Basic principles for ancap training:
1) climbing time about the same as rest time
2) around 1.5-2 mins duration
3) hard enough to (not quite) fail on last rep of last set.
So something that’s worked really well for me in the past is to set a 15 move Boulder problem on a steep board and do 4 reps with ~2 mins rest. This is one set.
3-4 sets, with 5-6 mins between sets.
But basically anything that hits the principles above.
Thanks Alex, that fits more with what I’d understood. What I have been doing is 4 reps of 40seconds climbing (approx 15 moves) with 5 mins between sets.
Still don’t get why each rest between reps would not be longer, with harder moves on the reps.
Alasdair- cheers, I’ll heed that, especially since my elbows make Michael Owen look like Iron Man :thumbsup:
My peak form just now is around the f7b o/s level and I'm looking to up that to f7c, but had a session (after 2 weeks no climbing due to tweaked wrist in a silly fall walking back from a winter route..) but I got pretty shut down on a f7a+ at ratho on Friday, and one of the f6cs felt pretty hard!
I would not describe what Devonshire is doing as an cap at all really. Unclear to me if this is simply an issue of nomenclature.
I thought i was working on power endurance as the rests were so short but i am probably wrong, certainly was brilliant when needing to power through sport cruxes when pumped
My understanding is that after 45s anaerobic respiration starts to wane and you depend increasingly (and after 120s totally) on aerobic energy systems ie the krebs cycle.
My recent training so far has been:
1) long boulders ~15 moves/45s duration. x4 reps per set. 2 mins rest between reps, 5 mins rest between sets.
2) short boulders ~6-8 moves:
2a) 6 sets of 3, 30s rest between reps and 5 mins rest between sets.
2b) 3 sets of 6, 1min rest between reps, 5 mins rest between sets
Naively I would think the best way to stimulate the glycolysis system is stress it fully, allow sufficient recovery, rinse and repeat. However, most training methodologies don't leave sufficient recovery between reps. Or is that the point?
Another question. The cycling methods are based around Functional Power Threshold. This is a measure of average top output over 45-60 mins (albeit measured in a 20 minute burst). This has nothing to with the timings of most boulders or sport routes, so what is the climbing equivalent measure?
Another question. The cycling methods are based around Functional Power Threshold. This is a measure of average top output over 45-60 mins (albeit measured in a 20 minute burst). This has nothing to with the timings of most boulders or sport routes, so what is the climbing equivalent measure? Seems like the FRC training is based on a very different baseline output to climbing. Any thoughts Stu? Thanks.
Stressing the system as hard as possible isn't necessarily the best way of training it, otherwise (for example) we'd just do aeropow and not aerocap/arc! I think most exercises aim to go to (near) failure but not necessarily per-rep. If you went to failure each rep you'd need long rests, but not so if you aim to approach failure each set.
It's 60 minutes and I think you're mixed up; you can output a higher power for less time. You reduce your 20 minute power output by 5% to predict your (lower) FTP that you can sustain for 3x as long.
in reality it's probably not all that important compared to consistency over a sustained period of time.
My recent training so far has been:
1) long boulders ~15 moves/45s duration. x4 reps per set. 2 mins rest between reps, 5 mins rest between sets.
2) short boulders ~6-8 moves:
2a) 6 sets of 3, 30s rest between reps and 5 mins rest between sets.
2b) 3 sets of 6, 1min rest between reps, 5 mins rest between sets
Sounds about right to me. I wouldn't do more than 2x ancap sessions a week; I can't recover enough to do more. Probably could when I was 20, but then I could do a lot of things when I was 20 that I can't now.Naively I would think the best way to stimulate the glycolysis system is stress it fully, allow sufficient recovery, rinse and repeat. However, most training methodologies don't leave sufficient recovery between reps. Or is that the point?
Stressing the system as hard as possible isn't necessarily the best way of training it, otherwise (for example) we'd just do aeropow and not aerocap/arc! I think most exercises aim to go to (near) failure but not necessarily per-rep. If you went to failure each rep you'd need long rests, but not so if you aim to approach failure each set.Another question. The cycling methods are based around Functional Power Threshold. This is a measure of average top output over 45-60 mins (albeit measured in a 20 minute burst). This has nothing to with the timings of most boulders or sport routes, so what is the climbing equivalent measure?
