Sean McColl Training Video

There's a pretty interesting discussion taking place in the comments section.

climbingnarc.com/videos/sea…

Most of the commentary is focused on attacking Douglas Hunter of the Self Coached climber for his comment that Sean's training methodology is ineffective & not based in science.

Personally, I saw nothing wrong with the video. It looked like a normal day of training, featuring a few of the training drills Sean does. He warms up doing some circuits. Does a few lat exercises, some lock offs & does a few core exercises. To me this seems like a session thats part of a greater training program. I would be shocked if Sean only relied on this and did not follow a periodized program.

Most of Hunter's critique is based on Sean's lack of addressing Kinesiology or movement training. Which seems accurate given most of the Self Coached Climber is dedicated to that topic.

So my question to you arm-chair trainers/coaches out there is do you feel movement training is important in a greater routine? Of course this is given that the subject has a wide breath of skill and has many years of experience ( I assume this video was aimed at such an individual).

Personally I do not. I get enough of that just climbing outside 4 days a week at Smith. If you dont do things right out there, you're off. Often times it doesnt matter how strong you are. Combining that with my normal bouldering routines (and well defined periodized program) I see little need for additional training.

What say you?

Lots of people talking past each other there, as per usual on the old intenwebrts.

To address your question about kinesiology & movement training: I would say it's essential to becoming a better climber, though I can't say whether it's important in any individual climber's "program." I think that efficient movement is one of the most overlooked skills in climbing, simply because the best climbers do it without thinking about it, and new/less skilled climbers don't do it well at all because, hey, they top guys/galls don't talk about it.

You say you get all you need from climbing at Smith, which means that you do movement training (though you don't call it that). Cool! It's probably making you a better climber. I don't get outside much due to my job/family life/location, so if I want to get better at moving efficiently and effectively on rock, I have to do the work (training) indoors, which requires more conscientious effort.

On the larger question of whether climbers apply scientific training methods, the answer is a resounding no. Largely because there is no science for them to rely on. But also because the debate/conversation about climbing and training for climbing is suffocating in appeals to authority ("That guy is strong, so he must know what he's doing"). If we want to really learn what makes good training, we have to let go of that fallacy and do the slow, hard work of developing the science.

In the end, though, I'm just some guy who overthinks everything, so what do I know?

Of course I do movement training. I make it a point to seek out routes that do not fit strengths and practice the moves I find difficult over and over again.

I just dont think it's really worthwhile for advanced climbers to spend their time indoors running training drills for movement, given that the real world is so nuanced it's impossible to recreate inside.

^^^The problem I was getting at.

Im totally with you. I think there's a huge issue with correlation with causation with regards to an elite's methodology. For the most part, I really dont want to hear what a naturally high recruiter has to say on the subject, that is unless it's backed by a wealth of knowledge. I've met far too many naturally gifted climbers
exposing backwards/inefficient methods. Often times these people work at gyms because they cannot hack it in the "Pro" scene.

Outside of a couple Spanish trainers and Horst, I've seen no real scientific studies about the issue. All we really have to go on is adopted weight lifting research/Bompa method in concert with anecdotal accounts. What's tragic about all of this is that the people who are best suited at developing a working body of science try to wall this knowledge behind books & online coaching. So all we have is a few individuals who decide to share their method with the rest of us. The smart shopper has to sift through the garbage and cobble together something reasonable and hope for the best.

I think you are viewing a separation between Movement and Strength that should not be there. Strength is only effective if it is applied through the movements specific to your sport. Douglas hits on this point as applied to the "ab" exercises:

"compare the action of the hip joint in the front levers shown in the video as opposed to the action of the hip joint in any number of difficult body tension situations, the joint action is completely different. A front lever tends to hold the hips joints in a static position of slight flexion. In most climbing moves one or both of the hip joints begin in a position of flexion and then extend. So the joint action at the hips in a front lever is dramatically different from that found in actual climbing. Extension and flexion being actions performed by different muscles! The reason for this is that on steep climbs the natural action of gravity in most situations is to flex the hip joint. What climbers need is to train hip extension not hip flexion. "

The Movement exercise of keeping you feet on the wall while ARCing in a steep cave is a Strength exercise because it taxes the muscles in an isometric way. The Strength exercise of lifting your legs while hanging from a hangboard is not a Strength exercise (valuable to climbing) because it taxes the muscles in an isotonic way.
The same principles can be applied to doing pull-ups on slopers. While it may make you strong, it won't make you strong in the way you need to be to climb hard routes. More info here.

Oh hell yes, I agree pull ups are a waste of time. I've done many hard RPs OSs while only able to do 12-15 max. I do enjoy the modified pull up detailed in that link. Im also a big fan of modified off set pullups.

I completely disagree with your assertion that movement has to be coupled with strength training. I know for a fact that myself and countless others have gained a great deal of climbing specific strength via isolation training (Hangboading, campusing, etc).

