Climbing hard at 200+lbs?

Regarding fast vs slow twitch muscles:
1: the ratio of fast to slow twitch muscles is variable in lower body muscles, not so much in the upper body/forearms.  Forearm muscles are predominately slow twitch and it is unlikely to see a significant difference of twitch composition in different athletes. 
2:  slow twitch muscles cells are weaker when compared to the equivalent number of fast twitch cells, but they are also much smaller, by density there is very little difference between the two.

Regarding weight
I always find it interesting that John Dunne is always brought up when people talk about heavier climbers. He also would cut weight as a major part of his performance strategy. In this way, he is an exception to the rule, and he did his very best to weigh as little as possible when it really mattered.

Brother Numsie wrote:

Boulder a lot. Develops both power and more importantly the ability to focus. It is hard to explain, but there is a mental/concentration/desire component to climbing harder. I had a problem at Morrison that took me years to send. The final key was a kind of focus that does not come overnight.

Thanks for the input. I’ve been bouldering a ton lately. To the point where I’m feeling it negatively in my elbows and I’m purposly taking a week off. I’ve basically told myself that I’m not gonna see a huge increase in ability until summer season just based on the fact that it’s gonna take that long for my fingers to catch up strength wise. I’ve also stepped away from the weight room, have been focusing on diet and getting out for runs a couple times a week. Technique wise, is there anything that you guys have had to adapt because of your larger frame? 

Mark Paulson wrote: Sorry, this is just patently false. Not the running part, but the forearm part.  Unless you’re talking about speed climbing, but again, that’s all about leg (and some back) power.  Fast twitch muscle ratios have basically no relation to isometric strength, especially in tiny muscle groups like the forearm muscles.  In sport climbing, the only time a person with a higher ratio of fast twitch muscle would have an advantage would be during huge dynos or extremely dynamic moves.  We’re not talking V15 here.  There are plenty of 13’s at the RRG that don’t have a single move harder than V4 or V5, and can be done entirely statically.  

Sorry, not false. Not everyone can develop the isometric power in proportion to their body weight needed for harder moves. This IS based fundamentally on inherited physiology.

Are there some "endurance" 5.13s they might be able to do with easier moves? Yes. Are they going to do the majority of 5.13s no. Power is Power and it is based on fast twitch fibers.

  Forearm muscles are predominately slow twitch and it is unlikely to see a significant difference of twitch composition in different athletes.

Jon Rhoderick wrote:   Forearm muscles are predominately slow twitch and it is unlikely to see a significant difference of twitch composition in different athletes.

wanna bet?

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

wanna bet?

No. I would like to see your sources though!

Ever notice that at the high end of sports, the build of the athletes is generally very similar?  Gymnasts tend to be small and compact, runners tend to be lanky and lean, shot-putters tend to be thick and stout, defensive linemen tend to be built like a house...

At ~200lbs, the probability of climbing at the extreme end of the spectrum is going to be low. (not impossible, just low).

I have always been somewhere around 200 lbs.  For a long time it was a goal to climb 12a, I have come close, but never quite got it.  Every time I got close I was plagued by injury (pulley tendons, elbow tendonitis, neuroma in the foot, etc.)  
At 200 lbs, finger strength becomes and issue on crimps and other small holds, with gymnastic 'long reach' routes becoming more favorable.  Those 12- thin fingers routes at the Creek are generally going to be be 'tips only'.
Stamina becomes an issue at higher weight, I have seen lighter friends 'rest' on holds I could barely cling to.  

That said, I have to admit  that although I did a ton of climbing and was fairly proficient at whatever grade I could climb, I never did get into any real training program (crossfit, hangboard, or likewise), and it is likely that some sort of cross training would have helped break the barrier.
At the extreme end of sports, the participants generally have a bit of 'mutant' ability that was there long before their training began.

If you are going to spend a lot of time climbing, you had better love it, regardless of whatever your ceiling is.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

Sorry, not false. Not everyone can develop the isometric power in proportion to their body weight needed for harder moves. This IS based fundamentally on inherited physiology.

