UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => diet, training and injuries => Topic started by: galpinos on November 11, 2020, 11:02:41 am
-
In an effort to mix up the 4 week lockdown hanging protocol, I am considering introducing these.
Any experiences, any good, worthwhile etc or just do max hangs or max hangs and density hangs?
Any help much appreciated.
-
Never heard of this guy or the fingerboard plan he has prescribed.
This thread should have been called, classic n00b post that should get shut down immediately but I know you'll all just use google and do the reading.
This is the boring article that i have read: https://www.trainingbeta.com/the-simplest-finger-training-program/
Why are you only 'considering' introducing it? Whats the reservation?
Sounds alright as an idea, especially as a build up towards one arm hangs. I wonder if it would only be beneficial to a relatively narrow band of climbers; those who can't quite one arm hang an edge already...? So pretty much very competent but not semi-pro.
Why don't you just try it and report back...
-
In an effort to mix up the 4 week lockdown hanging protocol, I am considering introducing these.
Any experiences, any good, worthwhile etc or just do max hangs or max hangs and density hangs?
Any help much appreciated.
With the recruitment pulls, why not just do one arm max hangs with a pulley for assistance? That's effectively what they are, for people who don't want to set up a pulley.
He's an interesting guy with some interesting stuff going on but I wonder if some of it is just a bit too academic to be practical.
-
Is this anything to do with scoring at the Job Centre?
And the word is prescribed
-
First of all, Galpinos, thank you for the link :2thumbsup:
I am confused though, having read his article, that you're separating out the Recruitment Pulls, which are part of his protocol overall.
I've trained what you might call "Recruitment Pulls" in a number of other ways. You might find this useful/interesting to try.
Put a set of bathroom scales under the fingerboard, and conduct the RPs as described. This way, you get to monitor progress.
A way of working a yielding isometric, is to give assistance with the other hand, say on the doorframe, to pull to a given load - e.g. body weight minus 2.5st on the scales - and then reduce the assistance while attempting to maintain the figure on the scales. Works in a similar way to Chris Webb P's protocol, if you're familiar with that.
Agree with Cowboy about why not try it and report back though. We'd like to know. Would be good to have some feedback ;D :2thumbsup:
Importantly though, yes, this programme is useful for climbers of all abilities, as it looks at the way that load is applied to the edge - not just what bracket of performance you might consider yourself to be in, i.e. not about whether you can hang one-handed or not. I'm stronger, but heavier than I used to be.
I'll say thanks for introducing the article in that context, if that seems appropriate ;)
Some other things to consider.
Try working different selections of fingers on a given edge. Working front three/back three (two handed, or Recruitment Pulls with the scales) can give you some significant carry overs to four finger strength. Also useful for the other parts of the protocol as described.
It's amazing just how much harder it can be to do fingertip pull-ups with three fingers rather than four.
In the article, there's mention of hypertrophy having a negative impact on endurance. There's research to indicate that this probably isn't true. Sorry about not referencing.
What I like about the article, is it's emphasis on applying principles, rather than just coming up with a range of "new" exercises.
-
With the recruitment pulls, why not just do one arm max hangs with a pulley for assistance? That's effectively what they are, for people who don't want to set up a pulley.
He's an interesting guy with some interesting stuff going on but I wonder if some of it is just a bit too academic to be practical.
Anti, yes, you could do the RPs with a pulley. That would also give a good measurable reference point with the amount of assistance. I think it's a potential problem with the "simplicity" of Tyler Nelson's protocol - the difficulty in monitoring progress - but his description of Recruitment Pulls focuses on the way that contraction and load is applied.
It might seem academic, but this is the important detail, differentiating between max hangs (and other hangs) and the purpose of RPs as described.
Something I've thought about investing more time in exploring, is the effectiveness of Recruitment Pulls at a much lower load level:- looking at rate of contraction as being more significant than level of load.
-
Never heard of this guy or the fingerboard plan he has prescribed.
This thread should have been called, classic n00b post that should get shut down immediately but I know you'll all just use google and do the reading.
This is the boring article that i have read: https://www.trainingbeta.com/the-simplest-finger-training-program/
Why are you only 'considering' introducing it? Whats the reservation?
Sounds alright as an idea, especially as a build up towards one arm hangs. I wonder if it would only be beneficial to a relatively narrow band of climbers; those who can't quite one arm hang an edge already...? So pretty much very competent but not semi-pro.
Why don't you just try it and report back...
Why the rude response to Galpinos' question? Really doesn't seem justified. Yes he could just try it and report back but he's asking if anyone else has experience of it first, which I know for a fact a few members of this forum have!
Plus the article he's referring to has been discussed previously on here I'm sure.
Personally the so called "simplest" finger training plan sounds pretty damn complex to me, so I've never tried it. I don't really see what you'd get from recruitment pulls that you wouldn't from 5s max hangs, either weighted two arm or one arm with weight off.
-
Never heard of this guy or the fingerboard plan he has prescribed.
This thread should have been called, classic n00b post that should get shut down immediately but I know you'll all just use google and do the reading.
This is the boring article that i have read: https://www.trainingbeta.com/the-simplest-finger-training-program/
Why are you only 'considering' introducing it? Whats the reservation?
Sounds alright as an idea, especially as a build up towards one arm hangs. I wonder if it would only be beneficial to a relatively narrow band of climbers; those who can't quite one arm hang an edge already...? So pretty much very competent but not semi-pro.
Why don't you just try it and report back...
I totally agree with Bradders - I mean, if you can't discuss training for bouldering on the training sub-forum of a bouldering website I don't know what you can talk about...
Galpinos: I can't offer any personal experience of these I'm afraid, but with that caveat established, I won't let it stop me from spouting what I think :) After solely fingerboard during the first lockdown I had no contact strength (just to make sure, by contact strength I'm referring to the speed of contraction when you grab a hold). This may be from doing lots of repeaters and long (i.e. 30s) hangs for two months. I suspect that even 10s hangs would not be sufficient to maintain or improve contact strength though, as you still load them gradually. Personally I would rather train contact strength by climbing because I think there are other factors which you can't improve on a fingerboard, such as accuracy when you're slapping, timing the deadpoint, and catching the hold at the right moment. However, whilst wall's are closed, I can imagine the benefit of doing these to try and maintain your contact strength if you don't have regular access to actual climbing.
-
I can't comment on the efficacy of recruitment pulls. I listened to that trainingbeta podcast, read the article, and got confused as to what each of his three protocols comprised and how they helped. When it comes to my time, I'm conservative and have Warren Buffett tendencies "never invest in a business you don't understand". So, I figured I'd prefer to stick to what made sense to my simple brain - as much weight as possible, for numbers of seconds I could count on my fingers; mixing up hold sizes and grips for variety.
But I definitely agree with reeve that fingerboarding does little for contact strength. Big increases in fingerboard performance only transfer very slightly to outdoors.
For me, it's like normal max hangs result in "laboratory" fingerstrength: the highest possible under perfect, controlled conditions. It seens to translate poorly to hitting irregular shaped holds, at speed, and off balance.
I've just started using my woodie again (after a lengthy hiatus involving a loony neighbour and work commitments, and enabled by a need to Covid isolate) and it was dismaying how bad my contact strength was, despite best ever fingerboarding - I tend to climb very statically outdoors, so my lack of contact strength wasn't as evident. But it's also been heartening how fast contact strength seems to develop with exposure to desperately slappy climbing (presumably a neurological adaptation, rather than physical strengthening). So, if someone can't access a woodie or campus board, I can see how exploring any protocol that targets contact strength would be worth a try, and more effective than pursuing more max hang strength for diminishing "real world" gains.
-
The difference between max hangs and RP's. Recruitment pulls are a form of overcoming isometric vs. max hangs as a yielding isometric. Subtle difference, but there it is. What I like about them is that there are disproportionately safe to do compared with max hangs. if you're tired or not fully recovered from a climbing or previous session and try to do max hangs(or use the scale) then you're likely to have your ego get in the way. RP's are simply "try hard" which is naturally relative to those other factors. You do what you can.
Re moose and Reeve: I think t depends on strengths/weaknesses and style. I have very very good contact strength. BAsically if i can hold onto a hold, I can hit it fast/dynamically and still hold it. So for me, FB work is incredibly helpful. The raw strength is my area of weakness. I rarely climb statically, controlled yes, but "static" never.
