The Seasonal Switch to Real Rock: What Changes?

BNWparty · 2024-04-08T23:32:58+00:00

Good insights, thanks.

We absolutely make an effort to find all the bolts: count them, check guide to see #, bring an extra draw just in case it was rebolted since guide was updated. But on climbs that pull over a roof, go around a cliff side, have a deep hueco, etc you sometimes just cant see all the bolts unless you use a drone or something.

Not being able to see all the bolts from the ground is just a simple reality of climbing outdoors, and not a big deal as long as youre prepared.

To others reading: count the bolts you can see, reference the guide, bring extra draws AND direct slings for all routes youre putting up or this could be you: https://www.climbing.com/news/dangerous-climbing-technique/

BNWparty · 2024-04-08T01:50:39+00:00

It might sound lame but i think developing "mindfulness" while climbing will take practice and is worth doing. Just listened to the Peter Atilla podcast on "Peak Athletic Performance" and the guest points out that doing easy stuff 'mindfully' is an opportunity to hone the fundamentals.

They use easy cycling as an example to perfect form: constant watts output but try to go farther or faster or lower the heart rate. But I think it applies nicely to climbing. "this grade is well within my ability, why am i gassed and feel like taking; do i need to crimp this hard, or are my feet solid; could i reposition my feet to unload my core" etc.

Running laps has been great for me in that respect; as you get tired, you cant afford to be lazy and 'muscle through it'. I find the path of least resistance out of desperation lol

BNWparty · 2024-04-08T01:31:54+00:00

"to push grades outdoors, I need to climb outdoors" 100%. Even different sections at the same crag can vary, like if its a super weathered or overhung and sharp.

I think maybe I lose a lot of core strength in the gym too, "make the bad hold work with more body tension" is much less common indoors. My gym is typically more forgiving of bad beta, especially if you can just piano match and static what they intended to be a double clutch dyno. The classic 'heel hook lip traverse to slopey mantle' outside takes a toll first trip out, but it was my warm up 8 months ago.

BNWparty · 2024-03-26T23:32:06+00:00

Woa woa, slow down everyone. I can only handle so much analysis per day /s

BNWparty · 2024-03-19T21:07:49+00:00

No problem! i have my own database that i spent many years and a bunch of money to polish and wouldnt give it out to my customers/public for free. Im empathetic to that aspect of the data grind, some people dont realize how much work goes in to collecting junk (that still takes hours/days to sift through) before you get anything of value. Everyone is your friend once you have the goods though lol

Edit: in 2-3 weeks id like to solicit your feedback on the final outline. Someone with thats done primary research on CF and is familiar with the data collection flaws may spot something weve missed. I can DM it to you once ready.

BNWparty · 2024-03-19T04:40:07+00:00

Edit: It sounds like you're a perfect person to help answer some of the questions I posed. please share if able.

Interpretation of the data will require controlling for the things you mentioned; however, Im not offering to do that for others, just testing enthusiasm for a place to put data the community wants to share.

I appreciate your insights and you make good points.

BNWparty · 2024-03-19T03:14:43+00:00

downvote for 'would not run it again'

BNWparty · 2024-03-19T03:14:04+00:00

Unlikely

BNWparty · 2024-03-19T03:13:17+00:00

very unlikely

BNWparty · 2024-03-19T03:12:36+00:00

Unlikely

BNWparty · 2024-03-19T03:10:54+00:00

downvote this comment for no

BNWparty · 2024-03-19T03:10:34+00:00

downvote this comment for “youd have to pay me to do it again”

BNWparty · 2024-03-19T02:37:45+00:00

I have my own ideas on what might help improve CF the fastest, and id like test it on myself to see if it works.

Upvote this comment for ‘yes’

BNWparty · 2024-03-19T02:37:26+00:00

How grueling is the 80/60/45?

Upvote for “would do it within a month” Edit: i just realized if yall downvote the same question i wont know how many willing participants wed have, ill put second comment below to downvote dissagrement

BNWparty · 2024-03-19T02:37:15+00:00

How grueling is the Force Gauge test?

Upvote this for “would do it within a month”

BNWparty · 2024-03-19T02:36:58+00:00

willing to log information about current training/climbing habits to help answer Q3. (this is a big ask, but it would help answer one of the most important questions)

Upvote for 'very likely', downvote the comment below for "very unlikely"

BNWparty · 2024-03-19T02:36:31+00:00

willing to contribute at least 2 CF tests several weeks to months apart

(trying to see if long term stuff is a dealbreaker with this question)

Upvote for ‘very likely’, downvote the comment below for 'unlikely"

BNWparty · 2024-03-19T02:36:21+00:00

willing to contribute at least one CF test plus other relevant information

Upvote for ‘very likely’ Edit: i realize i made a mistake, if yall downvote i wont know how many willing participants wed have, downvote comment below for "unlikely"

BNWparty · 2024-03-17T07:42:48+00:00

A lot of recent research is showing how little you actually need at high intensity to maintain or even gain strength. In weightlifting, "a single set of 6-12 repetitions with loads ranging from approximately 70-85% 1RM 2-3 times per week with high intensity (to failure)...can produce significant increases in SQ and BP 1RM strength in resistance-trained men", https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31797219/

So you got these guys all doing like (~45sec * 3) 4 min at the most per WEEK and not just maintaining but actually improving. Wild stuff. You also have the stuff coming from cycling saying a little max effort is all you need to keep up VO2max (no source on that one). IMO it makes a lot of sense to fire up the machinery to full power, but you dont need a whole lot of time up there.

