UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => diet, training and injuries => Topic started by: duncan on January 02, 2017, 09:29:41 am
-
Exercises utilising some kind of instability are popular in climbing. Is there anything more to them than novelty and fun? Gymnasts are awesome, so should we train like gymnasts? Are “ instability” exercises better in some way ? I'm interested to hear people’s experiences and if they know of any research evidence to back them up.
From a theoretical perspective I doubt if instability exercises work better for climbers at improving performance or injury prevention than exercises more closely related to climbing. I couldn't find much evidence in a brief search. If you do bench presses (with a trivial 9kg weight) on a gym ball you get greater trunk muscle recruitment https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17530936. You could just increase the weight to achieve the same goal of course...
Exercising with a wobbly support may feel harder for the same weight but means your maximum possible effort won't be as hard: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22692120
Similar results: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20072068
“The findings provide little support (sic!) for training with a lighter load using unstable loads or unstable surfaces”.
Rings and TRX exercises are ‘open chain’, unstable distally. Ring exercises are supposed to increase trunk and shoulder girdle strength and “stability”. I'm sure they can be used as strength exercises, but so can other exercises more specific to climbing. These type of exercises derive much of their difficulty from this ‘wobblyness’. I'm not convinced making the distal point of contact wobbly in training helps when your point of contact performing is rock-steady, for the reasons above.
What about improving stability? We've recently shown long-term intensive instability training (wearing rocker-sole shoes >4 hours daily for 6 months) has no effect on trunk stability when testing on a steady surface. http://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000170 This seems to me to be analogous to ring training for climbing: training with wobbilness doesn't effect performance when you're not wobbly.
Climbing is a closed chain, distally stable activity, so if you want use gymnastic exercises perhaps use bars and the floor rather than rings?
-
Exercises utilising some kind of instability are popular in climbing. Is there anything more to them than novelty and fun?
...
Climbing is a closed chain, distally stable activity, so if you want use gymnastic exercises perhaps use bars and the floor rather than rings?
Good post Duncan, my feeling is that i pretty much agree with you. I think that instability exercise is going to be most useful to very highly trained individuals who may start to see diminishing returns from very specific exercises, and who need a different stimulus to gain any more improvement. Subjectively, i've seen very little crossover from ability on rings to rock performance. I used to climb a bit years ago with a girl who could do full iron cross in the rings without trying that hard; she climbed about HVS as far as i remember.
The thing is, everyone loves a new toy, (I'm certainly not immune) and their popularity is surely partly to do with this. If it is a motivational kick, great, if it takes out time from specific climbing exercise, I'd agree with your contention that they are a pretty ineffectual way to train and callisthenics would be better. Callisthenics are generally quite boring though...
I generally do stuff like this when my skin is knackered, I have an injury, or too pumped / powered out to do any more climbing. However, I wonder whether easy aerocap or just quitting at that point might be a more effective strategy?
-
TRX is good for prehab
Rings aren't just about instability though. Shoulder joints are massively leveraged in most ring positions, that's a question of strength.
-
Short answer. The exercise ball has worked for me, and some other climbers. When I say worked, I meant improvements that led to an increase in bouldering grade (that's the only measure I find interesting). For some it seems to have worked better than deadlifts/squats. Longer answer coming.
-
I'm at work, shorthanded due to people calling in sick, so a bit ham strung answering.
I'd argue strongly for unstable training from the Proprioception perspective as a complimentary regimen alongside more specific work. I have a Meta on that somewhere that I will look out when I've more than a coffee break available.
I'm not a fan of the TRX except as a progression to ring work.
After my shoulder injury I set about rebuilding girdle strength and the rings gave me an incredible lift in that area. I've always trained hard and been strong but this has given me an edge previously missing. It has translated to an undeniable return to form and recovery for me, climbing wise.
As a side note, and I get the climbing irrelevance of it; but I only train bench press on the rings (weighted press ups), but test in the Gym. I went from BW (75kg) to a PB of 118kg from Jan '16to Sept '16. I credit that to much improved shoulder stability from the ring work.
Also true for hangs, campus and board work.
I'm still failing outdoors, but at the start of 2016 I was failing at 7A, now failing 7C, so make of that as you will...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Training on unstable surfaces could be good for CNS quick reaction and adaptment, and for propioception, but does little or nothing for strength.
As everything, it can be of some help for climbing, but not much in my opinion.
In any case, I would separate TRX and rings training from BOSU balls and other instability tools. The first two work because they force you to stabilize an unstable tool, while BOSU balls and similar tools work because they force you to continuous micro adaptments to your equilibrium.
-
From a theoretical perspective I doubt if instability exercises work better for climbers at improving performance or injury prevention than exercises more closely related to climbing. I couldn't find much evidence in a brief search.
......
Rings and TRX exercises are ‘open chain’, unstable distally. Ring exercises are supposed to increase trunk and shoulder girdle strength and “stability”. I'm sure they can be used as strength exercises, but so can other exercises more specific to climbing. These type of exercises derive much of their difficulty from this ‘wobblyness’. I'm not convinced making the distal point of contact wobbly in training helps when your point of contact performing is rock-steady, for the reasons above.
What about improving stability? We've recently shown long-term intensive instability training (wearing rocker-sole shoes >4 hours daily for 6 months) has no effect on trunk stability when testing on a steady surface. http://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000170 This seems to me to be analogous to ring training for climbing: training with wobbilness doesn't effect performance when you're not wobbly.
Climbing is a closed chain, distally stable activity, so if you want use gymnastic exercises perhaps use bars and the floor rather than rings?
As another coffee break thought.
I think describing climbing as a "stable" activity is inaccurate, inasmuch as anything so dynamic and involving such a variety of body positions, tensions, prehensions etc etc (or simply "3D"), requires activation of so many more muscle groups per "session" than a great many sports (in fact I can't think of any sport? Judo?).
Yes, greater strength gains can be achieved through traditional methods, but those gains tend to be within a single plane of motion, surely? Or to put that another way, there is a reason Pull Up strength doesn't convert directly to climbing ability, or FB hangs, or Campusing.
I'd also point out that the reason the rings are so hard to master is that three axis, distal instability, requires a good deal of strength to control. Just as a thought experiment, it seems hard to imagine that as a negative, when transferred to climbing?
I see less correlation to climbing, with all its odd positions, with Muscle-ups, say, or Arm curls. Not that there aren't carry overs from those, just that climbing rarely involves such single plain motions.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Useless anecdote but I feel like press-ups on rings are way better for not tweaking the front of my shoulder than normal press-ups.
-
That Meta I mentioned (hopefully) in PDF:
https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui//bitstream/handle/11250/279729/AndersenBJSM2014.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Which looks at injury prevention.
