Non linear plan

[rroic]

I've gone through three cycles following the advice from the book and the results were nothing short of stunning. My overall strength and performance on the rock lifted of the plateau and up two full grades.

There was always one thing bugging me in the book though. I live in a place where I can climb almost every day on natural rock. Due to family constraints and job constraints it adds up to 1-2 times per week, but I think it is still above average. And I want to keep it that way. That said, I do not enjoy waiting for performance phases to be able to climb hard and enjoy projects and all the pain and joy that comes with them.

Also, my work schedule tends to be hectic, which sometimes prevents me from managing my schedule in a boxed phase.

I am thinking of changing to Non-linear mode, something like this:

1. First two weeks
Normal base fitness phase

2. Non-linear phase for 10 weeks
Each week I train 3 days: Day 1: Strength (HB); Day 2: Power (LB); Day 3: Power endurance (Circuits)
Each week I climb outdoors one day and "go with the flow" on that day, do "what you feel like"

3. Rest phase for two weeks

I am looking forward to hearing any similar experiences with this approach. I understand it may be lacking to a linear approach, but I am willing to investigate into this personally.

Thanks
R

[seano]

I'm in a similar boat these days. I went through one "sort of following the plan" cycle and one "following pretty closely" cycle and had good results. Then I was fortunate enough to move to an area with a ton of great local climbing. I spent a couple months just going climbing and having fun, and that resulted in pretty much what you'd expect: my technique and flow on the rock seemed to improve, but my physical fitness (strength, power, power endurance) seemed way down. This wasn't terrible, since at my level (onsighting to mid 11s, redpointing low 12s) I'm sure I still have plenty of technique gains to be made. But regardless, I didn't feel like I was improving at the same rate, so I've decided to try to start mixing in some training with my climbing days.


So far it's been a bit of a mess, as I haven't really figured out how to schedule it, and I've wound up doing some hangboard workouts when I was probably way too fatigued from climbing. I do feel like I'm starting to get the hang of it, and I'm pretty much alternating between HB workouts, bouldering (done mostly outside, but more inside as it gets colder), and PE workouts (either circuits inside or route laps outside on mini-traxion). My climbing days (by which I mean my "real" climbing days: with a partner, not the mini-trax days) are randomly interspersed with the training days, based on weather, work schedule, and partner availability. So for example, if I make plans to go climbing on Friday, I might do a HB workout on Monday, then a bouldering session on Wednesday. Then after climbing on Friday I would try to make my next workout PE focused. I may then go climbing again - if I have a partner and time - before then going back to another HB workout. I don't always cycle between the workouts before having another climbing day, it's kind of random. Also, not every climbing day is a performance day. Sometimes I'm trad climbing well below my limit, in which case I try to focus on technique and smooth climbing.

The bros do describe this as an option in the book (Non-linear periodization, page 80) and note that this is pretty much what you're doing in a performance phase. I don't find that I'm able to do as they suggest when it comes to scheduling (do strength, then power, then PE, then have a climbing day) because I want my climbing days to be more frequent than that. 

As I've started to get the hang of this, I do feel like I'm getting stronger. I've had a couple of satisfying onsights and hopefully I'll have a good redpoint or two to show for it in the coming weeks.

I think it's good that you're planning a rest phase up front. I know that without a defined performance phase I will have a tendency to just keep at it until I burn out. I need to get out my calendar and plan some rest!

Anyway, since I just started doing this, I don't have any results to share with you, but we could keep in touch as we both try it out.

Good luck!

[rroic]

Any updates on people in a similar situation? I tried the LP cycle again, gone through the base fitness phase, but failed miserably in Strength phase (most important one) due to a) illness b) rock and bolting trip in the mid of my HB phase c) work schedule. I am now going for the NLP, but following the advice from RCTM. Anybody on the same boat willing to share their experience?

[scojo]

I'm doing something like what we're calling nonlinear. Basically, I train/climb 4 days a week. It usually looks something like this:

Sunday: hangboard
Tuesday: climb routes in the gym (sort of like PE I guess)
Thursday: boulder/campus
Saturday: climb routes outside or ARC

I've made huge gains on the hangboard and have been climbing pretty well outside and hitting new benchmarks. I should mention that this is my first time doing something like structured training, so I can't say how well this would work for a trained athlete.

I chose to do a routine like this, because work travel would interrupt a routine like the one in RCTM. This way I can just restart my training where I left off before my trips.

