Hangboarding with Offset Holds

I've heard (anecdotally) from climbers much stronger and more current on training trends than I, that hang boarding with offset holds is more beneficial. The Beastmaker app often requires you to hangboard with each hand on a different type of hold at different heights. The thinking is that this more accurately resembles actual climbing and simultaneously trains lock-off strength. My thought is that it might water down the hypertrophy element of the workout.

I haven't seen anything from any of the common authorities (Anderson Bros., Eva Lopez, etc.). Wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this. 

My thought is that this may be beneficial at elite levels, when an athlete is trying to eke out whatever minimal gains are still available; ultimately, a linear approach to progression will cease to produce results, and more complex training methods are necessary. However, for the vast majority of climbers (well into the high grades) I think a more traditional, linear approach to the board will yield more consistent results. 

Regarding the rationale that this more closely resembles climbing, I don't think that this is very sound. The hangboard is meant to train fingers in isolation. If you want to train in a way that more closely resembles climbing, just go climbing. I agree with your thought that doing this waters down the primary aim of hangboard training, and is likely not a very useful approach for training pure finger strength. 

Back before they started selling a (non-offset) fingerboard of their own, the "Gimme Kraft" authors said in their book to always train hangs with a substantial vertical offset between hands -- because then you're training lock-off at the same time you train fingers.

Ken

kenr wrote:

Back before they started selling a (non-offset) fingerboard of their own, the "Gimme Kraft" authors said in their book to always train hangs with a substantial vertical offset between hands -- because then you're training lock-off at the same time you train fingers.

Ken

Ken,

Is that in gimmekraft or another book of theirs?

It's in the book "Gimme Kraft" under the section on Campus board.

Because for those of us who think that doing hangs is mainly a matter of developing strength, not making our grips match specific climbing moves, the simple wooden rungs of a campus board are a convenient place to find vertically offset holds for hanging.

. . (note that the book "Gimme Kraft" does not have a section about fingerboard training).

Ken

I don't think most hangboards are tall enough for the type of offset you encounter in actual climbing, a campus board is much better. That said, I doubt you are training lockoffs if you hang straight-armed w/ your top hand, as actual lockoffs are 1 handed w/ bent arm (unless it's more of a gaston), whereas for offset hangs, your higher hand will loaded a lot more. Even more, IMO, static offset hangs are of limited value, as the primary difficulty with vertically offset holds is not hanging, but to move off of them. I recommend either do some pullups w/ offset holds, or at the very least, lockoff at the top of pull.

reboot wrote:

I don't think most hangboards are tall enough for the type of offset you encounter in actual climbing, a campus board is much better. That said, I doubt you are training lockoffs if you hang straight-armed w/ your top hand, as actual lockoffs are 1 handed w/ bent arm (unless it's more of a gaston), whereas for offset hangs, your higher hand will loaded a lot more. Even more, IMO, static offset hangs are of limited value, as the primary difficulty with vertically offset holds is not hanging, but to move off of them. I recommend either do some pullups w/ offset holds, or at the very least, lockoff at the top of pull.

Hey Reboot,

I actually bought this: https://www.atomikclimbingholds.com/the-pull-pack-wood-version-boards-and-holds-included so it's quite easy to offset the holds (I just hang them of slings of different lengths from a bar). I agree on a hangboard, where the vertical differential is only a few inches, it probably doesn't make sense. With the Pull boards though, I can offset them as much as I like. I tried it last night and it's a little strange. I agree that it didn't really feel like it was training lockoffs. Instead, it felt like one arm supported hang boarding. With that said, if anyone is interested, I do find that doing repeaters on the Pulls board (or anything similar that is free hanging like rock rings) and using the MobilityWOD recommendation of keeping your feet in front of you (as opposed to crossed behind you) gives you a solid core workout simultaneously. I also think it forces me to maintain better form while performing the hangs. 

Xan Calonne wrote:

My thought is that this may be beneficial at elite levels, when an athlete is trying to eke out whatever minimal gains are still available; ultimately, a linear approach to progression will cease to produce results, and more complex training methods are necessary. However, for the vast majority of climbers (well into the high grades) I think a more traditional, linear approach to the board will yield more consistent results. 

Regarding the rationale that this more closely resembles climbing, I don't think that this is very sound. The hangboard is meant to train fingers in isolation. If you want to train in a way that more closely resembles climbing, just go climbing. I agree with your thought that doing this waters down the primary aim of hangboard training, and is likely not a very useful approach for training pure finger strength. 