I found RP's a very effective way of adding a bit of max pull and max finger work at the end of climbing sessions, while feeling safe doing them. I would never be comfortable doing max hangs at the end of a session.
-
I don't really see what you'd get from recruitment pulls that you wouldn't from 5s max hangs, either weighted two arm or one arm with weight off.
With the recruitment pulls (after the 1 sec build up) you are applying 100% force for the duration of the pull. For max hangs you are only applying full force just before failure.
Edit - Sasquatch just beat me to it
-
The difference between max hangs and RP's. Recruitment pulls are a form of overcoming isometric vs. max hangs as a yielding isometric. Subtle difference, but there it is. What I like about them is that there are disproportionately safe to do compared with max hangs. if you're tired or not fully recovered from a climbing or previous session and try to do max hangs(or use the scale) then you're likely to have your ego get in the way. RP's are simply "try hard" which is naturally relative to those other factors. You do what you can.
Re the scales - I work several different things using the scales, what you might call "max hangs", Recruitment Pulls, warming up, injured fingers etc.
I'm not sure I would put RPs opposite max hangs though, although agree with the overcoming/yielding distinction. I'm not sure RPs are a stand alone loading/strength training exercise. I see them as something akin to "strides" in running training:
"Strides are 15-to-30-second bursts of speed up to the fastest pace you can go while staying totally smooth and comfortable (it's not a sprint)." ..etc
It's a way of"bringing everything together" , emphasising output without the stress levels of normal loading .. and yes, the problems associated with yielding when tired!
In case anyone's interested:
https://youtu.be/1i2ZPpXtuOk
-
The difference between max hangs and RP's. Recruitment pulls are a form of overcoming isometric vs. max hangs as a yielding isometric.
[...]
I found RP's a very effective way of adding a bit of max pull and max finger work at the end of climbing sessions, while feeling safe doing them. I would never be comfortable doing max hangs at the end of a session.
My intuition would be that them feeling safe probably just means you're not really trying hard... which seems to somewhat defeat the point of using overcoming isometrics in my mind? I do agree w.r.t. ego not getting in the way etc, but you could just not write any of your weights down and use RPE (say 8/10) and probably achieve the same effect. I guess this comes down to individual psychology more than than anything else.
With the recruitment pulls (after the 1 sec build up) you are applying 100% force for the duration of the pull. For max hangs you are only applying full force just before failure.
You mean effort, not force.
RE: contact strength - you'd be better off jumping to holds or doing doubles on the fingerboard*. I don't think these "recruitment pulls" would lead to a significantly different outcome on contact strength vs 5 second max hangs, if anything the time taken ramping up to max would make them less relevant.
*old school inspiration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhWaJPEoJzQ
-
I’m lost on the distinction between effort and force but I’m sure you’re right.
Re contact strength his complementary exercise of “speed pulls” was a magic bullet for me earlier this year as I’m a naturally poor recruiter.
-
I’m a naturally poor recruiter.
Says the recruitment professional
-
I’m lost on the distinction between effort and force but I’m sure you’re right.
Re contact strength his complementary exercise of “speed pulls” was a magic bullet for me earlier this year as I’m a naturally poor recruiter.
Hold onto two jugs until your eyes bulge, your forearms feel like they're popping and you're just about to drop off. Thats maximum effort - but minimum force as you're putting your weight on the holds via two hands over a large surface area (jugs).
Hold on to a 20mm edge one handed for (5-10 secs) and you may end up giving your max effort - but your force, how much you're driving into the hold through your fingers - is much much greater.
Either that or its some star wars jedi shit.
Steep board or campus (foot on or off) shirley is great for contact strength?
-
Steep board or campus (foot on or off) shirley is great for contact strength?
That’s the theory and obviously I’ve been on both over the years but the most obvious and immediate recruitment gains I’ve experienced that immediately translated to rock (throwing for a crimp on Bens) was from doing a few sessions of speed pulls at the start of the year.
-
I’m a naturally poor recruiter.
Says the recruitment professional
;D I was magnificent in that respect
-
I’m lost on the distinction between effort and force but I’m sure you’re right.
With a max hang (or any other hang with feet off the floor) your force stays constant through the hang*. Otherwise you would fall off. So if I hang bodyweight on an edge, that arm/fingers will be exerting a force equivalent to approx. 750N (i.e. 75kg); at 2 seconds this is <100% effort, at maybe 5 or 10 seconds or whenever, this becomes 100% effort, then >100% and so I fail. So force is constant but effort varies during the hang.
* Some subtleties at start/end of hang that I've ignored and that would be complex
On an edge with knees under a bar, or on an edge that's too small to hang 1-armed, you could try to pull down with 100% effort for the entire duration, but the force exerted would not be constant. So at 2s I might be at 100% effort and 800N (I wish), at 5s I might be at 100% effort but I'm fatiguing so now force is only 750N, by 15s I'm still putting in 100% effort but I can only exert 600N etc... so effort is constant (in theory) but force declines as I get fatigued.
I’m a naturally poor recruiter.
Says the recruitment professional
:lol: Hope that was deliberate Simon?
-
Steep board or campus (foot on or off) shirley is great for contact strength?
That’s the theory and obviously I’ve been on both over the years but the most obvious and immediate recruitment gains I’ve experienced that immediately translated to rock (throwing for a crimp on Bens) was from doing a few sessions of speed pulls at the start of the year.
6 months of training a couple of times a week on a 50 deg board (where you have to lunge for everything..) has improved mine no end...
-
RE: contact strength - you'd be better off jumping to holds or doing doubles on the fingerboard*. I don't think these "recruitment pulls" would lead to a significantly different outcome on contact strength vs 5 second max hangs, if anything the time taken ramping up to max would make them less relevant.
Agree with barrows. Plus I find little sequences on the fb are much less boring than hangs (though prob more risky injury wise). I've got a bm2000 on one side of a doorway and a lattice rung on the other, and have an unfinished project from lockdown 1 of 6 moves between the lower levels of both that I'm genuinely quite psyched for...
-
I think if you are going to get involved in the recruitment pulls you should probably go with the whole TN approach.
Personally I found small gains in the recruitment pulls themselves but saw bigger gains in the density hang and as a protocol, it's not massively complicated or time consuming. I actually enjoyed the velocity pulls as well.
TN provides a thorough explanation of why each part of the protocol is useful for tendon development and it seemed sensible to me.
I believe he works with a force meter so it is quantifiable but the "simple finger" protocol is intended for any punter off the street to pick up.
-
I’m lost on the distinction between effort and force but I’m sure you’re right.
Re contact strength his complementary exercise of “speed pulls” was a magic bullet for me earlier this year as I’m a naturally poor recruiter.
Alex is right there, in the distinction between effort and force.
And, I'd dispute the claim that you're "a naturally poor recruiter" ;D
The two things are linked.
I like to think of Recruitment Pulls as "accelerations". (BTW "Strides" in running are often called this).
What's significant, is how quickly you can bring what you have available, together.
A very common mistake when we're training, is that we're trying to perform - we're trying not to yield
- rather than doing the things that would actually make us stronger.
The "effort" we feel, is the result of getting weaker. The feeling is not the cause of us getting stronger, but it is an indicator of overload.
We have two things we can work on - separate from the other conditioning factors in TN's method.
We have the amount of work we can do, and the way we can apply what we have. Athletic performance has been described as the ability to respond. I think that's a very helpful way of looking at it.
When we're focusing on the effort, we're actually getting in the way of the output. We want a relaxed release of everything we have available, and RPs are how we train this.
Hard moves on a woody - as per TTs post - can be an excellent way of emphasising recruitment, as long as you target hard moves you actually do.
-
With a max hang (or any other hang with feet off the floor) your force stays constant through the hang*. Otherwise you would fall off. So if I hang bodyweight on an edge, that arm/fingers will be exerting a force equivalent to approx. 750N (i.e. 75kg); at 2 seconds this is <100% effort, at maybe 5 or 10 seconds or whenever, this becomes 100% effort, then >100% and so I fail. So force is constant but effort varies during the hang.
