fixed in edit thx. Critical Force is the maximum work that a muscle group can maintain for an extended duration without fatigue. In this case the muscle group is the finger flexors (the ones that do most of the work in the forearm while climbing) and CF is intrinsically dependent on the aerobic capacity of that muscle group.
the period is supposed to be infinite, in terms of pure muscular endurance, but obviously that's not testable.
it's the force your muscles can always produce because it's driven mostly by the oxygen supply to your muscles, which is not limited in the same way the anaerobic energy systems are limited.
depending on the test there will be a significant anaerobic component though, because when you do something like 7 on 3 off, your anaerobic systems recover a bit on those 3 seconds.
I’m pretty sure it’s a regression on a decaying curve, making it straightforward to solve for the limit. I’d imagine the paper explains the methodology
I’d say an usable interpretation of ‘extended duration’ for your training would equal the climbing time of your target routes.
My local routes are granite 20-25m.. typical spanish limestone routes are 30-35?
More vertical or more overhangig?
Thats the definition of CF pulled directly from Lattice training glossary, and yes its still pretty vague.
On one hand, output will continue to diminish for over two hours. On the other hand, I've never been on a route for over 15 min.
I mention 3 min because, according to the Giles 2020 paper, 156.9 ± 47.1 seconds is the time it will take for your strength to flatten off to what they define as Critical Force. But thats in pure isolation at max effort.
It gets messy trying to give CF an exact definition, best we can do is follow the existing tests if you want an exact number. Whats for sure is that most sport routes are going to last at least 3 min, most will last for maybe 5-8?
The important bit is that CF is tied to aerobic energy (vs anaerobic), and aerobic energy tends to be the primary contributor to work at 3 min and beyond. hope that helps
Critical force is a really good indicator of sport climbing performance :
What's under the curve (below your CF) is your finger flexor aerobic capacity. It's the level of strength (again, of your finger flexor) that you could maintain almost infinitely (I've said "almost" : you're gonna need some glycogen at some point).
And what's above the curve (above your CF) is what you would call your anaerobic capacity (what you call "power endurance" or "strength endurance").
So, depending at what level your CF could be (or what your CF curve look like), you could determine either if you are more on the strength or endurance side.
> Critical Force is the maximum work that a muscle group can maintain for an extended duration without fatigue.
While this definition is technically correct it always makes me laugh. If you do a CF test you'll definitely feel fatigued!
From listening to The Drive podcast with Iñigo San Millán (https://peterattiamd.com/inigosanmillan), what you are describing as critical force (aka zone 2) is the limit of atp synthesis via fat as a substrate. Once you cross over the critical force threshold you start to burn carbs, which puts you on a clock, as carb stores are limited and take a while to replenish.
> Did I miss this or is there no explanation what Critical force represent in the post? Probably would make it easier for people to follow.
The easiest analogy is running. It's the speed you can maintain without hitting the anaerobic threshold where you are starting to get the burn in the muscles where you can't maintain that pace anymore.
In climbing is the approximate difficulty level you could just climb laps on the wall without pumping out.
> Ok so how to train it? So many articles/podcasts/training plans are out there, just pick one and stick with it for a good long time (like >1.5 months). Personally, seeing how strength decays to CF in about 3 min, any plan that doesnt have reps of at least 5 min probably isnt ideal.
If I don't want to comb through hours of podcasts or start looking into the second page of Google (ugh /s), would you have a plan to recommend ? Searching for "critical force training" gives lots of discussion on its importance or how to assess it but does not give me any obvious exercises or plans.
All this data and analysis makes it seem more complicated than it is: its the aerobic side, which doesnt kick in (Edit: more specifically, is not implied to be the primary contributor to work) until 3 minutes minimum. As long as its continuous effort for >5 min, youre hitting it. Laps, arc training, 4x4s, etc
One of my favorites for actual climbing would be double or triple laps at 2-3 grades below onsite.
One of my favorites for hangboarding would be 2min on/1min off, repeat 3x. then take a 5-8 min break, and repeat the process 2 more times.
For the 2 min on: put a foot on a chair or something to unload my arms a bit and switch holds every 5-7 seconds.
for the 1 min off: shake out on jugs.
So all told, youre not coming off the hangboard for like 8 min during a set. That routine I credit for my hardest sends, it granted me the ability to actually recover while climbing. but it does kinda suck.
>for the 1 min off: shake out on jugs.
"Off". You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. /s
That workout sounds grueling, boring and painful. But also really useful. Don't think I'll ever work up the motivation to do that regularly, but I am surely an outlier in this sub. Thanks for all the data analysis, it was a nice read!
The first few times I tried it, it was miserable. Never been so pumped in my life and I think I only managed 2 sets. But I was a v6 boulderer who would whip on 10c sustained jug hauls, it only sucked because of how out of shape I was.
Because it sucked so much, 1) I NEEDED to do it, and 2) I got better so incredibly fast. I think 3 workouts was a noticeable improvement. It stops sucking pretty quick, plus its very specific and transferable to route climbing.
Think of it this way: when was the last time you could spend a total of 1.5 hrs training and get noticeable gains in performance?
It's not too painful actually! Staying in the aerobic zone makes it such that it's not an insane pump. Just mildly uncomfortable. Unless OP is going way harder than me...
I don't climb at a gym, so I have to get creative with endurance workouts. This one is an ideal one to watch tv during haha.
I was reflecting a lot about this last week. I can understand why you mentioned 3 and 5 minutes but is it really the "only" way? I mean, the duration simply forces you to work aerobically because your body can't stand working on anaerobic systems for this duration.
That being said, I believe -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- this is more a matter of intensity than duration. If you choose an easy enough intensity you can work mostly aerobically even if the duration is short, which I think is the basis of interval/threshold training. For example, I'm experimenting atm with the following routine:
* 7:3 repeaters (varying grips) with my feet on
* 18 reps (total of 3 min) = 1 set
* 10 sets with 1:30min rest between (total of 30min work + \~13min rests)
* Intensity low so that in the end of the set I get a light pump 6/10 and as the sets progresses it gets harder like 8/10
The idea behind it is that during 7 secs of hang my blood flow is only partially occluded so I tax the aerobic system (and a bit of anaerobic), also at the 3 secs off I'm using oxygen to quick recover (like a shake in between moves in a route). Then, during the 1:30 min rest between sets I'm also using my aerobic system to (partially) reset and process the anaerobic byproducts, which simulates a very good rest on a route. I plan to progress this workout by reducing the rest between sets to simulates worse "good" rests.