[scojo]

I'm wondering if I can optimize my NLP plan for long term progress. Right now I do each of these things per week (not in order):

Hangboard
Power (bouldering in the gym+sometimes campus)
Climb routes in the gym
Climb outside if possible (weather in colorado has been good) or ARC

I think the hangboarding and bouldering are really beneficial to improvement and climbing outside is fun and provides evidence that I'm improving on real rock. The most obvious thing to try to change is "climb routes in the gym." So I could gear this toward a more rigorous PE workout or an ARC workout.

So how important is PE for long term progress? I'm under the impression that PE adaptations can be gained quickly before a true performance phase, but I'm no expert on this. I think my typical outdoor day is closer to PE training than to ARCing anyway. I would guess that ARC training would yield more long term benefits.

Would it make sense to change "climb routes in the gym" to something more like ARC training? Then, if the weather's not good for climbing outside I could do a PE workout instead.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[tiago]

Hi,

I would guess that ARC would make more sense in the beginning of a phase. If you are NLP-ing, with real objectives on the rock, probably it makes more sense to work on PE instead of ARC. I would also guess that, for most of the rock prodigies out there, NLP and long-term progress don't match well on the same sentence  .

Regarding NLP, there is an excellent post on Mark and Mike's blog, called "delivered from purgatory", where a non-linear approach to a performance phase is detailed.

Based on this post, I adapted a non-linear plan, with very interesting results (I posted my experience on the thread "Non linear periodization vs Rock Prod schedule", on this same board).

Tiago

[scojo]

Hi Tiago,

Thanks for the input. I do have some real objectives in mind, but I think sending them is more a matter of being able to get outside X number of days rather than increasing my current climbing level. (I haven't really done any projecting before this season, so I'm working on the base of my pyramid now). Because of this, I'm trying to design my plan more for long term progress rather than extending a performance phase (like the blogpost and I think your experience). I realize this is pretty much contrary to the strategy of RCTM.

I would like to challenge the idea that NLP isn't suitable for long term progress. In my view the main advantage of the RCTM over NLP is that the RCTM program creates a predictable performance peak wherein you can plan a trip and send your projects. But both plans should allow for long term progress. I actually wouldn't be surprised if NLP would be more beneficial to long term progress, because you don't have to reset your base level every cycle (eg loads for hangboarding). I guess I should try both and see for myself.

[wellhung]

Mar 8, 2016 10:47:57 GMT -7 scojo said:

I would like to challenge the idea that NLP isn't suitable for long term progress. In my view the main advantage of the RCTM over NLP is that the RCTM program creates a predictable performance peak wherein you can plan a trip and send your projects. But both plans should allow for long term progress. I actually wouldn't be surprised if NLP would be more beneficial to long term progress, because you don't have to reset your base level every cycle (eg loads for hangboarding). I guess I should try both and see for myself.

I think there is is another advantage to the periodization approach actually, neurological adaptations that allow higher intensity training in a phase; this seems particularly important for to the strength and power phases, where a sufficient intensity is required to generate real (non-neurological) adaptations.  I am no expert, but it seems to me you can't be optimally neurologically adapted to high, medium and low intensity work all at the same time, it takes a few workouts (or more) for your brain to adapt and switch firing patterns.  With NLP, if you try to improve power, strength and endurance all at the same time, all will be trained less optimally, and this will in particular decrease your strength and power gains over any given cycle.  

  Even if incorporating some aspects of NLP, I think it could be of value to have phases where strength and power are prioritized and endurance is deprioritized, and vice versa.

[aikibujin]

Mar 8, 2016 10:47:57 GMT -7 scojo said:

I would like to challenge the idea that NLP isn't suitable for long term progress. In my view the main advantage of the RCTM over NLP is that the RCTM program creates a predictable performance peak wherein you can plan a trip and send your projects. But both plans should allow for long term progress. I actually wouldn't be surprised if NLP would be more beneficial to long term progress, because you don't have to reset your base level every cycle (eg loads for hangboarding). I guess I should try both and see for myself.

