UKC

So my understanding is that the sports science says we cannot perform at peak capacity on a continuous basis - there are necessary fluctuations during which the body sometimes needs to “retrench” (so to speak), meaning a temporary drop in performance before further improvement can be made. 

Accordingly, most macro-cycle training programmes operate on a 12 weeks basis, the idea being that most people peak in around week 12-14 (which is when you try and do the proj) and after that you re-set with eg 1/2 deload weeks and then another 12 week cycle. 
 

I’ve done variations on this a few times now, but I’m pretty sure I detect a pattern, which is that I tend to peak in weeks 10-11, and really drop off from 12-14. The result is (and i think this is about to happen again next week…) i get out to my climbing holiday on a downward trajectory because I did a 12 week cycle beforehand  

I guess the answer in future is to adapt my training cycles to be 10 weeks not 12, and see what happens. But I’m interested to hear if others have experienced anything similar? Obviously everybody is different and there is no reason to expect the 12 week cycle should be the best for everyone. Still, I’m keen to hear what people have found.

It's all bollocks. Just pull harder.

Hahahaha

Interesting experience. I went down a route of periodized training. I think the science behind it all makes sense, but for the reasons below I just couldn't make it work for me.

Timing the "performance" period with Scottish weather. Spending the time when conditions are good sticking to the plan, then spending the performance period watching the rain out the window. This was a big one actually, remaining flexible around conditions is absolutely essential for me! I can appreciate why it would work for someone operating at higher grades than me.

Injury: I know this is my fault with setting the intensity, but I found I just got injured with the lack of variety in the training stimulus. 

Limited facilities for some key parts.

Work stress: putting the training in for a length of time, then during the performance phase, work gets very busy and I just didn't have anything left for climbing!

What I've done is try to train things in a more linear fashion, that changes a bit through the year, always trying to train for the next season, so trying to train for winter in Autumn etc. I do tend to do this on a cycle, so aim for 2 or 3 weeks of higher intensity to one week of lower/rest. This way I can stay flexible and get lots of variety in, while maintaining consistency.

Have a read of 'Logical Progression: Using Nonlinear Periodization for Year-Round Climbing Performance'. 

Are you scheduling in a taper period at the end of the 12 weeks, before the holiday? If not you’re going into your trip probably in good shape but too fatigued to make use of the training.

Apologies if this is teaching you to suck eggs, but it’s important to have 1-2 light training weeks just before the trip/project to fully recover from the training cycle.

Feeling a bit heavy towards the end of a training cycle isn’t totally unexpected, as you’ve just spent 12 weeks progressively overloading and fatiguing yourself without giving yourself a chance to ever fully recover. But it’s far better to slightly under-train than to overtrain, so shortening your training plan sounds like a very sensible thing to try.

Yeah I haven't made enough use of structured tapering in the past - that's definitely something to also think more about factoring in properly in future. 

It doesn’t need to be anything too structured or technical, but it’s the taper that precipitates the peak so it’s important to include it. If you’ve not got time to complete the whole cycle and have a taper week, definitely prioritise tapering above an extra week of training.

Just take the last week before a trip easy - do a couple of short, relatively low intensity training sessions to keep things ticking over and get lots of rest and healthy food. Maybe drop training volume by 50%, and make sure you leave the wall before you’re feeling tired.

Try climbing training not cycling training. Your legs are too big.

Personally I've found I do better with a deload week every 3-5 weeks where there's a considerable drop in volume and intensity. This allows me to keep training intensity and quality higher whilst still avoiding injury and overtraining. 

Yeah I started factoring a de-load week every 4 weeks into my last round of training - definitely noticed it helping.

A couple of thoughts:

- I'm not sure that programs are mostly 12 weeks, where did that come from? 

- If they are, I'm not convinced that that's consciously because that's the optimum length of time for a macrocycle (I don't think it is, and don't recall seeing that idea pushed heavily). You can make your training cycle as long or as short as you want, probably determined by what trips you've got and what routes you want to do, possibly with mini peaks etc... 

- Periodisation isn't just about having performance periods vs training periods

- It's hard to control when you peak - sometimes you end up on form when by all logic you "should" be tired and end up dipping when you're doing all the right things to feel on form... All you can do is stack the odds in your favour

- If you're not tapering it's unrealistic to expect to peak. You might, like I said above, but it would just be luck. You might expect to have your ducks in a row in terms of being well balanced in strength vs fitness etc, but if you go on a trip straight after 3 hard weeks then of course you'd suck most of the time. 

The Anderson brothers guide I'm pretty sure suggests 12 week cycles, then a 'performance week', then 2 weeks of rest. Probably it got stuck in my head from there that this is the standard view (but of course, that book is quite old now and things have moved on). But also when I hired a coach in the past the training cycle he gave me was based on 3 mesocycles of 4 weeks, making 12 weeks overall. 

