|
mindlessroller21
Jul 31, 2007, 9:39 AM
Post #1 of 143
(17132 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 2, 2007
Posts: 24
|
me and my friend were talking today about how beastly strong youd be able to get if you learned how to climb with added weight. I really have no clue what would be a reasonable amount of weight to add. Has anyone ever climbed with added weight? didi it work? how much weight were you adding ?
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Jul 31, 2007, 9:46 AM
Post #2 of 143
(17129 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
well, if you trained with a weighted west, it would change your center of gravity and thus be detrimental to your technique. and i dont think it would really be beneficial anyway; if the holds are too large, move onto smaller holds, if the moves are too easy, remove footholds, make them longer, whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
kirker
Jul 31, 2007, 12:30 PM
Post #3 of 143
(17091 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2006
Posts: 6
|
mindlessroller21 wrote: me and my friend were talking today about how beastly strong youd be able to get if you learned how to climb with added weight. I really have no clue what would be a reasonable amount of weight to add. Has anyone ever climbed with added weight? didi it work? how much weight were you adding ?
You won't have to Learn how to climb if you use antigravity training methods. You'll climb the same as you do without weight its just harder. You can use the weighted belt a diver wears, or like you seid the weighted vests. Start with 5 to 10lbs and feel it out from there. My only suggestion is have good feet, and stay away from crimps.
|
|
|
|
|
bcombs
Jul 31, 2007, 1:45 PM
Post #4 of 143
(17053 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 30
|
Yep, take kirkers word for it, climbing with weights is hard work, but good for grip strength. More details here:
http://www.nicros.com/...ive/HIT_overview.cfm
Note: You definitely do not want to add a bunch of weight then go to your gym and ape around on V0 boulder problems. Start with a small amount of weight, climb slowly and deliberately. Keep your feet under you and try to stay on the wall as long as possible. This may mean linking easier routes together or if you have roped climbing at your gym climb and then downclimb. I know of several hard 13 and 14 climbers that have used this technique to get really strong. Start out slow though.
Hope that helps, be careful.
|
|
|
|
|
demo
Jul 31, 2007, 1:56 PM
Post #5 of 143
(17042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 28, 2005
Posts: 17
|
I actually wanted to post this same question.
In particular, I cannot get outside very often, and am hitting a plateau in the gym (I believe) due to the limited number of routes. I can't seem to climb enough at my current grade to break into the next grade.
My question is whether this sort of hypergravity training would be any more valuable than a combination of hangboard and campusboard workouts (presumably I need some supplemental training)? Does anyone have specific results from this method of training?
|
|
|
|
|
bcombs
Jul 31, 2007, 2:28 PM
Post #6 of 143
(17015 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 30
|
demo wrote: I can't seem to climb enough at my current grade to break into the next grade.
I wonder about this concept alot myself. I have heard many differing opinions on it. Some people say the best way to climb 5.12 is to climb 5.12's while others say climb as many 5.11c/d as you can to get strong. I'm sure someone will weigh in on it, but my personal take is this. If your training for something specific like core strength, or hand strength, etc.. do so at something below your limit and on routes / problems that exagerrate your goal. For example, if you can't climb steep routes but want to, don't get on a 45 degree wall and climb a route at your limit. Instead climb something significantly lower so you can get the technique down. Or, if your training hand strength, don't strap on weights and hit your limit. Go slightly below your limit or go low enough that you still get muscle failure without pain. Now, if your not training, but instead just climbing then climb above your limit sometimes. Get on something hard for you so that you can feel the movement and undertand what it actually takes to climb at that grade. You may surprise yourself and be able to send at that grade already.
Don't get hung up in "I'm not a 5.x climber so I wont even try that". Instead, climb a few below and at your grade. Then once your good and warmed up try something harder. Just my opinion.
Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Jul 31, 2007, 2:54 PM
Post #7 of 143
(16991 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
I use weights sometimes for traversing or systems board. And yeah, you bet it makes climbing MUCH harder. You can read up on hypergravity training for more info.
We have loops of webbing filled with sand or lead pellets-- not sure which -- at the gym. Each one weighs maybe a pound or two. You can sling them across your chest, and pick however many you want-- 2, 4, 6...