* Some subtleties at start/end of hang that I've ignored and that would be complex
On an edge with knees under a bar, or on an edge that's too small to hang 1-armed, you could try to pull down with 100% effort for the entire duration, but the force exerted would not be constant. So at 2s I might be at 100% effort and 800N (I wish), at 5s I might be at 100% effort but I'm fatiguing so now force is only 750N, by 15s I'm still putting in 100% effort but I can only exert 600N etc... so effort is constant (in theory) but force declines as I get fatigued.
Further to this, Tom Randall posted to the Lattice Instagram page a while ago about his measured force differences between overcoming / yielding isometrics. Counterintuitively, he claims he could produce more peak force on a 5s yielding isometric (max hang) in comparison to a 5s overcoming isometric (recruitment pull). Perhaps a placebo type effect.
-
Why the rude response to Galpinos' question? Really doesn't seem justified.
Loads going on here but ultimately it comes down to me being a bit of an arsehole etc, however I stand by this being a shit way to start a new thread.
Luckily I included a link and kick started a discussion that was hitherto being ignored.
Feel free to topic split this where I'm rounded on by all the millennial snowflakes, I outline what I was going for and make a weak case in defense of my personality.
-
With a max hang (or any other hang with feet off the floor) your force stays constant through the hang*. Otherwise you would fall off. So if I hang bodyweight on an edge, that arm/fingers will be exerting a force equivalent to approx. 750N (i.e. 75kg); at 2 seconds this is <100% effort, at maybe 5 or 10 seconds or whenever, this becomes 100% effort, then >100% and so I fail. So force is constant but effort varies during the hang.
* Some subtleties at start/end of hang that I've ignored and that would be complex
On an edge with knees under a bar, or on an edge that's too small to hang 1-armed, you could try to pull down with 100% effort for the entire duration, but the force exerted would not be constant. So at 2s I might be at 100% effort and 800N (I wish), at 5s I might be at 100% effort but I'm fatiguing so now force is only 750N, by 15s I'm still putting in 100% effort but I can only exert 600N etc... so effort is constant (in theory) but force declines as I get fatigued.
Further to this, Tom Randall posted to the Lattice Instagram page a while ago about his measured force differences between overcoming / yielding isometrics. Counterintuitively, he claims he could produce more peak force on a 5s yielding isometric (max hang) in comparison to a 5s overcoming isometric (recruitment pull). Perhaps a placebo type effect.
I see the same thing in the athletes I coach and assess. The difference was about a 10lb difference.
-
The difference between max hangs and RP's. Recruitment pulls are a form of overcoming isometric vs. max hangs as a yielding isometric.
[...]
I found RP's a very effective way of adding a bit of max pull and max finger work at the end of climbing sessions, while feeling safe doing them. I would never be comfortable doing max hangs at the end of a session.
My intuition would be that them feeling safe probably just means you're not really trying hard... which seems to somewhat defeat the point of using overcoming isometrics in my mind? I do agree w.r.t. ego not getting in the way etc, but you could just not write any of your weights down and use RPE (say 8/10) and probably achieve the same effect. I guess this comes down to individual psychology more than than anything else.
The safeness isn't from not trying hard, it's from naturally doing what you have the remaining strength left to do. In your lower post you talk about the difference in force over time for these and the max hangs. To me this is why these are safer. For me to confidently do hangs at the end of a session (not knowing the level of exhaustion/tiredness) even 8/10 could be too much. So to be able to consistently do this, you would have to re-assess every session to know what was an appropriate "safe" level to do max hangs. Or you can just to 100% effort RP's which will naturally fluctuate in force session to session, but still be 100% effort. This is also why I don't want the scale. I don't care what the number is. The RP's at end of a session are bonus.
In terms of doing a protocol during lockdown, I think RP's are probably far less important. You're not doing a hard boulder or rope session, so you can do a full FB workout instead, which would be more beneficial.
-
Re the scales - I work several different things using the scales, what you might call "max hangs", Recruitment Pulls, warming up, injured fingers etc.
I'm not sure I would put RPs opposite max hangs though, although agree with the overcoming/yielding distinction. I'm not sure RPs are a stand alone loading/strength training exercise. I see them as something akin to "strides" in running training:
"Strides are 15-to-30-second bursts of speed up to the fastest pace you can go while staying totally smooth and comfortable (it's not a sprint)." ..etc
It's a way of"bringing everything together" , emphasising output without the stress levels of normal loading .. and yes, the problems associated with yielding when tired!
I disagree that strides are equivalent to RP's, but I get what you're saying. ;D
-
The difference between max hangs and RP's. Recruitment pulls are a form of overcoming isometric vs. max hangs as a yielding isometric.
[...]
I found RP's a very effective way of adding a bit of max pull and max finger work at the end of climbing sessions, while feeling safe doing them. I would never be comfortable doing max hangs at the end of a session.
My intuition would be that them feeling safe probably just means you're not really trying hard... which seems to somewhat defeat the point of using overcoming isometrics in my mind? I do agree w.r.t. ego not getting in the way etc, but you could just not write any of your weights down and use RPE (say 8/10) and probably achieve the same effect. I guess this comes down to individual psychology more than than anything else.
The safeness isn't from not trying hard, it's from naturally doing what you have the remaining strength left to do. In your lower post you talk about the difference in force over time for these and the max hangs. To me this is why these are safer. For me to confidently do hangs at the end of a session (not knowing the level of exhaustion/tiredness) even 8/10 could be too much. So to be able to consistently do this, you would have to re-assess every session to know what was an appropriate "safe" level to do max hangs. Or you can just to 100% effort RP's which will naturally fluctuate in force session to session, but still be 100% effort. This is also why I don't want the scale. I don't care what the number is. The RP's at end of a session are bonus.
In terms of doing a protocol during lockdown, I think RP's are probably far less important. You're not doing a hard boulder or rope session, so you can do a full FB workout instead, which would be more beneficial.
This seems to be the crux of it, great summary.
-
Great to get everyone's opinions. Plenty of food for thought, though Sasquatch's final paragraph:
In terms of doing a protocol during lockdown, I think RP's are probably far less important. You're not doing a hard boulder or rope session, so you can do a full FB workout instead, which would be more beneficial.
seems pretty pertinent.
Glad I started the thread, though will obviously post a link* and e-mail cowboyhat for permission first.
* I was pretty sure I'd heard about it via UKB and thought it was a well known protocol so assumed everyone would be in the know. Obviously not...... I shall also endeavour to expunge any typos from my thread titles.
-
etc
I disagree that strides are equivalent to RP's, but I get what you're saying. ;D
I can see why you'd disagree. I'm not sure I'd say they're equivalent either, but akin to, as an adaptive stimulus.
I think there's still a bit of missing the point here though.
Strides might be more like "recruiting" on an 8-10 move boulder, where you emphasise pulling strongly - rather than tiring yourself out by doing multiple laps.
RPs are about the ability to "turn it on", or respond, and I don't think should be seen just as a way of replacing max hangs when tired. What do you think?
Perhaps the ability to respond to sprints off the front in bike racing works here. You might be fit/strong enough for the race, but not able to react quickly enough to not get dropped. You've loads of "gas in the tank", but still fall off when things get too steep.
You can work RPs with two hands, by adding weight. However, the point of the weight is not to produce a load that results in yielding, but just so that you can pull harder - "pulling harder than the problem".
Good that Galpinos has come back, and great thread :2thumbsup:
and Cowboyhat ( for saying sorry) ;D
-
Isn't the difference between force and effort that force is objectively measurable (Newtons), but effort is unquantifiable except on a subjective scale - hence 'perceived' effort being a thing. You don't ever see 'perceived force', it is what it is and you can't fake it.
Get someone to shout at you mid-hang to trigger some emotions and as if by magic you'll produce more 'effort' (and hence produce an overall greater output of quantifiable force..).
-
*old school inspiration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhWaJPEoJzQ
This is absolute gold, thanks for posting.
-
I can see why you'd disagree. I'm not sure I'd say they're equivalent either, but akin to, as an adaptive stimulus.
I think there's still a bit of missing the point here though.
Strides might be more like "recruiting" on an 8-10 move boulder, where you emphasise pulling strongly - rather than tiring yourself out by doing multiple laps.
