Hangboard repeaters with very short rests- anybody tried these?

Mark E Dixon wrote: From what I can tell, both low rep/high resistance and high rep/low resistance sets can achieve the same results (assuming the latter are taken to "failure").

divnamite wrote: Source?

Here's a pretty sound recent article that shows 1) that 20-25RM sets and 8-12 RM sets yield the same muscle hypertrophy and similar strength gains and 2) that post-exercise anabolic hormone levels don't seem to have any correlation with those gains.

They tested strength with 1RM sets. I wish they had also had a 1-3 RM experimental group and that they had also used a 10RM and 25 RM test on the subjects.

jap.physiology.org/content/…

Mark E Dixon wrote: Here's a pretty sound recent article that shows 1) that 20-25RM sets and 8-12 RM sets yield the same muscle hypertrophy and similar strength gains and 2) that post-exercise anabolic hormone levels don't seem to have any correlation with those gains. They tested strength with 1RM sets. I wish they had also had a 1-3 RM experimental group and that they had also used a 10RM and 25 RM test on the subjects. jap.physiology.org/content/…

I think it's common knowledge that train to failure is a key in hypertrophy. It's interesting that LR group has equal strength gain.

Mark E Dixon wrote: Here's a pretty sound recent article that shows 1) that 20-25RM sets and 8-12 RM sets yield the same muscle hypertrophy and similar strength gains and 2) that post-exercise anabolic hormone levels don't seem to have any correlation with those gains. They tested strength with 1RM sets. I wish they had also had a 1-3 RM experimental group and that they had also used a 10RM and 25 RM test on the subjects. jap.physiology.org/content/…

divnamite wrote: It's interesting that LR group has equal strength gain.

There's a big different between not finding statistically significant difference in strength gain and finding similar strength gain:

The former says the study can't conclude one is better than the other.
The latter says the study actually found the 2 approaches to be similar.

The paper actually found the low rep group to have higher strength gain (at 62% of the work volume) than the high rep group. It's just that besides bench press, those higher gain can easily be caused by statistical noise (given the gain variation and the study sample size)

To recap:

The paper found LR and HR training (of untrained individuals) are both effective (even that depends on what margin of gain is considered "effective") for muscle hypertrophy; it could not conclude one method was more effective than the other (vs concluding both are similarly effective).

reboot wrote: There's a big different between not finding statistically significant difference in strength gain and finding similar strength gain: The former says the study can't conclude one is better than the other. The latter says the study actually found the 2 approaches to be similar. The paper actually found the low rep group to have higher strength gain (at 62% of the work volume) than the high rep group. It's just that besides bench press, those higher gain can easily be caused by statistical noise (given the gain variation and the study sample size) To recap: The paper found LR and HR training (of untrained individuals) are both effective (even that depends on what margin of gain is considered "effective") for muscle hypertrophy; it could not conclude one method was more effective than the other (vs concluding both are similarly effective).

climbing friend,

yessssssssss, most intelligent, yessssss myahhhhhhhhhh, myah.

but if they are talking about the dynamic liftings of 8-12 reps being low volume, and 20+ being high volume, then would it be true that something akin to a max crushing single isometric hang was not compared here?

Max crushing deadly hammerfall single hang would be maybe 6-8 seconds of tension.
8-12 reps of moving lifting would be what, 40 seconds of muscular tension? So their low volume group actually would be having a similar time under tension as an insecure climber desperate for improvments doing a set of 7 second repeaters for 6 reps (42 seconds)?

