[slackline]

The statement...

These differences are genetically controlled and will significantly contribute to athletic ability.

...is not demonstrated by the chosen example...

For example, the muscles of marathon runners have a higher percentage of slow twitch fibers (about 80%), while those of sprinters contain a higher percentage of fast twitch fibers (about 60%).

Unless you invoke some divine pre-destination that all marathon runners were going to be marathon runners and all sprinters sprinters when eggs and sperm fused to form a zygote. 

Now you may have a genetic complexion that means you have more slow twitch fibers and you are a little better at long distance running than your mate at school who's genetic constitution means that they have more fast twitch and can beat you in a sprint, but the way the above is stated is after the fact and both marathon runners and sprinters will have undergone a number of years practising/training that maximised, on top of their genetic baseline, the proportion of twitch specific fibers in their muscles.

[roddersm]

Ok, I'm confused by this thread.

So, call all of the following a question, posed as a statement.

In twenty minutes I'm going to sit down to an A&P exam section 3 of which is on energy systems.

As far as I can see, or know, the only Energy system which can be trained is the Lactate system (power endurance by my reading of the terminology used in climbing, which I cannot find replicated in the A&P texts I'm supposed to be studying).

This is all pointless without adding the context of available muscle fibres, surely?

Good question - but surely by training non-oxidative type 2 fibres to behave as oxidative then you are increasing the fibre capacity as well as through hypertrophy?

Power recruitment training would also increase the capacity of available muscle fibres I'd have thought.

Also if you increase the lactate threshold you can work at a higher intensity aerobically without using the lactate system -assuming this is trainable locally as well?

[finbarrr]

Ok, I'm confused by this thread.

So, call all of the following a question, posed as a statement.

In twenty minutes I'm going to sit down to an A&P exam section 3 of which is on energy systems.

As far as I can see, or know, the only Energy system which can be trained is the Lactate system (power endurance by my reading of the terminology used in climbing, which I cannot find replicated in the A&P texts I'm supposed to be studying).

This is all pointless without adding the context of available muscle fibres, surely?

And whilst those fibres may be trained and grown in size (Hypertrophy), the number and proportions of those fibres are genetically determined within each individual. There is limited scope for change, only the conversion of type IIX fibres to type IIA (through training) to increase aerobic endurance.

...

The only Energy system that can be "Trained" is the Lactate and only by improving tolerance to Lactic acid accumulation.

...

Aerobic capacity is alway going to be limited by the number of Mitocondria available (genetically determined).


Sorry for the screen shots but I'm using a synopsis text (which I emailed myself as a PDF) on my iPad for some last minute study, in the waiting room. My sources are (and excuse spelling) Seeley R, et al (A & P) and Tortora & Gabrowski 1996 and McArdel et al. 1996.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

this texts seem to be an introduction to energy systems and muscle stuff.
and 20 years old.

the guys we are talking about (anderson bros, horst) are using more specific and newer theories and data.
for instance, the anderson bros name 7 types of muscle fibres, and apparently the lactic acid story was just a theory!
as for the "lactic training" : you train tolerance for "the pump" but you train all the other systems to prevent getting pumped (sources: "horst", "self coached climber", "anderson")

your text tells us our genetics are important (limiting) in our development, but that's just the starting point for these discussions, not the end.

[matts]

As far as I understood this you've got 3 types of muscle fibers: slow twitch (type I), fast twitch IIa and fast twitch IIb.

Fast twitch IIb fibers fatigue very quickly, fast twitch IIa fibers are somewhat more fatigue resistant but still give out pretty quickly and slow twitch fibers can resist fatigue for longer durations.

This is due to physiological qualities of the fibers (i.e. slow twitch fibers are best suited to use aerobic processes to provide energy).

The jury is still out on wether it's possible to convert muscle fiber types from one to the other.

But things get yet more complicated because we don't use all of our muscle fiber types at the same time while doing a specific exercise activity.

And in climbing we never have an activity thats purely type I or purely type IIa or IIb. First of all, on routes you usually go from rest to rest, so while during the climbing mainly fast twitch fibers might be activated you'll have slow twitch fibers dominating while resting. But then there's also the alternating movement of our hands, which actually allows for a short rest in the time between letting go of a hold and grabbing a new hold, so there's surely a different muscle fiber activation in that moment. And then you'd also have harder and easier sections and so on.... So climbing (all sports really) uses all muscle fiber types to a different degree in different situations. And all of them are supporting each other. (source mainly Training for the new alpinism by House)

[Oldmanmatt]

What are you on about Matt, the aerobic system is very much trainable

Yes, sorry, this is what happens when you write in haste...

My major point was the single line about it all being pointless without reference to the available muscle fibres.

(Those were my Crib notes btw and I'm First year of three, so still basics).

