|
|
|
|
jto
Dec 19, 2008, 9:28 AM
Post #26 of 39
(2197 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 272
|
First of all the power and speed does not transfer well or at all from weightlifting to letīs say running. Very important point from Baye even if it is quite common knowledge in the neural sciences. Other stuff be it right or wrong from Crossfit I wonīt comment here.
To use strength to get endurance in the same discipline in the other hand is easily explained. Letsīsay Mrs. A benches 1x200 lbs and does letīs say 12 reps with 140 lbs = 70% of her one rep max.
Then there is Mr. B who benches 160 lbs and the same 140 lbs is 87,5% of his one rep max. Usually that percentage is lifted around 4-7 times. So basically the stronger you are the more easier it gets.
When doing hangboarding I would use mainly the rep system and not only single hangs. I had a long discussions with Rockprodigy about hangboard workouts in another thread (maybe lost in the old forum archives) where I encouraged him to use much more variety in his hang and rest times.
This means not to hang always "7 secs and rest 3" or "5 and 5" or whatever fixed system. You can use very much different set and rep systems to create different training effects and progress much more widely and usually better too. It is also not necessary to hang every hang to absolute failure.
Here are some very simple stuff of the same theme drawn out with just few sets to give an example. The weights etc are just for the sake of illustration:
1. 10x4 secs @ 40 lbs/ 5 sec pauses between hangs
2. 10x7 secs @ 30 lbs/ 5 sec pauses between hangs
3. 10x10 secs @ 20 lbs/ 5 sec pauses between hangs
1. 10x10 secs @ 20 lbs/ 5 sec pauses between hangs
2. 10x10 secs @ 30 lbs/ 10 sec pauses between hangs
3. 10x10 secs @ 40 lbs/ 15 sec pauses between hangs
1. 10x5 secs @ 20 lbs/ 5 sec pauses between hangs
2. 8x5 secs @ 30 lbs/ 5 sec pauses between hangs
3. 6x5 secs @ 40 lbs/ 5 sec pauses between hangs
1. 10x10 secs @ 30 lbs/ 5 sec pauses between hangs
2. 10x7 secs @ 40 lbs/ 8 sec pauses between hangs
3. 10x3 secs @ 50 lbs/ 12 sec pauses between hangs
These all use variations of pyramiding, an old weightlifting progression system. Even if itīs not used so much any more in weightlifting world it suits hangboarding quite well. Other systems can be used of course but my point was just to give some variation tools.
So if you get your hangboard strenght up in a certain hold from letīs say
3 sets of 10x5 secs @ 40 lbs/ 5 sec pauses to
5 sets of 10x5 secs @ 70 lbs/ 5 secs pauses
you have a good base to build strength endurance too. With that 40 lbs you could do letīs say 4 sets of 20x10 secs/ 5 sec pauses. Thatīs over five times more time spend on that hold...
Cheers.
(This post was edited by jto on Dec 19, 2008, 9:35 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
fresh
Dec 19, 2008, 2:48 PM
Post #27 of 39
(2170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2007
Posts: 1199
|
great comments. this thread indeed rules.
sidepull wrote: 3) Waiting for or expecting injury as an impetus for learning is the antithesis of wisdom. Indeed, the very purpose of training is to avoid injury because injury is the quickest way to derail progress.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Dec 22, 2008, 5:10 AM
Post #28 of 39
(2114 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
hosebeats wrote: Now, I've probably got this all wrong and will get a smackdown from rockprodigy or aerili here pretty soon but that's what I've come to understand from sifting through the forums.
Well, I actually thought your post was pretty darn spot-on for the most part. Nice job!
fresh wrote: one thing they emphasize is that training power is more valuable than training either strength or endurance, because you can easily train strength or endurance if you have trained power, but not vice versa for either. (or at least the vice-versa is harder.)
You cannot train power without strength. So either you are misreading what Crossfit says or they are stating it wrongly.
A baseline of strength absolutely must come before power. I have worked with basketball and football players who did zero lower body training and I would never start them on a focused amount of plyo drills without making them beef up their strength with weight training for several weeks first. So I would never recommend someone start upper body power work either without a baseline of strength specific to the demands of the work.
elcapinyoazz wrote: It seems well accepted in sports physio circles that training strength or power also increases endurance, but training endurance has no effect on strength. So given a choice, train strength and/or power.
Well, this isn't really a topic that has a broad consensus, actually. For well-trained endurance athletes, modern studies exist that show strength training has little benefit to endurance performance. Newbies may experience gains (due to general fitness needs), but well-trained individuals do not. Edited to add: jto's post reflects this information.
Also, a lot of studies have shown mixed results between concurrent strength and endurance training. Most consensus is wrt endurance training negatively affecting power development, but otherwise I do not believe we can say "training strength always benefits endurance but not the other way around" or vice versa. One good article (among others) can be found here.
