UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => diet, training and injuries => Topic started by: jwills on February 19, 2022, 12:03:51 pm
-
I found this video by lattice really interesting with loads of good advice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-eG66zRQt4
I haven't ever really committed to regeneration work for any period of time partly because it seems incredibly boring but also because I find difficulty finding where to insert it (after other training sessions vs on rest days). The allure of increased capacity during an outdoor climbing day has me considering incorporating it though.
Anyone with experience with this type of training or I guess any very low aerobic volume? I'm mostly interested in overall training effects and if it can be done on "rest days" without negatively impacting other aspects of training.
-
Thanks for posting jwills, and interesting that you've presented it as a question.
What do you think?
A lot of the emphasis placed on regeneration workouts/recovery work suggests that it improves our ability to recover from the stresses of higher intensity work, but I don't think it's "intrinsic".
The fact that no one has replied reflects the emphasis that people put on higher intensity work. That may sound obvious, but I think there's a tendency to neglect general conditioning. It's common for people to chase/exchange markers for their BM2000 slot performance, but less their hip flexibility for instance, or their rate of recovery after a set of low end 6s on the wall.
Again, I think that might seem to make sense, but I also think that when we start to drop off of a "peak", we can often forget what we really put into getting there. It's interesting that later in the video there's some discussion about having a good "pyramid" - and this is very much neglected too - again, because we tend to chase peak performances, or markers for it.
The terms recovery work/regeneration workouts can be misleading, because they tend to imply that there is some "thing" in the work which is active in the regeneration. There are a lot of studies of different methods/techniques which indicate this isn't the case. When I was trying to run rather than climb, I started to get my head around a lot of principles which I felt carried over to training for climbing really well.
One author explained very well how most club runners tended to run when training, at a pace that was only very slightly below their race pace, whereas as an elite runner, the author would do the majority of his base work at a much lower pace. For example, a club runner might train at 7'30"/mile pace and race at 7'/mile, whereas for an elite runner, it might be more like 8'/mile and 4'30. One very good bit of advice that I've tried to take with me back into climbing is that "On your recovery runs, you can't run too slowly, only too quickly". Also, there is the common misconception that if you do work at a very easy level, you have to do loads more of it to benefit. No, a light session means low intensity and short duration.
In this article they explain very simply the conflicting demands placed on available energy by training and adaptation:
https://sportsedtv.com/blog/proper-recovery-and-regeneration-from-and-for-training-part-i/
Emphasising the limited resources available for training and recovery helps us understand that regeneration work is about adding volume at a level which doesn't conflict with or compromise recovery/adaptation from more intense work.
Very often, we think we can make up for lost time by training more intensely - a habit I'm trying to break - or we try to reach or regain a peak performance too soon when we think of it as our new "baseline".
Building a good pyramid of base work, is not about chasing a higher jump, but raising the level of the ground that we jump from.
I like to think of physical* ability in terms of elasticity - our ability to do work and perform, and then recover to a more relaxed state more quickly. The adaptive process in regen work is that it helps us raise the level at which we feel we're still working easily, by adding volume at a level which doesn't compromise our recovery and preparation for more intense efforts. That has an additional carry over too, in that by doing more work in a relaxed way, we can remain more relaxed when trying to perform at a higher level.
Most importantly, was the question of whether slash grades should be allowed @ ~17:30 ;D
This is a really good topic.
* I was tempted to say athletic ability, but it doesn't really apply in my case
-
I’ve not watched the vid above Dave but I’ve spent a lot of time researching training for running. I appreciate that running - even at shorter distances - is an endurance sport, so there’s crossover with some types of climbing but less so bouldering. Generally speaking I reckon there is too much emphasis on intensity within the climbing training “world”. Yes some coaches and pros bang the volume/movement skills drum, but there still seems to be a perception that high intensity strength training can be some magic bullet. Without the volume of climbing to underpin it, I think eg deadhanging is massively overrated. How many climbers do recovery sessions or easy circuits? I know some do but not many. Bottom line is I suspect many climbers are not reaching their potential because they’re not recovered enough to get the most out of their higher intensity sessions. In other words they’re training tired all the time. Or the running equivalent of running in Z3 / “junk miles” too much.
-
If, say, Font 6C/7A is your flash grade, how "easy" would climbing need to be to count as "recovery"? That's about my level on a good day, and even doing 5+ routes at the wall would feel like a chore and (perfectly happy to be wrong here) I would expect that for me this would just accumulate fatigue and lead to elbow tendinitis.