In case that doesn't work, their conclusions:
"CONCLUSION
In general, physical activity was shown to effectively reduce sports injuries. Stretching proved no beneficial effect, whereas multiple exposure programmes, proprioception training, and strength training, in that order, showed a tendency towards increasing effect. Strength training reduced sports injuries to less than one-third. We advocate that multiple exposure interven- tions should be constructed on the basis of well-proven single exposures and that further research into single exposures, par- ticularly strength training, remains crucial. Both acute and overuse injuries could be significantly reduced, overuse injuries by almost a half. Apart from a few outlying studies, consistently favourable estimates were obtained for all injury prevention measures except for stretching. "
This suggests to me that the proprioception aspects of unstable training are desirable?
As in controlling a ring has some analogy to controlling a slip, or a swing, whilst climbing?
More so than the ball or wobble table, I would think (applying Engineering head)?
Edit:
I meant to say, would you not think that Instability exercises provide a "short cut" to the Multiple Exposure Programme?
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
There's loads of very beneficial stuff you can do on rings that you can't practically do on anything else. I'd wager everyone's mate who's "amazing on rings but shit on rock" doesn't suffer from the same recurring elbow/shoulder complaints the rest of us do.
-
The two best people on rock, that I am very familiar with their training regimen; are also shit-hot on the rings. Elis came to climbing from high level Gymnastics and Ed got good on the rings since starting climbing.
In fact, come to think of it, all of the really good climbers I know train extensively on the rings.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
As a counterpoint, I know lots of very good climbers who don't use them or barely use them.
-
As a counterpoint, I know lots of very good climbers who don't use them or barely use them.
Aahhh...
But could they?
It's a mystery [emoji317]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
As a counterpoint, I know lots of very good climbers who don't use them or barely use them.
Indeed. Very good climbers with too much spare time and no jobs may well have time to piss about on rings. I've noticed the ones with proper jobs perhaps don't do so much...
I'm not saying they're useless....
Leaving aide the physiological pro's and con's, for people who want to train at home, a set of rings is a very simple apparatus to locate and install. And easy height adjustability means they can be used for a reasonable variety of strength exercises.
this is the main reason i use things like this.
doing a few ring exercises is probably more beneficial than drinking tea or watching tv, (I have no documentary evidence of this). It's probably not as beneficial to most people as a bit more pulling really hard on some small holds...
-
Toby, you can't just train for a sport by performing that sport. That's not how any high level athlete trains in any sport. Obviously, that's how you get better at a particular activity, but it's also a recipe for injury and imbalance, surely.[emoji6]
I'm expecting you to put down the weights and lock up the bike and Turbo right now! Nothing for you except the board, sunshine! [emoji13][emoji12]🤡
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
So, got home from work at 22:30 and still awake at 03:00.
Finally read those papers. Overall I don't find it convincingly negative.
No one suggests that such exercise is a replacement for "normal" strength training, (climbing or otherwise) do they? It is something to be used adjunct to surely?
Exercises utilising some kind of instability are popular in climbing. Is there anything more to them than novelty and fun? Gymnasts are awesome, so should we train like gymnasts? Are “ instability” exercises better in some way ? I'm interested to hear people’s experiences and if they know of any research evidence to back them up.
Well, I think the Exercise intervention paper would suggest some significant benefits...
From a theoretical perspective I doubt if instability exercises work better for climbers at improving performance or injury prevention than exercises more closely related to climbing. I couldn't find much evidence in a brief search. If you do bench presses (with a trivial 9kg weight) on a gym ball you get greater trunk muscle recruitment https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17530936. You could just increase the weight to achieve the same goal of course...
Exercising with a wobbly support may feel harder for the same weight but means your maximum possible effort won't be as hard: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22692120
Similar results: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20072068
“The findings provide little support (sic!) for training with a lighter load using unstable loads or unstable surfaces”.
The max were 92 and 93% of the 6RM for the two unstable platforms, with greater core engagement. 6RM is a significant amount, it definitely falls into the Strength training end of the spectrum, will have performance increasing effect and engages core more than the stable platform. This is negative evidence of benefit? Of course, this exercise is antagonistic to most climbing moves, so limited carry over, except in shoulder girdle strength.
Rings and TRX exercises are ‘open chain’, unstable distally. Ring exercises are supposed to increase trunk and shoulder girdle strength and “stability”. I'm sure they can be used as strength exercises, but so can other exercises more specific to climbing. These type of exercises derive much of their difficulty from this ‘wobblyness’. I'm not convinced making the distal point of contact wobbly in training helps when your point of contact performing is rock-steady, for the reasons above.
I think instability is analogous to climbing (personally, I think distal more so) Point of contact might be rock steady, but you aren't. Particularly when things go wrong. Unstable training is aimed more at injury prevention, rather than strength development, no? Again, adjunct to, it would seem useful. Again I think of arresting a swing or similar.
What about improving stability? We've recently shown long-term intensive instability training (wearing rocker-sole shoes >4 hours daily for 6 months) has no effect on trunk stability when testing on a steady surface. http://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000170 This seems to me to be analogous to ring training for climbing: training with wobbilness doesn't effect performance when you're not wobbly.
Was anyone surprised that those shoes didn't work? Never enough instability for one and people just modified their gait to compensate, surely?
Now, put one of a set of twins on a ship, at sea, in heavy weather, for a month and monitor their core activation and I'll bet it's significantly high than their twin waltzing around the streets of London over the same period. Beneficial to lower back pain. Probably not. Actually used to give me serious gyp after a few days. No, a combination of weighted Dorsal raises, Weighted Wipers, Wtd Toe to bars, wtd Push away flies (similar to IYT's) and levers (various) have kept my back sweet and core solid.
N=1, I know.
Climbing is a closed chain, distally stable activity, so if you want use gymnastic exercises perhaps use bars and the floor rather than rings?
It's only closed chain when in a stable, multi contact condition. As soon as it becomes unbalanced by releasing a point of contact (slip) or during a move, it becomes very unstable.
I think this is where there is closer analogy to the distally unstable exercise. In a bench press, on either a stable or unstable surface; the hands are "locked" together by the bar and so always act in concert and there is no (less, to be fair) requirement to hold/correct lateral displacement (in the Sagittal plane) of the load.
When moving or slipping in climbing, loads must be controlled in all three planes, Sagittal, Coronal and Transverse. This control is exerted over a point of contact distal to the body, for all practical purposes it matters not if the body moves relative to the rock or vice-versa; it is a relative motion. This is analogous to, say, Dumbbell presses or Press ups on the rings (also because in both cases, the load is brought across the body to meet at the Sternum line). The fact that these are "Pushing" exercises is less important than the rapid engaging and disengaging of the deep muscles around the principle joints as they act to steady the load?
Please note the question marks in the above and take any apparent assertion as suggestions to be debated.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Climbing is a closed chain, distally stable activity, so if you want use gymnastic exercises perhaps use bars and the floor rather than rings?
It's only closed chain when in a stable, multi contact condition. As soon as it becomes unbalanced by releasing a point of contact (slip) or during a move, it becomes very unstable.
I think this is where there is closer analogy to the distally unstable exercise. In a bench press, on either a stable or unstable surface; the hands are "locked" together by the bar and so always act in concert and there is no (less, to be fair) requirement to hold/correct lateral displacement (in the Sagittal plane) of the load.
