capacity vs utilization training, for climbers

Hey all,

I am looking for help understanding the concepts of capacity and utilization training as they apply to climbing. My main understanding of the terms comes from Training for the Uphill Athlete. There is an article about it here: https://uphillathlete.com/aerobic-training/capacity-training-vs-utilization-training/..

That article and book do a great job of laying out the theory of the terms. I feel like I understand what capacity and utilization training mean for endurance activities, but I am having trouble with applying the concepts to rock climbing, which is a strength based activity for single pitch climbing. 

So, what are some examples of capacity and utilization training for climbing? If capacity training happens at zone 2 heart rate for endurance sports, it feels like this roughly equates to light power endurance work from a climbing perspective. Should climbers be doing tons of climbing at a medium level pump, then switch to polarized training to prep for prime climbing season? This is a bit opposite of many training plans I've seen, which tend to start out with rather polarized training at top it off with power endurance at the end. 

I would appreciate any insights, because I am having a hard time reconciling these concepts with my background in climbing training.

Mapping them isn't exact, but here's my best effort:

Strength and endurance would be 2 types of capacity. Hangboarding and pullups for strength, and ARCing and volume days for endurance.
Power and power endurance would be utilization. Campusing and limit bouldering for power, 4x4s and feet-on-campusing for power endurance.

Climbing at a "medium pump" is probably well into zone 3 equivalent and somewhere between capacity and utilization. In endurance sports that training effort level is often used minmially except for event-specific training.

Unless your climbing goals involve sustaining a medium level of pump, it's likely not an efficient zone to train at much, other than for the purpose of developing movement skills while moderately pumped.

if i were to summarize it briefly, based on my experiences with uphillathlete, RPTM, TFC, etc,  i would say the uphillathlete stuff will help you improve at hiking, but not really climbing (unless you are talking about long easy scrambles).  the muscles/limitations/skills/etc are so different between these two things (climbing and hiking) that there really isn't much crossover between the two.

but getting back to what the word salad (i mean article) was about.  it sounds like they describing ARC'ing for climbing capacity, and pretty much everything else (stregth, power, power endurance) for climbing utilization.

i would disagree with the constant medium pump concept.  sounds like a lot of garbage mileage to me - not hard enough to get stronger, not easy enough to be good aerobic training, probably overuse injury potential, and probably a ton of un-focused time to develop bad habits/technique.

Thanks for the ideas. Austin, I like the idea of breaking it into endurance and strength, then looking at how to apply the capacity/utilization concept to each. 

To both Austin and Slim, it sounds like you are reiterating the common wisdom of an overall fairly polarized training plan, where time is spent on easyish climbing (ARC) or high quality, low volume difficult work (limit boulder, max strength). I'm just curious whether this ends up leaving gains on the table due to lack of what would be called capacity training. 

I'm also very open to the possibility that the capacity/utilization concept isn't useful for climbing, or isn't as applicable as it is to endurance sports. 

Why don't you think ARCing is capacity training from an endurance sports aspect? Because I'm pretty sure it is.

Endurance is most efficiently trained at what seems like a ridiculously low intensity level until you get used to it.

Tony Yaniro summed it up pretty well for climbers: "If you have no power, there is nothing to endure."

I'll generalize for the sake of brevity and clarity. The capacity is power and the utilization is power endurance. To build power you first need some strength, and to build power endurance you also need some endurance.

Old school climbing periodization plans map to endurance training reasonably similarly. ARC is the same thing as capacity training from an endurance sport perspective. The goals are the same, stated quite literally in the name: "aerobic restoration and capillarity." Zone 2 is the high end of the aerobic zone, which is why most endurance training plans call for most work to happen in zone 1 or 2. (Being able to train effectively in zone 2 can take years to develop; most folks will need to train in zone 1.)

If you read the Anderson brothers, you'll see that they recommend starting a training cycle with ARC to ease back into it and do some base building. Then you do hangboarding to build strength 2-3 days a week. All remaining climbing time is spent on ARC. This is similar to what Johnston & House recommend: weight training a couple days a week and zone 1 hiking/running.

Next comes a power phase with bouldering/campusing, and ARC outside of those days. That's not so different from zone 1 work with some days reserved for sprinting. Finally, you conclude with power endurance work before you should be in peak sending shape. Similarly, an endurance plan often has a sharpening phase into the taper where you finally do some training at "race pace" (zone 3/4), since that's the speed you'll actually be trying to go--sustained effort faster than aerobic but slower than sprinting.

There's lots of ways to periodize, so this clearly isn't the only way to get results. The bigger point Johnston/House make in much of their writing (and the specific aim of this piece) is that you won't maximize potential improvement without all the preceding capacity work. For many folks, they just go straight to utilization training (for a variety of reasons). They spend 4 to 6 weeks running at moderately high intensity (zone 3/4) cause it "feels like work" and then do a trail race or whatever. Most folks can usually only get 4 to 6 weeks of improvement with utilization work, so they make some improvement, but this doesn't set them up for future gains since they haven't actually built capacity.

