Date: March 30th, 2010
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.
Posted in: Blog
Date: March 24th, 2010
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.
Posted in: Blog
Date: March 23rd, 2010
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.
Posted in: Blog
Date: March 22nd, 2010
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.
Posted in: Blog
Date: March 20th, 2010
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!
Posted in: Blog
Date: March 17th, 2010
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!
Posted in: Blog
Date: March 16th, 2010
I just returned from a really interesting weekend: A Crossfit Level One Cert. Just to be clear, I paid for the certification out of my own pocket (and for my wife), and I have no affiliation with Crossfit or any other fitness program, and never have. I started doing Crossfit workouts with my friend Josh Briggs while down in Brazil about five years ago; we had no equipment really, so it was mostly body-weight stuff, but I felt the impact of the workouts and loved the intensity. I continued to use CF occasionally and while on the road over the last few years, but last summer and fall I did a few months of direct “Workouts of the Day” or “WODs” and loved the results (one reason I think I survived the 24-hour climb I did with the dZi foundation). I’m now doing the WODs again after my winter season; I’m not sure how it all fits together, but I am sure I will never again go into a gym and do a set of bicep curls or really any isolation exercise unless it’s to fix a specific injury or something. CF works better than that by any measure I can think of, as does sport-specific training for specific sports. (if the above makes no sense at all to you go check this out, thanks).
I learned CF’s moves primarily on my own or with friends. This winter I spent a day in Calgary with Peak Power learning the Olympic lifts a little better, but I wanted more, and to understand more. This is why I went to a Crossfit Level One Cert (L1). These certs aren’t cheap; $1,000 for the weekend. There were 55 people in our certification, and five trainers from CF. The trainers were damn good–professional, knowledgeable, charismatic and just all-around great at presenting. Seeing the presentations alone was worth the money for me, I learned a lot. Well done to them, thanks. I’m going to do some sort of critique of the cert at some point, but right now I’m just thinking too much about what it means to be fit, why, nutrition, and a bunch of other mental and physical fires the event kicked off in my head. That too was worth spending the money. My real short review of the certification is this: it’s worth it from a value point, a learning experience, and many other metrics I use to evaluate an experience. There were problems, but for Christ’s sake if there aren’t problems in an intense two-day experience then there’s not much point to it. I will go through those problems at some point, but I’m just on fire mentally thinking about fitness and CF and am more interested in that than going through relatively small problems with the cert.
Anyhow, I’ve spent the last 36 hours trolling the web, working out, and thinking a lot about fitness due to my experience at the cert. I’ve been training myself and others now for over 25 years. Crossfit has really shaken my view of fitness up a lot, and I am sincerely grateful for that. I can (and did at the certification) argue with various pieces of CF, but the whole is damn effective for life fitness. Not for sport-specific fitness, but at having a functional and strong body to work with. As I get older that is becoming more and more important to me; the first time I did a CF workout in Brazil I had to do Burpees. I realized I couldn’t jump for shit anymore. I’ve been doing Burpees ever since. CF corrects my weaknesses because I don’t create the workouts… Some of my friends do their own fitness programming along CF lines, but for me this isn’t the way forward. I want the randomness that the CF main site WODs give to me. I’ll get strong for my sports through doing the sports, and use CF to keep my body functional as I age.
One thing about CF is that, like anything successful, it has its haters and proponents. I’ve been reading like mad on the web about fitness theory, and of course getting an eye and brain full from the fully indoctrinated and the haters. Just so I can get this out of the way, I believe certain parts of CF are just wrong, or at least fully deserving of mockery. I also believe most western governments are disasters, but I’d much rather live in Canada or the US than say, oh, Somalia. A classic logical fallacy is to look for specific problems in a system and then take the whole system down as a result…. I’m good at that, and I could chew on CF’s problems (I think the Zone diet is utterly useless, the CF games are in the same category as figure skating (a judged sport isn’t), and that anyone using gothic fonts on T-shirts with things like “FORGED! should be drop-kicked in the head on the spot). There, I’ve outlined my main problems with CF, now can we move on? Seriously, the pluses are much, much larger.