When moving or slipping in climbing, loads must be controlled in all three planes, Sagittal, Coronal and Transverse. This control is exerted over a point of contact distal to the body, for all practical purposes it matters not if the body moves relative to the rock or vice-versa; it is a relative motion. This is analogous to, say, Dumbbell presses or Press ups on the rings (also because in both cases, the load is brought across the body to meet at the Sternum line). The fact that these are "Pushing" exercises is less important than the rapid engaging and disengaging of the deep muscles around the principle joints as they act to steady the load?
-
Climbing is a closed chain, distally stable activity, so if you want use gymnastic exercises perhaps use bars and the floor rather than rings?
It's only closed chain when in a stable, multi contact condition. As soon as it becomes unbalanced by releasing a point of contact (slip) or during a move, it becomes very unstable.
I think this is where there is closer analogy to the distally unstable exercise. In a bench press, on either a stable or unstable surface; the hands are "locked" together by the bar and so always act in concert and there is no (less, to be fair) requirement to hold/correct lateral displacement (in the Sagittal plane) of the load.
When moving or slipping in climbing, loads must be controlled in all three planes, Sagittal, Coronal and Transverse. This control is exerted over a point of contact distal to the body, for all practical purposes it matters not if the body moves relative to the rock or vice-versa; it is a relative motion. This is analogous to, say, Dumbbell presses or Press ups on the rings (also because in both cases, the load is brought across the body to meet at the Sternum line). The fact that these are "Pushing" exercises is less important than the rapid engaging and disengaging of the deep muscles around the principle joints as they act to steady the load?
Thanks for taking the time to answer Matt. I'll follow up some of your other points later after I've done some real work.
I totally agree with your (and Lore's) point about climbing being highly unstable and the importance of muscles 'switching on and off' rapidly (slapping, foot slips). Rings don't really encourage this though do they? The movements are relatively (compared to latching a dyno) slow and controlled. Scuttling around on all fours might encourage switching on/off better but it's deeply uncool and will never catch on!
-
Thanks for taking the time to answer Matt. I'll follow up some of your other points later after I've done some real work.
I totally agree with your (and Lore's) point about climbing being highly unstable and the importance of muscles 'switching on and off' rapidly (slapping, foot slips). Rings don't really encourage this though do they? The movements are relatively (compared to latching a dyno) slow and controlled. Scuttling around on all fours might encourage switching on/off better but it's deeply uncool and will never catch on!
They train the stabilising muscles that would normally be ignored in a more linear training motion. These are the muscles that allow you to halt the progression of momentum in a lot of cases, whether it be a foot slip or an intentional cut loose.
I think the biggest gain aside from that is obviously injury prevention however.
-
Guys - I'm noticing a lot of "I think this, therefore that" and "I did this, then this changed"...but not a lot of hard evidence for some of the claims such as:
- Injury Prevention
- Climbing Grade Improvement
I suppose there can't be any argument against "availability" -i.e. you could train your shoulders using, for example, weights, to the same level as you might achieve with rings - but rings are less faff than having a full weights set in your shed and if they "float your boat" then you are much more likely to use them. Whether they are objectively "better" than other methodologies seems unproven (Caveat, I have done no research on this - just noticing the lack of references form the "pro" camp).
-
There was something else though. Both of the Electromyography papers cited, have some major limitations.
Both used Surface Electromyography and therefore only saw activation of the superficial muscles.
My understanding of Unstable exercise was it's intention to increase activation of the deep, stabilising, muscles. In these cases (and in general for our discussion of "climbing" benefits) the muscles of the Rotator cuff? None of which can be monitored by this method, being masked by the Superficial prime movers?
Both studies were "one off" sessions, they looked only at a single session per subject. There was no progressive monitoring or attempt to progress using unstable exercise over time etc. No indication of how much the subjects had trained for the exercise and no indication of how discomfort in the exercise, due to unfamiliarity, might have influenced the effort engaged, ie were they nervous hold a weight on an unstable surface.
There are better studies of the overall effects, here's one Meta:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3325639/pdf/ijspt-07-226.pdf
With findings such as:
"All mea- sures improved over time for both the unstable and stable trained groups. In the Sparkes and Behm study,15 there was a trend (p=0.08) for the unstable training group to increase unstable forces to a greater extent. In other words, the instability-trained subjects could exert greater forces when experiencing an unstable environment. "
Or:
"Based on the near linear force-EMG relationship, muscle activation correlates well with force output.27 If with moderate instability, force is depressed but activation is not substantially affected; according to the force-EMG relation, there must be a force compo- nent missing. The similar extent of muscle activation accompanied by decreased force with instability exercises when compared to traditional RT exercises suggests that the dynamic motive forces of the mus- cles (the ability to apply external force) may be trans- ferred into greater stabilizing functions (greater emphasis on isometric contractions).4 "
Although again, it's not an attempt to correlate two (or more) training regimen over time and contrast the results in terms of both absolute strength gains, susceptibility to injury and overall rate of performance increase (ie, would those on the unstable variant(s) learn how to activate and move more resistance/increase prime mover activation etc).
That would seem to be the real nub.
As regards the rings, the stability and therefore switching is a function of your ability to control the load. If it's easy to control, the load is too low (press ups in particular).
But, again, I think there is no one magic bullet and personally, in my own N=1 trials; I know my shoulder strength and (therefore) my all round ability has improved from where it was pre-injury. I have a long road ahead to recover finger strength to my prime, but that's not the discussion. The principal difference in my programme now is the introduction of ring work, otherwise it's made up of all the same old Callisthenics and bar work, that it's always been.
And I'm serious about progressing rapidly in bench press performance, simply by doing ever increasing resistance press ups on the rings. So there must be an increase in absolute strength.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Both of the Electromyography papers cited, have some major limitations.
Common problem in all of these studies is the tiny sample size and the effect sizes (differences) that are estimated from them are also often small, repeat the study in a similarly small sample size and your just as likely to see the same effect size......but in the opposite direction. This stems from sampling from a population and the only useful way to address it is to conduct larger studies because as useful as meta-analyses are they suffer from variation being introduced between the studies using different protocols.
"All mea- sures improved over time for both the unstable and stable trained groups. In the Sparkes and Behm study,15 there was a trend (p=0.08) for the unstable training group to increase unstable forces to a greater extent. In other words, the instability-trained subjects could exert greater forces when experiencing an unstable environment. "
P-values should only ever be reported after the size of the effect being quantified is stated, which can be found in the table of the meta-analysis but its damn lazy to write the above as a p-value alone does not quantify in anyway an effect or trend in any direction. For more on p-values see Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10654-016-0149-3)
Whilst sample sizes are small in all the included studies, the summary table makes the mistake of treating them all as equal rather than using a weighted (artihmetic) mean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_arithmetic_mean).
-
(Caveat, I have done no research on this - just noticing the lack of references form the "pro" camp).
I'm not sure what's expected here much beyond anecdotal evidence?
