Power Endurance which training protocol is your favorite?

Will S wrote:There is a concept colloquially known as "junk mileage". In other words, training at an intensity that serves neither as recovery (too high for that), nor improvement (too low for that). It might be enjoyable, but it serves no particular training purpose other than burning a few calories. Similarly, it serves no particular technique training purpose either...too hard to focus on subtle feedback and experimentation, too easy to require perfect technique to stay on. What I am contending, is that unless you are really weak and out of shape, your using heart rate as a way to target PE (in a climbing context) is putting you in a "junk mileage" situation for those other muscles. I'd suggest that if you desire to train anaerobic endurance in the other muscles (those aside from the forearms) you pick exercises which will target them intensely. Random movements dictated by routes or problems is unlikely to do so.

Obviously you will believe what you want. You're so convinced that your forearms are the only part of you that needs PE training... good luck with that.

I find it amusing that you haven't tried the HR workout but denigrate it all the same. Can you say "closed-minded"? Sure, I knew you could.

And you continue to ignore the physiological and mental aspects of the workout. Can't think up a good argument against them, eh? Or maybe you're just so perfectly fit and mentally strong... except for those forearms of course.

And finally, I don't know what your qualifications are, but that HR routine was designed by one of the most respected climbing coaches in the country.

John Byrnes wrote: convinced that your forearms are the only part of you that needs PE training... good luck with that.

Nope. Not what I said. I said that attempting to train both forearms and all the "other parts" simultaneously, via random climbing movements dictated by the setting, is not likely to be a particularly effective way to do so for those "other parts".

John Byrnes wrote: I find it amusing that you haven't tried the HR workout but denigrate it all the same. Can you say "closed-minded"? Sure, I knew you could.

I have, and do, use HR monitoring in appropriate context, typically when mountain or road biking, trail running, or rowing where my focus is on the cardio system in particular rather than specific musculature. I also offered the example of being able to blast my heart rate doing roofy dynamic bouldering on jugs, an activity that is unlikely to tax anything (other than what the crossfit cult call "work capacity") to a level beyond junk mileage.

John Byrnes wrote: And you continue to ignore the physiological and mental aspects of the workout. Can't think up a good argument against them, eh? Or maybe you're just so perfectly fit and mentally strong... except for those forearms of course.

I actually did address the physiological angle. You apparently didn't grok it, but then you did say you don't know about the theory earlier in the thread, just blindly follow your coaches instruction. What does surprise me, is that at your age, and as an administrator for this site, you're showing your ass on the internet like a 13yo boy hopped up on Mtn Dew, spoiling for a fight.

Nobody requires a HR monitor to develop psych resilience, you'll be plenty challenged in that arena doing interval work without ever knowing your heart rate.

John Byrnes wrote: And finally, I don't know what your qualifications are

No, you don't. Not particularly into spraying, but I will say I've trained several into national caliber athletes, in multiple sports including climbing, and have some competing in the national sport climbing championships this weekend after having my entire collection of athletes advance from the regional level. ALL of them. In other words, not a one-off, not a fluke of a couple of genetically gifted, and not confined to one sport.

So yes, I'll believe what I believe, backed by about three decades of study and practice and both personal and coaching results to show for it. YMMV, my $0.02, etc, etc.

Boys, boys boys!! Play nice, this ain't the Greek debt crisis, after all!!
Personally, i find that if my tankard of beer is large enough, i get all the PE i need. And after a while it stops hurting....!

Will S wrote: So yes, I'll believe what I believe, backed by about three decades of study and practice and both personal and coaching results to show for it. YMMV, my $0.02, etc, etc.

And after those three decades, you've become quite closed-minded. Unable to entertain the idea that there might be other (perhaps better) ways to train PE -- rejecting a new idea without even trying it.

Kicking this back up.

I've been experimenting with feet-on campus training for PE. I like it compared to 4x4 for a couple reasons:

• You don't have to worry about the limited set of target problems being overcrowded and messing up with your timings.
• More precise timing overall.
• I think it's easier to track progress this way. Problems changes, and so does your technic as you beat them to death also changes. Not always obvious what any gains can be attributed to.
• Easier to be specific as to what exactly you train - you can target specific holds (with system board) or rung size (with campus).