There was also a fad at the gym at one point--putting on a chest harness and attaching a 50-pound chain to it. It got harder the farther up you went b/c more of the chain was off the ground and pullling at you. LOL, admittedly it was more of an "impress the heck out of macho guys who flex ginormous biceps and wimp out on tough overhanging 5.8" thing than actual training tool.
However, I find using weights rather useless for actual climbing b/c as overlord said, it changes your gravity center and for me it means that for any sort of bouldery dynamic move on anything overhanging the weights pull me back and off the wall, and the move ends up feeling totally different than without the weights-- I have to "over-swing" and then when I do the same move without weights it comes out all wrong. So I keep the weights for HIT strips and systems wall, etc. --repetitive easy movement rather than anything involving precice body positioning on an actual route/boulder problem.
|
|
|
|
|
demo
Jul 31, 2007, 3:10 PM
Post #8 of 143
(16977 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 28, 2005
Posts: 17
|
In reply to: Some people say the best way to climb 5.12 is to climb 5.12's while others say climb as many 5.11c/d as you can to get strong. I'm sure someone will weigh in on it, but my personal take is this. If your training for something specific like core strength, or hand strength, etc.. do so at something below your limit and on routes / problems that exagerrate your goal.
This advice makes sense, and if I had 100's of routes at my disposal then it would be the route that I would go.
However, I don't have many options, as the gym only offers a handful of routes at each grade. Further, I feel that the benefits of climbing a route below my max grade diminish very quickly as I gain efficiencies and muscle memory. However, the modest gains I get from these lines that I have climbed many times are not pushing me into the higher grades.
So my question is, will adding weight make the gains from more moderate climbs greater. And will this translate into harder climbing once the weight is removed?
Further, in the context of developing strength and power (I want to improve both my contact strength and absolute strength), would the gains with weighted bouldering be greater than with a hangboard/campusboard combination?
Input appreciated!
|
|
|
|
|
ninja_climber
Jul 31, 2007, 3:17 PM
Post #9 of 143
(16966 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2005
Posts: 403
|
You know you could do what I did...you could start climbing when your fat, then lose 15kgs ...its kind of the same thing 
|
|
|
|
|
bcombs
Jul 31, 2007, 3:35 PM
Post #10 of 143
(16945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 30
|
demo wrote: So my question is, will adding weight make the gains from more moderate climbs greater. And will this translate into harder climbing once the weight is removed?
In my opinion, yes. Adding weight to your climbing routine will produce better grip strength and lockoff ability than just climbing the routes alone. Even on routes that you have wired, the extra weight will create more of a workout.
With regards to others posts about technique and balance, I think that maybe the way the weight is being worn has something to do with it. For example if you have some weight hanging from your chest and your leaning back on a steep wall to see the next move, then you throw for it, then yes weight is going to mess up your technique. If you climb slowly, deliberately, under control, with weight I don't think it will affect your technique at all. It may improve it since you really need to concentrate on good foot placement and body positioning. Also, to a certain degree I think it will help with endurance. If you can rest on a pair of jugs and fully recover while weighted you can certainly do it unweighted.
demo, since your gym is limited try some things like:
-Downclimbing (makes it a whole new route  )
-Making your own routes if there is room. If the gym isn't busy make something up. You don't have to track every route. Try getting on a harder route but calling out any feet. Or, make every other move on a harder route and rest in between on jugs.
-Traverse if you can. Traversing can be really fun and difficult. If you have a partner try creating a traverse by addng two moves to it each time. Its fun to try and remember it, and as you get the first moves wired you can go for longer and longer.
Regarding campusing, I think that weight and a campus board may be an injury waiting to happen. Campusing is too explosive to add weight to it (IMO). If your gym offers it though, use it, but without weight. I'm not an expert on it though, so maybe some more experienced people can chime in?
Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Jul 31, 2007, 3:49 PM
Post #11 of 143
(16928 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
lena_chita wrote: However, I find using weights rather useless for actual climbing b/c as overlord said, it changes your gravity center and for me it means that for any sort of bouldery dynamic move on anything overhanging the weights pull me back and off the wall, and the move ends up feeling totally different than without the
This is obviously not ideal. If you are going to use weights keep it to climbs that you can do most of the moves static. Dynamic moves with a weight belt is a good way to get hurt (although it can be done).
