Non-Climbing Workouts?

I was waiting for the "you're just getting old" comments to start. I think it is useful to realize that the comments are coming from those who are already there. Are you trying to feel better about yourself guys?

38 years and no injuries--that's impressive. I got to 15 years before this knee thing happened. Maybe I should listen to your sage advice.

I think I hear a faint sound in the distance...it must be the sound of my sport climbing career dying a slow, agonizing death.

Tearing down others to feel good about yourself is a tatic as old as man..........

Seriously though, while you have gotten a lot of good advice, don't forget to exercise your Madden thumbs. This is even more important with your "advancing age".

Hang in there, I had a similar tear last spring and found that the first 6 weeks were the most frustrating. After about 8 weeks I was climbing easy stuff, and at 12 weeks fully able to climb normally again.

James, that was really nice to hear. I had yet to get a definitive timeline from anyone. Today marks the six week aniversary and I am going to the gym to test it out on easy stuff tonight.

Ron, I'm hanging out at my sister's place in Atlanta, so Madden will have to wait until I get back to NH. Maybe I can do pilates for my thumbs until I get back in the game.

All the more reason to keep the thumbs in shape. You wouldn't want to "hurt something else" when you get home.....even more important when you get that second controller and take Ladd to task....or Conway.

Jay Knower wrote: Ron, I'm hanging out at my sister's place in Atlanta, so Madden will have to wait until I get back to NH. Maybe I can do pilates for my thumbs until I get back in the game.

Go to the 5 Season Brewery while your here, best beer in the city and the food is great. You'll forget all about your knee after 2 or 3 rounds of the 7 Sisters.

There you go, another suggestion for a training regimen that should last at least through Sunday, possibly through to Feb 3. Depending upon the weekends out comes, you may need the extra sedation as you try to reconcile the pull from your birth place, and your adopted home.

Jay,

I think Crossfit is one of the best ways I have ever seen to build or maintain overall strength and fitness. The work outs are short, but intense, are not too equipment intensive and are easily scaled to ones fitness level. The thing I like best about it is that there is no routine, so it dosen't get boring. checkout crossfit.com or mark twights page gymjones.com.

I always thought I had a pretty strong core until I started doing Pilates....now I know a sixpack does not indicate a strong core. I have found myself initiating motion from my center and being able to get my feet up on higher holds. So yes I would say it has definitely increased my strength.

Pilates is more about moving your body through it's natural range of motion, and increases your active flexibility or your bodies ability to move itself into a position. Yoga is more about increasing your passive flexibility, or where you can stretch to with an outside influence. I did yoga for years before I ever tried Pilates, and while I really enjoy the meditative aspects I find that I tend to injure myself when I really get into Yoga by overstretching my muscles.

Kevin Stricker wrote:Yoga is more about increasing your passive flexibility, or where you can stretch to with an outside influence.

It really depends on the type of yoga. Bikram perhaps is as you describe. Anusara and Astanga yoga are styles with an emphasis on active engagement into the poses, even for things as simple as forward bends. Not all poses are stretching, many are simply for balance and power: handstand for example. And many of the poses are also excellent for building strength in core muscles and small stabilizer muscles such as in your hips. There is a woman in the yoga class I go to that presses into handstand statically from down-dog. Now, THAT requires core strength (and a lot of flexibility).

:)

Now, I haven't tried Pilates, though I'd like to...

-Tavis

Jay Knower wrote: I wonder why you noticed diminished climbing strength when you work out in the gym more. I would think it would be the other way around. Why do you think this happened?

I think (and I'm only guessing) that its an engram/physiological effect with muscle memory. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can simulate the kind of intense strain you place on certain muscles when you climb hard. When you hit the weights enough in lieu of climbing, your muscles adapt to that lesser level of straining.

Or maybe not. I dunno.

Also, you'll know when you're getting old when you show up at the gym and its 50/50 whether you do a workout or head straight to the steamroom; along with the other old wafflebutts.

But consider this: weights are a key component in warding off injuries as you get older. The stronger the surrounding tissue is, the harder it is to tear something.