I think most commercial coaches probably operate on 12 week plans because it's a functional middle ground - shorter and you have to write the plan every month (time inefficient), longer and there's too much chance that plans/goals change or you get into unknowns and then have to write and rewrite. Those plans don't necessarily correspond to a training cycle - a coach might have a 6 month plan in mind but deliver that in 2 x 12 week format..

I don't think it's a question of things "moving on" vs what the Anderson bros liked to do, I think it was always, and still is, the case that people would present ideas or templates like that but really IMO you make training plans built around trips and seasons. If it's 16 weeks until your trip why would you build a 12 week macrocycle? Ditto if it's 8 weeks. If you've got 6 months why not build a 6 month structure - no point busting out loads of aeropow half way through just for the sake of it IMO. I've had training cycles (e.g. from one trip to another) from 4 weeks to 6+ months; obviously you'd build those plans very differently!

As with most things, there aren't any rules, just principles to apply to the time you have... 

To concur with Alex here I've been in a strength/strength endurance macrocycle since June. I had a pretty successful peak around August/September and then got back into the base cycle. I've made consistent progression throughout which is one reason I maintained course. In the latter 5 weeks I started incorporating slightly more volume as I noticed I was handling previous volume much more easily and so had margin to include some other strength exercises that I couldn't include in a manageable training volume previously. 

The purpose of periodisation is principally one of supercompensation.

Training is an adaption stimulus. The adaption comes from damage repair. By deloading every 4 weeks or so, you are allowing your body to 'repair back stronger'.

In a 4 week meso cycle you should get closer to failure over weeks 1-3, finishing well within failure in wk 1, xlose to failure in week 2, and reaching set failure by the week 3. Deload in week 4.

Over a 12 week cycle you should be programming in something like a transition from a strength phase to power or endurance, depending on goals.

Keep it simple.

 'But it’s far better to slightly under-train than to overtrain',  - best training advice you'll ever get

Have a week off before your holiday and a light week before that?

Yeah sounds about right - luckily Christmas is about to enforce some rest on me this time!

I just think all this training science is great but no point overthinking it, do what feels right if it feels like you’re overtraining or peaking too soon. We aren’t Olympic athletes and even they probably make tweaks as they go along.

A week or two of extra training can’t make much difference at our level. Conversely, rest before (and during) a performance phase is very important.

The thing I don’t really get with training programmes is how are they mean to fit around the life of an average weekend warrior. From about March to about October, I want to go climbing at weekends, if conditions allows, not training. When the season starts, it’s just that - a season. I’m not focused on a particular performance phase of a few weeks.

Hence I question the practicality of a periodised programme for a lot of people outside the winter season. Focused training is great and I should do some but not sure about periodisation year round. 

I agree - from about April-October I’m just trying to get out as many weekends as I can, and training during the week is mostly just about doing whatever I think will help me climb at weekends. Then c. October-March I’ve usually tried to do two big cycles. It works pretty well, and like you say it’s best not to overthink it all. A professional athlete I am most certainly not!

Yes, it's hilarious: "I know the weather's great but I'm not sure I can go climbing this weekend. I mean I've paid Neil Gresham/Lattice good money for my training programme and my quasi-meso cycle is meant to be in a supercompensation phase and my peak isn't meant to be for another week. I'll have to stay at home".

Good coaches will listen and factor in any outside plans into your training appropriately. Just because you're paying a coach to plan your training doesn't mean it has to be hyper laser focused on performance. Maybe having that coach just helps you balance your training and your desire to climb outside while still making small gains? 

I think you can get tablets for that?

I'm sure, but I have comes across people reluctant to interrupt their training plan to go climbing.

If that's the case then they misunderstand periodisation. I good periodised plan should have modalities that can adapt from a fingerboard to outdoor climbing. 100% compliance to a periodised plan is unnecessary. 

It depends what Robert means. I‘d probably turn down a trip to a scruffy local quarry if I was going on a big climbing holiday in the next couple days. Or if I’d had a heavy week and I felt that going out again was tempting injury I might decide that regardless of the weather I need some rest. 

I was being a bit tongue in cheek, but I have certainly come across a bit of angst with regard to climbing versus paid for training plan. I suspect these things work best during the winter when trying to hit top form for a euro-clipping trip.

My hardest route came off the back of a year where I climbed less but trained more.

This year I’ve climbed more “hard for me” routes than ever before, but I’m not quite at my peak grade wise.

Swings and roundabouts, I loved both years and all the other years too!

Some people love training, myself included and sometimes the draw of succeeding on a particular route or grade does make me pick training over climbing. Thankfully most of the time I’m able to get the balance right and have the best of both worlds.

