|
Post by jetjackson on Apr 15, 2020 18:52:32 GMT -7
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). Indeed, it seems weird that someone would have an imbalance in that respect and I struggle to imagine it also. I'm expecting the results of my lattice assessment, and thinking to put my comments and analysis of it in a separate thread for discussion. Charlie, a 7 second front lever is solid, curious to hear how you go on a hollow hold. In terms of identifying imbalance. I would have though that postural issues would be more around tightness in hip flexors and hamstrings and that a weak or imbalanced would be hard to distinguish from these issues.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie S on Apr 16, 2020 14:12:12 GMT -7
The hollow hold sucks! 70 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by jetjackson on Apr 16, 2020 17:20:23 GMT -7
Definitely, particularly if you keep the legs quite low to the ground.
|
|
|
Post by cozisco on Apr 26, 2020 11:21:58 GMT -7
I can tell you that being able to plank for 2 minutes (with weight added, no less!) does not equate to a strong core Completely agree. I see so many climbers who are working up to 2-, 3-, or 5-minute planks. While climbing, when will you ever have to hold static tension for 2 minutes straight?? That seems like the equivalent of 1 rep/set while hangboarding, in which each rep is a 5-minute hold.
Anyway, do you have parallettes? Jet mentions L-sits. I also really like going from push-up position to L-sit and back. It's described at roughly 3-minutes in this video, but Gimme Kraft has a lot of other suggestions as well.
|
|
|
Post by jetjackson on Apr 26, 2020 18:38:09 GMT -7
I have paralettes, which I've been trying to work. L-sits are hard. I can do maybe 2 seconds at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by cozisco on Apr 27, 2020 10:29:36 GMT -7
Yeah, parallettes are hard. I have to drag my toes to do the push up to L-sit and back.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie S on Jun 3, 2020 19:19:33 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by cozisco on Jun 5, 2020 14:30:31 GMT -7
It's interesting that 3 of those 4 exercises focus on rotation. I don't do much core work with rotation (or resisting rotation), but maybe it would be beneficial.
Supposedly windshield wipers are Daniel Woods' favorite core exercise and Will Anglin has said that the only core work he does is a Pallof press. Maybe it's just that rotational core strength is more important for elite boulderers?
|
|
|
Post by stevedpt on Aug 21, 2020 19:45:57 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. I would say that the reason core exercises focus so much on duration rather than load is because planks can be a good start but some don’t know how to progress past them and/or (depending on what your training goal is) the core muscles are considered “postural” muscles and posture is dependent on muscle endurance. Deadlifts and Good Mornings are excellent, heavy load “Back Ab” exercises; heavy unilateral Carry Variations, such as Rack or Bottoms Up Carries are good lateral core exercises; front levers, and one of my favorites “Stir The Pot”, will smoke your anterior core; and finally Pallof Press variations for anti-rotational strength are another option. There are several TRX or Gym Ring exercises that can kill your core in a few sets of 5-10, because everything on a suspension trainer is a “core” exercise. I’ve recently come across this guy (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXZFsXtllxvZ9gAKU4woMPg) who has some good climber focused TRX exercises. The Functional Core Training post that you linked to looks great, as I do feel some of the suggestions I made lack the specificity we look for for climbing training, but if you are looking for overload they may be your best option.
|
|
|
Post by stevedpt on Aug 21, 2020 19:51:15 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 the Physical Therapy world, we use this battery of tests (https://www.acefitness.org/cmes-resources/pdfs/02-10-CMES-McGillsTorsoEnduracneTest.pdf) for quantifying core strength/endurance symmetry. There are "norms" or cut-offs for the Trunk Extensor Hold Test; those being if a patient/athlete can hold the position with no difficulty for >240s, the test is stopped, if the position is unable to be held for at least 176s then this predicts occurrence of low back pain within the next year, and if someone can hold for >198s this predicts the absence of low back pain. As far as ratios, we like to see a flexor/extensor ratio of 1.0-0.84, and a lateral core ratio of 1.0-0.75 (the handout I linked to has it a little different). Of course, we should look at this with some level of skepticality because it is testing in non-sport of functional positions, however, I think it can be a nice guide for working on glaring deficits (ie. someone coming to me with a low back injury). Also, the idea that asymmetry is bad is dependent on the sport you are training for; for the most part I do feel climbing training should focus on relatively symmetrical strength.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan on Oct 5, 2020 12:44:45 GMT -7
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'm really interested in this. I ran Lattice assessments at the Front in SLC till... December 2019? Maybe my last one was November 2019. I could've potentially been the assessor for your friend. I've been told by the Lattice guys that I was one of their better assessors fwiw. I'm definitely willing to be grilled about my analysis if you have specific questions. I'm not doing them these days because I'm sick of climbing gyms in general. Anyway, yeah the assessments are definitely kind of a "mass market" deal so it's not like the most insanely detailed assessment you can get. You're essentially paying to get your numbers compared to their (pretty massive) database. The value of that can be debated for sure, but I do think it adds some value if you can pretty confidently say "ah yes! my aerobic system sucks!" That said, I think if you know your body really well and/or have been climbing and training for a while, you're not going to learn a whole lot that you didn't know already. I do agree that the pushups to pullups thing is questionable (that's for Mark, don't know how to quote two different people on here). There's also a measure of hip flexibility and core strength that I don't think is the most useful. Overall I think the assessment is the most useful in just comparing what you are physiologically able to do (finger strength, aerobic capacity/power, anaerobic capacity/power) vs other folks who may or may not be the same build, climb the same terrain, same grades, etc etc etc. Not to detract from the core work conversation...
|
|
|
Post by Charlie S on Oct 5, 2020 19:46:50 GMT -7
Tristan, it wasn't you, so you're in the clear, haha.
|
|