|
Prokofievian
Jun 7, 2010, 5:49 PM
Post #26 of 90
(4352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2010
Posts: 34
|
Perfect. I'm going to try this at the climbing gym tonight.
Yeah budday!
|
|
|
|
|
Jnclk
Jun 7, 2010, 6:18 PM
Post #27 of 90
(4338 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2007
Posts: 89
|
Prokofievian wrote: Also, as someone who absolutely loves lifting weights, why do you say "I'm not recommending lifting weights for training for climbing"? Any specific reason? Cheers.
Probably because weight training is mind numbingly boring. Also, it will have a minimal impact on climbing performance unless fine tuned to an even more mind numbingly boring program.
|
|
|
|
|
Prokofievian
Jun 7, 2010, 7:11 PM
Post #28 of 90
(4319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2010
Posts: 34
|
Did you see how much fun ronnie was having?
But quite seriously, this being a matter of opinion, lifting weights for me is a lot of fun. It may not be as creative as climbing; however, when you set your mind to something, something that you didn't know if you could do, and accomplish it, it's an amazing feeling. That alone is justification enough, for me. Not even taking into account the benefits in general of weightlifting(aka, not being a weak sissy).
I guess I'm confused as to why there seems to be such resistance(no pun intended) to using weights as a climber, when in more than a few books on climbing and mountaineering, there seems to be a strong emphasis on resistance training of other types. I'm not saying 'well people do HIT, so why not do 8 different types of Curlz!' More, "why no squats? we do pullups, so why not squats?"
|
|
|
|
|
pfwein
Jun 7, 2010, 7:37 PM
Post #29 of 90
(4307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353
|
When you unable to complete a climb (boulder problem, whatever), ask yourself what was the reason.
The "right" answer, if there is one, isn't always obvious or free from doubt.
But a "wrong" answer will (99/100) be: my thighs were too weak to complete a squat type motion, my pecs were too undeveloped to bench press a massive mountain of weight, etc.
Climbing "hard" routes requires technique and certain specialized strength of a type that doesn't seem to be developed by typical weightlifting routines. To make matters worse, most weightlifting is accompanied by hypertrophy and weight gains of muscles (thighs, pects) that don't need to be large for hard climbing, so not only do the strength gains not really help, they actually hurt b/c of increased weight.
Standard disclaimer: above views are from someone who has no formal education in climbing or weightlifting, is neither a great climber nor lifter, etc. But I became a somewhat better climber when I basically quit bench pressing, lost a little weight, and spent the time I would spent lifting, climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
Prokofievian
Jun 7, 2010, 8:01 PM
Post #30 of 90
(4290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2010
Posts: 34
|
Well these are all very interesting reasons. I'm not really able to 'refute' any of them as I've never climbed a 'hard route,' in my entire life.
However, I would say, of course the reason that you were unable to climb something would not be "my thighs weren't strong enough because I couldn't do an ass to grass squat." But this doesn't necessarily destroy the concept that squatting could have some benefit, now does it? Because it doesn't really even beg the question "what benefit could a squat give me?" And, though I do suck at climbing, I can assure you that the benefits of a squat far exceed having strong thighs. In fact, squats can be one of the more intense core exercises you do. A similar statement could be made for the bench press, and 'having a strong chest.' Again this is just "thinking out loud."
As for the hypertrophy question, how much weight you put on is much more a question of what kind of diet you're on, and what sort of sets/rep scheme you're on, as opposed to 'if weights, then gain mass.' For certain, weight training is a great way to put on mass, but only if it's accompanied by the proper rest, nutrition, and training schema. Coming from someone who has had struggles to gain mass, even with a very good schema, trust me, it's just not that easy to do. For me it involved waking up at 3:00 am to down a protein shake, and some cottage cheese.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Jun 8, 2010, 11:29 AM
Post #31 of 90
(4239 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
angry wrote: I ran a 48 minute 10k having not ran in 4 this fall. Nothing special with training at all. I want an off the couch olympics.
I've thought that something sort of like "the game" from Apprentice Adept was a better concept. http://www.citizendia.org/Apprentice_Adept
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Jun 8, 2010, 11:36 AM
Post #32 of 90
(4238 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: angry wrote: I ran a 48 minute 10k having not ran in 4 this fall. Nothing special with training at all. I want an off the couch olympics. I've thought that something sort of like "the game" from Apprentice Adept was a better concept. http://www.citizendia.org/Apprentice_Adept
I couldn't get through the intro without wanting to give you a swirly.
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Jun 8, 2010, 12:10 PM
Post #33 of 90
(4226 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
angry wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: angry wrote: I ran a 48 minute 10k having not ran in 4 this fall. Nothing special with training at all. I want an off the couch olympics. I've thought that something sort of like "the game" from Apprentice Adept was a better concept. http://www.citizendia.org/Apprentice_AdeptI couldn't get through the intro without wanting to give you a swirly.
