|
Post by jrblack on Apr 9, 2018 19:08:33 GMT -7
The problem with all this research is that few climbers care about improving their max hang stats. Climbers just want to climber better. And Lopez didn't even seem to try and measure this... she just showed that max hang training improves max hang ability, which is not surprising in the least.
Of course it's very hard to measure whether max hangs are more effective at improving actual climbing ability more than repeaters would. How would you do this in a principled way? Climbing is such a complex endeavor and depends on so many other things beyond finger strength. Even if you could control for this, what type of climbing would you test on? If your confirmation bias wanted max hangs to win, you'd test on one-move very-hard boulder problems. For repeaters, something closer to a power-endurance route.
People who study things like the 100m dash or powerlifting or gymnastics don't have to grapple with these issues because the objective is fixed and known. General climbing ability is so much harder to study and to train for (except for speed-climbing, which is done on a fixed route).
I don't mind that Lopez wants to study max hangs versus repeaters, but she needs to make clear that her findings have no real bearing on what performance-oriented climbers should actually do. Unfortunately she does the opposite, concluding that max hangs are better as if her research makes this clear.
Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by jetjackson on Apr 9, 2018 20:00:03 GMT -7
I think Mark needs a cookie. Or three. But I see the point. In the end, you need to experiment and see what works for you. Repeaters have been a game changer for me. So I did a bit of a year-long experiment with this, and the results were really interesting. When I switched to max hangs for over a year, I greatly improved my max hang max, but when I did a quick test on repeaters, there was no such improvement. I was basically back to where I started. When I did repeaters then for another year, I made great improvements in my repeaters, but also made some non-trivial improvements in my max hangs (thought obviously not as much as with my max hang protocol)... So for me, even though I really enjoyed max hangs, and they made me a better campuser (weird), in the end repeaters seem to add value to both, whereas MHs only helped with MH.
When I was playing with these protocols, I recall reading a study that there's no such thing as pure hypertrophy training or pure CNS training - everything falls on a continuum. I wonder if the way the Bros have setup repeaters, they tend to be more in the middle of that continuum, thus providing both benefits, whereas max hangs are quite far to one end, and so while they might promote minimal hypertrophy, the don't balance the two types of gains as well?
Just thoughts...
When I did powerlifting, you trained to increase your 1RM by doing 3 or 5 rep sets, so on an intuitive level, your results make perfect sense to me. Bodybuilders who go for hypertrophy, usually target something like 3 x 8-12 reps. Coming from that perspective sets in the 7/6/5 rep range make complete sense to me.
|
|
eddym
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by eddym on Apr 10, 2018 18:37:06 GMT -7
I think Mark needs a cookie. Or three. But I see the point. In the end, you need to experiment and see what works for you. Repeaters have been a game changer for me. So I did a bit of a year-long experiment with this, and the results were really interesting. When I switched to max hangs for over a year, I greatly improved my max hang max, but when I did a quick test on repeaters, there was no such improvement. I was basically back to where I started. When I did repeaters then for another year, I made great improvements in my repeaters, but also made some non-trivial improvements in my max hangs (thought obviously not as much as with my max hang protocol)... So for me, even though I really enjoyed max hangs, and they made me a better campuser (weird), in the end repeaters seem to add value to both, whereas MHs only helped with MH.
When I was playing with these protocols, I recall reading a study that there's no such thing as pure hypertrophy training or pure CNS training - everything falls on a continuum. I wonder if the way the Bros have setup repeaters, they tend to be more in the middle of that continuum, thus providing both benefits, whereas max hangs are quite far to one end, and so while they might promote minimal hypertrophy, the don't balance the two types of gains as well?
Just thoughts...
Now that’s really interesting. Many thanks for sharing your experience Lundy. I’ve been performing the Anderson’s Intermediate HB routine now for 2 years and haven’t seen as much advances as I’d like in my finger strength. Not much at all really despite trying really hard and following TRCTP religiously. In all honesty it may be due to my age (52). Having said that, after reading Lundy’s experience with Max Hangs and Repeaters, I think I may try changing to the Advanced routine. With only 5 reps at max resistance on Set#3 it leans more towards strength intensity. I know it’s not a big difference but maybe also the additional TUT may also help? Many thanks to those who’ve posted well reasoned and constructive comments. I appreciate you taking the time.
|
|
|
Post by climbnkev on Apr 10, 2018 19:22:24 GMT -7
Check out a recent Power Company podcast with Steve Maisch who is seeing good success with lower volume repeater training at higher intensities.
