|
onceahardman
Apr 28, 2008, 5:39 PM
Post #101 of 213
(7349 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: I never said that you shouldn't strength train; I said that you shouldn't bother doing pull-ups. Jay
So, then, if Patxi Usobiaga does pullups, he'd be wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 28, 2008, 5:47 PM
Post #102 of 213
(7346 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
onceahardman wrote: In reply to: I never said that you shouldn't strength train; I said that you shouldn't bother doing pull-ups. Jay So, then, if Patxi Usobiaga does pullups, he'd be wrong?
He might be. Just because a top climber is doing a particular exercise doesn't mean that the exercise is particularly effective. If you look back in the history of many sports, you can see training techniques, even at elite levels, that would be considered a joke today, and those are in sports in which training is studied scientifically. In climbing there has been practically no scientific study of training, so how likely is it that our top athletes are training particularly effectively.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Apr 28, 2008, 6:04 PM
Post #103 of 213
(7331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
angry wrote: So I have the rest of the day free. Should I A) Work some pullups B) Go huck laps on some routes nearby C) Play with my campus board D) Make more posts
You forgot E) Eat more bacon
|
|
|
|
|
rockclimbergabor
Apr 28, 2008, 7:00 PM
Post #104 of 213
(7305 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 18, 2003
Posts: 131
|
jt512 wrote: In climbing there has been practically no scientific study of training, so how likely is it that our top athletes are training particularly effectively.
What are you talking about? How do you know how much study has been done?
http://marvinclimbing.com/english/index.php
http://dmacia.blogspot.com
etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 28, 2008, 7:30 PM
Post #105 of 213
(7283 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
rockclimbergabor wrote: jt512 wrote: In climbing there has been practically no scientific study of training, so how likely is it that our top athletes are training particularly effectively. What are you talking about? How do you know how much study has been done?
Anyone can tell how much research has been done by searching relevant scientific databases.
In reply to: http://marvinclimbing.com/english/index.php http://dmacia.blogspot.com etc etc.
I have no idea why you posted those links. They are not links to scientific studies.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 28, 2008, 10:03 PM
Post #107 of 213
(7220 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
onceahardman wrote: In reply to: So, then, if Patxi Usobiaga does pullups, he'd be wrong? He might be So, we should listen to you, rather than a 5.15 climber. Good luck with that.
I don't care a fig whether you listen to me or not. Maybe you'd listen to Hague and Hunter in Self-Coached Climber? Have you read this yet? If not, you're really in no position to even be in the discussion. Contrary to 5.14-kid's implications, not every top level climber or coach recommends pull-ups.
Oh, for heaven's sakes. Give me a break. Do you honestly believe that there has been anything other than a trifling amount of scientific research on climbing? I can understand the 5.14c high-school kid being that naive. But you? Aren't you supposed to be a professional in the athletic training field? Are you as naive as a high school student about the lack of scientific research on climbing?
The following table lists the number of articles in the Pubmed database, which catalogs the contents of approximately 64 scientific journals pertaining to sports, exercise, or athletics.[1]
While the absolute number of studies in any of those sports is probably not accurate, since it is likely that some relevant journals are not cataloged in the Pubmed database and the specific query used is not the best we could do, the relative numbers tell the story.
Now, please, give up this utterly ridiculous notion that there is a substantial body of research on climbing. It is just about the most ridiculous thing I've read on this website.
Jay
[1]The number of journals was determined by doing a journal title word search using the query "sport* OR athletic OR exercise".
(This post was edited by jt512 on Apr 29, 2008, 7:10 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Apr 28, 2008, 10:30 PM
Post #108 of 213
(7200 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
I'd be inclined to say that you'd be better off spending that time actually climbing than doing pull-ups. It would be better for your climbing. I would also think that a lateral row exercise would be better suited to be stronger for climbing than a pull-up. You spend more time pulling yourself into the wall, especially when it's overhung, than you do doing pull-ups while climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Apr 28, 2008, 10:39 PM
Post #109 of 213
(7191 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
carabiner96 wrote: well, it's raining here, so the thought of you outside doing laps makes me tear up inside. So you should just keep posting, if only to make me feel better about myself. FWIW, I can't do pullups, but still climb pretty well, all things considered.