Yeah, as you can see, that's about all I have been doing.

Sorry about the injury, that really sucks. A friend was recently diagnosed with arthritis in his foot, and he is similarly limited, but he has managed to stay in shape (and possibly stronger) by using the hangboard. Here is a link to a helpful article:

rockclimbing.com/Articles/T…

Mike Lane wrote:First, before you get tips on gym training, I've got to mention that I have at times noticed diminished climbing strength seemingly as a result of intensifying my weight training.

Because you are not training with the right kind of program. It's all a matter of knowing how to create the right conditioning program.

Mike Lane wrote:Start with the basic exercises, and observe what you see others doing.

Wait--didn't you say most people in the gym are not doing anything properly?! ;-) (Which is mostly true....which is why you shouldn't observe them, actually.)

Mike Lane wrote:A good core movement can be incorporated into any group, like doing dumbbell curls one-legged, balancing on one of those inflated things.

Well, here is where you are stepping out of your bounds a bit. Although I stated earlier that I have some sports medicine background, my primary (relevant to this post) knowledge and experience is in exercise prescription and testing + training and conditioning athletes. I am a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist (if you don't know what that is, you can Google it) + B.Sc in exercise science...just so ya know where I'm comin' from here. =)

First of all, I do want to say that you stated a bunch of good info, Mike. I am not replying to or addressing any of that. However, I can also say that fitness research and field work has changed a lot in terms of what I think you (and many others) know as ideal weight training/conditioning, esp. in conjunction with athletic pursuits. It's hard to keep on top of; I happen to need to maintain CECs through industry conferences and sports specific workshops--so that helps me!!

Doing curls (or anything else, for that matter) on wobbly discs or boards is a bit of a waste of time. "Functional training" was taken overboard by many trainers and industry presenters and we wound up basically with people doing circus tricks in the gym instead of honest-to-god functional exercises. Balance training has its place, but not really in combination with exercises focused on using anything resembling actual weight. This is because the more unstable your base of support becomes, the lower the amount of weight you can lift. It becomes a balance exercise, not a strength exercise. Besides, the core is often worked extensively during standard, non-balancing lifts, anyway. Balance work is basically only good for proprioception training; it's not good for getting your core stronger.

Mike Lane wrote:Do abs and lower back every day.

Negative, ghostrider. Core muscles need recovery time just like any other muscle group. Furthermore, many people make the mistake of doing abs and back first in their workout, rather than last. They should be the last muscles trained because you need them to be fresh in order to stabilize effectively for all your other exercises.

Mike Lane wrote:I usually go with 3 sets of 8,10, or 12. No more than 45 seconds between sets, and 1 minute between exercises.

It's never this black and white; in fact, adhering strictly to such tenets will eventually reduce the effectiveness of your exercise or program, and/or will mismatch with the load you might happen to be utilizing (even if it's body weight only). Rest time is dependent on the load used. Lighter resistances can require less than 45 seconds rest; maximal efforts often require up to 3 minutes rest.

Mike Lane wrote:Sweat should be constantly on your brow, or speed things up. And figure the weights that will cause failure (a form break) towards the last few reps of your last set. Remember to give the most recently worked groups at least one day to recover. Hope that helps.

I've trained a lot of clients over the years. I've found people don't all sweat the same; some workouts that leave one person dripping will barely break a sweat on another. It's not so much about how conditioned you are; it seems rather to be a function of your genes. That and I find the ambient temperature makes a big difference in how much or how little I sweat (i.e. the actual temp + humidity in the air). So, again, although I agree one shouldn't sit around much, rules of sweating seem to vary a lot between individuals, ha ha. =)

Tico wrote:I find this too, I think it's hard to climb a lot/hard while you're regularly exhausted from weight workouts. I try to periodize so I'm lifting a lot in the winter and hardly at all in the summer.

First statement is true, Tico. Second statement hopefully indicates you are mainly doing a maintenance and injury-preventative program when you are climbing more. Going cold turkey on conditioning during climbing season is when the weak links re-surface in our bodies and injuries are ripe for popping up. (Of course, we in Arizona don't know what climbing "season" means...)