Like others have said, a set of rings gives versatility in terms of exercises (offset pull-ups / dips / rows) that you simply can't get without a fair amount of bars/equipment (unless you fancy getting all Bartendaz at a local kids playground). They're easy to mount and easy to transport. Also, like bands or cables, you can subject a muscle group to sustained load rather than a bicep curl with a traditional dumbbell.
Personally, I started using rings as my shoulders felt very unstable on steep ground; anecdotally it helped. However, at the time (and the source of much amusement to a few people on here), whilst I was climbing well on (steep) boards, I couldn't hold a basic L-sit in a support which has always led me to question how transferable many of the exercises are/were. I've found walk-downs (pinching two good holds on a steep board and walking feet progressively lower on poor footholds) seems to work better (for me) than level progressions (pointing your feet at something unsurprisingly doesn't seem to be the same as pushing through the feet).
-
(Caveat, I have done no research on this - just noticing the lack of references form the "pro" camp).
Gimme a break! [emoji12]
Have you seen how many papers are cited in that last Meta I linked to? I'm gonna be reading for the next month, then I need a few days for my Confirmation bias to select the ones I want to cite...
🤡[emoji56]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Ok starting with the cited paper from the quote above...
"Instability devices are popular training modalities; however, their training effectiveness has not been well established. The objective of this study was to determine differences in physiological and performance measures after stable and unstable resistance training. Eighteen subjects (10 men and 8 women) resistance trained 3 d wk21 under either stable or unstable conditions for 8 weeks. Pre and posttraining measures included chest press isometric force and electro- myographic activity of the triceps brachii and pectoralis major under stable and unstable conditions and 1-legged throwing distance, balance, countermovement jump (CMJ) and drop jump (DJ) heights. There were no significant training group effects found with any measure. However, there was a tendency (p = 0.06) for the unstable training group to improve the stable to unstable chest press force ratio to a greater degree (24.8%) than the stable group (10.8%). There were significant overall pre to posttraining improvements in maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) force (13.3%: p , 0.0001), unstable/stable force (18.2%: p = 0.0005), bench press (11%: p , 0.0001), squat (14.9%: p , 0.0001), CMJs (11.2%: p = 0.002), and DJs (3.3%: p = 0.001), wobble board contacts (12.4%: p = 0.03), and wobble board on–off ratios (62%: p = 0.005). There was a significant (p , 0.0001) 42.2% greater MVIC force and 43.2 and 33.2% greater triceps (p = 0.003) and pectoral (p = 0.005) neuromuscular efficiency with stable vs. unstable isometric chest press. It appears that instability resistance training, which reportedly uses lower forces, can increase strength and balance in previously untrained young individuals similar to training with more stable machines employing heavier loads."
Which seems quite good to me?
Link to the above.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/46029029/Training_Adaptations_Associated_With_an_20160528-7866-mk8x3x.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1483460016&Signature=SME2Nwxxu1bWmD%2B9TDpHmw%2FRhtc%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DTraining_Adaptations_Associated_With_an.pdf
And another:
Cowley PM, Sforzo GA, Swensen T. Efficacy of instability resistance training. Int. J. Sports Med. 2007;10:829-835
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tom_Swensen/publication/274969970_The_Effects_Of_Resistance_Training_With_A_Stability_Ball/links/5641fec508ae24cd3e42aaf1.pdf
Though, essentially, my crack about confirmation bias is unfortunately far from inaccurate. I think you could "prove" whatever you want here.
My gut, then, is to go along with that Meta I linked to (Behm et al), Slackers points not withstanding, and remain unchanged in opinion.
But the Jury aren't done hearing evidence yet, let alone out.
In the best traditions of internet science discussion, I feel like it's good.
Hey! That's good enough for the Homeopathy, Antivax, Theistic crowd; so why not?
(That couldn't be more sarcastic if it was delivered by Tim Minchin, on speed, on a bad hair day).
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
N = 18
Repeat the study and you won't get anywhere near the same results.
-
N = 18
Repeat the study and you won't get anywhere near the same results.
Yeah, I posted by accident before finishing. Up to N=32! WooHoo!
Still plenty more papers to trawl...
I get it though.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Toby, you can't just train for a sport by performing that sport. That's not how any high level athlete trains in any sport. Obviously, that's how you get better at a particular activity, but it's also a recipe for injury and imbalance, surely.[emoji6]
I'm expecting you to put down the weights and lock up the bike and Turbo right now! Nothing for you except the board, sunshine! [emoji13][emoji12]🤡
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
;D point taken.... however:
I'd argue that that depends on the relative complexity, variety and nature of the sport in question, as well as the level of the individual doing it. Climbing is so skill based, varied and complex, I think that simple exercises have realtively little transferability compared to just climbing. Under normal circumstances i do no weights, very little rings, no turbo training and steep bouldering + finger boarding etc pretty often. No real argument there, just sayin like.
-
Toby, you can't just train for a sport by performing that sport. That's not how any high level athlete trains in any sport. Obviously, that's how you get better at a particular activity, but it's also a recipe for injury and imbalance, surely.[emoji6]
I'm expecting you to put down the weights and lock up the bike and Turbo right now! Nothing for you except the board, sunshine! [emoji13][emoji12]🤡
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
Isn't that exactly what a lot of the world's best climbers have done through the years though?
Fingerboarding (I'm placing FB & Campussing in 'just climbing' for argument's sake): finger strength, neuro-muscular training.
Campussing: finger strength, climbing specific power, neuro-muscular training.
Hard bouldering: finger strength, climbing-specific power, climbing-specific upper body strength, technique training, neuro-muscular training.
Climbing below limit/Intervals/traverses/circuit boards/route laps: Climbing-specific energy system training, technique training.
Onsighting at limit: as above plus mental training/confidence building.
Redpopinting at limit: as above plus mental training/confidence building.
That pretty much sums up what the top climbers have done for training over the last 50 years (1950-2000), plus some pull-ups, press-ups, cardio and random outliers. And it took them to high levels of performance. It's only really in the last ten years most of the supplemental training mentioned became popular. But is it any more effective than lots and lots of climbing?
Obviously for the time-constained supplemental exercise may be the only option. But a steep board and a 6-month pass to the wall along with the motivation to do loads of laps I think would be the optimal path to improvement.
Injury prevention I agree with - especially shoulders. TRX and kettlebells to beef up the shoulders seems a no-brainer. TRX/Rings is also especially relevant to overhanging mixed climbing on jug-handle axes, which involves holding an unstable pick in one orientation whilst pulling down smoothly and moving upward on it.
-
Isn't that exactly what a lot of the world's best climbers have done through the years though?
Yeah and they got strong, and injured.
You can't treat injury avoidance and performance separately, or ignore that fact that more-or-less-exclusively climbing hard and training principally by climbing-based training is an almost guaranteed recipe for eventual injury. You can't perform if you're injured. Plenty of top climbers have had to take time out over the years to sort out bad shoulders and elbows.
-
Toby, you can't just train for a sport by performing that sport. That's not how any high level athlete trains in any sport.