The biggest training realization I’ve had in the last year is that I’m now training for two events at the same time: The rest of my life, and the specific sport I’m up against next. By the rest of my life I mean maintaining a high level of physical function as I get older. I want my joints to retain strength through a full range of motion, and to be able to broadly do anything I could at 20 now that I’m 43. Failing that, I want to be as functional as I can be as I age. This is what the CF is for at my stage in life. I’m also training for sports as diverse as kayaking, paragliding, rock climbing, ice climbing, alpine climbing and kid chasing. If I have basic strength and full range of supported motion in my body then I can train specifically for those sports through doing them. At 20 I trained hard specifically for climbing, and specifically for hard technical climbing, and I likely lost some function by doing so much isolation work… Now I need that function back. I refuse to accept that 43-year old guys shouldn’t be able to jump. Or even 80-year old guys, at least more than any other 80-year olds. I’ve been thinking about this idea a lot, the CF level one cert really drive this idea home to me. The trainers are probably going, “Dude, that’s what you got out of all our lectures???” but that’s a great gift.
Now I gotta go train for life a bit, and maybe go train for climbing this afternoon by going climbing. The life training likely won’t make me a lot better climber, but I’ll be a fitter climber, and I’m not going to throw my back out when I lift a box of paint out of my basement like I did yesterday (no pain). And when I have to bust ass fast up a hill to a climb I’ll do a better job of it. CF isn’t the only way forward by any means, but it’s a decent way forward, and it’s open to interpretation and change. It’s a bit like running Linux on your computer; it’s an “open source” system, so you can customize it, tweak it, play with it, and argue with it. That’s more fun than Windows if you’re into that sort of thing, which most of us who claim to be into training are.
Give ‘er! Direct cert review coming at some point, I’m just too fired up by some of the ideas to deal with that right now.
Posted in: Blog
Date: March 15th, 2010
NOTE: The following rests on the foundation of moving in control.
“Control” means securely, with solid belays, and with an attention to detail, as well as not falling off.
Moving well, or fast, on ice melts down to two basic components: The mechanical systems (most of the last post on multi-pitch ice) and then the physical stuff including technical ability, your partner, etc. This post has to be a bit brief ’cause I’m blowing off some other stuff to write this, but I’ve been thinking a lot about this in the last few months, so here are a few more things. Note that they also generally apply to single pitch routes. There’s just not much technical difference between climbing single and multi-pitch routes well, it’s the mechanical transfers that are different.
My book goes into this all a lot more, but here are some recent thoughts:
1. Look at the route from the ground for at least five or ten minutes. Line selection is everything on long routes; if you want the “hero” line then you can find that, but most of the time on long routes you just want to get up the rigs as safely, smoothly and enjoyably as possible. It can be really hard to pick lines while on the route, especially on bigger and steeper rigs. A bit of short-term effort can bring a climber to a long groove of good ice that’s not obvious while on the route… Stop, look. I often watch people struggle for literally hours on routes that would be a lot easier if they would just move over 30 feet or something. This study will also lead to good belay stances. Talk about this all with your partner; a team understanding just seems to help, and keep things running smoother.
2. The same thing applies on a small scale. Ice is often radically different just a few feet to one side or the other. All the stuff about where to swing (in concave places, not convex) holds true. Good ice tends to form in lines; inside of corners, the thinner ice on the edge next to the rock (usually better than the fat stuff if the ice is only 3M or so wide…), etc. etc. You can take twice as long just by climbing one meter in the wrong direction.
3. If you do the above right you’ll probably move generally OK.
4. How often to put in ice screws? As often as you need to, but always have enough solid gear in to keep you from either hitting the ground or a ledge feature that will operate as the ground. If I feel strong and secure I’ll run it hard on steep terrain. But if gets ledgy and messy I’ll always put in a screw just before pulling over a bulge above a ledge… It’s all about the situation you find yourself in, or rather, knowingly climbed into ’cause you were reading the route above you and had an idea for the line developed on the approach. I have seen way too many horrible broken ankles, legs and other carnage from people falling off on ice, even
while being lowered on ice and dropping a few feet onto a ledge. Crampons and falling just do not mix; sometimes you’ll have good luck and it will all be OK, but personally I try to climb like any fall will result in a compound fracture of both legs. It’s worked for 25 years.
