Question about transition phase in a block periodization plan, ref: Steve Bechtel

JohnNorway wrote: That is very interesting. I didn't know that. Can I assume there isn't any definitive scientific research on which of these are the "most" correct, since the climbing community seems torn between these two approaches (repeaters vs max hangs)? You would think that 'how to train for maximum strength' in many athletic sports would be prioritized research.

Repeaters and maximal effort are both methods of developing strength. Zatsiorsky gives lots of info on this. And yes, this has been a "prioritized" research avenue for a long time.

Go to page 16 "Methods of Strength Training"
salisbury.edu/sportsperform…

I should have been more specific-
Aerili - do you know of published research with climbers as subjects and repeaters? I have copies of Eva's publications but not of repeaters except anecdotes.

Aerili wrote: Repeaters and maximal effort are both methods of developing strength. Zatsiorsky gives lots of info on this. And yes, this has been a "prioritized" research avenue for a long time. Go to page 16 "Methods of Strength Training" salisbury.edu/sportsperform…

Thanks for this reference.

Am I understanding correctly that the author would favor "repeated" or submaximal efforts for exercises such as hangboarding, which only resembles true climbing movements, but would advise "maximal effort" for something more specific, like limit bouldering?

SMR wrote:Aerili - do you know of published research with climbers as subjects and repeaters? I have copies of Eva's publications but not of repeaters except anecdotes.

No. If anything exists, you might find it on Google Scholar (with the right search terms).

Mark E Dixon wrote: Thanks for this reference. Am I understanding correctly that the author would favor "repeated" or submaximal efforts for exercises such as hangboarding, which only resembles true climbing movements, but would advise "maximal effort" for something more specific, like limit bouldering?

While both methods can be used with either high or low required neuromuscular coordination exercises, I would say you are correct in that:

- Repeated methods are somewhat better for low coordination exercises - like hangboard

- Maximal methods are somewhat better for high coordination exercises - like limit bouldering. Although really this method probably has more flexibility either way than the other method. This would be because it doesn't demand performance during high fatigue states.

But again, both methods can be used for either type of exercise as long as you know how to program them appropriately. For instance, limit bouldering with a repeated efforts method would look a lot different than with a maximal effort methods. I think you would best manipulate this with number of moves involved and number of sets.

SMR wrote:The 6th round (Jan/Feb) I decided to add weight during the strength month and was a combination of Steve B and Eva Lopez in strength and the 3-6-9 power/build month. Since the 9sec grip is hard (I am on small holds), and I am doing it on 30 second clock (rest:work is 2:1 for this hold). I am not getting pumped in this routine.

As I understand Steve Bechtels 3-6-9 ladder, you pick your grips and do one ladder for each grip. You then repeat this for the specified amount of sets you have chosen. Am I right so far? What I have yet to find is any mention of rest in between ladders and sets. When and how long do you rest?

Also, in Steve's article ( climbstrong.com/articles/20…) he specifies that the second protocol, the one on a 30 second clock, is done “Circuit Style” rather than straight. I take this as meaning the first protocol (45 second clock) is 'straight', but have no idea what either of this means. Any help?

Hi John,
The 3-6-9 ladders are done resting as long as you need. Most people are fine on a 30 second clock or so, but remember that it doesn't really matter. Why? Because when we start controlling rest time, we stop focusing on strength.
The whole repeaters vs. max hangs argument is a little silly. You can quote this or that research, but the fact is that repeaters were never meant to be a pure strength protocol. The work/rest ratios and volume of sets are clearly aimed at building hypertrophy. Although it's hard to build any significant hypertrophy in the forearms in a reasonable amount of time, we do see good strength gains with repeaters...which is why they are probably superior to max hangs.

Why? Because the fragile structure of the hand requires that strength be built over the long term, and pushing a max program (most max hang programs were patterned after total body strength protocols - not a good idea) is going to hurt you. That's why I started assigning either a 2-4-6 or 3-6-9 protocol. The nature of the protocol forces you to use a light enough load that you can hang for 9 seconds, but let's you build volume with the 3 and 6 second reps. The cool thing is it works and it's not extrapolated from some unrelated research.

You simply hang the edge for 3 seconds, rest a while (20-40 seconds is great), hang for 6, rest, then hang for 9. Rest a bit longer, then run through it again a few times. Easy. It makes your fingers stronger.