(This post was edited by aerili on Dec 22, 2008, 5:15 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Dec 22, 2008, 5:42 AM
Post #29 of 39
(2107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
sidepull wrote: a - roy is right, there's a lot of close-minded "shouting down" going on, although I'd be interested to know exactly what points of sport science roy is referring to.
My general feeling is that Crossfitters argue inducing rhabdomyolysis is something to be pursued (rather than a possible serious medical issue requiring hospitalization).
From what I can tell, they often advocate ridiculous intensities and volumes starting from day 1 for anyone and everyone, regardless of existing physical fitness, health history, age, etc.
And lastly, they've been criticized by well known strength coaches for their high load, high volume, no form work ethic. (Just dumb.)
sidepull wrote: b - at one point on the thread, baye argues that how fast you do a move has no impact on subsequent speed. I find that extremely hard to reconcile with anything else I've heard, felt, or seen.
Agreed. This guy Drew Baye might possibly be laughed out of a room of exercise scientists right now.
roy_hinkley_junior wrote: BTW contrary to popular belief, a recent study showed that campusing is not a plyometric exercise.
True, but there are a lot of unknown specifics about this study (at least to me) and how they designed it. There are many variables one could manipulate in a campus exercise so I doubt this one study could say all of them definitely have no amortization phase.
|
|
|
|
|
jto
Dec 22, 2008, 4:54 PM
Post #30 of 39
(2072 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 272
|
about the relationship between endurance and strength/power:
- gains in strength usually have negative effects in aerobic endurance ie. long term endurance.
- strength training has positive effects on short term anaerobic endurance, "power endurance" if someone wants to use that term.
- all endurance training be it aerobic or anaerobic effects negatively on power.
- very short term anaerobic endurance training has positive effects on strength (bodybuilding etc).
so if you want to run a marathon, forget the weights but if you want to be good in letīs say ice hockey (anaerobic interval game) favor the squat instead of jogging.
in climbing... set your goals and train accordingly. a boulderer needs zero ARCing and a mountaineer will have very little use from campusing.
(This post was edited by jto on Dec 22, 2008, 5:00 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Dec 22, 2008, 6:47 PM
Post #31 of 39
(2065 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
jto wrote: so if you want to run a marathon, forget the weights.
Only if you don't care about performance (or injury prevention) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18978605
BTW I don't thing Baye was arguing for the super slow nonsense, just that good form is more important than speed for strength and power development.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Dec 23, 2008, 6:54 AM
Post #32 of 39
(2039 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: jto wrote: so if you want to run a marathon, forget the weights. Only if you don't care about performance (or injury prevention) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18978605
Well, in terms of performance, roy, there are numbers of studies which show no performance enhancement in populations like long distance runners, cyclists, swimmers, and XC skiers. There are also studies which do show some benefits without affecting VO2, but they tend to be older. Also, it appears studies which show performance benefits are in novice populations, not experienced ones.
This is not to say it would not help injury prevention. In fact, I have trained a few long distance runners and a couple cyclists as such and they did not report adverse consequences to me.
Dr. Stephen Seiler's take on any performance increase is that it's probably due to a correction of a weak link, i.e. strengthening and thus correcting a biomechanical alteration that resulted and encoded in your muscle memory after a previous injury.
But anyway, remember that adding muscle mass will not result in increased maximal oxygen consumption for an endurance athlete...or even faster endurance time.
|
|
|
|
|
jto
Dec 23, 2008, 8:05 AM
Post #33 of 39
(2031 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 272
|
roy: I really care about performance. Iīve been in the coaching field for almost 20 years. In endurance sports the strength and high stress training is not done in the weight room but simulating the business itself like running/biking uphills, doing faster intervals, high speed sprints etc. to create stimulus also for the fast cells. Many top marathon runners are very fast as you know. But theyīre not strong as you can see.
Of course some weight training is done but the use is almost only in the injury prevention, muscle balance etc department. Iīve used different weight training programs for endurance athletes also, but the amount and the way itīs done is so minimal I wonīt really say that the performance comes from that. It does not. My main field is strength and power so Iīm not even defending my own here but laying out a fact.
The two main factors in the endurance sports are maximal oxygen intake level and anaerobic threshold level. Both are trained way outside of the weight gyms.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Dec 23, 2008, 5:48 PM
Post #34 of 39
(2015 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
aerili wrote: Also, it appears studies which show performance benefits are in novice populations, not experienced ones.
It appears neither of your read the link: "After critically reviewing the literature for the impact of CT on high-level runners, we conclude that resistance training likely has a positive effect on endurance running performance or RE." A nearly 5% average increase in running economy shouldn't be sneezed at. But this all way OT, sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Dec 23, 2008, 8:44 PM
Post #35 of 39
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: jto wrote: so if you want to run a marathon, forget the weights. Only if you don't care about performance (or injury prevention) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18978605 BTW I don't thing Baye was arguing for the super slow nonsense, just that good form is more important than speed for strength and power development.
clicky.
|
|
|
|
|
jto
Dec 26, 2008, 10:30 AM
Post #36 of 39
(1939 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 272
|
What do you mean by "clicky"? Canīt you read?