I’ve never paid for a training plan but I can see how that might set up some conflicting  contingencies. Especially if someone doesn’t understand the underlying principles of the plan well enough to feel confident making adaptations as they go.

Yeah, that was always my preferred approach. During the best of the weather any “training” was very flexible and oriented around maintaining reasonable form over a longish period and just making the most of weekends outside. Once the weather turns, start thinking about blocks of more focused/intense training leading up to a winter sun trip. I enjoyed both approaches and ultimately that was all that mattered as I was still a punter year round!

I love training too, though I've never been very scientific about it (basically strength stuff when climbing is a long way ahead, then moving to endurance when climbing is more imminent). Also I think training how you feel is more likely to be enjoyable and therefore gives better motivation and results. I have certainly always fitted training around climbing rather than vice-versa!

Same. Outside of lockdowns life is just too busy for me to be able to commit to any kind of structured programme, I go to the gym when I can and target strength unless I have a trip coming up, and I keep my fingers ticking over by hangboarding once or twice a week at home. I’m sure I’d be a better climber if I was stronger, but I feel it’s poor technique that holds me back right now, rather than lack of strength or endurance. 

This might be worth a look?

https://www.climbstrong.com/product/logical-progression/

Climbing strikes me as a bit of an anomaly in the way that people don’t see technique work as something that should be (or can be) included in their training plan. It’s pretty standard to see e.g. ball machines used in tennis to practice the same stroke over and over and really perfect it, but I’ve almost never seen anyone doing similar drills to isolate and perfect their drop knee technique or whatever.

I think it is just built in to working a boulder problem or route at one's limit; repeatedly doing the same move or moves over and over again, adjusting body position and so on until maximum efficiency is achieved. Hard to see how there would be a better way of doing it really.

Yes, technique will improve through working hard moves, but I don’t think it’s necessarily the only or optimal way. The closer you are to your limit, the less attention you are able to give to refining subtle movement patterns. 

There’s reasons why other sports and activities use technique drills and why they don’t do them at their limit. Repeating something successfully and smoothly until it becomes second nature can have benefits that don’t come from repeatedly failing while your attention is too focused on peeling fingers to notice that your hips and core have subtlety sagged out. Both approaches have different benefits as training stimuli and I think that climbers often have a relatively narrow take on training. 

Equally, if there isn’t an intention to focus on technique in the first place then attention is elsewhere and learning potential is limited. Practice is more effective when it is more intentional. If, for example, Iamgregp is only thinking about training in terms of strength and endurance then I’d bet good money there is scope for them to work technique more effectively than they are. 

That doesn't make sense to me. How do you know you are doing it right (or at least better) unless it gets you up a move that you couldn't do before working on it and tweaking it?

From John Kettle, who wrote a book on climbing technique:

“When climbing indoors I rehearse unfamiliar moves on huge holds on the bouldering wall, then repeat them countless times at differing angles on 'rainbow' on the auto-belay, progress from here to harder bouldering and indoor leading. Begin stress-proofing as you feel more confident with them. Whilst training technique your agenda is simply to improve your movement. This means the grades, style of ascent, and 'getting to the top' habits are irrelevant –save them for when you're performing, and know the difference.”

 https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/skills/movement_improvement-4383

Firstly, you can’t feel any difference between a move done well and a move done badly? Assuming no major impairments to proprioception, you should be able to develop an understanding of whether you are climbing well that runs deeper than just asking “did I fall?”. You are in a very small minority if you don’t have at least some sense of that. If it’s unfamiliar to pay attention to your body in that way there’s lots of ideas for drills that augment your proprioception like climbing with “quiet feet” or committing to not readjusting once you touch a hold.

Practice and repetition are just such basic aspects of skill learning that it shouldn’t need spelling out. Do something lots of times and you get better at it. If you saw a footballer practicing passing would you say “how do you know you’re kicking it right unless it’s going further than it ever did before?” Or imagine learning to drive in a universe where the only way to improve a skill was by constantly pushing ourselves to failure. That’d solve any population crisis soon enough!

Perhaps the distinction needs to be made between learning and fine tuning a technique, and just practising it.

I'd be interested to know how many good climbers practise technique other than just by pushing themselves doing loads of bouldering and climbing though.

And I don't buy the driving analogy. If you just drive round at 30mph, you'll never learn to corner instinctively at 150mph. And above a bouldering mat you can practise limit moves to your heart's content with impunity. Not so driving a racing car at 150mph.

When tapering you want to keep intensity high but drop the volume enough that the body can handle it easily and recover well. This results in good recovery and good recruitment. 

