Training with a Jackhammer?

Jason Young wrote:Doesn't repeated high-impact increase bone/muscle density?

I don't know.
But is higher density (i.e. more weight for same volume) better for climbing?

Mark E Dixon wrote: I don't know. But is higher density (i.e. more weight for same volume) better for climbing?

It definitely would equate to more strength (and probably a greater strength-to-weight ratio).

I don't see how higher bone density would increase strength. Would increase robustness/resistance to fracture.

I don't think exercise increases muscle density.
Doesn't it either increase size (hypertrophy) or improve neural factors (recruitment, rate coding, etc)?

I would expect JH to increase muscle size and improve neural factors too.
Just doesn't seem specific enough to benefit climbing.

Mark E Dixon wrote: My jackhammer ignorance is showing here, but isn't the motion kind of like holding onto a bicycle handlebar that is trying really hard to get away from you? Or is there more opening and closing of the grip than that? I suppose handle size would make a difference as well, although I would think that hammer makers would optimize the size to be whatever is easiest to hold on to.

You do relax the grip when you can. The cycle is usually lift (70#,in this case) the hammer into position, grip hard and bear down into the target area as you activate the machine. When I come to a spot that's especially resistant (often it's a rock bonded into the concrete) I lift up the hammer a few inches and basically throw it at the target. The extra height lets you hit harder. When the hammer is off, you don't squeeze. So you do that about 10 times a minute for as long as you can take, catch your breath, and go again!

I've never used a jackhammer but I have used a "hand drill". It's a little different than you are picturing. It's cast iron, about 80lbs, and is capable of drilling about 12-15' x 3"-4" into rock. This all at two feet at a time. The weight does not include the extra drill steel and the fire hose attached to the diesel air compressor to run it.

It's basically a jackhammer that rotates too.

I found strength gains for two weeks. This was also due to the constant jugging ropes to get it in place, 3 to 1 hauling, and manipulation of the hoses 80 feet off the ground.

After those initial 2 weeks, I noticed a huge strength loss. Total body exhaustion that I couldn't recover from. Knots in my back. My hands were a wreck, I couldn't close them all the way and they constantly cramped. It was awful. Enough to leave a high paying job and work for peanuts.

Labor sucks.

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote:It was awful. Enough to leave a high paying job and work for peanuts. Labor sucks.

Only to wreck yourself climbing for no peanuts at all... shit man, way to stick with it for a whole 3 weeks. I once went 10 years without running, it took way more than 3 weeks for my joints to get used to it again. After about 6 weeks my body started adjust and the gains were amazing.

BTW those are called rotary hammers, they do suck when bigger than 1".

I stuck with it about a year. I climbed like shit after the first 2 weeks. Ultimately I wanted a job where I could sleep in my own bed and see my family every day.

I don't find climbing wrecks my body. May you are doing it wrong?

I thought my 36v Bosch was called a rotary hammer?

Is there a glossary for all this?

by no means is this opinion scientific or supported by any information i can cite, but i believe the use of vibratory equipment such as a jackhammer, at least long term use, can (not does but can) lead to nerve damage or loss of motor function due to nerve damage. Might want to look into the risks associated with long term use of vibratory equipment or a training program that seeks to mimic such.

I also believe (don't quote me on this, do your research) that prolonged use of vibratory equipment causes trigger finger.

I've heard it causes hairy palms. Bad for slopers, ok for alpinists.

kenr wrote:In a fairly serious health club gym, I saw people using a machine which produced high-frequency motion which they (apparently passively) held a stable position against. ... I assume there were some "studies" demonstrating that this approach was effective in improving (some sort of) muscular performance.

While these machines claim they benefit just about anything related to performance, I think the only (limited, inconclusive) research out there supports vibration as a tool for improved recovery time.

bernard wrote:by no means is this opinion scientific or supported by any information i can cite, but i believe the use of vibratory equipment such as a jackhammer, at least long term use, can (not does but can) lead to nerve damage or loss of motor function due to nerve damage. Might want to look into the risks associated with long term use of vibratory equipment or a training program that seeks to mimic such.