Wait a second, did Mr.-I-still-wear-my-bike-shorts-when-I-pedal-my-10-speed-down-to-the-corner-store-even-though-I-haven't-trained-in-years, just look down on someone elses teenage geek?
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Jun 8, 2010, 12:25 PM
Post #34 of 90
(4216 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: angry wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: angry wrote: I ran a 48 minute 10k having not ran in 4 this fall. Nothing special with training at all. I want an off the couch olympics. I've thought that something sort of like "the game" from Apprentice Adept was a better concept. http://www.citizendia.org/Apprentice_AdeptI couldn't get through the intro without wanting to give you a swirly. Wait a second, did Mr.-I-still-wear-my-bike-shorts-when-I-pedal-my-10-speed-down-to-the-corner-store-even-though-I-haven't-trained-in-years, just look down on someone elses teenage geek?
Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Jun 8, 2010, 12:49 PM
Post #35 of 90
(4208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
angry wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: angry wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: angry wrote: I ran a 48 minute 10k having not ran in 4 this fall. Nothing special with training at all. I want an off the couch olympics. I've thought that something sort of like "the game" from Apprentice Adept was a better concept. http://www.citizendia.org/Apprentice_AdeptI couldn't get through the intro without wanting to give you a swirly. Wait a second, did Mr.-I-still-wear-my-bike-shorts-when-I-pedal-my-10-speed-down-to-the-corner-store-even-though-I-haven't-trained-in-years, just look down on someone elses teenage geek? Yes.
I don't know which is sadder, bike boy feeling superior or spraying about bench pressing 150.
I'm gonna go with the bike, but only by a shaved leg hair.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Jun 8, 2010, 2:44 PM
Post #36 of 90
(4181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
angry wrote: This isn't anything to brag about. I know lifters regularly bench double their body weight. I just think it's interesting that with absolutely no specific training, I was able to bench ok. It flies in the face of the prevailing sentiment that climbers have overgrown backs and weak chests.
n=1
translation - this means nothing for the population at large and only means something to you. Thanks for the spray!
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Jun 9, 2010, 1:44 PM
Post #37 of 90
(4106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
My experience is the reverse. You really do get weak in the chest. I can pull down the entire stack of weight on the lat machine, but the bench press is damn near bar only:-)
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Jun 9, 2010, 1:52 PM
Post #38 of 90
(4098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
sidepull wrote: angry wrote: This isn't anything to brag about. I know lifters regularly bench double their body weight. I just think it's interesting that with absolutely no specific training, I was able to bench ok. It flies in the face of the prevailing sentiment that climbers have overgrown backs and weak chests. n=1 translation - this means nothing for the population at large and only means something to you. Thanks for the spray!
If it was spray I would have told you about what I did with your mother afterwards!
What really would be interesting would be to take a larger sample size. Even more interesting if we stratified it into groups based on what they could climb and had them do several common weightroom exercises and compared that to their body weight.
I doubt the 5.11 climber squats or benchs much more than the 5.13 climber.
Since there is about 10 climbers in the entire country, I can't do the study. Someone in Boulder should.
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Jun 9, 2010, 2:32 PM
Post #39 of 90
(4082 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
I would bet that someone who climbs a lot of offwidths will have greater general strength than the other climbing disciplines.
|
|
|
|
|
lonequail
Jun 9, 2010, 3:29 PM
Post #40 of 90
(4058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 8, 2004
Posts: 65
|
Enough on the minutia of training. The data appear to show that there is little or no direct carry over from weight training to climbing. The big picture though is that there are benefits from an overall level of fitness including aerobic and non-climbing-specific body strength. It may not be a one-to-one correlation, and it may not be measureable, but in my experience there is a clear correlation.
Not surprisingly the reverse is also true: Climbing contributes to overall fitness. This was pointed out Angry in the original post but was lost in the thread. In fact there is a carry over from all athletic activities to all others. Didn’t someone come up with the revolutionary concept a Cross Training a few years ago?
Back to the thread digressions… Overall fitness is more of a benefit to some types of climbing, such as OW and endurance climbs, than to others such as bouldering. Also, the benefits seem to increase with age.
I lift weights and do a variety of other activities, some specifically for training and some more purely recreational. There have been multiple times I have been at my limits on routes, and feel that my overall fitness level made the difference between sending and hanging. These were not cutting edge climbs, and they don’t have numbers to brag about; simply climbs at the limit of my ability. For the record, most of these were the type of climbs that involve more than finger strength and small foot holds. Be careful though to avoid over training and training related injuries. A balance is needed.
