Fingerboard: Repeaters vs. Dead Hangs

What is the most effective technique on the board for increasing maximum finger strength: Repeaters (10 hangs 5 seconds each with 5 seconds of rest in between), or static hangs (using the same hold and same amount of weight, but hanging 25 seconds resting and then another 25 sec. hang)???

for increasing max strength, i would go more along the lines of 5 sec hang, 15 sec rest, 3 reps, then 2 or 3 minutes rest between sets. 3 sets each of 5 or 6 grips.

your first choice is too many reps and leans more towards a PE workout. your second set, the hangs are way too long.

(edit - 3 seconds hanging and 17 seconds rest would probably be better).

Short hangs with maximum weight.

kennyp wrote:What is the most effective technique on the board for increasing maximum finger strength???

Over what time period? For the early spring next year, or for three years down the road?

This is an important distinction. "Repeaters", typically in the 5-8 rep range (e.g. 7seconds on/3off x 6 @ 50lb) are going to be more of a hypertrophy stimulus. Lower rep numbers with higher weight (e.g. 7on/3off x 2 @ 100lb) will be more of a neuromuscular stimulus (recruitment, rate coding, etc). Over long periods of time, you want to build more muscle, which you can then recruit.

So over the short run, I'd say max weight hangs for 1-2 reps at ~ 7sec with no specific prescribed rest period, just rest until you feel ready to give 100% again, typically 3-10min. Over the long run, repeaters. Personally, I take slightly different approach and do ~5 sets of 5-6 rep repeaters of 10on/5off that in reality has the results for most sets looking something like: 10sec, 10sec, 8sec, 5sec, 3sec, 2 sec.

There are differing opinions with regards to what works best for developing max finger strength. Dave Macleod, Ben Moon, Steve Maisch, and others advocate for max 5-8 sec. hangs with 1-2 min. rest in between each hang for 3-5 sets. Other folks who also know what they're taklking about advocate for repeaters (i.e., 7 sec. on, 3 off x 6 reps with 1-2 min. rest b/t sets). After experimenting with both protocols, I kind of feel like max hangs with longer rests are better for developing max finger strength while repeaters tend to help more with anaerobic endurance. That being said, there are a lot more people out there with alot more knowledge on these things. Here are a couple of resources that I have used to develop my fingerboard training program.

http://www.onlineclimbingcoach.blogspot.com/search/label/fingerboarding

http://www.moonclimbing.com/blog/school/fingerboard-training-plan/

http://www.planetfear.com/articles/Fingerboard_Training__Advanced_1103.html

http://www.rockclimbing.com/Articles/Training_and_Technique/The_Making_of_a_Rockprodigy__258.html

Two different explanatory paradigms:
A) Three factors matter for grip strength in climbing:
* 1) muscle fibers
* 2) neural recruitment of muscle fibers
* 3) (unconscious) "higher" mental integration into overall bodily climbing moves.

B) same as A, but add
* 4) some other "specific-isometric-grip" quality of muscle fibers and/or supporting connective tissues.

Seems to me that if you believe Paradigm A, then focusing most fingerboard workouts on Repeater work doesn't make sense -- because isometric workouts are just not the fastest best way to build up muscle fibers. Instead you should search for some more effective non-isometric exercise as your primary finger-strength training, e.g. . . ? "heavy finger rolls" ? or some spring-loaded individual-finger device ? or some kind of mini-campusing ?

And rely mainly on general climbing as the best way to address factors 2 + 3. If you still believe that some non-climbing fingerboard isometric thing is valuable for factor 2 ... well OK ... but surely that thing is not needed as frequently (or as early in the program) as some other non-climbing exercise focused on factor 1.

In other words, the implication of Paradigm A for the original "Repeaters versus Dead Hangs" question is
Neither.

So it seems to me that those who push Repeaters (or Dead Hangs) as the main grip-strength-increase exercise ought to propose some physiological explanation (or some very specific training-outcome study) to support the existence of some significant factor 4 of Paradigm B.

I do not know what that explanation or evidence would be, but I'd be very glad to see it.
My main fingerboard workout is Repeaters.