[edit: what follows is totally OTT geekery and is just me musing for fun. If you just want to know what to do for ancap training I strongly advise ignoring it]
The climbing equivalent of FTP would be our equivalent of critical power, which is Dave Giles' critical force. It's not exactly the same thing, but fundamentally, they're both attempts to measure the maximum amount of effort that can be sustained long term, and primarily depend on aerobic ability.
Where I think there is a lot of scope to improve climbing training is that at the moment, most workouts seem based on a % of max strength (for the fingerboard) or "standard" durations for intervals (i.e your 45s ancap intervals).
But an aerobic workout should have an intensity based on your critical force, not your max strength, and some % of critical force/FTP is not a sensible way to calculate the intensity/duration of an ancap workout.
The approach some cycling coaches take is to try and construct a "power-duration" curve. The duration managed at a given power output should closely follow a standard curve, predicted by the critical force/power model. However, when you measure real people you find that there are durations/intensities where they underperform. The basic idea is to target these areas in training.
In a climbing context measuring a power-duration curve would involve something like doing 7:3 repeaters to failure with a range of added weights. The duration you manage at each particular added weight is recorded and compared the expectation from a critical force model. Areas where you do badly are emphasised in training.
This makes a lot of sense to me, but I haven't come up with a way of gathering the data that is easy enough to make it worthwhile. But imagine for a second you had someone who wanted to spend a whole week measuring time to failure when dead hanging, and they came up with the following results:
Weight added | Duration Managed | Expected Duration
10 kg | 2:20 | 2:10
15 kg | 1:00 | 1:25
20 kg | 1:05 | 1:05
30 kg | 0:50 | 0:43
40 kg | 0:30 | 0:32
This climber "underperforms" in efforts just over 1 minute, but does OK at 45s efforts. Arguably, they'd be better off doing their ancap on longer circuits that take 1:00-1:20 rather than the "standard" 15 move circuits.
Funnily enough Stu it was a very vague version of this fingerboard based testing you described that got me training ancap in the first place this winter.
In Siurana in October I kept falling off projects without any pump but just feeling like I didn't have enough beans to pull through a specific move.
Nice anecdote! I guess it's an example for Paul about how more advanced testing might be useful. Although, to make Paul's rebuttal for him:
Exactly. My point is that you don't need 4DP to predict whether I'm a sprinter or better at dancing on the pedals going uphill. Anyone care to take a guess (36yr old male; 5ft 6; 57kg)? By observation I think you/a coach could easily point to the weak link in someone's energy systems (via qualitative assessment).
I think for lots of people you don't need testing that much to know where your weaknesses lie.. but I do think for some it can be useful.
Funnily enough Stu it was a very vague version of this fingerboard based testing you described that got me training ancap in the first place this winter.
In Siurana in October I kept falling off projects without any pump but just feeling like I didn't have enough beans to pull through a specific move.
Nice anecdote! I guess it's an example for Paul about how more advanced testing might be useful. Although, to make Paul's rebuttal for him:
1) What you describe above is a pretty classic sign of an underpowered anaerobic system, also called "trad climber's syndrome".
2) If you hadn't been training ancap at all, it was likely a-priori to be a weak spot.
So, maybe you didn't need the testing after all ;)
Funnily enough Stu it was a very vague version of this fingerboard based testing you described that got me training ancap in the first place this winter.
In Siurana in October I kept falling off projects without any pump but just feeling like I didn't have enough beans to pull through a specific move.
Nice anecdote! I guess it's an example for Paul about how more advanced testing might be useful. Although, to make Paul's rebuttal for him:
1) What you describe above is a pretty classic sign of an underpowered anaerobic system, also called "trad climber's syndrome".
2) If you hadn't been training ancap at all, it was likely a-priori to be a weak spot.
So, maybe you didn't need the testing after all ;)
Now I agree in theory but in practicality I was so much in doubt that I could be right about the issue that it was great to have a test confirm it. I'd spent too long misassociating strength with power and aeropow with ancap and only recently cleaned up these definitions - this actually caused a two year plateau whilst I trained the right things at the wrong intensity and got absolutely nowhere.
