William Naismith's rule

Naismith's rule. A basic planner for figuring out how much distance a reasonably fit person on reasonably friendly terrain can cover. Then a guy named Tranter added a bunch of corrections for age, etc. This all came up in a conversation with Kevin McLane, surely one of Canada's most prolific climbers, writers, and general "give 'er" kind of individuals.

I have a few rules like this as well. General rules (with tons of exceptions).

Ten pitches of climbing fresh ice will pretty much take all day.

I can generally run about ten minute miles on almost any trail out there if averaged over the course of a few hours. Except when I can't.

Ten pitches of gear climbing at my trad standard will pretty much take all day.

Any approach not involving trails will generally take a "practice" approach to find the way in.

Eat every hour at the minimum or suffer.

Take twice the food and half the water in winter as you do in summer.

If your winter pack is bigger than 45L you're backpacking, not climbing fast.

A pack smaller than ten liters is a purse.

The farther you are from home the more you'll get done in the wrong conditions.

Put another way, visiting climbers are often stronger than the locals...

Camping is vastly over-rated. Most local trips can be done without camping.

As you get older your potential for injury while doing new sports increases and is inverse to your ability to heal from an injury...

And so on, this sort of stuff is fun for me to geek out on.

Sponsors, Knee, Blacking Out

June 11th note--I just had a long call with David, learned a lot, and will fit those pieces together once I also talk with a few other people involved. There is both more and less to this story.

I'm chipping (wait, bad word!) away at the Lama/Patagonia cluster and slowly learning some new information. Lama and I will hopefully Skype tomorrow, bits and pieces of other info coming in but not enough to have a real understanding of what's going on. The comments on the last post have been lively, thanks for those. One misconception I'd like to clear up is that Red Bull (or any sponsor) somehow tells Lama, me or any of their athletes what to do in our sports. One person posed a question in the comments about I would do if Red Bull told me to bolt a crack. The idea is, to me, just wrong. None of my sponsors would think of telling me how to do a climb (they might justifiably crucify me if I were to add a bunch of bolts to an existing route. Bill B. at Black Diamond would likely hunt me down and kill me...). Seriously, I can't imagine that scenario. Some likely won't believe that comment, but that's honestly how it is.

How it works with athletes and sponsors most of the time is that an athlete gets a cool idea, works to find the money if required, and then goes and tries it. Most of these ideas are so out there that the sponsor could never think it up ("Hey, Will, go climb ice in abandoned mines, yeah, that'll be great! Ha ha...") I have never, in going on 20 years of relationships with sponsors, had a sponsor tell me how to climb (I have been sent to obscure places to drink heavily with locals and show pictures, been asked to do TV shows, some comps and clinics and other fun stuff, etc, but in terms of how or where to climb something, not once.). I'll be extremely surprised (but won't totally rule it out, weird stuff happens) if whatever happened in Patagonia had anything to do with a sponsor telling the guides or Lama how to do their jobs; that's directly on their heads alone, but as Red Bull paid for the trip the actions of those on the trip justifiably reflect onto the sponsor. Even if a sponsor somehow did ask an athlete to bolt a crack the athlete should say, "No," and explain why that would be a really bad move. No thinking sponsor wants their athletes to do stupid stuff that will reflect poorly on the company ("Say, Tiger, would you mind going out and having a bunch of affairs with strippers?"), it just doesn't make sense. This is partly why the situation in Patagonia is so puzzling to me; I know RB wouldn't say, "bolt!," so who was on the ground and what in the hell were they thinking? I'm really looking forward to the conversation with Lama. I really want to know how a cool idea could turn into such a cluster, and if there's a way to get a less-bad result out of it (and I agree that doing something positive for the Patagonia environment sounds like a good idea, but I'd want to hear more from locals who actually know the place, it's theirs).

Planes: I had a cool opportunity last weekend to go and watch the Red Bull Air Races in the scenic (well, not wildly scenic) town of Windsor, Ontario (Interestingly, Michael Kennedy, well-known alpinist and publisher, somehow grew up there, that's like a golfer from Antarctica or something, need to get that story one day). Windsor sits directly across the water from Detroit; you can see the GM logo on their building on the detroit side clearly. Both towns are getting hammered by the recession. But the flying was insanely cool to watch, pilots ripping along at over 300K only a few meters above the water (one pilot hit the water and flew out, crazy! 1:00 minute in the clip). Anyhow, I had an amazing opportunity to go for a ride in a two-place aerobatic plane with one of the best pilots in the game, the opening loops, snap rolls etc. were cool, but it was insane to nearly black out due to the Gs. Last time I nearly blacked out in the air was not good, and for different reasons. Anyhow, when you're doing a really high-speed high bank-angle turn and holding it for a long time the blood flow to your head doesn't work so well. But if you squeeze your abs, legs, etc. then you can keep blood moving through your head. It's disconcerting to see the blackness creeping in from the sides of your vision, and then squeezing your legs and having it recede. I didn't pass out, and I feel like I learned a lot that could be helpful in that situation in the future...

Knee: I've been climbing and training a bunch, which has been great, but I've had this swollen knee thing going for about six months. Finally went in yesterday and got the bursa on my right knee cap drained, all-time cool/gross experience to get the orange-sized lump taken down to something more manageable! I'm sore today, but I don't have my jiggly Jello friend hanging off my leg anymore!

David Lama, Red Bull, Patagonia

Last winter a 19-year old Austrian youth, David Lama, went to Patagonia to try to free the Compressor Route. The actions of his film team and their guides have caused an international furor. For those not in the know, the Compressor Route was the scene of a complete debacle when Cesare Maestri bolted (bad style) his way up a big face on Cerro Torre, an amazing mountain in Patagonia. Maestri first claimed to have climbed the mountain using "fair" means, but few believe him, so he went back and blasted it with bolts.

Anyhow, Lama, a 19-year old prodigy, decides to free the route. Cool, that's a neat idea. But a film team gets involved and things get sticky for Lama when his film team and their guides add about 60 bolts to the climb, and leaves fixed ropes hanging all over it for months. If you're a climber you understand that this is really bad style on many levels. The climbing world has of course gone on a rampage against Lama and one of his and my sponsors, Red Bull. Lama hired some local guides to remove the ropes and some of the garbage, but the bolts are there. Lama hasn't helped his cause by declaring that he did "nothing wrong." Maybe he didn't put the bolts in, but his team did, and an athlete is responsible for what happens on his trip. Period. Ultimately the athlete has the power and the responsibility on any sponsored trip.

Without knowing Lama or exactly what really went on, I'm still very unhappy about this. Adding that many bolts to an existing route just isn't at all cool. In fact, I'm incensed about it. It isn't Red Bull's fault directly, but they did bankroll the trip--along with Lama's other sponsors. Much of the climbing world is rabidly pissed off at Red Bull. I don't think that's completely fair, but hell, I'm upset by this both as a climber and that one of my sponsors helped pay for this junk show. What's the best course of action for me as both a climber and Red Bull athlete?

First, I've contacted Lama directly. He's 19, and I bet many of us can remember that age and comment, "Yep, did some stupid stuff." I can imagine Lama arriving in Patagonia with a film crew, a few European guides (they are reportedly the ones who did the bolting for the film crew, the bolts weren't for Lama's climbing), and some bad weather. The Austrian guides want safe rigging for the film crew in the sketchy weather, bolts are safe, bad decisions are made in the interest of time. Lama may not even have really seen the repercussions of this; he's focused on climbing, not filming or rigging, and he's 19 so if an older guide is making decisions about safety and rigging he might just defer, or perhaps just not even get the issue (his statement shows he clearly doesn't get the issue actually). Still, as climber, you're responsible for what goes on on your trips. Lama is responsible for those bolts, and like it or not, so by extension are Red Bull and Lama's other sponsors.

