|
|
|
|
norclimb
Aug 30, 2005, 11:07 AM
Post #1 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 30, 2005
Posts: 7
|
Hi everyone
I've been climbing for a couple of years now, but due to a number of factors I'm still stuck at 5.10-5.11 level. My guess it that it has a lot to do with everything from lack of talent to some periods on and off training.
Anyway. I've given my self a deadline until Christmas to see some reel improvements in my climbing. After reading a lot in Horst "Training for climbing" I've decided to try his 4-3-2-1 cycle. The first 4 weeks are "endurance". Well, several places in his books he concludes that endurance really doesn't do your climbing much good. This makes me wonder if I should just skip this part... I also have trouble finding some relevant ways to train endurance (especially when bouldering).
So to the question: Have many of you experienced significant gains by using this cycle? What did you focus on during the endurance part of the cycle?
The more specific the better! :D
|
|
|
|
|
elepita
Aug 30, 2005, 11:26 AM
Post #2 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 23, 2005
Posts: 160
|
My 2 cents...You should be proud that after 2 years you are climbing 10s and 11s already. But let me ask you: Is this sport or trad or what? Do you consistently climb 10s and 11s in sport and trad? in crack and face climbing? In granite, limestone or conglomerate, etc? If you do, owo! I donīt think you should be worried about your talents, you are really good. Now, if you donīt I would say donīt worry about the endurance, try different types of climbing, it will help your technique enormously, which ultimately will make you a better climber for the harder grades. I donīt climb super hard myself, but by listening to good climbers and trying hard routes myself on TR I have got to the conclusion that once you reach a certain level, you cannot pull any more, it is all technique. I would say as well that endurance of course is very important, so you should train it, but be careful over training it:
- First, you could injure yourself, remember that tendons and ligaments grow slower than muscle does.
-If you get super strong in a very short period of time when you climb you could unconciously depend on your strength and forget about your technique, and this is not the best I think.
Anyway, good luck and hope my advice was good to you! Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
shear
Aug 30, 2005, 11:43 AM
Post #3 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2004
Posts: 350
|
for me...endurance is a huge thing. i boulder a lot...but love routes more so than bouldering. but when it comes to routes, i can pull all the moves, its just the pump that keeps me from sending without a fall. so 3x a week ive been doing 4x4's and i have seen a HUGE jump in my route climbing. example: i went to rumney, got on this route that was well within my ability move wise, and pumped out in the middle. so the next 2 weeks i did 4x4's and climbed lots of routes 2 grades below my onsight level....then went back to rumney, got back on this route and sent it without even a mild pump in my forearms.
incase you dont know what 4x4's are:
pick out 3 boulder problems in the gym, the first one youll do should be 2 grades below your level, then the next one 1 grade, and the last being at your onsight level. so lets say you have a V4, V5, and a V6.
so the first set you do the V4 4x with a minute rest in between each burn. once you complete the 4x you take a 10 min rest...then do the same for the V5 and then the V6 as well.
also be sure you warm up really well and rest 10 minutes before you even start the 4x4's.
then at the end i always do 100 moves: just 100 easy moves in your bouldering cave continuously....all on big jugs preferably.
hope this helps.... 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
horst
Aug 30, 2005, 12:38 PM
Post #4 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2004
Posts: 19
|
Hello NorClimb,
Since I wrote the book, let me respond with a brief note. First, let me point out that I never say that "training endurance isn't all that important"...I think the closest thing I say to that is something like...excessive running and aerobic activity isn't the best investment of training time. Furthermore, I do stress the importance of training anaerobic endurance (which is what most climbers are talking about when they use the word "endurance").
Thus, you must be more specific as to what you mean by "endurance": stamina to climb a very long route (or many routes) at moderate intensity, OR anaerobic endurance (often called "power endurance") which is your ability to sustain high intensity climbing for a few minutes (as in a severe sport route). Different strategies are needed to train these two different modes of endurance.
