|
Post by willblack on Mar 7, 2018 14:47:08 GMT -7
I listened to an interesting podcast the other day that had a short section dealing with the common misconception that all common medical practices are evidence-based and have a clear benefit. The individual on the podcast described the conflict of questioning accepted but not necessarily evidence-based practices as the conflict between evidence and eminence. This got me thinking about how this happens in climbing training as well, with the extra challenge being that there are probably no studies in the field of training for climbing that would hold up to the rigor required of the medical field. I'm curious to hear about commonly accepted training methods/maxims/assumptions that are either statistical or logical falsehoods. Obviously a lot of this is personal opinion, but here are my top training falsehoods:
A lead wall is better for power endurance training than a bouldering wall Sport climbers should spend more time training endurance than strength or power Height provides a general advantage in climbing ability Restrictive dieting is detrimental to climbing performance Taping is useful in providing structural support to an injured tendon
I'm interested to hear what other people say about mine and their own favorite training misconceptions (bonus points if you can cite an absurd online or magazine article supporting it)
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Mar 7, 2018 15:35:23 GMT -7
I think the all-time greatest fallacy is that pull-ups are anything more than very slightly relevant to climbing ability.
You could come up with a lot of technique-related things, like "silent" feet" which has little practical application.
On another note, while I certainly enjoy bashing some of these dead-ends from time-to-time, I think it's pretty easy to go too far in the other direction, throwing out millions of hours of anecdotal data in favor of one shitty study. Frankly I think the climbing training community is currently a bit overly-fascinated with (so-called) scientific studies that more often than not are horribly conceived and poorly executed (or designed/manipulated to support a pre-conceived notion). Any study can be manipulated, especially in small populations with zero controls and no peer review (this is the current state of climbing-related "research"). Until the situation changes drastically I will continue to put my faith in smart people who climb hard and spent many years figuring out how to do so.
|
|
|
Post by RobF on Mar 10, 2018 16:29:33 GMT -7
Agree- I do feel that climbing may be becoming overly scienced and possibly losing some of its magic because of that. However, hats off to those who spend their free time reviewing the relevant research and setting up interesting websites and podcasts. Key is to present the overall findings simply in a way that is easily digested by the masses.
|
|
|
Post by RobF on Mar 10, 2018 16:38:59 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by jrblack on Mar 19, 2018 17:09:22 GMT -7
Until the situation changes drastically I will continue to put my faith in smart people who climb hard and spent many years figuring out how to do so. Absent peer-reviewed double-blind studies for climbing training, that's what I do too... (*looks at copy of RCTM*) But often I worry that "smart people who climb hard" are climbing hard mostly because they're genetically-predisposed to gain a lot of finger strength, resist injury, and have a good head for climbing, and they become strong in spite of their training rather than because of it. (Though it's hard to argue that hangboarding--for example--is completely wrongheaded!)
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Mar 19, 2018 18:26:22 GMT -7
Hmm. I disagree, though I can understand how one might come to that conclusion when viewing the sport from a different perspective.
The way I see it, the bulk of performance-oriented climbers are cast-offs from more main-stream sports. Generally they are cast-off because they were not particularly outstanding in any of those sports, even at modest levels of competition (like the high school or college level). I would argue that generally, we have self-selected away from mainstream sports due in large part to a lack of outstanding genetic gifts. From this pool of mediocrity (I'm including myself in this pool, believe me), there will surely be some that are relatively outstanding, but compared to a pool of NBA stars, or even NCAA DI varsity athletes even the best climbers would look fairly pedestrian (in fact, I would describe my NCAA D1 varsity athletic career as far below pedestrian). Obviously basketball is selecting for different traits than rock climbing, but many athletic characteristics are universal, like muscle twitch, recruitment, V02 Max, hemoglobin count, work ethic, tenacity, drive and so on. Anyway, enough to argue about for a while here so I'll get to the main point....
After contemplating this for a good decade now, I think the primary factor that differentiates climbers is commitment. The best climbers are just way more committed than average climbers. I've had lots of friends and acquaintances who've followed "the program" and some rocket to 5.14 and some go nowhere. The ones who go nowhere are not committed. It's a sliding scale, but anywhere-near-fully-committed climbers are very rare. Many sub-committed climbers have made a conscious choice to prioritize other parts of their life, so when it comes time to perform that don't have the time, energy, resources. etc to put themselves into position to be successful. That's understandable, I would never question or think less of someone for that--climbing is totally frivolous after all--just be honest about it. Others don't really even know what commitment is. They think they're committed, but compared to the best climbers, they aren't even close.
