|
Post by jonfrisby on Sept 29, 2017 11:32:49 GMT -7
So if you are doing 3-4 different grips, would it make sense to have each grip on a different schedule? So have the half crimp at week one while full crimp is at week 2 and pocket is at week 3 and pinch is deloading? This would keep your overall TUT fairly consistent throughout
|
|
|
Post by daustin on Sept 29, 2017 11:36:31 GMT -7
Thanks so far! I understand avoiding injury is extremely important, but I was hoping we could continue to discuss breaking through a RPTM HB plateau, per the original post. IMO it's relevant given that the closest thing to consistent advice you're getting is to switch up your HB protocol, and max hangs are probably the most popular HB protocol alongside RCTM Repeaters. That's not to say they're the best protocol for breaking through a plateau, but they're worth considering. And they have to be characterized fairly if you're going to consider them. For me, max hangs feel less potentially injurious than repeaters, due mostly to the significantly lower TUT. Individual grips see 30-50" of load when I do max hangs, vs. 126" when I do the advanced RCTM protocol. If I'm doing a grip that's somewhat tweaky like a 2F pocket or a full crimp, the amount of time I put my fingers/tendons in a potentially compromised position feels like it contributes more to tweakiness than whether I'm hanging at ~60% of my max or ~80% of my max. That's not to say that RCTM repeaters are intrinsically injurious, but just to dispel any potential myth about max hangs having a higher potential for injury.
|
|
dsm
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by dsm on Sept 29, 2017 13:00:34 GMT -7
That's interesting. I use the 5-3-1 for weights, but never thought to use it for hangboarding. Under the 5-3-1 program for weights, you increase 5 lbs for upper body exercises when you finish a four exercise cycle. I bet that translates pretty neatly into using 5-3-1 for hangboarding.
|
|
|
Post by mkane on Oct 1, 2017 13:45:36 GMT -7
So if you are doing 3-4 different grips, would it make sense to have each grip on a different schedule? So have the half crimp at week one while full crimp is at week 2 and pocket is at week 3 and pinch is deloading? This would keep your overall TUT fairly consistent throughout
Lol at pinch is deloading. Sounded like Maisch was running all his grips on the same schedule but I have no idea if that's ideal and it sounded like he was still experimenting with the protocol a bit.
|
|
|
Post by mkane on Oct 1, 2017 13:59:45 GMT -7
Jon, I was more laughing at how the pinch is an afterthought grip in training than at your suggestion.
OP, if you want to stick with repeaters maybe you could change the reps slightly... Totally spitballing here, but maybe instead on reps of 7/6/5 try a cycle of reps on 5/4/3?
|
|
|
Post by Lundy on Oct 1, 2017 20:46:03 GMT -7
For Maisch's 5/3/1 you would use the rep schemes and weight percentages outlined here but using the 7-on/3-off repeater as one "rep": www.t-nation.com/workouts/531-how-to-build-pure-strength (FYI its t-nation, so expect a few f-bombs) Lundy, I'm also interested in hearing more about your 5/3/1 program So this is exactly what I did.
Here's the crux bit of the article:
So if your 1RM in the bench press is 315 pounds, you use 285 (90%) as the base number for your training-weight calculations. Here's how it works:
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Set 1 65% x 5 70% x 3 75% x 5 40% x 5 Set 2 75% x 5 80% x 3 85% x 3 50% x 5 Set 3 85% x 5+ 90% x 3+ 95% x 1+ 60% x 5
When you see 5+, 3+, or 1+, that means you do the max reps you can manage with that weight, with the goal of setting a rep record in each workout.
I used the Maisch testing protocol to determine my 10s one rep max, and then took 90% of that as my base number. Then just plug into these formulas (accounting for change in body weight, as I've been dropping weight like crazy right now.)
After completing this cycle once (for the power phase), rather than re-calculating everything, I just added 5 pounds to all grips for all three workouts.