Second, I've contacted a few of the people directly involved to see what the best possible solution is from their perspective (Rolo, Red Bull). Red Bull has always been one of the best companies I've ever worked with in terms of respecting what their athletes want to do. I walked away on a very expensive climbing project at one point because it just wasn't the right thing to be doing in terms of safety, and Red Bull stood by me for that. They tend to trust their athletes a lot, which is great but they certainly wouldn't condone something they knew was wrong. I'm sure this is causing some waves back at the world HQ in Austria. When athletes do something stupid--or great--sponsors have to deal with it. At the moment I'm most annoyed at the older European guides on the trip, they really, really should have known better and shown some leadership.

When I get all the first-hand information back from those involved I'll try to contribute in some positive way to getting the best outcome for this cluster, it's just not right. I'll post up here when I have some more information.

Canada Crossfit Regionals

I spent the weekend cheering/coaching my wife, Kim Csizmazia, and all the other athltes at the Canada Crossfit Regional Games, which are a sort of athletic torture festival. Athletes at the Regionals have already qualified through a "Sectional," and a top six result at the regionals will send them to the Games finals in California. The competition is fierce, the events nasty, and the effort level high.

I wrote most of the following as notes on my phone during the event, so it's a bit rough, quick sort and here it all is:

Impressive:

-Masters. The over-50 athletes are strong, every time I caught a little of their action I was incredibly stoked. I would love to be over 50 and still putting strong numbers like theirs. Solid.

-Crossfit athletic skills. Double-unders (skipping two revolutions of the rope per jump, it's harder than it sounds), overhead squats, wall balls, etc. If you didn't have these skills dialed you were going home in the bottom of the pack. Watching someone bust out 50 double-unders without breaking a sweat is impressive, give it a try... The level is now high.

-Going hard. These athletes try hard. That "dig deeper" effort is a hard thing to teach, but Crossfit does a uniquely good job of getting people to reach way outside the individual comfort zone many people never leave. Respect for that, it's one of the most valuable things Crossfit can teach.

-Ability to do an incredible amount of work for short (under 20 minutes) time. Tire flipping, clean and jerk, running, going like a total nut case for about 10 minutes for the winners. I'm super impressed, that's sick.

-Physical results. The top athletes, male or female, were physically impressive, and also impressive for what they could do. I did a workout in a local gym one day during the event, it was funny to watch a guy doing bicep curls after seeing a CF woman bust out sets of 20 pullups straight (full ROM too). No arguing with the look of the athletes, if you wanna look good naked this stuff works.

-Good vibe. Overall very positive, pretty much standard stoke for any good athletic event.

-Kim. She has a hip that's been resurfaced, a gimped knee, she's 42 and many other things that generally don't help athletic performance, but she gave it the whole comp and placed mid-field despite starting this up only nine months ago. If she could do double-unders she would have been ten places higher. Solid.

-The women. Crossfit is a great venue for athletic women to fit in. Kim said, "I've found my tribe." There's truth in that. A lot of the world still would prefer women to wear dresses and sip tea in the shade. Crossfit is for everybody, but I think it might be uniquely suited to bringing out the athletic best in women. Cool.

-The mental strength of the top competitors. I always watch for this in athletes, it's usually the biggest determining factor between winning and not. The top competitors were STRONG in their heads, cool.

-James Fitzgerald, of Optimum Performance Training. This guy is obviously one switched-on dude. He was quickly on weak judges, always cheering athletes, and generally giving it everything he had. It takes an army of hard-working volunteers to make a big event work, but the tone and direction comes from the top, and "OPT" did a great job from what I could see.

I'm less impressed with:

-The run. It was a 5K run, mostly on grass, damp mud and paths, Kim and I checked it out an hour before the race and thought it was a fun course. It was supposed to be 6.7K but the organizers cut out 1.6K at the last minute because it was "too dangerous." I ran the "dangerous" portion of the course immediately before the event, it was muddy but not bad at all. You'd think a bunch of people with sayings like, "Today is a good day to die" on their shirts could handle a little mud and even the possibility of a muddy abrasion or two, eh?

-Running times/skill. I'm sure an average junior high school trail runner would kick ass on all but a few of the running times (which, for some reason, weren't kept, just places), and an average trail racer would destroy all the times (and a trail racer would get destroyed on clean and jerks, but these athletes are meant to be "elite" generalists--this level of physical performance is like a 90lb bench press). I ran most of the course with the men to see what parts had been cut from my scout an hour earlier, their pace was generally anemic (and I'm a below average runner), as were the times I recorded. I ran almost all of it again with Kim ten minutes later, she was gimping hard on her hip, hadn't done any real running in ten years, and still finished mid-pack (which is a good effort for her). Several women and men would have easily gone to the games if they hadn't sucked so bad on the run. it was obviously a huge hole in their training even compared to the performances of others. This level of running fitness is tragically low, and really rips the heart out of the "Fittest Athlete in the world" hype for me. Running is a basic athletic skill, the Canadian CF programming is weak on this skill, no way around it.

-Event organization. Crossfit is a young sport, and young sports always have teething problems, but this event really, really needed an experienced event manager. Maybe there was one, but starting the running race almost two minutes early (there were women running hard for the start line 30 seconds after the gun went off) and a few other errors I saw like that hurt the event's credibility. CFers suck this sort of stuff up (read this woman's comments on her wall-ball experience), but it's not right.

-Communication. Kim had to restrain me from going and grabbing the microphone and doing some announcing on the last day--there were a lot of spectators there, but nobody was getting any useful information or even PSYCHE over the PA. Here are some athletes doing some RAD shit, and the announcer has nothing useful to say at all about what they are doing, who is in the lead, fastest time in the heats so far, nothing. If Crossfit wants to make these games spectator friendly, and I fully think it's deserving of spectators, then it needs to be more spectator friendly! I was so stoked by what was going on, but unless you personally knew an athlete there was no way to figure out who was battling, or how the heat was doing relative to other heats.

-This lack of organized communication is a real problem with the Crossfit Games organization as well; the Games web site is getting better, but it's still near-useless compared to what it could be with a little work. There are no athlete bios (beyond the occasional "featured" athlete) so you can't click on a results or registered athlete page and know how old an athlete is, where he or she is from, what they weigh, sporting background, etc. I'm sure every CFer in Canada and likely around the world was checking the event out, it would have been a lot better to have all this info available, and it's relatively easy to do today.

-The hype, the "Ultimate proving ground for the world's fittest athletes," the T-Shirt slogans, "forged" stuff. This type of poseur rhetoric is a lot like the fat kid on the playground telling everyone how he's going win the elementary school running races the next day. No he's not, and you know he's not cause the kid who is going to win is out playing soccer.... Crossfit kicks ass on all general physical training I've ever seen, it is highly athletic, so talking big only makes it look weak. Talking all this smack about "being the fittest" is a form of "Compensatory behaviour" in psychological terms. When someone talks endlessly about how great they are they're usually not secure with their own worth or accomplishments. Crossfit obviously isn't very secure in its own rightful place as a worthy form of training and athletic event; grow up, get rid of the insecure hype, and celebrate what Crossfit is.

-Weak Calves on almost all the athletes. This relates to the run; most of these athletes must spend most of their time on relatively stable, flat surfaces, the relatively weak lower leg musculature shows it. More running, more time playing sports. "Paleo!" is a big rallying cry in the CF world, no paleolithic guy or gal had weak lower legs.