As a general overview, I've tried to express (in my books) that in the formative stage of learning it's most important to climb a lot; this is the only way you'll develop climbing skill, efficient movement, strategy, and base climbing strength/endurance. Some supplemental aerobic training will enhance stamina and improve recovery ability somewhat. As you refine your climbing ability, there will be increasing need for targeted training. That's where the 4-3-2-1 can come in handy. The 4 weeks called "endurance" is all about climbing a lot, further developing skills, and gaining stamina on the rock. The 3 weeks targets maximum strength with harder bouldering and similar exercises, while the 2 weeks focuses on anaerobic endurance with interval wall training. The final (1) week is rest, before repeating the cycle. There are numerous (similar) longer training cycles that have been publicized, but I prefer a shorter cycle since keeps things "fresh" (mentally).
Hope this helps a little. Also, I encourage you to engage a climbing coach who can work with you to identify your true constraints and help develop an effective program.
Regards,
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Aug 30, 2005, 1:08 PM
Post #5 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
its not that endurance doesnt do any good for your (sport and bouldering, trad is a different ballpark) climbing. its just not as important as power endurance and strength.
and like horst said you basicly improve your technique during that phase. you cant really work on your technique when pulling moves at your limit. and it allows you to stay on the rock (or plastic) longer, enabling you to maximze the effects of your regime.
|
|
|
|
|
jkarns
Aug 30, 2005, 1:16 PM
Post #6 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
In reply to: its not that endurance doesnt do any good for your (sport and bouldering, trad is a different ballpark) climbing. its just not as important as power endurance and strength..
Ever go sport climbing at a little place called the Red River Gorge? I think that this is very location dependent. There are certainly sport areas that are mostly endurance climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
mr8615
Aug 30, 2005, 1:28 PM
Post #7 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 1032
|
In reply to: In reply to: its not that endurance doesnt do any good for your (sport and bouldering, trad is a different ballpark) climbing. its just not as important as power endurance and strength.. Ever go sport climbing at a little place called the Red River Gorge? I think that this is very location dependent. There are certainly sport areas that are mostly endurance climbing.
Thus the difference between 'power (anaerobic) endurance' and aerobic endurance, I'd say the Red requires more power endurance than aerobic endurance.
|
|
|
|
|
jkarns
Aug 30, 2005, 1:37 PM
Post #8 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: its not that endurance doesnt do any good for your (sport and bouldering, trad is a different ballpark) climbing. its just not as important as power endurance and strength.. Ever go sport climbing at a little place called the Red River Gorge? I think that this is very location dependent. There are certainly sport areas that are mostly endurance climbing. Thus the difference between 'power (anaerobic) endurance' and aerobic endurance, I'd say the Red requires more power endurance than aerobic endurance.
I would disagree, but of course we are each entitled to our opinions. I find many of the routes there to have no crux in paricular. Rather, they tend to be 70 feet of sustained climbing. I personally can't sustain that at an anaerobic level. For me it is all about consistant motionion, relaxation, proper breathing, and creative rests. I've done my best sport climbing at the red.
|
|
|
|
|
mr8615
Aug 30, 2005, 1:44 PM
Post #9 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 1032
|
Perhaps I don't understand the difference afterall. I follow the train of thought where there is no aerobic activity while on route. As long as you're hanging on your fingers and toes, is there any time when you aren't building lactic acid up and oxygen can get to the cells in your forearm?
I see aerobic training being beneficial in recovery between pitches on a long route, or between routes at a crag, not so much during actual climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Aug 30, 2005, 2:50 PM
Post #10 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
look, to simplify a bit...
if you get pumped, its power endurance (lactic acid buildup). that would be a "long", sustained pumpy route.
but if you could climb for like half a day and them be kinda tired in your foreams (like the feeling in your legs after a longish hike), that would be endurance. almost no pump because enough power in the muscles was produced by "normal" cell breathing and there was no need for additionaly power via "lactic" "breathing".
|
|
|
|
|
nafod
Aug 30, 2005, 6:05 PM
Post #11 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2003
Posts: 110
|
In reply to: look, to simplify a bit... if you get pumped, its power endurance (lactic acid buildup). that would be a "long", sustained pumpy route. but if you could climb for like half a day and them be kinda tired in your foreams (like the feeling in your legs after a longish hike), that would be endurance..
I'd be inclined to refer that as "toughness" which is an underrated trait. The ability for your joints and connective tissure to take a pounding all day long. Think scrawny sherpa with 80 LBs on back.