Iīve read the study in case when it appeared but so what? Couple of gazillions of studies have proven quite other ways to be beneficial in endurance training than weights. Again I: I have a weightlifting and coaching background so I really have nothing against weights.
Again II: weight training is not a main thing to be done for endurance athletes at all. The longer the race time/distance the less it means for performance.
Again III: I do use weight training for endurance athletes but the case still is it is not the main thing or even near it.
Again IV: From the study abstract: "Four of the five studies employed sport-specific, explosive resistance training" ... This means jumping, jump running, sprints, uphills stuff etc... not weights. So these are very much used in endurance training so do I have to put on Again V or The revenge of the son of the attack of the again?
Ok... but back to the original topic...
The endurance needed in climbing is very much anaerobic and in that case strength is the main base. This is true especially in short term AE like redpointing. Thatīs why gaining strength through bouldering transfers greatly to short AE too. Mostly because it is exactly the same stuff...climbing.
Anaerobic weight training wonīt do the same nor does hangboarding even if the latter has itīs benefits in building the strength. Anyway the strength by itself wonīt do it if you want good AE.
Hangboarding is really not the best way to develope AE but of course it can be done. I would use different grips though to avoid injury. So hereīs is an example:
Take 3-5 different grips and do the set of 5x10 secs @ X lbs/ 5 sec pauses for each. Move immediately to the next grip after the set. The total work time will be 150-250 secs.
|
|
|
|
|
elcapinyoazz
Dec 26, 2008, 7:50 PM
Post #37 of 39
(1907 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 8, 2003
Posts: 93
|
jto wrote: Hangboarding is really not the best way to develope AE
Right. So what do you consider the best way to develop it?
And, from the little I've read, it sounds like AE adaptations are quick to happen, but plateau quickly. For example, if you were training AE through intervals...say 4x4s or something, within a few weeks you would stop improving and need to move on to training something else...like strength, then return to train AE later with greater strength base.
Comments/input?
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Dec 26, 2008, 8:16 PM
Post #38 of 39
(1904 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: What do you mean by "clicky"? Canīt you read?
I'm uncertain as to the reason for your hostility.
"clicky" just means that I made roy's article "clickable", rather than necessitating a cut-and-paste, which several users (and myself) find annoying.
I said nothing against either your opinions, or roy's, or for that matter, aerili's. Just contributed toward making independent research of relevant material easier.
For the record, I read very well.
|
|
|
|
|
jto
Dec 27, 2008, 5:56 PM
Post #39 of 39
(1867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 272
|
I wasnīt trying to be hostile. I really didnīt know what clicky means as my native language is not english. Sorry for being rude.
...
In climbing literature the anaerobic phase is usually very short because it is thought AE peaks very quickly and needs not to be trained year round. Quite the opposite really.
The quick peaking happens usually because people very seldom take any rest weeks in between training and the plateau is reality. The only easier week or so is taken just before a road trip etc.
I find this very strange or even ridiculous as in every sport the stress factors of the training are planned in micro- and macrocycles and include easier phases along the harder ones. The length of those can vary from just few days to even few weeks.
If you do it this way you can go on progressing in your AE workouts for quite a long time. Just to clarify the possibilities I did progressive AE workouts for 11 weeks last spring.
The idea of the traditional...can there be traditions in climbing training... hardly... has been the strange
- endurance phase
- strength phase
- power phase
- anaerobic endurance phase
system and people really have been thinking they need to do only 2-3 weeks of AE to develop the system...and 6 weeks max or they will die and the world will collapse. Yeah right.
As redpointing and hard onsighting are very anaerobic and the system needs to be worked to the point couple of weeks would just scratch the surface.
An example. Letīs assume your max bouldering flash grade is V8 and a max is V10. Then you could do a AE test workout of 4x5xV4 back to back at your best in the beginning of your AE phase even that being quite hard for someone. I had one friend having a max V10 and the first AE workout of 3x4xV3 almost killed him. Ok, letīs assume you might progress to 5x5xV5 in a month.
The progression canīt be that fast because you havenīt worked your AE system before. If you concentrate only on AE at this phase you might lose too much peak strength and power. Iīd always keep hard bouldering along whatever the phase.
What if youīve done AE in a way or another all along your other phases or if your AE phase is very much longer and very well planned... You might do an AE workout of 5x5xV7 or even a set of 5xV8. What happens to your redpoint level... well you do the math.
Anyway the key things to be kept in mind when planning a yearly training are
- Plan ahead the rest/easy weeks. Usually a good rhythm is 2-3 hard or progressive weeks and one easier one.
- Donīt forget bouldering in any phase being it basic endurance or AE. It would be dum to forget the fast/strong muscle cells for too long time as they wonīt get worked during ARCing etc..
- When you start a new phase maintain the goods youīve got before so do a little base endurance as cool downs etc. during the strength phase. Donīt forget strength training when you hit AE workouts and so on.
Cheers.
(This post was edited by jto on Dec 27, 2008, 7:00 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
