Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 139 of total 139 in this topic |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Aug 7, 2011 - 05:52pm PT
|
Climbing by not climbing;
Part I, A Day on the Rock
Ed Hartouni
August 7, 2011
This is a trip report at first, but a longer essay on climbing which you can give or take as you will. The topic is a confluence of a number of thoughts, and some recent events taken from professional sport news... a contemplation on athletic performance, risk, injury, rehabilitation and training. I had thought to work all this out myself, but realizing that will never happen I thought that maybe the community has experience and ideas that would be relevant.
Yesterday I met up with Linda in Tuolumne Meadows to continue a season long rehabilitation coming of various injuries, hers and mine, to build up a base of climbing training through easier climbs on the way to getting to harder climbs. Our object was to find some climbs at easier grades we hadn't done to build up mentally for those harder climbs. We eventually chose to climb Higgy Stardust 5.9 2 pitches on the western flanks of Lamb Dome. The plan was to see how it went, and if it was brilliant, perhaps tackle Nerve Wrack Point 5.9 3 pitches which is just to the left. These two climbs were authored by Tom Higgins and Pat Ament and have been written about look here for instance). We hike up, check the book at the rock apron deciding that we should move left and unaware, until we go all the way over east, that we were at the climb when we checked... but who could feel bad about a hike here?
My mind is cloudy this morning, apparently a stressful week at work signaled by not enough rest and the visual migraine that visits on the drive in, have me distracted... and this confusion over the start, and I pride myself in getting to the start with efficiency, is just another sign.
We sort out what we need and wander up the slabs to the start of the climb... there are many possible starts and we pick one that seems compatible with the pitch 1 5.8 rating. The pre-climb rituals are all the same, here Linda tightens her shoes, the wonderful granite embraces us.
I comment as I am taking off that "I'll soon see what body I've brought today" as lately a number of injuries have pretty much sidelined me. On June 17th I awoke to a fully swollen left knee, for no apparent reason. I dropped off a boulder problem in the gym the night before in an awkward manner, but I had done that before without this effect. My bike riding is up roughly 50% over the last year, which is a big jump, but I hadn't had any past history of body problems due to biking. Ten years ago I had my left knee 'scoped and the meniscus "cleaned up," recently the knee felt a bit weird, that sort of "clunky" feeling to certain external forces.
My attempt ends on the first real committing run out section. Up a classic Tuolumne Meadows face heading for a grooved feature. The section will demand pulling 5.8 moves over 30 feet before the next protection is possible. Given that this is supposed to be "training" from injuries, the major idea is not to incur additional injury. My left knee is not 100%, it maybe 40%, the ball of my right foot has this annoying ache, and I'm just not liking the idea of a fall onto the commodious ledge I am standing on. I go up three different ways a couple of times each before deciding that it's not going to be today for me on this climb. I bring Linda up... she scopes out a the ground above
and decides it isn't worth the risk either, everything looks straight forward, but neither of us have been up on this ground for a while, and neither of us has confidence in how we will do.
We down climb, head back to the packs and discuss how to stretch various muscles as a possible solution to my problems... eventually we park next to Stately Pleasure Dome and just talk until it's time for me to leave for home... another great day in paradise.
Linda asks if I'm disappointed, I reply that I'm not, actually my thoughts are on how this all happens and what the likelihood of recovery is for me... obviously more time is going to be required. By now, my left hip is also hurting and I'm having trouble getting into and out of my car... this set of posts is what I was thinking when she asked... I tried not to stare at her dumbly, as I had been doing all day. Maybe this will explain what I was thinking.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 7, 2011 - 05:52pm PT
|
Climbing by not climbing;
Part II, A Meditation on Injury
Ed Hartouni
August 7, 2011
Climbers that I have known do not consider injury as part of climbing. Since we want to climb all the time we ignore injuries, especially if they are not caused by climbing, and go out climbing anyway. If they are climbing related injuries, we might say we'll just not climb in that style. But the conclusion of all these arguments is that we're going climbing, no matter what. Some injuries are so sever that they prevent climbing, though I've seen climbers with casts on various appendages climbing anyway...
As a group, we seem to "push through" injuries. Some of this behavior has to do with the fact that climbing can often hurt, so the line between injury hurt and activity hurt blurs, pushing through a hurtful sequence of moves becomes the same thing as pushing through a hurtful injury period.
What I would like to point out is that injury is a part of climbing as it is in any athletic activity. A few examples from the recent sport news sets this in perspective.
This weekend the Boston Red Sox play the New York Yankees in what has become a yearly grind. They play each other this year 16 times, and this past decade this series is consequential, and usually has some large influence on which of these teams will go to the World Series. You may or may not know that the current major league "regular season" is 162 games long. This year the "regular season" runs 179 days long, so the players play an average of 1 game a day, there is a 5 day break in the middle of the season to play the "All Stars Game".. The playoffs can add an additional 19 days of playing if all the series go to the maximum. Baseball is a great sport to study because it is statistically well measured. The average age of the player is 28.8 years, the youngest player is 20, the oldest 45, the average height 6'1", average weight 209 lbs (bmi = 27.4). The average career is 5.6 years, at every point of a career there is an 11% chance of it ending...
The Yankees are playing this important series without one of their star players, Alex Rodriguez, who is out with an injury. His knee was 'scoped and he is returning to playing, this last two years have been hard on him, he is a star player, but he's been injured. But when you play as much as these guys play, you're going to be injured, and getting injured and recovering from injury all become part of the story. A-Rod's absence from the Yankee lineup is definitely a factor in these close games... there is a lot of motivation to play hurt, but when performance suffers, as it did in A-Rod's case, reducing him from a home run hitter to a singles hitter, he had to decide to shut it down, get repaired and then work his way back.
This is, however, not just a motivational issue. A-Rod's body may not be up to the promise that he showed of being, potentially, one of the greatest players to play. While an elite athlete by any standard, his actual body may not give him the longevity he needs in to achieve greatness. Ultimately he is limited by the bio-mechanical limits of his specific body, limits that will power alone cannot overcome.
Mitigating these limitations becomes an essential part of his career, so he is highly motivated to do what he can. This of course can get players into trouble as they use "performance enhancing drugs" to help speed their recovery. But playing at your physical limit to the breaking point, healing, rehabilitating, all become a part of the cycle of the sport.
The second example is from football, the latest "labor dispute" has idled the league. Now players are starting to return to playing. Plaxico Burress, an elite, but troubled player, was practicing recently and "turned his ankle." It wasn't practice within the confines of his new team's (NY Jets) compound so the reaction to the injury was not what would have normally occurred. Burress basically didn't do anything... if it had happened during a "normal" workout it would have been immediately treated, control the inflammation first and foremost, with ice, etc, etc... all this would reduce the recovery time. In addition, his ankles would have been taped for additional support, but he had no trainers to attend to him... he was just practicing.
This is an example where the athlete themselves may not be aware of all the injury prevention and mitigation strategies available to them in their sport. Training for this year's football season will be short, so any time lost to injury could have a big negative outcome. In this case, a receiver can't practice catching passes from their quarterback, it limits what these two can do when the "real" games start.
As an aside, Tom Brady, New England's quarterback, was talking to reporters... in some response he was explaining about training camp: "there are two things happening here, first we're learning the plays and all that, the mental aspect, but then we go out on the practice field and see what we can translate from the mental game to the physical game" (which is a paraphrase, at best).
What we think we can do, athletically and what we can do are different parts of athletic performance... but they are both parts of it.
I'd like to point out, as I have said elsewhere on the SuperTopoForum, that human athletic abilities are not limitless, they are limited, and there are variances in this limit. It is not a negative statement, it is a statistical statement based on the fact that we are physical objects governed by physical laws. We will reach the point where "the mind was willing but the body weak" in many things we attempt. That is where the art is...
But the important question to this thread it: why don't we, as climbers, recognize injury as a part of climbing?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 7, 2011 - 05:53pm PT
|
Climbing by not climbing;
Part III, On Training and Bio-Mechanical Ignorance
Ed Hartouni
August 7, 2011
I have thought about training for a long time, and about the bio-mechanical aspects of climbing for a lesser amount of time, though they are ultimately related. The two books on my shelf that I have are Steve Ilg's The Outdoor Athlete and Eric Hörst's Training for Climbing. At times I've thought about Largo's "Workout from Hell" which he only takes credit for writing down, done Yoga, stretched like a rubber band (not really) and participated in the WideFetish exercise challenge: the WideWorkout.
There is a required disclaimer: I don't endorse any of this stuff, and if you do it and get hurt or die, it's by your own choice... I'm offering information only... certainly I've hurt myself participating in many of these things and didn't blame anyone but myself. Fortunately I haven't killed myself doing any of this yet, but there's time left still...
What I remember from my first mentors of climbing was: "only climbing is training for climbing." This is fatuous remark which underscores the ignorance of just what makes the climber a better climber, in terms of athletic performance. Now that my not be your training goal, you may have no interest in getting better, climbing harder, being able to send that golden line at your local crag, etc, etc, but I doubt that any honest climber would dismiss the idea of being a better climber as a goal, and that being a better climber, in part, has to do with learning how to perform better, both mentally and physically.
That said, to be a better climber physically requires knowledge regarding the bio-mechanical aspects of climbing. In 1987 Ilg writes: "Documented literature on the biomechanics of technical climbing are [sic] nonexistent" (page 103 op. cit.). Hörst's index has an entry for "Fig Newtons" but is silent on bio-mechanics. His training regime is essentially an empirical approach to training in which the self coached climber figures out what works and what doesn't. This is not a bad way to go, it is essentially what all of us do. There is a line that is work speculating on, however. Hörst writes: "...but numerous research studies confirm my belief that the mass of climbers have the potential to succeed at the lofty grade of 5.12, regardless of genetics." This book, unfortunately, has no references to those numerous studies. Most bio-mechanics studies I know about and have read have to do with understanding injuries in climbers.
I find that statement interesting because in a statistical analysis of first ascents in Yosemite Valley I found that if you view the number of routes at a grade as a finite resource, the curve of grade versus time of FA is fit by a logistics curve. That begs the question: what is the finite resource? The answer is not that the routes don't exist. I think the answer is that the number of climbers capable of doing those routes are finite. You can explore this in Stephen Jay Gould's book Full House. The distribution of climbing route difficulty, interestingly, is centered at 5.12, coincident with Hörst's supposition. What all this means is that the limits of human performance in climbing is distributed about 5.12, and the maximum grade would be 5.17a to be reached sometime in 2046.
The reaction to this statement of limits to climbing difficulty met with such virulent objection when I made it that it is interesting to understand both what that statement means and why the objection to it underlines the basic ignorance of training and the bio-mechanics of climbing, though it is right inline with ideas that Gould popularized in his book, which fundamentally gets to the nature of evolution, the "why" of why we got here.
Let's randomly sample the population of California, say take 10,000 people, and have them show up at a climbing camp. How hard would each of these people climb? We know some of this from the popularity of climbing gyms where people, self selected, show up to climb... depending on the ratings of your local gym, it is surprising when these people climb a 5.10 route, but not unheard of. But most of them are going to be able to achieve only the modest grades. Now you might object and say that these people are probably not in shape for any athletic performance so why would they be expected to do anything?
That is the first point of this part of the essay, that there is a base level of fitness that can (must) be achieved in order to perform. Ilg makes that point, essentially prescribing at least a year of training before touching the specific training regimes... But the objection to the random sample reveals that we expect at least some level of fitness to be necessary. The problem is, we can't specify much beyond that...
So now let's pick a level of fitness we'd expect from a high school athlete (which no doubt has changed since my days as one), that gets the field of our 10,000 down quite a bit, guessing from my experience maybe to 1,000 of those people, say 10%. That's roughly 2 sigma on our "average curve" which is to say that those people would be expected to perform better, but there are only 1000 of them in our sample. They climb easily at something like 5.9 or so... now some of the ones we picked could actually be rock climbers, maybe 2% of them... that's 20, and something like 4 standard deviations high... this being climbers, these people do quite a bit better... but now let's ask, how many of them climb 5.10? I'd say maybe 50% so 10, 5.11? maybe 20% so 5, 5.12? maybe 1? anything higher and I've run out of people...
It is people and their capability that limit the upper grade of climbing. I can increase my sample 10 fold to 100,000 people and get many that climber harder than 5.12, but I can't increase my sample size to infinity, it will stay at some finite size. That finite size limits the number of people who would do hard first ascents, an ultimately limits the hardest climbs done. That is what my statement above is about. The resource of people is limited.
But why is that resource limited? The physical attributes required to climb at hard grades is one reason, and that is related to the ability to train to reach those limits. Technique which helps to overcome physical limitations, and to reduce injury time which reduces training time is another factor.
Can we be specific? not really, we haven't agreed yet on what the bio-mechanical factors are important to climbing performance!
Here's an well learned example: I pull up with my arms when I climb. I deduce that strengthening the muscles that allow me to pull up, and reducing the weight I have to pull up might be good things. I start to do pullups as part of my training, I also become obsessive about my weight so I don't eat. There are a lot of skinny climbers who are fantastic that can allegedly do hundreds of pull ups and do so routinely. Gee, using a Bachar Ladder will make me a great climber like Bachar!
So most likely I end up with elbow tendinitis (tendinosis), my diet doesn't provide enough energy or material for strengthening, and I might have a body type that likes to bulk up when I exercise... I'm injured, weak and not climbing very well after all this.
The question is, does ability to do pull ups improve my climbing performance?
The answer seems to be no. But it also seems to be more complicated than that. When I was doing pull ups on some funky pull up machine back in the 80's, I was doing lots of reps at low body weight (I could set the machine to compensate) and I felt really good. Lots of light reps seemed to help ice climbing, I did my hardest ice climbs that year, and also help rock climbing. So something helped. But I've never been able to do many full body weight pull ups.
Hanging from hang boards?
Full up weight training in the gym?
Aerobic training outside?
Some of this works, some of it doesn't none of it is explainable in terms of what is necessary for climbing because we don't yet know what climbers need.
This translates into injuries too. My very first Physical Therapist was treating me for a bad right shoulder which I strained doing a chicken wing on some FA out in the wild. She knows a lot about the shoulder and explained that it is possible to put the arm in a position that the stabilizing muscles cannot compensate for, and dislocate the joint. It is also possible to exceed the mechanical strength of the cartilage and damage the joint. This all makes sense when you consider how the shoulder joint works...
...without going into that detail, it occurred to me for the first time that, obviously, some climbing moves are better than others, and that some would greatly increase the risk of injury. Stemming in a corner with your shoulders far inside and your hands far outside is not good technique, it is putting great strain on your shoulder. Or reaching over an overhang behind your head, same thing, or dynamic moves loading the shoulder in just the "wrong" position.
We should learn good technique, and practice good technique, and have an eye on a set of moves that takes that into account.
As far as I know, there is not such body of knowledge. There should be.
Maybe some one reading this will be inspired to go get an XBox Kinect, hook it up to there laptop down at the gym and study climbing bio-mechanics, what forces are generated where with various moves... once we understand the bio-mechanics of climbing we can actually start to understand what to train for, until then it's trial and error.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 7, 2011 - 05:53pm PT
|
Climbing by not climbing;
Part IV, Risk of Injury or Death
Ed Hartouni
August 7, 2011
We all consciously make climbing decisions we know weigh the probability of injury or death. First off, as the Challenger investigation showed, we tend to think that a long run of luck is indicative of a low probability of occurrence. But it is not. We roll the dice each time we go out, and more often then not, we win. We like to think we've engaged in a set of choices to minimize injury or death. We do to some extent.
Linda and I were weighing many things in backing off our climb yesterday. Our goal in climbing is not to send Higgy Stardust, it is just a training climb for us now, and we learned something important that should help us achieve the level we want at the end of the training. Sliding off some hold and breaking ankles or worse was antithetical to our stated goal of getting in shape. We decided not to push it, there was no reason to. I also learned that I was more injured than I let myself believe, and that I'm going to have to shut down my activities until the knee/hip thing resolves. I don't want to, but I have to.
Sometimes the risks are worth it, or at least we tell ourselves. Doing an FA with a dear friend earlier this year he took a long whipper, his gear held, he didn't seem hurt at the time, but he hobbled back to the car on a moderately sprained ankle, and the next day couldn't get out of bed because of back problems that took weeks to heal. In engaging in that FA we took a calculated risk, on my turn up I trundled off large blocks that could have been pulled out on the FA onto the leader or onto the belayer or both... all this just to put up some new line in an area where, really, no new lines are required. The new route isn't going to be a "thirty six point seven star dick wrenching mega classic," it isn't going to bring us fame and fortune, it really is inconsequential on any level except our own personal satisfaction.
Beyond the world of climbing, the risk we incurred would be termed "irresponsible."
To my friend, it was a decision that affected his livelihood, which requires physical activity, and he could not do that activity fully for days after. It is with this in mind that I puzzle at climbers doing climbs demand safe ones be put up, and accuse FA teams of all sorts of evil motivation when the climbs are not engineered with the maximum contemporary definition of safety. The first line in safety is you! Don't do something unsafe! The FA team is risking considerably more than the subsequent teams climbing the route, at least if the FA team lets the route be known.
So the recognition of the risk calculation that any climber makes should be a part of climbers' thinking. And you are responsible since you are the one who will be paying the consequence. Where more than a single person is involved, the decision is necessarily a group decision, and that is much more involved because there are times when, as much as you want it to be true, you just can't walk away from the situation you and your mates have gotten into. Choose your climbing friends well with the obvious consideration being that you will depend on them with your life in some situations you encounter.
We train with a certain amount of risk. We could get hurt training. Debbie doesn't like it when I weight train because she knows it's going to end up with me getting hurt. She's right, I don't train correctly, I don't know what to train, I am too motivated to go easy. At the gym I've learned to be unmotivated, lots of ways to get hurt there... or on a training crack. Moving outdoors all of the normal risks exist, no matter how easy the climb, how many times I've done it or what shape I'm in...
While experience is important, we often overlook the fact that as we age our bodies change. It is well known that cartilage, to take an example, is more prone to unhealable damage as we get older... the training regimes we could execute in our youths may be entirely irrelevant to our needs as we age, but habit and sentiment rule over what makes sense, especially when we can't define that.
The nature of our knowledge on how to train forces us to undertake a course of trial and error, but with age recovery times increase and incurring any injury may terminate our ability to climb. That is a risk. Certainly injury can limit what we could do in climbing to an unacceptable limit, unacceptable in our image of what we as climbers are... and that is something we have to face ourselves... and decide whether or not we're done.
Sometimes a blank stare is deeper than it seems...
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
heh.
you guys should've climbed with us. my back was too sore to climb hard again, and refused to loosen up, so we hiked in and tagged a couple easy summits in the echoes.
soaked in the lake on the way out.
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
Ed,
I think you could have had more fun if "training" and getting better were not in the mix.
Have you ever stopped to ask why humans feel the need to "better" themselves?
I put this in quotes because when it comes down to it "What is better?"
Yes, as a child I was not able to walk, but eventually became better at movement and was able to walk, like most others not confined to a wheelchair.
What if you ans Linda had hit an easy climb site, took your chances and ended the day with a climb on the tick list, without the "I'm getting better" mindset, as this can only hamper any real and decent progress.
Its good to hear you got out.
Cheers
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
Thanks for the quality post - the norm for you.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
Ed-
Thanks for writing down these thoughts. Many of us have similar ruminations but are incapable of finding the words necessary to fully express them.
Last year when we climbed together for a couple days, you must have wondered what was my motivation, and perhaps what I hoped to achieve. We both were coming back from injuries, and were motivated to "do something." It was my first time back in the Valley since the 1980's and I was disappointed by my poor showing. In retrospect, it was amazing that I could do anything at all, considering my close call with the grim reaper only 4 months earlier. I had done some training in order to have enough strength and flexibility to do our climbs, but obviously was at the toe of the sigmoidal conditioning curve.
My thoughts on recovery from injury and "training.": First of all, one must be fully recovered from the injury before serious training for "getting better as a climber" has any significance. Anything else is simply asking either for re-injury or worse. Secondly, one must be free of the psychological barriers erected by outside problems. It's taken me a long time to work through those problems, and I've laid off climbing until I can again begin focusing on the matters at hand.
Over the years I've gone through several phases of mind on the issue of training, difficulty, goals, etc. At this point I really don't care about "difficulty" and am content to climb at whatever grade I can. That said, the fire still is burning inside me to do some "good stuff." So...what to do about it?
I've been involved in working outside on the ranch all Summer and find that doing lots of walking, climbing over gates instead of opening them, using hand tools, etc. has done a lot to keep my body "improving." Now as I'm getting close to having time available again for climbing, I'll be revisiting my Health Club conditioning. I now am convinced that simply being in decent overall physical condition is paramount to "training for climbing." For me at my age of 72, that will still get me up some modest but decent routes.
So, my advice is take things slowly and carefully as you return to chasing those "37 star dream routes!"
Cheers!
Rodger
|
|
phylp
Trad climber
Millbrae, CA
|
|
"Climbers that I have known do not consider injury as part of climbing. Since we want to climb all the time we ignore injuries, especially if they are not caused by climbing, and go out climbing anyway."
Hmmm. Pretty sweeping statement.
I have always considered injury a part of climbing. Both the possibility and the fact of getting injured while climbing and the impact of injuries from other events on being able to climb. Maybe I am unusual but from my very first injury, I have always taken the long view, i.e. that it would negatively impact my ability to climb for the rest of my life (which I plan to do) if I don't let my body heal in the short term. And by short term, I mean up to a year.
But climbing while you have an injury that is healing does not necessarily mean that you are making an injury worse. I think you just have to have enough self-awareness of what will aggravate the injury in question, and how that relates to the particular routes you plan to do. For example, the first time I got a pulley tendon tear, I was completely ignorant of what to do and what it was so I went to see a very good hand surgeon, someone who has treated a lot of climbers. Basically what he told me was: "it will take 8-9 months to heal completely, but if you tape it up so you can't use it, feel free to climb. Let tenderness of the finger be your guide." At the time of the injury, I had been doing a lot of fingery, technical sport climbs. So I didn't climb at all for 3 months and after that, had a blast climbing things I could do with my injured finger completely immobilized, which were things like easy multi-pitch routes at the Leap. I've now had pulley tendon tears three times and each time, they healed completely in 9 months, and each time I managed to get a bunch of climbing in while injured.
If you want to climb, maybe you can think of what type of climbing will not aggravate your injuries. But I do think it's very important to just listen to your body. When I need to give some body part a complete rest for a while, I just try to think of fun ways to cross train other body parts.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Ed:
I read the first two chapters but my diligence dissipated when I got to the commercial sports.
I think the crux realization came with someone's suggestion of "how to prepare for the wonderful routes you have not done", or something like that.
Here it is. Fageddabout that.
Somewhere in my upper thirties I was doing an old problem at Carderock and felt a small tear probably at a tendon. Not so bad as to cause swelling or lasting weakness but it was obviously not nothing. My body had deteriorated and were I to pretend otherwise instead of walking and working comfortably into deep old age, I would be plagued by aches, pains, and strange weaknesses. A Broadway Joe who can barely walk.
The trade did not compute so my plan became that of slowly decreasing the peak demands I would make upon myself over the remaining years. That schedule isn't flat. It actually got steeper when I got to 70.
And you will run into limitations that are organic and not muscular. They will come.
For me, the goal is to appreciate what I have.
Edit:
In the mid fifties I cut an 18" deep ditch through Joshua Tree rock for 100' using a pick axe. Not smart. Both elbows were a problem for two years but I out waited them. Seem back to normal now but I don't even ask myself whether they would respond like an 18 year old's to more abuse. I have since ditched the pick axe.
|
|
LuckyPink
climber
the last bivy
|
|
GReat thread.. just printed it out for a full read.. never done that before from this forum. Thanks Ed !
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Hmmm. I think I'm with jstan on this. It's not nuclear physics, it's climbing. It might be the emotional center of one's being, but unless one's living depends on constantly outperforming other climbers, overthinking can create problems.
Yes, not thinking can also create problems, but, for me at least, it always seemed pretty simple. Which is not to say I didn't sometimes get hurt, or hurt myself, but that just seemed like part of the deal. Maybe it helped that I actually enjoyed some things that other folks think of as "training", but...
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
What training did Fred do?
Is it applicable to the rest of us?
A lot of ground covered there, Ed. Nice pictures and nice trip.
I see the relevance of pro sports. When my elbow tendon was giving trouble I really wished I had a baseball doc instead of the guy whose customers were old tennis-playing ladies. The elbow fixed itself, though, and impatience can be harmful to your health.
Old people can still climb and not get better and still enjoy themselves.
