How much training advice has changed in the last 15 years

When I first started climbing I was recommended to get 'Training For Climbing' by Eric Horst. I have the 2008 edition. Flipping through it now it's really interesting.

• It's before all the commercial system boards (I think the Moonboard was around, but it is not mentioned in the book) There's a bit on spray walls, but much more emphasis on campus board style setups, he has a board set up with resin campus rungs. There's a handful of obscure foot-on campusing and lock-off exercises that seem pretty obsolete these days as they would be covered by board climbing.
• There is about 2 sentences on weighted max hangs and max hang protocols, as an afterthought in the section on hangboarding, which is mostly dedicated to repeater protocols and pullups on small edges (!). Meanwhile, there are whole sub-chapters on finger rolls with a barbell, and bouldering with a weight vest.
• Apparently doing this "bouldering" thing as general strength training, even for sport and trad climbers, was still a somewhat novel idea
• Overall there is very little about bouldering (there's more direct advice about alpine climbing even) and it's kind of assumed you want to push your grade on a rope. I wouldn't be surprised if this is Eric's own bias coming through. I think 2008 would have been before dedicated commercial bouldering gyms? Or at least the vast majority?
• Modern "hard" climbing is almost absent from the book. There is no photo of a route harder than 5.14b (Emily Harrington & Andy Raether) or V13 (Daniel Woods). Eric's own hero shot (to establish him as a well-trained authority on climbing) is on a 5.13a
• Given the spray thrown around these days about how "everyone could climb V10/5.14 it's normal" the ambitions about genetic potential are a lot lower. 5.14 is considered Dave Graham and Chris Sharma level, I shit you not. I quote "....it's likely a number of less obvious attributes that help make possible the incredible 5.14/V14 ascents of climbers like Dave Graham, Chris Sharma, and the Nicole, Huber, and LeMenestral brothers". The definition of "highly conditioned, elite climber" is onsight lead ability of 5.11 trad, 5.12 sport, or V7/V8 boulder. It's possible they're saying this to make their target audience feel good about themselves, but even so!
• He of course wrote "How To Climb 5.12" a few years before this, so it's no surprise that Horst considers "the lofty grade of 5.12" to be the middle of the bell curve and says "odds are that you're 'normal enough' to climb 5.12 or even 5.13".
• No mention of ARC training and not even any clear discussion really of the difference between anaerobic and aerobic capacity. He has a bit on "bouldering and route climbing intervals" which is similar to 4x4's but they're not referred to as that yet.

Overall an interesting snapshot of where training was in the 2000's.

Sam Mwrote:

When I first started climbing I was recommended to get 'Training For Climbing' by Eric Horst. I have the 2008 edition. Flipping through it now it's really interesting.

• It's before all the commercial system boards (I think the Moonboard was around, but it is not mentioned in the book) There's a bit on spray walls, but much more emphasis on campus board style setups, he has a board set up with resin campus rungs. There's a handful of obscure foot-on campusing and lock-off exercises that seem pretty obsolete these days as they would be covered by board climbing.
• There is about 2 sentences on weighted max hangs and max hang protocols, as an afterthought in the section on hangboarding, which is mostly dedicated to repeater protocols and pullups on small edges (!). Meanwhile, there are whole sub-chapters on finger rolls with a barbell, and bouldering with a weight vest.
• Apparently doing this "bouldering" thing as general strength training, even for sport and trad climbers, was still a somewhat novel idea
• Overall there is very little about bouldering (there's more direct advice about alpine climbing even) and it's kind of assumed you want to push your grade on a rope. I wouldn't be surprised if this is Eric's own bias coming through. I think 2008 would have been before dedicated commercial bouldering gyms? Or at least the vast majority?
• Modern "hard" climbing is almost absent from the book. There is no photo of a route harder than 5.14b (Emily Harrington & Andy Raether) or V13 (Daniel Woods). Eric's own hero shot (to establish him as a well-trained authority on climbing) is on a 5.13a
• Given the spray thrown around these days about how "everyone could climb V10/5.14 it's normal" the ambitions about genetic potential are a lot lower. 5.14 is considered Dave Graham and Chris Sharma level, I shit you not. I quote "....it's likely a number of less obvious attributes that help make possible the incredible 5.14/V14 ascents of climbers like Dave Graham, Chris Sharma, and the Nicole, Huber, and LeMenestral brothers". The definition of "highly conditioned, elite climber" is onsight lead ability of 5.11 trad, 5.12 sport, or V7/V8 boulder. It's possible they're saying this to make their target audience feel good about themselves, but even so!
• He of course wrote "How To Climb 5.12" a few years before this, so it's no surprise that Horst considers "the lofty grade of 5.12" to be the middle of the bell curve and says "odds are that you're 'normal enough' to climb 5.12 or even 5.13".
• No mention of ARC training and not even any clear discussion really of the difference between anaerobic and aerobic capacity. He has a bit on "bouldering and route climbing intervals" which is similar to 4x4's but they're not referred to as that yet.

