UKC

There was a really interesting question on Training Beta recently about core training:

'As we know, pure strength building often requires low reps and high weight. My question is: why are the core muscles treated differently, especially when the use of the core in climbing is often dynamic and explosive for just a few seconds at a time, and not always a medium-to-low intensity as many core workouts tend to be?'

https://www.trainingbeta.com/media/core-strength/?portfolioID=13975

The expert's answer I found to be pretty unsatisfactory. He basically just said he found high reps, longer times and shorter rests to be 'more effective'. He didn't even define what he meant by 'effective' let alone offer any examples from studies or anecdotes to back up what he was saying.

So I was wondering if anyone here has any thoughts about this.

In reply to stp:

The core muscles do seem to be treated differently in typical workouts, perhaps because it's difficult to apply high loads to a core workout without elaborate machinery (a weighted leg raise, maybe?)

Generally speaking, low reps/high loads promote recruitment, whereas high reps/low loads promote hypertrophy. Fatigue by load versus fatigue by volume - both ways to increase strength, but via different pathways.

In reply to stp:

It's really not hard to make core exercises more difficult.

Can you do 5 clean dragon flags?

In reply to stp:

That is something that has always puzzled me, there seem to be lots of people planking for 30mins to get "stronger", I have asked why and they don't know!

Books like Training for the New Alpinism and Gimme Craft recommend low reps, high resistance and good form for building core strength, and have lots of difficult core exercise to do (and progressions if they are too easy for you).

So I guess it's only some people that treat them differently, and I think it's probably down to being sloppy with the word strong, they're probably suggesting something that isn't just trying to make you stronger but also work on endurance as well.

On that note, my favourite use of the word strength is in running training programs, they often have a "strength" phase which is just... More relatively slow running (sometimes up a not particularly steep hill), I suppose some hills might get you stronger if you were really weak, but it's not the main thing you're training!

In reply to stp:


My thoughts are that low reps and high weight training take much less time than high reps and low weight and in the absence of evidence of effectiveness either way and my lack of available time I might as well do low reps high weight...

In reply to stp:
Just read the interview, I think what he's basically saying is if the load is too high it has a tendency to make you cheat the form so you don't end up working the bit of core you're aiming to. Lower loads hopefully mean less cheating so you work the bits you otherwise might not (and need to). As the core has lots of components to it, it's easy to compensate for a weak part with different muscles which is ok in the short term but can lead to problems in the long term (the bit where he talks about his bad back) so keeping form is really important. That's my interpretation anyway...

Also I think there is some truth to what MeMeMe says!

In reply to stp:

I've always thought of 'low reps high weight' as building large inefficient muscle, ie. Body Building, more for look than anything else. Yes, the muscles will be stronger for lifting in that exact way, but always seem pretty useless for anything else.

These are just my observations from watching some of my Body Builder friends, so in no way a scientific study haha!

In reply to ScottTalbot:

Depends what you mean by low reps really but as I understand it -

3 sets of 20 = endurance training
3 sets of 10 = body building.
3 sets of 3 = strength training.

(not that I do any training!)

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Thats about right. From what I've read if you're doing an exercise at a load that allows you a maximum of 5 reps then you're mainly training muscle recruitment i.e. Your muscles will get stronger but not larger.

In reply to ScottTalbot
I'm not sure about body builders muscles being useless for anything else, I wouldn't want to fight one! And doesn't everyone want to be big and strong anyway?

In reply to TGreen:


This is a climbing forum, not fighting. Power to weight ration is key in pour endeavours so regardless of the size of your muscle, the idea is to optimise it's performance, i.e. recruitment.

How many body builders are ace at climbing?

In reply to galpinos:

I was of course joking! But bodybuilders do get a hard time, if that's how they want to spend there time why judge them for it?

Climbing relate usefulness then, maybe they'd be good toprope anchors?

I do understand about power to wieght ratio, but sometimes muscles need to be bigger!

In reply to TGreen:

In my limited experience, they're generally slow, clumsy and tire quickly, but if they get you in a grapple... haha!

In reply to TGreen:

Big and strong, no just strong please.

In reply to MeMeMe:


Not necessarily, as a high load protocol requires longer rest times between sets than a high volume protocol.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Three sets of ten is typical for mid season training in sports having a slight anaerobic bias, e.g. Judo. Weights for bench presses and pulls about 1.5x body weight (max a bit above 2x).

Nothing to do with body building, probably what I would do for climbing if I could still be arsed to do weights.

To the OP: Isolation core exercises at high loads are very injury prone.

CB

In reply to galpinos:


And how many male gymnasts are skinny? You're right of course, it is mostly about recruitment - but to recruit muscle fibre it helps to have some to recruit.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Do many gymnasts need to crimp? Agreed, they are pretty "big" but I imagine have fully recruited muscles. The aim is not aesthetics but function.

No top end climbers are very big?

In reply to galpinos:

Jan Hojer reportedly weight about 80kg and is arguably the strongest climber on the planet if we are talking pure strength in terms of his ability to produce force and not who is the best climber (which he is probably not far off either). His training video on YouTube demonstrates this well; 1-9 on the smallest rungs campus board, pinky finger front levers, campusing boulders with one arm...

Higher than 5 reps may be suited to building size but without being in a calorie surplus this is impossible so there's no need to worry about getting too big by doing higher reps. Still lower reps are optimal for strength. Good high load core exercises are front levers, human flag and hanging straight leg raises holding a small weight plate between your feet

In reply to stp:

Honestly I think climbers should ditch the sit-ups and all that kind of stuff. Far better to go for gymnastics-style exercises like lever progressions and hard L sit progressions.

The book Overcoming Gravity is very good for this stuff. As others have mentioned it is also more efficient time-wise

In reply to jsmcfarland:

That's my kind of thinking, at least until that interview.

Calisthenics type of training seems more relevant I'd have thought

This kind of stuff...

youtube.com/watch?v=x0Lsp_6V47E&

In reply to stp:

that is one cute cat