UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => diet, training and injuries => Topic started by: Fultonius on April 01, 2016, 05:39:37 pm
-
This winter I've dabbled in training...but been too busy at uni to actually get enough sessions down the wall. (like 1 per week for quite a few weeks) :'(
Anyway - I had a vague notion to mainly do AnCap, AeroCap and Bouldering for most of the winter.
Last weekend I had my first outdoors sport session of the year. Unsurprisingly I felt really strong on 15-20 move sections....then powered out.
So, I'm now shifting focus to the powers of AnPow and AeroPow. Today I did a session of 30 move circuits, with rests of 1x to 1.5x climbing time. What I'm not sure about is setting the correct level.
How pumped should you feel at the end of rep 1, 2, 3, 4 etc? Should the circuits all be the same level or is good to alternate between some varied difficulties?
Current (indoor) onsight level is Fr7a+/b and the route I was working outside (which I've done before) was Fr7b+ and it should go next session, so I'm probably currently around the Fr7c+/8a Long term project grade (diffuclty wise, endurance is lacking but that's what I'm wanting to work on now for late spring).
I only had Fiend to ask at the wall and he was worse than useless :-* [to be fair I didn't ask him]
-
As nobody else is playing I'll give it a go.
You're maybe best mixing up circuits at around your OS level with some more bouldery exercises.
When performing circuits you want to be doing the first few reps ok, the middle laps you'll start blowing a bit and be fighting to the finish in the last few. Make sure you're getting pumped rather than powering out, if the latter's happening you may have set the circuit too hard.
Don't forget the POW element, if you're aim is to be redpointing harder stuff you need to be pulling off harder moves than you'll get on your circuit so devise some kind of boulder circuits like 4x4s.
And don't forget foot-on campusing for a simple, quick way of getting your forearms all out smashed to bits.
-
Cheers.
Do folks mix circuits and boulder 4x4s in one session?
Ok, it sounds like my easier circuit was too easy.
Is it better to err on the harder side with slightly longer rest (towards 2x climbing time) and bring the rests down as it all gets easier?
-
I have a big problem understanding training Aero Power. Really being able to pull off something as nails as an AeroPower circuit you must be peaking . When Binney was talking it sounded like a term that was plugging a gap in his model.
-
Ideally they'd be separate sessions, if you're going to combine them I guess do the harder 4x4 first, have a decent rest then the circuits. Or do them in different sessions combined with strength or AeroCap work?
Re rest times and difficulty it perhaps depends on your end goals. If you're wanting to do lots of quick redpoints probably go for an easier circuit with shorter rests but for longer sieges of harder routes maybe doing harder climbing with longer rests might be of more help.
With emphasis on guess, perhaps, probably, maybe and might.
-
I have problem understanding the usefulness of the whole model, outside of the very specific case of a couple of personalities who use it as the model for their bench-marking database of climbers at different grade levels.
(and wonder if much of the reason for the take-up of it as a training model by the British/Sheff crowd is personality led).
I don't see anything in an/aero/cap/pow that's any more useful than a training model of endurance (low intensity to high), power-endurance (short duration to long), power and strength. The later is easier to understand ime. The number of posts on here along the lines of 'am I training aeroxyz or anxyz' says something about its real-world utility.
Open to being convinced though.
What I'm interested in is how do different theoretical models in climbing training compare to each other - i.e. Patxi's training method, different lead and boulder teams in Europe (Germans and French especially), Anderson brothers, etc.. What are the similarities and what are the differences, if any.
-
What I'm interested in is how do different theoretical models in climbing training compare to each other - i.e. Patxi's training method, different lead and boulder teams in Europe (Germans and French especially), Anderson brothers, etc..
Well, I'm not privy to any insider information, but I see the Bavarian part of the German youth team training regularly at my local walls, plus one of the seniors who is top 20 in the world and a regular semifinalist in WC bouldering.
And what I see them doing is ...
- Pretty much bog standard hanging out with their mates trying hard boulders like everybody else. The juniors mostly on a 45 degree board making up their own challenges for each other.
- Press-ups, core, sling trainer, muscle ups etc., all without much evidence of stopwatches or structure, pretty much like everybody else but maybe a bit harder/more consistently
- In the case of the adult, helping to coach the kids. Which is nice.
Maybe they do their other super-structured training with secret methods at other times or in other places. Or maybe they're just doing pretty much the same as everybody else, just harder / more consistently.
-
I have a big problem understanding training Aero Power. Really being able to pull off something as nails as an AeroPower circuit you must be peaking . When Binney was talking it sounded like a term that was plugging a gap in his model.
I disagree. I think you're thinking of an power training, although its still bollocks if you are! Not quite sure why you think that??
Pete -
I took it up because it worked for me.
Patxi probably uses continuity, long resistance, short resistance, long boulder, short boulder as his break down at a guess, just based on old stuff of Macias I've read, though actually I don't know if he trained Patxi or only Ramon and Edu back in the day...
Anderson Bros 'do' aero cap (via whichever name they use), they don't do an cap though their hangs sessions are very an capesque, they don't split their PE into an and aero pow.
Don't know about the others.
The only real new exercise I got from the an/aero etc terminology was the an cap style training, which I never did before, the rest I used to do under different names.. Though if you finish sessions doing laps on long boulders with medium rests you'd be getting that too, as I've seen many do before. You're right that talking about ARC (or whatever), short PE and long PE is much more intuitive and defo an easier place to start. I'm probably guilty of confusing many people with that PDF I wrote, but I only wrote it to help people out who were interested but didn't have access to the people I'd had advice off.. And I only wrote it because I saw it work for me
-
I don't see anything in an/aero/cap/pow that's any more useful than a training model of endurance (low intensity to high), power-endurance (short duration to long), power and strength. The later is easier to understand ime.
