or sat on a turbo) fully recovered and with the massive hike in training load you see in people moving onto energy systems type plans (including paid for plans), I wouldn't expect them to be either!?
From a coach's point of view the tricky thing is trying to predict external load (work, family, sleep related stress for example) so while they'll try and plan a workout at the correct intensity for where you are in your training cycle (e.g. fresh coming off a rest week or knackered the week before a deload week) you're never gonna be able to get it exactly right all the time, which is where bringing in some RPE in to it helps.
-
To put it another way, I don't expect to go into every workout (climbing or sat on a turbo) fully recovered and with the massive hike in training load you see in people moving onto energy systems type plans (including paid for plans), I wouldn't expect them to be either!?
Partially covered by what Remus said, but any training plan (whether for climbing, cycling or interpretive dance), that involves a massive instantaneous hike in training volume, is a shit training plan.
-
Partially covered by what Remus said, but any training plan (whether for climbing, cycling or interpretive dance), that involves a massive instantaneous hike in training volume, is a shit training plan.
OK, but on a sensible plan, do you expect to enter every session fully recovered? I'm guessing not.
It wasn't intended to imply that Latticers go from low to high load overnight it's just an observation that when people go on energy systems type plans, over time the amount of sessions etc. increases (how they get there, I can't really comment).
From a coach's point...
"...or having their parents move in and finding it's like having adopted two wayward teenagers"?
In response to the query posed, in the ideal world without those stresses, do you expect people to be fully rested session to session? I'd expect not. My point is just because I found a workout hard, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was wrong (or that I was digging a hole). Incidentally, I think I'm pretty darn good at listening to my body these days after teething problems the current UK Gov. would be proud of ;D
-
teething problems the current UK Gov. would be proud of ;D
:lol:
-
OK, but on a sensible plan, do you expect to enter every session fully recovered? I'm guessing not.
I have no ideas what happens on cycling plans, it was Anti who posted previously and seemed to know a decent amount about cycling training, that if your level of recovery isn’t sufficient to hit the targets of the session then you’re wasting your time. Sounds like this wasn’t an issue with this particular session as you hit your power meter goals.
In climbing it would largely depend on what the session is, like if it’s a core or 4x4 session then you can easily do these fatigued, but if it’s a max hang session and your feeling really tired? That ain’t going to end with #gainz.
Incidentally, I think I'm pretty darn good at listening to my body these days after teething problems the current UK Gov. would be proud of ;D
😄
-
Likely so on the over-thinking, but my narrow point is 'useful application'. Do you have data that can be anonymised showing test results for Billy Big Guns and others etc. to widen the fixation a little?
Also, can you see a scenario in the future whereby instead of Lattice score vs. grade you have some kind of CF chart akin to the w/kg chart (or where do you see it going)?
https://www.saris.com/post/blog-power-to-weight-ratio-whats-watts-per-kilogram-all-about
You can look at the second paper n my GitHub page for that kind of data.
Climbing is always going to be much messier than cycling because there is more going on; flexibility, max strength, movement efficiency etc.
But yes, if your CF is 20% of your body weight it’s time to hit the aero.
-
Something I would love to see would be a sensor which tells you the force through each finger.
It would be great to see how this is distributed between different grips and different people.
It would be really cool to diagnose if certain fingers are overcompensating for weaker ones!
-
Something I would love to see would be a sensor which tells you the force through each finger.
It would be great to see how this is distributed between different grips and different people.
It would be really cool to diagnose if certain fingers are overcompensating for weaker ones!
Now there's a project idea... Would be good to look at my inevitable 1% pinkie finger contribution!
-
I have no ideas what happens on cycling plans, it was Anti who posted previously and seemed to know a decent amount about cycling training, that if your level of recovery isn’t sufficient to hit the targets of the session then you’re wasting your time. Sounds like this wasn’t an issue with this particular session as you hit your power meter goals.
Sorry, working sometimes gets in the way of my attention to detail.
You're probably aware but in ERG mode, on a smart turbo you don't really get much choice. The software you use sets the target power for a target cadence (both with windows of acceptability). If your cadence goes up above what's desired, the software automatically reduces the resistance so your power output over a given time period (30s power?) is correct. If your cadence goes down it does the opposite and increases the resistance.
They're particularly bad for reacting quick enough when the interval is relatively short.
What happens when you turn up unable to hit your number is that you slow down. The software reacts by heaping on some more resistance. You slow down some more. It keeps coming, etc. until you just grind to a halt. Ramp tests end like this (feel free when it's legal to come and experience this joy for yourself).
The only way out of this is tapping out either into a geared mode (where you need to control the resistance manually) and just not getting there, or globally scaling down the efforts.
You can look at the second paper n my GitHub page for that kind of data.
Climbing is always going to be much messier than cycling because there is more going on; flexibility, max strength, movement efficiency etc.
Thanks, at least that's something to do this weekend. I agree it's always going to be much messier (way back on P1). I think that's further compounded by the fact there isn't the equivalent of a power meter to offer continuous feedback (so I still don't see it much more than just a metric but that might just be my blinkers :tumble: ).
But yes, if your CF is 20% of your body weight it’s time to hit the aero.
;D
I'll think I'll leave this thread alone now though.
-
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?
-
You're probably aware but in ERG mode, on a smart turbo you don't really get much choice.
Not used one (my turbo is just some magnets and a fly wheel and a good inch coating of chalk at the back of the garage) so didn’t appreciate that. Kinda interesting in itself as I guess it means that you have to control your cadence or you’re not going to be doing the right sort of ‘work’ for the power output (either too much muscle force at lower cadence, or too much CV input at higher cadence). There’s some climbing analogy lurking in there for overpowering a route or resting up it to achieve the same outcome.
-
Interesting thread but a bit confusing. It seems to me your at risk of over training with a force plate/meter whereas you’re at risk of under training by using a percentage of perceived effort.
-
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.
-
Stu, you quote a couple of values, too lazy to seek the exact references but I recall, CF about 35% ( BW?) as good and if CF about 20% BW .. time to hit the cardio. Are these gut feeling / good training knowledge figures or extracted from more formal research?
I got my hands on an Entralpi force plate, which is basically stand on scale with Bluetooth link to training app, and have been using it to work on finger strength. I was intending changing focus and using it to improve forearm endurance as I start training to head ( hopefully) outside again. Obviously not keen on reinventing the wheel hence the interest.
-
Stu, you quote a couple of values, too lazy to seek the exact references but I recall, CF about 35% ( BW?) as good and if CF about 20% BW .. time to hit the cardio. Are these gut feeling / good training knowledge figures or extracted from more formal research?
Percentages are of your max output, not bodyweight. I think the 35-40% range for a good cf score comes from the literature but I wouldn't be able to give you a reference. When we were doing some critical force testing at lattice this is what we were using as a benchmark (easy to remember as I was so far off it :lol: )
-
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 ??
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hi. I am selling a Tindeq on behalf of my daughter. £60 posted. Cheers. Martin
-
Just a bump on this in case anyone is interested -.£45 posted now.
-
Just a bump on this in case anyone is interested -.£45 posted now.
I'm interested, just about to send you a pm
-
Just replied. Thanks.
-
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?
-
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)
-
But then I also get pumped before the crux sometimes :lol:
-
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.
-
But then I also get pumped before the crux sometimes :lol:
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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".
-
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.
-
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! :slap:
Stu, thanks for the specific feedback too.
-
Just done this and it was thoroughly unpleasant!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 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.