If you sweat or get pumped or feel the need to scream, I think you have left the realm of strength training on the hangboard.

Hangboard training needs to stay easy enough that you feel like you can do it 2-3 days per week all year long. Getting hurt on the hangboard gets you nowhere. That's where repeaters are superior - the volume of the sets is high enough that you have to keep the loads in check. That's where 3-6-9 works nicely, too.

In weightlifting, you can adjust the loads of a deadlift by as little as a pound at a time. Some schools of thought say to micro-adjust the loads to keep with your rep sceme as best you can. Others say to stick to the "big wheels" and adjust loads in big jumps, letting the reps come as needed. Most climbers I know have a hard enough time just showing up to train, so keeping it simple is a big key. Ladders address this issue well.

Let's face it: for 19 out of 20 climbers, finger strength isn't even the issue. If your technique isn't perfect, and I mean f'ing PERFECT, hangboarding isn't where you need to spend your time.

As explained in Steve's Strength book, which I highly recommend and is very affordable, a 30 second clock simply means that you hang for 3 seconds and rest for 27 seconds, hang for 6 and rest for 24 and so on, but as Steve highlights it is about building strength, without hand and finger injuries and not necessarily an endurance exercise, so rest more if necessary. The clock is simply a time management tool and a way to keep pace.

Regarding circuits, you do all you positions at 3 seconds, then do all positions for 6 seconds and so on, as opposed to doing a single position at 3 - 6 - 9 and then moving on the next hand position. This increases the intensity of the workout as opposed to the interval latter format. Experiment with each to see what works best for you.

As SMR indicated the idea is to keep hangboarding year round so figure out what keeps you engaged.

SteveBechtel wrote:Hi John, The 3-6-9 ladders are done resting as long as you need. Most people are fine on a 30 second clock or so, but remember that it doesn't really matter. Why? Because when we start controlling rest time, we stop focusing on strength.

Thanks for the clarification! I do think some people are interpreting the 'clock' as the total duration of each ladder, meaning that on a 45 second clock you hang 3 sec, rest 9 sec, hang 6 sec, rest 9 sec, hang 9 sec, rest 9 sec = 45 sec. At least the people commenting on your article are interpreting it this way.

I'm also a bit curious. Do you Steve consider the 3-6-9 protocol to be a repeater protocol? It kinda sounds like it from your reply above but I could be misinterpreting. To me it seems much more like a 'golden mean' that balances somewhere in between repeaters and maximum hangs. Although there are some similarities to the 'standard' repeaters (Beastmaker og Andersons), mainly that your protocol is also bases on repeated efforts, it also specifies a higher rest-to-work ratio than a repeater-protocol. In this way it seems clear to me that the 3-6-9 ladder is more of an strength exercise than an endurance exercise, compared to other repeater-protocols. You further emphasize this with your comment above, that if your getting pumped you've left the realm of strength training. I am not saying that repeaters by default are aimed at getting you pumped, but a lot of people seem to be getting pumped by doing repeaters. I have read multiple comments and forum posts where people wanting to increase their strength advocate repeaters because it is the only hangboard workout that makes them simulate a proper climbing pump. Maybe a lot of the whole repeaters vs maximum hangs discussion is based on peoples different perceptions of repeated effort vs maximal effort.

Rui Ferreira wrote:Regarding circuits, you do all you positions at 3 seconds, then do all positions for 6 seconds and so on, as opposed to doing a single position at 3 - 6 - 9 and then moving on the next hand position. This increases the intensity of the workout as opposed to the interval latter format. Experiment with each to see what works best for you.

I'm kinda liking the idea of doing the interval ladder protocol on a 30 second clock, but I will definitely try both. Maybe mixing it up between circuits and intervals, both on a 30 and 45 second clock, can be a good way of maintaining diversity during in-season hangboarding. My outdoor season is five to six months long, so I need some diversity after a while.

Rui Ferreira wrote:As explained in Steve's Strength book, which I highly recommend and is very affordable

Thanks for the recommandation, I just bought it via trainingbeta.com. Looking forward to reading it :)

JohnNorway wrote: I'm also a bit curious. Do you Steve consider the 3-6-9 protocol to be a repeater protocol? It kinda sounds like it from your reply above but I could be misinterpreting.