I've trained with a weight belt several times, including a three week program this summer before the peak of my climbing season/trips. I did climb better, but was doing other things as well so it's hard to say for certain how much I can equate to the weight belt. Some notes though: as stated, this technique will pretty much only improve your finger strength and should not be used for technique training. Also, some mentioned not training on crimps and I think this is crap. Granted you shouldn't be training on holds that are too small for you but if you want to climb better on crimps then you should train on crimps. After warming up and fooling around on the latest stuff for an hour or so, I used to try to do 10 problems in 20 minutes at or one grade lower then my onsight level with about 15 pounds. I never did problems that I hadn't done without my weight belt (injury saving) and always climbed without my weight belt first to get a significant warmup. I found that my ability to hold on to a crimp become more efficient and comfortable. I will also admit that I started campus training with a weight belt but would not recommend that as the risks almost seem to outweigh the rewards.
(This post was edited by mturner on Jul 31, 2007, 3:50 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
demo
Jul 31, 2007, 3:59 PM
Post #12 of 143
(16906 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 28, 2005
Posts: 17
|
In reply to: Regarding campusing, I think that weight and a campus board may be an injury waiting to happen. Campusing is too explosive to add weight to it (IMO). If your gym offers it though, use it, but without weight. I'm not an expert on it though, so maybe some more experienced people can chime in?
I don't have any intentions of weighting myself for campusing. This was just outlined as a possible reference when describing the gains of weighted bouldering.
Thanks for the responses so far!
|
|
|
|
|
climbordie7
Jul 31, 2007, 4:19 PM
Post #13 of 143
(16882 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2007
Posts: 295
|
for the climbing team I'm on our coaches made us train w/ a 30 lb. weight belt from time to time, and boy was it tough, I mean you try doing an over hang or roof problem with extra weight just pulling you down. traqversing in the gym w/ it was awesome though. you should totally use this method it helps you get stronger and when your are climbing try to make all your movments flow don't jerk around that way you can learn to make your moves more fluid than power. start with a smaller weight though and work your way up so you don't hurt yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
climbordie7
Jul 31, 2007, 4:36 PM
Post #14 of 143
(16866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2007
Posts: 295
|
that wasn't a suggestion to go and climb a roof with a weight belt, my coach did that in the cave and nearly fell on his back, which would have been very bad. just try the traversing thing or toproping.
|
|
|
|
|
climbordie7
Jul 31, 2007, 4:48 PM
Post #16 of 143
(16850 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2007
Posts: 295
|
actually leading souds really dangerous with any kind of weight belt, i wouldn't try that either, i meant toproping ya know like at a gym where the rope is already strung up. imagine how difficult of a time your belayer would have catching you and your extra weight on a lead fall.
the only leading with extra weight that i would do is if the extra weight didn't exceed like 10 lbs. yall are crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
bcombs
Jul 31, 2007, 4:52 PM
Post #17 of 143
(16842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 30
|
Hehe, I took a pretty good sized whipper while my wife was belaying me and I had 20lbs on. For sure you don't want to be leading if what you are wearing for weight is dangling from your neck / chest or whatever. Actually, I agree now that I think about it, no leading!
|
|
|
|
|
climbordie7
Jul 31, 2007, 4:58 PM
Post #18 of 143
(16831 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2007
Posts: 295
|
ahh what a relief that you've come to your senses. now we won't have to start a forum for injuries from weighted leading. lol, happy training
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 4, 2007, 9:56 PM
Post #19 of 143
(16702 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
bcombs and others agreeing with him are wrong. bcombs, you need to cite your scientific journals, otherwise you are just saying what "appears" to make logical sense to you without really understanding what you are talking about. You do not understand what SPECIFICITY OF TRAINING is.
I am actually not trying to pick on anybody (sorry!), but the problem is most people who post about these things really don't know much about biomechanics or neuromuscular firing patterns, so they think, "More weight = harder workout = I will become as stronger, better climber." BUT!
The exercise science literature now evidences that adding resistance to sport specific movements actually DECREASES performance. It has to do NOT with the strength of the muscles, but the way the body fires groups of muscles to perform the movement in the first place.
For instance, we used to train overhead athletes (i.e. anybody who throws or swings overhead, like baseball players, football players, volleyball players, tennis players, and so on) by attaching resistance bands to their throwing arm and pulling against them while they went through their throwing/swinging motion-- usually in increments of slow to normal speed. The thinking went that if you made the throwing motion harder, their muscles would get stronger and they would perform a throw/swing that much more effortlessly and powerfully when unweighted in actual performance.