Overall, I completely dug the Games, it was a worthy experience to watch even if Kim hadn't been there. I'm proud of her, she put in a hell of an effort. Watch out in seven years, we're both gonna give 'er in the Masters!

Dai Koyamada Interview: Climb to climb!

It's been a really good spring for interviews with top rock climbers. Climbing's "The Low Down" just did an OK one with Dai Koyamada, surely one of the all-time best boulderers on the planet. He is repeating cutting-edge problems in short order, while living in a country without very many high-end technical rock climbers (Yuji and a few others obviously are amazing, but Japan isn't Europe).

Part of becoming really good at any sport is hanging with the best in the sport, at the places in the world with the best venues for the sport. Surfers go to Hawaii, Sharma moves to Spain, Graham to Switzerland, etc. etc. That Koyamada does what he does in relative isolation is extra impressive to me. This "get together with the best" program is important no matter what your climbing level; the fastest way to go up a grade or two technically is to climb with people who are a grade or two better than you. Anyhow, in keeping with Ondra, Sharma and others, Koyamada describes his training as, yep, climbing:

For training I just climb in the gym. But I climb kick-ass hard problems and volume! And I also do campusing occasionally.

If anyone has any doubts about what basic training apparatus is required to become a stronger, better and higher-performance climber the last three links to interviews with the best climbers in the world should remove them. Want to be a better climber? Climb. Of course there's some art and science with quantity, quality and programming, but that's secondary and not that hard to figure out if just get a little guidance from a book, coach, friends, whatever, and track your performance.

Specific injuries, rehab, etc. may require gym time as Clyde Soles noted in the comments.

Personally, I'm doing some Crossfit-inspired programming for general fitness as well as short rock and gym sessions, along with paddling, mountain biking and running. Yeah, I'm a multi-sport mess, but I've got some goals that are going to require high fitness in three different sports, so stoked!!

My elbow feels good, but I am sure that if I push it too hard it will blow up, I need to build it up slowly. I'm also getting some great results with these thera-bar exercises, which is what I'm going to do as soon as I stop typing on here.

Today's workout is going to involve a short (45 minutes of movement) session at the climbing gym, followed by moving a ton or two of logs (we heat with wood, time to get next year's wood!), then driving to the Crossfit Canadian Regionals in Okotoks, which my wife, Kim, has qualified for! I'll likely run part of the course before she has at it this evening, busy day. And some kid wrestling....

strongest all

Rock climbing, Dave MacLeod's blog

There's a lot of information on the web and in print about how to get stronger for rock climbing, but very little on how to actually get better at climbing. Those two aren't the same thing. Being stronger will help, but really you need to climb a lot to get better at climbing. Anybody promising that doing any form of non-climbing training will make you a better (better means climbing harder) climber is flat-out missing the point. I really mean that: If you want to climb better then climb, and structure the vast majority of your training around climbing or climbing-based skilled movements. Why this is so hard for people to understand I don't know, but let's flip the argument around for a minute: If you wanted to be a better Olympic lifter would going climbing help you more than doing Olympic lifts? No. So why would traditional weight lifting make you a better climber? I have yet to see anyone fail on a route because they couldn't do enough bicep curls, lunges, weighted pullups, or bench press. Not once. But I have seen those with huge biceps, quads, and pecs fail on 5.9, which is a grade anyone not clinically obese, missing more than two limbs or massively brain damaged ought to be able to climb on TR after a few days of actual climbing. Enough said.

Then I finally read something that actually makes sense, like Dave MacLeod's training blog. I'm sure Dave and I could find something to argue about in terms of climbing performance, but it might take a while. Here's a quote I like from the same blog about moving fast (one component of climbing well under duress):

"Climbing fast comes from being good at climbing. And being good at climbing comes from having a lot of routes under your belt. So if you realise you are climbing too slowly on a redpoint, but can’t seem to go faster without making mistakes, there’s no shortcut unfortunately - if you clock up more routes, you’ll slowly be able to make movement decisions quicker."

Lots more there, worth a good long read.

Now it's time to start rock climbing again. I'm in sad rock climbing shape, but most of my winter injuries are healed up (I can get my feet into rock shoes again, elbows healed up pretty much, etc). I'm also paddling a fair amount through May and June, and have a hideous travel schedule in June and July, so my climbing training is going to have to be effective to get results. I'm going to post what I'm doing with my overall and specific rock climbing training time on here, which over the next six weeks will amount to about 6 hours a week of actual climbing time at the most. I aim to be back to onsighting at a reasonable (for me that's 5.12c or so more than 50 percent of the time) level by August 15, which is when rock season gets really going for me, and when I have a few big rock climbing goals to throw myself at. Giddyup.

Addicts on Bikes

Floyd Landis finally admits he WAS doping. I had a conversation with a friend about this just last week; I thought it likely that Landis was doping, but still had some doubts based on Landis' exhaustive defense. My friend said the lab screwed up, and he had a whole list of rationalizations and conspiracy theories to explain the positive drug test. Finally, the truth is out: Landis is worse than just a failed doper, he's a long-term lying doper. The guy extracted almost a half million dollars to defend his "innocence," but it was all lies. I wonder how Landis feels about that? I wonder how the people who gave him money based on his and his mennonite family's "ethics" feel about it all? Is there a lynching in the works?

I could almost have some respect if Landis had of simply said, "I doped, everybody is doping and I went along with it, and I got caught." OK, we all know pro cycling is full of doping, fair enough. But this circus that Landis put on has done massive damage to pro cycling, and bike racing at all levels. Who wants to be associated with a sport defined by lying drug uses? Landis of course accused everyone of doping, and that's believable to me. The mountains of circumstantial evidence around Armstrong's doping are just that, same for all the other riders. Whether they are or not, the Landis saga has now painted 'em all as doping liars. It's basic psychology 101 to never believe what an addict says; why do we treat these riders any differently? They're a bunch of addicts on bikes, no difference.

Why do I care? I guess it's because I want the best for all athletes. I want to believe in the power of the human mind and body to overcome obstacles. I want to believe in the Landis staging a dramatic comeback from a horrible stage. When somebody dopes it knocks my belief in the magic feats of athletes down a peg, and that pisses me off. It's childish maybe, I should be more cynical, but I'm not. One of the reasons I love outdoor sports is that doping, as far as I can tell, just isn't much of an issue. Some fool might be on the juice to climb harder, but I've hung out enough with the best sport climbers, alpinists, back country skiers and so on to feel confident they aren't doping (well, maybe smoking green stuff and pounding Red Bull!). When Steck climbs the Eigre in an incredible time I feel confident his ascent was "clean" from a performance perspective (insane from my risk standard, but not his).

Anyhow, I wrote about Floyd Landis back here, boy was I a sucker. My message to Landis, for what it's worth, is this: Fuck you Floyd, not because you doped, but because you lied about it for four years. You're Madoff on a bike, suckering money, support, even dreams from people, all the while knowing you were a liar. You're an addict; you can clean your life up and move on, but it's gonna take a long time of living well to get over this mess.

Some training thoughts from Steve House

As most who follow Alpinism know, Steve House had an accident on Temple a month or so ago. I saw him in the hospital, he was a mess but in far better shape than not being a mess (Being alive sucks sometimes, but it's better than the alternatives). Anyhow, he wrote an interesting report on his blog, which got me going on his training blog.

