It's older than basketball, American football, or the Olympic marathon. Sounds like a cop out to avoid a tough subject.

sidepull, First of all, dont dude me. Second, you should keep narrow minded comments to your self.I only sighted Horst because at 4:30 in the morning that is what I came up with off the top of my head.That could actually be referenced. Although i did think of the research the french have been doing with Creatine for the last 15 years.If only sighting one source decreases my credibility in your eyes then you are probably as dumb as your response.What "training protocals" are YOU referring too? What sources have you sited? Based on your own responce it is your credibility that is waning.The OP was talking about training twice a day,not twice a week. How on earth are you able to extrapolate via the internet, any parameters surrounding the OP. If one is healthy and smart he/she can train twice a day.It's called doubles and most serious athletes have done it in their respective sports dating back to pre- christian Italy,where he who trained harder lived.

comments like yours are the reason I usually dont post to rc.com

If your primary focus in climbing is the more popular, modern incarnations like sport, bouldering and modern (read: post cam) trad, then fluxus has a point. From the sound of things that is what the OP is working at, but that's just the way I read it.

Agreed, he has a point. It's flat out wrong but a point nevertheless. Both of you should learn more about the history of climbing.

Folks have been cranking hard for a LOT longer than either of you realize.

it's amazing to compare the care with which Wolfgang Gullich used the original campus board and the idiocy with which it is used now (and hence the freqency of injury).

Wah wah wah!

Corson (dude) who's to say my comments are any more narrow minded than yours? First, I agreed with your point about finding your own information. Second, I acknowledged that there is a purpose for two-a-days, but I also acknowledged that it's really limited. Most sports that use two-a-days base their primary movements on large muscle groups (think football, cycling, running, etc.). Climbing is very different because of its focus on fingers and tendons and therefore individuals attempting more extreme training protocols are more prone to injury. For example, it's amazing to compare the care with which Wolfgang Gullich used the original campus board and the idiocy with which it is used now (and hence the freqency of injury). At the very least, I'm recognizing constraints and I'm not promoting adhering to training recommendations from someone (Horst) that most people who have studied training disregard as being fairly popularistic and unscientific.

If that seems closed minded to you and me using the word dude puts you off so, then maybe posting here is dangerous to your psyche - but those seem like pretty thin-skinned reasons to go off. Peace.