A little thing to add, at least from my point of view. Training to failure doesn't mean that there is no more rep possible or something like that. Training to failure means that you can't go on with good form and control. If you see and treat it like that, it becomes a completely different thing 🤷♂️ Like I said before, this is my point of view. Anyways, great video Much love from austria
Hi Mario, great point! We would call this 'form failure' and very important when doing things like weight lifting or hard bouldering. When we see form or good technique fall apart its usually a good sign to stop.
Yes, good point. Climbers who train seriously have long-term goals. But I believe many of these same climbers (My guess, anyway) forget the long-term goal and while training, they focus on individual reps, sets, and sessions, i.e., "I really, really want to do 5 reps and 3 sets at X level." Reps, sets, sessions become the goal. At times, when I have improved a bit, I go back in volume and intensity.
It is also really easy for "lighter is better" to turn into disordered eating, which can be really harmful. In addition to the usual harms that come with disordered eating such as damage to the heart, gastrointestinal system, etc., when you're not eating enough, you just don't have as much energy to climb with. Not to mention the fact that your body breaks down muscle as well as fat when you're losing weight, which is likely going to be more detrimental to your strength/weight ratio than just getting stronger would be.
I had a serious hamstring injury from an aggressive heel hook that I will never fully recover from. Definitely wish I had been training deadlifts or something. Climbing can place your body into novel positions under a lot of tension. Climb long enough and you will find the weak links in your chain, and if you only do specialized climber training, you will have more of those weak links.
@@Gobbygoblin If you rip a muscle and/or tendon badly enough and don't have access to sports medicine or surgery then I don't think your odds of full recovery are great. I am guessing deep scar tissue is part of the problem, but I don't have the expertise to know.
dude... deadlifting is pushing - heelhooks is pulling. those muscles arent the same. i dont think you would have done better with that kind of training. im quite good at squading now, but hooks are still quite painfull when done more then 1-2 times....
@@TheValinov That depends on your stance. The traditional deadlift targets back, glutes and hamstrings. There is also the "sumo" stance that is closer to a squat with more bend in the knees, targeting quads and gluts. Trad deadlift is probably the more relevant one for climbers.
@@Muaahaa The action at both knee and hip joints is the same for both squats and deadlifts, regardless of stance. The knee and hip extend. Degree of loading can change between different variations. But that's not really the point. Stronger overall -> less prone to injury. People wanting to have stronger knee flexion stability for heel hooks would likely benefit from things like nordic curls but squats and deadlifts are hardly wasted. Every athlete that physically can should train systemic, full-body, high load movements like squats or deadlifts. It's just way too beneficial in way too many ways to exclude in favor of other things.
Really great video. I think it was another of your videos where a dietician said that ambitious climbers should be aiming to eat the maximum amount of healthy food they can, without putting on weight. Likewise, they should be aiming to do the maximum amount of weightlifting they can, without getting chunky and without being too tired to train on the walls. Building lower body muscle in particular also protects against just about every disease of aging.
Hangboarding is way safer than climbing. Climbing is very hard to predict completely, sometimes the feet slip or you dyno to a crimp. Hangboarding is super controlled and very predictable.
Exactly. Safely hangboarding is way safer than climbing. However, hopping on a hangboard without knowing how to maintain proper form and not knowing how to program reps/rest time is definitely as dangerous as climbing, maybe even moreso. Like the video says, as long as you're not ego lifting, chances of you getting injured hangboarding aren't as drastic as people say
@@AMM1998 not real disagreement here, but hangboarding is still safer than climbing if we are talking about getting rid of programming. However, the danger for folks tends to be fatigue as the signal for when to stop, which there isn’t much of a signal in a good hangboard session which stops us from climbing after for a full session. We just tap into too many energy systems and have too many technical to physical demands to not be able to pivot and continue adding volume if we still want to climb and train in a session. Fingers sore? Do more powerful moves on good holds. Shoulders sore? Step onto some coordination or slab and vert. Forearms weak? Get some endurance in. Six hours later, maybe head home, suffer no ill effects today, and repeat until chronic injuries manifest. If purely from a safety standpoint, I would rather an individual under rest and overgrip into a full crimp which extends off a hold at failure with sagged shoulders than boulder. Of course, they won’t injure themselves but they also won’t progress much and bouldering is less safe not unsafe so I’d rather they climb and learn programming.
Since hangboarding is more stable, you can put more force through your fingers hangboarding than you typically could climbing. That's the reason injuries surrounding hangboarding are common
@@RaymondSequenza this is false for two reasons. Injuries from hangboards are not common, overtraining injuries are and may coincide with introducing any new stimulus into training, but the weight added is a static force, bodyweight plus weight, whereas almost any rapid movement between small holds will produce much greater force in less stable positions. Faster we are moving, greater the force, and most folks are hanging little more than bodyweight, maybe 50% more at the most for advanced athletes with training history, with world class being double bodyweight and still much lower force than moving rapidly to a small hold.
@@zacharylaschober neurologically, you can produce more force when the thing you apply force to is more stable. This is why you can bench more on a barbell than with dumbbells for example, or hangboarding vs trying to climb something. This is part of why hangboarding is useful, but also why people who haven't climbed for long can hurt themselves hangboarding. We're just talking anecdotally here but I do know a few people who injured themselves hangboarding early in their climbing careers.