I am a very firm believer in looking at what the best in any sport (or business or whatever) actually DO. There are many coaches who have a lot of theories, but I always look at the very best to see what got them in that position, and then work backwards. It only makes sense, but many athletes somehow follow some junk-science "program" that does little to nothing for their performance levels. In the spirit of examining "the best" I posted a link to an interview with Adam Ondra, likely the current best sport climber in the world, so that others could look at what the best did there. It is much harder to define "best" among alpinists, but Steve House is certainly successful, and is a thinking alpinist for sure. I think his training regime is instructive for anyone who wants to be an alpine climber, good of him to share it. Check out his training blog, it has some useful info and thought, and the last entry is an account of his fall on Temple and also definitely worth reading.

One of the things I'm working through in my own training is intensity, and Steve gets into that in a way I can relate to. About 20 years ago I blew up as a sport climber due to too much intensity, and then I blew up (injuries, headspace, etc) due to too much volume. As Steve notes, any training is training, and we can only handle so much of it. I'm feeling incredibly good at the moment due to a few days of rest; I was likely training too intensely in the last month, and not allowing myself enough rest. My back is still injured, but I WANT to train today, and that's a sign to me that I'm back fresh. If a workout is drudgery then you're over-trained... Get really overtrained and it may take a month or more to totally recover, and there are still sport climbers form the 90s battling chronic fatigue and other issues brought on by horrendously hard training regimes with famine-like diets, that was a very, very bad combination for a lot of us (we would all have likely been better off just eating high-quality food instead of the caloric restriction and resulting mental waste of time).

Anyhow, good reading from Steve, who I course wish a speedy recovery to!

Injury, and a few Crossfit mods as a result. Planes.

I injured my back last monday, and made it a lot worse on Thursday. Now, injured is a relative state--I define an injury as anything that keeps me from going 100 percent, or having full function compared to historical levels. My back first "twinged" while doing the 21-15-9 Snatch/chest to bar pullup combo last week. I did it as prescribed, meaning 95 lbs, 'cause I can snatch more than that relatively easily, why not try? I should have scaled way down to do 21 reps of course... So this injury is my own damn fault, as most are. I felt strong on the snatches and pullups, and went hard, especially in the last set, trying to get it unbroken, and set a competitive time (ha!). I let my back round out a bit (OK, a lot), jerked the bar a bit (OK, a lot), and basically did piss-poor quality snatches (true). I was racing the clock, myself, etc., and not focusing on what is for me a technical and complicated lift, the snatch.

My back was darn sore and tender the next day, and not in the good muscle sore way, but it didn't prevent me from working out, and doing a quick paddle session across the Columbia Gorge in my boat (fun in the wind and waves!), as well as a workout at Crossfit Hood River on Wed (thanks for that!). But on Thursday my daughter was using me as a tree, and I was bent over with my back basically parallel with the ground when she jumped forward onto my shoulders. I felt something "pop" or chunk in my lower back where it was already a bit sore, and I've been messed up (barely walking at first but getting better fast) since. My back was strained a little already, my daughter just loaded it up in a weak position. Feels like L2, but hard telling, and harder knowing what is wrong without a lot of testing that likely won't add much to the recovery prescription, which is to go easy for a bit and then re-develop function and strength with time as pain permits. There's not much that can truly be done for back injuries, even surgery (for chronic pain vs. broken bones) has a relatively low success rates. Anyhow, I'm already doing way better, but it's made me think a a lot about about doing complicated strength motions for time (for me--likely just fine for many people, I'm just not real good at moderation).

My only other injury this year was a tweaked shoulder from doing kipping pullups really fast. The kipping swing is brutal on shoulders when you're trying to punch reps out against the clock. Hmm, does my mild kipping shoulder injury have any parallels to my back injury? Racing for time, complicated motion? Hmmm....

What I've learned from this:

1. I'm not going to do any sort of highly technical lift or movement with what is for me relatively heavy weight for time. Lift heavy, go for time, but not at the same time.

2. I will drop the weight to less than half my max on any workout involving a race against the clock. Or less--if the goal is more work then less weight may mean more work...

3. I'm not doing full kipping pullups anymore, it's too temping to use shit technique in order to squeeze fast reps out at the expense of my shoulders. Maybe I'm getting old, but for me the most efficient kipping pullups are done on a "relaxed" and therefore unsupported shoulder, mine don't like that motion at all. I've had almost zero should problems over the years, it was a surprise to have 'em with kipping pullups. I'll still kip, just not full-out butterfly kip, and I'l keep the support muscles of my shoulder engaged, not relax dead-hang style on the swing. If I can no longer support my shoulder I'm getting off the bar until I can. Plus "strict" pullups are more manly, no more swinging around the bar like a d-bag, ha ha!

4. I see a lot of videos of people doing CF workouts with rounded backs, poor squats, chin below the bar, etc. etc. (like I've done!), even on the main site front page. This sort of shit technique obviously helps to get a faster time, but I don't think it's a good idea in the long run, at least for me. I would much rather be a healthy athlete long-term than a faster CFer. You can't perform if you're injured.

5, My first goal for CF workouts is now excellent form. If a rep isn't done in good form then it doesn't count (for me). If my workouts lose ten or even 50 percent of "work" done then I'm fine with that, I fucking hate being injured, and both of my recent injuries have involved racing the clock and using bad form in complicated movements as a result. If you're Rob Orlando then maybe you can round your back with a deadlift of twice your own bodyweight and apparently not suffer injury; me, I'm a skinny-ass climber, that sort of poor form is going to leave me messed up, as it has twice now.

6. I'm not bagging on what anyone else does; give 'er. I love being stronger and more functional, I just want that path to continue and not lose time 'cause I messed myself up. If you can bust out 200 pound snatches for time without injury then you're rad, I just figured out that I'm not at this type of training and have modified my approach as a result.

So, form first!

In other news, life in the Gorge is awesome, I've been out flying a Piper Pacer every day (even with a tweaked back) with Kim's dad, Joe, today we flew around Mt. Hood, fantastic! I can even taxi the thing sorta straight at a walking pace now, that is one twitchy plane. I'm fine in the air, but I'm definitely not going to be taking off or landing it anytime soon. Amazing plane, feels like you're wearing it. The difference between it and a Cessna 172 is the difference between a Ford F-150 and a Lotus. In the spirit of getting slapped down that I'm experiencing this week, I'm no Lotus driver! But I am still having a damn good time, yeah!

Threshold Strength

A year or so ago I read an interesting book by Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers. Gladwell looks at why some people on the edges of human potential, or "outliers," succeed brilliantly while others don't. Extremely high I.Q. people who don't succeed at much of anything are contrasted with less bright but still smart people who dominate intellectually. Why does one person succeed and not the other?

A repeated theme in the book is that you don't necessarily have to be the smartest/strongest/whateverest but you do have to be smart enough, strong enough or whatever enough, and then you have to have the right environment in order to succeed. You don't have to be seven feet tall to play in the NBA, but you do have to likely be at least six-two. Six two is the threshold (I just made that number up, don't have the book anymore, but I imagine you get the idea). So, for different mountain sports, what are the thresholds that mean "good enough?"

To start with, I believe that performance is the acid test of any training program. We all choose to train three main performance components (our skill, muscles, and head); how we perform is the test. An athlete's performance will generally depend not on which one of these three are the strongest, but which one is the weakest. The absolute strongest athlete often doesn't win a climbing competition; the guy or girl with adequate strength and excellent skill combined with a strong competition head usually wins. We all know climbing gym monsters who can't lead 5.10 on real rock. They don't have the skill or head part. But, and this is the almost funny part, the easiest things to train are muscles, so that's where most people focus most of their time while trying to get "better" at a mountain sport. I really believe this physical-centered approach is wrong for most athletes in the mountain sports I know.

