Lattice Training Remote assessments- pinpoint your strengths/weaknesses

Tom Randall, one of the WideBoys offers remote assessments of climbing fitness via his website.

latticetraining.com

I hesitated for months but finally decided to have a go.

It's a bit embarrassing, as it's a lot of money to spend ($160) to be told that I'm weak!
But I think it was worthwhile and others may wish to check it out.

You start by sending Tom and his team an email via their website. You will get a reply with paypal instructions. See url above.

This is followed by a pdf with the testing protocols.
Testing requires two days, but less than 60 minutes each day.
You need a harness, a pull-up bar, an 18-21 mm edge to hang from (metolius small rung is 18mm, medium too big at 25mm), with a system to add or subtract weight (e.g. pulley).
Plus a couple of other common items such as a measuring tape.
You will be tired after testing, but can still climb, although maybe not max efforts.

Their site includes the following statement-
Lattice Board testing is only suitable for people whom are uninjured, in excellent physical health and have climbed 5.12/f7a or V5. Climbers under the age of 18 may complete this testing but must first gain written permission from a parent and with the knowledge of their professional coach (if they work with one)

Testing has two main dimensions-
1) various hangs on the board, max hangs and repeaters of different durations/reps.
2) Movement and general strength tests - flexibility and pushup/pullup type tests.

Once done you email the results back. About a week later I received my analysis. They apologized for the delay, as they were out climbing, which makes me think the turn around is often quicker.

The analysis itself runs to 5 pages.

First, mobility and general strength. Pretty straightforward.

Next, finger strength- sadly, this is where I'm sub par. The key test involves one arm hangs and how much weight you need removed or can add, compared to your goal route or bouldering grade.

So far so good. I think Americans will have no trouble understanding the recommendations for these two areas.

Then metabolic analysis-this is where things get a little trickier.
We typically analyze using the concepts of power-endurance, (high and low end), and stamina.
Lattice uses the concepts aerobic power and capacity and anaerobic power and capacity.
I have been converted to their formulation. It makes much more sense and is consistent with the physiology literature. But there isn't a strict 1:1 correspondence between theirs and ours, so be prepared to learn something new.
Alex Barrows has a pdf which helps sort things out.

drive.google.com/file/d/0B-…

But you will probably also benefit from some deeper reading.
A great resource for physiology study-
The Physiology of Training for High Performance

encore.coalliance.org/iii/e…;jsessionid=D137DF23BB5202C4297D3FDDCC657D9D?lang=eng&suite=def

Finally a brief summary of their suggestions about where to best focus your training.

My take?
It's a lot of money to be told something I kind of suspected all along.
But, it has given me the confidence to really focus on finger strength (which is why I keep pestering Peter Beal for suggestions!) even to the point of neglecting other aspects of metabolic training.

Time will tell if this is wise, but no complaints so far.
I just wish it was easier for me to get my fingers stronger!

I exchanged 4-5 emails with the Lattice team after my test, to sort out exactly what the results meant.
I don't know how much of this kind of support they actually consider reasonable, so can't say exactly when they might have said "enough."

They do not provide training advice along with the assessment.
That's up to you, or you can buy into a remote training program of theirs if you wish.

My advice? It's a lot of money. If you have plenty, it seems worth it to me.
If you have the option, it's about the same cost as two sessions with Justen Sjong, and I think most people would get more results from two hours with him. Improving one's mental game unleashes lot of physical power that is otherwise wasted.
But if you want an objective look at those physical weaknesses, so you can really tailor your training, Lattice is a great option.

Thanks Mark! Appreciate the review.

Seems like the assessment is just begging for some sort of "recommendations" or "action plan" summary that would suggest a training regimen, so it's helpful to know that that's NOT included in their assessment.

For now, I think I'll stick to the Barrows gDoc and try to incorporate some of the an/aero cap/power systems into my RCTM periodized routine.

Thanks again!

Dan Austin wrote:Thanks Mark! Appreciate the review. Seems like the assessment is just begging for some sort of "recommendations" or "action plan" summary that would suggest a training regimen, so it's helpful to know that that's NOT included in their assessment. For now, I think I'll stick to the Barrows gDoc and try to incorporate some of the an/aero cap/power systems into my RCTM periodized routine. Thanks again!

Dan, I may not have expressed myself as clearly as I would like.

They will very explicitly outline your strengths and weaknesses wrt finger strength, aerobic power and capacity, anaerobic capacity, flexibility and general strength, etc.
And suggest which areas would be most beneficial to train.

If your aerobic capacity is low, they will tell you so.
What they do no do, is to then tell you something like "your aerobic capacity is relatively low, so you need to do 20 minute intervals at 70% of your climbing VO2max, repeated 3 times, thrice weekly for 6 weeks."

You need to figure out for yourself the best training to address the weaknesses they have uncovered.

Nice summary. It seems to me that figuring out how to train a given weakness is easy, but figuring out what your weaknesses are is hard. Once you know what you need to focus on (finger strength, aero cap, whatever) anyone with two hours and an internet connection can figure out what sorts of training they should do.

