|
|
Post by joshvillen on Jul 8, 2015 10:24:44 GMT -7
Just wanted to hear some opinions on the matter. THERE IS NO REASON TO GET BIGGER ABDOMINAL MUSCLES FOR ROCK CLIMBING?  ?? WE SHOULD INSTEAD ONLY BE CONCERNED WITH WORKOUTS THAT PROMOTE RECRUITMENT. Currently my partner and I have been doing weighted incline bench negative sit-ups and ankle weighted leg raises, seems to be working rather well as far as weight progression. I just wonder if Ill ever hit a point where I think more hypertrophy is required (I cant really see that happening for the core though) |
|
|
|
Post by jessebruni on Jul 8, 2015 10:52:51 GMT -7
I would think whatever hypertrophy is required would come very slowly over the years just by doing the typical core exercises.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Jul 8, 2015 11:00:10 GMT -7
I think it's hard to know what will be needed in the future. It's hard enough to say definitively what is needed now at the top level of the sport (exhibit A: Sharma vs Ondra--these two seem like polar opposites in terms of physical build and climbing style, yet they both climb at the same level). It's much easier to look in the rear-view mirror and say "to do such and such, Jerry Moffat needed this and that".
Also, your statement seems to presume that everyone has the same level of baseline Ab size. One person may have very little ab muscle, and so it might make sense for them to seek hypertrophy.
Anyway, it's probably more useful to think in terms of ability than size. It might be better to say, "there is no reason to do more than X Front Levers of Y duration" (and so on for other climbing-specific movements). Then if you think you can achieve that benchmark with recruitment only, you could conclude that hypertrophy is not necessary for you. I certainly agree that if you could continue to get stronger indefinitely without hypertrophy, that would be ideal. Realistically, it's not that easy to control whether hypertrophy occurs or not, and you may plateau short of your goals by pursuing only recruitment. And, there are much worse places to add mass than your abs. So bottom line, my advice is that you focus on developing a stronger core and don't worry too much about whether or not hypertrophy occurs.
|
|
|
|
Post by joev9 on Jul 8, 2015 11:01:10 GMT -7
One of the best purchases I ever made was the incline sit-up bench (was like $60 at Modell's). Have gotten up to 3x25 reps with 40lbs added. Have to go slow on each rep so as not to injure my back...
|
|
|
|
Post by joshvillen on Jul 8, 2015 14:37:48 GMT -7
Anyway, it's probably more useful to think in terms of ability than size. It might be better to say, "there is no reason to do more than X Front Levers of Y duration" (and so on for other climbing-specific movements). Then if you think you can achieve that benchmark with recruitment only, you could conclude that hypertrophy is not necessary for you. I certainly agree that if you could continue to get stronger indefinitely without hypertrophy, that would be ideal. Realistically, it's not that easy to control whether hypertrophy occurs or not, and you may plateau short of your goals by pursuing only recruitment. And, there are much worse places to add mass than your abs. So bottom line, my advice is that you focus on developing a stronger core and don't worry too much about whether or not hypertrophy occurs. Currently, I can do leg raises on the captains chair (statically) pretty comfortably. Which leads me to believe I am at a level where busting out lots of reps and sets will not benefit my climbing. So I was curious if anyone else was doing something similar to max weight (recruitment) training for their abs and what their results were. I am starting to imagine this on a larger scale too. Maybe we should think about overall body strength in comparison to body weight. I've been thinking the ability to (1x body weight) bicep curls, bench press, chest flies, dead lifts, and (2x pull ups) would be extremely beneficial for elite level climbing. And it would be really cool to see the data from elite level climbers to back this up. |
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Jul 8, 2015 17:38:41 GMT -7
Currently, I can do leg raises on the captains chair (statically) pretty comfortably. Which leads me to believe I am at a level where busting out lots of reps and sets will not benefit my climbing. I think you're right. I got to a point where I could easily do 3 sets of 25 leg raises, even on my first day starting a new cycle, so I stopped doing them. Now I do Front Levers instead (or easier variations), which are really hard for me. I am starting to imagine this on a larger scale too. Maybe we should think about overall body strength in comparison to body weight. I've been thinking the ability to (1x body weight) bicep curls, bench press, chest flies, dead lifts, and (2x pull ups) would be extremely beneficial for elite level climbing. And it would be really cool to see the data from elite level climbers to back this up. I agree that it's probably smart to think about what is "strong enough", and then when you get there, spend your time addressing other weaknesses. Many of us often keep working the things we're good at without really considering whether or not the aspect we're training is limiting. The catch is that we don't really know what "strong enough" is. We have to make an educated guess. Body weight is probably a reasonable place to start your thought experiment (although there are situations where you need to exert more force than body weight, be it to account for gear, to generate momentum, or when you're exerting forces in opposition). Even then you still don't know how many reps you might need to do in a performance situation, so it's not as simple as saying you need to be able to do one front lever, 1-arm pull-up, etc. Still, that's my approach for core training--work towards being able to do several reps against body weight, and keep increasing the difficulty of the exercises (continuing to work against body weight) as I get stronger. But I don't believe I'll ever be "strong enough" where my core is concerned. Same goes for fingers. I'm just too old and have too far to go. I think I'm excessively strong in pull strength though, so I do believe there is a point of diminishing returns, I'm just not there in most areas. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Jul 8, 2015 17:45:11 GMT -7
You should make sure you are distinguishing between working your abs and working your hip flexors. Also, the abdominal muscles are a bit difficult to truly hypertrophy. They're resilient postural muscles and constantly firing.
