Mountain Project Logo

The Frequency Challenge

Original Post
Will S · · Joshua Tree · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 1,061

Have you been running a RCTM style hangboard routine, where you hangboard to the exclusion of other things, every third day? Getting stale on this routine?

Here's the simple proposition. Split your session volume in half, and double the frequency. The Norwegian sports science school did a controlled experiment on powerlifters a few years ago where they did basically that. Not olympic lifts, but powerlifts (less technical lifts, with more time under tension). One group trained their regular 3/week. A second group trained 6/week. The total weekly volume and intensity levels were the same. So if Group A did 3 sessions of 4x5 for a total of 60 reps/week, Group B did 6 sessions of 2x5. The higher frequency group showed roughly double the gains of the lower frequency group. Same volume, same intensity.

There are several wildly successful powerlifting teams that train squats 6days/week, working up to a "daily max" (non-psyched, non-grinding max) and then drop down about 10% and do 2-5 working sets of doubles or triples. They stick to a rule of "never miss", in other words you are not doing a true max, but have a little left in the tank and are not hitting failure on the working sets.

Eva Lopez advises a similar thing in her max singles protocol where you are hanging with a weight you feel like you could do for another 2-3 seconds past your hang rep time (for a 7sec hang, weight you could do for 10 sec), a perceived effort level of 8/10.

Bear in mind that if you are doing this on the hangboard, account for your bodyweight when you take off the 10% from the daily max. So your max was +100 and bodyweight 150, that's a load of 250, not 100. You'd go down to +75 (a load of 225) for the working sets. The percentage is a guideline, not a hard/fast number, you auto-regulate. DO NOT MISS.

Another approach that has produced great Russian powerlifters is the Sheiko routines. Boris Sheiko is a legendary coach, having produced many champions. The program typically trains each lift 3/week, at very high volumes, using medium intensities (avg % in 70s, though a fair amount of fluctuation).

When we had the discussion about Bulgarian methods, recovery was the big issue and steriod use as an aid that allowed that recovery was frequently mentioned. Two comments on that, first there are people who trained heavy, low vol, daily before steroids were ever around and were absolute monsters of strength. Bob Peoples was a farm boy in the rural south who set a world deadlift record of over 700lb at about 180bw, and went through training cycles of heavy DLs daily. This was 1940s, pre-steroids. No shiny,mirrored 24hr fitness gyms, no blasting heavy metal, not even training partners. Just lifting iron in his farm yard, barn, or cellar, heavy and frequently, always at low reps.

Second, I believe (and several powerlifting and oly lifting teams today who train this way seem to back it up) that your recovery ability is also trainable, not fixed. You can build up frequency, just as you would build up volume. Many of these guys are squatting heavy 6 days/week.

So after getting a little stale on the old program, and having some DIP joint inflammation that seems to be coming from training on too small edges, I'm experimenting with a sort of mix of these now.

Adding sessions every week, using a decent sized edge (small variable edge on the RPTC board, almost smallest part of it, indexing dot is between index/middle finger tips), 10second hangs, 5 sec rest. 3min between sets.

It's both physically and psychologically draining. I have come into the training room feeling like crap, tired and weak, and hit daily max weights that I wouldn't have believed possible that day. I'll only do the daily max and heavy doubles backoff set workout if I trained the prior day. If the prior day was rest, I do a 5x5 style instead. I always leaving a tad in the tank, looking for an effort level of 8-9 out of 10. I am mixing bouldering sessions in on the day after. So far it's looking like:

D1: 5x5 around 70%, D2:work up to Daily Max + 2-3 sets of doubles at 90%, D3: bouldering, D4:off (pre-hab type stuff, core work), Repeat.

It's two weeks in and I'm irritable. Tired. Appetite is up. But my DIP joints actually feel much better. Minor soreness in shoulders/back. Fingers feel fine overall. My daily maxes are not decreasing, even when I am insanely tired. All the stuff I've read from the powerlifting set who run this kind of program say that the first month is VERY hard, with depression and lethargy, sleep disruption, etc, but just keep putting in the work and autoregulate the weight and you'll come out the other side after a few weeks of hell. I plan to run it for 3 weeks, then a back off week, for 3 months.