What Im concerned with this topic is whether movement training is worthwhile in a gym setting (Given a broader program that incorporates structured outside days).

Also, I followed your training program with the SCC authors. Looks like it really worked out well for you. Nice work man.

Are they ever going to publish an analysis?

Brendan N. (grayhghost) wrote:Douglas hits on this point as applied to the "ab" exercises:

I don't understand his criticism: It's an ab exercise (primarily), not a hip exercise. I don't ever recall hip muscle failure as the cause of failure on route (unless it's a box stem). However, I've fallen plenty because my abs gave out. Front lever just happens to be a very strenuous ab exercise, unless somehow the different hip position works the abs in different enough way that does not translate to climbing (which I highly doubt). Give me an ab exercise as hard as a front lever with hip extension & I'd gladly do that instead.

Brendan N. (grayhghost) wrote: The Strength exercise of lifting your legs while hanging from a hangboard is not a Strength exercise (valuable to climbing) because it taxes the muscles in an isotonic way.

I assume it's for the new age bouldering comps where you often have to release one heel & hooking another over your hand (or for that matter, sending Dreamcatcher).

Ryan Palo wrote:I completely disagree with your assertion that movement has to be coupled with strength training. I know for a fact that myself and countless others have gained a great deal of climbing specific strength via isolation training (Hangboading, campusing, etc).

I am also an example of someone who has used the hangboard and campusboard to gain strength. While I don't think movement has to be coupled with strength training to see gains, I think the gains will be more applicable to climbing if you do link them. I understand the pros and cons of both linking and splitting them, and I think linking them will give most people better gains in their outdoor ability.

Ryan Palo wrote:What Im concerned with this topic is whether movement training is worthwhile in a gym setting (Given a broader program that incorporates structured outside days).

I guess I would say yes, since I think all training should be movement training. ARCing should focus on efficient movement, 4x4s should focus on good pumped movement, and power training should focus on explosive movement.
While the gym may feel foreign to a Smith climber, it is a good match to Maple. I may be biased as I can shape my own holds, build my own walls and set my own problems.

Im not sold on the idea that strength training should be tied to movement. How do you determine whether it was the hold or the move that spit you off? How do you increase difficultly without making it too contrived? How do you isolate you target areas? Say what if I wanted to target a specific open handed grip and achieve failure in a few moves?

What Im getting at is that I see systems training/movement training as so unspecific, it is too hard to determine what the failing portion is. All I've ever heard in response to that is,"it's all about quality and effort". No kidding. Everything is about that.

It's already pretty difficult to train contact strength using the traditional methods (Anderson Bros/PRC, etc). It seems adding movement training would get in the way.

As for the gym comment, we have a very nice facility here. I too set. And I credit my success in Maple based on my time in the gym. I cant recall ever seeing a truly difficult crux on any of the routes there. I feel like most areas are not so forgiving with regard to technique.

shuminW wrote: I don't understand his criticism: It's an ab exercise (primarily), not a hip exercise. I don't ever recall hip muscle failure as the cause of failure on route (unless it's a box stem). However, I've fallen plenty because my abs gave out. Front lever just happens to be a very strenuous ab exercise, unless somehow the different hip position works the abs in different enough way that does not translate to climbing (which I highly doubt).

In a dangerously simplified explanation, the hip is the joint, controlled by the ab muscles. The two movements of the hip joint are flexion and extension. Each movement is controlled by different muscles. The front lever exercise stresses the Flexion muscles, while steep climbing stresses the Extension muscles. Your abs give out when your Extension muscles give out.

shuminW wrote: Give me an ab exercise as hard as a front lever with hip extension & I'd gladly do that instead.

Find the steepest cave you can and put a bunch of jugs in it (so you abs fail before your forearms). Put a bunch of crumby feet at the limit of your (leg) reach. Climb in this cave until your abs give out.

shuminW wrote: I assume it's for the new age bouldering comps where you often have to release one heel & hooking another over your hand (or for that matter, sending Dreamcatcher).

I agree, having the strength to swing your feet during a mandatory foot-cut is crucial. The problem with this is that people do a typical 10 boulder problem 'workout' with 50 extension stressors, then hit the weight room and do 200 flexion exercises. When their feet cut during a boulder problem, they double-down on the crunches in the weight room. Dreamcatcher has far fewer foot-cut moves than foot-stick moves.

Ryan Palo wrote:How do you determine whether it was the hold or the move that spit you off?

Find the gym rat who can campus 1-5-9 with a weight vest and see if he can do it.

Ryan Palo wrote:How do you increase difficultly without making it too contrived? How do you isolate you target areas? Say what if I wanted to target a specific open handed grip and achieve failure in a few moves? What Im getting at is that I see systems training/movement training as so unspecific, it is too hard to determine what the failing portion is.