It's my first time ever focusing on some "base" endurance this year, and it's quite a challenge not to fall into the trap of drifting towards higher intensity. 3 x 15 mins yesterday and it certainly doesn't feel like "recovery" :lol:. It's easy outside of winter - just go and do some soloing / easy trad....
-
Can you give a video timestamp? I don't want to watch 30min and can't really comment without knowing what they said...
-
For endurance sports, regen/recovery pace is Z1 and easy to measure as % of either Max HR(<65%) or Lactate Threshold(<%70).It feels really slow, for me this is a brisk walk on the flat or cycling so slowly it feels like the chain has come off because the gearing is so low.
I would probably use a HR monitor to check I was staying down in Z1 for route climbing, I've never done it but would guess 2-3 number grades below my flash grade, basically it should feel so easy you could do it forever. The classic Z2 pace is one
where you can hold a conversation, Z1 you can hold a conversation and eat and drink.
-
I've inadvertently done some of this, for rehabilitation or training for really long routes, but more out of necessity than with the intention of increasing my capacity for harder climbing or raising my grade. When I was preparing for my last Yosemite trip I'd do 450-500m sessions, dialing down the grade as low as necessary to make this possible. I had a good year including some of my better recent sport onsights which wasn't what I was aiming for at all. 4+ on the autobelay for a 7a+ onsight grade (7b+ for 8c+ onsight if you're Patxi Usobiaga). When I was younger and bolder, I'd go soloing.
Is it worth differentiating the really easy 'regenerative' activity Jon is talking about in the video, from aerobic capacity? If I understand correctly, the former should be at a level you could manage every day and you are not even slightly pumped. I think of this as the running equivalent of going for a walk! Aerobic capacity can involve getting mildly pumped but always completely in control of this. Zone 2 running? Perhaps this is a semantic difference.
One of the advantages of this approach for me is that I'm highly unlikely to injure myself. My tentative suggestion is if you're finding it tweaky for the elbows you may be pushing too hard? Skin can be an issue, jwi has suggested leather gloves. It is time consuming but I really should do more of this now I've got a bit more free time.
Edit: reassuringly, I see BOCW has made more-or-less the same points.
-
Can you give a video timestamp? I don't want to watch 30min and can't really comment without knowing what they said...
Conversation around regeneration work starts around 6:00 into the video and goes to about 11:30ish.
Interesting and very useful comments so far. Part of me is hung up on the name "regeneration" but I'm guessing you could use very low end aerobic capacity synonymously. I agree I've drunk the kool aid on the value of intensity in the hopes of avoiding junk mileage so training at pretty high intensity for the vast majority of my sessions. Given this I'm pretty cognizant of the volume as these sessions add up from a fatigue standpoint. The video (and name of the session) would have me believe that an individual could continue with current training and just add in these sessions with little impact on training volume but long term realize capacity benefits. I realize I could (and should) just try this and see how it goes. I imagine 2 (probably more) scenarios:
1. Continue current training but add these sessions in either at the end of a training day or on a rest day. I'd lean towards end of a session rather than a rest day.
2. Replace a high intensity session (or part of a session) with some low end aero cap/regeneration work.
I'd lean towards the first option but realize this may just be my obsession with higher intensity sessions.
Regarding injuries most of my "injuries" tend to err on the overuse side of things rather than the acute ones. I'm luck in that regard but hence why I'm way more volume focused.
-
A few thoughts:
- The video doesn't do a very good job of separating what I would think of as "active rest" aka "regeneration" aka easy ARCing and slightly harder "aero cap" (e.g. the repeaters they talk about. Like Duncan, I think these need to be thought of separately in many contexts.
- I've done "active rest" on rest days before. I think it is probably useful for getting fitter and can be done without notably tiring yourself but it has to be really easy (I'm talking very easy, traversing around on vert jugs type intensity - maybe 5+s or up to 6as for 15-20 min if you're onsighting up to ~8a or so outside). There's no way I could do this with 40% repeaters or "harder" aero cap IMO. Could be risky if you're prone to injury. Would work best without needing to go to the wall (unless you don't have a job) as even if the wall is 15 min away that's 2x travel time vs climb time! I'm not convinced it makes me actually recover faster but if kept easy it doesn't need to drain you
- I think doing easy ARC works fine as a second session if you can do split days. I've done this regularly. I like to leave as long a gap as possible. Again this is higher faff/travel time if you need to go to a wall.