JCM wrote:Nice summary. It seems to me that figuring out how to train a given weakness is easy, but figuring out what your weaknesses are is hard. Once you know what you need to focus on (finger strength, aero cap, whatever) anyone with two hours and an internet connection can figure out what sorts of training they should do.

You should give it a try. You are the perfect candidate, a good job, so can afford it; a good job, so not unlimited time to train; already a good climber, so need to train effectively, since progress is harder to come by.

Thanks for posting this Mark. I went as far as to fill out the form and got cold feet on the cost. I too suspected I would simply be told what I already know, but it seems you at least got some data driven confirmation.

Mark E Dixon wrote:Tom Randall, one of the WideBoys offers remote assessments of climbing fitness via his website. latticetraining.com I hesitated for months but finally decided to have a go. It's a bit embarrassing, as it's a lot of money to spend ($160) to be told that I'm weak! But I think it was worthwhile and others may wish to check it out. You start by sending Tom and his team an email via their website. You will get a reply with paypal instructions. See url above. This is followed by a pdf with the testing protocols. Testing requires two days, but less than 60 minutes each day. You need a harness, a pull-up bar, an 18-21 mm edge to hang from (metolius small rung is 18mm, medium too big at 25mm), with a system to add or subtract weight (e.g. pulley). Plus a couple of other common items such as a measuring tape. You will be tired after testing, but can still climb, although maybe not max efforts. Their site includes the following statement- Lattice Board testing is only suitable for people whom are uninjured, in excellent physical health and have climbed 5.12/f7a or V5. Climbers under the age of 18 may complete this testing but must first gain written permission from a parent and with the knowledge of their professional coach (if they work with one) Testing has two main dimensions- 1) various hangs on the board, max hangs and repeaters of different durations/reps. 2) Movement and general strength tests - flexibility and pushup/pullup type tests. Once done you email the results back. About a week later I received my analysis. They apologized for the delay, as they were out climbing, which makes me think the turn around is often quicker. The analysis itself runs to 5 pages. First, mobility and general strength. Pretty straightforward. Next, finger strength- sadly, this is where I'm sub par. The key test involves one arm hangs and how much weight you need removed or can add, compared to your goal route or bouldering grade. So far so good. I think Americans will have no trouble understanding the recommendations for these two areas. Then metabolic analysis-this is where things get a little trickier. We typically analyze using the concepts of power-endurance, (high and low end), and stamina. Lattice uses the concepts aerobic power and capacity and anaerobic power and capacity. I have been converted to their formulation. It makes much more sense and is consistent with the physiology literature. But there isn't a strict 1:1 correspondence between theirs and ours, so be prepared to learn something new. Alex Barrows has a pdf which helps sort things out. drive.google.com/file/d/0B-… But you will probably also benefit from some deeper reading. A great resource for physiology study- The Physiology of Training for High Performance encore.coalliance.org/iii/e…;jsessionid=D137DF23BB5202C4297D3FDDCC657D9D?lang=eng&suite=def Finally a brief summary of their suggestions about where to best focus your training. My take? It's a lot of money to be told something I kind of suspected all along. But, it has given me the confidence to really focus on finger strength (which is why I keep pestering Peter Beal for suggestions!) even to the point of neglecting other aspects of metabolic training. Time will tell if this is wise, but no complaints so far. I just wish it was easier for me to get my fingers stronger! I exchanged 4-5 emails with the Lattice team after my test, to sort out exactly what the results meant. I don't know how much of this kind of support they actually consider reasonable, so can't say exactly when they might have said "enough." They do not provide training advice along with the assessment. That's up to you, or you can buy into a remote training program of theirs if you wish. My advice? It's a lot of money. If you have plenty, it seems worth it to me. If you have the option, it's about the same cost as two sessions with Justen Sjong, and I think most people would get more results from two hours with him. Improving one's mental game unleashes lot of physical power that is otherwise wasted. But if you want an objective look at those physical weaknesses, so you can really tailor your training, Lattice is a great option.

Hi Mark,
Any time you want to talk about finger strength let me know. And thanks for posting this!

evan h wrote:Thanks for posting this Mark. I went as far as to fill out the form and got cold feet on the cost. I too suspected I would simply be told what I already know, but it seems you at least got some data driven confirmation.

There is an advantage to getting an authoritative result.
I feel much more confident restructuring my training based on these results than I did based on my gut instincts. But you may have more self-confidence in these matters than I.

As I analyze my results further, and reflect on my climbing, I have found other surprising knowledge.
For example, my aerobic power is relatively low. I wouldn't have guessed this, but it would explain some of my power endurance and recovery issues.

Unfortunately, this is just as I have begun an anaerobic capacity phase.

But if there's one thing worse than training one's strength, IMHO, it's screwing with a training plan once it's in place.

@Peter- thanks, I'll be in touch, would really value your opinion.
Want to get on some over-rated outdoor climbs one of these weekdays?

Mark,

I am measuring my Medium Metolius campus rungs at 21mm, definitely not close to the 25mm that you indicated.

