Mountain Project Logo

Yet another hangboard/hyp question

Original Post
TheBirdman Friedman · · Eldorado Springs, Colorado · Joined Jan 2010 · Points: 65

I've been hangboarding about 5 weeks now, sticking pretty closely to the rock prodigy program. I generally hang board and take 2 days completely off. My pattern so far has been workout 1 is a struggle, workout 2 is inconsistent, and workout 3 I experience a spike in performance. Then I add weight and the cycle restarts. I've done 9 workouts so I have experienced 3 of these "spikes". My question is that last weekend I went on a ski trip. Being gone for a few days I had 4 days off between workouts instead of two. I expected it to negatively impact my progress but it was just the opposite. I spiked more than I had with either of the two previous spikes. It seems like the additional rest was taken at the right time.

My question is I know the common logic applied to hangboarding is 6-8 weeks and usually between 8-12 total workouts. That said, if I'm still experiencing gains, should I continue to hangboard or move onto the next phase regardless? I can't tell yet if the gains I experienced the other night are just the result of disciplined hangboarding or the additional rest but my thought is when going through the hangboard cycle, if I start to plateau, can you just take a few additional days of rest and reset yourself so you can continue making gains? I'm sure there is a point of diminishing returns but it seems to make sense to me to stretch the HYP phase as long as my body is still experiencing gains.

Micah Klesick · · Charlotte, NC · Joined Aug 2013 · Points: 3,971

I would say it depends on whether you are planning a goal route the end of all the phases, because you don't want to have to compress the other phases due to extending the hb phase. If not, then keep going for a couple more rounds and see how it goes. Its pretty obvious when you plateau,

Alvaro Arnal · · Aspen, CO · Joined May 2010 · Points: 1,535

If you're still making gains on the hangboard at the end of your planned HYP phase I would say extend it for another few sessions until you notice that you've started to plateau. If things are going well and you're still getting stronger, why leave gains on the table??

That is, of course, unless you've scheduled your training schedule to coincide with a climbing trip and/or goal route. In this case you don't want to sacrifice shortening the other phases; it'll affect your peak.

TheBirdman Friedman · · Eldorado Springs, Colorado · Joined Jan 2010 · Points: 65

No real scheduling component. Just trying to get strong through the winter. I'm inclined to agree that if the gains are coming, keep hanging. I'm just wondering if there is a downside to going longer than 6-8 weeks because it may affect the Power and PE phases that come afterwards.

Alvaro Arnal · · Aspen, CO · Joined May 2010 · Points: 1,535
TheBirdman wrote:No real scheduling component. Just trying to get strong through the winter. I'm inclined to agree that if the gains are coming, keep hanging. I'm just wondering if there is a downside to going longer than 6-8 weeks because it may affect the Power and PE phases that come afterwards.
I thing that the longer you go the more hyper-aware you need to be of declining performance and getting enough rest so that the next phases aren't affected. In an ideal world you would know exactly when you will plateau on the hangboard and move to the next phase right before that. In the real world it might take 1 or 2 not-so-great hangboard workouts to realize that it's time to move on. Once that happens, rest for a couple of days, have fun doing something else, and then hit your power phase hard!
Mark E Dixon · · Possunt, nec posse videntur · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 974
TheBirdman wrote:No real scheduling component. Just trying to get strong through the winter. I'm inclined to agree that if the gains are coming, keep hanging. I'm just wondering if there is a downside to going longer than 6-8 weeks because it may affect the Power and PE phases that come afterwards.
Theoretically, if you stretch out your HB phase, then your gains in power and power endurance from the last cycle will fade more and your eventual peak will not be as balanced.

It all really depends on what your weaknesses are and where your training energy is best applied.

But in practical terms, if you are still getting stronger, AND it's making you a better climber, it'd be pretty hard to stop the hang boarding.

On another question, what did you finally decide about lock offs? I meant to comment on that thread but was never sure I had anything worth adding.
TheBirdman Friedman · · Eldorado Springs, Colorado · Joined Jan 2010 · Points: 65
Mark E Dixon wrote: On another question, what did you finally decide about lock offs? I meant to comment on that thread but was never sure I had anything worth adding.
Mark, your point about putting more time between power and PE phases is well taken. That said, I find power and PE come relatively quickly whereas pure strength is slow and steady. I'm confident I can get my power and PE to where I need it to be in short order (assuming I can avoid injuring myself on the campus board).

As for lock-offs, I decided to incorporate it into my Power Phase. My power phase is basically going to consist of bouldering (to warm up for the campus board), campusing, and then what I'm calling "static power". I know static and power are generally thought of as mutually exclusive, but the "static power" is going to consist of max weight pull-ups (3 reps to failure), weighted lockoffs (similar to a hang board routine, repeater style, except I will have a large hold a foot or two below a bad one and hang with the bulk of my weight on the large hold), one-arm pull-up progressions, and muscle ups. Basically, I'm trying to incorporate body power as opposed to the finger power you focus on with the campus board.

Also, on my two days of rest between hang board sessions, I've been doing very intense core workouts and have made massive gains in core strength. Part of me wonders if the increase in core strength is bleeding over into the hang board and some of my hang board progress is really the result of a stronger core. Good problem to have either way.
Mark E Dixon · · Possunt, nec posse videntur · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 974

Hard to be opposed to being strong!

I have done eccentric one arm pull-ups (ie just the lowering phase done one armed) and thought it helped my lock off strength. Kind of high impact for me though, as I have to really try hard.

Ran into Shumin in the gym the other day and he got me psyched to add offset ring pull-ups to my regimen. Seem more sport specific than some of the other options.

