Concurrent training- avoid?

Muscrat wrote: ...I also sport climb and have never had the need for cardio type endurance that would be required for an endurance sport. Really...and how old are you?

32. When it comes down to it what works for me may not work for others and vice versa. Every individual has unique training needs and weaknesses. For me it's finger strength. Maybe for others it's something different. To each his own. I'd be better off hangnoarding for finger strength, campusing for power, doing challenging routes/problems, and doing some supplemental core work.

Stephen C wrote: 32. When it comes down to it what works for me may not work for others and vice versa. Every individual has unique training needs and weaknesses. For me it's finger strength. Maybe for others it's something different. To each his own. I'd be better off hangnoarding for finger strength, campusing for power, doing challenging routes/problems, and doing some supplemental core work.

V10? I don't even dream about it!
I was trying to be a little ironic, not snarfy, btw.
Where's Alex?!

Chris Rice wrote:The skills climbers use are different from other sports. But muscles are muscles and other sports do have training knowledge to offer - we may have to do a little digging outside our comfort zone and quit thinking we are some kind of special snowflake but limiting your quest for training knowledge to just the climbing literature is just that - limiting.

Exactly! it comes down to some fundamental principles based on the force versus time curve. This model is relevant whether it applied to the forearm muscles or to the leg muscles! The force level that can be sustained over an extended period of time is the Critical Power and it indicates the threshold at which ATP demand is completely met by aerobic ATP production. Another aspect of this model is that the area under the curve corresponds to the supercritical Work capacity. This is a finite amount of work and the model actually predicts the Time to Exhaustion when you exceed Critical Power. Interestingly studies have shown that Critical Power can be improved, however it decreases the amount of supercritical Work capacity.

Cyclists train to improve their Threshold/Critical Power and runners train to improve their Critical Speed...so why should climbers be any different? By establishing your Critical Power for the forearm muscles you can then designate training zones to improve upon this threshold, furthermore you can also target your above threshold zones to improve the anaerobic energy systems...and this is what sprinters and cyclists do all the time. This is a new paradigm in training for climbing and requires new tools, metrics and approach.

Dana Bartlett wrote: Could you point us towards some of that work? Thanks.

This research looked at the effect of hyperoxia in Critical Power and supercritical Work capacity.

ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository…

Cp can also be impacted by the use of vasoactive mediators such as nitric oxide (beet root juice) as well as the contraction duty cycles - something to consider regarding climbing strategies/efficiency.

There are no published studies on training effects on Cp for the forearm muscles, (which is why I am generating my own data on this) but it is well established for cycling. A quick Google search will bring up programs for improving threshold power and I have used one the programs offered by Training Peaks to improve my cycling threshold power from 220W to 250W (13.6%) over a span of eight weeks.

Rui Ferreira wrote: Cyclists train to improve their Threshold/Critical Power and runners train to improve their Critical Speed...so why should climbers be any different?

Because climbing isn't anything like cycling/running? I understand there's a lot of research in cycling, but I'm sure there are plenty of well studied sports (gymnastics, any fighting sports) that would be much closer to climbing.

Just because distant running & cycling is in vogue around Colorado doesn't make it any more applicable to climbing.

reboot wrote: Because climbing isn't anything like cycling/running? I understand there's a lot of research in cycling, but I'm sure there are plenty of well studied sports (gymnastics, any fighting sports) that would be much closer to climbing. Just because distant running & cycling is in vogue around Colorado doesn't make it any more applicable to climbing.

CP in climbing is difficult to study because there isn't a good measure of power and there isn't a good steady state at which to measure such power. I think gymnastics and fighting sports would be the same.
If you can find good studies related to training in these other sports, please share them!

In terms of muscle physiology there shouldn't be any true differences, even if there are differences between the work involved. Muscles are muscles.

I would argue that most "power endurance" training is actually training aerobic capacity at least as much as it is training anaerobic capacity.

In general I agree on one thing, neither cycling nor running are likely to improve one's climbing.

reboot wrote: Because climbing isn't anything like cycling/running? I understand there's a lot of research in cycling, but I'm sure there are plenty of well studied sports (gymnastics, any fighting sports) that would be much closer to climbing. Just because distant running & cycling is in vogue around Colorado doesn't make it any more applicable to climbing.

It has been said already that cyclists use different tools, but their training principles can be adapted to climbing.