The Small rungs are 19mm, so I would think that the medium rungs could be used for the Lattice test.

Regarding aerobic power, give my training hold a try even if it is for warm-up or cool-down during your current anaerobic training phase

Rui Ferreira wrote:Mark, I am measuring my Medium Metolius campus rungs at 21mm, definitely not close to the 25mm that you indicated. The Small rungs are 19mm, so I would think that the medium rungs could be used for the Lattice test. Regarding aerobic power, give my training hold a try even if it is for warm-up or cool-down during your current anaerobic training phase

Rui, you must have been sold counterfeits :-)

The Metolius site says the mediums are 25mm and I'm pretty sure that's what mine measure out as, but yours certainly could be different.
metoliusclimbing.com/campus…

If you need a small rung I have an extra somewhere, just lmk.

I only measured one Medium as it is a pain to measure them as mounted on my board. I don't have room for any more rungs but thanks on the offer

Mark E Dixon wrote: Rui, you must have been sold counterfeits :-) The Metolius site says the mediums are 25mm and I'm pretty sure that's what mine measure out as, but yours certainly could be different. metoliusclimbing.com/campus… If you need a small rung I have an extra somewhere, just lmk.

I know for a fact that not all of my metolius rungs of the same size are actually the same size. I don't think that metolius has the greatest quality control on their rung thicknesses.

I just completed a repeat Lattice assessment, so I thought I'd update this thread.

tldr- some changes, still the same price, I recommend it even more highly than I did 16 months ago.

The changes- you still begin with an email, then pay (paypal works fine.)

You receive the testing protocols and a link to a form on which to submit your results.

The max strength hang is now tested in both open and half crimp grips. 

The aerobic and anaerobic tests are then done using a half crimp. 

They may do the aerobic and anaerobic tests with both grips in the future.

The report still arrives promptly.

The result graphics have improved and give a clearer picture of where you stand wrt the broader population of climbers pursuing objectives of similar difficulty.

A brief analysis of whether your objectives are realistic, given your testing results, is a new and welcome addition.

--

My 1st assessment pinpointed finger strength as a weakness. 

As a result, I spent a lot more time on the fingerboard this year. 

My repeat test showed about a 2% improvement. 

Less than I would have liked, but noticeable when climbing.

I also markedly improved my aerobic system and can identify exactly which exercises were causative.

The current results again suggest focusing on finger strength, but with some urgency to find a more effective approach. 

Still working on discovering that!

Surprisingly, I found that my half crimp is much weaker than my open grip. So I will work on that this winter.

--

Overall, knowing precisely where I can best devote my training time is extremely helpful. 

Mark, 

might be that your finger strength is close to its genetic potential if it has been part of your training focus this past year and you have only managed a 2% improvement.  There is always the body weight part of the equation...

Mark E Dixon wrote:

I also markedly improved my aerobic system and can identify exactly which exercises were causative.

I'm curious to hear what exercises worked for you for improving your aerobic system.

What is involved in the mobility portion of the assessment?

@ Rui- I hope I still have some genetic potential, losing weight is hard!

@ Evan H- There are very basic mobility/joint stability tests but Rui can point you to much better resources for that.

@ aikibujin- intervals! I used the treadwall, but it wouldn't be hard to do them on your new board, or at the gym on boulders or routes. 

The keys for me were consistently doing the exercise and strictly regulating rest intervals. 

I have a friend who has done a lot of endurance work on his board, perhaps he will weigh in with tips.

Mark E Dixon wrote:

The current results again suggest focusing on finger strength, but with some urgency to find a more effective approach. 

Still working on discovering that!

Surprisingly, I found that my half crimp is much weaker than my open grip. So I will work on that this winter.

Out of curiosity what protocol/s did you follow last year? Did you keep a lower volume hang board routine going through the climbing season or drop it? Interestingly I can hang ~11% more open than in a half crimp also.

Mark E Dixon wrote:

@ aikibujin- intervals! I used the treadwall, but it wouldn't be hard to do them on your new board, or at the gym on boulders or routes. 

The keys for me were consistently doing the exercise and strictly regulating rest intervals. 

I have a friend who has done a lot of endurance work on his board, perhaps he will weigh in with tips.

What sort of rest/work intervals did you use for aerobic capacity? I.e. 2 min on, 2 min off times 6 reps, etc. And how did you program it in- how many days per week?

I’ve experimented with various types of tread wall intervals also. Interested to hear which version worked for you.

@Rui any mobility/stability tests would be greatly appreciated!

Mark E Dixon wrote:

@ aikibujin- intervals! I used the treadwall, but it wouldn't be hard to do them on your new board, or at the gym on boulders or routes. 

The keys for me were consistently doing the exercise and strictly regulating rest intervals. 

I have a friend who has done a lot of endurance work on his board, perhaps he will weigh in with tips.

I bought a bunch of jugs and have been doing 2 mins on 2 mins off x5 on my wall since last week. It's hard even with jugs! I just received my bag of "performance enhancing drug" from Amazon, it will be interesting to see if I will notice any effects.