With this in mind you'd want a couple of weeks like that rather than a complete rest week. The main thing is maintaining intensity whilst recovering well. 

When I'm writing a plan for someone who is going to benefit from improving their movement and execution (let's be honest, it's most of us!) I have a series of sessions which address key elements of movement and refine them whilst progressively raising the intensity. 

The key is raising challenge level with ability level and familiarity of movement. Feedback has always been positive so far. The driving analogy is a good one. 

It’s all to do with your Bio rhythms. 
 

keith s

You don’t expect someone to need to crash a car repeatedly to learn how to corner well though do you? 

I mean the point I was making was that I suspect it’s weirdly few at an amateur level. But Gresham is easy to track down on the topic,  from memory I know Steve House talks about it, fairly certain Dave Mac speaks about it. The Wideboyz doing the same move 1000s of times in a cellar isn’t about doing moves at their limit.

Gresham about himself: “the periods when I have made a concerted effort to improve my technique have made more difference to my climbing than the times when I have focused more on training.”

and advising elite climbers: “Ballet dancers and martial artists will constantly return to the first few simple movements they were taught, to see if they can refine them. An example of this would be to perform a drill such as placing your feet quietly and accurately, to see if there is anything new to add in terms of the speed of placement, orientation of your foot and so on. The only obstacle in this process will be your ego”

https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/skills/series/neil_gresham_technique_an...

There’s a weird arrogance in thinking that as long as you can get up a move there’s nothing left to learn. 

Anyway, merry Christmas!

I can see, obviously, how you could learn a basic technique like a dropped knee on big holds. I suppose I am more thinking of the fine tuning which makes a particular move possible for a particular person - I'm struggling to see how that could come other than from experimentation (along with perhaps suggestions from others) under full load until something works. That is certainly my experience of eureka moments anyway!

No, it's impractical and dangerous. In climbing we have the luxury of being able to do the equivalent at no cost.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not disputing the crucial role of technique. I'm just interested in how to most efficiently work on it.

Indeed. There's getting up a harder move.

But doing loads of climbing at an easy-for-you level and trying to make it perfect is technique training right? And we know lots of really good climbers do this: look at Peter Croft in Free Solo talking about climbing the Rostrum ropeless 50 or 60 times and being “totally locked in.” What’s that if not performing relatively basic (for him) actions over and over again, flawlessly? Or Fawcett and his continual days out on the grit doing loads of routes, or Ondra and his thousands of seventh and eighth grade climbs? 

But are they doing these things in order to hone technique, or just as party pieces, for fun or just to get warmed up? Maybe this sort of mileage is good for technique, but maybe it isn't.

Hadn’t thought of it like that, thanks. So the OP could just reduce the volume in the last couple of weeks. You’d think that a good coach would listen to feedback and change the plan. That’s where set plans fall short I think. Lattice offer an option with continuous support, which I what’s needed really. 

I’m sure technique drills have their place but is it easy to self-assess? Would have thought you really need someone to watch you do moves and give you tips. Think I get more out of getting tips from others at the wall than I would from technique drills. 

It would hopefully get your technique perfected up to a certain level. It will be of limited use on harder routes where you have to do harder moves with minute foot and body position adjustments. To be able to do those harder technical moves, you have to try them, that’s what RP is all about after all. 

Yes, things like "try pulling in with your toe more". Yay, suddenly you can do the move! Perhaps just speeds up the trial and error process.

Yes, that's kind of what I am arguing. Drills might well work for basic techniques but the instinctive small adjustments needed at your limit can, I think obviously, only be mastered by actually pushing at your limit.

I did give examples of climbers who have done the odd hard route… 

And yet those examples I gave certainly have excellent technique. I’ve read some of Croft’s writing and it’s quite clear he used mileage to hone technique. The idea of using a warm up as a time for technique drills seems to kill two birds with one stone, no?

Macro tends to describe a long term training cycle measured in months, its meso cycles for the periods measured in weeks, and micro cycle for each week.  At least that’s the case in endurance sports such as cycling. I’m not familiar with how climbing training is periodised and why. Does sports science have a lot to say on climbing training?

I feel a bit like this too. As far as I’m concerned you’re only ‘training’ either because there is something specific you want to address eg crimp  strength OR you’re unable to go climbing. 
 

Some of the best training for most people might be to actually go climbing, if you can’t then the next best thing is indoors (which is still obviously climbing but not as specific if you want to climb outdoors). I get the impression most people train for strength and power; if that’s the case I’d imagine you’re best sitting yourself under a kilter/moonboard 2x (maybe occasionally 3x) a week because you’ll get all sorts of benefits like improving finger strength, improving technique by doing hundreds/thousands of moves, improving tension, explosive power, contact strength etc. I’d look for time best spent. I guess the difference is I just want to go climbing 

Which, of course, in itself proves nothing about how they came to be so good and have such good technique.

