Concurrent training- avoid?

^^^
I am not referring to any particular studies, more to a general theory of evolution which assumes that environmental stress contributes, which I believe goes all the way back to Lamarck. Here is a recent article for your erudition, however there is nothing about muscle fibers, just evolution broadly: Scientists Seek To Update Evolution

I think one either believes muscles could evolve in ones lifetime, or one does not. I would be curious to see the studies which claim it can't happen: something tells me they are either too short-term, they don't load enough/correctly, or the methods used in the study don't work to train any kind of real athlete. My suggestion, if they did anything else, would be to figure out a way to effectively sample a bunch of high school athletes, and then sample them again years later, trim the sample to people who met a specific criteria in terms of consistency of workout as well as style of workout (so the ones who went professional or pursued something seriously otherwise), and see if there are any differences. If the study does not have that general character, it would not be testing my above stated hypothesis. Something tells me the studies done so far do not test my hypothesis. I would not even be surprised if their method of sampling muscle fiber types, in terms of figuring out ratios for each, is itself seriously suspect.

JNE wrote:^^^ I am not referring to any particular studies, more to a general theory of evolution which assumes that environmental stress contributes, which I believe goes all the way back to Lamarck. Here is a recent article for your erudition, however there is nothing about muscle fibers, just evolution broadly: Scientists Seek To Update Evolution I think one either believes muscles could evolve in ones lifetime, or one does not. I would be curious to see the studies which claim it can't happen: something tells me they are either too short-term, they don't load enough/correctly, or the methods used in the study don't work to train any kind of real athlete. My suggestion, if they did anything else, would be to figure out a way to effectively sample a bunch of high school athletes, and then sample them again years later, trim the sample to people who met a specific criteria in terms of consistency of workout as well as style of workout (so the ones who went professional or pursued something seriously otherwise), and see if there are any differences. If the study does not have that general character, it would not be testing my above stated hypothesis. Something tells me the studies done so far do not test my hypothesis. I would not even be surprised if their method of sampling muscle fiber types, in terms of figuring out ratios for each, is itself seriously suspect.

Hmm, I don' think we will come to an agreement on this issue.
If the only way to falsify your thesis is to insist on studies which are so impractical they can never be accomplished, then you can safely continue to believe whatever you wish. The paper cited below suggests finding an animal model to study the question.

It does seem to be well established that you can increase the relative cross sectional area of fast twitch fibers compared to slow twitch fibers, thereby increasing contraction speed of the entire muscle.

I had thought that a fast to slow conversion didn't occur, but a quick look online tonight suggests there may be change possible in that direction. The study cited below seems more sanguine about long term slow to fast fiber type changes. But I have to admit I haven't finished reading it yet.

Here's a recent review that seems really on point.

researchgate.net/publicatio…

Mark E Dixon wrote:There is some evidence that training endurance and strength in the same session decreases strength gains.

I did not read all of the other posts, so may be repeating what people said. The above is untrue unless

1) your training sessions are too long (60 min +). Exercise is stress. Longer session lead to cortisol production which is catabolic and thus limits muscle gain.
2) you fatigue yourself with endurance training which then limits your effort in strength training. Order should be: warmup, strength training, endurance training.

Other things to consider which are not related to exercise being concurrent or not: recovery and nutrition which is also part of recovery. Muscle fiber damage is caused as a result of strength training. When the fibers heal, you get growth. If you do high intensity strength training, you need at least 48 hours of recovery before you hit those muscles again. If you don't take that time off, you limit growth. Post-exercise protein+simple carbs recovery meals do a lot for muscle gains.

normajean wrote: I did not read all of the other posts, so may be repeating what people said. The above is untrue unless 1) your training sessions are too long (60 min +). Exercise is stress. Longer session lead to cortisol production which is catabolic and thus limits muscle gain. 2) you fatigue yourself with endurance training which then limits your effort in strength training. Order should be: warmup, strength training, endurance training. Other things to consider which are not related to exercise being concurrent or not: recovery and nutrition which is also part of recovery. Muscle fiber damage is caused as a result of strength training. When the fibers heal, you get growth. If you do high intensity strength training, you need at least 48 hours of recovery before you hit those muscles again. If you don't take that time off, you limit growth. Post-exercise protein+simple carbs recovery meals do a lot for muscle gains.

Norma, do you have any data or studies to support your assertion that concurrent training does NOT affect strength gains? Because there is plenty of research support saying it does, at least with some training regimens. None studied for climbing of course.

Here's a meta analysis, for example

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/220…

It seems like anecdotally, so far in this thread most folks think endurance training doesn't impact their climbing related strength training.

Not clear to me if these folks are talking about running/cycling or more climbing specific endurance training such as route laps and 4x4s.

Mark E Dixon wrote:If the only way to falsify your thesis is to insist on studies which are so impractical they can never be accomplished, then you can safely continue to believe whatever you wish.

Hardly the case. What I proposed could be accomplished with relatively very little research money: sample once, design a survey to weed out people who did not meet the criteria for the study and administer this previous to sampling the subjects again a decade or so down the road. Run the t-test and publish the results.

Long term studies in the context of biological/medical studies are quite common, so it is not really an unverifiable idea in any sense of the word. Like in physics, more than anything progress is hindered by a combination of researchers already invested in a given direction, as well as this obnoxious philosophical world-view (poorly supported by any data anywhere) that the world is deterministic.

