Question about transition phase in a block periodization plan, ref: Steve Bechtel
|
JohnNorway wrote: That is very interesting. I didn't know that. Can I assume there isn't any definitive scientific research on which of these are the "most" correct, since the climbing community seems torn between these two approaches (repeaters vs max hangs)? You would think that 'how to train for maximum strength' in many athletic sports would be prioritized research.Repeaters and maximal effort are both methods of developing strength. Zatsiorsky gives lots of info on this. And yes, this has been a "prioritized" research avenue for a long time. Go to page 16 "Methods of Strength Training" salisbury.edu/sportsperform… |
|
I should have been more specific- |
|
Aerili wrote: Repeaters and maximal effort are both methods of developing strength. Zatsiorsky gives lots of info on this. And yes, this has been a "prioritized" research avenue for a long time. Go to page 16 "Methods of Strength Training" salisbury.edu/sportsperform…Thanks for this reference. Am I understanding correctly that the author would favor "repeated" or submaximal efforts for exercises such as hangboarding, which only resembles true climbing movements, but would advise "maximal effort" for something more specific, like limit bouldering? |
|
SMR wrote:Aerili - do you know of published research with climbers as subjects and repeaters? I have copies of Eva's publications but not of repeaters except anecdotes.No. If anything exists, you might find it on Google Scholar (with the right search terms). Mark E Dixon wrote: Thanks for this reference. Am I understanding correctly that the author would favor "repeated" or submaximal efforts for exercises such as hangboarding, which only resembles true climbing movements, but would advise "maximal effort" for something more specific, like limit bouldering?While both methods can be used with either high or low required neuromuscular coordination exercises, I would say you are correct in that: - Repeated methods are somewhat better for low coordination exercises - like hangboard - Maximal methods are somewhat better for high coordination exercises - like limit bouldering. Although really this method probably has more flexibility either way than the other method. This would be because it doesn't demand performance during high fatigue states. But again, both methods can be used for either type of exercise as long as you know how to program them appropriately. For instance, limit bouldering with a repeated efforts method would look a lot different than with a maximal effort methods. I think you would best manipulate this with number of moves involved and number of sets. |
|
SMR wrote:The 6th round (Jan/Feb) I decided to add weight during the strength month and was a combination of Steve B and Eva Lopez in strength and the 3-6-9 power/build month. Since the 9sec grip is hard (I am on small holds), and I am doing it on 30 second clock (rest:work is 2:1 for this hold). I am not getting pumped in this routine.As I understand Steve Bechtels 3-6-9 ladder, you pick your grips and do one ladder for each grip. You then repeat this for the specified amount of sets you have chosen. Am I right so far? What I have yet to find is any mention of rest in between ladders and sets. When and how long do you rest? Also, in Steve's article ( climbstrong.com/articles/20…) he specifies that the second protocol, the one on a 30 second clock, is done Circuit Style rather than straight. I take this as meaning the first protocol (45 second clock) is 'straight', but have no idea what either of this means. Any help? |
|
Hi John, |
|
As explained in Steve's Strength book, which I highly recommend and is very affordable, a 30 second clock simply means that you hang for 3 seconds and rest for 27 seconds, hang for 6 and rest for 24 and so on, but as Steve highlights it is about building strength, without hand and finger injuries and not necessarily an endurance exercise, so rest more if necessary. The clock is simply a time management tool and a way to keep pace. |
|
SteveBechtel wrote:Hi John, The 3-6-9 ladders are done resting as long as you need. Most people are fine on a 30 second clock or so, but remember that it doesn't really matter. Why? Because when we start controlling rest time, we stop focusing on strength.Thanks for the clarification! I do think some people are interpreting the 'clock' as the total duration of each ladder, meaning that on a 45 second clock you hang 3 sec, rest 9 sec, hang 6 sec, rest 9 sec, hang 9 sec, rest 9 sec = 45 sec. At least the people commenting on your article are interpreting it this way. I'm also a bit curious. Do you Steve consider the 3-6-9 protocol to be a repeater protocol? It kinda sounds like it from your reply above but I could be misinterpreting. To me it seems much more like a 'golden mean' that balances somewhere in between repeaters and maximum hangs. Although there are some similarities to the 'standard' repeaters (Beastmaker og