And they are basically sayings that even a set of around 140 seconds time under tension would be producing similaarrrrrrrr strength and hypertrophyyyy gainnnnnssssss as the 42 second set?

do you think time under tensionnnnsn is a good way to compare isometric hangings to gym bro weight liftings studies while moving your heavy irons?

help meh, I just want to sculpt my guns when my sexual frustration levels are quite high and I cannot flash the crag climbing rocks.

reboot wrote: There's a big different between not finding statistically significant difference in strength gain and finding similar strength gain: The former says the study can't conclude one is better than the other. The latter says the study actually found the 2 approaches to be similar. The paper actually found the low rep group to have higher strength gain (at 62% of the work volume) than the high rep group. It's just that besides bench press, those higher gain can easily be caused by statistical noise (given the gain variation and the study sample size) To recap: The paper found LR and HR training (of untrained individuals) are both effective (even that depends on what margin of gain is considered "effective") for muscle hypertrophy; it could not conclude one method was more effective than the other (vs concluding both are similarly effective).

I think you are right. Thanks for pointing this out.
The data is in Figure 4 which I should have read more carefully.

There does appear to be a distinct trend towards greater strength gains in the low rep group.
This makes sense to me, as it reflects specificity of training.

This specificity goes to a question Aleks asked in some thread- why I continue to do repeaters and not just max hangs.

It's because I think repeaters are more likely to stimulate increased vascularity and creation of new mitochondria than max hangs. They tax the oxidative system more, so I'd expect more improvement in the oxidative system. If they don't stimulate as many new myofibrils, well, that's what the max hangs are for!

The caveat is that combined strength and endurance training has been shown, in some settings, to hinder strength gains. But AFAIK, not in weight training, at least with respect to rep number.

climbing friend,

if there are greater crushing strength deadly maximum gains with lower volume, whyyy do you do the repeaters?

if the above mentioned study did not compare anything close with a 6-10s time under tension, then you cannot do the generalizing from that study to a max crushing deadly beaver attack single hang (6-12s) vs. repeater set (~42 second), yes?

pleeeeaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzz tell to me which is better for maximum crushing strength and overall badassery. How can one be knowing? I very much like do what would be most effective, not waste time doing less effective option or cycle back and forth between the two.

in gym bro weightlifting, a 6-12s time of tensions would be basically like doing a 1 or 2 rep max, myah? do you find the sciency research on this? what about isometric squeezings?

what are rationalings for training glycolitic (15s to around a minute work) versus ATP-PC (0-15s work)???

plllleeeeeeeaaaaaassssssseeeee hallllpppppppp mehhhhhhhhhh, or I would be isometric squeezing on your own FACE!!!

Aleks Zebastian wrote:climbing friend, if there are greater crushing strength deadly maximum gains with lower volume, whyyy do you do the repeaters?

I guess I am risking your fury, but the reason for doing different protocols is to train different aspects of strength. One protocol improves your steady state/threshold strength the other improves your maximum strength.

The peril of only training maximum strength is that once you have exhausted your energy supplies the recovery time is much longer without an adequate strength base/foundation.

The analogy to climbing would be crushing the crux moves, but falling on the 5.9 moves to the anchors.

I think the Rock Climbers Training Manual by Mike and Mark Anderson does a pretty good job covering everything listed on this thread. Its the best book I have read on training.

I would like to make a couple of points, though:

Dead hangs are isometric.

The primary purpose of a hang board is to train finger strength. Adequate rest between reps/ sets will build strength more effectively than less rest. Times taken from studies of competition climbing would only be describing actual performance, and not be most effective training techniques.

If you are trying to work on power or endurance you would be better served by incorporating other training methods like campusing, ARC training, linked bouldering circuits, etc. Some of this you can replicate on a hang board, but there are other devices/techniques that are more specialized.

I have no time to read, can someone do a summary or a conclusion of the better(s) way(s)? Alekxs sebastian or any will you?

Brandon.Phillips wrote:...The primary purpose of a hang board is to train finger strength. Adequate rest between reps/ sets will build strength more effectively than less rest...

what is de adequate hang and rest time? how many reps and sets?

Rui Ferreira wrote: I guess I am risking your fury, but the reason for doing different protocols is to train different aspects of strength. One protocol improves your steady state/threshold strength the other improves your maximum strength. The peril of only training maximum strength is that once you have exhausted your energy supplies the recovery time is much longer without an adequate strength base/foundation. The analogy to climbing would be crushing the crux moves, but falling on the 5.9 moves to the anchors.

climbing friend,

It is quite clear this is not so black and white! I need the answers!

