But why not just climb roofs? That would be most climbing-specific training, wouldn't it? B/c none of the exercises I just mentioned are exactly like the combination of stabilizing the body, twisting it, and making an extension to reach the next hold.

I agree with you, climbing roofs is a very good way to build core strength. I know when I was first starting climbing I hated roofs, mostly because i couldnt keep my core tight enough to cut my feet, move efficiently, etc. Just forcing myself to climb on them did build a good ammount of climbing specific core strength. But, as I have progressed i feel like my core is at a point where simply climbing overhangs does not stress my core to the point where I am consistently getting stronger.

So, I think that at this point it is important to bring in exercises that while may not be as climbing specific as "just climbing" is, are much more effective at stressing your core to the point of failure (bringing gains in strength). Also, you never know whether your progression in climbing is due to your core getting stronger or your technique/ movement skills getting better. I have found that as you progress in climbing you reach a point where gains in technique and movement skills start to have less and less effect on your progression (but I would say that this does not come until you reach a fairly high level).

Ok, this is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I am not trying to say that there is this illusive turning point where all movement training becomes superfluous, there is only a point where you can make bigger gains more quickly by training strength. I am mostly a boulderer, and I have noticed that as moves get harder they often force you into one specific type of beta. For instance, say on a V3 boulder problem you have a number of holds, and numberous differnt betas. Some people find it easier to make lots of moves off smaller holds while others prefer to make bigger moves off the larger holds available. Now think of a V10 boulder problem where there is a blank section of wall with a huge lockoff required to go from one hold to the next. I think that if you dont have the strength required there are two approaches to doing that move. One, you try and try and try until your lockoff strength improves. But (provided you can hold onto the holds) your strength will not increase that fast as you are not directly stressing that one area (your lockoff strength) to failure (because you have your feet taking weight off etc). Now if you went into the gym and committed yourself to training your lockoff you could directly address that one specific weakness without involving any other factors (in this case your feet). Then when your lockoff improved you would probably be able to do the move and it would probably take less time than just trying the move over and over. But, in the end it all comes back to self examination. If you cant hold the holds on the problem then you have no buisness training to do the lockoff, likewise if your technique is so horrible your feet always fall off technique is limiting you, not strength. But I do believe that there are instances where strength training will give you bigger benefits faster than climbing alone will, which I assume that most people in this forum have already realized and that is why they train in the first place.

Harder routes tend to by more dynamic, not less, and so timing and coordination tend to gain importance relative to lock-off strength.

A problem of training lock-off strength in isolation is that, you won't be accurately replicating the body positions and movements used in climbing. A lock-off done on a bar with your feet hanging is different than a lock-off done with the assistance of the feet on the rock, with momentum generated from the pelvis, and ending with latching a hand hold; that is, a lock-off done while climbing.

I suspect that you are falling into the classic error of believing that the reason you fail on moves is that you aren't strong enough, when, in reality, you lack the complex combination of movement skills needed to complete the move. Rather than doing lock-offs to failure, boulder to failure.

Jay

I have noticed that as moves get harder they often force you into one specific type of beta. For instance, say on a V3 boulder problem you have a number of holds, and numberous differnt betas. Some people find it easier to make lots of moves off smaller holds while others prefer to make bigger moves off the larger holds available. Now think of a V10 boulder problem where there is a blank section of wall with a huge lockoff required to go from one hold to the next.

Jay, I think you oversimplify the problem. Perhaps the reason you think that harder routes require more dynamic movement is because you lack the strength to perform the moves statically? As my strength improves through physical conditioning (campus board, weights) I note a definite improvement in static holding power, such that previously dynamic movements become static.

Also, bouldering to failure is a great way to get injured (and not train effectively).

So, I would disagree with you strongly that there are no hard routes that involve lockoffs...

...theoretically any move can be locked off. Thus, by training your lockoffs and becomeing better at them you can lock off those hard moves that others would have to dyno for, and avoid the time consuming process of trying the move over and over again until it is learned.

Also, I think (strictly opinion) that this kind of general strength training will be more beneficial for your climbing in the end as now you have lockoff strength that can be applied to any route...

...if you are simply trying one move to failure...

My view is that if you try enough times you could do any V8, but only when you have trained enough and become strong enough to do them consistently can you truly call yourself a V8 climber, so general strength seems to me to be more applicable to my climbing goals. Do you think that training in such a way as you suggest is really training for strength or training specific moves?

