[mctrials23]

http://www.climbstrong.com/articles/20150220

At the moment I am doing some one arm hangs for a max duration of 6-8 seconds to try and improve my finger strength.  This seem sensible to avoid injury to the back from too much weight whilst also doing max hangs.

This article seems to suggest that the best and safest way is much lower intensity hangs and not many of them on a limited number of hang positions.

Is this a load of shit? It seems to good to be true. Short duration, medium intensity and limited sets.

The amount of effort I put into my one arm hangs is intense and their point about injury does play on my mind sometimes. What do people make of this?

[blamo]

If it seems too good to be true...  I will let you fill in the blank!

 

[a dense loner]

You are doing one arm hangs for 6-8 seconds to improve your finger strength? Do you climb at least 8B? I possibly know 5 people who could do this and know the same amount who climb 8C

[abarro81]

I'm sceptical. Surely if moderate loads make me strong, then when I go route climbing I should get strong? I don't. I get strong when I go bouldering.
(Before Dense points out how weak I am, I mean 'strong' in a relative sense. Relative to most 12 year olds.)

I did once try to look into the research on isometric contraction times. My conclusion from a day of looking at abstracts was that if you hold a position for somewhere from 4-60s and try hard it will do you good, and that there wasn't much consensus beyond that.

[petejh]

Interesting, and it might tie in with the 'hypothesis that shallow edge lifting force in high-level rock climbers is more strongly related to fingertip soft tissue anatomy than to absolute strength or strength to body mass ratio':

http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=z6jYnCcAAAAJ&citation_for_view=z6jYnCcAAAAJ:roLk4NBRz8UC

This study investigates the hypothesis that shallow edge lifting force in high-level rock climbers is more strongly related to fingertip soft tissue anatomy than to absolute strength or strength to body mass ratio. Fifteen experienced climbers performed repeated maximal single hand lifting exercises on rectangular sandstone edges of depth 2.8, 4.3, 5.8, 7.3, and 12.5 mm while standing on a force measurement platform. Fingertip soft tissue dimensions were assessed by ultrasound imaging. Shallow edge (2.8 and 4.3 mm) lifting force, in newtons or body mass normalized, was uncorrelated with deep edge (12.5 mm) lifting force (r < .1). There was a positive
correlation (r = .65, p < .05) between lifting force in newtons at 2.8 mm edge depth and tip of bone to tip of finger pulp measurement (r < .37 at other edge depths). The results confirm the common perception that maximum lifting force on a deep edge (“strength”) does not predict maximum force production on very shallow edges. It is suggested that increased fingertip pulp dimension or plasticity may enable increased deformation of the fingertip, increasing the skin to rock contact area on very shallow edges, and thus increase the limit of force production. The study also confirmed previous assumptions of left/right force symmetry in climbers.

Correlation of Force With Anthropometric Measurements and Climbing Performance
Climbers with large bone-to-tip pulp measurement tended to generate a higher lifting force in newtons on the 2.8 mm deep edge (r = .65, p < .05). Lifting force in newtons produced on the 2.8 mm deep edge also correlated with subject height (r = .71, p < .05) and reach (r = .81, p <.05). There was no correlation with subject height or reach at edge depths larger than 2.8 mm. Maximum climbing grade correlated with body mass–normalized lifting force on the 7.3 mm (r = .71, p < .05) and 5.8 mm deep edges (r = .57, p < .05). The correlation was weaker at all other edge depths (r(12.5 mm) = .45; r(4.3 mm) = .42; r(2.8 mm) = .27).

Although the Climbstrong article isn't coming at it from this ^ angle, instead it's talking about the isometric strength adaptation.

Several studies, including Garfinkel and Cafarelli’s landmark 1992 study, tend to show us two other important factors. First, longer-duration isometric actions tend to build greater strength than short actions. This counter-intuitive information might suggest that holding positions for ten or even 20 seconds could cause greater gains than loading heavy for five. Second, the total volume of load (duration x contraction) is more important than the degree of load. I’ll rephrase, because I had a hard time believing it: the time you spend under load in a given position is more important than how heavy the load is.

A long-term emphasis on volume versus a short-term emphasis on intensity. Wouldn't the former equal an increase in finger pulp mass?

[ghisino]

errr....2.8mm edges....

[petejh]

Shallow edge (2.8 and 4.3 mm) lifting force, in newtons or body mass normalized, was uncorrelated with deep edge (12.5 mm) lifting force (r < .1).

[mctrials23]

You are doing one arm hangs for 6-8 seconds to improve your finger strength? Do you climb at least 8B? I possibly know 5 people who could do this and know the same amount who climb 8C

I'm a little confused about what you are saying here... I'm using a pulley to take off 20kg to do these hangs and this is on the beastmaker centre slot at the bottom in half crimp or the shallow three finger pocket at the top open handed. Basically its not very impressive.