I started climbing in the 90s and there was an incredibly strong anti weightlifting culture then, dangerously combined with an extreme dieting culture. Fortunately things have changed since then.
Good to hear a variation of opinions about strength training/conditioning. I think the stumbling block is when people think "if I was just a bit stronger I could muscle through this move" substituting technique for power, then struggle on moves that can't be campused. Strength is a multiplier for technique, but not a replacement. If you can keep yourself grounded in technical skills then strength will serve you well. Thanks for the video!
also just for safety. ive had a few injuries because im jumping on hard climbs and my body just isnt strong enough but technique wise i could do them. im a pretty weak person so some moves on certain climbs (especially shouldery ones) can cause some pain. i feel like building strength outside of climbing has helped and prevented more tweaks and nags. i dont do it necessarily to climb harder grades, just to prevent injuries.
@@brutalctg7654 Absolutely! I also started on the (very) weaker end of the spectrum and had some tweaks to my elbow through gripping, nothing serious but definitely enough to stop me for a few days. I was very underweight so almost like the tendon was trying to do the work of the muscles that weren't there or something lol. I've put on about 5kg of core and arms now and haven't had the same issue since. Glad to hear it helped you too!
@@brutalctg7654 funny, im the complete opposite. i only popped my pulleys on static moves on small holds (open grip). dynos for the win.nether realy had problems with elbows or shoulders for longer then a week or 2. always the fingers are the problem -_-
I know several people who hurt their pulleys or tendons hang-boarding. All got hurt within their first year climbing. Hang boards do pose serious risk if used improperly, particularly when new to the sport because the tendons and pulleys have not been trained enough to handle the extreme forces. A lack of warming up is also a common factor in these injuries. The hang board is just simply dangerous when used wrong and it’s often used wrong due to a lack of understanding leading to injury
Well thats a shitty lesson because you probably injured your fdp tendon and not your pulleys, which are literally impossible to injure training on pockets since there is little to no load put on them, unless you were criming pockets. So the lesson for you is learn hand anatomy.
As an overweight female climber, I want to add that the myths about being lean are harmful in another way: they prevent people like me from getting on the wall because we get the idea in our head that we are "too fat" to climb. I didn't think that anyone could handle my weight on belay. This kept me off the wall for years! I am 5'3" and currently 190lbs. I started climbing again at 207lbs about three years ago. I climb once a week. I'm currently climbing at a level 5.9-5.10a-ish. This is an awesome fun hobby; it doesn't have to be the main focus of a climber's life. I just wanted to put my two cents in, in case anyone like me is out there watching. 😊
A question related to strength training would mostly be on how to handle muscle strength VS. Ligaments flexibility? Let me explain: I got ligaments injured after a few months of intense climbing. I was told this was happening pretty often because muscles grow faster than ligaments can adjust; leading to more intense sessions; leading to more pressure and intensity on ligaments and joints which are not ready. First, is that actually true? It feels likely true, but I am no expert. If this is NOT a myth, how can we evaluate the joints and ligaments readiness to increase the climbing frequency? How do I know I am ready for 2 or 3 off more sessions per week?
It is true that tendons and ligament will respond slower to training than muscles. The primary reason is these tissues have less blood and nutrient supply and slower tissue turn-over. For this reason we suggest a 'slow and steady' approach to training and trying to train over the long term, not short term. There is not really a perfect way to know when you are ready to tolerate more training other than to listen your body and signs of stress. Build up slowly and be patient with training.
I think this has some great perspectives and I understand that it is focused on performance. The only thing that I feel would be a great addition, or at least side note, is that for climbing on rock - regardless of ability - there are far more important initial considerations => Considerations like: environmental (not only in the hippy sense, but also in the bugs, dehydration, windchill, f$%k it just got hot!, etc, sense), gear use and abuse, and the ever-present danger of both the ethics police and the land management authorities....either way, the best climber is the one having the most engrossing time...
I think the "don't train to failure" section here is just a bit confused. 1) "Going to failure" refers to individual sets, not an entire workout. In fact, in the strength training literature, the whole reason that not training to failure can give superior results is that it allows you to do MORE sets (higher volume) either in that session, or because you can fit in more sessions per week due to increased recovery. If you equate volume, then training-to-failure groups always see superior results (oh, and even in those studies where they don't go to failure on each set, if they're increasing the number of sets and not the number of weekly sessions, then they do go to failure on the last set. Because what's the point of leaving energy behind for more sets if there will be no more sets...) 2) What you are referring to is not putting too much volume into a single session. I won't speak about climbing here since I know programming can be quite different due to soft tissue recovery etc. But in terms of strength training the situation is this: there is some evidence to suggest that splitting your workload into more sessions is better than doing a small number of high volume sessions. However, if weekly volume is equated, results tend to be very similar regardless of whether you do 2,3,4 sessions per week. What you want to focus on is not getting too much or too little volume each WEEK. NOT each session. You can do a super hard session if you want as long as you keep the weekly volume reasonable (i.e. so long as you recover properly). But yes, more sessions with a bit lower volume is sometimes preferable. 3) In terms of going to failure on individual sets (i.e. the real meaning of the term), you are again correct that stopping 2 or 3 reps short is optimal (provided you increase the volume, see point 1), however there are two BIG caveats: (a) Most people drastically underestimate their failure point. This has been demonstrated unequivocally in studies. So if you think you can only do 3 more reps at most, you can probably actually do 8 more. And if you stop 8 reps short of failure, you're not going to get any stronger at all. And (b) as has been mentioned elsewhere, "failure" means "technical failure". No serious person has ever suggested going past the point at which your form breaks down. So saying "quality over quantity" doesn't really mean much. Every rep should be at 100% quality and if it isn't then YOU HAVE FAILED and must stop. But that doesn't mean "don't train to failure". It's just that failure doesn't mean absolute failure. It means technical failure. One last point. Progressive overload strength training means either doing more weight or more reps or more sets or a more difficult variation. Very often it just isn't possible to do this unless you're willing to push really bloody hard every once in a while. Especially if you're plateauing (the opposite is also sometimes true. Sometimes you need to deload and recover to overcome a plateau. But if you're not willing to ever push your 110% effort, you're going to see very slow progress or potentially even no progress). I can't think of any good reason for the claim you make that the minimum dose required to see a response should be used. You should use the dose that gives you the largest response within the constraints of avoiding injury and over-training. But there's a large gap between "minimum does to see a response" and "injury/overtraining" and lots of gains to be had by going beyond the mere "minimum dose to see a response".
