Strength Standards - Do You Care?

Not embarrassing at all! I'd definitely be interested to hear about your experience.

Peter Beal wrote:I like Steve Maisch's work and approach but I am not sure I understand this: "What I’m saying is that if you can climb 5.15 you should also be able to bench press your bodyweight 15 times and if you can’t bench press your bodyweight 15 times you can expect to fail on some compression routes and you can expect to develop shoulder problems in the future."

The way the vast majority of people bench press, they are doing nothing to strengthen their ability to do compression problems anyway.

Derek Hersey was a huge advocate of the 16-40 fl oz curl. Seems to have worked pretty well for him, I guess I need to do more reps/sets.

reboot wrote: Taking advantage of your strength is technique.....

alright, i have to call you out on this one. in the past when i have said something similar to this you have disagreed and basically said the opposite. that improved strength doesn't help technique, etc. that it is basically a crutch. now you see a megos video on youtube and ....

it's kind of funny how a quickly a couple other familiar faces on here switch to the 'finger strength is king' camp when a high profile climber displays a parlor trick. (not eric - i think he has been a proponent of strong fingers for quite a while).

as for the dead lift standard, that is probably the silliest thing i have heard in a while. there is going to be literally zero correlation with dead lift and sending grade.

slim wrote: alright, i have to call you out on this one. in the past when i have said something similar to this you have disagreed and basically said the opposite. that improved strength doesn't help technique, etc. that it is basically a crutch.

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?

I just started doing the Strong Lifts 5x5 program, which includes DL. I don't expect it to help my climbing in the slightest. However, I'm hoping it will improve my quality of non-climbing life. 15+ years of climbing has me dealing with the day to day effects of long-term musculature imbalances, namely impingement and lack of flexibility in the shoulders, and lower back pain due to constant pelvic tilt (strong back, weak legs). I'm interested to see how it works.

Mark Paulson wrote:I just started doing the Strong Lifts 5x5 program, which includes DL. I don't expect it to help my climbing in the slightest. However, I'm hoping it will improve my quality of non-climbing life. 15+ years of climbing has me dealing with the day to day effects of long-term musculature imbalances, namely impingement and lack of flexibility in the shoulders, and lower back pain due to constant pelvic tilt (strong back, weak legs). I'm interested to see how it works.

1+. This is exactly the point, and I think some here are confusing the issue. Traditional weight lifting doesn't really have a direct correlation to most aspects of climbing strength, but if you have muscle imbalances and therefore dysfunctional movement, you are putting more demand on your fingers due to your inability to get your body in less taxing positions. So if this is you (me), then some of this supplemental training is well advised. If this is not you, then I could understand this strong opposition. Congratulations of your well balanced body and by all means don't waste your time on these exercises! But to be clear, I don't think the standards mean anything.

Mark E Dixon wrote: Here is one person's list of standards for bouldering. sendbotclimbing.com/strengt…

We can agree or disagree w/ the specifics, but I think the implication of how one compares to those numbers are not that clear. Let's look at the elite level:

It's been said many times, an average gymnastic will absolutely crush most of those measures sans finger strength. Which is to say, elite climbers are, by in large, elite because of their finger strength (and in Ashima's case, also dancer's flexibility & grace). I don't think most will dispute that. Although within the elite climbers, there are some that way stronger physically than others: Jan Hoier & Alex Puccio being good examples of each sex.

What all this means though is, for an average person (not necessarily climber), it's much easier to get close to an elite climber's physical strength than their finger strength.

That may or may not be true for a particular individual, but what this does not imply is having elite climber's physical strength but not their finger strength is unhelpful (or vice versa), or even the wrong thing to train, since everybody responds differently. For those (actually, all) of us that are none sponsored climbers, on average when compared to elite climbers, we'll likely plateau at a much lower finger strength level, but it may be easier to improve the rest of the traits to elite climber's level.

reboot wrote: That may or may not be true for a particular individual, but what this does not imply is having elite climber's physical strength but not their finger strength is unhelpful (or vice versa), or even the wrong thing to train, since everybody responds differently. For those (actually, all) of us that are none sponsored climbers, on average when compared to elite climbers, we'll likely plateau at a much lower finger strength level, but it may be easier to improve the rest of the traits to elite climber's level.