It's true, and scary. We can't quantify climbing success, but if the holds are getting smaller, you are getting stronger. What extremely hard movement training does is get you thinking about the keys to extremely hard movement success. You see that twist in the hip that your friend does that allows him to just barely pull through, you study weight transfer in the hips, you learn how to bicycle on really poor underclings. When you are on the systems wall, the hangboard or the campusboard, you aren't learning to think critically about what determines success in a game of millimeters. You aren't building a library of subtle tweaks.

Brendan N. (grayhghost) wrote: Find the steepest cave you can and put a bunch of jugs in it (so you abs fail before your forearms). Put a bunch of crumby feet at the limit of your (leg) reach. Climb in this cave until your abs give out.

The problem I have with this kind of prescription is that it adds volume to my shoulders/arms/forearms that isn't doing anything to stimulate a training effect in them (aside from some marginal stamina), but I still have to recover from it and it ultimately takes away from the volume I can do in other things that do target those muscles.

It also adds cumulative stress to recover from...not a minor issue when you're 40 years old, working 9hr days in a high stress professional position.

The bottom line question IMO is: Isolate or integrate? In strength training, isolation is the accepted std if you want to maximally stimulate each part of the chain. Otherwise you have a "weakest link" effect where the training of the stronger links is limited by the weakest. For me, I feel like the integration comes through via bouldering, working on project routes, or just general climbing. I don't think limiting the effectiveness of strength training for the sake of more integration is a positive tradeoff. I do love my hangboard, but I also do lots of bouldering. This line of thinking that it should be ALL movement/integrated is, IMO leaving a lot of potential strength gains on the table for the sake of some kind of purity.

My own thinking is, after many years of climbing across a broad variety of styles, I don't gain much by any kind of "movement" practice that isn't on the specific route or rock type in question. Drills in the gym? Basically useless to me, and likely counterproductive...I don't climb on giant blobby footholds outside. I don't climb 30 or 40 degree overhanging, pad deep stuff outside. Bouldering on plastic at my limit does remind me to try hard, to do subtle things like continue pushing through my feet and holding a tight core all the way through the move, and helps with problem solving and being able to visualize a sequence before climbing on it, but hangboarding phases also get me substantially stronger, with way less volume and that allows me to do more volume in other areas. But then again, I don't climb 5.14 either so my thoughts are worth what you paid for them....

In the 1-5-9 example you're referring to a Max Rec exercise. Aimed at awakening dormant muscle fibers. I would argue that is a bit different that an exercise that includes the posterior chain in addition to the upper body. Anyhow, that can be measured quite easily, so Im not sure why you brought it up.

Say hypothetically I found the optimal body position to latch a hold, but was unable to utilize it. What then? I understand strategy when it comes to climbing routes, but frequently it comes down to whether or not you can use the hold.

I think if you're going to seriously tackle training you should already have an eye for complex motion, know how to pace on route, notice subtly , know when to back step, and when to square off. To be able to look at someone climbing and know why they're having an issue and why they're successful. This kinda of training (if you even want to call it that as it lack specificity) appears to be analogous with intermediate climbers.

I prefaced the OP with that in it.

Perhaps this is neither here nor there, but the only people I see climbing very hard V10+ and or 5.13+ do one or more of the following: climb a lot outside (simplified version of both movement and strength), do intervals (4x4s, diamond workouts), or lengthy endurance training (climbing several routes in a row with weight). To me, most failures if you're climbing at a high level come from one main area- the fingers and forearms. Perhaps, to some this will be highly generalized, but rarely do you hear of people complaining about shoulder, bicep, or ab pump. To be a better climber you must put your hands, fingers, and forearms through a high amount of stress or fatigue. Your shoulders, abs, biceps, and legs will all come along for the ride and become stronger/fitter, but what will hold you back is almost always going to be your forearms and fingers.

Ryan Palo wrote: Im not sure why you brought it up.

My point was that if you are wondering if strength or movement is holding you back, you can use a stronger climber to test it.

Ryan Palo wrote:I think if you're going to seriously tackle training you should already have an eye for complex motion, know how to pace on route, notice subtly , know when to back step, and when to square off. To be able to look at someone climbing and know why they're having an issue and why they're successful. This kinda of training (if you even want to call it that as it lack specificity) appears to be analogous with intermediate climbers. I prefaced the OP with that in it.

The idea that learning movement stops at the intermediate climber runs counter to everything I have observed. Dave MacLeod is a great example of an expert climber who never stops trying to understand the nuance of movement.
" an awareness of the problem will help you stay focused on finding a better sequence rather than just blaming weakness all the time"
This is part of Dave's first point about using a hangboard and I feel the same way. Douglas Hunter makes the same point in the SCC climber. Hangboarding isn't bad, it's just not the best.

