The Fallacy of Periodization?

[Kimmo]

so anyone who's really into training has certainly heard about periodization, and how it's the holy grail of training scheduling. climbing books all seem to be on the bandwagon.

 

there's some interesting stuff i read about it recently, and it turns out that it's not as accepted a concept as i once thought.

 

ivan abadjiev was a bulgarian weightlifting coach who said he threw away the literature on periodization after reading it. he developed a system that had his lifters doing basically only the lifts they would do in competition, doing them often, and doing them very intensely, close to or at max. "often" being multiple times a day. year round.

 

people called him crazy, but from the tiny country of bulgaria came what, 9 gold medalists in the olympics and 50 or 60 world champs. then it seems he might have been forced to quit: the soviet union couldn't be upstaged on the world stage like that!

 

i think the same approach works with climbing, and training for climbing. don't let this silly fear of "over-doing it" that gets preached all the time get in the way.

 

if your body can handle it, campus three days in a row, but don't do tons of sets.

 

do finger boarding twice a day (i read that the forearm muscles recover quickly and can be trained multiple times a day; experiment.)

 

in other words, don't spend time "building base" at certain times of the year; just mimic the type of climbing you plan on doing, the intensities required, and do so often.

[jon]

I'm not saying I completely disagree with you about periodization not being the holy grail, but could you chose a WORSE example? You are comparing Apples to Slugs.

[Kimmo]

you mean weightlifting vs climbing? au contrair mon ami, i think climbing IS weightlifting, just simply a form where the weight being lifted is your own body. i think bouldering has the most direct relevance to the above theory, but i believe it can be adapted to other forms of climbing....

[John Frieh]

ivan abadjiev was a bulgarian weightlifting coach who said he threw away the literature on periodization after reading it. he developed a system that had his lifters doing basically only the lifts they would do in competition, doing them often, and doing them very intensely, close to or at max. "often" being multiple times a day. year round

 

Louie Simmons among other notable strength coaches follows/endorses a similar methodology: lift heavy often in your competitive lifts.

 

That said most strength coaches agree a large part of eastern bloc success in the 70s and 80s wasnt primarily due to their programming approach but instead their understanding of recovery/rest days.

 

The point of periodization or unloading/reloading isnt to make you a better climber as much as it is to ensure you enjoy a long, fruitful career... specifically making sure you dont neglect aspects of your fitness that will catch up with you later in life.

 

Think of all the youngins that cranked hard for a few years and then burned out/disappeared. That’s easy. Building and living out a career long enough to take advantage of your experience without losing your physical capacity in the process is far more interesting, and difficult.

[John Frieh]

You are comparing Apples to Slugs.

 

+1

[Kimmo]

That said most strength coaches agree a large part of eastern bloc success in the 70s and 80s wasnt primarily due to their programming approach but instead their understanding of recovery/rest days.

 

can you explain the specifics of this? you are lumping together different approaches when you say "eastern bloc". the soviets were into periodization, which is what bulgaria broke with. the soviet approach relied on lots of sets and reps and the necessary rest days, whereas the bulgs did way less reps but high high intensity, doing this multiple times a day on successive days (very little rest, in the traditional sense). what is it you mean?

 

 

Think of all the youngins that cranked hard for a few years and then burned out/disappeared. That’s easy.

 

who are you thinking of specifically?

 

 

[Kimmo]

can one of you explain your "apples to slugs" comment, cuz i don't know what it refers to. thanks.

[John Frieh]

can one of you explain your "apples to slugs" comment, cuz i don't know what it refers to. thanks.

 

In weightlifting the strongest lifter always wins because they can lift the most weight in their respective weight class.

 

In climbing the strongest climber isnt the best climber. I.e. much much more than strength matters to be a great climber.

 

So: adopting the programming of a strength based sport for a non strength sport will not deliver the same results. Or... what works for apples wont work for slugs

[jon]

Any individual Olympic lift is one movement, done the same way every time. The effort isn't any longer then maybe 5 seconds and relies completely on the ATP-CP system. Even the most intense climbing is much longer then 5 seconds and relies on all 3 energy systems, high degrees of neuromuscular endurance, and in constantly dynamic and unrehearsed movements(lacking highly refined neuromuscular coordination). You can't compare the two.