- The more you lean towards onsight routes the more relevant/useful doing this will be
- I don't find that being aero cap fit gives me day fitness for hard bouldering or limit-level redpoints/onsights. It means I could climb 7b-cs all day but doesn't necessarily give me another burn on something hard
- Be careful reading too much into people's views (inc. mine) unless you know them and what they do quite well. Some people think "I should do some ARC/aero cap" and think 30min a week is a lot; others think that and will move to doing 3hrs of it. These people may have differing experiences of then adding another 20min of easy ARC on rest days or after sessions (both in terms of fatigue and benefit). Experiences will also depend a lot on how tired you're getting in your other sessions; in my experience there's a point of fatigue where adding anything more that day - no matter how easy - is just digging a hole
-
My tentative suggestion is if you're finding it tweaky for the elbows you may be pushing too hard? Skin can be an issue, jwi has suggested leather gloves. It is time consuming but I really should do more of this now I've got a bit more free time.
Just to be clear, I've not tried this - I just feel that I'd struggle to do anythign easy enough.
I reckon I'm not really fit enough / have the facilities locally to do anything easy enough to not stray into the Aerocap / Base Endurance Zone/
-
Is it worth differentiating the really easy 'regenerative' activity Jon is talking about in the video, from aerobic capacity? If I understand correctly, the former should be at a level you could manage every day and you are not even slightly pumped. I think of this as the running equivalent of going for a walk! Aerobic capacity can involve getting mildly pumped but always completely in control of this. Zone 2 running? Perhaps this is a semantic difference.
I was going to make this point, but you and Alex beat me to it. I’ve long been skeptical of the benefits of regenerative sessions/ARCing.
For running/cycling these workouts are often included to increase blood flow and flush out metabolites. There may also be an increase in fat burning, but that’s less relevant to sport climbing.
I suppose it may have the same benefits for climbing and if you’ve got lots of time free it won’t impact on the rest of your training. However, it would be the first thing I’d ditch for anyone whose training is time squeezed.
One thing to be careful of is the increased load on your joints (elbows/fingers) especially if overworked already. For this reason, - or if you struggle to find ground easy enough to arc on - I guess using a powerball on the sofa whilst watching TV could replace this kind of workout (assuming your partner can stand the whirring noise)
-
You can swap hands holding a pinch block with a few kgs hanging off it too, and with no noise! Although you do risk getting chalk on the floor. I concur that it's the first thing to ditch
-
I have never been able to do regenerative climbing in the same sense as regenerative running. Climbing well below my LT1 is so easy that in any other context I would call it adventurous walking. I have never been able to reliably do it on indoor walls. YMMV.
(I have not watched the video that spawn the topic. Is there a transcription somewhere? I like text.)
-
I’ve not watched the vid above Dave but I’ve spent a lot of time researching training for running. I appreciate that running - even at shorter distances - is an endurance sport, so there’s crossover with some types of climbing but less so bouldering. Generally speaking I reckon there is too much emphasis on intensity within the climbing training “world”. Yes some coaches and pros bang the volume/movement skills drum, but there still seems to be a perception that high intensity strength training can be some magic bullet. Without the volume of climbing to underpin it, I think eg deadhanging is massively overrated. How many climbers do recovery sessions or easy circuits? I know some do but not many. Bottom line is I suspect many climbers are not reaching their potential because they’re not recovered enough to get the most out of their higher intensity sessions. In other words they’re training tired all the time. Or the running equivalent of running in Z3 / “junk miles” too much.
This :thumbsup:
It's not that high intensity work is a problem, but putting the focus on that and chasing results.
A perfect example is the way that people "warm up" on the wave at the foundry, when they're really just tiring themselves out.
This is not a question of whether something should be considered Ancap/Aerocap or anything like that, and not about "intrinsic" qualities of regen work.
I have a mental image of the way that Malcolm Smith was working out on the wave one session with a weight belt - it looked really easy. He wasn't trying to increase intensity, or make it feel hard or in any way arduous. For him, it was good quality low intensity volume.
I had a good chat with Ben about easy lapping at 7a+ for the same reason.
In many respects, it is the base work which is harder to do, because it can feel like a chore, with no apparent short term "payback" emotionally, but you're increasing your overall capacity to do work - the volume under the graph.
-
Replying to Fultonius, Alex and jwills above, it's not about adding extra work of the "magic bullet" type, and these principles apply whether we're talking about more endurance based activities or power.
However, using the running analogy, when I was fittest, I was going out for incredibly easy runs, until I felt fresh enough to work more intensely. On harder runs, they were intense, but I had the capacity to work at that rate, without the additional stress of being under-recovered. In training parlance, the emphasis has also been changed from "over-trained" to "under-rested".