I really dislike the "faulty genes" explanation because it takes the power out of the individual's hands. Even if its true, it doesn't help to think that way. Focus on the things you can control and make them better. I think a lot of climbers want to say "I work just as hard as [superstar X], why am I not as good? Must be genes." The truth is, they don't work as hard. And/or they don't try as hard, don't allow themselves opportunities, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie S on Mar 19, 2018 18:42:34 GMT -7
Commitment is key! I realized this going through college too. I'm not particularly sharp, but I am stubborn. Anyone I've watched or mentored for climbing training has improved with commitment.
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Mar 19, 2018 20:05:46 GMT -7
I think there's a lot to be said for "smart people who climb hard".
I live and work in a world where peer reviewed, double blind, evidence based statistical study best practice is held in high regard. It would be foolish to completely disregard all of that information, but equally foolish to lean too heavily on it.
With regards to genetics and natural ability, I'm a cast off. Such a genetic cast off, in fact, that I wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for a few very smart people and a little bit of luck. My only genetic gifts for climbing are that I'm not huge (5.10, maybe, and around 155) and I have a long reach. I'm definitely not predisposed to strength, especially finger strength or power. I do, however, work really hard.
My training has worked wonders for me. It finally gave me a way to structure my hard work and see results from it. I just needed a little guidance to get started. I'm not strong, but I'm good at figuring things out and working hard. The only thing I'm more committed to, besides my climbing, is my family. I know that "holds me back" a bit, like Sunday when I stayed home with the kids instead of going out to the crag, but they're worth it.
|
|
|
Post by RobF on Mar 20, 2018 12:08:03 GMT -7
I came 92nd out of about 100 people in a national comp 6 months after I first started climbing (aged 17 in 1992!). Last year came 2nd in a regional comp aged 42. Is that progress, who knows? Have gone from a climb everything everywhere attitude to a more project based focus over the past few years - given family and work committments. My training methodologies are definitely better these days- if I knew then what I know now...
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Mar 20, 2018 13:57:15 GMT -7
Rob, is that Malham Cove in your profile pic? I need to get over there sometime soon. When's the best time to visit for primarily sport climbing, a wee bit of grit and maybe A Dream of White Horses or something like that?
|
|
|
Post by RobF on Mar 21, 2018 4:39:34 GMT -7
Well spotted :-) it is- scene of Britain's hardest route. I live about 30 min away. Traditionally I've been a grit fiend but gotten into the limestone in the past few years. There's a really good scene on the catwalk over the past few seasons- everyone seems to be ditching the bouldering for the sports stuff (bouldering on a rope for most). The malham season is now til mid June when it becomes too hot then everyone switches to kilnsey for the summer then back to malham from September until it becomes too cold and wet about end of October. Is all undercuts and super techy with bad feet if you're needing to put in the training milage...
|
|
|
Post by RobF on Mar 21, 2018 4:45:19 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Mar 21, 2018 13:48:00 GMT -7
Thanks for the video! I've actually been re-reading Steve McClure's book over the last week, so its very timely. The climbing style sounds a lot like Rifle, but the rock looks like it might be a bit more solid, less featured and generally not as steep as Rifle.
|
|
|
Post by RobF on Mar 22, 2018 11:38:23 GMT -7
Last summer Steve Mc was up every 2 or 3 days with a life on hold - keep going til it's done attitude for Rainman. The session before he ticked it he made us all laugh. Slotted in the kneebar rest at half height but accidentally snagged the rope in as well thus self belaying himself. Said he could have stayed there all day. Luckily he fell off the last move that time else the ethics police would have been on to him...
|
|
|
Post by willblack on Mar 22, 2018 14:21:16 GMT -7
In my initial post I didn't intend to suggest that every training method needs to be backed by statistics, I just said that a lot of common training methods are based on either statistical OR LOGICAL falsehoods. So yeah, I totally agree with the smart people who climb hard sentiment. Honestly, I don't even think it's really possible to do a rigorous RCT on most training methods because it would be hard to create accountability, a double blind format, and a large enough sample size with few external variables to really be able to come to any solid conclusions. I honestly can't imagine coming up with a good study on even something as accepted as hangboarding.
|
|