Tico wrote:While I think Twight's a CrossFit Kool-aid drinker now, his first book has a lot of the more tried and true lifting dogma in a readable format.

While I only know a little about CrossFit, I can tell you that it does seem to adhere to the new research and methods being used to train top tier athletes more than the "tried and true" isolation exercises so typically seen. I haven't read any of Twight's books so I don't know anything specifically about the exercises he advocates good or bad, but basically the idea of companies like CrossFit is that we should train MOVEMENTS, not MUSCLES. With the exception of injury rehabilitation and balancing out gaping muscular imbalances, doing isolation stuff like 3 sets of bicep curls or tricep extensions is a waste of our time and not even productive toward creating a more functional, better performing body.

Thank you all for the comments. I went climbing yesterday at Sand Rock in Alabama. It was my first real day of climbing in over six weeks. We did four routes and the knee was not an issue. I can't tell you all how happy I am about it. Things are getting better. I still want to incorporate the above training techniques, as I know now it's important not to push my knee during this stage.

Eyes Of Green wrote: While I only know a little about CrossFit, I can tell you that it does seem to adhere to the new research and methods being used to train top tier athletes more than the "tried and true" isolation exercises so typically seen. I haven't read any of Twight's books so I don't know anything specifically about the exercises he advocates good or bad, but basically the idea of companies like CrossFit is that we should train MOVEMENTS, not MUSCLES. With the exception of injury rehabilitation and balancing out gaping muscular imbalances, doing isolation stuff like 3 sets of bicep curls or tricep extensions is a waste of our time and not even productive toward creating a more functional, better performing body.

Can you cite the research and methods that crossfit conforms to? Olympic movements are nothing new, but I find the idea that a 20 minute workout every day, no matter how intense, is enough, is odd.

I also find that most of the crossfit promoters spent years doing more "normal" workouts, then quickly started crediting crossfit for their success.

As an example, I've been running 100 milers for about a decade, since I was 19 years old. My last race I did not "train" for at all. I did a bunch of climbing, smoked a bunch of cigarettes, and ran under 24 hours (which is a pedestrian performance, I know).

So can I now say that climbing and smoking is good training for ultras? Or should I say that 15 years of "normal" endurance training builds a foundation that climbing and smoking as training don't affect? I'd say the latter, and I posit that this is analogous to how crossfit affects many world-class athletes.

As for Twight's book, he recommends the usual endurance->power->power endurance periodization scheme using pyramid-sets, etc. I'm not comparing the obsolete "3 sets of 12" workout schemes to crossfit, I'm comparing modern olympic-dev workouts to crossfit.

One of the reasons I find crossfit lacking is that the movement training lacks sport-specificity, which is key to performance in skill-based activities.

My point is that I feel many athletes incorporating crossfit are successful in spite of it, not because of it.

wanted to drop a note about the pilates book listed earlier. I ordered the book after reading about it on Horst's site and it is actually a very good book.

It is written by a climber but only a small section is for climbing directly. The book has great general routines (which any of which would fit well here) but has many different outdoor activities in it. For the climbing section there are two 15 minute (12 position) routines and several other warm up/down exercises.

I do recommend the book, though, as I really enjoyed working through the routines. Anyway thought I would just chime in.

Tico wrote:Can you cite the research and methods that crossfit conforms to?

Hi Tico,

I took a little time to look a bit closer at CrossFit before replying to you. I understand your point of view on some things, although here is where I stand on what I meant by research and methods behind exercises:

Many of CrossFit's methods ARE functional and good quality exercises; basically all of them train movements and not individual muscles in bodybuilder-style fashion. However, I did not fully understand the way they implement them. Now that I see they focus mainly on timed trials under a massively competitive cloud, I cannot say that I believe organizing such exercises around protocols like that is a good idea at all.

Most of the training ideas and methods in use by collegiate and professional and Olympic coaches today (and which I learn from and thus use) come from industry researchers and top strength and conditioning professionals and therapists like Gary Gray, Mike Boyle, Juan Carlos Santana, Gray Cook, Robb Rogers, Mike Clark, Mel Siff, Donald Chu, Fleck and Kraemer, etc. and the NSCA professional journals I receive every month. They have all the research citations; I don't have them in my head, but you are right, the research hasn't examined protocols put together the way this Greg Glassman guy advocates.

