|
Post by Otis . on Jul 30, 2014 7:58:53 GMT -7
Hello Mark and Mike,
I have a question for you regarding the ongoing debate about the value of ARCing? I know you both are big proponents of ARCing but some other respected climbers have compared ARCing to junk mileage for a runner or a cyclist due to the lack of intensity and difficulty. I know the three sports aren't direct comparisons due to the added technique and movement in climbing, but there are other ways to work on technique as well. Also I would think it would be more beneficial to fine tune technique on problems that are closer to your goal grade?
On this website and in your book you discuss the importance of specificity, but for single pitch sport climbers, usually who top out around 100 ft of climbing, I have trouble linking the specificity of doing 500+ continuous feet of easier climbing in a ARC lap. I can connect the need to go beyond 100 ft to say maybe 200 ft., but I am having trouble linking the benefit of sessions longer than that?
I would like to get your thoughts on doing 5 sets of 200 ft. of continuous climbing at a grade that will get you slightly more pumped than ARCing, but not leave you exhausted vs. doing two ARC laps of 500 ft of climbing at a lower grade to allow one to complete the set? In the end, you are doing 1,000 feet of climbing in a workout, the structure and intensity are just a bit different.
Please note that I am not trying to challenge either of you on this, this is just the one aspect of your book that I am trying to grasp the best way to proceed and would love your thoughts on the matter.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by slimshaky on Jul 30, 2014 8:15:45 GMT -7
doing an effective ARC workout takes a lot of discipline. a LOT of discipline. it is easy to let your mind wander and flub your way through the workout. if you can stay focused on things you want to improve upon it is a big help. one way of doing this is to make a list of 3 to 5 things you want to work on during your ARC'ing an example might be 1) standing up strong into an undercling 2) beginning a foot movement by popping/initiating with the foot that is moving 3) transitioning a handhold into a mantle 4) perfect dagger toe placement on small holds first attempt 5) big cross-through.
you can set a timer/app to go off every 15 or 30 seconds to remind you to do one of these things. this also really helps the time go by more quickly as the timer keeps directing your focus back to what you need to be doing. by really focusing on climbing as perfectly as possible on easier ground this will have good transfer to climbing as efficiently as possible on easier ground, which in turn will help on those 100 foot sport pitches.
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Jul 30, 2014 8:53:23 GMT -7
Great points slim.
From a physiological perspective, the point of ARCing is to train the aerobic energy pathway. It's better to think of this in terms of Time Under Tension, so let's say for sake of argument that 500 feet equates to 30 minutes. I think you could get some aerobic training benefit from a 12 minute (200') set, but I think a longer set would be much better.
Even a well rehearsed redpoint of an 80' pitch will take several minutes. My send of To Bolt took literally 20 minutes. In sports like running, cycling or swimming athletes will do aerobic work in excess of hour long sets to train for events that last several minutes (like a mile run). So I think there is plenty of basis for 30 minute or longer ARC sets.
That said, if you prefer shorter sets or you think shorter sets are more applicable to your goals, I think you would be just fine (and get most of the same benefits) from performing more, shorter sets, so long as the total TUT or volume is more or less equivalent.
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Jul 30, 2014 8:56:36 GMT -7
One more point, I think the relative value of ARC training depends a lot on the climber. The more beginner you are, the more helpful it is. The more enduro your goals, the more helpful it is.
ARCing used to be a huge part of my training, and I benefited tremendously from it I those days.
Now I rarely do it because my technique is pretty awesome and my goals are mostly powerful.
|
|
|
Post by Otis . on Jul 30, 2014 11:24:12 GMT -7
Slim and Mark, thank for the quick reply. I definitely agree that 30 minute ARC sessions can be extremely tedious. I have never been good at keeping focus on "easy" climbing for that long. I would also think that ARCing is probably most beneficial for a novice climber, that makes a lot of sense as it builds in a lot of practice and also understanding of how to deal with discomfort.
