Endurance Training

What you train and how depends on your specific goal. What is your goal apart from just being Sharma

To move away from the bickering...

As they have mentioned the best peridization for you is going to be different from others.
My recommendation for building endurance is to find a traverse that a few grades below your climbing level (probably what you have already been training on) and climb until pumped but see how long that takes (focus on time but watch distance also) then on your endurance days that is the time that you should be going for. As you train you will get farther and farther from pumping out in that amount of time. Repeat this every few weeks as you improve.

This is loosely how we trained for cross country in college, I see no reason why it shouldn't also work for climbing. Muscles are muscles, the main thing is don't push yourself hard enough that you will damage your muscles.

(based on your previous posts it sounds like you do not do the same thing for training every day, which is good)

Alexander Blum wrote:[re: Non-Linear Periodization in the Andersons' book]: I think there is one key takeaway they mention: Periods of high pPerformance will come in peaks and valleys no matter what you do - you can choose when they happen (block periodization) or take them as they come (non-linear periodization).

Well I think there's another key takeaway:
The recognition of Non-Linear Periodization is an acknowledgement that some climbers are doing just fine in their progress and achievements without the "3 weeks focus on X, then 5 weeks focus on Y, then 4 weeks focus on Z" kind of macro periodization. Instead those climbers can plan a shorter cycle of say 3 to 8 days ... Plan which days for which kind of intense workout, how much rest, what to fits into easier days in between the intense ones. (Not at all the same as "just get out and climb more")

Long-term progress for those climbers can go well. The only thing they miss out on is predictable timing of peaks.

There's no reason those climbers who are not following a "4 weeks focus on X" kind of macro-periodization program cannot keep careful records and follow disciplined training principles, and learn from their previous experience to improve their future protocol. Just disciplined training without the "macro" multi-week cycle stuff.

I understand the scientific basis for macro periodization for training for running and bicycle racing, and I once practiced it rigorously a couple of years for cross-country ski racing. Also I find it fairly convincing to extend that macro strategy to training for big alpine climbs.

What I find unconvincing is the rational basis for applying the macro-periodization strategy to long-term (multi-year) improvement in red-point sport rock climbing.

Ken

i'm not convinced that the 3 to 8 day micro cycles give you enough time to adapt and benefit from the training. i think it is better to try to get as much out of a cycle as possible, and manage the adaptation and decay rates as best as possible.

kenr wrote: What I find unconvincing is the rational basis for applying the macro-periodization strategy to long-term (multi-year) improvement in red-point sport rock climbing. Ken

Why? What's so different between the two?

img

Ha!

I remember that when Cliffhanger came out, me and a dozen of my climbing friends went to see it en masse.

After the harness buckle melted and we knew it was a comedy, we started laughing and laughing. We all exclaimed "WTF?!" at the bolt gun scene (why put in a bolt if you're soloing?) and huge belly-laughs at just about every other "tense" moment Hollywood conjured up.

Needless to say, we pretty much ruined the movie for the other viewers. ;-)

Alexander Blum wrote:Why? What's so different between the two?

Run + Bicycle racing are mostly about speed (and endurance).

Big-mountain alpine climbing seems heavily about speed (and endurance).

Red-point sport climbing seems mostly about strength.

edit: Adding some detail ...
frequency of contractions for Run + Bicycle racing racing is normally 60 times per minute or more. And the movements are fairly repetitious.

For big-mountain alpine climbing I'll guess the frequency is often 40 times a minute, and often somewhat repetitious.

Red-point sport climbing seems to me that contraction frequency is much less than those others. Usually much less repetitious. Usually the total duration of performance is smaller.

slim wrote:i'm not convinced that the 3 to 8 day micro cycles give you enough time to adapt and benefit from the training. i think it is better to try to get as much out of a cycle as possible, and manage the adaptation and decay rates as best as possible.

. (not sure about the "cycle" word) .

I'm talking about like say a 7-day program sort of like
1) very intense (strength or power or power-endurance)
2) rest or some unrelated sport non-intense
3) climb for fun or technique or ARC
4) very intense (strength or power or power-endurance)
5) rest
6) climb for fun or technique or ARC
7) rest or some unrelated sport non-intense

Repeat that week after week after week.