This study has proven that the Critical Power and supercritical Work is valid for the forearm muscles

researchgate.net/publicatio…

I admit that the handgrip test method is not a valid climbing study protocol (McLeod and others have shown that), but never the less we are speaking of the same principles (Power Time curve) that apply to critical running and cycling muscle groups have now been demonstrated to govern the forearm muscles as well.

Furthermore, forearm muscle oxidative capacity is the best indicator of climbing performance based on the work by Fryer, Balas and others. For example

researchgate.net/publicatio…

Additionally Fryer recommends that this is a trainable aspect for climbers.

Having read over 100 research studies in the last months on these topics, I can summarize that the researchers doing work on Critical Power are not interested in climbing and therefore have not addressed this topic directly, whereas the ones researching Climbers performance and in particular forearm oxygen kinetics are not using Critical Power. However the Climbing researchers are basing their investigations on an arbitrary percentage of MVC (maximum voluntary contraction), which has been shown to be a poor research protocol (it could be anaerobic or aerobic...depends on the subject).

Fryer at least has indicated the need to address Critical Power as a metric, so there is hope that a recognized research lab will address this research gap in the near future.

To summarize you can continue to ignore the latest research and where it is headed and do what ever works best for you.

To clarify my OP a little.

I feel that finger strength is my primary physical limiter for climbing harder. I would like to avoid doing things that will inhibit my ability to increase my finger strength, but would also like to maintain other important abilities, like power (i.e. RFD) and power-endurance (i.e. aerobic and anaerobic capacity.)

There is some evidence that training endurance diminishes strength gains from weight lifting (which I would consider similar to strength gains from hangboarding.)
I don't now of any actual data addressing this for climbing.
From the anecdotes so far, I don't think any real conclusions can be drawn.

Whether general aerobic training helps for climbing has actually been studied once, (sorry, don't have the reference at hand.) Supposedly it does, but I find that hard to believe.

There are several studies that look at VO2max climbing and compare it to VO2max running. In general, the subject climbers had VO2max running about 50 and VO2max climbing was only 30-40. So plenty of leeway. I found a masters thesis that showed improvements in VO2max climbing with treadwall training, but honestly don't remember the details. Didn't get close to VO2max running though.

A little digression-
VO2max is limited at one of two possible sites, central (i.e. heart and lungs) or peripheral (i.e. ability of the muscles to take up and use oxygen.) Climbing seems to me to be limited by peripheral factors. Running and cycling are limited by central factors. I think that's why neither really helps climbing, unless your VO2max running is truly sub par.

On the other hand, improving the ability of your climbing related muscles (forearm, shoulder, maybe core) to process oxygen (i.e. improving your aerobic capacity) might be really useful.

Was it Tony Yaniro who said "If you can't do the moves, there is nothing to endure."
You still need enough strength, myofibrils, neuromuscular drive, etc to do the moves, but aerobic capacity is what will keep you doing them.

I would also rephrase Rui's last remark.

You should definitely continue doing whatever works best for you even if that means ignoring the latest research.
However, it's worth examining the research to see if there's something even better.

Mark E Dixon wrote: CP in climbing is difficult to study because there isn't a good measure of power and there isn't a good steady state at which to measure such power.

I disagree and once I have my set-up you will be one of the first to be tested :)

I should be up and running in a couple more weeks. I did a dry run today using the near infrared spectrometer on the flexor digitorum profundus of the right arm using a progressive load protocol with a 5:1 duty cylce and the data is looking promising.

Rui Ferreira wrote: I disagree and once I have my set-up you will be one of the first to be tested :)

Happy to be a guinea pig!

Rui Ferreira wrote: Having read over 100 research studies in the last months on these topics...To summarize you can continue to ignore the latest research

I'll start paying attention to them when they are actually relevant. Haven't seen any yet (not convinced of the ones you've linked at all).

One thing to keep in mind is cyclists & runners are actually mostly cycling & running for training; the world cup level route climbers are climbing for training, not just trying to find out how to training just their forearms. I can guarantee you they won't be moving like they do if that's what they spend most of their time on.

reboot wrote: I'll start paying attention to them when they are actually relevant. Haven't seen any yet (not convinced of the ones you've linked at all).

yep, not surprised

Rui Ferreira wrote: yep, not surprised

Why should you? Considering I'm quite happen w/ my climbing.

Nivel Egres wrote:I would guess that working on the specific weak points would provide better results then trying to optimize power output, unless you are a 5.14 climber. I am genuinely surprised climbing training delves deep into any sport science at the levels that would be considered beginner-intermediate in any other sport

Kind of depends what those weak points are, I guess. In my case, certainly pure finger strength. But it won't do me any good to lose all my power-endurance in the meantime.

