|
|
Post by Charlie S on Apr 13, 2020 13:52:12 GMT -7
In nearly every other exercise I do, the difficulty is ramped by increasing weight. Bench, deadlift, hangboarding (duh!), shoulder work, etc. Given all this "free time" we've had recently, my core workout just isn't doing it for me anymore, so I've been hunting around for more workouts (particularly those that address front, side, and back of the trunk). The search has been mostly fruitless, and most of the workouts appear to based on duration.
Is there a reason that core workouts tend to be more about increasing time as opposed to increasing weight? Everybody is always like "I want a stronger core!" but I can tell you that being able to plank for 2 minutes (with weight added, no less!) does not equate to a strong core, nor does it yield 6-pack abs (it's a long, sad story.)
Side note: if anyone has any core workouts that achieve muscular failure after 8-10 reps, I'm all ears. The "TRX Superman" does it, but that's only addressing the front of the trunk.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Apr 13, 2020 18:27:30 GMT -7
Have you already exhausted the exercises in the Functional Core Training article?
|
|
|
|
Post by psathyrella on Apr 14, 2020 7:56:46 GMT -7
A lot of the core exercises in "Training for the New Alpinism" are designed around adding weight. There's video here www.uphillathlete.com/how-to-do-core/ that I think covers all of them, but I haven't watched it. I'd also be happy to DM/email some photos of the pages if you don't have the book. I started doing all of them, but eventually cut down to the following few that feel the most climbing specific to me: 1. leg raise: I squeeze a barbell between my feet, which kind of sucks, but at least makes it easy to progress weight 2. "Hitler's dog" (or "bird's dog"): at the gym I use a velcro-on ankle weight, I haven't worked out what'd be best at home. The ankle weight makes it hard to progress weight in fine increments, but in practice I can progress in fine increments by doing a larger range of motion with my leg. 3. side plank (facing sideways, one arm straight against ground, feet up on weight bench so I'm horizontal): I hold a barbell in one hand against my stomach, and do a "rep" by sagging my hips downward. The TFTNA version has feet on floor (rather than bench), and doesn't do "reps" (they just hold position), but the modifications make it feel more like standing up on a high/wide foot to me. And I agree that it's weird that a lot of core programs just progress duration/reps rather than weight. In the language of the TFTNA guys, this only works muscular endurance while ignoring recruitment. This article was really helpful to me in figuring out how to actually go through the different phases of a strength program (minus hypertrophy) with core exercises: www.uphillathlete.com/training-ice-mixed-climbing/ |
|
|
|
Post by Charlie S on Apr 14, 2020 8:34:17 GMT -7
MarkAnderson: Some good ideas on there. Reposting the link here for others: rockclimberstrainingmanual.com/2015/05/27/functional-core-training/I should add the "wings" and up the difficulty on the "ab roller on rings" (or what I called the "TRX superman"). I can actually do (and hold) multiple front levers on a 15mm edge. In the past, I've done the "advanced inverted rows" with a TRX as well. At this point, though, I really try to stagger my pulling days with climbing days (i.e. I should do this on a climbing day and not a "push" or "rest" day.) psathyrella: Perhaps I should page through my TFTNA book again. I remember trying "Scott's Killer Core Routine" a number of years ago and feeling nothing. As an aside, I went through Lattice's 6-minute core routine yesterday, twice. I liked the variation in muscle groups, though today I am lacking that "hurts so good" core soreness.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Apr 14, 2020 8:54:47 GMT -7
I think part of the problem with typical core training routines is that different sports have wildly different core strength demands, and so their standards of “strong core” are wildly different.
For example, how would a distance runner define “strong core” and compare that to what a boxer would consider strong “strong core”, or a gymnast. I’d be interested to hear where you all think alpinism falls on that spectrum compared to compression-style limit bouldering.
Sounds like you already have a “strong core” by sport climbing standards, maybe even a “strong core” by bouldering standards. I use rings in hopes of developing a strong core by gymnastics standards. I’m not there yet (I may never be).
I wonder about medicine balls, but it seems like the best medicine ball exercises require a partner.
