|
Post by jessebruni on Apr 16, 2015 11:56:04 GMT -7
At one point in time I had read through every post on this forum, and every post on the RCTM website as well. I inevitably find myself learning new things and asking new questions which may have been covered by things I'd already read, but since I didn't know what to look for when I read them I didn't pay enough attention. With that being said, I apologize if what I'm about to ask my have been covered elsewhere.
I want to preface my question with a few thoughts about training for climbing in general. My first thought is that if I want to be a good climber I shouldn't shoot for anything less than the best. In other words, I don't see the point in training to send V8's when, the journey towards training for V15 will get me to the point of flashing V8's with ease. Now I realize there may be genetic limitations, or limitations due to age, or circumstances of life that stop me from getting to V15, but with this approach I'll still be more likely to get to something harder than V8. The other thought is that endurance can be trained quickly, and that in order to do the hardest routes in the world you have to first be able to do the moves. This seems to indicate that training for strength and power is king, and training for endurance should be left for when I actually need it for a specific goal. Now these are just my thoughts about training, and they're based a lot on my own goals for myself. Other people may have different goals in which training isn't such a large focus. In that case training may look very different.
Okay so, on to the question. The hypertrophy phase of the rock prodigy program seems, based on what I've read in the worlds of bodybuilding and powerlifting, ideal for causing hypertrophy of the forearm muscles. But the rock prodigy program follows hypertrophy with the Max R phase, which would essentially be a strength phase, teaching the new muscles to work harder. However, it seems like the campus board and bouldering, while perhaps ideal for building power are not as useful for building contact strength as the hangboard. With both the campus board and bouldering, gains are harder to quantify since there's no use of weights and progressive overload is harder to keep consistent. This leaves me wondering why there's not a hangboard specific strength phase after the hangboard hypertrophy phase, which would then be followed by campusing and bouldering to build power?
Basically I'm thinking that it would make sense to follow up the hypertrophy phase with another ~4 week cycle of hangboarding with much lower TUT, much higher rest periods, and much higher weight. This would probably look like 5:5 repeaters with 3-5 reps and 4 or 5 minutes rest in between sets, or perhaps max hangs instead of repeaters. After 4 weeks of this then resume the cycle as normal with campusing/limit bouldering.
I realize that there are probably a lot of problems fitting this into the typical RCTM periodized cycle which includes ARCing, and PE phases, it would probably make the cycles too long. But it seems like, for the bouldering program at least this could be beneficial. Targeted strength training with the hangboard just seems to make more sense to me for building contact strength than campusing or limit bouldering, but maybe I'm missing something. Anyway, I'd love some feedback on this, for a discussion to start. Perhaps Mark could talk about why the RCTM doesn't have the MaxR phase take place on a hangboard? I'm excited to learn more and keep my training as well informed as it can be!
|
|
|
Post by amalec on Apr 16, 2015 13:34:04 GMT -7
It's better not to think about hypertrophy and strength as separate attributes.
Instead, think about strength has having (at least) two dimensions: cross sectional muscle area (hypertrophy) and motor unit activation/recruitment (e.g., more "try hard").
Generally, the 7/3 hangboard cycle is going to work on both dimensions. The 5/5 approach theoretically works more recruitment. But both are less specific for activation than limit bouldering, campusing, or outdoor bouldering. And the general issue of more hangboard training is that it necessarily means less actual hard climbing.
Based on strength training in other domains, a possibly more workable approach for what you are suggesting would be, say, three weeks of 7/3, and one week of 5/5. Or even alternating 4 cycles of 2 7/3 workouts with one 5/5 workout. Or four cycles of a high volume 7/3 workout, a lower volume 7/3 workout, then a 5/5 workout.
*If* the RCTM program isn't working for you fast enough, it's worth an experiment, but perhaps Mark's tried that experiment before?
|
|
|
Post by jessebruni on Apr 16, 2015 13:52:43 GMT -7
Yeah, it's not really a matter of how fast RCTM is working or not. I'm just trying to understand the relationship between training for hypertrophy and training for strength. I'm sure you're right that thinking about them as separate is probably what's causing the confusion. And I imagine that the isometric contractions vs concentric or eccentric makes a big difference as well.
