hypertrophy not important?

Ted Pinson wrote:Was going to say...Adam Ondra is the perfect counter example to hypertrophy!

Until you notice that he got bigger muscles...and then he got stronger...and until you see him get even bigger muscles...and get even stronger. Compare him to Dave Graham at the same age. Adam Ondra shows what fast twitch muscle is, and what it can do, even in modest quantities ;)

climbing friend,

how are you knowing that the recruitment muscular neural it plateaus after weeks, or at all?

I am seeing this on tubes internet multiple locations, but never with anything backing.

JNE wrote: Until you notice that he got bigger muscles...and then he got stronger...and until you see him get even bigger muscles...and get even stronger. Compare him to Dave Graham at the same age. Adam Ondra shows what fast twitch muscle is, and what it can do, even in modest quantities ;)

What?

I think the problem comes less from being able to potentially add more and larger nerves with corresponding impulses to back them up, and more from the fact that at some point it makes a lot more sense to just add more muscle (to specific places) with the desired fast/slow ratios, which while trainable/alterable is initially likely largely genetically determined.

Simply put, I think you begin to hit a limit on recruitment, and that can be best overcome by enlarging the needed muscles (as well as their opposites), and then going back to recruiting.

Lol Ted Pinson. He is a MONSTER!!!11111 Seriously, he must be able to generate some real numbers over short intervals. There is no other explanation which makes any sense.

Ted Pinson wrote: What?

All you can come up w/ is a more than 4 years old photo (of someone who's only in his early 20s present day)? Regardless, that frame, with the long arms can do a 1-arm pull up, and that's pretty impressive.

Seriously?

JNE, not sure if you're intending it, but really sounds like you're belittling the Anderson bros accomplishments and at the same time talking about how your hypertrophy training, which you haven't described at all, is great because you then sent a V11/12.

What athletes' programs are the Anderson bros claiming to replace, by the way?

I just sense a lot of attitude coming from them with respect to proving themselves while simultaneously doing everything possible to discredit others. Plus the fact that they all but put some kind of patent on periodizing with respect to climbing just kind of rubs me wrong because it deters meaningful progress in that arena which does not give credence to their ideas, namely the ideas of staying ultra light and low-calorie and that strength/power can be indefinitely gained without adding mass. Thus I think they miss the forest for the trees with respect to building genuine top end athletes since they only concentrate on forearm hypertrophy. For example, did it ever occur to them that perhaps climbers biceps not getting bigger is a function of their lack of triceps, and that these climbers bodies are protecting themselves? And further that, by doing hypertrophy on their triceps, that they will unlock more potential in their biceps? Do they seriously believe that any climber, considering they sought to gain larger diameter arms, would not climb better? Sorry, this is just a big, big, big part of athletics at a certain point (strategically using hypertrophy to build the body in a certain and pre-defined way), which is the point at which anyones innate genetics are out of steam, and they missed it entirely. I still think their program is good, it just needs to be modified to fit standard protocols of athletics and what I understand periodizing to be, which is a muscle growth block followed by conversion/training blocks.

Yes, I used this to grow my body stronger so I could get up increasingly powerful and difficult crack climbs when there were very few powerful cracks around to practice on. This was also the approach taken by Bob Scarpelli with respect to using something else to get good at crack climbing. While our approaches differed, they were similar in that they used hypertrophy to achieve bigger muscles specifically to be used pushing new standards of difficulty with respect to the available training equipment and available climbs.

Lastly, I am just proud of that v11/12 because it is a tiny crimp problem and I always sucked at those: my focus was always on building and recruiting muscle using large holds and large movements.

JNE wrote:I just sense a lot of attitude coming from them with respect to proving themselves while simultaneously doing everything possible to discredit others.

Ha! Funny, that's exactly what I sense from you.

JNE wrote:Plus the fact that they all but put some kind of patent on periodizing with respect to climbing just kind of rubs me wrong because it deters meaningful progress in that arena which does not give credence to their ideas, namely the ideas of staying ultra light and low-calorie and that strength/power can be indefinitely gained without adding mass. Thus I think they miss the forest for the trees with respect to building genuine top end athletes since they only concentrate on forearm hypertrophy. For example, did it ever occur to them that perhaps climbers biceps not getting bigger is a function of their lack of triceps, and that these climbers bodies are protecting themselves? And further that, by doing hypertrophy on their triceps, that they will unlock more potential in their biceps? Do they seriously believe that any climber, considering they sought to gain larger diameter arms, would not climb better?