I guess looking at it from my perspective, I RP 12d/13a, onsight 12a/12b and can 30 minute ARC around 10a. In my quest to eventually climb 14a, I plan to focus most of my training on strength and power as I do believe in the famous saying "If you can't make the move, you have nothing to endure". However, I still believe in having some base training days or "low" days on the High/Low training structure. I will probably do a dedicated two weeks to start the 12 week cycle and then do one base day a week in addition to 2 hangboard days during the strength phase. I am struggling with the best way to structure these base days. Looking at the sport of climbing and all of the nuances, I can't help but think that doing five sets of 10 minutes of continuous 11 b/c climbing will be more applicable than two sets of 30 minutes of continous 10 b/c climbing? I run across more routes that are low to mid 11 in continuous climbing with moderate boulder cruxes than I run across routes that are low to mid 10 with a really hard crux or two. My only concern is will the shorter sets push more into PE and not accomplish what I want?
|
|
|
Post by coachseiji on Aug 3, 2014 17:22:11 GMT -7
Hey guys,
I gotta chime in on this one, and I want to preface by saying I am doing this with the utmost respect for the Anderson Bros. whose book is the greatest training book written for the sport in my professional opinion...and everything that follows is only my professional opinion, I don't claim at all to know all there is to know, not by a long shot.
I also want to give a little background on myself so you guys don't think I'm coming out of left field. I spent 10 years in college studying Exercise Physiology, which included a stint working in the Human Performance Lab. Since then my entire career has been training athletes at a very high level (world championship level) in several disciplines. I did originally try to do this for climbing, but the money just wasn't there lol. I have worked for Carmichael Training Systems and Ultrafit for endurance sports where the most research about this type of thing exists, as well as strength/power sports like professional football and I also own a CrossFit. When I am not physically training an athlete, I spend the remainder of the work week researching everything related to training and well being of athletes. Many of you spend 40+ hours a week at work, well I spend that same time geeking out about training.
"Junk Miles" strikes a chord with me as whatever version of that for each sport is a huge component of any training program gone wrong. "Junk Miles" in my world is training that is too intense to efficiently train aerobic machinery/have a recovery benefit but is not intense enough to trigger a aerobic threshold/absolute strength/power training stimulus. A very well researched and often used training zone protocol used in endurance sports is comprised of 5 zones. ARC would be the equivalent of Zone 1/Zone 2 and power would be zone 5. "Junk Miles" is squarely in Zone 4. The recovery cost outweighs the benefits which are in the in between zone of aerobic/endurance benefit and upper end benefits of power, etc. Climbing is not an aerobic sport per se but the local adaptations that we all want in our finger and wrist flexors must contain the machinery, structures, etc to support metabolism across all fuel systems.
I think on this website I read somewhere that Mark thinks for ARCing that most people will not go hard enough and the book states that you want to be at MSS. Again, I say this with the fullest amount of respect, I have to disagree. MSS is almost EXACTLY what in my world IS junk miles. Locally you are operating at the maximum value of H+ ions/acidity for a long duration. The training stress isn't high enough to address a specific fuel system/strength component, yet it's too high to be of local aerobic benefit/lactate shuttle benefit/recovery benefit and carries a very high recovery cost. The benefits of ARCing as described here and in the book, from what I know, happen at a much lower intensity. Intensity and duration are inversely proportional, so 30 min ARC has to be done at LOW intensity for the purported benefit....and this logic carries correctly when the book goes into LB, campus, max strength. Climbing doesn't play into direct measurements of work being done like other sports (cycling by far is the best for this with the advent of the power meter), but I personally have a 60% rule with ARC. In other sports, when this "MSS" is trained (zone 4 in my previous zone system), the efforts are usually 4 min in duration, not 30.
Mark obviously has made all this work, and in my 25 year career of doing this type of thing, the athletes and trainers figure stuff out and just run with it most of the time, only to have science "discover" it later. This may be the case here for sure. I am only stating my opinion, which is 90% based on the science that I know now and 10% on what used to work for me in my heyday of climbing in the early 90's. I am making a return to the sport and I do consider the Anderson book as the TrainingBible of climbing.
Hope this helps or at least spurs on some good discussion and thoughts. I will try to stay on these posts as I am constantly researching this type of thing like I said and I am only posting to hopefully be of some help in the sport that brought me the most fun.
|
|
|
Post by tedwelser on Aug 3, 2014 22:58:50 GMT -7
Hey coachseji, you make very good comments and I think they will help to clarify proper ARC-ing. However, in practice, I think there is not so much difference between your description of zone 1 or 2 and the description of proper intensity for ARC-ing for climbing in the RCTM. By definition, a climbing intensity that one can sustain for 30 min is going to be a lower intensity than for running or cycling. I cannot exert 60% effort with my forearms for 30 min. I can only do a smaller percent effort because effort is limited by the forearm pump, and therefore blockage of recovery pathways. I am not sure if this makes sense but, ARC intensity is necessarily low because the small and relatively weak muscles in the forearms are the bottlenecks.