[Oldmanmatt]

They're numbered.😉

[petejh]

mctrials - that sounds like the Webb-Parsons workout?

I did this for a couple of cycles last year. Started off being able to one-arm the bottom centre beastmaker slot (#9 above) with 8Kg taken off via pulley.
By the 6th week I could one-arm this hold unassisted for 8 seconds, on each arm, in 3 different arm positions (nearly straight, half-locked, full lock). Dense - I don't boulder 8B (yet...).
edit: just checked my training diary - was actually 3Kg assistance, and did one sesh unassisted at 8secs on LH / 5 secs on RH. This then dropped to 5 secs on LH / 3-4 secs on RH.




After the second cycle of this I got a slight pulley strain... and never got the chance to apply the strength-gain to rock-based recreational activities.

[jwi]

Is the climbstrong blogpost one of the daftest things I've read on fingertraining or is my brain not working today?

I don't understand anything in the original post. E.g.: 1) Why on earth should someone with access to climbing on rock/plastic do a high volume of low-mid intensity isometric training on a variety of holds? Surely, that is just called climbing? 2) And if they do actual climbing instead of farting around on a fingerboard wouldn't they learn to climb at the same time?

Most people train their fingers at low-mid (and high) intensity when climbing. If they need additional stimulus they do finger boarding since it is a (relatively) safe way of achieving the high loads necessary for supercompensation (esp. if they have climbed for a long time)

[shark]

You are doing one arm hangs for 6-8 seconds to improve your finger strength? Do you climb at least 8B? I possibly know 5 people who could do this and know the same amount who climb 8C

I'm a little confused about what you are saying here... I'm using a pulley to take off 20kg to do these hangs and this is on the beastmaker centre slot at the bottom in half crimp or the shallow three finger pocket at the top open handed. Basically its not very impressive.

One armed hangs assisted or otherwise are not the best way to go if you are focussing on finger strength gains as you are introducing other factors in the hang that may be limiting the intensity and your focus namely shoulder strength and stabilising from turning during the hang. But if the aim is to one arm hang an edge that's a diffrent matter..

[petejh]

Is the climbstrong blogpost one of the daftest things I've read on fingertraining or is my brain not working today?

I don't understand anything in the original post. E.g.: 1) Why on earth should someone with access to climbing on rock/plastic do a high volume of low-mid intensity isometric training on a variety of holds? Surely, that is just called climbing? 2) And if they do actual climbing instead of farting around on a fingerboard wouldn't they learn to climb at the same time?

Most people train their fingers at low-mid (and high) intensity when climbing. If they need additional stimulus they do finger boarding since it is a (relatively) safe way of achieving the high loads necessary for supercompensation (esp. if they have climbed for a long time)

The Climbstrong post is saying that supercompensation doesn't happen in isometric contractions (i.e. the fingers in rock climbing) in the way that you perhaps think it does:

'Several studies, including Garfinkel and Cafarelli’s landmark 1992 study, tend to show us two other important factors. First, longer-duration isometric actions tend to build greater strength than short actions. This counter-intuitive information might suggest that holding positions for ten or even 20 seconds could cause greater gains than loading heavy for five. Second, the total volume of load (duration x contraction) is more important than the degree of load. I’ll rephrase, because I had a hard time believing it: the time you spend under load in a given position is more important than how heavy the load is.'

[Nibile]

It's important to distinguish between training to make fingers stronger and training them to their max potential.

[shark]

It's important to distinguish between training to make fingers stronger and training them to their max potential.

I don't understand the difference. Can you explain

[Nibile]

Working at 70/80% or going for 90/100%.
Ten hangs with 40 kg or 2 with 55.
You progress etiher way, but only with max you exploit your potential. Also, working to max is more taxing on CNS and full body.
It's lovey.
Yesterday I did a total of two reps on a system excercise and I was done for the day, fingers  wise. And body also was shaken. So I did weights.
 

[petejh]

Would it be correct to say Nibile that you're content with discovering your maximum potential in training but not in climbing?

[jwi]

petejh, hanging 9s on a hold that is not so har to hang 3 times as climbstrong recommends... don't you do that all the time when climbing?

Can't comment on the Caffarelli paper until I have read it

[petejh]

I agree that it simulates climbing - perhaps closer to trad climbing than sport, but still climbing.