When I was under-rested, I could come very close to hitting - or even exceeding - the same numbers, but it was more arduous/stressful, and I think we see this all the time in climbing. Most commonly, every time people go climbing or to the wall, they're trying to perform at a particular level, and always trying to hit that peak becomes damaging in the longer term.
I like using the analogy of building a peak with sugar cubes. You can be very well practiced at balancing one cube on top of another - and time invested in this way will give results akin to the plateauing we're all familiar with - or we can spend some really boring time getting more sugar on the table to shape into something higher later. As Ben M once said "There ain't no substitute for cubes" ;D
-
I'm not really sure that that's a reply to me.. if it is I think we're broadly in agreement on at least some aspects
-
I'm not really sure that that's a reply to me.. if it is I think we're broadly in agreement on at least some aspects
Yes we are, on a lot of what you were saying, particularly on the differentiation between terms like "active rest" and Regeneration, which is lacking in the video.
It was your last sentence, which reflected how I used to see things, and I think a lot of people do, that there's something "intrinsic" in lower intensity work which operates in it's own way, so that adding more of something easy at the end of a session (for e.g.) somehow gives us added benefits.
"in my experience there's a point of fatigue where adding anything more that day - no matter how easy - is just digging a hole".
Even with easier work, people end up chasing numbers. It's more a case of understanding our capacity for training and recovery, and the problems that trying to stretch that too far creates - knowing when to work hard and when to work easy.
-
I think I need to include more sugar cubes in the weekly shop.
;)
-
Bjork's solo stuff is better.
-
Is active rest actually a thing? Has this been shown by any studies to be effective at not just making you tired next training session? I suspect "active rest" is in fact just not resting as much or as effectively in order to try and fit in more training.
-
The point here isn't arguing about what's intrinsic to recovery work/regeneration workouts or "active rest", but understanding the difference between working hard and working easy.
Yes, some of the claims about what the function of recovery work is/does have been disputed, but that's not the same as debunking it's role in the balance of easy/hard work.
An "active rest" session would entail something typically short and easy, with the intention of feeling better after it than you do at the start.
Mistakes I've made have included thinking of easy soloing on the grit as "active rest" - even the easiest routes can climb in a surprisingly powerful way.
Changing the focus of this slightly, the significance of understanding the difference between what working hard/easy means is where I think John was going later in the video.
We all tend to measure our performance in terms of what we've done - what we come back from the crag with - whereas in terms of structuring our training around short/medium term goals, we can change objectives from simply I want to do X, to "I want to be doing X seven times in a session and for it to feel like a 75% effort".
Understanding different work/recovery rates helps us keep our training more in sync with our capacity for adaptation.
More often than not we just keep trying to stretch further - until something snaps.
In running terms, I went from simply chasing down pb times on a 5/10K circuit to "what do I need to change in my training so that I'm running 10K in time x, below 75% HRMax?".
Hopefully it makes us think more critically about our capacity for adaptation than simply chasing down the next peak.
-
Interesting discussion ta. I used to find 1. Differentiating between active rest and Aerocap very difficult at the climbing wall and 2. Virtually impossible to do either due to either meeting mates and doing other stuff or spotting a “problem”/ project that needed engaging with. Also seemed like a lot of faff to drive half an hour there and then same back to do what appeared to be very little…. and pay.
I have solved this by writing 20 minute super low intensity (20%of max hang x 80 hangs ) x2, hang sessions for my force plate. That I do on non training or climbing days. Just caught my self calling it not training which says a lot.
I have no measure as to how effective this is other than, it feels refreshing, creates minimal fatigue, costs zip and only uses up just over 20mins. However coupled with my other « training » it may be contributing to an persistent upward trend in the force I can pull on a smallish edge (15 mm ). Since I only started this in January it may have contributed to a significant uptick in my max hang (2.5 kg per month, single hand, in a month against a much lower rate of just over 1kg per month over the last year ) but in this game nothing is certain.
-
I’ve not watched the vid above Dave but I’ve spent a lot of time researching training for running. I appreciate that running - even at shorter distances - is an endurance sport, so there’s crossover with some types of climbing but less so bouldering. Generally speaking I reckon there is too much emphasis on intensity within the climbing training “world”. Yes some coaches and pros bang the volume/movement skills drum, but there still seems to be a perception that high intensity strength training can be some magic bullet. Without the volume of climbing to underpin it, I think eg deadhanging is massively overrated. How many climbers do recovery sessions or easy circuits? I know some do but not many. Bottom line is I suspect many climbers are not reaching their potential because they’re not recovered enough to get the most out of their higher intensity sessions. In other words they’re training tired all the time. Or the running equivalent of running in Z3 / “junk miles” too much.