Pretty sure that post and the SCC is aimed at the audience most likely to use it. Namely intermediate climbers. I mentioned in a previous post that I still critically look at my technique all the time. I think most advanced climbers have a well developed palate for technique. Gains from that point will take place on the rock.

There comes a point where it's more about grabbing a shitty hold and locking it off to your balls. Hence the need to spend more time isolating specific weaknesses.

Even with a "stronger climber" it's not always apparent why YOU failed; not only that, but I cant remember the last time I had a bunch of strong climbers lying around waiting to show me the 1-5-9.

Interesting that this has devolved into an argument about the importance of finger strength vs. technique. Those who climb at areas with powerful cruxes advocate for finger strength, those who don't advocate for technique.

I wonder what the people that climb at both would say ;)

I read the first post from 'douglas' in the comment section. That sounds pretty disrespectful to me. He just has such a preachy tone, and sounds like he's talking down to Sean McColl.

Is it possible that climbing at an elite level is just a lot different, and the SCC guys or whichever other training gurus don't really know what they're talking about?

Hearing comments like that reminds me of the types of things that all these paleo diet guys preach. They talk down to everyone who isnt on their system, and say everybody in their local crossfit gym eats that way, etc....yet, most of the truly elite athletes don't eat that way at all. Team normal diet destroys Team Paleo any day of the week.

There seems to be quite a disconnect from popular training forum wisdom, and what elite climbers actually do.

I feel the same way about the 'Pull ups are a waste of time' blog post. It reeks of self-righteous preaching. The tone I'm hearing is one of "blah blah, theres no scientific basis for this. If you think pullups will help youre an idiot, of course cardio will never help your climbing. Everybody knows that. Why would you think core exercises are good for climbing? Didnt you read the Self Coached Climber? Youre pathetic if you think finishing your session with a few pullups, or pushups like Sean McColl might help your climbing..."

There is just such a disconnect between what the best climbers do and what every guru and forum hero runs their mouth about.

I'm sure Dmitry will be very disappointed to find out that his massive amounts of pullups to train for the 2007 and 2011 bouldering championships(which he won) were complete wastes of his time. Study up on your training forum wisdom, Dmitry! What an idiot!

Pullups help nothing, but JB Tribout could rip out 75 in a set while drunk, and considered 30 pullups on an edge to be his benchmark for being ready to climb 14a. Alex Huber said he thinks most climbers are lacking in general body power, and recommends 1 arm pullups as well as handstands, front lever, and back lever. Boy, Douglas sure would give him a good scolding.

Running is stupid, never helps your climbing...etc....but, Sasha Digiulian(currently the best US sport climber after Sharma?) runs a ton week after week and considers it a huge part of her training, Patxi and Ramon do tons of cardio, Dave Macleod blogs about his 2 hour runs in the mountains...

Sean McColl does pushups and ab exercises, Magnus does a crapload of pushups with his feet in some weird sex swing, then he cools down with 1 arm weighted pullups....

James Litz horses around with a bunch of non-specific triple bodyweight deadlifts, as if that's gonna get him strong.....

These guys are all such IDIOTS! Why havent they read 'the self coached climber'???????? When are they gonna get their act together and stop bumbling around the crag with their pathetic subpar performance? They really DISAPPOINT me!!!!!

Nico Toscani wrote: massive amounts of pullups . . .30 pullups on an edge . . . 1 arm pullups as well as handstands, front lever, and back lever . . . runs a ton week after week . . . tons of cardio . . . pushups and ab exercises . . a crapload of pushups . . . sex swing . . . 1 arm weighted pullups . . . triple bodyweight deadlifts

You hit the nail on the head Nico. Climbing is such a complex sport that any one of a myriad of exercises could be used to "mimic" it. The problem comes when you need to choose how to spend your limited time and energy.
This is where the scant science that has been done about climbing physiology comes in. It cuts through the subjective opinions and shows us that joint angles matter or that isometric is different than isotonic.
There will always be outliers (like the 58 year-old vegan who won the UTMB) but the purpose of general training plans is to bring up the level of the most people possible.

Nico Toscani wrote:There seems to be quite a disconnect from popular training forum wisdom, and what elite climbers actually do.

Interesting theory; certainly worth exploring. It depends somewhat on how you choose to define "elite climbers". Regardless, it is probably mostly true for "elite" American climbers, but I'm not convinced it is true for Europeans.

Aside from a few obvious genetic outliers, which continent would you say is producing the most "elite" climbers? I know that many "elite" Spaniards take their training very seriously, and although they may differ on the finer points, they use many of the same tools discussed here and on other forums (hangboards, campus boards, systems boards and even pullup bars). Much of the stuff we talk about here is derived from the training regimens of Moffat, Moon, Gullich, Tribout, the Hubers and other elite climbers.