This was no doubt influenced by many people in my social circle who also had the wrong understanding constantly telling me how I clearly just needed to improve aero endurance because I was evidently strong enough due to being decent on an edge. I also had a tendency to open crimp everything because this was my strongest grip type but obviously was pretty shit for doing powerful moves on steep terrain, something else I wish someone had told me a few years ago (thanks to Ned's book that I finally learnt what I was doing wrong there). My ability to pull on small crimps (10mm>) improved by a ridiculous degree in the space of maybe 4 weeks after I started consciously using a proper crimp grip on the board and whilst climbing. I had to ease into this because in the beginning it felt like my fingers would explode (the main reason I never used it in the first place) but after the adaptation phase there was an exponential progression and I went from barely being able to hang a full crimp with two hands to being able to bodyweight one arm on the BM2K middle rung for a few seconds. I was absolutely blown away by this and am still amazed nobody ever pointed it out to me in ten years of climbing.
The point of all this being that I think checking in on standardized tests can have a really positive effect on learning just by pointing out obvious weaknesses in a way that can't easily be ignored or misinterpreted so for me it's been incredibly valuable. It's not that I lay any specific value to the methodology but rather that as Barrows pointed out, considering these aspects in a very simple format allowed me to be sure of what I needed to work on and not convince myself that I needed more technique/aero/pointless dieting or whatever other random shit the anxious mind cooks up. I've the kind of mind that has a lot of intrinsic psyche but also feel much more comfortable doing long-form sessions as these feel like 'hard work' so it's been a challenge to reel this in and honor the short/intense session volume.
I'm really curious how next season on rock will feel to be honest!
Really interesting thread as well
I agree with this ^^ also, you could get an inconclusive result and be even more confused than had you not bothered! I've dived into AnCap this year (mainly based on never really having done any focussed training on it). Might try Stu's test at some point and see how I fair. I take it that, given I don't have access to any data to compare against, you just do a best fit curve and see where the peaks and troughs are?
Bit annoyed at the lack of response from Lattice tbh. 2 emails, no reply so far....
edit: deleted because whilst mathematical models of physiology are OK, the quote system always beats me
How long for the max hang Stu, 7 seconds too?
You're on. I guess I can maybe just kind of spread it through the day while working, given each test will only be a few minutes?
Good effort to those scientifically minded enough to get stuck in, but on the flip side I do find the increased 'sciencification' of it slightly off putting.
I'd spent too long misassociating strength with power and aeropow with ancap and only recently cleaned up these definitions - this actually caused a two year plateau whilst I trained the right things at the wrong intensity and got absolutely nowhere.
I agree with this ^^ also, you could get an inconclusive result and be even more confused than had you not bothered! I've dived into AnCap this year (mainly based on never really having done any focussed training on it). Might try Stu's test at some point and see how I fair. I take it that, given I don't have access to any data to compare against, you just do a best fit curve and see where the peaks and troughs are?
Bit annoyed at the lack of response from Lattice tbh. 2 emails, no reply so far....
If you want to do the tests, I'm happy to analyse the data and send you a brief summary. The easiest way to do this test is probably to devote a full day to it. Warm up well and then do the following:
1) Find your maximum two-arm hang weight on the edge you use. Rest 10+ mins.
2) Do 7:3 repeaters to failure at 50%, 60%, 70% and 80% of your max weight*. Rest 20+ mins between these efforts.
3) Send me the times from each hang and your max weight (incl bodyweight).
*don't forget bodyweight! So if you weigh 70kg and you can add 20kg, your max weight is 90kg. A hang at 70% of 90kg is 63kg, so you'd have to remove 7kg for this set.
From those four hangs I can estimate your critical force and see if any of the efforts above are under predicted by the CF model.
Offer open to anyone who wants to waste an afternoon...
I like to think I'm fairly clued up about training in a reasonable amount of ways but these threads make my brain explode! :blink:
Good effort to those scientifically minded enough to get stuck in, but on the flip side I do find the increased 'sciencification' of it slightly off putting. I think its partly due to my irritation with that aspect of it that I've been much more freestyle with my approach to training the last few years out of a desire not to overcomplicate things unnecessarily.
Based on the video analysis I have done of uncut ascents, I simply do not believe that 7:3 s repeaters are very similar to climbing, but I would love to be wrong.
At a guess, a work:rest ratio of 8:1, unless someone can convince me that 7:3 is a better predictor of performance on sections of sustained hard climbing. 🤷🏼♂️I'm guessing that testing would be increasing percentages of max (also 8s?) for time?