For the grips, I'm using half crimp, MR, full crimp, and wide pinch. So four grips times three sets each times four minutes each, the whole thing takes 48 minutes.
I know both the 5/3/1 protocol (as written for power lifting) and Maisch recommend not doing too many grips (or exercises, if powerlifting) in a day, but to me the total TUT is so much less than a standard repeater workout that I don't have any problem doing all four grips each week (i.e. first week, do 3 sets of 5 reps on all four grips), and recovering from it feels fine.
Note, also, that while total TUT is lower, given that the last set of each grip is to failure, and the weights aren't really that high, you may end up doing a lot of reps there. In my first workout (5's), my last set will usually end up doing 8-10 reps. By my last workout (last set 1s), I ended up doing 3 or more reps on each grip. I definitely wouldn't call it a hypertrophy protocol, but it's not like a max hangs workout where I was doing maybe 160 seconds TUT for the whole workout.
Happy to answer other questions, but one quick reminder. While I really like this protocol, I'm far from convinced that this is the difference maker. I actually think the difference in getting past stagnation, in order of importance, is: - Not stopping hangboarding during power, PE, and performance
- Changing up protocols to vary the stimulus and work different energy systems; and
- Using 5/3/1.
Good luck to everyone, though, who wants to try it!
|
|
|
Post by jonfrisby on Oct 2, 2017 8:07:35 GMT -7
Great stuff Lundy . Do you think you underestimated your percentages? I think some people would categorize a 10 second max as already being about 90% or your true max. This may account for all your (+) sets going well beyond the expected failure point.
|
|
|
Post by Lundy on Oct 2, 2017 8:55:14 GMT -7
For sure I did, but I'm also not trying to get strong tomorrow. If I add five pounds to this workout every time I do a new cycle, and I do maybe 6 a year, that's a LOT of weight, so I'm not too worried about having started too low!
E
|
|
|
Post by jonfrisby on Oct 2, 2017 9:11:14 GMT -7
For sure I did, but I'm also not trying to get strong tomorrow. If I add five pounds to this workout every time I do a new cycle, and I do maybe 6 a year, that's a LOT of weight, so I'm not too worried about having started too low! E Reminds me of a Bechtel quote - we train for the climbs we want to do in 2 years, and our fingers are the result of the training we did 2 years ago, not last week. Seems very reasonable to underestimate the numbers when exploring new protocols.
|
|
|
Post by tetrault on Oct 2, 2017 10:15:08 GMT -7
Lundy - Thank you for the very detailed response!
This is something I will consider doing as, so far, this is the only response that specifically mentioned seeing results on RPTM repeaters after some type of stagnation.
Not to take away from the work you put in, but as you mentioned, I am also not convinced that the 5/3/1 was the only factor sparking your RPTM repeater improvement. I also had an injury around my 10th cycle (more like 8th cycle; mild A2). Coming off this, I did a few nearly back-to-back RPTM repeater cycles at reduced weights. I saw a few seasons of slight, but nonetheless actual improvement following the injury being fully healed.
Not to say that being injured is the key to improvement either!