Interesting insight.

I didn't mean to give the impression that I was advocating Kerwin's standards, just wanted to share a set I had found online since others seemed interested.

evan h wrote: Traditional weight lifting doesn't really have a direct correlation to most aspects of climbing strength

Taking a counter position for the sake of discussion-
seems to me that deadlifts stregthen hip extensors and squats strengthen knee extensors (among other things of course.)

Movements that extend the hip and knee are ubiquitous in climbing. Every time you step up and use your legs to take part of the weight off your arms you are using these two actions. It strikes me as reasonable, that incorporating greater strength in these muscles into one's climbing technique could spare finger and arm strength.
Of course, the interpretation will then be "my fingers are so much stronger than they used to be" since they won't have been stressed as much, rather than the more accurate "my legs are more effective, sparing my smaller muscles."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11049146

RESULTS:
The principal components analysis procedure extracted three components. These were labelled training, anthropometric, and flexibility on the basis of the measured variables that were the most influential in forming each component. The results of the multiple regression procedure indicated that the training component uniquely explained 58.9% of the total variance in climbing performance. The anthropometric and flexibility components explained 0.3% and 1.8% of the total variance in climbing performance respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:
The variance in climbing performance can be explained by a component consisting of trainable variables. More importantly, the findings do not support the belief that a climber must necessarily possess specific anthropometric characteristics to excel in sport rock climbing.

But I think you'd better have really strong fingers :)

This is another very interesting review of climber strengths at a high level

bmsi.ru/doc/90b118c8-0c48-4…

and this one mdpi.com/2075-4663/3/3/178/htm

"A Comparison of Upper Body Strength between Rock Climbing and Resistance Trained Men"

Peter Beal wrote: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11049146 RESULTS: The principal components analysis procedure extracted three components. These were labelled training, anthropometric, and flexibility on the basis of the measured variables that were the most influential in forming each component. The results of the multiple regression procedure indicated that the training component uniquely explained 58.9% of the total variance in climbing performance. The anthropometric and flexibility components explained 0.3% and 1.8% of the total variance in climbing performance respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The variance in climbing performance can be explained by a component consisting of trainable variables. More importantly, the findings do not support the belief that a climber must necessarily possess specific anthropometric characteristics to excel in sport rock climbing. But I think you'd better have really strong fingers :)

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.

Edited to add-
I had a chance to read the paper. The categories are more reasonable than I thought. However, the labels are a little misleading. "Trainable" refers primarily to various measures of strength, including grip strength, arm endurance, leg strength and power, etc. "Flexibility" includes hip flexibility measures but also climbing experience! "Anthropometric" is height/weight/ape index, etc.

Also, their chosen technique for measuring grip endurance (one of the few aspects in which climbers actually outperform the general public) seems flawed.

The article from Medicina Sportive looks like it deserves a thorough reading.
Edited to add- no it doesn't.

The article from Sports just repeats what's already known I believe- climbers have better grip strength to weight, but not better grip strength than non climbers. Can do a few more pull-ups too FWTW.
The climbing standard was pretty low too, V2-4.

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 think most of these studies have a hard time adapting climbing situations to the lab, especially the hold style and hand positioning

Peter Beal wrote: I think most of these studies have a hard time adapting climbing situations to the lab, especially the hold style and hand positioning

Hard to remember all the different studies that have been done, but IIRC, strength to weight and intermittent isometric grip strength are the two areas in which climbers have outperformed.

Peter Beal wrote:this one mdpi.com/2075-4663/3/3/178/htm "A Comparison of Upper Body Strength between Rock Climbing and Resistance Trained Men"

Pet peeve of mine: statistical significant does not mean significant in practice (i.e. a number grade higher in climbing performance). You can produce higher statistical significance (difference) with a larger sample size with the same average difference. P-values are pretty useless in a cost-benefit analysis: it only tells you how reliable the observed average difference is, not what that average difference is.

