Are you a strength/power person or an endurance person?
|
My question is, are you naturally inclined toward strength/power sports/training or endurance based sports/training? |
|
i find this to be a really interesting question. i am naturally much more built towards endurance. when i was younger i had more success at endurance type events. however, i trained very hard to improve my strength for a long time, and got better in that area. my power is quite poor though. i am pretty much a poster child demonstrating the difference between strength and power. i think a lot of it has to do with not fully developing my coordination like i should have. lots of work to do in this area.... |
|
90+ % of us don't train at all. We do what is "fun" and as a result get natural conditioning. This results, at least in my case, in the opposite of what the desirable effects should be. Rather than working on my weakness (endurance) I tend to select routes that suit me, and work my strengths (strength) instead... |
|
Tony, I did post this in the training forum. I know you don't take climbing as seriously as you do with some other things, but for many of us, a lot of the "fun" is getting better at what you do for "fun". |
|
Not trying to poo-poo the training thing. I'm all for training. I acknowledge that I don't have the 'work ethic' for it. |
|
I'm more or less just a pathetic weakling. |
|
Strength/Power. Both by nature and by preference. It's more fun to me, whether climbing routes or training. |
|
i'd have to say strength/power....i used to only climb during offseason from rugby. Now I climb just about year round, mostly steep sport and cracks. Luckily for my 6'3" 210 lb frame, 3 or 4 pitches is about as high as the climbing gets around here. |
|
Funny how "technique" never gets mentioned in these types of posts. I find the shear number of "campus training" and "how do I get stronger" posts to be way amusing. It seems that people rarely ascribe their failure at climbing to sh*tty technique (this is of course based upon anecdotal evidence, i.e. casually viewing the MP forums over the years). The solution is always "if only I was stronger or had better endurance." I mean, do people really think that the thing separating them from climbing 12a is a campus board? IMHO, campus boards are for people that already have extremely well-developed technique (sorry, if you can't climb at least 12+ in a few goes, then this probably isn't you). |
|
J. Albers wrote:Funny how "technique" never gets mentioned in these types of posts. I find the shear number of "campus training" and "how do I get stronger" posts to be way amusing. It seems that people rarely ascribe their failure at climbing to sh*tty technique (this is of course based upon anecdotal evidence, i.e. casually viewing the MP forums over the years). The solution is always "if only I was stronger or had better endurance." The truth? I'm a skinny weakling and the only reason I get up the stuff I do is because I cheat (read: tech) my way up stuff. I always find it funny when someone tells me that if only they were as strong as me, then they could climb the route I just did. Folks always seem to poo-poo me when I politely inform them that if I meatheaded my way through a climb the way they did, then I wouldn't get up squat either. This isn't to say that I don't work endurance, just that I have spent an equal amount of time over the years working on figuring out ways to climb better. Just a thought from a weak guy.You reminded me of this article which was on the MP homepage not too long ago: rockandice.com/lates-news/f… |
|
Strength. |
|
J. Albers wrote:Funny how "technique" never gets mentioned in these types of posts. I find the shear number of "campus training" and "how do I get stronger" posts to be way amusing. It seems that people rarely ascribe their failure at climbing to sh*tty technique (this is of course based upon anecdotal evidence, i.e. casually viewing the MP forums over the years). The solution is always "if only I was stronger or had better endurance." I mean, do people really think that the thing separating them from climbing 12a is a campus board? IMHO, campus boards are for people that already have extremely well-developed technique (sorry, if you can't climb at least 12+ in a few goes, then this probably isn't you). The truth? I'm a skinny weakling and the only reason I get up the stuff I do is because I cheat (read: tech) my way up stuff. I always find it funny when someone tells me that if only they were as strong as me, then they could climb the route I just did. Folks always seem to poo-poo me when I politely inform them that if I meatheaded my way through a climb the way they did, then I wouldn't get up squat either. This isn't to say that I don't work endurance, just that I have spent an equal amount of time over the years working on figuring out ways to climb better. Perhaps if folks spent more energy working on technique (including during their warm-ups), then they would have to spend less time punishing and injuring themselves on a campus board. Just a thought from a weak guy.I think people focus on things like power vs. endurance and the boards because they figure technique can be trained simultaneously. As you mentioned, focusing on technique through one's warmup/workout is beneficial to most (though I'm not sure I agree with the 12+ in a couple goes benchmark, though my technique certainly has room for improvement). Also, I certainly notice a lot of bro-science type thinking in the gym. One guy, who people view as a "Good" climber, is seen doing pull-ups with a 40 lb weight on his harness, suddenly I notice more and more people greasing up the hangboard doing pull-up workouts at the end of their evening session. Similarly, lots of people see accomplished climbers hangboarding or campusing and so off they go. I think what it boils down to is that technique comes with time, and technique practice can be worked on in the same workout (i.e. during warmup/cooldown) as strength or endurance. Similarly, not a lot of folks discuss core work in depth, but the ones who are good at training do it because it's beneficial, and most of us could stand to do more. Also, most people roughly abide by the idea of periodization, and none of the phases are explicitly "improve technique" because the focus of that sort of training scheme is to trick your body into continuing to develop. I would be lying if I said I didnt envy your ability to climb 12+ second or third go off the couch, but fundamentally I think at some point you get little returns on a lot of invested time from technique training and one is better off focusing on strength/endurance training and letting technique develop as a function of warming up and cooling down. Damn, that was long winded. |
|
Definitly endurance for me. My genetics come from a long line of endurance athletes. I'm blessed with the ability to apply little effort to long distances. |
|
As to the original question: I am more of an endurance athlete. I came into climbing with a solid aerobic/endurance background from road biking, which I did a lot of at one point in time. The endurance aptitude carried over into climbing. |
|
Strength and power hands down. My father was a gymnast in his younger years, and oldest brother was a power lifter and a wrestler. I was a wrestler and a kickboxer which leans my inclination more towards strength and power. In both sports I always tried to get my matches over with as quickly as possible, versus controlling tempo and wearing down my opponent. Same thing with climbing. |
|
Not enough of either!! |
|
From a purely genetic standpoint, I tend to do best at power endurance. For instance, I played halfback in soccer, ran 400 and 800 m in track, as a kid I could run faster and jump higher than all the boys, and as an adult ballet dancer I could jump higher than all the other women during adagio (big, powerful jumps which come consecutively slowly and usually repeatedly during technique class). When I tested on the Wingate cycle (a measure of power output), I had more endurance than any other female in my group (all athletically-inclined and fit). |
|
these days, I endure my lack of strength as best I can. |
|
I have a very low level of endurance, but make up for it with a complete lack of power. |
|
J. Albers wrote:The truth? I'm a skinny weakling and the only reason I get up the stuff I do is because I cheat (read: tech) my way up stuff. I always find it funny when someone tells me that if only they were as strong as me, then they could climb the route I just did.I always find it funny when light climbers profess to be "skinny weaklings" and, therefore, technical masters by necessity, when they know damn well finger strength/weight ratio is far more important than total body strength. |
|
Charles Kinbote wrote: I always find it funny when light climbers profess to be "skinny weaklings" and, therefore, technical masters by necessity, when they know damn well finger strength/weight ratio is far more important than total body strength.I completely agree with Albers. Being another "skinny weakling", I know that I've gotten up some stuff because of technique instead of power. |