I can see this being the case if you have some understanding of those in the first place - if you're basically starting from scratch you need to figure out one or the other anyway.
I suppose I could have just worded it a different way like:
I've been mainly training 15-18 move boulder problem/short circuits with 2-3 mins rest, 3 reps per set at just under my limit. (3 or 4 sets). That and general "bouldering" combined with 10-20 mins of no-pump easy continuous climbing.
On my first outdoor sport climbing day I felt pretty strong on all the moves and was good for.....surprise surprise.....15 to 18 moves then got pumped. So, I want to focus on my [insert name here] to improve my ability to make the same difficulty of moves for a longer time. (it's another 10 moves to the good rest on that route).
My question, I guess, is - what combination of number of moves, rest time and difficulty, would be optimum to work on this deficiency. My plan is 30(ish) move circuits with rest of 1x to 2x climbing time, either 1 block of 7 or 8 reps or two split blocks. That and 4 x 4 boulder problems.
I was just wanted a steer on what is the right level of difficulty for the circuits. i.e. onsight level, onsight level -1 letter grade, minus 2 letter grades?
-
Maybe they do their other super-structured training with secret methods at other times or in other places. Or maybe they're just doing pretty much the same as everybody else, just harder / more consistently.
Remember, this is me we're talking about - i don't do super structured training. I just want a general idea of what would be the best plan so I can try to mould my session roughly around that.
-
If you're not into training and hardly ever do it then any remotely sensible training regime is going to improve your performance. If want to be fitter for 'XYZ' sort of route then just replicate that sort of route - in terms of no. of moves, difficulty of moves, time to climb the moves, wall angle, hold type. But at a higher level of difficulty then the intended route or routes.
If it's 'pumpy, sort of slightly powerful' forearm fitness then I'd use either a circuit or foot-on campus training (I prefer foot-on as it's almost totally targeted to forearm fitness at the expense of movement):
Circuit of 'x' number of moves - in a similar sequence of difficulty as your goal route if the goal route has distinctly easy and hard sections; or sustained difficulty if not. Time it so it approximately correlates the time it takes to climb the moves on the goal route(s). I'd make it so you can do it 4 times, to begin with, failure somewhere on the 4th rep. Double the rest time to climb time. I'd reduce the rest time each session as you gain fitness until you can do it with the same rest time as climb time. Once you reach that point (if you ever do before it comes time to just climb rather than train) you've got three options - make the circuit harder; do more laps of the same circuit; decrease the rest time. TBH I doubt you'll encounter that choice before you send.
Alternatively use the campus board with one foot on for the roughly same effect but more targeted to forearm fitness without the distraction of moving position. (for foot-on campus I switch foot at the bottom of each down ladder). For foot-on campus I'd focus on replicating the time to climb the goal route rather than replicating the number of moves as it's hard to hold back the pace on a campus board when there's no movement to think about except moving a hand. Guess the time if you have to, doesn't need to be exact. Likely to be somewhere between 1.30-2.30. Same protocol for resting time as before -double to begin with, as soon as successful on 4th rep decrease rest time until you get toward 1x. Then go smaller rungs; or do more reps (depending what sort of fitness is more value for the type of climbing you do - power with some endurance or endurance with some power); or decrease rest time to below 1x.
Do either or each of those twice to three times per week for 2-4 weeks and you should notice a massive difference in the number of hard moves you can bosh out before failing.
If it's 'one or two hard move shutting you down' then get stronger fingers. Get those anyway.
Doesn't really matter what it's called.
-
My plan is 30(ish) move circuits with rest of 1x to 2x climbing time, either 1 block of 7 or 8 reps or two split blocks.
I was just wanted a steer on what is the right level of difficulty for the circuits. i.e. onsight level, onsight level -1 letter grade, minus 2 letter grades?
I hope it's the right plan, because it's pretty much what I'm doing at the moment in the hope of being fit for the Frankenjura in May. I'm starting off at around onsight level, dropping the grade as i get tired so I can still hold on for 25 or so moves.
-
I'm starting off at around onsight level, dropping the grade as i get tired so I can still hold on for 25 or so moves.
I'd say that's wrong, it's quantity not quality. You need to be able to make the hard moves that you started with when you're tired so dropping the intensity isn't helping with that. Increase the rest time or drop the starting grade a notch to something you can manage a whole set of.
-
Good point, thanks
-
Pete, I don't really have a goal route just now. I want to be generally fit for E4/E5 trad at the fairhead meet.
Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk
-
Seriously?
That's easy to train - climb loads and loads of mileage routes indoors at 6b+ to 7b, at the angle typically encountered on E4/5 i.e. off-vert to slightly overhanging, focusing on crimpier routes and avoiding the steep juggy routes, onsight, paying attention to hanging around a little longer than necessary on harder sections to work that sort of slow-climbing resting upwards endurance. Skip the occasional clip where safe to and practice some falling.
Do E2-4 mileage outside at every opportunity.
But surely you knew that?
(a 15 route pyramid is good - start at 6a peak at 7a+ back down to 6a. One at each grade. Don't time rests just try to complete every one onsight)
-
Seriously?
Yes and no.
My main aims this year are trad based. But I'd quite like to do some quick ascents of some Fr7cs and maybe try and get another Fr8a done.