To be honest, semantically I do not know what category this falls under, but what is clear for me is that I cannot do the Anderson HB "repeater" format year round (and it is not intended anyway), so using the 3-6-9 protocol is a good way to maintain a baseline of finger strength.

Curiously enough, hangboarding has not resulted in spectacular increases of finger strength for me or jumps in climbing grades, but it has allowed me to develop an open hand grip, whereas I tended to crimp all small holds before and it has improved my sloper and pinch grips (I am using the RPTC).

Steve makes a good point that most climbers could see more returns if they were to focus on other aspects of climbing such as technique as opposed to strength, and I would add that having good body mobility and functional climbing movement is more important than strength, both of these are different than technique and not just semantically :). In the absence of good mobility strength is attempted instead to overcome the challenge, resulting in inefficient climbing or at worst in acute or chronic injuries.

Rui Ferreira wrote:Steve makes a good point that most climbers could see more returns if they were to focus on other aspects of climbing such as technique as opposed to strength, and I would add that having good body mobility and functional climbing movement is more important than strength, both of these are different than technique and not just semantically :).

I totally agree that technique is the single most important aspect of climbing. Climbing is as we all know a very skill based activity. I would also agree that most climbers could see more returns if they were to focus on technique over strength. However I do think that training to be a complete climber is better than just trying to be the best technical climber. Since strength and power is an important aspect of climbing, you should train these in a way suited to your level. I would also argue that strength in particular can be a prerequisite of good technique, and were good technique is about using your strength in the best possible way. I climb three times a week for about a total of 6-7 hours, and train maybe 1-2 hours on top of that. However much I train my strength, power and endurance during those 1-2 hours, I train my technique way more each week. When the outdoor season comes I only climb outside for 3-4 days a week for 5-6 months. Again, way more technique than strength. I honestly believe that I personally, at this point in my climbing career, have more to gain by training strength and power over technique the little amount that I actually train during a whole year worth of climbing. I am now nearing the end of my 4 month long off season, and the first season I have ever trained anything other than just climbing, and I have seen amazing gains and progress throughout these months. I now stand close to accomplishing goals I hadn't even envisioned I could do for years to come. Would I be seeing the same progress if I had only focused on technique these last months? I think not :)

SteveBechtel wrote:we do see good strength gains with repeaters...which is why they are probably superior to max hangs. Why? Because the fragile structure of the hand requires that strength be built over the long term, and pushing a max program (most max hang programs were patterned after total body strength protocols - not a good idea) is going to hurt you.....If your technique isn't perfect, and I mean f'ing PERFECT, hangboarding isn't where you need to spend your time.

I'm going to disagree with you a bit here, based on years of experience (anecdotal, sample size =1).

Yes, the structure are fragile and require a long term gradual advancement. But, the injury potential I think is being overblown here.

I trained primarily reapeaters, 3 cycles per year, for 6 years. Then I started mixing cycles of max hangs (typically ~7-8 second hangs). In the last couple of years, I've done probably 85% max cycles rather than repeaters. No injuries. And I'm talking about weights in the +120 range on the smallest part of the variable width 4 finger holds and as high as +50 on the thin crimp on the RPTC, +85 on two finger, one pad MR pockets. Oddly enough, the only injuries on HB I've had were from RP two finger repeaters that put rotational/shear stresses on the ring fingers DIPs and were chronic/inflammation type issues rather than acute/tears/etc.

I actually found that repeater sets were WAY harder on my shoulders than max sets. YMMV.

You could argue that I had already built enough strength long term to handle the max hangs. I think that's a reasonable argument with some merit.

I'd also argue against the "don't hangboard if your technique isn't perfect" bit, because it takes a long time to build, and the time investment is minimal, so you might as well get started on that journey while you are concurrently working on technique.

No revelations in what I said, but my personal experience is that repeater sets are more likely to create injury than properly warmed up max sets, just as I've found I'm much more injury prone training power endurance than anything else (largely due to drop in form/technique as the exercise progresses and fatigue sets in), on the repeaters the should girdle starts to go a bit slack. As always, YMMV.

Dana Bartlett wrote:I'd also argue against the "don't hangboard if your technique isn't perfect" bit, because it takes a long time to build, and the time investment is minimal, so you might as well get started on that journey while you are concurrently working on technique. Very good point. It also emphasizes how the strength-technique dichotomy always pops up in these discussions.