Andersons), mainly that your protocol is also bases on repeated efforts, it also specifies a higher rest-to-work ratio than a repeater-protocol. In this way it seems clear to me that the 3-6-9 ladder is more of an strength exercise than an endurance exercise, compared to other repeater-protocols. You further emphasize this with your comment above, that if your getting pumped you've left the realm of strength training. I am not saying that repeaters by default are aimed at getting you pumped, but a lot of people seem to be getting pumped by doing repeaters. I have read multiple comments and forum posts where people wanting to increase their strength advocate repeaters because it is the only hangboard workout that makes them simulate a proper climbing pump. Maybe a lot of the whole repeaters vs maximum hangs discussion is based on peoples different perceptions of repeated effort vs maximal effort. Rui Ferreira wrote:Regarding circuits, you do all you positions at 3 seconds, then do all positions for 6 seconds and so on, as opposed to doing a single position at 3 - 6 - 9 and then moving on the next hand position. This increases the intensity of the workout as opposed to the interval latter format. Experiment with each to see what works best for you.I'm kinda liking the idea of doing the interval ladder protocol on a 30 second clock, but I will definitely try both. Maybe mixing it up between circuits and intervals, both on a 30 and 45 second clock, can be a good way of maintaining diversity during in-season hangboarding. My outdoor season is five to six months long, so I need some diversity after a while. Rui Ferreira wrote:As explained in Steve's Strength book, which I highly recommend and is very affordableThanks for the recommandation, I just bought it via trainingbeta.com. Looking forward to reading it :) |
|
JohnNorway wrote: I'm also a bit curious. Do you Steve consider the 3-6-9 protocol to be a repeater protocol? It kinda sounds like it from your reply above but I could be misinterpreting.To be honest, semantically I do not know what category this falls under, but what is clear for me is that I cannot do the Anderson HB "repeater" format year round (and it is not intended anyway), so using the 3-6-9 protocol is a good way to maintain a baseline of finger strength. Curiously enough, hangboarding has not resulted in spectacular increases of finger strength for me or jumps in climbing grades, but it has allowed me to develop an open hand grip, whereas I tended to crimp all small holds before and it has improved my sloper and pinch grips (I am using the RPTC). Steve makes a good point that most climbers could see more returns if they were to focus on other aspects of climbing such as technique as opposed to strength, and I would add that having good body mobility and functional climbing movement is more important than strength, both of these are different than technique and not just semantically :). In the absence of good mobility strength is attempted instead to overcome the challenge, resulting in inefficient climbing or at worst in acute or chronic injuries. |
|
Rui Ferreira wrote:Steve makes a good point that most climbers could see more returns if they were to focus on other aspects of climbing such as technique as opposed to strength, and I would add that having good body mobility and functional climbing movement is more important than strength, both of these are different than technique and not just semantically :).I totally agree that technique is the single most important aspect of climbing. Climbing is as we all know a very skill based activity. I would also agree that most climbers could see more returns if they were to focus on technique over strength. However I do think that training to be a complete climber is better than just trying to be the best technical climber. Since strength and power is an important aspect of climbing, you should train these in a way suited to your level. I would also argue that strength in particular can be a prerequisite of good technique, and were good technique is about using your strength in the best possible way. I climb three times a week for about a total of 6-7 hours, and train maybe 1-2 hours on top of that. However much I train my strength, power and endurance during those 1-2 hours, I train my technique way more each week. When the outdoor season comes I only climb outside for 3-4 days a week for 5-6 months. Again, way more technique than strength. I honestly believe that I personally, at this point in my climbing career, have more to gain by training strength and power over technique the little amount that I actually train during a whole year worth of climbing. I am now nearing the end of my 4 month long off season, and the first season I have ever trained anything other than just climbing, and I have seen amazing gains and progress throughout these months. I now stand close to accomplishing goals I hadn't even envisioned I could do for years to come. Would I be seeing the same progress if I had only focused on technique these last months? I think not :) |