As for your other point, every running magazine I've ever opened has an article on "how to train for your first 5k" and seems like plenty of amateur cyclists are getting power meters. I suspect a lot of duffers are practicing their golf shots.

Frankly, climbing seems like a sport better suited to training right from the start. Mostly technique training initially, but also focused physical training to address weaknesses. It's not just starting young that makes the gym kids so good, it's structured training right from the start.

Mark E Dixon wrote: every running magazine I've ever opened has an article on "how to train for your first 5k" and seems like plenty of amateur cyclists are getting power meters.

Yes, those are "training".

Mark E Dixon wrote: I suspect a lot of duffers are practicing their golf shots.

And this is "practicing". Training would be doing wrist curls.

Where does climbing fit in? My own belief is climbing should still be more dominated by practicing and skill acquiring (but then again, I don't have much a training background). A lot of gym kids are so good because they know how to climb (& to their light bodies, finger strength isn't as much an issue).

But to your original question, I haven't noticed too much negative effect to concurrent training, as long as
1) I keep the overall volume equivalent
2) I don't expect my strength gain to progress as fast as a pure strength training regiment.

Nivel

I am not disputing that movement training is a significant component on how to improve in this sport, but the OP question was specific to an aspect of strength training and therefore the above discussions.

Cool thread topic and thanks for starting it Mark.

I have had good luck doing both power as well as pure endurance in the same day, if I am cycling/periodizing.

The idea here is that the body only has a finite number of resources (which can be increased by increasing your metabolism), so it will always choose to optimize those resources to the present/recent circumstances of it's environment. Thus including some power at the beginning of an endurance session will maintain my power (aka the volume of fast twitch muscle fibers) throughout that cycle (thus I can go off bouldering some day, route climbing the next, etc), and any gains are by improvement to my endurance without transferring energy from my power, and vice versa.

Doing this increases my metabolism and requires me to eat more food, and has led to consistent improvement over time on now three separate occasions. It takes a longer rest to recover from the workout (when working endurance, on a every other day schedule I sometimes have to take two days off instead of one, and power becomes an almost mandatory 2 day rest) and training accumulation happens more quickly (and thus so do improvements...), and thus this approach also requires taking several days off from time to time. When working power on this setup, I prefer to blow out on endurance every other workout or so. For power endurance, I usually just work power endurance since it already pushes both the power as well as endurance thresholds.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that in doing this one only seeks to maintain their power or endurance while working on the other one, not make improvements. Also, when I train different systems on different days (which I find logistically more difficult because it makes training really complicated), I just train one thing per day.

Lastly, I do this because this is the way I think is most effective for both growing bigger, better performing muscles, and to drive up the ratio of fast twitch muscle, the presence of which I assume is the strongest predictor of explosive athletic potential, especially for sports like climbing.

I had a different take on Eric's blog post, though I have not seen his entire presentation. My take was that he was trying to say that most climbers are fairly haphazard with their training and end up selling themselves short by a lack of planing. I do not think he is trying to say that concurrent training is bad, I am sure he would feel the Barrow's training plan had a lot of merit. Like anything in life you have to look at the big picture. Sure it might be ideal to train Strength, Power, Power Endurance, and Endurance in separate sessions. If it's in-season and you are only training one day a week to maximize rest then a combination session might just be your magic bullet. Warm-up with a bouldering ladder, do some max hangs, then limit bouldering followed by 4x4's and lots of rest is a great way to top off the tank and stay in sending shape. Not ideal for training any individual system, but good for maintenance. If you listen to the recent Training Beta podcast with the Anderson Brothers you will hear them describing a similar session for in season maintenance. Considering they are pretty die-hard periodization protagonists I think it's worth considering. The important part is the sequencing and keeping the overload progressive.

Kevin Stricker wrote:The important part is ... keeping the overload progressive.

I agree, and the above is my philosophy for keeping the overall environmental load on the body progressively increasing.

I also wanted to add that I find it important to exercise the heart, both through sprint intervals as well as a little bit of just mild cardio. I find intervals once a week and one or two mild rides a week to be about right, with occasionally skipping one or the other on some weeks. It helps tremendously with ones heart rate and therefore ones innately felt stress level when climbing, and I think it helps your body recover faster from workouts when one is in decent cardio shape.

I don't think there's evidence that slow twitch fibers can be converted to fast twitch fibers.
If you have a reference I'd love to see it.