|
|
izroz
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by izroz on Oct 3, 2017 2:26:42 GMT -7
Thanks for sharing the info Lundy. I would like to ask you a few more questions! I've completed 3 complete RPTM cycles, I've just finished the 4th HB cycles using the intermediate protocol, and now I started the power phase of my cycle, integrating for the first time some campus board. Some recent podcasts (Steve Maisch on Powercompany and Charlie Manganiello on Trainingbeta), your experience and my feelings suggests that it's better to continue with some form of hangboarding in the power phase and maybe even during power-endurance. That's why I've decided to switch protocol and try the 5/3/1 to provide a different stimulus to my forearms. Yesterday I was playing around trying to determine my Max Weight Hang on a 20mm edge (following Steve Maisch's instructions) So.. max weight you can hang for 13 seconds. Result was 12kg of added weight. The first big question is: which weight should I use in the formulas? 12 kg or (12kg + bodyweight)? For example week 1: 12kg --> Training weight = 0.9*12=10.8 --> Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 7 kg 8.1 kg 9.2 kg added weight + bodyweight 12 + 62 ---> Training weight = 0.9*(12+62)=66.6 ---> Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 (66.6*0.65)-62= -18.7 kg -12 kg -5.4 kg The difference for Set1 is 25 kg, set2 20 kg and set3 14kg which for me is a lot! For frame of reference my last hangboard workout #8 (15 days ago) using the same edge was a Personal Record and I used Set1 Set2
5kg 10kg of added weight. So 7kg looks like a VERY challenging set1, instead -18.7 looks like I'm doing nothing.. Should I remove the 90% of one rep max? In this case the sets look like this: First scenario (using 12kg) Second scenario (using 12+62kg)Set1 | Set2 | Set3 | Set1 | Set2 | Set3 |
|
| 7.8 | 9 | 12 | -14
| -6.5 | 1 |
| |
Second question: did you hang for 10 second? and how much rest between reps? I've read somewhere 10s or a little more (15-20s) Thanks! PS: big thanks to Mark and Mike for "The" Book and for this amazing source of really useful informations.
|
|
|
Post by jonfrisby on Oct 3, 2017 8:50:23 GMT -7
For the 90% calculation you want to go based on BW + added weight. Think about it, someone able to add 100% BW is going to have significantly different calculations from someone able to hang 25% BW. This standardizes it. The other question is determining what a true 1rm is for hangs which can be anything from 2 seconds to 10 with a 3 second buffer. Obviously choosing a higher TUT as your 1rm will yield lower working weight than calculating based off a shorter hang.
|
|
|
Post by Lundy on Oct 3, 2017 18:50:12 GMT -7
Jon has it right. I tested my 1RM at 10 seconds, but I'm sure 13 is also fine. Then yes, use bodyweight plus whatever you're adding or subtracting as the basis for your calculation. So 90% of BW +/- added weight is your base, then plug it into the formulas given for the protocol. It's gonna feel super easy at first, but every four weeks you add 5 pounds, so it'll start feeling hard soon.
For the hang protocol, I used 7s on / 3s rest, just like the RCTM repeaters protocol. For me it was just a hunch, but I think Steve Maisch tested different protocols to see what gets similar results as traditional lifting standards (i.e. 3RM should be 95% of 1RM) and he found that 7/3 was actually the right fit. Lucky guess on my part.
|
|
izroz
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by izroz on Oct 4, 2017 1:19:38 GMT -7
Thank you very much Jon and Lundy, I'll try to incorporate these "light" hangs in the power, endurance and peak phases once a week.
I'm sure that by the time I'll be starting another RPTM HB cycle these hangs will not be so easy..
I'll try 10s on / 10-15s off and I'll report back!
|
|
|
Post by tetrault on Oct 4, 2017 6:38:37 GMT -7
Some great 5-3-1 information in this thread; maybe it should be retitled as such. As this protocol claims to build long-term strength in the "core lifts", it will be very interesting to see and hear if it is as effective at building long-term isometric finger strength from people that stick with it in the years to come. Though, if still using 7/3sec hang/rests, it ends up being quite similar to the RPTM recommended protocol with less volume and more undulating weight throughout a cycle. One difference, of course, being the recommendation to continue hangboarding through the power and PE phase. This aside, some studies that use isometric contractions below the maximum voluntary contraction level (which seems like the only possible measurable hangboard exercise) for hypertrophic gains use significantly longer contraction times than 7-10 seconds. Ex: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8549577It is understood that studies, especially those not specific to climbing, aren't the best source of information. But, has anyone experimented with significantly longer hang times on the hangboard? Other studies also look at an increase in isometric exercise volume, more reps/sets, vs increase in % max, over a period of time. Anyone experimented with building volume vs weight on the hangboard?
|
|