I admire the people who do analyze the sport and see the many factors involved in performance and address them, but I'm not one of them.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
Geez, Ed, what do think this is, the Online Journal of Climbing Metaphysics? I can't believe it , now I gotta take effin' notes while reading a Super Topo post? I read these forums to get away from thinking hard, dammit...but...interesting stuff...hmm...
Re Part I:
"Our object was to find some climbs at easier grades we hadn't done to build up mentally for those harder climbs...The section will demand pulling 5.8 moves over 30 feet before the next protection is possible..."
Ed, are you serious? This is how you build mentally for harder climbs? Man, when I'm just coming back, I want to get on stuff I bloody know I can cruise. Mileage, not up-and-down run-out scare-fests. I want whole days of climbing during which I barely pause to put in pro and just about never pause to make a move. If it has to be 5.4, so be it, it's all about moving over a whole bunch o' rock.
I most respectfully suggest a reconsideration of your comeback routines!
Re: Part II:
I don't know if I buy the claim that climbers don't see injury as part of the enterprise. This is especially true for sport climbers and boulderers, who have to deal with injuries fairly regularly. Sure, the "play through" the injuries if they can, just like most other athletes. Climbers are not different in this regard. Look at Tiger Woods, with a major career and who knows how many bazillions of dollars riding on it, and he plays on a bum leg and screws it up big time. Take a look at the tape on the finger joints of so many elite (and not so elite) climbers. We're as much the walking wounded as any other sport, and accept some level of injury as the price of achievement.
No athlete of any accomplishment gets there without pushing past pain barriers. I think many are proud of the self-control that enables them to endure hardship. The hardest lesson for them (I surely include myself in this) to learn is that for the athlete used to pushing hard, the real self-control is in limiting what is done, not in striving for more. Once you get good at pushing, what really takes discipline is holding back.
Re: Part III:
Horst is good, but Ilg was out of date the minute it came out, and it is now ancient news. Your bookshelf is in need of some serious updating! Ilg understood almost nothing about climbing. Take, for example, his claim that no specific hand-training is necessary for climbers, because they will get all they need from gripping barbells. That should tell you all you need to know about his relevance right there. And his appendix on eating is a veritable paean to anorexia.
There are a ton of far more up-to-date sources about training for climbing, but most of them are aimed at sport climbing. In that genre, The Self-Coached Climber is among the most interesting in my opinion.
The wide workout is interesting. Perhaps the most interesting thing is the video of the guy doing front levers, muscle-ups, and (most impressively) planche pushups. What is interesting about it is I guarantee you that guy developed that strength without any of the exercises in the wide workout, save perhaps for the body-weight ones.
Which doesn't mean, I guess, that the wide workout isn't good for the wide. I don't know enough about wideness to even guess at an answer.
To my eyes, the wide workout and other cross fit-style training regimens look too intense. I think they become an object in themselves for those who keep at them, and the fact that you are training for climbing is easily lost. In all that intensity is a considerable potential for injury, either traumatic or overuse.
Here's my personal view about training, arrived at after committing every exercise sin known and a few I may have invented. It should allow you to build climbing strength in a way that is more controlled than you can get through climbing itself. More controlled means that you can carefully decide on and intelligently change the levels of resistance, and you can stop when stopping is called for and adjust when adjusting is called for. Training is not simply supposed to be more efficient at targeting specific strengths than climbing, it is also supposed to be safer. A lot of people blow it by making training into some sort of contest with themselves, which, in view of the field of contestants, guarantees that you end up losing sooner or later.
To give an example, a carefully-constructed hang board routine is safer than doing bouldering 4X4's, which force you to do moves, often dynamic moves, when you are off the ground and fatigued. Of course, you can hurt yourself on a hang board too by being stupid about it, but the opportunity is there to plan things carefully, progress reasonably, and stop as soon as things start to feel wrong. Underlying this is the ability, mentioned in the Part II response, of the athlete to exercise restraint .
Of course none of this addresses your point about it not being clear what type of training to do. i have not made any attempt to keep up with the literature, but I think you are wrong in your estimate of the amount of specific current knowledge about the biomechanics and biochemistry of climbing. Knowledge may be far from complete, but there isn't quite the dearth you suggest.
Re: Part IV:
I think this is your deepest contribution. I like the idea of emphasizing that a long run of good luck does not guarantee a positive outcome on your next endeavor, I think it is something climbers should think long and hard about. But you also know this isn't true. It would only be accurate if each climbing endeavor constituted and independent event, meaning that whatever one might have experienced previously had no effect on behavior the next time out. You do have the opportunity to change the odds through experience, the question is whether you can think clearly enough to do so---some people can't. I'd also note that changing the odds is not the same as eliminating all risk. Bad things happen to the most experienced climbers.
I might add that it is a lot easier to take risks when you have never paid any price for it. Once you've had an accident and know what it feels like, you are likely to think differently about things.
Your comments about age are particularly interesting to me, because I'm getting pretty damn old. Injuries have not yet been a major problem, partially because I am now very sophisticated about avoiding them, but sheer age-related physical decline---in spite of training---is an ongoing tribulation. Your comment about "what body am I showing up with today" is right on for me; I really don't know from day to day what I really have to work with. This makes climbing riskier in spite of my increased caution. I think I may have fallen half as many times on the lead since I turned 60 as in the entire previous 45 years. The good news is that, anticipating just such a problem, my approach to protection has so far been up to the task; the falls have been inconsequential. Still, it is clear that making the mental adjustments that properly correspond to changes in physical ability is a major challenge.
By the way, when aging is discussed, we always get comments to the effect that Methusala is a old as...well...you know who...he's still pulling down on 5.ridiculous, so anything is possible. Although this may be true in some technical sense, it has little reality content. Most of us will encounter limits imposed by the genetics of our aging bodies, and frankly, anything is not possible.
The trick in old age is to see clearly what really is possible, and if it is less than one would hope for (which it almost always will be), to then grasp how to enjoy what you can do rather than pine for what is no longer in reach. I don't think the brain ever adjusts, at the instinctive level, to the body's decline in physical prowess. The brain thinks we are at our fittest, even if that was many years ago.
We are obliged to substitute a strong, continuous, very conscious level of control, something that wasn't required in our younger days. This is a daunting, difficult, and I think worthy struggle, one easily lost to blind optimism on the one hand and blind depression on the other. It may not be the struggle we would have chosen, but in its own way it is the kind of mental self-confrontation that climbing is all about, and so, even in decline, we have the opportunity to fight anew the kinds of battles that drew us to climbing long ago.
Ed, I hope you heal up and get fully back in the game.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
great value added, rgold
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
great value added, rgold
Well, he just said what I meant.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 8, 2011 - 12:34am PT
|
any good work on climbing bio-mechanics?
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
any good work on climbing bio-mechanics?
the first piece of work on climbing bio-mechanics that i have found appeared in the 1870s (in German of course) and was a brief piece on the kinetics of foot and leg motion. by 1932, club alpin francais was publishing an instruction manual that used vector diagrams to represent climbing movements.
there's been some recent work (in sportsmed) on finger injuries that deals with the mechanics of open/closed hand positions. none of it especially surprising or insightful (crimping is hard on you, undercling crimps are even harder, single finger crimps esp. so, etc.)
richard already mentioned self-coached climber, which is far and away the best for actually discussing movement. much of that book is an application of current dance theory and training.
my guess is that bio mechanics isn't going to offer much of a revolution, primarily because climbing movement is so varied and complicated when compared with, say, long jump or discus or even gymnastics.
funny thing, when the bio-mechanics "revolution" first hit back in the seventies, one study of elite level gymnasts discovered that the elite gymnasts were actually less mechanically efficient in some aspects of their movement, because "more efficient" movement looked like hell and actually generated lower scores. for instance, cowboying a tuck and flexing yr toes is more efficient that doing a formal tuck with toes pointed. but it sure looks like hell.
not that any of that would stop most climbers today.
heh
good on richard for doing a full response
|
|
KitKat
Trad climber
South Lake Tahoe
|
|
I think Linda would have had no problem sending that climb if she weren't wearing 15 year old Mythos..
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
none of it is explainable in terms of what is necessary for climbing because we don't yet know what climbers need.
IMO, this is simply incorrect. We know very well what physical ability is necessary to climb "hard" and that is the ratio of grip-strength (finger flexor) to bodyweight. It is the single best predictor of climbing performance. This has been shown repeatedly. It doesn't mean the person with the very best ratio will be the very best climber (because mental and tactical decisions play into performance), but it does mean that among the best climbers virtually all will have freakish, extreme levels of GS:BW.
Flexibility rarely matters, lats (pullups ability) rarely matter.
Get strong + get light = climb hard.
|
|
Russ Walling
Gym climber
Poofter's Froth, Wyoming
|
|
We know very well what physical ability is necessary to climb "hard" and that is the ratio of grip-strength (finger flexor) to bodyweight.
What about for cracks? I only have about 3 or 4 good fingers left and am fat as f*#k. Please tell me there is still hope if I only do handcracks.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 8, 2011 - 06:49pm PT
|
Elcap... post references please!
Russ, there's that long long hand crack into heaven, that's all that's left for us...
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Russ, there's that long long hand crack into heaven, that's all that's left for us...
I thought it was "a 5.10 mantel into heaven, brother."
Edit to add: maybe the mantel comes at the end of that hand crack?
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
I only have about 3 or 4 good fingers left and am fat as f*#k.
there's always the wide.
|
|
Rick A
climber
Boulder, Colorado
|
|
"We know very well what physical ability is necessary to climb "hard" and that is the ratio of grip-strength (finger flexor) to bodyweight."
I am putting this quote on the refrigerator door.
|
|
426
climber
☬
|
|
Elcap... post references please!
I think the one of the best term for EC's statement is relative strength;
http://www.gymjones.com/knowledge.php?id=6
there's a ton of other stuff on the web from kinesthiologists; gymnastics guys (and girls), etc.
The first time I saw this term was in a conditioning book; quite extensive, the RS of Russian polevaulters was teh subject and the author wrote out the formula.
RS=AS/BW
relative strength = absolute strength/bodyweight
There;s also a growing body of work on hypertrophy and other ways of getting stronger. I personally fall into the sarcoplasmic gainer, I can put on a lot of mass easily but it's not translatable into harder climbing. I often wonder if this was from lifting tons before I was climbing....
For my money, MacLeod's book far exceeds anything; I've done SCC glue hands for a decade, silent feet, blind climbing etc, but the movements Macleod discusses seem to be making me better. More than any body of work it's a process of weeding out the weaknesses, very hard to both find and correct jmo.
Interesting meditations; I feel that my limitations are nearly pure mental- ...getting older by the year tho...
|
|
phylp
Trad climber
Millbrae, CA
|
|
"I am a climber. I still climb. And for me? That is enough."
Amen, brother!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 8, 2011 - 09:24pm PT
|
my motive is to get the climbing specific data here...
for a long time we've said things "climbing is like xxx" fill in for "xxx" gymnastics, etc...
but actually climbing is a bunch of things...
finger flex strength is good for hand crack? offwidth? slab?
aerobic conditioning doesn't count for anything?
core strength?
I'm surprised at the dismissal of flexibility... and so it would be interesting to see how that got eliminated.
|
|
tolman_paul
Trad climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
As an on again, off again climber in various forms of shape, out of shape, and way out of shape, I have some opinions on training, climbing and injury.
As to training approaches and regimes, it really depends on what your goal is. If you're trying to climb the hardest possible climbs, you'll need a paticular regime of strength training, possibly weight loss, and you'll likley get injured from both the training and the climbing.
Now if you're looking to climb at more moderate grades, enjoy the climbing and not injure yourself, I've found that nothing is better than moderate bouldering and traversing. Stick with the big holds so you don't trash your tendons, and go on the overhangs to get a forearm burn. Climbing has way too many complex static and dynamic movements to simulate with a weight routine. Climbing those complex moves, and mastering your balance IMHO is much more important.
Sure there are climbs that require tremendous grip strength compared to body weight, but that really comes into it's own on the overhanging routes. With less than verticle routes, technique can get you much farther than a campus board.
So my advice is moderate bouldering a couple times a week and some cardio work, that should get one into the fairly solid 5.10 ground, and keep from tearing up the stuff that takes longer to heal, if it will heal at all, as we age.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 8, 2011 - 10:53pm PT
|
unfortunately, this paper is a mess...
http://www.johk.awf.katowice.pl/pdfy/nr%2018/07_magiera.pdf
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 18 2007, 87‐98
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
Biometric Model and Classification Functions in Sport Climbing
by
Artur Magiera, Igor Ryguła
Conclusions
Results of versatile statistical analysis allow to formulate the following conclusions:
1. Based on the value of structural parameters of the regression model, built for the Contestant Development Index in OS style sport climbing, the: following variables have the highest diagnostic value: Technique, VO2AT [Oxygen consumption on anaerobic threshold], Fmax [Maximum finger strength], Contr, Psych., Endr.RR, Ape index, Comp.r.r. [Complex reaction rate], Flex. [Flexibility of hips in “froggies”]
2. Features such as: Fmax [Maximum finger strength], Ment.str. [Mental strength], End. RR, Age, Technique, VO2AT [Oxygen consumption on anaerobic threshold], Motr.ad. [Motor adaptation], FM%, Ape Index, Contr., best discriminate the tested contestants in sport climbing. The three classification functions designating the groups and studied contestants in a most effective way.
3. Variables which are an optimum combination of determinants of the CDI biometric model, explained 93% of this phenomenon. This shows that the determinants are good predictors of Contestant Development Performance in sport climbing.
|
|
Jay Wood
Trad climber
Land of God-less fools
|
|
Biomechanics do not start with climbing- by a long shot.
Climbing movement is a subset of movement learned lifetime- early life examples, attitudes adopted growing up. habits adopted over time. The slumped shoulders that your parent learned from his/her parent, will likely show up in climbing movement.
That's a great value in climbing- paying attention to the minutiae of movement, body position, breath, (and the mental elements), provides an opportunity to release held energy= health. This is available regardless (irregardless to you fans) of age, experience, injuries.
Isn't it it much more personal than research on exercise physiology? How you breath while sitting in a chair informs your climbing, including injuries and health, and vise versa.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 8, 2011 - 11:09pm PT
|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1756253/pdf/v034p00359.pdf
Br J Sports Med 2000;34:359–366
Physiological and anthropometric determinants of sport climbing performance
Christine M Mermier, Jeffrey M Janot, Daryl L Parker, Jacob G Swan
Results—The principal components analysis procedure extracted three components. These were labelled training, anthropometric, and flexibility on the basis of the measured variables that were the most influential in forming each component. The results of the multiple regression procedure indicated that the training component uniquely explained 58.9% of the total variance in climbing performance. The anthropometric and flexibility components explained 0.3% and 1.8% of the total variance in climbing performance respectively.
Conclusions—The variance in climbing performance can be explained by a component consisting of trainable variables. More importantly, the findings do not support the belief that a climber must necessarily possess specific anthropometric characteristics to excel in sport rock climbing.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
Blood lactate accumulates during ascent and remains elevated for over 20 min post-climbing.
Some 40 years ago I remember hearing that jstan recommended 20 minutes of rest between attempts on hard climbs.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
discouraged yet, ed?
heh
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 9, 2011 - 12:39am PT
|
this one looks good, though I can't get the full text...
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02640414.2011.565362
Journal of Sports Sciences Volume 29, Issue 8, 2011
DOI:10.1080/02640414.2011.565362
Self-reported ability assessment in rock climbing
Nick Drapera, Tabitha Dicksona, Gavin Blackwella, Simon Fryera, Sefton Priestleya, David Wintera & Greg Ellisa
pages 851-858
Abstract
Level of ability within rock climbing is generally expressed in terms of a “best ascent”, rated using various grading systems within the sport. The most common method of obtaining this information is via self-report. The aim of this study was to examine the validity of self-reported climbing grades. Twenty-nine competitive rock climbers (17 males, 12 females) were first asked to report their current (defined as within the last 12 months) best on-sight lead ascent grade (Aus/NZ). The participants then climbed a specifically designed indoor route, under on-sight conditions (one attempt, no route practice or preview), to obtain an assessed grade. The route increased in difficulty, and was such that the distance achieved by the climber corresponded to a particular grade. The mean (±standard deviation) self-reported and assessed grade was 22.6 ± 3.4 and 22.0 ± 3.0 (Aus/NZ) respectively. Despite slight over- and underestimations in males and females respectively, there was no statistically significant difference between self-reported and assessed on-sight climbing grades. The results of this study suggest that self-reported climbing grades provide a valid and accurate reflection of climbing ability.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 9, 2011 - 12:45am PT
|
http://www.wemjournal.org/article/PIIS1080603210003765/abstract
Wilderness & Environmental Medicine Volume 22, Issue 2 , Pages 140-143, June 2011
Athletic Profile of Highly Accomplished Boulderers
Jamie H. Macdonald, Nigel Callender
Objective
Bouldering is a discipline of rock climbing completed at low height. Despite its popularity, scientific description of this sport remains sparse. This study aims to characterize the athletic profile of highly accomplished boulderers.
Methods
Twelve male highly accomplished boulderers (age 25.3 ± 4.9) were matched for age (± 5 yr), height (± 5 cm), and body mass (± 5 kg) to 12 nonclimbing aerobically trained controls. Body composition was determined by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. Handgrip and climbing specific finger strength were assessed by dynamometry. Shoulder girdle and abdominal muscle endurance were assessed by isometric tests. Data were mostly analyzed by t-tests with an adjusted alpha level for multiple comparisons. Ethical approval was received from the School of Sport, Health and Exercise Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Results
Body composition was similar between the groups, apart from increased bone mineral density in climbers' forearms (1.1 ± 0.1 vs. 1.0 ± 0.1 g ·cm^2, t(22) = 2.798, p = 0.010). Hand grip strength and climbing specific finger strength were greater in climbers (eg, finger strength: 494 ± 64 vs. 383 ± 79 N, t(22) = 3.740, p = 0.001), but handgrip and abdominal endurance were similar between the groups. In contrast, endurance of the shoulder girdle was substantially greater in boulderers (58 ± 13 vs. 39 ± 9 s, t(22) = 4.044, p = 0.001).
Conclusion
Highly accomplished boulderers were characterized by handgrip and finger strength better than that of nonclimbing controls and superior to that of previously investigated elite climbers. In contrast, boulderers' body composition and core endurance were similar to that of controls (who were aerobically trained). These characteristics provide an athletic profile of highly accomplished boulderers, and hence identify possible targets that with further investigation may aid athlete selection and training program design.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
check yr email
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
"Some 40 years ago I remember hearing that jstan recommended 20 minutes of rest between attempts on hard climbs."
That approach involved severe danger however. During that 20 minutes the person climbing with me generally did the route. I never did get the hang of properly structuring the team.
|
|
murcy
Gym climber
sanfrancisco
|
|
All sports science is a mess; underfunded, small, unrepresentative studies with fuzzy methodology, over-interpreted and regurgitated as solid wisdom 30 years after refuted by other inadequate studies, by coaches, trainers, and how-to authors. Climbing training "science" doesn't even meet that bar, because most of it is a dubious guess at how "results" from the bad studies of college runners or bench-pressing translate to the really wacky physiology of the fingers and forearms. Maybe that's overgeneralizing. But I roll my eyes when I see chapters on muscle biology in climbing training books. The best ones admit that there is no clearly helpful science here, and so we're going with what seems to have worked in practice (a recent example: http://www.powercompanyclimbing.com/2011/08/hypertrophy-for-climbing-pt-2-forearms.html);.
The injury in an aging athlete is always fraught with "could this be it?" I've had mercifully few serious injuries (and just now I seem to have recovered quickly from what at first seemed to be one), but it's a big worry and I really appreciate your thoughtful explorations, Ed (and others).
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
"Some 40 years ago I remember hearing that jstan recommended 20 minutes of rest between attempts on hard climbs."
That approach involved severe danger however. During that 20 minutes the person climbing with me generally did the route. I never did get the hang of properly structuring the team.
u obviously spent too much time climbing with wunsch and goldstone.
ondra recommends hours of rest between redpoint attempts.
you can spend the downtime tweeting yr fans, texting the broheims, and emailing ur sponsors.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
eau tami, tell me it's not true.
over to the dark side
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
ondra recommends hours of rest between redpoint attempts.
Perhaps we are headed towards climbing by not climbing.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 9, 2011 - 01:30am PT
|
http://www.horoftvs.cz/grant_anthropometric,strenght,endurence_and_flexibility_characteristics.pdf
Journal of Sports Sciences, 1996, 14, 301-309
Anthropometric, strength, endurance and flexibility characteristics of elite and recreational climbers
S. GRANT, V. HYNES, A. WHITTAKER and T. AITCHISON
There has been remarkable development in the scope and quality of rock climbing in recent years. However, there are scant data on the anthropometry, strength, endurance and flexibility of rock climbers. The aim of this study was to compare these characteristics in three groups of subjects - elite rock climbers, recreational climbers and non-climbers. The 30 male subjects were aged 28.8 ± 8.1 ( <x> ± S.D.) years. Group 1 (n = 10) comprised elite rock climbers who had led a climb of a minimum standard of `E1’ (E1-E9 are the highest climbing grades) within the previous 12 months; Group 2 (n = 10) comprised rock climbers who had achieved a standard no better than leading a climb considered `severe’ (a low climbing grade category); and Group 3 (n = 10) comprised physically active individuals who had not previously done any rock climbing. The test battery included tests of finger strength [grip strength, pincer (i.e. thumb and forefinger) strength, finger strength measured on climbing-specific apparatus], body dimensions, body composition, flexibility, arm strength and endurance, and abdominal endurance. The tests which resulted in significant differences (P < 0.05) between the three groups included the bent arm hang (elite 53.1 ± 1.32 s; recreational 31.4 ± 9.0 s; non-climbers 32.6 ± 15.0 s) and pull-ups (elite 16.2 ± 7.2 repetitions; recreational 3.0 ± 4.0 reps; non-climbers 3.0 ± 3.9 reps); for both tests, the elite climbers performed significantly better than the recreational climbers and non-climbers. Regression procedures (i.e. analysis of covariance) were used to examine the influence of body mass and leg length. Using adjusted means (i.e. for body mass and leg length), significant differences were obtained for the following: (1) finger strength, grip 1, four fingers (right hand) (elite 447 ± 30 N; recreational 359 ± 29 N; non-climbers 309 ± 30 N), (2) grip strength (left hand) (elite 526 ± 21 N; recreational 445 ± 21 N; non-climbers 440 ± 21 N), (3) pincer strength (right hand) (elite 95 ± 5 N; recreational 69 ± 5 N; non-climbers 70 ± 5 N) and (4) leg span (elite 139 ± 4 cm; recreational 122 ± 4 cm; non-climbers 124 ± 4 cm). For tests 3 and 4, the elite climbers performed significantly better than the recreational climbers and non-climbers for any variable. These results demonstrate that elite climbers have greater shoulder girdle endurance, finger strength and hip flexibility than recreational climbers and nonclimbers. Those who aspire to lead `E1’ standard climbs or above should consider training programmes to enhance their finger strength, shoulder girdle strength and endurance, and hip flexibility.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 9, 2011 - 01:49am PT
|
http://www.nyuhjdbulletin.org/Mod/Bulletin/V64N3-4/Docs/V64N3-4_11.pdf
Bulletin of the NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases • Volume 64, Numbers 3 & 4, 2006
Hand Injuries in Rock Climbers
Erik N. Kubiak, M.D., Jeffrey A. Klugman, M.D., and Joseph A. Bosco, III, M.D.
Abstract
Rock climbing, whether practiced in nature on cliffs and boulders or indoors on walls made of resin and wood, has grown in popularity in recent years. An estimated five million people participate in “rocking” at least three times a year. Climbing places unique demands on the upper extremity, especially the hands. The flexor tendons and flexor pulleys are prone to sprains and ruptures. Pulley injuries occur in up to 20% of climbers. The A2 pulley of the ring finger is the most frequently injured. Most pulley injuries can be successfully treated with a week of immobilization, followed by a range of motion (ROM) exercises for one week. Isometric training on a finger board can be started once ROM exercises are painless. A return to climbing can be initiated when the climber is able to avoid grip positions that produce pain; however, the closed crimp grip should be avoided at this time. Surgical reconstruction using the technique described by Widstrom is recommended for acute injuries with clinical evidence of bowstringing. Ultrasound and MRI are the current modalities best suited for confirming clinical findings.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Carrying all this stuff around in ones head is like a huge overloaded rack.