The program I'd run (a repeater style - 5x5 using different hold every set), more or less without change, 3x-4x/year for about 6 years, just wasn't practical for me anymore. The max effort sets of 5 on med holds were tweaking my shoulders too much, and on smaller holds where shoulders weren't an issue were either inflaming my DIP joints too much or were too fickle as far as humidity, temp etc and prone to slipping or needing to chalk multiple times per set.

We'll see how it goes. I'll either get broken, get weak, or break through. Might as well play the guinea pig.

Brendan N · · Salt Lake City, Utah · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 405

Sounds interesting, keep us updated.

Aleks Zebastian · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 175

Climbing friend,

This topic I find interesting most. I often wonder if it is perhaps better to make your own self completely destroy and then rest for a day or two, or if it is perhaps being better to only go to 80-90% destroy and do the climbing and the training more frequently.

For technique on the climbing rocks, for obvious everyone must benefit from climbing more often. But what about doing the building of the maximum strength crushing grip of iron fist?

More frequency with slight less intensity, or more intensity plus more rest? It seems that no one really knows the answer to this question most scientific of sports science of the climbing rocks, but would you tell to me please if you succeed most with either plan? Where perhaps does the pendulum fall to either side considering the weight of silly anecdotes and any available scientific evidence?

Myah?

kenr · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 16,608
Aleks Zebastian wrote:this question most scientific of sports science of the climbing rocks
It may sound like a scientific question. But
it's never going to have a scientific answer, for seversl reasons,
... including ...
  • different people respond to exercise stimulus differently, because key parameters of human biochemistry vary widely.
  • unlike some other sports (for which scientific studies are often done), very few climbers are willing to devote themselves purely to some training protocol -- rather mixing in lots of actual climbing.
  • almost all the halfway-carefully controlled scientific studies are done for concentric-eccentric contraction exercises, while many climbers (though not all of us) are intensely concerned with isometric contraction.
  • different climbers have different goals.
  • different climbers are motivated (long-term sustainably) by different training approaches.
  • there's insufficient payback/benefit in knowing the answer, because climbing is not a money sport.

Some of those reasons would suggest that that there's not much benefit in hearing informally on a web forum what works for somebody else.

Sometimes it's fun to talk about anyway.

I like that Will S "stirred the pot" by suggesting are whole different approach to the frequency/intensity question.

Ken
jaredj · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2013 · Points: 165

A key point in comparing these two approaches is the relative limitation of technique. The RCTM protocol of infrequent but high intensity strength sessions means less (or no) actual climbing, and ostensibly does nothing to improve technique. The suggested protocol from OP would have more frequent movement on actual rock or plastic, where technique is implicitly being trained (or at least reinforced, even if it's bad technique).

A hypothesis I have about RCTM is that the Anderson bros, who've been climbing for a very long time, landed on their recommendations based on being highly technically honed and thus really needing development of strength, power, and endurance. Such a recommendation may not be optimal for climbers earlier in their development. Such folk may benefit more greatly from something OP is recommending.

Note: No background in sports science, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night.

mountainhick · · Black Hawk, CO · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 120

I question the underlying comparison of powerlifting to hangboarding. Am I off in understanding that powerlifting seeks to improve strength and lifting power for major muscle groups, but the goal for hangboarding is to increase strength and endurance of smaller forearm muscles along with very slow long term strengthening of connective tissues (tendons)?

Also echo the concern of this kind of approach to any beginners and even potentially higher trained capable climbers. Sounds like a great way to destroy tendons, pulleys and joints in short order.

That said, I'll be curious about your outcome Will.

Will S · · Joshua Tree · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 1,061

Guys, this is obviously not a beginner protocol. I've got 23 years of climbing and 7+ years of hangboard training behind me. The low hanging fruit was plucked long ago. I'd personally argue that you are more likely to injure pulleys and other connective tissue by doing more volume (or equivalent) in less sessions, than the same total volume spread across more sessions.

A simple thought experiment: You have to move 7 tons of shingles from the street onto the roof, with no tools other than a ladder. You have the next 7 days to do it. Do you think you'd be more likely to get injured by doing it all in one or two days, or a little every day?