I think he did touch on MEV and MRV. And MRV was always related to overall training volume. His point in the video was not so much about how to get maximum strength gains as quickly as possible, but to understand that it is a process and slowing down your progression rate has benefits related to reduced injury risk. Especislly for climbers, they do not want to tax their recovery too much with strength training because climbing has realtively high injury risk. In that context, i think the strength and conditioning literature is pretty clear you don't need to be maxing out training volume to reap benefits. Furthermore, in a practical sense, training volume is individual, you dont start someone on the maximum number of sets they can do - you gradually progress them up. The research says more volume is better, which is true, but on the individual level, there's little benefit to going for MRV. With regards to the training proximity to failure. I actually also disagree on that. We're talking about making slow and steady gains, not maximizing progress ASAP. And the research has shown that for strength, working well below failure is acceptable. That's why submaximal training is the standard approach in powerlifting. If you were talking about hypertrophy, then getting closer to failure would be more important.
Think of it this way: if every 30 mins of training needs 1 day recovery, and your first 30 mins gives 100% return, second 30 mins gives 80% return, third gives 60% etc, training for 2 hours gives you 280% return with 4 days rest (5 days total), where 30 mins every second day gives you 300% returns with 3 days rest, 6 days total. Less training time, less recovery time, higher return
@@Cheesus-Sliced I don't think thats what they meant, they talked about aiming for the "minimum effective dose", thats the smallest amount of training that results in an improvement, so its the smallest improvement possible. I think what they were shooting for is avoiding diminishing returns to allow time to recover for other types of training. But it wasn't very clear tbh. If you're getting a higher return the normal way, then thats not diminishing returns, thats negative returns
@@markkealy4417 what they meant is to put enough stress on your body for it to develop and adapt to the stress, while keeping the stress low enough to not cause damage and keep recovery time minimal to allow you to continue to apply the stress consistently. In other words, instead of working out for 2 hours once a week, work out for 30 mins 2-4 times a week.
@@Cheesus-Sliced Thats not what they said though, thats not the minimum effective dose, what you're describing is the maximum effective volume, not the minimal. The effectiveness is included in the definition
@@markkealy4417 they literally clarify and explain it in the same way that I just did. The statement isn't made in a vacuum, the next minute if explanation is attached to it.
Here's some leg exercises to build into a routine: Deadlift Weighted squats Bulgarian split squats Romanian deadlifts These 4 built my legs like nothing else
For climbers, there should definitely be some calf and hamstring focues stuff in there. Nordic curls and one legged calf raises are a must to improve heel hooks and prevet injury imo.
@@achilles872 Thank you! I normally use RDL's for hamstrings but I think those two exercises are such a good idea to build into a routine, will be stealing!
"Low reps and heavy weight won't build as much muscle" is definitely not correct. I put on around 20kilos of mass with recreational strength training in the lower rep range, and I'm fairly certain my 200kg deadlift is not doing anything for me when I'm trying to stand up on a tiny little foothold. In fact I would argue that heavy compound movements are probably the best way to put mass on your frame if you are not using steroids.
We didn't say you won't put on any muscle mass. But low volume, high intensity training, is a good option for many if they want to build or maintain maximum strength without putting on too much mass. Any hypertrophy from lifting heavy if often very useful to some climbers. We've seen this happen at all levels of the sport. Lifting moderate or high reps to failure can have the same hypertrophy effect but may not yield the same maximum strength. It's fine to point out a scenario where lifting heavy won't benefit a climber, like if they can already lift 200kg deadlift. But I would confidently say this is WAY above the average climber and an outlying case. This individual needs to use experience (or talk to a coach) if training to lift even more is actually a good decision for them.
@@achilles872 Not debating that, just pointing out that it's not some magical rep range to keep the extra weight off of you. If you eat in a caloric surplus and consistently overload to get stronger, you'll definitely put on massive amounts of muscle on a powerlifting style workout. Of course if you're not eating enough, you're really not getting much out of any training regimen beyond some noobie strength- and weight-gains. I think that might be where the disconnect in the discussion is happening.
