Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
Thoughts on training and Individual Limits
Kevin Stricker wrote: I like the mental exercise, but that is assuming human capacity for climbing (or anything, really) follows a normal distribution, which I am doubtful of. More likely seems to be that the tail of human performance is quite long and would skew any average. |
|
I think individual limits are probably more important than people give them credit for. Training can take you a long way, but trying to copy someone else’s volume or intensity doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll get the same results. For me, consistent training without constantly pushing into exhaustion makes more sense. Progress is still progress, even if it comes slower than you hoped. |
John Tuttle wrote:
I'll take this logical disconnection as a sign that the conversation was a troll. The original question was about climbing genetic limits. A reasonable way to test it would be to reduce the variables that the community has said hold them back: work, family, other sports, etc. A look at what level youth team climbers achieve would be as close as you could get without a double-blind 40 year identical twin study. What grade do you think most youth team climbers achieve before they transition to the responsibilities of adulthood? |
|
If you looked at what level youth team climbers achieve to draw general conclusions that would reflect massive selection bias. The original point of the OP (I think) was to try as much as possible not to measure onself against others, to climb hard if that's what you like, and to derive satisfaction from the process and not from grades. That's all great advice. Later, it became a conversation about where the genetic ceiling is for an "averge person" or an "average climber." That's difficult to explore because there are so many ways to frame the question. Looking at the level achieved by youth climbers does provide some interesting information. For example, it sheds light on the level that can be achieved by genetically gifted climbers (mentally and physically) who start young and are encouraged and supported by a community and infrastructure, without the pressures and responsibilities of adult life. That level is very high. But it doesn't tell us much about the average person and their potential. Imagine that you took a random sample of children from some level (primary school, secondary school, high school, etc.) and gave them the opportunity to participate in three or four years of structured and supported training. How many would choose to do that? How many would stay after a few weeks/months/years? How many would not get sick or injured? How many would plateau? How many would become elite climbers? I still don't know if this hypothetical scenario would relate directly to the question, becasue the physical changes associated with growing older, and the pressures and responsibilities of adult life are part of the equation, but it would provide more information about averages than youth team climbers. |
Bruno Schull wrote: What grade do you think they would climb? I would specify age 12 to 22, ten years of training. It seems like the age range where free will is starting until adulting is generally starting. 100 children to keep the maths easy. |
|
I think of those 100 children, probably less than 10, maybe less than 5, maybe even just 2 or 3, would stay with the program for 10 years. Most just wouldn't be interested. Some would stay to hang out with friends for a while and then leave. Some would get distracted by social things or academics. Others would have life problems (divorce, parents moving). Some would find other sports more interesting. Some would play video games. Some would dvelop serious diseases and medical problems including mental disorders (depression, anxiety, etc) and physical problems (diabetes, epilepsy, etc). Some would drink and do drugs. Some would try really hard and get injured (ligaments, bones). Others would get eating disorders and REDS. Some would really want to be successfull but just wouldn't have the ability. Some would gain weight and their bodies would change so much in puberty that what they could do at 12 they could no longer do at 18. Some might have legal problems and enter the judicial system. Some would find it easy and not challenging and get bored and stop. Some would get jobs or go to college and move on to other interests. Some would die in car accidents or drownings or overdoses. Some would become parents. Of that 100 you started with....maybe 1 would become an elite climber, say, a 5.14 climber. |
Bruno Schull wrote: Boy, you're cynical! My 16'year olds on the team here in Sacramento. Maybe 25 kids on the team when she started at 11. She's not super into climbing once she started XC, but she's climbing V7 and 12c. She has 3 male teammates that have climbed v10 outside and V12 inside. At least 3 female climbers and maybe 4 in the 5.13 and V8/9 both inside and I see similar abilities from the other teams in the Bay area. |
Todd Berlier wrote: Hi Todd, I've been a teacher of young people for over 25 years. First I worked in the US, and for the last 18 years, I've worked in the Swiss school system. It's sort of like American middle school + high school + the first year or even two years of college. My youngest students are 12 or 13 and my oldest are 19 or 20. I teach them biology and geography, so two classes per year, every year, for 7 years. I get to know them well, and I see them develop from pre-puberty to young adults, year after year, in a constant cycle. I've watched 1,000s of children grow up over the course of my career. So the possibilities I describe are based on that experience. It's not cynical, it's just the way life is. Remember, we're not talking about 100 kids in climbing teams...we're talking about a random sample of one hundred 12 years olds. It's cool that your daughter is on a climbing team! My 17 year old daughter also climbs...much harder than I do in the gym! She projects 7a! She's also a truly skilled skier, has a black belt in Tae Kwan Do, mountain bikes, plays the French horn, and does crazy, deeply immaginative, filming and theater projects outside of school in her free time. In these respects, foremost her physical gifts and her focus/obsession with her creative projects, she's an extreme outlier in her peer group. In other respects, such as her dedication to studying for school, her higher-level intelectual engagement with the world, her maturity, her independence, she's totally average. So in the end...she's just a person. I mean...I think she's amazing but...I'm her dad :) |
Bruno Schull wrote: That's what a cynic would say! Jk!