However I'm not sure what the rest/effort ratio should be, ideally. For now, I've started doing on large rungs, with feet on and matching on rungs (up & down), climbing to failure. This seems to happen around 1 min of continuous effort. I do 5 reps with 1 min off in between. The length I can stay on varies, usually goes down to about 45 sec around 4/5 rep.

I do 3 series, with 5 min off between series. My thinking is that, as times goes on, my time under stress will increase (as rep stays constant). I could start shortening the rests, or instead of full rest within a serie use larger holds for a shakeout. So total time is about 10-15 minutes of effort (roughly a long route).

I'm feeling intensity might be a little too high - I feel like I should aim at increasing the ratio (in terms of time) of effort/rest.

Others have been doing that? What type of ratios are you looking at for this?

The endurance routine I'm doing is density training:

1. Pick 3-5 boulder problems slightly harder than onsight range. I try to have at least one be a pumpy one on an overhang.
2. Set a timer for 20 minutes.
3. Cycle through the problems as many times as possible in the 20 minutes, slowing down only if I feel my technique is getting sloppy.

If I hit 18-20 problems in 20 minutes, the problems are too easy. If I hit < 10 problems and am falling off, the problems are too hard. If I hit < 10 problems and I'm not falling off, I'm not trying hard enough. :)

I do 2 or 3 20 minute cycles, depending on my mood and soreness levels.

Disclaimer: I'm pretty beginner-y. This has been working for me so I think it's a good beginner routine.

Franck Vee wrote:

Kicking this back up.

I've been experimenting with feet-on campus training for PE. I like it compared to 4x4 for a couple reasons:

• You don't have to worry about the limited set of target problems being overcrowded and messing up with your timings.
• More precise timing overall.
• I think it's easier to track progress this way. Problems changes, and so does your technic as you beat them to death also changes. Not always obvious what any gains can be attributed to.
• Easier to be specific as to what exactly you train - you can target specific holds (with system board) or rung size (with campus).

However I'm not sure what the rest/effort ratio should be, ideally. For now, I've started doing on large rungs, with feet on and matching on rungs (up & down), climbing to failure. This seems to happen around 1 min of continuous effort. I do 5 reps with 1 min off in between. The length I can stay on varies, usually goes down to about 45 sec around 4/5 rep.

I do 3 series, with 5 min off between series. My thinking is that, as times goes on, my time under stress will increase (as rep stays constant). I could start shortening the rests, or instead of full rest within a serie use larger holds for a shakeout. So total time is about 10-15 minutes of effort (roughly a long route).

I'm feeling intensity might be a little too high - I feel like I should aim at increasing the ratio (in terms of time) of effort/rest.

Others have been doing that? What type of ratios are you looking at for this?

I tried foot on campus for PE last year after reading the idea in Alex Barrows pdf on sport climbing training, I liked it for the same reasons you list. The work/rest scheme was different though.

1 minute on
2 minute rest
Repeat for 8 reps.
I was only doing one set (PE wasn't my weakest link).

You should be failing on the last couple reps, when I did fail (chicken wing is failure in my book also) I would stop and leave the clock running. IE if I fail at 40 seconds on the 7th set I now get 160 seconds of rest.

When you can come close to completing the last rep drop the rest time. I went down in 15 second intervals. Was doing 75 second rest intervals within a month. 

I like the difference he makes between Aero Cap & Aero Power. I hadn't thought about Aero cap and how it relates to PE/anaerobic systems. I haven't been climbing lots of routes due to living in NE and my usual partner being injured.

I'm not sure I see the relevence for Aero cap & foot-on campus training. It would be indeed somewhat tedious and I'm not sure I see the point of tracking my progress on that as closely as for more intense training exercises. Just do low-intensity volume, like you would on a off/light climbing day and you'll be fine? For sport climbing, mostly single-pitch, not sure that you need to push this one so far - you mostly need to keep it up (it seems to me).