The same is true for climbers. Tons of folks train for that roadtrip they've got coming up by starting 4 to 6 weeks out. Maybe they do a couple hangboard sessions, then they campus or boulder a bunch. But they don't rest enough between sets or pick difficult enough moves/problems (cause you don't get the satisfaction of sending then). Finally, they do a couple weeks of 4x4s (or whatever other power endurance they favor, maybe hard-ish sport routes in the gym). This all actually amounts to a single power endurance block. It's utilization work. Fine for sharpening up before a trip, but doesn't build capacity for sustained long-term gains. For that you need some ARC, dedicated hangboarding, proper power training, etc.

To me the lesson is starting sooner, being consistent, and working for smaller progressive improvement that builds to something bigger.

Derek DeBruin wrote:

Tony Yaniro summed it up pretty well for climbers: "If you have no power, there is nothing to endure."

This sums it up in a nutshell.  When you are hiking, you just don't run into a "hiking move" that you can't do.  Your legs are strong enough and the hiking easy enough that this just isn't really a situation worth worrying about (hence why the majority of alpine/mountaineering training is centered around endurance training).

Climbing is very different - you are constantly running into situations where you aren't strong enough, and/or you don't have the technique dialed.  Sure, there are exceptions to this (long steep enduro routes, long pumping crack routes), but in general if a climber is strong enough to do the moves they can usually bump up their endurance pretty quickly and/or get more dialed on the route. 

slim wrote:

This sums it up in a nutshell.  When you are hiking, you just don't run into a "hiking move" that you can't do.  Your legs are strong enough and the hiking easy enough that this just isn't really a situation worth worrying about (hence why the majority of alpine/mountaineering training is centered around endurance training).

Agreed. I meant to reply to one of your other posts earlier; I share your sentiment about Uphill Athlete. They're very endurance focused, which makes sense based on their collective background (nordic skiing, swimming, ultra running, alpine climbing, etc.) as well as their target market (largely folks who can afford guided trips up big non-technical/semi-technical peaks and can therefore afford a training plan/coach). That said, they also coach some high level athletes, including some alpine climbers. Some of their ice/mixed climbing workouts are pretty good.

Climbing is very different - you are constantly running into situations where you aren't strong enough, and/or you don't have the technique dialed.  Sure, there are exceptions to this (long steep enduro routes, long pumping crack routes), but in general if a climber is strong enough to do the moves they can usually bump up their endurance pretty quickly and/or get more dialed on the route. 

Personally, my biggest gripe is that in TFTNA they say you won't need to be cranking M10 on the mountain, so it's not worth doing at the crag as part of your training. All the pieces of how to train for alpinism are in the book, but they're implicitly saying the target audience doesn't require technical skills (despite the title to the contrary). Maybe you don't need to climb M10 at the crag, but if the routes you want to climb are technical alpinism and not mountaineering, then M10 sure gives you plenty of buffer for all that M6 R you're gonna encounter on a difficult peak.

For me personally, the tricky part is where the endurance and the technical climbing intersect. I try to keep a solid aerobic base year round and do intentional base building when needed. I insert the hard climbing training in its own block closer to big goals. Then it's okay if my aerobic performance slips a bit while I train several grades beyond the anticipated hardest crux on the goal route. But it's also a very small minority of people who operate at this intersection, and it really doesn't apply to sport climbing in its own right.

i would disagree with the constant medium pump concept.  sounds like a lot of garbage mileage to me - not hard enough to get stronger, not easy enough to be good aerobic training, probably overuse injury potential, and probably a ton of un-focused time to develop bad habits/technique.

Forgot to mention that for the "medium pump" I think that really depends on what folks are calling "medium" as well as how well trained they are in the first place. The "medium pump" could be akin to the top of zone 2--makes sense for well trained athletes, makes way less sense for folks with low training age/fitness. Eva Lopez talks about this a bit in a (power company?) podcast and I think on her website, with endurance training being a bit more pumpy for higher level climbers.

Derek DeBruin wrote:

Personally, my biggest gripe is that in TFTNA they say you won't need to be cranking M10 on the mountain, so it's not worth doing at the crag as part of your training. All the pieces of how to train for alpinism are in the book, but they're implicitly saying the target audience doesn't require technical skills (despite the title to the contrary). Maybe you don't need to climb M10 at the crag, but if the routes you want to climb are technical alpinism and not mountaineering, then M10 sure gives you plenty of buffer for all that M6 R you're gonna encounter on a difficult peak.

That's very well put.