It's amazing how hard it is to overcome the myth of this dichotomy in discussions about 'why train'.

Will -- interesting perspective. Do you follow something like the Eva Lopez protocol, or something else?

My protocol for max hangs is really very simple, and came more or less from looking at the Bulgarian and Russian oly lifting schemes (what Steve talks about as designed for full body and thus being not appropriate...which is where he and I part ways in our philosophy).

I start with bodyweight hangs on a variety of edges and pockets, at about 10sec, on the minute (roughly, I don't time rests on these). Probably 5-6 of these. Then I start stacking weight using 4finger edge, and doing 7-8sec singles with around 2min between and as the weight approaches max, the rests get a little longer, but rarely over 3-4 min. Progression looks something like +25, +50, +75, +85, +95, +110, +120. My shoulders/back are starting to be as much a limiter at that max point as my fingers are. If I miss the final hang (don't reach the full 7-8, I'll try it once or twice more)

Then I take about 5min rest, use a different hold, either a pocket pair (rarely, this is one grip I don't usually include in max cycles, but do in repeaters) or thin crimp edge (which I am usually not crimping, but open handing). I tend to go straight to a near-max on these, as I am pretty well warmed up, and do a couple. Something like say +30, +40. Then the pinches in a similar fashion, just a couple. Then will repeat the thins, and repeat the pinches. The total volume of the workout is really low.

I've had some cycles with really good gains on these, and some without. I've also used maxes as maintenance during other phases of the training cycle, and most recently while recovering from a rotator cuff tear where I was able to use near personal best weights without issues. Overall I feel that REPEATERS ARE SUPERIOR for the bulk of hangboarding work.

Why? Partly because maxes bring into play too many extraneous things that can affect the workout...humidity, temp, the liftoff swing, and so forth are amplified. Very small changes in these elements can spit you right off and screw up your workout or at least make workout-to-workout comparisons very difficult. And partly because repeaters cycles have consistently shown me gains through the cycle, whereas I've had max cycles where my best day was the second or third workout. And maxes really aren't going to do much (or anything) for hypertrophy.

I just think the injury potential of maxes is overblown and in some ways I find the maxes less stressful with lower injury potential. That was all I was really wanting to communicate.

Bear in mind that I'm 42, with a fairly long training history. At this point, I'm not going to make big gains in personal bests regardless what I do. I also find maxes much easier from a psychological standpoint. Repeaters are f'in hard and taxing!

Perhaps I was not clear in my earlier post, so to make it very clear do not train for strength if you have some pre-existing mobility dysfunction or if your strength training contributes to poor joint alignment. Instead get your body into proper alignment, address mobility issues and only then train for strength...and this has nothing to do with training your "climbing technique". I do not have any scientific data to back this up, but I'll venture that most climbers will have some dysfunction in mobility, whether it is a problem with tight hips, hamstrings, shoulders, upper thoracic, etc.

For example it is popular in some circles to advocate doing I - T- Y shoulder circuits with "light" weights to strengthen your shoulders and bolster them against rotator cuff injuries, well if you are someone with scapula depression due to tight lats, it is very likely that you will not be able to execute these exercises correctly and instead when trying to get to end range of motion, you will yank on your rotator cuff for each and every repetition, as the humeral head will be pulled away from the glenoid cavity to compensate for lack of scapula mobility.

This is also a potential problem during hangboard sessions, if the shoulders are not engaged properly and instead difficult hangs result in shrugging of the shoulders there is the risk of impingement that overtime will become an issue, no matter how strong your fingers become.

Hopefully climbing training science and training professionals will be able to catch up on some these topics the same way that they are being addressed in other sports.

Rui Ferreira wrote:Perhaps I was not clear in my earlier post, so to make it very clear do not train for strength if you have some pre-existing mobility dysfunction or if your strength training contributes to poor joint alignment. Instead get your body into proper alignment, address mobility issues and only then train for strength...and this has nothing to do with training your "climbing technique".

I undertand now what your saying, and I agree in full. However, I do think it would be difficult for people to know wether or not they have any pre-existing mobility dysfunction if they are not experiencing any pain or limited range of motion. Do you have any recommendation for how to uncover any such mobility dysfunctions, besides just preventative training that may or may not help you avoid mobility related injuries?