Re: Strides - My understanding from doing a bunch of run training a few years back(I guess a decade or more now), was that strides are a way to work on form at top speed. Most run training is so far below max, this is a way to work on form while doing sprint work. In my experience understanding(which is admittedly low) Sprinters under 400M don't really do strides in the manner shown in the video (or they may as a final stage or warming up, but not as a "workout"). Instead they work on starts, sprint finishes and other aspects of the race. The comparison for this in climbing would be for someone projecting a 50M enduro route to do a series of perfect repeat boulders. The goal being maintaining form when limiting out towards the end of the race.
RPs are about the ability to "turn it on", or respond, and I don't think should be seen just as a way of replacing max hangs when tired. What do you think?
Perhaps the ability to respond to sprints off the front in bike racing works here. You might be fit/strong enough for the race, but not able to react quickly enough to not get dropped. You've loads of "gas in the tank", but still fall off when things get too steep.
I don't see this. As described and as I've done them, they are about slowly engaging, then going full bore, which does not like what you're describing. I think what Tyler nelson describes as velocity pulls would fit that bill more accurately. Training the ability to create force quickly so that you can respond in that manner on route.
I think of RP's as very similar to max hangs in most regards. They are targeting very high intensity, and are generally low volume. Think doing 1 to 5 rep training in weight lifting. Generally you are at 90%+ of max and you are doing a relatively low time under tension. That describes a very similar stimulus to Max Hangs. Your force curve differs as described by Barrows, but not so differently that I would consider them very different from max hangs. So as a coach, I look at them similarly. It's like comparing a 5sec, 7sec, or 10sec max hang and saying which one is the best. None of them are the best. pick one and be consistent for a couple of cycles and see what happens. All of them are straight alactic. All of them will result in strength gains if done consistently and with plenty of rest. RP's and max hangs are similar that way.
The drawback I see to these as a coach is in an athlete/climbers ability to actually try at 100% intensity. Very few newer climbers seem to be able to do this well, and many older sport/trad guys who have not done much FB in the past also seem to struggle with this. For myself, I have no problem doing these in place of max hangs, and they have been great for transitioning into 1-arm work. Doing alternating sessions of these and yielding isometrics have really helped my 1-arm strength and neurological recruitment.
You can work RPs with two hands, by adding weight. However, the point of the weight is not to produce a load that results in yielding, but just so that you can pull harder - "pulling harder than the problem".
Yes, you can do 2-arm rp's as long as you can't actually pull yourself off the ground. As soon as you're off the ground you're no longer doing rp's(overcoming isometrics).
-
Would agree with everything in Sasquatch's post to DT
Thinking more about our talk on safety of RPs, e.g.
For me to confidently do hangs at the end of a session (not knowing the level of exhaustion/tiredness) even 8/10 could be too much.
Makes me realise that I'm probably best off deferring to your experience on this, as I realise that I basically never do max fingerboarding when tired. If I hang at the end of the session (or after a day out bouldering) it's almost always long (20-30s) hangs or repeaters, where it's easy enough* to adjust things on-the-fly to reflect being more/less tired than I realised by altering how long the hang is or how many reps/sets I do. Your thinking on doing something maximal when you're not sure how tired you are makes sense
*easy enough for me anyway, would be harder to program as a coach unless you know the climber well
-
Could this be applied to varied hangs too? The article mentions half crimp and open hangs, and nothing on varied grips. I’ve had some recent progression on varied grips on trying hard with short hangs (3s to 7s).
Also what are peoples thoughts on cycle length of 4-5 weeks?
I’ve recently got back into some consistent max hang FB and so far found that by week 3 I’m getting tired, and so in week 4 I’ve taken a rest from max hangs. With peaks in week 1 and 2 of the next cycle, and not in the rest week.
-
Don't agree ;D
Lots of confusion around the roll of Strides. It's not just about form either. Strides improve neuromuscular coordination.
I think the confusion comes from thinking in terms of returns from the effort expended.
While that is really significant and highly (most?) important in terms of adaptation, it's also misleading.
Another running analogy.
Interval work. The common (mis) understanding, is that working intervals is about resting, until ready to put in another really hard running effort, in the hope that this effort will be rewarded with greater speed.
The adaptive process comes from repeatedly going from the more rested state, to the quicker pace/higher output state.
That is the significance of RPs, as opposed to "max" hangs.
-
The common (mis) understanding, is that working intervals is about resting, until ready to put in another really hard running effort, in the hope that this effort will be rewarded with greater speed.
The adaptive process comes from repeatedly going from the more rested state, to the quicker pace/higher output state.
That is the significance of RPs, as opposed to "max" hangs.
I basically have zero idea what you're trying to say here, but think that it's highly unlikely that the adaptations most people are looking for in classic interval training* is driven by the transition between states itself. Transition between "on" and "off" is going to be more relevant in rate of force development (i.e. power/contract strength) training than in standard intervals.
*by which I mean lots of metabolic responses, less strength/power focused; possibly some crossed wires here because how you describe intervals (i.e. waiting to be quite fresh) isn't really how people normally do them in that context. Obviously since intervals can basically be anything you may be meaning a different type of interval... anyway, still don't really understand what you're trying to say.
-
I thought intervals were to increase your VO 2 max or your aerobic/ anaerobic capacity. By doing hard efforts whilst not recovered from the previous efforts, your body adapts. So you can go harder for longer.
-
Bit simplistic, but describes significance of recruitment, and training this in order to make more of what we have, available:
https://www.healthguidance.org/entry/17616/1/the-role-of-muscle-fiber-recruitment-in-strength.html
In reply to Webbo, yes intervals will benefit that, but we're trying to look at the adaptive process, the "how/why" if you like.
-
Putting it another way, intervals are usually to increase ones endurance. I can’t see how they would help muscle recruitment.
-
Yes, I'm aware of recruitment and a skim of your link didn't throw up anything new. I'm no closer to understanding why you think RPs are notably different to max hangs apart from being a slightly different type of isometric (with associated pros/cons in terms of effort profile, safety etc as already discussed above). (Judging by webbo's responses it's not just me that's a bit lost about what you're trying to say)
-
This is like the training equivalent of that Hubble philosophy thread. I've got no idea whats going on. If this is a simple fingerboarding programme according to TN I must be training at an amoebic level. :lol:
-
This is like the training equivalent of that Hubble philosophy thread. I've got no idea whats going on. If this is a simple fingerboarding programme according to TN I must be training at an amoebic level. :lol:
I think the "simplicity" is in regards to equipment etc required. As in ultimately why I think you'd bother doing them over say, weighted hangs / hangs with assistance. You don't need to measure or have pulleys or weights or blah blah. You don't need to test and re-test. You just use RPE. Of course the irony being actually gauging RPE is pretty hard for the sort of person looking for "simple" training protocols.
-
This is like the training equivalent of that Hubble philosophy thread. I've got no idea whats going on. If this is a simple fingerboarding programme according to TN I must be training at an amoebic level. :lol:
Went straight over my head after about post 3. All we are doing is hanging on a piece of wood.
-
I think the "simplicity" is in regards to equipment etc required.
Very much this. Obviously the simplest training program is: dangle off bit of wood. If too easy then add load; if too hard then reduce load. Continue until strong or until your mate finds a kneebar on your proj thereby removing the need to be strong.
-
I think the "simplicity" is in regards to equipment etc required.
Very much this. Obviously the simplest training program is: dangle off bit of wood. If too easy then add load; if too hard then reduce load. Continue until strong or until your mate finds a kneebar on your proj thereby removing the need to be strong.
Haha true, apart from the fact your mate doesn't send your proj. He sends an alternate, kneebar reality of your proj. Max Tegmark would hypothesize that your mate is still weaker than you and the proj still stands. He's just a fraud and if had any integrity wouldn't take the tick.
-
This is like the training equivalent of that Hubble philosophy thread. I've got no idea whats going on. If this is a simple fingerboarding programme according to TN I must be training at an amoebic level. :lol:
Went straight over my head after about post 3. All we are doing is hanging on a piece of wood.
There's no doubt we're getting super geeky...
I think the "simplicity" is in regards to equipment etc required.
