theory of ARC phase?

Several training programs have "Aerobic Restoration and Capillarity" (ARC) workout sessions. The idea is to climb at a difficulty level (and speed) that you can sustain at a steady pace (no rest break) for at least 20 minutes, and set of ARC-ing often could go for 35 or 45 minutes. Some programs suggest taking a rest, then another 20-45 minute set (and maybe a third).

The theoretical framework I'm familiar with is the aerobic / anaerobic "zone" workout training for racing sports, running and bicycling (and my own serious racing was cross-country skiing). Most of my racing performances were more than 30 minutes up to several hours, and long-duration non-intense workouts were a well-established part of any coaching program for such events (we often called it "long slow distance" training). And most "periodization" programs for 30 minute and longer performances had a multi-week phase focused on "long slow distance" training, often called a "base" period.

What about training for redpoint climbing performance?
I timed a couple of elite climber single-pitch sport redpoints, and got performance times in the range of 2 to 4 minutes. In running those are the times for 800-meter and 1500-meter races (Half-mile or Mile).

So then I did a web search for training programs for Half-Mile and Mile running races. What I found was:

No "ARC" phase in periodization programs for performances of time-duration like redpoint climbing performance. Indeed very few ARC-like workouts at all -- like maybe one every two weeks.

So the aerobic/anaerobic racing theory works helps me understand why climbers training for mountaineering performance might do ARC-like workouts. But I'm looking to hear some other theory for why a multi-week phase focused on ARC workouts would provide significant benefit for Redpoints.

Ken

Ken,

Actually lactate threshold workouts are a staple for lots of mid/long distance runners. This may be in the form of tempo runs and steady state efforts or cruise intervals.

That is essentially what ARC ing does. I personally don't feel that multi weeks of ARC is necessary if you already have good base fitness, but the occasional ARC workout is good, whether it using it as a warm-up, cool down or as a recovery day after a hard climbing session or workout. It is just one small piece of the total energy system and depending on the type of climbing you do, may not be that beneficial versus spending your precious time on other energy systems.
Added benefits of ARC ing is better capillarization in the forearm muscles, better endurance and faster recovery rate.

Eva Lopez just added a new post about her "capacity" exercises, which I believe correspond to ARC training.
en-eva-lopez.blogspot.com/2…

The initial post is at en-eva-lopez.blogspot.com.e…

I agree with highlander. Mid-distance runners typically begin their training programs with longer even-paced runs (>45 min). As they get closer to race day/season they switch gears and do more shorter distance interval training.

Seems analogous to the periodized training programs proposed for climbing.

Of course ARC'ing will improve your endurance with your arms. Maybe for running it doesn't matter since you use your legs to carry your full weight every day and have much larger muscles. It might make a difference if the foot race was up hill instead of normally on a flat. Moving an object along a flat plane takes a lot less power than an inclined plane.

Just taking a guess here as this is not my background at all - But running is very different from climbing - You're using muscle groups which (i would guess) have a much higher aerobic capability to start with compared to arms and forearms. You're legs can call for extra oxygen and increase your heart rate right away, but the forearms/arms cannot. The effort level in climbing is also not as continuous/level as in running short distance running - Meaning you don't recover significantly between steps in running, but you certainly may between moves, and not every move is the same level of exertion.

Here is a good article by Steve Bechtel, if you have not seen it: climbstrong.com/articles/20…

OP: Mark's link sounds like it was the start of what you're looking for.

Eric LaRoche wrote:Of course ARC'ing will improve your endurance with your arms. Maybe for running it doesn't matter since you use your legs to carry your full weight every day and have much larger muscles.

Of course it will matter if you're trying to improve... Even on a flat surface. Walking and the occasional dash across the grocery store parking lot isn't going to substitute for training for running.

Larry S wrote:Just taking a guess here as this is not my background at all - But running is very different from climbing - You're using muscle groups which (i would guess) have a much higher aerobic capability to start with compared to arms and forearms. You're legs can call for extra oxygen and increase your heart rate right away, but the forearms/arms cannot.