Yeah, I was assuming climbing team! But since this is a thought experiment and not real world, if you took 100 average kids off the street and brainwashed them to be dedicated to climbing with the support of an upper middle class white family, after ten years where would they be? 25% V8 50% V10 25% V12 Is my answer.
Well, well, well...my kid has straight A's taking all AP classes, can run a 5:25 mile and plays the ukulele. Take that! Oh and my two dogs are cuter and better behaved than yours! |
Todd Berlier wrote: I thought of this thread when I was in the gym the other day and the non try out youth team was there. I saw multiple v8 sends from kids who clearly weren't in high school and that seemed to be about the average grade of the group and this was the Not the try out team! Anyone who really cares about the topic and doesn't think the limit is much higher should volunteer with a youth team for 1 year just check your ego... The simple fact is that every younger generation is still get MUCH better than the previous one means that we don't really know anything about climbings genetics limits. Once it plateaus out a little we will understand more. |
Eric8 wrote: The idea that the "next generation is much better" is simply an error. Human beings are not getting any stronger. It would require an evolutional bottleneck selecting the better climbers as "more fit for reproduction" for that to be the case. What we have is a larger and larger base group of climbers and more and more kids being exposed to the sport at an early age. When the base group gets larger the outliers get farther and farther from the mean. But the new generation is not any stronger than those of the past. Add lots of bolts, crash pads and better footwear and that accounts for all of the increase in climbing grades (and the number of people that climb them). |
Brendan N wrote: Not trolling if you admit your error. And once we get into self-reporting of motivational factors we get into psuedo-science (ie Sociology/Psychology). Youth climbers in the USA are also one of the most privileged group of kids in the USA in my neck of the woods (hell, I had Steve Wosniak's son on my team too). That they self-select and have all the resources they typically need make them outliers from the outset. |
|
Climbers definitely seek out other climbers as mates. There is some genetic concentration there. |
Daniel Shively wrote: Nope. Herman Buhl was doing one finger pullups in the 1930's per some old report I probably can't find. It was some old analysis of climbers as compared to track athletes of the 1930's that I read years ago. It corrected for improved tracks and shoes and ropes and other gear allowing for harder things to be tried or more consistent surfaces etc and there has been negligible improvements in ability mostly attributed to far larger numbers of runners and climbers etc. Humans are not evolving into better climbers. They may be better at maximizing their individual abilities. This base composition of muscle and brain etc is what I mean by not getting "stronger". It's the same as it has been for thousands of years at least. For finger strength the last time our ancestors were "selected" for that ability we probably were still living in trees. Chris climbed up to 5.15b without a single day of training other than climbing iirc. He did not "evolve" training or gear. He just "was" and is the perfect example of climbing mutant. He loves climbing and is exceptionally gifted. There just are more climbers (and typically there are also more that have the brains for training which is why we see more crushers). Chris absolutely detests training. |
|
Sharma was, and is a mutant. Perhaps Bull was also. However, keep in mind that his signature achievement, Biographie, now gets climbed in relatively few sessions by multiple individuals every year. Sharma actually HAD to train to do La Dura Dura and Sleeping Lion. Also, he climbed a fuckton when he did Jumbo Love, and climbing is training. Just imagine what Sharma could have done if he engaged in focused training when he was younger. The shoes and equipment when Sharma was young was not much better, if at all, than it is today. You are correct and that there are many more climbers these days, and that they are not genetically better. However, they do surpass prior generations and actually ARE better because of, as was stated above, training, nutrition and just a shift in the paradigm of what is considered actual hard climbing |
|
Sharma married and had children with a woman that climbs 5.14. It’s entirely possible his children will be more mutant than mutant. |