Very much this. Obviously the simplest training program is: dangle off bit of wood for various amounts of time. If too easy then add load; if too hard then reduce load. Continue until strong or until your mate finds a kneebar on your proj thereby removing the need to be strong.
This is the final gist of the whole thing, with one minor tweak.
-
Don't agree ;D
Lots of confusion around the roll of Strides. It's not just about form either. Strides improve neuromuscular coordination.
I think the confusion comes from thinking in terms of returns from the effort expended.
While that is really significant and highly (most?) important in terms of adaptation, it's also misleading.
Another running analogy.
Interval work. The common (mis) understanding, is that working intervals is about resting, until ready to put in another really hard running effort, in the hope that this effort will be rewarded with greater speed.
The adaptive process comes from repeatedly going from the more rested state, to the quicker pace/higher output state.
That is the significance of RPs, as opposed to "max" hangs.
Sooo many things to unpack. In my brain, form is a piece of neuromuscular coordination.
Let's not get into intervals. Too many variables. Intervals can be used to train strength, endurance or vo2 max, etc. it all depends on structured W:R ratios, and rest intensity. For example, you can do 100M sprints with rest period of walking the other 300m around the track. Or you can do 100M sprints, rest is continue running around the track at Aerobic Threshold pace. These are VERY different interval workouts targeting very different systems and adaptations.
So what you're saying in the last two lines is that because RP's force profile "can" be higher than the max hangs, therefore the adaptation will result in higher top-end adaptation? Because doing RP's is slow onset, not fast so it's not a quicker onset than max hangs, it's very similar. But as Barrows pointed out, you likely will hit a higher overall force for a shorter period.
-
This is like the training equivalent of that Hubble philosophy thread. I've got no idea whats going on. If this is a simple fingerboarding programme according to TN I must be training at an amoebic level. :lol:
The ‘simple’ aspect is that there’s need for the faff of a harness and pulley or weights.
-
This is like the training equivalent of that Hubble philosophy thread. I've got no idea whats going on. If this is a simple fingerboarding programme according to TN I must be training at an amoebic level. :lol:
Covid isolation has my mind drifting to the books of my teenage years, for some reason a bit of Pratchett seems appropriate:
*The first pizza was created by the Klatchian mystic Ronron “Revelation Joe” Shuwadhi, who claimed to have been given the recipe in a dream by the Creator of the Discworld Himself, Who had apparently added that it was what He had intended all along. Those desert travelers who had seen the original, which is reputedly miraculously preserved in the Forbidden City of Ee, say that what the Creator had in mind then was a fairly small cheese and pepperoni affair with a few black olives** and things like mountains and seas got added out of last-minute enthusiasm as so often happens.
**After the Schism of the Turnwise Ones and the deaths of some 25,000 people in the ensuing jihad the faithful were allowed to add one small bayleaf to the recipe.
and,
"(the war) is over a word in their holy book, sir. The Elharibians say it translates as "God" and the Smalies say it's "man"."
How can you mix them up?"
"Well, there's only one tiny dot difference... and some people reckon it's only a speck of fly dirt in any case."
"Centuries of war because a fly crapped in the wrong place?"
"It could have been worse, sir...if it had been slightly to the left the word would have been "liquorice" ".
-
Lost me there- I'm off back to have another go at understanding the philosophising on that thigh blood flow restriction thread...
-
Lost me there- I'm off back to have another go at understanding the philosophising on that thigh blood flow restriction thread...
sounds like fun. :wall:
-
How a three sheets long fingerboarding plan could possibly be sold as "The Simplest" goes beyond my comprehension.
On a side note, there's only one true simple fingerboarding plan, and we all know which one is.
-
A few things to refer to here.
First, replying to Sasquatch, yes, as you've described, "interval training" can be used to target many different things, and will involve vastly different work/rest programmes. The word "interval" came from a reference to the period of rest, and not work.
I was using this solely as an analogy - to highlight the varied pace/load.
Webbo, posted this up on the running thread.
Here's what I think is significant about "recruitment pulls", and I think the adaptation process is very specific.
This is a question really.
Recruitment pulls are one form of Overcoming isometric, and they are designed to target Recruitment.
I think this is significant. It's not just about another way of "working hard, and being rewarded for it".
The way that the load is applied and increased, is important.
Lastly, Sasquatch, your thoughts on this one? If you have sufficient added weight, I think it is possible to work Recruitment Pulls with feet off, as long as you build load in the right way.
I'm surmising that it's the increase in load that is important, and results in improvements in recruitment - not just the top end load.
If it makes it easier to think about it - and I find this really effective - with the right added weight, you can focus on "crushing" the holds, applying much greater force than is necessary just to hang the holds. You're working an isometric position, and the added weight makes this more possible. Having said that, you could even work trying to finger curl from 90° to a crimp.
In short, as I understand it, it's the increase in load which is important - in order to target recruitment - not the holding of a static load - as with Max hangs.
-
Thanks for putting in the running thread Dave. However its not much use to me there as I don’t run anymore. I have been a cyclist for 39 years on and off and have competed at a reasonable level. So I do know about interval training having first being introduced to it in 1983. I still do a couple of sessions a week. I can bore you to death with different versions if you are interested. :yawn:
-
I had a thought while catching up with this thread, that due to the RPE based nature of recruitment pulls they may well be in some circumstances an entire waste of a session.
Let's say at max with weights added you can hang +40kg for 10sx6reps. You've been training and climbing lots and carrying loads of fatigue, or you're coming down with something etc. You warm up and first rep feels nails and you fail.
Common sense would suggest that you need to rest an extra day. Dropping the weight to 30kg would be a waste of a session and recovery due to the lack of stimulus (it's not a max hang anymore).
With no numbers and only "pull hard" you could dig yourself into a potential recovery hole over multiple sessions with a protocol like this. RPE 9 is always RPE 9 irrelevant to what you're actually hanging.
-
I guess this scenario would rely on you not doing anything else where you would notice a dip in performance related to fatigue. It’s likely that if your fingerboard numbers were down then you’d also feel rubbish on the board and notice your warm ups outside feeling hard for example.
It’s also interesting that you’d consider just completely sacking off a max hangs session if you couldn’t hit your target load. I’ve deffo had loads of sessions where I’ve had to drop the load for all sorts of reasons (often being tired from life rather than climbing, or during particularly bad conditions in the summer). I hadn’t previously considered these sessions a waste, mainly because as you say the RPE is still high.
-
That's the part I find troubling too. RPE seems to be used by some like it's a 'good' measure. I find it hard to believe it's as good as objective measures for measuring progression.
Take for e.g. having a flu or cold - walking upstairs to bed can be RPE 9. Is walking upstairs useful leg training for a normally-adapted athlete, no. You could do a lot of low-quality work at a high RPE, it doesn't make it good training.
Compared to objective measures like timers for reps/rest in endurance workouts or weight for strength workouts. Can't cheat the clock.
-
I follow TN on a number of social media outlets
And do ind it very informative and creates thinking on what I’m doing. There’s no dispute that TN’s training methods & theories are backed with clinical and academic evidence.
However there’s a lot of reliance of replicating his environment if one wants to achieve the gains that are published.
Personally, I think it makes great fodder for forum threads and pub chatter (remember pubs???), however there is a high risk of it becoming ‘junk’ training and not a good use of time in what’s becoming a time poor society.
-
There’s no dispute that TN’s training methods & theories are backed with clinical and academic evidence.
I looked into Tyler's stuff on density hangs a while ago. Only read the review studies, not the individual papers, but the evidence around long hangs being better for tendon stiffness/health was pretty limited. So based on what's out there its a decent guess, but it's basically still guessing until someone does some better studies.
-
It’s also interesting that you’d consider just completely sacking off a max hangs session if you couldn’t hit your target load. I’ve deffo had loads of sessions where I’ve had to drop the load for all sorts of reasons (often being tired from life rather than climbing, or during particularly bad conditions in the summer). I hadn’t previously considered these sessions a waste, mainly because as you say the RPE is still high.
But RPE isn't an indicator of stimulus quality. If you're too tired (big session, poor recovery, flu etc) to pull your max then you're not training your max anymore. All you're doing is getting more tired, when really you're better resting and coming back when you can pull your max.
