That is certainly the ideal way to test the hypothesis, but I'm still waiting for that $100,000 check to implement my study.

Maybe you should get somebody who knows what they're talking about and could actually get something published in a real journal to write up a real proposal for a real study then...

This could be interpreted quite logically the other way as well (chicken-egg; egg-chicken):

1. Noob starts doing chins/levers/whatever in addition to climbing, to gain strength quicker than he would by merely climbing 2-3 times per week

Again, I have no proof or even experience to back this sequence of events, but since we're interpreting observations here, we should make sure we're examining all reasonable possibilities before forming rigid point of views (if we care at all about being correct that is).

Sorry Jay, but you have presented me with nothing that makes me believe that you know what you're talking about or that you could get it published. I don't know you, and while I would like to believe you, this is the internet and I just can't take this very seriously. $100k is chump change in medical research.

The link you provided previously was to something that was a joke. 50 people for a health study? hahaha. No control? Randomization without resampling of such a small population? That's just not the way it works in the expereince of my or my friends with whom I've spoken. This represents a pool of people who've written reports to congress on health care, the british and canadian ministries, many peer reviewed journal articles like Nature and JAMA and run large, well designed and successful public health programs in the US and abroad.

Furthermore, many of my friends doing health research, such as a study on acclimatization, have had little or no problems finding funding in excess of $100k.

Have you actually tried? Do you have a serious research proposal?

I have seen a number of kids over the years, start out climbing, get obsessed, work problems mightily, and in less than two or three years they have developed so much whatever you want to call it that they can climb some extremely hard things. Like V6-9.

However, they still are using their arms an awful lot, they think weights help, they like to do pullups, etc.

You have no f---ing clue what you are talking about. The study design is controlled. ...brevity cut... Now please stop applying concepts from your field, operations research, to mine. Clearly, things aren't done the same way.

Jay, relax. If you want to be taken seriously act seriously.


Okay, everybody I talked to in your field (actually people who wrestle stats for reports to CMS, NIH and others about funding health policy and effectiveness) thought a population of 50 would never get funding in a million years. They all thought that you would need at least 100 to get a decent sample out of any such study. They laughed themselves silly at the prospect of trying to do such a study with a population of 50. Do you disagree?

I was applying more my fiance's opinion than mine. She's the primary author on more than one statistical analysis of health care paper thats JAMA/Nature and created a 100% accurate test for a particular type of cancer.

However, I know that most of the leading think tanks in health policy do resampling.

Basically, I thought your attitude of here's my study design, give me money was laughable.

You referred me to it as if it were a real prop.

I would be happy or even excited to help find a PI and funding for such a study, but you're right, it's not my area and I couldn't write a legit grant.

I don't know about the V6 kids -- V6 isn't all that hard (by way of proof, I've sent V6), but if you think the V9 kids are muscling their way up V9 problems, then you don't know what to look for in their movement. I have yet to see a V9 boulderer whose balance and timing was way better than mine.

Jay

One well known young southern boulderer likes to say there is no substitue for power.

Yeah, I guess you are right, I have no idea what I am looking at. Bah. Do not put words in my mouth.

First of all, I don't think I ever recommended any particular sample size, butr rather said "N climbers." If I mentionded any numbers at all, it was just to make the discussion more concrete...

The possibility of a 100%-accurate diagnostic test goes against principles of sensitivity vs. specificity (as I understand them) that I was taught in grad school. Could you send me a citation to the paper. I'd be interested in reading it.

...Why on earth you thought that an actual research proposal, which would require weeks to months of man-hours to write, would be posted in a thread on rockclimbing.com is beyond me.

Well, there you go, that just about proves it.


The longer I climb, the more subtlety I am able to see in movement. When I first started sport climbing and training in a gym, I used to think the strong boulder kids were all upper body strength. Looking with more experienced eyes, I can see them do many moves I can't because of their sense of balance and timing is far better than mine. What I used to attribute to greater upper body strength I can now see is more efficient movement. Even the handful of mutant-strong climbers in our gym have far more efficent movement. You have to look carefully, but it is there in spades.

Jay

I give up. You seem to be determined to talk about something other than the point of the perceived effects of pullups, weights and other stuff like that.

You're right. I'm not interested in the perceived benefits at all. Who cares? If perceptions were reliable, we wouldn't be debating this at all. Almost every climber I know, and almost every participant in this thread, perceives that the way to climb better is to increase strength via aparatus training. Climbers believe that this type of strength training is key whether they actually benefit from it or not. At least one partner of mine insists that his regular weight-lifting routine has improved his climbing in spite of the fact that he has been almost fully plateaued for the last 3 years. My observation is the opposite: weight training has reinforced his inefficient movement habits and retarded his progress. If what mattered was climbers perceptions, then this debate would have been over before it had begun.

Jay

In your initial description of your "study" you did not. Subsequently, you said 50. As you should know, the likelihood of any valid data coming out of such a small pool of people is minimal. Oh wait, now you say that I should know that.

Nobody has paid me to calculate a sample size for this study, so I don't know what sample size would be required.

I made it explicit once already, but I'll ... obvious to you.

finally. you want to prognosticate about the effectiveness of various training strategies without doing anywork just like just about everybody else posting in this thread*.