15 pitches since my last post. Those are clear cleek pitches though, so it's only like 750'
I did an unneccesary pullup on a jug, just because of this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
Apr 28, 2008, 10:59 PM
Post #110 of 213
(7183 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
jt512 wrote: [ I will never get anywhere near world-class standards no matter what I do. Jay
Jay:
Your reticence and self-effacement are admirable qualities so I hope you don’t mind if I draw some attention to you. I’ve had years of experience teaching climbing, often getting students to improve, three numeric grades so I can help you get out of being stuck at 5.13.
First of all the correct attitude is important. I recommend becoming a rock pacifist. Being a rock warrior is a sure fire way to not improve. Rock is rather hard and unless you resort to power drills or dynamite you will always lose. Just stop fighting the rock and it will not fight back. It prefers peace and detests warriors.
It’s clear from your comments that your lack of upper body training has left you seriously weakened. In this thread, there are several good suggestions for how to do chinups to improve your strength, and I advise you to follow them. A couple of weeks with no climbing and just strength workouts are what you need.
Then comes the most important part—technique training. The single most important exercise on the rocks is straight leg climbing. Be very careful not bend your knees or flex your feet. Doing this will cause you to use your arms correctly and improve your balance. Elbow flexion will become second nature, and you will soon be using your arms and hands intuitively pulling up powerfully and not having to think about it.
I look forward to your redpointing 5.15a, but be patient this may well take a few months.
Gratias et vale bene!
RobertusPunctumPacificus
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Apr 28, 2008, 11:04 PM
Post #111 of 213
(7175 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
Let's get back to the point a moment, rather than a peeing match about how many articles must exist to be more than "trifling"...
You don't like pullups for training the shoulder components necessary for climbing. But you also agree (indirectly) that strength training has a place in training for high-level climbing.
Fair enough. What strength training exercises DO you like for high-end climbing?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 28, 2008, 11:19 PM
Post #112 of 213
(7161 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
onceahardman wrote: Fair enough. What strength training exercises DO you like for high-end climbing?
I don't think I have the experience to make recommendations about honest-to-goodness high-end climbing. I have to leave that to people like fluxus. In general, rather than doing pullups, I would recommend doing exercises that more closely mimic climbing movements (or actually are climbing movements: threshold bouldering, campusing, system wall training, etc. I feel a little silly having to explain this. All of this is explained in the Self-Coached Climber, currently the leading text on training for climbing. Like I said before, if you haven't read this book yet, then your knowledge of the subject is basically a generation out of date. It's like trying to discuss particle physics with someone who has never even heard of quantum theory.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Apr 28, 2008, 11:29 PM
Post #113 of 213
(7151 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
Maybe we have a definition problem. Campusing, one of your recommended exercises, is pretty clearly a pullup variant. I doubt an EMG study would find much difference at the shoulder.
WELL! That wasn't so bad! Have a nice time, not doing pullups, and climbing 5.12. I hope you continue improving.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 28, 2008, 11:31 PM
Post #114 of 213
(7150 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
onceahardman wrote: Maybe we have a definition problem. Campusing, one of your recommended exercises, is pretty clearly a pullup variant. I doubt an EMG study would find much difference at the shoulder.
If you think that campusing is a "pullup variant," then I can see why you think climbing is.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Apr 29, 2008, 12:38 AM
Post #115 of 213
(7127 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: If you think that campusing is a "pullup variant," then I can see why you think climbing is.