In other sports you'd call it junk miles. If you just want to hang on s fingerboard with a random amount of weight then go wild, they're not max hangs anymore and the adaptations aren't happening in the same way.
-
In other sports you'd call it junk miles. If you just want to hang on s fingerboard with a random amount of weight then go wild,
Thanks, seems to be working out ok for me so far 😄 If I had to always wait until life outside of climbing left me fully recovered enough to do a fully maximal effort max hangs sesh it wouldn’t happen regularly enough for training adaption.
Also far from it being ‘junk miles’, Bechtel’s book notes that you can have good performance increases for isometric exercises with loads way less than max.
-
Of course you can. Repeaters, for example, are less weight than max hangs... Its just different energy system s. In reality max hangs aren't even max anyway, you shouldn't be going to failure imo.
My point was more that if you have a training plan and you have numbers to hit, not being to hit the numbers means stop and rest. Presumably the plan is periodised in some shape or form and the exercise you're supposed to be doing has a goal and a reason.
Coming from a cycling background I've always thought most people's problem with training is they don't rest properly or go hard properly. Just faff about too fatigued to work properly.
-
In reality max hangs aren't even max anyway, you shouldn't be going to failure imo.
I go to failure. It’s misleading when those who don’t describe it as max hangs.
-
In reality max hangs aren't even max anyway, you shouldn't be going to failure imo.
I go to failure. It’s misleading when those who don’t describe it as max hangs.
Hah. It's more catchy than (percentage of) max hangs. I suppose the premise is you've figured out the max you can complete 6x10s hangs with or whatever you're doing. It's not that I don't see value in going to failure sometimes but I think I'd be going backwards quickly if I was going to failure on every session.
The beauty of training is it's individual though. Hopefully given a decent enough timeline everyone settles on a schedule that fits them.
-
In reality max hangs aren't even max anyway, you shouldn't be going to failure imo.
I go to failure. It’s misleading when those who don’t describe it as max hangs.
That's my understanding too: the load is adjusted so failure occurs at around or just before your target duration. And failure could mean technical failure, with a particular grip for example: I step off if I lose form with a half crimp, even if I could drop to open hands and hang on for longer.
-
Reading up on Eva's training she also suggest either a drop in added weight or edge size (to a certain limit) before calling it a day and not training, also that there will be daily fluctuations of form.
On Will's Blogg (TensionClimbing) his suggestion on frequency is once every 5 days (up to once every max 10 days) with a quality session.
Both seem to agree on form being important.
So support for both sides....and more support for individual adjustments needed?
-
Reading up on Eva's training she also suggest either a drop in added weight or edge size (to a certain limit) before calling it a day and not training, also that there will be daily fluctuations of form.
On Will's Blogg (TensionClimbing) his suggestion on frequency is once every 5 days (up to once every max 10 days) with a quality session.
Both seem to agree on form being important.
So support for both sides....and more support for individual adjustments needed?
I think it depends on the amount of adjustment though and perhaps that's where I'm coming over as confusing. 2kg seems to make sense for daily fluctuations I suppose; If we're talking more than that then (ie you're failing on your first hang of the session) then I'd feel more comfortable calling it a day and coming back tomorrow. In my experience I get a much more quality session then. Obviously it's anecdotal and I'm not an expert also I am assuming you've been doing hangs for a while, are hanging at a weight you're accustomed to etc. not just changing the weight every session.
Less frequent, quality sessions are a bigger aim for me than lots of shit ones. 6x10s hangs is still only 60s TUT. If you're peeling off at 7s in the hang every time then you're at 42s TUT. That's 30% less time on your fingers.
-
My bodyweight will fluctuate by up to 2kg during a day....
-
My bodyweight will fluctuate by up to 2kg during a day....
Haha sure, but if you did your test in your underpants before breakfast and your actual sessions after a Chinese banquet then you can do what you like with your session. I dunno. I'm not an authority (and apparently in the minority) but I feel I get more mileage out of just doing something else instead of pushing on with a shit session where I'm failing, both physically and mentally.
-
I do weigh myself before doing any weighted hangs - sure. Today (pre lunch) I was light - and technically did a PB, though it’s actually not as I was 1-1.5kg heavier when I did it last.
It also means I can do the exercises in whatever clothes I’m wearing (eg jeans and two jumpers) and account for the weight etc.
Though - this is more important for what I’m doing (assisted one arm pulls) where I’m down to <5kg - as opposed to weighted max deadhangs where an extra KG on 50kg isn’t going to be so crucial.. probably.. (I’ve not tried!!)
-
Loads to respond to here.
Dave - I think you cannot work Rp's with feet off. It will no longer be overcoming isometric. If your goal was to do the finger curls as you suggest, but you were unable, but trying, then sure, that would be similar.
Re: Anti - I agree and disagree. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, if you are in lockdown and only doing a solid FB program, I probably wouldn't do these (it would depend on schedule. They are great to add in when you are not 100% recovered, but know that you will not be able to get a session in for a couple of days). As a finisher to a boulder session, they are great. When bouldering it is so hard to really know what exactly is failing. By adding a few recruitment pulls at the end of a session, say 3-5 reps of 3-5 seconds, you are doing enough to ensure you won't be losing anything if you didn't hit max(which is surprisingly common) and the overall load is low enough that you aren't digging much of a hole.
Pete - I think the flu analogy is poor strawman argument. That's not at all what we're talking about. RPE is both good and bad. The bad is that it's not just the numbers so is less methodical. The good is that it actually mimics climbing. I've had amazing sends when feeling shite, and terrible days when feeling great. Regardless of how you feel, just fucking pull.
Anti - I disagree with the comparison of these being junk miles in that way. When you're out doing sprint training and your times fall off just a bit do you sack of the 4th or 5th interval out of 8 just because you're not at max anymore. Are they at 85% plus of your max? If so, then they're probably not junk miles. Junk miles would be doing repeaters at 60% after having done a massive roped session. And then that still depends on your overall program and goals(which you generally allude to in your next post).
-
Loads to respond to here.
Dave - I think you cannot work Rp's with feet off. It will no longer be overcoming isometric. If your goal was to do the finger curls as you suggest, but you were unable, but trying, then sure, that would be similar.
Re: Anti - I agree and disagree. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, if you are in lockdown and only doing a solid FB program, I probably wouldn't do these (it would depend on schedule. They are great to add in when you are not 100% recovered, but know that you will not be able to get a session in for a couple of days). As a finisher to a boulder session, they are great. When bouldering it is so hard to really know what exactly is failing. By adding a few recruitment pulls at the end of a session, say 3-5 reps of 3-5 seconds, you are doing enough to ensure you won't be losing anything if you didn't hit max(which is surprisingly common) and the overall load is low enough that you aren't digging much of a hole.
Pete - I think the flu analogy is poor strawman argument. That's not at all what we're talking about. RPE is both good and bad. The bad is that it's not just the numbers so is less methodical. The good is that it actually mimics climbing. I've had amazing sends when feeling shite, and terrible days when feeling great. Regardless of how you feel, just fucking pull.
Anti - I disagree with the comparison of these being junk miles in that way. When you're out doing sprint training and your times fall off just a bit do you sack of the 4th or 5th interval out of 8 just because you're not at max anymore. Are they at 85% plus of your max? If so, then they're probably not junk miles. Junk miles would be doing repeaters at 60% after having done a massive roped session. And then that still depends on your overall program and goals(which you generally allude to in your next post).
Yeah I don't mean that they're always junk efforts as such, just that they're in danger of becoming them - it's hard to know, very nuanced and possible not in the skillset of the people this original article was aimed at? If you're sensible and aware of how you feel then they seem fine but a lot of climbers don't seem to fall into that camp. I think if you're bouldering fingery problems / on a board you don't need supplemental finger work afterwards but if you're leaping around on volumes then it makes sense to do these?
With your running example I guess I'm spoiled, as I was a cyclist with a power meter. If I can hit the numbers I worry less about the RPE (85% of max always feels shit). I suppose the junk miles analogy would apply more if your pace was well off right from the start but you kept on running anway because "you're running". 5/6 reps out of 8 seems fine, just suck it up (tho depends how far off you fall?) but if at rep 1 and 2 you're not hitting the numbers then it's not going to be a quality session.
