Mountain Project Logo

climbing is ... SCIENCE


Original Post
Aleks Zebastian · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 175

climbing friend,

this is what I would like to see more of. it is excellent but proves nothing it does.

brother crushing anderson study of what sounds like self-submitted data would be most unreliable. one climber cannot make sense of another's hangboard spreadsheet format and many tiny variables going into it, especially when enough sexual frustration has been used as training motivational tool, yes?

eva lopez studyings appear better, but also longer term study is needed. what if your max single hang gains stop after 2 months because you've recruited all the fibers you may be recruiting, and your fibers they are not growing bigger, and your crushing strength it is not getting stronger?? Is this possible or just the fear and the propaganda?

trainingforclimbing.com/res…

but yes, very good job starting, more research longer term, more test subjects, and comparing multiple different protocols, please, please.

BBQ · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2009 · Points: 10,417

Climbing friend,

Many thanks for the link to the study. I would read more stuff like this, but unfortunately, as the kids are saying nowadays, I have no more fucks to give. The only way for me to get better at climbing is to go climbing a lot more at different areas of the country. All of this hangboarding, diet/nutrition, physiology and training (masturbation) sucks all the fun out of a good time at the crag with good friends, good adult beverages and well-behaved dogs running around. Enjoy your statistics. I will spend my time focusing on the fun.

Aleks Zebastian · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 175

climbing friend,

I see you have quite a bit of pent up sexual frustration...

Rui Ferreira · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jul 2003 · Points: 869

That particular Eva Lopez study was limited at best, she changed multiple factors (both the number of hangs and rests in between sets) making it difficult to draw any specific conclusions. Perhaps the intent was to compare popular hangboarding routines, but at a minimum the rest between sets should have been kept constant.

BBQ · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2009 · Points: 10,417
Aleks Zebastian wrote:climbing friend, I see you have quite a bit of pent up sexual frustration...
Sure do.
kenr · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 11,659
Rui Ferreira wrote:That particular Eva Lopez study was limited at best, she changed multiple factors ...
Thanks for that thoughtful assessment. I never looked at that study closely because I wasn't interested in the question (mainly because there are other more fundamental training questions which have not been addressed "scientifically").

Seemed that climbers were so hungry for some sort of "real experimental study" to offer "scientific" results for training -- so that study gave Eva Lopez credibility + audience for blogging about lots of other training questions.

But my interpretation is that Lopez has _not_ done experimental studies on those other questions, and rather has been making very intelligent + reasonable inferences or applications from general scientific training principles or experimental findings from other sports - (more intelligent and from a larger knowledge base of sport physiology than I could offer).

However as we have found on many other points of bodily health and human performance, just because an inference sounds very intelligent + reasonable does mean that it will not be debunked by real experimental evidence ten years later.

Ken
kenr · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 11,659
Aleks Zebastian wrote:... also longer term study is needed. what if your max single hang gains stop after 2 months because you've recruited all the fibers you may be recruiting, and your fibers they are not growing bigger, and your crushing strength it is not getting stronger?? Is this possible or just the fear and the propaganda? trainingforclimbing.com/res…
A disappointment I have with Eric Horst (and a reason I have not felt in a hurry to purchase the newest edition of his training book), is that he seems so impressed with these new studies, and seems not to notice that more fundamental issues have not been addressed.
Issues on which I think he was right in his 2008 books, but now he seems to be de-emphasizing.

. (Just my spectator-at-a-distance impressions -- If somebody knows better by all means correct me).

Ken
Mark E Dixon · · Sprezzatura, Someday · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 549

I look forward to seeing the Veredie and Lopez papers once published.

The Veredie paper elaborates on already well established research that demonstrates the need for climbing specific grip strength measures. It is interesting that their highest correlation with performance was the maximum hang, as this has not distinguished climbers from non-climbers in other studies. The zlag board data, if it can be mined, may provide some interesting info on this point.

It would also be nice to know to what extent the measures- Relative Peak Force, Relative Maximum Isometric Force and Rate of Force Development - are independent and need individual training protocols, or if solely doing hangboarding or campusing or bouldering or whatever would be sufficient.

Mike and Mark's article has been published and can be reviewed on line.
rockclimberstrainingmanual.…
It's shortcoming is being based on a voluntary survey, which is likely to introduce a positive bias in the results.
It is interesting however, that they report a 21.5% strength increase after 4 weeks of training, similar to the best results in the Lopez article. I could not determine from their paper how they calculated that result though.

The Lopez data is interesting, but unfortunately she chose to compare a strength protocol with an intervals based metabolic training protocol. The outcome measure (1 RM hangs) is appropriate for the former, but not the latter.
It's like comparing limit bouldering with 4x4s and deciding which is more effective based on a 1 move boulder problem.
So unfortunately, this doesn't answer the debate between max hangs and repeaters.

There are studies in the weight training field that show that muscle hypertrophy is equal amongst any rep ranges (if taken to failure.)
Strength, on the other hand, if measured by 1 RM tests, is higher with lower rep ranges, and endurance is correspondingly higher in higher rep ranges.

Personally, I think specificity is key. IMHO, best results are likely to come from choosing the rep range that best addresses one's weaknesses, whether that's strength or endurance.

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Post a Reply

Log In to Reply