I've always believed that gymnasts only ever do gymnastics. Found it quite incredible at first that they could develop such physiques without lifting weights or whatever, then you try what they do and have an "Oh" moment.
-
Pete, amen.
But.
I only do a ring exercise twice a week. It's split up into other things, so ~ 12-15 min out of a 3 hr session (3 per week).It was something I designed to treat/prevent from reoccurring a shoulder injury. I do a core session every Wed. Again to treat/prevent an existing back injury.
If (if), such a thing has a beneficial carry over in as much as it strengthens stabilisation muscles, then it would be worth 20minutes a week of anyone's time.
I would never suggest it as a replacement to the established.
My personal thing with the weighted press ups, went like this:
Hmmm, I'll try some of those, because I've read about this unstable stuff and it might help my shoulder. (Tries some with no weights) hey! That's hard.
Reads more.
Four weeks later, writing the next 4 week plan:
Those press ups are pretty easy now and my shoulder is much stronger, maybe I'll and some weight...
And so on.
Now, it happened that I was finishing off my Personal Trainer cert at the time and was regularly doing the Bench test (even though I never train in a weights gym). So I wondered what would happen if I kept going.
N=1, but my shoulders have never been stronger and I think Ii feel a benefit in my climbing.
I can't prove it.
Also, why can't something that works be improved upon? Lots more reading to do and anyone interested in putting together a study or has contacts in that world, I'd love to help!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Isn't that exactly what a lot of the world's best climbers have done through the years though?
Yeah and they got strong, and injured.
Injury prevention I agree with - especially shoulders.
-
Thanks Slackers.
OMM yep agree - I do TRX and other instability exercises: side plank into front plank into opposite side plank over and over. I find the same as you, they improve my shoulder resilience.
Keen to try the weighted TRX/Ring press-ups on my next sesh.
I'd sumarise TrX/Rings/Gym Balls not as 'serious training tools (for climbing)' but rather as 'serious injury prevention/injury re-hab tools' (for climbing/everything).
-
Toby, you can't just train for a sport by performing that sport. That's not how any high level athlete trains in any sport.
I've always believed that gymnasts only ever do gymnastics. Found it quite incredible at first that they could develop such physiques without lifting weights or whatever, then you try what they do and have an "Oh" moment.
That's down to genetics. When you picture a gymnast you're thinking of those that are at Olympic or world class level, those that have risen through the ranks because of the right genetics, your average club punter is never going to look like that.
-
So you're saying I have no chance then?
-
Toby, you can't just train for a sport by performing that sport. That's not how any high level athlete trains in any sport.
I've always believed that gymnasts only ever do gymnastics. Found it quite incredible at first that they could develop such physiques without lifting weights or whatever, then you try what they do and have an "Oh" moment.
That's down to genetics. When you picture a gymnast you're thinking of those that are at Olympic or world class level, those that have risen through the ranks because of the right genetics, your average club punter is never going to look like that.
Never!
Well maybe a little..
Genetics is probably the final arbiter, but plenty of county class Gymnasts are pretty damn hench. Just like a Black belt in (your choice) martial art or "good" climbers (I like the Japanese grading system for Bouldering, that mimics the martial art gradings), or any of the "Applied Gymnastics" disciplines.
Because that's what climbing is, Applied Gymnastics. As Engineering is to Physics/Mathematics etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
With regards to athleticism, the regular gymnastic punter will put many elite level climbers to shame.
-
With regards to athleticism, the regular gymnastic punter will put many elite level climbers to shame.
and with regards to climbing rock, the regular climbing punter will put many elite level gymnasts to shame.
-
Have you read "Bounce" by Matthew Syed?
He was an Olympic table tennis medalist but makes a strong case for the 10,000 hrs over genetics argument, at least anecdotally. You have to read it to get the full gist of his argument, but it boils down to the unlikely "hot spot" of Table tennis talent that arose in his immediate locality and specifically his club.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
With regards to athleticism, the regular gymnastic punter will put many elite level climbers to shame.
and with regards to climbing rock, the regular climbing punter will put many elite level gymnasts to shame.
But they very quickly surpass the climbing punter with a little practice...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
With regards to athleticism, the regular gymnastic punter will put many elite level climbers to shame.
and with regards to climbing rock, the regular climbing punter will put many elite level gymnasts to shame.
But they very quickly surpass the climbing punter with a little practice...
I'm going to need to see a number of sufficiently credible peer-reviewed journal articles to back that statement up Matt. ;)
-
Have you read "Bounce" by Matthew Syed?
He was an Olympic table tennis medalist but makes a strong case for the 10,000 hrs over genetics argument, at least anecdotally. You have to read it to get the full gist of his argument, but it boils down to the unlikely "hot spot" of Table tennis talent that arose in his immediate locality and specifically his club.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yep, the '10,000 hours' thing had been largely debunked, genetics are massive - no amount of sprinting is going to turn Mo Farah into Usain Bolt.
-
With regards to athleticism, the regular gymnastic punter will put many elite level climbers to shame.
and with regards to climbing rock, the regular climbing punter will put many elite level gymnasts to shame.
But they very quickly surpass the climbing punter with a little practice...
I'm going to need to see a number of sufficiently credible peer-reviewed journal articles to back that statement up Matt. ;)
+1
People often quote climber x who was an gymnast/swimmer/martial artist/etc and put their success down to their previous sport, but you never hear of all the shit climbers who were gymnasts/etc because why would you?
-
With regards to athleticism, the regular gymnastic punter will put many elite level climbers to shame.
and with regards to climbing rock, the regular climbing punter will put many elite level gymnasts to shame.
You must be kidding.
Elite gymnasts have a level of strength, power, proprioception, equilibrium and control of the body that we humans can only dream of. :off: sorry.
-
Yes but very little finger strength...
-
Yes but very little finger strength...
Yes, surely... Surely less than your average punter...
Because latching the high bar with one hand after a couple of flips is easy on the fingers and forearms.
-
With regards to athleticism, the regular gymnastic punter will put many elite level climbers to shame.
and with regards to climbing rock, the regular climbing punter will put many elite level gymnasts to shame.
You must be kidding.
Elite gymnasts have a level of strength, power, proprioception, equilibrium and control of the body that we humans can only dream of.
My point was more that they don't want to climb cliffs and have therefore never done it. I've no doubt that while theoretically physically capable of quite quickly becoming good at climbing most gymnasts would find it unpleasant in some way. Same reason most rock climbers have a low level of athleticism- their passion is climbing up rocks and therefore they go out and have fun doing that rather than doing all sorts of gym stuff.
But you are absolutely right, I was kidding. ;)
-
their passion is climbing up rocks and therefore they go out and have fun doing that rather than doing all sorts of gym stuff.
What? Having fun climbing? Now you MUST be kidding!
;D
-
P.s. Sorry for missing the point of your post.
-
What was the name of the Yank Gymnast turned Boulderer from the '70s? I know it should spring to mind, but I can't recall it.