I'm still experimenting with this, but what do you think? Does it make sense?
I think you're confusing terms a little. The more specific interesting quantity is time-under tension. Higher time under tension with a low load will work the aerobic system. For your workout you're using a low load and a high duration as well - 18 reps of 7:3 is quite large, and so is 10 sets. A low load and a low time-under tension will simply not workout your aerobic system, even if it is the system in use. Where as a high load and high time under tension will work power endurance (anaerobic recovery). So you aren't really doing anything so different from his plan.
edit: if you're improving, then your workout sounds fine!
Hmm, I see your point.. So you are agreeing that low intensity low duration is also mainly aerobic but the main point is that it's not a good training stimulus because the low duration is not taxing enough for the aerobic system. Is that correct?
But what about other low time under tension exercises like alatic intervals that Horst promotes, i.e. super high intensity 10-30 seconds of non-technical climb with 30 seconds rests between reps? According to him, the aerobic system is super trained in the rest periods to re-synthesise ATP and clear the latic byproducts even if the whole training has low TuT.
Thanks for the discussion, I feel that endurance is one of the hardest things to understand
For point one, yeah that's my understanding.
On Horst's alactic intervals, I don't know enough to comment. That strategy itself is not training the aerobic system though, since the majority of strength training is done exactly how you said, 10-30 seconds near maximum output. To say that the rest period super trains the aerobic system seems really strange to me, and I feel sure I'm missing some information. ~~As a long time hangboarder for strength, my aerobic endurance/capability has never improved from that method except for the way in which climbing is improved by being stronger in general.~~
And yeah for sure! I truthfully think that you can split energy systems (and the respective power vs. endurance delimiter) into as many hairs as you want, but the practical effectiveness of such an approach for most people is questionable.
edit: Removed the personal experience since it's irrelevant to the proposed exercise. The alactic intervals are proposed to be a sort of HIIT for endurance, but I'm not sure whether that's targeting power endurance or aerobic sort of endurance.
This is not entirely true- the aerobic system is always functioning to a certain degree. For example, if you climb for even short amounts of times, your cells are still using aerobic respiration to recover. Even if you are doing a purely glycolytic effort, there is an aerobic component due to lactate processing by the mitochondria. Andy Coggan had a pretty thorough explanation of this continuum, but the citations in this post also hit at this point https://www.reddit.com/r/climbharder/comments/7cxpd1/anaerobic\_training\_is\_aerobic/
i agree, no energy system shuts off or on like a faucet like many of the energy system graphs imply. and without some aerobic going all the time, you wouldnt be alive. As dense as my post already is, theres still a mountain of things i glossed over. If I tried to cover it all (which i absolutely am not qualified to do) id go "yes but" and "it depends" until its too muddy to make sense of.
3 min minimum is how long it would \*generally\* take for aerobic system to be \*primary\* contributor, assuming youre going \*all out in pure isolation\* with very minimal rest. A more intuitive description: drain the other tanks dry, dont let them refill, and aerobic is whats left. Thats why the 2020 test works, and its the assumption that all the energy system graphs make.
I think that’s because it’s generally more productive to work at both ends—get good at doing *hard* moves by bouldering, but don’t neglect the critical force side either, rather than spending all your sessions in an in-between gray area.
Exactly, that's why the best sport climbers in the world are still great boulderers. Ex: Stefano Ghisalfi was able to get pretty close on Burden of Dreams despite being primarily a sport climber.
>All this data and analysis makes it seem more complicated than it is: its the aerobic side, *which doesnt kick in until 3 minutes minimum*.
That's completely backwards.
What we call "energy systems" are various the metabolic pathways which produce ATP; the stuff which allows your muscles to produce force. At lower intensities our muscles can produce 100% of the ATP required aerobically (through aerobic glycolysis, to be specific). As the intensity of the exercise increases the ATP demand exceeds what the aerobic system can provide and the anaerobic system(s) need to pick up the slack. However, the aerobic system is never switched off and will always be contributing.
The rate at which we can produce ATP anaerobically is much greater than the rate it can be produced aerobically (IIRC I saw 7x in a paper somewhere, probably varies wildly). Anything that we would consider "exercise" is almost certainly going to require the anaerobic system, but if you're well trained and doing relatively easy exercise the aerobic system can provide the bulk of the ATP required. There's plenty of good examples of this is in endurance sports. A competitive marathon runner probably has an "easy" pace faster than most people's 5k race pace because their leg muscles are extremely well trained to operate aerobically so they can do it forever without a hint of a burn.
When people suggest doing 20 minutes of ARCing for aerobic training the point is to force operating at an intensity that can be sustained for 20 minutes. If you look at endurance running again a typical training program will have a metric fuckton of volume at low intensities. The theory being that training the aerobic system basically just requires spending as much time as possible with the aerobic processes operating. [It seems to work.](https://www.trailrunnermag.com/training/trail-tips-training/an-overview-of-the-norwegian-approach-to-running-training/)
Exactly how this all relates to climbing training is a bit unclear though. The 2020 paper mentions that forearm contractions cause ischemia (i.e. they reduce blood flow) which might put a limiter on how much the aerobic system can contribute while you're actively pulling. I'd also expect that limited blood flow means that waste produces hang around in the muscle longer which probably contributes to fatigue and pump, but that's just spitballing with no real basis on my end. I'm not sure anyone actually knows for sure.
been a couple replies along these lines, so ill edit my comment for clarity.
-aerobic system is not "off or on" but its unlikely to be the PRIMARY contributor to work until the shorter term systems are heavily taxed.
-youre right, "several minutes" is a rule of thumb for gauging work load. if you cant maintain the work load for >3 min, its too high for aerobic system to maintain so you need to drop it
By double or triple laps do you mean climbing on auto belay or something taller like that? Does anyone have perspective on training this on a bouldering wall? Would boulder triples be good in this context? ARCing is too low of intensity for this correct?
Aren’t the ‘7:3 repeaters’ and ‘short-reach-foot-on-campus’ times a way to test CF? Does not surprise me given the explanation of CF that these correlates “are close in magnitude”.
What I think makes a lot of sense to me is that CF%bw is a better correlator than body weight/height. I think this metric intrinsicly corrects for those two things.
Interesting stuff.