The stand-out points, for me, from the Climbstrong post - if the underlying ideas are true - are these:
1. It may not be necessary to use high loads to achieve significant finger strength gains.
2. Total time spent with fingers under load may be more important than many people currently think.
3. A finger board can only ever be an adjunct to time spent climbing.
4. However - a fingerboard can be the best way for many people to achieve long periods of time spent with fingers under load.
5. A fingerboard accurately isolates the fingers and allows for replicable loads over many year's workouts in different locations.
6. Climbing does not as accurately isolate fingers as a fingerboard nor is it nearly as replicable, however there is still time spent with fingers under load and the movement benefits are great/unique.

[blamo]

I am not so sure that studies on isometric training of other body parts directly relates to forearms.  The following has some different conclusions using some of the same recourses:

http://www.stevemaischtraining.com/isometric-strength-training.html

 

[petejh]

Interestingly that post you linked to actually comes to a very similar conclusion as the Climbstrong post -

Summary:
As I said earlier, my inclination is to go with strength trainers doing actual strength training with actual athletes.  This would be Siff and Verkoshansky (1996), Bompa and Carrerra (2005), Low (2011) and Lopez (2012).  Of this group we have one arguing for a repeater style workout on the finger board with the other three arguing for a single repetition.  Of the single rep group we have a gymnastics coach and a climbing trainer.  Climbing is definitely more similar to gymnastics and finger boarding than it is to squatting (no dis-respect to squatting).  My conclusion in regard to the optimal fingerboard workout for improving maximum strength would then have the following characteristics:

    Single hangs of 9 - 12 seconds with a 2 - 3 minute rest in between sets.
    Number of sets per grip  3 - 9 sets.
    Total amount of time hanging should be between 40 and 120 seconds.
    Training weight is determined by total weight that can be hung from the grip being trained for 13 seconds.

Cheers,
Steve

And:

In my mind, one of the best plans that fits these criteria is the Hangboard Ladder Program, or 3-6-9 as it’s popularly known. It goes like this:

Select 3-4 hold types or positions. You’ll stick with these throughout the 6 week phase, so pick well. I suggest full crimp, half crimp, and open hand. Again you could conceivably come up with several dozen hold types and combinations...but don’t. You have very little adaptive capacity, so don’t waste it. These three hold positions will get you where you need to be. All hangs will be done at bodyweight. Pick a hold that you can comfortably hold for 12-15 seconds.

Week 1: 3 straight ladders 3-6-9 sec. resting as needed. As soon as you start timing rest, you have left the path of strength. You should never feel pumped, tired, or sweaty. If fatigue comes into the session, make your rests longer.

this means:

position 1: 3 sec, rest, 6 sec, rest, 9 sec, rest.

position 2: 3 sec, rest, 6 sec, rest, 9 sec, rest.

position 3: 3 sec, rest, 6 sec, rest, 9 sec, rest.

 
position 1: 3 sec, rest, 6 sec, rest, 9 sec, rest.

position 2: 3 sec, rest, 6 sec, rest, 9 sec, rest.

position 3: 3 sec, rest, 6 sec, rest, 9 sec, rest.

 
position 1: 3 sec, rest, 6 sec, rest, 9 sec, rest.

position 2: 3 sec, rest, 6 sec, rest, 9 sec, rest.

position 3: 3 sec, rest, 6 sec, rest, 9 sec, rest.


Week 2: 4 ladders 3-6-9 sec.

Week 3: 5 ladders 3-6-9 sec.

Week 4: 3 ladders 3-6-9-12 sec.

Week 5: 4 ladders 3-6-9-12 sec.

Week 6: 5 ladders 3-6-9-12 sec.

The difference between the two being Climbstrong advocates adding in a 3,6 and 9 second hang in addition to the 12 seconds; and the 'weight added so that you can comfortably hang a hold for approx 13 seconds' - in the case of the Climbstrong post, that means bodyweight.

[abarro81]

The difference is that one is hanging at a resistance that causes failure at 13s, and the other at a resistance that feels comfortable for 13s. That's a significant difference.

[Nibile]

Would it be correct to say Nibile that you're content with discovering your maximum potential in training but not in climbing?

Yes, at least in the last years. Having little time for rock, it's hard to climb as hard as I train, there are too many variables (conditions, new projects, etc). In the last years I've climbed the hardest on my board, that's always there, always dry and with endless potential for futuristic projects.

[blamo]

The difference is that one is hanging at a resistance that causes failure at 13s, and the other at a resistance that feels comfortable for 13s. That's a significant difference.

 

Exactly my thought.  To me there is a difference between sort of trying and trying REALLY hard.  Maybe I read it wrong, but the climbstrong post seems to advocate "sort of trying."

[petejh]

Oh yeah, didn't scroll up and missed that point about added weight - yeah a significant difference then.