Having read this thread, then returned to the Anderson book while buffing up before planning another cycle, let me try to pull some ideas out of this.

First, your feelings on their "patenting" aside, are you saying that their emphasis is on staying 1) ultra-light/low-cal, and 2) creating perpetual strength gains without added mass?

If that's the case then I think you've misunderstood them. As Aikibujin points out, they're all-in when it comes to hypertrophy in the forearms, saying that whatever mass you add to the tiny forearm flexors is heavily outweighed by the benefits in finger strength.

Furthermore, I think they'd agree that small triceps might be limiting bicep development, to which I think their answer is. "So what...?" Their extreme emphasis on forearm strength is repeatedly stressed in sidebars and the main body of their book because they're small muscles who's relative gains in mass are so beneficial to climbing strength, that the compromise of gained mass is kinda a no-brainer. I think the point they make in avoiding large-muscle hypertrophy is that they play a relatively small roll in climbing ability (assuming some base level), but hypertrophy of the entire lower body, and larger groups like the biceps are not as directly and strongly beneficial to climbing ability, which is why it's best to train those muscle well rather than big. Adam Ondra is a case for this. Even in Ted's picture, you can see that his forearms have a larger cross-section than his biceps, which speaks to their relative use in climbing.

However, I'd argue that even Ondra is no exclusion to gaining some mass. He's obviously a very small-framed athlete, but this picture shows he's not exactly slim as can be either. That said, he accomplishes a lot with a small frame, and not that much added muscle, which still lends credence to the Anderson's approach. This is also a much more recent picture (from his ascent of Robin Ud (5.15b).


Finally, I don't think the Anderson's stress being ultra-light/low-cal above anything else. They themselves state that you should seek to minimize your strength to weight ratio, but definitely don't encourage this as a longterm method of improvement, and stipulate that calorie restriction is not beneficial during most phases of training. Rather they encourage healthy, sufficient if not slightly extra eating for most of a macro-cycle, with an attempt to minimize useless/excess weight towards the performance phase because this periodic and minor slimming is sustainable, whereas staying super-light at all times isn't sustainable or conducive to training.

Don't take this as a rebuttal or an attempt to prove you wrong. I'm more interested in defending their approach where possible, and finding where it's deficient, as it's been the basis for most of my training, which could always benefit from some enlightened tweaking.

Did you mean maximizing strength:weight? Anyways, if hyper-trophy were essential, Adam Ondra would look like Aleks Zebastian.

Mark is pretty active around here:

mountainproject.com/u/monom…

It wouldn't surprise me to see him weigh in, and it also wouldn't surprise me if he ignored this

Brian Abram wrote:Mark is pretty active around here: mountainproject.com/u/monom…

I'd say he was: he hasn't posted since June and not in the training forum since April. On the other hand, he's made about as many posts on his own site than he ever has on mp.com. I don't blame him one bit though, especially w/ the amount of BS rolling around here.

Brendan Blanchard wrote:As Aikibujin points out, they're all-in when it comes to hypertrophy in the forearms, saying that whatever mass you add to the tiny forearm flexors is heavily outweighed by the benefits in finger strength.

Just FYI, I am aware they encourage forearm hypertrophy, and forearm hypertrophy only.

Brendan Blanchard wrote:Furthermore, I think they'd agree that small triceps might be limiting bicep development, to which I think their answer is. "So what...?" Their extreme emphasis on forearm strength is repeatedly stressed in sidebars and the main body of their book because they're small muscles who's relative gains in mass are so beneficial to climbing strength, that the compromise of gained mass is kinda a no-brainer.

You misunderstand the way the arm works. The triceps being small will limit pulling recruitment in the bicep since the bicep then gets partially used for stabilizing the arm (which is inefficient and leads to biceps tendonitis), and thus the same logic they apply to the forearm is equally applicable to the bicep/triceps: a little bit of mass added to the triceps has a huge impact on the recruitment of the bicep, and thus the anount of available pulling and lockoff power.

Brendan Blanchard wrote:I think the point they make in avoiding large-muscle hypertrophy is that they play a relatively small roll in climbing ability (assuming some base level), but hypertrophy of the entire lower body, and larger groups like the biceps are not as directly and strongly beneficial to climbing ability, which is why it's best to train those muscle well rather than big.