I guess I'm aiming to just become a better, fitter climber. It would be easier if I had a route in mind but I don't just now. I got to Fr8a before, but that was one-route. I've also done 1 x 7c+, 1 x 7c and 3 x 7b+s so my "pyramid" is rather tower shaped!!
-
(a 15 route pyramid is good - start at 6a peak at 7a+ back down to 6a. One at each grade. Don't time rests just try to complete every one onsight)
P.S. just had a good fun onsighting session at Ratho:
1 x 6a+
1 x 6b
1 x 6b+
1 x 7a
1 x 7b (failed 3m from top)
1 x 7a
1 x 7a
1 x 7a+
1 x 6b
All ~27m in length. Quite excited for spring as that's only my 4th session since switching from vaguely focussing on bouldering & short PE (AnCap) to longer PE and endurance. Climbing in a 3, so generally still feeling the previous route a little, but fairly well rested. No moves felt hard, but staying on felt hard!
-
Open to being convinced though.
I have to say that initially I was quite sceptical of it all but perhaps increasingly less so... What I do see (in people undertaking 'capacity' training) is a LARGE increase in training volume, more of an objective look at their end goal (what type of route they're interested in and therefore where they should emphasis their training) and also looking at which 'system' is weakest (effectively making an effort to identify their own weaknesses). Although all of that should seem blindingly obvious, I doubt many people actively do that kind of identification without a push. It's also a lot easier to stick to something if it's written down and has some thought behind it (for me certainly).
I have no doubt that one cycle of this stuff really helped me on a few trips abroad and last year feeling tonnes fitter on longer British routes; I'll never be able to say if the next magic bullet, wherever it comes from, wouldn't do the same.
With respect to the OP, in the early sessions (i.e. just after the switch from Cap to Pow) I do my AeroPow circuits in blocks of 4 as I get wildly pumped if not (the first session I was whimpering; thankfully the depot have placed the circuit bored out of sight of the general public). I'm not sure the difficulty matters too much as long as the holds are reasonably applicable and the same can be said of the angle?
-
Open to being convinced though.
I have to say that initially I was quite sceptical of it all but perhaps increasingly less so... What I do see (in people undertaking 'capacity' training) is a LARGE increase in training volume, more of an objective look at their end goal (what type of route they're interested in and therefore where they should emphasis their training) and also looking at which 'system' is weakest (effectively making an effort to identify their own weaknesses). Although all of that should seem blindingly obvious, I doubt many people actively do that kind of identification without a push. It's also a lot easier to stick to something if it's written down and has some thought behind it (for me certainly).
Makes sense
I have no idea what all the systems mean still but by just typing the names of them, or saying them in public periodically, my grade shot up. I'm only half joking.
-
:lol:
Paul - I get all of that (do you sense a 'but'). But (there you go) what you've just described is 'merely' the change in mindset and physical ability that comes when someone first gets into structured training; it isn't a mindset/physical reaction specific to any model. I went though that process quite a few years ago, of recognising weaknesses and focusing on goal routes and what sort of fitness/strength they demanded. I'm also a naturally curious person and like to try to understand this sort of stuff, compared to some of my climbing friends. So I'm not questioning 'training' I'm more questioning the utility of lots of 7th/low 8th grade climbers getting sucked in to a specific training model - the Anpow/cap/aeropow/cap model - that seems to me quite good for high-end climbers looking to fine-tune their fitness for high 8s/low 9s.
I don't doubt it works. I do have doubts about its usefulness for the vast majority of people operating in the 7th and low 8th grades. From what I can tell from posts on ukb and talking to people at the crag, getting the exercises right for ancap/pow/aerepow appears to confuse as many people as it helps. I don't think you need to focus on fine-tuning your energy systems that much to climb up to 8a/8b.
I also wonder how much of this is led by fashion/personality.
I prefer a more intuitive (to me) model to base my training around, which is basically the model since the year dot:
PE - of a duration/hold count specific to the route/s I'm targeting (measured in time and number of moves),
Aero cap (Tom R.'s 'wasted miles theory' very useful - either v.easy or high intensity without pumping out),
Power - basic, measured on a campus board,
Finger strength - basic, measured on a fingerboard
I am interested in the theory behind larger 'caps' enabling larger 'pow' peaks. I suspect that starts to matter more towards the higher 8s.
-
I don't see anything in an/aero/cap/pow that's any more useful than a training model of endurance (low intensity to high), power-endurance (short duration to long), power and strength. The later is easier to understand ime.
Aren't they just different names for the same thing? :shrug:
-
I agree with what you're saying about these minutiae of training theories being unnecessarily complex for someone at my level. I disagree, however, that the An/Aero/Pow/Cap model being much less "intuitive" than the older PE/Power model. Maybe it's more intuitive for you, because you've been exposed to it for longer?
For example:
Circuit of 'x' number of moves - in a similar sequence of difficulty as your goal route if the goal route has distinctly easy and hard sections; or sustained difficulty if not. Time it so it approximately correlates the time it takes to climb the moves on the goal route(s). I'd make it so you can do it 4 times, to begin with, failure somewhere on the 4th rep. Double the rest time to climb time. I'd reduce the rest time each session as you gain fitness until you can do it with the same rest time as climb time. Once you reach that point (if you ever do before it comes time to just climb rather than train) you've got three options - make the circuit harder; do more laps of the same circuit; decrease the rest time. TBH I doubt you'll encounter that choice before you send.