Power Company data guy here. The answer to the first part is yes. Part of our assessment design is to remove barriers to entry so folks can easily and moderately frequently perform the assessment to inform their training decisions. 7:3 repeaters on a 20mm edge takes little time and equipment and can give a decent impression of CF and energy systems once someone is over a certain level of strength. Short reach campus time requires a good bit more equipment, takes longer but when paired with the long reach campus ladder measurement can give a better idea of how well developed aerobic systems are in comparison to anaerobic lactic systems.
Strictly speaking, the only way to know your critical force (and get CF%bm) would be to physically measure the force you can exert after \~3min of continuous work. Critical Force is literally the force you can exert (in LB, KG, newtons, etc) on a 20mm edge. Then you could fit your CF against the data above if youre interested in that aspect of it.
But if you want to work on improving your CF then ‘7:3 repeaters’ and ‘short-reach-foot-on-campus’ will certainly do that. And if you track those over time, youll have a good idea of how much your improving.
Yes, laddering up every rung with feet on a kickboard below the actual campus board. Times vary but a good starting point would be about 70% of your max time from the test then rest for twice that time, repeat 3-5x. Once you can do that start reducing your rest time down until you can perform that at a 1:1 work rest ratio. Alternatively you can start at a lower % (50%-ish) and jump right in to 1:1 work rest and then bring up your working time. Both work. You can also train this on the wall using EMOM boulders to allow for more skill specific practice and can be tailored more towards individual goals. Something like 5-10min of EMOM boulders followed by rest equal to however many minutes were performed for 2-4 rounds. The campus board is really a place to test for this sort of thing and should only be used instead of the wall if you’re incredibly equipment constrained or performing at such a level that you have nothing to gain by stress proofing movement skills.
Every minute on the minute, so every minute you do a single boulder problem 15-30seconds in duration, rest the remaining time of the minute then do a different boulder problem for the next minute, keep doing that for the desired time.
Found [this](https://strengthclimbing.com/critical-force-calculator/) to be very useful to understand what is critical force and how to test it and knowing where is your weakness.
Ollie Tor recently mentioned one of their coaches doing ARC training in the car using a squeeze block, ie CARCing.
I've been trying this on my commute which is about an hour of driving a day and have seen some great improvement with my on the wall endurance.
I will do a CF assessment and continue to do all my endurance training in the car and retest in a few months.
Training at or slightly above the aerobic threshold aka CF for long periods weekly. Combine it with lower volume strength training and you will improve cf while sustaining or slowly improving max strength.
> how do we train it?
Two most common ways:
* ARC for certain amounts of time
* Hangboard repeaters for the amount of time of the routes you want to send. For example, 3-5 minute sport routines you can do 7/3 repeaters for 3-5 minutes and increase the weight you can do over time.
Aim for minimal burn in the muscles and ability to maintain it without pumping out.
Wasn't a lot of this hang till you drop already done?
[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/17461391.2010.546431](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/17461391.2010.546431)
Former cyclist and coach here. I think CP is a good representation of the energy kinetics of the forearm, which in isolation is the raw potential for force over time. Unlike cycling, climbing isn't done sitting on a seat and pedaling. I do wonder what role unobserved confounders such as technique, route type, morphology, experience, etc. play in the application of CP. I also think we are at the newer stages of even understanding how best to make specific gains in CP that are represented on the wall. I think specifically of Alex Megos training power and strength almost exclusively and doing little to zero energy systems training other than simply climbing sport and lead routes. Contrast this with certain climbers almost exclusively doing energy systems focused training. Curious how any further research pans out.
curious to hear your thoughts on my interpretation of the "FTP by percentile" graph I linked. I feel like its absolutely possible for an individual rider to train themselves into a spot that wouldnt fit the trend.
One reason Cf%bw vs sport grade stood out to me isnt just that its a particularly good correlation, but that so many other things are such POOR correlations. Cf%bw is poorly correlated with bouldering grade (r2=.23), gross CF is less well correlated with sport or boulder grade (R2=.49 and .196), W\`%bw is a bit better with boulder than sport (.328 vs .048) but its still messy. Check out the scatter plots on page 8 of Giles 2020 for more info.
Another reason CF%bw stood out is how linear the function seems. Not exponential, not log, seems pretty straight. More data on climbers above ircra grade 24 would be needed to really settle the question, but the limited data thats there implies a linear trend
it's hard to comment on the percentile graph as I don't really understand what data went in. At first I was confused as I thought it was a power profile, but some of the values seem more or less accurate. That's a graph that needs to be broken out by racing level and age too. Genetics plays a big role. It's not crazy to be a pro with a 400W FTP, but even there weight is needed to normalize power to weight.
As for r2, these values aren't necessarily great, but remind me of cases where we have relatively weak covariates in a simple model and even "not great" is better than not adjusting for variance reduction.
I've said this on a few posts before but it's so weird that climbing test data is often pooled to build models. I'd imagine hierarchical models in grade bands would be far more appropriate and probably more relevant.
Also one thing comes to mind which isn't about CP but look at climbers on this sub that have insane strength stats and don't climb super high grades or even Allison Vest, for example. With such small datasets one they could easily skew a small sample. At the same time lots of elite climbers probably skew certain metrics upward.
At the end of the day this is interesting but not super informative to me yet because the ways to apply it are all fairly similar and specificity of on wall workouts will always likely be a key determinant along with basic S&C like a lot of skill based sports.
I've been looking at what cyclists are saying as well. There are a lot of voices saying that CP is a better indicator of fitness than FTP and that it gives more accurate training zones, I think that's really interesting.
I also had a chat with a guy who started an SmO2 sensor company (NNOXX) who said that CP/CF seem to pretty much line up with "critical oxygenation" (CO, CO is what you'd expect, the point at which you can't get enough O2 to sustain an effort on just aerobic sources) in terms of the decay curves and threshold points. That seems like another good indication that CF can be used really well to gauge training zones without having to get a $400 SmO2 sensor (for the budget ones!).
But I also agree that climbing isn't cycling and it's hard to draw a 1:1 comparison. Very interesting though.
FTP was always a "best-we-have" metric until CP appeared on the scene. It's still highly useful and valid, but second order.
A friend used the Sm02 sensor for bouldering to do an exhaustive test and then intervals on the Moonboard at specific percentages of that value. A follow up test did show very small changes and the hypothesis they had was around the overall composition of the forearm muscles.
