UKC

Is it effective to combine different training stimulus over the same block period, eg power endurance on circuit board, finger strength on finger board and shoulder strength on big hold campus board, with separate sessions for each during each week?

Or would it be better to dedicate a block to one aspect, with consecutive blocks for each? 

It depends! Specificity is key and as you'll cycle through all these modes on a route, it's appropriate. The question is, is it optimal?

You should start with Max Strength -> Power-> PE -Endurance in a heirarchy. (Exhaust the biggest muscles first).

The adaption time of muscles, tendons and ligaments etc vary, so you need to factor that in to training cycle - it risks injury to ignore this..

Also you should consider CNS exhaustion. I cycle  Mx Str on 4 week basis. My Endurance work is closer to an 8 week cycle.

What do you mean by "better"?

What you have described is basically the plan in Logical Progression by Steve Bechtel. For a generalist who climbs year round it is ideal. It will not produce "optimum" improvements in area but assuming you are not trained to close top your actual max, will see progression whilst still being able to perform.

If you have very focused goals with specific time periods attached, a more focused cyclical plan would be better.

most improvement in all areas over say, a six month period

do you mean my first or second option?

My goals are to address specific weaknesses, for example I’m likely to run out of steam/get pumped on relatively easy steep ground after climbing relatively easily through a technical or fingery crux, hence PE is a priority. Would interspersing PE sessions with fingerboarding reduce improvement rate on PE?  
 

Thanks for the advice

Simple question with the usual simple answer... "it depends"  

There are good reasons to reduce or remove PE and aero cap work during a period focused on strength (namely that useful strength work requires you to be reasonably fresh). However, for most people climbing/training 3-5 days per week there's unlikely to be a good reason to ditch strength work during a period where you main priority is PE - in most cases you'd be better doing, say,  2 sessions PE and 2 strength than 4x PE... 

If you had 6 months I'd spend (very generic guidance) 4ish focused on strength, an cap, aero cap and 2ish focused on PE (but maintaining strength) at the end. If you're getting pumped on easy steep ground it sounds more like your aerocap is bad than your PE, or your "apparent fitness" is low because you're bad at climbing and relaxing on that terrain. 

I can't see any obvious reason to separate fingers and big muscles into different training blocks unless very limited by time or general recovery capacity, though you may choose to prioritise one area. 

My 'exhaust big muscles first' comment was with regard to training priority in a single session!

"You should start with Max Strength -> Power-> PE -Endurance in a heirarchy. (Exhaust the biggest muscles first)."

Thanks

I agree broadly with "You should start with Max Strength -> Power-> PE -Endurance in a heirarchy" - although I'd start with power rather than strength

But disagree with "Exhaust the biggest muscles first" - there's no good reason for this IMO, and the optimum approach will depend on the individual's priorities and strengths/weaknesses. It's also totally unrelated to the above. I would train fingers before big muscles if I were doing, say, fingerboard and arms and weights in a session. Why? Because fingers are my priority given my relative strengths/weaknesses, and because I'm more injury prone in my fingers (so don't want to be fatigued when training them if possible)

A simple question without a simple answer.  It's quite easy to experiment on yourself though: try a block of each. Climbing a single route can require a mix of power, strength, 'power-endurance' and long endurance so - to my mind - some of your training could involve mixed sessions. 

Large muscles first is popular amongst bodybuilders and less thoughtful strength and conditioning coaches. It makes sense if you're training a rugby player when you don't want to partially fatigue the central nervous system with finger exercises before blasting the quads. It doesn't make much sense in a climbing context: train the most important muscles first which are almost certainly going to be your finger flexors (forearms). 

I would add one more consideration to  abarro81's excellent answer: there are arguments that training with a high skill element should be done before more basic work since it is hard to learn skills when you're tired. All exercises have a skill component to them but this is especially true for power exercises so these general go first. In climbing, if you're mixing components in one session, this probably means hard bouldering should be done before fingerboarding or pull-ups.  

'Hitting the big muscles first' is broad advice but I'd still apply it in climbing because if doing something like working your finger strength RM, then that will impede your grip strength on a bar if working a front-lever. Thus, as a general rule work shoulders before fingers.

But yeah, there's good reason why you might tailor your routine differently. It's important to not chase too many goals at once due to CNS fatigue. (The same goes for the "Max Strength -> Power-> PE -Endurance heirarchy"; it depends on goals and position in a training cycle.)