For reasons that elude me (and I'll check) I'm currently required to refer to type IIb fibre as IIX (possibly due to the introduction of further types later in the course?).

I had intended to illustrate/ask if it made more sense that the foundation phase should surely be the generation/transformation of the required fibres (depending on the activity you are training for), before then training the energy systems?

Especially when thinking of aerobic fitness?

Would it be wrong to say "Hypertrophy before endurance"?

And, does any amount of training improve/increase available CP in the body or speed up recovery of such?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Oldmanmatt]

The statement...

These differences are genetically controlled and will significantly contribute to athletic ability.

...is not demonstrated by the chosen example...

For example, the muscles of marathon runners have a higher percentage of slow twitch fibers (about 80%), while those of sprinters contain a higher percentage of fast twitch fibers (about 60%).

Unless you invoke some divine pre-destination that all marathon runners were going to be marathon runners and all sprinters sprinters when eggs and sperm fused to form a zygote. 

Now you may have a genetic complexion that means you have more slow twitch fibers and you are a little better at long distance running than your mate at school who's genetic constitution means that they have more fast twitch and can beat you in a sprint, but the way the above is stated is after the fact and both marathon runners and sprinters will have undergone a number of years practising/training that maximised, on top of their genetic baseline, the proportion of twitch specific fibers in their muscles.

But this is hypothetical without a cradle to grave study, surely?

If you are genetically predisposed to a certain type of sport, you would probably excel (given the opportunity) early in that type of sport; leading to further developing along that route?

That doesn't preclude the "born power lifter" becoming a Triathlete, but it would make it less likely, surely.

So, the only way to prove the "cross over" hypothesis would be to identify genetic predisposition at an early developmental stage and then try to force it in another direction?

And that would seem to be much harder in adults, too.

Is it possible to take an Olympic standard Power lifter and train them to a similar standard (not just to finish) in the Marathon?

As an adult?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[slackline]

The text reads as though these are statements of scientific fact, and it may well be true that these are the observed percentages in the different athletes, but that is  after the effect of training has been added to any genetic predisposition, so they are not in anyway reflecting the genetic predisposition towards either muscle type in either group.

Comparing monozygotic and dizygotic twins is one way of teasing out the heritability and environmental contribution to certain traits and its done for many diseases.  There are twin registers in the UK and many other countries who routinely follow twins for such studies.  A quick search throws up some possible reading in relation to such studies on muscle.

[matts]

Is it possible to take an Olympic standard Power lifter and train them to a similar standard (not just to finish) in the Marathon?

I don't think it would be possible because the level of elite marathon runners is so high that genetic predisposition does matter a lot. It would certainly be possible to take an athlete from another sport and make him perform at an elite level of a sport that is not that much evolved (say drytooling for example ). But the closer you get to the limits of human physique, the greater becomes the role of genetic predisposition.

[TheTwig]

So for aero cap you need to climb a load of easyish routes which give a mild pump? If the routes are too hard and you get pumped then the anaerobic system is kicking in - that is my understanding anyway.

Just bought that Anderson bros book - looks really good but one thing I thought was that if the strength phase was before the arc training, rather than after, then base level of route needed for the arc training would be higher due to being stronger on individual moves?

The reason the STR phase is directly before power phase is because something like 90% of the gains from a fingerboarding phase are primarily in the nervous system, e.g. motor unit syncronicity and all that stuff. If you did Str>ARC>Pow you would probably loose most of those gains going into the phase where you need them the most.

[TheTwig]

Is it possible to take an Olympic standard Power lifter and train them to a similar standard (not just to finish) in the Marathon?

I don't think it would be possible because the level of elite marathon runners is so high that genetic predisposition does matter a lot. It would certainly be possible to take an athlete from another sport and make him perform at an elite level of a sport that is not that much evolved (say drytooling for example ). But the closer you get to the limits of human physique, the greater becomes the role of genetic predisposition.

  - I think it's fair to say that the elite level of any sport self-selects for people with a certain physique (and genetic traits?). For example gymnasts with shorter levers, olympic butterfly swimmers with very long legs and torso's, small/light jockeys, etc etc. When it comes to muscle fibres etc etc the problem is it's hard to seperate out the training effect. Obviously marathon runners are going to have massive proportions of slow twitch fibres and very well developed endurance/aerobic energy systems, how much of this is training and how much genes/body type? How long is a piece of string!

[Rocksteady]

So for aero cap you need to climb a load of easyish routes which give a mild pump? If the routes are too hard and you get pumped then the anaerobic system is kicking in - that is my understanding anyway.

Just bought that Anderson bros book - looks really good but one thing I thought was that if the strength phase was before the arc training, rather than after, then base level of route needed for the arc training would be higher due to being stronger on individual moves?

