Strength Standards - Do You Care?

Mark E Dixon wrote: I will take a closer look at that article when I can, but it seems kind of screwy the way they put together the three components. Also, their chosen technique for measuring grip endurance (one of the few aspects in which climbers actually outperform the general public) seems flawed.

I couldn't read the whole article unfortunately, but I've done principal component analysis. Basically you put all your variables into the analysis, and those which are "parallel" fall out (meaning they don't explain any of the variance), and those which are "perpendicular" become the components which explain the most variance. It's like a 3D graph where the variables are sort of like vectors (I believe they are eigen vectors).

The way I've done it (which I think is typical), is that you take those variables and you examine what components they represent and you group those together to the best that you can based on their characteristics. Sometimes it is difficult to group them but you have to decide on a method that seems most relevant to your research and what the variable indicates, particularly if they might be interpreted in more than one way.

How did they measure grip endurance? I've also measured grip strength and you can usually pull two values: peak and average. They can be interpreted very different ways depending on the metrics you believe are important to your research (assuming you selected the right metrics!). There are finite ways to measure grip strength, however, and none of them are designed to measure hand positions on rock holds (that I'm aware of). But it would make sense to measure climbers first in "standard" ways.

Aerili wrote: How did they measure grip endurance? I've also measured grip strength and you can usually pull two values: peak and average. They can be interpreted very different ways depending on the metrics you believe are important to your research (assuming you selected the right metrics!). There are finite ways to measure grip strength, however, and none of them are designed to measure hand positions on rock holds (that I'm aware of). But it would make sense to measure climbers first in "standard" ways.

I don't have the article here in front of me, but IIRC they measured time to failure on a hand dynamometer gripped at 50% max.

Again, IIRC, there are a couple of papers that have more specific grip tests for climbers, at least for max strength.
I also believe that it's intermittent endurance at which climbers excel, likely due to better vascularity or less likely, better oxidative capacity in their forearm muscles. Several papers about that.

As a friend of mine who's a high level coach and generally extremely well rounded athlete has pointed out to me previously - there's a difference between being an elite athlete, and being a recreational athlete (even a high level one) who wants to be high performance now, but also keep going into their twilight years.

As a recreational climber, some form of general strength training probably isn't going to directly raise your climbing grade (unless you're really weak). But it might keep you from being injured, and help you keep climbing for the next 50 years. I may be biased, because I've found that barbell and kettlebell training totally eliminated recurring shoulder issues. I also really enjoy heavy barbell training and the feeling of being reasonably strong, so there's some further bias for you. I can exceed some of Mountain Athlete's standards (except bench, because I think benching is useless, and has too much injury risk), and I think my general level of toughness and ability to train hard has dramatically increased since I established that base level of strength.

But, if you're trying to be a high level elite sport climber, by all means, stay away from anything that might make you gain lower body mass. Deadlifts are probably not the key to establishing 5.15d.

I also think it's a whole different ball game if you're an alpine climber. If you need to shuttle 80# loads to ABC, heavy squats and conditioning might be the difference between you being wrecked afterwards or ready to do some evening recon and an alpine start the next day.

I've climbed V8 regularly in my local gym (because I'm in grad school and a gym rat right now) with 3 different builds over the past couple of years - at 175# with some extra padding, at a very lean 165# while combined with a weekly running mileage of 30-40 miles, and at a solidly built 185# after a lot of weight training. At 175# everything was desperate, at 165# I perpetually felt like I was going to be injured, and at 185# I'm like a fucking tank and it's awesome. I'm rebuilding endurance in preparation for having more time on my hands soon, so we'll see how sport climbing and hard trad goes at this build.

Obviously, YMMV based on age, genetics and other activities, but this is my experience so far now that I'm in my 30s.

Not specific for climbing but a good reference to see how strong you are

lonkilgore.com/freebies/dea…

Mark Paulson wrote:...5x5 program, which includes DL...

can u share a link?

Mark E Dixon wrote: Regardless, my interest is primarily what I can do to improve, given my vastly older and heavier body?

climbing friend,

if you have heavy fat and old body already, do not be lifting the weights.

climb excessively and starve yourself and take break from eating for 24 hours once or twice per week. also, slam down copious amounts of vegetables and water constantly, to prevent the eating of other food, no matter how disgusting. you will soon be like twiggy amazing asian preteen, able to send at least the v14 or 5.14d.