Another way to say it, "at what effort level is the MSS for forearms in climbing?" In my experience, I think it is a low percentage of effort, perhaps between 20% and 40% (which are clearly not zone 4). I wonder-- in running or cycling is the MSS a higher percentage of max effort, like 60%? I wonder if this difference is the source of the discrepancy you note related to MSS, effective ARC-ing and 4th zone. The RCTM is very clear about the procedure, ARC-ing should be performed for long periods of time, and by definition, the intensity will have to be below the level that inspires a pump.
|
|
|
Post by coachseiji on Aug 4, 2014 6:06:37 GMT -7
Hey tedwelser, you make good points for sure and the duration alone might seem like it would be by default, lower intensity. Again, only from what I know currently and not specifically to climbing, it is possible and not actually THAT hard to go 30-45 min in Z4 in aerobic sports, and by definitions most commonly used in those sports, Z4 is training aerobic threshold. In the Anderson book, in the Base Fitness chapter, it directly states, "the highest level of intensity at which a muscle can continue to function aerobically, and thus, indefinitely, is called MSS," then a few paragraphs later that ARC is staying as close as possible to MSS. I have also read, I think on this site, that ARC should bring a manageable pump, it's OK to get more pumped, shake out to reduce pump, continue, etc. The pump and related venous occlusion is result of H+ ions caused by lactic acid production from anaerobic pathways, increasing in concentration faster than you can remove it. All these things go against the purposes of ARC/Z1/Z2 training. Again, just from what I know and what I consider a very well researched topic in especially cycling (and, again, a purely aerobic sport, which climbing is not, but the purpose of ARC is actually aerobic in nature for local muscles)the definition given in RCTM is exactly the top of Z4 (locally). Z5 begins predominantly anaerobic metabolism, basically transitioning from fueling via pathways relying on originally inhaled oxygen to finally accept electrons.
In aerobic sports, this local muscular "pump" and associated ventilation threshold (basically where you take your first deeper breath vs faster breathing) is a rough signal of reaching Z4. This is around 88%-94% of functional threshold power in cycling which is based on actual workload, starts around 90% of threshold heart rate. So yes, very high but again, other descriptors of MSS used here match this. Typical duration of training in this zone are anywhere from 4-30 min IMO.
Want to make sure I don't sound like an arguing lunatic stalking via keyboard. This is again my job and I find it super interesting, and my full time climbing life was one of the most joyous times in my past, and at 45 I am looking for the most efficient pathway to at least partial formal glory lol. I also realize that we are somewhat splitting hairs, but in my job, at the elite level, splitting hairs IS exactly my job and my logic is that the more you have a real job, a family, limited time, etc. the more "splitting hairs" makes a difference because you lack the time/energy to make up for mistakes in training or to waste doing it inefficiently. Thanks for reading.
|
|
|
Post by Otis . on Aug 4, 2014 8:49:18 GMT -7
Coach Seiji, thanks for contributing to this discussion. I can't speak for the Anderson brothers, but I appreciate all input, especially from those who have a background in athletic training. Climbing is such a unique sport as it requires high levels of skill, strength, power and localized endurance (forearms). Figuring out the best way and how often to train all of these components in a limited time frame is a worthy discussion.
Coach Seiji, based upon your background I would be curious to know how much time you think a climber should devote to ARCing and does the amount change for stronger/more experienced climbers? For example, is a 5.13 climber really going to benefit from ARCing at a 5.10A (Roughly Zone 1-2?)or should he/she just devote more time to strength/power training and rest?