I personally do a lot of wrestling/grappling a long side my climbing, and lean heavily on the hope that wrestling as an overall-body-exercise will help balance out any potentially negative stress climbing puts on my body. So far it seems to be working. It may also be a factor that I came from years of wrestling before starting to climb, so my body may have been well equipped to make the transition to climbing.

There are some quick mobility assessments that you can do on your own in front of a mirror or with video, but you first need to research the subject in order to even know where to start.

Ideally you should work with a professional therapist or strength coach that is able to do a thorough mobility assessment and them prescribe corrective exercises followed by strengthening exercises. Some exercises may even be regressive from what you do today. There are different mobility tests out there, Gray Cook developed the Functional Movement Screen and there are many sports therapists that provide this assessment. Another option is to seek out a therapist associated with the Posture Restoration Institute as they do assessments slightly differently, with more emphasis on proper breathing and structural alignment. A third option is based on Joanne Elphinston Movement Systems (JEMS), unfortunately she is based out of Australia and not well known in the US. I do recommend her book "Stability, Sport, and Performance Movement" as it is far superior from what I have read coming from Gray Cook, Mike Boyle, Kelly Starrett, etc. see if your local library can get you a copy or get it from Amazon (2nd edition).

The main challenge with all of these assessments is that the practitioners are not likely to be experts on climbing, so they can recommend general corrective mobility exercises, but you will have to instruct them on climbing specific strength and power training objectives (campus board, hangboard, system wall) in order to develop a strength training program specific to your needs (or figure it out on your own).

You can check out Eric Cressey's and Mike Reinold's online content to see how this really comes together for baseball pitchers. I have spent plenty of time on their respective websites gleaning information and adapting it to my own training for climbing. There are some overlaps with climbing as pitchers also need to work with their arms overhead and have shoulder and elbow challenges and field injuries. By far I have gotten the most benefit from Cressey's website/blog and Elphiston's book.

My motivation on all of this is that I did not climb for about three years due to working overseas and coming back into it, I did not want to get injured, wanted to train and climb at the my best level yet, given that I started climbing 27 years ago. I am pleased how it is all coming together. I now spend about 30 minutes before each climbing or training session doing specific breathing and mobility exercises and it has allowed me to climb as much as five days some weeks, without significant injuries and I continue to progress on my route pyramid with the objective on climbing at my highest level.

SteveBechtel wrote: Let's face it: for 19 out of 20 climbers, finger strength isn't even the issue. If your technique isn't perfect, and I mean f'ing PERFECT, hangboarding isn't where you need to spend your time.

I've been trawling through old training posts and came across this speed bump on my training philosophy highway.

I'm still fairly new to climbing and very new to training for climbing. Now in my second cycle of following RCTM and have seen less "results" than I would have liked. This is mostly down to inconsistency on my part though. My current goal route is a 5.11d that I thought would suit my "style" -vertical, technical, with some power-endurance - Two boulder problems on either end of the route, with a couple of good rests and moderate edges/crimps in between.

First time I was on the route it felt hard, but not impossible to do the hardest moves. I almost linked the first crux on my first go. However, by the time I got to the first rest and looked up I was so tired/pumped that my psych quickly turned to despair.

So back home to the gym - lots of ARCing (felt like my endurance and technique were really improving) and began working more Power-Endurance. But even redpointing 5.10's in the gym was often bringing debilitating pump. One day, in complete frustration with my burning forearms, I threw off my harness and strolled into the bouldering area. I've never really bouldered, but just started climbing. I really surprised myself as I was quickly flashing things I would have never thought were at my level.

Hence my current state of confusion in all things training. If what Steve is saying is true (I have no reason to doubt him) how can I get that perfect technique, while gaining the endurance needed to redpoint something longer than 20 feet? What's my deal with being able to boulder harder than I even wanted to, but continuing to suck on redpoint?

i have thought about steve's quote a lot since he posted it. with all due respect to steve, i don't agree with his statement at all. for several reasons:

1) absolutely NOBODY has PERFECT technique
2) what if a person has 99% perfect technique, but has only developed 50% of their strength? they will doubtlessly have better bang for their buck developing strength at this point.
3) you can never have too much strength. i see it all the time in the gym. dudes with literally zero technique clawing their way up stuff with sheer strength, while a much more technically proficient climber cant do it.
4) having strength makes having good technique a LOT easier. think about how shitty feet feel a lot different whether you are hanging on awful holds or whether you are hanging on jugs
5) if you aren't strong enough to hang the holds, you aren't going to make progress on a route. plain and simple.
6) consistently developing and maintaining strength through controlled methods is a good way to avoid injury.