However for Aero Power, in his terminology, that makes a lot of sense. A couple thoughts related to what he says and my experience with it so far (foot-on campus for PE/Aero Power):

• I like the idea of slightly longer rests, to start with. I was always taught (for other sports) that for this type of exercises, you want roughly equal time rest/effort. However, within a single set (of 5), I'm seeing my maximum time declining noticeably (from 1 min to around 40s). So perhaps I could do 1:30 rest, and cut it down later.
• I think it makes more sense, at least for me right now, to have more than one set, but shorter sets. I think the pay zone is when you start to feel the pump but can still go, so roughly the last half or third of the exercise. That sweet time for me tends to be longer during the first couple reps within a set. So if I want to maximize that time, breaking it into sets makes sense.
• I'm not shaking between moves, but perhaps I should & see how it affects things. I like the idea as well.

I really like to finish off a training with foot-on campusing. It's not finger intensive, so if you're been doing hangs and use larger rungs, you're not adding too much stress on them. It doesn't require much strength or specific muscles groups that you may have been stressing already during your session.

Here is a video of Will Anglin showing a 20 s on / 10 s rest protocol, for 8 reps. 2 min rest, repeat for 6 sets (eventually).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puQPbkwDFyw

I think foot-on campusing would be ideal for this style of workout. I'm not exactly sure what energy system this would be training, Aero Power or Anaero Cap. The 20/10 protocol is becoming pretty popular in the HIIT world for general endurance, but I wonder if it would work for grip endurance. The original Tabata workout involved massive effort to get to 170% of VO2 max during the 20 s work interval, so clearly meant to tax your entire body's cardiovascular system, which is a very different exercise than this.

I've done foot-on campusing for endurance training a couple of times, but only when the gym was so crowded that I couldn't do anything else. Otherwise, I still prefer to use bouldering problems or routes for endurance work. I think you shouldn't stick with just one work-to-rest ratio, but you should vary it especially as your endurance improves. The work duration and intensity should be varied as well, so you're not doing the same 1 min on with x min off all the time.

aikibujin wrote:

I've done foot-less campusing for endurance training a couple of times, but only when the gym was so crowded that I couldn't do anything else. Otherwise, I still prefer to use bouldering problems or routes for endurance work. I think you shouldn't stick with just one work-to-rest ratio, but you should vary it especially as your endurance improves. The work duration and intensity should be varied as well, so you're not doing the same 1 min on with x min off all the time.

Well - if you really mean "the endurance end of power-endurance" kind of thing, then you are stronger than me. If I do foot-less campusing, I'm working on power, not endurance, not even resistance. No way I can sustain effort for very long, even on large rungs.

I don't necessarily intent to stay on the same ratio - the way I see, I would gradually increase the work-to-rest ratio. Both because I would be doing the exercise longer (I'm working until I pump out), and because I would aim at reducing the rest interval once I see I'm not making much more progress at increasing effort time. The goal would then be to maintain effort time, just with a bit less rest. Perhaps do sets of 4, but shorter rest... something like that.

Though you may be right - perhaps I should actually have 2 different work-outs on that model. Maybe one could be more on the model proposed by Alex in his PDF and used by Nike above, with more repetition in a set but just one set, and potentially slightly long rest between reps. Then the other on my model, where I perform more reps total (and more total effort time), but with longer rests between sets.

I'm still convinced of the value of having an easy to perform (non-technical), repeatable and measurable exercise for this however. Since the goal is to train a physiological system, I don't think it necessarily matter as much if I'm training it on actual holds, or on campus rungs, as long as I can stress the system the way I need to. 

Dana Bartlett wrote:

Have you noticed better results varyng the rest intervals? 

Yes. When I'm training aerobic utilization, my aim is to reduce the rest interval while keeping the work duration the same (so increase the work-to-rest ratio). I definitely notice an increased ability to recover, even in a bad stance.

Franck Vee wrote:

Well - if you really mean "the endurance end of power-endurance" kind of thing, then you are stronger than me. If I do foot-less campusing, I'm working on power, not endurance, not even resistance. No way I can sustain effort for very long, even on large rungs.

That was a typo. I meant to say "foot-on campusing". Will fix my post.