The reason the STR phase is directly before power phase is because something like 90% of the gains from a fingerboarding phase are primarily in the nervous system, e.g. motor unit syncronicity and all that stuff. If you did Str>ARC>Pow you would probably loose most of those gains going into the phase where you need them the most.

In the detail of the Andersons' programme, although the ARC/Base phase is before STR/POW etc, ARC/aerocap training continues throughout as a warm up and warm down for other sessions.

I think this is important as, if I interpret Binney's presentation correctly http://ukbouldering.com/media/pdf/principlestraining.pdf, the time it takes for adaptation to ARC training is around 8 weeks (see page 6). If you only do a few weeks of ARC you won't reap the benefits as fully as you might need.

[roddersm]

So for aero cap you need to climb a load of easyish routes which give a mild pump? If the routes are too hard and you get pumped then the anaerobic system is kicking in - that is my understanding anyway.

Just bought that Anderson bros book - looks really good but one thing I thought was that if the strength phase was before the arc training, rather than after, then base level of route needed for the arc training would be higher due to being stronger on individual moves?

The reason the STR phase is directly before power phase is because something like 90% of the gains from a fingerboarding phase are primarily in the nervous system, e.g. motor unit syncronicity and all that stuff. If you did Str>ARC>Pow you would probably loose most of those gains going into the phase where you need them the most.

Yeah sorry I meant that Str> Power> Arc > PE would make more sense to me in principal. I understand that Power would need to follow the strength phase but would have thought arc training could be done at a higher intensity if following the strength phase?   

[Luke Owens]

For ancap you shouldn't be pumped, you should be powered out

Random question:

Say you're doing a route at your limit and you're powering out on the same move each redpoint (a move which is relatively easy on the dog and isn't a strength issue)

Is this basicly training Ancap out on the crag?

What is the best way to break through this barrier? Persistant redpointing?

I'm speaking from this generally happening to me all the time. I either don't embrace the siege or switch to some different type of training or do easier routes thinking this will help be some time in the future, which is probably where I'm going wrong.

Cheers

[abarro81]

Not likely to be an cap. Might be training anpow. Depends on the route in question. The 'what's the best way to break through the barrier' question is one that can't really be answered online since possibilities include - get fitter, get stronger, get fitter in a different way, get better beta, climb faster, skip clips, try harder or simply keep trying... depending on how close you are to doing it etc. Falling off moves that are ok on the dog is pretty much the name of the game for sport cimbing though

[Luke Owens]

Not likely to be an cap. Might be training anpow. Depends on the route in question. The 'what's the best way to break through the barrier' question is one that can't really be answered online since possibilities include - get fitter, get stronger, get fitter in a different way, get better beta, climb faster, skip clips, try harder or simply keep trying... depending on how close you are to doing it etc. Falling off moves that are ok on the dog is pretty much the name of the game for sport cimbing though

Cheers Alex, yeah agreed, there are a load of variables that make a difference to whether you'll be successful on a route and there are ways getting around powering out like refining beta so the moves are easier, skipping clips etc. etc.

I guess I've always just wondered how to better understand what that powered out feeling actually is and why it happens.

I always thought it was an ancap thing, i.e getting part way through a hard section and just not being able to pull anymore.

[TheTwig]

For ancap you shouldn't be pumped, you should be powered out

Random question:

Say you're doing a route at your limit and you're powering out on the same move each redpoint (a move which is relatively easy on the dog and isn't a strength issue)

Is this basicly training Ancap out on the crag?

What is the best way to break through this barrier? Persistant redpointing?

I'm speaking from this generally happening to me all the time. I either don't embrace the siege or switch to some different type of training or do easier routes thinking this will help be some time in the future, which is probably where I'm going wrong.

Cheers

I'm not the worlds best sport climber but if you are resting enough between tries and days on/off then you can build some endurance while working the route, as well as refining beta etc. If you are falling on the same move I usually try and include that move in a link, e.g. start from the 1st or 2nd bolt so you can get used to the feeling of doing the move while knackered, and then gradually progress until it feels like it will go in 1.

[Paul B]

I'm not the worlds best sport climber but if you are resting enough between tries and days on/off then you can build some endurance while working the route, as well as refining beta etc. If you are falling on the same move I usually try and include that move in a link, e.g. start from the 1st or 2nd bolt so you can get used to the feeling of doing the move while knackered, and then gradually progress until it feels like it will go in 1.

Linking from the first bolt has always seemed like a terrible idea to me, what happens if/when you do the link? Could you've done it from the floor? Or, am I missing the point and we're talking about things right at the top end of your physical ability?