Alternatively use the campus board with one foot on for the roughly same effect but more targeted to forearm fitness without the distraction of moving position. (for foot-on campus I switch foot at the bottom of each down ladder). For foot-on campus I'd focus on replicating the time to climb the goal route rather than replicating the number of moves as it's hard to hold back the pace on a campus board when there's no movement to think about except moving a hand. Guess the time if you have to, doesn't need to be exact. Likely to be somewhere between 1.30-2.30. Same protocol for resting time as before -double to begin with, as soon as successful on 4th rep decrease rest time until you get toward 1x. Then go smaller rungs; or do more reps (depending what sort of fitness is more value for the type of climbing you do - power with some endurance or endurance with some power); or decrease rest time to below 1x.
Do either or each of those twice to three times per week for 2-4 weeks and you should notice a massive difference in the number of hard moves you can bosh out before failing.
Where does this fit into the "old" model? Is this PE...Short Endurance? Long Endurance? Not that it really matters as it's an answer to my original question of "what should train given my current situation".
The reason I asked about AnPow originally is that I got some good advice in the autumn which allowed me to loosely frame my winter's activities on those concepts. Considering the number of days I've averaged this winter (probably 1.5 sessions a week) I'm quite happy. That "plan" indicated that I should do An-Pow later on, closer to the time I'd want to be fit for routes. I've now done 4(ish) session of endurancy/long-pe type stuff (as described previously) and I feel strong on individual moves and medium sequences, and quickly getting better at full route length efforts.
All I wanted to know is "what level to train at". You seemed to suggest training at a level above my "target" route (not that I have one, but for the sake of argument lets assume a medium length, non-cruxy F8a). I would argue that if it's above that level I will only be able to do shorter sequences. In my mind that's firmly in the PE/AnCap territory (15-18 hard moves) which is what I've been doing for 2 months. Everyone else seems to suggest more reps with less rest at a lower level. So this baffles me more.
-
The an/aero cap/power system has always seemed to be a useful framework for coaches and for sports science geeks, but doesn't really give people an intuitive understanding of what/how to train. I've often thought that for people wanting to arrange their own training an alternative model is more useful; one which is based on how elite cyclists often describe their training season.
In this model there are two, entirely separate concepts. One is the identification of what we want to train; in climbing this could be broken down into strength, short endurance and long endurance, although there are other ways to do it. The second concept is to separate your training into "base" phases and "quality" phases.
For base stuff most reps are completed but rests are short and reps are high. For quality work most reps are to failure but rest is long and reps are low. At the start of a cycle most of the work will be base, with a few "quality" sessions thrown in. Towards the end of the cycle this is reversed. The base phase is around 2/3 of a cycle, the quality phase is around 1/3rd.
How does this map into specific exercises? There are many options, but one set of exercises would be
Strength
Base phase - dead hanging "anderson style" or repeaters
Quality phase - Chris Webb Parson's Max Hangs. Lopez protocol. Campusing.
Short endurance
Trained on 12-20 move circuits. Mix it up a bit so you do a range of circuit lengths.
Base Phase (aka ancap):
3 blocks of 4 reps. Rest between reps of order climbing time. ~10m between blocks. Complete most (not all) reps.
Quality Phase (aka anpow):
1 block of 4 reps. ~10m between reps. At your limit!
Long endurance
As for short endurance but on circuits of 35-60 moves. Again, mix it up a bit.
The base phase would be aerocap work, the quality phase aeropow.
I don't think this kind of training is as effective as one based around energy systems and a proper understanding of the adaptation times for each, but as an easy to understand system, I think this would get most people a long way. The beauty of the base/quality model is that it is fairly easy to generalise to other exercises to get the level right.
The difficulty of deciding whether to prioritise short endurance (ancap/pow) or long endurance (aerocap/pow) is also not addressed, but you're probably best off giving £100 to the nice folk at http://latticetraining.com/performance-analysis/.
-
Pete - I agree totally with you about the lack of clarity in the an/aero/cap/pow description of training. Too many people keep asking "what is aeropow" for anyone to disagree.
I quite like the way you break down your training but what your model lacks is the base/quality distinction. To take your power endurance training as an example. Your description doesn't tell me if I should be completing all reps (as I would during ancap, or base training early in my cycle) or going balls out and giving max efforts on every rep (anpow, or quality work). Historically, people have mostly done the latter. This works, but is non-optimal. This big advance of the an/aero/cap/pow model is realising that the base work is really useful; it's just that I don't think the language used to describe it is as clear as a base/quality description.
-
Ah..... just read through this thread and what I need to do is damn well sit down and write something out for everyone to use as a resource to get these training intensities.
Crap! Ok.... For my help, could a few people describe what you're wanting and I'll put something together. Is it the intensities and feelings of the trainings? The amount of moves you'd want to do for each in total work blocks? Which one you'd want to work for lengths of routes/boulders?
I'll do my best to create something that's simple, brief and compliments the good work done by Alex so far. :)
-
Hi Tom,
What exactly is a rep?
in layman terms please
Thanks,
-
No one can fault natural curiousity of things such as training (without it this board wouldn't exist).
Paul - I get all of that (do you sense a 'but'). But (there you go) what you've just described is 'merely' the change in mindset and physical ability that comes when someone first gets into structured training; it isn't a mindset/physical reaction specific to any model.
I'm not suggesting it is anything more than that; I remember reading a CrossFit article (by Ripptoe - what a name for a coach!) which started by saying something such as (paraphrasing heavily): "the best thing crossfit has achieved is getting olympic bars in a lot of peoples hands". Similarily I think that one of the benefits of the 'Capacity' model is that it's got a fair portion of the UK sport climbing scene to think objectively about their strengths and weaknesses and what's required of them for their intended route. Even if it's not the best model, that can't be a bad thing?