Are there some "endurance" 5.13s they might be able to do with easier moves? Yes. Are they going to do the majority of 5.13s no. Power is Power and it is based on fast twitch fibers.

You’re betraying a complete lack of understanding here.  “Isometric Power” is literally a direct contradiction, i.e., not a thing.  Power is force x velocity, whereas isometric strength is _by definition_ static. If you can provide a citation or link to -any- study showing a correlation between muscle fiber ratios and isometric strength, I’m all ears.  Meanwhile, I’ve got plenty of examples of folks whose vertical jump could basically be measured in negative numbers who climb 13 all day.

Jon, do you have a citation for the fiber type ratio of forearm muscles?
I looked for that a few years ago and didn’t find much. 

As a fat bastard who likes to flail on hard routes, my experience is that pure endurance routes tend to feel less likely than more bouldery routes. It is easy to ignore the core, but working on core strength can be invaluable. With a weak core, you cannot get weight on your feet. Because if you are fat, you aren't going to be able to hang on for those harder routes with easy moves (endurance routes), you are going to have to learn how to do hard moves, so boulder a bunch. Don't hesitate to work your strengths as well as your weaknesses (because you are never going to be able to hold on to crimps forever like that 130lb 20 year old at the gym, so don't try to climb like that person) and don't forget that the mental aspect of climbing hard is a pretty significant factor. For those of us that suck, 5.13 is unlikely to ever feel solid.

Also, let's stop it with this John Dunne shit. The guy is short (it's been 20+ years since I've seen him, but I remember him being a full head shorter than me), so though he always looked like a pie boy, he didn't weigh that much when he was climbing hard.

Mark Paulson wrote: You’re betraying a complete lack of understanding here.  “Isometric Power” is literally a direct contradiction, i.e., not a thing.  Power is force x velocity, whereas isometric strength is _by definition_ static. If you can provide a citation or link to -any- study showing a correlation between muscle fiber ratios and isometric strength, I’m all ears.  Meanwhile, I’ve got plenty of examples of folks whose vertical jump could basically be measured in negative numbers who climb 13 all day.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6538128

Fast twitch fibers (Type II) have ~double the isometric strength ergo more fast twitch fibers in a muscle group the higher isometric strength that potentially can be developed.

Apologies for any lax use of jargon earlier. Takes me awhile to get my science hat on.

Mark E Dixon wrote: Jon, do you have a citation for the fiber type ratio of forearm muscles?
I looked for that a few years ago and didn’t find much. 

It doesn't have to be done and the risk v. benefit is probably small.

Decades of testing by the sports labs run by the Olympic committees of various players long ago established this fact in every muscle in the human body.

Surely you guys can grasp that Sharma who didn't train for the first 20 years he climbed has a completely different physical makeup (ratio) of muscle fibers inside his forearms than nearly all others?

Believe me, I know having coached Chris the day he first walked into a gym at 12 years old.

That was when it became crystal clear there is always a world class mutant kid out there that has gifts from birth in his forearms the rest of us will never have. He had never climbed anything overhanging in his life and he was campusing the footholds on overhanging 5.11....from birth, his first real climb ever. Every experienced climber in the gym knew they were seeing an outlier with incredible gifts of finger strength.

See Alex Megos or Ashima Shiraishi as current examples.

Or do you really think that 13yo girls that have been climbing for a few years and then sending V14 are just better at training?

Nope. Its gifts from birth found in the forearms.

The idea is not to shut anyone down and say "you can't do this" or anything. The idea is to prevent people from beating their heads against the wall and to enjoy climbing. Its not about numbers, its about classics, the experience and personal challenges wherever you find them.

@OP you need to carefully design your training to maximize your own finger strength while avoiding injury. Needed endurance is relatively easy to do afterwards.

HB.... good post.

I do find it very interesting following the development of climbers from young age.

I recall watching a 5 year old Chris Linder, playing with his trucks in the dirt and having his Mom go “Chris it’s time for you to climb “Pretty Hate Machine”.....

So today we do have second and third generation climbers, people who have pulled down since birth who have different muscle groups and enhanced circulation and nerve patterns.

That’s why we are now looking at 5.16????!!!!