Let me help you correct a few things... if you don't mind.

a) Muscle fiber types are not exactly as black and white as "fast and slow". There are a lot of other factors which allow a fiber to do its work, and a very large number of fibers in the body are actually hybrids and can do a blend of fast and slow work.

b) No muscle is purely one type of fiber. And in fact, in many people arms and legs display about a 50/50 division in slow and fast attributes (give or take...there are a few exceptions like the calves).

c) Lower body exercise does not raise heart rate faster than upper body exercise at a given intensity, particularly as intensity increases (in fact it is just the opposite). I am not sure how the legs receive "extra oxygen" per your scenario, but if the power output is low, your maximal oxygen consumption is about the same for arm-only vs leg-only exercise. Once the demand rises, arm-only exercise has been found to induce higher oxygen consumption than legs (for an equal power output). There are many apparent reasons for this which are boring to people who read mountainproject, so I won't go into it.

But I do agree with you, Larry, that training for running is probably not too useful as a comparison against training for climbing. And climbing is virtually never arm-only exercise!

Brandon S wrote:Mid-distance runners typically begin their training programs with longer even-paced runs (>45 min). As they get closer to race day/season they switch gears and do more shorter distance interval training.

Maybe some half-mile and mile runners have a phase like that. Maybe most of them twenty years ago had a "longer slower" phase, but I was finding training programs on the web now with that phase. Yes some occasional "long slower" workouts, but not a phase.
Maybe I just don't know how to search or what to look for.

Highlander wrote:article by Steve Bechtel, if you have not seen it: climbstrong.com/articles/20…

Yes nice practical article. Not much about ARC theory. Doesn't much believe the R for "Recovery". Doesn't have anything to say about C for "Capillaries".

Not very worried about being "rigorous" about continuous slow climbing (as opposed to taking rest breaks).

I didn't find any training phase focused on ARC-ing. Says they do it all year round. Mixes is 50/50 with other kinds of workouts in the same week.

The only think ARC training does for me is destroy my skin.

Mark E Dixon wrote:Eva Lopez just added a new post about her "capacity" exercises, which I believe correspond to ARC training. en-eva-lopez.blogspot.com/2… The initial post is at en-eva-lopez.blogspot.com.e…

Yes good ideas.
And Eva Lopez offers a good start on doing some actual measurements to see how redpoint climbing is different from running. I was surprised at how much resting time goes into many high-difficulty redpoint attempts. (Not what I get to see much in the videos.)

Workout design: Most of it is intervals of a time-duration which I guess would be pretty familiar to middle-distance runners. Not the 20-45 minute continuous action given as an "ARC" set in the American training books. (The Eva Lopez post once mentions continuous action, but the maximum duration mentioned was 20 minutes, not the same range as in the American books).

No theory except that real-world redpoint climbing is observed to often include easy-climbing sections, so you want to make sure you can use those for resting without getting pumped.

Phase focused on ARC? No rather that blog post can barely conceive of even a single day of training focused on ARC.

This Eva Lopez blog post has lots of sensible training advice. Throws in the word "ARC" a couple of times. But I'm not seeing much connection to the ARC workout design in American climbing books, or any theory of (or interest in) an ARC-focus phase in a periodization program.

Ken

The "ARCing" that I see 100% of people doing is not nearly hard enough or sustained enough to be considered lactate threshold training. Just a 20-30mins of futzing and poor technique reinforcement. It takes an experienced and motivated climber to to ARC or do any sort of lactate threshold training by themselves without some sort of direction or feedback.

It is a good concept, but I have yet to see someone execute it properly.

Trycycle wrote:The "ARCing" that I see 100% of people doing is not nearly hard enough or sustained enough to be considered lactate threshold training. Just a 20-30mins of futzing and poor technique reinforcement. It takes an experienced and motivated climber to to ARC or do any sort of lactate threshold training by themselves without some sort of direction or feedback. It is a good concept, but I have yet to see someone execute it properly.

ARC training and Lactate threshold training are two different things. Those people "futzing" around are probably ARCing at an appropriate metabolic level (although whether or not they're reinforcing poor technique is a separate issue). The goal of ARCing is to achieve maximum bloodflow, thus producing constant capillary/vascular stress. Eva Lopez discusses the theory of ARCing and what kind of physiological adaptation you're trying to accomplish in the first blog post on capacity ( en-eva-lopez.blogspot.com.e… ). In her second capacity post she references a couple of studies that show max blood flow occurs at 10-25% MVC (I guess that's futzing around level).