The biggest issue with comparison to powerlifts is that those lifts do have a technical aspect that is lacking from hangboarding. There is a "groove" to be greased, like wiring a boulder problem. Not to the extent that olympic lifts do, but it's still there. They also have an eccentric component that the olys and hangboarding lack, but in our case that means more TUT than an oly lift, so a better comparison. Nevertheless, it's probably the best area to draw from, with the biggest body of study, literature, and measured results.

Small muscle/big muscle not really an issue. If anything, the smaller muscles of the forearms will recover more quickly than something larger like hamstrings or spinal erectors. With most strength research being done on small sample sizes, and often on untrained populations, using very basic lifts, at best I am trying to extrapolate big picture concepts and apply them.

I'm also not a young guy at 42. My recovery is probably more affected by sleep quality than a younger person's might be. I have a stressful job, and so on. And my fingers actually feel significantly better on this scheme than on less frequency.

I don't think most will have the discipline to auto-regulate properly. It's psychologically difficult to go into the gym and climb things that are several numbers below your top-end ability. Last night was my 3rd day on, the bouldering night. And the hardest couple of problems I climbed were 4 v-grades below what I'd typically max during a dedicated bouldering phase when fully rested. If I'd been going full-effort, I might, MIGHT have been able to get within 2 v-grades (and probably would have gotten hurt).

mountainhick · · Black Hawk, CO · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 120

Sorry, My puny mind didn't understand that it works out as same volume. I was interpreting it as more, more frequently.

Derek DeBruin · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 1,039
jaredj wrote:A key point in comparing these two approaches is the relative limitation of technique. The RCTM protocol of infrequent but high intensity strength sessions means less (or no) actual climbing, and ostensibly does nothing to improve technique. The suggested protocol from OP would have more frequent movement on actual rock or plastic, where technique is implicitly being trained (or at least reinforced, even if it's bad technique). A hypothesis I have about RCTM is that the Anderson bros, who've been climbing for a very long time, landed on their recommendations based on being highly technically honed and thus really needing development of strength, power, and endurance. Such a recommendation may not be optimal for climbers earlier in their development. Such folk may benefit more greatly from something OP is recommending. Note: No background in sports science, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night.
On balance, the RCTM protocol offers plenty of room for technical training and specifically addresses the issue of strength training as a poor means to compensate for poor technique. It also offers plans appropriate for beginner climbers that include significant amounts of mileage focused on skill acquisition to improve technique. During the hangboard phase in particular, recovery workouts of about 40 minutes of on-rock moderate, technique-focused climbing are recommended.

That said, the strength/power building focus of the program will be most beneficial to intermediate/advanced climbers (in general), as this is where the next best gains can be made. Consequently, this is often the thrust of discussion on such illustrious websites as mountainproject and the like. However, that does not mean technique is ignored by the authors, even if it tends to be by those discussing it.
Aleks Zebastian · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 175
jaredj wrote:A key point in comparing these two approaches is the relative limitation of technique. The RCTM protocol of infrequent but high intensity strength sessions means less (or no) actual climbing, and ostensibly does nothing to improve technique. The suggested protocol from OP would have more frequent movement on actual rock or plastic, where technique is implicitly being trained (or at least reinforced, even if it's bad technique). A hypothesis I have about RCTM is that the Anderson bros, who've been climbing for a very long time, landed on their recommendations based on being highly technically honed and thus really needing development of strength, power, and endurance. Such a recommendation may not be optimal for climbers earlier in their development. Such folk may benefit more greatly from something OP is recommending. Note: No background in sports science, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night.
Climbing friend,

I do agree. You must have enormous volume of movement on the actual climbing rocks, even if you are having the technique of floating lotus style "technically honed" and are superior to others and can make 5.14 flash with forearms refreshed at crux. Even then, I am believing you must have massive volume of real climbing in order to become better, and your strength training for crushing grip of iron fist must be supplementary and not replace this, yes?