(This post was edited by lonequail on Jun 9, 2010, 3:31 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 9, 2010, 4:12 PM
Post #41 of 90
(4039 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
angry wrote: sidepull wrote: angry wrote: This isn't anything to brag about. I know lifters regularly bench double their body weight. I just think it's interesting that with absolutely no specific training, I was able to bench ok. It flies in the face of the prevailing sentiment that climbers have overgrown backs and weak chests. n=1 translation - this means nothing for the population at large and only means something to you. Thanks for the spray! If it was spray I would have told you about what I did with your mother afterwards! What really would be interesting would be to take a larger sample size. Even more interesting if we stratified it into groups based on what they could climb and had them do several common weightroom exercises and compared that to their body weight. I doubt the 5.11 climber squats or benchs much more than the 5.13 climber. Since there is about 10 climbers in the entire country, I can't do the study. Someone in Boulder should.
Your post got me curious, but I don't have easy access to a bench press. So I checked to see how many pushups I could do. Turns out I can do 60. Which is not bad for me, though I think when I was weight training years ago, I could do 75.
Also turns out I'm sore as hell now, two days later. Just from doing one single set of pushups. So those muscles are still reasonably strong, but not at all used to being pushed to that degree.
So there's one more data point for you.
On a side note, back when I was breaking into leading 10s, I got to where I could do a single one-arm pullup, just barely, with my stronger arm. I'm now breaking into mid to hard 12s, and I can't come anywhere close to doing a one-armed pullup with either arm.
So on that front - way weaker at the pullup thing, way stronger at climbing.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Jun 9, 2010, 4:25 PM
Post #42 of 90
(4031 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
I've been doing a lot of crossfit lately and not much climbing. I've never done any lifting before so it's all new to me especially the olympic lifts. I think I weigh around 150#; I can bench press about 125# and can do about 25 pushups in a row. Deadlift is around 315, back squat 245, snatch 125, clean+jerk 135. Haven't tried for a max in the other lifts. I'm pretty much the weakest male in the gym.
Interestingly, I went to the climbing gym last week for the first time in a long while and I am basically at the same climbing level as 4 months ago. Maybe a little worse off on the endurance end but not bad on the finger strength side.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 9, 2010, 4:34 PM
Post #43 of 90
(4023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Oh, and I guess I should mention that climbing (and the associated short hikes) are about the only exercise I get. No crossfit, no lifting, nothing. Okay, maybe once a month my wife drags me out for a short run.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Jun 9, 2010, 6:37 PM
Post #45 of 90
(3975 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
sidepull wrote: angry wrote: This isn't anything to brag about. I know lifters regularly bench double their body weight. I just think it's interesting that with absolutely no specific training, I was able to bench ok. It flies in the face of the prevailing sentiment that climbers have overgrown backs and weak chests. n=1 translation - this means nothing for the population at large and only means something to you. Thanks for the spray!
aerili likes this.
Actually, angry, I think your bench press puts you in ~40th percentile (or thereabouts). As for flying in the face of climbers having overgrown backs and weak chests, this isn't necessarily true. What if your back strength is near the top percentile for your age and weight? Then your ratio of strength between the muscle groups would indicate that yes, your chest is rather weak in comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
bustloose
Jun 9, 2010, 7:18 PM
Post #46 of 90
(3957 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2003
Posts: 489
|
i love it when people make sweeping generalizations about weight training and climbing, with no real knowledge of how to be good at either one.
i train with a strength and conditioning coach to help with my other sport, and always let climbing just be climbing. i decide to take my coach to a climbing comp, he immediately said he could make me stronger and fitter for climbing, and pointed out that almost all the climbers had good pulling muscles and motion, but very bad pushing muscles and motion - implying that they were not functionally strong. I changed my program with him to focus on climbing and have seen results in only a few months.
proper and consistent strength training and conditioning will absolutely make you a stronger climber, you will note that i do not say better, that would be up to you.
of course just 'hitting the weights' isn't going to help, and that's what most people envision when the topic comes up.
a program designed around making you stronger for climbing will do just that. (provided your coach or trainer (or self) isn't a complete moron)
oh, and Aerili is 100% correct. benching your weight is like climbing 5.9...
(This post was edited by bustloose on Jun 9, 2010, 7:19 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 9, 2010, 7:30 PM
Post #47 of 90
(3948 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
bustloose wrote: i decide to take my coach to a climbing comp, he immediately said he could make me stronger and fitter for climbing, and pointed out that almost all the climbers had good pulling muscles and motion, but very bad pushing muscles and motion - implying that they were not functionally strong. I changed my program with him to focus on climbing and have seen results in only a few months.