It's true that most Gymnasts won't be interested and that if they come from the floor disciplines there may be little carry over, but from the bars and Rings? Add a bit of finger training and they're liable to be awesome.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What was the name of the Yank Gymnast turned Boulderer from the '70s?
John Gill?
-
Thought John Gill was primarily active in the 50s and 60s although he continued to climb after he gave up hard bouldering (moved on to soloing long routes).
He does have a section on Climbing & Gymnastics (http://www.johngill.net/) on his website (not the easiest site to navigate round though).
-
What was the name of the Yank Gymnast turned Boulderer from the '70s?
John Gill?
That was who I was thinking of.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Have you read "Bounce" by Matthew Syed?
He was an Olympic table tennis medalist but makes a strong case for the 10,000 hrs over genetics argument, at least anecdotally. You have to read it to get the full gist of his argument, but it boils down to the unlikely "hot spot" of Table tennis talent that arose in his immediate locality and specifically his club.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yep, the '10,000 hours' thing had been largely debunked, genetics are massive - no amount of sprinting is going to turn Mo Farah into Usain Bolt.
The first time I came across the 10,000 hours thing was in Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers which was published a couple of years before Bounce. I thought Bounce leant on it rather too heavily.
It wasn't related solely to sport and his premise was that having an Innate ability for something could take you so far, or working hard at something could take you so far, but to be truly world class you needed ability and hard work and in many cases just to be strike it lucky like Syed did with his table tennis club. Plenty of case studies from sport, business, technology, musicians.
-
I think the "gymnast punter" vs "climbing punter" needs more detail... And is generally a load of shite...
For example, I've dabbled on rings, taken TRX classes, played with Planche, etc. Do I count as a gymnast punter? I do a variety of "gymnast" work on a weekly basis.
I've a good friend who worked at at gymnastics studio with a climbing wall, and we consistently saw kids who could translate it to the wall, as well as wicked strong kids who couldn't climb for shit. They'd do crazy party tricks in the cave on jugs, but were shite at anything techy, fingery, footworky...
-
I think the "gymnast punter" vs "climbing punter" needs more detail... And is generally a load of shite...
For example, I've dabbled on rings, taken TRX classes, played with Planche, etc. Do I count as a gymnast punter? I do a variety of "gymnast" work on a weekly basis.
I've a good friend who worked at at gymnastics studio with a climbing wall, and we consistently saw kids who could translate it to the wall, as well as wicked strong kids who couldn't climb for shit. They'd do crazy party tricks in the cave on jugs, but were shite at anything techy, fingery, footworky...
Nope, I'm sticking with the "They will very quickly surpass the regular punter with a little training" as I said above, which presupposes that the particular Gymnastic climbing punter in question has the desire to do that training/climb rocks.
I get that there are plenty of Gymnasts uninterested in climbing and vice versa.
Thought experiment:
You coach the local youth squad at your wall.
Identical twins: From age 5 one becomes Rugby obsessed, training regularly etc. The other gets into Gymnastics and bar and ring work in particular. At age 14, after a school camp that included climbing, they both divert their obsession to climbing and join their local youth squad.
You must place a bet of two months salary on which of the two will improve quickest, on their first day.[emoji56]
I suppose my glib statement gave the wrong impression. I was thinking that a person who had the passion, dedication and ability to become a good Gymnast, would likely make a good climber, quicker, should they shift that focus.
I think the genetic question is moot, in as much as such disposition is self actuating. People genetically unsuited will fritter away and lose interest or simply never try.
(This doesn't preclude all those who might have been great, but never tried etc (there are probably millions)).
I'd also agree, that at the end of the road, the top of the hill, the now relatively small genetic divergences will out (even if it's as simple as not getting a cold as often and therefore having more consistent performance).
Also, there is a huge difference in a Competition climber and the Dirtbag new router. I think part of the discrepancy in opinion here derives from differing definitions of "top climber".
Having watched supposed (note sceptical tone) training routines of many top competition climbers; it's hard to find one that doesn't include a large amount of features lifted directly from Gymnastic training programmes. I'd be very surprised if that changed and all Gymnastic ancillary training was abandoned in favour of nothing but Fingerboarding and a 45* board.
I'm sure it's been noted before that excellence at competition indoors does not guarantee excellence outdoors and vice versa. Only very exceptional talents seem to have nailed that.
I really find it hard to see that Gymnastic training has no advantage to even the average climber. Even harder to imagine it a disadvantage. Not withstanding that to train to climb you must train climbing and only climbing can do that (did I use "climb" enough in that sentence to emphasise that actually climbing is a very important part of climbing training?)
So, rather than say "I don't think it's important", explain why it would be a disadvantage.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
So, rather than say "I don't think it's important", explain why it would be a disadvantage.
Because it takes time and energy (for pretty much everyone) away from more specific training.
-
So, rather than say "I don't think it's important", explain why it would be a disadvantage.
Because it takes time and energy (for pretty much everyone) away from more specific training.
15-20mins a session?
Nah, not buying it.
More pro than con.
Edit:
Oops, that sounded way more rude than intended. I don't know about you lot, but I'm not taking this later part of the thread very seriously, way too many variables and all speculation.
The benefits of unstable training in injury prevention and as ancillary training to more established routines, or as therapeutic interventions for rehabilitation; are a different matter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think describing climbing as a "stable" activity is inaccurate, inasmuch as anything so dynamic and involving such a variety of body positions, tensions, prehensions etc etc (or simply "3D"), requires activation of so many more muscle groups per "session" than a great many sports (in fact I can't think of any sport? Judo?).
Climbing is highly unstable but it is the body that moves not the stuff you climb on (parts of North Devon excepted). My thinking was that the supplementary training should still mimic this unstable body/stable support. So if you fancy doing something different to mix things up a little, then walk on your hands or do front levers (on bars) or if you really want to impress, flags:
(http://i.imgur.com/6Oi5q7T.jpg)
Regarding injury prevention:
TRX/Rings is also especially relevant to overhanging mixed climbing on jug-handle axes, which involves holding an unstable pick in one orientation whilst pulling down smoothly and moving upward on it.
Highly specific to the task - good training.
Neuromuscular 'instability' training - wobble boards and so forth - is protective for the lower limbs in pivoting sports (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19952811). The training is specific to the sport here.
Good old strength training is still the most protective preventative intervention overall (http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/48/11/871.short).
What was the name of the Yank Gymnast turned Boulderer from the '70s?
John Gill?
That was who I was thinking of.
Which brings us back to the topic. John Gill says "First of all I cannot recommend any movable rings as exercise for climbing, having ruined my shoulders years ago on the still rings in gymnastics (http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=2919064&msg=2919206#msg2919206)."
-
So, rather than say "I don't think it's important", explain why it would be a disadvantage.
Because it takes time and energy (for pretty much everyone) away from more specific training.
15-20mins a session?
Nah, not buying it.
More pro than con.
Edit:
Oops, that sounded way more rude than intended. I don't know about you lot, but I'm not taking this later part of the thread very seriously, way too many variables and all speculation.