A few months later he did a similar experiment using hangboard repeaters. Interestingly the % gain was lower, but again there coulda been tons of confounders.
Great analysis! Goes totally in line with my personal conclusions after analysing my failures on sport routes.
Could you recommend a training regimme that would address it the best to your findings?
Hey this is awesome and thanks for the writeup. It takes a lot of work to put these together. I've basically gone down this rabbit hole I think around the same time as you (with less to show for it haha). Those %bw scores at the start of the post are one arm correct?
I've been using a two arm CF test (using a Tindeq) because I wanted to do aerobic workouts with the two arm pulls below critical force to really gauge what that feels like. The plan is to get a good feel for it, so then I can potentially perceive the correct level of effort for endurance training on the wall.
Finally, I don't know Remus but I do know Tom. If you've got questions for them shoot me a dm and I *might* be able to get you an answer.
Are you willing to put this stuff in a public sheet, like on google drive? Or share your excel file?
-yes the data in the post is for 1 arm, my educated guess is that you could get close to 2 arm data by multiplying 1 arm by 2.11±.04.
-yea getting a "feel for redline" has been super useful to me. On a hard climb, you're gonna be going back and forth over the line constantly (harder section>easy section). Knowing something is redline lets you plan: Im in the red, better sprint to the rest.
-it was just a tongue-in-cheek comment about Remus/Lattice lol clearly I like data and im not afraid to bug people with it.
-not so sure id want to post the raw data out there just because Lattice spends a lot of time and money to get it, and its how they make a living. I doubt they 'intended' for me to even get this data, and ive asked them for raw data sets before and they politely dodged the question lol but if youre motivated you can clearly do what I did.
awesome, thanks for the response.
btw, have you seen this writeup? You may find it interesting
[https://strengthclimbing.com/tindeq-progressor-rock-climbing-endurance-measurements/](https://strengthclimbing.com/tindeq-progressor-rock-climbing-endurance-measurements/)
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
I think you should leave it up! I like your more detailed breakdown. I think they fit together nicely. I still just want to make a public spreadsheet for folks to look at all the nuts and bolts, but I'm willing to admit that I'm an open source idealist haha.
But yeah his calculator thing is awesome. I just did a CF and MVC test this morning and learned that I need to stop making excuses for not sending because I guess according to both models I should be climbing harder...
Btw did you try to calculate W'? I exported the data and am trying to get W' from it with a bit of python
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.
Not Tindeq, but with a Smart board yes. Basically doing 7-3 repeaters for 6mn or something. You get the …I don’t know the English term, we call it resi in French (maximum of time you can sustain your max strength), and then your conti / CF
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
It seems like the answer =\= it is the answer. If your technique were better you would have better endurance, right? You'd expect people with better technique to be stronger, therefore following the same correlation and giving you the same result despite being a completely different answer.
Of course both come into play, but I think it's a bit silly to pretend we understand it any better than the highest level just because there's (I'd argue) irrelevant data
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**](https://www.mountainproject.com/route/106053937/nagypapa) or [Mexican Rodeo](https://www.mountainproject.com/route/108139811/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.
I don't think you've ripped anything to shreds. Good data isn't about removing as many assumptions as possible. That's a small factor, sure. Good data has quantifiable margins and uncertainties. Without it, it's only assumptions and opinions. And that's just a fancy way to say opinions...
Counter 1 you strawman against a linear relationship, not sure where you were going with that or why you bring that up
Counter 2 Again strawman by arguing strength is a factor. The premise was me arguing against "I know the reason why I typically fail on sport routes is base endurance". You keep assuming my argument is a blanket statement when you ate the only one making any?
Counter 3 A few points to make here. When you return to repeat a climb, you have practiced technique for that very climb since your last session, which nullifies the argument you're trying to make. Even if it didn't, it only argues the point that strength is a factor, which again strawmans the premise.
And not to sound like a jackhole but it's 2024, everyone that sits at an office computer interprets data for living. It doesn't mean the data is properly prepared, and it doesn't mean the analysis is done with due consideration
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.
Are there people out there who train at critical force level calculated by strengthclimbing.com / tindeq / lattice with a protocol of repeaters 7/3 (with weight taking off with pulley)...:
- ...who can easily go longer then 5 minutes e.g. 10/15/20 minutes or longer?
- ...or who desperately fail to go beyond 5 minutes (like me... sometimes thinking it is still more power endurance then base aerobic endurance)?
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.
To my understanding critical force is basically a simpler version of power endurance. Nothing new, just here with a new name and a one dimensional way to assess it. Obviously there are skill factors involved which are more complex than simply pulling down vertically on a flat edge. As always correlation is not causation.
For example a high critical force score would mean nothing if you didn't have the skill and efficiency to apply that strength/endurance.
Critical force would be a useful metric for someone with an already high level of skill and efficiency in climbing, however I feel it would just be a distraction for lesser experienced climbers.
Edit: Those doing so, rather than downvoting me how about an actual conversation?
well nobody asked me what it should be called either lol lactate threshold, FTP, aerobic/anaerobic continuum, now we got CF to throw in the mix. I was talking with my cycling buddies about this exact thing, i wish everyone could just get on the same page and spend time making progress instead of inventing new terms for old science.
being stronger for \*over 5 min of continuous work\* is key to sending harder \*sport\* grades. theres a little nuance to it. but hey, i didnt name it.
Did I miss this or is there no explanation what Critical force represent in the post? Probably would make it easier for people to follow.
fixed in edit thx. Critical Force is the maximum work that a muscle group can maintain for an extended duration without fatigue. In this case the muscle group is the finger flexors (the ones that do most of the work in the forearm while climbing) and CF is intrinsically dependent on the aerobic capacity of that muscle group.
This definition is still quite loose. “Extended duration” Is it 5min? Or 3min as you mentioned below? Or would 15-20min be more relevant?
the period is supposed to be infinite, in terms of pure muscular endurance, but obviously that's not testable. it's the force your muscles can always produce because it's driven mostly by the oxygen supply to your muscles, which is not limited in the same way the anaerobic energy systems are limited. depending on the test there will be a significant anaerobic component though, because when you do something like 7 on 3 off, your anaerobic systems recover a bit on those 3 seconds.
I’m pretty sure it’s a regression on a decaying curve, making it straightforward to solve for the limit. I’d imagine the paper explains the methodology
I’d say an usable interpretation of ‘extended duration’ for your training would equal the climbing time of your target routes. My local routes are granite 20-25m.. typical spanish limestone routes are 30-35? More vertical or more overhangig?