Yes, this is absolutely true. Exposure to vibration repeatedly is a very hazardous thing to play around with. Vibration exposure can cause Raynaud's phenomenon, i.e. white finger disease or hand-arm vibration syndrome from vibrating tools. It can also cause low back pain and associated disease in the spine. This is a big problem particularly for long haul truckers due to whole body vibration.

My two comments seem contradictory (performance improvement vs disease causing), but you have to remember it's all about the dose as well as the oscillation frequency.

I totally have Raynaud's! Can't do much of anything in the winter anymore.

-Optimistic,
It is extremely difficult to hang on to a circumference that doesn't allow your fingertips to touch the thumb tip, and most JH's have over-large grips. Add some gloves to that, and hanging on gets pretty hard. Add your focusing on the job at hand, and not the feeling in your forearms, and you can get a pretty good workout. Having to keep the switch depressed while hanging on adds to the workout, and to your chance for permanent tendinitis. I've been told other workouts that use greater than bodyweight forces while hitting your grip are: Dirtbike riding, boardsailing, and water skiing.

Back to the question at hand: Try getting a few lengths of ABS or PVC pipe, in 2.5", 3", 4", 6" and what the heck, 8"diameters, and make a sort of campus board. If you can do a hinged board that allows you to change the angle of the "route", so much the better. Less chance of tendon overuse injury with multiple diameters, and a hell of a workout for the forearms. If you can cruise that too easily, put on a pack and add weight. Open hand, non-crimpable grip is much more work than you'd expect (mid grade route on Glacier Point, anyone?). I've had climbing partners in the past put a 2.5" diameter pipe around our pull up bar (loose, so it can spin) to increase the difficulty. Or, you could climb out along a very large tree branch...

-BigB, what the hell was the point of hitting a tractor tire with a sledgehammer?

kenr wrote: I think a key point that helps jackhammering to likely be more effective for training is that it is not isometric.

umm, how is it not isometric? its not like you are squeezing the trigger each time it impacts, lolz. its about as isometric as you can get, squeeze and hold on for dear life. i take it you have never used a jackhammer...

slim wrote: umm, how is it not isometric? its not like you are squeezing the trigger each time it impacts, lolz. its about as isometric as you can get, squeeze and hold on for dear life.

My understanding is that iso-metric contraction means that the measured ("metric") position or angle stays the same ("iso").
Nothing in the definition about avoiding only voluntary conscious changes in muscular position.

If you mean that the angle of the distal finger joint stays the same, then OK. But there's other joints and articulations in the fingers and wrist which are relevant to climbing.

I think the position of the handle of a jackhammer relative to your shoulder and elbow and wrist does move a non-zero distance when it's hammering.
. . (Not like doing a static dead hang from a non-moving well-anchored fingerboard).
Not a large distance, but some distance. I'm confident that organizations who design and manufacture jackhammers have an accurate idea of how large this distance is under different hammering situations.

Therefore jackhammering is not really "isometric".
. . (and therefore more likely to better stimulate muscular HYPertrophy).
. . (Key question is how to get that simulation focused on the muscles desired).

Ken

kenr wrote: not really "isometric". . . (and therefore more likely to better stimulate muscular HYPertrophy). . Ken

I'm pretty sure you are wrong about the effect of isometric exercise on hypertrophy.