Hot dam

Mark E Dixon wrote: Jon, do you have a citation for the fiber type ratio of forearm muscles?
I looked for that a few years ago and didn’t find much. 

I'm still digging around for free articles, but it's well known in the bodybuilding community, forearm muscles are slow twitch dominant.  

I did find an article that posits that slow twitch fibers have an important role in forearm strength.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1748-1716.1982.tb06983.x
Is muscle structure influenced by genetical or functional factors? A study of three forearm muscles
"Fibre type 1 muscle weight of the ECRB. which cocontracts posturally during gripping, was significantly greater in the right than the left forearm. Weights of type 2 fibres in this muscle were. however, similar in the left and right arm."

We really need more research into grip related isometric training.  How much quad isometric studies is applicable to the forearms?  The whole isometric strength at 20 deg joint angle variance rule that seems to be a major part of finger strength training is completely based on leg strength studies, not fingers.  Same with Tut's article above, which shows that type 2 quad muscle fibres are twice as strong isometrically. 

I don't think we can completely explain variance in climbing ability, with muscle fiber types.  Different bone lengths, muscle attachment points, and neuromuscular abilities are also factors that could explain how someone is a natural climber or an elite climber.  Someone is doing a study about how "finger pulp" is a huge factor in ultimate finger strength.  Then you have the high variability of data in elite climbers (Ondra has approximately 30% weaker fingers than Megos, but it clearly doesn't hold him back at all).  Another Mtn projected posted a video of him doing a one arm mono pull-up and being at his lowest weight possible but was working on 12c's, yet clearly his strength to weight ratio would make most sport climbers drool.  

Obviously starting earlier seems to be a good predictor, and BMI of 18-22, but pretty much any barrier to climbing can be overcome.

Jon Rhoderick wrote:

 but it's well known in the bodybuilding community, forearm muscles are slow twitch dominant.  

There is a lot of false information that is well known in the bodybuilding community.....or any community for that matter.

But I do agree with your other comments.  Tendon insertion points can play a substantial role in strength, and that is completely genetic.  Changing the torque arm length by even a mm or two is huge.  I feel that is why for me, even though I don't lift as often or as hard as many others, doing a double body weight bench press has come relatively easy.  Hard work.....some.  But genetics definitely plays a decent role.

TJ B wrote:

Thanks for the input. I’ve been bouldering a ton lately. To the point where I’m feeling it negatively in my elbows and I’m purposly taking a week off. I’ve basically told myself that I’m not gonna see a huge increase in ability until summer season just based on the fact that it’s gonna take that long for my fingers to catch up strength wise. I’ve also stepped away from the weight room, have been focusing on diet and getting out for runs a couple times a week. Technique wise, is there anything that you guys have had to adapt because of your larger frame? 

My experience was that it took several years to 'harden' my tendons when I first started. You need to allow the muscle and tendon fibers time to heal the microtears formed from a workout. 

Weights always had a negative effect on my climbing. If I had spent some time with them, I found I had dropped a letter grade or 2, which took a couple sessions to regain. But, I never had bad elbow, shoulder or bicep problems either.

Since you live in Denver, I'd suggest you spend time at Morrison. I started out before gyms, so Morrison was a good training spot for me. The Nautilus traverse is a great endurance builder. I got to where I could go one end and back 3 times with no breaks, just some shakeouts. Tree slab has good technique problems. The mantle boulder down below it, and the Black Hole area all have problems that provide first goals to achieve then incorporate into a routine. Morrison really develops your contact strength, hardens your tips and develops crimp strength. 

I also found that twisting into steep routes helps a lot as well. Back stepping, flagging. Big guys have a harder time with high lock offs, this helps with that. 

Eric Carlos wrote:

There is a lot of false information that is well known in the bodybuilding community.....or any community for that matter.

Yeah certainly true. I just wish I could see the references without paying, but there does seem to be several papers about forearm muscle fiber composition that are the basis of this 

Brother Numsie wrote:

My experience was that it took several years to 'harden' my tendons when I first started. You need to allow the muscle and tendon fibers time to heal the microtears formed from a workout. 