I can certainly see how easy mileage and drills could be used to habituate and reinforce existing good technique, but I would still argue that to actually improve and refine technique you are almost certainly going to have to push yourself in to situations where you are forced to do so in order not to fall off.

I don’t think anyone is saying climbing hard is not important for climbing hard! But if you’re saying drills don’t work in climbing, you do kind of have to explain why they work in every other sport - some of which are also technically demanding - but not climbing, and why coaches who make a living teaching technique suggest this method. 

You are replying to a post where I conceded that I see no reason they should not have their uses!

But I must admit that I reserve some healthy scepticism for the marketing of training methods and plans in an activity like climbing in which specific training is still relatively young but burgeoning; after all, there is money in it and competition for that money.

Yes, because you repudiate the idea of “learning and improving in a non-stressful environment” as part of the learning  process, which seems deeply counter-intuitive to me. You wouldn’t practice a new technique whilst soloing!

And surely competition is the best and fastest way of getting to a method that works? Other sports have had more participants and more money in them for longer; why not learn from them? 

Please read again my post of 7.31.

Though to be fair, we probably need to be clearer in the distinction between learning technique and reinforcing it.

Precisely. It all seems a bit experimental and borrowed from other activities at the moment. Hence my healthy scepticism.

I did read your post!

I can certainly see how easy mileage and drills could be used to habituate and reinforce existing good technique, but I would still argue that to actually improve and refine technique you are almost certainly going to have to push yourself…

Italics are mine, but you clearly say easy stuff is for bedding in what you already know, whereas learning takes place in the high stress context. My point would be that learning in the high stress zone is the final part of learning not the only part. 

Hence your knee jerk conservatism! If borrowing from other activities is wrong then you need to explain why climbing is completely unique in the field of sports and movement based activities generally. As I said, I suspect top performers take this kind of approach instinctively and we obscure it by saying it’s a “party piece” or other such guff to convince us that climbing is special. 

There's good reason why you'd work technique but be mindful that there are few high-value, repeart, dominant motor skills in climbing as there are in other sports, where you'd NEED to spend lots of time repeating a single action - serving in tennis, penalty kicks in football, or kicking to the posts in rugby (finger locks in crack climbing maybe a contender).

But there is zero need to apply periodisation to technique. To do so is simply poor understanding of what periodisation does as a function.

Obviously just repeating an action is not the same as learning that action in the first place.

I didn't mention "high stress". I was talking about pushing yourself where small adjustments to technique will make the difference between falling off or not. This could just be fun bouldering with low stakes and low stress, and I suspect that this is how most climbers improve technique.

No I don't because I didn't say it was. I just said that specific climbing orientated training is relatively new. The same may well be true of other activities.

The vast majority of technique coaching is aimed at people who have pretty poor technique, which is holding them back. Whereas anyone who has climbed at a half-decent level for a while will have half-decent technique and so technique won’t be the main factor holding them back. There are still gains to be made there but there are bigger gains to be made elsewhere.

Edit - that said, to your point, anyone with half decent technique is going to be perpetually fine tuning it by trying something hard for them, whether that’s an indoor boulder problem or a sport route. The way I get up something hard for me is partly by getting a bit stronger over time but also by fine tuning the moves so that I climb at the grade and not at the next grade. This is technique training and I don’t see the need for endlessly practising drills. That might be more important for onsighting but I think working sport routes and boulder problems which are hard for you is going to be better technical training for onsighting at a lower level than drills. 

I just want to go climbing too.
And, what you and Rache (and myself to some extent) are doing is almost perfect. We climb - a lot. 
I also found that to make that step up I needed some training structure in there too. It was almost forced on me by injury and the coincidence of running out of onsightable routes, so having to get on stuff above my usual pay grade, thus projecting and training. 
So a combination of lots of climbing to hone technique and endurance, coupled with some specific training to increase power and strength, added to some careful diet and cutting out booze, and of course, rest. 

I wholeheartedly agree with this analysis. I'd go so far as to say that something like bouldering, where you take several attemots to complete a problem clearly *IS* technique training.

In the course of n-attempts you are NOT getting any stronger on the problem, just more efficient (faster), and optimising each move - especially at one's grade limit.

That's not to say its not worth someone giving you a few pointers on where your technique could improve on any particular move,  but then that is part and parcel of bouldering in a little crew and enjoying the 'bantz'.

my understanding is that periodisation is related to impact and recovery? I’m wondering how this is different for older people (60s)? I find I know need longer to recover between sessions. I’m planning a cycle of max hangs and similar exercises, not sure how often or for how long for yet, maybe 2 or 3 times a week for 6 weeks? I’ll try and ignore fun bouldering/lead wall sessions for the duration. This is for me an experiment in training effectiveness and also my attention span. I will also be cycling or turbo training for fitness and weight management. Any advice or comments on this?