In my experience the fastest performance gains for athletes are usually made when they train their sport-specific weaknesses, specifically skills. I try to get the athletes I work with to attack what they are worst at first; many times that means reading sports psych books, or changing their training to reflect competition stress, or some other aspect beyond just moving things around physically. But, and it's a big butt, if they don't have Gladwell's "Threshold" strength then they will also need that. Any athlete can also use a fully functional body, and a general physical prep program is good for that. A GPP approach is also great for athletes who switch sports around a lot, as I tend to do.

So what are threshold strength levels for a few different mountain sports?

With zero scientific methodology I'd offer the following threshold strength levels for what I would call a "solid" level in each sport:

Alpinism:

-Hike up 3,000 feet in under one hour, 5,000 feet in under three (Messner could reportedly do 1,000M/3,200 feet in under 30 minutes or something...).

-Do 10 pullups (not because pullups are necessary, but because anyone who can do 10 real pullups is sorta trained up)

-Do "Angie" in under 20 minutes if you think you're "elite."

-Climb grade IV ice all day on minimal gear and be relaxed about it, lead 5.6 with a pack.

Technical rock climbing at a solid 5.13 level

-Do 10 pullups on a half-inch ledge.

-Hang a 1 inch ledge for 5-10 seconds one-handed.

-Campus up the smallest rungs in your climbing gym.

-Climb ten 30M pitches of modern mid-5.12 a in a day (all different pitches, no laps).

Trad Rock climbing 5.10:

-Do one pullup on a one-inch rung.

-Do three pullups on a bar.

-Hike 1,000 feet vertical in 30 minutes.

-Climb all day on 5.7 and still think it's fun.

Kayak class V and up with physical reserves:

-Mountain bike for an hour straight without having to stop and gasp.

-Row 2K in under 10 minutes.

-Bench their own weight.

-Play anywhere in a class IV run.

Mixed climbing M12 (without trickery):

-Ten pullups with tools staggered lower head to upper spike.

-Front lever for two seconds, 20 knees to elbows straight.

-One-handed hang 20 seconds, 20 seconds other hand, repeat for ten cycles.

-Onsight M10 sometimes, always do it second try.

Ski Touring

-Gain 3,000 feet in under one hour even after smoking up.

There are definitely people who will be able to meet the technical standard without having the threshold strength, but by and large these are the physical standards I think are required if an athlete is to be at a roughly equal personal level (strength, skill, head). Chances are that if you have these strengths then you can get the day's job done at that standard. If a kayaker can't bench his or her own weight then they are paddling without a physical reserve and are relying instead on reserves of skill and headspace. I see physically strong paddlers get bit off because they lack skill and headspace more than I see skilled but relatively weak paddlers get into trouble, but I see both regularly. Often the paddler doesn't know he or she is weak or has lost skill... A paddler who is strong in all ways is better than one who lacks in one area, and one day that raw strength is going to really, really count.

But I also put a sort of "skill and head check" in each list; many people claim to want to climb 5.13, but can't climb ten pitches of mid-5.12 in a day. They can likely siege a 5.13 into submission if they have the threshold strength, but they won't be doing a new 5.13b in a day with regularity (and that's what climbing at that grade means to me for the purposes of this discussion). I know a few "alpinists" who can hike up hill like mad, but can't lead basic water ice smoothly... They will not succeed on major winter alpine objectives without a basic skill set.

So, are you strong enough, skilled enough, and mentally together enough to actually perform at the level you want to? And if not, why not? This is where it gets interesting, and self-examination becomes more important than another set of squats. Which may also help, but if you're at double or triple the threshold strength for what you want to do and still not getting it done then perhaps it's time to try something different. Immediately. And if you're not at threshold strength then you're very late for a training session.

This stuff is really fun to think about, especially as I work through my own goals, limitations and successes with my own sports and training.

The things that go on in my backyard...

Learning to do handstand pushups in my backyard...

This was taken months ago, Kim did 30 of 'em (in sets, but still 30!) last week for a workout.

Training has to be engaging, and at times downright fun, or it's not gonna happen. The women of Cultfit Coyote Way keep it fun...

Training, form follows function.

My own training is in a state of flux; I haven't set new concrete new physical goals for the rest of the year, but I need to maintain some sort of solid base (and I just like being active, it's not a burden at all). I know I'll be kayaking a fair amount this spring, then flying my glider, then rock climbing more and more (I've got an idea for a big rock traverse in early fall...). I think Crossfit does a fine job of physical prep for kayaking, and actually kayaking will take care of any issues. Being a lot stronger won't help for most actual kayaking, but it's important to be strong enough (threshold strength) and also strong enough to comfortably wrestle boats on portages (it happens), move around on junk terrain, etc. etc. CF takes care of all that, combined with the general mountain beating I do with my kid on my back or whatever.

For rock climbing I need some more specific finger strength, as well as skill reinforcement and development. For bigger days I need to also develop a deeper base; big days get easier with big-day training for sure.

With all of the above in mind my base plan is to follow the CF WOD, but add in a few sessions a week of either cragging or bouldering in the gym (dropping the CF intensity on those days or skipping it or rolling a couple of workouts together at a reduced level). I don't need to make this too specific yet; just moving and loading my forearms will be enough. Going climbing also involves walking to the crag here, so that will help with the long-day prep.

I also need to work my range of motion regularly; I have a yoga routine I often do before the CF WOD or climbing that really, really helps me move better. I've been doing that twice a week, it should be more like four times a week. I can tell when I'm not stretching and working my ROM enough, I get all creaky...

So that's what I'm doing for the next month or so... I'll start dropping CF workouts as the flying/paddling/climbing takes over the time slot.

Nutrition Thoughts: Form does follow function...

One "odd" thing about Crossfit is that, although the workouts burn a lot of energy per minute, they don't burn all that much energy in total. Even including an extensive warmup the total calories used during the exercise are relatively low, especially if you are used to the calories burned in aerobic sports (mountain biking, ski touring, etc). Many Crossfitters are relatively sedentary outside of the WOD. If you look at the physique of most Crossfitters it's more classically mesomorphic; some are very lean, but seldom in the same way that top aerobic athletes are lean. I don't think being super-lean is much if any of an advantage for Crossfit; being leaner will help with pull-ups and other gymnastic stuff to a certain extent, but the return on effort expended to get leaner below, say, 10 or maybe 15 percent BF for guys, is likely pretty darn minimal. Yet I hear a lot of, "I want to be ripped!" in the CF world. Getting really ripped without burning a ton of calories with exercise is pretty hard to do; hence all the nutrition freak-outs in the CF forums, the "I ate a piece of pizza, I'm doomed!" comments. No, you're not doomed, it likely doesn't make any difference at all. But if you're neurotic then you're by definition not thinking straight, and you'll think it is a problem... So CF athletes want to be super lean like high-aerobic burn athletes, but don't do the exercise loads that tend to naturally result in a very lean physique, and as a result are often in a mental conflict. I'd say let form follow function, spend less energy worrying about body fat levels and more on good form and intensity (which is really hard to get if you're not eating enough carbs...).

Something to think about anyhow. I always find it amazing how my body changes to fit the function I expect of it. If I just do CF I noticeably gain muscle (not saying much, ha ha!) and a little fat if I'm coming off a climbing season where I'm really lean, or lose a little fat if I'm coming out of kayaking where I tend to get a bit fatter. But form does follow function despite the massive efforts of people to fight this basic natural concept. Cheetahs aren't fat, antelope aren't fat, healthy seals are... People who sit on their asses and eat continually get fat. Go run 20K a day and you will get skinny... We are all animals.

Listening to your body #2 (repost weirdness).

