UKC

Searched for the video and method, found nowt.

youtube.com/watch?v=sBTI9qiH4UE&

In short; tests on ligament in vitro show soft tissue strengthening with naff all intensity but best with regularity, propose program of simple no-hangs twice a day (except when climbing). 

N=1 (plus loads of people in comments) show almost suspiciously big strength gains and improvement in tendon health. 

This been discussed? Anyone with any thoughts? 

He answers a lot of questions in the comments - no more fingerboard training, just climbing, no magic collagen (bs anyway) etc

In reply to neuromancer:

Didn't this come up before and the consensus was that he had probably just benefitted from having a rest.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It was doing the rounds for a while. On here and all over the Internet.

Yes, sure I've heard this said. Also a suggestion that his previous finger training protocol of campus boarding wasn't ideal. And also that his results after the no hangs were consistent with a boulderer at his level and nothing special. So not a magic progression.

I tried it myself for 2 weeks and got a big increase, for me anyway. A lot faster than just doing max hangs like I had been. Not sure why.

In reply to neuromancer:

In my main sport judo, where you also need tons of grip strength (and where I did/do structured training unlike climbing), it is common to do grip exercises at far below max intensity, in the simplest case just opening and closing your fists with outstretched or raised arms a few hundred times.

I does not strike me weird at all that something similar may also work with hangboard exercises.

Rest and prevention of overtraining may be part of the story, too, but possibly no hangs or similar submaximal exercises may promote using the minimal gripping force necessary for holding a specific ledge with a given weight, i.e. prevent overgripping?

Just shooting from the hip, so I may be well off the mark here!

CB

In reply to neuromancer:

My (limited) understanding was that he was benefiting from his tendons repairing and stiffening. So in part, he was addressing issues his previous training has caused.

https://www.hoopersbeta.com/library/response-to-emil-abrahamssons-30-day-ha... 

In reply to RobAJones

Honest honest - I did search for both the YouTube link and 'emil' and a few other things. 

The riposte on this blog is well thought out, but also not much of a riposte. It proposes some alternative reasons why he may have got stronger, but does little to unpick his gains. 

Not totally convinced by the 'he just rested and so recovered and is now stronger' either because he did the program for over six weeks - way beyond any reasonable recovery period and for any other progressive training program, this would result in pretty significant detraining if it wasn't in itself enough stimulation? 

(Imagine if you could only push 50w on the bike for 12 weeks, would you increase fitness?)

In reply to neuromancer:

 I thought it said a bit more than that, I do do remember reading a couple of more scientific articles at the time, but that was the one I understood 😊

either because he did the program for over six weeks - way beyond any reasonable recovery period and for any other progressive training program, this would result in pretty significant detraining if it wasn't in itself enough stimulation? 

I agree it raises some interesting questions. Have there been any follow up trials with a variety of athletes? 

There seems to be a bit more research recently but climbing is a very young sport in terms of understanding training, wouldn't be surprised if ideas are very different in 10 years time 

In reply to neuromancer:

Doing this kind of submaximal loading is effective for increasing tendon stiffness whilst also allowing for recovery. Regular loading allows for constant signalling to the brain that ligament repair is required so this will be effective for rehab. 

There's nothing particularly special about it - it's rather comparable to the 'intuitive eating' method of deciding daily calorie intake by simply listening to hunger but focusing on nutritionally dense foods.

In this case, the 'hunger' is the tolerance for loading and the 'foods' is the grip type you want to improve. I think it can have a place a preparatory method for more intense finger loading. It's also a very accessible method of starting finger specific loading which is nice as many people never use smaller holds or pockets etc because they can't hang them straight away. 

In reply to neuromancer:

This isn't a valid comparison as you're comparing a low effort aerobic effort with a specific strength protocol. Even when doing 'no hangs' most people will be operating at around 70%+ of bodyweight so much higher intensity for short duration which falls firmly into the realm of strength training. 

In reply to MischaHY:

Although I did think that the six week training block for a professional cyclist who has just completed the Giro and is also planning to race in the Tour would be more similar to this than a six week block in February and result in an increase in fitness over those weeks. 

In reply to neuromancer: One thought I've never seen discussed is that he's a (very good ) boulderer.  Finger muscles are muscles at the end of the day and while he may have had very good power , a block of large amounts of low intensity work might have enhanced his specific aerobic capacity

In reply to wbo2:

It will have some moderate effect on the aerobic but this wouldn't have a direct impact on max hang performance as this is fuelled by ATP and therein the phosphocreatine system for recovery of that function. 

In reply to MischaHY:

Obviously not a direct comparison; I thought I made that clear before I made it - and after (unless I am being intentionally taken out of context - but then you use eating as a comparison which is even further from specificity).

The point is that you are conducting loading far, far from submax - in his case as his max is BW+140% and his load is 70% of BW - but he is experiencing significant max strength gains. I think that does qualify as 'special' - no?

If I stopped squatting heavy, and only squatted 70% of my maximum with regularity for several months, I would not come back to squatting and instantly put 30% on my max 1rm. Is that better? 

The impact upon aerobic strength will be neglible due to the long rest intervals - bugger all aerobic energy systems are likely to be loaded. He also isn't a beginner, so this isn't just a case of "some loading is better than no loading and good preparation to train". Similarly, it is conducted for long enough a period that you can rule out "he just recovered and this is supercompensation from his last training block".

In reply to neuromancer:

Created a stir at the time but no one came back to report similarly spectacular results at the time.

This video at the time is a good analysis of Emil’s approach 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EfSSXW9Eq2Y&

In reply to UKB Shark:

Just out of curiosity, did anyone actually TRY Emil's regime and find that it DIDN'T work? The responses I saw seemed to be largely theoretical: "I can't work, so I won't try it".

'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - and all that.

In reply to Marek:

This guy

youtube.com/watch?v=TqJqYtyr5eY&

In reply to UKB Shark:

Just been tracking through the comments and there are others who have experienced really good gains