|
|
Post by climbnkev on Nov 19, 2016 7:51:32 GMT -7
I was curious on others thoughts on the following workouts that I have developed to work on capacity while not being "that guy" ARC training at a crowded gym. I know it's not ideal, but I often end up at the climbing gym when it's close to peak time and without a partner. I generally have about 1.5 hours to get things done. Below are two workouts from my training diary, I'm interested in thoughts on which you would consider to be a more productive session.
11/18 ET Volume Bouldering
(2) V1 +(12) V2 - 17:16 3 min test
(5) V3 + (9) V4 - 22:57 5 min rest
(4) V5 + V4 rest 1 min after each problem (1:20 Ave climb time) fell on last V5 attempt.
56 min total workout V Total 101
33 problems. V Ave 3.03
First session is a loose format for time, basically just running around climbing as continuously as possible for the first 40 minutes, then pushing into anaerobic territory in the cave on a 1:1 work-rest for the last 10 minutes. Basically spent most of the session climbing all the V2 -V4 in the gym but I was not counting downclimbs and working up in difficulty.
10/30 ET Volume Bouldering
Warm-up- V1,v2,v1,v2,v2,V3,v1,v2,v1
8:30 9 problems V 15 total
2 on 2 (2 problems every 2 minutes count down climb on marked holds)
V2,2,2,2,3,1,3,1,1,2,3,3,2,3,1,3,2,3,2,3,2,4,4,4,3,2,3,2,2,2,2,1,3,1,1,1,1,1
40 min. 38 problems V83
48:30 total workout V Total 98
47 problems V Ave 2.08
Second session I call the 2x2 is basically climbing two problems in about 1 minutes and resting until I hit a 2 min timer. Rested a bit longer on a few sets working through the cave and wave walls. Downclimbing these routes was a lot pumpier, so often I would DC on open holds and jump down and onto another problem nearby.
For reference the majority of the problems average out to 10-12 moves long, routes vertical to horizontal, basically just climbing every problem in the gym at a given grade.
Thanks for your input.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Nov 19, 2016 9:27:02 GMT -7
I would guess for Aerobic Capacity the second workout is probably a bit better since it seems a bit more continuous with lower intensity. The first workout sounds like a lot more fun (another strike against it, haha). I think both would work well as an alternative to ARCing, and I'm sure the difference between them is negligible. So which one felt harder and which one was more fun? I would think trying to send four V5s on a 1:1 duty cycle after climbing 30 other problems would be pretty hard.
|
|
|
|
Post by climbnkev on Nov 19, 2016 21:50:12 GMT -7
Thanks for the reply Mark. Yes I agree the second is probably better training with the additional 100+ moves in about the same time period, but the first is a lot more fun. The real crux of interval training in the gym is when someone jumps on the wall right as your rest period is up.
Because the rest periods in the first workout were more varied it did feel easier until the end, when I was definitely getting into anaerobic territory but on juggy climbing which allowed me to push it a bit farther.
|
|
|
|
Post by brendann on Nov 20, 2016 8:24:56 GMT -7
You are trying to up your continuous steady state so you want the workout to be as continuous as possible. Number two.
|
|
|
|
Post by climbnkev on Nov 21, 2016 22:38:32 GMT -7
The question that comes to mind though is how much intensity effects the training stimulus. For example a 5 hour solo ridge traverse would obviously have a higher continuity, but it would likely take several days to recover from and the intensity would need to be quite low. Would it be twice as effective as 2 days of 1 hour ARC training? Is ARCing for an hour with the average grade at 5.8 more effective at training capacity than 30 minutes at 5.10?
In workout 2 i spend almost 1/2 of the session resting which equates to approx 28 minutes of actual climbing. In workout 1 I only took 13 minutes of planned rest plus some time moving between problems. Also as I did not count any downclimbs the actual volume of climbing in workout 1 might have been higher. That combined with the higher average difficulty made me question which was in fact a more effective session.
Questions of "junk mileage" pop into my head. As a climber who can regularly OS V6 and sometimes V7, is V2 really a high enough training stimulus? Would jumping to a 3-4 problem link and doubling the rest periods be more effective? It has always seemed to me that Aerobic capacity is one of those big question marks in climbing training. Are we really building a base for our future training or just providing a convenient active rest period to allow our bodies more time to recover?
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Nov 22, 2016 9:32:56 GMT -7
From what I've observed, I would say that both strategies can work effectively. The question is, which is superior, and I think that would depend on your goals.
I rarely ARC anymore, and when I do it's done more as a low intensity method of delaying the start of my "real" training (hangboarding, etc). So in that sense, I don't really "believe" in it for myself ANYMORE (I do believe it helped me immensely when I was breaking into 12s and striving for 5.13). I've been able to accomplish my goals by using much higher intensity PE training without significant ARCing.