This.

If you want to train lock-offs (big muscles), train lock-offs.  If you want to train finger strength/recruitment (small muscles, connective tissues), train finger strength.

Seems to me if you try to train both at the same time, you won't maximize the training effect for either.

So, there was very similar thread started by Mark Dixon a couple of years back, maybe he can chime in on what he found out.

IME, at the more elite level, the difficulty shifts away from being able to dead hang off of holds and much more to being able to execute moves off of bad holds. Whether or not lock-off and finger strength are better trained separately (at the very least, bad holds are much less forgiving of suboptimal body position), it's less and less clear that dead hanging by itself is the best way to train functional finger strength.

reboot wrote:

it's less and less clear that dead hanging by itself is the best way to train functional finger strength.

Yes I suspect that's why the Gimme Kraft book did not have a fingerboard section.

But the reality is that lots of climbers do not have access to good training facilities regularly - (though just being a member of a bouldering gym with outdoor-relevant routesetting puts you way ahead of what top elite climbers had thirty years ago). So back then inventing the campus board was a bit step forward - (and nowadays seems limited and simplistic).

Therefore lots of climbers want to have home access to a fingerboard. And so the Gimme Kraft team now sells a fingerboard.

Except for people who need to hang on statically while fiddling with placing Trad gear, the only good reason I can think of to train finger strength with static hangs is because it's reliably repeatedly _measurable_ in both Force-intensity and Range-of-Motion.

Ken

reboot wrote:

So, there was very similar thread started by Mark Dixon a couple of years back, maybe he can chime in on what he found out

In the earlier thread I mentioned two strategies- dead hangs while locking off and offset pull-ups on campus board.

I tried both. 

I felt like the lock offs were helpful, but not really a game changer. I did a 6 rep repeater series 7/3 or 6/4, can't remember which. First rep at full lock off, second rep at 90%, third rep full hang, then full lock, 90, full hang. 

I'd do it agaIn if I had unlimited time and recovery ability.

I also did offset pull-ups on the campus board. Didn't seem to make much progress, perhaps I'm not strong enough to really benefit from that. 

My sense is that working towards one arm pull-ups would be more useful as a pure strength exercise.

@Kenr- exactly what kind of grades are you climbing without doing any hang boarding? I realize there are people who can progress just by climbing, but I don't believe that's most of us, after you reach a certain point.

I'm a bit skeptical. The general point of training for climbing is to target specific elements in isolation so as to get the greatest gains for those specific elements, as opposed to just climbing, with will yield generic climbing benefits (and may also target specific elements so infrequently that they don't see much improvements, say ischio for heel-hooks if you have weaker legs, or core muscles if you do mostly face climbing etc.

I would be tempted to say that real improvements in lock-off would be better improved by training that in isolation, maybe even by weight-lifting for specific muscle groups. Then train finger strength separately. Combining them both seems like it would mostly be good to get fast, smaller benefits to both, as opposed to spending more time training but reaping larger benefits in each...

I’ve enjoyed this thread since I often thought that I’m the only person who uses a hangboard to do chin-ups. I have a nice home gym primarily for weight-lifting, an activity that long preceded my starting to climb. After I started climbing, I added more pulling exercises to my routine, e.g., chin-ups, bent-over rowing. When hangboards first came out, I bought one. I discovered that just hanging bored me (tedious like stretching or yoga). So, I started using it to do finger tip chin-ups. I have no idea whether this is better than the recommendations to hang. I assumed since all the advice for hangboards was to use them statically, just hanging would be more effective in developing finger strength, but I found that to be too unpleasant even if it made for better climbing performance. Anyway, nice to see here that there are other climbers who use the board to do chin-ups.

Incidentally, I don’t do the hangboard exercises in isolation. They’re included in my general weight lifting routine.

Rob.calm

reboot wrote:

IME, at the more elite level, the difficulty shifts away from being able to dead hang off of holds and much more to being able to execute moves off of bad holds. Whether or not lock-off and finger strength are better trained separately (at the very least, bad holds are much less forgiving of suboptimal body position), it's less and less clear that dead hanging by itself is the best way to train functional finger strength.