Ken

Here's a proposal for a factor 4
> "some other "specific-isometric-grip" quality of
> muscle fibers and/or supporting connective tissues."

* 4a) Proportion of Fast Glycolitive (FG - Type 2b) versus Fast Oxidative (Type 2a) versus Slow Oxidative (SO - Type 1) muscle fibers.

and while I'm at it, two more factors for grip:
* 5a) Skin toughness against abrasion and neural touch pain.

* 5b) Skin toughness for stretching without breaking - (I guess this is especially important for the "full crimp" grip).

One theory for a long-term training program for aerobic athletes like cross-country skiers and middle-distance runners, is to start with an off-season phase of (non-isometric) high-intensity strength training (like with weight machines or free-weights) which is thought to be the best way to induce the creation of new muscle fibers (? splitting ? "hyperplasia" ?). The theory is that these brand new fibers are normally FG Type 2b fibers: which are great for single-shot peak-force high-velocity dynamic moves, but they fatigue very quickly.

So the next phase of the program is lots of "long slow distance" sessions in early-season which put fatigue stress on the new fibers, and the fibers respond to this stress by transforming into SO Type 1 fibers, which are great for endurance. (then in further "sharpening" phases these can be more specifically trained for aerobic/anaerobic threshold or whatever for serious-competition season).

More relevant to climbers ... I've also read that
"postural" muscles tend to be SO Type 1. And postural is like support to hold the body structure in place, like for standing up, which we tend to have to keep doing for extended periods of time. And postural tends to be sort of isometric, sort of like maintaining grip on an edge hold.

If climbers were to adapt the "build then transform" strategy of aerobic athletes, one might guess there would be an initial phase of non-isometric high-force low-reps workouts, say perhaps ...
8 to 12 reps of 2 second cycles of like 0.5-1.0 second initiate hang then 1.0-1.5 seconds transfer weight to legs or elbow straps and rest. (or some might think 5 to 8 reps is more optimal)

I think the move of initiating hanging is an "eccentric" contraction (the muscle fibers lengthen as weight suddently comes onto to them).

Some might think a "concentric" exercise would be better: but it's not so clear to me how to repeatedly control Range-of-Motion for doing this in a hanging configuration. So perhaps instead "heavy finger rolls " using a bar with free-weights -- say like 3 sets of 8-12 reps. Or maybe start with a set of 15-20 reps with light weight on the bar as a warmup, then progressively increase the weight thru three more sets while decreasing the reps from 10-12 to 5-10 to 3-5 reps.

Then the second phase of the program might be like "dead hangs" of 30 seconds hang / 30 seconds rest. Or even longer-duration hangs with the goal of inducing maximum endurance-fatigue stress on the new finger-muscle fibers -- so more of them transform into SO Type 1 (or at least toward FO or FOG Type 2a) for better endurance / isometric grip.

? Maybe then Repeaters might fit as some third "sharpening" phase ? or maybe not ?

Anyway that program is nothing like what I'm doing now. And I'm just getting into the "off-season" phase -- so I'm eager for some suggestions about this sort of thing.

Ken

Ken,

You have a lot of interesting thoughts here. I think the answer is partially a combination of paradigms A and B. It's likely that hangboard deadhang repeats induce some amount of recruitment or neurological response.

I've wondered for a long time if these exercises produce hypertrophy. I've recently made some observations using myself as a guinea pig and my conclusion is that I haven't noticed astonishing hypertrophy, but I've been doing these exercises for literally ten years. There is no doubt that something I've done in the past has caused substantial forearm hypertrophy in those ten years. I suspect at this point my muscles are too 'well-trained' (at least as far as hangboard repeats are concerned) to experience much additional hypertrophy using the same methods. I wish I had tracked this when I first started hangboarding. Regardless, there is no doubt these exercises cause impressive strength gains (and continue to do so, even after 10 years).

Back to the question of why/how does this happen, I can't explain the mechanism, but there is a study that concludes that isometric training is vastly superior to 'dynamic' (concentric-eccentric) training for producing maximal strength at a specific joint angle.