[Pete_H]

That said most strength coaches agree a large part of eastern bloc success in the 70s and 80s wasnt primarily due to their programming approach but instead their understanding of recovery/rest days.

 

I thought it was because of their use of incredible amounts of performance enhancing drugs.

 

I think Kimmo's probably right. It would be interesting to find out if the top rock climbers actually "train." They probably don't, they just climb all the time.

[John Frieh]

That said most strength coaches agree a large part of eastern bloc success in the 70s and 80s wasnt primarily due to their programming approach but instead their understanding of recovery/rest days.

 

I thought it was because of their use of incredible amounts of performance enhancing drugs.

 

Exactly! But if you read anything published by many of them during that time period they would use those drugs to recovery faster... i.e. on their rest days unlike today where users will take the drug(s) immediately before a lifting session.

[Kimmo]

In weightlifting the strongest lifter always wins because they can lift the most weight in their respective weight class.

 

In climbing the strongest climber isnt the best climber. I.e. much much more than strength matters to be a great climber.

 

So: adopting the programming of a strength based sport for a non strength sport will not deliver the same results. Or... what works for apples wont work for slugs

 

climbing isn't rocket science. climbing is simply a technical form of weight-lifting. certainly technique is important, but in the end, it's about strength to weight ratio, with a large part of that equation being finger strength to weight ratio.

 

i'm not meaning to disrespect your opinion, but your above statement calling climbing a "non strength" sport is laughable at best....

[Kimmo]

 

I thought it was because of their use of incredible amounts of performance enhancing drugs.

 

I think Kimmo's probably right. It would be interesting to find out if the top rock climbers actually "train." They probably don't, they just climb all the time.

 

some top climbers train like maniacs. too many to list.

 

as far as "rest" goes, the soviets periodized and used drugs; the bulgarians didn't periodize and also used drugs, and proceded to kick soviet ass.

 

not too much "resting" going on in the bulgarian system, at least in a conventioanl sense.

[John Frieh]

In weightlifting the strongest lifter always wins because they can lift the most weight in their respective weight class.

 

In climbing the strongest climber isnt the best climber. I.e. much much more than strength matters to be a great climber.

 

So: adopting the programming of a strength based sport for a non strength sport will not deliver the same results. Or... what works for apples wont work for slugs

 

climbing isn't rocket science. climbing is simply a technical form of weight-lifting. certainly technique is important, but in the end, it's about strength to weight ratio, with a large part of that equation being finger strength to weight ratio.

 

i'm not meaning to disrespect your opinion, but your above statement calling climbing a "non strength" sport is laughable at best....

 

Fully agree on strength to weight ratio but I disagree with your proposed programming to achieve it.

 

James Litz can do a pullup with 165# strapped to him or a one arm pull up on a ring with a 25# KB in the other hand but for a period of time couldnt extend a water bottle above his head locked out because all he did was pull pull pull. Not having unloading/foundational periods in your programming will only set you up for a short career.

[Pete_H]

He will have a short career because he can't hold a water bottle above his head? That doesn't necessarily mean he will be injured.

 

 

[John Frieh]

He will have a short career because he can't hold a water bottle above his head? That doesn't necessarily mean he will be injured.

 

Ask any PT if the inability to straighten your arm above your head holding 2 pounds is a good or bad thing and let me know what you find out

[Pete_H]

I'm asking you. You are the one making the point.

 

I'm not trying to argue I'm just curious where the science is that says someone will be injured if one group of muscles is a lot stronger than another group.

[John Frieh]

Considering his young age and that he was having range of motion issues it would have gotten worse (i.e. injury) for him and much harder to fix. Lucky for him he invested some time correcting it and had a great great summer

 

Hopefully Layton can chime in... he can likely add some good examples

 

 

Edited December 1, 2009 by John Frieh

[JosephH]

When I start training again I'll be doing the routine Mark Hudon said he did prior to his recent 15 hour NIAD run. Lots of discussion on all the different climbing forums on various training regimes - nice to see one with indisputable results on stone.

 

Training:

 

Cardio.