I would argue that at all levels (not just at the elite level) climbing is about moving from one hold to another. While I agree that just because you can hold on to something doesn't mean you can move off of it, but if you can't hang on, then it's 100% guaranteed that you cannot make any move off of a hold. Therefore, hanging on a hold is a pre-requisite to executing a move. So the question is: if dead hanging is not the best training for hanging on, then what is?

aikibujin wrote:

I would argue that at all levels (not just at the elite level) climbing is about moving from one hold to another. While I agree that just because you can hold on to something doesn't mean you can move off of it, but if you can't hang on, then it's 100% guaranteed that you cannot make any move off of a hold. Therefore, hanging on a hold is a pre-requisite to executing a move. So the question is: if dead hanging is not the best training for hanging on, then what is?

Interesting point. I tend to think that if what I want to train is actual movement, climbing itself (perhaps geared in a specific style) is the best way to do it. Or sets of holds of different types on a overhang, and then repeat that movement. IMO the point of that exercise would be (a little) to increase strenght yes, but mostly to better learn the movements (so kinesthetic learning). And agree that I can hold statically on holds I couldn't do a move on, but perhaps one day I will be able to, etc..

Somewhat related - when you pull on something, you're not only working tendons, you're working tendons and pull-related muscles (like biceps and/or triceps depending on what whether you lower as well & how etc.). So my previous remark holds - if you want to work on pull muscles, why not do lifts/weight exercises specifically for those, and train tendons (hangs) separately. I like static hangs, and prefer campus if the point is to train longer reaches, dynamic moves, etc.

Franck Vee wrote:

Interesting point. I tend to think that if what I want to train is actual movement, climbing itself (perhaps geared in a specific style) is the best way to do it. 

I agree. I practice climbing while climbing, and then use specific exercises (on hangboard, gymnastic rings) for targeted strength training. My question was more directed at reboot on what he thinks is the best way to train for finger strength.

aikibujin wrote:

if you can't hang on, then it's 100% guaranteed that you cannot make any move off of a hold. Therefore, hanging on a hold is a pre-requisite to executing a move. So the question is: if dead hanging is not the best training for hanging on, then what is?

System Board.

If as you say, hanging on is a pre-requisite to executing a move, then practicing well-calculated repeatable moves on a system board must also train "hanging on". 

So then it combines training for "hanging on" with training for "making a move off a hold".

Therefore System Board training is superior to dead hanging.

Ken

kenr wrote:

System Board.

Have you seen Mark Dixon's question to you up thread? I would like to see it answered as well, but in a more direct way: what grades do you climb?

kenr wrote:

System Board.

If as you say, hanging on is a pre-requisite to executing a move, then practicing well-calculated repeatable moves on a system board must also train "hanging on". 

So then it combines training for "hanging on" with training for "making a move off a hold".

Therefore System Board training is superior to dead hanging.

Ken

I think there is an important distinction between training and practice. I would also say that hangboarding trains strength as opposed to "hanging on" vs "moving off of a hold." That strength is key both for hanging statically and moving off of a hold and also lays the foundation for any power you can develop. The loads I experience during a hangboard are usually far greater than the loads I experience statically hanging on any hold on a climb or problem. Using a system board (or more generally bouldering) is very sport specific and is great practice. but I feel like it waters down the strength aspect of training. 

Back to the OPs questions: I haven't heard a lot of people training on offset holds, but I have heard of people doing one arm hangs the idea being that you can achieve a much higher intensity. For me I can get plenty of intensity during hangboards hanging a moderate amount of weight off my harness on 2 hands 1 arm hangs were very hard on my shoulders.

will ar wrote:

The loads I experience during a hangboard are usually far greater than the loads I experience statically hanging on any hold on a climb or problem.

So what?
The comparison to the static hanging phase of a system-board move is not relevant. Because the peak loads in a system-board moves are in the dynamic phases of launching the move and then in latching.

I bet if the peak forces (in units of Newtons) during those phases were measured accurately, they would exceed the force (in units of Newtons) sustainable by the same climber statically on a fingerboard.

Therefore we can argue system board provides better training stress for developing strength of muscles and tendons for climbing.
. . . (just much trickier to measure that stress).

Ken

aikibujin wrote:

Have you seen Mark Dixon's question to you?

Yes, but I don't get the relevance.

Since I do regular training using static dead hangs.
. . (When I travel, I bring along my own portable fingerboard).

For the reason I gave earlier in this thread. And have explained carefully in at least one other thread on this forum in the last year. 

The fact that I'm not a stronger climber is not explained by a lack of hangboarding.

Ken