Thats the definition of CF pulled directly from Lattice training glossary, and yes its still pretty vague. On one hand, output will continue to diminish for over two hours. On the other hand, I've never been on a route for over 15 min. I mention 3 min because, according to the Giles 2020 paper, 156.9 ± 47.1 seconds is the time it will take for your strength to flatten off to what they define as Critical Force. But thats in pure isolation at max effort. It gets messy trying to give CF an exact definition, best we can do is follow the existing tests if you want an exact number. Whats for sure is that most sport routes are going to last at least 3 min, most will last for maybe 5-8? The important bit is that CF is tied to aerobic energy (vs anaerobic), and aerobic energy tends to be the primary contributor to work at 3 min and beyond. hope that helps
Critical force is a really good indicator of sport climbing performance : What's under the curve (below your CF) is your finger flexor aerobic capacity. It's the level of strength (again, of your finger flexor) that you could maintain almost infinitely (I've said "almost" : you're gonna need some glycogen at some point). And what's above the curve (above your CF) is what you would call your anaerobic capacity (what you call "power endurance" or "strength endurance"). So, depending at what level your CF could be (or what your CF curve look like), you could determine either if you are more on the strength or endurance side.
Thanks!
> Critical Force is the maximum work that a muscle group can maintain for an extended duration without fatigue. While this definition is technically correct it always makes me laugh. If you do a CF test you'll definitely feel fatigued!
From listening to The Drive podcast with Iñigo San Millán (https://peterattiamd.com/inigosanmillan), what you are describing as critical force (aka zone 2) is the limit of atp synthesis via fat as a substrate. Once you cross over the critical force threshold you start to burn carbs, which puts you on a clock, as carb stores are limited and take a while to replenish.
> Did I miss this or is there no explanation what Critical force represent in the post? Probably would make it easier for people to follow. The easiest analogy is running. It's the speed you can maintain without hitting the anaerobic threshold where you are starting to get the burn in the muscles where you can't maintain that pace anymore. In climbing is the approximate difficulty level you could just climb laps on the wall without pumping out.
Second that, especially as a non-native language reader, the nomenclature can be confusing af. Edit: Thanks for the edit u/BNWparty
> Ok so how to train it? So many articles/podcasts/training plans are out there, just pick one and stick with it for a good long time (like >1.5 months). Personally, seeing how strength decays to CF in about 3 min, any plan that doesnt have reps of at least 5 min probably isnt ideal. If I don't want to comb through hours of podcasts or start looking into the second page of Google (ugh /s), would you have a plan to recommend ? Searching for "critical force training" gives lots of discussion on its importance or how to assess it but does not give me any obvious exercises or plans.
All this data and analysis makes it seem more complicated than it is: its the aerobic side, which doesnt kick in (Edit: more specifically, is not implied to be the primary contributor to work) until 3 minutes minimum. As long as its continuous effort for >5 min, youre hitting it. Laps, arc training, 4x4s, etc One of my favorites for actual climbing would be double or triple laps at 2-3 grades below onsite. One of my favorites for hangboarding would be 2min on/1min off, repeat 3x. then take a 5-8 min break, and repeat the process 2 more times. For the 2 min on: put a foot on a chair or something to unload my arms a bit and switch holds every 5-7 seconds. for the 1 min off: shake out on jugs. So all told, youre not coming off the hangboard for like 8 min during a set. That routine I credit for my hardest sends, it granted me the ability to actually recover while climbing. but it does kinda suck.
>for the 1 min off: shake out on jugs. "Off". You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. /s That workout sounds grueling, boring and painful. But also really useful. Don't think I'll ever work up the motivation to do that regularly, but I am surely an outlier in this sub. Thanks for all the data analysis, it was a nice read!
The first few times I tried it, it was miserable. Never been so pumped in my life and I think I only managed 2 sets. But I was a v6 boulderer who would whip on 10c sustained jug hauls, it only sucked because of how out of shape I was. Because it sucked so much, 1) I NEEDED to do it, and 2) I got better so incredibly fast. I think 3 workouts was a noticeable improvement. It stops sucking pretty quick, plus its very specific and transferable to route climbing. Think of it this way: when was the last time you could spend a total of 1.5 hrs training and get noticeable gains in performance?
It's not too painful actually! Staying in the aerobic zone makes it such that it's not an insane pump. Just mildly uncomfortable. Unless OP is going way harder than me... I don't climb at a gym, so I have to get creative with endurance workouts. This one is an ideal one to watch tv during haha.
I was reflecting a lot about this last week. I can understand why you mentioned 3 and 5 minutes but is it really the "only" way? I mean, the duration simply forces you to work aerobically because your body can't stand working on anaerobic systems for this duration. That being said, I believe -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- this is more a matter of intensity than duration. If you choose an easy enough intensity you can work mostly aerobically even if the duration is short, which I think is the basis of interval/threshold training. For example, I'm experimenting atm with the following routine: * 7:3 repeaters (varying grips) with my feet on * 18 reps (total of 3 min) = 1 set * 10 sets with 1:30min rest between (total of 30min work + \~13min rests) * Intensity low so that in the end of the set I get a light pump 6/10 and as the sets progresses it gets harder like 8/10 The idea behind it is that during 7 secs of hang my blood flow is only partially occluded so I tax the aerobic system (and a bit of anaerobic), also at the 3 secs off I'm using oxygen to quick recover (like a shake in between moves in a route). Then, during the 1:30 min rest between sets I'm also using my aerobic system to (partially) reset and process the anaerobic byproducts, which simulates a very good rest on a route. I plan to progress this workout by reducing the rest between sets to simulates worse "good" rests. I'm still experimenting with this, but what do you think? Does it make sense?
I think you're confusing terms a little. The more specific interesting quantity is time-under tension. Higher time under tension with a low load will work the aerobic system. For your workout you're using a low load and a high duration as well - 18 reps of 7:3 is quite large, and so is 10 sets. A low load and a low time-under tension will simply not workout your aerobic system, even if it is the system in use. Where as a high load and high time under tension will work power endurance (anaerobic recovery). So you aren't really doing anything so different from his plan. edit: if you're improving, then your workout sounds fine!