Anyway, it's a really interesting discussion!
-
Without reading the whole thread as I don't have the mental capacity currently...
if at rep 1 and 2 you're not hitting the numbers then it's not going to be a quality session.
...doesn't this fail to take into account the neurological gains that have to be made when doing, for example, max hangs? I say this because every time I drop a bit of weight on my assisted 1 arm hangs the first few sessions at the new weight are always shit; partly because I am weak and partly because I'm not yet used to how that hang feels. eg, I recently dropped down to 3kg assist on these hangs. The first session was appalling, I managed about 4 seconds per hang. The second session I managed a few hangs at the full 7 sec duration and then regressed rapidly. Hopefully this evening I'll be slightly better. If I had adopted your rationale as above I would have increased the assistance straight away because I very much wasnt hitting the numbers, but by doing them to failure hopefully in a few weeks time I'll manage the whole set. Once I've done that a few times I'll drop the weight again. Just seems like I'd never get any stronger if I made it easier as soon as I wasn't hitting the numbers.
-
Without reading the whole thread as I don't have the mental capacity currently...
if at rep 1 and 2 you're not hitting the numbers then it's not going to be a quality session.
...doesn't this fail to take into account the neurological gains that have to be made when doing, for example, max hangs? I say this because every time I drop a bit of weight on my assisted 1 arm hangs the first few sessions at the new weight are always shit; partly because I am weak and partly because I'm not yet used to how that hang feels. eg, I recently dropped down to 3kg assist on these hangs. The first session was appalling, I managed about 4 seconds per hang. The second session I managed a few hangs at the full 7 sec duration and then regressed rapidly. Hopefully this evening I'll be slightly better. If I had adopted your rationale as above I would have increased the assistance straight away because I very much wasnt hitting the numbers, but by doing them to failure hopefully in a few weeks time I'll manage the whole set. Once I've done that a few times I'll drop the weight again. Just seems like I'd never get any stronger if I made it easier as soon as I wasn't hitting the numbers.
So I'll preface again with the fact I am neither a qualified, intelligent or strong. However, I think the normal protocol for something like this is you've completed a cycle of hangs with x weight, re-tested, realised you're stronger and now to attain a similar stimulus you require x+(whatever increments your weights will go in) and continue. Assuming this is the case, it shouldn't be significant enough of a jump that you suddenly can't get anywhere near one single hang. Unless you only have big weights to use.
Obviously though you do it differently and it works, as do most people probably. Training eh, thankfully it's not just one single thing that works. Some people recover fine. Some don't.
Incidentally, your last statement kind of hints at what I'm trying to say though. Assuming you are completing your sessions at -3kg assistance and tonight you can't get anywhere near it. Would you do a session at -10kg assistance or would you deduce that there's probably something wrong and you'd be better off doing it tomorrow?
-
I think we're actually pretty close to agreement, but there are subtle nuances. If you upped the weight and hit 4 sec, then that's still 90+% actual effort regardless of rpe. If you upped the weight and couldn't hang at all, then you went back to previous weight and could only do 4 seconds, you'd be more likely to sack off the session as you're not ready... I think that's more what Anti is talking about. which is fair and is one way to look at it. I find my variability between sessions for no discernable reason to be about 5%. So It take alot for me to "sack it off" as being too tired. For a max hangs session, that would be about 5kg off a 1-armer.
I have a Tindeq I use for all of my RP's now so I actually see exactly what my numbers are. If I were to see numbers that were off by 10-15%, I would also sack them off. What I have found though is that even when I have had a nails session I can still pull 90% on RP's.
Anti - I agree that after a hard Board session(MB for example), I would not even think about doing RP's. There's no need. However, I am climbing hard enough on the MB to be on loads of yellow crimps. I have a friend who is terrible at steeps and foot cuts. He fails through bigger muscle issues more often, so for him it could be the right call... Doing a few 15mm RP's would engage his fingers in a way he is otherwise not doing. I also NEVER full crimp on a board and rarely inside, so I have found doing full crimp RP's to be very very helpful.
-
Thanks both, interesting. For the record, I improved on the previous session! However if I had felt like total shit on the first hang I would definitely not have increased to 10kg assistance. I would have gone up to 4kg or 5kg at a push and done the session at that weight regardless of whether I was completing the hangs or not. As you say, interesting to compare the different methods. Mine has no particular science behind it, just word of mouth and a reluctance to sack the session off completely having got my fingers warm!
Sasquatch's point about full crimp RPs is interesting though, as I never full crimp inside if I can avoid it, definitely not on a board and rarely on the grit. Maybe by doing some full crimp RPs over the winter after wall sessions/repeaters I would hit the ground running quicker when limestone season comes around in the spring and I have to close every crimp. Food for thought.
-
I will also add that the tindeq is an amazing training tool for the money. Really great way to separate shoulders from fingers and easily see if one is the issue for 1-armers(for many people this is a big issue). You can see actual numbers on the device for RP's. You can also do density pulls on them(slightly different from the hangs, but fun to play with)
-
Re the Tindeq,
you can of course just use a set of bathroom scales. That's what I use.
I think people are on the same page now, re significance of RPs. I dropped Tyler Nelson a line, and if you're interested, he was keen to point out the significance of using RPs to hit a new peak force/MVIC (Maximum Voluntary Isometric Contraction) - and how this was completely different to the effects of working "max hangs".
From Tyler:
"Thanks for reaching out. There's a couple things going on that people might be mixing together.
1) Recruitment is all about hitting a new peak force. In this case a new MVIC (max voluntary isometric contraction) for the finger flexors. If athletes believe that doing 10-seconds hangs would do the same thing (people commonly do) they are mistaking..."
2) The question of it being useful when an athlete is tired is a similar, yet different point. In the article I've suggested that RP's are safer than weighted hangs because they autoregulate force on each training day. If you come into a training session tired it would be safer than simply adding load (from a previously tested session) to your body. That's making the assumption that you are that strong, that day. That isn't always the case. If I do a RP instead I only pull up to the capacity of my system on that day. So, somedays the force will be lower, some days the force will be higher. .."
I appreciate that some of this is now covered, above.
As well as the difference between what we work with RPs Vs Max Hangs, I was also raising the question of whether there was adaptation due to neuromuscular coordination, through the way that the force was applied/built. I still think that's a relevant question (? I'll come back to) but where I think Sasquatch disagreed with me, was in me trying to equate that to what we're targeting in RPs. I still think it's an interesting one, in terms of the underlying process behind recruitment, but here we're working the peak force.
That's also important in terms of when to work RPs.
Doing RPs without weight - i.e. using a small enough edge, one arm - allows for the variation in strength from day to day, rather than the force being determined by the load. The significance here, being the "autoregulation" - and not so that RPs are something to do when tired, because you still want to reach close to peak force.
Training RPs using the scales, my pulls were very similar to the way they're described in Tyler's article. However, I think there is something really significant in the way that the load is built and applied.
On days that I felt stronger - when I'd end up pulling to a feet off hang - I'd be very aware of a change in the contraction.
I think the word "voluntary" in MVIC is much more significant than it might seem.
-
I'd be interested to see how 'peak force production' is quantified. Does it say in his literature? It seems to be saying that peak force production is measured by your RPE? (and your RPE is a limiter on peak force production..).
Is there a measure, other than 'how hard you feel you're trying', to quantify whether you've:
a. actually increased your finger's peak force production?
or
b. whether you've just improved the connectivity of the billions of interlinked neuromuscular connections that enable you to do the same movement more effectively? Which makes it 'feel' like increased peak force production.
-
I'd be interested to see how 'peak force production' is quantified.
Newtons. He'll just use a Tindeq (or other load sensor thing). He's just saying the same thing we were talking about higher up - if you pull at "100% effort" you might put out more force for the first few seconds vs doing a classic max hang:
With a max hang (or any other hang with feet off the floor) your force stays constant through the hang*. Otherwise you would fall off. So if I hang bodyweight on an edge, that arm/fingers will be exerting a force equivalent to approx. 750N (i.e. 75kg); at 2 seconds this is <100% effort, at maybe 5 or 10 seconds or whenever, this becomes 100% effort, then >100% and so I fail. So force is constant but effort varies during the hang.
