ARC training for the Red and New, @ the dojo

[tedwelser]

Here is a brief video of me traversing in our home climbing wall, "the dojo".   The issue I am trying to address is general climbing endurance, and my problem is that it seems as though my endurance has been hold size specific.  My diagnosis is that I had been too reliant on large (3rd pad) holds, and in doing so, I had plenty of endurance for large hold routes, but fell apart on medium hold routes.  

My thinking is that part of the ARC benefit come from finger-flexor angle-specific strength and that I needed to take my rests, and whenever possible work endurance, while grasping holds up to my second pad, but not as full depth hand holds (like on the handlebars in the video).  Similarly, I have worked to make the wall functionally less steep by adding footholds on the vert sections and on the pillar to allow more upright stances and correspondingly use more medium sized handholds for moves and rests.  

The general question is whether endurance is hold size specific, and if so, what does this mean about the physiological basis of that endurance?   Strength is clearly finger flexor angle specific, and if endurance is also, does that mean that endurance is dependent primarily on strength and less so on vascularity?

ted


youtu.be/MHyrtcgqj04

[tedwelser]

Oh, and try to ignore the audio. Perhaps mute?

[Otis .]

Ted, thanks for posting this. you did a far better job stating the question I was trying to get to in the ARC vs. junk miles post. I have experienced a similar issue where I can climb on good holds for days, but as soon as I have to climb a series of small holds, my endurance falls apart.

I do think hold size and shape has a major impact on endurance. The best possible example I can think of would be runners who try to cycle and cyclist who try to run. Both have built up great cardiovascular endurance and general endurance in their legs, but if you don't actively train in both disciplines, there is surprisingly less cross-over than most people think.

[daustin]

Aug 7, 2014 20:44:36 GMT -7 tedwelser said:

The general question is whether endurance is hold size specific, and if so, what does this mean about the physiological basis of that endurance?   Strength is clearly finger flexor angle specific, and if endurance is also, does that mean that endurance is dependent primarily on strength and less so on vascularity?

I'll caveat this by saying I have no real physiology expertise and am, at best, wildly speculating in my response here. But, my understanding is that the reason strength is finger flexor angle specific is because different angles engage different muscles. If that is the case, I could imagine that the vasculature supplying these different muscles may not be exactly the same. In which case, being finger flexor angle specific doesn't mean endurance is dependent primarily on strength as opposed to vascularity. I don't have the RCTM in front of me, but I seem to remember the book suggesting that ARCing is most effective when it mimics your goal route(s), which does suggest that endurance is hold-size specific (insofar as hold size determines muscle engagement).

[tedwelser]

Otis and Daustin- 

Good points and I agree.  I think that the key is to remember that strength as well as endurance are highly specific, and both the angle of the finger flexors and the % of bodyweight on hold are going to be a complex result of hold size, shape and angle of the terrain.  

So the best results from training endurance on terrain and hold types that are as similar to ones goal climbs.   As you rightly point out Daustin the angle of finger flexors is engaging different muscles, so vascularity increases are potentially as localized as strength gains.  I had previously been assuming that the vascularity changes would be more general to the forearm muscles but that is not necessarily the case.