A few of the comments and emails I received on the last nutrition rant made me realize that I wasn't as clear as I could be about what "listening to your body" meant.

Listening to what your body asks for doesn't mean that you'll always get the perfect nutrition signal at the perfect time (although sometimes you will). A little heads-up display window won't pop up in your left eyeball that says, "231 calories of lean chicken, 120 of olive oil and a doughnut. Now!" Nope. But if you just pay a little bit of attention to how you feel and how you perform (whether you're rocking a desk or a huge day out in the mountains) then you can start to really gain some understanding and self-knowledge (at least about food--although some treat diet as the path to enlightenment I've never found it to be so.).

I have tried the low fat, high protein diet, the high carb low fat diet, and about every single version of "performance diet" out there. But all my best athletic successes came when I started to record not calories or portions but simply what I ate, how I felt, and how I trained. Patterns started to emerge; eat a lot of sugar, feel great for a bit, then want more sugar. Hmmm.... Eat a can of tuna, feel good for longer, get hungry for sugar... Hmm... Exist on sugar and cans of tuna while climbing hard in the desert during the day, eat a huge mexi feast with extra sand at night, get ripped and feel pretty good. Hmmm.... Drink three coffees and eat a croissant for breakfast, not good. Drink one Red Bull 30 minutes before training, rip it up! Hmmm.... Eat all carbs and coffee for breakfast, go skiing, flail. Eat all protein for breakfast, go skiing, flail. Eat a huge egg, bean and cheese burrito with some extra sausage, bring another for a snack along with a some hard candies and a couple of pastries, ski hard all day, eat a lean steak with a side of veg and potatoes, feel great, yeah!

Eat a lot white bread pastries and climb hard, OK, but getting heavier and not recovering well... Hmmm... Live on soda pop, truck-stop sandwiches and potato chips for two days while driving across the country, feel like hell for a week. Do the same thing but while drinking loads of water, eating solid sandwiches on good bread and peanut butter with some fruit, still feel like hell but climb well after only one day of rest instead of four...

Cut out all alcohol, simple carbs, sleep eight hours a night, train like a machine and eat clean simple foods, get ripped, strong, invincible. Feel great for a month or two, send hard climbing projects, dominate, then crave beer and cookies, accept that a super-high performance level can't be maintained forever, drink beer and eat some white-flour junk cookies, take a rest week or month, realize that pastry cookies make you feel lousy if you eat more than the very occasional cookie, back to fruit and beer, realize you like fruit more than junk cookies... Hmmm....

Spend a month in Venezuela going paragliding and never working out except for the occasional hike, but live on beer, beans, fruit, chicken and coffee, come back ripped and feeling great... Hmmm....

Count calories and blocks 'cause you want to get leaner, get leaner, success!!! Do this for a month or two or even a year, suddenly your performance starts falling apart (usually in about a month or less), you crave chocolate cake by the entire cake when you never did before, every bakery window is heaven, it all falls down. Every single time.

The above are all real examples of "listening to your body." You can do it.

I don't know a single fat person who doesn't claim to be on a diet. How is that for an inditement of diets? In the last 40 years or so it's become very fashionable to be on a "diet," and yet obesity rates and pretty much every malfunction of the human body possible has skyrocketed. Think about that for a minute. On the other hand, I don't know a single "best in the world" athlete in any sport who counts calories or measures their food, especially the athletes that dominate for long periods of time. Not one, and that's because world-class athletes are not figuring out what not what to eat for lunch but how to kick ass (and CFers, go and watch the videos of Khalipa and Speal--they're eating reasonably well, but definitely not formally "Zoning").

Today my body seems to respond to the sport I'm doing. If I go ice climbing for two or more days I will literally double my calorie intake immediately because that's the signal I'm getting in two-foot type across the inside of my eyeballs... If I start sport climbing I'll want way less food, and tend to get leaner with time while dropping muscle mass out of my legs. If I'm just doing Crossfit and desk jockeying I'll often crave huge amounts of protein, good carbs, and nice fat, but the total intake will be far lower compared to kayaking or ice season. I still gain muscle, but the caloric requirements of Crossfit are tiny compared to most of the other sports I do.

I can hear someone saying, "But you learned this through years of counting and measuring!" No, I truly learned as soon as got rid of the scale, stopped counting calories, and started really paying attention to how I felt and PERFORMED. Performance is the acid test of anything, including eating. I often get out in the mountains with "city-dwellers." I can tell with laboratory precision when their blood sugar levels drop as we hike; their eyes dim, and usually they say something like, "I ate a good breakfast, I'm OK" when I suggest what they need is a candy bar right now. Yes, they had a good breakfast, but it was only good for sitting at a desk all day. They burned up that six blocks of nonsense in the first hour of hiking, and are dying for something to replace some glycogen ten minutes ago. But often they don't want to eat 'cause they aren't used to eating when hungry, they're used to eating when the clock or their diet plans tell them to. And that's the real tragedy. I sometimes ask people when the last time was that they can remember being truly hungry, or felt so stuffed they didn't want any food at all. Most people can't remember because they're not eating when they're hungry but when the clock or the diet says, "Eat now." And that's a tragedy in my opinion.

I am sure of few things in life, but I am sure that the more we diet, portion control and ignore what our bodies are signalling the harder and harder it will be to decode what your body says, and what you as a thinking sort of person are feeling from your toes to your brain. This is why all diets based on measuring, calorie counting or any other gimmicks are doomed to eventual failure. Why so many people, myself included, have played this ridiculous game is a mystery to me. Maybe people play it for the same reason we lift weights when we should be doing skill work; it's easier to record numbers, see progress and think you're improving then to actually go and do the skill work and measure that against the performance level? Eat. Listen. Train. Have fun. Perform. Cool.

Adam Ondra on Training and Diet, a fun Crossfit Workout...

For those of you who don't know, Adam Ondra is among the very best sport climbers in the world. In terms of climbing the biggest collection of very hard routes fast he is arguably the best. In any case, he's damn good. Here are his thoughts on training for climbing and eating for the same, lifted from the baurock.ru web site. I often talk with people about how to become better rock climbers; some get it, but most don't want to believe the path forward for pure rock climbing technical performance is to train either in the climbing gym or on the rock by climbing. I train for a range of sports and my training reflects that range, but if you want to climb harder then climb rock, pretty much everything else is a waste of time. Or you can argue with Ondra's success... Do check out the whole interview if you're into hard rock climbing, it's an interesting look into a prodigy's mind.

10. Obviously, sending of the hardest routes in the world on natural rocks and victories in World Cups’s require hard training. How and where do you normally train? Do you have any special training programs or you train more by intuition? What is your typical training schedule and what do you pay the most of attention?

I train more or less just by climbing. How simple! I train on couple of small bouldering walls, where I train endurance and bouldering power as well. I rarely climb indoor with rope because there are not good walls enough in the city. The way I train depends on what I am training for. If I am preparing for bouldering, I do just lot of hard boulders. If I train endurance I do laps. I figure out usually 20move lap and try to climb 3 times. 60 moves are usually more than enough. Good trick how to become stronger is to use ONLY micro footholds for your feet. You work on your power and precise footwork at the same time. I do not train more than 3 days in a row.

11. Do you follow some certain nutrition diet or restrictions in your food?

I care about what I eat and try eat in some healthy way and to get enough proteins and vitamins, try to think what would be good dinner for fast recovery and so on, but I do not restrict myself in amount of food. When I am hungry, I eat. I have advantage that I can really a lot and I do not put on weight.