|
|
|
|
Post by sbleazard on Apr 14, 2020 11:17:01 GMT -7
One way to add progressive overload would be to just work up to harder exercises. For example: plank to plank knee tucks to knee tuck w/ one arm to reach throughs (just make a harder variation). Or maybe knee raises on a bar to body curls to one leg lever lifts to full front lever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlie S on Apr 14, 2020 12:00:30 GMT -7
For example, how would a distance runner define “strong core” and compare that to what a boxer would consider strong “strong core”, or a gymnast. I’d be interested to hear where you all think alpinism falls on that spectrum compared to compression-style limit bouldering. This is an astute observation that I hadn't thought of before. I know that I sag in the middle of moves, but this is likely a skill deficit as opposed to lack of strength. As far as where alpinism sits compared to other climbing core strength requirements? Like anything on the alpinism side, it's probably an endurance requirement more than anything else! I wonder about medicine balls, but it seems like the best medicine ball exercises require a partner. Preferably partners in yoga pants :-P I do "ball transfers" where I'll do basically a floor V and transfer the ball between my feet and my hands. A rep is a feet-to-hands-to-feet. I've also seen people do situps on balls but I'm not sure how this is different from a floor situp (haven't tried it). Same wide side crunches. |
|
|
|
Post by psathyrella on Apr 15, 2020 10:27:25 GMT -7
While it's true that every strength demand in alpinism is filtered through endurance -- even a crux move will come after a couple thousand feet of postholing -- it's super well established in endurance sports that a high max strength improves endurance. They call it the strength reserve, and one of the canonical early examples was a high level xc ski coach that dramatically improved a bunch of athletes' times with a short upper body max strength program.
The core strength demands for alpine climbing mostly come from having so much extra weight: boots, crampons, ice tools, rack, warm clothing, food, water, maybe bivy gear. With a 40lb pack on scrambly terrain with snow, my core is doing a ton of work just to stabilize as my arms push off e.g. boulders. On steeper terrain, the extra 3-4 pounds on each foot makes a bigger difference for the core.
No one has any way of measuring how big a strength reserve is big enough. For something like legs you can certainly be too strong -- training leg strength takes energy away from lower-body aerobic base training, and you can put on extra leg weight. But core strength is easier to train without interfering with anything else, so I view it as pretty close to can't-be-too-strong (like fingers), although I don't train it year round. I would also say that even absent the strength reserve benefit to endurance, I quite regularly find a heavy pack forcing awkward moves that require close to a max core effort.
Getting way into the weeds, another factor is that perhaps the biggest skill component of alpine climbing is quickly onsighting vertical terrain. The only way to get good is to maximize the number of pitches per year. But between seasons, weather, conditions, partners, travel, and just danger, it's impossible to get that much mileage on actual crampon-required steep alpine terrain. The next closest simulator is rock climbing, so even if your only priority was alpine routes that required climbing wi5/5.10ish (a lot of the hardest alpine routes in the world), there'd be a huge benefit to being able to onsight granite .12, since could climb way more pitches per day. This of course means rock climbing way harder than that, which means the core strength for more gymnastic rock climbing.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Apr 15, 2020 12:36:02 GMT -7
I agree that you can't have too much core strength, so long as your strength is well-balanced front-to-back/side-to-side.
|
|
|
|
Post by jetjackson on Apr 15, 2020 17:07:33 GMT -7
I agree that you can't have too much core strength, so long as your strength is well-balanced front-to-back/side-to-side. How would you determine that your strength is unbalanced either side to side or front-to-back?' I know Lattice Testing compares pull-ups to pushups and targets a 2:1 ratio suggesting that is 'well balanced'. Would there be something similar for core?
In regards to the entire thread, I completely get this. I hate training core. Every core workout I see pro climber, or instagrammer climbers do, seems to become more of a core endurance workout than strength. It's just combining existing core exercises like planks and crunches together. I hate these workouts because I think that form really suffers. A lot of the core workouts are very form dependent. Ab rollers for example, you can do them with very poor form and you're really just exercising your arms and legs, rather than the core. Athlene X on YouTube has a good explanation here where if you are doing these wrong, you're targeting lats rather than core - www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3uK5TPzHq8 Personally I'm also not a fan of the ab rollout as I get a bit of back pain from it on it as I start to get fatigued and my form slips and my back arches. This for me means that it's hard to work even close to failure on this exercise. I think the rings are good, but for it to work well in the way that Mark is doing them in the linked functional core training, you need the rings attached to a high point in the ceiling. If you have the fulcrum point lower it changes the dynamic of the exercise. I've done those exercises at the gym where the rings are hanging from 15 foot up in the ceiling and it works a lot better, but I just can't do those at home where the fulcrum is 6-8 foot above me. Still, the rings are no different for me than the roller in terms of the issue I outlined above. I find exercises that are so highly form dependent just a pain to progress on in terms of adding resistance. When it comes to progressions for an exercise that is based on achieving good form, I find that a bit more enjoyable and easier to focus on. I've opted for working on Front Lever