Myah?
Will S · · Joshua Tree · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 1,061

Tomorrow is the bouldering day and last day before a de-load week. I've been tracking this with my normal weight/reps/time logging. But I've also recorded the workout volume expressed in total pounds (includes bodyweight), total time under tension in seconds, and avg weight per rep for the workout. It's looking like this (bouldering days not included for a cleaner look):

Date TotalWt TUT AvgWt
7/6 1990 110 181
7/9 1990 110 181
7/10 2445 130 188
7/12 2935 190 155
7/13 2380 170 140
7/16 2875 150 192
7/17 2565 160 160
7/19 2445 130 188
7/20 2895 180 161
7/23 2931 180 163
7/24 2489 130 192

What's really going on here, is a gradual warmup in each session, followed by working sets at either the 70% 1RM, or singles up to max then working sets at 90% 1RM. As an example, 7/16 was a max singles/low rep workout and the sets went (all hangs 10sec, if multiple in a set, 5sec rest between):

BWx3, +25x2, +50x2, +75x1, +100x1, +75x2, +75x2, +75x2

That one was 24hrs after a workout with working sets of 5x5 at +25 (70%).

So in 19 days, 11 hangboard workouts, 4 short low vol bouldering sessions. I'll boulder tomorrow, then run a backoff week of 2 sessions of moderate vol bouldering, then back to this. I hit the highest max single of the cycle today, about 10 lb over the prior high (which was set when fresh at the start) and feel like I'm finally starting to adapt to the program.

Still really tired day to day, and the bouldering sessions are easy to control because I'm beatdown by third day on, and not motivated to try super hard. I've ended up doing about 10-15 problems on those days, topping out no harder than a v-grade below what I'd flash 75% of the time when fresh. I could have climbed harder those days, but self-preservation was the ruling feeling. I would only climb things I could do in full control.

Fingers still feel good, skin is fine. Some early niggles on top of wrists worked themselves out after day 7 or so. Shoulders, mid back, and teres area still pretty sore. Biceps were sore the first 10 days, then faded.

Monomaniac · · Morrison, CO · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 17,295

You're an animal!

Will S · · Joshua Tree · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 1,061

Took a de-load week. All I did during that week was:

Sun 1hr road bike ride, aerobic conversational pace
Tue Med volume bouldering session
Thu 3x15sec front lever holds, and moderate deadlifts 2x5 @ 70% 1RM
Sun 1hr road bike , aerobic pace

First day back on the hangboard was today at lunch. Max singles went up +23lb over the max weight from last month, workset doubles added 10lb over prior workset weight.

Sleeping a little better, feeling a little better. Agitation and depressive feelings fading. Despite not being on my bikes for months, other than a mile or two on the fixie running errands here and there, I felt stronger than normal on the bike rides. I was also riding in a fasted state, early/mid morning, might have had something to do with it (I usually eat and have simple carbs immeditately before, was my first go around with "fasted" aerobic work). Actually set a faster pace on one of my loops than I've done before when actually in decent biking shape.

Gained about a pound per week during that month, trying to make sure I was getting enough protein and overall calories to sustain the workload.

Aleks Zebastian · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 175

Climbing friend, most impressive.

I myself try now for difficult project redpoint no flash of classic climbing rocks, which is for serious different from my bold for usual onsight flash first attempt.

I find I do not want to reduce the volume on the climbing rocks for the fingering of the hang board, but I am in secret wishing I would do more hang board for the maximum crushing grip strength of iron fist, yet cannot be convinced myself it's a good idea to climb less and hang board more.

I will sometimes do one hang board workout per week, or a few sets of repeaters after a climbing session on the climbing rocks, but nothing too systematic.

Is this OK? Myah?

Would it be being better to hang board on what would previously have been a day of rest? Or better to simply hang the board a little in unsystematic way after my time on the climbing rocks?

Perhaps I will become radical vegan activist and give up fish heads and cheesesteaks in order to gain higher ratio of crushing grip strength to weight and achieve greater gradings for boulder flash and climbing sport flash. But dearest me, I do love me some mighty cheesesteaks, and believe they give me extra power for flash.

beytzim · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2013 · Points: 30

Will,
I like your idea. I actually used the bulgariain method of strength building while in college (20 years ago).

Its a good method but is inherently flawed since it requires the recovery of a young athlete, a ridiculuous amount of caloric intake, lots of sleep, and lots of free time to work out 2 or 3 times a day for 6 days a week.