|
|
|
Post by erick on Apr 11, 2018 7:38:07 GMT -7
If someone was actually going to do a more comprehensive test of HB protocols I wonder what a better test of improved performance would be? Maybe something climbing specific but repeatable and quantifiable like a system board where you need to pull between moves. A test like this could aim for the smallest holds you could do 6 moves on and see what improvement their was between baseline and testing after the hangs. Do you all think that would be a fair way to assess if a given HB protocol had tangible climbing benefits?
|
|
|
Post by RobF on Apr 11, 2018 10:29:35 GMT -7
I did a hb workout on various holds at the crag the other day. How does that relate to climbing ability??? :-)
What would be very useful though would be a device that monitored exactly how much time was spent on each hold for each hand. I have some theories around this in terms of youth / ability / grade vs max grade but it would be good to know for sure...
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Apr 11, 2018 14:19:33 GMT -7
If someone was actually going to do a more comprehensive test of HB protocols I wonder what a better test of improved performance would be? I think this is where the whole Rock Prodigy method comes in. Mark and Mike tested various protocols on themselves to see what worked and what didn't. Once they figured out what worked best for them and improved their performance, they shared the info with others, who also improved their own performance with the same protocols. I know that digresses from point of the thread, but I also think this is the best evidence we have at this point. The different "studies" I've seen don't seem to carry as much weight.
|
|
|
Post by scojo on Apr 11, 2018 15:48:25 GMT -7
If someone was actually going to do a more comprehensive test of HB protocols I wonder what a better test of improved performance would be? Maybe something climbing specific but repeatable and quantifiable like a system board where you need to pull between moves. A test like this could aim for the smallest holds you could do 6 moves on and see what improvement their was between baseline and testing after the hangs. Do you all think that would be a fair way to assess if a given HB protocol had tangible climbing benefits? I think it's going to be very hard to fairly measure the effect on climbing performance from a particular HB protocol. It's pretty clear that finger strength has a positive correlation with climbing performance, but there are so many other factors that go into climbing performance. How would one attempt to untangle all of the other potential confounding variables? On top of this, climbing performance is an extremely broad thing to try to measure (what style or discipline of climbing would you try to measure performance in?). I don't think trying to measure climbing performance would be that useful nor feasible. Yes, we hangboard to increase our climbing performance, but we hangboard specifically to improve only a few factors of climbing performance (mainly finger strength and the skill of hanging different edges). So I think that finger strength is the thing that you should be measuring if you're trying to do an experiment with different HB protocols. This measurement of finger strength would be better if it included different styles of hangs (eg. you could measure a 4s hang, a 10s hang, a duration hang and also perform some sort of repeaters test). This would give us a better idea of how the different protocols effect the different aspects of finger strength.
|
|
|
Post by Lundy on Apr 11, 2018 18:57:27 GMT -7
I’ve been performing the Anderson’s Intermediate HB routine now for 2 years and haven’t seen as much advances as I’d like in my finger strength. Not much at all really despite trying really hard and following TRCTP religiously. In all honesty it may be due to my age (52). Having said that, after reading Lundy’s experience with Max Hangs and Repeaters, I think I may try changing to the Advanced routine. With only 5 reps at max resistance on Set#3 it leans more towards strength intensity. I know it’s not a big difference but maybe also the additional TUT may also help? Two very quick thoughts... Yes - TUT matters a lot, and I believe is a big focus of Mark's programming. So if you think your fingers are ready for it, I'd definitely go for it. Second, I'm also an older athlete (though you've got me by a few years), and through 3-4 years of experimentation, I've found I need more rest than the program suggests if you follow the book directly. So maybe think about finding ways to get a bit more recovery in there in order to really reap the rewards of the work. My personal approach is only two HB workouts per week (plus one day per week at the gym climbing routes) and I do a deload week every fourth week, so my HB cycle is basically done in two parts, with 6 workouts conducted in three weeks, then a very easy week, then 6 more hard workouts done in three more weeks. Note also that, as many posters here have mentioned, an important part of making gains is recovery, and recovery has a LOT to do with how well you're eating and sleeping. Not sure if that would have an impact for you, too...
