|
the_leech
Apr 2, 2009, 5:11 AM
Post #26 of 83
(4146 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2007
Posts: 392
|
chazman07 wrote: I am 6'1" and about 185 lbs. Where is a good stopping point? Where should I cap my weight at for climbing?
205 lbs.
I'm 6'1" and weigh 205.
If you emulate me, you will be fine. I'm nearly perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb
Apr 2, 2009, 5:43 PM
Post #27 of 83
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2004
Posts: 832
|
Interesting point, aerili. I'm not sure I agree but I think it might come down to the meaning of the words recruitment and coordination...I think they are using these words in ways specific to high end climbing situations, perhaps different then the way they are used in lifting and exercise science?
In my limited (but hopefully growing ;) ) experience with hard climbing it seems that as moves become harder and more momentum based my failure mode becomes more negative/eccentric.
Say a problem involves long moves between small edges. For me this usually means I am crimping and getting as high as possible on the lower holds, making a somewhat dynamic move (hopefully a deadpoint but not always possible), catching the upper hold open handed and trying to control any remaining momentum before pulling into a crimp and setting up for the next move.
If I fall off it is almost always because I fail to stick the upper hold/cotroll left over momentum...I touch it but my body starts to slump down and I slide off. I feel that negative training is more specific to this type of recruitment and coordination ... controlling the slump. I know some hard climbers who swear by weighted negatives for similar reasons (they also seem to always mention that injury is very possible in this situation). I don't really have any background in exercise science though so i'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 2, 2009, 5:54 PM
Post #28 of 83
(4114 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
ryanb wrote: Interesting point, aerili. I'm not sure I agree but I think it might come down to the meaning of the words recruitment and coordination...I think they are using these words in ways specific to high end climbing situations, perhaps different then the way they are used in lifting and exercise science? In my limited (but hopefully growing ;) ) experience with hard climbing it seems that as moves become harder and more momentum based my failure mode becomes more negative/eccentric. Say a problem involves long moves between small edges. For me this usually means I am crimping and getting as high as possible on the lower holds, making a somewhat dynamic move (hopefully a deadpoint but not always possible), catching the upper hold open handed and trying to control any remaining momentum before pulling into a crimp and setting up for the next move. If I fall off it is almost always because I fail to stick the upper hold/cotroll left over momentum...I touch it but my body starts to slump down and I slide off. I feel that negative training is more specific to this type of recruitment and coordination ... controlling the slump. I know some hard climbers who swear by weighted negatives for similar reasons (they also seem to always mention that injury is very possible in this situation). I don't really have any background in exercise science though so i'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
You're focusing on totally the wrong the thing. You don't need more eccentric strength. You need to learn to control your dead points better and to maintain body tension at the apex of the move. As usual, the answer isn't in the weight gym; it's in The Self-Coached Climber.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jermanimal
Apr 2, 2009, 6:00 PM
Post #29 of 83
(4107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2007
Posts: 200
|
What are you going to do with strength? Lifting isn't going to increase your grip strength.
Are you lifting for fun or to see improvements climbing?
If you are in the V0-V2 range you need more technique and grip, but hitting the weights is probably not going to help that at all.
Depending on your plan if you are putting on weight, you are probably building muscle mass you don't need to climb better.
Grip strength increase will not really add weight, you should probably focus more on power and endurance. That way you can climb more, increase technique, avoid injury and apply more power to you climbing.
I have seen really good returns doing HIT strips, core exercises and high reps with antagonist muscle groups. Besides, I hate lifting anything other then my own weight.
|
|
|
|
|
kennoyce
Apr 2, 2009, 6:19 PM
Post #30 of 83
(4103 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338
|
I'm just wondering if you are serious or not with this statement:
In reply to: As for weight, I believe it is a function of gravity, not mass.
Just wondering because weight is a force and force is equal to mass times acceleration. Gravity is an acceleration that is constant for all of us earthlings so the only variable is mass making weight a function of mass.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb
Apr 2, 2009, 6:30 PM
Post #31 of 83
(4114 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2004
Posts: 832
|
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Jay, but i'm pretty sure i more finger strength (and/or less weight) to break into the v8's...I've been climbing since I was quite young and my technique is pretty decent. i've worked on the problems i'm thinking of with strong/skilled climbers and seen them campus through sections i finesse my way through. If i don't send in the next month or two maybe i'll check out the self coached climber.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Apr 2, 2009, 8:05 PM
Post #32 of 83
(4101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
ryanb wrote: Interesting point, aerili. I'm not sure I agree but I think it might come down to the meaning of the words recruitment and coordination...I think they are using these words in ways specific to high end climbing situations, perhaps different then the way they are used in lifting and exercise science?
Ryan, the terms "recruitment" and "coordination" are not different for climbing, or high end climbing vs lifting a weight. They are what they are. Lifting your body vs lifting a weight outside your body--no muscles can tell the difference. They just move your skeleton and whatever else is added on.
Climbing of whatever sort must base its training priniciples on exercise science. Exercise science principles hold true across any physical activity. So this thought of yours seems kind of out in left field to me.
