Page 7 of 11

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:40 am
by the lurkist
He has a six pack, and I have a snack pack. :lol:

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:43 am
by Paul3eb
i ate a payday today. inside the wrapper it actually said, "candy is a treat. consume in moderation."

should i drive after eating several paydays or is that unsafe?

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:49 am
by the lurkist
Actually, having read (albeit cursory) this thread, and having read articles on training in the climbing press (about a different subject), there is a lot of misinformation (this thread) and poor application or frank mis understanding of very basic principles of athletic training. Consult a professional.

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:57 am
by Paul3eb
just because people have links to "back up" their arguments doesn't mean their arguments are immediately valid somehow.. do i need to prove this by demonstrating the world is run by about thousands of different deities, all of whom have different rules and regulations that you should follow if you want to attain happiness or suffering or whatever end is their own unique purpose?

or perhaps how being gay brought down the towers?

or why black people are inferior?

the web is useful but not for definitive source citation. and ob juan, good students should never blindly accept what is handed to them. skepticism is the root of science.

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:51 am
by gbarnett
Well thanks for the info OB Juan. Sorry I've offended you so greatly. A little healthy debate shouldn't incite such anger.

I might even try some of the exercises. I'm sure it will help overall performance.

I welcome any further info you may have on this topic. And for the record, I'm not hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. My username isn't far off from my real name. And I have no intention of hiding. I pressed you for more info because I don't believe some of your statements are true. In doing so I was pressuring you to prove me wrong, which I wouldn't have minded, since if I'm proven wrong, then I've learned something new.

Gary Barnett

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:54 pm
by OB Juan
I am not angry, I am not opposed to discussion, I like it. I am opposed to those of you who expect to refute a claim demand proof and attempt to dicredit the statement using opinion and feeling it unnecessary to provide your own supportive references. I don't mind if you disagree, but be prepared to back it up just as you expect me to do.

That statement brings me to this; Lurkist if this thread is full of misinformation and poor application of basic principles of athletic training, by all means please enlighten me where I've been grossly in error (include your references and sources for sake of legitimacy) I'd love to discuss it.

This thread was started to provide beneficial information to help climbers (of all skill level) limit their risk of injury. Core conditioning is essential to that process and it doesn't matter if your a 5.10 climber or 5.14 elite climber. Any climber pushing themselves at and beyond their limit is an injury risk and core training (part of a complete program) can have huge benefits over a relatively short period (6-10weeks).

Paul- Your right not all links on the web are the same and many can be BS, I'm pretty certain my reference links hold credibility with most anyone who checks into it.
My sources include:

The Atlantic Coast Conference

Jen Kerr DPT, DeSorrento Sport Medicine Center at Yampa Valley Medical Center, CO.

Peg Tyre and Jennifer Barrett, Newsweek, on line at MSNBC

Darin Leetun, Mary Ireland M.D. and additional peers, Journal of Medical Science, Sports and exercise, Vol 36, pp926-934, 2004

There was also one other reference that is the weakest admittedly but I put it up because is was informational and provided a set of exercises. Someone may find something in this last one that is controversial, but I doubt you'll find credible evidence to refute the other four references.

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 1:03 pm
by OB Juan
It's fairly apparent to me that several people posting and following this thread are knowledgeable and probably train off the rock as well as climb. I'm hoping that my last post can put to rest alot of the controversy. I welcome informed discussions (include sources and/or links) about core conditioning. everyone can benefit and we can all learn something.

PS. Hugh I know your one of the dinasours of climbing around here, just know I'm a dinasour also, and lets face it we have different issues and concerns than alot of the younger generation.

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:59 pm
by the lurkist
The single most cause of limb injury in climbing and all other dynamic sports (not including fall injuries) is poor core conditioning and lack of core strength.
OB Juan,
I don't want you to interpret this as an attack.
However, your initial supposition is one that I don't think is accurate.
I understand that you are an AT-C? And I assume you work with PT's and Dr. Ireland and have other experience in sports medicine.
A few of the most common climbing injuries are 1. A-1/ A-2 or cruciate pulley strains. 2. FDP/ FDS(flexor tendons of the fingers) tendon strains/ ruptures. 3. Rotator Cuff injuries (Supra Spinatus probably being 90% of these. 4. Long Head of the Biceps inj. and accompanying SLAP tears of the labrum. 5. Medial and Lateral Epicondylitis. 6. Retinacula strains of the wrist. 7. other odd tendonopathies of the wrist (TFCC inj).
I don't know the specific order of these, but for sure the pulley injuries are #1.
These are all upper extremity injuries, and in none of these would I say lack of core strength resulting in a relative loss of core stability was a direct causative factor in these injuries. Contributing, perhaps, but the cause of these injuries would be from, as you correctly stated, dynamic eccentric, or plyometric loading of the muscle belly, tendon, enthesis, etc... (what ever body part in involved).

I think your intent to educate about core stability in climbing is worthy and needed. It is sports like climbing and gymnastics where we turn the kinetic chain on its head. The fixed anchor point of contact to terra firma, which is usually the feet with everything else being connected in muscle and tendon chain to the feet in normal everyday walking about, suddenly becomes very small areas on the tips of our fingers. The kinetic chain suddenly has to find anchor here on these tip pads and the body, which usually has the huge muscle groups of the lower ext and pelvis to control the body mass, has to use the forearms, upper arms, shoulder girdle, etc... to control the body mass' movement.
In this scenario, especially on steep routes, the core strength is key to controlling body movement. This core strength provides the platform stability by virtue of its connection through closed kinetic chain to the finger tips to check dynamic swinging of the body and the subsequent out -of -control loading of vulnerable joints.
For instance, when 180 lbs of body mass swings with a velocity and acceleration through space only to come to a sudden stop by the poor RC and capsule, the result is rarely good. Just ask RHunt. In these instances core strength and stability would help reign in out-of-control body mass swing and thus prevent the development of the conditions needed to cause these upper extremity injuries. Therefore, weakness of core musculature and lack of core stability would be considered a contributing factor in creating the conditions that would allow dynamic injurious loading of a joint/ connective tissue. (sorry Rhunt. I know you have abs of steel).
Maybe this is what you where driving at. But, the direct cause of injury to these upper ext body parts would be the overwhelming force of the body mass accelerating through space meeting the meager resistance of small inadequate upper extremity muscles and connective tissue that are trying to protect the joint, followed by the sickening bowstring twang of rupturing.
that is what I think.
Is core strengthening going to improve one's climbing. Very much. Having a good stiff core is like having a good aluminum bike frame. It is very stiff and helps transmit the force created in the crank to the back wheel most efficeintly with little loss of energy in the flex of the frame. (that kind of works).

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 7:24 pm
by the lurkist
And nothing like a little loss of humility for an example to the above discussion.
http://www.redriverclimbing.com/album_p ... ic_id=2102
photo by Dan Brayack <dbrayack@gmail.com>
thanks Danno

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 7:44 pm
by bazoqop
I just read this thread today, and the lurkist's replies are by far the most thoughtful and pertinent by far.