progressions, and I'm going to build some paralettes and have a crack at L-Sits also. I accept that the relevance to climbing may not be significant, but it's enjoyable to do some of these strength challenges. I'd also like to work up to doing the crimp front lever, so that I can impress non-climbing people at dinner parties by levering off their doorway casings. Not sure what I will do once I can hold the front levers for say 8 seconds at a time and do multiple reps. For the record, I've recently done the Lattice assessment, which uses a plank, front lever progression and a hollow hold time to assess your core strength. I can do the one leg lever, the plank but only 80 seconds on the Hollow Hold, where the 'gold standard' is seen as 120 seconds. However, my core strength is seen as sufficient by them to climb 8b and V10. I do wonder if core is even a limiting factor for me. Charlie have you done the assessment? If so, what is your hollow hold time? You can do the full front lever yes? |
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Apr 15, 2020 17:31:43 GMT -7
I know Lattice Testing compares pull-ups to pushups and targets a 2:1 ratio suggesting that is 'well balanced.’ That’s ridiculous. So a person who can barely squeeze out 10 push-ups should be able to do 5 pull-ups? When I was in the Air Force I routinely did 110+ consecutive pushups in 2 minutes as part of the Physical Fitness test. So i should’ve been able to crank out 55 pull-ups? |
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Apr 15, 2020 17:38:35 GMT -7
Personally I'm also not a fan of the ab rollout as I get a bit of back pain from it on it as I start to get fatigued and my form slips and my back arches. This for me means that it's hard to work even close to failure on this exercise. Your lower back should be pre-arched before you even start the exercise. I made this mistake too when I first tried these and they seemed nearly impossible. Once I figured out the arch I made a lot of progress. It may help to think of it like a pelvic tilt (tilting the upper half of your pelvis back or out), which causes the base of your spine to arch outwards. If you don’t do this, or you lose this tilt/arch during the exercise, it places tremendous strain on your lower spine. When you get it right you should be able to push right up to your limit without issue. |
|
|
|
Post by jetjackson on Apr 15, 2020 17:49:55 GMT -7
I know Lattice Testing compares pull-ups to pushups and targets a 2:1 ratio suggesting that is 'well balanced.’ That’s ridiculous. So a person who can barely squeeze out 10 push-ups should be able to do 5 pull-ups? When I was in the Air Force I routinely did 110+ consecutive pushups in 2 minutes as part of the Physical Fitness test. So i should’ve been able to crank out 55 pull-ups I probably could have worded it better. They are looking for the person to be able to simply do more pushups than pullups in that they can do >2:1 pushups to pullups, and would see a person than could say, do 10 pullups, but only 10 pushups as being imbalanced in pull vs. push. Still, I'm eager to hear your thoughts on how one can assess balance between front and back core, or identify an imbalance? What would be symptomatic of an imbalance there? |
|
|
|
Post by Charlie S on Apr 15, 2020 18:05:12 GMT -7
Charlie have you done the assessment? If so, what is your hollow hold time? You can do the full front lever yes? No, I haven't done the assessment. A friend of mine showed me his, and honestly I was unimpressed with the whole thing. Maybe it was a light assessment? Or maybe it was just the tester available that day in SLC, but it wasn't anywhere close to the numerical detail I expected to see. I also punched my numbers into their open-source finger assessor (MyFingers or something like that?) and it said I was significantly weak compared to my best RP grade. Granted, I didn't use a Lattice rung; I used a Tension Block so I'm sure the angle changed to slightly sloper. I can do a full front lever and hold for 7 seconds. I have no idea on hollow hold time. Maybe I'll try during tomorrow's workout. Regarding imbalance, there seems to be a lot of hoopla about that. The naysayers, who I've found I tend to agree with more, essentially say "if it's not causing pain or a performance detriment, it's not a problem." I think imbalanced TIGHTNESS might be a problem. But imbalanced strength is kind of this nebulous thing. Think about how "imbalanced" your forearm flexors are vs. your extensors. It's huge! |
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Apr 15, 2020 18:29:21 GMT -7
That’s ridiculous. So a person who can barely squeeze out 10 push-ups should be able to do 5 pull-ups? When I was in the Air Force I routinely did 110+ consecutive pushups in 2 minutes as part of the Physical Fitness test. So i should’ve been able to crank out 55 pull-ups I probably could have worded it better. They are looking for the person to be able to simply do more pushups than pullups in that they can do >2:1 pushups to pullups, and would see a person than could say, do 10 pullups, but only 10 pushups as being imbalanced in pull vs. push. Still, I'm eager to hear your thoughts on how one can assess balance between front and back core, or identify an imbalance? What would be symptomatic of an imbalance there? I’m trying to imagine the hypothetical person who can do 10 pull-ups but only 10 push-ups. I don’t think you can blame yourself—there’s no way anyone could have worded it to make it sound sensible  . It’s just an absurd metric, to the point of being pointless. Anyway, to Charlie’s point, you would identify an imbalance by observing poor posture, or worse, pain or injury. I would be on the lookout for back pain, especially around the lower spine. Most climbers have too-strong upper backs (relative to chest) that causes caved in shoulders, but we can be susceptible to weaker lower backs (relative to abs). It’s hard to imagine developing a significant side to side imbalance as a climber. I think to do that you’d need to do a repetitive sport/motion like tennis. Maybe you could develop such an imbalance from lots of hard core belaying:) |
|
. It’s just an absurd metric, to the point of being pointless.