UKC

Just wondering really after reading the latest received wisdom in the mags re: endurance, power-endurance training regimes. Are they backed up by 'proper' research ie trials, significant test groups/experimental periods etc?

If I was, say, in my endurance volume training to include a route at my onsight grade, rather than lots of routes below that, would this really blow the the training ...really?

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Blow the training is maybe a bit overwrought, it's probably more of a difference between some benefit and more benefit.

I doubt there's much research done into climbing specifically because the money isn't likely to be there.

I believe although I'm happy to be corrected that the ancap/anpower/aerocap/aeropower training lingo has its roots in the training for other more well researched sports - swimming perhaps? I can't remember for sure though.

In reply to AJM:

I think it was cycling - but again i am not 100% on that.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

'Probably not' is the most likely answer.

In exercise physiology you quickly come to realise that 'new' training practises that work for everyone, and which are significantly better than the nearest sensible alternative, are pretty rare - even in relatively 'controlled' sports such as running and cycling. Transferring findings from lab to real life is another issue still.

Nout wrong with being informed, but experience and common sense are generally your best guides. People just like to adopt an air of scientificyness to sell or lay claim to their own programme/technique/whatever. That's not to say they are wrong, it's just probably not the reason they are right.

In reply to Bulls Crack: Have a look at Eva Lopezs blog. Plenty or refs to different bits of research.
http://en-eva-lopez.blogspot.co.uk/