I do have doubts about its usefulness for the vast majority of people operating in the 7th and low 8th grades. From what I can tell from posts on ukb and talking to people at the crag, getting the exercises right for ancap/pow/aerepow appears to confuse as many people as it helps. I don't think you need to focus on fine-tuning your energy systems that much to climb up to 8a/8b.
Why though? If it's what's needed to change their mindset as you put it... Again, your observation could say as much about the varied types of sport-routes you can get for any given grade than a training regime (how many ways can you skin a F8a?).
I also wonder how much of this is led by fashion/personality.
I'm sceptical when I see one person making gains, less so when I see two, even less so as this trend continues etc. With the same thought in mind I'm interested to see if Shauna's coach can pull it out of the bag with Gracie and Leah (i.e. is it just genetics or does he know [or apply] something we don't?). Also, is fashion the right word here (it seems like a term being used a little towards the Sheffield brigade :ras: ); perhaps people merely think it's the best SCIENCE available?
...and Stu, that's just as baffling as a regime!
Guy - someone who sells things and usually drives an Audi.
-
Guy - someone who sells things and usually drives an Audi.
so is gang starr's 'just to get a rep' about needing a regional sales operative to guide him through the coming seasons new line?
-
Pete - I agree totally with you about the lack of clarity in the an/aero/cap/pow description of training. Too many people keep asking "what is aeropow" for anyone to disagree.
I quite like the way you break down your training but what your model lacks is the base/quality distinction. To take your power endurance training as an example. Your description doesn't tell me if I should be completing all reps (as I would during ancap, or base training early in my cycle) or going balls out and giving max efforts on every rep (anpow, or quality work). Historically, people have mostly done the latter. This works, but is non-optimal. This big advance of the an/aero/cap/pow model is realising that the base work is really useful; it's just that I don't think the language used to describe it is as clear as a base/quality description.
Agreed. Although my example is only a brief overview on a ukb forum, I wasn't trying to go into detail. In reality I do split my training into roughly the two concepts you mention by having a base phase of x-number of weeks (depending on overall goals - long routes or short / trad or sport), with a couple of harder sesh's thrown in.
That said - this year I'm experimenting with not doing any base aero work at all and just having a 'bouldering phase' consisting of short-medium prob plus short board problems, transitioning into longer problems (topsy-turvy to the usual sequence I know). Reason being that most years I'd normally winter climb until March and never have a bouldering season. This year I was injured at the start of winter and chose to not winter climb so I could have a bouldering season in early spring for the first time in ages.
I am convinced about the overall utility of getting lots of base followed by 'quality'/hard-short PE/power.
But.. for specific goals I don't think it matters one bit, provided you're of a certain level (can't be more specific than that) and the goal isn't stupidly endurance-based.
Your cycling comparison could be examined in terms of exactly what physical work cyclists need to do in their events and training. Training duration/event duration, number of leg reps, size of muscle group used, split between aerobic and anaerobic work (each type of event/inclination obviously slightly different, just like climbs - perhaps hill work most relevant to climbing?).
Cycling event duration is far longer than time required to complete a route. # of leg reps much higher than # of forearm contractions required on a route. Muscle group (quads, hams, calfs) way larger than forearms. Climbing's finger strength element isn't represented in cycling so there isn't a comparable element in their training.
So.. possibly scale down cycling energy systems to something 'climbing scale' for the typical demands of an 15-25m 8b route.. or whatever. Suggests to me that a good deal of typical climbing doesn't require a great amount of base work to be done in training.
But I accept I'll be able to do font 7C on a Saturday then get pumped shitless on a french 6c on Sunday.. until I train fitness for 4 weeks when I'll suddenly go up to able to climb 8b again!
How sustainable that is the further up the difficulty scale you go is another interesting question. Is it possible to have good strength and power but pathetic fitness until just before you need it, and then get it and be able to do 9a?
-
The worrying thing is that you were pumped at the first bolt :lol:
-
That one was 6c+ give me some credit ::)
-
The worrying thing is that you were pumped at the first bolt :lol:
Been there...
-
Pete; it sounds to me like you confuse "base" work with stamina work.
The point is to decouple the concept of base/quality phases from the actual skill being trained.
Different sports/climbers/goals will want to train strength, short endurance and long endurance with a different balance but all can benefit from the base:quality split.
-
...and Stu, that's just as baffling as a regime!
I'd be very surprised if you still thought that after giving it some time to sink in. I can't imagine someone being confused about whether they're training long or short endurance, or whether they are doing base training or quality work, in the same way they do with an/aero/cap/pow.
-
Well I'm confused about when to do them / how to mix them.
Although at the level I'm at "more of anything" will probably still make a difference.
-
Ah..... just read through this thread and what I need to do is damn well sit down and write something out for everyone to use as a resource to get these training intensities.
Crap! Ok.... For my help, could a few people describe what you're wanting and I'll put something together. Is it the intensities and feelings of the trainings? The amount of moves you'd want to do for each in total work blocks? Which one you'd want to work for lengths of routes/boulders?
I'll do my best to create something that's simple, brief and compliments the good work done by Alex so far. :)
For me, having only briefly looked over all of these different ways of training fitness, its mainly how I should be feeling during the various sessions that I find tricky. I have seen it described somewhere in levels but I didn't feel too clear on what each level should feel like.
-
Pete; it sounds to me like you confuse "base" work with stamina work.