* Some subtleties at start/end of hang that I've ignored and that would be complex
On an edge with knees under a bar, or on an edge that's too small to hang 1-armed, you could try to pull down with 100% effort for the entire duration, but the force exerted would not be constant. So at 2s I might be at 100% effort and 800N (I wish), at 5s I might be at 100% effort but I'm fatiguing so now force is only 750N, by 15s I'm still putting in 100% effort but I can only exert 600N etc... so effort is constant (in theory) but force declines as I get fatigued.
(bold added for clarity).
Tyler is saying that he thinks absolute peak force is the greatest driver of increased recruitment (which is broadly intuitive, though not sure if it's 100% accurate)
-
The trying as hard as you can thing seems to be both the regulator (if you’re tired you’re not going to end up trying a pb because you can’t) and also the point of the exercise.
It’s a funny one to me - as how hard I try has as much variability in it as how tiredness etc.. effects performance.
Sasks nifty Bluetooth strain gauge (al tindek) looks like a neat way around this as it will record the mad pull you do. The scales might do something similar - but you have to look at them while doing it - and the speed up the display updating (and if you can read it) will lead to some spurious results (if our scales are anything to go by!)
-
(And well done DT for reaching out to Ryan!)
-
mad pull you do.
Mad pull bro. Do you even lift?
-
mad pull you do.
Mad pull bro. Do you even lift?
Finally I’ve managed to contribute something noteworthy to the thread 😂
-
I'd be interested to see how 'peak force production' is quantified.
Newtons. He'll just use a Tindeq (or other load sensor thing). He's just saying the same thing we were talking about higher up - if you pull at "100% effort" you might put out more force for the first few seconds vs doing a classic max hang:
With a max hang (or any other hang with feet off the floor) your force stays constant through the hang*. Otherwise you would fall off. So if I hang bodyweight on an edge, that arm/fingers will be exerting a force equivalent to approx. 750N (i.e. 75kg); at 2 seconds this is <100% effort, at maybe 5 or 10 seconds or whenever, this becomes 100% effort, then >100% and so I fail. So force is constant but effort varies during the hang.
* Some subtleties at start/end of hang that I've ignored and that would be complex
On an edge with knees under a bar, or on an edge that's too small to hang 1-armed, you could try to pull down with 100% effort for the entire duration, but the force exerted would not be constant. So at 2s I might be at 100% effort and 800N (I wish), at 5s I might be at 100% effort but I'm fatiguing so now force is only 750N, by 15s I'm still putting in 100% effort but I can only exert 600N etc... so effort is constant (in theory) but force declines as I get fatigued.
(bold added for clarity).
Tyler is saying that he thinks absolute peak force is the greatest driver of increased recruitment (which is broadly intuitive, though not sure if it's 100% accurate)
Got it. :thumbsup:
Where in his literature does he show the progressive increase in peak force production that he or his trainees achieved? I assume there must be data to show it works as he claims.
I'm attracted by the TN programme on the training beta site, but it'd be good to actually see some data to back up the various claims made by various trainers.
-
No idea if he's published anything on it I'm afraid, never looked!
-
An issue i think with the whole rpe concept, is the lack of acknowledgement of how hard it is to try really hard. This is a variable in itself and largely psychological in nature, and thus not auto regulating to physiological limits as discussed. Pulley/added weights get round this by their very nature.
-
An issue i think with the whole rpe concept, is the lack of acknowledgement of how hard it is to try really hard. This is a variable in itself and largely psychological in nature, and thus not auto regulating to physiological limits as discussed. Pulley/added weights get round this by their very nature.
This is interesting, by the same note wouldn't it be possible that the max effort that people are recording (i.e. their benchmark hangs) are not actually their max, as they are being limited psychologically in a similar way? (obviously everyone is limited psychologically to an some degree otherwise you'd just rip your tendons from their insertion points!)
-
Perhaps, but assumming one benchmarks when feeling good psychologically as well as physiologically, or even that after a few sessions one will coincide with a good try hard, fairly soon you'd get to a realistic max hang, and thereafter the ego may even have a positive effect on getting a real "max effort" out of you?
Also I'd posit that its a lot easier to try properly hard when going to failure than when keeping feet on the floor.
-
Just reading the last few posts - responding to them together. Sorry guys.
A really important distinction is that between the overcoming isometric (as with Recruitment Pulls) and the yielding isometric.
It's significant in terms of how the force is built/applied. I don't think you have to worry too much about what peak force means in terms of the numbers.
If you're pulling against something that doesn't move, you're just trying to put all your effort into trying to make it move. Autoregulation just means that on some goes, you won't pull quite as hard as on others, in terms of peak force.
If you're adding weight, then in most cases you'll be performing a concentric contraction, or on the fingerboard, most likely a yielding isometric.
What's important is the output. When you're "trying not to yield", if you think about it, you're trying to stop something happening - ie. your fingers from uncurling - rather than reaching a new higher level of force/output.
If you work RPs on a set of scales, it's easier to monitor "how low you can go" as you get closer to pulling with body weight. I think the psychological impetus to see the numbers reduce, is motivation enough to pull hard - your focus is on how high (in terms of force) rather than how long.
Don't know if that makes sense! In other words, don't worry about it too much; if you're performing an OI rather than a YI, you'll be creating a higher output force anyway.
..
YI man.
-
I'll preface this with I'm very crap compared to other people but I got to climbing V6/V7 consistently without having strong fingers at all - I still can't hang a lattice rung in a half crimp with two hands at just bodyweight...
I started trying to hangboard to do something about it last year and I was really bad - like surprised at how bad I was.
I had to take weight off with a pulley (-20kg) to start with and gradually progressed +1kg/wk to BW on the 30mm BM2000 slots. Think I eventually made it to +10kg or so.
I ended up trying TN's hangboard routine earlier this year because I was away and had a portable hangboard.
I found it pretty simple to do the recuitment pulls and then the density hangs - I did the density hangs one hand at a time using weights with the portable hangboard. (oddly the equipment I happened to have - and easier to quantify progress).
I didn't do the velocity pulls.
I continued to train my shoulders separately which are another big weakness in certain planes - but not gastons. love a gaston.
I would say the result for me was I could do a lot more regular finger training alongside actually climbing outdoors as much as possible - whereas what I did before trashed my fingers.
My fingers have always felt quite tweaky - normally from climbing too much / trying too hard - probably trying the same move/problem too much.
Doing the density hangs as the backbone of the finger training they feel way better (not tweaky).
I kind of doubt they're as good for your finger and shoulder strength as hanging with loads of weight added, but for me in my set of circumstances it worked pretty well.
I did it consistently again for the last 6 weeks and I tried the hardest, crimpiest problems (a big weakness obviously) that I've ever tried on limestone in the last few weeks and I easily pulled onto a hangboard slot that used to feel hard without a warmup - so confident its working.
I would consider it a good 'go to' or staple program when you're not sure what to do or maybe don't have the equipment you want.
And if like me your crimp strength is appalling its a good way of slowly building up.
Another benefit from the density hangs is I can hang out on holds for a lot longer which helps a lot.
Only downside I would say is I'm still bad on small edges cos I did all of the training on a 20mm edge. I now do some of the warmup and recuitment pulls on a smaller edge just to get used to the feeling.
I don't agree that the recruitment pulls are entirely safe because they're auto-regulated. I tweaked a ring finger doing them and I could have pulled harder than I was - perhaps another 10-20%. After that I only pull as hard as I think my fingers can take, rather than trying to reach the peak force I can generate which is what I did before. If they don't feel good I won't push it and I'll focus on the density hangs.
I think for me with weak fingers its not important if the RP's are truly maximal or sub-maximal, as long as there is a stimulus they will get stronger.
(If you have stronger fingers, I guess you may not have that luxury of responding to a lower intensity of stimulus.)
I plan to continue with it through the winter and beyond - I want to get to ~35-40kg on each hand so its effectively BW on a 20mm edge with two hands for 30s.
Hoping that will create a good baseline of finger strength to start pulling on disgusting edges :lol:
-
That's a great post. Thanks for the benefit of your experience :2thumbsup:
Interesting comments about stimulus etc. Many other great points.
"Love a Gaston" ;D
Love it :bow:
-
Indeed! Thanks for sharing.