I think of a 5K or 10K run as endurance.
|
|
|
|
|
wyomingclimber
Aug 30, 2005, 7:39 PM
Post #12 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 152
|
It seems like there's some confusion in terminology here and how things fit together.
Anaerobic Endurance is what you use when you are gripping rock. It is unlikely that you would ever cling to a hold with a force so low that you'd be getting much energy from your aerobic system. Repeatedly pumping off long routes would be an example of a good way to training this.
Local Aerobic Endurance is the muscle's ability to produce reletively low levels of energy for long periods of time using oxygen. While I don't think Eric H's book was big on this, high levels of LAE allow you to recover while moving between holds and shaking, and IMHO contribute hugely to your ability to stay on a hard route. The best way to train this is to traverse around the walls of a gym for tedious hours on end without getting off or getting pumped.
General Endurance relates to aerobic sports like cycling and is a combination of abilities (largely V02max and local endurance, which in this case takes the form of lactate threshold.) Not particularly important in single pitch rock climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
norclimb
Aug 30, 2005, 7:49 PM
Post #13 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 30, 2005
Posts: 7
|
First and foremost I have to thank you all for your replies! :D
When I talk about endurance I'm talking about the kind of endurance that is referred to as the 4-week part. Since strength and anaerobic endurance is covered through the other parts I'm thinking that this kind refers to the ability to climb for long sections without getting totally pumped.
As far as I've understood the replies the focus should actually be on just working on technique rather than any special kind of climbing or exercises. In that case I'm glad that the cycle isn't any longer than 4 weeks, otherwise I might have some problems staying motivated :wink: . I find it much more rewarding to have some projects or exercises to do.
Again. Thanks for all the advises! Now I'll work on the technique part for three more weeks before I can begin working on strength and anaerobic endurance where I have plenty of exercises (Thanks Eric :) )
|
|
|
|
|
gryph
Aug 30, 2005, 8:09 PM
Post #14 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2005
Posts: 20
|
the purpose of general aerobic training is to form more capillaries in your muscles. More Capillaries=greater blood flow to the muscles. This will allow you to climb at a higher level (and/or longer) before you start developping lactic acid (getting pumped). The increase in capillaries/blood flow also allows you to recover faster inbetween difficult exertions (i.e, between routes/boulder problems, sessions, or on a route when you come to a rest).
The technique benefits are great and result from spending so much more time climbing and from spending that time in a relaxed state that allows you to think more about technique since you are less focused on trying to hold on.
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Aug 31, 2005, 11:54 PM
Post #15 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
In reply to: It seems like there's some confusion in terminology here and how things fit together. Anaerobic Endurance is what you use when you are gripping rock. It is unlikely that you would ever cling to a hold with a force so low that you'd be getting much energy from your aerobic system.
Not really, Remember that its not all or nothing. Muscular contractions of under 50% of max intensity will allow some blood to flow and some O2 to get into muscles during contractions. This being the case the maximum strength of a muscle determines the intensity at which the supply of O2 is reduced and then cut off. A V12 boulderer can probably rely on the aerobic system when using holds that would be completely anaerobic for a V5 boulder. What is aerobic or anaerobic is different for everyone of us.
In reply to: the purpose of general aerobic training is to form more capillaries in your muscles. More Capillaries=greater blood flow to the muscles. This will allow you to climb at a higher level (and/or longer) before you start developping lactic acid (getting pumped).
In climbing since we tend to pump out the muscles of the forearm before anything else, its local aerobic training that we want to engage in to increase the capillary density within the forearms.
|
|
|
|
|
wyomingclimber
Sep 1, 2005, 2:34 AM
Post #16 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 152
|
[quote="fluxus"][Not really, Remember that its not all or nothing. Muscular contractions of under 50% of max intensity will allow some blood to flow and some O2 to get into muscles during contractions. This being the case the maximum strength of a muscle determines the intensity at which the supply of O2 is reduced and then cut off. A V12 boulderer can probably rely on the aerobic system when using holds that would be completely anaerobic for a V5 boulder. What is aerobic or anaerobic is different for everyone of us.
I should have been more clear. It's unlikely that you'd be using aerobic energy to grip a hold on a climb you're worried about. Certainly there is a level that you could stay aerobic.
Super interesting topic.