The point is to decouple the concept of base/quality phases from the actual skill being trained.
Could you briefly explain why it sounds to you like I confuse 'base' with stamina work?
If it helps, I understand 'stamina work' in a climbing context to mean the ability to give good quality close to max efforts on either routes or boulders, repeatedly throughout an extended training session or day at the crag.
I understand 'base' work to mean relatively* long duration of relatively low-intensity climbing (for routes) with relatively short rest time, or many boulder problems at a relatively low difficulty (e.g. onsight level and below) with relatively short rest time.
*relative to my 'short/long PE' and 'power' sessions.(your 'quality' phase)
-
Another thought on the 'energy systems' model is it seems well-suited for fine-tuning the kind of fitness demanded on routes more typically found outside the UK, particularly in the harder grades.
UK sport routes seem to me to typically demand more of an emphasis on finger strength, power and short-to-mid duration PE. So AnPow and AeroPow in the model(?) - the systems people seem to be asking the most about how to train.
-
Ok, I won't go through trying to convince people that training with energy systems to compliment basic strength and conditioning of the forearm, upper arm and major climbing specific muscles is the way... I can see why some people think it is and why others think it isn't! I see it, but then I've worked with a lot of people over many years, so I can't expect others to. There will always be some failures, some extreme successes, but mainly (I hope) more climbers out there that understand that hard work put in consistently in an intelligent way really does pay.
Right. Energy systems.
AeroCap
Feeling: You're aiming for anything from very "un-pumped" to "just about in control" and this will always vary according to time of the year and whether you're well adapted to this type of training.
Aim: Increase in blood supply network, improvement in metabolic function (production of ATP aerobically), increase usage of oxygen in muscle.
Typical mistakes: Spending too much time pumped, never altering intensities of AeroCap training, doing too much when in "peak phase", doing too much when AeroCap is already high.
AeroPower
Feeling: You're aiming for anything from very "pumped" to "pumped/powered out" and this will massively vary according to level of base training that was applied. The key of this is to work mainly around the "event distance" that's associated with your goals. Make it more and more specific the closer to get to the trip.
Aim: Increase the maximum % of your aerobic capacity that you can maintain for your event distance (10m, 25m, 50m!). A poor aerobic power will be that climber that can only operate aerobically when they're at a reasonably low intensity i.e. not too close (or above) to blood lactate threshold and typically what people would think of as being "I love those routes where I'm a bit uncomfortable and can shake my way up" rather than "I love it when I have to go full bore for 20 moves, with no rest but nothing desperately hard". Most people fail on this training as they're not prepared to focus on quality enough. It's fairly unpleasant training and needs to be right at the tip of what you can do.
Typical mistakes: Not developing base AeroCap, not altering training sessions enough, not using "event distance" training in complete sets but also broken sets, not training on ground/terrain specific to goals, not working at high enough intensity. Mixing it with AnCap too late in the season is always a mistake as well.
I hope I've kept it reasonably simple and people find that useful :)
-
(you might as well do the same for the ANs too :shrug:)
-
I have found the series of articles by Katherine Scchirmacher helpful in understanding training endurance; I think she does a very good job of relating the energy to systems to when she's using them and how that feels.
www.lovetoclimb.co.uk/rock_climbing_articles/13/Training%3A+Endurance
www.lovetoclimb.co.uk/rock_climbing_articles/17/Training%3A+Power+endurance
There's a complete list of all she's written here
www.lovetoclimb.co.uk/rock_climbing_articles/
-
So.. possibly scale down cycling energy systems to something 'climbing scale' for the typical demands of an 15-25m 8b route.. or whatever. Suggests to me that a good deal of typical climbing doesn't require a great amount of base work to be done in training.
Hi Pete,
Your later definition of "base" shows that you do get it. It was the quote above that raised warning signs for me.
There's good reason to always do a good chunk of base training, regardless of the sport. The type of of sport you do would dictate the balance between long and short endurance, but not the division into base and the quality phases.
To be quite frank, these terms are just rebranding of Tom's methodology, with
An = short endurance
Aero = long endurance
Cap = base
Pow = quality.
The only reason I bothered to raise it, was that I thought these terms mapped more plainly into the type of exercises that would train them and therefore be easier to grasp. The response suggests that
a) this isn't true
b) the real problem people have self-applying toms methods are setting the level.
I am pretty damn convinced Tom's structure works well, but this thread is probably not the place to set out wonkish sports science arguments why.
Instead, and since we have Tom here and contributing; I'd be interested in whether he thinks the failure rate is a useful metric for setting the level for all these exercises. I'm thinking particular about circuits or laps on boulders. For example, consider the following scenarios:
"This is an aerocap exercise, so I'd better not get so pumped i fall off"
"This is an ancap exercise. I should succeed on most, but perhaps not all, efforts."
"This is an/aero pow exercise. I'd better be prepared to fail on most or all of my efforts and my eyes are going to be on stalks".
-
I like Katherine's articles as well, but she often mixes up base/quality (cap/pow) exercises or ideas in there, which is not that useful.
My personal belief is that much of Tom's success comes from getting people to do the cap/pow style exercises in the right ratios and the right times. There's loads more to it of course, including tailoring training to goals and a very clever way of assessing weaknesses, but I think if most climbers could get the cap/pow thing that would be the thing that made the biggest difference to their climbing.
-
Instead, and since we have Tom here and contributing; I'd be interested in whether he thinks the failure rate is a useful metric for setting the level for all these exercises. I'm thinking particular about circuits or laps on boulders. For example, consider the following scenarios:
"This is an aerocap exercise, so I'd better not get so pumped i fall off"
"This is an ancap exercise. I should succeed on most, but perhaps not all, efforts."