Joe, if you're careful to keep a posterior tilt in your pelvis while doing your ab work, you should feel a [positive] difference in your back. Doing weighted sit ups with an anterior tilt will create a lot of sheer stress on the lumbar spine.
|
|
sr
New Member
Posts: 19 
|
Post by sr on Jul 17, 2015 10:33:42 GMT -7
Many sports have defined benchmarks (indicating strong enough).
I would suggest closer to 2x BW in the deadlift for 5.14 climbers. Maybe slightly less for females.
I have been observing a few friends over the last year and this is where most of them fall out. A couple of the guys are closer to 3x BW.
It would be interesting to collect this type of data and see if any benchmarks pop out for 5.12, 5.13, 5.14 etc.....
|
|
|
|
Post by slimshaky on Jul 17, 2015 12:44:22 GMT -7
i would think dead lift stats would be one of the least correlating things with climbing hard. i know, or am aquantances with, a pretty good number of climbers who have sent 14a or harder, and there are only a few of them that i would guess could DL 2xBW.
|
|
|
|
Post by jessebruni on Jul 17, 2015 13:54:47 GMT -7
Deadlifting is a bit of a skill and you have to develop the technique in order to improve in weight. I just started doing it and I'm pretty God awful. Doing 95lbs * 10 reps at 140lb BW. Max redpoint 5.13b. Until I get the technique down so I can start increasing the weight it will be pretty poorly correlated with climbing ability in my case.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Jul 18, 2015 11:09:09 GMT -7
That would be fascinating to try but I think it would be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, since climbing terrain is so varied. The skills required to climb a long steep slab 12a at Smith are quite different than those required to do a radically overhanging boulder problem 12a at Rifle (and so on). There are apparently 5.15 climbers who can't do a 1-arm pull up (I know of at least one, according to a reliable source). There are 5.12 climbers who can do many 1-arm pull-ups. Campusing is another seemingly specific activity that seems to correlate poorly to rock climbing ability. Jerry Moffat could one-hand dead hang a 1-cm deep edge for over a minute. I can't do that for an instant. So even with relatively climbing-specific feats of strength, there seems to be little correlation.
That said, with a big enough sample size, maybe you would find some general trends.
|
|
sr
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by sr on Jul 31, 2015 7:54:28 GMT -7
My comment is probably confusing, I am not saying if you can deadlift 2x bw you will climb 5.14 - of course, there are way too many variables. And those with amazing technique have the climbing pyramid to disprove this.
But if you are climbing 5.14 steeps at Maple and Rifle, your posterior chain strength is probably really good. How do you apply this, if you test yourself (and need steep climbing strength) and only DL 1x BW, increasing your strength (Posterior chain) might be an effective way to improve your climbing grades.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Jul 31, 2015 8:07:43 GMT -7
if you test yourself (and need steep climbing strength) and only DL 1x BW, increasing your strength (Posterior chain) might be an effective way to improve your climbing grades. That would certainly be valuable. I do think it would be useful to have at least a notional set of norms for climbers at different levels. It wouldn't be predictive, but we could use to help indicate areas of relative weakness. |
|
|
|
Post by RyanJohnson on Jul 31, 2015 10:08:05 GMT -7
if you test yourself (and need steep climbing strength) and only DL 1x BW, increasing your strength (Posterior chain) might be an effective way to improve your climbing grades. That would certainly be valuable. I do think it would be useful to have at least a notional set of norms for climbers at different levels. It wouldn't be predictive, but we could use to help indicate areas of relative weakness. Steve Maisch, who was recently interviewed on the TrainingBeta Podcast, has an article on his website discussing just this concept. He calls it "The Economics of Training". He puts forth the question: "how do I know when I am strong enough at a movement such that if I train that movement more I will incur diminishing returns to my climbing and subsequently be spending my recovery capital on exercises that are not beneficial to my climbing, i.e. the opportunity cost of training a skill has exceeded the climbing benefits of training the skill?" He then goes on to provide a table of exercises and benchmarks compiled from discussions with others and personal opinion. The Economics of Training |
|
|
|
Post by jessebruni on Jul 31, 2015 11:41:49 GMT -7
Excellent link. I've seen this before and while I'm not convinced of all the numbers it does seem to be a pretty good guideline in general.
|
|