"God does not play dice."
-Einstein

JNE wrote: Hardly the case. What I proposed could be accomplished with relatively very little research money: sample once, design a survey to weed out people who did not meet the criteria for the study and administer this previous to sampling the subjects again a decade or so down the road. Run the t-test and publish the results. Long term studies in the context of biological/medical studies are quite common, so it is not really an unverifiable idea in any sense of the word. Like in physics, more than anything progress is hindered by a combination of researchers already invested in a given direction, as well as this obnoxious philosophical world-view (poorly supported by any data anywhere) that the world is deterministic. "God does not play dice." -Einstein

Could be done at least in theory. Pick a bunch of high school runners, sample fiber type distribution. Retest in 10-20 years. Would need a very large group to get enough that continued to run both recreationally and professionally.

Could do the same thing with high school weight lifters.

Not going to help me that much!

Anyway, I'm not going to base my training on the hope of changing my fiber type distribution. I just don't want to inhibit strength gains any more than I need to do while maintaining aerobic/anaerobic capacity.

Mark E Dixon wrote: I just don't want to inhibit strength gains any more than I need to do while maintaining aerobic/anaerobic capacity.

+1- The crux of this whole thread.
Me too, just wish there was someone to tell me how. I feel like i am guesstimating.

Mark E Dixon wrote:Anyway, I'm not going to base my training on the hope of changing my fiber type distribution. I just don't want to inhibit strength gains any more than I need to do while maintaining aerobic/anaerobic capacity.

After sometime in the late 30's or early 40's I don't think anyone could make any significant bodily modifications through training, so if I were in your shoes I would not concern myself with this either. I am 35, I have always been biologically young for my age, and so I still apply myself to maximally adapt my genetics, at least for a few more years. Then it will be maintenance and enjoyment for years :)

One of the biggest differences between young and old people is their metabolism i.e. their recovery time, so I would think the most effective thing older climbers who are trying to maintain fitness can do is maintain their metabolisms as much as possible.

JNE wrote: After sometime in the late 30's or early 40's I don't think anyone could make any significant bodily modifications through training,

Depends what you mean by this. Plenty of evidence that older folks can build muscle.

Mark E Dixon wrote: Norma, do you have any data or studies to support your assertion that concurrent training does NOT affect strength gains? Because there is plenty of research support saying it does, at least with some training regimens. None studied for climbing of course. Here's a meta analysis, for example ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/220… It seems like anecdotally, so far in this thread most folks think endurance training doesn't impact their climbing related strength training. Not clear to me if these folks are talking about running/cycling or more climbing specific endurance training such as route laps and 4x4s.

Meta analysis like that are too general to draw any conclusion between cause and affect. Perhaps concurrent endurance training shortens the amount of time or effort of strength training. If you really want to understand why there was an effect, you would need to look at each of the 21 studies they included in the meta analysis. Also, did you read this part or the conclusion:

"Our results indicate that interference effects of endurance training are a factor of the modality, frequency, and duration of the endurance training selected."

Which is kind of what I was saying before regarding shorter workouts and recovery.

normajean wrote: Meta analysis like that are too general to draw any conclusion between cause and affect. Perhaps concurrent endurance training shortens the amount of time or effort of strength training. If you really want to understand why there was an effect, you would need to look at each of the 21 studies they included in the meta analysis. Also, did you read this part or the conclusion: "Our results indicate that interference effects of endurance training are a factor of the modality, frequency, and duration of the endurance training selected." Which is kind of what I was saying before regarding shorter workouts and recovery.

Normajean, please don't get me wrong. I would actually rather discover that there is no concurrent effect in climbing. Would make my training planning easier for sure.

But there is some evidence of the effect. At the moment I can't even access the full article I referenced above, just the abstract. But IIRC, there are definitely studies which show it occurs. The exact mechanism is not so important to me, whether it is on a molecular level or just due to accumulated fatigue or some other process.

I got to thinking about this again after the latest Horst blog in which he discourages concurrent training.
Here's the relevant page-

trainingforclimbing.com/wp-…

My conclusions, fwiw, are -
1) we don't know the answer for climbing
2) I appreciate the folks who have shared their anecdotes, but nothing has been persuasive one way or the other yet
3) it will be hard to experiment on myself and actually get a feel for a result given all the other training variables
4) so I'll try to separate training strength from aerobic/anaerobic capacity when I can, but not give up rest days to do so.

Very interested in this topic.

I'm 50 and have never trained before this year. I made it to 10 .13s a few years into climbing (around 2000-2001). I was mid 30s at that point and I realized that when I rested all week, I could perform much better on the weekends. It was at this time that I did my 1rst .13s.

I always had a baseline of around low .12s. I also did a lot of trad at that point, which really helped with lock off strength.

Forward to now. I took off 5 years off and did NOTHING. When I started climbing again, it was like starting from the beginning. I had no baseline, no core and pretty weak hands and it took about a year to get my 1rst .12a red point. It took another 8-9 months before I could even dog my way up a .13a.

Now I'm entering the world of training. But don't know much about it. I've started hang board training once a week and bouldering once a week. Any more and I feel that I don't recover enough to climb well on the weekends. I do feel that my hand strength has increased in the 4 weeks I've been doing it. But for me, less is more...to a point.

All anecdotal info if it helps at all.

I would really like to know more about recovery (specifically for us who've caught O.L.D.).

Looking forward to more info on this subject.