They say this because top climbers have smaller arms compared to other athletes, and yet still climb hard. Thus, using a sample of climbers with little triceps development, they concluded that the whole upper arm is not highly used in climbing. Sure, triceps are NOT directly used, however, this in no way means that these climbers biceps would not grow larger solely from climbing if all they did was some work on their triceps, and it also does NOT mean that the outcome would be something besides an increase in arm power specifically for climbing. Also, I think they confuse arm strength with arm power here: someone with great arm power can still have low strength and yet still climb well, and I believe this has confused them and their data in that they observed people with great arm power and little strength and then concluded mass on the arms does not help climbing. I think instead the less obvious conclusion is adding a bunch of slow-twitch muscle anywhere does not help climbing, including on the arms. The muscle must be built, and then recruited...

Brendan Blanchard wrote:Adam Ondra is a case for this. Even in Ted's picture, you can see that his forearms have a larger cross-section than his biceps, which speaks to their relative use in climbing. However, I'd argue that even Ondra is no exclusion to gaining some mass. He's obviously a very small-framed athlete, but this picture shows he's not exactly slim as can be either. That said, he accomplishes a lot with a small frame, and not that much added muscle, which still lends credence to the Anderson's approach.

No, by common thinking (which the Andersons do not differ from) guys like Ondra climb the way they do by some kind of bullshit and magic (or just unexplained causes), not by virtue of a high ratio of fast twitch muscle. Also, they think one should seek to maintain weight and increase recruitment, not increase weight (in the climbing muscles and the muscles which balance them) and also increase recruitment, which is what I and others recommend.

Brendan Blanchard wrote:Finally, I don't think the Anderson's stress being ultra-light/low-cal above anything else. They themselves state that you should seek to minimize your strength to weight ratio, but definitely don't encourage this as a longterm method of improvement, and stipulate that calorie restriction is not beneficial during most phases of training. Rather they encourage healthy, sufficient if not slightly extra eating for most of a macro-cycle, with an attempt to minimize useless/excess weight towards the performance phase because this periodic and minor slimming is sustainable, whereas staying super-light at all times isn't sustainable or conducive to training. Don't take this as a rebuttal or an attempt to prove you wrong. I'm more interested in defending their approach where possible, and finding where it's deficient, as it's been the basis for most of my training, which could always benefit from some enlightened tweaking.

Absolutely, they recommend eating well and having a healthy diet. However, they firmly maintain that adding any kind of weight should be viewed as a negative, which I just think is wrong. Thus I think adding to their approach some hypertrophy in certain places (in the hypertrophy phase along with the forearms) in addition to strategically raising the metabolism will yield better and healthier results, both physically as well as psychologically.

Good discussion BTW and thanks.

JNE wrote: They say this because top climbers have smaller arms compared to other athletes, and yet still climb hard. Thus, using a sample of climbers with little triceps development, they concluded that the whole upper arm is not highly used in climbing. Sure, triceps are NOT directly used, however, this in no way means that these climbers biceps would not grow larger solely from climbing if all they did was some work on their triceps, and it also does NOT mean that the outcome would be something besides an increase in arm power specifically for climbing. Also, I think they confuse arm strength with arm power here: someone with great arm power can still have low strength and yet still climb well, and I believe this has confused them and their data in that they observed people with great arm power and little strength and then concluded mass on the arms does not help climbing. I think instead the less obvious conclusion is adding a bunch of slow-twitch muscle anywhere does not help climbing, including on the arms. The muscle must be built, and then recruited...

Interesting, leaving aside possible power/strength confusion, I see the value of *some* tricep/upper arm work, but I'm not sure that undermines their general lack of interest in specifically seeking to train these muscles, especially when looking at their book's audience, which I assume to be mostly 5.10-11 weekend warriors, who hit the gym 1-2 times a week, but are looking to hit 5.12 and beyond. They do outline some exercises (dips, inverted rows, etc) that work these apart from finger strength (and more here ), but still place their focus on the fingers, since you're still more likely to run into problems on that end, rather than general arm or shoulder fatigue or failure. I think what I'm hearing in terms of training triceps/biceps/semi-related muscles is that a little will go a long way, without much compromise to one's strength:weight ratio. It certainly means that most climbers should be doing some general arm training, especially since any general muscle balance work will likely increase overall fitness and decrease the likelihood of joint injury.