|
|
|
Post by tedwelser on Aug 4, 2014 11:29:39 GMT -7
Hey Coach Seiji, I very much appreciate your comments and I believe the clarification that will come from this conversation will be very helpful. There are two fundamentally different definitions of intensity being used in the conversation, and that is the major source of difficulty. In your description of intensity in cycling and aerobic sports intensity is operationalized in terms of ventilation and aerobic capacity. But as you note climbing ARC is concerned only with inspiring the localized aerobic capacity response. In climbing, the measure of intensity is finger strength exerted (but this is hard to directly observe). When ARC-ing or simply when climbing an endurance route climbers need to constantly monitor the level of effort in the forearms, and work hard to minimize any sensation of a pump and avoid a full pump, while nonetheless experiencing an elevated level of blood flow though the forearms via the just "low enough" intensity of forearm effort. We do this by climbing as easily as possible, by minimizing effort, by relaxing forearm muscles whenever possible, despite the presence of intermittent demands that would otherwise be too tiring. For me, my current forearm power or strength means that: 100% effort = with Moon spacing, 1 to 3 or 3.5 on the small "wood grips" campus rungs [power]. I can barely do one move at this level of effort. Or, a two arm hang 10 sec hang at full body weight from the medium 2 finger pockets on the rock prodigy board [strength]. I normally train these with 20-30 pounds off, which would be more like 80% effort. I am failing at these after six 10 second reps. My bodily aerobic fitness is not even engaged in any of this. Around 60% forearm effort is where I am targeting for my power endurance training, using medium crimps and pinches on a 30 degree wall, with challenging feet. I completely pump out and experience forearm muscle failure on these between 20 and 30 movements. Once again, the aerobic bodily intensity is so low as to not be a good indicator of effort for any of the above. Indeed, the only time I might be breathing hard would be if the route was especially gymnastic with large holds. In practice, my ARC-ing is a matter of hitting in and around 25% to 40% intensity finger strength, while mixing in plenty of 0% effort (resting a hand) and managing the effort level. It does not make sense to operationalize climbing intensity in terms of aerobic intensity because, for all practical purposes, aerobic intensity is orthogonal to forearm training intensity. My breathing elevates more from a brisk walk than it does from any of my climbing training activities. I know that the RCTM mentions lightly elevated breathing and light sweat as possible partial indicators of the right level of exertion, but these are poorly correlated with the key bodily response. Indeed, in South East Ohio- I sweat like a pig during the entire workout.
|
|
|
Post by coachseiji on Aug 4, 2014 17:14:37 GMT -7
Yup, fully realize I might be interchanging vocabulary for sure but I am with you that in this case we are all relating to local musculature of the forearms where the capacity to provide cardiac output isn't really on the radar. My point was really that the general description of the intensity used in ARC at the local level to me seems high. Your percentages are more what I think is correct...not near MSS locally. You are more in line with what I think...for me 60% MSS locally in the forearms is the highest I would ever go and your percentages locally in terms of absolute strength are totally in line with what I use across all sports when trying to achieve the same thing as the goals of ARC for the forearm muscles. My main point behind all of this, again with full due respect, is that in my opinion, saying that ARC should be at MMS of the forearm muscles is a bit high and if you extrapolate MSS to larger muscles used in running and cycling, from what I know and have practiced this is "junk miles."
In simple terms, in my opinion, to gain maximum benefits of ARC, you would have to operate as steadily as possible in the range of 40-60% of the MSS of the forearm muscles with MSS defined as the maximum intensity that you could sustain constantly a time period of say 8 min.(would have to test for this time period) Basically a percentage of the breakpoint of providing local energy aerobically vs anaerobically.
Yes, I should have made more clarification that I was targeting local metabolism, not large muscle metabolism that stresses cardiac output.
Thanks for the input and again, this is just my opinion....
As far as how much time to devote to ARC, again borrowing from philosophies used in programming for other sports, it depends on what your total, consistently, productive weekly workload is. Generally speaking, as your training becomes more intense, the duration of the workout drops and total volume drops. Again, generally speaking, a strength development phase would have less ARCing than Base phases, and power development would have even less ARC but in most cases, the equivalent of ARC is used not only to maintain the aerobic pathways (locally speaking here) but also be of recovery value.
This is another key to determining what is usually a ARC type of workout...that it is low enough intensity to be active recovery..another reason IMO that operating at MSS is too high for ARC.
Keep the comments coming, you guys are a happy break to my work day! Still talking about the same things but in a sport I personally adore.
PS...my main job is training professional supercross and motocross athletes...where, you guessed it, a main concern is "arm pump"...arm pump in the sport I work in is a race stopper and in worst cases, a career ender if the athlete cannot unlock the reasons they suffer from it...a lot of it is mental, riding nervous, making you overgrip, etc but a lot of its the ability to consistently "ARC" locally in the forearms while giving much higher efforts elsewhere...sound a little like climbing but almost in reverse...there is no shaking out on a dirt bike!
|
|
|
Post by tedwelser on Aug 4, 2014 17:49:39 GMT -7
Coach Seiji-
I really want to thank you for how respectful and clear you have been through this whole exchange. Your depth of knowledge in ARC training and the points you have raised, I believe, suggest an entirely different explanation of the seeming utility of the low intensity "ARC" training that is suggested in the RCTM.