I think people probably argue about rep ranges and rest timings a lot for powerlifting as well, but it does seem to be generally accepted that more time under tension with moderate weight (70% - 75% 1RM) and less rest (1-2 min) causes more hypertrophy and less time under tension with higher weights (90%+ 1RM) and more rest (3 -5 min) causes more recruitment. That seems to be accepted for rock prodigy as well. Campus sets are much higher intensity than hangboard sets, and prescribed rest times are longer. It just seems to me that you could fine tune that intensity much more specifically by training at higher intensity levels on a hangboard than with a campus board, and certainly more so than with bouldering.
Obviously the development of power and the ability to do big movements can't be neglected either, and so it makes sense to still campus and boulder too. I would think maybe a program with a 6-8 week Max R phase (for bouldering) with high intensity hangboarding, campusing, and limit bouldering all mixed together (say 1 day per week of each) would be a nice mix for recruitment.
There's also certainly the possibility that campusing and limit bouldering alone work fine and that adding in hangboarding at high intensity is basically just a waste of time. I certainly don't know, which is why I'm asking.
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Apr 16, 2015 14:05:31 GMT -7
Fortunately I'm quite bored at work this afternoon. At one point in time I had read through every post on this forum, and every post on the RCTM website as well. You really need some new hobbies. The hypertrophy phase of the rock prodigy program seems, based on what I've read in the worlds of bodybuilding and powerlifting, ideal for causing hypertrophy of the forearm muscles. But the rock prodigy program follows hypertrophy with the Max R phase, which would essentially be a strength phase, teaching the new muscles to work harder. I will assume your use of the bolded terms is intentional, and that you are well aware that we do not use those terms in the book. I can't demonstrate to my own satisfaction that the Strength Phase induces hypertrophy in the forearms, although I'm pretty sure it does. I am certain that there is more to the Power Phase than simply Max Recruitment, which is tediously described in the book. It's largely semantics, and the bottom line is to identify the desired adaptation and then select the best training activity to achieve that adaptation. So you could describe the desired adaptations this way: 1: Increase CSA of muscle fibers 2: Encourage maximum recruitment of muscle fibers 3. Increase contraction speed of muscle fibers Then it's a matter of selecting the "best" exercises... it seems like the campus board and bouldering, while perhaps ideal for building power are not as useful for building contact strength as the hangboard. This is where you lost me. Contact Strength is the amount of force you can summon during the fleeting moment of latching a hold, typically while attempting to stick a dyno, or the amount of force you can generate instantly. Contract Strength is the ultimate expression of power in the forearm muscles. I would argue that campusing is the ideal activity for improving contact strength. I agree that a hangboard is probably better if you are solely concerned with improving recruitment in the forearm muscles, due to the factors you listed. This leaves me wondering why there's not a hangboard specific strength phase after the hangboard hypertrophy phase, which would then be followed by campusing and bouldering to build power? Referring back to my first point, I would argue that you should have said "This leaves me wondering why there's not a hangboard specific Max R phase after the hangboard Strength phase, which would then be followed by campusing and bouldering to build power?"You pretty well hit the reasons why we don't suggest a dedicated Max R Phase. We feel like we're asking an awful lot already when we tell people to do nothing but hangboard for 4 weeks. If we asked for 8 weeks we would be run out of town on a rail. For many climbers, Skill Development is a major concern (to say nothing of fun/enjoyment), and so it makes more sense to find a training activity that improves recruitment and contraction speed while incorporating skill development. That's why we suggest Limit Bouldering and (to a lesser extent) Campusing. Basically I'm thinking that it would make sense to follow up the hypertrophy phase with another ~4 week cycle of hangboarding with much lower TUT, much higher rest periods, and much higher weight. This would probably look like 5:5 repeaters with 3-5 reps and 4 or 5 minutes rest in between sets, or perhaps max hangs instead of repeaters. After 4 weeks of this then resume the cycle as normal with campusing/limit bouldering. This sounds like a very worthwhile experiment and I highly encourage you to try it. I wonder if it makes sense to have a distinct point where you switch from Hyp-focused HBing to Max R-focused HBing, as opposed to gradually adjusting the rep duration/# reps/# of sets to smoothly transition from one to the other (For example, a distinct transition would look like this: for workout 10 you do 7/3 rep timing, 7-6-5 reps per set, and then on workout 11 you jump straight into 5/5 rep timing, 5-4-3 reps per set). I don't know the answer. There is a camp that favors "shocking" the body with a new training regimen, and I tend to lean in that direction. Plus there are already so many variables, if you start throwing in a bunch of intermediate timing and rep protocols it becomes much more difficult to tell what worked and what didn't. I would still recommend repeaters instead of single hangs for Max R. I could rant for days about that, but the bottom line is look at the training plans of competitive weight lifters. These guys are training to perform a single rep in competition, and they still almost never do only a single rep in training. Climbers are always training to perform multiple reps....