I still think this is why the Andersons focus on the fingers so much. Though there could be pulling-power gains that come from hypertrophy of the triceps/biceps and other upper-arm groups, the question becomes one of necessity. If these groups aren't feeling strongly worked during redpoints, and any fatigue (distraction, shaking, imbalance etc) they do exhibit doesn't interfere with one's ability to hit and latch holds, then they're not interfering with your max-redpoint ability, as the weakest link to the rock is still the fingers. I think you've convinced me that there's some easy gains to be had in a little supplementary work, but not that focused and repeated training of these muscles is necessary for climbing performance to improve. Perhaps they are quick to shake off small gains in other pull muscles when it increases weight, but I don't think their focus on the fingers is misplaced either.

Perhaps a good deal of their weight aversion comes from being athletes in a cardio/endurance background (running+cycling history for both I believe). If one began climbing from a pretty lean base weight, I can imagine it being hard to imagine adding to that, and not having an effect on performance. That goes back to necessity again, however. If they're not struggling in those muscle groups, there's not a strong reason to train them unless proven otherwise, especially if it results in weight gain, which has obvious, proved downsides. This would only manifest itself in specific movements like lock-offs and other arm-strong motions, however. Perhaps their sampling of elite climbers and serious trainers doesn't given adequate evidence towards this, or perhaps they're right. I think that's something for improved clinical study or self-observation. I can say I feel better as a climber when I'm well-balanced and not just training fingers, but I'm not sure I can point to a specific redpoint or hard OS/flash and flat-out say it wouldn't have happened without X background/general training that I've done this past cycle. I'd be very curious if anyone can give some example the contrary however?

For one, I think the Andersons audience is the climbers with slower metabolisms and a relative lack of fast twitch muscle. Thus as a result their focus on not putting on unnecessary weight is spot on as people with slower metabolisms will put on either muscle or fat with less prompting than someone with a high ratio of fast twitch muscle (unless the fast twitch muscle person can also simultaneously significantly increase their metabolism). Thus they need to be extra conscientious about where they put on weight, and also about really taking time to put extra training time on any mass they do put on. Thus I think the Andersons offer generally good advice to these people in focusing on lower rep ranges and higher weight. Nonetheless, I think some very carefully thought out and strategic hypertrophy, followed by longer periods of recruiting or otherwise training the muscles, is the solution to how to get stronger regardless of ones body type. Yes, fingers and so forearms are the most important, but I think it is good to work the whole chain and especially to keep the whole chain in balance. I also think the best way to get hypertrophy overall for climbing is by climbing challenges which innately fall in this range in terms of intensity/time.

The next time you eat or are around meat, think about how much stronger any given muscle group would be if it had that much more mass on it, then consider how much harder your fingers would have to be to yank yourself plus that extra mass up the wall. 2-5 lbs of muscle would go a long way, especially if it is then recruited. The important part is to keep the hypertrophy range counts off the torso and other body parts.

Brendan Blanchard wrote: especially when looking at their book's audience, which I assume to be mostly 5.10-11 weekend warriors, who hit the gym 1-2 times a week, but are looking to hit 5.12 and beyond.

I've no idea where you got that impression from, given the Anderson bros were stuck at 5.12- before they started regimented training.

Brendan Blanchard wrote: They do outline some exercises (dips, inverted rows, etc) that work these apart from finger strength, but still place their focus on the fingers, since you're still more likely to run into problems on that end, rather than general arm or shoulder fatigue or failure.

The problem I see from a lot of people isn't necessarily (or just) a lack of strength, than it's the matter of know how to use them. Read Peter Beal's review on RCTM. There are plenty I disagree with Peter, but his review summarizes my sentiment on RCTM pretty well. Although to be fair, there is a lot more practicing than training in bouldering.

Brendan Blanchard wrote: Perhaps a good deal of their weight aversion comes from being athletes in a cardio/endurance background (running+cycling history for both I believe).

One of the Anderson is in the military, and I'm sure he did plenty of upper body/core exercises. IMO, they focus on the fingers because 1) the type of climbing they are interested in 2) physically they are plenty strong already 3) it's a simple yet effective approach for a lot of people.

But if all you got are strong fingers, you will be exposed in plenty of ways.

reboot wrote: I've no idea where you got that impression from, given the Anderson bros were stuck at 5.12- before they started regimented training. The problem I see from a lot of people isn't necessarily (or just) a lack of strength, than it's the matter of know how to use them. Read Peter Beal's review on RCTM. There are plenty I disagree with Peter, but his review summarizes my sentiment on RCTM pretty well. Although to be fair, there is a lot more practicing than training in bouldering. One of the Anderson is in the military, and I'm sure he did plenty of upper body/core exercises. IMO, they focus on the fingers because 1) the type of climbing they are interested in 2) physically they are plenty strong already 3) it's a simple yet effective approach for a lot of people. But if all you got are strong fingers, you will be exposed in plenty of ways.

