Universal finger strength yardstick

[Jake]

I've been following the Steve Maisch hangboard program and having some great success with it inasmuch that I regularly and consistently add load to my workout cycles. I won't go into the details of the program here but it basically revolves around finding a load that one can handle for single 10 second hangs, doing three workout using that load but increasing volume each workout. After three workouts using the same load, reassess and determine whether to add load and repeat the cycle.

My intent is to train for max finger strength but I doubt a load that one can handle for 10 sec for one rep would be an apt determiner of max strength. The guys over at Lattice training seem to suggest one arm hangs on a 20mm for 5 sec as a yardstick for max finger strength and it makes sense to me. Using that metric seems like a more quantifiable way to determine if a particular program led to an increase in base max finger strength as opposed to climbing performance (despite that being the ultimate goal of course) For example, climber A follows Eva Lopez' intermittent hangs program for x amount of time, climber B follows Rptc repeaters for the same time, what program leads to a greater increase of strength as measured by a baseline max finger strength analysis?

This obviously isn't really a question, just some thoughts that drift through my head between sets on the board. I'm just trying to spark a discussion and get some feadback

[srossabi42]

if you are just trying to test if your max finger strength has improved after a cycle of hangboarding, i think both the 10 sec max hang, and the 5 sec one arm hang would tell you this. also i think eva lopez has started to address the "which program leads to..." question in the link below
www.researchgate.net/publication/312554382_Comparison_of_the_Effects_of_Three_Hangboard_Training_Programs_on_Maximal_Finger_Strength_in_Rock_Climbers

sorry if i am missing what you were hoping to discuss

[Nico W]

Seems to me that when you're going to use (what is basically sort of) a 1 rep-max hang as a yardstick to compare any gains made during different types of training, those test-subjects training the max hang-protocol are going to come out on top. Anyone remember training specificity? I'm sure this paper is made with all the best intentions, but to me this seems more like a selfullfilling prophecy.

[Lundy]

Oct 5, 2017 6:32:08 GMT -7 Nico W said:

Seems to me that when you're going to use (what is basically sort of) a 1 rep-max hang as a yardstick to compare any gains made during different types of training, those test-subjects training the max hang-protocol are going to come out on top. Anyone remember training specificity? I'm sure this paper is made with all the best intentions, but to me this seems more like a selfullfilling prophecy.

Exactly.  There are other problems with the paper, too, namely that none of the findings are statistically significant, which for non-economists is another way of saying there's no difference (sortof).  She doesn't share p-values so it's hard to say how close they are to significant findings, but this is unconvincing to me for both these reasons (specificity, non-statistically significant.)

[srossabi42]

i agree, i shared it because it seems like the OP is looking to do almost exactly what was done in the paper

edit:typo