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Apr 16, 2015 14:23:46 GMT -7
It's better not to think about hypertrophy and strength as separate attributes. Very important point. Think of it as a continuum, just like power and endurance lie on either end of a continuum. I cannot definitively say where the 7/3 protocol lies on the continuum, I just know it's on there somewhere, I think closer to Hyp than Max R, and most importantly that it produces results on the rock. perhaps Mark's tried that experiment before? I've done the Max R protocol in the book, but never in the manner you describe (a full Strength Phase followed by weeks of the Max R protocol). I've also done a single grip-worth of Max R training concurrently with a typical 7/3 HB phase. In that instance I did the Max R grip at the end of the workout, which is backwards, but I wasn't willing to sacrifice my standard Strength Phase for the sake of the experiment. I saw no practical results, but I was probably too fatigued at that point in the workout to accomplish anything, so I would say the experiment was inconclusive.
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Apr 16, 2015 14:30:55 GMT -7
Let me add, I think there is a ton of room for experimentation and innovation in the finger strength/power-development arena. Up until now all we've really done is adapt accepted protocols used in general weight-lifting. Other than to show that those methods work to some extent, very little experimentation has been done. I think our approach is far from optimized, it's merely the best protocol we've tried, which isn't really saying all that much. It will take some serious time, effort and risk-taking to optimize finger strength training, even if you limit it to simply static hangboard trainging, since there are so many variables to play with (rep duration, rest between reps, # of reps, # of sets, rest between sets, grip types, # of grips, rest between grips, # of workouts, rest between workouts). Most of these variables are their own continuum with an infinite number of discrete points.
It's a daunting task, but I'm confident my great-grandkids will have it worked out in time for the 47th edition of the RCTM.
|
|
|
Post by jessebruni on Apr 16, 2015 14:50:14 GMT -7
Fortunately I'm quite bored at work this afternoon. At one point in time I had read through every post on this forum, and every post on the RCTM website as well. You really need some new hobbies. My problem is that I'm bored at work EVERY afternoon! The hypertrophy phase of the rock prodigy program seems, based on what I've read in the worlds of bodybuilding and powerlifting, ideal for causing hypertrophy of the forearm muscles. But the rock prodigy program follows hypertrophy with the Max R phase, which would essentially be a strength phase, teaching the new muscles to work harder. I will assume your use of the bolded terms is intentional, and that you are well aware that we do not use those terms in the book. Sorry about that, I must have been confusing it with the original rockprodigy article that Mike wrote. I was under the impression that it used the terms HYP and MaxR, but regardless you seemed to divine what I meant. the bottom line is to identify the desired adaptation and then select the best training activity to achieve that adaptation. This is precisely why I brought up this topic to begin with, I hope that wasn't totally obscure in my ramblings. How we approach this is what I'm curious about. it seems like the campus board and bouldering, while perhaps ideal for building power are not as useful for building contact strength as the hangboard. This is where you lost me. Contact Strength is the amount of force you can summon during the fleeting moment of latching a hold, typically while attempting to stick a dyno, or the amount of force you can generate instantly. Contract Strength is the ultimate expression of power in the forearm muscles. I would argue that campusing is the ideal activity for improving contact strength. I agree that a hangboard is probably better if you are solely concerned with improving recruitment in the forearm muscles, due to the factors you listed. Once again, my lack of knowledge in the realm of training is showing here. Contact strength was clearly not the right term. I guess I just meant strength. The ability to bear down on very small holds, or with a tremendous amount of force, regardless of the time it takes (within reason) to "summon" that force. By your (accurate) definition of contact strength I would completely agree that the campus board is king. I would still recommend repeaters instead of single hangs for Max R. I could rant for days about that, but the bottom line is look at the training plans of competitive weight lifters. These guys are training to perform a single rep in competition, and they still almost never do only a single rep in training. Climbers are always training to perform multiple reps.... This makes a lot of sense to me. I appreciate the knowledge dump. There is obviously a lot for me to learn on the topic and I must say it's great to be able to "ask the professor" and get a response. I think I don't have enough information on the effectiveness of my current program (which is probably 90% RPTP) to switch over as of yet and try this as an experiment. I'll probably finish the year out with the current program which will give me some good data for how well my current program is working, as well as give me time to formulate my thoughts on modifying the plan with hangboarding for recruitment.
|
|