|
SteveBechtel wrote:we do see good strength gains with repeaters...which is why they are probably superior to max hangs. Why? Because the fragile structure of the hand requires that strength be built over the long term, and pushing a max program (most max hang programs were patterned after total body strength protocols - not a good idea) is going to hurt you.....If your technique isn't perfect, and I mean f'ing PERFECT, hangboarding isn't where you need to spend your time.I'm going to disagree with you a bit here, based on years of experience (anecdotal, sample size =1). Yes, the structure are fragile and require a long term gradual advancement. But, the injury potential I think is being overblown here. I trained primarily reapeaters, 3 cycles per year, for 6 years. Then I started mixing cycles of max hangs (typically ~7-8 second hangs). In the last couple of years, I've done probably 85% max cycles rather than repeaters. No injuries. And I'm talking about weights in the +120 range on the smallest part of the variable width 4 finger holds and as high as +50 on the thin crimp on the RPTC, +85 on two finger, one pad MR pockets. Oddly enough, the only injuries on HB I've had were from RP two finger repeaters that put rotational/shear stresses on the ring fingers DIPs and were chronic/inflammation type issues rather than acute/tears/etc. I actually found that repeater sets were WAY harder on my shoulders than max sets. YMMV. You could argue that I had already built enough strength long term to handle the max hangs. I think that's a reasonable argument with some merit. I'd also argue against the "don't hangboard if your technique isn't perfect" bit, because it takes a long time to build, and the time investment is minimal, so you might as well get started on that journey while you are concurrently working on technique. No revelations in what I said, but my personal experience is that repeater sets are more likely to create injury than properly warmed up max sets, just as I've found I'm much more injury prone training power endurance than anything else (largely due to drop in form/technique as the exercise progresses and fatigue sets in), on the repeaters the should girdle starts to go a bit slack. As always, YMMV. |
|
Dana Bartlett wrote:I'd also argue against the "don't hangboard if your technique isn't perfect" bit, because it takes a long time to build, and the time investment is minimal, so you might as well get started on that journey while you are concurrently working on technique. Very good point. It also emphasizes how the strength-technique dichotomy always pops up in these discussions.It's amazing how hard it is to overcome the myth of this dichotomy in discussions about 'why train'. Will -- interesting perspective. Do you follow something like the Eva Lopez protocol, or something else? |
|
My protocol for max hangs is really very simple, and came more or less from looking at the Bulgarian and Russian oly lifting schemes (what Steve talks about as designed for full body and thus being not appropriate...which is where he and I part ways in our philosophy). |
|
Perhaps I was not clear in my earlier post, so to make it very clear do not train for strength if you have some pre-existing mobility dysfunction or if your strength training contributes to poor joint alignment. Instead get your body into proper alignment, address mobility issues and only then train for strength...and this has nothing to do with training your "climbing technique". I do not have any scientific data to back this up, but I'll venture that most climbers will have some dysfunction in mobility, whether it is a problem with tight hips, hamstrings, shoulders, upper thoracic, etc. |
|
Rui Ferreira wrote:Perhaps I was not clear in my earlier post, so to make it very clear do not train for strength if you have some pre-existing mobility dysfunction or if your strength training contributes to poor joint alignment. Instead get your body into proper alignment, address mobility issues and only then train for strength...and this has nothing to do with training your "climbing technique".I undertand now what your saying, and I agree in full. However, I do think it would be difficult for people to know wether or not they have any pre-existing mobility dysfunction if they are not experiencing any pain or limited range of motion. Do you have any recommendation for how to uncover any such mobility dysfunctions, besides just preventative training that may or may not help you avoid mobility related injuries? I personally do a lot of wrestling/grappling a long side my climbing, and lean heavily on the hope that wrestling as an overall-body-exercise will help balance out any potentially negative stress climbing puts on my body. So far it seems to be working. It may also be a factor that I came from years of wrestling before starting to climb, so my body may have been well equipped to make the transition to climbing. |