But actually it gets interrupted for family - job - travel. Or injuries.

And it gets modified for seasonal goals, or just to do something different, get away off a plateau.

Seems to me the point in Andersons' book about Nonlinear Periodization is that a significant number of climbers succeed long-term with that kind of strategy long-term. But they don't get predictable peaks like with the 17-week cycle.

Ken

kenr wrote: Repeat that week after week after week. But actually it gets interrupted for family - job - travel. Or injuries.

Or after about 4-6 weeks, just plain burnt out. It's hard to sustain true intense workouts weeks after weeks. I went thru 2 8-week workout cycles this winter (the second was cut short about 3 weeks due to injury) and I found I can really keep going for about 3 weeks until I need a "rest" week. Good thing the program had easy weeks mixed in. It was also nice that the 2 cycles had different emphasis and enough varieties.

kenr wrote: Run + Bicycle racing are mostly about speed (and endurance). Big-mountain alpine climbing seems heavily about speed (and endurance). Red-point sport climbing seems mostly about strength.

Athletes that perform at high levels in strength based sports use cyclic training. These principles are not specific to endurance sports.

kenr wrote:Seems to me the point in Andersons' book about Nonlinear Periodization is that a significant number of climbers succeed long-term with that kind of strategy long-term. But they don't get predictable peaks like with the 17-week cycle.

Succeed is a relative term. If you have redpointed 13d (or 14c) for the last 8 years, your training is not working. You're just strong. I would be very interested in seeing some data points on long term redpoint improvement with different approaches. I have only seen the data points for the Andersons, which are compelling - but obviously a very small sample size.

I also just don't understand why, if the peaks are going to come one way or another, one would not exercise control over when these peaks occur. What's the benefit of taking them at random?

kenr wrote: Run + Bicycle racing are mostly about speed (and endurance). Big-mountain alpine climbing seems heavily about speed (and endurance). Red-point sport climbing seems mostly about strength. edit: Adding some detail ... frequency of contractions for Run + Bicycle racing racing is normally 60 times per minute or more. And the movements are fairly repetitious. For big-mountain alpine climbing I'll guess the frequency is often 40 times a minute, and often somewhat repetitious. Red-point sport climbing seems to me that contraction frequency is much less than those others. Usually much less repetitious. Usually the total duration of performance is smaller.

i don't really agree with your assessments of several of these items. for example, bike racing - the ability to sprint at the end is often very important and racers spend a fair amount of time training power output.

red-point climbng mostly about strength? this is vastly over-generalized. it completely depends on the route - some routes might be a couple clutch dumping brutal moves. other routes might be the same relatively easy move over and over until it just grinds you down.

i completely agree w/ reboot (and other's) thoughts on the mixed/progressive training program. i think this is a good way to get an average climber up to the mid 11 or low 12 range, but really hard to get past this plateau. also, the burnout - you just can't really sustain it for indefinite periods.

when i switched from a fairly periodized training schedule to a mixed/progressive schedule my sport climbing dropped about a number grade for almost 5 years. it just didn't work for me at all. when i switched back to a more periodized method, my sport climbing grade was back up to it's high point (and beyone) in about a year.

Climb. More. Simple stupid.

And yet another valuable, insightful, nuanced contribution from samadhi! Yes! The discourse has moved forward!

Alexander Blum wrote:Athletes that perform at high levels in strength based sports use cyclic training.

Good.
What are some good books or websites about the "cyclic" or periodization strategies they use?

Which strength sports?

How about Olympic weight-lifting?
since it has strength, technique, and dynamic "power".

Ken

As far as I'm aware most of the top Olympic weightlifters you conjugate nonperiodized methods. Same with track and field. It's only in climbing that periodized training is used.

5.samadhi wrote:As far as I'm aware most of the top Olympic weightlifters you conjugate nonperiodized methods. Same with track and field. It's only in climbing that periodized training is used.

They also use PEDs.

Less recovery time = more intense training possible.

Ryan Watts wrote: They also use PEDs. Less recovery time = more intense training possible.

growth, bro, growth.

5.samadhi wrote: growth, bro, growth.

There is no cheating in climbing. Only gh and cheque drops (for the rage goes).

I've always tried to keep my level of androgens to an extremely high amount