"This is an/aero pow exercise. I'd better be prepared to fail on most or all of my efforts and my eyes are going to be on stalks".
There are some basic rules, but like anything where you can't see inside the engine/computer/black box (read human body) you have to take some factors into account. For example, a climber's current form will affect the feeling and also the history of training they have (short routes, long routes, bouldering) and finally to some extent the level to which they feel comfortable pushing the margins of physical exertion. I see a lot of boulderers being fairly poor at this.
Also, you absolutely have to keep coming back to the simple question:
What am I trying to change? What adaptation am I hoping occurs through this training I'm about to do?
1. AeroCap - no pump to pretty darn pumped. The key is "aerobic" and therefore if your rate of demand of energy (ATP) is too high on the climbing, then guess what.... you ain't working aerobically! Keep it light-to-moderate and break into sets however you want.
2. AnCap - power out. The key here is you're stressing the "anaerobic system" to produce as much lactate as possible. Not enough intensity = aerobic. Thus no stress of anaerobic system. Stress the anaerobic and don't give it any recovery time = get pumped, can't recover = subsequent sets have to be performed at lower intensity = going back to stress aerobic system.
3. AeroPow - pumped and powered out. You're asking the muscle to operate at max % of aerobic capacity for longer (generally). Don't stress the duration or the intensity = poor/no adaptation. Do too much at event distance (i.e. your 25m circuit) then you're again not that efficiently stressing the system. Do too much = more recovery time needed and can't focus on concurrently working strength/power/recruitment
4. AnPow - pumped and more powered out. You're asking the muscle to operate at max % of anaerobic capacity for longer (generally). If the intensity is too low = stressing aerobic system = poor adaptation. If rests are too short or work isn't put into workable blocks = high level of pump = climber has to lower intensity. Highly anaerobic work can only be carried out for a limited time... thus if your training session on this can go on for too long, you ain't working hard enough!
So to summarise.... keep thinking about what you want to achieve. Is the training stressing that thing? Are you sticking to the overload principal.
If in doubt, always ask Barrows or Stu. They cover every possible scenario - strong, tall, weak, short, handsome, not so handsome. ;D
-
That's helped clear things up Tommy, thanks.
3. AeroPow - pumped and powered out. You're asking the muscle to operate at max % of aerobic capacity for longer (generally). Don't stress the duration or the intensity = poor/no adaptation.
This was really my first question - how to nail the intensity. Just back from a TCA session - my forearms have just about loosened up enough to type.
It consisted of: general warm up.
Then, circuit board reps on the 15 degree board.
1. ~6b x 40 moves
2. 6c+/ x 37 moves(I originally o/s it without too much stress, but was medium pumped.
3. Same circuit but pausing every 5 moves to "place gear" / clip draws"
4. O/S attempt at a 40 move 7a+ fell off @ move 18
5. O/S attempt from move 18 to 40 ok
6. Full lap the 7a+ - needed to shake out at any poor rest going, pumped/powered out by end.
7. lap of another ~7a+ (one I onsighted a month ago but cannot lap due to some droppable moves which I'm going to change up for less droppable moves...)
8. 6c+ again
9. 6c+ again
10. 6c+ again
Rests were roughly equal to climbing time, the last 3 reps were a bit fighty at the end.
Do too much at event distance (i.e. your 25m circuit) then you're again not that efficiently stressing the system.
So you need to do some harder stuff @ 15m and some easier @ 35m?
-
I was about to ask a similar question.
In my case, I want to be able to climb for roughly two minutes in a roof. With getting the route wired it could easily go down to 1'45" or so, at least according to all the videos of repeats.
I've been working with 10' on 10' off, going up and down my campusboard with feet on the ground - as Stu and others suggested in another topic - achieving and then maintaining a good level of pump for the whole duration. It seems to me that this is pure AeroCap, or maybe the Base phase of aerobic training.
Then, more recently, I've done a few sessions on a 15 degrees campusboard with foot jibs, going up and down on good rungs, managing laps of 4'. I this is more AeroPow or the Quality phase. Am I right?
Question: considering that the event duration is 2', is the base phase still needed? Are the 10' laps still beneficial because they "teach" the muscles to work aerobically better than the 4' laps?
Cheers.
-
1. AeroCap - no pump to pretty darn pumped. The key is "aerobic" and therefore if your rate of demand of energy (ATP) is too high on the climbing, then guess what.... you ain't working aerobically! Keep it light-to-moderate and break into sets however you want.
2. AnCap - power out. The key here is you're stressing the "anaerobic system" to produce as much lactate as possible. Not enough intensity = aerobic. Thus no stress of anaerobic system. Stress the anaerobic and don't give it any recovery time = get pumped, can't recover = subsequent sets have to be performed at lower intensity = going back to stress aerobic system.
3. AeroPow - pumped and powered out. You're asking the muscle to operate at max % of aerobic capacity for longer (generally). Don't stress the duration or the intensity = poor/no adaptation. Do too much at event distance (i.e. your 25m circuit) then you're again not that efficiently stressing the system. Do too much = more recovery time needed and can't focus on concurrently working strength/power/recruitment
4. AnPow - pumped and more powered out. You're asking the muscle to operate at max % of anaerobic capacity for longer (generally). If the intensity is too low = stressing aerobic system = poor adaptation. If rests are too short or work isn't put into workable blocks = high level of pump = climber has to lower intensity. Highly anaerobic work can only be carried out for a limited time... thus if your training session on this can go on for too long, you ain't working hard enough!