Climbing is somewhat unique in that the grip positions are predictable and static. Very few other sports are like this, which is why few (if any?) other sports use isometric training. But it is ideal for improving static finger strength. The downside is that isometric training is pretty much useless for training contraction speed. For that, climber's need some form of dynamic training (if you're not bored yet and want to know more about that, read this). So I agree with your idea of using two distinct forms of 'strength' training, although I would argue 'general climbing' is not the preferred method for the latter (itesm 2 & 3 in your first post). As for Heavy Finger Rolls I would guess they are too slow to be effective at improving contraction speed in a manner that would be beneficial to climbers. I've used these extensively and never seen any practical benefit.

On a side note, are you familiar with Progressive Stretch Overload? I wonder if there might be an element of PSO during hangboard deadhang repeats. PSO has shown to cause substantial hypertrophy (and even hyperplasia) with little to no dynamic movement in the muscle, so I'm not convinced that contractions must be dynamic to cause hypertrophy. That said, if PSO was the mechanism, there should be evidence of hypertrophy in the forearm muscles. Maybe visible hypertrophy does occur in novice hangboarders, but we would need another guinea pig (besides me) to find out. If anyone out there has any anecdotal evidence either way I'd be psyched to see it.

Monomaniac wrote:there is a study that concludes that isometric training is vastly superior to 'dynamic' (concentric-eccentric) training for producing maximal strength at a specific joint angle.

I'd be glad to get some more clues about that study ... like names of authors, and what specific training exercises + programs were used, and of course what was the protocol for measuring "maximum" strength.

So that study would seem to indicate that "dynamic" or strongly non-isometric exercises should not be relied upon as a complete training program, mainly as an initial phase.

Monomaniac wrote:
> I would argue 'general climbing' is not the preferred
> method for ... items 2 & 3 in your first post.

Sounds interesing: What are the arguments for Repeaters versus Climbing to achieve improved neural recruitment? Perhaps this calls for separate arguments depending on how "general climbing" is to be interpreted: e.g. multi-pitch outdoor rock versus high-difficulty bouldering versus indoor overhanging/vertical top-roping.

Monomaniac wrote:
> Progressive Stretch Overload

I hadn't heard of that, so I checked some of the pages that come up on a google search. Seems like the pages I found endlessly recite some study on birds from twenty years ago -- as if no relevant rigorous research would have been done since.

Seems like the closest thing to PSO for fingers would be heavy finger rolls
I just tried them for the first time to today, seemed more relevant to climbing than I was guessing. I agree that heavy finger rolls are unlikely to do much for contraction speed.

Ken

Monomaniac wrote:Climbing is somewhat unique in that the grip positions are predictable and static.

I agree that the isometric maintaining of a static configuration is more important in climbing than in lots of other sports.

But concentric moves of the gripping muscles are important sometimes: like landing on an edge-hold in an open grip from a previous deadpoint reach move, then "rolling" up onto a crimp grip just before launching the next move. (I note the clever suggestion at the end of this MP thread of using this move as a regular grip-strength training exercise).

Seems to me, even more frequent are eccentric uses of the gripping muscles. Now it's true that in some climbing situations (especially less difficult or on less-than-vertical rock), when I initiate a grip on a new edge-hold, I can transfer weight to it smoothly so there is essentially no change in the length of the gripping muscles ("isometric" = same measure = the length of the muscle fibers stays the same during exercise).

But when I get to more difficult climbing, esp on overhanging rock, then the initiation of a grip often must be very quick, with a sudden increase in loading on the gripping muscles, which results in a lengthening of those muscles.

Therefore not isometric, rather an eccentric exercise of the gripping muscles. Once the new grip has been initiated, then the exercise becomes isometric.

So it seems to me both modes are critical to many many climbing moves, both eccentric and isometric. If I don't latch the initiation of the grip (eccentric) on the new hold, I fall and fail. And if I don't maintain the grip (isometric), I fall and fail.

I'd say I fail lots more times in initiation of a grip than on duration of maintaining.