I’ve seen Lattice use this ‘junk miles’ idea quite a few times, which obviously has credence in actual endurance sports, but as you note, the strength end of climbing is not an endurance sport, and as such trying to frame training in that way seems to be inaccurate. From a strength training PoV, any weights program will have a decent amount of time in that %age effort zone that would be considered ‘junk’ for endurance activities, and it was interesting to listen to a few podcasts with Steve Maisch recently where he framed bouldering training around a traditional strength training set up.
With regards to recovery in strength training, and deadhanging in particular, this should be easy to monitor with regards to how you are performing against your tested max results?
-
For sure it’s less relevant to bouldering, though you’d be a fool to underestimate session fitness in terms of actually getting stuff ticked. I’m coming at this more from the explosion in training advice/coaching, which is aimed at all types of climbers. And seeing what people are actually trying to do. In simple terms do 2 fingerboard sessions pw rather than 3, get better quality out of those as you’re more recovered and spend the 3rd session doing lots of easy climbing/movement. The ‘culture’ seems to be more skewed towards trying to stack another highly intense session into your wk.
It’s easy to think you’re recovered after 48 hours or whatever, but are you really? And if you are maybe you didn’t try hard enough or maybe your 20 years old.
-
Totally agree re session fitness, and this has deffo been the hardest thing to train with a home set up without a board.
I’m not sure however whether lots of easy climbing would lead to a notable increase in session fitness for trying hard boulders? The best improvements I’ve had for that previously (without having the time to just do big circuits of mod/hard climbing outside) have been more with strength endurance style stuff like on the minute or 4x4 for a few weeks before a trip.
-
Or the running equivalent of running in Z3 / “junk miles” too much.
I (mis)understood the term "junk miles" to mean just "going for a run", where there is no actual intent and just "going for a run"; no intensity training (hills, intervals pace, etc) but also not doing the necessary volume long easy mileage; a run that's too short for one, but too easy for the other.
-
No intensity or not easy enough to recover from so that you can get the most out of the next workout. Most people’s ‘easy’ runs are nothing of the sort. The caveat to all this is if you can only train (whether it be running or climbing) 2 or 3 times pw you don’t want to be making it easy for 2 of those sessions! In climbing junk miles might be the classic unstructured wall session where you do a bit of everything and finish knackered.
-
No intensity or not easy enough to recover from so that you can get the most out of the next workout. Most people’s ‘easy’ runs are nothing of the sort.
...and we all know climbers who push the concept of 'active rest' days past the point of being nothing other than another day on.
Is active rest actually a thing?
In cycling it is. They ride on their rest days on the TdF (and I don't think that's purely to do with fulfilling sponsorship obligations).
-
No intensity or not easy enough to recover from so that you can get the most out of the next workout. Most people’s ‘easy’ runs are nothing of the sort.
OK, agreed then. my easy miles are usually hillwalking with the kids.
-
No intensity or not easy enough to recover from so that you can get the most out of the next workout. Most people’s ‘easy’ runs are nothing of the sort.
...and we all know climbers who push the concept of 'active rest' days past the point of being nothing other than another day on.
Is active rest actually a thing?
In cycling it is. They ride on their rest days on the TdF (and I don't think that's purely to do with fulfilling sponsorship obligations).
I think they do the rest day ride so as to avoid the post rest day slump. I.e you do 10 or so days on then have a day off. Then the next day your body doesn’t want to try hard again, it likes resting.
-
I'm your classic runner: "easy runs too hard, hard runs too easy." Recently been paying some attention to the Garmin bar charts, splitting efforts into easy, medium, hard. Mine was all in the middle and I'm trying to be better balanced now. Hard is hard though - I thought I was putting in some efforts but it's hard to impress the little machine. That said my 'predicted 5k' time is steadily dropping, with no increase in volume. Haven't raced enough to see actual 5k.
Climbing wise is likely the same, I've always done plenty of easier stuff, I like moving on rock. Trying properly hard is more the problem. For me AN Other sport isn't quite the same as proper rest day. I still need rest days alternating sports and hard efforts.
-
I think they do the rest day ride so as to avoid the post rest day slump. I.e you do 10 or so days on then have a day off. Then the next day your body doesn’t want to try hard again, it likes resting.
A friend of mine went in to a bouldering gym when walking home from uni. Three years later, years during which he had bouldered up to 8A+/B, he took his first rest day. He told me that taking rest days was a really bad idea, because the day after his rest day he could barely climb.
-
In climbing junk miles might be the classic unstructured wall session where you do a bit of everything and finish knackered.