So, eat well, and train specifically for specific performance. Works for me; I'm in a "general" stage of my training, looking forward to tomorrow's Crossfit workout, Tabata this. If you've never done CF it's not a bad workout to start with if you drop the rounds to 16 or even eight instead of 32, or pay the price. If you've never done air squats before click this link. Main points: Weight on heels, everything lined up from your toes through your femurs, stick yer butt out, stand up fully. Go. You can even download an ap for your iphone for the Tabata intervals, and if you've never done squats remember that you do one every time you get on and off the toilet, nothing new.

Good writing, CF Sectionals, and the Gadd Not Diet

First off, I really like this piece of writing by Stephen Koch. It rings true and clear for not only climbing but many things in life. Stephen really helped me and all of us out during the Ouray Endless Ascent battle, this essay explains a few things, and urges me to do better not only in climbing but life. Nice one, and hope you're healing all the old injuries Stephen!

Second, my wife, Kim Csizmazia, and Sarah Hueniken (both train at Cult Fit, check it out)went to the Crossfit Sectionals in Edmonton over the weekend. Sarah has been training CF in the evening after guiding all day; I have no idea how she does it, the load would be too high for me to handle. Kim trains CF around chasing our kid, writing, etc., I also have no idea how she find the motivation. CF is motivational... Our neighbors think we're crazy, especially when the garage door is open and there are women screaming in the driveway with big weights at -20. Me, I think it's pretty damn cool. Anyhow, Kim finished 11th and Sarah 20th. These are good results for sure, but even better considering they have only been CFing for six months. Kim is now qualified for CF Nationals in a couple of months, the neighbors are gonna be scared now!

Third and last, I've got some opinions developing on "nutrition." I'll write more about this later, but I'm convinced the whole "diet" industry is composed of nothing but energy sucking vampires; the only thing worse than them are the victims who keep expecting something different out of the latest program.

Here are the "rules" for any diet that will actually work:

1. It has to be a way that you can eat for the rest of your life, starting today. Really, no BS on that--don't "get just a bit leaner" first, etc. etc. That will NOT work long-term. Why is it so hard for people, me included, to understand this? Seriously, it NEVER works--every failed diet on the planet shows this, long-term there are no exceptions. You have to eat today like you will forever or you're just playing games with your body and head.

2. Measuring, calorie counting, or any other form of food manipulation is doomed to fail. See above; it never works long term. And if it doesn't work long-term then why bother? I am an athlete for life, I want to eat as an athlete for life, and find a way to do that.

3. Any "diet" ultimately pushes the eater farther and farther away from the real goal of nutrition, which is to fuel the body appropriately and leave the eater feeling reasonably good (stable enough blood sugar levels, looking good enough nekked to be happy, etc). The only way to reach this goal is to learn how to listen to your body. I can see every zoner, Pritikinite, Grok, Blood Type and South Beacher's hackles rise; "It's not possible your body actually knows what to eat!!!!" Yes, it is, but most people have screwed with their eating so much they no longer have a clue what their bodies are saying. "Learning" how to eat by Zoning or whatever is just retarded because it only teaches you how to ignore what your body is asking for, and your body does ask, loud and clear if you listen. But if you're only eating three blocks of A when your body wants a steak then you'll ignore those signals...

4. So, what to eat? Well, CF's original nutrition (and that's different than a food-restricted diet like the Zone, or a food-restricted diet like the cave man stuff) prescription was pretty good: "Eat meat and vegetables, nuts and seeds, some fruit, little starch and no sugar. Keep intake to levels that will support exercise but not body fat." Cool. Try that out. If you're hungry eat more. If you're not don't. Go eat a whole bowl of ice cream with extra sauce, but instead of feeling all guilty about it pay attention to what your head and body feel like when you want that ice cream, and then after eating it, and how your energy levels change. Write this down if you need to. Learn about insulin, the glycemic index of food and as much as you can so you can understand what's going on physically and mentally... Go hiking or climbing all day and bring beef jerky, a chicken breast, a can of tuna and no carbohydrates. Watch your vision dim and your motivation drop. Learn why complex and even simple carbs work when you're working hard. Read about nutrition, but ignore the diet hoaxers. Eat. Listen. Listen carefully. Never "cheat," because the idea is ridiculous to begin with--you're eating the way you want to eat, to feel the way you want to feel as a human. Listen to your body starting now. It takes time to learn to listen, but less time than all the diet nonsense wastes year after year.

So there it is, the Gadd not-diet. Send me a cheque for half of what you save on diet books, "Paleo," "Weight Watchers" or any other branded and packaged food that purports to be special. It's not, I look forward to retiring on my cheques. This would be funny if it weren't such a tremendous waste of money, time and energy for so many.

Belay forces and A look at the "Equallette"

Holy writing, I've spent too much time thinking about this stuff but I'm a climbing nerd...

First off, if you're following this whole discussion you'll likely enjoy the comments section of the last two posts, some really good ideas and thoughts without the usual "the internet makes you stupid) influence in forums. Thanks for that to all who wrote.

The main question I have with most of the research done on belay anchors that I've seen is that it doesn't take into account the weight of the belayer (belayers) on the anchor as pieces fail. The falling climber is attached to a big spring, but that force goes through the belayer and into the anchors. If a piece in the anchor blows then the belayer is being accelerated faster than just gravity; he may become a sort of human "funkness" cleaner device on the anchor (not really 'cause hopefully he tied in with his rope, but there's the idea). This is why there are some very high forces in the "J.M" study when a single point blows with a 500-pound weight suspend on the anchor (that's about three of me, but hey, the world is getting fatter!).

I don't think I'm going to use the equalette, Trango Alpine Equalizer (nice video Mal!) or any other form of "self-equalizing" anchor very much. The easiest to explain reason is that equalettes and other systems are a pain to deal with, doubly so in winter. Knots lock up under real loads at hanging belays, especially with thin slings and cord. Even a falling second on the power point will completely lock most knots for the day in modern thinner materials.

The second reason is that any anchor that allows the focal point carabiner to move enough to produce meaningful real-world equalization also allows that carabiner to move so much that some degree of shock loading is inevitable when a piece rips. If you're clipped into the focal point with the rope then this shock loading will be lower, but the study that started all this discussion (link here) has made me think more carefully about what happens when a piece fails in a multi-piece anchor system held together with a static material. I await more research from Mr. JimE (like he doesn't have enough to do already at Sterling!) when he gets a chance.

The third reason is that if you build an equalette or other system "correctly" so that each piece equalizes relatively well (and in the real world I'm not thinking this happens much at all) then you only have a 1/3 chance of the anchor not extending violently if one piece is relatively weak... So then you have a 2/3 chance of a violent extension (equalette cord to piece A, carabiner on focal point, cord to a carabiner, sliding X to pieces B and C). Half the load theoretically will go to the leg that goes to A, and half to the leg that goes to the sliding X on B and C, so only 1/4 load on each of those pieces...). The way I'd build this anchor is to put leg A on the absolute strongest piece in the anchor, and a sliding X on B and C as they should only have 1/4 load on each of them. Might be easier to diagram this if it's not making sense. Anyhow, in a non-lab fall the odds are high that the impact is going to be violent and off to the side, or at least far enough off the vertical axis directly below the focal point that the carabiner is going to hit the limiter knots, and then you're totally on either the strong piece or the two weaker pieces. If either of the weaker pieces blow then you've got horrendous extension. If the "strong" piece blows then you're on the two weaker pieces and the equalization isn't that great so if one of those blows you're potentially shocking the hell out of the remaining piece.