Why is it that every time someone claims that their non-climbing-specific training regimen has helped their climbing, all they ever say is that they have "seen results?" They never explain what this means; and they particularly never quantify the supposed improvement in climbing in an objective way.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jun 9, 2010, 11:27 PM
Post #48 of 90
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
jt512 wrote: bustloose wrote: i decide to take my coach to a climbing comp, he immediately said he could make me stronger and fitter for climbing, and pointed out that almost all the climbers had good pulling muscles and motion, but very bad pushing muscles and motion - implying that they were not functionally strong. I changed my program with him to focus on climbing and have seen results in only a few months. Why is it that every time someone claims that their non-climbing-specific training regimen has helped their climbing, all they ever say is that they have "seen results?" They never explain what this means; and they particularly never quantify the supposed improvement in climbing in an objective way. Jay
Fair question. My opinion is, it's because it's so difficult to really prove causation. You can't really prove that your improved strength protected you from injury, thus allowing you to spend more time climbing, instead of recovering from injury.
Likewise, it's hard to prove that specified weight training does not improve climbing. I know that, way back when, I decided I wasn't strong enough, and began a climbing-specific program in a book (The Outdoor Athlete, by Steve Ilg). My strength improved, and my climbing improved, by about a grade and a half. I certainly improved my endurance and comfort on long alpine rock routes. My bouldering and pure sport did not improve as much.
That said, I clearly recall one particular incident where I did a very difficult, pure one arm mantle on a sloper that I just knew I couldn't have done without training dips hard.
Of course, If I had better technique, maybe I could have found a way to dance around the mantle. I'm not sure it's easy to really know these things.
|
|
|
|
|
pfwein
Jun 10, 2010, 1:27 AM
Post #49 of 90
(3854 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353
|
onceahardman wrote: jt512 wrote: bustloose wrote: i decide to take my coach to a climbing comp, he immediately said he could make me stronger and fitter for climbing, and pointed out that almost all the climbers had good pulling muscles and motion, but very bad pushing muscles and motion - implying that they were not functionally strong. I changed my program with him to focus on climbing and have seen results in only a few months. Why is it that every time someone claims that their non-climbing-specific training regimen has helped their climbing, all they ever say is that they have "seen results?" They never explain what this means; and they particularly never quantify the supposed improvement in climbing in an objective way. Jay Fair question. My opinion is, it's because it's so difficult to really prove causation. You can't really prove that your improved strength protected you from injury, thus allowing you to spend more time climbing, instead of recovering from injury. Likewise, it's hard to prove that specified weight training does not improve climbing. I know that, way back when, I decided I wasn't strong enough, and began a climbing-specific program in a book ( The Outdoor Athlete, by Steve Ilg). My strength improved, and my climbing improved, by about a grade and a half. I certainly improved my endurance and comfort on long alpine rock routes. My bouldering and pure sport did not improve as much. That said, I clearly recall one particular incident where I did a very difficult, pure one arm mantle on a sloper that I just knew I couldn't have done without training dips hard. Of course, If I had better technique, maybe I could have found a way to dance around the mantle. I'm not sure it's easy to really know these things.
I didn't read jt512's post as asking for any sort of proof of causation, but rather just for an identification of improvement with numbers. E.g., before my super lifting program my hardest onsight was 5.x, after my super lifting program it was 5.y.
I got at least an implication from bustloose that he thinks he and/or his coach know how to get good at climbing and lifting. How 'bout some numbers to back that up?
|
|
|
|
|
Prokofievian
Jun 10, 2010, 5:52 AM
Post #50 of 90
(3822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2010
Posts: 34
|
pfwein wrote: I didn't read jt512's post as asking for any sort of proof of causation, but rather just for an identification of improvement with numbers. E.g., before my super lifting program my hardest onsight was 5.x, after my super lifting program it was 5.y. I got at least an implication from bustloose that he thinks he and/or his coach know how to get good at climbing and lifting. How 'bout some numbers to back that up?
I've been thinking about this post for a little while now, and I agree, there should be some data for these claims. However, I must disagree with your example of "good data" that provides evidence of improvement(read: "I used to climb 5.x now I climb 5.y"). For one thing, it's anecdotal. That's fine, we're on an internet forum, not a court-room. But a much more serious issue is that it doesn't accurately test the parameters which are supposed to be affected by strength training.
Onsighting, redpointing, flashing routes of 5.x is not solely dependent upon someone's strength. This much, anecdotal evidence can tell us(even the stuff in this thread). At the very most simplified outlook, climbing has 3 components: physical, mental, and technical(from Training for Climbing). Of these three categories, only one sub category is your base-level of strength. These 3 big categories can be divided up into x number of smaller categories. So it's easy to see how any one thing, not even just strength(one small part of the physical component of climbing), might have a very diluted effect on climbing performance, at least, as is judged by an increase in grade levels.
Food for thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