The benefits of unstable training in injury prevention and as ancillary training to more established routines, or as therapeutic interventions for rehabilitation; are a different matter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I often only get an hr at the wall. 20mins of time, and at least as importantly energy is too much.
Agree with the injury prevention/rehab bit.
-
Which brings us back to the topic. John Gill says "First of all I cannot recommend any movable rings as exercise for climbing, having ruined my shoulders years ago on the still rings in gymnastics (http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=2919064&msg=2919206#msg2919206)."
Interesting reading on Gills site about Noteable climbers who were gymnasts (http://www128.pair.com/r3d4k7/Climbing&Gymnastics2.1.html) and in particular Lynn Hill's experience which suggests its not just about what can be gained physically from gymnastics but also a better understanding of the kinaesthetics of movement and improved proprioception...
"My coach, Scott Crouse, was a former competitive gymnast . . . One day he suggested I try a double back flip . . . I discovered I could dismantle the movement and focus on each separate phase of it . . . called 'chunking' . . . I had discovered a powerful learning tool for getting my body to follow whatever my mind imagined. Visual learning, I would later find, also had direct applications to rock climbing. . . . as an eager young girl, I was more interested in learning complex acrobatic maneuvers than focusing on pretty formalities . . . As gymnastics became more rigid and structured, I began to lose my motivation and enthusiasm for remaining on the team." - Climbing Free (2002)
Overall though Gill summarises that the carry over of gymnastic skill/ability to climbing varies for individuals....as you might expect.
-
I'm prepared to accept that a gymnastic background could be beneficial - relative to no gymnastic background - for indoor competition climbing. But climbing's a broad church, not just plastic overhanging comp walls. For the majority of the pastime known as 'climbing' I don't think gymnastic background/training is of more benefit then simply mastering a style of climbing - North Devon anti-rock, Grit slabs and slopers, Granite cracks, Raven Tor crimps, Gogarth pinches or teetering hoar-coverd mixed climbing.
-
I'm prepared to accept that a gymnastic background could be beneficial - relative to no gymnastic background - for indoor competition climbing. But climbing's a broad church, not just plastic overhanging comp walls. For the majority of the pastime known as 'climbing' I don't think gymnastic background/training is of more benefit then simply mastering a style of climbing - North Devon anti-rock, Grit slabs and slopers, Granite cracks, Raven Tor crimps, Gogarth pinches or teetering hoar-coverd mixed climbing.
I that you just said what I was trying to say; except I think you said it far more clearly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
At the risk of making even more of a twat of myself than normal...
I own a climbing wall. I tend to train in the mornings before we open. I have huge amounts of time for training. But I'm alone, so I film myself to check form. I usually do this when I up resistance. So over lunch I cobbled up clips of my Wednesday Shoulder and Core session. Not all filmed on the same day, but all from Dec. The black bar has self adhesive roofing lead added to bring it to 10 kg. The chrome bar is 5kg, with 3kg in plates added. Ankle weights for wipers and toe to bar and wall bar levers are 12kg. Dorsal raises are 4kg at wrists with a 25lbs plate. Push away flies (at the end on rings) are with 27kg added (belt, vest, plate in vest and wrists). I know my form is crap, but new to these weights.
https://vimeo.com/198358537 (https://vimeo.com/198358537)
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
I think describing climbing as a "stable" activity is inaccurate, inasmuch as anything so dynamic and involving such a variety of body positions, tensions, prehensions etc etc (or simply "3D"), requires activation of so many more muscle groups per "session" than a great many sports (in fact I can't think of any sport? Judo?).
Climbing is highly unstable but it is the body that moves not the stuff you climb on (parts of North Devon excepted). My thinking was that the supplementary training should still mimic this unstable body/stable support. So if you fancy doing something different to mix things up a little, then walk on your hands or do front levers (on bars) or if you really want to impress, flags:
(http://i.imgur.com/6Oi5q7T.jpg)
Regarding injury prevention:
TRX/Rings is also especially relevant to overhanging mixed climbing on jug-handle axes, which involves holding an unstable pick in one orientation whilst pulling down smoothly and moving upward on it.
Highly specific to the task - good training.
Neuromuscular 'instability' training - wobble boards and so forth - is protective for the lower limbs in pivoting sports (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19952811). The training is specific to the sport here.
Good old strength training is still the most protective preventative intervention overall (http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/48/11/871.short).
What was the name of the Yank Gymnast turned Boulderer from the '70s?
John Gill?
That was who I was thinking of.
Which brings us back to the topic. John Gill says "First of all I cannot recommend any movable rings as exercise for climbing, having ruined my shoulders years ago on the still rings in gymnastics (http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=2919064&msg=2919206#msg2919206)."
Well, splitting that up to answer each point individually is now going to take too long. So bit by bit:
1: Distal versus Proximal instability.
This is moot. I've been running through mathematically and the forces don't change. This is because, if you consider the arm as a lever, the following applies:
A: The muscles actuating to steady the load remain in the shoulder throughout the motion of arm extension. Or, always at the same end of the lever. (The wrists/forearms do little once the grip is clamped down).
B: The Prime movers outside of the shoulder (Triceps, Biceps etc) principally act to extend the lever. The stabilisation muscles of the wrist and elbow actuate only to maintain the grip. Neither act to change the direction of applied force. They actuate with fluctuating force in unstable exercise only because the apparent load varies.
A bit of a brief summary, but if you draw/sketch it out or resolve the forces of the lever for various points within the extension (ie elbow at x* and again at elbow at x+1* and so on) the force alway acts through the shoulder joint and the forces remain the same, regardless of whether the movement/instability is applied at either end of the chain.
Because the motion is relative.
Now, in the wobble board (and any similar exercise on any limb) he principle difference is the size of the load, not whether it is Proximal or Distal. That is to say, the load on the wobble board example is the body weight of the participant. To mimic that with Proximal instability , you'll need to be somehow inverted on an unstable surface, balancing/moving a weight equal to body weight, placed on the feet.
But the forces at the hips remain the same.
This is in fact even more true for a similar exercise at the arm where the hand is gripping and therefore immobile within the system (as opposed to the foot which is resting, resulting in higher actuation at the ankle ).
Imagine the following, taking a snap shot or instant in time.
You are doing press ups, on a bar, normally.
I, suddenly (my name is chaos btw) push your body to one side with a force x. To remain stable you must activate at the shoulder by an equivalent force, in opposition. Because it is the shoulder that controls the lever.
I remove the force.
Now, a moment later (pun intended) I, equally suddenly, apply the same force, in the opposite direction; to the bar. This results in exactly equivalent activation at the shoulder as the first force did, because the movement is relative and the stabilising muscles remained at the same end of the chain. We did not suddenly switch to using the wrists to stabilise.
The principle difference between Distal and Proximal instability exercises is practicality of applying load. If the instability is Proximal the the load must be applied distally, reverse it and the body is already there.
The rings to Ice axe analogy, is both true and flawed simultaneously, because of the fundamental misunderstanding of the force application. It's not highly specific. It's the same muscles.
