ARCing- treadwall vs autobelay

I realize it probably doesn’t matter at all, but does anybody have thoughts on the benefits of one over the other? I feel like I get a little sloppy on the treadwall as I get tired, and you can’t really rest (which is maybe a good thing?) but I like being able to control the amount of overhang. I’m totally over thinking and should just get the time in, right? 

I believe if you are truly ARCing you shouldn’t really be getting tired/pumped so I think if that is your goal you should opt for the auto belay.

Another quick consideration is your technique. If this is something you really want to focus on in this time on the wall, then you should make sure to consider this when choosing.

If you seem to be working in the same energy system in either auto belay/treadwall and technique is not a concern while completing this, then, yes you are likely overthinking it and you need to try them to see which works better for you.

Why can't you rest on the treadwall? 

Ryan McDermottwrote:

Why can't you rest on the treadwall? 

Depends on the Treadwall model and whether it's working correctly. Some will stop when you reach the bottom. Others will just spit you off if you are too slow.

For OP: big picture either is OK. Use whichever you have access to, whichever has better terrain (routes of appropriate difficulty), and otherwise whichever you prefer. The main important thing with ARCing is to get the intensity right (i.e. don't try too hard and get a flaming pump), and to get in consistent volume. 

Some dorks will point out that on an auto belay you get 20 seconds of rest as it lowers you, so it's not an optimal ARC stimulus. Big picture, this doesn't really matter. Just get the volume in, maintain a steady light pump.

My favorite ARC terrain, back when I used to ARC, was wandering around a big spray wall with 10, 25, and 40 degree overhang sections. Would modulate difficulty by feel to maintain the right light pump, by changing hold size and which angle to be on. That was pretty great. Don't have access to that wall/gym anymore.

I downclimb on the auto belays.  I often do more of a  30 minute “threshold” ARC session where I climb up harder routes and down easier ones, varying the intensity.  When I run out of autobelay routes I boulder up and down the bottom two bolts of lead routes.  

All modern Treadwall's from Treadwall fitness offer an auto stop feature which engages when the climber's feet reach the bottom of the wall. This aids in climbing cadence and resting while training. 

Other rotating walls from other vendors do not all work in this way, especially some of the fully motorized walls from companies who are no longer in business. The term Treadwall has come to be the de facto term for all rotating walls, but the IP belongs to Treadwall fitness. 

Hope this helps clarify. 

for whatever it's worth, arcing is complete bs. its only use is to impress other climbing bros. performance is hyperbolic and is something like over 99% predictive. to put it  more simply, everyone gets tired at the exact same rate, and their performance curve is ALWAYS the same (the differences from human to human are less than 1%). not just for humans, but birds and even crabs share the same curve. if you're a math person, they tested exponential, logarithmic and polynomial fits, but hyberbolic is mathematically the provable best. 

this does NOT mean that all humans have the same total capacity; this is obviously untrue. instead, it's relative. so you can climb at 100% for 10s but then climb at 90% for 2s. until it reaches about 25..30% where it seems people can do this almost indefinitely. as long as you push yourself, the discipline doesn't seem to matter. for some people, 100% is v4 and for others it's v12. but as a percentage, it's identical for all humans. arc is like yoga - it was just some made up bs some climbing bros thought would be funny. it wasn't meant to be a serious training regiment or methodology.

another paper published said that 80% effort seems to yield the same amount of improvement as 100%. but 60% did not yield any improvement. so if you don't try hard in some aspect, you'll not improve at all. this doesn't mean that at v5 you must try v4 at minimum. it does mean that if you do a v3, it's going to have to be for long enough that you're exhausted. choose the one that's more fun - imo the reason most people don't get better is either injury or burn out. giving 80% every time is very mentally demanding. the only sustainable way is to make it fun. if it starts to feel like work, most people will simply quit.

Dite Tebewrote:

for whatever it's worth, arcing is complete bs. its only use is to impress other climbing bros. performance is hyperbolic and is something like over 99% predictive. to put it  more simply, everyone gets tired at the exact same rate, and their performance curve is ALWAYS the same (the differences from human to human are less than 1%). not just for humans, but birds and even crabs share the same curve. if you're a math person, they tested exponential, logarithmic and polynomial fits, but hyberbolic is mathematically the provable best. 

this does NOT mean that all humans have the same total capacity; this is obviously untrue. instead, it's relative. so you can climb at 100% for 10s but then climb at 90% for 2s. until it reaches about 25..30% where it seems people can do this almost indefinitely. as long as you push yourself, the discipline doesn't seem to matter. for some people, 100% is v4 and for others it's v12. but as a percentage, it's identical for all humans. arc is like yoga - it was just some made up bs some climbing bros thought would be funny. it wasn't meant to be a serious training regiment or methodology.

another paper published said that 80% effort seems to yield the same amount of improvement as 100%. but 60% did not yield any improvement. so if you don't try hard in some aspect, you'll not improve at all. this doesn't mean that at v5 you must try v4 at minimum. it does mean that if you do a v3, it's going to have to be for long enough that you're exhausted. choose the one that's more fun - imo the reason most people don't get better is either injury or burn out. giving 80% every time is very mentally demanding. the only sustainable way is to make it fun. if it starts to feel like work, most people will simply quit.

arcing might indeed be bs, but I have to say your comment doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Dite Tebewrote:

so you can climb at 100% for 10s but then climb at 90% for 2s. until it reaches about 25..30% where it seems people can do this almost indefinitely. as long as you push yourself, the discipline doesn't seem to matter. for some people, 100% is v4 and for others it's v12. but as a percentage, it's identical for all humans. 

apparently Daniel Woods and Killian Jornet train the exact same way because as long as they "push" themselves and try hard the discipline doesn't matter.