This is what I've always understood junk mileage to mean in climbing.
It's all about understanding the different intensity levels for each session and going after them. For example a maximal board session needs to actually involve maximum moves; I.e. moves that might take you more than a session just to do in isolation, as opposed to the classic thing of trying a load of problems that you can likely do in a few goes; it might feel like you've worked hard but it's not actually hard enough to stimulate the gains you're after. Similarly if you were trying to do mileage, building fitness, with the same session; your rest times won't be short enough and the problems are too hard.
Regarding the original subject, I reckon session fitness is one of the more elusive factors to judge. There are so many variables!
-
Generally speaking I reckon there is too much emphasis on intensity within the climbing training “world”. Yes some coaches and pros bang the volume/movement skills drum, but there still seems to be a perception that high intensity strength training can be some magic bullet. Without the volume of climbing to underpin it, I think eg deadhanging is massively overrated.
I reckon this is spot on too though. The best climbers get through a fairly enormous quantity of movement, with much of it at no more than c. 80% of max. I enjoyed listening to the Nugget podcast with Steve Bechtel (or Maisch?, can't remember) recently where he made this point; that the very best have this as an almost naturally imposed limit simply because there aren't very many 8B+s / 8Cs / 8C+s, but there are far more 7Cs / 8As, etc. so they naturally spend a lot of their time in that sub maximal zone. This is tricky for your more average punter where there are always quite a lot of problems at both their maximum and sub-80% level, and ego makes it difficult to spend too much time on the easier stuff, when the tantalising possibility of doing something hard hangs over them.
I certainly find it difficult anyway!
-
as opposed to the classic thing of trying a load of problems that you can likely do in a few goes; it might feel like you've worked hard but it's not actually hard enough to stimulate the gains you're after.
Conversely these essentially the sort of sessions Maisch recommends for building strength. To use the weight lifting analogy you don’t improve your max deadlift by spending session after session trying to pick up an overloaded bar!
-
I dunno, I'd say that's too easy. If you can do the whole problem in a few goes at most then it's nowhere near 80%.
-
https://thenuggetclimbing.com/episodes/steve-maisch
This is the episode for anyone interested, board session structure from about 1:50 although the basis of the the thinking discussed around 32 mins.
-
I dunno, I'd say that's too easy. If you can do the whole problem in a few goes at most then it's nowhere near 80%.
This isn't true for me on my board. The hardest things I've ever climbed are on my board and on a given day I'll either repeat them within a few tries or not at all. I think the movement on a board is so basic in comparison to rock that moves I can do fairly consistently are way higher than 80%
-
Yeah ignore me, realised I'd completely contradicted myself earlier ::)
I still think trying fully limit moves that might take multiple sessions to do has value. Or at least I hope it does as it's what's in my plan atm haha
I dunno, I'd say that's too easy. If you can do the whole problem in a few goes at most then it's nowhere near 80%.
This isn't true for me on my board. The hardest things I've ever climbed are on my board and on a given day I'll either repeat them within a few tries or not at all. I think the movement on a board is so basic in comparison to rock that moves I can do fairly consistently are way higher than 80%
This doesn't make any sense to me :lol:
-
I dunno, I'd say that's too easy. If you can do the whole problem in a few goes at most then it's nowhere near 80%.
This isn't true for me on my board. The hardest things I've ever climbed are on my board and on a given day I'll either repeat them within a few tries or not at all. I think the movement on a board is so basic in comparison to rock that moves I can do fairly consistently are way higher than 80%
I think this is important.
When we talk about % in relation to a problem, it's not the % relative to success on the move/problem, it's the work required to do it. These are different of course.
On a move we've learnt well, we may be very close to our max in terms of critical strength. Our relative lack of strength is evident when we make mistakes - not when we're repeating a movement we've learnt really well.
-
as opposed to the classic thing of trying a load of problems that you can likely do in a few goes; it might feel like you've worked hard but it's not actually hard enough to stimulate the gains you're after.
Conversely these essentially the sort of sessions Maisch recommends for building strength. To use the weight lifting analogy you don’t improve your max deadlift by spending session after session trying to pick up an overloaded bar!
Agree.
-
I think they do the rest day ride so as to avoid the post rest day slump. I.e you do 10 or so days on then have a day off. Then the next day your body doesn’t want to try hard again, it likes resting.
Perhaps? However, active recovery rides are definitely a thing and my understanding was they're to promote blood flow in muscles which have damage/require nutrients.
-
I wonder if you would actually get more success if you wave loaded intensity on the board in the same way as you wave load for like, Bench Press or whatever.