Scojo, I think it depends on where you are as a climber. If you’re relatively new to climbing, ANY training plan can give you long term improvements. In fact, there has to be a reason why so many people subscribe to the idea “best training for climbing is climbing”. In some ways, "just climb" may be somewhat similar to a NLP. Climbers who "just climb" is trying to improve everything at the same time, maybe we can see it as an unstructured NLP. For the younger climbers and climbers with some natural gift, "just climb" may give them improvement for many years. But if you're trying to improve a bunch of different things at once, you're not likely to maximize the improvement in any single area. So for climbers who are on the "just climb" plan, at some point they will hit a plateau in their training.

[sean]

Mar 8, 2016 19:21:48 GMT -7 aikibujin said:

Mar 8, 2016 10:47:57 GMT -7 scojo said:

I would like to challenge the idea that NLP isn't suitable for long term progress. In my view the main advantage of the RCTM over NLP is that the RCTM program creates a predictable performance peak wherein you can plan a trip and send your projects. But both plans should allow for long term progress. I actually wouldn't be surprised if NLP would be more beneficial to long term progress, because you don't have to reset your base level every cycle (eg loads for hangboarding). I guess I should try both and see for myself.

Scojo, I think it depends on where you are as a climber. If you’re relatively new to climbing, ANY training plan can give you long term improvements. In fact, there has to be a reason why so many people subscribe to the idea “best training for climbing is climbing”. In some ways, "just climb" may be somewhat similar to a NLP. Climbers who "just climb" is trying to improve everything at the same time, maybe we can see it as an unstructured NLP. For the younger climbers and climbers with some natural gift, "just climb" may give them improvement for many years. But if you're trying to improve a bunch of different things at once, you're not likely to maximize the improvement in any single area. So for climbers who are on the "just climb" plan, at some point they will hit a plateau in their training.

Any research to back that claim up? Steve Maisch subscribes to the nonlinear plan and keeps his clients on it and has had plenty of success. We're too young in the world of training to know what's optimal. You could argue that using NLP or small block periodization allows more time performing your sport (redpointing), and therfore allows you to develop your skills more. Trying out each methodology and seeing what works individually is really the only way to know what's best for you.

[aikibujin]

No research, my conjectures are based purely on ear dropping on other climber's conversations and late night trolling on the Internet after my son has gone to sleep. But I'm just curious, which of my claims do you want to see research on? Is it "if you're trying to improve a bunch of different things at once, you're not likely to maximize the improvement in any single area", or "climbers who are on the 'just climb' plan will will hit a plateau at some point in their training"?

I guess I didn't finish my post properly. I'm not saying that I don't think NLP is effective. In fact I've been using a NLP last year. But I do believe that NLP does not maximize your improvement in any single area, given that equal emphasis is given to all areas, and at some point you will hit a plateau with the NLP. A block program is probably better in this aspect, so I'm switching to a block program this year. Again, purely my opinion with no research to back it up.

[sean]

My point was that there's nothing to back up the claim that you're more likely to plateau with one plan or another. Most of the top level climbers for years have gotten by just climbing, difference is what most people consider "just climb" is going to the gym after work 3 days a week and doing 6 or 7 climbs then going home. That isn't conducive to sustained improvement. However if you have the time to get outside 4 or 5 days a week and chase great weather, you'll most likely improve far faster than anyone on a strict periodization program. After all, this is a skill sport that highly rewards practice (more so than training).

When I lived back east, a more linear style plan was called for because there were large blocks of the year that you couldn't regularly get outside (too hot or cold). Living now in an area with year round climbing and easy access, I've found a lot more improvement getting outside as much as I can and actually practicing the sport. It's not aimless climbing, I try and structure my days to attack weaknesses and build a variety of skills, but spending more time on rock has actually pushed through some plateaus. Now I'm doing a pretty strict block program and seeing lots of gains and I'm able to perform fairly often.

I think it's all situational and if you have the ability to get out as much as possible, then a NLP plan is probably best. I mentioned Steve Maisch before and if you look at his 3 week cycles (highly nonlinear) you'll see his clients and himself have had tons of success, and they get to "perform" their sport all the time. That's why I suggested self experimentation, as you may have a lot of success with one program over another or you may plateau, you'll never know without giving it a try.

[scojo]

It's certainly true that block and linear programs allow you to focus on the different facets of training and make faster improvements in those facets during the corresponding phases. On the other hand, the other facets will detrain, stall or just improve more slowly. Another advantage of these strategies is that in a straightforward way, it allows you to tailor your programming to attack your weaknesses or prepare for a route requiring improvements in particular aspects of climbing.

