UKC

There are quite a few articles that state that "hangboard protocol X applied for Y weeks gives you Z% of improvement in finger strength". Protocols are being compared, discussed and etc. based on those numbers, whereas I really don't understand what is the definition of "% improvement". Mind you, the average improvement of some famous protocols is around 10-20% for 3 weeks. Now, written just like this, it can mean only one thing - if you could hang with your body-weight of let's say 70kg + additional 5kg - after 3 weeks you will be able to hang with (75*1.1=83kg) which is 8 kg more additional weight, so 13kg in total. That is ridiculous, though, as anybody that trained knows. Therefore, I assume that it is 10-20% of the additional weight, but then what if there was no additional weight at first place... you know 0*1.2 is still 0... Does somebody knows what it is meant by those stated and researched numbers?
P.S. I am sorry if I am missing something as I actually haven't read the full research papers (because I couldn't find them), but as you might have noticed, I am really puzzled with the now-a-days articles about a) how scientific oriented and driven climbing training research SHOULD and IS becoming and at the same time b) giving numbers in those researches without any context what-so-ever.

In reply to 8dreams:

Link to said research papers? Impossible to comment sensibly without context (as you say)

In reply to guy127917:

Very true I just didn't want to highlight specific articles or search for all of them, but you are right, so here is one example :
http://trainingforclimbing.com/research-on-grip-strength-and-hangboard-trai...

In reply to 8dreams:

I would assume Interpretation (1) - 10% increase in the total weight hung - and I'd say it's not ridiculous at all for people doing this kind of training for the first time, when "noob gains" / recruitment / simply learning what pulling hard feels like play a huge role.

In reply to AlanLittle:

I would have guessed so, but a quote from the same article :
"As a metric of maximum finger strength, the 26 participants in the study (average redpoint ability of 5.13a/b) "

Next to that, another quote, which would not make sense in the case of "below average" climbers:
"this study found significant correlations between climbing performance and Relative Peak Force (0.77*), Relative Maximum Isometric Force (0.73*), and Rate of Force Development (0.61*). Of the five tests examined in this study, it was Maximum Finger Hang (0.83*) that correlated most highly to climbing performance"
(I would guess, that the correlation would not be so significant for such participants, where the main determining factor for performance is technique)

In reply to 8dreams:

Also depends where you are in a training cycle. 3 weeks is basically just neurological, there's little else going on. If I came back from an enduro sport trip with low recruitment and got stuck into fingerboarding I'd expect to see big gains quickly as I came back towards peak recruitment. A peak to peak gain of 10% is a significant gain but a 10% gain over the course of a few weeks boosting recruitment doesnt seem that crazy.....

In reply to AJM:

Indeed, hence my wish those articles are indeed more scientifically sound... Once again, the researches might actually be conducted well and in accordance to scientific norms, as what I have found so far are just summaries rather than full papers, but then I wish there were references to the papers...

In reply to 8dreams:

Here's the Andersons' paper:

https://rockclimberstrainingmanual.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/a-novel-tool...

Worth noting that their fingerboard method is a repeater protocol, so possibly more strength endurance than pure strength and therefore more quickly trainable. Although the same doesn't apply to Eva Lopez' method, which is also mentioned in Eric Hörst's blog post quoting similar gains.

In reply to AlanLittle:

Thank you!

In reply to 8dreams:

Some good points and an interesting post.

Personally I think all such 'scientific studies' should be taken with a massive amount of salt regardless. It seems to me there are so many random variables and the number of participants are usually so small that getting any solid meaningful information from such studies is unlikely.

For instance, one thing is the placebo effect. If some climbers who believe say, Eva Lopez is a fantastic trainer their different expectations may mean a better result training under her than under someone they don't know. How well developed are they in the exercises to begin with is surely another huge factor. If you've been training with fingerboard for years you're unlikely to make as good a gains as someone who never has. Intensity is another variable that's hard to account for. Highly motivated individuals are likely to try much harder than the less motivated and thus are likely to get different results. Fingerboard training in particular can be affected by the weather - warm humid days make it harder.

All of these factors and more can skew the results massively on small sample studies however well done the other aspects are carried out. With much larger sample sizes, say hundreds of people such random variability will be more evened out. But getting such studies is unlikely to ever be possible so the science behind them is always going to be sketchy at best.