Mark E Dixon wrote: Taking a counter position for the sake of discussion- seems to me that deadlifts stregthen hip extensors and squats strengthen knee extensors (among other things of course.) Movements that extend the hip and knee are ubiquitous in climbing. Every time you step up and use your legs to take part of the weight off your arms you are using these two actions. It strikes me as reasonable, that incorporating greater strength in these muscles into one's climbing technique could spare finger and arm strength. Of course, the interpretation will then be "my fingers are so much stronger than they used to be" since they won't have been stressed as much, rather than the more accurate "my legs are more effective, sparing my smaller muscles."

I completely agree Mark. It seems those arguing against traditional weight lifting either (1) are strong in their legs without training or (2) think that fingers are the only body part to blame when you can't hang on. I realize I'm over simplifying, but you get the picture. I include some of the exercises, especially for the posterior chain, I just don't believe that there exists a cut-and-dry standard that says do X lift at Y weight and you can climb 5.Z. That being said, exceptional finger strength can mask mobility dysfunction to a point. If your fingers are really strong, maybe you could climb 5.14 without deadlifting 1.5xBW, but perhaps it will catch up with you later in the form of injuries.

evan h wrote: I completely agree Mark. It seems those arguing against traditional weight lifting either (1) are strong in their legs without training or (2) think that fingers are the only body part to blame when you can't hang on. I realize I'm over simplifying, but you get the picture. I include some of the exercises, especially for the posterior chain, I just don't believe that there exists a cut-and-dry standard that says do X lift at Y weight and you can climb 5.Z. That being said, exceptional finger strength can mask mobility dysfunction to a point. If your fingers are really strong, maybe you could climb 5.14 without deadlifting 1.5xBW, but perhaps it will catch up with you later in the form of injuries.

Given that 12 year olds with twiggy physiques routinely climb 5.14, it's clear that no correlation exists between lifting serious amounts of weight and climbing hard. Nor is it even probable that injury will be prevented by lifting. The vast majority of climber injuries involve fingers and elbows and though the proposal that a strong posterior chain could aid in stabilizing legs and core, easing the burden on fingers and elbows, my hunch is that any real preventive benefit is not likely to be found. Just my 2 cents.

Peter Beal wrote: Given that 12 year olds with twiggy physiques routinely climb 5.14, it's clear that no correlation exists between lifting serious amounts of weight and climbing hard. Nor is it even probable that injury will be prevented by lifting. The vast majority of climber injuries involve fingers and elbows and though the proposal that a strong posterior chain could aid in stabilizing legs and core, easing the burden on fingers and elbows, my hunch is that any real preventive benefit is not likely to be found. Just my 2 cents.

There seem to be a lot of shoulder injuries too, and I'll bet some kind of weight work would help prevent those.

As for the 12 year olds, it may be they would be climbing 5.15 if they lifted, it's pure speculation on both our parts. Clearly weights are not required for them to reach pretty lofty standards though!

Regardless, my interest is primarily what I can do to improve, given my vastly older and heavier body?

My ability to recover limits how much pure finger strength training I can manage, even limits how much climbing I can handle. If I can eke out a bit more performance by lifting weights, without compromising more critical training, then it sounds like a good idea.

The children Horst climb 5.14 and are on the football team and regularly post videos of themselves dead lifting and doing other traditional feats of strength. They might be naturals but they throw around iron quite a bit.

For the record, I only stalk their dad on fb.

Seems like there's general consensus but just enough ambiguity that everyone is talking past each other. Lifting is not a prerequisite for hard climbing, but it may have ancillary benefits (e.g. injury prevention, improved mobility and/or core strength, quality of non-climbing life) and is highly unlikely to be detrimental to climbing if you don't significantly eat into your climbing recovery time by lifting too much.

Figuring out where the threshold is for "too much" is likely a matter of individual experimentation, so maybe avoid introducing a lifting routine right before your trip to redpoint 9c or your qualifying round for ABS Nationals.