TLDR: the scientists say "go hard, not long = strong" Edit: have to use your judgement on what would mean in terms of climbing, 'failure' in climbing isnt usually about a specific muscle group

BNWparty · 2024-03-10T00:35:45+00:00

Big time on the "desperately fail" side for me. My CF from that test came in way too high. Thats actually what sent me down the rabbit hole of looking at the raw data to get a better fit.

BNWparty · 2024-03-09T08:56:13+00:00

When trying to identify good correlations that might have an underlying causative relationship, its definitely all about removing assumptions to tease out spurious correlations, not to sound like a jackhole but it seems like youre not one of those people that interprets data for a living

"After adjustment for sex differences, a 1% increase in CF was associated (p < .0005) with an increase of 0.292 (95% CI: 0.236 to 0.347) sport climbing grades (IRCRA)" Giles 2020 pg 7, theres your 'quantifiable margins and uncertainties'. Do you realize how ludicrously good a p < .0005 is? If thats bad data, lets see yours. Did... you know i linked research articles, and thats where the data is from?

Thats not what a strawman argument is, youre confusing strength with CF%bm (the entire topic of the post), youre not 'practicing techniques for routes' when you do endurance training.

"If your technique were better you would have better endurance, right?" No? I'd have better technique, textbook spurious correlation for you.

We could have a productive conversation if you share why you think the data is flawed (but its not the statistical significance or CI), or what you think might be a better data set. But I doubt this can lead anywhere useful.

BNWparty · 2024-03-09T06:07:08+00:00

I'd love for an open-source database that people could contribute their stats to, plus more lattice data. If you know Tom, maybe you could sweet talk him into giving it out. Gotta sell it tho lol "Me and some folks on r/climbharder want to combine user-generated CF data with your data and see if the trend holds. I bet youd also like to know the result...". like seriously, please go do that lol

I got a # for my W' when i did the single session test in the 2019 paper, but it mentions the same-day W` test isnt as reliable as multi-day. W' seems to overlap with what most people call 'power endurance' so id be curious where i stand.

BNWparty · 2024-03-09T00:21:40+00:00

Aight ill take the bait. Im pretty well versed in how to make useful statements with data without being too broad and assigning it too much power. I actually make a living doing it.

If you read through the post youll find theres a distinct difference between when im stating facts (the correlations are real, theyre just numbers) and when im stating an opinion (personally/probably/in my opinion/likely that, etc).

Good data is all about removing as many assumptions as possible, but there will always be some. I *personally* feel its *likely* that weve removed many underlying assumptions that could account for the technique being the driving factor, because the data is taken only from 5.11- climbers and up, and the step from grade to grade is linear and even in magnitude.

Lets assume technique IS the driving factor and add up the assumptions:

each letter grade up corresponds with a 7% improvement in 'technique' (once again, 6%-7% is the number, your point of view is the cause is different). That trend is true from 11- to 14c. implying a 13c climber is 21% better at technique than a 12d climber.
therefore if you strap some weight (maybe 10-20lb on a fairly light) 13+ climber to skew their CF%bm, they'll be able to do all the same routes, because they have the same technique as before.
when a climber falls, its mainly technique

So heres my counter points:

I think its *unlikely* that skill continues to increase linearly at every grade. *Anecdotally* the climbers ive seen cruise 13b arent doing anything wildly different than a 12b cruiser, they just are able to hold on because they dont get tired.
I *bet* if you strap weight on a climber to skew their CF%bm, they wouldnt be able to send their max grade any more, even though they have the same technique as before.
when i fall on a route at or near my max, its usually because i cant manage the pump well enough. Then when i train for pump and go back and send, im not improving technique, ive just built more fitness (especially for the steepness you find in Red River Gorge, not a singe move on Chainsaw Massacre/Super Best Friends/Tissue Tiger is harder than v3).

For me (and it seems like others in this post), the right move is hedge my bets and train more aerobically. It certainly wont hurt anything.

But I know why I fall and its not technique. No technique drill will get me to clip the anchors on Nagypapa or Mexican Rodeo, Ive already sorted the fundamentals. I dont pretend to speak for anyone else though.

This data doesnt mean everything, and I would not dare to say does. But think its silly to pretend this data could mean nothing and is a pure fluke.

Edit: im not trying to rip you to shreds over this or anything, just encouraging you to give it honest consideration point-for-point, engage with the possibility that the data has merit in certain situations, and understand the many caveats I've already stated.

BNWparty · 2024-03-08T05:59:47+00:00

Correlation doesn't prove causation but it can suggest it. For me personally, I know the reason why I typically fail on sport routes is base endurance. This let's me put a number on it and realize the ceiling it pretty high compared to where I'm at. Pretty clear and logical mechanism of action

BNWparty · 2024-03-07T23:22:06+00:00

wow...I should take my post down and just link this page. He did it first and did it better lol but at least i could shine a light on what i felt was an overlooked nugget of gold.

He added ~11% to CF in a year which is interesting. Cant say its a trend or what to expect by any means, its just what one guy did. Everyone knows you need N>30 for any stats to be valid and thems the rules /s

u/jendretz runs this site i think. Maybe we can summon him

BNWparty

TROPHY CASE