AT 4:20 you made a slight mistake. Minimum effective dose provides minimal gains. You are literally making 0.0001% improvements year by year. You should not aim to train at minimum effective dose! You should aim somewhere between the minimum effective dose and maximum recoverable dose/volume. Well above minimum, but slightly below maximum. Maybe 5 to 20% under the max dose. This is the sweet spot. You are training hard and recovering well, while not going over the max dose by accident. Also, you defined maximum recoverable dose incorrectly. It isnt the dose after which you get injured, its the dose that you can recover from and still make progress. I guess some define this differently, but I like the maintanence dose, minimum effective dose and maximum recoverable dose definitions, since minimum effective dose doesnt really make any sense if its used as its used in medicine.
Thanks for the observation. I think we are trying to make the same point as you. But maybe it doesn't come across in that way. We do see some climbers doing more training than they can realistically recover from. We just want to get across the point that 'less is more' for many climbers and they can still make good, or even better gains if they drop the training load a bit. We do say "climbers should be finding the sweet spot in training load" in this video so think the point comes across that is not about making the slowest gains possible.
Minimum effective dose intuitively should be understood as the minimum dosage to get the effect you desire. Which is what lattice and most other people mean when they use this term. Not the minimum dose to see the smallest positive effect possible.
Well maximum recoverable wouldn’t be used in medicine, tolerable would, and in the same way as in medicine if you exceed the maximum there are significant health concerns. Further, medicine doesn’t use a maintenance but the median, which many practitioners will use something between the minimal and median effective dose based on patient history to minimize potential complications and side effects until a patient demonstrates good tolerance and no positive response. I see no reason for them to complicate terms used frequently in fitness, especially as we are talking seeing progress over long spans. Our capacity to make use of additional work and calories on a day to day basis is pretty low.
True. I agree, this is semantics. I like the maintenance volume, minimum effective volume, maximum adaptive volume and maximum recoverable volume terms. The desirable effect doesnt really apply to sports, since you want the maximum gains not some arbitrary amount of gains. Minimum effective dose defined as such would be a moving goal post.
Eh, going for pbs every session is a terrible way to progress quickly. Its not optimal for strength gains and is a great way to get injured. If driven by either ego, or too much zeal from beginners.
@@achilles872 not even remotely true. to drive for sucess in life in all things including climbing is very admirable and not unilaterally driven by ego. just silly and pessimistic to think that way. if you listen to your body and have adequate training experience to know how to train effectively/responsibly and and efficiently, training this way unlocks so much for yourself. im talking from experience. i went from v0 to v10 in a little over 2 years and i can enjoy most boulders wherever i go because i have the skill and this also opened up doors for me to climb and learn from climbers better than myself. i feel most people who claim it to be ego dont put in the hard work to progress so the shame those who try hard.
I never skip a leg day. Btw, you got that myth1 advise wrong. Low rep on heavy weight gains massive amount of muscle. High rep low weight makes you lose weight and shred them wooden sticks 🤣💪
This is completely incorrect. Low rep/high weight in the range they recommended prioritizes strength gain over hypertrophy, though you also need to take volume into account (higher volume can still lead to comparable hypertrophy). High rep/low weight is not going to lead to weight loss unless you're at a caloric deficit, and will prioritize endurance over strength.
@@michaelmacdonald3248 You are not going to lose weight squatting unless you do many reps with low weight, period. however, that wasnt the point, the point is power goes together with muscle growth so no matter how you look at it, low reps/heavy weight leads to power gain but to a muscle gain as a side effect. Climbers need to tone their legs, even squats with no weight or one leg squats are better for climbers than heavy weights.
@@perzoorgasmatron4914 You're not going to lose weight doing anything unless you're at a caloric deficit, or chopping off a limb (muscle atrophy aside). And obviously strength and muscle are correlated, but to accomplish the point of what they're saying (building power and strength in your legs), you want to do low rep, high intensity training. Again, that prioritizes strength over hypertrophy (key word prioritizes). "Toning", which is outdated nonsense, isn't the point of what they were discussing.
@@perzoorgasmatron4914 you're somewhat correct but obviously this is a classic case of thinking you know something after learning a little bit about the topic. If you want to build strength while minimizing muscle hypertrophy then low reps and volume with higher intensity is the way to go, rememeber it isnt just about muscle development, there is a while lot of nervous system changes too. Higher volume even as many as 30 reps a set can see larger muscle growth for less strength depending on total volume and effort level. Alot of this gets thrown out the window for people who are newish to training though, they will respond mostly the same to all types of training when they first start, getting nice gains in strength and size. Anyway there is obviously a lot more to this than what I can be bothered writing in a youtube comments box so maybe go look into it a bit more. Good starting point would be to check out Dr. Andy galpin, he is a lecturer at stanford that does free education videos on RUclips as well.
A little thing to add, at least from my point of view.
Training to failure doesn't mean that there is no more rep possible or something like that.
Training to failure means that you can't go on with good form and control.
If you see and treat it like that, it becomes a completely different thing 🤷♂️
Like I said before, this is my point of view.
Anyways, great video
Much love from austria
Hi Mario, great point! We would call this 'form failure' and very important when doing things like weight lifting or hard bouldering. When we see form or good technique fall apart its usually a good sign to stop.