I think the key lesson from what you have described is that, in order to do proper ARC training, one would have to be performing at a higher level of intensity than would actually be feasible in climbing for long durations. This implies that the purported mechanism behind "climbing ARC" is not actually ARC at all, because the intensity is too low.
What is it then? One explanation is that the benefits of long term endurance work at low intensity are primarily technique and strength. It is like combining climbing skill work with an incredibly varied and generalized hangboard workout. Although this is anecdotal, I feel like my recent experiences training support that possible explanation. First, I had been doing my endurance work in our "too steep" home bouldering wall, and I ran into the fact that I had developed plenty of endurance on big holds, but not much at all on medium and smaller holds. [For instance, I easily climbed a juggy 5.11 (fuzzy undercling) but got pumped on near vertical 5.10's.]
This would not seem to fit very well with the ARC explanation of the multiple laps across the 25 foot roof that I could do during workouts. It would fit with the notion that my "endurance" was only applicable to certain types of holds because I had cultivated finger strength for a limited set of hold types, that placed my finger flexors at particular angles.
This also fits with my recent forearm "endurance burn" during recent 'ARC' sessions, where I worked to avoid grabbing any holds beyond the 2nd pad. A different subset of forearm muscles were sore than when I included the larger holds.
Anyways, it might be the case that climbing in the manner consistent with the RCTM description of ARC ing is helpful, but it is primarily helpful because it is a way of slowly and generally increasing finger strength and thereby increasing endurance because as max strength increases, 24% of full effort represents greater total pulling strength.
Thanks again for your insightful comments.
ted
|
|
|
Post by Otis . on Aug 5, 2014 8:45:36 GMT -7
My experiences are similar to Ted's in that if I ARC on big holds/easy climbing, I can hold onto big holds, but it doesn't transfer well for me to harder climbing. For me, I think the most applicable training would be to figure out the best way to train for 20-40 feet of moderate/difficult climbing to resting on a decent hold and repeating that sequence several times without coming off the wall. So what is actually of most importance is the ability to recover on decent holds for a given grade. The issue is that this would be beyond the definition of ARCing as it would be constantly pushing the red line and then trying to gain it back to do it again.
|
|
|
Post by coachseiji on Aug 5, 2014 8:57:25 GMT -7
Pretty much "interval training" which across other sports is actually pretty high on the intensity scale...sounds like you just created another training workout! 4 min on/1 min off/4 min on, etc. and other variations like that...actually sounds sort of fun...and painful lol
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Aug 7, 2014 12:37:17 GMT -7
I dont know if it's a good idea to re-open this can of worms now that it seems to be basically resolved. However, it seems like this issue is our useage of the term "Maximum Steady State". Clearly Coach S know more about physiology than I do, so it may very well be that we are using the term incorrectly, but your example of a level of effort that can be sustained for 8 minutes is very far from what we have in mind when we use that term. I'm thinking more like an effort that can be sustained for hours, like running a marathon or riding a century. Perhaps its easier to consider in terms of % of max effort. In that sense, its very clear that ARCing is NOWHERE near 60% intensity. For example, I can more or less barely hang onto a small campus rung with 1 arm (and feet off) momentarily. Let's call that 100%. Using two hands and no feet would be 50%. There is no way I could do that indefinitely, even if I alternated hands to shake out. I could maybe do it for a few minutes. [and, I agree completely that training extensively in the 60% intensity range can be detrimental] Qualitatively, I would guess ARCing occurs much closer to 10-20% intensity. It's really hard to say because the intensity can vary considerably during a set, and both hands are rarely used simultaneously, so for a given hand, its more likely that intensity oscillates between 0-40ish% or so(?) I don't think that compares well to running, cycling, or even death-gripping handlebars When I caution that many people ARC at too little intensity, I would say these folks are in the 5-10% range. Basically, they're stemming, climbing slabs, or standing on huge protruding footholds on a vertical wall. The point is to say that you need to be hanging from your arms, and they need to be doing some work. Yes, there should be a light pump, but nowhere near the pump intensity you would experience at the end of a limit redpoint of a PE route (which I would say is barely getting into the 50-60% range). All that said, whether or not its useful from a physiological perspective is certainly worth debating. For my goals, I think its not very useful at all. But I've seen it work wonders for those training for super enduro routes like those at Maple or The Red.
|
|