Overall an interesting snapshot of where training was in the 2000's.

Expectations were lower because the modern grades hadn't been achieved yet. Makes perfect sense. 

Sam Mwrote:

When I first started climbing I was recommended to get 'Training For Climbing' by Eric Horst. I have the 2008 edition. Flipping through it now it's really interesting.

• It's before all the commercial system boards (I think the Moonboard was around, but it is not mentioned in the book) There's a bit on spray walls, but much more emphasis on campus board style setups, he has a board set up with resin campus rungs. There's a handful of obscure foot-on campusing and lock-off exercises that seem pretty obsolete these days as they would be covered by board climbing.
• There is about 2 sentences on weighted max hangs and max hang protocols, as an afterthought in the section on hangboarding, which is mostly dedicated to repeater protocols and pullups on small edges (!). Meanwhile, there are whole sub-chapters on finger rolls with a barbell, and bouldering with a weight vest.
• Apparently doing this "bouldering" thing as general strength training, even for sport and trad climbers, was still a somewhat novel idea
• Overall there is very little about bouldering (there's more direct advice about alpine climbing even) and it's kind of assumed you want to push your grade on a rope. I wouldn't be surprised if this is Eric's own bias coming through. I think 2008 would have been before dedicated commercial bouldering gyms? Or at least the vast majority?
• Modern "hard" climbing is almost absent from the book. There is no photo of a route harder than 5.14b (Emily Harrington & Andy Raether) or V13 (Daniel Woods). Eric's own hero shot (to establish him as a well-trained authority on climbing) is on a 5.13a
• Given the spray thrown around these days about how "everyone could climb V10/5.14 it's normal" the ambitions about genetic potential are a lot lower. 5.14 is considered Dave Graham and Chris Sharma level, I shit you not. I quote "....it's likely a number of less obvious attributes that help make possible the incredible 5.14/V14 ascents of climbers like Dave Graham, Chris Sharma, and the Nicole, Huber, and LeMenestral brothers". The definition of "highly conditioned, elite climber" is onsight lead ability of 5.11 trad, 5.12 sport, or V7/V8 boulder. It's possible they're saying this to make their target audience feel good about themselves, but even so!
• He of course wrote "How To Climb 5.12" a few years before this, so it's no surprise that Horst considers "the lofty grade of 5.12" to be the middle of the bell curve and says "odds are that you're 'normal enough' to climb 5.12 or even 5.13".
• No mention of ARC training and not even any clear discussion really of the difference between anaerobic and aerobic capacity. He has a bit on "bouldering and route climbing intervals" which is similar to 4x4's but they're not referred to as that yet.

Overall an interesting snapshot of where training was in the 2000's.

Thanks so much.

The omissions you point out are more a product of the author than the state of training knowledge at the time. 'Performance Rock Climbing' from 1993 and 'The Self-Coached Climber" from 2006 cover bouldering, ARC and anaerobic capacity. I still use the matrix in the back of The Self-Coached Climber to define benchmarks needed for a given route grade project. I think it makes sense not to talk too much about cutting edge ascents in a book if you want it to stay timeless.

In the early 90s folks were doing ARC style 20 minute easy climbing sessions.  We called them “mito workouts“, as in mitochondria.  

I think the main difference is that now everybody trains (or at least "trains") and everyone climbs a lot fucking harder! I started climbing in maybe '06 or so and back then it felt like people did talk about 5.12 as a lofty grade. I feel like if I climbed as hard as I do now back then, I would have been known as something of a crusher amongst my friends. Now I'm just an average duffer.

Short Fall Seanwrote:

I think the main difference is that now everybody trains (or at least "trains") and everyone climbs a lot fucking harder! I started climbing in maybe '06 or so and back then it felt like people did talk about 5.12 as a lofty grade. I feel like if I climbed as hard as I do now back then, I would have been known as something of a crusher amongst my friends. Now I'm just an average duffer.

I started climbing over twenty years ago and feel the same. Back when I started 5.12 did feel lofty if you didn't live in one of the big climbing areas. In the 90s the climbing mags would even report a 5.12 trad climb as one of the 'hot sends' back then. The bar is just so much higher.

Meanwhile, "9 Out Of 10 Climbers Make The Same Mistakes" has barely aged at all.

Sam Mwrote:

Meanwhile, "9 Out Of 10 Climbers Make The Same Mistakes" has barely aged at all.

I got a lot out of this one.