Weight training doesn't require the complexity of skill that climbing does, but to state it doesn't require coordination or recruit muscles to work synergistically is just hogwash and tells me Dale and Goddard's view of lifting is very narrow and rather misinformed.
In reply to: I feel that negative training is more specific to this type of recruitment and coordination ... controlling the slump.
You probably do have some eccentric forces happening through the wrists, elbows, and shoulder girdle (and possibly through the feet and calves if your lower body is involved) during movements like that. But I am not sure that large amounts of forced negatives will make this huge difference in a very small, small range of motion that would be typical of trying to stick a hold. I think sticking holds ultimately requires more isometric strength, not eccentric. Not to mention that such eccentric demands still make up a very small percentage of your climbing movements.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Apr 2, 2009, 8:08 PM
Post #33 of 83
(4096 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
kennoyce wrote: I'm just wondering if you are serious or not with this statement: In reply to: As for weight, I believe it is a function of gravity, not mass. Just wondering because weight is a force and force is equal to mass times acceleration. Gravity is an acceleration that is constant for all of us earthlings so the only variable is mass making weight a function of mass.
I see, you are thinking as an earthling, whereas I am thinking like a scientist.
Of course your physics equation is correct, but at the same time, I'm viewing it from the perspective that actually MASS is constant. Gravity is variable depending on where an object is.
|
|
|
|
|
fresh
Apr 2, 2009, 8:42 PM
Post #34 of 83
(4084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2007
Posts: 1199
|
F = m*a
looks like two variables to me.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Apr 2, 2009, 9:18 PM
Post #35 of 83
(4063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
Yes, kenny's "earthling" viewpoint is probably more applicable to this discussion since we ARE talking about mass changes.
Sometimes I forget what the main point was to begin with.... 
|
|
|
|
|
dschultz
Apr 3, 2009, 12:05 AM
Post #36 of 83
(4038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2005
Posts: 40
|
You are absolutely correct that strength isn't completely a function of muscle cross-sectional area. There is plenty of scientific literature to back up your statements about initial strength gains without any increase in cross-sectional area. And, yes, using a quality weight lifting program (including those 45 lb plates) to enhance one's general overall fitness is a good idea for any individual. But, hey, who is the "y'all" in the "most of y'all don't know how?" Did someone drop a "quarter" on your toe or something? This appears to be a "sore" spot for you.
I would be willing to bet that there are many folks in these threads who, like myself, have been a part of some quality athletic conditioning programs.
I appreciate the specificity of your posts and am sure you have a strong knowledge base upon which you are drawing from.
Our original poster will probably find that "sweet spot" in his weight-strength-climbing mix on his own accord. Most of the climbers I know have a pretty good idea where that is for each of them.
Carry on.
|
|
|
|
|
jgill
Apr 3, 2009, 12:25 AM
Post #37 of 83
(4033 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2002
Posts: 653
|
It's a compromise. I was as interested in learning gymnastic stunts a half century ago as you are in weightlifting. I chose to keep at the gymnastic/bodyweight exercises, knowing that the 180-185 pounds (at 6'1.5") I came in at would make some climbing moves harder. In the summers, when I did most of my climbing, I would trim down to the 170s - which was still a tad high, but quite acceptable. I knew that lighter was better for climbing, but was reluctant to trim away muscle that made slow pulls from inverted hang directly to handstand on the rings ("Elevators") possible. That meant a lot, and I really enjoyed the kinaesthetics of gymnastics.
|
|
|
|
|
dschultz
Apr 3, 2009, 1:02 AM
Post #38 of 83
(4021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2005
Posts: 40
|
Well put about the compromise aspect when finding enjoyment from two activities you enjoy doing. |
|
|
|
|
kennoyce
Apr 3, 2009, 6:44 PM
Post #39 of 83
(3986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338
|
In reply to: F = m*a looks like two variables to me.
Not when a is a constant (9.81 m/s^2)
|
|
|
|
|
pulchny93
Apr 9, 2009, 3:06 PM
Post #40 of 83
(3927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2008
Posts: 11
|
It really depends if the weight gain is pure climbing muscle or muscle that will not help you in climbing.
Also if you look at most of the top climbers they will mostly have low body mass but a very high muscle recruitment and strong fingers.
|
|
|
|
|
troutboy
Apr 9, 2009, 4:04 PM
Post #41 of 83
(3914 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2003
Posts: 903
|
aerili wrote: For instance, Dale and Goddard say weight lifting requires minimal technique and no intermuscular coordination. Ha! Spoken like true armchair lifters.
Not that it matters WRT the advice, but Dale AND Goddard are the same person (Dale Goddard). The other author is Udo Neumann.
TS
|
|
|
|
|
boracus
Apr 9, 2009, 5:59 PM
Post #42 of 83
(3898 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 29, 2005
Posts: 70
|
C-
Wow that thread went off in all kinds of directions. Really the one point that everyone sort of skipped past is the fact that you've only been climbing for 6 months.