Aerili · · Los Alamos, NM · Joined Mar 2007 · Points: 1,875
TheBirdman wrote:That said, if I'm still experiencing gains, should I continue to hangboard or move onto the next phase regardless? I can't tell yet if the gains I experienced the other night are just the result of disciplined hangboarding or the additional rest but my thought is when going through the hangboard cycle, if I start to plateau, can you just take a few additional days of rest and reset yourself so you can continue making gains? I'm sure there is a point of diminishing returns but it seems to make sense to me to stretch the HYP phase as long as my body is still experiencing gains.
The periodized schedule was not necessarily devised in a manner that meant you will milk every ounce of gain out of every phase.

TheBirdman wrote:My power phase is basically going to consist of bouldering (to warm up for the campus board), campusing, and then what I'm calling "static power". I know static and power are generally thought of as mutually exclusive, but the "static power" is going to consist of max weight pull-ups (3 reps to failure), weighted lockoffs (similar to a hang board routine, repeater style, except I will have a large hold a foot or two below a bad one and hang with the bulk of my weight on the large hold), one-arm pull-up progressions, and muscle ups.
Not only are the terms "static" and "power" generally thought of as mutually exclusive, they in fact are.

Lock-offs are not power training, pure and simple. They are a strength exercise. Therefore misplaced if you really want to follow traditional linear periodization.

On the flip side, the pull ups and muscle ups are not static, so everything is all screwed around in your nomenclature. You can call it what you want in your head, but don't hurt everyone else's brains! (that was a joke...sorta ;))
frankstoneline · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2009 · Points: 30
Aerili wrote: The periodized schedule was not necessarily devised in a manner that meant you will milk every ounce of gain out of every phase. Not only are the terms "static" and "power" generally thought of as mutually exclusive, they in fact are. Lock-offs are not power training, pure and simple. They are a strength exercise. Therefore misplaced if you really want to follow traditional linear periodization. On the flip side, the pull ups and muscle ups are not static, so everything is all screwed around in your nomenclature. You can call it what you want in your head, but don't hurt everyone else's brains! (that was a joke...sorta ;))
This is a wise post. Periodized training works to maximize gains by switching gears before you plateau, thus by waiting till you have stagnated you're too late. That said a week longer in a phase probably isn't too bad but you'll probably see more overall gains by moving on
TheBirdman Friedman · · Eldorado Springs, Colorado · Joined Jan 2010 · Points: 65
Aerili wrote: The periodized schedule was not necessarily devised in a manner that meant you will milk every ounce of gain out of every phase.
This point is well taken. It's pretty much what I was asking in my question; whether maximizing the gains of one phase detracts from the next phase.

Aerili wrote: Not only are the terms "static" and "power" generally thought of as mutually exclusive, they in fact are. Lock-offs are not power training, pure and simple. They are a strength exercise. Therefore misplaced if you really want to follow traditional linear periodization. On the flip side, the pull ups and muscle ups are not static, so everything is all screwed around in your nomenclature. You can call it what you want in your head, but don't hurt everyone else's brains! (that was a joke...sorta ;))
I disagree with what you said here. While there is certainly a semantic argument to be made, I think there is something that falls within the category of "static power". I have always thought of static as non-moving; the primary example being dead hangs. They maximize strength through maximum force applied, but there is no movement involved. I've always though of power as movement strength, ala the campus board. Snatching a small hold quickly after contracting muscles to pull yourself higher and recruiting fast twitch muscles.

"Static power" as I call it is a combination of the two, i.e. the lockoff. The lockoff requires an element of power, because you need to pull up into the "locked off" position. You say a pull-up is a "power" exercise but a lock off is not, despite the fact a lock off requires a pull up to get into that position. Once in that position, it requires an element of static strength to maintain that position, while your hand/foot moves to the next hold. Frankly, when I'm hang boarding, I find it most beneficial not to do any other arm related exercise. Also, since I think there is an element of power to my lock off training, I opted to put it into the power phase as opposed to strength. Further, a hang board session leaves me pretty wrecked whereas a campus workout, it usually feels as if there is something left, especially in my shoulders where the "static power" training really focuses, i.e. muscle ups, one arms, lock off hangs (requiring a pull up to get into position), and weight pull-ups.

Again, I know from a strictly kinesthetic my definitions are not exact, but I think in a climbing context, they make some semblance of sense (maybe?). I think your point about detracting from other phases if I were to maximize HYP makes sense but I disagree that lock-offs are a "pure strength" exercise. They feel more like a hybrid combining requiring both strength and power, hence "static power".
Aerili · · Los Alamos, NM · Joined Mar 2007 · Points: 1,875
TheBirdman wrote:I disagree with what you said here. While there is certainly a semantic argument to be made, I think there is something that falls within the category of "static power".
It's not just semantics, it's physics. Static power exists - in circuits. It is not a term or a "thing" in muscle physiology that I am aware of.

TheBirdman wrote:"Static power" as I call it is a combination of the two, i.e. the lockoff. The lockoff requires an element of power, because you need to pull up into the "locked off" position. You say a pull-up is a "power" exercise but a lock off is not, despite the fact a lock off requires a pull up to get into that position.
I did not say pull-ups are a power exercise. All I said was they are not static.

A pull-up can function on a continuum: it can be strength/endurance, pure strength, or power-oriented. What determines the differences is the intensity, volume, and the speed with which it is performed.

I would argue that a) when getting into a lockoff position, you are unlikely to be designing the single pull-up move associated with each set around power development specifically. Therefore you aren't really training any appreciable amount of power at all. You are, however, training a lot of strength during the lockoff. Which makes sense given that this is the point of your exercise (whether you know it or not).

You can obviously program your training however you wish, depending on what you feel works best for you. But it is good to be clear on the physiological principles at work.
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Training Forum
Post a Reply to "Yet another hangboard/hyp question"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.