Kenr
If you're looking for her thoughts on use of ARCing in a phase, that'd be in her 3rd blog post on capacity (she even gives you a friendly table that shows when each method of capacity development should be used). As to the time spent ARCing, the Anderson brothers appear to use around 15 minutes most of the time (though they also talk about the benefit of longer sessions). Last I heard from Douglas Hunter, he was using 2x20 with his athletes (though I'm basing that of my typically sketchy memory). Eva has 5 to 45 minutes for her ARCing sets (she advocates for highly individualized plans). It seems like most of the theory is pretty straightforward, and it's use in it's own phase is somewhat debated (I no longer devote an entire phase to ARCing, just include it in each block phase throughout the macrocycle). If you do a lot of very long aerobic-type climbs or climb in an area where the ability to rest on steep terrain is key you'd probably want to have an entire phase devoted to aerobic capacity (in a recent forum on the RCTM forums, Mark Anderson mentions his brother used to ARC his hardest redpoints in the red, while he used to sprint them, ala capacity vs power). For me however, I've never been limited by my ability to climb aerobically, but rather by my inability to pull hard moves or link hard cruxes, so ARCing is not a focus.

I would suggest that all training on plastic for reasonably advanced climbers is reinforcing bad technique. Rotating on footholds, overly steep, too much climbing with only one foot on (flagging half the moves), backstepping every move, etc. In my training circles we often say plastic vs rock are almost different sports.

We have used ARC sessions to great effect, both personally and with youth. Maintaining correct intensity is usually more of an internal desire/motivation/self awareness issue than anything else.

Trying to pin down exact mechanisms is a bit of a fools errand, because there will always be some amount of crossover of training effects, multiple effects (Lopez addresses this pretty well in here rundown of physiological effects), and effects beyond the purely physical (grip modulation, relaxation under high workload, modulation of core taking load vs back/shoulders vs fingers, etc).

Additionally, without radically switching the exercises from actual climbing to some kind of reptitive load on a controlled size hold, there is almost no way other than personal feedback from your body to gauge/modulate the load. You could get a series of systems holds of identical size and create a literal ladder of them at identical spacings, (but even that has issues of modulation of core engagement, momentum, arm/elbow angle) otherwise measurement and progression comes down to listening to your body. So this is always going to be an inexact science.

While I do enjoy the theory end of things, at some point it becomes mental masturbation that serves no particular purpose other than filling time when you're resting, or distracting you from actually training as you seek the Holy Grail (there isn't one, put down the laptop and go train).

I feel that ARC ing lies somewhere between Aerobic Threshold and Lactate Threshold if done properly, and fit climbers should be able to ARC near their actual Lactate Threshold.
For climbing to be an purely Aerobic activity the climbing would have to be easy enough that the climber would not achieve any lactic acid and could move at a fast enough pace to stress the heart and lungs, and would likely have to be done for at least 45 minutes to get any true Aerobic benefits. That is not the goal of ARC ing, and would not give you any real training benefits unless your training to run up some easy alpine route.

Sean McAuley wrote: ARC training and Lactate threshold training are two different things. Those people "futzing" around are probably ARCing at an appropriate metabolic level (although whether or not they're reinforcing poor technique is a separate issue). The goal of ARCing is to achieve maximum bloodflow, thus producing constant capillary/vascular stress. Eva Lopez discusses the theory of ARCing and what kind of physiological adaptation you're trying to accomplish in the first blog post on capacity ( en-eva-lopez.blogspot.com.e… ). In her second capacity post she references a couple of studies that show max blood flow occurs at 10-25% MVC (I guess that's futzing around level). Kenr If you're looking for her thoughts on use of ARCing in a phase, that'd be in her 3rd blog post on capacity (she even gives you a friendly table that shows when each method of capacity development should be used). As to the time spent ARCing, the Anderson brothers appear to use around 15 minutes most of the time (though they also talk about the benefit of longer sessions). Last I heard from Douglas Hunter, he was using 2x20 with his athletes (though I'm basing that of my typically sketchy memory). Eva has 5 to 45 minutes for her ARCing sets (she advocates for highly individualized plans). It seems like most of the theory is pretty straightforward, and it's use in it's own phase is somewhat debated (I no longer devote an entire phase to ARCing, just include it in each block phase throughout the macrocycle). If you do a lot of very long aerobic-type climbs or climb in an area where the ability to rest on steep terrain is key you'd probably want to have an entire phase devoted to aerobic capacity (in a recent forum on the RCTM forums, Mark Anderson mentions his brother used to ARC his hardest redpoints in the red, while he used to sprint them, ala capacity vs power). For me however, I've never been limited by my ability to climb aerobically, but rather by my inability to pull hard moves or link hard cruxes, so ARCing is not a focus.