[
From those four hangs I can estimate your critical force and see if any of the efforts above are under predicted by the CF model.
Offer open to anyone who wants to waste an afternoon...
[
From those four hangs I can estimate your critical force and see if any of the efforts above are under predicted by the CF model.
Offer open to anyone who wants to waste an afternoon...
Warning Stupid question:
What is critical force?
How does it relate to climbing. (Sport climbing I assume).
At a guess, a work:rest ratio of 8:1, unless someone can convince me that 7:3 is a better predictor of performance on sections of sustained hard climbing. 🤷🏼♂️
Part 2
I find I have a lot of sympathy with Paul's suggestion that these discussions have a "missing the wood for the trees" effect on people trying to learn about training. I love these threads and find them super interesting, but as an example, a discussion of the ideal work:rest ratio for endurance training on fingerboards could lead to someone missing the main point which is:
Do most of your endurance training by climbing
This will get the work:rest ratio right automatically, plus you'll be working on your pacing, your technique and the mental aspect of handling the pump. Much better
Fair enough, thanks for taking a lot of time to consider this! And even doing a pilot study!
To be sure I put myself through a CF test with 8:1 work:rest ratio and compared to results I get with 7:3 repeaters. Once you correct for the duty cycle (the online calculators and lattice don't) I get statistically consistent answers for CF from both. Only one test subject, but backs up the statement above.
I don't doubt you're right that 7:3 repeaters replicate the work:rest ratio in climbing poorly, but for these tests I don't see that it matters.
“ Do most of your endurance training by climbing”
I don’t disagree but finding a route that are sustained enough without shakeouts or easy sections or bloc moves can be difficult.
“ Do most of your endurance training by climbing”
I don’t disagree but finding a route that are sustained enough without shakeouts or easy sections or bloc moves can be difficult.
“ Do most of your endurance training by climbing”
I don’t disagree but finding a route that are sustained enough without shakeouts or easy sections or bloc moves can be difficult.
This may be of interest.I got as far as this quote before making the assumption that it would be totally useless to anyone trying to get better at rock climbing (apart from Simon ;)). Let me know if there's an interesting bit to it!
https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/224/13/jeb234567/270788/Determinants-of-climbing-energetic-costs-in-humans
This may be of interest.I got as far as this quote before making the assumption that it would be totally useless to anyone trying to get better at rock climbing (apart from Simon ;)). Let me know if there's an interesting bit to it!
https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/224/13/jeb234567/270788/Determinants-of-climbing-energetic-costs-in-humans
Mass-specific cost of transport was negatively correlated with climbing velocity. Increased route difficulty was associated with slower climbing velocities and thus higher costs, but there was no statistically significant effect of route difficulty on energy expenditure independent of velocity.
If only there was some underlying moral that could be extracted from this story.
I love threads like these - as a very time poor climbing dad I am always looking for the most efficient ways to train even if I sometimes struggle to adopt them.
Mischa gave a great example of a sort of 'magic bullet' approachFirst thing I'd say is that magic bullets are a rare thing, so don't go into any kind of training expecting one.
can anyone who has adopted energy systems training over multiple seasons explain how it helped progression? [...]Did you get a boost to your onsight/redpoint grade immediately and then each year building on the past efforts, or did it take a bit of time to work out how to make it work for you?Anecdotally, my answer depends on what you call "energy systems training", since anything where you get pumped kind of counts, and it's a spectrum from totally unplanned and unstructured to highly regimented, rather than a discrete thing.
Did it rely on having a clear peaking period where you were able to climb loads or can you make it work as a weekend warrior?I think it works most neatly with trips but it's fine with a block where your preferred crag might be in season (just harder to guess timing), and you could apply the principles broadly without even trying to peak that much too.
A comforting thought, as it does not require training!
^^that is what i would suggest.I thought i was working on power endurance as the rests were so short but i am probably wrong, certainly was brilliant when needing to power through sport cruxes when pumped
Sounds like a very effective way to build a pump Devonshire; I am glad it worked for you. I don't see how it can be anaerobic capacity because the rests are short; they would need to be fairly long, to deal with the lactate produced and reboot the anaerobic system. To me it sounds like you were digging deep into aerobic systems and boosting your capacity to work with lactate levels. Very important, but not anaerobic.