Yes, good point. Climbers who train seriously have long-term goals. But I believe many of these same climbers (My guess, anyway) forget the long-term goal and while training, they focus on individual reps, sets, and sessions, i.e., "I really, really want to do 5 reps and 3 sets at X level." Reps, sets, sessions become the goal. At times, when I have improved a bit, I go back in volume and intensity.
It is also really easy for "lighter is better" to turn into disordered eating, which can be really harmful. In addition to the usual harms that come with disordered eating such as damage to the heart, gastrointestinal system, etc., when you're not eating enough, you just don't have as much energy to climb with. Not to mention the fact that your body breaks down muscle as well as fat when you're losing weight, which is likely going to be more detrimental to your strength/weight ratio than just getting stronger would be.
I had a serious hamstring injury from an aggressive heel hook that I will never fully recover from. Definitely wish I had been training deadlifts or something. Climbing can place your body into novel positions under a lot of tension. Climb long enough and you will find the weak links in your chain, and if you only do specialized climber training, you will have more of those weak links.
why wont it recover?
@@Gobbygoblin If you rip a muscle and/or tendon badly enough and don't have access to sports medicine or surgery then I don't think your odds of full recovery are great. I am guessing deep scar tissue is part of the problem, but I don't have the expertise to know.
dude... deadlifting is pushing - heelhooks is pulling. those muscles arent the same. i dont think you would have done better with that kind of training. im quite good at squading now, but hooks are still quite painfull when done more then 1-2 times....
@@TheValinov That depends on your stance. The traditional deadlift targets back, glutes and hamstrings. There is also the "sumo" stance that is closer to a squat with more bend in the knees, targeting quads and gluts.
Trad deadlift is probably the more relevant one for climbers.
@@Muaahaa The action at both knee and hip joints is the same for both squats and deadlifts, regardless of stance. The knee and hip extend. Degree of loading can change between different variations.
But that's not really the point. Stronger overall -> less prone to injury. People wanting to have stronger knee flexion stability for heel hooks would likely benefit from things like nordic curls but squats and deadlifts are hardly wasted.
Every athlete that physically can should train systemic, full-body, high load movements like squats or deadlifts. It's just way too beneficial in way too many ways to exclude in favor of other things.
Really great video. I think it was another of your videos where a dietician said that ambitious climbers should be aiming to eat the maximum amount of healthy food they can, without putting on weight. Likewise, they should be aiming to do the maximum amount of weightlifting they can, without getting chunky and without being too tired to train on the walls. Building lower body muscle in particular also protects against just about every disease of aging.
Hangboarding is way safer than climbing. Climbing is very hard to predict completely, sometimes the feet slip or you dyno to a crimp. Hangboarding is super controlled and very predictable.
Exactly. Safely hangboarding is way safer than climbing. However, hopping on a hangboard without knowing how to maintain proper form and not knowing how to program reps/rest time is definitely as dangerous as climbing, maybe even moreso.
Like the video says, as long as you're not ego lifting, chances of you getting injured hangboarding aren't as drastic as people say
@@AMM1998 not real disagreement here, but hangboarding is still safer than climbing if we are talking about getting rid of programming. However, the danger for folks tends to be fatigue as the signal for when to stop, which there isn’t much of a signal in a good hangboard session which stops us from climbing after for a full session. We just tap into too many energy systems and have too many technical to physical demands to not be able to pivot and continue adding volume if we still want to climb and train in a session. Fingers sore? Do more powerful moves on good holds. Shoulders sore? Step onto some coordination or slab and vert. Forearms weak? Get some endurance in. Six hours later, maybe head home, suffer no ill effects today, and repeat until chronic injuries manifest.
If purely from a safety standpoint, I would rather an individual under rest and overgrip into a full crimp which extends off a hold at failure with sagged shoulders than boulder. Of course, they won’t injure themselves but they also won’t progress much and bouldering is less safe not unsafe so I’d rather they climb and learn programming.
Since hangboarding is more stable, you can put more force through your fingers hangboarding than you typically could climbing. That's the reason injuries surrounding hangboarding are common
@@RaymondSequenza this is false for two reasons. Injuries from hangboards are not common, overtraining injuries are and may coincide with introducing any new stimulus into training, but the weight added is a static force, bodyweight plus weight, whereas almost any rapid movement between small holds will produce much greater force in less stable positions. Faster we are moving, greater the force, and most folks are hanging little more than bodyweight, maybe 50% more at the most for advanced athletes with training history, with world class being double bodyweight and still much lower force than moving rapidly to a small hold.
@@zacharylaschober neurologically, you can produce more force when the thing you apply force to is more stable. This is why you can bench more on a barbell than with dumbbells for example, or hangboarding vs trying to climb something. This is part of why hangboarding is useful, but also why people who haven't climbed for long can hurt themselves hangboarding. We're just talking anecdotally here but I do know a few people who injured themselves hangboarding early in their climbing careers.
As a newcomer to the community, the one about the muscle mass stood out the most for me. As if everyone would get swoll just by looking at weights
I started climbing in the 90s and there was an incredibly strong anti weightlifting culture then, dangerously combined with an extreme dieting culture. Fortunately things have changed since then.