John Tuttle wrote: Please do some research on this John, you are incorrect in your statements. Climbers across the board are stronger, and climbing higher grades. You can verify this looking at both World Cup comp boulder average grades, as well as just the average grades at any climbing gym that has been in business for over 10 years. Saying Sharma didn’t train is completely ignorant. He trained/trains on the wall harder than most anyone else. Climbing is not a strength sport. Climbing is a skill sport, and top climbers like Sharma realize the most important training they can do is actual climbing on the routes they are trying to climb. Please show us this old research. Let’s look at the numbers and then say climbers are not stronger. I’ll bet the grades listed in any paper over 10 years old are at least two letter grades lower than averages today. |
Bruno Schull wrote: That's a useful perspective for gauging the 'stickiness' of climbing as an activity. The cynical aspect is saying "some" (6%? - more than a couple/few/handful) will die accidentally when the real rate is a 0.01% to 0.02% chance per year per the CDC. I agree with Todd that once a young person locks in with a crew at the gym, even when it's a non-competitive club, the level quickly approaches V10 (kids enjoy bouldering more). |
Kevin Stricker wrote: You don't seem to understand the difference between evolution and training and it's limitations but I'll try one last time. :) There simply are more climbers and gear has improved. That's it. Scientifically derived training regimens are very, very modestly increasing performance and the gains are getting smaller and smaller. Sure, individual fatties can lose a ton of weight and get way better but that story is as old as fatties (like me). When it comes to comp climbers, there are just more comp climbers so the outliers get a tiny bit further out. For example: in the last 50 years men's marathon times have only increased ~7%. All the sports training science in the world you guys tout would make it seem like we are running twice as fast. We are not and increasingly close to ultimate human ability. I doubt we will ever see another 7% improvement in times. Dura Dura (5.15c) was first climbed 13 years ago. We do not yet have a confirmed grade and second ascent of any proposed 5.15d. One letter grade and we can't do it. 5.16a if/when it comes will be done by an athlete that is one in 8 Billion humans.... Essentially, we are waiting for the next mutant (that maybe focus trained) to "advance" the numbers a miniscule amout. Humans are not getting stronger; this is a simple fact of evolution (and perhaps this is where the misunderstanding lies) as you equate stronger with training, whereas I equate stronger with the base material (genetic inheritance) that people have. Anyone can get a little "stronger/fitter" and yes, training is very important for that, but there simply are limits that you seem to have trouble grasping. Despite the popular pablum that we are spoon fed that you can "do anything that you put your mind to" it simply isn't true that you can fly like a bird if you want it bad enough. I don't have the time to watch this all now but will later. At least it will be interesting. (ps the TED leads with Jesse Owens 10.2 seconds world record in 1930 and Usain Bolt WR holder currently at 9.77 seconds a ~4% improvement in ~100 years....hmmm...that is entirely ascribable to more runners and better shoes and maybe a tiny bit to training and that's it.) (pps the video essentially nails it. between technology and greater numbers participating in all sports there are essentially no advances (maybe 1%) in athletic performance which should not surprise anyone because the human race is most certainly not evolving based on these criteria.) I'm looking for the Nate Silver statistical study that demonstrates that there really are very, very tiny advances in ie World Records that are mostly attributable to vastly more people with the time to be athletes instead of having to be farmers and improved equipment. I'll post it if I can find it. Any individual will have dramatic improvement from a couch potato baseline, but their potential is not unlimited as should be obvious if you follow something like baseball, with tens of millions of kids that participate, nearly all of whom try to be a pitcher, yet the "world class" professionals are one in a million and people threw 100 mph decades ago (Nolan Ryan in 1974). While it is more common today (more people play baseball!) the current fastest pitch ever (105.8 mph) is that same ~6% improvement in 50 years despite "advances" in training pitchers. A very large part of that 6% gain is just due to more kids playing baseball. |
Brendan N wrote: It's not about the "stickiness of climbing." It's about understanding the range, diversity, potential, capacities, and unique circumstances of young adults. Also, look up selection bias. Why is this concept so hard to understand? Somebody who "locks in with a crew" at a gym is far from average. |