It's a good point about skill (motor complexity) - always do your most skill-demanding exercises first - in my case that's usually handstands. But outside of bouldering, IMO fingerboards, weight pins and campus boards are very low skill (campus boarding can be slightly more complex depending on single/multi joint exercise selection).

I'd never fingerboard after hard bouldering - unless very low intensity/endurance focused.

If you're prioritizing handstand skill acquisition over something climbing related I can only assume you're not training for climbing! 

Focusing on one non-climbing skill will definitely not be detrimental to the big-picture focus of my training, especially as it is skill-focused - meaning I stop well short of fatigue AND it does not really tax climbing muscles (primarily anterior delts & triceps).

From a health and shoulder-integrity point of view I'd recommend all regular climbers have handstands in their training program at some point.

I'm not sure ukclimbing would agree...

FIFY

"UKC" disagreed with me about low-carb diets back in 2007, but there's been a definite shift since then.

I started using gym rings back then and now most climbing gyms I frequent have a set. 

So I'll trust my sources rather than "UKC". I'd reckon handstands will have their moment in the (climbing) sun....one day.

Would one of those cast iron umbrella stands be just as effective? I like those. 

😆

There are advocates for both approaches. I've tried both. Probably different people suit different approaches, from both physiological and psychological perspectives.

The periodised approach - simplistically, one block at a time - may result in a higher peak. This is typically how athletes with a few known competition dates over a season might train. It might work if you have a particular climbing target in, say, 9 months time and are happy to sacrifice performance before then. I tried it for an important goal that had to be achieved at a certain time and it seemed to work. Perhaps a mixed approach - a bit of everything most weeks - would have worked too. This is how sports people with a long season requiring fairly consistent performance train, footballers or tennis players. 

I periodise a bit because I like to think I'm being scientific. I am a mediocre climber and it probably doesn't make much difference at my level. abarro81 periodises because he knows his stuff and wants to achieve a peak for a project that's in prime condition at a certain time of year.

Some people find the performance troughs associated with a periodised approach hard to cope with. This can be mitigated by sort-of fitting your blocks around your climbing year: emphasising strength/power over winter when you're bouldering, PE in spring when you're sport climbing, longer endurance (or base strength and conditioning) when you're trad. climbing (conditions are too warm) over summer.  

In reply to Shani:

Considering training for front-lever performance more important than training for finger strength is an unusual priority, to put it politely!

Don't be so pleased with yourself! John Gill was using them in the 1950s. I've used them for a few years, good for conditioning and fun for kids, a training priority I'm not so sure.

Handstands are another useful conditioning exercise and a good way to strengthen your shoulder antagonists and rotator cuff. I dislocated my shoulder a few years ago and now typically do a few most non-climbing days. Absolutely not a training priority. 

The common theme is you appear to prioritise adjunct and conditioning exercises over targeted finger strengthening and climbing practice. This isn't going against "UKC", it's going against  practically every reputable climbing coach I've ever heard of. 

You've misunderstood. I'm not saying defacto that everyone should train front-levers. I was illustrating the point that if your routine involves something like the FL in the same session as finger strength, then as a general rule the FL training should come first.

Indeed. I've a copy of his 1977 autobiography and Pat Ament's 1992 'Master of Rock' about Gill.

I agree, absolutely not a training priority but they have a place in the training year as 'prehab' and preventative measures. You seem to have learned that lesson.

Third word of my first response, "Specificity". I've mentioned handstands and front-levers from which you are extrapolating a hell of a lot. Most reputable strength coaches would program such general preparing of the body in a phase of 'anatomical adaption'.

As I said above, I broadly disagree with your "general rule". I'd far rather have slightly tired fingers for my front levers, bench, shoulder press, leg raises, 1-arm locks or whatever than have tired lats, shoulders or biceps for my deadhangs. I'd suggest the same would be true for most people, though I'm sure there would be scenarios the other way around (e.g., perhaps a skinny climber with strong and resilient fingers who's looking to improve at thuggy climbing and does their deadhangs on two straight arms). So mostly I don't think there  is a rule, and if there is, I'd say it's the opposite of yours (but mostly there isn't one).

Smash out a couple of handstands as part of your warm up if you don't find them tiring? Cool, why not. But the idea of consciously putting them first to prioritise the skill aspect (since that was the context they came up)... Like I said, maybe prioritise the skills of being good at rock climbing instead! 

As above "it is skill-focused - meaning I stop well short of fatigue AND it does not really tax climbing muscles"

Pretty much the scenario I'm currently using them. They need to come first as they demand skill. Putting this kind of work in one's routine can save injury down the road. It's part of a rounded routine.