I think the mistake people make - if I can put it that way, is that it's assumed that the energy system you're reliant on at the point of failure, is what you need to train and develop to perform better.
The principle of working your base line aerobic system, is that you can rely on this far more, before having to dip into anaerobic systems.
Thinking about your first post, the words that stood out for me were "when gripped".
I've found that, on good, slightly harder trad routes, having better aerobic capacity allowed me to feel far less stressed/tense, and I could maintain better breathing too. In short, I felt under less pressure.
....
I'm not very fit at the moment, and it shows. However, this anaerobic capacity isn't something that would normally be the deciding factor on harder trad.
Further, the more you train your glycolytic system, the better you’re able to buffer these {hydrogen} ions and the faster you can recover between sets of moderate to high intensity training.
…
. Recovering from it actually requires work from all three energy systems. Specifically, glycolytic training develops not only the operation of each individual system, but also the capability to transition efficiently between them. The primary methods to train your glycolytic system are through repeated high effort activities with less than full recovery between efforts.
My end goal is getting on the sharp end of some difficult (for me) trad and knowing there's something in reserve when I'm gripped..
Keeping more of it available for when you need it is more about using less of it until you get there, than having more of it, when you do.
(From my armchair in front of my PC). Cake is a very good idea!
I love threads like these - as a very time poor climbing dad I am always looking for the most efficient ways to train even if I sometimes struggle to adopt them.
As motivation: can anyone who has adopted energy systems training over multiple seasons explain how it helped progression? Mischa gave a great example of a sort of 'magic bullet' approach, but how has this worked for people over a number of years? Did you get a boost to your onsight/redpoint grade immediately and then each year building on the past efforts, or did it take a bit of time to work out how to make it work for you? Did it rely on having a clear peaking period where you were able to climb loads or can you make it work as a weekend warrior?
Off topic but something else I did this winter was put the scale away and stop worrying about how much I weigh. Bizarrely this resulted in the first noticeable shift in body composition in years. I suspect I weigh more though. Presumably from all the strength training? It's nice not bothering about it though ;D
Off topic but something else I did this winter was put the scale away and stop worrying about how much I weigh. Bizarrely this resulted in the first noticeable shift in body composition in years. I suspect I weigh more though. Presumably from all the strength training? It's nice not bothering about it though ;D
Cycling has totally changed my perception of nutrition but I had to learn the hard way, under fuelling and having a grim time getting home (I'd also managed to knock my network off on my mobile so my attempt to call a lift failed). I wonder how many climbers really damage their progress by not fuelling sufficiently/correctly? Looking back at my own climbing (especially big days on long routes) I've definitely got this wrong.
Didn't want to turn this into a nutrition thread but it's a good point that ancap/power sessions go a lot better in the company of ample carbs.
Cycling has totally changed my perception of nutrition but I had to learn the hard way, under fuelling and having a grim time getting home (I'd also managed to knock my network off on my mobile so my attempt to call a lift failed). I wonder how many climbers really damage their progress by not fuelling sufficiently/correctly? Looking back at my own climbing (especially big days on long routes) I've definitely got this wrong.
I've got quite a well adapted fat system and can go a long way on limited food. However, one thing I read earlier this year maybe helped explain one thing...
I didn't know glycogen couldn't be "shuttled". As far as my limited understanding, once it's gone form a muscle it needs replenished but this can't be supplied from other muscles.
Cycling has totally changed my perception of nutrition but I had to learn the hard way, under fuelling and having a grim time getting home (I'd also managed to knock my network off on my mobile so my attempt to call a lift failed). I wonder how many climbers really damage their progress by not fuelling sufficiently/correctly? Looking back at my own climbing (especially big days on long routes) I've definitely got this wrong.
I've had a few big days out where I've undercooked it and had to climb the last 5-6 pitches of a route whilst totally weak/cold/starving... Very grim. And then the walk off!
Didn't want to turn this into a nutrition thread but it's a good point that ancap/power sessions go a lot better in the company of ample carbs.
Because he had bigger legs? :-\
If you want to do the tests, I'm happy to analyse the data and send you a brief summary. The easiest way to do this test is probably to devote a full day to it. Warm up well and then do the following: