Eva Lopez Protocol

Not being the smartest guy out there, I am having a hard time understanding her program. Can someone put her program into a simple form, including times/reps/weight/etc?

Also, Eva Lopez is advocating weighted hangs over small holds while the Anderson brothers advocate repeaters on holds that you will be climbing on outside at an appropriate weight to just complete the desired reps and sets. Does anyone have an opinion on which system works better for what and not so well for what?

abc wrote:Not being the smartest guy out there, I am having a hard time understanding her program. Can someone put her program into a simple form, including times/reps/weight/etc? Also, Eva Lopez is advocating weighted hangs over small holds while the Anderson brothers advocate repeaters on holds that you will be climbing on outside at an appropriate weight to just complete the desired reps and sets. Does anyone have an opinion on which system works better for what and not so well for what?

Have you seen her youtube videos? I thought they made her system pretty clear.
Number 1 of 5 or 6 is
youtube.com/watch?v=hJhQduB…

IIRC, she advocates 4 weeks of maximum weighted hangs on a bigger edge, followed by 4 weeks on the smallest edge you can manage. Has a paper suggesting this is the correct order.

No evidence AFAIK whether repeaters or short max hangs work better. Dave Mcleod and others seem to do well with max hangs, the Andersons and other do well with repeaters.

Do you get stronger from doing 5 sets of 3 reps or 6-7 sets of 12 reps?

Weight lifters to both and for good reasons. The first is max strength training, and the second is work capacity or hypertrophy type training. The andersons follow up their FB or "strength cycle" with the campusing or "power" cycle, which logically makes sense. Build your work capacity, then maximize your strength. They advocate max ladders for campusing which is 3 moves and takes about 3-5 seconds. So the way I look at it, the Andersons do a finger work capacity cycle followed by dynamic strength cycle.

BOTH of these work, it depends on how you use them, and what your goals are.

Also her protocol is:
Warmup 15-20minutes

Progressive Hangs: 3 x weighted hangs of 10 seconds. 1st hang at 50% of goal added weight, 2nd hang at 80%, 3rd hang at 90%. 3-5 minutes rest after each hang

Main set: 3-5 x 10 sec weighted hang, 3-5 minuteds rest after each.

The goal for the max hangs is to finish all of them. Her rcommendation for how hard is to start off doing a test cycle and find the maximum weight you can hang for 13seconds. That is your max weight you use for the hangs.

sasquatch wrote:Do you get stronger from doing 5 sets of 3 reps or 6-7 sets of 12 reps? Weight lifters to both and for good reasons. The first is max strength training, and the second is work capacity or hypertrophy type training.

Yes but when weight lifters do those protocols it's usually with concentric (dynamic) contractions.

My understanding is that what Eva Lopez and the Andersons are doing is isometric (static) contractions.

I've never seen clear evidence that the same protocols of sets and reps work the same way for isometric static training as for concentric dynamic training.

I would have thought that isometric training primarily developed different type of muscle fibers than (low rep count) concentric training - (slow oxidative versus fast glycolitive fibers).

Ken

Ken, are you suggesting that hangboarding is training slow oxidative fibers?

Its both concentric and eccentric, but you're right there is a difference, and I also have not found any science related to using the same sets/reps for each.

However, I'm not suggesting that a specific protocol of reps/sets is exactly comparable. I'm saying that hanging on your fingers for 50 seconds in total at max, is going be have a higher relationship to maximum strength vs hanging on your fingers for a 250-300 seconds. In much the same way that doing 15 dynamic reps total at max weight (whether 3x5, or 5x3) is going to have a tighter relationship to max strength building than doing 36 reps (3x12).

I'm really surprised you would think isometric would be slow oxidative. The difference in energy system usage there boils down to time to maintain maximum force output, whether its isometric or dynamic makes no difference to the type of energy production used, it's the relative amount of energy required. Where you see a big difference is in the neurological speed of recruitment, but that's a totally different topic.

sasquatch wrote:The difference in energy system usage there boils down to time to maintain maximum force output, whether its isometric or dynamic makes no difference to the type of energy production used, it's the relative amount of energy required.

Well my understanding of the physics and the physiology is very different.
The physics is that Power (measured in Watts) is Force output (measured in Newtons or perhaps pounds) -- multiplied by the Distance (like meters or cm or feet) over which the force is applied or resisted -- divided by the Time (in Seconds) the force is exerted.

So the same force magnitude thru the same distance but delivered in half the time is double the Power output. Therefore shorter work durations are more likely to push muscular systems from aerobic into anaerobic mode.

For a concentric contraction of the finger the Distance moved by a muscle fiber might be say like 0.5 centimeter. For an isometric contraction the Distance is about 0 cm, therefore the Power output for an isometric exercise is much closer to Zero (0) watts than for a concentric contraction.

There are non-human machines which when operated in a "locked off" configuration require pretty-near exactly Zero power to maintain that position. Human muscles are not efficient in (most) lock-off positions, so they require some power (measured in Watts) to maintain a static position. But it's much less power (in Watts) than they generate in order to move while applying something like near-maximum force.

Therefore human muscle fibers operated in sustained isometric contraction are less likely to be operating in anaerobic mode.

Physiology (my understanding):
Slow Oxidative fibers (Type I) can operate in either aerobic or anaerobic mode. In lower Power situations they operate aerobic, and they are pretty efficient for that -- but with high Power demands they can operate anaerobic.

Fast Glycolitive fibers operate mainly in anaerobic mode (even if the Power demand is not high), and generally much less efficient than SO fibers. So they tend not to get recruited in low power demand situations.

But when it's time to launch and catch a crux climbing move, lots of well-developed FG fibers are what you need to have and need to use.

There are also fibers which are sort of in-between SO and FG.

Tricky advanced physiology:
The tougher question is what mode of contraction in what protocol stimulates the growth of Slow Oxidative type, or the growth of Fast Glycolitive fiber type, or the transformation of one type into the other (or into some in-between type).

Be glad to learn more about this.

Ken

kenr wrote: Therefore human muscle fibers operated in sustained isometric contraction are less likely to be operating in anaerobic mode.

Well, that's the thing, if you can only sustain an isometric contraction for a few seconds (or even a controlled eccentric motion), your muscles are being taxed tremendously, whether that's power in the physics definition or not.

"Well my understanding of the physics and the physiology is very different. The physics is that Power (measured in Watts) is Force output (measured in Newtons or perhaps pounds) -- multiplied by the Distance (like meters or cm or feet) over which the force is applied or resisted -- divided by the Time (in Seconds) the force is exerted.

So the same force magnitude thru the same distance but delivered in half the time is double the Power output. Therefore shorter work durations are more likely to push muscular systems from aerobic into anaerobic mode." -Ken

I agree with you entirely, but that has very little to do with what I was talking about. Whether a person is doing maximal isometric work, or maximal dynamic work, the key is that they are both maximal, therefore they won't be using aerobic energy systems.

"For a concentric contraction of the finger the Distance moved by a muscle fiber might be say like 0.5 centimeter. For an isometric contraction the Distance is about 0 cm, therefore the Power output for an isometric exercise is much closer to Zero (0) watts than for a concentric contraction.

There are non-human machines which when operated in a "locked off" configuration require pretty-near exactly Zero power to maintain that position. Human muscles are not efficient in (most) lock-off positions, so they require some power (measured in Watts) to maintain a static position. But it's much less power (in Watts) than they generate in order to move while applying something like near-maximum force."-Ken

See above-maximal is maximal. I'm not comparing doing isometric hangs with 50lbs to doing finger pullups with 50lbs. They are obviously very different, and of course the dynamic at the same weight will require more power.

"Therefore human muscle fibers operated in sustained isometric contraction are less likely to be operating in anaerobic mode."-Ken

Yes/No. It depends on the forces involved. You've assumed isometric is less taxing, which all other things being equal it is, but we're not keeping them all equal. Again see above.

"Physiology (my understanding):
Slow Oxidative fibers (Type I) can operate in either aerobic or anaerobic mode. In lower Power situations they operate aerobic, and they are pretty efficient for that -- but with high Power demands they can operate anaerobic.
Fast Glycolitive fibers operate mainly in anaerobic mode (even if the Power demand is not high), and generally much less efficient than SO fibers. So they tend not to get recruited in low power demand situations.
But when it's time to launch and catch a crux climbing move, lots of well-developed FG fibers are what you need to have and need to use.
There are also fibers which are sort of in-between SO and FG."-Ken
Yes.

"Tricky advanced physiology:
The tougher question is what mode of contraction in what protocol stimulates the growth of Slow Oxidative type, or the growth of Fast Glycolitive fiber type, or the transformation of one type into the other (or into some in-between type).
Be glad to learn more about this."-Ken

From everything I've read that is really a big question, and some studies seem to show that the ratio is genetically defined, and some seem to show the ability to change. Let me know if you find anything definitive.

I could be off in the base premise, but my understanding is that the fiber type, despite being called fast twich and slow twitch, are not actually mechanically fast, they are describing the energy production, and therefore anything requiring maximal energy production in a short amount of time(i.e. a 10 second max hang) is going to primarily use fast glycolitive fibers.In the end I don't really care though as long as the training continues to show progress...

9/11/14 - Edited to add quotes. Not sure why the other forum quote feature isn't working for me.

No idea why the quotes aren't working on the post. Sorry.

sasquatch wrote: In the end I don't really care though as long as the training continues to show progress...

Amen brother!

You can waste a lot of "power*" arguing over semantics that have no bearing on your practical training activities.

*In this case I'm using the Arno Ilgner/Carlos Casteneda definition of "power"

you should post your quote from the rock that you told me, that's a pretty good one.

your brother also had a really good comment in the slideshow you did in golden. i can't remember it exactly, but it was something like "if it doesn't produce direct results for my climbing, it is absolutely worthless. actually it's worse than worthless because i wasted time doing it".

i think about both of these quotes quite a bit.

Monomaniac wrote: Amen brother! You can waste a lot of "power*" arguing over semantics that have no bearing on your practical training activities. *In this case I'm using the Arno Ilgner/Carlos Casteneda definition of "power"

Without asking you to argue, why do you prefer your protocol? What do you see as the strengths and limitations of each protocol?

Thanks in advance

abc wrote: Without asking you to argue, why do you prefer your protocol? What do you see as the strengths and limitations of each protocol? Thanks in advance

Ya, I definitely have zero interest in arguing about it. That said, some of my thoughts on the subject are contained in this misdirected rant/thread:

rockprodigytraining.proboar…

Monomaniac wrote: Ya, I definitely have zero interest in arguing about it. That said, some of my thoughts on the subject are contained in this misdirected rant/thread: rockprodigytraining.proboar…

Not identical to why I thought you had developed your program that way, but very similar. Mostly semantics differences in my mind.

I'll be changing goals next year to sport routes instead of bouldering and I'll be going to your program extensively. As I'm strictly focused on bouldering ATM, and in particular maximum strength, I'm doing 4 week Max Hangs followed by 4 week Campus, but that's not what I would do if I were focused on sport climbing.

Cheers! and thanks for the great training references-both the book and the website/forum/blog.

IMO, the jury is still out on the best rep/set scheme for inducing continual progress in both hypertrophy (all fiber types) and recruitment (all fiber types).

On one end of the spectrum we have the recommendations from Moon, Lopez, etc who are proponents of the single hang sets. Somewhere else on the spectrum (but maybe not the other end), we have the repeater style workouts. Is it possible that there are still yet more workout styles that include a more reps in a single set? The spectrum is partially filled in, but who knows what the full range is?

| lopez/moon/etc (1 rep) ---- (2 rep)---- (3 rep)---- (4 rep)--- anderson/beastmaker/repeater (5-6 rep)-- (7 rep)---8 (rep)--- and so on..|

My guess is that like powerlifting, and other strength dependent sports, eventually rock climbers will realize that it takes a range of rep/set styles to produce the optimal level of progress, but it may take awhile to figure what that means for each individual. One could argue that the rock-prodigy method is already doing all of the rep/set possibilities , albeit through different forms of analogous workouts (hangboard, campus/limit-boulder, power endurance). I think this is probably one of the reasons why people using the rock prodigy methods have shown continual improvement over time.

If one does not have access to a gym, and instead must complete the majority of the their physical training on a hang-board (I feel sorry for you), I think it may be smart to cycle through different styles of hang-boarding in order to try and keep progress from stalling. That said if cycling through different styles of hang-board workouts, it is probably best to do it inter-cycle, and still be sure to be methodical about progressive overload, recovery and rest.

Although there is a lot of information out there, I still think we are just finding the tip of the iceberg when it comes to training for climbing.

More nerdy ex phys info coming.... interested parties should read. Others will be bored and/or confused. You have been warned! :)

1) Which fibers are used? Isometric work can recruit both type I and II fibers (slow and fast). Like sasquatch mentioned, the fibers recruited are not based on the type of muscle contraction happening but rather on the intensity and duration of the exercise. You can engage in both submaximal and maximal isometric outputs. The energy demands and fibers associated will fall into the spectrum accordingly.

2) Efficiency? Slow oxidative fibers are not more "efficient" per se than fast glycolytic. They are each efficient for what they are designed to do and inefficient for other demands.

3) Associated fatigue? From what I have read, isotonic (aka "dynamic") exercises are more fatiguing than continuous isometric exercises when matched for total duration of contraction. This is because more work is performed by a muscle which is shortening/lengthening and the energy demands are therefore higher. HOWEVER, when intermittent isometric exercises are performed (matched to be the same duration under load) to a single continuous isometric contraction, the intermittent protocol shows much higher fatigue, closer to the profiles of dynamic exercise. i.e. think repeaters.

4) Measuring energy output It is true that muscle work outputs are measured in watts. While isometric exercise shows no measurable work output, it does clearly release heat/energy per unit time which is measured in watts.

Also, it is important to note that isometric exercises do exhibit some work output in the form of the muscle shortening against a compliant tendon. So, this work is external to the muscle fibers themselves but internal to the body.

kerwinl wrote:IMO, the jury is still out on the best rep/set scheme for inducing continual progress in both hypertrophy (all fiber types) and recruitment (all fiber types).