Weights always had a negative effect on my climbing. If I had spent some time with them, I found I had dropped a letter grade or 2, which took a couple sessions to regain. But, I never had bad elbow, shoulder or bicep problems either.

Since you live in Denver, I'd suggest you spend time at Morrison. I started out before gyms, so Morrison was a good training spot for me. The Nautilus traverse is a great endurance builder. I got to where I could go one end and back 3 times with no breaks, just some shakeouts. Tree slab has good technique problems. The mantle boulder down below it, and the Black Hole area all have problems that provide first goals to achieve then incorporate into a routine. Morrison really develops your contact strength, hardens your tips and develops crimp strength.

I also found that twisting into steep routes helps a lot as well. Back stepping, flagging. Big guys have a harder time with high lock offs, this helps with that. 

Wow. Morrison boulders. Never looked at that area and it looks amazing. I’m in Lakewood so I’ll definitely be heading up there. Thanks!

I’m just getting the hang of beginner movement technique: keeping weight on my legs, arms straight, etc. I know I’m supposed to grip lightly but that seems impossible at the moment. I think I’m just grasping how to do overhang problems but I have a long way to go with my endurance. I’m just gonna keep trucking with my routine and try not to get discouraged if progress is slow

Jon Rhoderick wrote:

Yeah certainly true. I just wish I could see the references without paying, but there does seem to be several papers about forearm muscle fiber composition that are the basis of this 

Keep in mind that any study on this is going to have limited Power with relatively few actual data points and with athletes that likely have no interest in finger power to weight hence minimally predictive for climbers. All we are assuming is that Type II fibers in quads work the same in other parts of the body.

Conversely, the Sharmas or Shiraishis of the world are clearly outliers (a select elite) in a cohort of hundreds of thousands of actual climbers who all have some interest (self select) for finger strength. What's inside the forearms of these young mutants is more than likely something completely off the charts as they demonstrated before any training. They have also self-selected their ability due to their natural interest in climbing ie have great interest in finger power and get positive feedback for their gifts. It would be more akin to selecting natural world class sprinters only for a study rather than "runners" in general. You'd likely get very different results.

Basically you can't compare a group body builders with climbers and expect the same results in different body types that have gravitated to their chosen sports (ie a sprinter's body does not likely gravitate to marathons via self selection and early success/failure). One sport is all about bulk. Climbing is 95% finger power to weight and the most successful athletes are likely to have different gifts than others that find some other sport more in their wheelhouse.

Climbers literally only need mutant ability in their forearms. Anyone that has hung out with world class climbers can see at a glance something different is going on inside their (relatively) huge forearms. As well, there was some video out there of a body builder with huge forearms getting crushed by a skinny kid who had only been climbing for a year in grip tests. Climbers are different and those naturally gifted have something different in their forearms.

"However, fiber type alone did not determine the performances of the elite athletes. For example, two athletes with similar best times for the 42.2 km marathon distance (approximately 2 hr 18 min) had 50% versus 98% ST muscle fibers. Subsequent work (Foster et al. 1978) revealed that endurance running performance was better related to an athlete's maximal O2 uptake (VO2max; r= −0.84, −0.87, and −0.88 for 1-, 2-, and 6-mile times, respectively). Indeed, while an athlete's muscle fiber type is an important morphological component and is related to several contractile and metabolic properties (see Table 1), other physiological factors (e.g., VO2max, maximal cardiac output, and speed/power output at the lactate threshold) are more likely to determine the upper limits of endurance capacity "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC521732/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329881153_Isometric_training_and_long-term_adaptations_effects_of_muscle_length_intensity_and_intent_A_systematic_review
relationship in strength and endurance are hyperbolic, performance curves are extremely predictable. it's consistent with the other paper, training style has no effect on performance characteristics. everyone fatigues at the same rate.

there doesn't seem to be  'type 1' or 'type 2'. most cells need energy. this comes in either glycolysis or TCA, with most cells using both. most of the studies test the ATP output or test for the presence of specific enzymes related to either glycolysis or TCA. however, this is a byproduct of the specific energy pathways, not an inherent structural difference in muscles.