5. If you can’t lead most any ice pitch you encounter in under about 30 minutes and any ice pitch you encounter in under an hour then you’re climbing over your head and shouldn’t be there. Go back and learn how to climb better, or choose an easier line. I mean this. Alpine pitches are a bit different, but most pure ice pitches should take under half an hour to lead. If they’re taking more than this you’re either trying to climb up to the level of your ego (the pitch is too hard even if you think you should be able to do it), you’re trying to impress someone else (same), or you’ve screwed up and are trying to get it done (it happens, I was there a month ago). Realize that you’re pushing things, your partner is going to get cold and not be having any fun, and that you don’t have a safety margin anymore. Ice climbing is fundamentally not about technical ability but balancing ability and ambition; I’m a lot more impressed with someone who can lead a “grade 4” smoothly and well than some joker who sketches up a “grade 6, dude!” then boasts about it in the bar. If I sound a bit sarcastic and maybe a little aggro here it’s because I’ve seen far too many leaders on terrain far too hard for them over the years. I’ve left climbing areas rather than watch someone sketch their way up something. Compound fractures are messy, I don’t want to watch.
6. Strength will help in ice climbing for sure, and all things being equal the stronger climber will kick ass on the weaker climber. But all things aren’t equal. Most ice climbers need to train on ice way more than they do. Do 200 laps on a vertical ice climb and you’ll likely have a clue about how to actually ice climb. Do 20 leads on vertical ice and you might not know much about ice climbing. There is a replicable, teachable, and organized method to climbing ice well; learn it well before you lead. Nobody would grab a rack of cams and head up a crack without ever actually having climbed a crack, yet that’s what I see all the time on ice climbs from rock climbers. The idea is to move securely, smoothly, and at a speed that can be maintained with those two attributes…
7. Have fun. If you’re not having fun and enjoying the place, the day and the setting then you’re probably climbing too hard, and climbing fast is out of the question. I know I’m “on” when I’m psyched, moving securely, feel strong, and it’s all working. I know it’s off when I keep thinking about how I’m going to get some work done at the office or something, I feel cold, I’m climbing slow and awkwardly, etc. etc.
8. Bring a couple of little “family band” radios on long routes. These really, really cut down on confusion on ice climbs. I’ve seldom needed them on rock, but they are great on ice and cut down on yelling.
9. If the leader takes 30 minutes then the second should take under 15 from the time the leader yells “Off!” to when the second arrives at the belay. Enough said.
10. Train. This is the secret to climbing ice. In order of usefulness: Train on ice, drytool, train on plice, train in the gym (straight Crossfit will be enough), train however you can come up with but train.
OK, there’s a rant, lots more to put down but I’m out of time. Have fun!
Posted in: Blog
Date: March 3rd, 2010
There’s been a bunch of discussion over on rockclimbing.com about the last speed post, thought I’d post a few things that answered good questions on there:
-We use a single rope not necessarily to save weight (although if you add up the grams/meter it’s a close contest), but because it keeps the belays a lot more organized and is generally a lot faster to deal with at transitions. Using two lead ropes invariably turns into a cluster once the ropes get a little icy or the belay is hanging, especially when block leading where the leader is on the “bottom” of the stack. Add in gloves, cold hands, fatigue, etc. etc. and a single lead line is just better when it’s better. I use twin ropes, half ropes and single ropes depending on the situation, all have their place. For long relatively fat ice routes without a major approach (more than a few hours) I use a 70 or 80M 9.2 to lead on and a 7.7 (sometimes much thinner, but that gets technical and often isn’t worth the hassle either) tag line. The tag line either goes in the second’s pack or is towed by the leader or second depending on what’s going on…
-A good belay on an ice climb is often one where the belayer can’t even see the leader. A cave, a nook, some place that totally protects the belayer from falling ice is essential, and to not establish sheltered belays while leading a block is a crime punishable by free hotel-priced scotch for the second (if he or she isn’t in the hospital). An attentive belay is always good, but ice climbing is a very different game than hard rock climbing… On a 70M pitch you’re often run five to ten meters between screws, the belayer’s main job is to catch a catastrophic fall and not short-rope the leader. There are of course times when every inch counts, and a good team will recognize those situations and respond appropriately.
-I’d generally rather have a belayer using a gri-gri than the other options while he or she is taking a leak, eating a piece of pizza, drinking, finishing a V-thread, and all the other chores that go into being a good team on a long route. I’m comfortable with that, but if you’re not then by all means don’t do it. Seriously, no sarcasm, you have to know your partner and the situation. Some partner’s I’d trust with just an ATC while doing all of the above, some partners I assume I’m soloing even if they are looking at me the whole time. Definitely do use an auto-lock for belaying the second, no reason not to.
-All these points are about making the transitions and climb faster. There are likely safer ways of doing things; four screws at each belay, a screw every two meters on each 70M+ pitch, etc. etc. These transition ideas work great on relatively fat pure ice routes like Polar Circus, Willoughby routes or most Norwegian ice routes.
Posted in: Blog
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.