It is! See my post from 15:49 Fri.

Recovery is a highly individual thing and age is a factor to consider. One advantage of periodisation is that it 'forces' us to rest; climbers are notorious for trying to go hard at it every session.

In terms of training you could look to 4, 5 or 6 week meso cycles (I opt for 4). Within each cycle you need to consider the intensity and volume of training (generally, max strength sessions should be shorter and occasionally more infrequent than endurance sessions). All training cycles require a period of preceding 'anatomical adaption' - this conditions tendons and ligaments for the ramp-up in intensity to come. Finally, after a couple of cycles of something like max strength focus, your third cycle should really focus on another quality with as little as one max strength session a week (but not pushing to a new max). This is to allow ligaments and tendons to 'catch up' and adapt.

Sleep and nutrition are other important bits of the recovery jigsaw!

We are using the term stress differently. To me, pushing yourself bouldering is definitely stressing your attention. It doesn’t just mean danger. 

You are clearly sceptical of borrowing from other activities, ones where a different approach is normal and works, because that’s what you actually wrote! I should stop reading what you wrote and read what you imagined your wrote, it would be far easier…

I’ve not said it is the highest priority, just that it has value. Although I disagree that there aren’t many high-value motor skills in climbing; there might not be huge numbers of discrete, closed skills but there are plenty of really important open motor skills. 

I didn’t say there was any need to periodise it. I just said that practicing technique has value and is  often overlooked by climbers. 

Nothing has no cost. Working at your limit all the time increases injury risk, reduces number of goes possible before fatigue impacts form, increases cognitive demand making it more likely bad habits get enacted by default. No approach is a panacea. 

To be honest you seem to be having your own conversation independent of anything I’m saying. I said that intentional practice has value. You said it doesn’t, but seem to have come full circle to agree that it does. I’m not arguing that it is the only approach with value which seems to be what you want me to be saying. 

Fair enough. I enjoy the feeling of moving well and can feel that at a level deeper than just “did I fall”. If you don’t feel a difference between moving well or badly then we’re going to keep going in circles as we have very, very different frames of reference.

My original thought is that you might benefit from a paid for training plan, and the impartial opinions it comes with.  You are not the only older person in the world who's ever done this, and the general principles of how older people train have some understanding - have you read Dave Mac's book, or looked at some Lattice stuff on youtube.  You won't get an individual plan tho'.  

 As an example how will they respond if they tell you that the cycling is a negative activity for your improvement.

Re. technique training - while i don't see many people doing drills, and maybe more should, for many people bouldering has proven effective for technique improvement, and an understanding of how small changes to position for example can be important.  While all sports borrow training techniques, not all are directly applicable

I think the confusion may be because I am making a distinction (without perhaps being clear enough) between leaning and practice. You can only practise something once you have learnt it. Drills and so on are practice, so I wouldn't count them as learning technique. You learn something when you do something new to you.

Moving well will make a move easier or more secure (and therefore feel easier or more secure) - how else would you define "well", in climbing? So it will be less likely that you will fall off either immediately or later (cumulative effect of inefficiency.

TLDR; Movement isn't just technique, focus on execution and precision at high intensity is key.

I think it's very important to distinguish between 'technique' (as describing a specific category of move) as opposed to 'movement' which is the collective execution of all the technique, tactics, mental rehearsal etc. 

I personally believe that when working with intermediate/advanced climbers the primary focus needs to be on improving 1) precision,  2) efficiency, 3) pace. Whilst improving these factors you need to constantly scale the intensity to keep the challenge level appropriate as the climber progresses. 

I then adjust the structure of the session to train a specific energy system. I like doing this because it offers the opportunity to have your cake and eat it to a certain extent - many climbers are worried about using their paid coaching time to concentrate on movement sessions because it is perceived as less valuable (as you also expressed here). Offering the opportunity to make gains and improve movement has been a good compromise. 

Otherwise I would agree that when aiming to improve specific aspects of technique (i.e. body positioning on steep terrain, engaging/opening the hips in hook positions) it's best done over a couple of sessions in person with a good coach who can easily pick out points to improve and offer compact explanations on how to execute that technique correctly. 

Is that really true? Most of the emphasis seems to be on strength and so on. I suspect many of us have loads of technical poor habits that could make a big difference if sorted out.