Good to hear a variation of opinions about strength training/conditioning. I think the stumbling block is when people think "if I was just a bit stronger I could muscle through this move" substituting technique for power, then struggle on moves that can't be campused. Strength is a multiplier for technique, but not a replacement. If you can keep yourself grounded in technical skills then strength will serve you well. Thanks for the video!
also just for safety. ive had a few injuries because im jumping on hard climbs and my body just isnt strong enough but technique wise i could do them. im a pretty weak person so some moves on certain climbs (especially shouldery ones) can cause some pain. i feel like building strength outside of climbing has helped and prevented more tweaks and nags. i dont do it necessarily to climb harder grades, just to prevent injuries.
@@brutalctg7654 Absolutely! I also started on the (very) weaker end of the spectrum and had some tweaks to my elbow through gripping, nothing serious but definitely enough to stop me for a few days. I was very underweight so almost like the tendon was trying to do the work of the muscles that weren't there or something lol. I've put on about 5kg of core and arms now and haven't had the same issue since. Glad to hear it helped you too!
@@brutalctg7654 funny, im the complete opposite. i only popped my pulleys on static moves on small holds (open grip). dynos for the win.nether realy had problems with elbows or shoulders for longer then a week or 2. always the fingers are the problem -_-
I know several people who hurt their pulleys or tendons hang-boarding. All got hurt within their first year climbing. Hang boards do pose serious risk if used improperly, particularly when new to the sport because the tendons and pulleys have not been trained enough to handle the extreme forces. A lack of warming up is also a common factor in these injuries. The hang board is just simply dangerous when used wrong and it’s often used wrong due to a lack of understanding leading to injury
I actually managed to get a pulley injury when hangboarding.
Lesson learned: always warm up well when training pockets..
Well thats a shitty lesson because you probably injured your fdp tendon and not your pulleys, which are literally impossible to injure training on pockets since there is little to no load put on them, unless you were criming pockets. So the lesson for you is learn hand anatomy.
As an overweight female climber, I want to add that the myths about being lean are harmful in another way: they prevent people like me from getting on the wall because we get the idea in our head that we are "too fat" to climb. I didn't think that anyone could handle my weight on belay. This kept me off the wall for years! I am 5'3" and currently 190lbs. I started climbing again at 207lbs about three years ago. I climb once a week. I'm currently climbing at a level 5.9-5.10a-ish. This is an awesome fun hobby; it doesn't have to be the main focus of a climber's life. I just wanted to put my two cents in, in case anyone like me is out there watching. 😊
A question related to strength training would mostly be on how to handle muscle strength VS. Ligaments flexibility?
Let me explain: I got ligaments injured after a few months of intense climbing. I was told this was happening pretty often because muscles grow faster than ligaments can adjust; leading to more intense sessions; leading to more pressure and intensity on ligaments and joints which are not ready.
First, is that actually true? It feels likely true, but I am no expert.
If this is NOT a myth, how can we evaluate the joints and ligaments readiness to increase the climbing frequency?
How do I know I am ready for 2 or 3 off more sessions per week?
It is true that tendons and ligament will respond slower to training than muscles. The primary reason is these tissues have less blood and nutrient supply and slower tissue turn-over. For this reason we suggest a 'slow and steady' approach to training and trying to train over the long term, not short term. There is not really a perfect way to know when you are ready to tolerate more training other than to listen your body and signs of stress. Build up slowly and be patient with training.
I think this has some great perspectives and I understand that it is focused on performance. The only thing that I feel would be a great addition, or at least side note, is that for climbing on rock - regardless of ability - there are far more important initial considerations => Considerations like: environmental (not only in the hippy sense, but also in the bugs, dehydration, windchill, f$%k it just got hot!, etc, sense), gear use and abuse, and the ever-present danger of both the ethics police and the land management authorities....either way, the best climber is the one having the most engrossing time...
I think the "don't train to failure" section here is just a bit confused.
1) "Going to failure" refers to individual sets, not an entire workout. In fact, in the strength training literature, the whole reason that not training to failure can give superior results is that it allows you to do MORE sets (higher volume) either in that session, or because you can fit in more sessions per week due to increased recovery. If you equate volume, then training-to-failure groups always see superior results (oh, and even in those studies where they don't go to failure on each set, if they're increasing the number of sets and not the number of weekly sessions, then they do go to failure on the last set. Because what's the point of leaving energy behind for more sets if there will be no more sets...)
2) What you are referring to is not putting too much volume into a single session. I won't speak about climbing here since I know programming can be quite different due to soft tissue recovery etc. But in terms of strength training the situation is this: there is some evidence to suggest that splitting your workload into more sessions is better than doing a small number of high volume sessions. However, if weekly volume is equated, results tend to be very similar regardless of whether you do 2,3,4 sessions per week. What you want to focus on is not getting too much or too little volume each WEEK. NOT each session. You can do a super hard session if you want as long as you keep the weekly volume reasonable (i.e. so long as you recover properly). But yes, more sessions with a bit lower volume is sometimes preferable.
3) In terms of going to failure on individual sets (i.e. the real meaning of the term), you are again correct that stopping 2 or 3 reps short is optimal (provided you increase the volume, see point 1), however there are two BIG caveats: (a) Most people drastically underestimate their failure point. This has been demonstrated unequivocally in studies. So if you think you can only do 3 more reps at most, you can probably actually do 8 more. And if you stop 8 reps short of failure, you're not going to get any stronger at all. And (b) as has been mentioned elsewhere, "failure" means "technical failure". No serious person has ever suggested going past the point at which your form breaks down. So saying "quality over quantity" doesn't really mean much. Every rep should be at 100% quality and if it isn't then YOU HAVE FAILED and must stop. But that doesn't mean "don't train to failure". It's just that failure doesn't mean absolute failure. It means technical failure.