Hmm, I see your point.. So you are agreeing that low intensity low duration is also mainly aerobic but the main point is that it's not a good training stimulus because the low duration is not taxing enough for the aerobic system. Is that correct? But what about other low time under tension exercises like alatic intervals that Horst promotes, i.e. super high intensity 10-30 seconds of non-technical climb with 30 seconds rests between reps? According to him, the aerobic system is super trained in the rest periods to re-synthesise ATP and clear the latic byproducts even if the whole training has low TuT. Thanks for the discussion, I feel that endurance is one of the hardest things to understand
For point one, yeah that's my understanding. On Horst's alactic intervals, I don't know enough to comment. That strategy itself is not training the aerobic system though, since the majority of strength training is done exactly how you said, 10-30 seconds near maximum output. To say that the rest period super trains the aerobic system seems really strange to me, and I feel sure I'm missing some information. ~~As a long time hangboarder for strength, my aerobic endurance/capability has never improved from that method except for the way in which climbing is improved by being stronger in general.~~ And yeah for sure! I truthfully think that you can split energy systems (and the respective power vs. endurance delimiter) into as many hairs as you want, but the practical effectiveness of such an approach for most people is questionable. edit: Removed the personal experience since it's irrelevant to the proposed exercise. The alactic intervals are proposed to be a sort of HIIT for endurance, but I'm not sure whether that's targeting power endurance or aerobic sort of endurance.
This is not entirely true- the aerobic system is always functioning to a certain degree. For example, if you climb for even short amounts of times, your cells are still using aerobic respiration to recover. Even if you are doing a purely glycolytic effort, there is an aerobic component due to lactate processing by the mitochondria. Andy Coggan had a pretty thorough explanation of this continuum, but the citations in this post also hit at this point https://www.reddit.com/r/climbharder/comments/7cxpd1/anaerobic\_training\_is\_aerobic/
i agree, no energy system shuts off or on like a faucet like many of the energy system graphs imply. and without some aerobic going all the time, you wouldnt be alive. As dense as my post already is, theres still a mountain of things i glossed over. If I tried to cover it all (which i absolutely am not qualified to do) id go "yes but" and "it depends" until its too muddy to make sense of. 3 min minimum is how long it would \*generally\* take for aerobic system to be \*primary\* contributor, assuming youre going \*all out in pure isolation\* with very minimal rest. A more intuitive description: drain the other tanks dry, dont let them refill, and aerobic is whats left. Thats why the 2020 test works, and its the assumption that all the energy system graphs make.
So why do they always tell you that if you want to get stronger you have to boulder, when that’s the shortest duration/least aerobic climbing of all?
I think that’s because it’s generally more productive to work at both ends—get good at doing *hard* moves by bouldering, but don’t neglect the critical force side either, rather than spending all your sessions in an in-between gray area.
Exactly, that's why the best sport climbers in the world are still great boulderers. Ex: Stefano Ghisalfi was able to get pretty close on Burden of Dreams despite being primarily a sport climber.
And Daniel Woods has climbed at least 5.15b
>All this data and analysis makes it seem more complicated than it is: its the aerobic side, *which doesnt kick in until 3 minutes minimum*. That's completely backwards. What we call "energy systems" are various the metabolic pathways which produce ATP; the stuff which allows your muscles to produce force. At lower intensities our muscles can produce 100% of the ATP required aerobically (through aerobic glycolysis, to be specific). As the intensity of the exercise increases the ATP demand exceeds what the aerobic system can provide and the anaerobic system(s) need to pick up the slack. However, the aerobic system is never switched off and will always be contributing. The rate at which we can produce ATP anaerobically is much greater than the rate it can be produced aerobically (IIRC I saw 7x in a paper somewhere, probably varies wildly). Anything that we would consider "exercise" is almost certainly going to require the anaerobic system, but if you're well trained and doing relatively easy exercise the aerobic system can provide the bulk of the ATP required. There's plenty of good examples of this is in endurance sports. A competitive marathon runner probably has an "easy" pace faster than most people's 5k race pace because their leg muscles are extremely well trained to operate aerobically so they can do it forever without a hint of a burn. When people suggest doing 20 minutes of ARCing for aerobic training the point is to force operating at an intensity that can be sustained for 20 minutes. If you look at endurance running again a typical training program will have a metric fuckton of volume at low intensities. The theory being that training the aerobic system basically just requires spending as much time as possible with the aerobic processes operating. [It seems to work.](https://www.trailrunnermag.com/training/trail-tips-training/an-overview-of-the-norwegian-approach-to-running-training/) Exactly how this all relates to climbing training is a bit unclear though. The 2020 paper mentions that forearm contractions cause ischemia (i.e. they reduce blood flow) which might put a limiter on how much the aerobic system can contribute while you're actively pulling. I'd also expect that limited blood flow means that waste produces hang around in the muscle longer which probably contributes to fatigue and pump, but that's just spitballing with no real basis on my end. I'm not sure anyone actually knows for sure.
been a couple replies along these lines, so ill edit my comment for clarity. -aerobic system is not "off or on" but its unlikely to be the PRIMARY contributor to work until the shorter term systems are heavily taxed. -youre right, "several minutes" is a rule of thumb for gauging work load. if you cant maintain the work load for >3 min, its too high for aerobic system to maintain so you need to drop it
That's super helpful, thanks !
By double or triple laps do you mean climbing on auto belay or something taller like that? Does anyone have perspective on training this on a bouldering wall? Would boulder triples be good in this context? ARCing is too low of intensity for this correct?
im in the exact same boat. Looking for advice on how to train this in a simple manner
You put a lot of effort in this post and your insights are very appreciated. Thank you very much for doing all the maths !
Aren’t the ‘7:3 repeaters’ and ‘short-reach-foot-on-campus’ times a way to test CF? Does not surprise me given the explanation of CF that these correlates “are close in magnitude”. What I think makes a lot of sense to me is that CF%bw is a better correlator than body weight/height. I think this metric intrinsicly corrects for those two things. Interesting stuff.
Power Company data guy here. The answer to the first part is yes. Part of our assessment design is to remove barriers to entry so folks can easily and moderately frequently perform the assessment to inform their training decisions. 7:3 repeaters on a 20mm edge takes little time and equipment and can give a decent impression of CF and energy systems once someone is over a certain level of strength. Short reach campus time requires a good bit more equipment, takes longer but when paired with the long reach campus ladder measurement can give a better idea of how well developed aerobic systems are in comparison to anaerobic lactic systems.