That being said, the concept of high frequency, low volume can still be incooperated into rock climbing. Perhaps a better way to do it is by utilizing a 'conjucate' or 'concurrent' system. Perhaps one way to do is this way:
day 1: hangboard (half volume)
day2: arc
day3: hangboard (half volume)
day4: power endurance
day5: hangboard (half volume)
day6: campus
day7: off

This routine can be utilized for 4 weeks before a deload. What do you think?

Brendan N · · Salt Lake City, Utah · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 405
beytzim wrote:day 1: hangboard (half volume) day2: arc day3: hangboard (half volume) day4: power endurance day5: hangboard (half volume) day6: campus day7: off This routine can be utilized for 4 weeks before a deload. What do you think?
I would be pretty useless on the hangboard on day 5 after doing power endurance the previous day.
Proper PE is so draining it needs at least a day of rest/light ARC.
Will S · · Joshua Tree · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 1,061

Feel free to give your scheme a whirl Beytzim. Personally I want no part of what you've proposed. More problems in it than I feel like addressing. IMO, YMMV, etc.

beytzim · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2013 · Points: 30

I personally don't have the time to climb six days a week. I do think the above plan can work if you adjust volume and intensity of each workout to allow proper recovery. My actual conjugate workout regimen mixes in wendler's 5/3/1 weightlifting program (twice a week), one bout of low intensity/long duration cardio, one bout of hiit, and two or three climbing sessions.

The weightlifting program follows a basic peridiozation that lasts one month. I, therefore, also follow a basic periodization block of one month for my climbing. So, a week of arc, a week of hangboard, a week of pe, a week of limit bouldering/campus and finally a week of 'project' climbing.

I've been the above routine for almost six months and it's been working out great. I've managed to maintain and even increase my weightlifting strength while improving my climbing from 5.11 to 5.12- while in my mid 40s.

Will S · · Joshua Tree · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 1,061

End of the second 3 week block, and another deload week starts after a bouldering session this Sunday. I'd planned on running this for 3 months, but it is clearly putting me deep into overreaching, and the one deload week was barely enough. I need to be able to eat freely and sleep more than I actually can to survive the program. I've gained ~8lb of bodyweight.

After Sunday, there will have been 5 bouldering sessions and 10 hangboard sessions in this 3 week block, along with 4 supplemental strength workouts (core/antangonists).

It has definitely put a little size on my forearms (I know this because I have a dress shirt I can no longer wear to work because the forearms are too tight, kind of a funny problem to have.)

With both blocks, the HB tonnage, TUT, etc looks like:

Date TotalWt TUT AvgWt
7/06 1990 110 181
7/09 1990 110 181
7/10 2445 130 188
7/12 2935 190 155
7/13 2380 170 140
7/16 2875 150 192
7/17 2565 160 160
7/19 2445 130 188
7/20 2895 180 161
7/23 2931 180 163
7/24 2489 130 192
Deload
8/03 2787 140 199
8/07 2445 150 163
8/09 2874 180 160
8/12 3024 180 168
8/13 2530 130 195
8/14 2588 160 162
8/16 2175 150 145
8/17 2850 150 190
8/20 4464 310 144
8/21 2343 120 195

So it didn't kill me. I was very fatigued on a day to day basis and took naps every weekend day. After the first deload week I'd added about a v-grade to my top end and still felt like I needed a bit more rest to be fully recovered (I bouldered twice during the deload week and went high intensity/med vol one of those days, so I hit that higher v-grade mid-deload week). After another deload week next week, and about three weeks to integrate the gains into the climbing and drop the added weight, I'll have a good idea how well it worked overall.

Surprisingly, my forearms were rarely sore on this program. My lat/teres tie-in area stayed pretty sore, shoulders would get sore. Skin never hurt and fingers felt better than normal.

Eric8 · · Maynard, MA · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 310

so how did it go, after you fully recovered?

Aleks Zebastian · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 175

climbing friend,

may we endlessly debate wiith anecdotes and lack of science whether it is better to utilize the crushing boulders or the fingering board hangs to achieve maximum crushing grip strength?

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Training Forum
Post a Reply to "The Frequency Challenge"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.