Yeah, clearly this guy's shoulders see a big difference between this movement and a pullup:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._Training_87947.html
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 29, 2008, 12:49 AM
Post #116 of 213
(7124 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
onceahardman wrote: In reply to: If you think that campusing is a "pullup variant," then I can see why you think climbing is. Yeah, clearly this guy's shoulders see a big difference between this movement and a pullup: http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._Training_87947.html
I don't know why you are obsessed with the shoulder. Pull-up training is not effective climbing training precisely because climbing movements are so much more complex than a pull up. Campusing might resemble pull ups at the shoulder, but not much else: Campusing is dynamic, pullups are static. In campusing, you reach for a hold; in pullups you do not. Campusing develops timing, pullups do not. Campusing develops explosive power, pullups do not. Campusing develops maximum finger strength, pull ups do not.
How many times in how many ways do you have to lose an argument before you finally give up?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Apr 29, 2008, 1:54 AM
Post #117 of 213
(7105 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: Campusing is dynamic, pullups are static.
False. Lock offs and dead hangs are static, pullups are dynamic.
In reply to: In campusing, you reach for a hold; in pullups you do not.
Maybe, unless you reach for a hold, you know, you are doing a variant of pullups which entails reaching. Like a lock-off and reach, or a campus move. Maybe for you, a pullup must be done from a bar, slowly and repetitively, never varying anything. My viewpoint is less narrow.
Anyway, I am only "obsessed" with the shoulder in the context of climbing-specific training. I've clearly shown that the shoulder component of a pullup is strikingly similar to the shouder component of a campus move.
Night night, jay-jay.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 29, 2008, 2:02 AM
Post #118 of 213
(7096 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
onceahardman wrote: In reply to: Campusing is dynamic, pullups are static. False. Lock offs and dead hangs are static, pullups are dynamic.
"False!" As used in climbing, the term "static" refers to a move done with steady application of force and minimum of momentum. I agree that the phrase "static move" is an oxymoron, but that's the phrase nonetheless.
In reply to: I've clearly shown that the shoulder component of a pullup is strikingly similar to the shoulder component of a campus move.
You're a genius.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
rockclimbergabor
Apr 29, 2008, 2:03 AM
Post #119 of 213
(7095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 18, 2003
Posts: 131
|
the links were for people who have studied climbing training extensively. maybe not "scientific research", but still, im sure they know what they are talking about more then you.
but yeah, im done argueing with dumbasses like you over the internet. i will continue to do pull-up excersizes (weighted, dynamic, static, on differnent type of holds), etc, and get stronger and climb better. like it has worked in the past for me and many others.
and its not up to you to decide whether or not you won the arguement. it shows how stubborn you are. you THINK you're right, but you also have no evidence to back up any of your statements. so as far as i'm concerned, there are no winners. except for the fact that not a single person agrees with what you have to say.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 29, 2008, 2:10 AM
Post #120 of 213
(7087 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
rockclimbergabor wrote: and its not up to you to decide whether or not you won the arguement. it shows how stubborn you are. you THINK you're right, but you also have no evidence to back up any of your statements.
Actually, I'm the only person in this thread who has actually presented any objective evidence to back up any assertion: namely a quantitative search of a journal database that showed that there is almost no scientific research on climbing training. That finding just about eliminates objective evidence from the rest of the discussion.
In reply to: so as far as i'm concerned, there are no winners. except for the fact that not a single person agrees with what you have to say.
Aren't you the kid who studied with Dan Hague? If so, then you know perfectly well that there are people who agree with me.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
rockclimbergabor
Apr 29, 2008, 2:30 AM
Post #121 of 213
(7113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 18, 2003
Posts: 131
|
saying there is no research on training doesnt prove the point that pullups dont help your climbing. it just means that it isnt "scientifically proven" that it helps.
disregard the fact that many people on this site have claimed from personal experiences that it works for them. also, disregard the fact that almost every top competition climber does it to improve (people who dont usually waste their time on things that dont work). disregard that i, personally, do training with pullups in it and it helps me. none of that is important.
what is important is that Dan Hague agrees with you. That makes your point correct automatically, because Dan is the god of the world and knows everything about climbing training.
and no, i didnt "study" with dan hague. he attempted to coach me for one year and his methods were largely ineffective for me, and many others, so i quit his team.
so tell me, how much scientific research has been done to prove any of the points in "Self Coached Climber?" None? So as far as I'm concerned, everything in that book is completely wrong. Since personal experience in your point of view doesnt count as ojective evidence, you cant prove me wrong.