Depends... depending on the training protocol. You might also be pursuing dissimilar training stimuli in different training blocks, the idea being that you can prioritise one attribute in one block but keep the blocks short so you don't overly detrain some other attributes too much in that period. There are many tactics that can be employed within a periodised program approach. The origins of them all go back to research in training Olympic style weight lifting in Eastern Europe in the 70s, which is a sport based on skill, strength and flexibility, so many have more to teach say sport climbing than people might think at first comparison. (Excluding the big glutes of course)

Periodisation is an excellent tactic for late intermediate and advanced athletes who are no longer able to progress using faster-progressing and simpler training protocols and have to resort to these slower more complex methods. Just because something is necessary for advanced athletes to break plateaus doesn't mean it's optimal for athletes at lower levels.

In so many sports people are encouraged too early to to become overly specialist and overly complex in their training on the wrong assumption that what is optimal for advanced athletes must be optimal for all other levels too.

I don't know whether the OP is at the stage where periodisation makes sense for him (if so... go for it) but it bears repeating that most enthusiasts and weekend warriors in their sports would actually progress better with a simpler and more general conditioning approach to their sports. Common sense and simplification doesn't "sell" though, so back-to-basics (most suitable for 85% of us) isn't often written about in articles or sold as commercial training programs [/rant]

I'm "retrenching" over Xmas

Okay, so there’s an answer to your question of “How do you know you are doing it right (or at least better) unless it gets you up a move that you couldn't do before working on it and tweaking it?”

While I don't disagree with ' most enthusiasts and weekend warriors in their sports would actually progress better with a simpler and more general conditioning approach to their sports' I would argue that climbing is in a different position to some sports with more history of planned training. Most climbers don't train per se., they go to the climbing wall, so some routes and any improvement is so so.  Any targeting of training is limited. Look how many people appear to have improved during COVID lockdown as it was the first time they were forced to do a fingerboard program.

Perhaps most enthusiasts and weekend warriors in would progress better with a simple and more general conditioning approach

Other sports are different - running is full of programs full of magic workouts that are basically attempts to shortcut around the volume of aerobic training ultimately required.

Whilst noobs will get noob-gains by simply going climbing, periodisation isn't just for intermediate and advanced athletes. Periodisation is an excellent option for the time-short, be they noobs or advanced. Periodisation doesn't have to be complex.

Which kinds of proves the point that most climbers would rather go climbing, even to the wall, than maximise improvement!

Fair point! But the general point is that the proof in the pudding of technique tweaks is whether they get you up stuff that you couldn't get up before.

So to cut a very long story short and get me off my Depot plateaus of cruising blacks but can’t hang reds, and can just about do 6c circuit board but cant link moves on the 7a:

sack the Depot for now, just do max hangs at home for 3 weeks with increasing intensity. Also cycling which for me is a proven weight loss protocol and stretching for flexibility. Go skiing for a week’s rest. See how i get on with a return to the Depot then repeat. Simples!

Plus milk the beta, that’s what bouldering is all about. Go with someone who can do the reds ok and can show you the beta, including body positions and how to hang the holds. Some can be quite techy. I imagine you have good technique from many years of climbing but it might not be tuned into indoor bouldering styles.

Are you confusing periodisation with structured programming? I'm never saying that a structured program in any sport isn't beneficial to get beyond the initial noob gains (when just doing stuff is the main driver of progress). The mention about lockdown being when a lot of people started following a program for the first time experienced noticeable improvement while being a bit "No **** Sherlock!" is justification (if needed?) that following structured programs is brilliant.

I still maintain that periodisation is synonymous with increased complexity, especially compared to simpler /earlier programming choices such as simple linear progression (Cue the Milo of Croton myth) and progression beyond noob.

Or indeed more complex than some form or linear progress then back off and repeat in a cycle (sawtooth for early intermediate) perhaps looking at different attributes each time. The idea of periodisation looking at and coordinating macrocycles, mesocycyles and microcycles for different attributes that may interrelate or compete with each other on separate cycles but ultimately trying to coordinate to peaking for some performance event is inevitably way more complex than just trying to gradually do more and work on different stuff with planned rests in a structured program (which is not periodisation).

By the time this complex periodisation is a necessity (or even the optimal approach) most people will have progressed in their sport performance to the point that a good professional coach or trainer of some sort is key to further progress, in which case they need to trust their coach and do what they're told than read books, articles or UKC posts

Edit: disclaimer/BS warning... I have a solid understanding of training methodologies, but this is for strength sports -- not climbing 

I think instead of “periodisation” I meant “cycles of structured training blocks working on a 12 week basis”

For commercial training plans or pros? I don't follow athletics, but had assumed that most pros would be running a long out-of-comp-season cycle and then a mish-mash of things in-season to work around the comps and their different priorities with those. It would seem weird to arbitrarily come to a peak in the off season simply because that's 12 (or 10-14 or whatever) weeks after your post-season rest period started... What if you have 16 weeks to fit your training in before the next comp? Would be interested in links on this if you have any. [On the other hand, if this is commercially written plans then see my earlier answer]

Maximal performance is your benchmark/yardstick, certainly, but it is a mistake to assume from that (in the face of advice from high level coaches, and evidence from countless other contexts) that sub-maximal practice doesn’t add anything.