However, I'm continually amazed by what Mike is able to accomplish off of extensive ARCing. From watching him, I'm absolutely convinced that ARCing does accomplish something (its not just "active recovery"), even if we can't put our finger on exactly why it works. One could make the argument that I'm a better power climber and Mike's a better endurance climber (I'm not making that argument). Based on that, one could leap to a conclusion about which training method will produce the better power vs endurance climber. Certainly if I were planning a season of bouldering, I wouldn't do any ARCing, and if I were planning a season of onsighting at the Red, I would do a lot of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by brendann on Nov 22, 2016 11:27:50 GMT -7
Questions of "junk mileage" pop into my head. As a climber who can regularly OS V6 and sometimes V7, is V2 really a high enough training stimulus? You should get to the gym during an 'off' time and link V2s together for 20 minutes without stepping off the wall. If you feel fresh at the end, you have your answer. |
|
|
|
Post by jcm on Nov 22, 2016 12:08:35 GMT -7
Questions of "junk mileage" pop into my head. As a climber who can regularly OS V6 and sometimes V7, is V2 really a high enough training stimulus? You should get to the gym during an 'off' time and link V2s together for 20 minutes without stepping off the wall. If you feel fresh at the end, you have your answer. Brendann:
I have numerous accumulated questions for you about how you use ARCing. I was about to derail this thread, but instead decided to move it to its own thread. See rockprodigytraining.proboards.com/thread/1156/brendann-theory-arcing
|
|
|
|
Post by ehowell on Dec 29, 2016 10:11:17 GMT -7
I rarely ARC anymore, and when I do it's done more as a low intensity method of delaying the start of my "real" training (hangboarding, etc). So in that sense, I don't really "believe" in it for myself ANYMORE (I do believe it helped me immensely when I was breaking into 12s and striving for 5.13). Mark, when you did see gains from ARCing, do you think it was the physiologic response (aerobic capacity) or the movement skills gained from mileage? When I truly ARC (versus bouldering mileage in the gym) I definitely see an increase in aerobic capacity, but I'm dubious that it carries over after nearly 2 months of hangboarding and bouldering/campus boarding. What I feel I need is more movement practice on harder terrain, which may not be sustainable for 20-30 minutes of continuous climbing. |
|
|
|
Post by aikibujin on Dec 29, 2016 12:00:27 GMT -7
When I truly ARC (versus bouldering mileage in the gym) I definitely see an increase in aerobic capacity, but I'm dubious that it carries over after nearly 2 months of hangboarding and bouldering/campus boarding. That was definitely my experience this season. My last ARC day on a wall was at the beginning of November, I did two sessions of 30-40 mins continuous climbing. By the time I started my PE phase last week, I felt like I've lost all my base. I actually experimented with doing ARCing on a hangboard at home during my strength and power phases as aerobic capacity maintenance, but obviously it was less than successful. |
|
|
|
Post by climber511 on Dec 30, 2016 9:57:44 GMT -7
When I truly ARC (versus bouldering mileage in the gym) I definitely see an increase in aerobic capacity, but I'm dubious that it carries over after nearly 2 months of hangboarding and bouldering/campus boarding. That was definitely my experience this season. My last ARC day on a wall was at the beginning of November, I did two sessions of 30-40 mins continuous climbing. By the time I started my PE phase last week, I felt like I've lost all my base. I actually experimented with doing ARCing on a hangboard at home during my strength and power phases as aerobic capacity maintenance, but obviously it was less than successful. This is one of the problems with a perfectly straight periodization plan - how to hold onto the attribute you just spent so much time gaining while you move your focus on to the next priority. Maybe Mark can expand on it a little here for us. This is the big reason I have used more of a conjugate method with my general strength and fitness training. |
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Dec 30, 2016 15:02:27 GMT -7
Ideally everything would be peaking at the same time, but there are only so many hours in the day, etc. The theory is that some types of fitness take longer to de-train than others. Generally power fades pretty fast, but endurance lingers. So part of the reasoning behind the ordering of phases is to ensure you have the most of what you really need when you are nearest to your performance phase. Hi-rep/low-intensity endurance generally lasts a long time, and one might argue it's not as critical as power, and so on. Of course, any of these assumptions may not hold true for a given climber, based either on personal physiology or goals. A naturally high recruiter may have much more trouble maintaining endurance and vice versa.
Anyway, you can further delay the decline of your ARC gains by doing regular ARC maintenance. For me, this is just my 15-minute warmup prior to each HB workout or LB/C workout. That seems to be plenty for me, but other people like to add full-on ARC workouts during their Strength Phase. I think I'm a naturally low recruiter, so I probably maintain a pretty high baseline level of endurance. YMMV. One thing I find funny about this type of question is that when I started I was ARCing for 4 weeks and HBing for 3, then climbing outside the next week, so it was no big deal to maintain my ARC gains. But now it seems even raw beginners want to do 12+ HB workouts, which significantly exacerbates this problem. Of course, now I pretty much don't ARC, so there's nothing to maintain, haha.
Anyway to answer Evan's question, I would say that for the first several years I mostly benefited technically. Perhaps because I had a lot of room for technical improvement. I also didn't really know how to ARC particularly well at that time, and the terrain wasn't right for making big physical gains. Unless you do a lot of jughauling, I think technical gains are far more useful. They will stay with you forever and translate to virtually every venue, whereas the ability to jughaul only really helps at certain crags.
|
|
|
|
Post by ehowell on Dec 30, 2016 18:27:19 GMT -7
Thanks Mark, that helps. I agree that I see the most benefits in ARCing in the technical realm, I'm just debating whether I should treat it more as mileage phase and less as continuous true ARCing, which I think is better for aerobic capacity (but still also great for technique). Like so many others, and the reason I contributed to this tread, is that ARCing sucks in a commercial gym! I can make it work by getting in at 5am, but that's a bummer. I feel like I can maybe get just as much from wearing myself out on a combination of ARCing and just running around getting bouldering mileage, which is much more user friendly on a weeknight at 6pm. That seems to be the crux of the issue, and a big part of why so many people want to drop the phase all together. I think it's really valuable up to about 5.13 as you suggest, it's just tweaking it to make it work in a gym. By the way, you guys have definitely created hangboarding monsters!  |
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Dec 30, 2016 20:41:06 GMT -7
I found volume bouldering was rather effective, both technically and physically. The physical benefits are certainly not equivalent to ARCing though. Its nowhere near as continuous, but the moves are generally harder. Depending on your goal terrain, that could be good or bad. For the Front Range, I think volume bouldering is at least as good if not better.
|
|