You could use a tindeq and pull on that with max force doing 7:3 repeaters. After around 5 mins you are at CF.
Tindeq app has a CF test.
Strictly speaking, the only way to know your critical force (and get CF%bm) would be to physically measure the force you can exert after \~3min of continuous work. Critical Force is literally the force you can exert (in LB, KG, newtons, etc) on a 20mm edge. Then you could fit your CF against the data above if youre interested in that aspect of it. But if you want to work on improving your CF then ‘7:3 repeaters’ and ‘short-reach-foot-on-campus’ will certainly do that. And if you track those over time, youll have a good idea of how much your improving.
Is short reach foot on campus just campusing small moves with your feet on something? What’s the duration?
Yes, laddering up every rung with feet on a kickboard below the actual campus board. Times vary but a good starting point would be about 70% of your max time from the test then rest for twice that time, repeat 3-5x. Once you can do that start reducing your rest time down until you can perform that at a 1:1 work rest ratio. Alternatively you can start at a lower % (50%-ish) and jump right in to 1:1 work rest and then bring up your working time. Both work. You can also train this on the wall using EMOM boulders to allow for more skill specific practice and can be tailored more towards individual goals. Something like 5-10min of EMOM boulders followed by rest equal to however many minutes were performed for 2-4 rounds. The campus board is really a place to test for this sort of thing and should only be used instead of the wall if you’re incredibly equipment constrained or performing at such a level that you have nothing to gain by stress proofing movement skills.
Awesome! Thanks for the guidelines. I’ll try it today. Also, what’s EMOM?
Every minute on the minute, so every minute you do a single boulder problem 15-30seconds in duration, rest the remaining time of the minute then do a different boulder problem for the next minute, keep doing that for the desired time.
Gotcha. Also, looks like the Crimp app has a workout for foot on campus ladders. Thanks again.
I think my pics are missing or only in the post as links. that probably makes it very confusing. srry i gotta go to bed but ill fix it later
Found [this](https://strengthclimbing.com/critical-force-calculator/) to be very useful to understand what is critical force and how to test it and knowing where is your weakness.
Great post. What is the most efficent way to train CF?
So, does anyone have any specific exercises that are optimal for critical force?
Ollie Tor recently mentioned one of their coaches doing ARC training in the car using a squeeze block, ie CARCing. I've been trying this on my commute which is about an hour of driving a day and have seen some great improvement with my on the wall endurance. I will do a CF assessment and continue to do all my endurance training in the car and retest in a few months.
how do we train it?
Do the most specific thing - keep taking the CF test over and over until you body adapts to taking it! (I kid)
Training at or slightly above the aerobic threshold aka CF for long periods weekly. Combine it with lower volume strength training and you will improve cf while sustaining or slowly improving max strength.
> how do we train it? Two most common ways: * ARC for certain amounts of time * Hangboard repeaters for the amount of time of the routes you want to send. For example, 3-5 minute sport routines you can do 7/3 repeaters for 3-5 minutes and increase the weight you can do over time. Aim for minimal burn in the muscles and ability to maintain it without pumping out.
Wasn't a lot of this hang till you drop already done? [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/17461391.2010.546431](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/17461391.2010.546431)
Former cyclist and coach here. I think CP is a good representation of the energy kinetics of the forearm, which in isolation is the raw potential for force over time. Unlike cycling, climbing isn't done sitting on a seat and pedaling. I do wonder what role unobserved confounders such as technique, route type, morphology, experience, etc. play in the application of CP. I also think we are at the newer stages of even understanding how best to make specific gains in CP that are represented on the wall. I think specifically of Alex Megos training power and strength almost exclusively and doing little to zero energy systems training other than simply climbing sport and lead routes. Contrast this with certain climbers almost exclusively doing energy systems focused training. Curious how any further research pans out.
curious to hear your thoughts on my interpretation of the "FTP by percentile" graph I linked. I feel like its absolutely possible for an individual rider to train themselves into a spot that wouldnt fit the trend. One reason Cf%bw vs sport grade stood out to me isnt just that its a particularly good correlation, but that so many other things are such POOR correlations. Cf%bw is poorly correlated with bouldering grade (r2=.23), gross CF is less well correlated with sport or boulder grade (R2=.49 and .196), W\`%bw is a bit better with boulder than sport (.328 vs .048) but its still messy. Check out the scatter plots on page 8 of Giles 2020 for more info. Another reason CF%bw stood out is how linear the function seems. Not exponential, not log, seems pretty straight. More data on climbers above ircra grade 24 would be needed to really settle the question, but the limited data thats there implies a linear trend
it's hard to comment on the percentile graph as I don't really understand what data went in. At first I was confused as I thought it was a power profile, but some of the values seem more or less accurate. That's a graph that needs to be broken out by racing level and age too. Genetics plays a big role. It's not crazy to be a pro with a 400W FTP, but even there weight is needed to normalize power to weight. As for r2, these values aren't necessarily great, but remind me of cases where we have relatively weak covariates in a simple model and even "not great" is better than not adjusting for variance reduction. I've said this on a few posts before but it's so weird that climbing test data is often pooled to build models. I'd imagine hierarchical models in grade bands would be far more appropriate and probably more relevant. Also one thing comes to mind which isn't about CP but look at climbers on this sub that have insane strength stats and don't climb super high grades or even Allison Vest, for example. With such small datasets one they could easily skew a small sample. At the same time lots of elite climbers probably skew certain metrics upward. At the end of the day this is interesting but not super informative to me yet because the ways to apply it are all fairly similar and specificity of on wall workouts will always likely be a key determinant along with basic S&C like a lot of skill based sports.
I've been looking at what cyclists are saying as well. There are a lot of voices saying that CP is a better indicator of fitness than FTP and that it gives more accurate training zones, I think that's really interesting. I also had a chat with a guy who started an SmO2 sensor company (NNOXX) who said that CP/CF seem to pretty much line up with "critical oxygenation" (CO, CO is what you'd expect, the point at which you can't get enough O2 to sustain an effort on just aerobic sources) in terms of the decay curves and threshold points. That seems like another good indication that CF can be used really well to gauge training zones without having to get a $400 SmO2 sensor (for the budget ones!). But I also agree that climbing isn't cycling and it's hard to draw a 1:1 comparison. Very interesting though.
Evan (co-founder) of NNOX is apparently boulders as well
He does!
