|
|
Post by srossabi42 on Nov 4, 2016 8:05:22 GMT -7
If this has been addressed already, please don't hesitate to direct me to it (sorry I'm new)
What are your opinions on shorter training cycles versus longer ones? Does your overall climbing fitness improve more with more completed programs or with longer individual training blocks? For example, climber A completes all training phases in 10-12 weeks and is able to complete 4-5 training programs per year. Climber B completes all training phases in 16-18 weeks and completes about 3 programs per year. Would you expect one to gain more fitness in that year than the other?
|
|
|
|
Post by erick on Nov 4, 2016 9:19:01 GMT -7
I think it would really depend on the specific climber. I would imagine that newer climbers would benefit from more shorter cycles since they will quickly see gains in all areas they train. Whereas more advanced climbers will need longer cycles to dig deep enough to encourage adaptation. It also depends on climbing type, I would imagine training for muiltipitch routes would benefit from longer training cycles that bouldering would.
|
|
|
|
Post by srossabi42 on Nov 4, 2016 9:44:47 GMT -7
Awesome, thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Nov 4, 2016 17:57:25 GMT -7
I think it would really depend on the specific climber. I would imagine that newer climbers would benefit from more shorter cycles since they will quickly see gains in all areas they train. Whereas more advanced climbers will need longer cycles to dig deep enough to encourage adaptation. It also depends on climbing type, I would imagine training for muiltipitch routes would benefit from longer training cycles that bouldering would. I don't have a definitive answer, but I think you're at least partially on the right track. For me it's not as simple as longer vs shorter Cycles. I have get down to the Phase level. If I want even the chance to set a hangboard PR I need to do at least 11 workouts. So my Strength Phases need to be longer. On the other hand, my Base Fitness Phases are pretty close to non-existant, and I seem to be able to get by with shorter and shorter Power Phases (at least, distinct Power Phases in which I ONLY train power). My Performance Phases can vary quite a bit in length, but if I go long my power will drop off a cliff unless I'm maintaining it aggressively. That might be age-related though. In any case, after the first 2-3 weeks of PE, I doubt I'm ever improving physically during my Performance Phase. It's more like I'm coasting/hanging on for dear life. After about 6 weeks of climbing outside I'm in "garbage time". I might make technical/tactical/mental gains during this time though.
Putting it all together, I would say that I improve the most physically when minimizing BF and Performance Phases, and maximizing Strength Phases. But the point is to send shit, so I like to use ~3 months cycles, which allows about equal time training and climbing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Nov 4, 2016 20:20:35 GMT -7
Right now I'm doing 4 cycles per year, but this is mostly because of weather. I live in Pennsylvania, which can get pretty nasty hot and humid from mid May to late September. I plan a full cycle for fall and spring similar to what is in the book, and an abbreviated cycle for winter and summer. In the winter, I do a full strength phase followed by a power phase and outdoor bouldering (hopefully) until mid January when I start training for the spring. After the spring season, I take two weeks off then do a full hangboard phase followed by power training in my barn. I also swim, play with the kids, and dream about cooler weather, because it's too damn hot and humid to do anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by srossabi42 on Nov 7, 2016 6:30:09 GMT -7
this is great thanks!
|
|
