Endurance Training

I was going over my endurance training log and had a few thoughts. Right now I do 3 x 15 min traverse intervals with 7 min rests. Since I am trying to understand my progress, I could see a few ways of quantitatively tracking it:
(a) increase the length of the interval to complete failure and track the interval length.
(b) switch to doing a fixed number of moves or laps and try to compete them in the fastest way possible
(c) keep the length of interval the same but count the number of laps or moves
(d) keep the interval the same, but increase the difficulty of the moves
Intuitively, (c) is the best way, sine it builds both endurance and speed while being easy to track. However, I can see a benefit in doing (b) since it naturally forces efficient climbing and (d) since it actually tests the progress as I am moving along. What do you guys do?

(a)

I would up your interval time to 20-25 minutes, when that gets easy cut out shakes and rests, when that gets easy increase steepness, when that gets easy add in 3-4 hard moves sections, when that gets easy you'll be climbing 5.14.

increase steepness and decrease size of holds. If you can climb continuously for 15 minutes the difficulty is really not there for you. When do you climb continuously like that during a route? Its more like 2-5 minutes of concentrated effort than long extended phases of low level effort.

(I get the science behind it, with cappilary training, but i've just had MUCH MORE tangible rewards from doing steeper, harder, shorter intervals).

Trust Brendan's advice. He climbs well, he climbs hard, he trains smart. Samadhi, you don't get on many endurance pitches, I take it.

mikek wrote:Trust Brendan's advice. He climbs well, he climbs hard, he trains smart. Samadhi, you don't get on many endurance pitches, I take it.

I guess whatever you say bro!

Using my method I have been coming close on a 55 foot sustained traverse (probably 12c/d). Which at first was pretty far from being connected (for me!). Total enduro fest with some power moves thrown in there (some pretty burly crosses off sloping underclings).

Increase power = increase endurance (less occlusion in forearms during submaximal power moves)

Brendan N. (grayhghost) wrote:I would up your interval time to 20-25 minutes, when that gets easy cut out shakes and rests, when that gets easy increase steepness, when that gets easy add in 3-4 hard moves sections, when that gets easy you'll be climbing 5.14.

Yeah, upon some reading I came to a conclusion that indeed 20 min is optimal. Assuming 5 training days a week, I am going to switch to 2 times by 20 min intervals, with 20 min rest.

5.samadhi wrote: Increase power = increase endurance (less occlusion in forearms during submaximal power moves)

The reason why you like power training is because it produces the quickest gains, it's true for me too. Pure endurance workouts (75-50% of max intensity for long periods) produce my slower, but much more lasting gains, though. Given the type of climbing I like to do, I definitely need to train endurance specifically. Obviously, I do a lot of hard bouldering in the power block of my cycle.

Marek Sapkovski wrote: Yeah, upon some reading I came to a conclusion that indeed 20 min is optimal. Assuming 5 training days a week, I am going to switch to 2 times by 20 min intervals, with 20 min rest. The reason why you like power training is because it produces the quickest gains, it's true for me too. Pure endurance workouts (75-50% of max intensity for long periods) produce my slower, but much more lasting gains, though. Given the type of climbing I like to do, I definitely need to train endurance specifically. Obviously, I do a lot of hard bouldering in the power block of my cycle.

Sounds like you got it all figured out then bro! :D

I love all the "science" with training for climbing hahahaha

End of the day you're climbing a rock hah,

5.samadhi wrote: End of the day you're climbing a rock hah,

Yup, that's the plab. You might be naturally talented, while I am probably not, so I have to work pretty hard to move up the grades.There is no reason not to think scientifically about my training process if that gives me a little bit of an edge.

Marek Sapkovski wrote: Yup, that's the plab. You might be naturally talented, while I am probably not, so I have to work pretty hard to move up the grades.There is no reason not to think scientifically about my training process if that gives me a little bit of an edge.

I think his point might be that there's very little actual "science" related to climbing training. I would be surprised if there is even one single study comparing the different interval lengths for climbing endurance training. Beyond that, you're just guessing at what works. Which is fine, but its not science.

Sounds like what you're doing is working for you, so keep at it!

Ryan Watts wrote: I think his point might be that there's very little actual "science" related to climbing training. I would be surprised if there is even one single study comparing the different interval lengths for climbing endurance training. Beyond that, you're just guessing at what works. Which is fine, but its not science. Sounds like what you're doing is working for you, so keep at it!

yeah exactly. Lets not over-complicate things. Just because somebody has been telling the internet for 15 years now that periodized training is the KEY to success with climbing, does NOT mean they are right.

Climb hard, go long, get as much volume, sets, limit moves, technical routes, etc as possible and you'll continue to improve.

This is why doing a mix of bouldering, trad, and sport can really improve you even in individual disciplines.

You have a good attitude about training though, thats awesome.