A second eccentric exercise in real climbing is the initiation of any semi-dynamic upward move off a grip which is currently supporting a significant percentage of the climber's weight. There is a sudden added load on the gripping muscles, so they lengthen. So it's eccentric, not isometric.

I find that I just "give up" on a climb lots of times when I sense that I don't have the eccentric grip strength to launch the next move. It might look to an observer like I ran out of isometric maintenance strength, but actually I could have held on longer -- I just gave up becuase I didn't see the point of maintaining when I felt that couldn't succeed on the next (partly eccentric) move.

So right now I'm not getting this idea that "climbing grip is mainly static, therefore the main training for climbing grip ought to be static".
There was a time in my climbing when "just hanging on" was my big issue, but now it's feeling like that's no longer my key performance obstacle.

Ken

Ken,

You really should read the link I provided above. When you're done with that read this.

That should answer most of your questions.

Thanks for those two links -- they have good suggestions for training exercises, and straightforward explanations that make sense.

So trying to follow those pages about dynamic "contact strength", I just tried a sort of "mini-campusing" workout on my home fingerboard - (since I don't have space for a campus ladder in my home). I have a pull-up bar underneath the fingerboard, so I can start from hanging on the pull-up bar, and make a single "campus-like" lunge with one hand up to some hold on the fingerboard. Then I launch off the combination of that and the pull-up bar to get the other hand up to one of the buckets at the top of the fingerboard. I guess that's about the most minimal "campusing" that's possible. I always catch the first lunge with an open grip. Sometimes I would then "roll" that up to a half-crimp before launching the next move for one of the top buckets.

If I make the first lunge to one of the bigger non-bucket holds on my fingerboard, then I can "match" by bringing my other hand up to the corresponding hold on the other side of the fingerboard, than launch from those to get one hand up onto one of the top buckets. Hopefully someday I'll be able to "match" like this on smaller holds -- more like real campusing.

I also tried some Finger Rolls for concentric stress, but with dumb-bells instead of a barbell bar (because I don't have one at home). And not yet "Heavy" because I want to be careful not to overdo it at first.
Also the idea in that other MP thread about shifting from open to crimp grip, as another try at concentric stress on the grip muscles, one set of 12 reps with each hand (with my body partly supported by a chair).
And some sets of very short hangs (1 second hang, 1 second rest, for 12 reps of a 2-second cycle) to try to emphasize the eccentric initiation over the isometric static maintaining of the hang.

I'm seeing it as the start of a temporary off-season phase.

Ken

Re: Heavy finger rolls.

My high school had a, for the time and being a public HS, a very intensive and financially supported weight training program. A full-on separate building specifically for a weight training facility. It was seriously bigger than the weight rooms on two different military installations I've worked on, and bigger than a lot of commercial gyms' free weight rooms. One of the benefits of alumni who go pro in NFL and MLB, and the small town rural south's love of high school sports.

Anyway, our strength coach was crazy for heavy finger rolls as part of our prescribed exercises. And even then, with no background in finger strength (didn't start climbing until about 20yo) I could do ridiculous amounts on the heavy rolls, and never felt like it was even a taxing workout (this isn't from freakish genetics). I think they are just too easy to "cheat" where the movement isn't coming from your fingers contracting as much as from a combo of wrist, fingers, and sort of kipping with your hips, plus a little calf extension then drop back down. We did them standing, at the squat rack.

It's like a complex lift...say cleans from the floor, where lots of parts are interacting. And since you don't have to actually move the weight very far distance-wise, it's harder to eliminate or even recognize the "cheat".

You could go to doing them sitting with your wrists pinned to a bench or your knees, but it hyperextends your wrists too much for my tastes, and it also introduces more wrist flexion as part of the movement. Ideally you need your arms straight down by your side, palms facing behind you. Even if you could find a way to do this (maybe seated, using dumbells instead of a bar), you can only lower the weight so far without risking dropping it. And that isn't far enough, IMO. It ends up similar to using a more than full-pad deep edge.