Training a set of repeaters allegedly also is shown to be improving max strength and not only endurance, and training your max strength, if the crushing deadly squirrel blow rodent attack max crushing single hangs are most effect at raising absolute strength, has also been shown to increase your endurance since every move is now easier.

Aleks Zebastian wrote:How can one be knowing? I very much like do what would be most effective, not waste time doing less effective option or cycle back and forth between the two

Climbing friend. You must do the experimenting yourself, as I am doing the experimenting myself.

My sense is one may get injured more easily with maximum strength efforts, especially when the support structure (our fingers) is small. While I've gained finger strength w/ maximum effort hangs and limit bouldering in the last couple years, my finger joints have not been as happy, despite eating bucks of fish heads to get the proper amount of fish oil.

I've started experimenting repeaters to see whether I can also develop maximum crushing grip without further irritating my fingers.

Aleks Zebastian wrote: I need the answers!

Comrade!

You must read Training for the New Alpinism

patagonia.com/product/train…

After this you will train endlessly in Zone 1 until your nose breathing is beyond imagining.

Then you may climb great peaks and cast stones on puny pebble crushers far below.

climbing friend,

Ho ho, ha ha, I would not waste time being miserable in the cold and the storms if I can pull shorter rocks for maximum strength and glory. plus, who would be looking and impress at your fine meat with shirt off and tattoos in the alpine? No one!

if you were to do maximum deadly finger crushing single hangs versus repeaters once or twice a week for 10 years, in addition to your regular squeezings of the real climbing rocks on route of sport and problem boulder, surely one would work at least slightly better than the other for purpose of all around climbing strength and performance.

how may i find this answerings? I very much like answerings! I cannot experiment on my own self, because it is too difficult to tell which is more effective in 1 or 3 months, and there are too many variables and factors, yes myah, hymmmmmmyyyyyahhhh.

are there really no scientific investigations or at least somewhat definitive answers on the magic tubes of internet to tell to me this? Is it all really just one person's opinion versus the next, one opinion wang-slapping the other? One anecdotal story wang-slapping the other? Give to me clarity.

Who is naming daddy long legs? Daddy long legs, who did name you?

Aleks Zebastian wrote:climbing friend, Ho ho, ha ha, I would not waste time being miserable in the cold and the storms if I can pull shorter rocks for maximum strength and glory. plus, who would be looking and impress at your fine meat with shirt off and tattoos in the alpine? No one! ...

ahhhh my son, this is where you are wrong. when photos of your tribal tatoo riddled guns and waxed chest, glistening with sleet in the flat grey alpine lighting, adorn the glorious pages of outside magazine - that is when the world will realize you are a climbing god and worthy of free fish heads at taco bell for all your remaining years.

slim wrote: ahhhh my son, this is where you are wrong. when photos of your tribal tatoo riddled guns and waxed chest, glistening with sleet in the flat grey alpine lighting, adorn the glorious pages of outside magazine - that is when the world will realize you are a climbing god and worthy of free fish heads at taco bell for all your remaining years.

ho ho! ha ha!

myah!

still please i would like be knowing which protocol is most correct.

i suppose maximum crushing deadly rodent smashing single hangs would be preferred, because increasing of the absolute strength shall help endurance and power endurance also, plus if I squeeze the sport or bouldering rocks also, that would be training the power endurance yes myah hyah ya, but I very much like absolute scientific answer ... climbing is ... SCIENCE

A little late to the conversation, but to achieve the 7 sec on/ 0.6 sec off, maybe you could use a systems board? Yeah it's not true hangboarding, but it seems like getting the timing right for that while hangboarding would be a pain. You could just make a move on a systems board, say, on a crimp ladder, and then just hold that position for a time, then do the next move?
I'm just trying to figure out a way to get someone else to try out this training idea since I'm not sure how it would work out and I'm pretty happy with max hangs and 10sec/3sec repeaters for now.