In February I started doing a bike training workout on my fluid trainer in the garage. This gives me a solid 45 minute cardiovascular workout. I'm usually sweating like a pig when I'm done, even in the cold garage. I do this three days a week if I don't go skiing on Friday. I did this till it got warm enough to actually go outside and ride my bike. There are great mt bike trails five minutes from my house and I would do a 10 mile ride two or three times a week after work.

 

Weights:

Also in February I started lifting weights. At the start it was three sets of 10-12 but every six weeks I'd take a week off and change the weight/set combo. For the last two months I was doing one set of 11 different exercises, 50 reps.

My exercises come from a book "The Secrets of Advanced Bodybuilders" by Health for Life. I find their regime very good for me since for every pushing exercise you do you then do a pulling exercise. I find the regime very efficient since I can usually barely do the last sets/reps when I get to them. I also do their "Legendary Abs" routine.

 

I also did a lot of heavy finger rolls and a simulated rope climbing thing.

 

Climbing:

On Fridays I would get out to real rock but two mornings a week I went over to the local sports club which has a boring 30 foot tall vertical wall. I'd string a rope up each of the four routes and climb up and down each route four times or for 45 minutes which ever came first. I self belayed using a Petzl ASAP.

I must have looked like quite the geek as I climbed with all the gear mentioned above but including a 70 oz Camelbak. I was trying to simulate the weight of the actual gear I'd use on the route.

 

Recovery.

Protein Power, Glucosamine and Chondroitin pills. Two beers a day, without fail.

[John Frieh]

JH: I would consider modifying Mark's 3 sets of 10-12 to either lower rep/higher weight or higher rep/lower weight... the classic 3 sets of 10-12 falls into the domain that results in muscle bulking/overall mass gain so you will find yourself gaining weight which for NIAD isnt a good idea.

[pdk]

It would be interesting to find out if the top rock climbers actually "train." They probably don't, they just climb all the time.

 

I recently "discovered" many of the blogs the "top" climbers maintain. Many have interesting bits on training, climbing harder, etc. The consistent theme amongst them all is if you want to become a better climber, you need to climb A LOT - and focus less on "training". If you aren't climbing hard 2-3 times a week, than the "training" (whether it amounts to weight lifting, crossfit, etc.) is not necessarily worthless, but is less effective at making you a stronger climber than if you just climbed a lot. Optimally, you'd climb hard 2-3 times a week and add you "training" on top of that.

 

I'll find some of the articles and post them. Interesting stuff.

[pdk]

Here are a few I had bookmarked

 

http://kellycordes.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/training-1/

 

http://gravsports.blogspot.com/2009/09/random-training-thoughts-1.html

 

(there are 4 or 5 of these on Gadd's site, hence the #1 next to the title)

 

http://www.andy-kirkpatrick.com/blog/view/ten_ideas_on_how_to_hone_you_alpine_psyche/

 

http://blog.thaczuk.com/?p=124

 

(this last one was the one that hit home the most for me)

[John Frieh]

Training/lifting/@fit/etc doesnt replace climbing time... fully agree that too much of that will make you plateau. That said in specific amounts during your training cycle will benefit/enhance your climbing.

 

James Litz

 

Will Gadd

[JosephH]

JH: I would consider modifying Mark's 3 sets of 10-12 to either lower rep/higher weight or higher rep/lower weight... the classic 3 sets of 10-12 falls into the domain that results in muscle bulking/overall mass gain so you will find yourself gaining weight which for NIAD isnt a good idea.

How do you then account for that apparently not being the case for Mark? NIAD is a pretty rigorous benchmark compared to all-round climbing.

[John Frieh]

JH: I would consider modifying Mark's 3 sets of 10-12 to either lower rep/higher weight or higher rep/lower weight... the classic 3 sets of 10-12 falls into the domain that results in muscle bulking/overall mass gain so you will find yourself gaining weight which for NIAD isnt a good idea.

How do you then account for that apparently not being the case for Mark? NIAD is a pretty rigorous benchmark compared to all-round climbing.

 

Id have to see his training journal to tell you exactly why... either he was strict on his diet or the cardio work he was doing was canceling out the weight lifting.

 

Link perhaps?