I don't think I suggested it didn't.

I'm using periodisation to mean the manipulation of training variables over time to achieve specific goals, each phase of which manifests as cyclical blocks. The goal of this is to optimise progress, minimise burnout, and prevent injury. This ties in with periodisation as described by everyone from Verkhoshansky & Siff (Supertraining), Louis Simmonds (Westside Barbell), Eric Helms, Bompa & Buzzichelli (Periodization of Strength Training for Sports), most if not all of whom you'll be aware of if you're familiar with the strength game.

You’ve lost me there. Our starting point was:

Me: Climbing strikes me as a bit of an anomaly in the way that people don’t see technique work as something that should be (or can be) included in their training plan.

You: I think it is just built in to working a boulder problem or route at one's limit… Hard to see how there would be a better way of doing it really.

What do you think we’ve been debating if not the value of working on technique below your limit?

Absolutely!!! But I'd maintain that with with a high proportion of trainees they are unnecessarily complicated for all but the most advanced athletes who make up a very small proportion of actual people who train (albeit the above examples following different approaches). I don't agree with a lot of Ripetoe says, but the Mark Ripetoe, Bill Starr, Glen Pendlay, Pavel Tsatsouline, Dan John, Jim Wendler and the young but very wise Jonnie Candito have far more to offer the range from novice - late intermediate, without as much complexity 

Yes, we agreed I think. It's not often included formally; it's just developed by bouldering and working routes.

Well it came up too. I think very few people formally do any of that. Just maybe from trying to climb their warm up problems or routes "well".

Most pros will have a series of events they're targeting and you roll back the time from that... although sometimes people do mess it up and peak at the wrong time (and run an amazing time at some relatively minor event).  If you're a marathon runner it's pretty simple to sort out your timing... if you're Jake Wightman, running cross country in the winter and track in the summer it's a bit more complex.. as well as 12 week cycles , there is also an annual cycle of more endurance training in the winter, and an emphasis on speed in the summer, which both impact to move your anaerobic threshold around in a semi predictable way.  It would be interesting to see how winter climbing (in the winter) and bouldering in the summer would allow development, except of course summer conds are normally rubbish - that's an obvious difference climbing and athletics, your climbing performance is a bit of a slave to the conditions.  I think the 12 year cycles are a combination of practicality, maintaining sanity, enough time to get fit, not so much to become stale/overtrained

 There's a deal of personalisation in programs, in that, and general observations, i.e. you normally get your best track performance at race 7, that you get from experience.  

No links I'm afraid, that's just from some years of observation.

Completely ignored the context that led me to repeat that exchange, haven’t you?

I didn’t ask what you think most people are doing. I asked what you thought we were talking about. 

Help me out. I think intentional, sub-max, technique practise is a valuable addition to working at your limit. You think…

Training or improving technique.

I don't doubt it could be.

You’ve been explicit about your doubts, so I’m surprised that this is your take on the discussion. Fair enough for changing your mind though. 

I accepted that drills and so on might be useful at 7.31 on Monday morning!

Fair enough, I hadn’t seen that. There had been a couple dozen new posts by the time I looked on Monday evening and by and large I just read the couple that were replies to me.

Just spit balling, but at a practical level I guess it's tricky to write a detailed training plan a long time in advance just because plans and priorities change. 12 weeks seems like a nice length of time where you have a fairly long period of time to work with and some certainty about events.

I'd be surprised if there's some strong evidence for 12 weeks being a particularly effective length of cycle i.e. if you're next trip/comp is 16 weeks away I think you'd just do a 16 week block.

You could consider combining some fingerboard work with a Depot session just working moves on a harder circuit with plenty of rest between attempts (two or three minutes) and without any real concern about topping out on any of the problems just completing moves and some sequences, even just hanging holds and moving feet can be a success. That’s ultimate limit climbing. 

Edit: or bust out moves on the steep wooden boards.

If you feel like you’ve peaked two weeks early, then I’d suggest dropping the volume but maintaining intensity for those final two weeks. 

Yeah, totally agree. If you gave me 6 months 'til my next trip I'd write a broad structure and fill in the detail for each smaller block at the start of that block (and then change it all the time anyway!). I can't see any reason why I'd structure it as 2 x 12 weeks rather than, say 8 week pure strength + an cap, 8 week with aeo cap back in, 8 weeks where caps are reduced and more pows in...