The phase out seems fairly quick--ie once you go anaerobic thing go downhill pretty fast. As for the interplay between max strength and aerobic floor, I'm not sure it's that simple. Does increased neuromotor recruitment really effect endurance in a significant way? Take bike racers for instance. A sprinter with nearly double Lance Armstrong's max power output can't get close to his sustainable power output over an hour. And could the guy with the world record for bench press do more push ups than a Navy SEAL (controlling for body weight) or could he just do one pushup with five people standing on his back. I honestly don't know...
|
|
|
|
|
gryph
Sep 1, 2005, 2:51 AM
Post #17 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2005
Posts: 20
|
Yeah, you're right, I used General aerobic training ewhen I meant to say local aerobic training.
on a related note, where does time on a rowing machine fit in? It seems to be local aerobic training combined with general aerobic training at the same time.
In reply to: the purpose of general aerobic training is to form more capillaries in your muscles. More Capillaries=greater blood flow to the muscles. This will allow you to climb at a higher level (and/or longer) before you start developping lactic acid (getting pumped).
In climbing since we tend to pump out the muscles of the forearm before anything else, its local aerobic training that we want to engage in to increase the capillary density within the forearms.
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Sep 1, 2005, 2:55 AM
Post #18 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
It's not fair to compare cycling to climbing in terms of aerobic requirements. Cycling uses the largest muscle groups in the body, so it requires a massive volume of oxygen to fuel those muscle groups.
In climbing, the critical muscle groups (essentially the forearm) are so small, that it doesn't draw nearly the same volume of oxygen.
The whole thrust of the argument that increasing max strength increases endurance is that you are raising the load at which your muscles switch from aerobic to anaerobic processes. In climbing, the aerobic process does not cause a huge systemic demand for oxygen, in cycling or running, the aerobic process does create a huge demand. A sprinter with poor systemic aerobic capacity will quickly go into oxygen debt even if he's putting out at a lower percentage of max strength. In climbing, such a climber could climb through that state because the systemic demands for oxygen are so small.
This is just my theory...it has no basis in fact.
|
|
|
|
|
hosebeats
Sep 1, 2005, 3:25 AM
Post #19 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 4, 2003
Posts: 83
|
In reply to: The whole thrust of the argument that increasing max strength increases endurance is that you are raising the load at which your muscles switch from aerobic to anaerobic processes.
I think this is exactly what Eric was saying in his book. Strength is the underlying factor upon which all other characteristics are built on. Endurance isn't possible without a balance of muscle and blood flow. The muscle from strength and the blood flow from specifically training at low intensities for long periods of time.
I trained for strength by bouldering and doing some work on the campus board. I gained endurance by up and down climbing a gently overhanging 5.7 or 5.8. Each move was easy but I never touched the ground. The gains from the campus board were amazing, you just have to be careful. Endurance was harder to quantify but I could definitely climb longer at a harder grade than before.
Just my .02
|
|
|
|
|
wyomingclimber
Sep 1, 2005, 3:03 PM
Post #20 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 152
|
Rockprodigy:
You're right on the cycling thing--oxygen delivery capacity could be the limiter for the sprinter. However, I don't think this is always the case. There are people out there with massive V02maxes (track riders come to mind) who seem to be suited for sprinting and not sustained power output. This would relate to genetics (fiber type distribution probably) and training. I'm not convinced that if you hooked an oxygen mask to the fastest sprinter in the world, you'd suddenly have the fastest marathoner in the world.
The question, I suppose, is HOW we get stronger. If through hypertrophy, you would expect some reduction in aerobic capacity due to the fact that a lot of the physiological changes are mutually exclusive (i.e. in a maximally trained muscle, you'd have to give up one to improve the other.) Anaerobic endurance would improve, though.
On the other hand, if your strength gains were the result of improved recruitment, then you aren't really changing anything other than the fact that you have a few more motor units to revolve through before exhaustion (probably an insignificant improvement due to the fact that the last motor units recruited would be extremely inefficient.)
Let's say you have two guys, one who is very endurance oriented and who has a max bench of 100 and another who is very strength oriented and has a max bench of 200 lbs.
If they had a contest as to who could bench 90lbs the most times, I'd bet on the strong guy. But if they had a contest about who could bench 20 lbs the most times, my money would be on the weak guy.