Also, a benefit to training isometrically is it takes less time so you can spend your time on the real rock, which for most of us is precious, sending instead of working moves.

Let's just say that for whatever reason you want to isolate a specific group of muscles and quickly/efficiently increase the "strength" of that group of muscles. Is training to failure the best/quickest way to increase strength? What science is this based on? How exaclty do you define a muscle strength? Contraction strength, isometric hold strength, number of reps you can do before failure? And which one is the element that you need for climbing?

I keep going back to the "feel" of core muscles working while climbing roof, I can feel it very clearly and visualize it right now, and I can't quite figure out anything that isolates those muscles and works them in the same way.

Why would you strive to climb more statically!? This isn't 1970. Dynamic moves are usually (always?) more efficient than static ones.

Let's just say that for whatever reason you want to isolate a specific group of muscles and quickly/efficiently increase the "strength" of that group of muscles. Is training to failure the best/quickest way to increase strength?

I always love reading your posts JT as you, more than 99% of the folks out there in RC.com land, has his sh*t together. But, please share: I've found that generally the hardest thing on many climbs is just stopping and sticking the pro. How have you learned to do the clips on your routes dynamically?

Regards:

Bill

Example: T-Pushups.

Holding two light dumbells, do a standard pushup. At the top of the pushup, lift one hand until you make a T with both of your arms (at the same time, turn your hips to the side). The combination of pressing, twisting, and holding your body as flat as possible creates a great abs workout. These are incredibly taxing due to the number of muscles worked.

Movement training is important, and it takes time to devlop it, but once it is developed to a certain degree the returns that you get out of "just climbing" (i am unsure what movement training as you call it really entails beyond climbing) start diminishing.

We do not master movement skills at one level and then simply apply them at higher levels, our movement skills are constantly developing as we improve and try more difficult climbs. The V10 climber does have a tremendous advantage over the V2 climber in this learning but since the motor demands are so much greater at that level they need it!

Why would you strive to climb more statically!? This isn't 1970. Dynamic moves are usually (always?) more efficient than static ones. Even if you can do a move statically, you save energy by doing it dynamically; and thus, if you can do it dynamically, you should. I'm way more interested in working on my dynamic movement skills than on improving my "static holding power." Every climber I know who does non-climbing-specific strength training climbs too statically ("too" in the sense that they could be climbing higher grades if they learned to climb more dynamically). I suspect that the training reinforces their tendency to climb too statically.


I don't know how you interpreted my "boulder to failure" statement (which, I admit, was a bit glib). You can certainly pick a level to work at, and do problems at that level until you fail at that level. That is not a recipe for improvement, not injury.

Jay

Hey, that's yoga! Side-plank pose :) Want to make it harder? Then lift the top leg perpendicular to the floor once you get into the pose. Or better yet, drop the dumbell and grap your toe with the top hand while streightening the leg.

Overlords mention of Pilates made me feel like Duh, I should have been thinking about that, it is all core work, I should know since I used to teach it... But all this talk about strength training to failure made me not think about Pilates. Still, it is a DIFFERENT kind of core work...

easiest answer there is lift wieghts replace all bench exercises with a swiss ball and use bumbells. This will train all the stabilization you need.

Is that supposed to be English?

Normally I avoid replying directly to your posts, because I think you're kind of an asshole and I'm not really interested in getting into a pissing contest with you. But I have to say something about this comment of yours:

"Why would you strive to climb more statically!? This isn't 1970. Dynamic moves are usually (always?) more efficient than static ones. Even if you can do a move statically, you save energy by doing it dynamically; and thus, if you can do it dynamically, you should. I'm way more interested in working on my dynamic movement skills than on improving my "static holding power." Every climber I know who does non-climbing-specific strength training climbs too statically ("too" in the sense that they could be climbing higher grades if they learned to climb more dynamically). I suspect that the training reinforces their tendency to climb too statically."

I COMPLETELY disagree with that. Certainly, there is a time and a place of dynamic holds and sometimes they are the best move to do. And I do agree with you that if you're climbing repertoire is limited exclusively to static movement, you're not going to advance as far in difficulty of grades. But most of the time, moving statically is better or at least just as good of an option.

And moving dynamically is hardly ever more efficient.

So to me, static movement (as opposed to static holding power) would be knowing how to put the weight on your skeleton as much as possible for the limbs that you aren't currently using and fluidly move to a hold that you can reach without taking any other limbs off of the holds they're resting on.