I appreciate the replies and conversation. Austin, I was considering ARC as a bit lower intensity, like equivalent to the easier end of zone 1, but perhaps that's not an accurate assessment.

Derek, thanks for the insight, I will think on the points you bring up. I am also trying to figure out how my strength/cragging training and endurance training fit together. 

J C wrote:

Derek, thanks for the insight, I will think on the points you bring up. I am also trying to figure out how my strength/cragging training and endurance training fit together. 

Feel free to send a DM (or continue the conversation here) if you'd like. I'm certainly not a pro athlete or coach, but I've been training one way or another for 16 years or so and like to think I've learned a few things that at least have worked for me for big technical routes.

one question i have is whether everybody is on the same page in terms of which zone is which.  when you read various sources some call zone 1 the aerobic zone (ie 55%-75% MHR), but others call zone 1 a warmup zone and say that zone 2 is the aerobic zone.  IIRC TFTNA calls zone 1 the aerobic zone.

so let's say:

zone 1 is the aerobic zone (55%-75% MHR , big engine building)

zone 2 is the black hole zone - 75% to 80% MHR (where everybody who doesn't really understand training spends 90% of their time, because it "feels" like they are getting a good workout, but isn't difficult enough to do what they think they might be doing.)

zone 3 is upper aerobic (80% to 90%)

zone 4 is anaerobic (90% to 95% MHR)

zone 5 is 95% to MHR.

now the biggest question is what are your goals?  your goals should dictate your training, rather than just following random plans and hoping they somehow cross-pollenate.  take for example these heart rate zones above.  the only way these are going to be applicable to rock climbing is if you are trying to slab climb easy stuff as fast as you can with a heavy pack and a heart rate monitor on. obviously this sounds pretty silly (probably because it is).  

you hear people talking about climbing with a heart rate monitor on and using it to control their heart rate and blah blah blah on steep routes at the gym. this sounds great in theory but it's like comparing apples and lawn furniture.  it just doesn't work that way - it is just too easy for your heart rate to elevate without your forearms doing anything, and just too easy for you to have a low heart rate with your forearms about to explode.  you can just stand there chalking up, look up at the route, get nervous, and off to the races goes your heart.  on the other hand you can do a hangboard workout at near your limit and your heart not really elevate that much (definitely not anywhere near zone 4).

your heart just isn't that sensitive to the relatively small load of your forearms, combined with how quickly your forearms will just turn the valve off.  the heart rate zones are pretty much just relevant to big body muscles.  the reason your heart starts pumping a lot harder is because your legs keep demanding more and more, and don't really shut off the valve.

you're probably asking what makes me think i know so much, which is good question. my answer to this is that i have made all of these mistakes and spent time trying to make it work. it just doesn't.

now, on the other hand - if you are wanting to do big, all day types of routes the TFTNA stuff can be helpful.

While I agree with the discussion of TFTNA being mostly irrelevant to rock climbing, I do think the capacity/utilization framing has some general conceptual usefulness as a way to understand how to schedule training. Strength and aerobic base are clearly capacity work: take a long time to build, stick around for a while, and are the foundation of your physical climbing ability. You want to keep building these season over season. Power endurance is clearly utilization work: quick to train up, drops off quickly, can only take you so far if you are lacking the base capacity. 

Power is odd - it fits somewhere in the middle. If I had to choose one grouping I'd say its a bit closer to utilization. Since power is, from a climbing physiology standpoint, just the ability to apply your strength quickly. If you don't have the foundational strength (capacity), all the speed in the world can only take you so far. I think the waters get muddied a bit since the term "power" is overapplied in climbing, and climbers often describe a move as "powerful" when it is actually a slow, strength-dominated movement. Similarly, and lot of "power-endurance" is more accurately "strength endurance", if the movements are slow.  In real world movement it is all pretty hard to separate though, which I guess is a flaw in this capacity vs utilization framework.

There's an corollary you could build for technique development. A "technique capacity" which is the foundational movement skills, and a "technique utilization" which is the ability to put those skills to use on a specific sequence.  I.e. how good are you at toe-hooking generally, vs. getting really dialed in to the one toe hook on your project. These two can be somewhat independent of each other.  This is just a half-baked idea currently, but interesting to think about.

slim wrote:

now, on the other hand - if you are wanting to do big, all day types of routes the TFTNA stuff can be helpful.

This got me thinking in a related direction. It can be technical climbing and still be beneficial to have a big aerobic engine and general strength base. I think most folks don't appreciate how helpful it is to posses those attributes for long routes or walls. If you wanna climb el cap, the amount of endurance training goes down compared to walking up a glacier on Mount Baker, but it's still really helpful to have (ignoring technical and movement skill requirements).

Put differently, for anything more than a pitch off the ground, I think a solid base is still super helpful, it's just that progressively less time can be devoted to it the greater the specific climbing demands become (relative to one's existing climbing ability).