How well does indoor climbing translate to outdoor?

Nick Drake wrote:

This is the process which builds up lactic acid within a muscle, i.e. the process which ends up resulting in "pump".

No! It's hydrogen bombs, man, hydrogen bombs!

The fitness (for the size/type of hold and length of route) translates directly.

What you are finding is that there is more to it than that to climb rocks.

aikibujin wrote: No! It's hydrogen bombs, man, hydrogen bombs!

Haha damnit man I was trying to keep it simple! My original response went into that 

I've thought about the OP question a lot lately since moving near a gym and climbing indoor a lot and not having it translate to outdoor as much as I like.

For route climbing, I think the biggest difference for me is the time I actually spend on a hold and on a route/foot of climbing. Indoor, even leading and clipping draws, I'm never on a hold more than a few seconds. Even if the next move is at or above my limit, I go for it because there is no other option, and because the next hold(s) and sequence are pretty obvious. Outdoor, I spend a LOT more time on many of the holds on a route, deciding on the best clipping hold, installing draws, clipping, quick shake, grope for the next hold, try a different one if the route is near my limit, decide that I had the best one to begin with, search for better feet, etc. I've mimicked this a bit indoors - routes that are pretty easy become very hard or impossible to top when I spend extra time in an isometric contraction on a few of the holds. Maybe hangboarding trains this? I've thought about just spending 10-20 seconds in a single hold a few times on a route to mimic/train this. Not sure if that is productive training??? You certainly get pumped much faster doing this, similar to outdoor climbing.

Bouldering is just completely different movement and hand/foothold for most bouldering to translate for me.  

A big part of the issue is really that indoor terrain so rarely mimics outdoor terrain. Gyms love vertical or overhanging terrain for the safety of the falls. But nature doesn't provide us with nearly as many plumb vertical to overhanging lines with plentiful holds.

I can climb the shit out of steeply overhanging terrain at my gym. I've yet to find a place in nature with 45% overhangs that I can just spider across.

Probably time for me to take a trip to Greece.

Or the Red River Gorge.

Ted Pinson wrote: Or the Red River Gorge.

I live in CA. Greece is closer...

Señor Arroz wrote:

I live in CA. Greece is closer...

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote: The fitness (for the size/type of hold and length of route) translates directly.

What you are finding is that there is more to it than that to climb rocks.

What, you trying to say climbing takes skills? It's all about the energy systems!

SteveMarshall wrote:

I think this is perhaps the wrong way to word it. You are still stressing that energy system and it will adapt. Maybe it's not the most efficient way to train, but it's not like you are going to get pumped more easily after training this way than after not training at all.

You're right in that if those single pitches are simply getting you pumped out of your mind then it's not actually increasing your ability to create lactate or necessarily reliance on glycolysis (but it might). If you get a complete lack of power without a pump then you are in the range of working "anaerobic capacity". 

The recent Horst podcasts that Sam mentioned are very good and worth listening to multiple times. There is also Alex Barrows paper that's been floating around about energy systems, some of the terminology he uses is a bit funny: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-40C59n2E_4aVRyYjY5U1Rtc2c/edit

If you listen to what Horst is saying, RCTM, Eva Lopez, or most other sources about sport climbing they will recommend that large base of localized aerobic fitness in the forearms. It allows the other higher output energy systems to also become more efficient and increases recovery rate both on route and between burns. Lots of info about aerobic energy system from Lopez: http://en-eva-lopez.blogspot.com.es/search/label/Endurance%20Training?updated-max=2014-11-13T15:28:00%2B01:00&max-results=20&start=4&by-date=false

Personal anecdotes, In the past I did the really low end ARC training in the gym, it was all jugs and in the 5.8 to 10- range on auto belays. I got that exact result you have, I could hang onto jugs forever, but wasn't sending routes. On rock the ARC training seemed to play out because I ALMOST always found a jug to shake on. I wasn't really happy with it. 

This fall/winter I based what I was doing off Steve Bechtel's logical progression layout. He recommends "intensive endurance" sessions where you do linked boulder problems (stay on the wall the whole time). Climb a problem, then down climb/traverse open holds to be ready to start a new problem at around 2 minutes. Repeat for a 10 minute set, 5 min rest between sets, 4 sets total. There is a progression to work in the book. You're still very low on the pump scale, should not be falling and should not be spending much if any time "shaking out". You alternate between building pump and recovering on the traverse/downclimb. It may not be as pure from the physiological adaptation standpoint, but I'll be damned it it didn't carry over to real climbing better (than low end ARC).

Also for JCM, EVERYONE LISTEN TO BECHTEL BECAUSE HE IS THE MAN :)

reboot wrote:

What, you trying to say climbing takes skills? It's all about the energy systems!

Climbing is not a skill sport. Climbing is an energy system sport. Everyone should just buy hangboards and modify weight/hold times and only touch rock to red point. 

reboot wrote:

What, you trying to say climbing takes skills? It's all about the energy systems!

You better believe it if the empirical method tells you so!

aikibujin wrote: You better believe it if the empirical method tells you so!

Nah, since I wasn't thinking about the perfect balance of energy systems and aerobic cap my way up those 5.13/14s, the sends didn't count. In fact, they shouldn't have even been possible, #mustbelying.

reboot wrote:

Nah, since I wasn't thinking about the perfect balance of energy systems and aerobic cap my way up those 5.13/14s, the sends didn't count. In fact, they shouldn't have even been possible, #mustbelying.