If you want another analogy. I designed ships for many years. One of the more interesting and relevant aspects of that, to this conversation; is the design of crane foundations. I can promise you, the forces at the attachment remain the same, regardless of whether you move the ship or the load, because the forces applied to the crane are always balanced by the system (well, until something exceeds material limits and it all becomes fatally unbalanced) and centred through the foundation (analogous to the shoulder). That's very brief, I could start talking about fixing the crane hook to dry land (ie immovable) and moving the ship or grounding the ship and applying similar forces to a load hanging and contrasting the stresses at the foundation and how similar they in both scenarios. But, I hope I made the point.
You don't need to do handstand walking or crab walks, you get the same effect from the press ups on the rings.
Of course, by extension, those are exercises that will give the same(ish) effects and require much less equipment, so...
So, if (if) unstable exercise confers any benefit, then the location of the applied instability within the lever is not relevant to that benefit; though the size of the loads practically applied might be.
Edit for speculation:
The reason I think there might be an as yet unquantified benefit to unstable exercise is possibly hinted at in this statement (which I quoted earlier from Behm et al)
"Based on the near linear force-EMG relationship, muscle activation correlates well with force output.27 If with moderate instability, force is depressed but activation is not substantially affected; according to the force-EMG relation, there must be a force compo- nent missing. The similar extent of muscle activation accompanied by decreased force with instability exercises when compared to traditional RT exercises suggests that the dynamic motive forces of the mus- cles (the ability to apply external force) may be trans- ferred into greater stabilizing functions (greater emphasis on isometric contractions).4 "
It's that missing component that triggers the Engineer in me and looking, and looking again at the shoulder joint and how it functions; I think their hypothesis is correct. Plus that there is greater activation in the deep muscles masked by the superficial prime movers and unmonitored in any of the studies (limits of surface Electromyography etc). So I posit that there will be associated neurological adaptations and hypertrophy etc in those deep muscles that simplistic exercises cannot achieve and that it is strength training. Further, that used in conjunction with more conventional training it should confer greater benefit than either alone.
I have more reading to do. But I wonder if the flaw in mixed modality intervention is that there is " less" of each applied and that a full program of each, taken simultaneously, would effect better results?
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Incidentally, if the muscle activation was similar in both stable and unstable exercises (as mentioned in that quote I keep harping on about), doesn't that mean, from a strength training perspective, that both exercises are of equal value.? Same activation, same benefit?
The only reason for discrepancy in moved load is the distribution of energy and effort to stabilisation?
Move the same participant to a stable bench (assuming rested/recovered) and his shifted load should increase?
(i think they did check and it did etc).
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
In reply to Oldmanmatt's video: More to the point, where do I find a training facility like that in Devon!!??
-
Torquay. It's mine. The Boulder Bunker.
Simon or Toby will be along to charge me for that in a minute...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Sorry, couldn't resist.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170109/7c11a416917cc207eb55031c66b8646a.jpg)
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
I think the "gymnast punter" vs "climbing punter" needs more detail... And is generally a load of shite...
For example, I've dabbled on rings, taken TRX classes, played with Planche, etc. Do I count as a gymnast punter? I do a variety of "gymnast" work on a weekly basis.
I've a good friend who worked at at gymnastics studio with a climbing wall, and we consistently saw kids who could translate it to the wall, as well as wicked strong kids who couldn't climb for shit. They'd do crazy party tricks in the cave on jugs, but were shite at anything techy, fingery, footworky...
Nope, I'm sticking with the "They will very quickly surpass the regular punter with a little training" as I said above, which presupposes that the particular Gymnastic climbing punter in question has the desire to do that training/climb rocks.
I get that there are plenty of Gymnasts uninterested in climbing and vice versa.
Thought experiment:
You coach the local youth squad at your wall.
Identical twins: From age 5 one becomes Rugby obsessed, training regularly etc. The other gets into Gymnastics and bar and ring work in particular. At age 14, after a school camp that included climbing, they both divert their obsession to climbing and join their local youth squad.
You must place a bet of two months salary on which of the two will improve quickest, on their first day.[emoji56]
I suppose my glib statement gave the wrong impression. I was thinking that a person who had the passion, dedication and ability to become a good Gymnast, would likely make a good climber, quicker, should they shift that focus.
I think the genetic question is moot, in as much as such disposition is self actuating. People genetically unsuited will fritter away and lose interest or simply never try.
(This doesn't preclude all those who might have been great, but never tried etc (there are probably millions)).
I'd also agree, that at the end of the road, the top of the hill, the now relatively small genetic divergences will out (even if it's as simple as not getting a cold as often and therefore having more consistent performance).
Also, there is a huge difference in a Competition climber and the Dirtbag new router. I think part of the discrepancy in opinion here derives from differing definitions of "top climber".
Having watched supposed (note sceptical tone) training routines of many top competition climbers; it's hard to find one that doesn't include a large amount of features lifted directly from Gymnastic training programmes. I'd be very surprised if that changed and all Gymnastic ancillary training was abandoned in favour of nothing but Fingerboarding and a 45* board.
I'm sure it's been noted before that excellence at competition indoors does not guarantee excellence outdoors and vice versa. Only very exceptional talents seem to have nailed that.
I really find it hard to see that Gymnastic training has no advantage to even the average climber. Even harder to imagine it a disadvantage. Not withstanding that to train to climb you must train climbing and only climbing can do that (did I use "climb" enough in that sentence to emphasise that actually climbing is a very important part of climbing training?)
So, rather than say "I don't think it's important", explain why it would be a disadvantage.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
My point was lost a bit on reread -
I was trying to point out two things - one is what you consider a "punter" gymnast isn't really comparable to what we think of as a climbing "punter". is a gymnast punter able to do a planche? If so, I'd say that would equate in general difficulty to a 5.12 or v6 climber. Is a 5.12 climber a "punter"? If we're talking 5.9 or v0 as a "punter", then I would argue the equivalent Gymnast would be doing basic tumbling-i.e. a front roll. If we are comparing two punters, then I'd say it's really a wash as to which will get better at the other activity faster as they both are punters at their current (also a caveat that this would only be comparing gymnastics to indoor wall climbing).
The second was that, as we all know, strength is only 1 piece of being an able climber. Coming into it as a gymnast would certainly give you a leg up in that one aspect, but not necessarily the others. (see above caveat about indoor only)
In response to this:
I really find it hard to see that Gymnastic training has no advantage to even the average climber. Even harder to imagine it a disadvantage. Not withstanding that to train to climb you must train climbing and only climbing can do that (did I use "climb" enough in that sentence to emphasise that actually climbing is a very important part of climbing training?)
So, rather than say "I don't think it's important", explain why it would be a disadvantage.
I don't for one second think it's a disadvantage, and I'd agree that it would be a very hard argument to make. Instead I think of it (as was mentioned by another) as a question of available time and maximizing the time/energy/motivation available. I agree that for most climbers, it would be a very valuable addition to their training program (myself included).