This is the best/most useful explanation of these four terms I've read. Excellent.
-
This is the best/most useful explanation of these four terms I've read. Excellent.
Explain to me like I'm a two year old the difference between AnPow and AeroPow?
-
Or tell me to bugger off and use my brain. I guess I thought I had a vague idea but not sure exactly what difference is between pumped and powered out. You're asking the muscle to operate at max % of aerobic capacity for longer (generally) and - pumped and more powered out. You're asking the muscle to operate at max % of anaerobic capacity for longer (generally).
Edit: I thought it said anaerobic both times. Ignore me.
-
This is the best/most useful explanation of these four terms I've read. Excellent.
Explain to me like I'm a two year old the difference between AnPow and AeroPow?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4aUzwvUEsr0/TkvVMa4mrdI/AAAAAAAAD-g/v_IxF3Kp68E/s1600/angry+aspergers+child.jpg)
(http://motherhoodlater.com/newsletter/img/Angry_Evan.jpg)
-
Explain to me like I'm a two year old the difference between AnPow and AeroPow?
The portmanteaus don't help...
Anaerobic (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+anaerobic) Power
Aerobic (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+aerobic) Power
-
This is the best/most useful explanation of these four terms I've read. Excellent.
Explain to me like I'm a two year old the difference between AnPow and AeroPow?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4aUzwvUEsr0/TkvVMa4mrdI/AAAAAAAAD-g/v_IxF3Kp68E/s1600/angry+aspergers+child.jpg)
(http://motherhoodlater.com/newsletter/img/Angry_Evan.jpg)
Well that's the best most useful explanation I've seen!
-
:D
-
I was about to ask a similar question.
In my case, I want to be able to climb for roughly two minutes in a roof. With getting the route wired it could easily go down to 1'45" or so, at least according to all the videos of repeats.
I've been working with 10' on 10' off, going up and down my campusboard with feet on the ground - as Stu and others suggested in another topic - achieving and then maintaining a good level of pump for the whole duration. It seems to me that this is pure AeroCap, or maybe the Base phase of aerobic training.
Then, more recently, I've done a few sessions on a 15 degrees campusboard with foot jibs, going up and down on good rungs, managing laps of 4'. I this is more AeroPow or the Quality phase. Am I right?
Question: considering that the event duration is 2', is the base phase still needed? Are the 10' laps still beneficial because they "teach" the muscles to work aerobically better than the 4' laps?
Cheers.
Bump.
-
Nibs; yes, the base phase is still useful.
If you want to get as much effort out of an energy system as possible there are many physiological changes need to occur. Some of these take a while and respond best to base training. Some are quick to occur and need higher quality training. The combination leads to peak performance.
The duration of your event is more relevant for deciding whether to focus on anaerobic or aerobic work. The interplay between these two is more complex than you might think, and good aerobic fitness is useful even for short efforts. Getting the balance right is tricky.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So stop looking for excuses and do your boring aerobic training ;)
Also take a look at the article below. It explains how the aerobic system intervenes from the beginning and quickly becomes prevalent.. Not sure if it applies to climbing though
http://www.8weeksout.com/2011/10/10/research-review-energy-systems-interval-training-rsa/
Inviato dal mio Nexus 7 utilizzando Tapatalk
-
I was about to ask a similar question.
In my case, I want to be able to climb for roughly two minutes in a roof. With getting the route wired it could easily go down to 1'45" or so, at least according to all the videos of repeats.
I've been working with 10' on 10' off, going up and down my campusboard with feet on the ground - as Stu and others suggested in another topic - achieving and then maintaining a good level of pump for the whole duration. It seems to me that this is pure AeroCap, or maybe the Base phase of aerobic training.
Then, more recently, I've done a few sessions on a 15 degrees campusboard with foot jibs, going up and down on good rungs, managing laps of 4'. I this is more AeroPow or the Quality phase. Am I right?
Question: considering that the event duration is 2', is the base phase still needed? Are the 10' laps still beneficial because they "teach" the muscles to work aerobically better than the 4' laps?
Cheers.
Think of it like this Nibs:
Your 1min 45 - 2 min project demands that your forearm works both aerobically AND anaerobically. At that kind of length then it's probably more heavily weighted to the anaerobic side (depending on speed of movements).
Therefore:
You want to improve the capacity of both the aerobic AND anaerobic system to produce energy.
Therefore:
In base, work the training that will do this for you (obviously putting more focus on the one that you're poorer at in the first place) and get you to the levels that you need.
Finally:
When approaching project time, you want to "fine tune" these two systems (this is your AeroPow / AnPow) to get the most out of the system for your event duration (2 mins). As your event is 2 mins I would work in the "fine tuning stage" the following:
AeroPow (moves as hard / bit harder than proj) - 2 mins in 1 section blocks, and 4 section blocks. Keep making the rest smaller and smaller.
AnPow (moves quite a bit harder than proj) - 2 mins in 8 section blocks. Keep making the rest smaller and smaller.
Whilst doing this, DO NOT continue to hammer the capacity training. ;D. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Hope that helps!
-
:bow: :bow: :bow:
-
Hi Tom,
Thanks, this is really useful stuff.
One question: I just relistened to your podcast on TrainingBeta, you mention doing high "aerobic capacity" which is 20 move circuits, rest equal to the climbing time, 5 reps. Is this really aerocap or is it more aeropow? Based on Barrows' training pdf it sounds more aeropow?
Cheers