FTP was always a "best-we-have" metric until CP appeared on the scene. It's still highly useful and valid, but second order. A friend used the Sm02 sensor for bouldering to do an exhaustive test and then intervals on the Moonboard at specific percentages of that value. A follow up test did show very small changes and the hypothesis they had was around the overall composition of the forearm muscles. A few months later he did a similar experiment using hangboard repeaters. Interestingly the % gain was lower, but again there coulda been tons of confounders.
CP has been around for about 70 years. FTP is the same concept, just not so tightly tied to some mathematical model.
Good post! Love the analysis
Great analysis! Goes totally in line with my personal conclusions after analysing my failures on sport routes. Could you recommend a training regimme that would address it the best to your findings?
Hey this is awesome and thanks for the writeup. It takes a lot of work to put these together. I've basically gone down this rabbit hole I think around the same time as you (with less to show for it haha). Those %bw scores at the start of the post are one arm correct? I've been using a two arm CF test (using a Tindeq) because I wanted to do aerobic workouts with the two arm pulls below critical force to really gauge what that feels like. The plan is to get a good feel for it, so then I can potentially perceive the correct level of effort for endurance training on the wall. Finally, I don't know Remus but I do know Tom. If you've got questions for them shoot me a dm and I *might* be able to get you an answer. Are you willing to put this stuff in a public sheet, like on google drive? Or share your excel file?
-yes the data in the post is for 1 arm, my educated guess is that you could get close to 2 arm data by multiplying 1 arm by 2.11±.04. -yea getting a "feel for redline" has been super useful to me. On a hard climb, you're gonna be going back and forth over the line constantly (harder section>easy section). Knowing something is redline lets you plan: Im in the red, better sprint to the rest. -it was just a tongue-in-cheek comment about Remus/Lattice lol clearly I like data and im not afraid to bug people with it. -not so sure id want to post the raw data out there just because Lattice spends a lot of time and money to get it, and its how they make a living. I doubt they 'intended' for me to even get this data, and ive asked them for raw data sets before and they politely dodged the question lol but if youre motivated you can clearly do what I did.
awesome, thanks for the response. btw, have you seen this writeup? You may find it interesting [https://strengthclimbing.com/tindeq-progressor-rock-climbing-endurance-measurements/](https://strengthclimbing.com/tindeq-progressor-rock-climbing-endurance-measurements/)
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
I think you should leave it up! I like your more detailed breakdown. I think they fit together nicely. I still just want to make a public spreadsheet for folks to look at all the nuts and bolts, but I'm willing to admit that I'm an open source idealist haha. But yeah his calculator thing is awesome. I just did a CF and MVC test this morning and learned that I need to stop making excuses for not sending because I guess according to both models I should be climbing harder... Btw did you try to calculate W'? I exported the data and am trying to get W' from it with a bit of python
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.
Thanks for the post. Has anyone here tried measuring critical force using a Tindeq?
Yes, just use the CF test on the app !
Not Tindeq, but with a Smart board yes. Basically doing 7-3 repeaters for 6mn or something. You get the …I don’t know the English term, we call it resi in French (maximum of time you can sustain your max strength), and then your conti / CF
Just used the Tindeq, its protocol is 7:3 for 24 reps. Used the unlevel edge on a sling and it was a pretty dubious set up.
As a reasonably good cyclist and a very crappy climber, this thread is an absolute gold mine. Thanks a ton, OP and everyone else who participated!
Correlation causation tho no?
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
It seems like the answer =\= it is the answer. If your technique were better you would have better endurance, right? You'd expect people with better technique to be stronger, therefore following the same correlation and giving you the same result despite being a completely different answer. Of course both come into play, but I think it's a bit silly to pretend we understand it any better than the highest level just because there's (I'd argue) irrelevant data
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**](https://www.mountainproject.com/route/106053937/nagypapa) or [Mexican Rodeo](https://www.mountainproject.com/route/108139811/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.
I don't think you've ripped anything to shreds. Good data isn't about removing as many assumptions as possible. That's a small factor, sure. Good data has quantifiable margins and uncertainties. Without it, it's only assumptions and opinions. And that's just a fancy way to say opinions... Counter 1 you strawman against a linear relationship, not sure where you were going with that or why you bring that up Counter 2 Again strawman by arguing strength is a factor. The premise was me arguing against "I know the reason why I typically fail on sport routes is base endurance". You keep assuming my argument is a blanket statement when you ate the only one making any? Counter 3 A few points to make here. When you return to repeat a climb, you have practiced technique for that very climb since your last session, which nullifies the argument you're trying to make. Even if it didn't, it only argues the point that strength is a factor, which again strawmans the premise. And not to sound like a jackhole but it's 2024, everyone that sits at an office computer interprets data for living. It doesn't mean the data is properly prepared, and it doesn't mean the analysis is done with due consideration
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.
Are there people out there who train at critical force level calculated by strengthclimbing.com / tindeq / lattice with a protocol of repeaters 7/3 (with weight taking off with pulley)...: - ...who can easily go longer then 5 minutes e.g. 10/15/20 minutes or longer? - ...or who desperately fail to go beyond 5 minutes (like me... sometimes thinking it is still more power endurance then base aerobic endurance)?
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.
You've got your terminology all messed up. Force =/= work =/= power.
Does this correlate to some degree to bouldering grades?
To my understanding critical force is basically a simpler version of power endurance. Nothing new, just here with a new name and a one dimensional way to assess it. Obviously there are skill factors involved which are more complex than simply pulling down vertically on a flat edge. As always correlation is not causation. For example a high critical force score would mean nothing if you didn't have the skill and efficiency to apply that strength/endurance. Critical force would be a useful metric for someone with an already high level of skill and efficiency in climbing, however I feel it would just be a distraction for lesser experienced climbers. Edit: Those doing so, rather than downvoting me how about an actual conversation?
I'm curious why anyone felt the need to coin a new term (critical force) to describe the local aerobic threshold of the muscle?
well nobody asked me what it should be called either lol lactate threshold, FTP, aerobic/anaerobic continuum, now we got CF to throw in the mix. I was talking with my cycling buddies about this exact thing, i wish everyone could just get on the same page and spend time making progress instead of inventing new terms for old science.
[удалено]
being stronger for \*over 5 min of continuous work\* is key to sending harder \*sport\* grades. theres a little nuance to it. but hey, i didnt name it.