The science isn't bearing this thinking out, though. The problem is that overhead athletes DON'T throw or swing in a weighted fashion (just as you don't actually climb with weighted vests and belts attached to you when you're working a route or trying to send). And by fucking around with the conditions under which the muscles fire, they found doing these things actually changed the firing pattern of the muscles responsible for the motion. When training the muscles to fire incorrectly over and over, you eventually get an ingrained muscle memory, and when you go to perform the real thing, your performance declines because the muscles fire improperly and your biomechanics become a mess. Dig me? BTW, I use overhead athletes as just an example, but it's been proven in various types of sport specific movements, so climbers can easily be correlated into this group.
"Attempting to duplicate a sport specific movement with unaccustomed movements and loads results in the athlete learning two methods or styles of performance, thus causing a negative transfer. Multiple motor memories adapt, which inevitably leads to confusion. Competitive performance will either suffer or not benefit in any manner as a result." This quote is from this link: http://www.planetfieldhockey.com/PFH/Item-View-2172-41.
Although this isn't a specific study, it was one of the best websites I found to accurately and effectively summarize the actual scientific data as a whole on this topic. Just so the OP and others understand what I'm saying: just because it is about hockey does NOT mean it doesn't apply to climbing; the principles the author is discussing are relevant to ALL sport specific activities.
(This post was edited by aerili on Aug 4, 2007, 10:25 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
PepsiTwist
Aug 5, 2007, 3:04 AM
Post #20 of 143
(16656 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2007
Posts: 26
|
You get on bcombs and everybody elses case for not citing scientific journals, but that website/article you linked wasnt a peer reviewed academic/scientific article from an academic/scientific journal. Therefore the science being quoted in the article is as unfounded as bcombs and everybody else saying what they think makes logical sense.
If nothing else, you did go further by providing sources, but those sources wouldnt be acceptable in the academic/scientific world. Anyways, continue on with the debate.
|
|
|
|
|
lemon_boy
Aug 5, 2007, 4:12 AM
Post #21 of 143
(16642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287
|
another thing that aerlii (and a few others) are forgetting to think about is that when you are climbing outside, you generally will be carrying some extra weight on you. in particular, if you are doing long, sustained trad routes you might be carrying a fairly significant amount of extra weight with you. and, (unless you are a chic), you will most likely be carrying this on a shoulder sling. if you are doing long sustained trad routes that include significant stretches of offwidth, then....
i think training with a weight vest works pretty well, if you use it as a tool and realize its limitations. if you generally climb at a vertical sport area with draws in place, then doing steep bouldering problems with a weight vest probably won't be overly helpful.....
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 6, 2007, 5:45 AM
Post #22 of 143
(16595 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
PepsiTwist wrote: You get on bcombs and everybody elses case for not citing scientific journals, but that website/article you linked wasnt a peer reviewed academic/scientific article from an academic/scientific journal. Therefore the science being quoted in the article is as unfounded as bcombs and everybody else saying what they think makes logical sense. If nothing else, you did go further by providing sources, but those sources wouldnt be acceptable in the academic/scientific world. Anyways, continue on with the debate.
Hey PepsiTwist, if you read my post again, you will notice that I acknowledge this fact. But I can tell you that I used it because it accurately sums up the current scientific evidence AS A WHOLE, so actually what it states ISN'T unfounded. Most of the people posting on here are just saying, "Yeah, this seems to make sense to me so I would say 'yes.'" So their thinking is based on nothing except basically uneducated hunches. But unfortunately it's not the reality.
Despite the fact that link doesn't have individual studies listed, what it says is the current scientific thought on this topic. I know this because I've worked in the strength and conditioning industry for many years; I attend continuing education seminars and this has been espoused by the premier strength coaches and educators in this country for the last 6+ years: people like Mike Boyle, Gray Cook, Juan Carlos Santana, Robb Rogers, etc. These guys base their training on science, not hunches, since they are all employed in the training of athletes, including pro teams. I assure you it's based on plenty of science.