No wonder people get injured carrying around all that excessive baggage .....
|
|
rhyang
climber
SJC
|
|
I ran into my friend Lisa in Tuolumne yesterday at S. Flank Daff -
She is nearing 60 and has recovered from breast cancer and hip replacement. Arthritis is starting to set in, and she is worried the other hip is starting to go. But she still does easy climbs and hikes, plus yoga and pilates. She seems pretty happy with life.
I had to take a year off climbing in 2007-2008 at my neurosurgeon's orders. I scrambled up peaks, did long hikes and snow climbs instead. I'm still weak on my left side and have other assorted neurological issues. But I've done things I'd dreamed of doing before my injury, and am leading harder than I did before. I'm weak at liebacks and overhangs, but it's just a matter of figuring out my strengths and taking advantage of them. Sometimes have to find people with complementary strengths .. sometimes have to yell "take!" and some times I just have to bail and retreat (that's why I practice downclimbing in the gym :)
Because of my injury, early neurological deterioration may set in and I may well find myself back in a wheelchair by the time I am Lisa's age. The discs around my fusion will probably start to herniate at some point, necessitating .. another set of fusions ? I don't want to think about that stuff right now.
Here is some climbing pr0n from last weekend in the Meadows, from a fellow gimp -
Black Widow (p2)
West Crack (p1)
Cathedral Peak from the top of Daff
An acquaintance on Bull Dozier (p1)
Cheers Ed !
-Rob
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 9, 2011 - 01:57am PT
|
http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=ijes&sei-redir=1#search=%22Physiology%20sport%20rock%20climbing%22
Int J Exerc Sci 1(1): 4-13, 2008
FOREARM EMG DURING ROCK CLIMBING DIFFERS FROM EMG DURING HANDGRIP DYNAMOMETRY
Phillip B. Watts, Randall L. Jensen, Edward Gannon, Randy Kobeinia, Jeremy Maynard, Jennifer Sansom
ABSTRACT
Handgrip dynamometry is often given importance in the study of rock climbing performance. Whether handgrip dynamometry produces a degree of muscle activation comparable to actual climbing has not been reported. Furthermore, the degree and variability of muscle activation for various hand configurations during climbing are unknown. The purpose of this study was to record forearm EMG responses for six hand configurations during climbing and to compare these responses to a maximum handgrip test. Five experienced climbers performed four moves up (UP) and down (DN) on an overhanging 45-deg. climbing wall with each of six hand configurations: crimp (C), pinch (P), three 2-finger combinations (2F1, 2F2, 2F3) and an open-hand grip (O). Forearm EMG was recorded via surface electrodes. Data were recorded for the second UP and second DN moves. Prior to climbing, maximum handgrip force (HG) and simultaneous EMG were obtained. Mean HG force was 526.6±33.3 N. Times to complete the climbing movements with each hand configuration varied between 3.1±0.5 and 4.8±0.9 sec with no significant differences. Peak EMG’s during climbing were higher than HG EMG (p<.05). Mean EMG amplitudes for UP, as percentages of HG EMG, were 198±55, 169±22, 222±72, 181±39, 126±32, and 143±47% for C, P, 2F1, 2F2, 2F3, and O respectively. Significant differences were found for O versus 2F1 and for 2F3 versus 2F1 and C (p<.05). EMG amplitudes were lower for DN than UP (p<.05). Since all climbing EMGs exceeded HG EMG, it was concluded that handgrip dynamometry lacks specificity to actual rock climbing.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
None of the journal articles address why you did a "turnback" the other day. It's likely your head simply wasn't into playing the climbing game as you re-entered the arena after dealing with injuries.
|
|
beluga
climber
Nowhere
|
|
It's ok to say that you just didn't want to.
That's when you just go home.
|
|
susu
Trad climber
East Bay, CA
|
|
If I cannot enjoy climbing despite intense discomfort or pain, it's not worth it to me to push too hard. I know sometimes we have to climb like there's no tomorrow if we don't. Most times we can be much more relaxed and just not do the lead, and while taking a load off, reflect what an excellent choice it can be to know when to back off. After all, the climb will still be there for another time. If pain is from a chronic sort of problem, then I try to work through it; but knock on wood most of my experience has involved trying to pay close attention to prevent pain from turning into a chronic issue, so as to keep from getting sidelined too long. It can be hard to listen to the bod, but the thought of having to sit out many weeks of climbing usually motivates rest. When climbing, or doing the things I do to get better at it, produce more pressure than I like, and especially guilt, it seems a good time to back off myself, temporarily lower expectations, just bc it seems pointless otherwise since it's supposed to be a labor of love.
|
|
O.D.
Trad climber
LA LA Land
|
|
Ed, this thread is going to be one of those that we will come back to many, many times -- it's one of the best contributions to our sport that this forum has ever produced.
High mileage sucks, by the way.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
Okay, lots to get to here, but this will be brief because Em and I have to git climbing and I'm typing into a fugking phone with my fumble fingers
You're over thinking this Ed. You know what to do. You know how to climb, you know how to avoid and recover from injury. The analytic approach has it's place, but it can also be the biggest albatross any climber can drag around.
Let yourself climb, don't make yourself climb. Trust the subconscious, it knows!
Grug had never done the kind of climbing that is on Lucille, but by trusting to his experience and being open to new experience he almost onsighted it!
The conservative pragmatic approach does make it's contribution, but you have to store that stuff in the backburner/hardrive and let yourself be.....
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 9, 2011 - 11:36am PT
|
thanks for all the support....
but this thread was supposed to be about getting the community's input on various aspects of climbing:
1) what is good technique?
2) in the event of an injury, what is an effective recovery regime?
3) what is effective training?
there are other issues dealing with risk which I think I might expand on some other thread in the future
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
Ed asks:
1) "what is good technique?" - Depends
2) "in the event of an injury, what is an effective recovery regime?" - Depends
3) "what is effective training?" - Depends
Good questions but the answer to each question is based upon individual abilities, needs, and goals.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
Very much depends.
On how much of your day, week, and life you devote to climbing.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
post references..
A few, there are others but I don't have them handy. MacCleod could probably point you to several more:
Reynolds, Heather 1995. Physical characteristics including strength, flexibility, and body anthropometry of sport climbers at the eleite and recreational levels. Thesis Dalhousie Univ, Halifax NS.
Russum, W. 1989. Physiological determinants of rock climbing ability. Thesis, San Jose Univ.
Watts, Martin, Durtschi 1993. The anthopometric profiles of elite male and female competitive sport rock climbers. Journal of Sport Sciences 11:113-117
Wakasa. Do better climbers have stronger hands? R&I 80:43.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
At the old age of 26 when I first began climbing I knew of no one who had a conditioning program. There were perhaps a few dozen in the US who conditioned. I immediately focussed on aerobic conditioning because access to fuel and oxygen along with the removal of waste products had to be important. Particularly in climbing where muscle use is static and pumping of the blood is not assisted by motion of the muscle.
No rewards of any kind were proffered beyond the excitement that comes from finding and perhaps even advancing one's personal limits, something in which no one but myself would ever take the slightest interest. It was very interesting for the first four years but I came to a dreadful conclusion at thirty.
Climbing is something that does not need to be done. Now old, time was running out and I needed to concentrate on something that did need to be done.
Ed is a hugely able person who has done this in order reverse to that. He has done what needed to be done and now is excited by the idea of developing his athletic limits. Ed, of course realizes he is going against the flow.
My rather harsh post above was intended to make one point. The first task is to quantify the rate at which ones physical abilities are declining. And then to take as progress the degree to which careful conditioning allows one to stay above that trend line.
With the exception of Goldstone's very excellent contributions, most of the supposedly learned publications we see here appear to be inexpert testimony by and for young persons attached to the sport climbing industry.
These present danger.
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
Hi, Ed. I'm sorry that you're still struggling with your injuries. I hope my non-scientific and self referential stab at answering your most recent 1,2, 3 questions is not too far outside the spirit in which you asked them.
1. Good technique is about efficiency, IMO. It's the type of movement that reaches the best compromise between minimum energy expenditure and security. The ideal compromise will be different depending upon the climber's strength and endurance as well as the consequences of trading power/energy for security.
There are some techniques that are never a win (taking 5 tries to get your foot on the hold, using insecure and energy intensive positions, etc.), and these are sort of universally thought to be "bad technique". People are often praised for their "good technique" when they seem to effortlessly flow up a hard climb with no apparent wasted movement. However, a favorite quote of mine (Fern Webb from rec.climbing) that I like to remember is "Strength is a technique." If the way that you move your body and the strength that you can maintain are enough to allow you to safely send, then your technique is "good enough" for the climb in question.
An example...A particular 5.12 tight hands and finger crack was ascended by two guys: Climber A: a Yosemite regular with piles of crack-climbing experience and Climber B: a professional climber with 5.14 sport climbs to his credit but who climbed cracks much less frequently. Climber A had his feet in the crack nearly the whole way. He had the security and energy to chalk, talk, shake, etc. at essentially any place that he wanted to on the climb. It looked like 5.9. Climber B looked like he was successfully pulling the walls apart to make the crack wider. He thrashed and grunted. He seemed to have less "technique" because his method required much more energy, but since he had the power and endurance to pull it off in that fashion, he sent too. At some point, there would be climbs that would require climber A to have more power endurance, even when bringing his best "technique" to bear, and there would be climbs that would exceed climber B's capacity to crush where improving efficiency would probably serve him better than trying to get 5.15 strong.
2. I don't think there is a blanket answer. I'll just offer my N=1 personal reflections. My tough pill to swallow is that I don't get to recover from some of my injuries. My focus isn't recovery, but trying to strike a balance between climbing at a reasonable level and not using up what my body has left in it too quickly.
What I needed to do to recover from ACL surgery in my 20's or a partial finger ligament tear in my early 30's looks really different from how I learn to manage pain and prevent symptom progression with a non-fixable broken back as I near my 40's.
I don't know how much age effects my bodies capacity to heal from acute injury, but I do know that it has given me time to accumulate a lot of chronic issues that really decreases the frequency of my big adventures because I need more time to physically recover and forget about how bad it flippin' hurt last time. If I come back too soon or too hard, not only do I hurt like crazy and climb like poo, but I hate it...and that makes me the worst climber in the world.
3. Effective training, IMO (again, my casual observations, not data driven... I hope that doesn't goof your intent w/ this thread), is about working up to a degree of challenge by strengthening the body parts, developing the coordination, and (most importantly for me) establishing a recent precedent for success informing risk-assessment that is relevant to the goal in question.
Effective training to climb the hardest #'s known to humanity is going to be skewed toward what works best for overhanging sport climbing and steep, itty bitty cracks, since most of the hardest #'d climbs are one of those two types of climbs. Finger strength will matter a lot. People with crazy finger strength like that are probably very strong and fit otherwise and will progress rapidly on the kind of climbing that we tend to do in Yosemite if they are psyched for it. A positive correlation would likely appear between finger strength and capacity to send (insert whatever long valley climb in the 5.9-5.10 range) when you control for length of time climbing. However, since you never need to hang your whole body weight off of your hands to get up hardly any of those routes, the relationship would probably not be particularly causal.
|
|
exposeur
Trad climber
california?
|
|
I have a genetic condition where i make shitty, stretchy collagen, the stuff of connective tissue including tendons and ligaments. you may have seen people with a more extreme version who have stretchy skin - it's called ehlers-danlose syndrome. after i tore my knee apart (acl, mcl, meniscus) playing ultimate i decided climbing was lower impact. i soon pinched a nerve in my C6 vertebra and learned about the importance of antagonist muscles. I managed to climb for almost 7 years before getting my first real climbing injury, a minor A2 pulley tear. at that time i found dave macleod's blog where he described using cold water immersion for his own pulley injury; the Lewis reaction is where instead of cutting off blood supply to one's cold extremities, when only one small part of you is cold (the submerged fingers) your body reacts by dilating blood vessels in that region, increasing blood supply several times over. you can SEE blood pumping in your red, swollen fingers. this really helped my recovery . i also take extra vitamin c (required for collagen synthesis) and calcium (strengthens bones and bone connecting parts of tendons/ligs). shoulder strengthening (yoga, weight training, rotator cuff and hand stands) has helped stabilize moves that I was previously weak on. strengthening the core is hugely important, allowing more weight to be delivered to the feet. hip flexibility is what most guys neglect, but stretching is the easiest way to get free strength. slacklining (gasp!) also helps strengthen the hips and core and helps train body awareness and a level of mental focus that i did not have before. lastly, i just want to reiterate how awesome dave macleod's blog is. oh, and don't forget the forearm antagonists. and eating really, really well.
-anson, a climbing coach and medical aspirer
|
|
cragnshag
Social climber
san joser
|
|
1) what is good technique?
I think good technique is simply the most efficient way to climb a particular section of rock. The best technique will be different for every climber since each climber has different dimensions, strengths, injuries. With every move on a climb, a climber makes dozens of calculations in his/her mind and spirit. These calculations tell the climber where to place the left foot, right hand, slight pressure against a dihedral wall with the back just below the left scapula, inchworm move to gain a better hold, foot switch to relieve pumping out one calf, etc- the choices are infinite. I think the climber that channels all possible movements and knows how to correct and recorrect these movements on the go is using good technique to attain the climb.
2) in the event of an injury, what is an effective recovery regime?
Climb old easy lines that you dismissed in your youth as being too easy or a waste of time. Personally I love long easy routes- injured or not- they are stress free and take you to the tops of beautiful places. Climb around the injury: for some injuries this may be as simple as switching the type of rock one climbs. Finger pulley injury? Try slab climbing or mountaineering. I mentioned above, good technique takes into account strengths and weaknesses. In certain cases there is no climbing around the injury and patience is required. Make good use of your time away from the rock- go hiking, look for unclimbed lines in the backcountry and record the locations in your little black book, go on a cruise with the parents and reconnect, get that stamp/ coin/ comic book collection under control by entering the vitals into a spreadsheet, work on the family tree. Sooner than you realize, you'll be ready again for the rock.
3) what is effective training?
I'm not a big fan of training. I think for training to happen and be effective you have to be pretty motivated. I have only really trained for one climb in my life: Astroman. My training involved climbing the underside of the outdoor concrete stairs at my work during lunch hour for the 6 weeks before the climb. "Training" tends to remind me of countless hours spent doing laps or arduous 6AM water polo workouts in high school. These days my training comes in the form of occasional plastic pulling (not much at all since my son was born 1.7 years ago) and biking. I have no problem riding difficult mountain bike trails for hours on end since I perceive that as fun. Even road biking is fun if you find a hilly ride with few cars. Then I suppose the biking activities will help support my overall fitness- and in a way count as training for climbing since they must have some sort of benefit to the body. I have a pullup bar in the garage, but I'm too lazy to use it. It works well for hanging shirts to dry, though.
Long term injuries/ conditions: I've learned to cope with my psoriatic arthitis by avoiding hard finger cracks, climbing less steep terrain, and sticking to my medication schedule. I fully realize that my body is no longer capable of climbing past the 5.11 grade without significant permanent joint/tendon damage that will affect my ability to climb into my old age. And I'm OK with that- I have fun simply climbing, I'm just grateful that I can climb at all.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2011 - 02:31am PT
|
Reynolds, Heather 1995. Physical characteristics including strength, flexibility, and body anthropometry of sport climbers at the elite and recreational levels. Thesis Dalhousie Univ, Halifax NS.
presumably this is published in her book: Climbing Your Best: Training to Maximize Your Performance Heather Renoylds Sagar, Stackpole Books 2000 (ISBN-10: 0811727351)
didn't get a good review at Amazon... anyone read it?
Russum, W. 1989. Physiological determinants of rock climbing ability. Thesis, San Jose Univ.
A study of 40 climbers, elite, intermediate and novice...
"Conclusions
Within the limits of this study the following conclusions were made:
(1) the descriptive characteristics of the overall group of climbers were similar and differed only on relative fat, fat weigh, shoulder strength, and grip strength.
(2) stepwise regression identified three variables as accounting for 45.3% of the variance between climbers: shoulder strength, body weight, and grip strength. Other variables measured accounted for an additional 14.0% of variance in climbing ability.
(3) the discriminant function 1 (grip strength, arm and leg anaerobic power, arm and leg anaerobic capacity, ventilation threshold, X rating and arm and leg fatigue index) accounted for 62.45% of the variance between groups.
Discriminant function 2 (fat weight, relative fat, body weight, leg strength, maximal oxygen uptake, shoulder strength, arm strength, and Y rating) accounted for the remaining 37.55% of the variance between groups."
Watts, Martin, Durtschi 1993. The anthopometric profiles of elite male and female competitive sport rock climbers. Journal of Sport Sciences 11:113-117
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8497013/
Over the past few years, competitive rock climbing--for a long time a popular sport in Europe--has increased in popularity in North America. An annual international World Cup competition circuit was started in 1988 which has shown growing success and a definite elite group of athletes has emerged. Descriptive anthropometric profiles of elite climbers have been unavailable. In order to fill this information void, 39 world-class climbers (21 males, 18 females) were assessed immediately prior to competition at an international World Cup sport climbing championship. All of the subjects tested were competition semi-finalists and, among these, seven males and six females advanced to the finals. The variables measured included age, years of climbing experience, height, body mass, height-weight ratio, sum of seven skinfolds, % body fat, fat-free mass, hand and arm volumes via plethysmography, average of right and left grip strengths, grip strength to body mass ratio (SMR), and climbing ability defined as the most difficult route climbed on lead. The results indicated that elite sport climbers are of small to moderate stature and exhibit very low % fat, moderate grip strength and high SMR when compared with other athletic groups. Values for the height-weight ratio and sum of seven skinfolds in the female finalists were very near those of the male finalists, which may indicate that reduction of body mass and % fat are primary adaptations in these female athletes. Climbing ability was predictable from SMR and % fat, though the R2 was low.
Wakasa. Do better climbers have stronger hands? R&I 80:43.
anybody have this and can scan it for this thread?
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 02:40am PT
|
Ed, so far none of the journal articles deal with your three questions...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2011 - 03:43am PT
|
I think they have...
...I'm not looking for a simple answer, but it's also not an unasked question so having answers from you all is definitely thought provoking.
My posting of articles has been getting at the question of what you should train for... only part of the training process is climbing specific, though that is an important component of training.
If I take Elcapinyoazz as an example, e.g. the "physical ability is necessary to climb 'hard' and that is the ratio of grip-strength (finger flexor) to bodyweight. It is the single best predictor of climbing performance." This seems to be born out in many of the articles posted. One of those articles noted that grip strength as measured in a traditional manner did not correspond to the muscle activation seen in climbers gripping holds. This implies that a grip strengthening exercise may have to be more than squeezing a spring loaded device, a device similar to the devices that measured grip strength, incorrectly. This also seems to correspond to climbers' experience using various squeeze devices to try to get stronger grips.
The hand injury article cautions about pinch exercises as possibly leading to injuries, and also not training the right way to increase grip strength.
Finally, there are no studies that track the effectiveness in training as it translates to the rock. This is mentioned in some of the articles. For the most part, training is inferred from the discriminants which describe "elite," "intermediate," and "novice" climbers. What would be interesting is to train a "novice" into an "intermediate" with a regime designed to provide the attributes of the "intermediate."
jstan is only partially correct at my methodology. For instance, taking ECiya's example the denominator is body weight, my body weight has been pretty constant over decades, a bit heavier than I think is optimal for climbing. Am I going to reduce my body fat? it is probably a good thing to do in general, but the studies might suggest better attributes to train. The studies also give a sort of level of influence that such attributes could have on my climbing.
My bad back problem could very likely have been caused by bad technique in offwidth, and the intense training we were doing eventually caused problems. This could have been due to a number of different body problems, pelvic girdle stabilizers, hip flexibility, compensation for damaged knee, etc.
What is good offwidth technique? it not only gets you up offwidth, efficiently, but also without injury.
Can we describe such things?
One of the articles I didn't post speculated that climbers that did a lot of hand crack may be more likely to have carpal tunnel syndrome, I don't have it even though I do a lot of typing at home and at work, and I think I do a lot of hand crack... I don't know if my experience is similar or dissimilar to other climbers. Is it?
The idea is to try to explore the various aspects of technique and training and injury in climbing. It seemed that STForum would be a good place to develop these ideas given the large number of climbers and the range of experience.
jstan and rgold both make an important point, such training is likely to depend on the age of the trainee, and be for quite different goals, as also mentioned by cragnshag.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 04:14am PT
|
Rgold and Cragnshag don't deserve to be compared to me. My knowledge of physical limitations is far more advanced than is theirs.
Also we have limited ourselves primarily to bio-mechanical factors. Recently I learned the arteries serving my heart are naturally quite small. There never was a basis for my having any athletic potential whatsoever. Somehow, I knew I needed to run. It was great fun. Loved every minute of it.
I have read that some of our cellular structures came about as a synthesis between bacterial and single celled organisms. So there is a reason mitochondrial structures mimic bacterial material.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 04:27am PT
|
In a previous life I often looked at the studies on humans, when I was in the library for other purposes. Very little was memorable. We aren't really interested in averages and standard deviations, anyway; we are interested in the outliers. The studies usually just collect statistics. It is hard to do studies on humans and control all but one variable. Very few studies came to any conclusions that would make any difference to me.
A possibly interesting exception was a study done on healing after inflicted soft tissue injury in rats. One group was given anti-inflammatory medication and the other wasn't. Later they tested the strength of the healed tissue and the medicated group were mechanically weaker.
I thought to myself that maybe nature knew best, and the post-injury process should not be interefered with. That is probably too simple a conclusion.
We now know that part of the pain and swelling that follow injury happen because our immune system rushes to attack what it senses as a bacterial invader, because the injured tissue allows mitochondrial proteins to escape and these are similar enough, so I hear, to the bacterial ancestor proteins that mitochondria inherit. There has been long enough for evolution to sort out the difference, so it may still be an open question why the immune response to injury is so quick and vigorous. The speculation I heard was that the immune system can't afford to take chances because of what was, before antibiotics, the strong possibility that bacteria could kill you, hence the friendly-fire casualties.
The hope is held that if the immune reaction to injured tisse can be better understood and controlled then healing could be quicker and less painful.
One of the grad students in the lab I was in, Bill Abend, went on to study the neural control of arm movement. The impression I got was that even trying to describe the movement of an arm was hugely difficult, let alone an entire body.
|
|
Branscomb
Trad climber
Lander, WY
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 10:56am PT
|
Interesting thread and so applicable to us 'ancients'.
Never having been a physically strong specimen, I've always had to rely on technique instead of sheer cranking, and I think that has helped me get to 59 years without any serious problems that 5000mgs/day of aspirin and Alleve and monkey gland extract can't handle. HaHa.
The flexibility aspect really needs more attention as I've gotten older. I do a 15 minute routine every day of simple stretching yoga and it really has helped avoid injuries.
Again, interesting thread and thanxs for starting it.
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 01:06pm PT
|
My bad back problem could very likely have been caused by bad technique in offwidth, and the intense training we were doing eventually caused problems. This could have been due to a number of different body problems, pelvic girdle stabilizers, hip flexibility, compensation for damaged knee, etc.
It might also be true that no other thing in your life put as much strain on a pre-existing weakness and that there was no technique for you personally to apply to climbing ow at the level of difficulty that you were pursuing that wouldn't have caused the injury. I know that "shit happens" isn't the most proactive reasoning, but there's good evidence that this is exactly what's up for some of us.
Avoiding certain moves (or avoiding training the bejeebers out of them) can become part of our good technique too, I reckon, if we define good technique as an efficient way of climbing while remaining injury free. Like another poster mentioned, the only way that I can run without aggravating chronic injury is to take walks or do the elliptical machine. Luckily for most of us, there are modifications of the things that we love (or that keep us in shape for things we love) that we can do without getting too worked over.
I read Heather Reynolds Sagar's book when I was recovering from my ACL and J from his rotator cuff. We were really wanting to learn something that would help with recovery and keeping ourselves injury free, and I was wanting a roadmap for training to climb harder. It was like reading a textbook...that was written by a student. She references data and studies often when making assertions and suggestion, but IMO, the data was often flimsy (N=small and not that relevant) and misapplied. Like most training books, it was also very much geared towards improving one's performance on overhanging face. Someone who was already a Rife/Jailhouse regular looking to up their game might have gotten more from the book.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 01:23pm PT
|
Pardon me, if you will for stating something obvious. Appreciable numbers of people have been subjecting themselves to the weird stresses of climbing only for the last twenty years or so.