Simply keep climbing, there are so many adaptations
going on right now that there's pretty much no point in trying to get specific w/ your training. About the only thing you may want to pay attention to is making sure that you give yourself enough time to recover from your climbing sessions since your hands are probably not used to the abuse of climbing and your fingers will most likely be your limiting factor for progress. That and eating so that you don't start gaining extra fat, other than that. Climb have fun and just get more experience until you start to plateau and actually have a few weaknesses to focus/work on improving.
cheers,
BA
|
|
|
|
|
Grizvok
Apr 15, 2009, 5:33 AM
Post #43 of 83
(3814 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2008
Posts: 153
|
angry wrote: If you're just screwing around on the rocks, don't worry. If you want to really climb hard, you could probably drop to 165. The guys that say weight doesn't matter generally have never been light so they really don't know. They then back it by citing 2 heavier guys who climb really hard and aren't light. They forget to mention the couple hundred at a similar level who are light.
Probably the best post in this thread by far.
Weight makes a HUGE difference in your climbing ability. Personally I am 6'1 and in the 155-160 lbs range and find that being at a lighter weight offers many advantages BUT you must understand that adding a few lbs of the right muscles (this is a generalization stating that increased strength at least causes SOME hypertrophy) may increase your strength to weight ratio by a good bit.
My "plan" is to add a few lbs of muscle over the next month and a half by focusing on a large drawn out strength training phase focusing on bouldering/finger rolls/hypergravity finger board training. When I get to that point of 6'1'' and 160 lbs @ 7% bodyfat I will be in my optimal climbing zone I believe, the perfect balance between a low weight and maximal strength.
|
|
|
|
|
rocknrock
Apr 15, 2009, 9:26 PM
Post #44 of 83
(3781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2009
Posts: 34
|
I'm 6' 155 avg lbs, fluctuates from 151 - 160 depending on if I do more climbing, or more weights and mountain biking respectively. My body fat stays pretty much pegged in the 5.0 or 5.x range regardless.
Can't say I notice any difference in my climbing going either way.
It's interesting I see a guys who are way out of shape, sort of your average dude 15% body fat or something bit flabby? Who can sometime send stuff with ease that I can't so.
I think you have to target your biggest weaknesses the most whatever it is. For me that would be movement and technique i think.
For the aforementioned type guys, they'd probably do better to work on fitness.
but yeh i' wonder specifically about your question a lot too. so far I think I"ll keep hitting the gym unless I plateau or some such.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Apr 15, 2009, 9:50 PM
Post #45 of 83
(3770 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
kennoyce wrote: In reply to: F = m*a looks like two variables to me. Not when a is a constant (9.81 m/s^2)
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Apr 15, 2009, 9:50 PM
Post #46 of 83
(3768 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
troutboy wrote: aerili wrote: For instance, Dale and Goddard say weight lifting requires minimal technique and no intermuscular coordination. Ha! Spoken like true armchair lifters. Not that it matters WRT the advice, but Dale AND Goddard are the same person (Dale Goddard). The other author is Udo Neumann. TS
|
|
|
|
|
Alphaboth
May 8, 2009, 1:55 AM
Post #47 of 83
(3661 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2008
Posts: 116
|
Some people believe that there is an optimal wieght vs. hieght ratio for climbing. I've gotten sucked into this lately and tried to get down to 165 from 175, while maintaining muscle. It's difficult. It's easy to run and bike a lot to lose those 10lbs, but then your increasing the wrong muscles for climbing. I'm 6'1" as well and I would recommend trying to get down to 170.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 8, 2009, 2:17 AM
Post #48 of 83
(3658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
Climbing_Pink wrote: I'm a personal trainer and make sure if you're looking for strength gains you're lifting really high rate at low reps (4-8) for 3-4 sets.
So that means lifting it really fast?
|
|
|
|
|
Grizvok
May 8, 2009, 5:11 AM
Post #49 of 83
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2008
Posts: 153
|
shockabuku wrote: Climbing_Pink wrote: I'm a personal trainer and make sure if you're looking for strength gains you're lifting really high rate at low reps (4-8) for 3-4 sets. So that means lifting it really fast?
Optimum strength gains are seen in the lower rep range 5-8 maybe even lower. There's a reason that tons of Olympic and Power lifters work to increase their maxes using sets of heavy triples. I would call this the sweet spot ALTHOUGH I'm a huge fan of periodization especially when it comes to lifting, so do yourself a favor and change rep/set schemes every month or two.
Climbing Pink, I'm not really sure what you mean by "really high rate." Are you referring to the rests between sets? Because when focusing on a strength based routine with heavy weight you want LONGER rest periods not shorter.
I'm also disappointed in how many people are shunning weight training as a way to become a better climber. It's ridiculous. A GOOD program with GOOD nutrition will produce REAL results on the rock.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 8, 2009, 6:04 AM
Post #50 of 83
(3636 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Grizvok wrote: I'm also disappointed in how many people are shunning weight training as a way to become a better climber. It's ridiculous. A GOOD program with GOOD nutrition will produce REAL results on the rock.
Prove it.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