In regard to lemonboy's comment: as for carrying trad racks, etc., hey, I'm a trad climber, but I still wouldn't climb with weighted vests or belts or whatever. In other words, carrying a weighted belt or vest will not mimic carrying a trad rack. This is a negative transfer of skill. A track rack doesn't even come close to weighing the 20+ lbs these guys are carrying in additional weight typically either, but regardless of the amount of weight on a rack, weighted devices worn while climbing will only make you better at climbing with weighted devices. Like I said earlier, it's a matter of understanding neuromuscular firing patterns in muscles. Strength and power gains in sport specific movements are more complicated physiologically than the average climber grasps, I guess.
BTW, girls can carry their rack on a sling just as easily as a guy.
(This post was edited by aerili on Aug 6, 2007, 5:47 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
PepsiTwist
Aug 7, 2007, 5:26 AM
Post #23 of 143
(16502 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2007
Posts: 26
|
I understand and appreciate your expertise in this field. I do not doubt your knowledge, I only question the fact that you really have done little more to substantiate your point of view in comparison to the others in this thread. Case in point in your last thread, you didnt really do much to back up your claims other than name off your credentials and the stances of other people. Though for all I know, those arent the stances of those people, you are just using them to back up your point. You may be interpreting data to fit your own agenda. I am just trying to hold you to the same standard that you are holding everybody else in this thread too. All you have to do is provide specific studies, and it would also be helpful if you ahd some sort of letter to from the scientific community saying this is the held belief, otherwise I am sure there are plenty of experts who would disagree with you. A good case in point is global warming, people like to come out and say that the scientific community and experts agree to the causes of global warming, when that is just not the case. But people throw that out there, and the lay people believe it because the opposition isnt as vocal in having their side heard.
All in all, I really dont doubt your expertise and knowledge in this field, I just want to make sure that you are citing your sources and not making overarching generalizations in a complex science. :)
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 7, 2007, 5:46 PM
Post #24 of 143
(16459 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
PepsiTwist wrote: All in all, I really dont doubt your expertise and knowledge in this field, I just want to make sure that you are citing your sources and not making overarching generalizations in a complex science. :)
I agree, and actually I did look for some studies, but these types of studies in journals like Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise and The Journal of Strength and Conditioning are apparently hard to come by straight off Google (and I tried Googling lots of different combinations of terms). They also require membership to read the articles (I do have membership to the latter, but rc.com people don't). Most of my searches came up with sport specific information that was not related to this topic, so it was tough. I found two studies that were directly related, but decided not to post them in favor of the other site that sums up the general overview instead and which is more understandable to a layperson as well.
You might wonder then where I get my stance on this topic in the first place? For the most part, I rely on major industry conferences wherein experts in the field give seminars on these types of things. (It's the best way to stay on top of things when you don't have time to chase down all the journal articles.) Also, I do read industry mags--they are not the same thing as peer-reviewed journals but summarize the latest information for us from those journals, because, just like medical doctors, nurses, physical therapists, and other health professionals, we have to rely on others in the field who devote their time to these things to fill us in since we can't possibly read and assimilate most of the information that comes out.
I also only cited my background so that readers would understand I am not just some stockbroker/math teacher/attorney/plumber/carpenter or what have you who thinks they are a "fitness expert," heheh. 
|
|
Attachments:
|
EmoticonStudy.gif
(5.87 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
lemon_boy
Aug 7, 2007, 6:12 PM
Post #25 of 143
(16452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287
|
aerili,
i think one of the problems is that these articles focus on extremely sport specific activities, such as throwing, or swinging. in these cases, you are trying to get the exact same motion each time. this has pretty much no relevance to climbing. are there really any routes where you have to repeat the same dyno for 200 feet? i can't think of any. a climber who is climbing at a high level on many types of rock needs the ability to understand how his/her body will move or perform under vastly different situations.
also, these articles tend to be biased towards activities in which going anaerobic, etc has no bearing. when a pitcher gets tired, he gets pulled. in a tennis match, there are very few timew when there are more than 10 volleys, etc. this might be too complicated for someone with many many years of sports physiology, but little climbing experience.
in terms of rack weight, i can think of nearly 20 long offwidths that I have done where the weight of the rack did, indeed, probably approach 20 pounds. to say that climbing with extra weight will doubtlessly ruin your performance is pretty silly. it sounds like the doctor's secretary giving advice, thinking that she is somehow a doctor.
regarding your comments that chicks can rack on a gear sling too, i have to point out that in the extremely few photos that you have of you actually leading, you are wearing the ole' metal skirt. but i guess you are an industry leading expert on that too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