In the years ahead we will begin to have end of life data telling us what these stresses have done to us.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 01:41pm PT
|
ed, you're not going to get anything like what you're hoping for from this literature. exercise phsyiology is still rudimentary. it was rudimentary when i was involved in it more than twenty years ago, and it hasn't progressed all that much. that isn't all that surprising, because it's actually remarkably difficult to get at a lot of key questions in legal and ethical ways.
two obvious examples: we still don't have an absolute consensus on the mechanisms of delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS). should seem pretty simple, but we can't slice open the leg or arm of various athletes and get a nice look at what's going on in the process. so folks use proxies: blood analysis, muscle measurement (for swelling), etc. another example is steroids. we still have (and will probably never have) not even one, single, good study of the effectiveness of various steroids when used as they are actually used by elite athletes. there's a huge lit on steroids, but virtually useless. we can't do a real study because the way athletes use the things is illegal. so forty years after the steroid revolution, we still have no solid literature.
and so the training world lives in this twilight zone mediating the scattered and oftentimes mediocre scientific literature, on the one hand, and actual athletic and training room practice on the other, which mixes and matches empirical experience with folk-medicine and a lot of frankly superstitious weird sh#t. ( apologies to my colleagues in at and ex phys, but over beers and out of public view, many of them all say the same thing.) if ron wants to weigh in with a different view, he can, and he's a really good person to talk to. (aerili is also a pro and occasionally posts here.)
climbing is even worse, because it is so much less professionalized than tv and olympic sports. moreover, "climbing" isn't a particular useful key word. trying for record time on the dog route on everest? major back-country expedition in alaska? peru? free a big wall on el cap? climb lucille? sharma's new 5.15 project? bouldering with ondra? from a training perspective, these aren't even close to being the same sport.
the variety and complexity of climbing means that the lit here is going to be even more fractious, even when it focuses (as most of it does) on the most controlled examples: short, steep single-pitch routes at roadside or plastic crags.
we don't even have a consensus on whether supplementary training (sometimes called "general") conditioning should be part of a program or whether one's work should be entirely "sport specific." (not that we even will agree on what would constitute "sport specific," once we get down to the details.) we are still at a stage in which vastly different training approaches are producing similar outcomes.
the climbing training lit roughly breaks down into sport-specific versus general approaches.
self-coached climber represents the purest of the sport-specific programs, and has far and away the best movement analysis (i.e., the best discussions of biomechanical issues), with neumann's lizenz zum klettern and lizenz zum bouldern next, and goddard's performance rock climbing a bit after (and now rather dated.)
ilg's work is far and away the most invested in general conditioning (and now looking really dated), with heather's book and then horst's coming after that. i haven't read that san jose thesis, so can't comment on it.
the blogs are all over the map, as one would expect. moon, gresham and macleod's have all gotten really popular recently. the moon one is the most focused on actual exercises, so it's really helpful there. macleod's is the funnest to read, although it has a real, homemade (even amateurish) feel to it. (he recommends against aerobic conditioning, heh).
the best medical lit and research seems to be coming out of austria (and esp. innsbruck) these days. hochholzer's one move too many is the best summary of that lit available in english, although it's now getting old. hochholzer has published some more recent sportsmed studies in english as well, and you can find them (and thus the related lit via citation) with a lit search. i have a bunch of this stuff in pdfs but havent had time to aggregate it all into a single folder much less index it, but when things calm down (maybe next week?) i can send you the better ones if i can find them.
the lit on high-altitude adaptation is much better, btw, as one would expect from an area with obvious military and commercial applications. the real work started with the nazis on naga parbat. two of the docs involved in research for the nazis endedup in the us, one at ucsd and the other at texas, doing high-el studies sponsored partly by nasa. it's a weird old world.
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 01:45pm PT
|
^^^Thanks!
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 02:01pm PT
|
The trouble is that no one has written The Aging Climber's Guide to Maybe Getting Up A Few More Routes Before the Inevitable Onset of Total Systemic Failure.
Nor has anyone written The Slippery Slope: Training Routines to Minimize Decline
The current crop of authors are inexplicably fixated on ways to get better, thereby ignoring a vast audience who wants to know how not to get worse. There's gold in them thar hills, and I ain't talkin' 'bout the fillings in potential buyers teeth neither.
Perhaps there is a market for more targeted audiences:
Stream of Consciousness: Multipitch Climbing for the Incontinent.
The Butterfly Effect: Blown-tendon Strategies for Beat-Up Boulderers.
Sugar Pie Honey Bun: The Hypoglycemic Climber's Guide to Staying Awake While Belaying.
And of course, Back to Basics: How To Climb Offwidth with Ruptured Disks.
And this is just the beginning...
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 02:12pm PT
|
IMO most training-induced problems/injuries show up because people start training programs and do too much, too soon. They have fully bought into the idea that pain=gain and to really push themselves. They focus entirely on the work and ignore the recovery.
The workout is just a stimulus. The recovery is where you actually get stronger. Many do not pay enough attention to recovery, many train beyond the point of sufficient stimulus and are basically just needlessly causing microtrauma and destroying/inflaming tissue during the second half of their workouts when they should have warmed-down, had their recovery drink and gone home, eaten a good meal and gotten to bed early so they can get >8hrs sleep.
Instead, the typical deal goes something like:
Bob Ondaknob thinks:
"I need to send Big Bottoms My Girl's Got'em at the Bubblebutt Crag, but I'm a little out of shape from eating Ho-Hos and Watching Jersey Shore for the last 6mo. So I'll start the "workout from hell"
Bob goes to gym, sheds shirt, dons beanie and gets to crankin. Three hours later, Bob's hands are opening on jugs and he can't get up his warmups from earlier, but he's still wildly hucking mos and wobbling up anything he can still climb. 3.5hrs into the session, Bob fluffs his magenta-dyed fauxhawk, nods to his bro-brahs, adjusts his nipple rings, and heads out to the pub with Shelly Senderelli.
After 4 pints of IPA, 1100 calories of greasy burger and fries, and making an unsucessful pass at Shelly, Bob climbs aboard his fixie and pedals the 2 blocks home, almost impaling himself on the bullhorn handlebars when his trackstand at the stopsign goes awrigh. Circa 2:35am, Bob hits the sack, only to get up at 7am, pour half a gallon of coffee down his gullet and head to work. He "rests" a day, then does this routine again.
3 weeks in, Bob is feeling a little stronger and is THIS close to sending the red-tape V7 at his local plastic palace - Spankin'-n-Crankin', then on his 37th try, with Shelly and the entire gym watching (because he is screaming loud enough to peel paint from the walls), his A2 pulley, shoulder, bicep, and tongue piercing all shred like tissue paper, leaving Bob in a moaning heap of Axe body spray and disheveled faux-hawk wondering what will happen with Snookie this season because he's going to be couch-bound for the next 4mo, then he will need to "get in shape" again.
|
|
scuffy b
climber
dissected alluvial deposits, late Pleistocene
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 02:27pm PT
|
All I do is recover.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 02:29pm PT
|
That is some damn funny sh#t, El-cap.
I think I've met Bob at the gym myself.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 02:29pm PT
|
Alright everyone. No more spit balls from the back of the room. Ed is trying to be serious.
Oh and by the way. Goldstone has to do facelift this year.
:-)
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 02:32pm PT
|
(he recommends against aerobic conditioning, heh).
Not sure what your contention with that segment of the book is, I'd be curious to know. Seemed like one of the better segments of the book to me...of course it applies specifically to high end rock and not to alpinism/dog routes at altitude/etc.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 02:51pm PT
|
^^^^^it's one of the things i was referring to when i said it sometimes felt amateurish.
two reasons: first, one of the few areas of consensus in virtually all the lit on sports, training, and medicine, is that cv-aerobic exercise is the single most valuable use of your time for general health. it won't have any immediate application to performance in, say, the clean and jerk, but it seems to naive to suggest that it has no place in even a sports-specific regime. boulderers don't need to put in the time and energy that alpinists do, but i can't imagine anyone successfully onsighting long, difficult cracks (for example) w/o a pretty good base level of aerobic fitness.
second, what i think is really happening is that he himself actually does a lot of aerobic work, he just doesn't realize it. where he lives, and the type of climbing he tends to prefer, means that he spends a lot of time slogging up nasty, scrubby hillsides to get to crags. moreover, just given the lifestyle situation of his home, he (and most of his neighbors) probably walks far more on an average day than the average american does in a week. my guess is that if you ran him on a treadmill and measured his metrics, he'd come out at a pretty high level-- not like a marathoner, but pretty strong.
so a safe, commonsense idea-- craggers and bouldererrs don't need to do the sort of aerobic mileage that an alpinist does --gets expressed in awkward ways that the average urban, american gymrat reader is likely to apply in literal ways.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2011 - 03:56pm PT
|
this is great stuff, all of it, really...
...I start with the literature because not necessarily because I believe it, but because it is at least well described and defined... and many of you have contributed detailed descriptions of what you think, and that is all an important part of this...
I don't know about writing a book, but my stretch goal is to get a lot of material down here in this book, studies, first person ideas... opinions, the whole thing... to collect a set of information to ponder and pick through and see if some good ideas come out of it.
As an aside, I liked Ilg because he has a great set of descriptions of basic exercises that are often hard to find elsewhere... though I also use ExRx a bunch more these days... but Ilg also has a parable like Elcap's above, but in the serious Ilg tone, to describe the foibles of impatient training...
scuffy_b's remark is wiser than it sounds, and is also part of what I was getting at in the initial mediations... always recovering...
Yoga has been mentioned in various places, even on this thread, but what is it about Yoga that makes it good for climbing? who can document (to some extent) the improvements? In the various studies, flexibility doesn't seem to be a discriminant selecting "elite" from "novice" climbers. But also, "core" strength also doesn't seem represented in any of the studies. This is odd since a major technique of climbers is to transfer weight onto the legs, and the only way to do that is through a rigid core... for OW it helps to have good core strength... but I don't know how much...
Another related question, how do you know you're climbing better or worse?
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 04:03pm PT
|
Another related question, how do you know you're climbing better or worse?
Most people rely on ratings or on benchmark routes they return to. I can go do mini-trax laps on my std circuit and some boulder problems I've done a zillion times and have a good idea.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 04:22pm PT
|
Okay, anecdotal, real world and not quantiviable; Grug said that when he blew out in Lucille the other day, it was partially because he could not keep 'pushing' at the sustained level required. Last winter Young Shanti trained with a personnal trainer for just this sort of Zip. I would interpret that as training to work at a higher percent of one's aerobic capacity,like near Vo2 max (or to increase same) or possibly to increase the time one can work anaerobically.
When I studied Exercise physiology at the University of Utah, I read a number of papers and articles on studies concerning these topics, but know of nothing specifically relating to climbing. in these fields.
Anybody else know of anything? Might be a topic worth pursuing....
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 04:28pm PT
|
Last winter Young Shanti trained with a personnal trainer for just this sort of Zip. I would interpret that as training to work at a higher percent of one's aerobic capacity,like near Vo2 max (or to increase same) or possibly to increase the time one can work anaerobically.
yeah, these are the sort of regimes that are easiest to do metrics with and that have stacks of lit behind them. it's actually a really interesting lit, including the history of it. if i had more time i'd like to go trhough it more systematically.
ed, btw, i know this conference is coming up, if yer deep enough to want an excuse to visit nz:
http://www.education.canterbury.ac.nz/rock/
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 04:33pm PT
|
Per-Olof Astrand et.al. pg. 296
Anaerobic Processes
During light work, the required energy may be almost exclusively produced by aerobic processes, as mentioned, but during more severe work anaerobic processes are brought into play as well. Anaerobic energy yielding metabolic processes play an increasingly greater role as the severity of the work load increases. The anaerobic energy yielding processes have been briefly discussed in chapter 2(page 16). ....................
Someday I'll have to see how to work my scanner. Several pages of interesting plots follow.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 05:00pm PT
|
this is drifting a bit, but here's one of the pieces on the german expeditions and high alt. physiology research:
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ham.2008.1033
luft's papers are at ucsd. citation index will take you to a bunch of related articles. not super sophisticated, but pretty interesting. someone did a decent one on geo finch but cant recall the cite right now
ok, found west's paper on geo. finch. west was on the 1960 everest expedition, big name in ex phys, did the standard book on the history of high altitude physiology, high life
http://jap.physiology.org/content/94/5/1702.full
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 05:52pm PT
|
Ed is trying to be serious.
That's what makes the humor so welcome, and he knows it.
The pain has receded so a tip of the hat to rgold and El-cap.
Laughter is the second best medicine.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 12, 2011 - 01:13am PT
|
Bertuzzi R, Franchini E, Kokubun E, Kiss M, Energy system contributions in indoor rock climbing, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY Volume 101, Number 3, 293-300
The present study cross-sectionally investigated the influence of training status, route difficulty and upper body aerobic and anaerobic performance of climbers on the energetics of indoor rock climbing. Six elite climbers (EC) and seven recreational climbers (RC) were submitted to the following laboratory tests: (a) anthropometry, (b) upper body aerobic power, and (c) upper body Wingate test. On another occasion, EC subjects climbed an easy, a moderate, and a difficult route, whereas RC subjects climbed only the easy route. The fractions of the aerobic (W AER), anaerobic alactic (W PCR) and anaerobic lactic (W[La−]) systems were calculated based on oxygen uptake, the fast component of excess post-exercise oxygen uptake, and changes in net blood lactate, respectively. On the easy route, the metabolic cost was significantly lower in EC [40.3 (6.5) kJ] than in RC [60.1 (8.8) kJ] (P < 0.05). The respective contributions of the W AER, W PCR, and W[La−] systems in EC were: easy route = 41.5 (8.1), 41.1 (11.4) and 17.4% (5.4), moderate route = 45.8 (8.4), 34.6 (7.1) and 21.9% (6.3), and difficult route = 41.9 (7.4), 35.8 (6.7) and 22.3% (7.2). The contributions of the W AER, W PCR, and W[La−] systems in RC subjects climbing an easy route were 39.7 (5.0), 34.0 (5.8), and 26.3% (3.8), respectively. These results indicate that the main energy systems required during indoor rock climbing are the aerobic and anaerobic alactic systems. In addition, climbing economy seems to be more important for the performance of these athletes than improved energy metabolism.
Billat V, Palleja P, Charlaix T, et al. Energy specificity of rock climbing and aerobic capacity in competitive sport rock climbers. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1995;35:20–4.
Over the past few years, competitive rock climbing has experienced increased popularity world wide. In 1989, the first six-event World Cup competition was held with all events contested on artificial modular walls. The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which oxydative metabolism is utilized in competitive rock climbing with regard to the climber's maximal O2 consumption (V'02max). V'02max was measured with two direct triangular protocols: the first from running ("running" V'O2max) and the second from pull offs performed with arms and before arms ("pulling" V'O2max). Moreover, V'02 was also before measured during two competitive climbing routes difficulty quantified 7b on the European numerical scale ranging from 5 to 9. However these routes had different profiles: route 1 was more complex from the informational aspect, holds being smaller and more difficult to see even though the second route was presumed harder from the physical point of view, the holds being bigger but the profile being steeper. The first and the second route involved only 45.6% and 37.7% of the "running" V'02max but 111.6% and 92.3% of the "pulling" V'02max. Heart rates (HR) were equal to 176 bpm and 159 bpm i.e. 85.5% and 77% of maximal HR respectively. Blood lactate collected three minutes after the end of the two ascents were 5.7 mmol/l and 4.3 mmol/l. The paired "t" test indicated no significant differences in heart rates for the two exercises condition i.e. climbing route. These results suggest that the competitive rock climbing elicit particularly arms since heart rate is high for a relatively low value of V'O2. Moreover climbing V'O2 closed to maximum "pulling" V'O2. However, V'02 and maximal blood lactate were significatively different (p .05). In addition, pre-climb HR responses were significantly higher (p < .05) than recovery HR in beginner climbers only. As expected, HR responses during climbing were significantly greater (p < .05) for route 2 compared to route 1 due to the increased difficulty of route 2. These results indicate that HR and RPE responses differ between beginner and recreational climbers during most conditions. The differences between the beginner and recreational climbers could be attributed to route familiarity, varied efficiency in climbing technique, a pressor response, or anxiety. These data show how climbers with varied skill levels respond during climbing and provide climbing instructors with information that may assist in designing climbing programs based on the individual skill of the climber.
Bollen, S.R. (1988). Soft tissue injury in extreme rock climbers. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 22, 145-147.
Abstract
Rock climbing is an increasingly popular sport. Its standards of difficulty have undergone a revolution in the past ten years. Regular training is now almost mandatory for the aspiring climber, but little has been published about the patterns of soft tissue injury to which climbers are susceptible. This paper aims to identify some of the common injuries that may be encountered, some of which do not appear to be associated with other sports.
Bollen, S.R. and Gunson, C.K. (1990). Hand injuries in competition climbers. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 24, 16-18.
Abstract
All 67 of the competitors at the first British Open climbing competition were examined for signs of previous or present hand injury. The most important clinical findings were that 26 per cent of the climbers had signs of previous injury to the A2 pulley of the ring finger, and that fixed flexion deformity of the proximal interphalangeal joints of the fingers was present in 24 per cent.
Booth J, Marino F, Hill C, et al. Energy costs of sport rock climbing in elite performers. Br J Sports Med 1999;33:14– 18.
OBJECTIVES: To assess oxygen uptake (VO2), blood lactate concentration ([La(b)]), and heart rate (HR) response during indoor and outdoor sport climbing. METHODS: Seven climbers aged 25 (SE 1) years, with a personal best ascent without preview or fall (on sight) ranging from 6b to 7a were assessed using an indoor vertical treadmill with artificial rock hand/foot holds and a discontinuous protocol with climbing velocity incremented until voluntary fatigue. On a separate occasion the subjects performed a 23.4 m outdoor rock climb graded 5c and taking 7 min 36 s (SE 33 s) to complete. Cardiorespiratory parameters were measured using a telemetry system and [La(b)] collected at rest and after climbing. RESULTS: Indoor climbing elicited a peak oxygen uptake (VO2climb-peak) and peak HR (HRpeak) of 43.8 (SE 2.2) ml/kg/min and 190 (SE 4) bpm, respectively and increased blood lactate concentration [La(b)] from 1.4 (0.1) to 10.2 (0.6) mmol/l (p < 0.05). During outdoor climbing VO2 and HR increased to about 75% and 83% of VO2climb-peak and HRpeak, respectively. [La(b)] increased from 1.3 (0.1) at rest to 4.5 mmol/l (p < 0.05) at 2 min 32 s (8 s) after completion of the climb. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that for elite climbers outdoor sport rock climbs of five to 10 minutes' duration and moderate difficulty require a significant portion of the VO2climb-peak. The higher HR and VO2 for outdoor climbing and the increased [La(b)] could be the result of repeated isometric contractions, particularly from the arm and forearm muscles.
Cole, A.T. (1990). Fingertip injuries in rock climbers. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 24, 14.
The sport of rock climbing has undergone a significant change in recent times with technically harder climbs being attempted more often. This has meant that climbers have taken to more training including weight training, using artificial climbing walls and more traditional "bouldering" i.e. training on natural outcrops and boulders. This increase in standards has led to injuries associated with more extreme use and training. This paper reports on a novel fingertip injury found in rock climbers.
Cutts A, Bollen SR (1993) Grip strength and endurance in rock climbers. Proc Inst Mech Eng (Lond) 207(2):87–92
The performance of competition climbers in laboratory-based tests of pinch and whole hand grip strength and endurance were compared to that of non-climbers of the same age, sex, and physique. Climbers performed significantly better, indicating higher stresses acting in the flexor mechanism, possible predisposing injury. Attempts were made to correlate the performance in the tests to climbing achievement, measured by current technical climbing standards. Although pinch grip strength increased with the length of climbing experience, there was no evidence that strength in the hands alone guarantees success in competition climbing.
Draper N, Brent S, Hodgson C, Blackwell G, Flexibility assessment and the role of flexibility as a determinant of performance in rock climbing, International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, Volume 9, Number 1, April 2009 , pp. 67-89(23)
Many climbers believe flexibility to be a key performance component, but this remains unsubstantiated under experimental conditions. The need for sport-specific measures of flexibility has been highlighted. The purpose of our research was to assess the validity and reliability of four novel tests of climbing flexibility. The four tests, completed on a purposebuilt climbaflex board, were the adapted Grant foot raise, climbing-specific foot raise, lateral foot reach and the foot-loading flexibility test. In addition, for comparative purposes, the participants completed two existing measures, the sit-and-reach test and Grant foot raise. With the exception of the climbing-specific foot raise all measures had good reliability (ICC = 0.90 - 0.97). The existing flexibility measures had a poor correlation with climbing ability. The lateral foot reach and the adapted Grant foot raise were correlated with climbing ability (r = 0.30; r = 0.34) and used together represent good field measures of flexibility. The foot-loading flexibility test was had the strongest correlation with climbing ability (r = 0.65) and could differentiate between climbing abilities (F3,42 = 8.38, p < 0.001) in a laboratory setting. Our findings indicate that flexibility is a key performance component for the sport when a climbing-specific test is used.
España-Romero V, Ortega Porcel FB, Artero EG, Jiménez-Pavón D, Gutiérrez Sainz A, Castillo Garzón MJ, Ruiz JR, Climbing time to exhaustion is a determinant of climbing performance in high-level sport climbers
We studied which physiological and kinanthropometric characteristics determine climbing performance in 16 high-level sports climbers aged 29.9 ± 4.9 years. Body composition parameters were measured with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scanner. We also measured kinanthropometric and physical fitness parameters. The sex-specific 75th percentile value of onsight climbing ability was used to divide the sample into expert (<75th) and elite (≥75th) climbers. All the analyses were adjusted by sex. The 75th percentile value of onsight climbing ability was 7b in women and 8b in men. There were no differences between expert and elite climbers in the studied variables, except in climbing time to exhaustion and bone mineral density. Elite climbers had a significantly higher time to exhaustion than the expert group (770.2 ± 385 vs. 407.7 ± 150 s, respectively, P = 0.001). These results suggest that, among climbers with a high level of performance, as those analysed in this study, climbing time to exhaustion is a major determinant of climbing performance.
Ferguson R, Brown M. Arterial blood pressure and forearm vascular conductance responses to sustained and rhythmic isometric exercise and arterial occlusion in trained rock climbers and untrained sedentary subjects. Eur J Appl Physiol 1997;76:174–80.
Cardiovascular responses to sustained and rhythmic (5 s on, 2 s off ) forearm isometric exercise to fatigue at 40% maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) and to a period of arterial occlusion were investigated in elite rock climbers (CLIMB) as a trained population compared to non-climbing sedentary subjects (SED). Blood pressure (BP), monitored continuously by Finapres, and forearm blood flow, by venous occlusion plethysmography, were measured and used to calculate vascular conductance. During sustained exercise, times to fatigue were not different between CLIMB and SED. However, peak increases in systolic (S) BP were significantly lower in CLIMB [25 (13) mmHg; (3.3 (1.7) kPa] than in SED [48 (17) mmHg; (6.4 (2.3) kPa] (P<0.05), with a similar trend for increases in diastolic (D) BP. Immediately after sustained exercise, forearm conductance was higher in CLIMB than SED (P<0.05) for up to 2 min. During rhythmic exercise, times to fatigue were two fold longer in CLIMB than SED [853 (76) vs 420 (69) s, P<0.05]. Increases in SBP were not different between groups except during the last quarter of exercise when they fell in CLIMB. Conductance both during and after rhythmic exercise was higher in CLIMB than in SED. Following a 10-min arterial occlusion, peak vascular conductance was significantly greater in CLIMB than SED [0.597 (0.084) vs 0.431 (0.035) ml/min · 100/ml/mmHg; P<0.05]. The attenuated BP response to sustained isometric exercise could be due in part to enhanced forearm vasodilatory capacity, which also supports greater endurance during rhythmic exercise by permitting greater functional hyperaemia in between contraction phases. Such adaptations would all facilitate the ability of rock climbers to perform their task of making repetitive sustained contractions.
Fuss FK, Niegl G, Instrumented climbing holds and performance analysis in sport climbing, Sports Technol. 2008, 1, No. 6, 301–313
In three different events (national climbing Championship, sport climbing world cup, and training session), one hold was instrumented with two 3-D force transducers. Subsequently, the mechanical parameters of climbing were defined and analyzed, and the force vector diagrams visualized for quantification of performance.
The more experienced a climber is, the smaller the contact force, the shorter the contact time, the smaller the impulse, the better the smoothness factor, the higher the friction coefficient, the more continuous the movement of the center of pressure (in specific holds), and the smaller the Hausdorff dimension (less chaotic force time graph). The Hausdorff dimension correlates highly with all other parameters and with the appearance of the vector diagrams, and is thus suited to serve as the most important performance parameter. Training improves the mechanical parameters. The measurement and analysis of mechanical parameters and their visualization in terms of force vector diagrams are a useful tool for quantifying the performance of a climber on a specific instrumented hold.