One last point. Progressive overload strength training means either doing more weight or more reps or more sets or a more difficult variation. Very often it just isn't possible to do this unless you're willing to push really bloody hard every once in a while. Especially if you're plateauing (the opposite is also sometimes true. Sometimes you need to deload and recover to overcome a plateau. But if you're not willing to ever push your 110% effort, you're going to see very slow progress or potentially even no progress).
I can't think of any good reason for the claim you make that the minimum dose required to see a response should be used. You should use the dose that gives you the largest response within the constraints of avoiding injury and over-training. But there's a large gap between "minimum does to see a response" and "injury/overtraining" and lots of gains to be had by going beyond the mere "minimum dose to see a response".
I think he did touch on MEV and MRV. And MRV was always related to overall training volume. His point in the video was not so much about how to get maximum strength gains as quickly as possible, but to understand that it is a process and slowing down your progression rate has benefits related to reduced injury risk. Especislly for climbers, they do not want to tax their recovery too much with strength training because climbing has realtively high injury risk.
In that context, i think the strength and conditioning literature is pretty clear you don't need to be maxing out training volume to reap benefits. Furthermore, in a practical sense, training volume is individual, you dont start someone on the maximum number of sets they can do - you gradually progress them up. The research says more volume is better, which is true, but on the individual level, there's little benefit to going for MRV.
With regards to the training proximity to failure. I actually also disagree on that. We're talking about making slow and steady gains, not maximizing progress ASAP. And the research has shown that for strength, working well below failure is acceptable. That's why submaximal training is the standard approach in powerlifting. If you were talking about hypertrophy, then getting closer to failure would be more important.
I'm not sure what you mean by avoiding "diminishing returns"? diminishing returns are still returns from training
Think of it this way: if every 30 mins of training needs 1 day recovery, and your first 30 mins gives 100% return, second 30 mins gives 80% return, third gives 60% etc, training for 2 hours gives you 280% return with 4 days rest (5 days total), where 30 mins every second day gives you 300% returns with 3 days rest, 6 days total. Less training time, less recovery time, higher return
@@Cheesus-Sliced I don't think thats what they meant, they talked about aiming for the "minimum effective dose", thats the smallest amount of training that results in an improvement, so its the smallest improvement possible. I think what they were shooting for is avoiding diminishing returns to allow time to recover for other types of training. But it wasn't very clear tbh.
If you're getting a higher return the normal way, then thats not diminishing returns, thats negative returns
@@markkealy4417 what they meant is to put enough stress on your body for it to develop and adapt to the stress, while keeping the stress low enough to not cause damage and keep recovery time minimal to allow you to continue to apply the stress consistently. In other words, instead of working out for 2 hours once a week, work out for 30 mins 2-4 times a week.
@@Cheesus-Sliced Thats not what they said though, thats not the minimum effective dose, what you're describing is the maximum effective volume, not the minimal. The effectiveness is included in the definition
@@markkealy4417 they literally clarify and explain it in the same way that I just did. The statement isn't made in a vacuum, the next minute if explanation is attached to it.
i want my legs to be double the mass of my upper body
Leg day enjoyers GIGACHAD
@@smockytubers1188 ;D thankyou!
GLUTES LETSSS GOO
Dyno all the things
Here's some leg exercises to build into a routine:
Deadlift
Weighted squats
Bulgarian split squats
Romanian deadlifts
These 4 built my legs like nothing else
For climbers, there should definitely be some calf and hamstring focues stuff in there. Nordic curls and one legged calf raises are a must to improve heel hooks and prevet injury imo.
@@achilles872
Thank you! I normally use RDL's for hamstrings but I think those two exercises are such a good idea to build into a routine, will be stealing!
Please next time, read out the prompts because I was wanting to just listen while working
"Low reps and heavy weight won't build as much muscle" is definitely not correct. I put on around 20kilos of mass with recreational strength training in the lower rep range, and I'm fairly certain my 200kg deadlift is not doing anything for me when I'm trying to stand up on a tiny little foothold. In fact I would argue that heavy compound movements are probably the best way to put mass on your frame if you are not using steroids.
We didn't say you won't put on any muscle mass. But low volume, high intensity training, is a good option for many if they want to build or maintain maximum strength without putting on too much mass. Any hypertrophy from lifting heavy if often very useful to some climbers. We've seen this happen at all levels of the sport. Lifting moderate or high reps to failure can have the same hypertrophy effect but may not yield the same maximum strength. It's fine to point out a scenario where lifting heavy won't benefit a climber, like if they can already lift 200kg deadlift. But I would confidently say this is WAY above the average climber and an outlying case. This individual needs to use experience (or talk to a coach) if training to lift even more is actually a good decision for them.
@@LatticeTraining Hah, I can assure I am a very below average climber(and an average lifter). That was my whole point.
Appreciate the reply!
@@peterpwn9558 Low reps, heavy weight definitely give you a higher max strength:size ratio than other training protocols.