There are grip trainer apparatus at some gyms that you load plates on and squeeze the bars together. That might be the ticket if you really want concentric/eccentric movements, but unless you can find one with a flat edge on the finger end of the thing (instead of round stock..adding grip tape to round stock might work?), you're going to have the same issue with not really being able to get it to simulate smaller than one-pad deep stuff. Here's an example of the rig I'm talking about:

For me, heavy rolls don't seem like they are either specific, or very effective. And FWIW, I've rarely, if ever, had problems rolling something into a crimp that I could hang in the first place (and I would never train this because for me, it just seems too injury prone, same reason I don't train crimps on the hangboard).

Yeah Will, I've seen those grip strength trainers before; they seem a bit too close to these types of things, which really work different muscles than hangboards.

I have wondered if anyone has considered some sort of trainer that would take something like this thing:

asanaclimbing.com/grimper_e…

... and incorporate it into some cables and weights, for a hangboard-type workout that you would do while sitting down at a table or something?

Does that make sense?

I have a pro grips trainer, but what about doing pull ups on your finger board using the various grips.
I do a set of 30 pull ups on the jug with a 20 pound pack
set of 20 on the slope
set of 20 on the medium edge
set of 25 chin ups using the I beam in my basement.
set of 15 with ice axes and 20 pound pack and then 15 without pack.
I do abs in between the sets and try not to rest too much.

Haven't been climbing all that much so don't know how freaking strong I am!! I do that 2 days per week with 3 days on my bowflex, then I switch and do 3 days on the pull ups and 2 days on the bowflex. I mix that with some trail running.

Will S wrote:Ideally you need your arms straight down by your side, palms facing behind you. Even if you could find a way to do this (maybe seated, using dumbells instead of a bar), you can only lower the weight so far without risking dropping it. And that isn't far enough, IMO. It ends up similar to using a more than full-pad deep edge.

Thanks for all these detailed points of execution, Will.

Actually I was doing my HFR with dumbbells, hanging down just like you said. In order to engage the 1st fingertip pad (DP) and joint (DIP), I slightly supported the axle of the dumbbell with my other hand, just at the initiation of the upward roll.

Some practitioners say you can't get enough weight for truly Heavy FR with dumbbell, but I could do the rolls with three fingers instead of four, and then I found that I could easily do them with only two fingers instead of three -- so it's going to be a while until I exceed the capacity of my dumbbells.

Will S wrote:There are grip trainer apparatus ... but unless you can find one with a flat edge on the finger end of the thing

You mean like Titan's Telegraph Key ?

? Specificity of dumbbell HFR for Climbing?
Well it works the flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS) and the flexor digitorum profundus muscles (FDP) muscles+tendons, also [Edit add] whatever the names of the muscles+tendons that drive the metacarpalphalangeial (MCP) joints -- which are the main muscles that drive the three finger pads with bones (PP + MP + DP) which might be in contact with a rock hold or supporting that contact.

For this "first phase" goal of hypertrophy / hyperplasia, what more specificity do I need?

Regarding the full engagement of the distal tip pad (DP) in HFR: I'm not sure this is critical for training the FDP muscle + tendon which attaches to the fingertip (DP). Because the mechanical design of the finger joints + tendons is a bit tricky ...

The FDP tendon also passes thru the pulleys by the 2nd pad (MP), so it (almost?) inevitably also applies torque to the PIP articulation (2nd joint) as well as the DIP articulation (1st joint). Just try to flex your DIP (1st joint) without flexing the PIP (2nd joint).
So if there's no torque from the FDP being applied thru the DIP to the 1st finger pad (DP) - (because the DP pad is not making effective contact with the dumbbell axle) - I'm kinda thinking that's just more torque available for the FDP to drive the 2nd joint PIP, assisting the FDS to press the 2nd finger pad (MP).

So while I do make a specific extra move to try to perform my dumbbell rolls with good engagement of the 1st finger pad (DP) and 1st joint articulation (DIP), I'm not sure that the success of the HFR exercise in stressing both the FDS + FDP muscles is greatly compromised if I sometimes miss on this.

Will S wrote:I've rarely, if ever, had problems rolling something into a crimp that I could hang in the first place (and I would never train this because for me, it just seems too injury prone, same reason I don't train crimps on the hangboard).