Gerdes EM, Hafner JW, Aldag JC, Injury Patterns and Safety Practices of Rock Climbers, Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care: December 2006 - Volume 61 - Issue 6 - pp 1517-1525
Abstract
Background: Rock climbing is gaining popularity. The injury patterns and safety practices of climbers have not been well described. This study seeks to identify the general injury patterns and safety practices associated with rock climbing.
Methods: An anonymous multiple choice, Likert scale, and short-answer Internet survey was posted on several rock climbing Websites. Data were collected autonomously for a 2-month period in 2004. Demographic data were obtained and subjects self-identified their three most significant injuries. Participants were also surveyed regarding safety practices and training. SPSS 12.0 was used for statistical analysis and p < 0.05 was considered significant.
Results: In all, 1,887 subjects reported a total of 2,472 injuries. The mean number of injuries reported was 2.3 (SE 0.14) and 17.9% reported no injuries. Sprains and overuse were the most commonly described injuries, whereas fingers, ankles, elbows, and shoulders were the most commonly injured body parts. Some participants (28%) reported climbing under the influence of drugs or alcohol and these climbers documented more injuries (p < 0.008). Most of the injuries (77%) occurred while climbing at or below the subject's normal climbing level. Climbers who participated in traditional climbing (p < 0.001) or solo climbing (p < 0.001) documented more injuries. Males had less helmet use (p = 0.019) and more illicit substance use (p < 0.001).
Conclusions: Sprains and overuse were common climbing injuries, with the upper extremity being the most frequently injured body part. Rock climbers who participated in traditional or solo climbing, or who have climbed while under the influence or drugs or alcohol, reported more injuries.
Giles LV, Rhodes EC, Taunton JE, The Physiology of Rock Climbing, Sports Medicine, Volume 36, Number 6, 2006 , pp. 529-545(17)
In general, elite climbers have been characterised as small in stature, with low percentage body fat and body mass. Currently, there are mixed conclusions surrounding body mass and composition, potentially because of variable subject ability, method of assessment and calculation. Muscular strength and endurance in rock climbers have been primarily measured on the forearm, hand and fingers via dynamometry. When absolute hand strength was assessed, there was little difference between climbers and the general population. When expressed in relation to body mass, elite-level climbers scored significantly higher, highlighting the potential importance of low body mass.
Rock climbing is characterised by repeated bouts of isometric contractions. Hand grip endurance has been measured by both repeated isometric contractions and sustained contractions, at a percentage of maximum voluntary contraction. Exercise times to fatigue during repeated isometric contractions have been found to be significantly better in climbers when compared with sedentary individuals. However, during sustained contractions until exhaustion, climbers did not differ from the normal population, emphasising the importance of the ability to perform repeated isometric forearm contractions without fatigue becoming detrimental to performance.
A decrease in handgrip strength and endurance has been related to an increase in blood lactate, with lactate levels increasing with the angle of climbing. Active recovery has been shown to provide a better rate of recovery and allows the body to return to its pre-exercised state quicker. It could be suggested that an increased ability to tolerate and remove lactic acid during climbing may be beneficial.
Because of increased demand placed upon the upper body during climbing of increased difficulty, possessing greater strength and endurance in the arms and shoulders could be advantageous.
Flexibility has not been identified as a necessary determinant of climbing success, although climbing-specific flexibility could be valuable to climbing performance.
As the difficulty of climbing increases, so does oxygen uptake (V-dotO2), energy expenditure and heart rate per metre of climb, with a disproportionate rise in heart rate compared with V-dotO2. It was suggested that these may be due to a metaboreflex causing a sympathetically mediated pressor response. In addition, climbers had an attenuated blood pressure response to isometric handgrip exercises when compared with non-climbers, potentially because of reduced metabolite build-up causing less stimulation of the muscle metaboreflex.
Training has been emphasised as an important component in climbing success, although there is little literature reviewing the influence of specific training components upon climbing performance.
In summary, it appears that success in climbing is not related to individual physiological variables but is the result of a complex interaction of physiological and psychological factors.
Grant S, Hasler T, Davies C, et al (2001) A comparison of the anthropometric, strength, endurance, and flexibility characteristics of female elite and recreational climbers and non-climbers. J Sports Sci 19:499–505
There is limited information on the anthropometry, strength, endurance and flexibility of female rock climbers. The aim of this study was to compare these characteristics in three groups of females: Group 1 comprised 10 elite climbers aged 31.3 ± 5.0 years (mean ± s) who had led to a standard of 'hard very severe' ; Group 2 consisted of 10 recreational climbers aged 24.1 ± 4.0 years who had led to a standard of 'severe' ; and Group 3 comprised 10 physically active individuals aged 28.5 ± 5.0 years who had not previously rock-climbed. The tests included finger strength (grip strength, finger strength measured on climbing-specific apparatus), flexibility, bent arm hang and pull-ups. Regression procedures (analysis of covariance) were used to examine the influence of body mass, leg length, height and age. For finger strength, the elite climbers recorded significantly higher values (P < 0.05) than the recreational climbers and non-climbers (four fingers, right hand: elite 321 ± 18 N, recreational 251 ± 14 N, non-climbers 256 ± 15 N; four fingers, left hand: elite 307 ± 14 N, recreational 248 ± 12 N, non-climbers 243 ± 11 N). For grip strength of the right hand, the elite climbers recorded significantly higher values than the recreational climbers only (elite 338 ± 12 N, recreational 289 ± 10 N, non-climbers 307 ± 11 N). The results suggest that elite climbers have greater finger strength than recreational climbers and non-climbers.
Grant S, Hynes V, Whittaker A, et al. Anthropometric, strength, endurance and flexibility characteristics of elite and recreational climbers. J Sports Sci 1996;14:301–9.
There has been remarkable development in the scope and quality of rock climbing in recent years. However, there are scant data on the anthropometry, strength, endurance and flexibility of rock climbers. The aim of this study was to compare these characteristics in three groups of subjects - elite rock climbers, recreational climbers and non-climbers. The 30 male subjects were aged 28.8 ± 8.1 ( <x> ± S.D.) years. Group 1 (n = 10) comprised elite rock climbers who had led a climb of a minimum standard of 'E1' (E1-E9 are the highest climbing grades) within the previous 12 months; Group 2 (n = 10) comprised rock climbers who had achieved a standard no better than leading a climb considered 'severe' (a low climbing grade category); and Group 3 (n = 10) comprised physically active individuals who had not previously done any rock climbing. The test battery included tests of finger strength [grip strength, pincer (i.e. thumb and forefinger) strength, finger strength measured on climbing-specific apparatus], body dimensions, body composition, flexibility, arm strength and endurance, and abdominal endurance. The tests which resulted in significant differences (P < 0.05) between the three groups included the bent arm hang (elite 53.1 ± 1.32 s; recreational 31.4 ± 9.0 s; non-climbers 32.6 ± 15.0 s) and pull-ups (elite 16.2 ± 7.2 repetitions; recreational 3.0 ± 4.0 reps; non-climbers 3.0 ± 3.9 reps); for both tests, the elite climbers performed significantly better than the recreational climbers and non-climbers. Regression procedures (i.e. analysis of covariance) were used to examine the influence of body mass and leg length. Using adjusted means (i.e. for body mass and leg length), significant differences were obtained for the following: (1) finger strength, grip 1, four fingers (right hand) (elite 447 ± 30 N; recreational 359 ± 29 N; non-climbers 309 ± 30 N), (2) grip strength (left hand) (elite 526 ± 21 N; recreational 445 ± 21 N; non-climbers 440 ± 21 N), (3) pincer strength (right hand) (elite 95 ± 5 N; recreational 69 ± 5 N; non-climbers 70 ± 5 N) and (4) leg span (elite 139 ± 4 cm; recreational 122 ± 4 cm; non-climbers 124 ± 4 cm). For tests 3 and 4, the elite climbers performed significantly better than the recreational climbers and non-climbers for any variable. These results demonstrate that elite climbers have greater shoulder girdle endurance, finger strength and hip flexibility than recreational climbers and nonclimbers. Those who aspire to lead 'E1' standard climbs or above should consider training programmes to enhance their finger strength, shoulder girdle strength and endurance, and hip flexibility.
Janot JM, Steffen JP, Porcari JP, et al. Heart rate responses and perceived exertion for beginner and recreational sport climbers during indoor climbing. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online 2000;3:1–7.
The purpose of this investigation was to compare heart rate (HR) and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) of beginner and recreational sport climbers during indoor climbing. Seventeen beginner (10 M and 7 F) and 17 recreational (10 M and 7 F) sport climbers climbed two routes that varied in difficulty (route 1 = 5.6, route 2 = 5.8 on the Yosemite Decimal Scale). HR responses were recorded at pre-climb, during climbing, and during recovery using a Polar XL HR monitor. RPE values were recorded after each climb using the Borg 15-point RPE scale. Significant differences (p < .05) in pre-climb HR, climbing HR, and RPE were found between beginner and recreational climbers, but not for recovery HR (p > .05). In addition, pre-climb HR responses were significantly higher (p < .05) than recovery HR in beginner climbers only. As expected, HR responses during climbing were significantly greater (p < .05) for route 2 compared to route 1 due to the increased difficulty of route 2. These results indicate that HR and RPE responses differ between beginner and recreational climbers during most conditions. The differences between the beginner and recreational climbers could be attributed to route familiarity, varied efficiency in climbing technique, a pressor response, or anxiety. These data show how climbers with varied skill levels respond during climbing and provide climbing instructors with information that may assist in designing climbing programs based on the individual skill of the climber.
Koukoubis TD, Cooper LW, Glisson RR, et al. An electromyographic study of arm muscles during climbing. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1995;3:121–4.
Abstract
Upper extremity muscle injuries from rock climbing are common. Knowledge of the activity of specific muscles during climbing may allow the development of training programs to reduce these injuries. This study evaluated the electrical activity of the first interosseous (IN), brachioradialis (BR), flexor digitorum superficialis (FD), and biceps brachii (BB) muscles in seven climbers by integrated electromyography (IEMG) during finger-tip pull-ups. The climbers, with forearms pronated, performed three consccutive pull-ups. Each pull-up consisted of: (1) hanging using four fingers of each hand, (2) pullup to maximum elbow flexion, (3) slow return to starting position. The IEMG during maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) was obtained for each muscle separately, and the IEMG was normalized to MVC. During hanging, FD showed the highest normalized IEMG (0.64±0.20). During pull-up, the highest IEMG was produced by FD (0.69 ±0.25) and BR (0.67±0.19), while BB showed only 0.33 ±0.12 and IN 0.09±0.06. During lowering, FD again had the highest IEMG (0.74±0.24), while the EMG from BR was decreased to 0.42±0.14 and BB to 0.15±0.15. BR and BB showed an abrupt peak in EMG during pull-up and lowering, as opposed to FD which remained constantly highly activated, which suggests that FD does not contribute to elbow flexion even though it crosses the elbow joint. The high activation of FD and BR may explain their elevated incidence of injury during climbing. Thus, a reduction in climbing-related muscle injuries may be achieved by a training program that emphasizes conditioning of the BR and FD muscles.
Magiera A, Ryguła I, Biometric Model and Classification Functions in Sport Climbing, Journal of Human Kinetics volume 18 2007, 87‐98
Scientists have finally taken a greater interest in sport climbing and are trying to define the specific nature and structure of this sport discipline. Previously, studies concentrated on individual factors which affect sport climbing performance. In connection with the diversity and complex structure of this activity, there is a deficiency of studies attempting to describe a given phenomenon in a multidimensional way, which would form the grounds for further training optimization activities. The main research problem of this study was to present a biometric model, describing the best result in “On Sight” (OS) style men’s climbing, represented by Contestant Development Index (CDI). Studies were carried out on a group of thirty Polish sport climbing contestants of advanced level, who had an average sport level of VI.4/4+ in OS style. The analysis included 44 variables obtained by means of tests assessing the level of conditioning, coordination, somatic and psychological properties of the examined subjects. This helped in the successful (R2=0.93) explanation of climbing performance with the help of 9 features which best describe this phenomenon. Technique, VO2AT, Fmax., OSB-P, Contr., RR strength, Ape index, Com. r.r, Flex. Analysed during the study was the structure of Contestant Development Performance, also through discriminate analysis and 3 classification functions calculated with its help. Their role here consisted in the detailed selection of contestants for groups of different climbing advancement. Ten variables: Technique, VO2AT, Fmax. , Contr., RR strength, Ape index, Com. r.r allowed to make a very good qualification of the subjects to particular groups, with special distinction of the first group (first advancement level) from the rest.
Largiadèr U, Oelz O, An analysis of overstrain injuries in rock climbing, Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Sportmedizin [1993, 41(3):107-14]
Abstract
Between spring and autumn 1990 a study was performed with the goal of recording and classifying overstrain injuries due to rock-climbing and to define their causes. Of the 332 climbers participating in the study, 114 (34.4%) had suffered from at least one overstrain injury. The degree of climbing skill proved to be the main risk factor; with increasing climbing skills of the observed persons the percentage of injuries increased very substantially. The degree of climbing skill also was the only significant difference between injured and non-injured persons--injured persons had a climbing skill which was 1.3 degrees (UIAA) higher. Warming up was unable to prevent most overstrain injuries. A total of 237 injuries were described. 34.6% of these were long-term defects such as foot deformations and nail dystrophies of the toes. 65.4% were overstrain injuries; 90.3% of these cases concerned the upper part of the body and the upper extremities including the thoracic girdle, areas which are particularly strained in climbs of high degrees of difficulty. The areas affected were almost exclusively tendons, joint capsules and ligaments. By far the most frequent injury of the upper extremity was the proximal interphalangeal joint injury, followed by injuries to the proximal phalanx, the flexor tendons of the forearm and the distal interphalangeal joint. With regard to training injuries, finger injuries occurred most frequently in addition to elbow injuries. 51% of the overstrain injuries were severe, with healing times of months to years. Only 30% of the injured persons consulted a physician.
MAGALHAES J, FERREIRA R, MARQUES F, OLIVERA E, SOARES J, ASCENSAO A, Indoor Climbing Elicits Plasma Oxidative Stress. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 955–963, 2007
Purpose: Indoor climbing is a worldwide sport with particular physiological and physical demands. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of sustained indoor climbing until exhaustion on plasma oxidative stress markers, and to relate it to whole-body dynamic exercise performed at the same percentage of maximal oxygen uptake (V˙O2max). Methods: Fourteen male indoor climbers continuously climbed a competition-style route until exhaustion. Oxygen consumption and heart rate were continuously monitored during the climbing exercise. One week later, subjects performed a treadmill running protocol with the same duration and percentage of V˙O2max as that of climbing exercise. Blood samples were collected at rest, immediately after, and 1 h after both exercise protocols to analyze plasma levels of reduced (GSH) and oxidized (GSSG) glutathione, malondialdehyde (MDA), protein sulfhydryl (-SH) and carbonyl (CG) groups, total antioxidant status (TAS) and uric acid (UA), and total blood leukocytes, neutrophil, and lymphocyte counts. Results: Compared with running, climbing significantly increased the %GSSG, MDA, CG, TAS, and UA and decreased the GSH and -SH content. Blood counts of total leukocytes and neutrophils increased immediately after and 1 h after both running and climbing (P < 0.05), although counts were higher in climbing than in running (P < 0.05). Lymphocytes significantly increased from baseline to 0 h, although they decreased below baseline 1 h after climbing (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Data demonstrate that indoor climbing induces plasma oxidative stress. Moreover, results suggest that an ischemia-reperfusion prooxidant-based mechanism related to climbers' sustained and intermittent isometric forearm muscle contractions might have significantly contributed to observed plasma oxidative stress.
Mermier CM, Robergs RA, McMinn SM, et al. Energy expenditure and physiological responses during indoor rock climbing. Br J Sports Med 1997;31:224–8.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To report the physiological responses of indoor rock climbing. METHODS: Fourteen experienced climbers (nine men, five women) performed three climbing trials on an indoor climbing wall. Subjects performed three trials of increasing difficulty: (a) an easy 90 degrees vertical wall, (b) a moderately difficult negatively angled wall (106 degrees), and (c) a difficult horizontal overhang (151 degrees). At least 15 minutes separated each trial. Expired air was collected in a Douglas bag after four minutes of climbing and heart rate (HR) was recorded continuously using a telemetry unit. Arterialised blood samples were obtained from a hyperaemised ear lobe at rest and one or two minutes after each trial for measurement of blood lactate. RESULTS: Significant differences were found between trials for HR, lactate, oxygen consumption (VO2), and energy expenditure, but not for respiratory exchange ratio. Analysis of the HR and VO2 responses indicated that rock climbing does not elicit the traditional linear HR-VO2 relationship characteristic of treadmill and cycle ergometry exercise. During the three trials, HR increased to 74-85% of predicted maximal values and energy expenditure was similar to that reported for running at a moderate pace (8-11 minutes per mile). CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that indoor rock climbing is a good activity to increase cardiorespiratory fitness and muscular endurance. In addition, the traditional HR-VO2 relationship should not be used in the analysis of this sport, or for prescribing exercise intensity for climbing.
Mermier CM, Janot JM, Parker DL, et al. Physiological and anthropometric determinants of sport climbing performance. Br J Sports Med 2000;34:359–65; discussion 366.
Objective—To identify the physiological and anthropometric determinants of sport climbing performance.
Methods—Forty four climbers (24 men, 20 women) of various skill levels (self reported rating 5.6–5.13c on the Yosemite decimal scale) and years of experience (0.10–44 years) served as subjects. They climbed two routes on separate days to assess climbing performance. The routes (11 and 30 m in distance) were set on two artificial climbing walls and were designed to become progressively more difficult from start to finish. Performance was scored according to the system used in sport climbing competitions where each successive handhold increases by one in point value. Results from each route were combined for a total climbing performance score. Measured variables for each subject included anthropometric (height, weight, leg length, arm span, % body fat), demographic (self reported climbing rating, years of climbing experience, weekly hours of training), and physiological (knee and shoulder extension, knee flexion, grip, and finger pincer strength, bent arm hang, grip endurance, hip and shoulder flexibility, and upper and lower body anaerobic power). These variables were combined into components using a principal components analysis procedure. These components were then used in a simultaneous multiple regression procedure to determine which components best explain the variance in sport rock climbing performance.
Results—The principal components analysis procedure extracted three components. These were labelled training, anthropometric, and flexibility on the basis of the measured variables that were the most influential in forming each component. The results of the multiple regression procedure indicated that the training component uniquely explained 58.9% of the total variance in climbing performance. The anthropometric and flexibility components explained 0.3% and 1.8% of the total variance in climbing performance respectively.
Conclusions—The variance in climbing performance can be explained by a component consisting of trainable variables. More importantly, the findings do not support the belief that a climber must necessarily possess specific anthropometric characteristics to excel in sport rock climbing.
Nelson NG, McKenzie LB, Rock climbing injuries treated in emergency departments in the U.S., 1990-2007, American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2009 Vol. 37 No. 3 pp. 195-200
Background: Rock climbing is an increasingly popular sport in the U.S., with approximately nine million participants annually. The sport holds an inherent risk of falls and stress-related injuries. As indoor climbing facilities become more common, more people are participating in the sport.
Purpose: The objective of this study is to describe the prevalence, characteristics, and trends of rock climbing–related injuries treated in U.S. emergency departments from 1990 through 2007.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission for all ages from 1990 through 2007. Sample weights provided by NEISS were used to calculate national estimates of rock climbing–related injuries. Trend significance of the number of rock climbing–related injuries over time was analyzed using linear regression. Analysis was conducted in 2008.
Results: An estimated 40,282 patients were treated in emergency departments for rock climbing– related injuries in the U.S. over the 18-year period. Patients aged 20–39 years accounted for more than half of all injuries. Fractures, sprains, and strains accounted for the largest portion of injuries (29.0% and 28.6%, respectively). The lower extremities were the most frequently injured body part, accounting for 46.3% of all injuries; ankle injuries accounted for 19.2%. Men were more likely to sustain lacerations (OR1.65; 95% CI1.03, 2.67) and fractures (OR1.54; 95% CI1.10, 2.17), whereas women were more likely to sustain a sprain or strain (OR1.68; 95% CI1.13, 2.51). Overexertion injuries were more likely to occur to the upper extremities (OR5.32; 95% CI1.99, 14.23). Falls were responsible for three quarters of all injuries (77.5%). Overall, 11.3% of patients were hospitalized.
Conclusions: Our results indicate that the most common rock climbing–related injuries are to the lower extremities and are fractures, sprains, and strains. More research is needed to determine how rock-climbers' characteristics, climbing setting, style of climbing, and use of safety equipment and training may affect their risk for certain injury patterns.
PAIGE TE, FIORE DC, HOUSTON JD, Injury in traditional and sport rock climbing, Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, 9,2-7 (1998)
The objective of this study was to compare patterns of injury found in traditional rock climbing with those found in sport climbing. A questionnaire was administered to rock climbers by mail, in person, and via the World Wide Web. Injuries that occurred while rope-protected climbing on rock were analyzed regarding the anatomical location and the mechanism and activity at the time of injury. Ninety-four climbers reported sustaining an injury while rope-protected climbing on rock. Most injuries occurred while leading and involved the upper extremity, especially the fingers. Falling was the predominant mechanism of injury on traditional climbs, and stress over a joint while attempting a difficult move was the most common mechanism on sport climbs. Potential for injury prevention lies in teaching climbers to recognize the limitations of the fingers as weight-bearing structures.
PETERS P, Orthopedic problems in sport climbing, Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, 12, 100 110 (2001)
Sport climbing is associated with unique upper- and lower-limb injuries involving predominantly the hand, elbow, and shoulder, and to a lesser extent the foot. Many pathologic conditions are limited to sport climbing. Physicians treating sport climbers should be aware of these unique injuries and overuse syndromes. This article presents an overview of orthopedic problems (injuries, overuse syndromes, and fractures) resulting from sport climbing. Sport climbing is defined in the context of existing mountain sports, and its characteristics and technical terms are presented. The etiology, diagnosis, and specific treatment for orthopedic problems associated with sport climbing are described.
Quaine F, Martin L (1999) A biomechanical study of equilibrium in sport rock climbing. Gait Posture 10:233–239
Abstract
One of the main objectives of the experiment reported in this article was to analyze the arrangement of the forces applied to the holds accompanying a voluntary right foot release in the hanging rock climber. The three dimensional reaction forces applied to the holds were measured using four holds equipped with strain gauges. The force arrangement after the release consisted of a tripedal stance on the three remaining holds for the vertical forces, and of a bipedal stance on two laterally opposite holds (left foot and left holds) for the horizontal forces. The general significance of the results was analyzed with respect to the mechanism of static equilibrium. However, before conclusions can be drawn, other climbing movements and positions must be analyzed.
Quaine F, Vigouroux L, Martin L, Effect of simulated rock climbing finger postures on force sharing among the fingers, Clinical Biomechanics 18 (2003) 385–388
Abstract
Objective. To study the forces applied by each finger in different joint postures simulating rock climbing gripping postures.
Design. Subjects in sitting posture applied fingertip forces perpendicular to horizontal force sensors in three different finger postures.
Background. Data provided by the literature indicate that middle and ring finger are commonly injured. However, no quantitative assessment of the forces applied by each finger related to the joint postures has been made.
Methods. Six elite rock climbers performed finger flexion in a single-finger task and a four-finger task. The tests were conducted in an extended posture, a curved posture (the joints belonging to the finger were flexed) and an intermediate posture (the joints were flexed, except the distal one which was fully extended). Each fingertip force was expressed in absolute value and in percentage of the maximal force capacity of the finger.
Results. The greater force was applied by the middle finger (20.8 N), whatever the posture. The relative involvement amounted to 105% for the ring finger in the curved posture.
Conclusions. The great force applied by the middle finger and the great relative involvement of the ring finger in the curved posture seem to be the main factors of injuries of these fingers.
Relevance
The analysis of force sharing among the fingers during different joint postures mimicking rock climbing is essential to a better understanding of finger injuries.