|
There are some quick mobility assessments that you can do on your own in front of a mirror or with video, but you first need to research the subject in order to even know where to start. |
|
SteveBechtel wrote: Let's face it: for 19 out of 20 climbers, finger strength isn't even the issue. If your technique isn't perfect, and I mean f'ing PERFECT, hangboarding isn't where you need to spend your time.I've been trawling through old training posts and came across this speed bump on my training philosophy highway. I'm still fairly new to climbing and very new to training for climbing. Now in my second cycle of following RCTM and have seen less "results" than I would have liked. This is mostly down to inconsistency on my part though. My current goal route is a 5.11d that I thought would suit my "style" -vertical, technical, with some power-endurance - Two boulder problems on either end of the route, with a couple of good rests and moderate edges/crimps in between. First time I was on the route it felt hard, but not impossible to do the hardest moves. I almost linked the first crux on my first go. However, by the time I got to the first rest and looked up I was so tired/pumped that my psych quickly turned to despair. So back home to the gym - lots of ARCing (felt like my endurance and technique were really improving) and began working more Power-Endurance. But even redpointing 5.10's in the gym was often bringing debilitating pump. One day, in complete frustration with my burning forearms, I threw off my harness and strolled into the bouldering area. I've never really bouldered, but just started climbing. I really surprised myself as I was quickly flashing things I would have never thought were at my level. Hence my current state of confusion in all things training. If what Steve is saying is true (I have no reason to doubt him) how can I get that perfect technique, while gaining the endurance needed to redpoint something longer than 20 feet? What's my deal with being able to boulder harder than I even wanted to, but continuing to suck on redpoint? |
|
i have thought about steve's quote a lot since he posted it. with all due respect to steve, i don't agree with his statement at all. for several reasons: |
|
Slim |
|
slim wrote: 1) absolutely NOBODY has PERFECT techniqueI hope that's obvious to everyone... If not, I'll offer some anecdotal evidence: I (along w/ my wife) saw Robyn Erbesfield-Raboutou bouldering w/ a younger partner in the gym yesterday. We both commented on her route reading, body/foot position and execution of her movements, without any hint of conscious thinking or hesitation. It put both of us to shame, even if on good days we could probably get on the same (indoor) problems as her. But at the same time, I can see the younger guy she was bouldering w/, while not as precise in the same way, was very agile w/ his body, much more playful in general & less concerned w/ exerting absolute control over all his movements. slim wrote:2) what if a person has 99% perfect technique, but has only developed 50% of their strength? they will doubtlessly have better bang for their buck developing strength at this point. 4) having strength makes having good technique a LOT easier. think about how shitty feet feel a lot different whether you are hanging on awful holds or whether you are hanging on jugsI agree w/ 2) in principle, but good fundamental techniques can foster strength development, while too much strength in certain areas can stunt technique development. You see this in climbing all the time. The quote "the key to good footwork is stiff fingers" is a joke, it's only the appearance of good footwork, good actual footwork would alleviate enough pressure that you wouldn't need very stiff fingers. slim wrote:3) you can never have too much strength. i see it all the time in the gym. dudes with literally zero technique clawing their way up stuff with sheer strength, while a much more technically proficient climber cant do it.While true, at the higher end of everything, there's diminishing return. Those dudes will never be close to elite climbers, even if they have elite level strength. slim wrote:one thing that i have found is that usually the people who say strength isn't that important have plenty of it. a good example, my friend reboot (the wu li master) once replied to one of my comments that it is easy to see the world as a nail when all you have is a hammer. by this, i think he was implying that i climb my routes solely by using finger strength.I don't remember the exact context, but that's not what I meant. Certainly, there's body strength & finger strength, and they are all relative to the level you are climbing. But, I was sort of picking on you for mostly engaging in a very specific style of (sport) climbing that does tend to be fingery (in the small hold but not necessarily heavy load sense), with controlled & relatively static movement. At any rate, let's move this part of discussion offline if you wish to continue. |