In regards to long term progress, which is what I'm most interested now (as a relatively untrained climber), over the course of multiple seasons, you average over the improvements and detraining and should see an overall improvement in all training facets. For the NLP strategy, you want to see constant (but slower) improvements in each facet. So the interesting question is, after the same amount of time, which periodization style gives you the most improvement? This is of course extremely difficult to answer, because there are so many other variables (which exact NLP or LP plan you choose) that will obfuscate your results.

In regards to plateauing on an NLP program, I think this is a legitimate concern. You kind of avoid this on the LP programs, by just going to the next phase. But I think there are a lot of other ways to address plateauing though. Eg. changing variables (frequency, intensity, rest periods), doing a deload, etc.

Anyway, I will probably continue with the NLP strategy for the rest of the season and then try the LP approach when it fits my schedule better.

[joecoov]

Mar 9, 2016 7:15:46 GMT -7 sean said:

My point was that there's nothing to back up the claim that you're more likely to plateau with one plan or another. Most of the top level climbers for years have gotten by just climbing, difference is what most people consider "just climb" is going to the gym after work 3 days a week and doing 6 or 7 climbs then going home. That isn't conducive to sustained improvement. However if you have the time to get outside 4 or 5 days a week and chase great weather, you'll most likely improve far faster than anyone on a strict periodization program. After all, this is a skill sport that highly rewards practice (more so than training).

When I lived back east, a more linear style plan was called for because there were large blocks of the year that you couldn't regularly get outside (too hot or cold). Living now in an area with year round climbing and easy access, I've found a lot more improvement getting outside as much as I can and actually practicing the sport. It's not aimless climbing, I try and structure my days to attack weaknesses and build a variety of skills, but spending more time on rock has actually pushed through some plateaus. Now I'm doing a pretty strict block program and seeing lots of gains and I'm able to perform fairly often.

I think it's all situational and if you have the ability to get out as much as possible, then a NLP plan is probably best. I mentioned Steve Maisch before and if you look at his 3 week cycles (highly nonlinear) you'll see his clients and himself have had tons of success, and they get to "perform" their sport all the time. That's why I suggested self experimentation, as you may have a lot of success with one program over another or you may plateau, you'll never know without giving it a try.

Sean,

I think you need to modify your statement in the paragraph above. There is alot of research that shows that prioritization schedules help athletes in almost every major sport peak and perform better. A quick google scholar search showed:



"The primary findings of this investigation were that periodization of resistance training did produce greater magnitudes
of improvements in strength and sport-specific motor performances than a traditional resistance-training
program in collegiate women tennis players. Such differential adaptations in strength and power between the two
training programs most likely contributed to greater improvements in jump height and ball velocities for the serve,
forehand, and backhand tennis strokes. Furthermore, these differential adaptations between periodized and traditional
progressive resistance-training groups occurred despite similar weekly training volumes, indicating the inclusion of variation as an important factor in a training program (1)."



Your statement should say there is no "There is no research on climbing that shows that your will perform at a higher level with periodization. Look at major sports that money is involved. They all follow a periodization schedule and I can show you more research if you like.


1. Physiological Changes with Periodized
Resistance Training in Women
Tennis Players found at www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew_Fry/publication/8516522_Physiological_changes_with_periodized_resistance_training_in_women_tennis_players/links/0fcfd510fad09a966a000000.pdf



For more details on periodization and other schedules athletes follow:

New horizons for the methodology and physiology of training periodization

link.springer.com/article/10.2165/11319770-000000000-00000#/page-1

[Jon]

I think some people are trying to turn this into an argument of two absolutes. The reality is that training programs fall on a continuum of total NLP to absolute linear periodization. I think most of the limited research and experiential evidence out there supports training somewhere in the middle of these two absolutes for skill based sports. Even the RCTM program isn't absolute linear periodization. It is a block program that is probably closest to pure linear periodization out of the popular programs out there. Bechtel, Maisch and a few others advocate for block periodization plans that are a bit more towards the middle of the spectrum. I do think you improve the most by focusing on a specific aspect to train for a defined period of time and then shifting the focus, however I personally have found it more advantageous to spend some time trying to keep the other aspects up and avoid de-training. I also like the fact that with this plan, I can usually build a day outside around one of the non-focused aspects of my training and not feel guilty about it. It allows me to climb a bit more and enjoy the sport, while also still experiencing significant gains in my performance.