(This post was edited by rockclimbergabor on Apr 29, 2008, 2:32 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Apr 29, 2008, 2:58 AM
Post #122 of 213
(7084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: Actually, I'm the only person in this thread who has actually presented any objective evidence to back up any assertion
False. I showed you an EMG study of fingertip pullups, plus 20 other peer-reviewed studies. Because there are fewer studies than, say, swimming or baseball, you choose to believe they are insignificant.
How many times can jay-jay lie?
(This post was edited by onceahardman on Apr 29, 2008, 2:59 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 29, 2008, 3:05 AM
Post #123 of 213
(7075 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
rockclimbergabor wrote: saying there is no research on training doesnt prove the point that pullups dont help your climbing. it just means that it isnt "scientifically proven" that it helps.
I agree.
In reply to: disregard the fact that many people on this site have claimed from personal experiences that it works for them.
Those claims aren't very reliable. People are notorious for attributing effects to the wrong causes. That's why we need controlled studies. In fact, that's why controlled studies were invented.
In reply to: also, disregard the fact that almost every top competition climber does it to improve
First of all, I need a little more than your word to accept that as fact. Secondly, even if you are correct, then that doesn't mean that it's the pullups are responsible for their climbing achievements, or even if they were, that they were the most efficient training to produce the effect.
In reply to: (people who dont usually waste their time on things that dont work).
That's an example of a logical fallacy known informally as "assuming the conclusion."
In reply to: i, personally, do training with pullups in it and it helps me
As above: How do you know that they have helped you, and how do you know that some other form of training might have helped you more?
In reply to: what is important is that Dan Hague agrees with you. That makes your point correct automatically, because Dan is the god of the world and knows everything about climbing training.
I don't know what has compelled you to fly off the handle and resort to putting words in mouth. Calm the fuck down.
In reply to: how much scientific research has been done to prove any of the points in "Self Coached Climber?"
The material in SCC is based on well-established kinesiologic principles, which have been studied scientifically, motion studies of climbers, and principles of exercise physiology. A limitation of the book is the lack of controlled scientific studies to validate the methods, but that limitation is shared by all books on climbing training. At least SCC is backed up by sound scientific principles.
Now, I think I'm pretty much done responding to a high-school student with no appreciation of how science applies to athletic training, who can't argue rationally, and who considers me just some "dumbass on the internet."
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Apr 29, 2008, 3:24 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
rockclimbergabor
Apr 29, 2008, 3:24 AM
Post #124 of 213
(7064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 18, 2003
Posts: 131
|
I guess you never know for sure, whether or not anything really helps your climbing. But then again, what in this world DO you know for sure? What is a fact? Can we REALLY rely on our our senses? Does the world even exist? No one knows man, no one knows...
But Im pretty sure I remember you starting this thread off by saying "Pullups wont help your climbing." So your point is no better then any one elses, because you too have no specific research.
But fuck it, you win the internet battle. Congrats
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 29, 2008, 4:06 AM
Post #125 of 213
(7042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
onceahardman wrote: In reply to: Actually, I'm the only person in this thread who has actually presented any objective evidence to back up any assertion False. I showed you an EMG study of fingertip pullups, plus 20 other peer-reviewed studies. Because there are fewer studies than, say, swimming or baseball, you choose to believe they are insignificant. How many times can jay-jay lie?
And I'm done arguing with a complete fucking moron.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [jt512] pullups
[