Peace

So samadhi, it's true for every other sport - but not for climbing? What makes climbing special? The idea behind MSS volume training is very physiologically fundamental, it applies to distance running and rowing as much as it applies to endurance climbing, or mountaineering.

Also, taking a hypothesis (the periodization method of training applies to climbing) and applying it to see if it works, while diligently recording everything you do . . . is scientific. See the Andersen brothers, House/Johnston book, Jonathan Siegrist, etc. Laughing about how "it's just rock climbing" is immature, silly, and not a counter argument. Of course it's just rock climbing, but if you want to reach your potential then why not go about it as scientifically as possible? If you don't want to, then you don't have to, but disparaging those who choose to is just a jerk move.

I choose to err on the side of history at the elite levels of sport, which has shown again and again that periodized training cycles built on a strong base of fundamental fitness are the key to long term improvement. Having a good explanation of why these basic physiological principles which have been shown broadly to be sport-independent somehow don't apply to climbing, that would be an excellent way to support your position. Do you have any?

Alexander Blum wrote:So samadhi, it's true for every other sport - but not for climbing? What makes climbing special? The idea behind MSS volume training is very physiologically fundamental, it applies to distance running and rowing as much as it applies to endurance climbing, or mountaineering. Having a good explanation of why these basic physiological principles which have been shown broadly to be sport-independent somehow don't apply to climbing, that would be an excellent way to support your position. Do you have any?

Alexander, never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and makes the pig even more annoying than he already is.

Alexander Blum wrote:I choose to err on the side of history at the elite levels of sport, which has shown again and again that periodized training cycles built on a strong base of fundamental fitness are the key to long term improvement.

Yes but someone can agree that some sort of periodization is good for long-term improvement, while also claiming that we don't have any good scientific evidence of just what sort of periodization is best for climbing.

Also it's kind of unlikely that the same periodization program is best for all climbers.

Against the idea that some special periodization program is key for climbing is that:
-- Some climbers achieved a pretty high level of achievement and improvement without any explicit periodization program.
-- Different elite climbers seem to have succeeded with different periodization programs.
(I've read the five best-known English-language books on training for climbing, and they disagree about almost any significant point you can mention).

My challenge to Alexander Blum is:
So present an explicit well-defined program of periodization for some popular climbing goal.
and
point us to the well-controlled scientific studies which prove why that particular program is better than others.

kenr wrote: Yes but someone can agree that some sort of periodization is good for long-term improvement, while also claiming that we don't have any good scientific evidence of just what sort of periodization is best for climbing.

This is not the argument presented by samadhi - of course there are different ways to skin this cat. I agree with this statement.

kenr wrote: Also it's kind of unlikely that the same periodization program is best for all climbers.

Again, totally true. No arguments here.

kenr wrote:Against the idea that some special periodization program is key for climbing is that: -- Some climbers achieved a pretty high level of achievement and improvement without any explicit periodization program. -- Different elite climbers seem to have succeeded with different periodization programs. (I've read the five best-known English-language books on training for climbing, and they disagree about almost any significant point you can mention).

This is a compelling, but flawed, argument. I have a friend who ran a 4:20 mile in high school, an incredibly fast time. He is still (with no training) an absurdly fast runner able to easy tick off a mile in the low five minute range, off the couch. Would you attribute his skill to training, or to genetic gifts? The rich body of research behind track and field sports training shows that his time (already incredible) could have been improved significantly through years of periodized training following best practices. Of course, as you have pointed out, this body of research does not exist yet for climbing - maybe it never will. However, as enterprising individuals such as Horst, the Andersons, House, Twight, Bechtel, etc continue to experiment, learn, and share their findings, sport specific best practices for climbing will continue to be shaped and evolve. A real life example of this is Adam Ondra disappearing from the scene for a training cycle, only to reappear climbing at yet the next level. He stands in stark contrast to the old guard of the "just go climb hard" philosophy, Sharma.

kenr wrote:My challenge to Alexander Blum is: So present an explicit well-defined program of periodization for some popular climbing goal.

Since you are so well read, I am sure you know that an incredibly good set of answers to this question reside in The Rock Climbers Training Manual, Extreme Alpinism, and Training For The New Alpinism. I can, however, point to a few general tenets that any good training book will agree with.

• A good foundation of general fitness will allow you to train more effectively, so build one.
• Training should be as specific to the sport as is reasonably possible.
• Training should be quantifiable. This allows load and intensity to be precisely modulated and progress to be measured week to week, month to month, year after year.
• Peaks will come in cycles. You can take those peaks as they come, or you can control them with periodized training. You cannot stay in top form for the entire 4 month period of good weather you have this summer.

kenr wrote:and point us to the well-controlled scientific studies which prove why that particular program is better than others.

As stated a few times previously, I never said one periodization method is better than any other. What I am saying is if one studies the HUGE amount of scientific research present in sports that closely relate to climbing, then applies the fundamental physiological principles found within to our sport, a set of best practices will begin to emerge.

