[shark]

For anyone who hasn't stumbled across them Serpico has posted an excellent series of articles on the Depot website:

Principles of traing
Strength and power
How we get stronger(pic of Steve with top-off) 
Endurance Part1
Endurance Part2

[gremlin]

Interesting articles. 

On the subject of muscle atrophy, mentioned in one of them, isn't that a bad thing for climbers? Atrophy means more size/weight.

As I understand it bodybuilders for example (who are not strong for their size and weight), train to failure, thereby depleting the stores of ATP within the muscle cells which triggers muscle atrophy. 

From what I've read, lifting very heavy weights (1-3 reps max) with plenty of rest in between causes strength gains but without the added increase in size as the ATP stores have time to replenish?

 

[shark]

On the subject of muscle atrophy, mentioned in one of them, isn't that a bad thing for climbers? Atrophy means more size/weight.

I think you mean hypertrophy - atrophy means wasting away

[gremlin]

DOH 

[Big Dave]

As I understand it bodybuilders for example (who are not strong for their size and weight), train to failure, thereby depleting the stores of ATP within the muscle cells which triggers muscle atrophy. 

 

Not always true, a lot of bodybuilders are strong for their weight. ie can bench / squat / deadlift x times their own bodyweight.

Plus they don't always train to failure, that's kind of an 'old skool' technique and a lot of 'experts' say not to do it, as risking overtraining and injury. Nowadays rest-pause, drop sets, partial reps seem to more effective methods for strength increase.

Thanks for posting the articles Shark, a good read.

[Rocksteady]

Thanks for posting articles - very interesting.

Thanks to Serpico for putting them together - they are one of the clearest articulations of this pretty complex area that I've read.

Nice one.

[iain]

Thanks for posting articles - very interesting.

Thanks to Serpico for putting them together - they are one of the clearest articulations of this pretty complex area that I've read.

Nice one.

  

[cjsheps]

I'm interested in the Golgi tendon organ stuff - I thought it's supposed role in inhibiting muscle recruitment was disproved?

The wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golgi_tendon_organ) states that the GTO "input excites rather than inhibits motoneurons of the receptor-bearing muscles.

However, that still implies it plays quite an important role - does anybody have any SCIENCE to back this up?

 

[will_s87]

thanks

[cjsheps]

By the way, thanks a lot for the articles. Some of the best training writing I've read!

[Serpico]

I'm interested in the Golgi tendon organ stuff - I thought it's supposed role in inhibiting muscle recruitment was disproved?

The wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golgi_tendon_organ) states that the GTO "input excites rather than inhibits motoneurons of the receptor-bearing muscles.

However, that still implies it plays quite an important role - does anybody have any SCIENCE to back this up?

 

I wrote the articles in 2009, and that reflected my understanding of GTO's at the time, however I then became aware of the new thinking on GTO's and actually wrote in an email in April of last year regarding these articles "Re the article I wrote: if it was to be published now I’d have to review it; particularly with regard to the role of the GTO’s.", but when they did come to be published I didn't review it.
So it's just bad editing on my part.
I'd also alter the importance I give to the metabolic effect for hypertrophy, because although there is another study that supports the idea that exercising large muscle mass can improve the muscle gain in a concurrently trained smaller mass, I think I give the impression that the metabolic effect is solely responsible for hypertrophy, which it isn't.
I'll look at doing a proper review, and see if Steve will update them for me.

[thekettle]

Great articles, nice to see the science clearly spelled out!
At the risk of hijacking the thread - what are your thoughts on this theory:
'holding on with open grip is less pumpy than crimping as the muscles operating the fingers are less contracted (allowing for better bloodflow) than when crimping'
Scientifically sound or nonsense?

[jwi]

'holding on with open grip is less pumpy than crimping as the muscles operating the fingers are less contracted (allowing for better bloodflow) than when crimping'
Scientifically sound or nonsense?

Bollocks.

We conclude that the sport climbing finger grip does not affect the maximal resultant four fingertip force nor the fatigue rates of the extrinsic muscles of the hand. Hence, the finger grip force and the fatigue rates were not relevant in the decision made by climbers to use a a crimp or a slope grip. Nevertheless, further examination of fingertip force and muscular fatigue is necessary in order to characterize the effect of alternation of the type of grip (crimp/slope) as is the case in sport climbing.

[gremlin]

I liked the bit about having a goal in mind (and stopping when it's been acheived) when climbing, rather than just climbing randomly till tired.
It's easy I've found to lapse into the latter and that's when progression is hindered IMHO.

[douglas]

Would someone be able to answer this question. Say I have equal crimp and open handed strength. I train open grips for a year and get x stronger. Do I need to train for another year to get x stronger on crimps? Assume the effectiveness of the training is equal for crimps and open.

What I want to know is, when getting stronger on crimps will some strength that I had open handed be moved to crimp or do I need to gain the crimp muscle mass from scratch?

Cheers!