Highlander wrote:I feel that ARC ing lies somewhere between Aerobic Threshold and Lactate Threshold if done properly, and fit climbers should be able to ARC near their actual Lactate Threshold. For climbing to be an purely Aerobic activity the climbing would have to be easy enough that the climber would not achieve any lactic acid and could move at a fast enough pace to stress the heart and lungs, and would likely have to be done for at least 45 minutes to get any true Aerobic benefits. That is not the goal of ARC ing, and would not give you any real training benefits unless your training to run up some easy alpine route.

I would think it all depends upon what you want to get out of your ARCing. For instance, if the ability to remove waste products and return to an aerobic metabolic state is what you want, then adding a brief anaerobic sequence mid ARC, followed by terrain that you can recover on (albeit in a slightly stressful state) may be preferable. If you are concerned with your ability to recover between hard redpoint bouts, then perhaps you should put more enphasis on Eva style long intervals/intermittent training. But if you simply want increased capillarization, mitochondrial content, aerobic metabolic adaptions (glucose transport/enzyme levels/fat oxidation) you would most likely try to avoid lactate metabolism completely. As far as stressing the heart and lungs, I think the focus for climbing has to be primarily on localized effects. The pathways for transporting oxygen seem to be the limiting effect, I personally have never felt the ability to efficient move oxygen from the lungs to the muscles to ever cause failure (unlike running/swimming/biking/etc).

Just more mental masturbation, which for any actual benefit should most likely include people way more intelligent on these matters than myself...

Lactate threshold, is the highest level that a muscle can function aerobically, lactic acid is produced but it is only at a rate that the body can clear. If you pump out or can hold on, you have crossed that lactic acid threshold or your body's ability to clear lactic acid and you have gone into the anaerobic zone. ARC ing or training at your lactate threshold is a great way to raise your body's Maximum Steady state or Lactate threshold (body's ability to clear lactic acid efficiently)

Intervals are great for training power endurance, but your working in the anaerobic zone which not the same as ARC ing or working at your Lactate Threshold.

Highlander wrote:Lactate threshold, is the highest level that a muscle can function aerobically, lactic acid is produced but it is only at a rate that the body can clear. If you pump out or can hold on, you have crossed that lactic acid threshold or your body's ability to clear lactic acid and you have gone into the anaerobic zone. ARC ing or training at your lactate threshold is a great way to raise your body's Maximum Steady state or Lactate threshold (body's ability to clear lactic acid efficiently) Intervals are great for training power endurance, but your working in the anaerobic zone which not the same as ARC ing or working at your Lactate Threshold.

I guess we're talking semantics but since I was a track and field athlete in college, when I have seen Lactate Threshold Training it has always been equated with training purely in the anaerobic zone, trying to increase your rate of lactate metabolism. Alli Rainey seems to talk about it in the same sense: allirainey.com/home/2015/02…

Lactate threshold is not anaerobic, that is my point and a common misconception that people that do not understand exercise physiology make.

Highlander wrote:Lactate threshold is not anaerobic, that is my point and a common misconception that people that do not understand exercise physiology make.

I figured someone would eventually begin to get condescending...ugh

Lactate Threshold is well understood (although wikipedia apparently likes to use it interchangeably with anaerobic threshold, which is incorrect)...however lactate threshold training is used to denote training in a number of different ways, including high volume/MSS and high intensity invervals ( unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%2… )

And I do understand exercise physiology, including how certain terms are used interchangeably to denote the same thing. I'm also pretty sure Alli Rainey understands exercise physiology as well.