[TheTwig]

I'm not the worlds best sport climber but if you are resting enough between tries and days on/off then you can build some endurance while working the route, as well as refining beta etc. If you are falling on the same move I usually try and include that move in a link, e.g. start from the 1st or 2nd bolt so you can get used to the feeling of doing the move while knackered, and then gradually progress until it feels like it will go in 1.

Linking from the first bolt has always seemed like a terrible idea to me, what happens if/when you do the link? Could you've done it from the floor? Or, am I missing the point and we're talking about things right at the top end of your physical ability?

Things right at your limit, you are falling on the same move every time and if you had 2% more energy you would stick it, that kind of thing. There's so much more knowledge about schema, motor patterns, muscle memory etc whatever you want to call it, I really don't see how that squares with falling at the exact same move over and over and hoping to stick it on the 200th try. Seems better to me to be trying the crux from a point on the route where you can do it, and then progress from there

[Oldmanmatt]

This might also be a mindset issue.

Not calling you a fruitcake or anything!

[bendavison]

if you are resting enough between tries and days on/off then you can build some endurance while working the route, as well as refining beta etc.

but I don't think this is true. Anecdotally, I almost invariably find that I get weaker and less fit as a trip progresses, particularly after the first 10-14 days - except maybe for resting, that sometimes improves. Redpointing involves too much resting on the ground to make you fitter IMO - any gains usually just seem to be related to learning the moves.

[abarro81]

On a trip I will usually get weaker and get worse top end PE (an pow style), will remain about the same at getting boxed and will get better at resty, aero cap style stuff. If we're talking about trying routes on the weekends in the UK (which I think we were) this isn't an issue, and I definitely get better at feeling fit on a route whilst trying it, even if I'm objectively actually the same fitness or less fit - I definitely find that after a few redpoints or long links I 'learn' the rests a bit, can climb faster etc so will feel fitter even if I'm not actually fitter. If we're talking weekend cragging you can have traning burns at the end of the day and worry less about beating yourself up too, so you're less likely to suffer the issue of losing fitness that Ben's talking about on trip since you're not worried about being fresh for another burn on Tuesday as it's a work day!

[TheTwig]

I guess it depends on the person. I've seen plenty of quotes from top climbers like Sharma etc saying how they will go to an area and build fitness by just doing routes, though obviously how applicable that is to the average mortal is up for debate  Personally the longest I've gone on a trip was only 10 days so i can't speak for anything longer, and I was doing trad, but I felt strongest towards the end (3 on 1 off). Then again anyone could argue that any gains or maintenance was probably mental/technical while physical declined. Sorry for the 

[abarro81]

If you went on a 10 day trad trip and got stronger you must be even weaker than me!  I remember going on my first ever sport trip to Ceuse. Some people (boulderers) were complaining about getting weak after being there for 4 weeks; conversely, as a weak trad climber I was stronger after 4 weeks there than I'd ever been. Nowadays if I go on an onsight trip on long routes for 4 weeks I get significantly weaker.

P.S. On 10 day trips I don't really gain/lose anything physiologically I don't think, it's around the 10 day - 2 week mark on an onsight trip where I start to notice my snappy power begin to drop off a bit.

[Rocksteady]

If you went on a 10 day trad trip and got stronger you must be even weaker than me!  I remember going on my first ever sport trip to Ceuse. Some people (boulderers) were complaining about getting weak after being there for 4 weeks; conversely, as a weak trad climber I was stronger after 4 weeks there than I'd ever been. Nowadays if I go on an onsight trip on long routes for 4 weeks I get significantly weaker.

P.S. On 10 day trips I don't really gain/lose anything physiologically I don't think, it's around the 10 day - 2 week mark on an onsight trip where I start to notice my snappy power begin to drop off a bit.

I suspect whether you get fitter or stronger or weaker on a trip depends on the level to which you're trained, and how long the trip is. Alex and Ben are both training wads, and I guess come into a trip stronger and fitter to maximize their chances of success. If you don't train super hard, then chances are that on a trip you spend more time climbing than normal, so you will get a bit fitter and stronger than normal.

My impression of Sharma is that although he says he never trains, he climbs routes like he's training - sometimes he'll be focusing for weeks on trying one or two moves, sometimes he's doing loads of volume and climbing everything on a crag. He might say he gets fitter on a trip but I bet he's just more tuned in to the style of the routes in that particular area - basically, what Barrows said.

[rosmat]

My impression of Sharma is that although he says he never trains, he climbs routes like he's training - sometimes he'll be focusing for weeks on trying one or two moves, sometimes he's doing loads of volume and climbing everything on a crag. He might say he gets fitter on a trip but I bet he's just more tuned in to the style of the routes in that particular area - basically, what Barrows said.

Agreed, Sharma might say he doesn't train but I've seen him throwing tons of laps on 8bs - which seems like training to me - just happens te be at the crag.