But I don't think that is a more efficient way to move. My logic: say you're climbing a stair case. Does it take more energy to go up one step at a time or to jump up 3 steps at a time the whole way?

Certainly being dynamic can be a more efficient way of climbing.

I can think of many climbs that it's impossible to be dynamic on because the holds need to be held in a specific way.

Gym climbers (like jt512) can afford to jump between jug holds on easy grades

Certainly being dynamic can be a more efficient way of climbing.

I can think of many climbs that it's impossible to be dynamic on because the holds need to be held in a specific way.

On basic holds you are correct i.e the gym. Routes on complex rock types require specific body positions to be able to hold on in a static position.

As an example I was trying a route at the weekend that would be much harder to cimb in a dynamic fashion. Most of the holds required thumb catches and sprags where you had to learn to hold a static body position to fiddle your fingers into the correct position. A fair amount of core strength was required to get into these positions

..........the crux move was a deadpoint however

On basic holds you are correct i.e the gym. Routes on complex rock types require specific body positions to be able to hold on in a static position.

As an example I was trying a route at the weekend that would be much harder to cimb in a dynamic fashion. Most of the holds required thumb catches and sprags where you had to learn to hold a static body position to fiddle your fingers into the correct position. A fair amount of core strength was required to get into these positions

..........the crux move was a deadpoint however

The route I was trying was 8b. Maybe you should get more mileage on harder routes before you start throwing accusations around.

I don't think that it's the thumb catches that make holding the holds difficult. It's more the fact that lots of foot movements are required between tension moves and if you don't grab the hold in a specific way it feels like 8c.

Dynamic moves are usually (always?) more efficient than static ones. Even if you can do a move statically, you save energy by doing it dynamically; and thus, if you can do it dynamically, you should.

I'm not saying that being dynamic is not a more efficient way of climbing. I said that CERTAIN routes require a more static approach

Interesting discussion, and not surprisingly (to me) I agree with almost everything Jay has written.

I question only one thing here:


I believed this for a while. But the scenarios I experienced and witnessed over and over again challenged this constantly. Question:

Why do better climbers than me do something statically when I thought it should, or even could only be dome dynamically? But then after a time I would find that I could do many of those relatively difficult moves better statically, the very same moves that I thought should, or even could only be dome dynamically! I now feel that there is a cycle in learning, because after a move becomes trivial, it doesn’t seem to matter much which way it is done.

My current thinking:

• Near your difficulty limit, moving dynamically often allows a climber to do moves they would not otherwise be able to do. These moves typically involve long reaches, balance problems, or minimizing time spent on marginal holds. This is not necessarily the most efficient sequence – it is one the climber can do at a loss in efficiency!

• The energy required to do a series of moves perfectly is the same whether performed dynamically or statically

• Dynamic move require more initiating force will more often require more limbs to aid in acceleration – meaning legs and arms.

• Doing moves statically is often leads to more perfect moves and will then be more efficient.

• Every time you over do a move you have to stop any extra motion. That takes more energy. This is certainly more likely to occur when performing a dynamic move.

Back to that trivial move: when a move becomes trivial for a climber, they can execute it almost perfectly (for them) whether they do it statically or dynamically, and you might see a climber do it either way at different times, depending on their mood!

I think we both understand that certain 'moves' require some degree of static control to do correctly. What i was trying to get at is the more adept your fingers are and as your technique improves, the ability to be more dynamic appears.

I pretty much have zero lock-off strength and am pretty bad at 'catching' holds. So a happy medium of small momentum moves and deadpoints is the way I have to play it...

RJ

I think we both understand that certain 'moves' require some degree of static control to do correctly.

Interesting stuff. It's nice to see Ru thinking holds are small.

There seems to be a fair amount of static moves up to the end of evolution. Do you think Steve is climbing them static because a: He's too stong c: He's not stong enough or c: He's saving his deadpoint strength for the crux?

Assessing efficiency has to be evaluated in terms of the entire sequence, not just individual moves

But where it's possible to initiate movement from the lower body and steal a bit of time from gravity with a deadpoint I believe it's more efficient than pulling up and locking.

I'm too lazy to read the whole thread but wanted to mention an exercise I do from a clinic with Francois Legrand...probably not mentioned yet...

Basically, he would deadhang from 2 jugs (or hangboard) and kick up one leg to a really crap distant foothold, then alternate, not dropping to the ground.