Post by madisonchoss on Jun 2, 2017 19:03:18 GMT -7
In the RCTM two methods are put forth for increasing the difficulty of power endurance training - (1) increasing the difficulty of the moves and (2) decreasing the rest period (it's actually three methods, but the third--increasing the length of the set--is dismissed as inferior).
Obviously there are practical concerns surrounding "increasing the difficulty of the moves," which probably make decreasing the rest period the better option for most people. That being said, from MarkAnderson's excellent accounts of "Training for Shadowboxing," it sounds like he opted for reducing the rest interval, despite, presumably, having ample motivation to choose the best option and resources to increase the difficulty of his LBC.
On the surface anyway, it seems as though making the LBC more difficult would be more specific to climbing harder moves on a route. Reducing rest might even inch closer and closer to increasing the length of the set, which has been dismissed for not being specific enough.
My question, for Mark / anyone else: is there a physiological benefit to reducing the rest interval rather than increasing the difficulty of the movements? Does it benefit on route recovery? Or is the psychological benefit provided by quantifiable improvement enough to outweigh whatever added specificity is offered by the less measurable "two slightly smaller crimps this time" approach?
In practice you generally find a goal route you can do the moves on in a few sessions. To redpoint the route you need to do them in succession with minimal rest. Making the moves harder implies that you do not have the strength, a long term challenge. Reducing the rest implies that you need fitness, which you can build in a reasonable time. There is no physiological benefit other than sending the goal route.
Post by madisonchoss on Jun 22, 2017 19:26:18 GMT -7
That makes sense, to an extent. But it also seems a bit like training to be able to give more burns in a shorter amount of time (i.e. stamina). And, if the eventual goal is to reduce the rest to zero, you're doubling the length of your set, reducing its specificity to your goal route.
In all other phases, increasing the stimulus is accomplished by increasing the difficulty of the task (smaller holds, bigger moves, & steeper walls while ARCing; more weight while fingerboarding; bigger moves when campus boarding or harder moves while bouldering) rather than by reducing the rest interval. I feel like there's something I'm missing about anaerobic training that makes it different?
And, if the eventual goal is to reduce the rest to zero, you're doubling the length of your set, reducing its specificity to your goal route.
No. Think about it this way: The rest in between LBC reps is like hanging on a bolt on your goal route. When you first get on your goal route you hang at every bolt. Lots of rest. As you progress you hang fewer and fewer times, reducing the rest. The goal of reducing rest in your LBCs is to be able to continuously execute hard moves. If you can "overshoot" your goal route move-number on your LBCs you can set yourself up for a quick redpoint. The major difference with anaerobic training is that its gains are short-lived and its costs on the body/mind are heavy. Use it sparingly.
That makes perfect sense provided 1. your LBC is shorter than your goal route and 2. your goal route is incredibly sustained.
If your goal route "require about 20 uninterrupted high-intensity hand movements (like many of the "hard" routes in the US)" (RCTM, 157), though, that doesn't make too much sense unless your LBC is far too short to simulate endurance adaptations.
Let's imagine a climber who has selected "Paradise Lost" in the RRG as her goal route. The route consists of non-stop V4 for ~18 moves, with little to no opportunity to chalk or rest. When designing her LBC, she can either make the circuit less than 18 moves or reduce the difficulty in order to complete sets in a session (if she can already complete 18 moves of V4 on the first day of PE training, she should just go send the route).
Both violate specificity to an extent, but it seems like there's some minimum duration required to stimulate endurance adaptations, so she makes an LBC consisting of 18 V3 movements. It seems to me that reducing the rest interval would improve her ability to climb V3 moves, but not necessarily her ability to climb the same number of moves at a higher difficulty.
In situations like these (and any route that consists of climbing an extended difficult section off the ground or between good rests), it seems as though increasing difficulty (e.g. gradually swapping out V3 moves for V4 moves) would be preferable to decreasing rest (if she got up to 18 moves of V5 she'd quickly tick the route).
But the reducing rest strategy seems to have worked for you and Mark, so there's probably something I'm missing (new to this route thing). Or maybe there isn't and the routes you're talking about and Shadowboxing have much longer sustained sections than the ones I'm thinking about.
One thing to consider too is that 18 moves of V4 in a LBC where you're starting off the ground will almost always be "easier" than 18 moves of V4 in the middle of a route. Even if you have a good rest before the V4 sequence, you'll likely be starting with some level of fatigue, to a greater extent than just doing the sequence off the ground.
So I think your premise that if you can do the 18 moves of V4 in a LBC, then you should just go send the proj, is a bit flawed. You might be able to complete the LBC on your first day, but reducing the rest interval will help approximate the fatigue you feel on the route.
That said I'm far from a PE master so take this with a grain of salt!
Why not both? Try to decrease rest intervals for some sessions and do something like boulder intervals or on-the-minutes so you can work harder moves. I think most of the time, it's good to work PE on various levels of intensity.