Oh no, I believe you when you say you climb 5.14s. But maybe because you climb so well, you don’t believe others can get so pumped on a 5.12 that their fingers open up jugs? Maybe whatever you do works so well for you, you don’t believe something else can work for others? It just seem strange that you’re here to poke fun whenever energy systems is mentioned, but you never offer us what you do. I'm not expecting unicorn dusts, but I'm always eager to hear what others do so I can try it myself.

I think indoor climbing is good for getting strong, but isn't as helpful with the technique and mental aspects of outdoor climbing.  It's pretty common to train a bunch indoors for a while, then start off climbing outside with limited success, and once you get some more outdoor mileage in, see the results of all the indoor training.  To the OP, I'd just say stick with it.  Get that mileage outdoors, and then the indoor training will pay off.

The other way to look at it is "indoor climbing has nothing to do with climbing.  It just happens to be good training for it."  I forget who said that, but it's pretty true. 

aikibujin wrote:

Oh no, I believe you when you say you climb 5.14s. But maybe because you climb so well, you don’t believe others can get so pumped on a 5.12 that their fingers open up jugs? Maybe whatever you do works so well for you, you don’t believe something else can work for others? It just seem strange that you’re here to poke fun whenever energy systems is mentioned, but you never offer us what you do. I'm not expecting unicorn dusts, but I'm always eager to hear what others do so I can try it myself.

If you were not born with the ability to throw a 95mph fastball you will never be able to throw a baseball 95 mph.

Some people are marathoners, others milers...others yet excel at the 100m dash.

You cannot compete with the Usain Bolts of the world. There is no secret training formula that will ever, ever make that happen. They have unique genetic gifts distributing the fast twitch/slow twitch muscle fibers in their bodies that others do not have.

But the beauty of climbing is that it is a purely individual sport and how you improve and push yourself is all that matters.

The people that have impressed me the most in climbing is the people that have done the most with the least gifts, not the mutants that commonly waste years due to talent.

In my general experience indoor climbing is a good place to encounter new moves and sequences and develop muscle memory for the moves and positions. That I feel translates at least somewhat well to outdoors in that if you're in a position that your body recognizes you know you have it.

That all being said the above sort of exists in a vacuum independent of grades. Heel hooks on weird slopers can exist just as easily on 5.12 as they can on 5.8. 

Adam Ronchetti wrote: In my general experience indoor climbing is a good place to encounter new moves and sequences and develop muscle memory for the moves and positions. That I feel translates at least somewhat well to outdoors in that if you're in a position that your body recognizes you know you have it.

That all being said the above sort of exists in a vacuum independent of grades. Heel hooks on weird slopers can exist just as easily on 5.12 as they can on 5.8. 

Yeah I think the gym is a place to train. To get stronger. But also to learn and practice techniques you might encounter on real rock, but you won't encounter them with enough consistency outdoors to really get good at them without years and years and years of doing it every weekend, for example. 

I can go to the gym and only focus on rock overs for an hour if I wanted to. Or focus on twist locking or heel hooks or back stepping. Or any combination of them on any one given route. Can't do that outdoors due to how time consuming access is. I can spend 3 hours at the gym and get in 15 climbs. Outdoors... you might spend 12 hours on a day trip and only get in 3 climbs due to any number of factors.

That said, I think I've only encountered maybe two routes outdoors that actually required a heel hook. But I nailed both of them because I spent the time in the gym to train that move.

aikibujin wrote:

It just seem strange that you’re here to poke fun whenever energy systems is mentioned, but you never offer us what you do. I'm not expecting unicorn dusts, but I'm always eager to hear what others do so I can try it myself.

I'm poking fun at it because you think you can devise an optimal training plan by knowing one small piece of a very large puzzle. Take aerobic cap and ARC, for example. Sounds like the right thing to do given the science. But then explain why HIIT style training for running/cycling work so well, at least in the amateur rank (but not nearly as well in the pro rank empirically)?

The Anderson brothers have the talent (yes, I said talent) of sticking to a regimented training plan. I don't (hell, I have trouble keeping a respectable BMI for a climber), and maybe that why they are better (certainly more prolific) climbers than me. But I've at least learned what makes me tick about climbing, and it certainly isn't counting micro gain in fitness (party tricks are fun though). I like to geek about techniques (not just what is classically considered climbing techniques) and exercises/stretches that target specific movement patterns. And I've certainly picked up little details (of techniques or styles) from the many talent climbers around Boulder (and have realized some just don't fit me well). And if I'm actually training (not practicing), then I know I do much better w/ a psyched partner (or if I'm lucky, with a group of psyched climbers). IME, the minutiae of what I do is secondary to the results, as long as it's appropriate on a macro level. That also means I don't feel the need to validate my training plan anyone else.

I doubt any of what I wrote is helpful to you in anyway; doesn't seem like that's what you were looking for. Whatever, I'm willing to bury the hatchet. 

If y'all don't see the comedy inherent in people who chuff off 5.10's (or less) spouting off about energy systems to someone who has climbed 5.14, well, that's unfortunate.  You'd think MP would function a little more like a meritocracy, but a lot of people seem to prefer anonymous egalitarianism, where the opinions of beginners and armchair experts are given the same creedence as those of people with vastly greater experience and ability.  It seems, with the ever-increasing preponderance of gyms and training protocols, that more and more people are trying to "hack" their way to harder grades (reference the recent PED thread as an example), and the advice given from older, wiser, and stronger climbers is often met by some version of "yeah yeah, but we're talking about -hacks- here."  This is also reflected in the recent implicit emphasis on grades over style as the marker of accomplishment in climbing, where people would rather project a soft 12a or 13a into submission just for the grade rather than learning to master 11's and 12's first.  If you love climbing, learn to do it well.  If you do it well, the path to improvement becomes self-evident.