Tico wrote:I find the idea that a 20 minute workout every day, no matter how intense, is enough, is odd.

Agreed. My educated guess is that based on the excessive level of repetitions and loads he uses and the fact that some people have even been hospitalized afterwards for a severe form of muscle inflammation caused by massive associated trauma, that 20 minutes actually is enough. That and they train nearly daily. Most programs have more recovery time built in, which = time off.

Tico: As an example, I've been running 100 milers for about a decade, since I was 19 years old. My last race I did not "train" for at all. I did a bunch of climbing, smoked a bunch of cigarettes, and ran under 24 hours (which is a pedestrian performance, I know).

So can I now say that climbing and smoking is good training for ultras? Or should I say that 15 years of "normal" endurance training builds a foundation that climbing and smoking as training don't affect? I'd say the latter, and I posit that this is analogous to how crossfit affects many world-class athletes.

Your example of your situation is actually not analogous at all (from a scientific perspective) for comparison to how a CrossFit workout does or does not affect other, completely different athletes in completely different sports.

In your single personal example, your foundation of aerobic fitness must have been of a high enough level + your climbing must have provided a method of great enough aerobic conditioning to keep you on a "maintenance" level + your fortuitous and unusual genetics most certainly contributed to good success in your race with essentially no structured training. But don't kid yourself--you're still just as susceptible to the principle of reversibility as everyone else. Genetics are powerful things; basically what you have is a genetically gifted cardiovascular system that still performs at an astonishing high level despite some detraining now and again (which you probably don't notice). 15 years of training and conditioning only matters if it's maintained; if it's not, it has no bearing on your performance today. However, although running is a "low skill" activity, people do learn techniques for good running economy through practice, and acquired mental strategies are powerful performance enhancers in "suffer-fest" activities like ultra endurance sports; these are elements your 15 years did give you.

I once ran a Balke VO2max protocol on a guy who came out at 72 ml/kg/min--fucking amazing considering he only ran about 20 minutes 3x/week and smoked constantly and basically did nothing else. Ge. Ne. Tics.

Tico: One of the reasons I find crossfit lacking is that the movement training lacks sport-specificity, which is key to performance in skill-based activities.

My point is that I feel many athletes incorporating crossfit are successful in spite of it, not because of it.

I do agree with you about sport specificity. A modified and perhaps differently-implemented CrossFit would be a good conditioning program for building and maintaining general fitness, which is something all athletes must engage in. General fitness training does help prevent injuries and keep individuals mentally fresher, among other things. Sport specific training is also added to the overall design of the program. So if athletes are "incorporating" CrossFit into their program, then they very well could see success, esp. as they are usually already at the very high fitness levels CrossFit apparently demands from the body. "Incorporating" and "replacing" are two quite different things. After all, many of the exercises and drills CrossFit advocates are already used and have been for many years by many kinds of athletes as their conditioning--but none of them are ever used as the "whole sum."

Other than that, I do find the whole thing to sound quite cultish. When doing searches, page after page after page turns up nothing but CrossFit websites across the world, forums filled with people already devoted to believing everything about it, etc. I found a few bits of info from outside, reputable fitness and sport training organizations and/or individuals speaking out about some of the implementation methods of CrossFit, notably Ace Fitness and Mike Boyle (who I greatly respect and have taken many workshops from). They point out that performing Olympic lifts in high load/high rep fashion against time is a very bad idea, and I agree 100%. I also watched some of the videos on CrossFit and definitely noticed that, despite what they claim, these people don't care at all about form and advocate careless training when pushed in that format. Greg Glassman can make all the claims he wants that poor form is GOOD for you and has no bearing on INJURY, but ask some physical therapists what they think and ask these same people in the videos 10+ years from now....

Anyway, good post, Tico, thanks for forcing me to look it over. =) Sorry about the highlights; the "quote" function stopped working for some reason.