The idea of training concentric contraction with great climbing specificity by rolling from an open grip up to half-crimp seemed to me very clever. But now that I've tried one session of it, I also have become concerned about problems with using it for training.

Because with substantial load hanging on an edge-hold small enough to fully engage my fingertip pad (Distal Phalanx) and to surely work my DIP joint/articulation ... I found that I did not "roll" smoothly between the two grip modes, rather I sort of "flipped" very quickly from one to the other.

Kinda jerky even if you succeed, and not so clear what happens to your tendons + pulleys if you fail to make it thru the transition zone from low to high. Also some concerns about "cheating" with funny moves in the rest of your body to temporarily remove load to get thru the "flip".

I guess the question about climbing-specificity of using Heavy Finger Rolls for hypertropy of gripping muscles could be posed this way:

Given that HFR uses all three muscles+tendons: FDP, FDS, and "whatever the ones are that flex the MCP joint" (for now let's just call those the "MCP-flexors" muscles+tendons) ...
But does it apply a maximal (or optimal?) hypertrophy-inducing stress on each of them?

My try at an answer ...
Well I think it's pretty clear that HFR fully engages the FDS muscle+tendon, which primarily drives the flexing of the PIP joint, because the PIP joint is central to the overall HFR motion, and its employment comes early in the motion (so you can't just "coast through" its contraction-phase on momentum).

I understand the concern that the FDP muscle+tendon is not getting a sufficient loading. In a previous message I've argued that it gets to contribute all that it's capable, because it also drives the flexing PIP joint, which is central to the overall HFR motion. Another point I'll raise here is that perhaps the FDP is weaker than the others, so it does not require as large a loading in order to be maximally stressed out.
(or if not, then could also use something like the Titan's Telegraph Key to specifically address that with well-measured concentric/eccentric stress.)

Which leaves the "MCP-flexors" muscles+tendons. (I think in actual climbing the MCP-flexors are especially used for the half-Crimp and full-crimp grips, and for pinches, and some for hanging on a big sloper -- but not much for Open grips.)

My guess is that maybe because of the leverage of the rolling configuration, and because the role of the MCP-flexors in HFR arises only after the dumbbell has attained maximum momentum ... perhaps the weight-load level which optimally stress the FDS muscle is not sufficient to maximally stress the MCP-flexors (especially if there's any unconscious "cheating" involved, which often there is).

If so, I think there's a simple remedy: Also perform an "abbreviated" HFR exercise. That is, start the rolling motion from a higher configuration, with the DIP + PIP joints already significantly flexed, and with a higher weight-load on the dumbbell or barbell which is sufficient for an optimal concentric/eccentric stress on the MCP-flexors.

(Another perspective is that training with concentric/eccentric contraction stress is so well-established as superior to isometric for hypertrophy of muscles, that the existence of an exercise which is simple to perform and simple to measure its resistance and range-of-motion, and straightforward to adjust those in a progressive incremental way -- is very valuable even if that exercise does not provide an optimal stress to every muscle involved.)

JLP wrote:For a guy with a profile topping out at 5.10, you sure seem to have a lot to say about training. 5.10 requires zero finger strength compared to the kind of climbing people generally use a fingerboard to train for.

But it's never too early to start! - linking mono's excellent take on the question: lazyhclimbingclub.wordpress…

I wish I'd started training earlier, mainly for injury prevention.

JLP wrote:For a guy with a profile topping out at 5.10, you sure seem to have a lot to say about training.

Duuudde, thats 5.10 in the GUNKS yo! Carry on.

JLP wrote:For a guy with a profile topping out at 5.10, you sure seem to have a lot to say about training.

Actually I'm rather hoping someone will correct me.
Or at least raise helpful red-flag questions + concerns (like Will S did).

I do have some familiarity with the mechanics of forces and torques in finger joints, because I spent several years of my life doing research on strategies for controlling a multi-finger multi-joint robot hand. Whether some points I made about mechanical analysis or about the theory and physiology of multi-phase training programs are right or wrong or unhelpful has nothing to do with my inadequacies as a climber.

Ken