Why is there little climbing time in the rctm plan?

[maniac]

I'm just confused why this book and method of training is so popular when you only train about three days a week on average, and during hangboarding only hangs a week and nothing else. Most training sources I remember reading I think usually recommend 3-4 days of intense training and up to five days of climbing for advance climbers. Not trying a variety of routes and difficulties and getting a larger volume of climbing seems intolerable to me. Do people following rctm add additional climbing days on top of what's recommended? It doesn't seem like this would even be very effective for getting better. I can see the benefit if you dont have time and are still trying to improve but I love climbing and climbing quite a lot. I cant just avoid a variety of difficulties for 2 months while I just arc and hangboard and then spend the next months just trying hard boulders, power training and projecting. 

Looking forward to replies, hope I get some. Also sorry if I come off as strong opinioned, I'm just confused and am looking for clarification and discussion.

[cozisco]

If you've spent enough time reading posts on this forum, I think one key theme emerges: experiment and find what works for you.

Some people have had a lot of success with low volume, high intensity training, similar to what's described in the RCTM. Other people might need more volume, lower intensity. From your post, it sounds like you've already found that the former doesn't work for you. So why bother asking about something you know isn't going to work for you?

In any case, this forum is pretty dormant these days (except for the bots). If you haven't listened to it, I'd recommend checking out the Anderson Brothers' second interview on the Training Beta podcast (#63). They go into more detail on some of these questions (expand upon what's in the book), like creating a program with more time outside on real rock and experimenting with non-linear periodization, training multiple types of fitness at the same time.

[tedwelser]

I would add to cozisco's post by observing that the main answer is that the general approach described in the book is not as narrow and limiting as it might seem from the outside. If you read the book, starting with the goal setting chapter, you will see that it is up to each climber to design the program, based on the principles in the book that works for them, given their temporal constraints, and the limitations of their motivation and discipline.  

That being said, there is a direct conflict between climbing quite a lot and training for improvement.   Most people like to climb more than is good for them, in terms of avoiding over-use and allowing optimal recovery.  The premise of the time value of training is that it would be worthwhile to train effectively for one season and then spend the next reaping the benefits of enjoying more interesting routes and projects.  

Actually applying a self reflective method to training is not actually very popular, as far as I can tell by witnessing most climbers that I see.  When I have been diligent I see much better progress in regaining fitness than when I just climb what I want.  But, on the other hand, I find it is much harder to make progress in terms of fitness and strength now that I am in my 50's.   Also, my goals are different now, I really just want to enjoy climbing with my family and friends on interesting routes while avoiding injury, so to do that I need to be diligent in the  short term or I will struggle on the routes that I find interesting. 

For clarification, during the strength phase the focus is on supplementary exercises and hang-boarding.  It also includes time for low intensity technique and movement practice.   So I would say your description of "only hangs a week and nothing else" is not really accurate.   But as you likely meant, you are right to say it does not include throwing yourself at dozens of random problems for hours on end.  Which certainly would be fun!