Anyway, all this is pretty academic. It's just stuff I think about when I'm bored. Endurance on the rock, I'm convinced, is a combination of all these factors as well as technique.
|
|
|
|
|
kyote321
Sep 1, 2005, 3:34 PM
Post #21 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Posts: 636
|
i have made great gains by sprinting for 40 seconds, 1 minute rest, repeat 3x, and i do this once a week, max. much more so than the 20 minutes of moderate running i do on other days for fun, weight control, etc. i can feel myself much mroe able to recover on endurance routes. that gulping of air is hard to train through climbing itself because there are so many other factors. those factors aren't there when running. you are trainign your lungs to take in lots of oxygen and recover quickly. and, you feel awesome!
also, i have had much greater gains from doing 20-30 move power-endurance circuits on a bouldering wall than i have ever gained from climbind set routes ina gym. of course, the best raining is rock climbing itself.
|
|
|
|
|
jerdavis
Sep 1, 2005, 3:36 PM
Post #22 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2005
Posts: 8
|
I think that is Really Really cool, that Eric is on this board and replies to posts about his book.
-that is all
|
|
|
|
|
tobym
Sep 1, 2005, 5:06 PM
Post #23 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 84
|
In reply to: I think that is Really Really cool, that Eric is on this board and replies to posts about his book. -that is all |
|
|
|
|
nafod
Sep 1, 2005, 5:22 PM
Post #24 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2003
Posts: 110
|
In reply to: i have made great gains by sprinting for 40 seconds, 1 minute rest, repeat 3x, and i do this once a week, max. much more so than the 20 minutes of moderate running i do on other days for fun, weight control, etc.
If you google on Tabata Protocol, it's a workout structrure where you basically do repeats of all-out effort for 20 seconds and rest for 10. Do it for 4-8 minutes (8-16 rounds). Interval training, in other words. Studies have shown (9 out of 10 doctors prefer?) that it will have the impact of your moderate routine on aerobics, but will also increase strength. So it's a twofer.
Frankly, it is painful to go to redline on the heart while moving heavy weight, but it also works. Luckily they're short workouts.
Good example workout is to do body weight squats, 8 rounds = 4 minutes. Then situps, then pushups, then pullups. 16 minutes total. Max reps of each per round in 20 seconds, then 10 seconds rest. Your heart will "soar like an eagle".
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Sep 2, 2005, 2:55 AM
Post #25 of 31
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
In reply to: The phase out seems fairly quick--ie once you go anaerobic thing go downhill pretty fast. As for the interplay between max strength and aerobic floor, I'm not sure it's that simple.
You're right, its not that simple I was just mentioning one factor based on your post. All other things being equal the higher one's level of local aerobic fitness the longer what you call the "phase out" will take. As for the interplay between max strength and local anaerobic threshold; my experience suggests that one's max strength is not as important as many climbers make it out to be. I can certainly push my ARCing level up to 510+/5.11a without ever bouldering any harder than V3/4. In theory though, with a great deal of local endurance training I will eventually reach an upper limit in my endurance, that I won't be able to surpass without increasing the max strength of the muscles in question. As a practical matter I have never reached that limit, I don't think I've ever come close. I wonder what Rockprodigy's experience is in this regard since in the past he has gotten his endurance level really high by most people's standards.
Hosebeats, interperting Eric wrote that "Strength is the underlying factor upon which all other characteristics are built." I can't say that I've seen any evidence to suggest this from the scientific comunity nor have I seen it at work in my climbing or in the climbing of the people I've coached. I am a bit baffled by the way Eric writes about endurance in TCF and would not mind at all if he were to take a moment and go into more detail on it. My understanding of endurance and Eric's appear to be exclusive of one another.
Be that as it may I for one don't think there is a higherarchy in either direction, I think there is simply the demands of the specific performance one is training for. Despite the appeal of theory I think its more important to consider these issues in a way that can be qualified for example: My Current goal is to get back into being solid at on-sighting 5.12's. My 20min ARC level right now is 5.9+ and my max consistent bouldering level is V4. The 5.12a I got on last night at the gym was an easy flash, so these levels may be satisfactory, but to onsight 5.12c/d I would not mind getting my consistent bouldering level to V5 and my 20min ARC level to 5.10c or better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