A cordalette (a relatively huge knot, especially when tied with a figure 9) doesn't tend to lock up so much even in winter if done with 7mm or larger cord or a couple of slings roughly equalized and either tied together or clipped into a burly focal point (use the rope for the focal point--chance of cross-loading a biner, be careful of that) probably does about as well. Maybe. You should figure it out for yourself, I'm just thinking this stuff through. The more I think about this all, read about it, talk about and work through the more I end up in the same place: have at least one and better two or more bomber pieces in the anchor or it's not a bomber anchor.

Equalization/Extension in anchors post #2

The post on anchors prompted a lot of comments (should be right below this one). Right-click (or control click for the Apple cultists) on this to download it, nicer to have the PDF than to be looking at the study in a browswer window.

I spent some more time geeking out on the data last night. Here are my conclusions:

1. All of this is equalization/extension theory is primarily relevant in only three situations: A factor-two fall directly onto a belay, catching a second who somehow takes a relatively hard fall onto the belay, and when building a two or more piece protection point (this happens a lot on sketchy trad climbs and also on ice). These are situations where it would be real nice if the anchor equalized well under load, and then didn't shock-load the other pieces if one failed.

2. Unfortunately, it's about impossible to get any sort of realistic equalization out of a multi-piece anchor (with the gear we commonly use as climbers). If you go to page 29 of the study there's a low-friction equalization situation (equalette) shown there. Even in this perfect situation the pre-drop load totals per piece are obviously different (and could be improved by adding another sliding X etc.,), but even looking at the total "per leg" it's clear it isn't anwhere near perfectly equalized. The rest of the sliding X stuff etc. are worse (with the exception of page 28, but the extension problem is horrendous). A big smooth anodized aluminium 'biner might improve things a little, but even with knots etc. the real problem is what happens when one piece fails and the anchor extends. Yes, you cold tie limiting knots etc., but it looks to me like any extension is violent, which makes sense if you think about it (relatively static webbing or limited cord on a sliding X--bang).

3. In this study, and this is only one study, extension in the anchor is more problematic than poor equalization in terms of the max forces generated on the anchor. That's a real big departure from previous studies I've read.

All of this may and likely will change with the higher forces involved in a factor two or other high-impact situation with a lighter belayer and a larger fall force...

My basic idea that one piece in the belay must be capable of handling very high forces hasn't changed. I want one absolutely for sure bomber nut, cam, screw, whatever. Two absolutely bomber pieces are better, hell throw a third one in for grins. Two or even three or ten "maybe" quality pieces just aren't good enough. If I'm "equalizing" a stubby, an icicle and a shit pin for a piece before punching it up a difficult bit of alpine terrain I'm going to assume that the entire piece is only as good as the strongest individual piece.

I remember a helicopter pilot explaining the term "Jesus nut" to me. He didn't mean a super-religious person, he meant the nut that held his main rotor on. If that broke the only thing left to do was pray to Jesus. In a belay I want one super-solid "Jesus nut" that will hopefully hold any impact I can foresee and then some. And, because I'm not into the whole one-god thing too much, I'll put in another Jesus nut... And still try to limit extension to some point, and even roughly equalize it all.

And this may all change again once JimE gets some more research done, or I see another study done differently. I doubt that the basic concept of having one "for sure!" piece and preferrably two is going to change. And if I can't get that level of security then I'm gambling with two lives.

Maybe better to limit anchor extension after all...

Warning: Serious climbing geekery ahead. Short version: use bomber pieces in yer anchors...

I was out climbing on the weekend (rock, not ice), and at one point had to build a sorta odd anchor. A bomber cam, a very good nut, and a small nut that would be bomber if it weren't in Rockies limestone, all basically in a vertical line but spread out over about ten feet. I tied it all together with the rope to limit extension and felt good about it. But I knew that the stretchy rope would load each piece close to individually, and next thing you know I'm up for most of the night looking for information...

This is the most difficult to understand, broad and ultimately useful study about what happens when a single point in a multi-point anchor fails that I've read. It took me about an hour to start to understand what the results mean, and I'm still not sure I totally get it. The first interesting numbers really show why it's a bad idea to rig your anchors with your gear widely spread out unless you also use very long legs to hold it all together... This is why the combined force on each piece at the start of the test is higher than the weight hanging below the anchor (500 pound weight, but commonly 700 or so pounds total on the pieces...). To put it another way, it's not a good idea to have short legs and widely spread gear on any anchor system. This is why the "American Triangle" belay system had force issues.

The more I dig into the data at the end of this paper the more interesting the results become. No system does a very good job at equalizing the forces when a piece blows in the anchor, and this study was done in a perfect lab setting with a perfectly suspended weight. Tying marginal pieces together and equalizing them is bad physics if you want a good anchor. At least one piece in the anchor must be truly bomber; two or more is better!

Interestingly, total length of extension does appear to matter; this is in contrast to JE's tests. It doesn't matter (from the anchor's point of view, from the load's point of view it does...)whether you use one inch webbing, static cord, or 8mm nylon cord, high loads result when there is serious extension after an anchor piece fails. This is really interesting to me. JE's test results always seemed slightly odd to me, this makes more intuitive sense. However, Mr. JimE is a very smart guy, he likely has some ideas about what's going on. For now, I think I'll do a little more in my anchor building to limit extension. Not to equalize, but to limit extension. A cordellete, the rope, a sling, whatever, clip it all together so if something blows the extension won't be too dramatic. However, know that in the real world there will be extension and general weirdness, so make sure at least one and better two or three pieces are truly bomber in any pull direction that can be foreseen.

This is what's cool about climbing; just when you think you've started to figure it out something new or at least different comes along... I didn't learn anything about what I actually set out to learn (why does that happen so much on the internet?), but here I am writing about it like the nerd I can be...

If anyone comes up with something else out of this study please let me know, thanks.

Edit March 23rd: Some good comments below, thanks for that, be sure to read them.

Something old is new again...

Somebody else has likely pointed this out already on the web somewhere, but a modern Crossfit "Box" looks a lot more like a gym from 100 years ago than a "modern" gym stuffed full of machines. A classic Crossfit line comes from the Terminator flicks, "Machines are the enemy." I was pondering that this afternoon as I banged my head repeatedly off the floor (also called handstand pushups) in my local gym (Athletic Evolution in Canmore, good gym). The amount of open floor space in there is a lot higher than in most gyms I've worked out at over the years; many of the "gyms" were really machine rooms with no space to move. I remember seeing photos of old-time gyms; rings, barbells, kettle bells, open space, simple stuff to develop functional movements. So, as usual, I got to surfing on the web tonight and found all this great stuff about training in centuries past. I screen-grabbed the picture from this site, worth checking out. Cool, everything old is new again. They even had rowing machines on the Titantic, which is somewhere between inspirational and ironic. For some reason I find this all "old time" stuff very cool.

I even ordered some books to see how these guys were training. I'm going to laugh myself silly if there's a workout in there that reads like, "Do AMRAP in 20 minutes of of five pull-ups, ten pushups and 15 squats" or something, ha ha!

Happy weekend.

Mountain Movement: Game on!

It took two months longer than I thought it would, but I'm finally done with the course syllabus for "Mountain Movement." The idea behind this course is to help people move more securely, enjoyable, quickly and with more overall comfort in non-technical mountain environments. The more time I spend in the mountains the more I realize the crux of many days is not the climbing or technical rope skills but the talus on the way to the climb, moving quickly down the steep slippery trail, or staying ahead of the nutrition curve while moving for hours at a time. I'm so fired up on all of this that I'm writing another book on the subject, and I want to continue the field drills I've been doing with some "guinea pigs...." The dates are July 15 through 18th, drop me an email if you're interested, should be fun!