one thing that i have found is that usually the people who say strength isn't that important have plenty of it. a good example, my friend reboot (the wu li master) once replied to one of my comments that it is easy to see the world as a nail when all you have is a hammer. by this, i think he was implying that i climb my routes solely by using finger strength. anybody who has seen my HB data knows that i don't have strong fingers. i have actually had people say to me that they were surprised that i wasn't stronger considering the routes i have climbed. i do the best i can, but i just naturally am not very strong.

so, i put forth the proposition - it is easy to tell your neighbor that he doesn't need a hammer, and that he can pound a nail in with the handle of a screwdriver, when your own garage is literally littered with hammers.

strength is king folks. show me a single climber who climbs in the 14 range that isn't strong-as-fuck...

Slim
Excellent points and I have to agree, but what if we start breaking down climbers by the grade they climb? I would have to do some research, but if you assume the average climber is a 5.10, then you can see 75% need to work on technique.

5.9 - very likely need technique to get to the next level (5.10)
5.10- very likely need technique to get to the next level (5.11)
5.11 - likely need technique to get to the next level (low 5.12) and the basic strength requirements (set of 5-10 pull-ups, bodyweight hangs on small edges (10mm)
5.12 - this is where it gets tricky. I would assume most females lack strength to get to the next level (5.13). But females here tend to have good footwork and endurance/recovery.
Men- might need a combination of both. I see a lot of 5.12 climbers who lack skills in strategizing on how to redpoint. They don't know how to climb efficiently, recover on routes, mediocre footwork, poor COG awareness.

5.13- likely need genetic advantages, ton of strength, awesome technique (5.14a-b)
5.14a/b - all of the above plus a ton of time, low risk of injury, optimal strength/weight ratio.
I don't know if this is what is "true". But this seems to be the trajectory I have seen in friends over the years as they progressed and/or plateaued.

slim wrote: 1) absolutely NOBODY has PERFECT technique

I hope that's obvious to everyone... If not, I'll offer some anecdotal evidence: I (along w/ my wife) saw Robyn Erbesfield-Raboutou bouldering w/ a younger partner in the gym yesterday. We both commented on her route reading, body/foot position and execution of her movements, without any hint of conscious thinking or hesitation. It put both of us to shame, even if on good days we could probably get on the same (indoor) problems as her. But at the same time, I can see the younger guy she was bouldering w/, while not as precise in the same way, was very agile w/ his body, much more playful in general & less concerned w/ exerting absolute control over all his movements.

slim wrote:2) what if a person has 99% perfect technique, but has only developed 50% of their strength? they will doubtlessly have better bang for their buck developing strength at this point. 4) having strength makes having good technique a LOT easier. think about how shitty feet feel a lot different whether you are hanging on awful holds or whether you are hanging on jugs

I agree w/ 2) in principle, but good fundamental techniques can foster strength development, while too much strength in certain areas can stunt technique development. You see this in climbing all the time. The quote "the key to good footwork is stiff fingers" is a joke, it's only the appearance of good footwork, good actual footwork would alleviate enough pressure that you wouldn't need very stiff fingers.

slim wrote:3) you can never have too much strength. i see it all the time in the gym. dudes with literally zero technique clawing their way up stuff with sheer strength, while a much more technically proficient climber cant do it.

While true, at the higher end of everything, there's diminishing return. Those dudes will never be close to elite climbers, even if they have elite level strength.

slim wrote:one thing that i have found is that usually the people who say strength isn't that important have plenty of it. a good example, my friend reboot (the wu li master) once replied to one of my comments that it is easy to see the world as a nail when all you have is a hammer. by this, i think he was implying that i climb my routes solely by using finger strength.

I don't remember the exact context, but that's not what I meant. Certainly, there's body strength & finger strength, and they are all relative to the level you are climbing. But, I was sort of picking on you for mostly engaging in a very specific style of (sport) climbing that does tend to be fingery (in the small hold but not necessarily heavy load sense), with controlled & relatively static movement. At any rate, let's move this part of discussion offline if you wish to continue.