In alpine climbing Twight took an excellent shot at doing this. House and Johnston picked up where he left off, presenting the most scientifically sound treatise on alpine climbing available. For the bolt clippers and boulderers among us Yaniro, Dale Goddard, and Horst have all published some excellent books and videos over the last several decades. The Andersens took these ideas and molded them into a greater framework, presenting the first truly unified approach to period training for climbing I have ever seen.

If one reads the RCTM then TFTNA back to back then compares the structure and approach, they are fundamentally identical. The details differ, sure, but the guiding principles remain strikingly similar.

Alexander Blum wrote:I never said one periodization method is better than any other.

So then there's nothing "unscientific" in someone following a basic strategy of a switching between different styles of climbing and training emphasis and intensity levels based on personal feelings and the weather, and job and family demands, and travel to places where some training methods are not available. Provided that along the way they follow those sound general training principles.

If no one knows scientifically what's the best program for some individual and their climbing goal(s), the above strategy might be the best for that person and their goal.
Why not just stay kind of relaxed about when to switch between one focus and another?
(especially since most of us in real life are going to have our periodization schedules buffeted by job demands, minor injuries, weather, travel ... anyway?

Did you read the discussion of Non-Linear Periodization in the Andersons' book? What do you think of that?

Alexander Blum wrote:The Andersens took these ideas and molded them into a greater framework, presenting the first truly unified approach to period training for climbing I have ever seen.

Well it may be "truly unified", but I don't see how very much of it is derived from well-controlled well-designed scientific trials comparing two groups of climbers.

For example where is a comparative study of two groups of climbers which shows that 4 weeks of ARC focus is better than 6 weeks of ARC focus (or 2 weeks?).

Where is a comparative study which shows that 4 weeks of exclusive focus on ARCing is better than 4 weeks of a blending of twice a week intense finger-strength training with twice a week ARCing?

Ken

kenr wrote: So then there's nothing "unscientific" in someone following a basic strategy of a switching between different styles of climbing and training emphasis and intensity levels based on personal feelings and the weather, and job and family demands, and travel to places where some training methods are not available. Provided that along the way they follow those sound general training principles.

There's nothing wrong with that. But as human nature would have it, if you don't have a plan, it's easy to deviate from the general training principles. I think a structured plan enforces training discipline. While nothing says a 4-week phase is optimal, it seem to be close enough. I'd imagine if you pick a 2 or 3 week phase cycle, as long as you stick with it, you'll be fine.

just climb more man

5.samadhi wrote:just climb more man

A lot of us have tried that & have either plateaued or are progressing at a snail pace. Sooner or later that climb more thing runs out of steam.

Many dedicated climbers would love to have anywhere close to the kind of progress the Anderson bros are having given the limited amount of free time they have.

kenr wrote: So then there's nothing "unscientific" in someone following a basic strategy of a switching between different styles of climbing and training emphasis and intensity levels based on personal feelings and the weather, and job and family demands, and travel to places where some training methods are not available.

Sure, no argument here on that. The only issue (which reboot pointed out) is that if what you are doing is not quantifiable and measurable, how do you apply those general principles? You can't modulate volume and intensity for a training effect if you have no way to measure and record volume and intensity. This makes it extremely difficult to stay on track, and the biggest issue with "just climb more, man".

kenr wrote:Did you read the discussion of Non-Linear Periodization in the Andersons' book? What do you think of that?

I did, and I think there is one key takeaway they mention: Periods of high pPerformance will come in peaks and valleys no matter what you do - you can choose when they happen (block periodization) or take them as they come (non-linear periodization). Obviously this is a personal choice, but I choose the former. I think that most folk who choose this method choose it as an attempt at "having my cake, and eating it too".

Well it may be "truly unified", but I don't see how very much of it is derived from well-controlled well-designed scientific trials comparing two groups of climbers.

For example where is a comparative study of two groups of climbers which shows that 4 weeks of ARC focus is better than 6 weeks of ARC focus (or 2 weeks?).

I am not sure why you keep tilting at this windmill. There are no such studies, perhaps there never will be. However, as rational human beings, we take the information at hand and make the best possible decisions we can with it. You are rational, right?

How much you ARC should have more to do with your short (and long) term goals than anything else. Boulderer or route climber? Focus on PE routes or short, bouldery cruxes on face climbs? This is mentioned in the Andersen book. The House book speaks similarly about building a base of easy endurance effort for alpine climbing; a minimum time period is prescribed but the last word is "in the end, your base can never be too big".

You speak in absolutes, but that isn't the way this works. You take the principles, and you apply them as best you can. If our sport (in all its myriad forms) is ever studied in great depth, perhaps we will get some more "hard and fast" rules. For now, we do the best we can with what we have. As little as we do have, it is enough to know that

5.samadhi wrote: just climb more man

is bullshit advice, and will result in a permanent plateau for all but the most genetically elite among us, whom have all the time in the world to "train".