I do not do this because I enjoy my fine layers of muscle meat, stunning features, have excessively low fat rolls amounts, and still achieve elite performance.

1.5x bodyweight DL's are light.

Like you.

Harden up.

youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvj…

(chris sharma probably deadlifted never)

Aleks Zebastian wrote: climbing friend, if you have heavy fat and old body

Being heavier than preteens doesn't necessarily mean fat.

Deadlifting and Steve Bechtel fans might enjoy the latest podcast from Power Company Climbing.
powercompanyclimbing.com/bl…

Mark E Dixon wrote: Deadlifting and Steve Bechtel fans might enjoy the latest podcast from Power Company Climbing. powercompanyclimbing.com/bl…

Lots of plausible theories, but somehow, I always get the impression if these guys did movement analysis of actual high end climbing, they'll realize nothing remotely resembles the deadlift motion. To be more applicable: you would 1) do one leg deadlift 2) instead of hinging forward, you would hinge 45 degree to completely to the side of the body. Squared hip movement is about as bad as it can be for anything besides slab, not because you generate less force, but because it puts way more outward pull pressure on the fingers/hands (both for the holds you are generating from and the holds you are going for), which is almost always the limiting factor.

I think part of the problem is trying to fit lifting paradigms to a contact-strength-dependent sport which is basically unlike any other out there. The record of top performers seems to bear this out. Climbing strength begins in the forearms and toes and goes in from there. It's tempting to say that one can climb from the core but that applies in very few compression-style situations and in any case without the attachment provided by fingers, core isn't going far.

reboot wrote: My opinions aren't as contradictory as they seem: when there is an easy way and a hard way (especially in the context of a beginner), you'd want to choose the easy way. But if you have too much strength, you tend to explore the physical/hard way & never learn the proper technique. Often though, the normal beta just doesn't work for you due to some physical limitation: it may be you just don't have the finger strength, flexibility, body type to do something the certain way. If you are physically strong (extraordinary in another physical attribute), you may come up w/ an alternative beta (I've done that plenty and will readily admit it only works for me). If a move will otherwise require 110% of your finger strength & 50% of your physical strength, is it not a technique to perform the move with 100% of your finger strength & 100% of your physical strength? Let's take another example, say performance driving. Students will usually start w/ a lower HP (but good handling) car, so that you learn to pick the right line, brake point, etc, because you can't compensate your mistake easily with power. But can a normal person drive up Pikes Peak any faster in a 2000HP car vs a 1000HP car, all else equal?

dammit reboot. i try to poke the bear a little bit and you respond with a well thought out post in which i totally agree. you're killing me.

epictv.com/media/podcast/al…

Another finger force measuring device?

Mark, definitely interested to hear the results of the lattice training assessment; heard Tom Randall on a podcast and it sounded like with the data he and others are collecting and studying, people are really narrowing in on the metrics that matter.

climbing friend,

but are you having the necessary sexual frustration in order to utilize these spreadsheets with this much datas?

that was an interesting article (peter's link), in some ways. one thing that the articles and tests aren't really able to replicate is the 'go for it' component. obviously this applies to climbing, but it can also apply to the testing. some folks just do not perform well if they don't have the right stimulation. some folks crumble under pressure. some folks crumble if they don't have pressure. etc.

i had noticed both of these similar but opposite traits before in observing climbers, but there is one particular case where this just baffled me to no end. i know of an elite level climber, who literally climbs at a cutting edge level who couldn't hang monos for crap in a testing environment. it was a total head scratcher. yet, i found photos/video of him campusing out a roof on monos. the only explanation was motivation, or lack thereof in a training/testing environment.

Aleks Zebastian wrote:climbing friend, but are you having the necessary sexual frustration in order to utilize these spreadsheets with this much datas?

Just the word spreadsheet causes my neck meat to shrivel and my testosterone levels to drop, so its a self fulfilling prophecy; once I have the spreadsheets I will be more than sexually and athletically frustrated enough to use them