Quaine F, Vigouroux L, Martin L, Finger Flexors Fatigue in Trained Rock Climbers and Untrained Sedentary Subjects, Int J Sports Med 2003; 24(6): 424-427
The present series of experiments were conducted to access the surface EMG frequency parameters during repeated fingertip isometric contractions to determine if they can be used as a fatigue index under specific grip used in rock climbing. Electromyograms of the finger flexors and extensors were characterised in ten elite climbers and ten non-climbers. The exercise consisted in reaching 80 % of maximal isometric finger force as quickly as possible intermittently with a 5-s contraction followed by 5-s of rest until exhaustion (i. e. when the subject was unable to maintain 80 - 70 % MVC force range for the 5 s). The results clearly indicate that expert climbers performed significantly greater fingertip force than sedentary subjects (420 ± 46 N vs. 342 ± 56 N). This force was maintained during twelve repetitions (12.88 ± 4.96) in sedentary subjects, whereas the climbers maintained the force during nineteen repetitions (19.33 ± 4.84). The median frequency of both the flexor and extensor EMG power spectra decreased during fatiguing isometric contractions, but at different rates in climbers and non-climbers. In non-climbers, the results replicated previous findings, whereas in climbers the results were novel.
Rodio A, Fattorini L, Rosponi A, Quattrini F, Marchetti M, Physiological Adaptation in Noncompetitive Rock Climbers: Good for Aerobic Fitness? Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: March 2008 - Volume 22 - Issue 2 - pp 359-364
The present investigation aimed to establish whether noncompetitive rock climbing fulfills sports medicine recommendations for maintaining a good level of aerobic fitness. The physiological profile of 13 rock climbers, 8 men (age, 43 ± 8 years) and 5 women (age, 31 ± 8 years) was assessed by means of laboratory tests. Maximal aerobic power (V̇o2peak) and ventilatory threshold (VT) were assessed using a cycloergometer incremental test. During outdoor rock face climbing, V̇o2 and heart rate (HR) were measured with a portable metabolimeter and the relative steady-state values (V̇o2 and HR during rock climbing) were computed. Blood lactate was measured during recovery. All data are presented as mean ± SD. V̇o2peak was 39.1 ± 4.3 mL/kg/min in men and 39.7 ± 5 mL/kg/min in women, while VT was 29.4 ± 3.0 mL/kg/min in men and 28.8 ± 4.6 mL/kg/min in women. The V̇o2 during rock climbing was 28.3 ± 1.5 mL/kg/min in men and 27.5 ± 3.7 mL/kg/min in women. The HR during rock climbing was 144 ± 16 b/min in men and 164 ± 13 b/min in women. The aerobic profile was classified from excellent to superior in accordance with the standards of the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). The exercise intensity (V̇o2 during rock climbing expressed as a percentage of V̇o2peak) was 70 ± 6% in men and 72 ± 8% in women. Moreover, the energy expenditure was 1000-1500 kcal per week. In conclusion, noncompetitive rock climbing has proved to be a typical aerobic activity. The intensity of exercise is comparable to that recommended by the American College of Sports Medicine to maintain good cardiorespiratory fitness.
ROHRBOUGH JT, MUDGE MK, SCHILLING RC, Overuse injuries in the elite rock climber. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 1369–1372, 2000.
Closed rupture of the flexor tendon sheath has been known to occur in the elite rock climbing population. However, only one study has investigated the prevalence of this entity. Purpose: To examine an elite climbing group in this country for the prevalence of pulley rupture and report on other commonly occurring injuries in the hand and elbow. Methods: 42 elite rock climbers competing at the U.S. national championships were evaluated by an injury survey and concentrated examination of the hand and elbow. Manual testing for clinical bowstringing was done for each finger, by the same examiner. Results: 11 subjects (26%) had evidence of flexor pulley rupture or attenuation, as manifested by clinical bowstringing. Injury to the PIP collateral ligament had occurred in 17 subjects (40%). Other commonly occurring injury syndromes are described. Conclusion: Our results and others suggest that closed traumatic pulley rupture occurs with significant frequency in this population. In addition, all subjects with this injury continued to climb at a high standard and reported no functional disability.
Rooks MD, Rock climbing injuries, Sports Med. 1997 Apr;23(4):261-70
Abstract
Three-quarters of elite and recreational sport climbers will suffer upper extremity injuries. Approximately 60% of these injuries will involve the hand and wrist, the other 40% will be equally divided between the elbow and the shoulder. Most injuries will be tendonopathies secondary to strains, microtrauma or flexor retinacular irritation. However, up to 30% of these injuries in up to 50% of elite climbers will involve the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) region. These injuries are more serious and consist of varying degrees of flexor digitorum sublimis insertional strains, digital fibro-osseous sheath ruptures and PIP joint collateral ligament strains. Early changes in climbing schedules, stretching and exercise habits, and protective digital taping are necessary to protect and rehabilitate these athletes.
Schoeffl V, Klee S, Strecker W, Evaluation of physiological standard pressures of the forearm flexor muscles during sport specific ergometry in sport climbers, Br J Sports Med. 2004 August; 38(4): 422–425
Background: Chronic exertional compartment syndromes (CECS) are well known in sports medicine. Most commonly affected is the tibialis anterior muscle compartment in runners and walkers. Only a few cases of CECS of the forearm flexor muscles have been reported.
Objectives: To determine pressure levels inside the deep flexor compartment of the forearms during a sport specific stress test.
Method: Ten healthy, high level climbers were enrolled in a prospective study. All underwent climbing specific ergometry, using a rotating climbing wall (step test, total climbing time 9–15 minutes). Pressure was measured using a slit catheter placed in the deep flexor compartment of the forearm. Pressure, blood lactate, and heart rate were recorded every three minutes and during recovery.
Results: In all the subjects, physical exhaustion of the forearms defined the end point of the climbing ergometry. Blood lactate increased with physical stress, reaching a mean of 3.48 mmol/l. Compartment pressure was related to physical stress, exceeding 30 mm Hg in only three subjects. A critical pressure of more than 40 mm Hg was never observed. After the test, the pressure decreased to normal levels within three minutes in seven subjects. The three with higher pressure levels (>30 mm Hg) required a longer time to recover.
Conclusions: For further clinical and therapeutic consequences, an algorithm was derived. Basic pressure below 15 mm Hg and stress pressure below 30 mm Hg as well as pressures during the 15 minute recovery period below 15 mm Hg are physiological. Pressures of 15–30 mm Hg during recovery suggest high risk of CECS, and pressures above 30 mm Hg confirm CECS.
Schöffl VR, Möckel F, Köstermeyer G, Roloff I, Küpper T, Development of a Performance Diagnosis of the Anaerobic Strength Endurance of the Forearm Flexor Muscles in Sport Climbing, Int J Sports Med 2006; 27(3): 205-211
The anaerobic strength endurance of the forearm flexor muscles represents the main limiting factor in modern sports climbing. Only isometric testing has been performed so far in order to evaluate this factor. Since climbing involves intermittent isometric contraction as well as dynamic movements, a pure isometric testing is too unspecific. The present paper demonstrates a specific performance diagnosis using a rotating climbing wall as a climbing ergometer. Twenty-eight male climbers performed a step test. According to their climbing level they were divided into three groups with different inclinations of the wall. Maximum blood lactate was 5.0 ± 1.3 mmol/l (mean ± sd), climbing length 39.1 ± 15.7 m, and heart rate 185 ± 10.7 bpm. The mean number of steps performed was 5.8 ± 2.5 and the mean slope of the blood lactate graph (regression equitation) was 0.57 ± 0.4. The specific climbing recovering ability is documented with the so called heart rate difference and additionally the positive effects of a non specific, aerobic, basic endurance training are demonstrated. A mathematical analysis of the most important performance limiting test results enabled us to determine a strength-endurance factor that can be applied for cross- and longitudinal-section comparisons.
Schweizer A (2001 ) Biomechanical properties of the crimp grip position in rock climbers. J Biomech 34:217–223
Rock climbers are often using the unique crimp grip position to hold small ledges. Thereby the PIP joints are flexed about 90° and the DIP joints are hyperextended maximally. During this position of the finger joints bowstringing of the flexor tendon is applying very high load to the flexor tendon pulleys and can cause injuries and overuse syndromes. The objective of this study was to investigate bowstringing and forces during crimp grip position. Two devices were built to measure the force and the distance of bowstringing and one device to measure forces at the fingertip. All measurements of 16 fingers of 4 subjects were made in vivo. The largest amount of bowstringing was caused by the FDP tendon in the crimp grip position being less using slope grip position (PIP joint extended). During a warm-up the distance of bowstringing over the distal edge of the A2 pulley increased by 0.6 mm (30 %) and was loaded about 3 times the force applied at the fingertip during crimp grip position. Load up to 116 N was measured. Increase of force in one finger holds by the quadriga effect was shown using crimp and slope grip position.
Schweizer A, Lumbrical Tears in Rock Climbers, J Hand Surg Eur Vol April 2003 vol. 28 no. 2 187-189
Abstract
Performance rock climbing places high demands on the hand and may lead to specific injuries. In a “one-finger-pocket” hold, the interphalangeal joints remain in 20–40° flexion. To increase the maximum force of the holding finger by the quadriga effect, the interphalangeal joints of the adjacent fingers become almost maximally flexed. Holding a “one-finger-pocket” with the ring or small finger leads to a shift of the deep flexor tendons which increases the distance between the two adjacent origins of either the third or the fourth lumbrical. This may cause disruption and tear of that muscle. An organized haematoma in the third lumbrical was visible by ultrasonography in one of the three cases described.
Shea KG, Shea OF, Meals RA, Manual demands and consequences of rock climbing, The Journal of Hand Surgery Volume 17, Issue 2, March 1992, Pages 200-205
Abstract
Types of rock climbing, hand-grip technques, and training practices used by rock climbers are described. A survey was completed by 46 climbers. Three fourths of the climbers reported a climbing-related injury; of these injured climbers, almost one half reported a hand or wrist injury. More than half of the injured climbers had been treated by a physician for their injury. More than half of all climbers reported distal interphalangeal or proximal interphalangeal joint pain while climbing. Case reports of three climbers with acute hand injuries are presented to illustrate the minimal effects of their residual deficits on their climbing abilities. A wider understanding of the manual aspects of rock climbing and an awareness of the patterns and incidence of injuries in this sport will facilitate prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation.
Sheel AW, Physiology of sport rock climbing, Br J Sports Med 2004;38:355–359
Abstract
Rock climbing has increased in popularity as both a recreational physical activity and a competitive sport. Climbing is physiologically unique in requiring sustained and intermittent isometric forearm muscle contractions for upward propulsion. The determinants of climbing performance are not clear but may be attributed to trainable variables rather than specific anthropometric characteristics.
Sheel AW, Seddon N, Knight A, et al. Physiological responses to indoor rockclimbing and their relationship to maximal cycle ergometry. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003;35:1225–31.
Purpose: To quantify the cardiorespiratory responses to indoor climbing during two increasingly difficult climbs and relate them to whole-body dynamic exercise. It was hypothesized that as climbing difficulty increased, oxygen consumption (V̇O2) and heart rate would increase, and that climbing would require utilization of a significant fraction of maximal cycling values.
Methods: Elite competitive sport rock climbers (6 male, 3 female) completed two data collection sessions. The first session was completed at an indoor climbing facility, and the second session was an incremental cycle test to exhaustion. During indoor climbing subjects were randomly assigned to climb two routes designated as harder or easier based on their previous best climb. Subjects wore a portable metabolic system, which allowed measurement of oxygen consumption (V̇O2), minute ventilation (V̇E), respiratory exchange ratio (RER), and heart rate. During the second session, maximal values for V̇O2, V̇E, RER, and heart rate were determined during an incremental cycle test to exhaustion.
Results: Heart rate and V̇O2, expressed as percent of cycling maximum, were significantly higher during harder climbing compared with easier climbing. During harder climbing, %HRmax was significantly higher than %V̇O2max (89.6% vs 51.2%), and during easier climbing, %HRmax was significantly higher than %V̇O2max (66.9% vs 45.3%).
Conclusions: With increasing levels of climbing difficulty, there is a rise in both heart rate and V̇O2. However, there is a disproportional rise in heart rate compared with V̇O2, which we attribute to the fact that climbing requires the use of intermittent isometric contractions of the arm musculature and the reliance of both anaerobic and aerobic metabolism.
Rock climbing has increased in popularity in the past 15-20 yr. Indoor sport climbing is a subdiscipline of rock climbing where climbers ascend an artificial climbing wall in relative safety. Competitive indoor climbing is performed on an indoor wall with routes that are established by professional route-setters. Despite the increasing number of indoor facilities, widespread popularity of this sport, and the development of local, national, and international competitions, the physiological responses to climbing are not well defined. The act of climbing involves sustained and intermittent isometric forearm muscle contractions (2); however, most previous studies have focused on anthropometry (10), injury (14,16,23), or strength and flexibility (5). Some investigators have attempted to quantify the metabolic cost of indoor rock climbing (2,11,19) and climbing using an indoor vertical treadmill (3,20). To date, no investigations have related the energetics of climbing relative to individual climbing ability. In addition, the relationship between maximal exercise capacity (i.e., maximal cycle exercise) and the metabolic demands of climbing has not been clearly established. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to quantify the cardiorespiratory responses to indoor climbing, during two climbs of differing difficulty, and relate them to maximal exercise capacity. Specifically, we hypothesized that as climbing difficulty increased, oxygen consumption (V̇O2) and heart rate would increase and that climbing would require utilization of a significant fraction of maximal values obtained during a graded cycle test to exhaustion.
Sibella F, Frosio I, Schena F, Borghese NA, 3D analysis of the body center of mass in rock climbing, Human Movement Science 26 (2007) 841–852
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to search for common patterns and for differences in climbing strategies in a group of recreational climbers. Twelve participants were involved in the study. Each participant climbed a simple indoor route consisting of a 3 m horizontal shift followed by a 3 m ascent for five times. Climbers could choose their own style, their preferred speed and holds. Their motion was recorded through motion capture based on passive markers. Results suggested that two main climbing strategies were used: the first preferring agility over force and the second preferring force over agility. We also found that our best climbers tried to minimize power during all trials.
Sylvester AD, Christensen AM, Kramer PA, Factors influencing osteological changes in the hands and fingers of rock climbers, Journal of Anatomy Volume 209, Issue 5, pages 597–609, November 2006
Abstract
This study examines the osteological changes in the hands and fingers of rock climbers that result from intense, long-term mechanical stress placed on these bones. Specifically, it examines whether rock climbing leads to metacarpal and phalange modelling in the form of increased cortical thickness as well as joint changes associated with osteoarthritis. This study also attempts to identify specific climbing-related factors that may influence these changes, including climbing intensity and frequency of different styles of climbing. Radiographs of both hands were taken for each participant and were scored for radiographic signs of osteoarthritis using an atlas method. Total width and medullary width were measured directly on radiographs using digital calipers and used to calculate cross-sectional area and second moment of area based on a ring model. We compared 27 recreational rock climbers and 35 non-climbers for four measures of bone strength and dimensions (cross-sectional area, second moment of area, total width and medullary width) and osteoarthritis. A chi-squared test for independence was used to compare climber and non-climber osteoarthritis scores. For each measure of bone strength climbers and non-climbers were compared using a manova test. Significant manova tests were followed by principal components analysis (PCA) and individual anova tests performed on principal components with eigenvalues greater than one. A second PCA was performed on the climber subsample and the first principal component was then used as the dependent variable in linear regression variable selection procedures to determine which climbing-related variables affect bone thickness. The results suggest that climbers are not at an increased risk of developing osteoarthritis compared with non-climbers. Climbers, however, do have greater cross-sectional area as well as second moment of area. Greater total width, but not meduallary width, indicates that additional bone is deposited subperiosteally. The strength of the finger and hand bones are correlated with styles of climbing that emphasize athletic difficulty. Significant predictors include the highest levels achieved in bouldering and sport climbing.
Conclusion
The results of this study suggest that the mechanical stress generated during rock climbing is sufficient to stimulate the bone deposition response. The relationship between measures of bone thickness and sport climbing and bouldering, and not traditional climbing or years of climbing, indicate that bone remodels to accommodate high-intensity mechanical stress and not to frequent low-intensity stresses, even if maintained over long periods of time. The results also suggest that it is possible for adults to deposit new bone subperiosteally, even if they have already reached skeletal maturity. The results do not support the findings from other studies that climbers have a higher incidence or earlier onset of OA.
Warme WJ, Brooks D, The Effect of Circumferential Taping on Flexor Tendon Pulley Failure in Rock Climbers, Am J Sports Med September 2000 vol. 28 no. 5 674-678
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether circumferential taping of the base of the finger increases the A2 pulley's load to failure in a model simulating a rock climber's grip. Nine pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric hands, 20 to 47 years of age, were rigidly mounted in a specialized jig that maintained the finger in the climber's “crimp” position. Two of the four fingers of each hand were reinforced over the A2 pulley with three wraps of cloth adhesive tape. The flexor digitorum profundus and superficialis tendons were distracted until pulley or tendon failure. Overall, A2 pull
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 01:21am PT
|
So glad sports research is so advanced but I can't help dwelling on the Gristle.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 12, 2011 - 01:22am PT
|
is someone's zipper down?
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 02:00am PT
|
"These results are interpreted as suggesting that this popular sport represents more an anxiety-type of psychological stress than a physical stress and as such is likely to increase moral fibre rather than muscle fibre." - Taggert et al. 1978
This was apparently edited out of the abstract list. Interesting take on the scientific method...
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 02:32am PT
|
So glad sports research is so advanced but I can't help dwelling on the Gristle
What Mimi said. Not, of course, that I myself am dwelling on the gristle. (And nttiawwt if I did.) But really, what is it all about? Alex Lowe trained hard. Maybe as hard as anyone. And he got up lots of things that were graded harder than what you will ever climb.
But remember what he said when someone asked him who the best climber was?
"Whoever is having the most fun."
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 03:05am PT
|
you can spend the downtime tweeting yr fans, texting the broheims, and emailing ur sponsors.
And checking 8a.nu to see what's happening, and spray.
An interesting thread and subject - thanks to all the contributors. I admit I haven't read the whole thing.
Underlying all this is that human athletic performance allegedly has advanced significantly over the last century or more, and we've learned some more about how to maximize it. But underlying that is that we're a materially much richer culture, which is what makes it possible to do this stuff more than any training. An urban, educated society with disposable income and ample leisure time, ready access to cliffs and mountains, and good equipment and techniques, is the start. But then also knowing that there is (for most) decent if not good medical care for such injuries as we do suffer, and something of a social safety net if worst comes to worst. Although what we do now is for the most part much safer than what was being done on the cliffs and mountains a century ago, we can take much greater chances, knowing that there's much better rescue and treatment possible.
I also agree that solid all around fitness is an essential building block to a long, healthy climbing career, or recovery from injury. Strength, mental, flexibility, aerobics.
As for climbing itself, a lot of moderate climbing goes a long way in terms of training, or reacclimating after injury. Relatively few climbers are all that serious, by professional or world championship standards. No trainer, limited coaching, no nutritionist, no sports psychologist, etc. Which again tends to suggest that a lot of climbing success is simply time on the rock, and being used to being on the rock.
I've never really known what to make of sports injuries. I've had my share, properly treated, but often wonder about others with self-diagnosed injuries with vague symptoms. I once was in an event that billed itself as a world championship, an endurance event. (I've had harder, plus scarier, days in the mountains.) But the moaning about real and imagined injuries got to be a bit much at times. They weren't very good at laughing at themselves, something that climbers still have.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 03:22am PT
|
An estimated 40,282 patients were treated in emergency departments for rock climbing– related injuries in the U.S. over the 18-year period.
Ye Gods!
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 11:21am PT
|
But remember what he said when someone asked him who the best climber was?
"Whoever is having the most fun."
I love this quote. Not because it's true, but because it is an instant tip-off to people who want an excuse for why they are lazy, untalented, untrained, unwilling to suffer, and think some kumbaya hokey-ass quote from someone being modest absolves them of those traits.
If you are on the inevitable aging related physical decline and have "retired" into duffer style outings that's one thing, but for the <60 year old and healthy set, this is just excuse making by the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 12, 2011 - 11:48am PT
|
I'm having fun with this, maybe hard to convince some of you that it could be so. I have a newly delivered copy of The Self Coached Climber and will check it out.
Researching this topic has given me some insights, and confirmed some suspicions, and even supported some old contentions. I'll work to summarize what that mass of studies seems to tell me over the weekend.
Interestingly, it is possible that my left knee meniscus problem could have been caused by climbing, something that I didn't ever think of, since I had had problems there since high school soccer. But roughly 5 years of much more intensive rock climbing after having moved back to CA in 1995, and joined a gym sometime around then too, could have been a factor.
While the studies listed above have small sample sizes, for the most part, we usually decide on how to train based on our own experience, and compare our progress against our regular partners, at least the generation too old to participate meaningfully in http://www.8a.nu, here is some training advice from that site:
"Training/Jens: Most intermediate climbers could improve very quickly just by learning the hang-dog technique, i.e. using quick draws to bypass cruxes. Often, climbers below 7a struggle during their warm up just to reach the top of a route. All 8a climbers use quick draws frequently as they start working their first 8a+, meanwhile intermediate climbers are often both mentally and physically exhausted as they reach the anchor on their redpoint project... "
7a, for those who have missed out, is put at 5.11d, at least if you go to the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_(climbing);, 8a is 5.13b...
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 11:56am PT
|
[The Lowe quote] is an instant tip-off to people who want an excuse for why they are lazy, untalented, untrained, unwilling to suffer, and think some kumbaya hokey-ass quote from someone being modest absolves them of those traits.
Climbing is an individual sport. You get from it...what you get from it. There is no moral imperative to continually strain at the limits of your current ability---that is just one way to approach the sport.
In my experience, retiring into dufferdom (harsh, Elcap) isn't just the province of the aged mountaineer. It is, for many people, a periodic but strategic retreat from the pressures of accomplishment (pressures that come with an increased exposure to risk, at least for the trad climber). These pressures are surely a major component of the enterprise, but those who turn away from them, either as a temporary respite or as a permanent embrace of something mellower, are not necessarily suffering from some form of self-delusion.
In any case, both ends of the training intensity and motivation spectrum are susceptible to personality disorders, and self-awareness is not typically a feature of folks at either extreme.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 12, 2011 - 12:02pm PT
|
Elcapinyoazz is a horse! he has paid his dues and knows how to reap the benefits of that discipline... I read carefully both rgolds and Elcapin... comments on training. Both inspirational. Freddy hasn't posted here yet, he has some insight on this topic too...
...while an individual sport, I am seeking some general principals on climbing training. My conjecture is that that starts with training for the specifics of the sport.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 12:48pm PT
|
Ed, don't get me wrong. Sport-specific training---which of course is based on my understanding, faulty as it may have been, of the meaning of specificity---is the only reason I got as good as I did, and training is the only reason I'm not duffering up 5.4's rather than 5.10's after 54 years of climbing.
While we are on the subject, allow me to interpose some of my own pseudo-scientific conclusions about training:
(1) As long as the exercises themselves or the approach to them doesn't injure you (think Crossfit), anything is better than nothing, which is why everyone thinks their exercise routine, no matter how whacky, has improved their climbing.
(2) Exercises that tire you in ways analogous to climbing are the ones that will provide the most benefit. In other words, try various routines, but compare the soreness of new exercises to what you experience climbing, and only choose to continue things that replicate your climbing fatigue. (Exception: exercises done for injury prevention.)
(3) Is it too obvious to suggest that exercise that replicate climbing motions are the most appropriate? (Some routines seem to pay no attention to this idea.) This means, in the weight room, that there should probably be a premium on pulley exercises. Although I can't say I've tried many personally, I can think of a whole bunch of pressing and cross-pressure movements that would probably be a good thing...
(4) If you have the opportunity, look for exercises that good climbers are already pretty good at "off the couch." The fact that good climbers have somehow developed the strength means, even in the absence of obvious connections, that it is probably worth developing.
A case in point here is front levers. After a very long period observation in all sorts of different types of gyms, I can virtually guarantee you that climbers come far closer to being able to perform front levers than any other group of athletes (gymnasts excluded, of course). This means to me that front lever training is a good upper-body exercise for climbing; we don't have to hypothesize what exactly it is good for (and I'm pretty confident that it is not particularly good for helping keep your feet placed on extreme overhangs and is not some kind of especially effective core exercise). I realize this is a correlation=causation argument, and yet I think it has merit nonetheless.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 01:07pm PT
|
fffzzzzzzzzz...strap me in Capt, I got a big one on the line!
That was partially in jest Mr. G, sure many people approach climbing as a pleasure outing and pushing themselves isn't on the agenda. Nothing wrong with that. But the term "best" has a pretty clear meaning, and I hear that Lowe quote over and over and over again, almost always from people who want to insulate their ego from the fact that they aren't half the climber they could be if they were willing to work.