|
|
eddym
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by eddym on Apr 12, 2018 3:26:32 GMT -7
Thanks again everyone. Much food for thought. I think I will use the Advanced HB routine next cycle. And maybe there's something to the 'more rest for old farts' thing Lundy mentions - I'll keep that in mind when designing the next cycle. If I take a step back, the root cause of my interest in possibly changing my HB routine stems from what appears to be minimal advancement in finger strength. My peers seem to be making much more significant advances than I am over our 2 years of TRCTM program. I am still unable to successfully complete the Beginner's Campus routine which is shocking to me. And hilarious to everyone else. I appear to naturally lean towards endurance, hence my desire to focus on strength and power. Along with reappraising my HB routine, I'm also wondering about the two weeks rest combined with two weeks ARC between performance and HBing. Do I lose so much strength/power during this period that I start back at zero in every cycle? I'm chasing down this subject now in the other forum categories. Just as an aside, I think TRCTM is by far and away the best training guide available and I own and have consumed pretty much everything out there in the English speaking world. My hat's off to the Andersons for putting together a brilliant work.
|
|
|
Post by Jon on Apr 12, 2018 10:19:07 GMT -7
If someone was actually going to do a more comprehensive test of HB protocols I wonder what a better test of improved performance would be? I think this is where the whole Rock Prodigy method comes in. Mark and Mike tested various protocols on themselves to see what worked and what didn't. Once they figured out what worked best for them and improved their performance, they shared the info with others, who also improved their own performance with the same protocols. I know that digresses from point of the thread, but I also think this is the best evidence we have at this point. The different "studies" I've seen don't seem to carry as much weight. Honest question, how much did Mark and Mike really spend testing various protocols? When they started/created their rock prodigy program, the overwhelming (albeit, minimally available) information at the time recommended repeaters (at least what I was reading). Max hangs came into vogue well after they created their rock prodigy system. I would be curious to hear from Mark and/or Mike on how much time they have actually dedicated to trying max hangs.
|
|
|
Post by korduroy on Apr 13, 2018 3:56:02 GMT -7
I think this is where the whole Rock Prodigy method comes in. Mark and Mike tested various protocols on themselves to see what worked and what didn't. Once they figured out what worked best for them and improved their performance, they shared the info with others, who also improved their own performance with the same protocols. I know that digresses from point of the thread, but I also think this is the best evidence we have at this point. The different "studies" I've seen don't seem to carry as much weight. Honest question, how much did Mark and Mike really spend testing various protocols? When they started/created their rock prodigy program, the overwhelming (albeit, minimally available) information at the time recommended repeaters (at least what I was reading). Max hangs came into vogue well after they created their rock prodigy system. I would be curious to hear from Mark and/or Mike on how much time they have actually dedicated to trying max hangs. That isnt necessarily true. the rudimentary concepts of max hangs (and even repeaters) have long been around. climbers were experimenting with isometrically adding weights and timed intervals since the 80s. Only with the recent proliferation of climbing, and subsequent climbing training information, have these terms "max hangs, repeaters, ladders, etc" been the go-to terms. Recently, its been the time durations and TUT that have been heavily studied that have allowed Mark, Mike, Eric, Steve, Eva, Bechtel, and the rest to fine tune their programs
|
|
|
Post by Jon on Apr 13, 2018 10:23:31 GMT -7
Honest question, how much did Mark and Mike really spend testing various protocols? When they started/created their rock prodigy program, the overwhelming (albeit, minimally available) information at the time recommended repeaters (at least what I was reading). Max hangs came into vogue well after they created their rock prodigy system. I would be curious to hear from Mark and/or Mike on how much time they have actually dedicated to trying max hangs. That isnt necessarily true. the rudimentary concepts of max hangs (and even repeaters) have long been around. climbers were experimenting with isometrically adding weights and timed intervals since the 80s. Only with the recent proliferation of climbing, and subsequent climbing training information, have these terms "max hangs, repeaters, ladders, etc" been the go-to terms. Recently, its been the time durations and TUT that have been heavily studied that have allowed Mark, Mike, Eric, Steve, Eva, Bechtel, and the rest to fine tune their programs Korduroy, I agree that people have been doing various forms of isometric hangs since the 80's, including max hangs, however I don't remember max hangs really coming into vogue until Eva's first article, but I could be wrong on that. I was more curious to know if Mark and Mike have spent any significant time either themselves or anyone they've worked with trying max hangs? You mentioned several of the various respected climbing coaches out there and all of them have pretty different recommendations for hangboarding. As a community and sport, we are still in the infancy stage when it comes to agreed upon best practices for training our elite athletes as well as all of us average Joe's and Jane's.
|
|