"There are plenty I disagree with Peter, but his review summarizes my sentiment on RCTM pretty well. Although to be fair, there is a lot more practicing than training in bouldering."

Hahaha! You know I am right about all things training! :)

reboot wrote: I've no idea where you got that impression from, given the Anderson bros were stuck at 5.12- before they started regimented training.

Well, I believe Mark has blogged a good amount about how he hovered around 11a for a good deal of time as he suffered and recovered from multiple injuries due to not training and just climbing, but more importantly, there's a chart on page 13 of the RCTM that shows their 8+ years of training, plotted over time, and shows one starting just below 11a, and the other just above, so I think that's pretty authoritative.

My assumption of their target audience is that 5.10-11 is very achievable for most without training, which is why plenty in that range will begin to pursue training as a way to improve, assuming that weekend cragging, and an unfocused day or two in the gym per week aren't enough to progress. I could be wrong of course, but that's always been how I view it, though their book is obviously useful to many on either side of that spectrum (Siegrist, Caldwell, Classen etc.).

I do however agree that there is a lack of application for the RCTM to bouldering, but that's not overly surprising, given their strong focus on project-oriented redpointing. Kris Hampton/PCC has addressed that in the past, arguing for something more akin to just power and strength training, accompanied by high mileage training like ARCing is best to improve for bouldering. Though this leaves the middle ground of power endurance completely untrained, he seems to think there isn't much lost benefit for bouldering, which could be true as long as you're not trying to do the most recent RMNP Wheel of [Something].

As for movement and micro-beta refinement like Peter mentions, I'd agree that RCTM doesn't focus on this, but they also mention that those looking for more in-depth writing on that should look towards other texts like The Self Coached Climber (pg. 44 of RCTM).

I think the book does well for those who aim to climb like the Andersons (short-term sport projecting in the US, with limited time/investment/freedom etc), and they hit the major points and lay out effective plans, but that's not to say they covered everything as effectively as possible.

Brendan Blanchard wrote: Well, I believe Mark has blogged a good amount about how he hovered around 11a for a good deal of time as he suffered and recovered from multiple injuries due to not training and just climbing, but more importantly, there's a chart on page 13 of the RCTM that shows their 8+ years of training, plotted over time, and shows one starting just below 11a, and the other just above, so I think that's pretty authoritative. My assumption of their target audience is that 5.10-11 is very achievable for most without training, which is why plenty in that range will begin to pursue training as a way to improve, assuming that weekend cragging, and an unfocused day or two in the gym per week aren't enough to progress. I could be wrong of course, but that's always been how I view it, though their book is obviously useful to many on either side of that spectrum (Siegrist, Caldwell, Classen etc.). I do however agree that there is a lack of application for the RCTM to bouldering, but that's not overly surprising, given their strong focus on project-oriented redpointing. Kris Hampton/PCC has addressed that in the past, arguing for something more akin to just power and strength training, accompanied by high mileage training like ARCing is best to improve for bouldering. Though this leaves the middle ground of power endurance completely untrained, he seems to think there isn't much lost benefit for bouldering, which could be true as long as you're not trying to do the most recent RMNP Wheel of [Something]. As for movement and micro-beta refinement like Peter mentions, I'd agree that RCTM doesn't focus on this, but they also mention that those looking for more in-depth writing on that should look towards other texts like The Self Coached Climber (pg. 44 of RCTM). I think the book does well for those who aim to climb like the Andersons (short-term sport projecting in the US, with limited time/investment/freedom etc), and they hit the major points and lay out effective plans, but that's not to say they covered everything as effectively as possible.

"though their book is obviously useful to many on either side of that spectrum (Siegrist, Caldwell, Classen etc.)."

Brendan,
The individuals you mention here are probably not the best to cite regarding the effectiveness of the Anderson method as all were solid 14 or 14+ climbers before trying it out. To my knowledge, Jonathan Siegrist, whom I know fairly well, is no longer training that way.

I would be interested to hear from less-well known climbers who have actually gone from say mid-12 to 14 in a relatively short time following the RCTM method. My guess is not many but I would like to hear more success stories about this.

Regarding bouldering training, the bottom line is always how strong your fingers are so there's no doubt that hangboarding can help. However as I mentioned in my review the one-dimensionality of that training method can be problematic when dealing with anything that isn't sustained crimps on a flat wall