Most intermediate climbers could improve very quickly just by learning the hang-dog technique, i.e. using quick draws to bypass cruxes. Often, climbers below 7a struggle during their warm up just to reach the top of a route. All 8a climbers use quick draws frequently as they start working their first 8a+, meanwhile intermediate climbers are often both mentally and physically exhausted as they reach the anchor on their redpoint project...
There's some merit in that suggestion. Most will certainly redpoint quicker and get more routes done over a season that way. And doing more variety of routes at your limit will likely make you a better climber.
I spent last winter climbing with a partner who is waaaayyyy better than me. Guy has assembled probably the most impressive ticklist in our home area of anyone, ever. The best thing I learned from him was tactics and how to approach hard routes at your limit. Seeing him work a route was a minor revelation.
He would suss out the moves on something almost a move at a time, try every conceivable sequence on a difficult move even after having found a sequence that worked, and would generally conserve energy while working something so he could really get the most value out of the session before becoming too tired to continue. He didn't waste time or energy repeatedly climbing sections that he knew he could climb that were still physically demanding but wouldn't stop him (say 5.11+ sections of a 5.13 route)Belaying him working a project would be like - climb two moves, "take. lower me a foot", pull halfway into a move using a different sequence, "take. that kinda sucks. climbing...that doesn't feel right, take", settles on best sequence, climbs it, "lower me. stop", does the sequence again, etc.
Every critical hold brushed and chalked. Gear placements figured out. Rest spots figured out. Show up when sun/shade/wind/temp conditions would be good. Might do a couple TR laps once it was all figured out, might not. And once he had it sussed, he would be on lead. And he was open minded. I am hysterically weak compared to him, quite a bit shorter so require different beta half the time, and don't move nearly as well. But occasionally he would still end up switching to my beta on moves instead of what he'd initially figured out, partly because seeing I'd done it differently he would try my way just like he tried everything he could think of, and probably because he knew if I could get up it with a certain sequence that sequence was bound to be relatively easy for him (otherwise it would shut me down).
A lot of the things are common sense, but to see someone methodically put the entire set of tactics into place as a std practice, really opened my eyes.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 02:14pm PT
|
^^^and don't forget the bits about conserving skin. nothing more frustrating than a good rp blown by a flapper.
ed, you should also look at the bib in self-coached climber, esp. the messenger anthology. that stuff is also a bit dated now, but i found it pretty interesting.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 04:30pm PT
|
I think rgold and ElCap's partner share more than they differ, but rgold is at a different point in his climbing career. To contrast the two might be seen as irony.
OTOH, ElCap provides an excellent non-scientific look at how to do well at climbing.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 05:17pm PT
|
A story to compare with ECinyo's story about his climbing.. A few of us were bouldering with Goldstone back in the early 70's. Rich did the problem very statically even pausing for a split second before accessing each new hold.
When one of us desperately lunged to get one of the holds Rich had pressed out to reach, Rich rolled his eyes and said,
"Doesn't anyone climb anymore?"
|
|
EdBannister
Mountain climber
13,000 feet
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 05:29pm PT
|
Ed,
i love your passion, for the stone, and the rest.
Hats off.
still thinking you type much faster than i do,
just another Ed in the wall
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2011 - 01:05am PT
|
MH2: If sport-climbing existed back when I could do hard climbs and if the prevailing ethic "allowed" the techniques ElCap described, I'm sure I would have been totally into it. That being the case, it would hardly be appropriate to cast aspersions now from the comfort of my rocker.
Jstan: I've stuck around long enough for the joke to be on me. In my dotage, I have had many occasions to embrace dynamic techniques, the ability to lock off having long since departed. But I also have to be very careful, because a catch with the arm fully extended or awkwardly out to the side would almost certainly result in a nasty injury to my already scar-tissue-laced shoulders. And I am mindful of Gill's torn bicep, incurred when he was much younger than I am now, during the clamping action at the end of a dyno.
So: I have drawn the line at deadpoints. If the move requires (for me) something more aggressive than a deadpoint, then I'm coming down, pulling on a draw, taking, or maybe all three in the reverse order.
And so it seems, by my own definition, that I am no longer climbing, a conclusion that a number of my partners have, no doubt, reached independently. Of course, like any old fart, I have found a rationalization for my hypocrisy, and that is that I have earned the right to climb badly, and now glory in the dufferdom so accurately if unempathically identified by ElCap.
This actually fits into the aging-climber injury and training discussion, because it means thinking specifically, while climbing, about moving in a way that will reduce the injury potential, and to the extent that it is possible, restraining oneself from moves that are likely to be harmful.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2011 - 11:07am PT
|
"Jstan: I've stuck around long enough for the joke to be on me. In my dotage,"
Well, once again I have been very lucky. I had a chance to see problems done in the way, anyone who could, would want to do them.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2011 - 12:52pm PT
|
General aerobic fitness and careful strengthening of the non-climbing muscles and tendons that work in opposition to those muscles and tendons actively used in climbing should be part of a climbing fitness program. Aside from the psychological aspects training for climbing is not much different than training for other sports. The methods used must match the individual, the particular weaknesses and strengths, version of the sport, and realistic time available for training.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 13, 2011 - 01:12pm PT
|
I'll keep looking for One Move Too Many by Thomas Hochholzer & Volker Schoeffl, there don't seem to be any copies out there at all.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2011 - 01:29pm PT
|
ed, you can borrow my copy if you like. just scan it-- who knows when the next edition will appear
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2011 - 02:08pm PT
|
Amazon.com: One Move Too Many: How to Understand the Injuries and ...
Amazon.com: One Move Too Many: How to Understand the Injuries and Overuse Syndroms of Rock ... Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App . ...
http://www.amazon.com › ... › Mountaineering › Rock Climbing - Cached - Similar
|
|
em kn0t
Trad climber
isle of wyde
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2011 - 05:39pm PT
|
Climbing is our mediation- our art-I have no regular climbing here in Texas and I am lost and in withdrawal and it sucks.
Riley -- hang in there, you're too good to let go. Maybe it's PWD (Post-Wall Depression). Talk to Gary or Zander or Scuffy about how to build a woodie OW. Start planning the next trip. Keep on keepin' on
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 13, 2011 - 06:43pm PT
|
Summary based on referenced literature.
1) Performance
There are six articles that have tested a group of rock climbers of varying ability and attempted to discover what attributes distinguish "elite" climbers from the others. [Grant 1998] characterized: anthropometry, finger strength, flexibility, arm strength, arm endurance, abdominal endurance. The attributes which were found to be superior in the "elite" climbers were: finger strength, shoulder girdle strength and endurance, hip flexibility. [Mermier 2000] took a similar but different set of attributes: anthropometric, demographic, physiological which were reduced to 3 components: training, anthropometric, flexibility. This study found that training was the discriminating attribute. [Grant 2001] measured: anthropometry, strength, endurance, flexibility. In this study, finger strength was the discriminating factor. [Watts 2004] summarizes the attributes of "elite" climbers: small stature, low body fat, high strength-to-body-mass. The recommended training regime emphasizes: high aerobic power, specific muscular strength and endurance, ATP-PC and anaerobic glycosis system power and capacity, some minimum range of motion. Finally [Magiera 2007] in a difficult to read paper characterizes: anthropometry, strength and endurance, technique, psychological profile. The conclusions are somewhat murky, but the top 3 attributes were found to be: technique, oxygen consumption on anaerobic threshold, maximum finger strength.
While it may be difficult to conclude much from this, it seems that in general, climbing has not yet evolved to a difficulty where the "elite" climbers are determined by subtle anthropometric factors (as in other well developed sports). Training specific climbing skills remains the dominant factor in determining an "elite" performance.
[Giles 2006] summarizes:
"In general, elite climbers have been characterised as small in stature, with low percentage body fat and body mass. Currently, there are mixed conclusions surrounding body mass and composition, potentially because of variable subject ability, method of assessment and calculation. Muscular strength and endurance in rock climbers have been primarily measured on the forearm, hand and fingers via dynamometry. When absolute hand strength was assessed, there was little difference between climbers and the general population. When expressed in relation to body mass, elite-level climbers scored significantly higher, highlighting the potential importance of low body mass.
Rock climbing is characterised by repeated bouts of isometric contractions. Hand grip endurance has been measured by both repeated isometric contractions and sustained contractions, at a percentage of maximum voluntary contraction. Exercise times to fatigue during repeated isometric contractions have been found to be significantly better in climbers when compared with sedentary individuals. However, during sustained contractions until exhaustion, climbers did not differ from the normal population, emphasising the importance of the ability to perform repeated isometric forearm contractions without fatigue becoming detrimental to performance.
A decrease in handgrip strength and endurance has been related to an increase in blood lactate, with lactate levels increasing with the angle of climbing. Active recovery has been shown to provide a better rate of recovery and allows the body to return to its pre-exercised state quicker. It could be suggested that an increased ability to tolerate and remove lactic acid during climbing may be beneficial.
Because of increased demand placed upon the upper body during climbing of increased difficulty, possessing greater strength and endurance in the arms and shoulders could be advantageous.
Flexibility has not been identified as a necessary determinant of climbing success, although climbing-specific flexibility could be valuable to climbing performance.
As the difficulty of climbing increases, so does oxygen uptake (V-dotO2), energy expenditure and heart rate per metre of climb, with a disproportionate rise in heart rate compared with V-dotO2. It was suggested that these may be due to a metaboreflex causing a sympathetically mediated pressor response. In addition, climbers had an attenuated blood pressure response to isometric handgrip exercises when compared with non-climbers, potentially because of reduced metabolite build-up causing less stimulation of the muscle metaboreflex.
Training has been emphasised as an important component in climbing success, although there is little literature reviewing the influence of specific training components upon climbing performance.
In summary, it appears that success in climbing is not related to individual physiological variables but is the result of a complex interaction of physiological and psychological factors."
2) Energy Use
A number of articles explore the energy use of climbers, largely the uptake of oxygen and the generation of lactic acid. A very early study [Williams 1978] concludes that "These results are interpreted as suggesting that this popular sport represents more an anxiety-type of psychological stress than a physical stress and as such is likely to increase moral fibre rather than muscle fibre." Which initiates a puzzle regarding the nature of energy use in climbers. [Mermier 1997] finds that "rock climbing does not elicit the traditional linear HR-VO2 relationship characteristic of treadmill and cycle ergometry exercise." Further refinements of this in [Watts 1998] "Despite similar RPE [rating of perceived exertion] and BL [blood lactate], the relative exercise intensity elicited from simulated rock climbing is lower than that of running at the same HR [heart rate]."
This puzzle starts to be understood in [Booth 1999] which undertook a study assessing oxygen uptake (VO2), blood lactate concentration ([La(b)]), and heart rate (HR) response. The find that "outdoor sport rock climbs of five to 10 minutes' duration and moderate difficulty require a significant portion of the VO2climb-peak. The higher HR and VO2 for outdoor climbing and the increased [La(b)] could be the result of repeated isometric contractions, particularly from the arm and forearm muscles." Blood lactate is pursued in the following studies. [Watts 2000] in a study of "recovery strategies" finds that "Low intensity active recovery appears to significantly reduce accumulated blood lactate within 20 minutes following difficult climbing, however further research is required to establish whether this strategy is advantageous for subsequent climbing performance." [Sheel 2003] also finds that "With increasing levels of climbing difficulty, there is a rise in both heart rate and V̇O2. However, there is a disproportional rise in heart rate compared with V̇O2, which we attribute to the fact that climbing requires the use of intermittent isometric contractions of the arm musculature and the reliance of both anaerobic and aerobic metabolism." More detailed work in [Magalhaes 2007] concludes that their "Data demonstrate that indoor climbing induces plasma oxidative stress. Moreover, results suggest that an ischemia-reperfusion prooxidant-based mechanism related to climbers' sustained and intermittent isometric forearm muscle contractions might have significantly contributed to observed plasma oxidative stress." Which supports the prior conclusion of [Schöffl 2006] that "The anaerobic strength endurance of the forearm flexor muscles represents the main limiting factor in modern sports climbing."
A parallel set of studies found the importance of "economy" in climbing to be a factor. [Bertuzzi 2007] measured climbers' attributes: anthropometry, upper body aerobic power, and upper body Wingate test. This paper finds that "the main energy systems required during indoor rock climbing are the aerobic and anaerobic alactic systems" and that "elite" performance was highly correlated to "climbing economy." This may also be inferred from the [España-Romero 2009] study that "suggest that, among climbers with a high level of performance, as those analysed in this study, climbing time to exhaustion is a major determinant of climbing performance."
Climbing was found to be an aerobic exercise in [Rodio 2008]. Their conclusion was: "The aerobic profile [for climbing] was classified from excellent to superior in accordance with the standards of the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). The exercise intensity (V̇o2 during rock climbing expressed as a percentage of V̇o2peak) was 70 ± 6% in men and 72 ± 8% in women. Moreover, the energy expenditure was 1000-1500 kcal per week. In conclusion, noncompetitive rock climbing has proved to be a typical aerobic activity. The intensity of exercise is comparable to that recommended by the American College of Sports Medicine to maintain good cardiorespiratory fitness."
3) Strength
Aside from hand strength, "elite" climbers aren't distinguished from other climbers as found in section 1) above. Grip strength has been studied by and there are four reports on it in the literature cited above. [Cutts 1993] found that climbers got stronger as they practiced the sport. "Although pinch grip strength increased with the length of climbing experience, there was no evidence that strength in the hands alone guarantees success in competition climbing." Mixed in with this strength is the issue of endurance. [Grant 2001] finds suggestions "that elite climbers have greater finger strength than recreational climbers and non-climbers." And climbers have stronger hands than non-climbers [Quaine 2003] "The results clearly indicate that expert climbers performed significantly greater fingertip force than sedentary subjects... This force was maintained during twelve repetitions in sedentary subjects, whereas the climbers maintained the force during nineteen repetitions."
Measurements of hand grip strength in a non-climbing setting were tested to determine if it was well correlated with the strength used by climbers. [Watts 2003] reported a study that was "designed to examine the reliability of peak finger force during 4-finger curling in a sample of expert level young competitive rock climbers...Peak force measurement during maximal finger curls using this protocol and population was judged to be reliable."
The specific use of hand holds was subject to the study by [Fuss 2008] where the holds were instrumented to provide acceleration information. The study found that "The more experienced a climber is, the smaller the contact force, the shorter the contact time, the smaller the impulse, the better the smoothness factor, the higher the friction coefficient, the more continuous the movement of the center of pressure (in specific holds), and the smaller the Hausdorff dimension (less chaotic force time graph)." Suggesting technique and training is an important consideration in hand strength, too.
4) Flexibility
Only one study is found, [Draper 2009]. The performed four flexibility tests: "adapted Grant foot raise, climbing-specific foot raise, lateral foot reach and the foot-loading flexibility test," where the adaptations where to climbing situations. The two that seemed to be attributes of "elite" performance were: "the lateral foot reach and the adapted Grant foot raise," with the latter being the strongest correlating attribute. There conclusion was "that flexibility is a key performance component for the sport when a climbing-specific test is used."
5) Injuries
Injuries provide a window into the practice of climbing, indicating what breaks when pushed to extreme in climbing situations. This seems to be an active area of reporting and research. Apparently this started in the late 1980s when [Bollen 1988] observed "Regular training is now almost mandatory for the aspiring climber, but little has been published about the patterns of soft tissue injury to which climbers are susceptible." Perhaps this is the dividing line in climbers, those who don't believe in training and those that do. A year later [Bollen 1990] did an examination of "All 67 of the competitors at the first British Open climbing competition" finding "26 per cent of the climbers had signs of previous injury to the A2 pulley of the ring finger, and that fixed flexion deformity of the proximal interphalangeal joints of the fingers was present in 24 per cent." This starts the focus on fingers.
By [Cole 1990] there was enough intense training that the standards were pushed up. "This increase in standards has led to injuries associated with more extreme use and training." Here training is found to cause problems, here in finger tip pads and skin.
A survey of climbers, [Shea 1992], found "Three fourths of the climbers reported a climbing-related injury; of these injured climbers, almost one half reported a hand or wrist injury. More than half of the injured climbers had been treated by a physician for their injury. More than half of all climbers reported distal interphalangeal or proximal interphalangeal joint pain while climbing." Other surveys followed,[Largiadèr 1993] "Of the 332 climbers participating in the study, 114 (34.4%) had suffered from at least one overstrain injury. The degree of climbing skill proved to be the main risk factor; with increasing climbing skills of the observed persons the percentage of injuries increased very substantially." "Warming up was unable to prevent most overstrain injuries. A total of 237 injuries were described. 34.6% of these were long-term defects such as foot deformations and nail dystrophies of the toes. 65.4% were overstrain injuries; 90.3% of these cases concerned the upper part of the body and the upper extremities including the thoracic girdle, areas which are particularly strained in climbs of high degrees of difficulty. The areas affected were almost exclusively tendons, joint capsules and ligaments. By far the most frequent injury of the upper extremity was the proximal interphalangeal joint injury, followed by injuries to the proximal phalanx, the flexor tendons of the forearm and the distal interphalangeal joint. With regard to training injuries, finger injuries occurred most frequently in addition to elbow injuries. 51% of the overstrain injuries were severe, with healing times of months to years. Only 30% of the injured persons consulted a physician."
Additional surveys [Rooks 1997] "Three-quarters of elite and recreational sport climbers will suffer upper extremity injuries." The observe that "in up to 50% of elite climbers will involve the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) region" and recommend "changes in climbing schedules, stretching and exercise habits, and protective digital taping are necessary to protect and rehabilitate these athletes." [Paige 1998] reenforces this, "Ninety-four climbers reported sustaining an injury while rope-protected climbing on rock. Most injuries occurred while leading and involved the upper extremity, especially the fingers. Falling was the predominant mechanism of injury on traditional climbs, and stress over a joint while attempting a difficult move was the most common mechanism on sport climbs. Potential for injury prevention lies in teaching climbers to recognize the limitations of the fingers as weight-bearing structures."
Training by pull-up caused problems too. [Koukoubis 1995] attempted to shed light on the biomechanics of finger-tip pull-ups. "Upper extremity muscle injuries from rock climbing are common. Knowledge of the activity of specific muscles during climbing may allow the development of training programs to reduce these injuries. This study evaluated the electrical activity of the first interosseous (IN), brachioradialis (BR), flexor digitorum superficialis (FD), and biceps brachii (BB) muscles in seven climbers by integrated electromyography (IEMG) during finger-tip pull-ups." "BR and BB showed an abrupt peak in EMG during pull-up and lowering, as opposed to FD which remained constantly highly activated, which suggests that FD does not contribute to elbow flexion even though it crosses the elbow joint. The high activation of FD and BR may explain their elevated incidence of injury during climbing. Thus, a reduction in climbing-related muscle injuries may be achieved by a training program that emphasizes conditioning of the BR and FD muscles."
Later surveys find the same trends in injuries. [Peters 2001] "Sport climbing is associated with unique upper- and lower-limb injuries involving predominantly the hand, elbow, and shoulder, and to a lesser extent the foot." [Gerdes 2006] "Sprains and overuse were the most commonly described injuries, whereas fingers, ankles, elbows, and shoulders were the most commonly injured body parts." "Sprains and overuse were common climbing injuries, with the upper extremity being the most frequently injured body part. Rock climbers who participated in traditional or solo climbing, or who have climbed while under the influence or drugs or alcohol, reported more injuries."
Emergency room visits and their causes was surveyed by [Nelson 2009]. "An estimated 40,282 patients were treated in emergency departments for rock climbing– related injuries in the U.S. over the 18-year period. Patients aged 20–39 years accounted for more than half of all injuries. Fractures, sprains, and strains accounted for the largest portion of injuries (29.0% and 28.6%, respectively). The lower extremities were the most frequently injured body part, accounting for 46.3% of all injuries; ankle injuries accounted for 19.2%. Men were more likely to sustain lacerations (OR1.65; 95% CI1.03, 2.67) and fractures (OR1.54; 95% CI1.10, 2.17), whereas women were more likely to sustain a sprain or strain (OR1.68; 95% CI1.13, 2.51). Overexertion injuries were more likely to occur to the upper extremities (OR5.32; 95% CI1.99, 14.23). Falls were responsible for three quarters of all injuries (77.5%). Overall, 11.3% of patients were hospitalized." Basically finding the same injury trends.
Fingers were a focus of clinical investigation. [Rohrbough 2000] By this study, "Closed rupture of the flexor tendon sheath has been known to occur in the elite rock climbing population." They found that "11 subjects (26%) had evidence of flexor pulley rupture or attenuation, as manifested by clinical bowstringing. Injury to the PIP collateral ligament had occurred in 17 subjects (40%). Other commonly occurring injury syndromes are described. Conclusion: Our results and others suggest that closed traumatic pulley rupture occurs with significant frequency in this population. In addition, all subjects with this injury continued to climb at a high standard and reported no functional disability." In a study with testing the mechanical properties of these tendons using cadavers [Warme 2000] found that "Based on our findings we do not support taping the base of the fingers as a prophylactic measure against flexor tendon sheath injury in the climbing athlete."
The use of crimp holds was noted in the report of [Schweizer 2001] "Rock climbers are often using the unique crimp grip position to hold small ledges." Crimping technique was investigated in [Quaine 2003]. "The great force applied by the middle finger and the great relative involvement of the ring finger in the curved posture seem to be the main factors of injuries of these fingers." The notorious "mono" described in [Schweizer 2003] "the interphalangeal joints remain in 20–40° flexion." Which the thought could result in the rupture of the associated forearm muscles. "Holding a 'one-finger-pocket' with the ring or small finger leads to a shift of the deep flexor tendons which increases the distance between the two adjacent origins of either the third or the fourth lumbrical. This may cause disruption and tear of that muscle. An organized haematoma in the third lumbrical was visible by ultrasonography in one of the three cases described."
Body adaptations were the subject of [Sylvester 2006]. The study focused on bone growth. "Climbers, however, do have greater cross-sectional area as well as second moment of area. Greater total width, but not meduallary width, indicates that additional bone is deposited subperiosteally. The strength of the finger and hand bones are correlated with styles of climbing that emphasize athletic difficulty. Significant predictors include the highest levels achieved in bouldering and sport climbing."
6) Conclusions
Based on this literature we find that the state of climbing, as represented by the populations studied, is such that elite performance is largely governed by training. Further, that sport-specific training is effective because of the unique characteristics of climbing. In particular, aerobic and anaerobic capacity are limiting metabolic factors having to do with lactic acid build up from isometric contraction of the muscles, especially the forearms.
While general strength is necessary, a premium on strength-to-weight ratio seems to be advantageous.
Some climbing specific flexibility could be an important factor, though this topic is understudied.
Training and climbing injuries are predominantly finger, hand, shoulder, ankle. Finger injuries seem to be most frequently caused by crimp-like holds where forces can exceed the material strength of the tendons.
|
|
em kn0t
Trad climber
isle of wyde
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2011 - 11:12pm PT
|
how long can post wall depression last?
um...I believe it generally lasts until the next wall.
(gotcha! you're hooked)
|
|
blackbird
Trad climber
the flat water trails...
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2011 - 12:33am PT
|
Ed, you're awesome!
BB
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2011 - 02:18am PT
|
Ed, good work. This is basic training information and expected coming from studies of "elite" climbers. The real challenge will be to find, extrapolate, or generate information about or applicable to hobbyists and/or weekend warriors (Taco readers). It is this group that has the least time, often greatest drive, and least physical attributes, forming the perfect cocktail for bad injuries. The cultural predisposition of many climbers to not insert aerobic fitness into a routine with climbing specific fun like gym climbing and bouldering is likely an issue in injuries among older climbers.
I suggest that in general, a lack of base fitness, high expectations, and following the training protocols based on younger more fit climbers (perhaps even their former selves) is the road to frustrating injuries and disappointing climbing experiences.
I think you are on the right track now but perhaps you have, in your mind, enough information about this subject, to draw some sharp conclusions. What the quasi-scientific studies you have listed demonstrate is that, fit people climb better than less fit people, grip strength is important, climbing is essentially an aerobic activity that at maximum effort requires a high lactic threshold with max-vo2 being less important, and elite climbers are kind of scrawny. Nothing groundbreaking there. You have likely already made those observations through your years of climbing.
Regarding injuries, tendon injuries should be examined as a function of when someone began climbing. From my understanding, the strong specific development of connective tissues occurs in the early and middle teens. Finger strength depends on strong connective tissue. While muscle strength is relatively easy to develop, connective tissue takes far longer, and without specific training at a young enough age, might be an ongoing problem for some climbers. For climbers starting later, as in their 20s, remember that the tendons will need lots of less than maximal effort before they can keep up with the muscles. It is primarily a matter of blood supply and muscles get far more than tendons for stimulation and repair.