@@achilles872 Not debating that, just pointing out that it's not some magical rep range to keep the extra weight off of you. If you eat in a caloric surplus and consistently overload to get stronger, you'll definitely put on massive amounts of muscle on a powerlifting style workout. Of course if you're not eating enough, you're really not getting much out of any training regimen beyond some noobie strength- and weight-gains. I think that might be where the disconnect in the discussion is happening.
AT 4:20 you made a slight mistake. Minimum effective dose provides minimal gains. You are literally making 0.0001% improvements year by year. You should not aim to train at minimum effective dose! You should aim somewhere between the minimum effective dose and maximum recoverable dose/volume. Well above minimum, but slightly below maximum. Maybe 5 to 20% under the max dose. This is the sweet spot. You are training hard and recovering well, while not going over the max dose by accident. Also, you defined maximum recoverable dose incorrectly. It isnt the dose after which you get injured, its the dose that you can recover from and still make progress.
I guess some define this differently, but I like the maintanence dose, minimum effective dose and maximum recoverable dose definitions, since minimum effective dose doesnt really make any sense if its used as its used in medicine.
Thanks for the observation. I think we are trying to make the same point as you. But maybe it doesn't come across in that way. We do see some climbers doing more training than they can realistically recover from. We just want to get across the point that 'less is more' for many climbers and they can still make good, or even better gains if they drop the training load a bit. We do say "climbers should be finding the sweet spot in training load" in this video so think the point comes across that is not about making the slowest gains possible.
Minimum effective dose intuitively should be understood as the minimum dosage to get the effect you desire. Which is what lattice and most other people mean when they use this term. Not the minimum dose to see the smallest positive effect possible.
Well maximum recoverable wouldn’t be used in medicine, tolerable would, and in the same way as in medicine if you exceed the maximum there are significant health concerns. Further, medicine doesn’t use a maintenance but the median, which many practitioners will use something between the minimal and median effective dose based on patient history to minimize potential complications and side effects until a patient demonstrates good tolerance and no positive response.
I see no reason for them to complicate terms used frequently in fitness, especially as we are talking seeing progress over long spans. Our capacity to make use of additional work and calories on a day to day basis is pretty low.
True. I agree, this is semantics. I like the maintenance volume, minimum effective volume, maximum adaptive volume and maximum recoverable volume terms.
The desirable effect doesnt really apply to sports, since you want the maximum gains not some arbitrary amount of gains. Minimum effective dose defined as such would be a moving goal post.
Going for PB's ever session is not only ego driven. Some people just really like to push themselves and challenge.themselves to progress quickly.
Eh, going for pbs every session is a terrible way to progress quickly. Its not optimal for strength gains and is a great way to get injured. If driven by either ego, or too much zeal from beginners.
@@achilles872 not even remotely true. to drive for sucess in life in all things including climbing is very admirable and not unilaterally driven by ego. just silly and pessimistic to think that way. if you listen to your body and have adequate training experience to know how to train effectively/responsibly and and efficiently, training this way unlocks so much for yourself. im talking from experience. i went from v0 to v10 in a little over 2 years and i can enjoy most boulders wherever i go because i have the skill and this also opened up doors for me to climb and learn from climbers better than myself. i feel most people who claim it to be ego dont put in the hard work to progress so the shame those who try hard.
I never skip a leg day. Btw, you got that myth1 advise wrong. Low rep on heavy weight gains massive amount of muscle. High rep low weight makes you lose weight and shred them wooden sticks 🤣💪
This is completely incorrect. Low rep/high weight in the range they recommended prioritizes strength gain over hypertrophy, though you also need to take volume into account (higher volume can still lead to comparable hypertrophy). High rep/low weight is not going to lead to weight loss unless you're at a caloric deficit, and will prioritize endurance over strength.
@@michaelmacdonald3248 You are not going to lose weight squatting unless you do many reps with low weight, period. however, that wasnt the point, the point is power goes together with muscle growth so no matter how you look at it, low reps/heavy weight leads to power gain but to a muscle gain as a side effect. Climbers need to tone their legs, even squats with no weight or one leg squats are better for climbers than heavy weights.
@@perzoorgasmatron4914 You're not going to lose weight doing anything unless you're at a caloric deficit, or chopping off a limb (muscle atrophy aside). And obviously strength and muscle are correlated, but to accomplish the point of what they're saying (building power and strength in your legs), you want to do low rep, high intensity training. Again, that prioritizes strength over hypertrophy (key word prioritizes).
"Toning", which is outdated nonsense, isn't the point of what they were discussing.
@@michaelmacdonald3248 Funny you are going about losing weight still instead of doing some heavy weights Arnie.🤣💪
@@perzoorgasmatron4914 you're somewhat correct but obviously this is a classic case of thinking you know something after learning a little bit about the topic. If you want to build strength while minimizing muscle hypertrophy then low reps and volume with higher intensity is the way to go, rememeber it isnt just about muscle development, there is a while lot of nervous system changes too. Higher volume even as many as 30 reps a set can see larger muscle growth for less strength depending on total volume and effort level. Alot of this gets thrown out the window for people who are newish to training though, they will respond mostly the same to all types of training when they first start, getting nice gains in strength and size. Anyway there is obviously a lot more to this than what I can be bothered writing in a youtube comments box so maybe go look into it a bit more.
Good starting point would be to check out Dr. Andy galpin, he is a lecturer at stanford that does free education videos on RUclips as well.