I don't think the science is totally clueless on this, but it is true that you cannot simultaneously improve hypertrophy for ALL fiber types while also improving recruitment for ALL fiber types and do it all with ever-increasing progress. I totally agree with you that there is a large range of options and the best gains cannot be realized from any single method over a long period of time. Basic training science.

For those interested, here is a quote from a book I love (by training research gurus Fleck and Kraemer) "Designing Resistance Training Programs" regarding a comparative protocol between single, continuous isometric training vs repeated isometric training (with time durations being equal in a fast twitch dominant muscle):

Essentially, they found no difference in cross sectional area improvements between the two protocols and concluded "this indicates that a variety of training intensity and volume can result in significant hypertrophy." Then, after reviewing more research that showed 40%+ hypertrophy gains in an isometrically trained slow twitch dominant lower limb muscle, they state, "Collectively, this information indicates that muscle hypertrophy of both the type I and type II muscle fibers can occur from isometric training with submaximal and maximal muscle contractions of varying durations."

Their associated table for empirically-based isometric training guidelines:

.

Aerili wrote:HOWEVER, when intermittent isometric exercises are performed (matched to be the same duration under load) to a single continuous isometric contraction, the intermittent protocol shows much higher fatigue, closer to the profiles of dynamic exercise. i.e. think repeaters.

What are you saying here? That if you did 5 seconds on 5 seconds off for 6 reps, for a total of 30 seconds of isometric contraction, the fatigue is higher than holding it for 30 seconds continuously? Assuming you are under the same load? Or does need to be more intermittent (shorter rest interval)?

That certainly doesn't seem to align with my experience on the fingerboard.

reboot wrote: What are you saying here? That if you did 5 seconds on 5 seconds off for 6 reps, for a total of 30 seconds of isometric contraction, the fatigue is higher than holding it for 30 seconds continuously? Assuming you are under the same load? Or does need to be more intermittent (shorter rest interval)? That certainly doesn't seem to align with my experience on the fingerboard.

Yeah, you know, I was thinking the same type of thing. They induce maximal isometric tetanic force via electrical stimulation means, not voluntary exertion. The only time a load was applied was for isotonic testing (and then still electrically induced max iso force was applied against the load, allowing a range of motion to occur). I tried doing more research on this topic but I'm having a hard time finding similar articles. However, it does seem that electrically induced tetanus is a common way to measure maximal isometric force since it would obviously be more precise to manipulate (and control for) among participants than a voluntary force. These particular researchers theorized that more (internal) work is done via intermittent iso contractions than during continuous iso contractions, thus the higher fatigue. Also, relaxation between intermittent bouts was determined by relaxation % in muscle electrical activity, not time.

I did browse two more studies which found intermittent/short duration isometric contractions were more metabolically costly than continuous/long duration, same as first study. They attributed this to certain biochemical occurrences in the fuel substrates.

I read some academic notes somewhere that claimed continuous was actually more fatiguing than intermittent due to blood occlusion, but there was nothing used to back up this claim.

Most of the timing protocols used are much, much shorter than what you suggested, although some were up to 3 min long (obviously in this case testing a submax threshold).

I think the real take-away is that what climbers do on hangboards may not be very similar to how these things are set up in terms of force production and intermittent timing protocols. On the other hand, it would be fun (to weirdos like me) to see if these results could be reproduced on hangboards anyway.

Edited to add: one thing to consider about your own experience is that it is unlikely that your repeater loads (body weight, I assume) would be doable for a continuous 30 minutes. So, you would need to test it with some sort of load % you could maintain for 30 minutes and then also use it for the repeaters. /geek-out

Aerili wrote: They induce maximal isometric tetanic force via electrical stimulation means, not voluntary exertion.

Ok, I don't necessarily have an issue with that, but I assume the maximal isometric tetanic force does decrease over time w/o resting. So with intermittent stimulation, it's likely the average force output is higher than a continuous stimulation (i.e. the muscle will be doing more "work" externally), that's not to say rapid repeated cycles of tensioning/relaxing the muscles may be more fatiguing somehow. Although I doubt that's applicable to climbing (maybe besides the Elvis leg syndrome?)

yeah, i'm really curious about this (i know pretty much nothing about this, so my questions are probably silly but...) does this mimic voluntary exertion pretty well, in terms of the levels of recruitment, failure, etc? when i think of electrical stimulation i guess i think of flipping the switch, the muscles lock down indefinitely until you turn the switch off.

i thought reboot's question about 30 seconds straight versus 5 on 5 off X 6 was a pretty good question. it doesn't seem possible that you could do this with the same loads(?).