Keep in mind that specific training, whether for strength or endurance, involves boosting hormone and enzyme levels in a systematic way so the results go in the intended direction. Too much... ya tank, too little... no improvements. High end specific training for any sport must be very carefully monitored. Of course doping is easier and cheaper...
Sorry about the initial snark, keep up the pondering!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 14, 2011 - 02:45am PT
|
So in terms of training, first start with body weight, or at least BMI... for the elite climbers in these studies the average BMI for males is 20.9 (5.1) and for females 18.2 (3.2). For me to get to BMI of 21 would mean I would have to get my weight down to 136 lbs, no way that is happening.
These climbers also have around 5.4% body fat (females more like 12%).
The best I could do is probably a BMI of 25.45 at 165lbs... and that would be a huge effort.
I think that not talking about body weight in the context of overall training is important. I'm hoping we can have that discussion without obsessing about weight one way or the other.
For climbers its a ratio, we want to have a good weight-to-strength ratio. Obviously, for me to get to some sort of very low weight would be a dominant effort for a training program.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2011 - 03:14am PT
|
You're right on, weight is only part of the equation. Muscle to fat ratio can be fixed through proper training. Weight is only useful when measured over time on a single subject. Age and fat surrounding internal organs can also be a factor...
Even elite athletes in sports like XC skiing get serious issues with injuries and illness when body fat drops below 6%. Do not go down the path of "light is right." That is a flashback to Boulder in the early-1990s. You have to have enough energy integrity to ensure proper hormone and enzyme levels.
|
|
Zander
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2011 - 04:45pm PT
|
I’ve been following this thread and I am enjoying it.
I own and have read at least twice both Horst books, the Goddard book, One Move Too many, The Long/Leubben Advance Climbing book and a few books on mountaineering fitness and training. I have a limited time to train and climb. What follows is my take on a practical way how to put it all together. I suspect that a lot of weekend warriors are similar to me so I hope this will contribute to the discussion. I’m 51 and have been climbing for 12 years. I climb 5.9/10a outside.
I think most non elite climbers will not get that maximum benefit from the books mentioned in this thread so far. However that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t read these books and that good training lessons can’t be learned. You need to extrapolate to your own level.
First you need to have the motivation. If you don’t you’ve got to accept that and not get excited when you don’t climb as well as you would like. It helps to have goals to focus your motivation. Even if you are motivated you still have to fit your training into the time you have in your life. For many years I got off work at 5 and my wife at 7 or later so I had 1 1/2 to 2 hours to train during the week. Not that I always did because of motivational factors. It helps to train with other people. You are more likely to train if you have a regular session with a friend. Just showing up to train is half the battle.
For all types of climbing, training the mind is just as important as training the body.. I’m not very good at this. I was soccer referee for ten years. We worked on mental training all the time- staying focused under pressure, recovering from mistakes, power words, breathing visualizations, routine, etc. all the stuff the sports psych people have shown to work. Even for weekend types this stuff is gold. And fortunately in climbing you don’t have forty people yelling at you in a foreign language when you make a mistake.
Break the week up in training units to train different areas. I try for three days of climbing and three days of aerobics and one rest day.
For the upper body/climbing workout I do Tuesday and Thursday at the gym, and one or two days outside once or twice a month. For each session first I warm up on the exercise bike. I try to get my heart rate to double my resting heart rate, in my case 120 bpm. Then I do the core class from 5 to 5:45. I have to do this because I have a cracked vertebrae (Spondylolisthesis). The class has really helped my climbing as well. After that I climb for an hour to an hour and a half. For the climbing part I do what is suggested in the Long/Leubben book. Warm up on easy routes and as soon as you are warm get on the hardest thing you are working on. Do that a few times. As the fingers and arms start getting hammered back off and do endurance for the rest of the session.
For the aerobics part in the past I have played pick up soccer, carried a 50 lb pack in the local hills, did road bikes rides. You can fit a lot into 1 1/2 to 2 hours. I‘ve been ill off and on since the beginning of 2010 and have a hard time doing the hard aerobics I used to do but I still get in three two hour plus walks a week. Even just walking works.
I’ve had the same trouble with injuries that many have had. I start getting strong and move to harder stuff too quickly. It is hard to back off but if you are in your fifties you better learn to. Three times I have started climbing really well for me at the gym, into the mid 5.11s and then injured a tendon pulley. My problem is I start climbing really well and start pushing too hard. It seems this is common.
All the above has worked for me. I have consistently gotten better at all aspects of climbing, even as my aerobic training has fallen off.
Ed, you can borrow my copy of One Move To Many for as long as you like. I got it at REI.
Cheers,
Zander
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2011 - 05:18pm PT
|
I have no knowledge of nutrition. My envelope ends at boiling water.
At 5'8" or a bit more my best climbing weight was 147#. When I tried dropping it to 143# I did not do nearly as well.
For 10 non climbing years spent going to restaurants I was at 165# trying to avoid 175#. When I ran into a lovely assistant my weight came down to 155#. Then when I avoided all carbohydrates, sugars most specifically, it dropped to about 145 and would have continued lower had I allowed it. My triglyceride level dropped from a high of 182 to 25 and the various cholesterols have moved appropriately. Right now I eat sprouted wheat and butter as I please and the weight is at 149.8#. For me, carbs and sugar translate to weight. Beer consumption has never been significant.
Were I still concerned about weight I think I would next try going entirely carbless even during workouts till I got to maybe 140. Then load carbs starting just before climbing. Sticky bun power seems real, but taken over long periods and to excess I think it can kill you. In my experience carbohydrates become significant sources of calories in just a couple of hours. Unbelievable, but it seems that way.
Learning about nutrition and one's metabolism seems to be a necessary part of climbing. It would be great also to have a home testing kit for the blood.
|
|
em kn0t
Trad climber
isle of wyde
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2011 - 05:46pm PT
|
My problem is I start climbing really well and start pushing too hard.
Zander hits the nail on the head (ouch!). I've had similar problems with overuse injuries in the past, not just in climbing but in running too: the perplexing conundrum of these types of injuries has always been that by the time I become aware of the pain, the damage is already done.
So perhaps a place to work (especially for us geezer types) is in developing acute body awareness of the subtle signs of stress, to the point of being able to sense the overuse before it happens. Is this even possible or does our adrenaline/joy of climbing mask the symptoms until it's too late??
Would a Vipassana-style meditation routine examining feelings/sensations in each body part before/after climbing be helpful?
"You've got to know when to hold up, know when to fold up
Know when to walk away, know when to run."
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2011 - 06:20pm PT
|
Body awareness goes right along with body knowledge as important guards against over-training, according to some pretty good athletes, and Canadian soprano Measha Brueggergosman credits awareness developed through bikram yoga with saving her life when she had a dissecting aortic aneurysm.
Multiple Ironman-winner Mark Allen is quoted as saying, "All amateur athletes overtrain."
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 14, 2011 - 07:05pm PT
|
[Watts 2004] suggests this training program, but it is not very specific:
A) Develop general aerobic power (increase and maintain VO2max at 50-60 ml/kg/min).
B) Develop specific strength via hypertrophic and neural adaptation strategies (specific resistance training and "plyometric" training).
C) Develop rhythmic isometric endurance.
D) Increase specific phosphagen (ATP-PC) system capacity via short intense interval training.
E) Increase lactate tolerance via longer intervals with active recovery between repetitions.
F) Develop and maintain range of motion through static and dynamic stretching.
A) Develop general aerobic power (increase and maintain VO2max at 50-60 ml/kg/min).
estimates of VO2max:
1)
VO2max = 15 * (HRmax)/(HRrest) ml/min/kg
here HRmax is your maximum heart rate, HRrest is your resting heart rate.
I've always measured my HRmax by biking up hill in a gear that works me for a bit of time, and watched my heart rate (with a monitor). My HRrest just after I wake up and before getting out of bed, that is usually between 50 and 55 bpm.
I don't run because of knees but here is one:
2)
VO2max = (d12-505)/45
where d12 is the distance, in meters, you cover in a 12 minute run.
3)
walk 1 mile (exactly) as fast as possible and measure your heart rate at the end
VO2max = 139.168 - 0.388*age(years) - 0.077*weight(lbs) - 3.265*time(minutes) - 0.156(HR) [females]
VO2max = 145.486 - 0.388*age(years) - 0.077*weight(lbs) - 3.265*time(minutes) - 0.156(HR) [males]
For somebody my age, >38 ml/min/kg is a high value.
Wenger H, Bell GJ, "The interactions of intensity, frequency and duration of exercise training in altering cardiorespiratory fitness" Sports Medicine Vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 346-356. 1986.
This review has grouped many studies on different populations with different protocols to show the interactive effects of intensity, frequency and duration of traning as well as the effects of initial fitness levels and programme length on cardiorespiratory fitness as reflected by aerobic power (VO2max). Within each level of exercise duration, frequency, programme length or initial fitness level, the greatest improvements in aerobic power occur when the greatest challenge to aerobic power occurs i.e., when intensity is from 90 to 100% of VO2max. The pattern of improvement where different intensities are compared with different durations suggests that when exercise exceeds 35 minutes, a lower intensity of training results in the same effect as those achieved at higher intensities for shorter durations.
This is intense training, but it doesn't seem to be generally implemented in recommendations on training.
1) short duration ~30 minutes, train at 90% to 100% intensity 3 or 4 times a week, maintain at similar intensity 2 to 3 times per work.
2) work activity level 65% to 85% of maximum heart rate for at least 20 minutes 3-5 times a week.
3) 75% of "aerobic capacity" for 30 minutes 3 times a week (increases of 15% to 20% in 6 months)
upper limit reached in 8 to 18 months
maintaining VO2max, 60% reduced capacity for 2 to 3 weeks does not reduce VO2max
B) Develop specific strength via hypertrophic and neural adaptation strategies (specific resistance training and "plyometric" training).
Reading The Self-Coached Climber I would gather that this is essentially bouldering. Training for Climbing takes a long time to get around to saying the same thing.
C) Develop rhythmic isometric endurance.
Perhaps forms of Yoga might help here, anyone have any input on this?
Shields RK, C Leo KC, J Messaros AJ, Somers VK, Effects of Repetitive Handgrip Training on Endurance, Specificity, and Cross-Education, Physical Therapy . Volume 79 . Number 5 . May 1999
Background and Purpose. Exercise programs are more likely to be successful when they are based on research that predicts the outcomes of such training. This study determined the effect of submaximal rhythmic handgrip training on rhythmic handgrip endurance or work (RHW), isometric handgrip endurance time (IHE), and maximal voluntary isometric contraction for the handgrip force (MVIC) (in newtons).
Subjects. Twenty-four male subjects (mean age=26.2 years) with right-hand dominance were randomly assigned to a regular training group (n=8), a low-level training group (n=8), or a control group (n=8).
Methods. Rhythmic handgrip work, IHE, and MVIC were determined bilaterally before and after 6 weeks of a rhythmic right handgrip training program using 30% of MVIC. The low-level training group performed daily training with a near-zero load (<0.005% of MVIC).
Results. There was a 1,232% increase in RHW and an 8% decrease in IHE after the training program using 30% of MVIC for the right hand. The left hand showed a 43% increase in RHW after training, whereas the low-level training group showed a 35% increase in RHW. No differences were found between the change in the left-hand RHW of the regular training group and the change in the right-hand RHW of the low-level training group, but both measurements were greater than the change in the control group (6.4%).
Conclusion and Discussion. Submaximal handgrip endurance training at 30% of MVIC had a minimal effect on submaximal IHE and MVIC of the handgrip, but it had a large effect on RHW of the trained extremity. The regular training group and the low-level training group showed similar increases in cross-education, suggesting that cross-education during endurance training is not intensity-dependent.
D) Increase specific phosphagen (ATP-PC) system capacity via short intense interval training.
Really short (15 seconds) and really intense ("sprint") workouts...
E) Increase lactate tolerance via longer intervals with active recovery between repetitions.
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/optimizeendurance.html
1) Increase training volume 10-20% per week; low intensity; attain maximum training volume
2) Steady state workouts 10 minutes duration at the lactate threshold (80%-90% of heart rate reserve for untrained, 50%-60% for trained)
3) Interval training intense bursts followed by return to low intensity than burst again, etc.
the total of steady state and interval training shouldn't be more than 10% to 20% of the weekly training volume
F) Develop and maintain range of motion through static and dynamic stretching.
There is no information in The Self-Coached Climber on range-of-motion, flexibility, stretching.
Training for Climbing contains a section, mostly intended as suggested warm up exercises.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2011 - 08:55pm PT
|
My personal summary:
Grouse Grind
The Traverse
The Sauna
average of 3 times/ week each
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2011 - 09:34pm PT
|
-As long as you indulge in it, Riley...
Ed, if Freddy ( who last week got the "all clear" from his dr who had told him "no climbing until October", after his April one labrum surgery. and fired, Spectreman last week) did post up, he might reccomend reading Chi-running,Danny Dryer ISBN13:978.1_4365-4944-4.
As he (and Anne) did to me. I'm about half way through it, and applied it to my running, that is now up to two days in a row, after breaking my foot in a groundfall in early June.
It pretty much works for any physical pursuit, even if it is oriented toward running....
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 17, 2011 - 03:06am PT
|
interestingly, the two different methods for estimating VO2max disagree in the same way over the 4 times I've used them in the last 4 years... two of the mile walk variety gave ~45 ml/min/kg and the two HRmax/HRmin tests gave ~50 ml/min/kg, where I established the HRmax riding a bike... the HRmax is amazingly close to the various estimates with age...
HRmax = 220 - age(years)
HRmax = 205.8-0.685*age
HRmax = 206-0.71*age
HRmax = 217-0.85*age
working out an aerobic routine at the climbing gym tonight I managed to get my heart rate up to 141 bpm, which I infer is roughly 80% capacity, or so...
so the training goal here is to condition up to ~55 ml/min/kg VO2max on a climbing specific activity...
also, looking at my weight since 1993 it turns out that I've been down 6% and up 7% a few times, but my weight has been stable +/-3% over that time period... large changes are not likely without a major life change I'd guess...
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2011 - 03:58am PT
|
Okay, my own sample set is only one individual but, I must say;
Those number seem to beflawed, or at least need to be taken with a grain of salt.
HRmax = 220 - age(years)
HRmax = 205.8-0.685*age
HRmax = 206-0.71*age
HRmax = 217-0.85*age
Following those, I'd be at;
165
170.05
168.325
170.25
I'm 55. I'm in reasonably good, but not stellar, shape. My heart rate goes way over 190 when running.
When I was 28, I had my max Vo2 tested (ex phys class)I was at 65ml/kilo/min and my heart hr maxed in the test at 212. Higher than expected hr, but consistent with subsequent results. I have a weird beat.I was in good shape then, training like a demon and climbing sort of hard. But latter in life I climbed harder and upped the cardio; ran 48 marathons and ultras from age 35 to age 48. I gotta think my max V02 would have been higher if measured then.
So,
if my numbers are anywhere near typical, the numbers resultant from those formulae just gotta be low. Don't they? I realize they are for the optimum from a training standpoint, lower than the max, but still...
I suspect that those numbers are skewed artificially low, for potential liability issues...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 17, 2011 - 11:54pm PT
|
Jaybro, they variance is large, you can look up the papers... but they serve to get an estimate. When I'm in good aerobic shape my numbers tend to be higher than the estimates.
I suspect that my walking gait doesn't let me get going fast enough to move me into the same aerobic regime as my biking... if I learned a racewalking gait I might get it up there... pretty funky looking though.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 3, 2011 - 09:58pm PT
|
Riley, thanks! great read...
another reference...
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 51, 241-247
A new predictive equation for resting energy expenditure in healthy individuals
MD Mifflin, ST St Jeor, LA Hill, BJ Scott, SA Daugherty and YO Koh
A predictive equation for resting energy expenditure (REE) was derived from data from 498 healthy subjects, including females (n = 247) and males (n = 251), aged 19-78 y (45 +/- 14 y, mean +/- SD). Normal-weight (n = 264) and obese (n = 234) individuals were studied and REE was measured by indirect calorimetry. Multiple-regression analyses were employed to drive relationships between REE and weight, height, and age for both men and women (R2 = 0.71): REE = 9.99 x weight + 6.25 x height - 4.92 x age + 166 x sex (males, 1; females, 0) - 161. Simplification of this formula and separation by sex did not affect its predictive value: REE (males) = 10 x weight (kg) + 6.25 x height (cm) - 5 x age (y) + 5; REE (females) = 10 x weight (kg) + 6.25 x height (cm) - 5 x age (y) - 161. The inclusion of relative body weight and body-weight distribution did not significantly improve the predictive value of these equations. The Harris-Benedict Equations derived in 1919 overestimated measured REE by 5% (p less than 0.01). Fat-free mass (FFM) was the best single predictor of REE (R2 = 0.64): REE = 19.7 x FFM + 413. Weight also was closely correlated with REE (R2 = 0.56): REE = 15.1 x weight + 371.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
Ed, go and get tested for Max Vo2, anaerobic threshold (AT), and establish some values for aerobic activity. The formulas are rarely reliable. AT levels vary widely at all ages and, as with with aerobic levels, need to be defined for you to effectively use you time if you want to train.
There are probably several good labs near you that are set up to do these tests.
The see how your actual values compare to what your values might be from the formulas discussed.
Good luck.
|
|
JOEY.F
Gym climber
It's not rocket surgery
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2011 - 11:37pm PT
|
Dang recovery time, hate it.
Thanks for the post, Ed.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 18, 2011 - 01:03am PT
|
just an update... I've turned my climbing gym training regime into an aerobic workout... four up and down laps in a row, four or five times a night with heart rate getting up to 80-90% of max... and trying to get to the pump, it seems to be paying off, the time-to-forearm-pump has increased greatly.
nice to get into the flow of the movement up and down, mostly simple climbs at around 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8, though I'll do a few laps on the hand crack (just up that, down climb beside it) which is around 5.9-5.10a which gets the heart rate up considerably...
testing for my Max Heart Rate on Thursday on the bike required finding three hills, couldn't get it to max on the hill I did it on a month ago, the second hill only got me to 95%, the final hill was 100%, so it was an interval day... trashed me on the ride into work.
That evening we just climbed at the gym, and the harder climbs didn't seem so bad...
In a few weeks I'll restructure the gym sessions to be one day climbing specific strength and power (known to climbers as "bouldering"), and the other day aerobic/endurance... and see if I can keep from getting hurt doing that.
Commuting in on MWF right now, the knee is still a work in progress... but icing is helping out greatly (at work right after getting off the bike, at noon, at home after the ride in).
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2011 - 08:10am PT
|
Nice work Ed!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 9, 2012 - 12:11pm PT
|
an update... recurring back problem WTF?!
so my non-OW climbing friends had been beating me up about OW training being the obvious cause of my back problems... so I've been off the OW training for quite some time, though I go very occasionally to see how it feels. And I've also done OW "in the wild" as it can't be avoided.
But unrelated to everything I started to descend down exactly the same pain path as started this whole thing off years ago. Obviously I was missing something.
Taking a comment from Linda I started looking at piriformis issues as an alternative to spine disk issues. In particular, the role of pelvic muscles in stabilizing, the quads and hamstrings, the back and abdominal muscles...
...this pain was extreme while riding my bike to work, so I consulted the WWW for specific advice on bicycling and back pain.
A little comment made sense, essentially, coming back from injury it's possible that the abs aren't used, sorta like you forget technique, and other muscles compensate, but not being suited for that heavy work fatigue, cramp, etc... if it is the piriformis trying to compensate, it can effect the sciatic nerve and cause "lower back pain."
My Vitamin-I uptake was increasing up until Tuesday, when I had started to do stretching that Ron had advised years ago, and just three strength exercises: very controlled crunches, pelvic tilt and plank (on elbows and feet).
The pelvic tilt and crunches had an immediate effect on the back, the pain is receding.
On Sunday two things happened that were informative. Cragging around with Ablegabel and kev I backed off the "5.9" alternative start to Nutcracker as the pitch has become unbelievably slick, and the very poor protection at the start opens you up to a risky fall onto a ledge. This fall had broken the ankle of a friend many years ago. Since I had lead this pitch many times, I didn't need to "prove" anything to myself, I gladly backed off. (this pitch should now be rated 5.10a and a fixed pin or bolt placed to avoid the ledge fall potential... but that isn't going to happen).
The pitch we did do, the 5.8 layback pitch on Nutcracker which I had lead many times, and is actually the better of the three starts. One has to be mindful of the exit moves on the top as it is also slick there, but the layback is solid if you hunt for the good holds around the ledge.
But my observation here was a "tweak" in my back. I realized that I wasn't engaging my abs in my moves... per the bicycling thread.
So I started doing this, consciously at the gym last night. It was difficult as I hadn't been doing it, apparently, for some time.
Good climbing technique would include the appropriate use of core in body tension, and on moves. But we learn this haphazardly in our "training."
Zander and Gary have also been singing the praises of "core conditioning" which I had avoided up until now (see Luckypink's current thread). But core conditioning doesn't count for much unless it is applied to climbing technique.
So now I'm on a miraculous recovery, recruiting the abs and reducing the pain.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
Core strength and abs strength are not the same. Abs are best for quick movement, core strength is all about balance. As we get older we lose out core strength to torture devices like desk chairs and if we try to make up for that loss of core strength by increasing use of the abs and other exterior stabilizing muscle groups, we get in trouble.
A strong core makes climbing much easier.
Good luck, work on the core, and then get back to your fun climbing!
|
|
Gnome Ofthe Diabase
climber
Out Of Bed
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2016 - 05:25am PT
|
Well at 4am, I got a calf cramp that tossed be out of bed. I had to try to picture the mid-calf point that felt like it was tearing off the bone. This is not new to me I have had these crippling,
bruising, cramps for the last 3 or 4 years, in the frequency of at least two a month , not activity dependent.
I Checked, and the crap GP Dr. said I should stretch, the wife could not contain her gafauw.
I blame everything , decreased fluid intake, Lipotor, aggressive activity off the couch, the couch, Ego, that male driven peacock like need for validation, all contributed
& tapping like a mad gnome on the super, supertopo.
jstan, said:
Somewhere in my upper thirties I was doing an old problem at Carderock and felt a small tear probably at a tendon. Not so bad as to cause swelling or lasting weakness but it was obviously not nothing. My body had deteriorated and were I to pretend otherwise instead of walking and working comfortably into deep old age, I would be plagued by aches, pains, and strange weaknesses. A Broadway Joe who can barely walk.
That one of the climbers I most credit with how I go at it would still be the defining voice of my addiction is amazing to me.
We can not all be Jim or Fred, some may emulate, and stay in, but life has a way of squelching the flames of desire to torque, fingers & toes, into nooks & cranies, to try to surf with the clouds.
I've seen it, climbing, morf from the gathering of the eclectic misfits to today's polished gym maintained socially Mobil, youngsters, most stay active for 5 years then dabble gym climb and get out once in a while.
Not that there aren't more 'Lifer's' out there, but the main crowds are societal not anti ....anything.
I have to say, that is very close to my own view as the end of my 30s came & went, I was not
At 1st willing to accept, the facts, that age was a bigger part of my future ability than the need to increase grip strength or the never ending search for flexibility .
The climbing grades at the time ( 1999-2001 ) were just breaking from what was within natural ability, I felt. My goal had been to climb in the higher than 5.11s and still mak it LOOK easy.
Then 5.13s Got down rated to the level that I felt attainable, At 40 yrs old I felt my shoulders , a lot, my elbows, I did NO tapping at a key board, none.
I had the time to climb & did nonstop till the world swallowed up my stoke by unleashing the hoard from the gyms.
It was demoralizing the junk that came with kids to the cliffs, and mixed with arrogant
Young bucks, some who fell some who called their bad belaying, Piolet error?!
Made my training routine at the Trapps in the Gunks, seem like show boating.
I was just copying what I'd seen others do for 20 yrs, but it as no longer welcome amongst the pad dragging crushers of stone.
I never wanted to try the gill egg or any of the other low percentage ( for me ) Boulder problems.
I liked to save my explosive power for roped sends. The climbing culture changed, swiftly in my position as immersed as I was, I no longer stuck out in a way I liked, and I neve fit in.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Sport climber
moving thru
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2016 - 10:11am PT
|
I very much enjoyed reading this, Ed. Glad it came back to the front page as I missed it the first time around.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 139 of total 139 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Develop general aerobic power (increase and maintain VO2max at 50-60 ml/kg/min).
Let us know!