I'm not a hundred percent sure if you would tbh. I think that because the movement is varied the intensity wouldn't work so well.
-
Perhaps? However, active recovery rides are definitely a thing and my understanding was they're to promote blood flow in muscles which have damage/require nutrients.
Since I have just strained an A2 I think I’m about to test this theory.
-
I think they do the rest day ride so as to avoid the post rest day slump. I.e you do 10 or so days on then have a day off. Then the next day your body doesn’t want to try hard again, it likes resting.
Perhaps? However, active recovery rides are definitely a thing and my understanding was they're to promote blood flow in muscles which have damage/require nutrients.
Does that work for strength training though? Like should I do a very light workout the day after max pullups with weight?
-
I wonder if you would actually get more success if you wave loaded intensity on the board in the same way as you wave load for like, Bench Press or whatever.
I'm not a hundred percent sure if you would tbh. I think that because the movement is varied the intensity wouldn't work so well.
Perhaps if you’re having 2 board sessions a week you could have a hard project session and an ‘in a few goes’ session, so you get that volume in one session (3-6 reps in weights) and intensity in the other session (1-3 reps). As long as the overall difficulty of the problems is about right, it shouldn’t matter about the movement or whether they are cruxy etc. as that will all even out.
Personally though I think if you’re getting an outdoor session in a week where you’re trying projects (not much chance currently!) then that probably covers the trying hard moves bit quite well.
-
Does that work for strength training though? Like should I do a very light workout the day after max pullups with weight?
Your original question was is it a thing; in other sports, I believe yes.
I don't see why if you've done muscle damage that needs repair and blood flow is beneficial for that, why it wouldn't work? Does it matter how the damage was caused? I'm sure other methods are available (contrast baths).
Regardless, I think what's already been agreed by people who are willing to spend an extra half an hour at the wall gently hanging off a campus rung with their feet on the floor that it's unlikely to be the most important part of your training week!
-
Does that work for strength training though? Like should I do a very light workout the day after max pullups with weight?
Your original question was is it a thing; in other sports, I believe yes.
I don't see why if you've done muscle damage that needs repair and blood flow is beneficial for that, why it wouldn't work? Does it matter how the damage was caused? I'm sure other methods are available (contrast baths).
Regardless, I think what's already been agreed by people who are willing to spend an extra half an hour at the wall gently hanging off a campus rung with their feet on the floor that it's unlikely to be the most important part of your training week!
Well my thinking was it might work for endurance and not work for strength development. I'm going to poke around for some papers and see what I find
-
Bet you find papers that say it's good and bad....
-
IIRC, the broad conclusions in the literature for anything to do with recovery were (last time I took a quick look) that it seemed like lots of things made people feel better (active rest, contrast baths, massage, compression garments etc.) but none of these significantly improved performance in subsequent tests. That may be because they're useless or may be because marginal gains are hard to measure.
-
Thé intangible be resistance to injury from good recovery?
-
Thanks for posting jwills, and interesting that you've presented it as a question.
What do you think?
A lot of the emphasis placed on regeneration workouts/recovery work suggests that it improves our ability to recover from the stresses of higher intensity work, but I don't think it's "intrinsic".
The fact that no one has replied reflects the emphasis that people put on higher intensity work. That may sound obvious, but I think there's a tendency to neglect general conditioning. It's common for people to chase/exchange markers for their BM2000 slot performance, but less their hip flexibility for instance, or their rate of recovery after a set of low end 6s on the wall.
Again, I think that might seem to make sense, but I also think that when we start to drop off of a "peak", we can often forget what we really put into getting there. It's interesting that later in the video there's some discussion about having a good "pyramid" - and this is very much neglected too - again, because we tend to chase peak performances, or markers for it.
The terms recovery work/regeneration workouts can be misleading, because they tend to imply that there is some "thing" in the work which is active in the regeneration. There are a lot of studies of different methods/techniques which indicate this isn't the case. When I was trying to run rather than climb, I started to get my head around a lot of principles which I felt carried over to training for climbing really well.
One author explained very well how most club runners tended to run when training, at a pace that was only very slightly below their race pace, whereas as an elite runner, the author would do the majority of his base work at a much lower pace. For example, a club runner might train at 7'30"/mile pace and race at 7'/mile, whereas for an elite runner, it might be more like 8'/mile and 4'30. One very good bit of advice that I've tried to take with me back into climbing is that "On your recovery runs, you can't run too slowly, only too quickly". Also, there is the common misconception that if you do work at a very easy level, you have to do loads more of it to benefit. No, a light session means low intensity and short duration.