For example-

Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations for Muscular Hypertrophy

Article (PDF Available) in Medicina Sportiva 17(4):217-235 · December 2013 with 3521 Reads
DOI: 10.5604/17342260.1081302

1st James Fisher
22.14 · Southampton Solent University

2nd James Steele
26.93 · Southampton Solent University

3rd Dave Smith
28.87 · Manchester Metropolitan University
Abstract
Objective: There is considerable interest in attaining muscular hypertrophy in recreational gym-goers, bodybuilders, older adults, and persons suffering from immunodeficiency conditions. Multiple review articles have suggested guidelines for the most efficacious training methods to obtain muscular hypertrophy. Unfortunately these included articles that inferred hypertrophy markers such as hormonal measurements, used older techniques that might not be valid (e.g. circumference) and failed to appropriately consider the complexity of training variables. Methods: The present commentary provides a narrative review of literature, summarising main areas of interest and providing evidence-based guidelines towards training for muscular hypertrophy. Conclusions: Evidence supports that persons should train to the highest intensity of effort, thus recruiting as many motor units and muscle fibres as possible, self-selecting a load and repetition range, and performing single sets for each exercise. No specific resistance type appears more advantageous than another, and persons should consider the inclusion of concentric, eccentric and isometric actions within their training regime, at a repetition duration that maintains muscular tension. Between set/exercise rest intervals appear not to affect hypertrophy, and in addition the evidence suggests that training through a limited range of motion might stimulate similar results to full range of motion exercise. The performance of concurrent endurance training appears not to negatively affect hypertrophy, and persons should be advised not to expect uniform muscle growth both along the belly of a muscle or for individual muscles within a group. Finally evidence suggests that short (~3 weeks) periods of detraining in trained persons does not incur significant muscular atrophy and might stimulate greater hypertrophy upon return to training. Key words: muscular size, bodybuilding, intensity, genetics, concurrent, endurance
Join ResearchGate to find and access the publications you want to read.

caribouman1052 wrote:It is extremely difficult to hang on to a circumference that doesn't allow your fingertips to touch the thumb tip

Yet serious climbers do it all the time.

caribouman1052 wrote:most jackhammers have over-large grips.

If that's the main objection to using this "resisting passive vibration" style of exercise for climbing, it's easily solved with some duct tape and thinner stick of wood (or half-PVC) over the handle of the jackhammer (or whatever more climbing-specific vibration mechanism gets chosen).

Seems to me it's not necessary to engage the distal-phalangeal joint articulation - (by making the tip of the finger the main point of contact with the vibrating thing). Because the muscle that activates that articulation is also used to drive the inter-phalangeal articulation.
So it's still fairly specific for climbing finger-forearm strength if the outermost two finger joints sort of curl somewhat around the vibrating-thing-connection.

Ken

i am mostly thinking he has never used a jackhammer before.... it isn't that much 'less isometric' than a hangboard workout in terms of the same finger muscles used.

slim wrote:jackhammering isn't that much 'less isometric' than a hangboard workout in terms of the same finger muscles used.

I already agreed that the isometric claim was OK as applied to at least one of the finger muscles - (but Not for some other finger + arm muscles relevant to climbing).

slim wrote:i am mostly thinking he has never used a jackhammer before

My point is not based on what using a jackhammer feels like, and whether the user can estimate the length of the motion, or even detect the motion.

But I think the explanation is worth giving, because it applies to a similar misconception ... that lots of climbers think that
using the finger-forearm muscles in actual climbing is mainly isometric. I guess they believe this because they are not consciously detecting the motion in their fingers, and are not conscious of trying to make their finger joints move.
. . (But in most of the significant actions of actual climbing, the finger-forearm muscles are not really isometric -- They do move).

Explanation: The contraction of the muscles driving the shoulder + elbow + wrist articulations while jackhammering is not isometric, and does really include some motion,
because of classic old-fashioned physics:

(a) Forces always come in opposing pairs: Since the jackhammer is exerting a positive downward Force on the concrete, it must also be exerting a non-zero Force upward on the user's arms.

(b) Force = Mass * Acceleration. So if there's non-zero Force on an not-fully-constrained object of not-super-large mass (such as a human hand or human forearm) then that object must have a non-zero Acceleration. Therefore either before or after the Force is applied, the human hand and human forearm must be have a non-zero motion.
Not isometric.

Same argument applies to using the finger+forearm muscles in most significant actions of Climbing.

Ken