In this article they explain very simply the conflicting demands placed on available energy by training and adaptation:
https://sportsedtv.com/blog/proper-recovery-and-regeneration-from-and-for-training-part-i/
Emphasising the limited resources available for training and recovery helps us understand that regeneration work is about adding volume at a level which doesn't conflict with or compromise recovery/adaptation from more intense work.
Very often, we think we can make up for lost time by training more intensely - a habit I'm trying to break - or we try to reach or regain a peak performance too soon when we think of it as our new "baseline".
Building a good pyramid of base work, is not about chasing a higher jump, but raising the level of the ground that we jump from.
I like to think of physical* ability in terms of elasticity - our ability to do work and perform, and then recover to a more relaxed state more quickly. The adaptive process in regen work is that it helps us raise the level at which we feel we're still working easily, by adding volume at a level which doesn't compromise our recovery and preparation for more intense efforts. That has an additional carry over too, in that by doing more work in a relaxed way, we can remain more relaxed when trying to perform at a higher level.
Most importantly, was the question of whether slash grades should be allowed @ ~17:30 ;D
This is a really good topic.
* I was tempted to say athletic ability, but it doesn't really apply in my case
Good discussion, good post.
I think another reason why it's hard to stick to very easy regeneration / pyramid-base-building / active rest for climbing is that in this fucking dismal sodden shithole of a country, we have to do a lot of our training / non-training indoors, and easier climbing indoors is all too often ultra-boring jug pulls. Climbing is a technically interesting kinaesthetic sport and doing basically ladders (which will be relative to ability ofc) is pretty fucking dull. Better setting of vert / slabs with still-very-easy moves on edges / slopers / blobs / different orientated holds / more use of features and wall angles would help this. As people have said soloing can be an option but generally not when the entire country is underwater.
Two aspects of possible regen climbing that strike me as pertinent. It seems like it would be comparable to just gently and steadily warming up for a session - and then stopping. This seems like it could be beneficial and might get one primed for the next day's "OMG I JUST CAN'T RESIST THAT SWEET SWEET HIGH INTENSITY WORK" session. And secondly as Paul B said - movement to get blood flow to the muscles and tissues and encourage healing - that in itself seems like good reasoning.
However, personally, having done a huge amount of fucking easy ledge shuffling which probably would count as regeneration climbing, it's made me quite comfortable with doing a huge amount of fucking easy ledge shuffling (including on subsequent days, without any particular muscular fatigue, and without any feeling like I'm overdoing fucking easy ledge shuffling), but has left me feeling relatively weak and physically lacking overall. My "pyramid" in terms of physical performance is the complete opposite of, say, Spidermonkey90's pencil dick pyramid, mine is distinctly choadly. But this might well be my focus on fucking easy ledge shuffling and lack of structure to my training, rather than regen climbing being ineffective when mixed in to proper training.
-
compression garments
Are you saying my Accapi Nexus Bodysuit is doing nothing for me?
-
compression garments
Perpetually hugely discounted at sports pursuit. Massage guns heading in that direction.
IIRC, the broad conclusions in the literature for anything to do with recovery were (last time I took a quick look) that it seemed like lots of things made people feel better (active rest, contrast baths, massage, compression garments etc.) but none of these significantly improved performance in subsequent tests. That may be because they're useless or may be because marginal gains are hard to measure.
This.
Adequate food and sleep makes a measurable difference.
-
IIRC, the broad conclusions in the literature for anything to do with recovery were (last time I took a quick look) that it seemed like lots of things made people feel better (active rest, contrast baths, massage, compression garments etc.) but none of these significantly improved performance in subsequent tests. That may be because they're useless or may be because marginal gains are hard to measure.
Essentially I've found this; no paper (that I read) noted that there's any measurable benefit in doing active rest the day after a work day compared to actual full rest, and some seemingly suggested it might be worse.
But yes hard to measure.
-
Some confusion about the terms/reference to regen/recovery work.
It's better thought of in terms of what one does while recovering from/regenerating for.
This is understood in terms of the distribution of easy/hard work, the former very often being significantly neglected, and also includes a great deal of other general conditioning work.
Conversely, studies into aids to/for recovery are - as other people have referenced - inconclusive/difficult to evaluate.
That said, a light recovery session is supposed to be just that, either other base work which doesn't impact recovery for the next harder session, or something that will leave you feeling better afterwards - for instance working on flexibility or mobility on very easy ground. Pissing people off by traversing the base of routes at the Foundry is very good for this. ;D
On the whole though, I think we seriously neglect base work.